Contesting things and direct competition (PVP) are not 'wh and lowsec features', sorry.
Ban NPC corps.

Only if NPC corps could be wardecced collectively. Otherwise no.

If one person isn't enough to deal with the wardecs, they can consider joining a corp for mutual protection purposes.
As opposed to now where PvE players are kept on safe NPC corp protected alts while the PvP mains pick on newbie corps. Another way in which NPC corps harm newbies.

Only if NPC corps could be wardecced collectively. Otherwise no.

If one person isn't enough to deal with the wardecs, ...

... they can consider joining a corp for mutual protection purposes.

As opposed to now where PvE players are kept on safe NPC corp protected alts while the PvP mains pick on newbie corps. Another way in which NPC corps harm newbies.

He just asks for easy mode. Which is not good.

...i just find it odd how so many people in a capitalist simulation are determined to engage in monolithic collectivist activities when commodities and services can be purchased from other players who specialise.

Some question how an NPC corp hurts me?

I can think of a number of ways.

1) I would like to "stake a claim" upon the asteroid belts in a particular system. Competitors that come in to mine "our" ores should be wardecable. We are merely defending our terf. No, we are not big enough to move into Nullsec, and we have no desire to be a renter. But we should be able to fend off competitors. I can't tell you how often I've seen entire systems stripped by hoards of NPC mining Bots.

2) The same goes for Signatures and Anomolies. We catch you scanning in our constellation and we would like to once again fend off the competition. It is most difficult to control a local market if there are swarms of "untouchable" competitors.

3) Yes, Ganking is an option, but it is a very costly and inefficient one in comparison to simply declaring war.

There are numerous reasons for conducting warfare, being territorial is one good reason.
Just imagine the tears if Player Corps and Alliances were unable to engage someone in Nullsec simply because they were in an NPC Corp, and they would risk having their SuperCap Instapoped by Concord if they tried.

See my point?

Ahhh, this old thread again...

Want to be able to place a war declaration upon us "sub par" players that do not play the game correctly? Then why doesn't CCP make it individuals can be tagged, instead of a corporations, so players can not jump away to void it?

The next complaint, of course, will be these war declared individuals are not leaving the station. So CCP should offer the option to ~force~ a player out of a station so they can be attacked!

But then what if the player does not log into the game to play? Well hell, CCP should go one step further and offer the option for these war mongering players to ~force~ their targets to be logged in at their leisure!!! Real life is no excuse to these fanatical fan boys to get their fix.

again, why not just make player corps attractive rather than making npc corps unattractive?

Oh yes I can.
Replace them with 'freelancer' status that is effectively a one-man corp, deccable like them too. Wardecs should be the base minimum of threat in New Eden.

they can consider joining a corp for mutual protection purposes.

Sounds like prison.

well that's not going to change if you ban NPC corps as you have no way of telling whose alts are whose without an API key, unless they make it very obvious.

why not insta pop? you know: little button in overview like "killrights available".
When someone from Unthinkables wants he just can insta-pop anyone around. This was you will have enough wins i suppose?

I've also have always found that to be so common, yet so odd, in many MMO's myself. But as in RL, the Collectivists have a natural enemy in the Indivisualist. as long as their is one Indivisualist around, the Collective is always threatened.

.. [snip] ..

That doesn't really apply to this dicussion though since there are huge numbers of 'individualists' who play with 1-man player corps, while most of the largest collectivist organizations in the game use alts in NPC corps to ferry alliance supplies, logistics and moongoo around unimpeded.

People moan and whine about having to pay 600m isk to dec goonswarm now, yet paying 600m ISK cost per single freighter attack is now 'totally feasible' disruption operation? Heh.

Minimal courier costs and guaranteed delivery are just some of the things that will be fixed by removing NPC corps and other forms of wardec evasion. Imagine if those horrid collectivist groups had to actively defend their supply lines instead of just effortlessly moving goods through proxies and alts.

That doesn't really apply to this dicussion though since there are huge numbers of 'individualists' who play with 1-man player corps, while most of the largest collectivist organizations in the game use alts in NPC corps to ferry alliance supplies, logistics and moongoo around unimpeded.

True, but incentivising collective security, or at least diminishing the mass of incentives pushing people to keep their PvE and PvP chars seperate, is a good start towards that goal.

People moan and whine about having to pay 600m isk to dec goonswarm now, yet paying 600m ISK cost per single freighter attack is now 'totally feasible' disruption operation? Heh.

Minimal courier costs and guaranteed delivery are just some of the things that will be fixed by removing NPC corps and other forms of wardec evasion. Imagine if those horrid collectivist groups had to actively defend their supply lines instead of just effortlessly moving goods through proxies and alts.

I know I can hear the trolls and carebears already lining up to trash this idea, but hey this is what happens in GD.

.

[quote=Nicolo da'Vicenza] Hi-sec is already much more dangerous then null/low, so it looks like the the collective is already good at trying to protect their supply lines.