EVE Search - Getting people out of NPC corporations

All Channels

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Getting people out of NPC corporations

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 .. 12 :: [one page]
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Jenshae Chiroptera The Volition Cult 832	Posted - 2015.01.29 15:41:36 - [1] - Quote Maybe the carrot approach with social corporations is not the best idea? How about something that should make people scream and gnash their teeth at first but should settle down with time? In order to fly Tech 2 & 3 ships, pirate, faction and capital ships you need to be in a private corporation. If you quit a private corporation and go back to an NPC one, you have 24 hours to move your ships before your license to fly them is revoked. This means the new players are free to stay there in T1 ships safely while there is a foot pushing veterans out the door. CSM Ten movement for change. CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids. Status: Rabid carebear Blog
Mag's the united 18954	Posted - 2015.01.29 15:44:40 - [2] - Quote I do not agree with forcing players out of NPC corps in this way. It's a players choice and style and there is already a tax punishment for doing so. No matter how you word it or what restrictions you suggest, I believe them to be bad. This is just more of that toxic approach I mentioned before. Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the lions will ignore you in the savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
Samillian Angry Mustellid The Periphery 689	Posted - 2015.01.29 16:38:23 - [3] - Quote Coercion is a crude and blunt instrument of very limited utility when your target can so easily move to a different product with less hoops to jump through. Not supported. NBSI shall be the whole of the Law
Anhenka The Cult of Personality DARKNESS. 943	Posted - 2015.01.29 17:07:31 - [4] - Quote Lead with the carrot, not with the stick. Encouraging proliferation of 1 man altcorps with even less social interaction than NPC is even worse than people staying in the NPC corps. At least then they have a shared chat channel with many others to maybe get them talking and involved with someone.
Zimmer Jones Aliastra Gallente Federation 89	Posted - 2015.01.29 17:09:47 - [5] - Quote It also punishes the new player. Day one of playing eve, a new player can buy all the bling he wants, and should be encouraged to do so. Its something to work towards. Players leaving player corporations for the first time already get a nasty shock. for the gallente example: CAS is a nurturing community(or so i have heard). upon leaving a player corp for the first time, CAS players are put into the scope. A bucket of cold water for the ones expecting a decent community. -1
Paranoid Loyd 3679	Posted - 2015.01.29 17:10:04 - [6] - Quote Seriously, you would do your campaign a favor by not posting ideas. "Gankers are just other players, not supernatural monsters who will get you if you don't follow some arbitrary superstition. Haul responsibly and without irrational fear." Masao Kurata Fix the Prospect!!!
Rivr Luzade Coreli Corporation The Kadeshi 1159	Posted - 2015.01.29 17:10:40 - [7] - Quote Yet another person who is in favor of force applied by the game to move players somewhere instead of providing them with something and instead of changing the way they play (please read my posts in the Screws to Gankers thread to understand what I am talking about) in order to get players for their victimization complex. Absolutely not supported.
FoxFire Ayderan 194	Posted - 2015.01.29 17:20:28 - [8] - Quote Not unless they also change War Dec mechanics. If a corporation can pay off CONCORD to "look the other way", then the targeted corporation should be able to counter-bribe CONCORD. Highest bribe wins. But you lose the money regardless. It can go back-and-forth until one side doesn't respond to the previous bribe in 24 hours. This would encourage more smaller corps to consolidate into larger corps with deeper pockets or at least form an alliance with bigger corps.
Zan Shiro Alternative Enterprises 577	Posted - 2015.01.29 17:28:34 - [9] - Quote Says a lot about your idea of the social aspect of eve when you are forcing people into ti to play the game in fun ships....sadly none of it good. Maybe its me but what problem does this solve? Player wants to be in NPC...let them I say. Their game and sub money. Don't say no war decs. Lets cut the crap...if you want their ship popped and pod killed....you are better off with ganking. As chance of undock you all nice and WT red in system is slim to none. I won't blame them either. Neut logi and neut fleet booster too common to assume its just one wt in system. Gank you get the element of surprise at least
ShahFluffers Ice Fire Warriors Snuffed Out 7209	Posted - 2015.01.29 17:59:33 - [10] - Quote OP's "penalty" is WAY too stiff. It is a better idea to just gradually increase the NPC corp tax (up to a maximum of 25%) over the course of a few months, starting from 0% for brand new players. Additionally... - creating a player corp should cost actual ISK... to make it more of an investment (so creating multiple "shell corps" can potentially be expensive) and set a (small) barrier of entry for newbies (so they don't create a corporation for giggles and find out the hard way why an "all newbie corp" is a bad idea). 50 million ISK would not be unreasonable considering that it is the minimum amount required to declare war. - in lieu of the above... a "social corp" would be introduced as a new mechanic. "Social Corps" have a common chat channel, a "banner," and cannot be wardecced... but they will have none of the perks of an actual corporation (POS, POCO, corp tax, corp wallet, corp hanger, etc) and must submit to a 5-10% NPC tax. - the tax system in EVE would be revamped to apply to every activity... including LP, Reprocessing Minerals, Market Orders, etc. NOTE: Current Market and Reprocessing taxes would be modified accordingly so that there is no effective increase in taxes overall. Change isn't bad, but it isn't always good. Sometimes, the oldest and most simple of things can be the most elegant and effective. "How did you veterans start?"
Lady Rift What Shall We Call It 164	Posted - 2015.01.29 18:07:01 - [11] - Quote Why do you think 1 man corps are good for the game?
Jenshae Chiroptera The Volition Cult 832	Posted - 2015.01.29 18:18:03 - [12] - Quote Rivr Luzade wrote: Amendment: If I think about it, let's apply some force, shall we? But in the correct area: Whoever engages in an illegal activity, get's booted from the NPC corp they are in. While NPC corps are indeed after our money, they do not want to be connected with illegal activities against their other customers. This should force some people out of NPC corps who have no business there to begin with. This makes sense. Lady Rift wrote: Why do you think 1 man corps are good for the game? How do you think one man corps can be solved? CSM Ten movement for change. CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids. Status: Rabid carebear Blog
Altirius Saldiaro Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire 282	Posted - 2015.01.29 19:21:54 - [13] - Quote Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: Maybe the carrot approach with social corporations is not the best idea? How about something that should make people scream and gnash their teeth at first but should settle down with time? In order to fly Tech 2 & 3 ships, pirate, faction and capital ships you need to be in a private corporation. If you quit a private corporation and go back to an NPC one, you have 24 hours to move your ships before your license to fly them is revoked. This means the new players are free to stay there in T1 ships safely while there is a foot pushing veterans out the door. No.
Antonio Steele Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 33	Posted - 2015.01.29 19:47:24 - [14] - Quote As a member of CAS for over 2 years I can say that a major part of why people stay in CAS at least is that we actually are organized and have events and stuff, and are a fun community that works together. We organize monthly nullsec roams with a swarm of cheap ships and take down some pretty juicy targets at times. We help foster new players and teach them about null and low sec and PVP and whatnot. We have players that have been here for years and stick around to foster the newer players and teach them about eve, and not just about highsec carebearing. I love the community we have built in CAS. I would love to try a player corp, but not ever being able to return to CAS once I leave is what keeps me there. If I had the ability to return to my original NPC corp rather than the scope I would be very inclined to try a player corp, and heck I might even stay out of NPC corps. Also, screwing over NPC corps would quite possibly be the death of EVE. PVP and nullsec alliances may be what gets publicized and all, but a major backbone of EVE revenue wise is the highsec carebears who often are in NPC corps. Screw over NPC corps and watch subscription levels plummet. You might enjoy your victory for a bit, but not after EVE goes under. I'll make a counter proposal. Allow players to return to their starter corps once they leave player corps rather than forcing them into places like the scope. It doesn't really hurt things as either way they get the NPC corp perks and penalties, and it would possibly get a lot of people like me (and there are many of us) to try players corps, and quite possibly stay. What's the worst that could happen?
ashley Eoner 400	Posted - 2015.01.29 19:48:23 - [15] - Quote Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: Maybe the carrot approach with social corporations is not the best idea? How about something that should make people scream and gnash their teeth at first but should settle down with time? In order to fly Tech 2 & 3 ships, pirate, faction and capital ships you need to be in a private corporation. If you quit a private corporation and go back to an NPC one, you have 24 hours to move your ships before your license to fly them is revoked. This means the new players are free to stay there in T1 ships safely while there is a foot pushing veterans out the door. Why do you care if people leave a character in NPC corps?
Alvatore DiMarco Capricious Endeavours Ltd 3373	Posted - 2015.01.29 20:06:16 - [16] - Quote Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: Lady Rift wrote: Why do you think 1 man corps are good for the game? How do you think one man corps can be solved? As the CEO of a one-man corporation, why does my playstyle need to be "solved"? I left my rookie corporation to get away from the more toxic personalities that were in it, left the corporation I joined when it was clear that said corporation was never going to actually do anything (let alone be of any aid to my goals) and formed my own. I have plenty of social interaction with others via my chat channels and the miners in my home system whom I tend to deliberately annoy. All of this is off-point though, so I ask again: Why does my playstyle need to be solved? Perhaps you are suggesting that I should be forced to choose between joining someone else's corporation (with all that it entails) or leaving EVE permanently?
Mag's the united 18958	Posted - 2015.01.29 20:06:33 - [17] - Quote Paranoid Loyd wrote: Seriously, you would do your campaign a favor by not posting ideas. It's why I wish they carry on. Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the lions will ignore you in the savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
FoxFire Ayderan 194	Posted - 2015.01.29 20:37:28 - [18] - Quote Antonio Steele wrote: I'll make a counter proposal. Allow players to return to their starter corps once they leave player corps rather than forcing them into places like the scope. It doesn't really hurt things as either way they get the NPC corp perks and penalties, and it would possibly get a lot of people like me (and there are many of us) to try players corps, and quite possibly stay. What's the worst that could happen? Counter-counter proposal. Allow players to choose the NPC corp they'd like to be in (contingent on personal standings). Each can have their own plusses and minuses. Maybe one has much higher taxes (say 20%), but you get quicker CONCORD response where they have offices. Maybe one has much lower taxes and CONCORD takes longer to arrive to a ganking, or they are open to limited War Decs. One corp has a better community like your NPC corp, so that could be an appeal. They might have different modifiers to standing increases with various factions. Different market tax rates. Different locations and stations of course. I'm sure there would be a number of ways to balance the good and bad of each NPC corp.
Anhenka The Cult of Personality DARKNESS. 944	Posted - 2015.01.29 20:38:56 - [19] - Quote FoxFire Ayderan wrote: Antonio Steele wrote: I'll make a counter proposal. Allow players to return to their starter corps once they leave player corps rather than forcing them into places like the scope. It doesn't really hurt things as either way they get the NPC corp perks and penalties, and it would possibly get a lot of people like me (and there are many of us) to try players corps, and quite possibly stay. What's the worst that could happen? Counter-counter proposal. Allow players to choose the NPC corp they'd like to be in (contingent on personal standings). Each can have their own plusses and minuses. Maybe one has much higher taxes (say 20%), but you get quicker CONCORD response where they have offices. Maybe one has much lower taxes and CONCORD takes longer to arrive to a ganking, or they are open to limited War Decs. One corp has a better community like your NPC corp, so that could be an appeal. They might have different modifiers to standing increases with various factions. Different market tax rates. Different locations and stations of course. I'm sure there would be a number of ways to balance the good and bad of each NPC corp. How about we NOT encourage people to willfully stay in NPC corps, alright?
FoxFire Ayderan 194	Posted - 2015.01.29 20:45:02 - [20] - Quote Anhenka wrote: How about we NOT encourage people to willfully stay in NPC corps, alright? With people actively choosing their NPC corps they wouldn't remain strictly NPC corps because you'd wind up having more people with similar interests and play styles in various NPC corps. Which would foster a sense of community in those NPC corps. Maybe if they then want the additional perks of a player run corp they decided to start one.
Dradis Aulmais By Light and Banner's Fallen 680	Posted - 2015.01.29 20:45:26 - [21] - Quote Grrr Cant get people out of NPC Corp Grr CSM 10: Mike Azariah, Sugar Kyle, Jenshae chrioptera Do No Vote For: Tora Bushido, Bobmon
FoxFire Ayderan 194	Posted - 2015.01.29 20:57:51 - [22] - Quote Dradis Aulmais wrote: Grrr Cant get people out of NPC Corp Grr Maybe. But then they'd have to address some of the reasons players choose to stay in them. The War Dec mechanic is my biggest problem. I used to be in EVE University which I loved (they are a great community), but they are constantly under War Dec now, and it gets tiresome having to look over your shoulder every instance you're undocked. It's bad enough keeping an eye out for being ganked. The E-Uni enjoys having the occasional War Dec. It's good training. But to rarely if ever have a let up from it, kinda sucks. Yet they have (somewhat) deep pockets (which would be much deeper if they raised the taxes above 0.1% ), so they ought to be able to buy some protection from War Decs for a period of time. If that were the case I'd still be there. It was more enjoyable when you had War Dec time and the rules which go along with that, and peaceful times and the less restrictive rules for that. Now that it's constant War Decs they had to eliminate those more restrictive rules (which are good training for being War Decced) because otherwise corp members would be continually under them.
Lady Rift What Shall We Call It 165	Posted - 2015.01.29 20:58:25 - [23] - Quote Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: Rivr Luzade wrote: Amendment: If I think about it, let's apply some force, shall we? But in the correct area: Whoever engages in an illegal activity, get's booted from the NPC corp they are in. While NPC corps are indeed after our money, they do not want to be connected with illegal activities against their other customers. This should force some people out of NPC corps who have no business there to begin with. This makes sense. Lady Rift wrote: Why do you think 1 man corps are good for the game? How do you think one man corps can be solved? I don't have a way nor do i think they are a real problem currently. But this would force more people to create them.
Vimsy Vortis Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation 1981	Posted - 2015.01.29 21:31:14 - [24] - Quote If you actually want to discourage long term NPC corp membership you'd be better off adding incentives for players to be and remain in corporations. If you want to add penalties to NPC corps it's not reasonable to be that heavy handed. Making the tax slightly larger and increasing its applicability would be a more palatable approach, time limiting membership of starter corps and having penalties not apply to those corps is also something you might want to consider.
afkalt Republic Military School Minmatar Republic 713	Posted - 2015.01.29 22:49:31 - [25] - Quote Eve players: Furiously defending the 'sandbox' whilst yelling that everyone else is playing in it wrong since 2003.
Syn Shi School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State 85	Posted - 2015.01.29 23:31:23 - [26] - Quote Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: Maybe the carrot approach with social corporations is not the best idea? How about something that should make people scream and gnash their teeth at first but should settle down with time? In order to fly Tech 2 & 3 ships, pirate, faction and capital ships you need to be in a private corporation. If you quit a private corporation and go back to an NPC one, you have 24 hours to move your ships before your license to fly them is revoked. This means the new players are free to stay there in T1 ships safely while there is a foot pushing veterans out the door. Eve is a sandbox...if I choose to stay in a NPC corp its none of your business.
ashley Eoner 403	Posted - 2015.01.29 23:39:02 - [27] - Quote Syn Shi wrote: Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: Maybe the carrot approach with social corporations is not the best idea? How about something that should make people scream and gnash their teeth at first but should settle down with time? In order to fly Tech 2 & 3 ships, pirate, faction and capital ships you need to be in a private corporation. If you quit a private corporation and go back to an NPC one, you have 24 hours to move your ships before your license to fly them is revoked. This means the new players are free to stay there in T1 ships safely while there is a foot pushing veterans out the door. Eve is a sandbox...if I choose to stay in a NPC corp its none of your business. Like afkalt said... it's only a sandbox as long as you're doing what I want you to do :P
Iain Cariaba 986	Posted - 2015.01.29 23:42:25 - [28] - Quote FoxFire Ayderan wrote: Dradis Aulmais wrote: Grrr Cant get people out of NPC Corp Grr Maybe. But then they'd have to address some of the reasons players choose to stay in them. The War Dec mechanic is my biggest problem. I used to be in EVE University which I loved (they are a great community), but they are constantly under War Dec now, and it gets tiresome having to look over your shoulder every instance you're undocked. It's bad enough keeping an eye out for being ganked. The E-Uni enjoys having the occasional War Dec. It's good training. But to rarely if ever have a let up from it, kinda sucks. Yet they have (somewhat) deep pockets (which would be much deeper if they raised the taxes above 0.1% ), so they ought to be able to buy some protection from War Decs for a period of time. If that were the case I'd still be there. It was more enjoyable when you had War Dec time and the rules which go along with that, and peaceful times and the less restrictive rules for that. Now that it's constant War Decs they had to eliminate those more restrictive rules (which are good training for being War Decced) because otherwise corp members would be continually under them. Your whole idea of being able to counter-bribe Concord is simply bad. I'm willing to bet I make more isk with two of my alts than a lot of highsec mining corps do, so tell me what would keep me from outbidding them for Concord to ignore me shooting them. Your idea is nothing more than he who has the biggest wallet wins. EvE is hard. It's harder if you're stupid.
Kaarous Aldurald Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic 11543	Posted - 2015.01.30 00:13:05 - [29] - Quote I've been against NPC corps for years, and I have campaigned for them to have higher tax rates for any player older than 60 days, etc. But this is a terrible idea that handcuffs player freedom. And I'm beginning to think (well, I've thought this for a while actually), that the OP is utterly incapable of having a non-godawful idea. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs.
Alvatore DiMarco Capricious Endeavours Ltd 3378	Posted - 2015.01.30 01:30:37 - [30] - Quote FoxFire Ayderan wrote: Anhenka wrote: How about we NOT encourage people to willfully stay in NPC corps, alright? With people actively choosing their NPC corps they wouldn't remain strictly NPC corps because you'd wind up having more people with similar interests and play styles in various NPC corps. Which would foster a sense of community in those NPC corps. Maybe if they then want the additional perks of a player run corp they decided to start one. I can tell you've never been in CAS.
Donnachadh United Allegiance of Undesirables 106	Posted - 2015.01.30 03:31:19 - [31] - Quote Like others here I wonder why you think these players should be forced out of an NPC anyway? You cannot use force to get a group of players to do anything they do not want to do, it simply will not work when they can simply choose to spend their gaming dollars somewhere else. Hint this would be bad for ALL of us. In short the game as a whole is better off with these NPC players than it would be without them. Even raising taxes on the NPC or expanding the things that are taxable is a bad idea. What is needed are ideas that would encourage / entice people to leave the NPC in favor of being in a player corp. War decs are one of the first things that need a serious look and yet they are at the top of the list of things people will fight to protect. In my discussion with players in NPC and trying to get them to come into a player corp war decs are the single largest thing holding people back. The last war dec the corp this character is in went through cost me 8 players that had been in the game less than 6 months. Yes they are still in the game, yes they are still active and yes I speak with them almost daily but they are now and will remain forever in an NPC. This topic is about only allowing certain ships to be flown by those in a player corp, and while that specific idea is bad the general idea behind it is sound. The problem is what can we offer only to those in a player corp? POS or POC are out because of operating costs. Anyone got any ideas?
Ronny Hugo Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective 86	Posted - 2015.01.30 03:56:39 - [32] - Quote Kicking you from corp in your vacation so when you come back you can't fly t3's anymore. Would be priceless.
Daichi Yamato Xero Security and Technologies 2248	Posted - 2015.01.30 05:59:34 - [33] - Quote Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: Maybe the carrot approach with social corporations is not the best idea? Because? EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided" "So it will be up to a pilot to remain vigilant wherever they may be flying and be ready for anything at any time"
Mike Azariah The Scope Gallente Federation 2406	Posted - 2015.01.30 06:08:51 - [34] - Quote There is a carrot . . . it is called the tax rate. There is a stick to convince folks not to leave npc corps, it is called wardecs. Forcing players to play in the road so you can run them over is not an idea I support. I was about to add that forcing players to leave their own play styles behind is also bad but I realized that I have done that (I support the end of intercorp aggression mechanics aka awoxing) Quote: Do I contradict myself? Very well, then I contradict myself, I am large, I contain multitudes. Walt Whitman I want to encourage the social actions of the players, encourage the growth of communication and groupings. But not this way. m Mike Azariah-á CSM8 and now CSM9
BeBopAReBop RhubarbPie Quantum Distributions 1401	Posted - 2015.01.30 06:46:13 - [35] - Quote Mag's wrote: I do not agree with forcing players out of NPC corps in this way. It's a players choice and style and there is already a tax punishment for remaining in there. No matter how you word it or what restrictions you suggest, I believe them to be bad for the game. This is just more of that toxic approach from you, I mentioned before. I thought we agreed on that speed reduction thing? New player resources: Uni Wiki - General Info Eve Altruist - PvP Belligerent Undesirables - High Sec Pvp
Aqriue Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 726	Posted - 2015.01.30 07:30:00 - [36] - Quote Trust is #1 biggest factor in EVE. Both AWOX and NPC corp are causing big crying scenes over who is right. 1 is fixing the issue, not preventing AWOX whilst making it harder for the AWOX. Second isn't really changing anything, cause NPC corp are not really doing anything to the game like CODE wanking permit protection. Aside from that, as someone said you haven't been to CAS which goes back to trust. If you participated in a CAS Combat Day (CCD) which is basically a roaming fleet they hold every couple months they actually just wander out in null and blow crap up (they just had one a few days ago). Which is about trust, cause most people bring the bare minimum and not a gank target while some others supply the ships to newbie pilots. tl;dr ; most people don't trust, AWOX like to exploit that, currently whine is AWOXers whining it will be harder to exploit trust over sudden invites but you can still fire with CONCORD showing up if that change goes live, NPC corps don't really care about trust as they bring what they want to lose to a fight, and for an NPC individual its just a loose collection of individuals with a chat channel < --- > like an alliance in null with an intel channel. On the flip side, nothing stops you from pulling the trigger on an individual in an NPC corp, while in highsec, so you can destroy their ship, cause Wardecs are not required, you just need bigger balls. You don't really need more corps, they don't provide or offer what an NPC corp individual has aside from 11% tax and this imaginary fear that causes a lot of people not in an NPC corp that CONCORD is too powerful thus a higher tax is needed to get them out to attack them with wardec fee, which isn't needed BTW . Maybe if more individuals tried to be social instead of playing Counter Strike, you wouldn't have a problem you helped create in the first place
Anthar Thebess 845	Posted - 2015.01.30 08:11:23 - [37] - Quote Solution is very easy. We already have new "do not avox in higsec" tag that is able to be turned on in higsec. What we need ( and we don't need this or the avox flag) is next one. No wardec possible , but at the same enabling this flag put on your corp the same NPC tax and rules you have in NPC corporation. Now why? Because players moving out of the NPC corporations means actually more player to player interactions. Making new friends, and new enemies. But wait , i will create this kind of corp and put some towers up, and they will be safe! Like i stated , the same rules and the same tax like in NPC corp. So this corp cannot have Towers in : - higsec - lowsec etc and all the goodies that are offered by a normal corporation.
Belynius Dragron Riders Inc Greater Western Co-Prosperity Sphere 7	Posted - 2015.01.30 08:21:54 - [38] - Quote I'm not a fan of reducing player choice. This would also have negative repercussions on players, who for whatever reason, be it alliance sabotage, getting kicked from corp due to inactivity, would be unable to fly their ships. This would also simply increase the number of one man corps, as well as potentially trap some players in sov null. Also, not all t2/faction ships remain the same. A stealth bomber is a far cry from a hulk or tengu. It is up to us as the player base to ensure new players get a positive outlook on corporation life.
