Reading this nonsense, one would think war targets are an endangered species or something.

Again, get real. This argument has always fallen flat on its face.

A lot of threads of late on nerfing NPC Corps.

Eve is a alive universe, its set up with a high secutiry space, low security space, and null security... where each of these areas have rules that aply to them, high security space is soosed to be safer... looking at the rules that is in place, i can either yoin a player corp, or make my own corp, and be open to wardecs, considering the costs for wardecs, wich is a joke, i CHOOSE to be employed by the gallente corp CAS, all acording to the rules and how the Eve universe is set up... i want the high sec to be high security, if i want danger ill go to low sec and null...

This is like saying being able to CTRL-Q out of the game instantly while in the middle of PVP to save your ship is "balanced" because 'everyone can do it'. You shouldn't be able to 'CTRL-Q' out of the consequences and content of playing in a sandbox PvP-driven game, nor should you be able to 'NPC corp' your way out of it either. This is basic common sense.

Again, a solution is to disallow the accepting of courier contracts by players in NPC corps. To freighter contracts, freighter pilots would have to be in player run corps.

... they want to wardec "people who use NPC corps to avoid wardecs". It's not limited to a career. It was never limited to a career. It is limited to those who hide in NPC corps. It alwasy has been limited to those who hide in NPC corps. Those who hide in NPC corps includes anyone in an NPC corp, regardless of reason. Those who hide in NPC corps aren't necessarily intentionally "hiding" but are necessarily exempt from the risk of wardec, hence the terminology. So it is limited to those who are in NPC corp, which is necessarily a form of "hiding", whether intentional or otherwise. They want to wardec people who are hiding in NPC corps. It is not limited to a career because people in NPC corps have many careers, and are not even necessarily limited to one career. So it will include haulers, missioners, post-wardec corpies, miners, scammers, traders, pvpers, drug dealers, smacktalkers, pedophiles, Matari slaves, fish... wait, which game are you playing?

Right, highsec was intended to be safer, not "safe". It was never intended to be based around a "PVP/danger optional" design. This is why corphopping and wardec evasion were for the majority of EVE history considered an exploit, before relatively recently being declared 'no longer an exploit' by GM Homonoia. Homonoia did this presumably because wardec evasion was the only way for PvErs in highsec to stay competitive against each other in the pursuit of ISK (danger and loss being unneccessary overhead), and its use was spiralling out of control and no longer enforceable by the GMs. It was never an intended 'feature' of highsec. Now players such as yourself have been raised on the status quo and believe that this is what it was meant to be. I'd say highsec's original design was best where players still had recourse to compete directly as well as indirectly through the market, and that allowing such to happen (by puttin in place corphop timers and making NPC corps individually deccable) would result in better gameplay for everyone.

I agree easy solution is to remove Concord..

Anyone can pick up a public contract though. Are you going to wardec every single courier you see?

that could get very expensive and also doesn't stop them delivering as it takes 24 hours for them to become a target.

i heard nullsec is safer then highsec and highseccers belief that highsec is meant to be the safest of places, so really removing CONCORD is logical

Right, highsec was intended to be safer, not "safe". It was never intended to be based around a "PVP/danger optional" design. This is why corphopping and wardec evasion were for the majority of EVE history considered an exploit, before relatively recently being declared 'no longer an exploit' by GM Homonoia. Homonoia did this presumably because wardec evasion was the only way for PvErs in highsec to stay competitive against each other in the pursuit of ISK (danger and loss being unneccessary overhead), and its use was spiralling out of control and no longer enforceable by the GMs. It was never an intended 'feature' of highsec. Now players such as yourself have been raised on the status quo and believe that this is what it was meant to be. I'd say highsec's original design was best where players still had recourse to compete directly as well as indirectly through the market, and that allowing such to happen (by puttin in place corphop timers and making NPC corps individually deccable) would result in better gameplay for everyone.

Part of the problem is that wardecs themselves are too expensive, wide-encompassing and don't actually resolve the ostensible reason for their existence - resource/access contention.

I mean it's not like under the current system if you're in a mining corp that grew claws and camped the small ganker corp into a station that you're going to disband half your fleet and go back to belt mining or whatever. And at the end of the day if the defender or aggressor chooses not to engage and really forfeit the war, there's no negative consequences for not doing so.

