No, I think that risk/reward should be appropriately balanced. If by "play the way you do" you mean "willing to take risks" then sure.

And what "classes of players" are involved in any of that? How was the "balance of power" changed? You're not getting off that easy Lucas.

Too hard for you to face, I understand.

LOL. Yeah. And no missions for them. And take away their battleships too. Screw 'em. If they ain't going to be playing the way I play they should not be allowed to have as much fun as those of us that play the way I approve.

So the problem isn't "losing isn't fun", losing can be fun, but repeatedly losing to the same group because they see you as weak, and rather than choosing a challenge choose to repeatedly display their power over you, that's no fun. It's for a similar reason most people would agree sov mechanics need work.

Imagine if you played an FPS and you were alright at it and enjoying yourself, but then the same group of people came in and owned you repeatedly, then when you tried to change session they came along and did the same again. It wouldn't be the best designed mechanic, would it?

Nobody is saying people can't mission, mine or any other boring High Sec crap, the problem with NPC corps is that they do not promote, offer, teach anything of value.

Again, I do not want them removed as they do serve a purpose, but I do not believe that CCP intended players to stay in them for months, years at a time or in some cases, permanently.

Totally agree. But if NPC corps get nuked to the point they can't be used, or if people get removed from them after a while, that's also not teaching them anything. They will simply be targeted by the players who are far better at EVE than them and used as fodder. If you want people to move out of them, you can't expect all of the concessions to be made by them. There has to be give and take. Fine, increase tax on NPC corps, but at the same time make it harder or less appealing to wardec the weakest targets en masse.

The worst argument anybody can use.

Nobody is saying people can't mission, mine or any other boring High Sec crap, the problem with NPC corps is that they do not promote, offer, teach anything of value.

Again, I do not want them removed as they do serve a purpose, but I do not believe that CCP intended players to stay in them for months, years at a time or in some cases, permanently.

The best matches are the close ones, but they are few and far between.

And if losing is 'fun' for you then why bother trying to win? There's a good reason why calling someone a loser is considered a pejorative.

EVE doesn't have different sessions to change to. EVE doesn't have... you know what, I'm not even going to entertain this, EVE is what it is and you log on everyday knowing that, and if you don't then you need to learn, because expecting to change the nature of EVE from what it is instead of adapting to it is more akin to finding someone you're attracted to physically, but finding out their personality doesn't quite suit you, so you try to change them. The thing is, then, that it's not them you want, it's someone else, you just like how they look.

The difference is that what you noted above as being a problem is part of the nature of EVE. If you want that changed, then you're looking for a different game entirely.

Having wardec immunity is already a massive benefit over player corps. An 11% tax is hardly all that terrible given the average corp tax is 10%. Bumping it up to 20% would give you a reason for leaving an NPC corp.

The risk of fighting an industrial corps is minimal, and the reward (as shown by many merc groups) is a 95+% efficiency and heaps of loot. The risk of taking on a competent PvP group is considerably higher, and the chances of a high efficiency and good loot considerably less.

So I'll repeat my opinion: wardecs should be more rewarding when taking on a challenge, and less rewarding when going after soft targets, with the end result being that wardeccers choose to pick fights with tougher targets.

Concord no longer being tankable for example [high sec dwellers in general vs gankers]. Mining barges being balanced out [Miners vs gankers]. New exploration type ships [Exploration site runners vs hunters]. Crimewatch changes [PvE players vs bait gankers]. Stuff like that.

]No, I just keep my responses to trolls minimal to save time.

So why do the NPC corps have to take a nerf but wardeccers who go after the weakest possible targets so they have minimal risk don't? Why not make NPC corps less appealing, and at the same time look at making it more beneficial for a wardeccer to go after a challenging target and less beneficial to go after a weaker one?

Again, you need to get the concept of "player choices" drilled into your thick cranium. Target selection, ship fitting - these are all player choices and don't warrant intervention from CCP. And you have yet to argue that they do, and you have yet to suggest a better system then what currently exists.

If fighting an Industrial corp is "low risk" it's only because the Industrial corps choose to make it that way. No reason for CCP to do anything about it.

Because this isn't how EVE Online works.

So why do the NPC corps have to take a nerf but wardeccers who go after the weakest possible targets so they have minimal risk don't? Why not make NPC corps less appealing, and at the same time look at making it more beneficial for a wardeccer to go after a challenging target and less beneficial to go after a weaker one?

PErsonal attacks aside

I've covered this one multiple times. Yes, it's their choice, but so is the choice of target. There will ALWAYS be a weakest target and that's what the wardeccers would always aim for, because there is no BENEFIT to taking a challenge. Why not provide them a benefit for doing so? You are whining on about player choice, so give players a REASON to choose something better.

So EVE shouldn't give out a better reward for taking more risk? Thanks for explaining. Who are you again?

Its not the wardeccers fault the corp they chose is a pushover, they can't know what any corp is like before a wardec.

I have had people wardec my solo corp a few times now to take on my tower thinking it was going to be easy only to find the production tower became a Dickstar and they died horribly.

they run away to protect their precious isk efficiency.

Oh bull. Don't give me that, they know full well what the corp is going to be like, and when they do make a mistake and wardec someone that can beat them, they run away to protect their precious isk efficiency.

Now look who's misrepresenting other people's statements. :)

And BTW I'm Xuixien, and I'm better than you in ever way.

Not I. I suggested adding more reward for more risk and reducing reward for low risk and you told me EVE doesn't work that way.

I believe you, honestly I do. I lay awake at night wishing I could be just like you.

So, they didn't know full well what my corp was going to be like did they given that they died miserably on my tower of woe.

Their targets have the same option so what's the issue?

Kell gets +1 for tenacity

He actually beat my stubborn streak.

Not many do that.

That running away is boring and I strongly believe EVE should try to bring people together to interact, and not make the most convenient option "run away and stay docked".

Most of the time they know, and like I say, the odd time they make an error in judgement, they can just run and hide.

If it's boring then don't do it? You always have the option of coming together and fighting the WarDeccers.

Am I? That's strange, because I distinctly remember suggesting that reward for NPC players be lowered (encouraging them to take more risk to keep their reward), encouraging wardeccers to choose (not be forced) to take more of a challenge for more reward, and discourage lower risk play with lessened reward.

A game for pansies

]I don't get involved in wardeccers. My high sec guys operate from NPC corps and my mains operate from null.

]Much like many people operating from NPC corps, I don't consider it entertaining to lose an unarmed hauler to 20 12 year olds who then proceed to pat themselves on the back chanting "GF" in local. And therein lies the issue. You can't expect NPC players to choose to put themselves out for nothing.

So you're suggesting that NPCs corps be nerfed in order to encourage people into joining player corps, the risk of doing so you want to lower.

I don't get involved in wardeccers. My high sec guys operate from NPC corps and my mains operate from null. Much like many people operating from NPC corps, I don't consider it entertaining to lose an unarmed hauler to 20 12 year olds who then proceed to pat themselves on the back chanting "GF" in local. And therein lies the issue. You can't expect NPC players to choose to put themselves out for nothing.