Caleb Seremshur The Atomic Fallout Kids 476	Posted - 2015.01.30 11:04:19 - [39] - Quote Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: Maybe the carrot approach with social corporations is not the best idea? How about something that should make people scream and gnash their teeth at first but should settle down with time? In order to fly Tech 2 & 3 ships, pirate, faction and capital ships you need to be in a private corporation. If you quit a private corporation and go back to an NPC one, you have 24 hours to move your ships before your license to fly them is revoked. This means the new players are free to stay there in T1 ships safely while there is a foot pushing veterans out the door. Well really npc corps only provide any measurable protection to people in highsec (as obviously flying anywhere else makes you a target) so while I agree we should be incentivising leaving npc corps I think a 25% tax rate and a reduction overall of highsec territory would do more. People like to claim they play casually and this is why they need this and that bla bla I play like 4 hours a week tops and lived in lowsec for 4 years so I don't buy that crap. The issue isn't casual play it's just mewling from people who want no risk at all. I say to them what can their money buy? Faster mission running? My money buys experiences including being the prey for an 8-man pirate gang. I visualise myself as a survivor and these other casual players as fat juicy pigs in their pig sty and I laugh at their complaints when the Butcher comes to town. Faction warfare pilot and solo/small gang PVP advocate
Mag's the united 18979	Posted - 2015.01.30 16:43:07 - [40] - Quote BeBopAReBop RhubarbPie wrote: Mag's wrote: I do not agree with forcing players out of NPC corps in this way. It's a players choice and style and there is already a tax punishment for remaining in there. No matter how you word it or what restrictions you suggest, I believe them to be bad for the game. This is just more of that toxic approach from you, I mentioned before. I thought we agreed on that speed reduction thing? cough Why yes, of course I agree. Plus the extra tax, EHP reduction and we should also include the Pink Thorax with the purple veins. I'd like to fit the *'He looked at me funny'* module on that Thorax, if that's OK? Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the lions will ignore you in the savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
nVus Antollare Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 7	Posted - 2015.01.30 18:42:38 - [41] - Quote If it makes any of you feel better, CAS corps fleet has had AWOX in fleets and it made us feel very special y'all are invited to join any of the CAS special interest groups and share your perspective and experiences with us in any and all aspects of your own gaming style. It doesn't have to be an Us or Them/Carrot or Stick. You'd be more than welcome to take groups of CAS or any NPC corps on tour of your sovereignty wormholes or gate camps, we'd love that. Some of us might stay. Envy out o7
Hopelesshobo Tactical Nuclear Penguin's 406	Posted - 2015.01.30 20:05:56 - [42] - Quote The one thing I am curious about, is how many players in the NPC corporations are simply scouts/alts for other people and they don't bother leaving the NPC corporation because it's primary purpose is to just light up local, so who cares? Lowering the average to make you look better since 2012.
Jenshae Chiroptera The Volition Cult 835	Posted - 2015.01.30 20:16:31 - [43] - Quote The rage for asking a few questions was pretty surprising. Going to work on the OP to try steer this more into a discussion. CSM Ten movement for change. CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids. Status: Rabid carebear Blog
Mag's the united 18980	Posted - 2015.01.30 21:19:34 - [44] - Quote Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: The rage for asking a few questions was pretty surprising. Which just goes to show the ignorance you have, for the game and it's player base. Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the lions will ignore you in the savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
admiral root Red Galaxy 2246	Posted - 2015.01.30 21:33:54 - [45] - Quote I don't like NPC corps. For the most part, they're just somewhere for people to hide because parts of the game scare them or something. Whatever. You can increase the tax rate, you can restrict x, y and z, but none of these things will make the majority of the chickens join real corps. What will happen is that as each individual reaches their maximum tolerance for increased penalties for their cowardice, they'll quit the game. Whether or not that's good for the health of Eve is another debate entirely and not relevant to this thread. What you can do is entice some of the NPCs into becoming real people. Shooting them in the face is a good way to do that. Maybe CCP can do some things, too, but honestly I don't think it'd be worth them investing too much time in it because ultimately it comes down to us players to show NPCs the light. No, your rights end in optimal+2*falloff \| No-one hates you, none of us care enough for that. Sabriz for CSM
AeonOfTime Syrkos Technologies Joint Venture Conglomerate 88	Posted - 2015.01.30 22:21:54 - [46] - Quote I don't see what the bloody fuss is about. EVE is a sandbox, you can do whatever you like - staying in an NPC corp for 10 years is a valid game mechanic, just like ganking. I know quite a few folks who are still having a blast playing after years in an NPC corp... Sounds to me like you feel threatened by these players somehow, to wish to force them out of there. Play and let play.
Jenshae Chiroptera The Volition Cult 835	Posted - 2015.01.30 22:35:58 - [47] - Quote AeonOfTime wrote: I don't see what the bloody fuss is about. Incursion alts and the impact they have on the economy is one example. (I like how I have gone from "theme park carebear" to being "toxic", though. What will be the next label of the day do you guys think?) CSM Ten movement for change. CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids. Status: Rabid carebear Blog
Mag's the united 18980	Posted - 2015.01.30 23:44:43 - [48] - Quote Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: I like how I have gone from "theme park carebear" to being "toxic", though. Gone from? It's one and the same. Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the lions will ignore you in the savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
Hopelesshobo Tactical Nuclear Penguin's 406	Posted - 2015.01.31 00:32:21 - [49] - Quote Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: Incursion alts and the impact they have on the economy is one example. One of the first things that people get told when they start running incursions, is to get out of an NPC corp because of the 10% tax. 1 man corporations do wonders. Lowering the average to make you look better since 2012.
Jenshae Chiroptera The Volition Cult 835	Posted - 2015.01.31 00:42:18 - [50] - Quote Hopelesshobo wrote: 1 man corporations do wonders. Just as bad for the hassle of declaring war on them. There should be a minimum number and activity requirement after the first two weeks. CSM Ten movement for change. CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids. Status: Rabid carebear Blog
Cadelanne Lennelluc R.O.S.E. Sales division 0	Posted - 2015.01.31 00:48:52 - [51] - Quote If you put the players out of the NPC corporation, where are you going to place them ? you can't put them in a random corporation. If they just leave and have no corp, you can't wardec them either.
Kaarous Aldurald Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic 11556	Posted - 2015.01.31 00:49:19 - [52] - Quote Hopelesshobo wrote: Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: Incursion alts and the impact they have on the economy is one example. One of the first things that people get told when they start running incursions, is to get out of an NPC corp because of the 10% tax. 1 man corporations do wonders. Clearly, the only appropriate response is to buff suicide ganking. That, or make incursion sites functional lowsec. I mean, honestly, if CONCORD isn't going to bother responding to twenty thousand Sansha ships, they damn sure shouldn't show up if I try and scram somebody. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs.
Anhenka The Cult of Personality DARKNESS. 951	Posted - 2015.01.31 00:50:22 - [53] - Quote Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: Hopelesshobo wrote: 1 man corporations do wonders. Just as bad for the hassle of declaring war on them. There should be a minimum number and activity requirement after the first two weeks. So my alt corp for my miners/researchers/drug prodcucers/PI alts that might sit completely Idle for months at a time shouldn't be permitted because it's not "active" enough? It's scary that someone like you actually has significant backing in the game. Well as significant as Provi gets.
Jenshae Chiroptera The Volition Cult 835	Posted - 2015.01.31 01:31:42 - [54] - Quote Anhenka wrote: Well as significant as Provi gets. Provi is voting for Core as far as I know. I won't be beating on that drum. You know, as well as I do, that a corp made as a tax dodge that is hollow is not how the corp system is intended to work. Cadelanne Lennelluc wrote: If you put the players out of the NPC corporation, where are you going to place them ? you can't put them in a random corporation. If they just leave and have no corp, you can't wardec them either. They won't be pushed out. They will only be limited in what they can do. NPC corps are too comfortable and too rewarding with too much protection. As others have said though, the war declaration mechanics need an overhaul if this were implemented. CSM Ten movement for change. CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids. Status: Rabid carebear Blog
Eli Stan Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 29	Posted - 2015.01.31 02:02:47 - [55] - Quote Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: Edit: The possible issues (consider this in the eyes of CCP and the concepts they have for their game): - NPC corps are too comfortable, veterans remain there from day one to the day they quit, not exploring other ways of play the game. - Gankers and scouts hide in NPC corps to not be war declared on them and to anonymise themselves. - Null Sec alliances hide haulers in NPC corps. - People use NPC corps to hide from wars. There are some related problems: - War dec mechanics - Freedom of choice for current players. The goal of this thread is to discuss ways of getting veterans to take the step out of NPC corps, get a group of other veterans friends with them, make new corps and nurture newbies into exploring more of the game. / Edit Maybe the carrot approach with social corporations is not the best idea? How about something that should make people scream and gnash their teeth at first but should settle down with time? In order to fly Tech 2 & 3 ships, pirate, faction and capital ships you need to be in a private corporation. If you quit a private corporation and go back to an NPC one, you have 24 hours to move your ships before your license to fly them is revoked. This means the new players are free to stay there in T1 ships safely while there is a foot pushing veterans out the door. NPC corp main here. o/ What playstyles are you suggesting I'm missing out on by being in CAS? Being a pawn subject to CTAs, paplinks and minimum logon times or face being kicked from corp? Sure. But other than that, I can't think of too much I'd need to be in a player corp to do that I can't in CAS. Bash or rep structures? Incredibly boring, but done that. Cap warfare? Been involved. Live in a wormhole, explore, mission, mine, manufacture? Done, or can do, those things. Shoot ships and be shot at? Every dang day. Okay, okay, I'm not subject to wardecs, but I use inties when I move small items and Red Frog when I move large. (Come to think of it, I could see Red Frog being the single entity most against the elimination or crippling of NPC corps.) Hung out and shot the bull on coms? Check. (I might sound down on corps a bit, but I don't mean it in a mean way. I've had many positive interactions with players in corps. :-)
Anhenka The Cult of Personality DARKNESS. 952	Posted - 2015.01.31 02:03:16 - [56] - Quote Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: You know, as well as I do, that a corp made as a tax dodge that is hollow is not how the corp system is intended to work. Cadelanne Lennelluc wrote: If you put the players out of the NPC corporation, where are you going to place them ? you can't put them in a random corporation. If they just leave and have no corp, you can't wardec them either. They won't be pushed out. They will only be limited in what they can do. NPC corps are too comfortable and too rewarding with too much protection. As others have said though, the war declaration mechanics need an overhaul if this were implemented. You do realize that not one of the things I mentioned would actually taxed while in an NPC corp, right? Being in a PC corp simply allows all my alts to access the resources of a POS. And considering the game is at least fairly sandboxy, declaring that tax shelter corps are "not how the system is intended to work" is rather silly. It is not what many would consider an optimal use of the system, but saying it's not an intended use is a bit silly when CCP does not regulate how a corp functions. It it were and CCP was opposed to tax shelters, they would implement an NPC tax even when in a player corp.
Jenshae Chiroptera The Volition Cult 835	Posted - 2015.01.31 02:24:38 - [57] - Quote Anhenka wrote: You do realize that ... I have no interest in nit-picking this further. You know there is a huge benefit to hollow corps and NPC ones and why people use them. You also know why if this changed people would scream for awhile but ultimately, the game would be better for it. CSM Ten movement for change. CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids. Status: Rabid carebear Blog
Kaarous Aldurald Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic 11557	Posted - 2015.01.31 02:30:32 - [58] - Quote Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: You also know why if this changed people would scream for awhile but ultimately, the game would be better for it. You are beyond delusional. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs.
Reaver Glitterstim Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore 2305	Posted - 2015.01.31 06:13:10 - [59] - Quote I'm all for coaxing or coercing people out of NPC corps and all against forcing them out. CSM X: Sabriz Adoudel, Mike Azariah, Sugar Kyle, Corbexx, Jenshae Chiroptera Highsec reform thread
Anabella Rella Gradient 1870	Posted - 2015.01.31 09:07:31 - [60] - Quote No, bad idea. A ham-fisted approach like this would simply make players decide to quit the game. This is a video game, not a RL job. No one NEEDS Eve to put food on the table and therefore will not put up with a bunch of onerous restrictions or arbitrary rules that make the game less enjoyable. People are paying money to play and to play the way they want to (obviously within the bounds of theTOS and game mechanics). No amount of brute force coercion will ever make a player do something he/she does not want to do, They'll simply find other games in which to spend their time; games that offer them enjoyment and freedom of choice. Also let's face it; there are a LOT of godawful player run corps out there. As a recruiter for my corp I see the often very long employment histories and hear the horror stories of people who've bounced from one bad group to the next. Maybe instead of attacking the (IMO non-) issue of players remaining in NPC corps you should be trying to do more to make player run corps better. You should also accept the fact that there are those who for whatever reason will never leave their NPC corp. Have enough respect for that person's decision and the principle of the "sandbox" to allow them to play as they wish even if you disagree. When the world is running down, you make the best of what's still around.
Jenshae Chiroptera The Volition Cult 840	Posted - 2015.01.31 15:15:26 - [61] - Quote Reaver Glitterstim wrote: I'm all for coaxing or coercing people out of NPC corps and all against forcing them out.. Quoted to OP. Inter-NPC wars might be one way to nudge people along. CSM Ten movement for change. CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids. Status: Rabid carebear Blog
Rivr Luzade Coreli Corporation The Kadeshi 1179	Posted - 2015.01.31 15:36:59 - [62] - Quote I highly doubt that. In contrast, I think more people would join NPC corps as they get a lot of free targets, don't need to pay for war and don't have to worry about stats or systems.
Jenshae Chiroptera The Volition Cult 840	Posted - 2015.01.31 15:52:34 - [63] - Quote Rivr Luzade wrote: I highly doubt that. In contrast, I think more people would join NPC corps as they get a lot of free targets, don't need to pay for war and don't have to worry about stats or systems. The wars do not need to be constant and newbie ones can be immune to it. There is more in the OP from another thread. This is an evolving thread like most of the ones I start. (Some might say mutating) CSM Ten movement for change. CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids. Status: Rabid carebear Blog
Zan Shiro Alternative Enterprises 580	Posted - 2015.01.31 15:55:37 - [64] - Quote Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: Hopelesshobo wrote: 1 man corporations do wonders. Just as bad for the hassle of declaring war on them. There should be a minimum number and activity requirement after the first two weeks. Lets....have this for a moment. What is your magical number of people? I can get 2 accounts for 6 in my one man (its at 3 now for 1 account). You have real player corps smaller than this. Are making adding dead weight crap members a part of this plan? You'd also have to define activity. PVP or PVE? This one man at times exists for indy work almost exclusively. An item I used to make was blops. from invention to building (assuming I get invent hits) is a week easy. Will me rolling out 1 blops a week count as active? If not you have a problem....many small start ups that are real player corps (the inventor, the hauler and the seller are 3 real people....me its 2 of my alts and the main when in empire on breaks like now) won't meet the requirement either. I do say 4 blops a month...thats 2.8 bil in materials I am moving pulling a build cost of 700 out of thin air (cba to work up a spreadsheer for actuals atm tbh). If not good enough for my 1 man to rate being active you are gonna have small real indy corps cut off as well as they can't push 2.8 a month probably out of their reach fresh to the indy world. PVP....how do determine active? Don't say km's. I have had some dead ass roams in my time where besides practice in formation flying with the FC nothing much happened. 20 out 20 back...the only thing that died was our enthusiasm lol. I had several nights a week like this. Null bears want to safe up, not much you can do really. SO for these dead roams would log in count as active. If so...well I just log in and don't play to stay active the workaround lol.
Shai'd Hulud Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 11	Posted - 2015.01.31 17:13:46 - [65] - Quote No thank's -1 Reason : This is the choice of the player.
Jenshae Chiroptera The Volition Cult 840	Posted - 2015.01.31 17:28:28 - [66] - Quote Zan Shiro wrote: What is your magical number of people? I would need to run a study on it, using hard numbers that the EVE database has or could gather. Shai'd Hulud wrote: Reason : This is the choice of the player. A choice based on taking what they see as the safest option, which flies against the vision of conflict in EVE. It is a weakness in the coding that is exploited. CSM Ten movement for change. CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids. Status: Rabid carebear Blog
Zimmer Jones Aliastra Gallente Federation 102	Posted - 2015.01.31 17:44:45 - [67] - Quote Introduce new content: Non-school NPC corps go to war with each other on rare occasions and during wars warring NPC corp taxes rise.
ashley Eoner 406	Posted - 2015.01.31 19:38:59 - [68] - Quote Anthar Thebess wrote: Because players moving out of the NPC corporations means actually more player to player interactions. Making new friends, and new enemies. How does moving me out of a corporation that has +300 people to a one man corp means "more player to player interactions"?? No one has provided a legitimate reason for pushing people out of NPC corps. Some have hinted that they dislike the inability to easily grief newbies but that's about it. If you want something changed you're going to need to demonstrate why it's unhealthy for the game in it's current form. The premise of this thread can be summed up as such. Sandbox for me but not for thee
Jenshae Chiroptera The Volition Cult 844	Posted - 2015.01.31 20:31:29 - [69] - Quote ashley Eoner wrote: Anthar Thebess wrote: Because players moving out of the NPC corporations means actually more player to player interactions. Making new friends, and new enemies. No one has provided a legitimate reason for pushing people out of NPC corps. EVE has the premise that it is a harsh universe. Staying in high sec and hiding in a NPC corp is like saying in the tutorial zone in most other MMOs. However, in most tutorial zones you are capped, where as here you can fly what ever ship you like under the safest conditions you can find. Ideally a change to NPC corps would see large groups of veterans and newbies making large player corps. Check my kill board, I am not some newbie kill farmer. CSM Ten movement for change. CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids. Status: Rabid carebear Blog
Anhenka The Cult of Personality DARKNESS. 955	Posted - 2015.01.31 20:34:32 - [70] - Quote Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: ashley Eoner wrote: Anthar Thebess wrote: Because players moving out of the NPC corporations means actually more player to player interactions. Making new friends, and new enemies. No one has provided a legitimate reason for pushing people out of NPC corps. EVE has the premise that it is a harsh universe. Staying in high sec and hiding in a NPC corp is like saying in the tutorial zone in most other MMOs. However, in most tutorial zones you are capped, where as here you can fly what ever ship you like under the safest conditions you can find. Ideally a change to NPC corps would see large groups of veterans and newbies making large player corps. Check my kill board, I am not some newbie kill farmer. True, ideally a change would see large groups of veterans and newbies making large player corps. Absolutely none of you proposals would have that effect though.
FireFrenzy Satan's Unicorns 185	Posted - 2015.01.31 22:31:32 - [71] - Quote The thing is you can say "people should move out of NPC corps" but at the end of the day they might not want to... And a stick has always been a craptastic motivator... "Play this game in this way or i'm going to make you do XYZ" might have all sorts of good intentions behind it. But at the end of the day the people who chill in highsec running level 4s in their internet spaceships after dinner because, well, no other game does internet spaceships. Who are you to tell them to change their play style? I know i hated my time in nullsec, including with your CVA overlords, and moved back to highsec where i primarily carebear in a corp that might as well be a 1 man corp, (SATUN is mostly dead unfortunatly). At the end of the day shouldn't what I want have some impact on the game I play? I mean its all cool and all to want everyone to move out to nullsec and worship at the altar of Steve (blessed be His name) but what if i don't want to? I tried that and i have never been more miserable in my time playing eve... Sc0rched earth was boring (great war for the south or not), CVA was full of retards and rejects, NAGA i never really interacted with... And the most fun i had in eve ever might very well have been when i was a newbro "levelling my megathron" (since well **** ravens) in EKT. Sure it was a player corp but that doesn't change anything, if we got wardecced we just didnt play for a week or two and ignored it that way rather then just being undeccable...
Jenshae Chiroptera The Volition Cult 844	Posted - 2015.01.31 23:04:34 - [72] - Quote FireFrenzy wrote: But at the end of the day the people who chill in highsec running level 4s in their internet spaceships after dinner because, well, no other game does internet spaceships. ... Star Citizen. Elite: Dangerous. Star Trek Online Just to name some off the top of my head. CSM Ten movement for change. CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids. Status: Rabid carebear Blog
Donnachadh United Allegiance of Undesirables 110	Posted - 2015.02.01 01:51:02 - [73] - Quote Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: Anhenka wrote: True, ideally a change would see large groups of veterans and newbies making large player corps. Absolutely none of you proposals would have that effect though. Thread is open to your counter proposals. FireFrenzy wrote: But at the end of the day the people who chill in highsec running level 4s in their internet spaceships after dinner because, well, no other game does internet spaceships. ... Star Citizen. Elite: Dangerous. Star Trek Online Just to name some off the top of my head. As one of those who spends a lot of time chillin in high sec I will tell you that you are wrong at least from my point of view. I tried all of those games and none of them held any interest for me. EvE is a big universe it will support a lot of players who do their own thing, if you do not like what they do then don't look or go somewhere else. On the one hand we have the PvP oriented crowd that will rabidly defend "their right" to wage useless wars against people who have no desire to be involved in them and will posts walls of texts railing against anyone that thinks we should eliminate wars in high sec altogether. On the other hand these same people have no problems asking CCP to "FORCE" others into a play style they do not want, or to eliminate their play style completely. I find this conundrum very interesting, yet very disturbing at the same time because in the end it all comes down to the same thing. Play the game the way I want you to play or get the hell out. High sec players have to learn to deal with the restrictions of NPC, or the hassles of war decs it is only fair that you on the other side have to learn to deal with how these high sec folks want to play the game they pay for.
Anhenka The Cult of Personality DARKNESS. 955	Posted - 2015.02.01 01:53:56 - [74] - Quote Donnachadh wrote: On the one hand we have the PvP oriented crowd that will rabidly defend "their right" to wage useless wars against people who have no desire to be involved in them and will posts walls of texts railing against anyone that thinks we should eliminate wars in high sec altogether. On the other hand these same people have no problems asking CCP to "FORCE" others into a play style they do not want, or to eliminate that play style completely. You forgot the middle crowd who laughs at both sides for being tinfoil wearing, far out loonies who believes the game revolves only around their playstyle.
Scifi High Life Industries The Black Sails 5	Posted - 2015.02.01 02:26:08 - [75] - Quote Anhenka wrote: Lead with the carrot, not with the stick. Encouraging proliferation of 1 man altcorps with even less social interaction than NPC is even worse than people staying in the NPC corps. At least then they have a shared chat channel with many others to maybe get them talking and involved with someone. This. All of the this. I see so many corps that have 1 or 2 people that you just know they are nothing but a corp for a single player and their alts.
Eli Stan Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 29	Posted - 2015.02.01 04:57:24 - [76] - Quote Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: ashley Eoner wrote: No one has provided a legitimate reason for pushing people out of NPC corps. EVE has the premise that it is a harsh universe. Staying in high sec and hiding in a NPC corp is like saying in the tutorial zone in most other MMOs. However, in most tutorial zones you are capped, where as here you can fly what ever ship you like under the safest conditions you can find. Staying in highsec and being in an NPC corp are two entirely different things. Concentrating on NPC corp membership isn't going to change people's interest in highsec. Going back to your OP, the only valid point about NPC corps I can find is they can't be wardeced. Which I happen to think is not a big deal because plenty of targets can be found in null and low. If you can't find enough targets because you can't wardec them in highsec, I think the issue is with you, not with the lack of ability to wardec. Quote: Ideally a change to NPC corps would see large groups of veterans and newbies making large player corps. Ugh. Heck no. I have zero interest in being part of a large player corp. I'm the master of my own destiny. And that is another major premise of EVE. People who want to be part of large player corps will join large player corps, like EVE Uni or RvB or BNI. Those that don't aren't suddenly going to join up just because they can't be in an NPC corp.
