| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |

Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
603
|
Posted - 2013.01.28 22:40:00 -
[1] - Quote
MeBiatch wrote:i have to say i like the idea of getting rid of anything but noob npc corps and making a character independent if they are not members of a corp...
that way it takes away the war dec shield as you can now war dec a character...
i would also make standard personal tax rate of 10% that goes as a fee to concord for non corp membership registration fees... the fees are used for stargate maintenance as a pr excuse.... Why should a non-aligned player suffer any cost beyond what a 1man corp does? |

Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
603
|
Posted - 2013.01.29 00:30:00 -
[2] - Quote
So if I tend to restrict my activities to highsec of 2 allied empires I'd be pretty much completely unaffected? |

Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
603
|
Posted - 2013.01.29 00:51:00 -
[3] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote: This is worse than misunderstanding, this is a lie. There is Zero evidence that people will quit the game for anyreason except ridiculasly expensive monocles. That "carebear conventional wisdom" that people will quit the game if you change something has not only been proven false,it's been proven false RECENTLY. people swore they would quit with the NPC AI change and nerfed heavy missiles, yet I see no slackin in the carebearin.
An interesting statement which seems to indicate that you have a great deal of data on how many people quit the game or reduce accounts and their reasons. While I'm sure very little can ever come to the same level of the summer of rage, I'd be genuinely surprised if a change as widespread as this wouldn't cause at least a few people to rage quit. |

Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
603
|
Posted - 2013.01.30 00:44:00 -
[4] - Quote
Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:Skeln Thargensen wrote:Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:Goonswarm's is 15%, player average is 10%. Well I think 11% for high sec immunity is a pretty good taxation deal. Indeed, it's a powerful disincentive to join player-owned corps and engage in emergent content. That's why NPC corps need to go. What makes you think these players would be involved in any more "emergent" content as individual entities or as parts of the likely reformations of the same groups of people doing the same things? |

Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
603
|
Posted - 2013.01.30 01:09:00 -
[5] - Quote
Nova Fox wrote:Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote: Would DayZ be improved if there was a flag players could pick that would make them vulnerable to zombies only? They just want to farm zombie loot all day. The devs should respect their valuable PvE dollar. Of course not. It would actively diminish the game. So it is with NPC corps and EVE.
Didnt day or war Z or whatever get like a 10/100 on meta critic? ... I think you are thinking of War Z. From what I recall Day Z got genuinely positive reviews. |

Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
603
|
Posted - 2013.01.30 01:47:00 -
[6] - Quote
Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:Glad to hear it. For NPC corp players who genuinely value being a lone agent and individual actor, and not merely take advantage of unbalanced mechanics, the changes I endorse would effect them little. Making NPC corp members individually deccable merely makes the advantages and disadvantages of solo vs. team play a true question of gamestyle instead of being heavily incentivized by game mechanics to head in one direction. Given the number of characters in player corps it would seem that group play already has heavy incentives. Making NPC corp characters individually deccable just leaves those who don't utilize activities requiring a corp to further feel the influence of other groups in highsec. Basically there would be no incentive to solo save individual inclination and paranoia. Both of these don't seem like they'd leave their respective players enjoying any more interaction with the greater world.
Though, all things said even if this does happen or something similar and wardec mechanics are solidified to prevent evasion, Alt'mains are an awesome thing to have. |

Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
603
|
Posted - 2013.01.30 02:21:00 -
[7] - Quote
Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote:Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:Glad to hear it. For NPC corp players who genuinely value being a lone agent and individual actor, and not merely take advantage of unbalanced mechanics, the changes I endorse would effect them little. Making NPC corp members individually deccable merely makes the advantages and disadvantages of solo vs. team play a true question of gamestyle instead of being heavily incentivized by game mechanics to head in one direction. Given the number of characters in player corps it would seem that group play already has heavy incentives. Making NPC corp characters individually deccable just leaves those who don't utilize activities requiring a corp to further feel the influence of other groups in highsec. Basically there would be no incentive to solo save individual inclination and paranoia. Both of these don't seem like they'd leave their respective players enjoying any more interaction with the greater world. Though, all things said even if this does happen or something similar and wardec mechanics are solidified to prevent evasion, Alt'mains are an awesome thing to have. That's a bit of an ironic stance to take considering I was just replying to an NPC corp member who states that the average player corp tax rate does not offer sufficient compensation compared to wardec immunity, and here's you claiming that the benefits of player corp membership are so overwhelmingly evident that solo play needs ironclad incentives to give it any merit whatsoever. And before you both Mayhaw saying the mechanics behind NPC corps are irrelevant because it's being a lone wolf is what counts. Total autonomy is its own reward. Of the three, i find Mayhaw's stance easiest to relate to. You seem to think highsec players interacting with each other (in an MMO no less) is a bad thing. Your thinking about my stance is wrong.
To be specific, while it's up to the game designers to promote interaction it's up to a player to decide the type of interaction they want and what they are willing to sacrifice for it or do to avoid it. Right now there is an option which does cause some sacrifices to be made, but admittedly in different ways across different activities, and leaves some activities unpenalized. You are right in that this is wrong and needs corrected.
That aside, my post was addressing the statement you made that there was an obvious direction for a player to take in the direction of solo vs team and attributing NPC corp membership to that. |

Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
603
|
Posted - 2013.01.30 02:25:00 -
[8] - Quote
FloppieTheBanjoClown wrote:Wow. This thread has been busy.
To sum up a lot of what I'm reading here, there are quite a few NPC corp carebears insisting that their way of playing Eve is legitimate and they should be left alone to influence the market how they see fit while the rest of us are unable to influence their ability to conduct their carebear activities without expensive suicide ganks.
Once again: if you can opt out of combat, I should have the right to opt out of the market and get all my items spawned on an NPC market at fixed prices. I don't want to buy stuff made from your ore. Let me play Eve my way. Technically, our opt out of the wardec mechanic can be simulated by allowing you to sell or buy on the market. You can still make anything on your own and can take from others using whatever means you are allowed, but you can neither be an "aggressor" nor be "aggressed" in market warfare.
But there should be some additional penalty for market activities of NPC corps. As of now only NPC rewards are taxed.
Edit: Though thinking about it if NPC corp characters are so prolific in market/industrial activities, wouldn't you, as someone who uses the market, be negatively affected by them raising prices due to penalties or increased dangers? |

Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
603
|
Posted - 2013.01.30 02:48:00 -
[9] - Quote
FloppieTheBanjoClown wrote:A few more ideas I've been toying with. Making NPC corps less attractive: - Restricting trades/contracts between NPC and player corp members. This prevents people simply passing goods between alts to avoid the fees suggested above. Also makes neutral haulers more difficult to use. Seems like it would only worsen corp hoping issues by giving them another use.
FloppieTheBanjoClown wrote: - Passive bonuses for operating in the same constellation as the corporation's home office. This will encourage players to operate in the same area.
This I'm not sure I can agree with though. It effectively penalizes entities in which charaters are taking the same risks so far as wardec's are concerned but may have highly decentralized activities.
The rest doesn't seem too bad.
|

Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
603
|
Posted - 2013.01.30 02:49:00 -
[10] - Quote
Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:So continue to close loopholes involving wardec evasion, which includes things like NPC corps. How do you crack down on alt play to avoid a wardec? |

Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
603
|
Posted - 2013.01.30 02:58:00 -
[11] - Quote
Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote:Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:So continue to close loopholes involving wardec evasion, which includes things like NPC corps. How do you crack down on alt play to avoid a wardec? Not avoiding a wardec if you have to play on another account. Even if that account is facilitating or replacing the acts of the first? |

Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
603
|
Posted - 2013.01.30 03:00:00 -
[12] - Quote
Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:FloppieTheBanjoClown wrote:Skeln Thargensen wrote:I'm not complaining, i'm just pointing out how futile it is to change this. I can learn corporate management in 8m. if it costs me a couple of million to set up a corp I'll tear it down in a new york minute and you might as well have bountied me. this is the reaction you want? 50M down the tubes and I'm laughing at you. No, the ability to disband or drop from a corp at war is another part of the problem of actions without consequences. Eve's all about long-term consequences, and wardecs are a part of that. If you form a corporation you can't defend from a handful of guys and you refuse to hire mercenaries to defend you, get ready to stay docked up or take losses. I love how they claim it's 'futile' to rid/fix NPC corps because of corp-hopping. That's what, two simply fixed things? Should a wardec be able to lock people into a corp indefinitely? |

Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
603
|
Posted - 2013.01.30 03:24:00 -
[13] - Quote
Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote: If it's facilitating or replacing the acts of the first, for example, using a contested station, flying a freighter through a contested gate, mining in a contested belt, the alt can be wardecced as well, provided wardec evasion was eliminated. I mean, there's the chance that there's someone out there with unlimited high-SP alts, but that may be a chance worth taking.
I can see that working for individuals, though part of the issue was player organizations hiding behind NPC corp wardec immunity. Should those characters be split into their own individual corps would that not place an prohibitive burden on anyone trying to interdict their operations, both by way of identification of all the alt and through war costs? And if they do not decide to attack all the new logistical sub-entities, will they really stand to have any impact?
Acceptable advantage of larger entities?
Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote: I think there should definitely be an increasing 'cooldown' on multiple corphops within a short period.
So here it would take 2 wardecs (assuming no recent corp changes) on different corps to lock down a character. Since this issue isn't simply NPC corp related there is nothing preventing a group of targets in a PC from splitting to different corps to maximize their aggressors cost for following them with the deck.
Non issue? |

Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
604
|
Posted - 2013.02.01 01:23:00 -
[14] - Quote
LHA Tarawa wrote:It is not unfair if it is available to everyone. This is really a poor justification for pretty much anything. |

Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
604
|
Posted - 2013.02.01 01:53:00 -
[15] - Quote
LHA Tarawa wrote:My case for keeping NPC corps is that it allows a wider variety of playing styles, attracting a wider player base. Removing the NPC corps will not convert solo players and hard core carebears into people that play the way the PVPers wan them to play. All it will do is cause them to quit playing. While it may serve that purpose it also for many playstiles offers no cost for its benefits, which was the point you were replying to.
LHA Tarawa wrote:An argument that "It isn't fair" is BS since anyone can join an NPC corp at any time. Available to anyone = fair. No, available to anyone is not fair. When clearly better it can become compulsory, especially in a competitive environment. Fair on the other hand would counter advantages with penalties which would need to be more widespread regarding in space activities.
|

Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
604
|
Posted - 2013.02.01 02:24:00 -
[16] - Quote
LHA Tarawa wrote: But, there are costs. Can't put up a POS, so can't do research in anything close to a timely manner. Can't take from your friend's cans without them abandoning them for anyone to take, or getting flagged a suspect. Can't easily create shared bookmarks. Can't easily share and alter group ship fits. Can't get group shared hangers in stations. Can't create 1000 contracts that just your friends can accept.
On and on.
Note I said for "many" players. Certainly not all. A station trader or hauler feels no effects. A miner has no restrictions placed on them. Given that 2 of the above must function in space and are most effective in ships with little to no aggressive or evasive capacity, the potential (since a wardec is at no time guaranteed) protections drawn from wardec immunity provide considerable value by allowing operations to continue. There is no counterbalance
LHA Tarawa wrote: If you want to argue that the benefits of joining a player corp should be increased, or even that the penalties for being in an NPC corp should be increased (like, say, a market tax, refining tax, etc), to coax more people out of NPC corps, okay. Unfortunately, most of those could be circumvented pretty easily by transferring stuff to another account.
However, coaxing more people out of NPC corps has not been the point of much of this thread, which instead has largely focused on total elimination of NPC corps as a way of making it possible to war dec anyone at anytime.
It is not, "Let's increase the carrot and stick" to get a higher % of players into player corps. Instead it has been "Eliminate NPC corps so there is no where to hide from a war dec".
First, I'd be okay with. Second? I'd quit playing.
If indeed it ever comes to that then there would obviously need to be a choice made. If that is yours and this comes to pass, you must do what you feel the need to do. |
| |
|