Thelron
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
32
   |
Posted - 2012.06.19 17:52:00 -
[1] - Quote
Simi Kusoni wrote:The problem is that NPC corps, especially in the uses that me, Nicolo and others have been highlighting, are not used by "new" or "casual" players.
When you see a three year old NPC corp pilot in a JF, carrying *just* under the amount that would render it profitable to suicide gank, chances are that this is not a casual or new player. Instead it is an alt of an older, more experienced player who is hiding behind concord in order to evade any interference with their particular play style.
I should know, I abuse the crap out of the NPC system myself all the time. Look at some of the characters in this corp and see how often we have corp hopped in the past to avoid decs.
The fact is that if it is even remotely feasible to remove these arbitrary loop holes and protections for older players, whilst retaining protection for genuine new players, then it should be done. The question isn't whether or not it should be done, but whether or not it can be done. And if so, how?
Personally I'd introduce something crazy like suspect flags for NPC corp players over a certain age. Six months old and still in an NPC corp? Good luck making the Jita run with a JF full of technetium. Of course in order for this to have any real effect corp hopping and war dec evasion would also need to be looked at, but that's another issue entirely.
(Personally I liked the idea CCP had of war decs following people around, but unfortunately that is far too open to abuse.)
trimmed a bit,
but,
your "something crazy" really isn't all that crazy, though it should be actions-based, not time-based. Running frieght to/from systems where the SOV holder is at war? You should start building up sec-status-like values of association with that entity based on the value of the goods you import (i.e. sell, trade/contract, or you jettison and someone "affiliated" picks up) that eventually makes you a legal target for the other side of the war. Playing both sides just gets you in trouble with both sides- you never get to shoot first. Trading with people who have accumulated these "standings" will have the same effect. Donating ISK and taking contracts would also get you dinged. There'd be a fair few loopholes to sort out (or decide were enough of a fuss they'd be the new "price of being a black market") and would drive some of the devs nuts (as it would be a TON of data to sift through), but it mitigates a lot of what sounds like the truly valid issue with the NPC corps (the "hisec alts" shenanigans). Sure, you can move goods to just outside of where you'd start having these issues, but that's still making the exchange a bit more risky (as it doesn't happen behind SOV infrastructure). The same mechanic could apply to consistent dealings with alliances/corporations (probably *on top of* any SOV-related influence), as the point is to create consequences for deliberate interference/noncombatant participation in wars. Every downtime a little of your "collaborator" status would wear off, but if you become a target this would cease until you go a week without accruing more (probably on a per-faction basis).
All of this would, of course, need to be pointed out in the NPE, and come with a new slate of warnings whenever you were at risk of becoming a target. It would apply to *all* NPC corps, with new players getting only a fraction of the hit at first, increasing to "full" over the first 4-6 weeks of the account's activity (*not* per-character). Account recycling becomes similar to current alt-recycling proscriptions. Not having to deal with automatic exposure as a dirty supplier of *insert favorite bad people here* would become one of the benefits of forming a corp. Also, market sales would have to be factored in *somehow* but in a way that still allows players to conduct business- perhaps orders can be marked as "peaceful" and won't be available to people who would change your standings (likewise, a filter so you don't buy from/sell to orders that would affect you, or better yet allows you to set a threshold). This would fracture the market, which *may* be a disaster, but *may* work out as it means people who want to use all the really fancy stuff probably have to take a little extra risk and be careful just how much high-tech they buy, and you have to choose between selling to the first buyer who comes along or passing up the (presumably) better prices so you can stay out of the political messes.
One thing that should *not* happen is the expansion of corporate warfare to become individual warfare- the notion that people are "immune" to wardecs is mistaken. Wars are not about killing players (that's what bounties and killrights and such are supposed to be for... admittedly, there are issues with that such as "bounties are broken"), they're about corporations exerting influence over each other. No, EVE should not be safe, but the answer to one excessively-used way to avoid a mechanic shouldn't be to (further) screw up that mechanic and make it universal. |