FireFrenzy Satan's Unicorns 187	Posted - 2015.02.01 09:50:13 - [77] - Quote Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: Anhenka wrote: True, ideally a change would see large groups of veterans and newbies making large player corps. Absolutely none of you proposals would have that effect though. Thread is open to your counter proposals. FireFrenzy wrote: But at the end of the day the people who chill in highsec running level 4s in their internet spaceships after dinner because, well, no other game does internet spaceships. ... Star Citizen. Elite: Dangerous. Star Trek Online Just to name some off the top of my head. Not the same though... For my personal vision, i LOVE EVE. I love everything about it, the backstabbing the rock paper scissors building, all of the awesome nullsec stuff... I just DON'T WANT TO BE A PART OF IT... I want to watch it on youtube and hear about it from people. And maybe at some point it'll become interesting to me and i'll move back out to somewhere but for now nope...
McChicken Combo HalfMayo The Happy Meal 278	Posted - 2015.02.01 12:36:03 - [78] - Quote admiral root wrote: I don't like NPC corps. For the most part, they're just somewhere for people to hide because parts of the game scare them or something. Whatever. You can increase the tax rate, you can restrict x, y and z, but none of these things will make the majority of the chickens join real corps. What will happen is that as each individual reaches their maximum tolerance for increased penalties for their cowardice, they'll quit the game. Whether or not that's good for the health of Eve is another debate entirely and not relevant to this thread. What you can do is entice some of the NPCs into becoming real people. Shooting them in the face is a good way to do that. Maybe CCP can do some things, too, but honestly I don't think it'd be worth them investing too much time in it because ultimately it comes down to us players to show NPCs the light. This post deserves repeating. The underlying issue is the disease of carebearism. Unfortunately the marketing team advertises the game in a way that is surreptitious about the true nature of the game. The outcome of which is scores of players flooding the game who believe it to be WoW in space. Balancing rewards for player corporation may push the min-max player out of NPC land, but it will do nothing for the "I just want to mine in peace" player. ~ Bookmarks in overview ~ Fleet improvements
ashley Eoner 407	Posted - 2015.02.01 15:49:32 - [79] - Quote Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: ashley Eoner wrote: Anthar Thebess wrote: Because players moving out of the NPC corporations means actually more player to player interactions. Making new friends, and new enemies. No one has provided a legitimate reason for pushing people out of NPC corps. EVE has the premise that it is a harsh universe. Staying in high sec and hiding in a NPC corp is like saying in the tutorial zone in most other MMOs. However, in most tutorial zones you are capped, where as here you can fly what ever ship you like under the safest conditions you can find. Ideally a change to NPC corps would see large groups of veterans and newbies making large player corps. Check my kill board, I am not some newbie kill farmer. Oh so you want Eve to be like "most other MMOs". No thanks. You are aware that there are newbie tutorial zones right? Highsec is not a tutorial zone and if you feel like it is feel free to send me the name(s) of your high sec character(s) and I'll show you how much of a "tutorial zone" it is... You're providing no solution that will result in your ideal though.. Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: Star Citizen. Elite: Dangerous. Star Trek Online Just to name some off the top of my head. Star Citizen isn't even out of beta and it's an entirely different game from what eve is. Elite Dangerous isn't even in the same realm as eve either. Star trek online... really? You're going to say that's the same gameplay as eve? McChicken Combo HalfMayo wrote: This post deserves repeating. The underlying issue is the disease of carebearism. Unfortunately the marketing team advertises the game in a way that is surreptitious about the true nature of the game. The outcome of which is scores of players flooding the game who believe it to be WoW in space. Balancing rewards for player corporation may push the min-max player out of NPC land, but it will do nothing for the "I just want to mine in peace" player. The underlying disease is babies like you who think they are "elite" or the "master race" because they are in a player corp greifing newbies who are trying to figure out the game still. You're mad because you can't freely gank newbies we get it. You're also probably mad because you can't lock that 5 man corp of newbies in perpetual war without them leaving the corp. We get it. You're the disease. You're too lazy to do the research required to find a god wartarget. You're too lazy to go into null and setup your own claim to space. No you're too busy kicking newbies in your cata in highsec. I'm sure after reading this you'll want to vent your frustration on more retrievers and ventures.. If Eve is too hard for you then go kick some puppies somewhere else.
Jenshae Chiroptera The Volition Cult 851	Posted - 2015.02.02 03:46:45 - [80] - Quote ashley Eoner wrote: Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: Star Citizen. Elite: Dangerous. Star Trek Online Just to name some off the top of my head. Star Citizen isn't even out of beta and it's an entirely different game from what eve is. Elite Dangerous isn't even in the same realm as eve either. Star trek online... really? You're going to say that's the same gameplay as eve? They talked about EVE as though it was the only game with Internet space ships. It is not. Edit: Check my kill board. I am not a high sec ganker. I just think it is silly that people fly bling ships in the starting corp and area and make huge amounts of ISK. Risk minimal and reward is high. CSM Ten movement for change. CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids. Status: Rabid carebear Blog
Alvatore DiMarco Capricious Endeavours Ltd 3405	Posted - 2015.02.02 04:14:27 - [81] - Quote Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: Risk minimal and reward is high. If the risk in highsec is too minimal for you, go out there and be the risk in highsec. Bump some miners. Probe down some missioners and "help" the rats. Make people pay for "hauling permits" and then gank them anyway. Kill that idiot who thinks it's safe to travel through highsec in their pod. Dead ships and lost implants cost money to replace. With one good ship kill you've not only made highsec more dangerous for someone but you've also taken from them some of that high reward as replacement costs. Don't just ***** about highsec being too safe; be part of what makes it less safe. You can always buy back sec status if it gets too low. True truth: CCP views suicide ganking as a critical part of what keeps highsec balanced. It was mentioned in .. I believe it was the CSM7 (possibly CSM8) Winter Minutes.
Jenshae Chiroptera The Volition Cult 851	Posted - 2015.02.02 04:18:19 - [82] - Quote Alvatore DiMarco wrote: Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: Risk minimal and reward is high. If the risk in highsec is too minimal for you, go out there and be the risk in highsec. I have more than enough reds to keep me satisfied. I do not even need to go, anywhere. The compositions are far more interesting and they are gears to fight not just die. CSM Ten movement for change. CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids. Status: Rabid carebear Blog
Alvatore DiMarco Capricious Endeavours Ltd 3405	Posted - 2015.02.02 04:19:33 - [83] - Quote Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: Alvatore DiMarco wrote: Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: Risk minimal and reward is high. If the risk in highsec is too minimal for you, go out there and be the risk in highsec. I have more than enough reds to keep me satisfied. I do not even need to go, anywhere. The compositions are far more interesting and they are gears to fight not just die. Then why are you complaining?
Jenshae Chiroptera The Volition Cult 851	Posted - 2015.02.02 04:26:30 - [84] - Quote Alvatore DiMarco wrote: Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: Alvatore DiMarco wrote: Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: Risk minimal and reward is high. If the risk in highsec is too minimal for you, go out there and be the risk in highsec. I have more than enough reds to keep me satisfied. I do not even need to go, anywhere. The compositions are far more interesting and they are gears to fight not just die. Then why are you complaining? Markets and high sec roamers, same faces over and over full of bling ships with horrible fits. It makes me feel compelled to make a high sec alt just to farm ISK. That isn't right. That isn't the concept of EVE. CSM Ten movement for change. CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids. Status: Rabid carebear Blog
Alvatore DiMarco Capricious Endeavours Ltd 3406	Posted - 2015.02.02 04:54:49 - [85] - Quote Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: Alvatore DiMarco wrote: Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: Alvatore DiMarco wrote: Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: Risk minimal and reward is high. If the risk in highsec is too minimal for you, go out there and be the risk in highsec. I have more than enough reds to keep me satisfied. I do not even need to go, anywhere. The compositions are far more interesting and they are gears to fight not just die. Then why are you complaining? Markets and high sec roamers, same faces over and over full of bling ships with horrible fits. It makes me feel compelled to make a high sec alt just to farm ISK. That isn't right. That isn't the concept of EVE. Actually, it is the concept of EVE minus one thing - someone there to harvest the fat sheep and remind them that it's not safe to be so fat. The prey is doing their part by being enticing. Do yours.
Lady Rift What Shall We Call It 168	Posted - 2015.02.02 05:11:26 - [86] - Quote Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: ashley Eoner wrote: Anthar Thebess wrote: Because players moving out of the NPC corporations means actually more player to player interactions. Making new friends, and new enemies. No one has provided a legitimate reason for pushing people out of NPC corps. EVE has the premise that it is a harsh universe. Staying in high sec and hiding in a NPC corp is like saying in the tutorial zone in most other MMOs. However, in most tutorial zones you are capped, where as here you can fly what ever ship you like under the safest conditions you can find. Ideally a change to NPC corps would see large groups of veterans and newbies making large player corps. Check my kill board, I am not some newbie kill farmer. You know eve has a tutorial zone right? Its the rookie systems where grefing and ganking new players isnt allowed at all. https://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Rookie_Systems
Donnachadh United Allegiance of Undesirables 116	Posted - 2015.02.02 05:12:59 - [87] - Quote Alvatore DiMarco wrote: Actually, it is the concept of EVE minus one thing - someone there to harvest the fat sheep and remind them that it's not safe to be so fat. The prey is doing their part by being enticing. Do yours. This would require to much work. And given that he/she admits to having all of the "reds" they need leaves only one conclusion possible. They hate the high sec play style but they are not willing to do anything in game to change it so they want CCP to do it for them. But then I will never figure these folks out anyway. They sit in high sec killing people that do not want to fight and then come here and talk like they are the "elite" PvP players in the game, or post up trash like this topic about how CCP needs to force these high sec players into a different game play style that fits their narrow perspective of what EvE is supposed to be.
ashley Eoner 408	Posted - 2015.02.02 07:49:59 - [88] - Quote Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: ashley Eoner wrote: Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: Star Citizen. Elite: Dangerous. Star Trek Online Just to name some off the top of my head. Star Citizen isn't even out of beta and it's an entirely different game from what eve is. Elite Dangerous isn't even in the same realm as eve either. Star trek online... really? You're going to say that's the same gameplay as eve? They talked about EVE as though it was the only game with Internet space ships. It is not. Edit: Check my kill board. I am not a high sec ganker. I just think it is silly that people fly bling ships in the starting corp and area and make huge amounts of ISK. Risk minimal and reward is high. Space Merchant was "internet spaceships" . Doesn't mean they are remotely in the same actual field of gaming.
Sylveria Relden 74	Posted - 2015.02.02 13:42:08 - [89] - Quote You know, we see a lot of these threads going back and forth, all in the name of "buff lowsec" (nor null) or "nerf hisec" and it doesn't seem to be stopping. I think we should call their bluff. Let CCP nerf empire security for 3-6 months. Call it a CONCORD strike or something. Let's see what happens to the market, both in game and out of game. The numbers will speak for themselves- and then perhaps we can get an "official" stance from CCP regarding player whining and we can stop seeing these ridiculous threads over and over (and over) again.
Jenshae Chiroptera The Volition Cult 853	Posted - 2015.02.02 14:23:33 - [90] - Quote Lady Rift wrote: You know eve has a tutorial zone right? Its the rookie systems where grefing and ganking new players isnt allowed at all. https://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Rookie_Systems Yes and newbie's duelling option should be turned off for a week or two when they start. Donnachadh wrote: Alvatore DiMarco wrote: Actually, it is the concept of EVE minus one thing - someone there to harvest the fat sheep and remind them that it's not safe to be so fat. The prey is doing their part by being enticing. Do yours. talk like they are the "elite" PvP players in the game, . Donnachadh: - It makes me want to become one of the fat sheep. Alvatore: - I would say the most skilled PVP is in frigates, sorting out transversal, doing what you can do with tiny resources, being in a ship that always has a counter or two. Put me in a frigate and I am hopeless. I am far and away a long, long shot away from being an elite PVPer. My ability to PVP relies on either drifting up and shooting them in the face, seeing who melts first or keeping as far away as possible while repairing others. CSM Ten movement for change. CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids. Status: Rabid carebear Blog
Sylveria Relden 75	Posted - 2015.02.02 14:44:00 - [91] - Quote Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: Sylveria Relden wrote: I think we should call their bluff. Let CCP nerf empire security for 3-6 months. Call it a CONCORD strike or something. Let's see what happens to the market, both in game and out of game. Seriously. ... or the middle security space idea where high sec has four islands and between that factions help you in certain systems if you have high standing with them and they send ships that will repair the first attacked ones and can be blown up as easily as other players. Sorry, but I disagree and I think we should "go big or stay home" with this one, and here's the reason why: The majority of threads I've seen for "deregulation" are "all or nothing" threads- and I think we should seriously let it happen. It will be good for the numbers- so we can actually determine just where everything truly sits without the constant smoke and mirrors "scheherazade". We'll get a truly "definitive" answer- without skewed perspectives, suggestions or misdirection. Either markets will regulate, or they won't. People will engage- or they won't. The greatest thing about a "temporary" nerf is that it can always be removed without hurting the "lore" of the game, too. They can even make it a creative thing like some sort of EMP activity that disables security systems, etc.
afkalt Republic Military School Minmatar Republic 728	Posted - 2015.02.02 14:51:13 - [92] - Quote Sylveria Relden wrote: Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: Sylveria Relden wrote: I think we should call their bluff. Let CCP nerf empire security for 3-6 months. Call it a CONCORD strike or something. Let's see what happens to the market, both in game and out of game. Seriously. ... or the middle security space idea where high sec has four islands and between that factions help you in certain systems if you have high standing with them and they send ships that will repair the first attacked ones and can be blown up as easily as other players. Sorry, but I disagree and I think we should "go big or stay home" with this one, and here's the reason why: The majority of threads I've seen for "deregulation" are "all or nothing" threads- and I think we should seriously let it happen. It will be good for the numbers- so we can actually determine just where everything truly sits without the constant smoke and mirrors "scheherazade". We'll get a truly "definitive" answer- without skewed perspectives, suggestions or misdirection. Either markets will regulate, or they won't. People will engage- or they won't. The greatest thing about a "temporary" nerf is that it can always be removed without hurting the "lore" of the game, too. They can even make it a creative thing like some sort of EMP activity that disables security systems, etc. We have a glimpse of this from history, where concord was tankable. That ended with the devs directly intervening on TQ and scattering the players involved to the far reaches of the galaxy. So whilst there may be an element of smoke and mirrors, there is historical precedent.
Sylveria Relden 75	Posted - 2015.02.02 14:55:12 - [93] - Quote afkalt wrote: Sylveria Relden wrote: Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: Sylveria Relden wrote: I think we should call their bluff. Let CCP nerf empire security for 3-6 months. Call it a CONCORD strike or something. Let's see what happens to the market, both in game and out of game. Seriously. ... or the middle security space idea where high sec has four islands and between that factions help you in certain systems if you have high standing with them and they send ships that will repair the first attacked ones and can be blown up as easily as other players. Sorry, but I disagree and I think we should "go big or stay home" with this one, and here's the reason why: The majority of threads I've seen for "deregulation" are "all or nothing" threads- and I think we should seriously let it happen. It will be good for the numbers- so we can actually determine just where everything truly sits without the constant smoke and mirrors "scheherazade". We'll get a truly "definitive" answer- without skewed perspectives, suggestions or misdirection. Either markets will regulate, or they won't. People will engage- or they won't. The greatest thing about a "temporary" nerf is that it can always be removed without hurting the "lore" of the game, too. They can even make it a creative thing like some sort of EMP activity that disables security systems, etc. We have a glimpse of this from history, where concord was tankable. That ended with the devs directly intervening on TQ and scattering the players involved to the far reaches of the galaxy. So whilst there may be an element of smoke and mirrors, there is historical precedent. Yes, but still no "official" policy... which is why (as definitive of itself) history repeats itself yet again. People will continue to scream and whine until CCP intervenes- as before and it will be so again. They need to take an official stance on this one, IMO. We often see a lot of people talk about the players "balancing" the system- yet at the end of the day, how exactly is this happening? This is why neither order nor chaos can exist without the other. You must have a balance of the two.
ashley Eoner 408	Posted - 2015.02.02 17:42:11 - [94] - Quote Sylveria Relden wrote: You know, we see a lot of these threads going back and forth, all in the name of "buff lowsec" (nor null) or "nerf hisec" and it doesn't seem to be stopping. I think we should call their bluff. Let CCP nerf empire security for 3-6 months. Call it a CONCORD strike or something. Let's see what happens to the market, both in game and out of game. Seriously. Mineral prices Ship/module prices PLEX prices SOV space blobs Lo-sec lack of interaction etc. If the "gankers" are right, then they'll have more interaction in null/low security because hisec won't be a "safe" area anymore (therefore it won't matter where they go, right?) and the markets will somehow magically "stabilize" themselves in terms of isk. If the "carebears" are right- prices will be much higher than current, as availability will become more scarce. Oh and you won't see as many accounts logged in- because people won't bother subbing to the game. So CCP's income will take a dramatic loss as well. The numbers will speak for themselves- and then perhaps we can get an "official" stance from CCP regarding player whining and we can stop seeing these ridiculous threads over and over (and over) again. I'm speculating here- but perhaps that's exactly why we never see an official stance, because they know damn well what will happen. Yeah what could go wrong? Other then maybe a mass quitting as people don't want to deal with that **. This is a win win for the "gankers" as they get to harvest more tears and they get to watch CCP shoot themselves in the foot.. Bad idea doesn't begin to describe what you're suggesting. We already know what it was like without concord. 24/7 curb stomping till you managed to get away from people and even then you were one station camp away from being unable to play. CCP already knows the numbers and clearly they disagree with you and the others that want to hurt the game.. Sylveria Relden wrote:** Yes, but still no "official" policy... which is why (as definitive of itself) history repeats itself yet again. People will continue to scream and whine until CCP intervenes- as before and it will be so again. They need to take an official stance on this one, IMO. We often see a lot of people talk about the players "balancing" the system- yet at the end of the day, how exactly is this happening? This is why neither order nor chaos can exist without the other. You must have a balance of the two. There's already an official stance and you can see it daily in how eve is setup. Tough crap that it's not what you want but we've already been there done that and have no desire to repeat stupid history just for the sake of repeating stupid history. Don't like it? Stop being lazy and gank then or whatever it is you feel that highsec is missing.
Jenshae Chiroptera The Volition Cult 854	Posted - 2015.02.03 01:11:16 - [95] - Quote If it was demiliterised for a fixed term, people might suspend their accounts for those few months. There would need to be warning and very clear info. CSM Ten movement for change. CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids. Status: Rabid carebear Blog
Sylveria Relden 75	Posted - 2015.02.03 01:13:20 - [96] - Quote Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: If it was demiliterised for a fixed term, people might suspend their accounts for those few months. There would need to be warning and very clear info. That's the idea of the proposed time limitation. As I said- they can creatively call it a CONCORD strike or something. I think CCP could get some valuable info with the data regardless... how many people actively log in and play, how many subbed during the period of time, how many kills, prices in the market, etc.
Sylveria Relden 76	Posted - 2015.02.03 01:24:53 - [97] - Quote As the saying goes.... "Be careful what you wish for...." I think in terms of people's proposals- they'll learn that "consequence" has a whole new meaning in this game.
Jenshae Chiroptera The Volition Cult 854	Posted - 2015.02.03 01:25:17 - [98] - Quote Sylveria Relden wrote: Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: If it was demiliterised for a fixed term, people might suspend their accounts for those few months. There would need to be warning and very clear info. That's the idea of the proposed time limitation. As I said- they can creatively call it a CONCORD strike or something. I think CCP could get some valuable info with the data regardless... how many people actively log in and play, how many subbed during the period of time, how many kills, prices in the market, etc. Thing is it might still be a false reading. More people might return to EVE or be drawn in and that could take time to seep into the wider market. There might be knee jerk suspended accounts but people might come back and find they enjoy it, etc. Trouble is it would be a large risk and still might not give a good reading. CSM Ten movement for change. CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids. Status: Rabid carebear Blog
Sylveria Relden 76	Posted - 2015.02.03 01:34:37 - [99] - Quote Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: Sylveria Relden wrote: Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: If it was demiliterised for a fixed term, people might suspend their accounts for those few months. There would need to be warning and very clear info. That's the idea of the proposed time limitation. As I said- they can creatively call it a CONCORD strike or something. I think CCP could get some valuable info with the data regardless... how many people actively log in and play, how many subbed during the period of time, how many kills, prices in the market, etc. Thing is it might still be a false reading. More people might return to EVE or be drawn in and that could take time to seep into the wider market. There might be knee jerk suspended accounts but people might come back and find they enjoy it, etc. Trouble is it would be a large risk and still might not give a good reading. And the "counter proposal" is? I agree- that it may indeed be skewed by other mitigating factors... but without a test we'll never know for sure. At the end of the day- I still believe in "balance" and moderation in all things. Too much of anything can be harmful. But hey, if people want to stick their hand on the stove to see just how hot it is, more power to them.
Donnachadh United Allegiance of Undesirables 117	Posted - 2015.02.03 01:55:58 - [100] - Quote Sylveria Relden wrote: You know, we see a lot of these threads going back and forth, all in the name of "buff lowsec" (nor null) or "nerf hisec" and it doesn't seem to be stopping. I think we should call their bluff. Let CCP nerf empire security for 3-6 months. Call it a CONCORD strike or something. Let's see what happens to the market, both in game and out of game. Seriously. Mineral prices Ship/module prices PLEX prices SOV space blobs Lo-sec lack of interaction etc. If the "gankers" are right, then they'll have more interaction in null/low security because hisec won't be a "safe" area anymore (therefore it won't matter where they go, right?) and the markets will somehow magically "stabilize" themselves in terms of isk. If the "carebears" are right- prices will be much higher than current, as availability will become more scarce. Oh and you won't see as many accounts logged in- because people won't bother subbing to the game. So CCP's income will take a dramatic loss as well. The numbers will speak for themselves- and then perhaps we can get an "official" stance from CCP regarding player whining and we can stop seeing these ridiculous threads over and over (and over) again. I'm speculating here- but perhaps that's exactly why we never see an official stance, because they know damn well what will happen. While I like the idea as a concept the possible negative consequences for the game make this a really bad idea, if there were mass un-subs as a result CCP and the game may never recover. Turn your idea 180 degrees and remove war decs and ganking from high sec for that period of time and se what the results are. While this may cause mass un-subs from the war dec and ganker communities the loss in number of players would be significantly less and would be more survivable for CCP and the game.