1) There should be some sort of limitation of the scope of a wardec which the aggressor sets, in return for a lowered wardec fee. I don't need to kill this corp wherever they go in highsec, I just want to kill him if I see him in this belt I want, or using this station I've claimed. Scale wardecs in terms of belt/station, system, const and region instead of just one universal size-fits all. This permits large-sized alliances to be wardec'd again regularly without reverting the system back to its old 'Privateer'-centric ways.
2) There should be some sort of tracking system to see who is winning a war, either through a FW-style control point system or isk ratio or whatever
3) There should be consequences for coming out of a war as a loser over small-scale objectives, such as generating a criminal flag for entering a 'lost' belt, or being unable to use the station services (but still dock) over a 'lost' contested station.

i heard nullsec is safer then highsec and highseccers belief that highsec is meant to be the safest of places, so really removing CONCORD is logical

Many a dev have stated in previous post that ganking somone in highsec was not designed for profit. Why do you guys keep forgeting that?

There is this place called null-sec. There people train and fit for real pvp. The problem is gankers dont want this because those people might shoot back and they could die to somone besides concord.

It still removes the element of npc corp freighter pilots running contracts for player corps. At least then, the pilots corp can be war decced, where now an npc corp cannot. So to me thats a better solution than some are proposing for the removal of npc corps, or allow npc corps to be decced, which will never happen because ccp wont do it. So im trying to keep my idea in the scope of something ccp would actually go for, not the fantasy that we will ever get to attack npc corps without concord response in highsec.

1) There should be some sort of limitation of the scope of a wardec which the aggressor sets, in return for a lowered wardec fee. I don't need to kill this corp wherever they go in highsec, I just want to kill him if I see him in this belt I want, or using this station I've claimed. Scale wardecs in terms of belt/station, system, const and region instead of just one universal size-fits all. This permits large-sized alliances to be wardec'd again regularly without reverting the system back to its old 'Privateer'-centric ways.

would it not be better to limit capital ships to player corps? courier is a noob career afterall.

OK, this is honestly the point where I just say no. You don't own anything in high sec. You hold no claim to anything in high sec beyond what's in your hangars, and your high sec structures and PIs. Now perhaps you could argue for kill rights on trespassers into the territory of your POS regardless of their corp status, or against those who are impeding on PI resources you claimed first in a way to "encourage" them to back off and as part of the DUST system where you and others could be fighting someone in an effort to claim the skies to help your dustbunny mercs, but beyond that? Yeah, no, there are places to hold those kind of claims. High sec isn't it.

It's funny because your alliance leader Kelduum advocated a very similar system, except in his system someone would anchor a "0.0 bubble" in highsec where wardecs would be fought out.

Many a dev have stated in previous post that ganking somone in highsec was not designed for profit. Why do you guys keep forgeting that?

Wardecs are one thing. You know pvp could be possible so you could be semi prepared or base your activities off that wardec.

Ganking is nothing but a form of griefing. The frieghter or miner only has concord. Gankers can bring more dps than the ganked could ever hope to tank. Niether can fight back, yet you call it pvp, but it is not.

There is this place called null-sec. There people train and fit for real pvp.

Why not both? Courier contract and use of capital ships be prohibited unlesz you are in a player corp. I dont have any problems with either.

because noobs won't be able to access a career. as it is they can't trial industrials.

what's the max expanded indy anyway, like 45Km3 or thereabouts? bet that pops easy too!

I have an idea which might work - you can't wardec any player corp under 10 members. However, you need at least 10 members to have a POS/capitals all that good stuff.

that needs at least 4 accounts to set up a playercorp and you back out all your toons then you lose the ability to fly capitals. make corp hopping an exploit or have a timer that lasts... a week, same as the wardec.

should solve NPC corp 'problems' and solo corp problems.

i just made mine for ***** and giggles. it took 8 minutes of training lol.

EDIT: inb4 your edits.

[quote=Vexen Lyre]Keeping it simple will have a higher chance of ccp implementing into the game. If we propose too many rules, restrictions and prerequisites, ccp will overlook it all.

Im sticking with pushing for any courier contract requiring use of a capital ship can only be accepted by a non-npc corp entity. As well as capital ships can only undock in high sec if the pilot is in a player corp.

Keeping it simple will have a higher chance of ccp implementing into the game. If we propose too many rules, restrictions and prerequisites, ccp will overlook it all.

Im sticking with pushing for any courier contract requiring use of a capital ship can only be accepted by a non-npc corp entity. As well as capital ships can only undock in high sec if the pilot is in a player corp.