Sylveria Relden 77	Posted - 2015.02.03 02:39:18 - [101] - Quote Donnachadh wrote: While I like the idea as a concept the possible negative consequences for the game make this a really bad idea, if there were mass un-subs as a result CCP and the game may never recover. Thanks. You see- that's exactly the "point" I'm trying to distinguish here. The reality is, people aren't thinking their "CTA" when it comes to "NURF HISECZ!!!!!!!" all the way through. Hisec, Losec and Nullsec all exist for a reason. Without definition- the game becomes a completely chaotic mess of anarchistic types who think that there's some sort of "order" in what they're doing. The next dictator is just as bad as the last one, and soon they come to learn this. Doesn't matter if you AGREE with the reason- just that it exists for a reason. It's called "balance". "It's bad for the game" is entirely the point I'm trying to make, yet the pessimistic bittervet neckbeard types will have you believe... The "premise of EVE" is that they should be able to get to shoot whatever they want, whenever they want, as long as THEY don't have to face consequences for their actions (AKA "bitter and cold environment", yada yada) and; That CCP will lose more subs and won't survive if things continue to go the way they are. (EVE is DYIIIIIINNNNNGGGGG!) So let's see if they're right, shall we? How about we put it to the test. Then we can see who should HTFU (or STFU is probably more applicable in this case). The eventual boredom of nullsec and lowsec isn't due to hisec being popular. It's due to the nature of "power" and those who wield it. Who's in charge of the alliances? Who's in control of the space? Why aren't there more battles for control- rather than the eventual blobbing together? If everyone's so "itching" for a fight- why aren't they fighting amongst themselves to claim said space, instead of looking to hisec and moaning about it? Looking for "gudfites"? How about going where you know you'll find them? Oh, but that requires effort on their part- and might actually have to risk their own belongings in the process, right? A little off-topic, but this is why I'm also a fan for removing off-grid boosting. People who "hide" their boosters aren't risking them in the field- yet they whine all day long about "risk aversion" when you get right down to it.
Lathalia NED-Clan Goonswarm Federation 0	Posted - 2015.02.03 09:27:10 - [102] - Quote I would like to see the npc corporations randomly wardeccing one or multiple other npc corporations. For the new players -> put them in new special newbie npc corporations where only characters less then 30 (or something like it) days are allowed. After that they got moved automatically to a normal npc corp.
afkalt Republic Military School Minmatar Republic 729	Posted - 2015.02.03 10:46:24 - [103] - Quote I'd like to see more parts of null actually fighting instead of maintaining the status quo. Don't always get what we want though, right?
Samillian Angry Mustellid The Periphery 695	Posted - 2015.02.03 11:13:55 - [104] - Quote afkalt wrote: I'd like to see more parts of null actually fighting instead of maintaining the status quo. Don't always get what we want though, right? Your not wrong. NBSI shall be the whole of the Law
Rivr Luzade Coreli Corporation The Kadeshi 1190	Posted - 2015.02.03 11:26:26 - [105] - Quote afkalt wrote: I'd like to see more parts of null actually fighting instead of maintaining the status quo. Don't always get what we want though, right? You are alone there. That is not what the EVE populace wants. What the EVE populace wants is fights to happen but not on their doorstep. Problem is: there is too many doorsteps.
Syn Shi School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State 86	Posted - 2015.02.03 20:26:47 - [106] - Quote Its simple really. If you know someone who plays Eve is easier to make contacts and get into a decent corp. If you don't know anyone...its a complete crap shoot. Where more often than not you just end up being the play toy. And the stuff I have seen being done to players by vets and such I wont make the effort to leave my NPC/ private corp. The vocal few abusers created this and now CCP has to figure out how to undo the damage. 10 years of beating up new players has dug a hole.
Jenshae Chiroptera The Volition Cult 856	Posted - 2015.02.04 02:20:56 - [107] - Quote I'd like to point out that I am generally considered anti-ganker. I do not have a problem with high-sec I do not have a problem with NPC corps I do not have a problem with veterans in NPCs I do have a problem with veterans + NPC corps + high sec because that combination is far too safe for how lucrative it is. Donnachadh wrote: While I like the idea as a concept the possible negative consequences for the game make this a really bad idea, if there were mass un-subs as a result CCP and the game may never recover. Turn your idea 180 degrees and remove war decs and ganking from high sec for that period of time and se what the results are. While this may cause mass un-subs from the war dec and ganker communities the loss in number of players would be significantly less and would be more survivable for CCP and the game. .... and watch how many more migrate to high sec. CSM Ten movement for change. CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids. Status: Rabid carebear Blog
afkalt Republic Military School Minmatar Republic 731	Posted - 2015.02.04 12:51:06 - [108] - Quote Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: I do have a problem with veterans + NPC corps + high sec because that combination is far too safe for how lucrative it is. Are wardecs that dangerous? Because all I ever seem to hear is they are pointless, toothless and trivial to circumvent. I don't think wardecs provide the risk you think they do.
Lady Rift What Shall We Call It 174	Posted - 2015.02.04 13:02:44 - [109] - Quote Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: I'd like to point out that I am generally considered anti-ganker. I do not have a problem with high-sec I do not have a problem with NPC corps I do not have a problem with veterans in high secs I do have a problem with veterans + NPC corps + high sec because that combination is far too safe for how lucrative it is. Donnachadh wrote: While I like the idea as a concept the possible negative consequences for the game make this a really bad idea, if there were mass un-subs as a result CCP and the game may never recover. Turn your idea 180 degrees and remove war decs and ganking from high sec for that period of time and se what the results are. While this may cause mass un-subs from the war dec and ganker communities the loss in number of players would be significantly less and would be more survivable for CCP and the game. .... and watch how many more migrate to high sec. Had a Goon I chatted to recently. He said his home system was really dangerous and he wasn't safer than in high sec, in the same breath as telling me he was AFK carrier ratting. So, had a look at the region on zkill and it was 0.75 of one page with kills. Looked at Providence and it was 4.5 pages of kills and it was still early in the day. Deklein bit over a page of kills for Feb 03 where as, Providence 6.25 pages. So, yes. Null Sec is still too safe in many places. take a stroll though dek one day. You might understand why they can semi afk carrier rat. Ps it has to do with the fact that unless its a big hotdrop the amount of support and help that will warp to you is massive, because of always being in standing fleet. You see it comes from them actually living in dek and defending there space with numbers.
Jenshae Chiroptera The Volition Cult 857	Posted - 2015.02.04 13:05:58 - [110] - Quote Lady Rift wrote: take a stroll though dek one day. You might understand why they can semi afk carrier rat. P.S. it has to do with the fact that unless its a big hotdrop the amount of support and help that will warp to you is massive, because of always being in standing fleet. You see it comes from them actually living in dek and defending there space with numbers. I think the CCP vision is that they would be harassed by small groups that are eager to get a foot hold and larger ones would keep pushing at their borders. Is there maybe not enough links between regions? CSM Ten movement for change. CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids. Status: Rabid carebear Blog
Donnachadh United Allegiance of Undesirables 120	Posted - 2015.02.04 14:21:48 - [111] - Quote Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: I do have a problem with veterans + NPC corps + high sec because that combination is far too safe for how lucrative it is. Then go make it "less" safe for those players and stop being lazy and asking CCP to do it for you. Players do not need to be in a player corp for you to gank them. As for war decs the only players that get killed in them are 1. ignorant of the options, 2. to lazy to take one of those options 3. the extremely rare war dec corp member that makes a stupid mistake. Yes I know you will forcefully deny this but the basis for your idea is to "force" players into corps that you can WD, why? Because that is the only real change the OP idea will have on the game. As for the safety of high sec blame the players ( lIke you) who are to lazy or risk averse to provide the "dangers" that you think should come along with the rewards for being in high sec. I find it interesting that most people claim that we the players are supposed to provide the content unless that situation is the risk level associated with life in high sec then they want CCP to provide the risks. Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: Had a Goon I chatted to recently. He said his home system was really dangerous and he wasn't safer than in high sec, in the same breath as telling me he was AFK carrier ratting. So, had a look at the region on zkill and it was 0.75 of one page with kills. Looked at Providence and it was 4.5 pages of kills and it was still early in the day. Deklein bit over a page of kills for Feb 03 where as, Providence 6.25 pages. So, yes. Null Sec is still too safe in many places. So why are you complaining about high sec when what is supposed to be one of the more dangerous places in the game is actually as safe or possibly even safer than high sec? Another interesting twist here is this. Over the years as the nul sec blocks have stabilized and the amount of fighting between those blocks has dropped there has been a corresponding increase in the calls to nerf income and increase risk in high sec. I find myself wondering what the connection is? And no I do not believe in coincidence there IS a connection between these two and it woul be interesting to be able to explore it more completely.
Lady Rift What Shall We Call It 174	Posted - 2015.02.04 14:22:51 - [112] - Quote Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: afkalt wrote: Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: I do have a problem with veterans + NPC corps + high sec because that combination is far too safe for how lucrative it is. Are wardecs that dangerous? Because all I ever seem to hear is they are pointless, toothless and trivial to circumvent. I don't think wardecs provide the risk you think they do. From the original post: Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: There are some related problems: - War dec mechanics - Freedom of choice for current players. The goal of this thread is to discuss ways of getting veterans to take the step out of NPC corps, get a group of other veterans friends with them, make new corps and nurture newbies into exploring more of the game. Lady Rift wrote: take a stroll though dek one day. You might understand why they can semi afk carrier rat. P.S. it has to do with the fact that unless its a big hotdrop the amount of support and help that will warp to you is massive, because of always being in standing fleet. You see it comes from them actually living in dek and defending there space with numbers. I think the CCP vision is that they would be harassed by small groups that are eager to get a foot hold and larger ones would keep pushing at their borders. Is there maybe not enough links between regions? you know dek is behind other null secs right, it connects to 3 regions. One being NPC space the rest owned by friendly's. dek has alot of people living in it that defend there space. Where hostiles can't dock and its along way to empire or even low.
McChicken Combo HalfMayo The Happy Meal 289	Posted - 2015.02.05 02:22:57 - [113] - Quote Donnachadh wrote: Players do not need to be in a player corp for you to gank them. As for war decs the only players that get killed in them are 1. ignorant of the options, 2. to lazy to take one of those options 3. the extremely rare war dec corp member that makes a stupid mistake. Yes I know you will forcefully deny this but the basis for your idea is to "force" players into corps that you can WD, why? Because that is the only real change the OP idea will have on the game. Ganking has it's value but an emergent conflict between two entities is ideally perpetrated without intervention by NPCs. EVE is a player-driven sandbox based around conflict. You can draw a straight line between wardecs and the most basic idea behind the game. Donnachadh wrote: As for the safety of high sec blame the players ( lIke you) who are to lazy or risk averse to provide the "dangers" that you think should come along with the rewards for being in high sec. I find it interesting that most people claim that we the players are supposed to provide the content unless that situation is the risk level associated with life in high sec then they want CCP to provide the risks. Highsec dwellers are very polarized. Some are trivially easy to keep docked up indefinitely while others are competent enough to mitigate almost the entirety of their risk. The frustration you see is related to the second group. Take our friend Veers for example and his bragging about being able to PVE all day. If you're able to fly around space for hours racking up ISK unimpeded with half the galaxy wanting you dead there is something wrong there. The problem though isn't that you can mitigate the risks, it's that there is no reason not to. You're viewing it as players asking CCP to provide the risks, but it's players asking CCP to provide the rewards for choosing to take risks. ~ Bookmarks in overview ~ Fleet improvements
Donnachadh United Allegiance of Undesirables 122	Posted - 2015.02.05 03:03:21 - [114] - Quote McChicken Combo HalfMayo wrote: The frustration you see is related to the second group. Take our friend Veers for example and his bragging about being able to PVE all day. If you're able to fly around space for hours racking up ISK unimpeded with half the galaxy wanting you dead there is something wrong there. Can we please separate the extreme minority of the high sec population that run Incursions from the rest of the high sec players when we discuss things of this nature. The Incursion groups/players are their own special breed and their actions and risks vs rewards are radically different than the average high sec player. For the record I tend to agree with those who claim that there is far to much reward for the level of risk involved in Incursions. Now I will get flamed by the Incursion forces that claim they take huge risks, and my response is rebalance your fleets and add a few more dps and a few more rep ships and most of that risk goes away. McChicken Combo HalfMayo wrote: The problem though isn't that you can mitigate the risks, it's that there is no reason not to. You're viewing it as players asking CCP to provide the risks, but it's players asking CCP to provide the rewards for choosing to take risks. Why? If you choose to violate EvE's rules of space conduct and become a criminal by ganking someone why should CCP reward you for it? If you choose to war dec a corp in high sec why should CCP reward you for that? In high sec the risk is provided by players, yet they get nothing for it besides low sec status and whatever loot/salvage they can recover from their activities. Other than existing mechanics it is probably not a good idea for CCP to provide incentive/rewards for the players that choose to provide the risks because of the potential for the dreaded mass un-subs. They could easily ramp up the risks from non-player aspects of the game but just like the Incursion runners learned how to overcome so would the average high sec player would quickly learn to overcome these new threats. And so we have the elemental insanity that is the whole concept of risk in high sec. What to do, well that depends on who you are and what you want out of this game.
Barbara Nichole Cryogenic Consultancy 674	Posted - 2015.02.05 03:03:50 - [115] - Quote I disagee with almost everything you are asking us to stipulate as fact. I don't believe CCP has a problem with NPC run corps. They serve an important purpose in the game...even for the veteran who may easily fall out of a player run corp. I disagree the thought that empire should be a smallish noob only play region. I feel empire play, low sec, null sec, and WH space all need to be separate yet equally important in play viability. High sec should not be thought of as a traininig ground for null sec. The play should remain vastly different. Not everyone likes the same things; trying to drive players out of high sec will probably only succeed in driving players who enjoy this play from the game. If null sec is boring because 80% of the player base are somewhere else, maybe we need to look at null sec play instead of trying to kill other areas in order to grow null player base. ...not even null sectarians stay in null sec all the time - many split their time between high sec, low sec, and null. -á-á- remove the cloaked from local; free intel is the real problem, not-á "afk" cloaking-á- [IMG]http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a208/DawnFrostbringer/consultsig.jpg[/IMG]
Jenshae Chiroptera The Volition Cult 862	Posted - 2015.02.05 17:02:31 - [116] - Quote Donnachadh wrote: Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: I do have a problem with veterans + NPC corps + high sec because that combination is far too safe for how lucrative it is. Then go make it "less" safe for those players and stop being lazy and asking CCP to do it for you. Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: Donnachadh wrote: Actually, it is the concept of EVE minus one thing - someone there to harvest the fat sheep and remind them that it's not safe to be so fat. The prey is doing their part by being enticing. Do yours. Donnachadh: - It makes me want to become one of the fat sheep. Round and round we go, where will it stop? Who knows! CSM Ten movement for change. CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids. Status: Rabid carebear Blog
Jenshae Chiroptera The Volition Cult 862	Posted - 2015.02.06 00:18:44 - [117] - Quote More in the "role-playing" theme of things. NPC corps ban the use of pirate ships and other faction's navy ships. CSM Ten movement for change. CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids. Status: Rabid carebear Blog
Anhenka The Cult of Personality DARKNESS. 992	Posted - 2015.02.06 00:35:51 - [118] - Quote Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: More in the "role-playing" theme of things. NPC corps ban the use of pirate ships and other faction's navy ships. How about we not make sweeping game changes based on roleplayers. Ever. Unless we can also implement my roleplaying ideas as well, which includes space segregation of RP'rs in their own private forums and they can't post on the normal board.
Jenshae Chiroptera The Volition Cult 862	Posted - 2015.02.06 00:43:24 - [119] - Quote Anhenka wrote: Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: More in the "role-playing" theme of things. NPC corps ban the use of pirate ships and other faction's navy ships. How about we not make sweeping game changes based on roleplayers. Ever. Unless we can also implement my roleplaying ideas as well, which includes space segregation of RP'rs in their own private forums and they can't post on the normal board. Still waiting for your perfect solutions to everything, ever. CSM Ten movement for change. CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids. Status: Rabid carebear Blog
Anhenka The Cult of Personality DARKNESS. 992	Posted - 2015.02.06 00:49:08 - [120] - Quote Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: Anhenka wrote: Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: More in the "role-playing" theme of things. NPC corps ban the use of pirate ships and other faction's navy ships. How about we not make sweeping game changes based on roleplayers. Ever. Unless we can also implement my roleplaying ideas as well, which includes space segregation of RP'rs in their own private forums and they can't post on the normal board. Still waiting for your perfect solutions to everything, ever. Oddly enough, I don't need to know how to build a perfect bookcase to know that hammering a nail into my hand is most definitely not part of the perfect procedure.
Shallanna Yassavi Imperial Academy Amarr Empire 0	Posted - 2015.02.06 05:37:26 - [121] - Quote Q: Why do carebears like to stay in hisec? A: It's not worth it to leave hisec, at least not without some friends with firepower-which, by definition, newbies don't have because they haven't made many friends yet. The path to lowsec is full of warp bubbles and gankers. Jump the wrong gate, and there will be at minimum a warp bubble, some energy neutralizers, maybe a scram or two, some webs, and some DPS = it doesn't matter to me if there are trillions of ISK worth of stuff beyond this.
Victoria Ramsay BOVRIL bOREers Mining CO-OP Brave Collective 6	Posted - 2015.02.06 07:36:11 - [122] - Quote There are plenty of people to shoot in null sec and lowsec. Sorry to hear that you only want to shoot carebears - I know they are easier because they don't fight back so this would give you a nice green killboard with little to no effort, while also ruining the game for the carebears. However this is something you'll just have to live with.
Victoria Ramsay BOVRIL bOREers Mining CO-OP Brave Collective 6	Posted - 2015.02.06 07:39:58 - [123] - Quote Also - if your real goal is to prevent gankers from using NPC corps, you could just prevent changing safeties to red in NPC corps (yellow only - so NPC corp players could still PVP in null/low, but not gank in hisec). Restricting NPC corp players to t1 ships is an absolutely ridiculous proposal.
FireFrenzy Satan's Unicorns 202	Posted - 2015.02.06 08:23:41 - [124] - Quote Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: ashley Eoner wrote: Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: Star Citizen. Elite: Dangerous. Star Trek Online Just to name some off the top of my head. Star Citizen isn't even out of beta and it's an entirely different game from what eve is. Elite Dangerous isn't even in the same realm as eve either. Star trek online... really? You're going to say that's the same gameplay as eve? They talked about EVE as though it was the only game with Internet space ships. It is not. Edit: Check my kill board. I am not a high sec ganker. I just think it is silly that people fly bling ships in the starting corp and area and make huge amounts of ISK. Risk minimal and reward is high. Since you seem to be referring to my post i said "Internet spaceships" strictly in the "Internet spaceships is serious business" sense of the word. All those other games have internet spaceships, just no internet spaceships i give a **** about...
Jenshae Chiroptera The Volition Cult 865	Posted - 2015.02.07 01:28:38 - [125] - Quote Anhenka wrote: Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: Anhenka wrote: How about we not make sweeping game changes based on roleplayers. Ever. Unless we can also implement my roleplaying ideas as well, which includes space segregation of RP'rs in their own private forums and they can't post on the normal board. Still waiting for your perfect solutions to everything, ever. Oddly enough, I don't need to know how to build a perfect bookcase to know that hammering a nail into my hand is most definitely not part of the perfect procedure. Standing around telling people the shelf is skew and the glue isn't of the top quality doesn't help build any book cases, it only get nails in hands and hammers thrown at you. Victoria Ramsay wrote: There are plenty of people to shoot in null sec and lowsec. Sorry to hear that you only want to shoot carebears - I know they are easier because they don't fight back so this would give you a nice green killboard with little to no effort, while also ruining the game for the carebears. However this is something you'll just have to live with. Wrong motive for thread, cotton. Shallanna Yassavi wrote: Q: Why do carebears like to stay in hisec? A: It's not worth it to leave hisec, at least not without some friends with firepower-which, by definition, newbies don't have because they haven't made many friends yet. The path to lowsec is full of warp bubbles and gankers. Jump the wrong gate, and there will be at minimum a warp bubble, some energy neutralizers, maybe a scram or two, some webs, and some DPS = it doesn't matter to me if there are trillions of ISK worth of stuff beyond this. There are plenty of NPSI fleets (Not Purple Shoot It) and they roam all over. There are also plenty of corporations and alliance that are large enough to take SOV even. However, when I do go through low sec it is generally rather empty. I think there is something wrong there. Too many people find it in their interests to stick to high sec and NPC corps rather than group up and go to low sec. I would say low sec has too many sticks and high sec has too many carrots. CSM Ten movement for change. CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids. Status: Rabid carebear Blog
Syn Shi School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State 89	Posted - 2015.02.07 02:21:12 - [126] - Quote At the end of the day...since this is a sandbox..if someone chooses to not pvp...its their choice. Too bad for you, deal with it.
Jenshae Chiroptera The Volition Cult 866	Posted - 2015.02.07 02:31:34 - [127] - Quote Syn Shi wrote: At the end of the day...since this is a sandbox..if someone chooses to not pvp...its their choice. Too bad for you, deal with it. Do you like this scenario: SOV holding main characters and High Sec ISK farming alts? How about Worm Hole romaing hunter, high sec ISK farmer and newbie station duelling alts? Do you still think with so much of that sort of thing happening that the sand box has the sand well distributed? CSM Ten movement for change. CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids. Status: Rabid carebear Blog
Syn Shi School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State 89	Posted - 2015.02.07 02:39:28 - [128] - Quote Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: Syn Shi wrote: At the end of the day...since this is a sandbox..if someone chooses to not pvp...its their choice. Too bad for you, deal with it. Do you like this scenario: SOV holding main characters and High Sec ISK farming alts? How about Worm Hole romaing hunter, high sec ISK farmer and newbie station duelling alts? Do you still think with so much of that sort of thing happening that the sand box has the sand well distributed? No play style is doing it wrong in the sandbox....there is room for all.
Jenshae Chiroptera The Volition Cult 867	Posted - 2015.02.07 02:44:53 - [129] - Quote Syn Shi wrote: Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: Syn Shi wrote: At the end of the day...since this is a sandbox..if someone chooses to not pvp...its their choice. Too bad for you, deal with it. Do you like this scenario: SOV holding main characters and High Sec ISK farming alts? How about Worm Hole romaing hunter, high sec ISK farmer and newbie station duelling alts? Do you still think with so much of that sort of thing happening that the sand box has the sand well distributed? No play style is doing it wrong in the sandbox....there is room for all. So, using the kid's section of the sandbox to grab sand to build walls that keep the kids out of the teen's section of the sandbox is not a problem? CSM Ten movement for change. CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids. Status: Rabid carebear Blog
Lady Rift What Shall We Call It 175	Posted - 2015.02.07 17:04:09 - [130] - Quote Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: Syn Shi wrote: Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: Syn Shi wrote: At the end of the day...since this is a sandbox..if someone chooses to not pvp...its their choice. Too bad for you, deal with it. Do you like this scenario: SOV holding main characters and High Sec ISK farming alts? How about Worm Hole romaing hunter, high sec ISK farmer and newbie station duelling alts? Do you still think with so much of that sort of thing happening that the sand box has the sand well distributed? No play style is doing it wrong in the sandbox....there is room for all. So, using the kid's section of the sandbox to grab sand to build walls that keep the kids out of the teen's section of the sandbox is not a problem? and how are people doing that may I ask?
Jenshae Chiroptera The Volition Cult 870	Posted - 2015.02.07 17:09:09 - [131] - Quote Lady Rift wrote: Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: Syn Shi wrote: Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: Syn Shi wrote: At the end of the day...since this is a sandbox..if someone chooses to not pvp...its their choice. Too bad for you, deal with it. Do you like this scenario: SOV holding main characters and High Sec ISK farming alts? How about Worm Hole romaing hunter, high sec ISK farmer and newbie station duelling alts? Do you still think with so much of that sort of thing happening that the sand box has the sand well distributed? No play style is doing it wrong in the sandbox....there is room for all. So, using the kid's section of the sandbox to grab sand to build walls that keep the kids out of the teen's section of the sandbox is not a problem? and how are people doing that may I ask? Buy a pilot, pay the same subscription, then you just log off between toons on the same account. Farm the high sec incursions that pay more than any null profession Transfer funds to Low Sec or Null Sec toon Put shiny expensive bubbles and snipers on all the gates. CSM Ten movement for change. CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids. Status: Rabid carebear Blog
Lady Rift What Shall We Call It 175	Posted - 2015.02.07 17:13:29 - [132] - Quote Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: Buy a pilot, pay the same subscription, then you just log off between toons on the same account. Farm the high sec incursions that pay more than any null profession Transfer funds to Low Sec or Null Sec toon Put shiny expensive bubbles and snipers on all the gates. lol at this ever happening at all the gates.
Jenshae Chiroptera The Volition Cult 870	Posted - 2015.02.07 19:11:11 - [133] - Quote Lady Rift wrote: Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: Buy a pilot, pay the same subscription, then you just log off between toons on the same account. Farm the high sec incursions that pay more than any null profession Transfer funds to Low Sec or Null Sec toon Put shiny expensive bubbles and snipers on all the gates. lol at this ever happening at all the gates. You didn't refute the essence of the post though. CSM Ten movement for change. CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids. Status: Rabid carebear Blog
Frostys Virpio The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc 1547	Posted - 2015.02.07 23:04:33 - [134] - Quote Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: Lady Rift wrote: Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: Buy a pilot, pay the same subscription, then you just log off between toons on the same account. Farm the high sec incursions that pay more than any null profession Transfer funds to Low Sec or Null Sec toon Put shiny expensive bubbles and snipers on all the gates. lol at this ever happening at all the gates. You didn't refute the essence of the post though. There is no need to since we know it's BS anyway. How about you prove newbie can't access low/null by let's say disprove the existance of brave newbies.
Jenshae Chiroptera The Volition Cult 870	Posted - 2015.02.08 01:41:05 - [135] - Quote Frostys Virpio wrote: Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: Lady Rift wrote: Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: Buy a pilot, pay the same subscription, then you just log off between toons on the same account. Farm the high sec incursions that pay more than any null profession Transfer funds to Low Sec or Null Sec toon Put shiny expensive bubbles and snipers on all the gates. lol at this ever happening at all the gates. You didn't refute the essence of the post though. There is no need to since we know it's BS anyway. How about you prove newbie can't access low/null by let's say disprove the existance of brave newbies. Are you going to say next that they had nothing but a bunch of enthusiastic newbies who ran out into null sec and managed to grab SOV? Just as an interesting side note: They have managed to rack up over 13000 pages on a kill board already. CSM Ten movement for change. CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids. Status: Rabid carebear Blog
Syn Shi School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State 89	Posted - 2015.02.08 02:38:39 - [136] - Quote Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: Frostys Virpio wrote: Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: Lady Rift wrote: Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: Buy a pilot, pay the same subscription, then you just log off between toons on the same account. Farm the high sec incursions that pay more than any null profession Transfer funds to Low Sec or Null Sec toon Put shiny expensive bubbles and snipers on all the gates. lol at this ever happening at all the gates. You didn't refute the essence of the post though. There is no need to since we know it's BS anyway. How about you prove newbie can't access low/null by let's say disprove the existance of brave newbies. Are you going to say next that they had nothing but a bunch of enthusiastic newbies who ran out into null sec and managed to grab SOV? Just as an interesting side note: They have managed to rack up over 13000 pages on a kill board already. Is this suppose to mean something?
Lady Rift What Shall We Call It 175	Posted - 2015.02.08 04:30:27 - [137] - Quote Does this mean that every ship will gain a resist bonus/rep bonus? As that currently is one of the few ways to tell what direction CCP was trying to get people to fit a certain tank type.
Jenshae Chiroptera The Volition Cult 894	Posted - 2015.02.10 23:06:34 - [138] - Quote "One issue raised is staying in contact with your friends from an NPC corp. They want an official public chat channel that comes up when you start the game. You can leave it but it means your starting corp can always stay in touch if they want." Added to the OP. CSM Ten movement for change. CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids. Status: Rabid carebear Blog
Anhenka The Cult of Personality DARKNESS. 1027	Posted - 2015.02.10 23:21:15 - [139] - Quote Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: "One issue raised is staying in contact with your friends from an NPC corp. They want an official public chat channel that comes up when you start the game. You can leave it but it means your starting corp can always stay in touch if they want." Added to the OP. How is that not your run of the mill public chat channel?
Alistrina Sassoire University of Caille Gallente Federation 0	Posted - 2015.02.10 23:28:11 - [140] - Quote We've tried to create public chat channels but they don't get used, and there are multiples of them. Having a social connection to your old starter corp as standard will make it work.
Sisohiv Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 265	Posted - 2015.02.10 23:39:38 - [141] - Quote When I have the option to unsub for the duration of a war dec, do whatever. Most of CAS content is handled through private chat channels anyway.
Anhenka The Cult of Personality DARKNESS. 1027	Posted - 2015.02.10 23:40:40 - [142] - Quote Alistrina Sassoire wrote: We've tried to create public chat channels but they don't get used, and there are multiples of them. Having a social connection to your old starter corp as standard will make it work. Nobody has any interest in joining your public chat channel, but a public chat channel that's connected with an NPC corp will somehow magically work better.... why? Do you think there are hordes of people who are desperate to reconnect with their old buddies in the NPC corp they left behind, but have no interest in hanging out in a public channel, yet would gladly hang out in a random channel out of a.. shared remembrance of an NPC corp?
Alistrina Sassoire University of Caille Gallente Federation 0	Posted - 2015.02.10 23:57:35 - [143] - Quote There are a lot of people who don't want to leave their starter corp behind, yes, and although we have tried to create public channels they are simply not well known about because there aren't the facilities in the starter corps to organise such a thing. While it may be of no benefit for yourself it doesn't mean it doesn't have a benefit.
Jenshae Chiroptera The Volition Cult 897	Posted - 2015.02.11 00:43:45 - [144] - Quote For example, there is no MoTD in NPC corps to get people to join the other channel. So people that leave have to hope others will keep linking the other channel, over and over and over again. CSM Ten movement for change. CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids. Status: Rabid carebear Blog
Antonio Steele Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 36	Posted - 2015.02.11 15:53:45 - [145] - Quote Anhenka wrote: Alistrina Sassoire wrote: We've tried to create public chat channels but they don't get used, and there are multiples of them. Having a social connection to your old starter corp as standard will make it work. Nobody has any interest in joining your public chat channel, but a public chat channel that's connected with an NPC corp will somehow magically work better.... why? Do you think there are hordes of people who are desperate to reconnect with their old buddies in the NPC corp they left behind, but have no interest in hanging out in a public channel, yet would gladly hang out in a random channel out of a.. shared remembrance of an NPC corp? Maybe for most NPC corps that is the case, but for us CAS members it's a whole different story. There are even player corps for CAS members who left CAS but want to still be part of the community. There is CAS, and then there is all the other NPC corps lol!
Luna Arindale Ubuntu Inc. The Fourth District 50	Posted - 2015.02.11 17:36:18 - [146] - Quote I remember way back, in December of 2012 when I made this character. I was three days old, thereabouts, and I heard in my little npc chat about something called the CCD. So I asked what it was, they linked a system into the channel. I plotted a course was given an incursus and told to follow orders. Fleet comp was around 70-80 people all in CAS, most noobies, in frigates with a few cruisers and destroyers. Boiglio (I think I spelled that right, it has been 2 years) was the FC for the day, and I had no idea what to do. We fleet warped to the first gate into Syndicate, all jumped through, Goonswarm gate camp. I burned at a stabber and in about 10 seconds I was dead and podded. (I think it was a stabber might of been the t2) Probally the most memorable experience I have ever had in EvE at that time. I think do not support any more nerfs to NPC corps and their lifestyle as it would hurt new players to eve and decrease the influx of new energy that all corps and players thrive on. Eve is a game of player driven content, do not try to stop the Sandbox.
Barbara Nichole Cryogenic Consultancy 677	Posted - 2015.02.11 19:19:03 - [147] - Quote I disagree with the whole gist of this op's thread. high sec should not be smaller especially due to the fact that it houses 80% of the player base.. High sec should not be null sec lite.. should not be thought of as noob training wheels... should not be broken into small pockets of unplayable safe space for week olds only. Avoiding wardecs is not the main reason people stay or move into npc corps... community, anonymity, and lack of commitment to a direction are the primary reasons people stay in NPC corps. High sec should be an equivalent yet entirely different style of play to low sec or null sec. Currently high sec and even NPC corps are not the panacea of 100% safe play you are supposing them to be. Lore supports high sec as it is. If you kill high sec you kill EVE. -á-á- remove the cloaked from local; free intel is the real problem, not-á "afk" cloaking-á- [IMG]http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a208/DawnFrostbringer/consultsig.jpg[/IMG]
Jenshae Chiroptera The Volition Cult 909	Posted - 2015.02.11 21:13:17 - [148] - Quote Barbara Nichole wrote: high sec ... due to the fact that it houses 80% of the player base.. . I took a Spectre fleet through Provi tonight and out into Catch. We welped but they got to see what Null can be like, how empty so many system are, how it is not full of people out there waiting to drop capitals on them. I think that 80% are hiding in high sec, where it is safe and far too profitable means they are missing out on so much that EVE has to offer and indicates to me that EVE must have some core design flaws if it is weighted that way. CSM Ten movement for change. CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids. Status: Rabid carebear Blog
Dersen Lowery Drinking in Station 1453	Posted - 2015.02.11 21:41:36 - [149] - Quote Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: I think that 80% are hiding in high sec, where it is safe and far too profitable means they are missing out on so much that EVE has to offer and indicates to me that EVE must have some core design flaws if it is weighted that way. Estimates of high sec's profitability are wildly exaggerated. Sure, the dedicated and the obsessed and those with a knack for certain trades can make money hand over fist in high sec, because in Jita as in Vegas the smart money is on the gamblers, not on the game. But for every one of those, and for every pilot in a blinged-out Nightmare sleepwalking through another Incursion site, and for every pilot painstakingly min/maxing their Sisters of EVE L4s, there are hundreds or thousands of high sec dwellers making their money from bounties and (LOL) salvage, sitting on mountains of LP that they either don't know what to do with or can't be bothered to take advantage of because :effort:, selling to whatever buy order is around as long as the offer isn't completely insulting, and so on. I remember CCP publishing the amount in the average EVE player's wallet one Fanfest, and it was not a lot of ISK. Just as there are many more people in Vegas playing the games than there are people playing the players. Proud founder and member of the Belligerent Desirables.
Anhenka The Cult of Personality DARKNESS. 1031	Posted - 2015.02.11 21:52:50 - [150] - Quote Barbara Nichole wrote: I disagree with the whole gist of this op's thread. high sec should not be smaller especially due to the fact that it houses 80% of the player base.. High sec should not be null sec lite.. should not be thought of as noob training wheels... should not be broken into small pockets of unplayable safe space for week olds only. Avoiding wardecs is not the main reason people stay or move into npc corps... community, anonymity, and lack of commitment to a direction are the primary reasons people stay in NPC corps. High sec should be an equivalent yet entirely different style of play to low sec or null sec. Currently high sec and even NPC corps are not the panacea of 100% safe play you are supposing them to be. Lore supports high sec as it is. If you kill high sec you kill EVE. It has 80% of the characters on active subscriptions in the game. It's a very important distinction. For example, I have 3 characters in nullsec, one in low, and 7 in highsec. Yet 99% of my play time is on the three in null. Behind each low, null, or WH player, there's several alts, which distorts the frequently bandied around statistics about highsec playerbase supremacy. That being said, I completely agree with you on how bad of an idea the OP's proposals is.
Jenshae Chiroptera The Volition Cult 912	Posted - 2015.02.12 02:54:57 - [151] - Quote I think the bandied about figures can account for active time. CSM Ten movement for change. CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids. Status: Rabid carebear Blog
Caleb Seremshur The Atomic Fallout Kids 482	Posted - 2015.02.12 03:17:10 - [152] - Quote Luna Arindale wrote: I remember way back, in December of 2012 when I made this character. I was three days old, thereabouts, and I heard in my little npc chat about something called the CCD. So I asked what it was, they linked a system into the channel. I plotted a course was given an incursus and told to follow orders. Fleet comp was around 70-80 people all in CAS, most noobies, in frigates with a few cruisers and destroyers. Boiglio (I think I spelled that right, it has been 2 years) was the FC for the day, and I had no idea what to do. We fleet warped to the first gate into Syndicate, all jumped through, Goonswarm gate camp. I burned at a stabber and in about 10 seconds I was dead and podded. (I think it was a stabber might of been the t2) Probally the most memorable experience I have ever had in EvE at that time. I think do not support any more nerfs to NPC corps and their lifestyle as it would hurt new players to eve and decrease the influx of new energy that all corps and players thrive on. Eve is a game of player driven content, do not try to stop the Sandbox. EVE doesn't need any more mechanical influences creating pressure on people to move in one way or another. What couldn't hurt is more alternatives somewhere half-way between player corps and NPC corps, like FW. Something that won't devolve into the 'content carousel' of FW or the frankly inane design of incursions. and that's a very hard thing to do because once you reach a point where you can solo a specific piece of content it also becomes very easy to farm it as well. Faction warfare pilot and solo/small gang PVP advocate
Jenshae Chiroptera The Volition Cult 912	Posted - 2015.02.12 03:19:52 - [153] - Quote When you are as comfortable and safe as you can get, earning more than most anywhere else, without any limitations; what motivates you to move out? NPC corps are like the parent's home that doesn't kick the kids out. CSM Ten movement for change. CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids. Status: Rabid carebear Blog
Caleb Seremshur The Atomic Fallout Kids 482	Posted - 2015.02.12 03:35:04 - [154] - Quote That's a bit reductive. NPC corps are pretty limiting insofar as not allowing the participants to have their own space territory. and that's a kicker... because not everyone cares about owning space and that these individuals aren't really catered for. A proper nomadic lifestyle isn't deemed really feasible because you can dock in NPC space even if you're -10 to the faction owning it (in pirate space). So that's at least a couple of valid lifestyles/playstyles obsoleted right there. Yeah there's a couple of easy answers to fix the games most immediate problems but they're as drastic as jumpdrive changes so don't expect to ever see them - unless of course EVE is actually dying (and it was dying a slow, drawn out death). Faction warfare pilot and solo/small gang PVP advocate
Donnachadh United Allegiance of Undesirables 149	Posted - 2015.02.12 03:51:44 - [155] - Quote Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: When you are as comfortable and safe as you can get, earning more than most anywhere else, without any limitations; what motivates you to move out? NPC corps are like the parent's home that doesn't kick the kids out. Again with the inflated ideas of how fast money can be made in high sec by the average player. Setting aside a few notable exceptions like Incursion runners the balance between the cost of ships used and the ISK per hour is reasonably well balanced across ALL of the EvE universe. I specifically want to deal with this idea of "motivating" players to move out of high sec. There is nothing you can change about high sec that will "motivate" players to move into low or nul, move them out of the game yes but not into low or nul. If you want the players out of high sec then you NEED to change low and nul so that people want to be there instead. Been in nul on another character and there was nothing there I wanted to be a part of and given the stagnation in nul over the past several years it is a safe bet that a lot of other people feel the same way. It was posted above that they lead a group of players into nul and those players were amazed at what they see, this is exactly the type of thing that needs to happen. The problem here is that these things are often done by players like myself and there is always the risk that the corp/alliance that holds sov will take exception to you being there and wipe you all out. On the other hand if these nul excursions were done by the corps/alliances and they offered up some protection instead of treating all these players as easy targets one has to wonder what that would do for getting players into nul? Low sec is the same way, my former nul charcter is currently in a low sec corp/alliance and it is significantly more fun than nul. Even so the majority of the players in low treat everyone that is not a part of their corp/alliance as a target. Like nul what would happen to low if those who call it home offered up these tours of low sec life in as safe a manor as possible instead of treating everyone as a target? While you rail on about how we need to get players out of high sec and what we need to change to force them out the reverse is actually the truth. We need more opportunities like the examples above so players are encouraged to leave high sec, but then that would require a significant change in the way the low and nul sec players actually play the game and I wonder if they are willing to do it?
BrundleMeth Caldari Provisions Caldari State 370	Posted - 2015.02.12 20:46:49 - [156] - Quote Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: Maybe the carrot approach with social corporations is not the best idea? How about something that should make people scream and gnash their teeth at first but should settle down with time? In order to fly Tech 2 & 3 ships, pirate, faction and capital ships you need to be in a private corporation. If you quit a private corporation and go back to an NPC one, you have 24 hours to move your ships before your license to fly them is revoked. This means the new players are free to stay there in T1 ships safely while there is a foot pushing veterans out the door. I EARNED the right to fly Tech 2 & 3 Ships by waiting for months to get the necessary Skill Points. Just TRY to take them away from me just to make me join a Player Corp and I'd just quit. AFTER I first biomassed all my characters and destroyed all my ships and ISK. No one would get anything...
Vector Symian 0 Fear 397	Posted - 2015.02.13 03:02:22 - [157] - Quote I believe that to social interaction being cultivated by Npc Communities, The Scope Project and CAS academy is the solution you require Vapor Ventrillian is proactively getting people to enjoy the fleet Mechanics and more exciting aspects of eve using the social interaction to draw people deeper into the gameplay 1- Npc corps and the starting points for new corporations and alliances 2- They are the breeding grounds of new ideas and concepts that is rivalled by none 3- It forces people of opposing views to debate themselves into exhaustion which can lead to a mutually respectful relationship "I may not agree with you but that doesn't mean I don't trust you'll warn me when a gankers coming" 4- It is already suffering from an 11% tax something I intend to petition 5- People need to be allowed to ignore the political crap that goes on if that is their wish -their are levels to this game and as a game do as they would wish 6- The Scope chat in particular is know for its no holds barred chat and it gives the noob a very clear reality of what can happen by explaining the darker side of eve with humour and light trolling Summery- The Np corps are not only awesome but they are a fundamental institution that has kept bitter vets and noobs entertained for years
Jenshae Chiroptera The Volition Cult 918	Posted - 2015.02.13 03:16:33 - [158] - Quote BrundleMeth wrote: Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: Maybe the carrot approach with social corporations is not the best idea? How about something that should make people scream and gnash their teeth at first but should settle down with time? In order to fly Tech 2 & 3 ships, pirate, faction and capital ships you need to be in a private corporation. If you quit a private corporation and go back to an NPC one, you have 24 hours to move your ships before your license to fly them is revoked. This means the new players are free to stay there in T1 ships safely while there is a foot pushing veterans out the door. I EARNED the right to fly Tech 2 & 3 Ships by waiting for months to get the necessary Skill Points. Just TRY to take them away from me just to make me join a Player Corp and I'd just quit. AFTER I first biomassed all my characters and destroyed all my ships and ISK. No one would get anything... That might be worth it. "Oh look. CCP hardened the F- up. Time to log back in and check it out." The funny thing about changes is that some people hate them, some people love them and newbies accept them not knowing any better. CSM Ten movement for change. CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids. Status: Rabid carebear Blog
Anthar Thebess 863	Posted - 2015.02.13 14:05:38 - [159] - Quote This is very easy. Characters older than 6 months could just get a message : "Your Emperor / President requires help in fight against XX , you are being delegated to YYYY FW corp" To summarize if you are older than 6 month every time you are out of player corporation you are being transferred to FW militia NPC corporation.
Mr Twinkie Black Serpent Technologies Black Legion. 10	Posted - 2015.02.13 14:07:23 - [160] - Quote Up the taxes to like 30%
Jenshae Chiroptera The Volition Cult 918	Posted - 2015.02.13 14:15:08 - [161] - Quote Mr Twinkie wrote: Up the taxes to like 30% Hits newbies. Anthar Thebess wrote: This is very easy. Characters older than 6 months could just get a message : "Your Emperor / President requires help in fight against XX , you are being delegated to YYYY FW corp" To summarize if you are older than 6 month every time you are out of player corporation you are being transferred to FW militia NPC corporation. I like this idea as food for thought. CSM Ten movement for change. CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids. Status: Rabid carebear Blog
Zimmer Jones Aliastra Gallente Federation 114	Posted - 2015.02.13 16:33:52 - [162] - Quote Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: Mr Twinkie wrote: Up the taxes to like 30% Hits newbies. Anthar Thebess wrote: This is very easy. Characters older than 6 months could just get a message : "Your Emperor / President requires help in fight against XX , you are being delegated to YYYY FW corp" To summarize if you are older than 6 month every time you are out of player corporation you are being transferred to FW militia NPC corporation. I like this idea as food for thought. So force people into a game niche and loss of factional standings just because RL happens. Yet another idea devoid of carrots. Why do you hate the player base? The bulk of you ideas swing draconian sticks, and offer no carrots. By this point you are not only beating a dead horse, its a pantomime dead horse.
Anhenka The Cult of Personality DARKNESS. 1043	Posted - 2015.02.13 16:40:33 - [163] - Quote I have a feeling at least half the entries in this threads are ideas the poster knows are terrible, but posts in a sort of morbid fascination to see if the OP thinks its a good idea. "hehe, let's post this, he can't possible think this is a goo.... oh wow. He thinks it's worth considering. cringe"
Rivr Luzade Coreli Corporation The Kadeshi 1218	Posted - 2015.02.13 19:55:53 - [164] - Quote Just read the latest joke about BRAVE losing yet another couple of billions from their wallets. Very encouraging stories to set out to a PC. ^^ Station Tab :: Agent Shuffling :: Double Standing Gain
Tyranis Marcus Bloody Heathens 1408	Posted - 2015.02.13 20:53:00 - [165] - Quote The 11% npc corp tax was already a blunt instrument that shouldn't have been applied. If anything, that should be reversed and the situation left alone. If player corps and alliances want to recruit new players, they can be decent enough to not get a reputation for being dicks to their members. End of story. Eve has a lot of politics (and other things) that are just not fun for a lot of people who otherwise enjoy the game. Trying to force people to join groups they don't want to be a part of is not the way to increase the longevity of the game or the rl company that owns it, I can tell you that much. Besides, the upcoming highsec intracorp aggression changes should go a long ways towards making player corp life look more attractive to some of the crowd who have avoided it, and will make the recruiting process look easier to plenty of corps. As far as people who just want to stay in an npc corp? Fine. Let them. It's their subscription fee. (And it's still helping to fund the development of new features that you'll use and benefit from, so why chase them off?) Do not run. We are your friends.
Sobaan Tali Caldari Quick Reaction Force 422	Posted - 2015.02.13 23:28:39 - [166] - Quote It surprises me to this day how so up-in-arms people get about other players' playstyles. What difference does it really make to you or I what the hell Joe Schmoe does or doesn't on the other side of New Eden unless he is directly and adversely affecting your gameplay? Last time I checked, being in an NPC corp isn't really hurting anyone else's way of playing (and they are already paying a pretty hefty tax for being there too). "But, they can't be war-decked." So? Since when was that the only way to blow up his stuff? Get a few friends together and suicide him, if you're that adamant on getting up in his face. "Adapt and overcome," sounds familiar, doesn't it? It's quite simple really; people in NPC corps aren't bothering anyone, even if they are there to avoid people like yourself. Leave them the **** alone. There is no rule that states all players must play like you. My Lord, it's like the whole "Force everyone in high-sec out of high-sec because high-sec is high-sec and isn't null-sec/low-sec/everyone esle's way of playing," argument.
Syn Shi School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State 107	Posted - 2015.02.14 01:00:12 - [167] - Quote Sobaan Tali wrote: It surprises me to this day how so up-in-arms people get about other players' playstyles. What difference does it really make to you or I what the hell Joe Schmoe does or doesn't on the other side of New Eden unless he is directly and adversely affecting your gameplay? Last time I checked, being in an NPC corp isn't really hurting anyone else's way of playing (and they are already paying a pretty hefty tax for being there too). "But, they can't be war-decked." So? Since when was that the only way to blow up his stuff? Get a few friends together and suicide him, if you're that adamant on getting up in his face. "Adapt and overcome," sounds familiar, doesn't it? It's quite simple really; people in NPC corps aren't bothering anyone, even if they are there to avoid people like yourself. Leave them the **** alone. There is no rule that states all players must play like you. My Lord, it's like the whole "Force everyone in high-sec out of high-sec because high-sec is high-sec and isn't null-sec/low-sec/everyone esle's way of playing," argument. Nullsec is the new high sec. I think the OP is butt hurt she has to pay someone to pve in null.
Kaarous Aldurald Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic 11765	Posted - 2015.02.14 01:03:46 - [168] - Quote Tyranis Marcus wrote: The 11% npc corp tax was already a blunt instrument that shouldn't have been applied. If anything, that should be reversed and the situation left alone. That was a good laugh. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs.
Jenshae Chiroptera The Volition Cult 919	Posted - 2015.02.14 02:20:15 - [169] - Quote Anhenka wrote: I have a feeling at least half the entries in this threads are ideas the poster knows are terrible, but posts in a sort of morbid fascination to see if the OP thinks its a good idea. "hehe, let's post this, he can't possible think this is a goo.... oh wow. He thinks it's worth considering. cringe" Too much typing so copy and paste time, for you: Professor John Morreall wrote: Let me give you an example. A bunch of paint engineers were moaning and bitching about how hard it is to get paint off a house. One guy says, "Why don't we just put gunpowder in the paint and blow it off the house?" That led people to think, "What could we do that would be the equivalent of gunpowder?" They came up with a chemical they added to the paint and when you wanted to remove the paint you did a light wash with a second chemical over the first one. That didn't blow it off the house, but it allowed it to drop off. CSM Ten movement for change. CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids. Status: Rabid carebear Blog
Mila Zonae Run and Gun Mercenary Corps Forsaken Asylum 0	Posted - 2015.02.16 09:44:29 - [170] - Quote ShahFluffers wrote: OP's "penalty" is WAY too stiff. - creating a player corp should cost actual ISK... to make it more of an investment (so creating multiple "shell corps" can potentially be expensive) and set a (small) barrier of entry for newbies (so they don't create a corporation for giggles and find out the hard way why an "all newbie corp" is a bad idea). 50 million ISK would not be unreasonable considering that it is the minimum amount required to declare war. Creating a Corp should cost actual ISK, there is a huge gap in ISK cost between creating a Corp and Creating an Alliance. Even being around 250million would not be a bad idea. Would make CEOs and founders feel more invested into their Corporation, would also keep people from making a new Corp every other month when they come up with a cooler name for a new Corp. Would go against getting players out of NPC Corps though unless it included a tax hike in NPC Corps along with it.
Xe'Cara'eos A Big Enough Lever 225	Posted - 2015.02.16 13:29:26 - [171] - Quote after 2 months, players get a notification "in 28 days time, should you still remain in [current starter corp], you will be moved to a non-starter corporation, beware, non-starter corporations can be (and often are), wardecced, for more information on war declarations, please see the evelopedia artical [link]. Please note that when you are at war, the only safe place is the inside of a station. You can still choose to join a player-run corporation, for a list of current advertisements, please see the corp recruitment page [link]" For posting an idea into F&I: come up with idea, try and think how people could abuse this, try to fix your idea - loop the process until you can't see how it could be abused, then post to the forums to let us figure out how to abuse it..... If your idea can be abused, it [u]WILL[/u] be.
Syn Shi School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State 110	Posted - 2015.02.16 15:51:39 - [172] - Quote Xe'Cara'eos wrote: after 2 months, players get a notification "in 28 days time, should you still remain in [current starter corp], you will be moved to a non-starter corporation, beware, non-starter corporations can be (and often are), wardecced, for more information on war declarations, please see the evelopedia artical [link]. Please note that when you are at war, the only safe place is the inside of a station. You can still choose to join a player-run corporation, for a list of current advertisements, please see the corp recruitment page [link]" The result would be my sub would end. As apparently playing the way I want to in a sand box has become invalid. How can Eve be a sandbox when a certain play style is being forced on a player?
Xe'Cara'eos A Big Enough Lever 225	Posted - 2015.02.16 17:54:06 - [173] - Quote Syn Shi wrote: Xe'Cara'eos wrote: after 2 months, players get a notification "in 28 days time, should you still remain in [current starter corp], you will be moved to a non-starter corporation, beware, non-starter corporations can be (and often are), wardecced, for more information on war declarations, please see the evelopedia artical [link]. Please note that when you are at war, the only safe place is the inside of a station. You can still choose to join a player-run corporation, for a list of current advertisements, please see the corp recruitment page [link]" The result would be my sub would end. As apparently playing the way I want to in a sand box has become invalid. How can Eve be a sandbox when a certain play style is being forced on a player? I appreciate that, but from a player retention point of view, what do you do to keep people playing? could you not make a mission running corp with some friends, for instance? Also, by evading wardecs via NPC corp, are you truly playing in the sandbox? or are you just sitting on the edge? I apologise if that sounds like an attack on you, it's not meant to be, but I can't find the better way to word it For posting an idea into F&I: come up with idea, try and think how people could abuse this, try to fix your idea - loop the process until you can't see how it could be abused, then post to the forums to let us figure out how to abuse it..... If your idea can be abused, it [u]WILL[/u] be.
Corraidhin Farsaidh Farsaidh's Freeborn 964	Posted - 2015.02.16 20:04:13 - [174] - Quote Xe'Cara'eos wrote: I appreciate that, but from a player retention point of view, what do you do to keep people playing? could you not make a mission running corp with some friends, for instance? Also, by evading wardecs via NPC corp, are you truly playing in the sandbox? or are you just sitting on the edge? I apologise if that sounds like an attack on you, it's not meant to be, but I can't find the better way to word it NPC players are still in the sandbox as someone can still come along and gank their sandcastles...it just takes more effort to organize than declare war and camp gates/stations...
Reeses Peices State War Academy Caldari State 2	Posted - 2015.02.16 20:36:32 - [175] - Quote Forcing Wardecs on players is not emergent gameplay. If you are looking for war targets why don't you go after groups that want to fight. I'm sure you can find several such groups in all spaces of EvE. There is no point to continue to beat a dead horse, they will likely not play if it is forced and this will take away from EvE rather than add to it.
Jenshae Chiroptera The Volition Cult 939	Posted - 2015.02.17 05:03:42 - [176] - Quote Discussing it today with some people, the conclusion was that there needs to be better ways for corps to band together. Maybe some sort of list of "white knight" corps that would move into newbie corp's system and join the war with them. CSM Ten movement for change. CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids. Status: Rabid carebear Blog
Dave Stark 7360	Posted - 2015.02.17 09:56:22 - [177] - Quote ever considered just introducing things that players would actually want to work together for that offers some tangiable benefit other than a wardeccable chat channel? cos like, that's literally all high sec corps are. wardeccable chat channels. until that changes, there's quite literally no reason to not either chain fold 1 man alt corps, or sit in the npc corp.
Jenshae Chiroptera The Volition Cult 943	Posted - 2015.02.17 15:56:47 - [178] - Quote Dave Stark wrote: ever considered just introducing things that players would actually want to work together for that offers some tangiable benefit other than a wardeccable chat channel?. Completely rough idea but jotting it down before I forget it. What if high sec systems worked a bit like null sec in that: - If your corp HQ is in a system - and your faction with the rulers of that system as a corp and individual are high - then you can raise the value of that system. Value: - better ore anomolies with larger rocks (not suggesting low, null or WH ore be in them) - better ratting, tougher sites, more frequent and paid sites (again in line with how high sec ISK levels should be) - better trade with your home station - better piracy options - missions get directed to your system more often. Now, you have a system you want to defend, either keeping people out or drawing them in and into your corporation. If everyone leaves the corporation then all that value degrades rapidly and they have to try build it up again. CSM Ten movement for change. CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids. Status: Rabid carebear Blog
Donnachadh United Allegiance of Undesirables 162	Posted - 2015.02.18 02:27:06 - [179] - Quote Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: Dave Stark wrote: ever considered just introducing things that players would actually want to work together for that offers some tangiable benefit other than a wardeccable chat channel?. Completely rough idea but jotting it down before I forget it. What if high sec systems worked a bit like null sec in that: - If your corp HQ is in a system - and your faction with the rulers of that system as a corp and individual are high - then you can raise the value of that system. Value: - better ore anomolies with larger rocks (not suggesting low, null or WH ore be in them) - better ratting, tougher sites, more frequent and paid sites (again in line with how high sec ISK levels should be) - better trade with your home station - better piracy options - missions get directed to your system more often. Now, you have a system you want to defend, either keeping people out or drawing them in and into your corporation. If everyone leaves the corporation then all that value degrades rapidly and they have to try build it up again. More bad ideas from a PvP player on how to force others into a play style they want no part of. When will you all figure this out. Those who want to fight will. Those who do not want to NEVER will no matter what changes you make. This whole topic and dozens of others like it are a sad testimony to the state of PvP in EvE. PvP has fallen to such a state that all you people can do is sit around and try to dream up really bad ideas on how to force others to play the game the way YOU WANT THEM TO. Everyone keeps telling me this is a sandbox where we all have to figure out how to live and play next to all the others in the box. When a PvE player complains about the state of things you PvP players are quick to trot out the "sandbox" flag and tell them to adapt or quit playing. Well here is your "sandbox" flag right in your face, adapt to how others want to play the game or get out.
Anhenka The Cult of Personality DARKNESS. 1071	Posted - 2015.02.18 03:38:31 - [180] - Quote Donnachadh wrote: Everyone keeps telling me this is a sandbox where we all have to figure out how to live and play next to all the others in the box. When a PvE player complains about the state of things you PvP players are quick to trot out the "sandbox" flag and tell them to adapt or quit playing. Well here is your "sandbox" flag right in your face, adapt to how others want to play the game or get out. Please don't lump all PvP players in with the OP. That's just insulting. Most of us want improvement so that people choose to fight over things, not forcing everyone else to fight on principle. P.S: I have corrupted many a miner and indy player in the past. Even those who believed they would never like it. A lot only like small gang and home defense stuff, but typically even the most die hard miner gets a bit of a rush from yolo charging at an enemy group while in a home defense fleet. Don't knock it till you try it. Highsec gankers and wardeccers are basically the pond scum of the PvP world, don't use them as an example for what you think all primary PvP players are like :(
Reeses Peices State War Academy Caldari State 4	Posted - 2015.02.18 04:17:29 - [181] - Quote Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: Discussing it today with some people, the conclusion was that there needs to be better ways for corps to band together. Maybe some sort of list of "white knight" corps that would move into newbie corp's system and join the war with them. Do these even still exist, I was in one years ago, but they tend to fold to Awoxx tactics, and eventually those white knights eventually join the dark side as well. The rest are just the care bears who refuse to put SP into anything capable of PVP.
Jenshae Chiroptera The Volition Cult 950	Posted - 2015.02.18 06:52:44 - [182] - Quote I wouldn't know. Never was in one. I just stick to my principles and to hell with the rest. If a group of gankers ever rose to a point of being able to blow up every ship I had to try prove a point .... why then I would just fly rookie ships and accept that is my version of EVE. I would rather spite people than cave. AWOXing can now be turned off. CSM Ten movement for change. CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids. Status: Rabid carebear Blog
Jenshae Chiroptera The Volition Cult 950	Posted - 2015.02.18 07:00:23 - [183] - Quote Donnachadh wrote: This whole topic and dozens of others like it are a sad testimony to the state of ... ... EVE. There are too many ways for veterans to circumvent risk and strike out at others. There are too many ways that people sit far too safe, farming and skewing the markets. (This goes for Null Sec also and I have posts and a thread or two addressing that.) CSM Ten movement for change. CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids. Status: Rabid carebear Blog
Reeses Peices State War Academy Caldari State 4	Posted - 2015.02.18 07:28:07 - [184] - Quote Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: I wouldn't know. Never was in one. I just stick to my principles and to hell with the rest. If a group of gankers ever rose to a point of being able to blow up every ship I had to try prove a point .... why then I would just fly rookie ships and accept that is my version of EVE. I would rather spite people than cave. AWOXing can now be turned off. You can't turn off true awoxxing. It is best done leading corp mates into a trap with alts or friends.
Jenshae Chiroptera The Volition Cult 953	Posted - 2015.02.18 13:56:47 - [185] - Quote Reeses Peices wrote: Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: AWOXing can now be turned off. You can't turn off true awoxxing. It is best done leading corp mates into a trap with alts or friends. I don't really get it. People say that it has nothing to do with their personality but when given absolute freedom they make the choice to ruin someone's day. That says to me that they have some tendencies that they might be in denial about. CSM Ten movement for change. CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids. Status: Rabid carebear Blog
Dave Stark 7384	Posted - 2015.02.18 14:10:30 - [186] - Quote Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: Dave Stark wrote: ever considered just introducing things that players would actually want to work together for that offers some tangiable benefit other than a wardeccable chat channel?. Completely rough idea but jotting it down before I forget it. What if high sec systems worked a bit like null sec in that: - If your corp HQ is in a system - and your faction with the rulers of that system as a corp and individual are high - then you can raise the value of that system. Value: - better ore anomolies with larger rocks (not suggesting low, null or WH ore be in them) - better ratting, tougher sites, more frequent and paid sites (again in line with how high sec ISK levels should be) - better trade with your home station - better piracy options - missions get directed to your system more often. Now, you have a system you want to defend, either keeping people out or drawing them in and into your corporation. If everyone leaves the corporation then all that value degrades rapidly and they have to try build it up again. i'll be honest, none of those make me want to not fold a 1 man alt corp and run incursions all day for isk. bigger asteroids - pretty much irrelevant. if i'm at the keyboard i won't be mining for isk, and if i'm afk then i don't really care about the isk per hour. if you actually want the minerals - it's still better to just chain incursion sites in a fleet then buy the minerals. unless the sites offered a better isk/hour than l4 missions and/or incursions, i won't be bothering to defend them either. unless my home station is jita 4-4, i won't be trading there either. not sure if i really give a **** how many other people are missioning in my system to be honest, unless maybe i was selling ammo at a silly mark up. also depending on how this system is "attacked" and "defended" would depend on how inclined i am to bother to try and do either of them. still - there's not a lot there that i'd be interested in defending.
Black Pedro Yammerschooner 629	Posted - 2015.02.18 16:18:54 - [187] - Quote Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: Dave Stark wrote: ever considered just introducing things that players would actually want to work together for that offers some tangiable benefit other than a wardeccable chat channel?. Completely rough idea but jotting it down before I forget it. What if high sec systems worked a bit like null sec in that: - If your corp HQ is in a system - and your faction with the rulers of that system as a corp and individual are high - then you can raise the value of that system. Value: - better ore anomolies with larger rocks (not suggesting low, null or WH ore be in them) - better ratting, tougher sites, more frequent and paid sites (again in line with how high sec ISK levels should be) - better trade with your home station - better piracy options - missions get directed to your system more often. Now, you have a system you want to defend, either keeping people out or drawing them in and into your corporation. If everyone leaves the corporation then all that value degrades rapidly and they have to try build it up again. These are good ideas that could be fleshed out a bit into a workable system that provides some risk vs. reward to highsec. You could also tie these bonuses to deployables which are moderately expensive and/or take some group effort to put up (kind of like POCOs), but provide significant bonuses (and are vulnerable). Corporations would then have a persistent identity, the added income potential would give a reason for players to join, and more importantly a reason to stay with and defend the corporation. Those that don't want the responsibility of defending a corp still can operate in highsec, but at reduced income without them. The trick is balancing it so that once established, these corps are attractive, but not too lucrative so that no one can start a new one and be competitive in a reasonable time, and that these income bonuses can be attacked and disrupted/destroyed by a wardec, but not too easily so that no one ever bothers to build/upgrade/deploy them. It also naturally favours larger corps, which I don't think is a necessarily a problem but may require some other mechanisms to even the playing field a bit for medium-sized corps. Dangle a big enough carrot and many players will leave NPC corps and band together for mutual benefit. Sabriz Adoudel for CSM 10 is a good idea.
Syn Shi School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State 122	Posted - 2015.02.18 18:21:15 - [188] - Quote Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: Dave Stark wrote: ever considered just introducing things that players would actually want to work together for that offers some tangiable benefit other than a wardeccable chat channel?. Completely rough idea but jotting it down before I forget it. What if high sec systems worked a bit like null sec in that: - If your corp HQ is in a system - and your faction with the rulers of that system as a corp and individual are high - then you can raise the value of that system. Value: - better ore anomolies with larger rocks (not suggesting low, null or WH ore be in them) - better ratting, tougher sites, more frequent and paid sites (again in line with how high sec ISK levels should be) - better trade with your home station - better piracy options - missions get directed to your system more often. Now, you have a system you want to defend, either keeping people out or drawing them in and into your corporation. If everyone leaves the corporation then all that value degrades rapidly and they have to try build it up again. As long as negative standings are included. Shoot a player, lose standing with who they have a positive standing in. You have a negative standing, no access to anything that faction controls. Negative standing low enough, ship destroyed and you are podded. If you have items in their station and drop below a certain level, you lose your items. I am sure there is more risk we can include but its a start.
Ravasta Helugo Republic University Minmatar Republic 298	Posted - 2015.02.18 19:15:40 - [189] - Quote FoxFire Ayderan wrote: Antonio Steele wrote: I'll make a counter proposal. Allow players to return to their starter corps once they leave player corps rather than forcing them into places like the scope. It doesn't really hurt things as either way they get the NPC corp perks and penalties, and it would possibly get a lot of people like me (and there are many of us) to try players corps, and quite possibly stay. What's the worst that could happen? Counter-counter proposal. Allow players to choose the NPC corp they'd like to be in (contingent on personal standings). Each can have their own plusses and minuses. Maybe one has much higher taxes (say 20%), but you get quicker CONCORD response where they have offices. Maybe one has much lower taxes and CONCORD takes longer to arrive to a ganking, or they are open to limited War Decs. One corp has a better community like your NPC corp, so that could be an appeal. They might have different modifiers to standing increases with various factions. Different market tax rates. Different locations and stations of course. I'm sure there would be a number of ways to balance the good and bad of each NPC corp. Woah, that's actually a really good idea. And if any benefit/penalty was unbalanced they could just tweak it in the next patch a corporate policy update. I do like the idea of some corps being at war with other corps though, as long as it wasn't troublesome.
Jel Kishmond Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 0	Posted - 2015.02.18 22:54:51 - [190] - Quote For me, its not about AWOX at all so the toggle does nothing for me. The ease of abuse and one-sidedness of wardec mechanics by griefer corps is my #1 reason for still being in CAS (even today with 4+ years on the clock). I've always preferred small groups and the current wardec system is a pretty good way to kill a small corp. I doubt it will ever be fixed but I would rather see wardec costs overhauled. Include one-sideness as a significant cost component rather than only the size of the target. Having a 1000v10 wardec should cost a heck of a lot more than a 500v500. With that level of imbalance it is more of an extermination than a war and should be priced accordingly. Forcing people out without dealing with the reasons why (like the one-sided wardec problem) isn't really a solution.
Jenshae Chiroptera The Volition Cult 954	Posted - 2015.02.19 02:07:41 - [191] - Quote Syn Shi wrote: Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: Now, you have a system you want to defend, either keeping people out or drawing them in and into your corporation. If everyone leaves the corporation then all that value degrades rapidly and they have to try build it up again. As long as negative standings are included.. I agree there would need to be something on the flip side. CSM Ten movement for change. CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids. Status: Rabid carebear Blog
Donnachadh United Allegiance of Undesirables 162	Posted - 2015.02.19 02:47:56 - [192] - Quote Anhenka wrote: Donnachadh wrote: Everyone keeps telling me this is a sandbox where we all have to figure out how to live and play next to all the others in the box. When a PvE player complains about the state of things you PvP players are quick to trot out the "sandbox" flag and tell them to adapt or quit playing. Well here is your "sandbox" flag right in your face, adapt to how others want to play the game or get out. Please don't lump all PvP players in with the OP. That's just insulting. Most of us want improvement so that people choose to fight over things, not forcing everyone else to fight on principle. P.S: I have corrupted many a miner and indy player in the past. Even those who believed they would never like it. A lot only like small gang and home defense stuff, but typically even the most die hard miner gets a bit of a rush from yolo charging at an enemy group while in a home defense fleet. Don't knock it till you try it. Highsec gankers and wardeccers are basically the pond scum of the PvP world, don't use them as an example for what you think all primary PvP players are like :( Anhenka No insult was intended, it is simply a statement of truth. All one needs to do is browse around these or any other EvE related forum on the net with an open mind and they will see the endless stream of play my way in high sec or get out of the game ideas proposed by the PvP crowd. Likewise and usually it is these same people who are quick and sometime savage in their responses when anyone proposes ideas that would curtail the PvP side of the high sec game, especially ganking and the useless high sec war dec mechanic. All I can think is that life in nul and low sec must be really bad for these players since they keep trying to force others into a game style they do not want especailly when they are so quick to point out htis is a sandbox. I am still given cause to wonder if these people want real PvP action where people can and will fight back, why are they hangin in high sec? On my low sec character I have always found high sec to be a wasteland with no real thrill in it all. Give me a 15 or 20 jump low sec roam with nothing but empty space any day compared to this crap they call PvP in high sec. I know what you mean, I seem to be on a role here in my corp, get new players in give them a little character skills training guidance, give them a little human skills training then take them on a roam with my low sec friends and off they go to have fun blowing stuff up. Makes me feel good when I see them go off knowing that I had a role to play in getting them into something they enjoy in this game, but damn I do miss a lot of them cause they was fun to fly with.
McChicken Combo HalfMayo The Happy Meal 310	Posted - 2015.02.19 02:58:08 - [193] - Quote Sobaan Tali wrote: It surprises me to this day how so up-in-arms people get about other players' playstyles. What difference does it really make to you or I what the hell Joe Schmoe does or doesn't on the other side of New Eden unless he is directly and adversely affecting your gameplay? Last time I checked, being in an NPC corp isn't really hurting anyone else's way of playing (and they are already paying a pretty hefty tax for being there too). "But, they can't be war-decked." So? Since when was that the only way to blow up his stuff? Get a few friends together and suicide him, if you're that adamant on getting up in his face. "Adapt and overcome," sounds familiar, doesn't it? It's a sandbox. Everyone has some level of effect on others as minute as it may be. That gives players all the right to try and impede another player's gameplay. The point your crowd misses on this topic is that it's about risks and rewards, not an inability to theoretically kill a ship. CCP rightfully believes it to be healthy for the game to encourage players to interact with others through player corps. Being in a player corp mechanically increases your risk however. It only makes sense then that it also mechanically increases your rewards for taking that risk. If not, you are not encouraging players to join player corps. To put it more simply, it's not about killing ships. It's about giving players a reason to put themselves at increased risk. Donnachadh wrote: I am still given cause to wonder if these people want real PvP action where people can and will fight back, why are they hangin in high sec? On my low sec character I have always found high sec to be a wasteland with no real thrill in it all. Give me a 15 or 20 jump low sec roam with nothing but empty space any day compared to this crap they call PvP in high sec. If they don't hang out and promote PVP in highsec, it will become a mostly PVP-free zone. It will then become the defacto place to earn your isk, making non-highsec a mostly PVE-free zone. For the sake of balance outside of highsec, it is important to promote PVP elements within highsec. ~ Bookmarks in overview ~ Fleet improvements
Jenshae Chiroptera The Volition Cult 954	Posted - 2015.02.19 03:24:08 - [194] - Quote Donnachadh wrote: .... endless stream of play my way in high sec or get out of the game ideas proposed by the PvP crowd. Likewise and usually it is these same people who are quick and sometime savage in their responses when anyone proposes ideas that would curtail the PvP side of the high sec game, especially ganking and ... https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5207164 CSM Ten movement for change. CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids. Status: Rabid carebear Blog
Donnachadh United Allegiance of Undesirables 163	Posted - 2015.02.20 03:01:22 - [195] - Quote McChicken Combo HalfMayo wrote: If they don't hang out and promote PVP in highsec, it will become a mostly PVP-free zone. It will then become the defacto place to earn your isk, making non-highsec a mostly PVE-free zone. For the sake of balance outside of highsec, it is important to promote PVP elements within highsec. I have no problem with them hangin around in high sec and trying to increase the risk factor, we will have to agree to disagree that such additional risk is needed as a balance in the game, but this misses the point to be made entirely. If they want PvP where other players will actually engage them and shoot back then they NEED to go where that kind of activity happens and stop whining about the high sec players that have no desire to fight. And if they want to hang in high sec to add the "balance" you think is needed then they need to accept the rest of the high sec play style and stop trying to change it into something that it is not. CCP has done a masterful job in general of providing a game that has something for just about every style of gamer and that is what makes EvE unique in the MMO world and it is what keeps thousands of players with diverse interests paying their subscriptions every month. And when we break this down to it's most basic level subscriptions is what CCP needs, and making alot of the changes proposed here and in many other forums would put CCP at risk of losing a large part of their monthly subscriptions. Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: Donnachadh wrote: .... endless stream of play my way in high sec or get out of the game ideas proposed by the PvP crowd. Likewise and usually it is these same people who are quick and sometime savage in their responses when anyone proposes ideas that would curtail the PvP side of the high sec game, especially ganking and ... https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5207164 Interesting, but I fail to see how a topic about a ship that cannot be used in high sec has any bearing on a topic about high sec. And further I fail to see how this has anything to do with your ideas for getting players out of NPC.
Jenshae Chiroptera The Volition Cult 964	Posted - 2015.02.21 04:07:05 - [196] - Quote Donnachadh wrote: CCP has done a masterful job in general of providing a game that has something for just about every style of gamer and .... ... was (most likely is) not their plan but more of happenstance. Quote: The company was started in 1997 when a handful of people bailed out of OZ Interactive, an Icelandic dot-com that gained some measure of fame for cooking up impressive virtual reality technology during the early days of the Internet boom. The founders wrote the beginning of EveGÇÖs plot and sold prospective employees on this vision of creating a space game. They just had no money to fund the effort. GÇ£It is about building a world where everything is an action and reaction to what other players are doing. It targets the base human emotions. People have always formed tribes, and someone always wants to be king.GÇ¥ GÇ£Since thereGÇÖs no legal system, the economy resembles that of a developing nation where people trade based on trust and social relations.GÇ¥ CCP's creative director Torfi Frans Olafsson took to the stage to outline the developer's grander ambitions for Eve... An emphasis on the importance of collaboration between miners was also made. CCP is committed to placing more of the universe into players' hands, with the aim that all services in the game - such as manufacturing and research installations - should ultimately be controlled by players. Senior Producer Andie Nordgren near the end of the presentation ..."Think about home, and then imagine what could lie beyond the known if only you could construct the right kind of stargate." There was a project called "EVE United" that was briefly shown during the final keynote of Fanfest in Iceland, and this is the real prize for CCP. The demo we were shown included a single screen that could launch Eve Online, Vaklyrie and Project Legion, along with a single character you controlled in each game. Many MMOs change too much content over their lifetimes, ruining the game or diluting it away from the original vision - Olafsson. My interpretation is that PVE is meant only as a way to gather resources and people together to go out and fight, try and own sectors of space. Not to sit around grinding the same AI and have that be the start and end of their game. So, there is not intention to provide PVE for "carebears," it is there to equip PVPers. I don't exactly like or agree with it whole heartedly but there it is, so at some point, expect high sec to change quite drastically. Donnachadh wrote: Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: Donnachadh wrote: .... endless stream of play my way in high sec or get out of the game ideas proposed by the PvP crowd. Likewise and usually it is these same people who are quick and sometime savage in their responses when anyone proposes ideas that would curtail the PvP side of the high sec game, especially ganking and ... https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5207164 Interesting, but I fail to see how a topic about a ship that cannot be used in high sec has any bearing on a topic about high sec. And further I fail to see how this has anything to do with your ideas for getting players out of NPC. Orcas go to high sec. Matter of tar brushing. CSM Ten movement for change. CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids. Status: Rabid carebear Blog
Ryuu Towryk The Nephilim Covenant 44	Posted - 2015.02.21 08:56:25 - [197] - Quote Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: Hopelesshobo wrote: 1 man corporations do wonders. Just as bad for the hassle of declaring war on them. There should be a minimum number and activity requirement after the first two weeks. Why does me being a one-man corp hurt you? Do I smell? Sniffs Oh...
Nevyn Auscent Broke Sauce 1923	Posted - 2015.02.21 13:27:57 - [198] - Quote Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: My interpretation is that PVE is meant only as a way to gather resources and people together to go out and fight, try and own sectors of space. Not to sit around grinding the same AI and have that be the start and end of their game. So, there is not intention to provide PVE for "carebears," it is there to equip PVPers. I don't exactly like or agree with it whole heartedly but there it is, so at some point, expect high sec to change quite drastically. Emergent Game play. Otherwise known as significant changes to highsec will destroy the ability of people to do the first part you mentioned, as it will be possible to prevent someone gathering resources in any meaningful way. As soon as that is possible it becomes possible to actually grief someone out of the game, so the kings can eliminate even the remotest spectre of a challenge by destroying potential opponents while they are still at the highsec gathering stage. Hence why High sec can't significantly change, even if some people do use it to infinitely farm NPC's and not put that money anywhere.
Redbull Spai Science and Trade Institute Caldari State 6	Posted - 2015.02.21 13:32:17 - [199] - Quote Not everyone wants to fight (fight meaning PvP), a vast number of players want to play the game fight-free, if all you want is a fighting game, play counter strike. The simple fact is, by joining a player corporation, you can be forced to fight, by merely a 1-man corp paying fifty million measly isk to ruin your corp. By not joining a player corp, you cant be forced to fight. The best thing about EVE is you do not have to fight to play the game. And 90% of the ships out there cant fight - haulers, mining ships, exploration ships, and PvE fit ships, if they get into a fight, its not a fight, its a one sided gank. Players in NPC corps can still interact and fleet up through common chat channels without having to leave themselves vunerable to gankers. Invent a mechanic where non-PVP focussed corps cant be wardecked, and people will join player corps more.
admiral root Red Galaxy 2415	Posted - 2015.02.21 14:07:35 - [200] - Quote Jel Kishmond wrote: The ease of abuse and one-sidedness of wardec mechanics by griefer corps is my #1 reason for still being in CAS Wow. First of all, if you've been here 4 years and haven't yet realised that Eve is meant to be one-sided, I strongly suggest another game. Secondly, if there are so many "griefer" corps out there, why haven't you filed support tickets? Probably because there's no such thing. Hello Kitty Online is that way ---> No, your rights end in optimal+2*falloff \| No-one hates you, none of us care enough for that. Sabriz for CSM
admiral root Red Galaxy 2415	Posted - 2015.02.21 14:11:41 - [201] - Quote Redbull Spai wrote: Not everyone wants to fight (fight meaning PvP), a vast number of players want to play the game fight-free, if all you want is a fighting game, play counter strike. The simple fact is, by joining a player corporation, you can be forced to fight, by merely a 1-man corp paying fifty million measly isk to ruin your corp. By not joining a player corp, you cant be forced to fight. The best thing about EVE is you do not have to fight to play the game. If you're playing Eve at all you're engaging in some form of PvP. What's wrong with my using spcaeship PvP in response to your doing some other kind? Whatever form of PvP you're doing has an impact on me. Redbull Spai wrote: And 90% of the ships out there cant fight - haulers, mining ships, exploration ships, and PvE fit ships, if they get into a fight, its not a fight, its a one sided gank. Poppycock, balderdash, tosh, stuff and nonsense. Shuttles and freighters are the only ships in the game that can't fight. What you meant to say is that a lot of pilots won't fight. I refer you to my last post about your ridiculous complaint of one-sided ganks. Don't want to be ganked? Take precautions. No, your rights end in optimal+2*falloff \| No-one hates you, none of us care enough for that. Sabriz for CSM
Jenshae Chiroptera The Volition Cult 966	Posted - 2015.02.21 17:07:27 - [202] - Quote This is terrible. It is going to start sounding like I am in total agreement with a ganker. Redbull Spai wrote: And 90% of the ships out there cant fight - haulers, mining ships, exploration ships, and PvE fit ships, if they get into a fight, its not a fight, its a one sided gank. . I think the essence of what you are saying, is that players feel compelled to min-max their ships to get the best ISK/hour returns. This then leaves them vulnerable to attacks from players who do not stick to one or two damage types. This is why I support changes to make the AI work more like PVP against players. Sleepers omni tanking and doing omni damage was probably the closest step in this direction. Nevyn Auscent wrote: Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: My interpretation is that PVE is meant only as a way to gather resources and people together to go out and fight, try and own sectors of space. Not to sit around grinding the same AI and have that be the start and end of their game. So, there is not intention to provide PVE for "carebears," it is there to equip PVPers. I don't exactly like or agree with it whole heartedly but there it is, so at some point, expect high sec to change quite drastically. Emergent Game play. Otherwise known as significant changes to highsec will destroy the ability of people to do the first part you mentioned, as it will be possible to prevent someone gathering resources in any meaningful way. As soon as that is possible it becomes possible to actually grief someone out of the game, so the kings can eliminate even the remotest spectre of a challenge by destroying potential opponents while they are still at the highsec gathering stage. Hence why High sec can't significantly change, even if some people do use it to infinitely farm NPC's and not put that money anywhere. I think that the way EVE is designed at the present time, it funnels new players first toward mining and then missions. Missions can be good as it builds some combat skills, however, it teaches players to fight AI and not players, there is not enough similarity. Then the way corps and war declarations are working in high sec, it almost pushes people into staying in NPC corps. So, I don't have my finger on exactly what it is but I think I am starting to point in the right direction that EVE is funnelling people in the wrong direction and not spelling out their intentions clearly enough. CSM Ten movement for change. CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids. Status: Rabid carebear Blog
Donnachadh United Allegiance of Undesirables 167	Posted - 2015.02.22 04:32:16 - [203] - Quote Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: My interpretation is that PVE is meant only as a way to gather resources and people together to go out and fight, try and own sectors of space. Not to sit around grinding the same AI and have that be the start and end of their game. So, there is not intention to provide PVE for "carebears," it is there to equip PVPers. That is your interpretation of something written in the dark stone age past of CCP and you know what, players happened and changed it all. Besides that I disagree with you and interpret that section differently. When CCP set up nul sec it was never intended to be dominated by several very large blocks causing it to become the most stagnant and least played in area of the EvE universe. Incursions were meant to be killed off as quickly as possible, not drug out to the bitter end to farm every single ISK and LP possible. In both of these areas and many others these outcomes were never intended and quite probably never foreseen by CCP. But that is what happens when you set up a sandbox, those who play in it decide what it will become. So even if CCP had not intended high sec to turn out the way it has it is just another in the long list of things that we the players have decided will be the way it is.
Lienzo Amanuensis 26	Posted - 2015.02.22 05:24:39 - [204] - Quote Taxes won't solve much because they only apply to activities that are solo anyway. If there's any problem that affects everyone from people being immune to wardecs, it's in the form of transport alts. Doesn't matter if it's blockade runners or freighters, the effect is similar. The market is distorted, and a prime driver and opportunity for conflict is lost. Normalizing mass based docking taxes across empire would have the effect of normalizing them everywhere else, but I think that lead balloon has already sailed. We are a decade beyond the point of wondering why CCP implemented a feature they do not see fit to utilize. Docking taxes are essentially that dumb tattoo on your kid. The real issue, of course, is war decs. They are the true blunt instrument. For an imprecisely calibrated amount of isk, Concord smiles on them everywhere. That doesn't really make sense from a political, economic or role playing perspective. It's also rather silly to go from safe-ish some places to not safe everywhere with the mere flick of a button. Let's make wardecs have a geopolitical component. Make incremental wardecs that can cover individual solar systems, constellations, regions, or even factions. At each increment, increase the cost. As a compensation, a war dec in a single system should cost next to nothing, even against a very large organization. Whoops, there goes Jita. If I'm the director a mining corp, and a rival group is hammering the belts too hard, then let's have our own private little scuffle. It might not seem significant to veteran war mongers, but it could seem quite significant to that group, and that actually kinda matters in a big, cold and indifferent universe. As far as Concord is concerned, all of our corporations are actually formalized gangs. On a larger scale, they're not too dissimilar from Westphalian states. Letting the neighborhood gangs squabble over and establish turf keeps the conflict from sprawling out into more civilized areas. The effect of this means corps carving out their own territories, using new trade routes, and making moves against other groups that are calibrated to their capabilities. That said, some kind of visual warzone indicator on the HUD would likely be very beneficial to all involved.
Jenshae Chiroptera The Volition Cult 969	Posted - 2015.02.23 05:41:35 - [205] - Quote Lienzo wrote: Let's make wardecs have a geopolitical component. Make incremental wardecs that can cover individual solar systems, constellations, regions, or even factions. At each increment, increase the cost. . +1 It also ties in with having a value on your home system and fighting other miners or ratters for it. CSM Ten movement for change. CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids. Status: Rabid carebear Blog
Alvatore DiMarco Capricious Endeavours Ltd 3513	Posted - 2015.02.23 06:43:16 - [206] - Quote I would love to put a permanent wardec on all the mining corps that think it's acceptable to mine the asteroids in my home system - but only in my home system. You want to mine? Go one jump next door. Leave my spacerocks alone, you filthy greed-infested poachers.
Vimsy Vortis Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation 2016	Posted - 2015.02.23 07:20:51 - [207] - Quote In almost all cases wars would be literally useless if they were restricted to a certain region of space. Unless the cost of declaring a war in a specific system, constellation, region, or empire was astronomically lower than the current cost those options would virtually never be used. I'd also like to point out that a mining corp declaring war on its rival over a single system is not a thing that actually happens. The idea might seem reasonable, however by declaring a war the aggressor subjects themselves to the ally system, which is an incredibly powerful deterrent since the people likely to ally in are dedicated PVP groups and the system has no counter whatsoever. So long as that's the case the status quo of all highsec wars being fought by dedicated PVP groups will be maintained. And general cost increases in the past have lead to the current situation where highsec wars are predominately fought by large, well financed, dedicated PVP corps, not by the average joe against his neighbors, or by new people trying to get into PVP in the environment they're used to. Adding more limitations and usage barriers to wardecs would only serve to drive the mechanic further out of the hands of regular highsec folks and further into the hands of people like myself. The ideal wardec system is one that everyone can consider using when they think "I want to blow that guy up" not one where nobody but the ultra rich can afford to use, or which is so dangerous to use that only dedicated PVP groups can deal with the associated risks, or which is so heavily limited that it doesn't serve its stated purpose.
Jenshae Chiroptera The Volition Cult 974	Posted - 2015.02.24 01:56:53 - [208] - Quote Vimsy Vortis wrote: ... or by new people trying to get into PVP in the environment they're used to. Adding more limitations and usage barriers to wardecs would only serve to drive the mechanic further out of the hands of regular highsec folks and further into the hands of people like myself... I take everything you say about new players with a pinch of salt. I have first hand experience of you and yours piling in on a newbie corp. CSM Ten movement for change. CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids. Status: Rabid carebear Blog
Vimsy Vortis Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation 2018	Posted - 2015.02.24 04:01:42 - [209] - Quote Just because I routinely explode new players it doesn't mean I wasn't ever one and that I don't care how they interact with the war mechanics. In fact I care a lot, because when I was a newbie me and my newbie friends started a corp and declared war on other newbies because we wanted to do PVP. Something that we could not have afforded to do under the current war mechanics. It bothers me endlessly that new players don't have that same opportunity me and my corpmates had that lead to such an incredibly tightly bonded group that still play together years later. I also feel that the lack of accessibility of wars to the space poor, and lack of utility to everyone but dedicated highsec PVPers is harmful to the highsec "community" in general, but that's a long ass story. Long story short, having a high barrier to entry benefits large, organized, well funded groups and crushes people attempting to start from nothing. I don't think that's a good thing.
Jenshae Chiroptera The Volition Cult 974	Posted - 2015.02.24 04:30:28 - [210] - Quote Vimsy Vortis wrote: ... Long story short, having a high barrier to entry benefits large, organized, well funded groups ... So, some veterans banding together and fostering new players is a bad idea? Instead we should have a corp full of new players ripe for the slaughter? The higher bar to entry means there is more likely to be a mixed bag. CSM Ten movement for change. CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids. Status: Rabid carebear Blog
Steppa Musana Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic 5	Posted - 2015.02.24 04:47:52 - [211] - Quote Vimsy Vortis wrote: Just because I routinely explode new players it doesn't mean I wasn't ever one and that I don't care how they interact with the war mechanics. In fact I care a lot, because when I was a newbie me and my newbie friends started a corp and declared war on other newbies because we wanted to do PVP. Something that we could not have afforded to do under the current war mechanics. It bothers me endlessly that new players don't have that same opportunity me and my corpmates had that lead to such an incredibly tightly bonded group that still play together years later. I also feel that the lack of accessibility of wars to the space poor, and lack of utility to everyone but dedicated highsec PVPers is harmful to the highsec "community" in general, but that's a long ass story. Long story short, having a high barrier to entry benefits large, organized, well funded groups and crushes people attempting to start from nothing or aren't completely dedicated to PVP. I don't think that's a good thing. You couldnt afford a war with friendS? Emphasis on S... max of 16.6m per war? Thats half an hour of L4 or 1 hour of mining in T1 fitted barge. Anyways there are ways to pvp for free if you cant afford it. I dont think balancing war costs around newbie income is a good plan.
Vimsy Vortis Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation 2018	Posted - 2015.02.24 05:16:54 - [212] - Quote Err, no. A higher bar to entry means that don't reach that bear are unable to participate at all unless they meet the criteria arbitrarily set by an established group that is willing to break that barrier for them. The criteria also tend to be quite high and the cost of joining an established group is your independence. Moreover a group of newbies in a corp that wardec someone are going to be the aggressors, they only people who're likely to be "ripe for the slaughter" are going to be the other newbies they declare war on. Except in that circumstance the defenders might actually be able to defend themselves successfully as they're fighting other newbies, rather than fighting me in a faction cruiser with links and neutral reps. Right now we have a situation where highsec PVP doesn't have any low skill aggressors at all, you're either not at war at all, or you're at war with someone who will beat you every time. Having new players in a dedicated highsec PVP corp that has existed for 5 years does not diminish the capability of the highsec PVP corp because the defender is at war with the whole corp not just the new players. The entire system has created a meta that puts people like myself in a tremendous position of advantage, new people can't get their foot in the door, defenders haven't got any experience at defending themselves against lesser threats by the time they suitable targets for us and nobody is willing to try and fight their own battles so they pay us to do it for them. It's ridiculous and it all comes from carebears are in favor of any barrier they can possibly have between them and PVP. At I feel like they're reaping what they've sown, they get to enjoy endlessly cycling through being at war with every different highsec PVP entity, can't possibly hope to defend themselves and so have to pay the same people who declare war on them for help to defend their assets. It's the consequence of people irresponsibly desiring gameplay changes that appear to benefit them without regard to the long term results. I'm not even sure if it's even reversible at this point.
Vimsy Vortis Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation 2018	Posted - 2015.02.24 05:30:48 - [213] - Quote Steppa Musana wrote: Anyways there are ways to pvp for free if you cant afford it. I dont think balancing war costs around newbie income is a good plan. Why not? Prior to inferno the former CCP Unifex stated quite clearly that the wardec system is meant to be utilized by absolutely anyone, regardless of whether they are new or old players to allow them to shoot at whoever they want for whatever reason they want. Which was actually funny because Inferno was the expansion that rendered wars into their current highly exclusive state. If it's a mechanic that is truly meant to be accessible to everyone, it should probably actually be accessible to everyone.
Eli Stan Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 35	Posted - 2015.02.24 06:35:10 - [214] - Quote Here's an interesting, perhaps problematic, idea I've had: any ship fitted with a module or drone that would provoke a CONCORD response if used against a neutral, is freely engageable by anybody without the aggressor being subject to a CONCORD response or sec status loss. Basically, undock with a gun, launcher, ECM, combat drone or similar fitted to your ship, and you can be freely shot by anybody in highsec. (Logi will continue to go suspect if they rep anything.) If you wanna shoot, you can be shot at. So you want to fly your Catalyst around while looking for AFK Hulks to gank? Feel free, but that fleet of Vexors flying around looking Hulks to protect might want a word with you. Perhaps you should always bring a mobile depot? Have a Hulk you want to AFK park in a belt with drones out set to aggressive to protect against rats? Feel free, but be prepared that everybody who sees you will want to take a shot at you. Perhaps you can active tank a Skiff, or perhaps you'll be better off arranging with other players for protection from rats. Perhaps they'll charge you a fee and if you don't pay they'll leave you to the rats. Perhaps you'll have to join a corp you share the profits with, and the corp can run protected mining ops. Freighters and travel inties and barges without offensive modules would still have CONCORD "protection", and of course still be subject to suicide ganking and Machariel bumping. But the gankers could perhaps be intercepted by white knights who don't have to wait for the gankers to go criminal. And in turn, the gankers can bring a fleet to counter the white knights. Who can bring a counter-counter fleet to counter the counter fleet... Security missions in highsec will take a big hit, though. Noobs trying to build up standings by running L1s and L2s will be SOL. Blinged ships running L4s and L5s will be hunted mercilessly. Same for Incursion runners. Maybe that's a good thing, though? I run L4s in null and use my friends around me to know what's going on and whether it's safe - but with highsec being so much busier, perhaps that's not an option. But creative players might figure out ways. I think this would open up some very interesting play styles. True player-based police forces could be a thing. Police corruption could be a thing. Protection rackets. Players will have to cooperate more to get stuff done, and be subject to interactions with hostiles more as well. Wars will become more complicated as blinged T3s looking for month-old wartargets will be targets themselves. Structure bashing will gain a lot of risk. Anyway, not sure about this idea. Could be crap. I dunno. Any feedback? Has it been discussed before?
afkalt Republic Military School Minmatar Republic 752	Posted - 2015.02.24 07:45:42 - [215] - Quote I think you need to put down the crack pipe.
Lathalia NED-Clan Goonswarm Federation 1	Posted - 2015.02.24 08:10:13 - [216] - Quote Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: I do not have a problem with high-sec I do not have a problem with NPC corps I do not have a problem with veterans in high secs I do have a problem with veterans + NPC corps + high sec because that combination is far too safe for how lucrative it is. I totally agree with the OP on this part. Players that play this game for years that are still under concord protection in high sec is just weird. Quote: #2 - 2015-01-29 15:44:40 UTC \| \| Edited by: Mag's I do not agree with forcing players out of NPC corps in this way. It's a players choice and style and there is already a tax punishment for remaining in there. Tax punishment? Most nullsec corps have higher taxes then npc corps, cause they have a lot of bills. srp's etc.
Desvath Benepeth Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic 0	Posted - 2015.02.24 08:10:32 - [217] - Quote I respect what you are doing here By removing liberties to improve other sub branches of determinism would only serve to slaughter some other massive game feature : i.e. set theory of U - X = Z X: your understanding of eve as a whole U : The universe : All possibilities Z : that other part of the game you have no idea exists in short; your idea would kill eve.
Donnachadh United Allegiance of Undesirables 169	Posted - 2015.02.25 02:46:56 - [218] - Quote Since you asked this idea is pure crap. I could quote the whole thing but why bother this is the only section that is needed to illustrate just how bad this idea is. Eli Stan wrote: Security missions in highsec will take a big hit, though. Noobs trying to build up standings by running L1s and L2s will be SOL. While I am not advocating more protections for our new players, I am saying that what protections exist need to stay in game and in force and this would remove all of them. Overall this idea would make defending yourself against ganking virtually impossible and that is a change that we do not need.
Jenshae Chiroptera The Volition Cult 979	Posted - 2015.02.25 04:41:29 - [219] - Quote Vimsy Vortis wrote: ... Right now we have a situation where highsec PVP doesn't have any low skill aggressors at all, you're either not at war at all, or you're at war with someone who will beat you every time. ... I don't think newbies are going to be waging wars no matter how much it costs or if it is even free. It is constantly drummed into them with what people, say, every fitting linked, every loss that EVE is harsh and they are weak. They won't be feeling strong or confident to this in any significant numbers. CSM Ten movement for change. CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids. Status: Rabid carebear Blog
Jeven HouseBenyo Native Freshfood Minmatar Republic 22	Posted - 2015.02.25 05:01:36 - [220] - Quote Momentary derail, apology in advance... I would like to at least Choose which NPC corp. I get dumped into after leaving a Player run corp. The sandbox right now makes me a grocery shelf stocker... Not quite clothing retail work, but near the same level of soul crushing. The idea of at least a few of the NPC corps at war with each other at times that aren't on a time table (so jumping isn't planned just to avoid it!) sounds rather interesting to me. The Factional Warfare is fine for some that want that on their minds every time they undock. Those of us in NPC corps we didn't even get to choose, ummmm, I'm not ready for Factional but dodging and ganking others in that week's opposing NPC corp could break some out of the NPC corp grind, and into player run corps since the overall 'protection' would be somewhat mitigated. After all, the CEOs and directors of these NPC corps don't exactly have ship replacement programs, more reliable fleet assistance, or the other shiny things that come from leadership that's another person(s), not a line of programming in the game. Just a random thought, user mileage may vary. >Jeven Don't make me link Iggy McStickson or something else I've saved to make the conversation irrelevant. I have bookmarks and I'm not afraid to use them. Do inactive clones sit in their vats, dreaming of virtual Slaver Hounds?
Jenshae Chiroptera The Volition Cult 979	Posted - 2015.02.25 15:24:57 - [221] - Quote Jeven HouseBenyo wrote: Momentary derail, apology in advance... >Jeven Seems more like putting it on track. Good feedback, thank you. ... and yes, selecting the NPC corp could help but there would need to be some sort of limitation or people will hop from NPC to NPC corp dodging the wars they have. CSM Ten movement for change. CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids. Status: Rabid carebear Blog
Crest Zah Donartal Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 2	Posted - 2015.02.25 16:53:11 - [222] - Quote Somes just try to push everyones into pew pew. What if not all players enjoy it?
Jenshae Chiroptera The Volition Cult 979	Posted - 2015.02.25 16:54:35 - [223] - Quote Crest Zah Donartal wrote: Somes just try to push everyones into pew pew. What if not all players enjoy it? They can fund others to do it for them. CSM Ten movement for change. CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids. Status: Rabid carebear Blog
Bel Tika Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic 316	Posted - 2015.02.26 01:09:29 - [224] - Quote Eve is a sandbox, it has potentially hundreds of ways to play it to your liking, just because you like one way does not mean someone else does, just because you dislike another way does not mean someone else does, whatever way you decide to play the game DOES NOT MAKE IT WRONG Sorry i feel i had to reinforce that. I love nothing more in this game than to login an build things, to put it simply, to put it another way, i mine all my materials and build it all from them materials, ppl do not like doing this, i do not care, i do, i pay my sub i play MY game, i do not like pvp i have never liked pvp i will never like pvp, in this game or in any game, you do go you ra ra clap clap. I've been awoxxed, i've been wardecced (over n over n over n over n over), it dont bother me i just kept doing what i do an enjoy doing, mining an building, im no asking ppl to understand why i enjoy it i dont care you dont understand, just accept it is part of the game, the same game where yes it might be a MMO but ppl actually do prefer solo an that my friend you also need to accept, just like i need to accept im going to be blew up again and again when im out mining my materials, but you know what? im not going to come here and complain an ask the developers to change the game to suit me because everyone else is playing it differently and should be playing it my way, no im just going to accept the fact that this a a sandbox and its full of ppl playing the game there way an sometimes they ways are going to clash or benefit us. Throwing ppl out of NPC corps aint a answer to anything Why am i in one??? think what you will
Jenshae Chiroptera The Volition Cult 979	Posted - 2015.02.26 02:37:21 - [225] - Quote Bel Tika wrote: Eve is a sandbox, it has potentially hundreds of ways to play it... Throwing ppl out of NPC corps aint a answer to anything .... There have been a lot of posts other than this and many are linked in the OP as reference points to read before and after them. I do wish CCP would clarify things. Either, make a completely safe place where Concord is protection rather than retribution alternatively an area where weapons can not be fired at other players OR Put on their front page that EVE is a PVP sandbox. CSM Ten movement for change. CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids. Status: Rabid carebear Blog
Bel Tika Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic 316	Posted - 2015.02.26 03:47:57 - [226] - Quote TBh i dont have a problem with how the game is the now, i just tinker away, mind my own business so to speak, it has survived this long an if it is doing well why change it? apart from the necessary changes ofc, if it is not doing ok after all these years, then well i guess you need to change it and probably in ways ppl that play it the now wont like, but im not intellectual enough to come up with a solution if the game is having problems retaining ppl an paying bills so to speak Only solution i'd think of is for 10 year you went the pvp route, if it aint working time to try the pve, if that means 100% protection for the ppl that want to pve well so be it, but for the ppl who want to risk everything on a daily basis then they need to be rewarded better for it and there space needs to have things that the other space does not. Right now i dont want to be part of low or null, heck i dont even want to go there, where is the incentive for me? what is the incentive? as i said before i dont mind risk, heck i would even help protect the space if i managed to get into a corp, but right now from my limited understanding of the game null an low offer me exactly nothing, i've watched the battles and there boring, i see the politics and again it bores me, outside the tinkering i do im interested in story, put some decent epic/interactive/voiced etc story arcs that involve empire/pirate an i be there in a heart beat
Jenshae Chiroptera The Volition Cult 979	Posted - 2015.02.26 04:19:57 - [227] - Quote Bel Tika wrote: ... but right now from my limited understanding of the game null an low offer me exactly nothing, i've watched the battles and there boring, ... Taking this only because I need to go grab some sleep. Living in Null Sec, in the region I am in, there is constantly little roaming gangs of reds and spectres that you have to kick out to go back to business. (So, there is gang combat). You can jump into a fight, protect people in your system and fleet without any restrictions from the mechanics. See that guy in the destroyer warping to the anom with your friend in it? Land there first and feel free to shoot first! As for the tinkering, I find it satisfying making ships and knowing that they will probably be bought and flown by the group I am supporting on a day to day basis. If you want real excitement and heart attacks, grab nine others and try live in a worm hole. CSM Ten movement for change. CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids. Status: Rabid carebear Blog
Jeven HouseBenyo Native Freshfood Minmatar Republic 22	Posted - 2015.02.28 13:51:40 - [228] - Quote Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: Jeven HouseBenyo wrote: Momentary derail, apology in advance... >Jeven Seems more like putting it on track. Good feedback, thank you. ... and yes, selecting the NPC corp could help but there would need to be some sort of limitation or people will hop from NPC to NPC corp dodging the wars they have. The catch with that is, there will always be people that jump from corp to corp, whether it's to dodge wardeccs, personality conflicts (that's why I don't have this character operating out Dysa anymore), whim, following a new-made friend elsewhere, the old adage about grass/greener/next pasture... The first two things that come to mind that would slow down the hopping from one NPC corp to another would be these. Is your standing with them above a certain number threshold, and are you willing to pay their join-up fee? The fee could be as nominal or painful as fits what the size of the NPC corp is (Tiny, Regional, Large, etc.) but the 'painful' part would be getting your standing up to the threshold to join in the first place. Just from taking the time to get RMS standings up high enough to use their bases for jump clones, I know it's not an overnight process to get to the magik 8.00 number. Perhaps a similar mechanic to keep the NPC corp hopping limited. After all, even the toon that's been played every day since Eve went live would have limits on where they could hop to avoid PvP. Whether it be another player or an NPC corp, there's absolutely NO way to end up with Everyone loving you in Eve. That's part of it's dubious charms that keeps me playing! >Jeven Don't make me link Iggy McStickson or something else I've saved to make the conversation irrelevant. I have bookmarks and I'm not afraid to use them. Do inactive clones sit in their vats, dreaming of virtual Slaver Hounds?
Syn Shi School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State 129	Posted - 2015.02.28 14:03:58 - [229] - Quote Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: Bel Tika wrote: Eve is a sandbox, it has potentially hundreds of ways to play it... Throwing ppl out of NPC corps aint a answer to anything .... There have been a lot of posts other than this and many are linked in the OP as reference points to read before and after them. I do wish CCP would clarify things. Either, make a completely safe place where Concord is protection rather than retribution alternatively an area where weapons can not be fired at other players OR Put on their front page that EVE is a PVP sandbox. A sandbox allows for all types of play. There is no such a thing as a pvp sandbox. Players who are doing anything but pvp will not magically want to pvp by forcing them to. I would say at this point this thread is just going around in circles and proving nothing worthy of discussing. Border line rant thread.....wah...I want to force everyone in the sandbox to play like I do.
Jenshae Chiroptera The Volition Cult 998	Posted - 2015.02.28 15:29:28 - [230] - Quote Syn Shi wrote: Border line rant thread.....wah...I want to force everyone in the sandbox to play like I do. No, you have missed the core point; veterans are in the safest possible position to farm up far too much ISK. Failing the "risk vs reward" core to EVE. CSM Ten movement for change. CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids. Status: Rabid carebear Blog
Lady Rift What Shall We Call It 186	Posted - 2015.02.28 16:32:06 - [231] - Quote Jeven HouseBenyo wrote: Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: Jeven HouseBenyo wrote: Momentary derail, apology in advance... >Jeven Seems more like putting it on track. Good feedback, thank you. ... and yes, selecting the NPC corp could help but there would need to be some sort of limitation or people will hop from NPC to NPC corp dodging the wars they have. The catch with that is, there will always be people that jump from corp to corp, whether it's to dodge wardeccs, personality conflicts (that's why I don't have this character operating out Dysa anymore), whim, following a new-made friend elsewhere, the old adage about grass/greener/next pasture... The first two things that come to mind that would slow down the hopping from one NPC corp to another would be these. Is your standing with them above a certain number threshold, and are you willing to pay their join-up fee? The fee could be as nominal or painful as fits what the size of the NPC corp is (Tiny, Regional, Large, etc.) but the 'painful' part would be getting your standing up to the threshold to join in the first place. Just from taking the time to get RMS standings up high enough to use their bases for jump clones, I know it's not an overnight process to get to the magik 8.00 number. Perhaps a similar mechanic to keep the NPC corp hopping limited. After all, even the toon that's been played every day since Eve went live would have limits on where they could hop to avoid PvP. Whether it be another player or an NPC corp, there's absolutely NO way to end up with Everyone loving you in Eve. That's part of it's dubious charms that keeps me playing! >Jeven you can end up with everyone in empire (high sec) loving you and not hard just time consuming (takes a week or so every 3 months)
Skorn Blacksword Maas Industries Vae. Victis. 21	Posted - 2015.02.28 17:14:49 - [232] - Quote Small corps getting bullied by corps that just want hisec kills is a problem. That happens too often and your small band of brothers falls apart. Perhaps concord needs to be bribed to allow larger corps to war dec smaller ones? If a 200 man corp wants to war deck a 4 man corp perhaps they need to pony up a lot of iskies to the authorities to look the other way. This would also get corps to: 1. trim their alt rich corp. 2. protect the small guys from being bullied. 3. penalize the bullies On top of this we have our corps that don't want to participate in pvp at all. They can also bribe concord to disallow a war deck unless they pay more than their bribe. So I'm saying one corp pays concord a bill isk to deter war decking for a month. If a corp wants to war deck them then their initial cost is: (protection fee+some sort of modifier)+(bribe for large vs small)+( normal war deck fees). So a small wealthy corp can discourage war decking, but not be immune to it either. Encourages pvp between simular sized corps Discourages war decking corps that are vastly disadvantaged by numbers. Creates another isk sink which can be health for the game economy. Small elite corps can war deck larger corps more easily. Ok, back to getting players out of npc corps. Make the npc corps politically aligned. Your an Amarian, you end up in Amarian space, and therefore are killable in non Amarian space. Have easy access to Amarian tech, all non Amarian tech in stations has a import tax imposed above the price listed by the poster. So now its harder for an npc corp player to move goods out of amarian space and more difficult to compete with prices of other industrialists who are also in npc corps. But for non-Npc corp players there would be no tariff on any goods they purchased and they can move outside their territory with less danger. Ooh gankers would have to love that idea, and it encourages racial boundaries and conflict. Limit where and what they can do and they won't want to stay in the NPC corp. Especially if there is more freedom and profit for not being in the NPC corp. Add in the fact they can make it more expensive to be war decked by limiting their size and paying concord for protection. I think this is not a perfect suggestion, but perhaps a step in the right direction.
Jenshae Chiroptera The Volition Cult 998	Posted - 2015.02.28 17:23:08 - [233] - Quote Skorn Blacksword wrote: Small corps getting bullied by corps that just want hisec kills is a problem. It is and I am advocating giving better tools for player to player solutions. A reputation board for mercenaries and another for white knights. Corp QQ is distress, they check the White Knight board and find Corp OO. When Corp OO has successfully turned the tide and defended Corp QQ then they can add more reputation to Corp OO on the in game corp finding board. Now, maybe Corp OO start chasing the attackers Corp MM around high sec and they don't like that so Corp MM checks the merc board and finds Corp FF to come help them fight off Corp OO because heaven knows, the White Knight board won't do it. CSM Ten movement for change. CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids. Status: Rabid carebear Blog
admiral root Red Galaxy 2437	Posted - 2015.02.28 18:52:18 - [234] - Quote Skorn Blacksword wrote: Small corps getting bullied by corps that just want hisec kills is a problem. That happens too often I'm going to go ahead and call bullshit on this. Bullying is a violation of the EULA - when was the last time you filed a support ticket over it? My guess is never, because you've never once seen anyone bullied in this game. Quote: 2. protect the small guys from being bullied. 3. penalize the bullies If people don't want to play Eve they shouldn't. I'll take you at your word and believe that the quote is how you really feel about this game, to which I can only reply: Hello Kitty Online is thataway. ---> No, your rights end in optimal+2*falloff \| No-one hates you, none of us care enough for that. Sabriz for CSM
Jeven HouseBenyo Native Freshfood Minmatar Republic 22	Posted - 2015.02.28 19:06:45 - [235] - Quote Lady Rift wrote: Jeven HouseBenyo wrote: Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: Jeven HouseBenyo wrote: Momentary derail, apology in advance... >Jeven Seems more like putting it on track. Good feedback, thank you. ... and yes, selecting the NPC corp could help but there would need to be some sort of limitation or people will hop from NPC to NPC corp dodging the wars they have. The catch with that is, there will always be people that jump from corp to corp, whether it's to dodge wardeccs, personality conflicts (that's why I don't have this character operating out Dysa anymore), whim, following a new-made friend elsewhere, the old adage about grass/greener/next pasture... The first two things that come to mind that would slow down the hopping from one NPC corp to another would be these. Is your standing with them above a certain number threshold, and are you willing to pay their join-up fee? The fee could be as nominal or painful as fits what the size of the NPC corp is (Tiny, Regional, Large, etc.) but the 'painful' part would be getting your standing up to the threshold to join in the first place. Just from taking the time to get RMS standings up high enough to use their bases for jump clones, I know it's not an overnight process to get to the magik 8.00 number. Perhaps a similar mechanic to keep the NPC corp hopping limited. After all, even the toon that's been played every day since Eve went live would have limits on where they could hop to avoid PvP. Whether it be another player or an NPC corp, there's absolutely NO way to end up with Everyone loving you in Eve. That's part of it's dubious charms that keeps me playing! >Jeven you can end up with everyone in empire (high sec) loving you and not hard just time consuming (takes a week or so every 3 months) the 'painful' part is the standing grinding. Yes, it is possible to have many of the highsec NPC corps liking you, but that's one gigantic time sink where you're Not doing the more amuse self parts of Eve. As for everyone in an empire loving you in their highsec space, if that trick is possible, my virtual fancy hat off to that player. I had to repair some serious damage to Ammatar standings after getting that RMS number up high enough to install jump clones. That made any mission that cut through Derelik touchy, and mining was simply out of the question until they no longer despised me as much. I certainly wasn't going to PvP there during my short 'go find a fight to pick gank it' moments as more guns than I could care to face would be locking on me. Now I think I'm derailing myself... Whaha! tl;dr version of my thoughts on getting characters more motivated to leave NPC corps. 1. Have select NPC corps involved in wardeccing other NPC corps. 2. The ability to choose your NPC corp., with standing and sign-in fees being the threshold. 3. Have those thresholds comparable to size/influence. 4. Understand that there will always be those that play Eve that jump corps, avoid PvP, and get over 'forcing' one side or the other to kowtow. This is a chocolate in my peanutbutter, peanutbutter in my chocolate circular argument no one will 'win' to satisfaction. Let's all have some Snickers and Nutty Bars, calm down, and go play game. Isn't that why we're playing in the firsties, to Have Fun as we define it?? Now those that understand Eve better than my short time playing could give me the experience to see my glaring holes in this pondering can pick my idea apart, dissect it, reprocess it, and come to the conclusion that the chick behind this particular keyboard is off her rocker. Don't make me link Iggy McStickson or something else I've saved to make the conversation irrelevant. I have bookmarks and I'm not afraid to use them. Do inactive clones sit in their vats, dreaming of virtual Slaver Hounds?
Galison Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 4	Posted - 2015.03.26 06:07:34 - [236] - Quote Dear OP get bent. The fact is highsec supports eve null sec cant do it they don't have the numbers period to fund eve by themselves. As has been mentioned eve is a sandbox How I play the game is not for you to decide unless you want to personally come find me and try to **** in my cherrios. Beyond that you have no say in how I play your entire post is retarted and comes to no matter what you say other wise to people aren't playing the sandbox my way and I don't like it . We NPCs aren't playing your way guess what to bad it is our play style not yours and it is no worse or better then your own style which is yours while ours is ours. Confusion aside that's what it comes down to. As has also been mentioned CAS is a starter corp with a lot of long time mains like myself and others nearing 10 years of play or more. I am also part of the ccg null sec group which anyone that visits syndicate has run into. Because of this any changes to highsec really wouldn't effect me given I am in null sec 98% of my time as are a lot of others what remaining cas offers us is less of the drama lama(honestly my main reseason for not being in a PC corp(I do have alts in 2 alliances but they are just that alts I barely log on nor are they big anyways one is from old friends and the other is the CAS alt/former cas member alliance which is there for the AT) I like being able to log on and off when I choose fly what ships I want(we don't really have a fleet doc more so since we rarely use logi anyways) on a roam so on. Back to the CCG group in CAS our main goal is to help new players learn eve experience new stuff pvp and pve at no point do we tell people they can't leave CAS honestly if they do and join a corp/alliance as a useful member compared to the normal peon that knows nothing when they join the first corp/alliance they see then our job is done at the same time we don't tell people to get bent after a set time either remember sandbox play how you want. As for wardecs the simplest way to make them better is to disallow uninvolved partys like npc logi a wardec isn't a freeforall like low and null its an OFFICIALY allowed and recongnised fight by concord logic would suggest since concord allowed the war between 2 partys they would not allow an uninvolved 3rd neut party to jump in and help either side hence concord comes out and kills any neut logi/booster involved which would let wardecs be a little more fair. I've seen many a wardec were the outcome isn't based on one corp or anotehrs skill its by how many out of war logis they can bring to a flight. but again my experience is nill with wardecs personaly as im in NPC and more so im in null sec al most all the time.
admiral root Red Galaxy 2560	Posted - 2015.03.26 15:37:24 - [237] - Quote Galison, are you a punctuation bigot? I think you're a punctuation bigot. No, your rights end in optimal+2*falloff \| No-one hates you, none of us care enough for that. Sabriz for CSM
Jenshae Chiroptera The Volition Cult 1162	Posted - 2015.03.26 20:18:35 - [238] - Quote Galison wrote: blah CCP needs to either make some High Sec systems 100% safe so no one can take any hostile action against anyone else there OR Put on other front page "EVE is a PVP sandbox" NPC corps + High Sec + veterans = too little risk for too much reward. CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids. . SOV is stagnant because Low Sec is not the next step from High Sec and a viable place to grow alliances to the point they can challenge Null alliances. Fozzie is treating a symptom.
Mag's the united 19170	Posted - 2015.03.26 21:40:22 - [239] - Quote Let the thread die. It like your CSM run, has failed miserably. The reason may be either a lack of you understanding the game, or ability to tell the truth about it. Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the lions will ignore you in the savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
Ra'Shyne Viper Dissident Aggressors 94	Posted - 2015.03.27 00:17:40 - [240] - Quote People stay in npc because of war dec simple as that, until they remove war dec people will stay in npc DUST 514 player Ingame name: Vin Vicious
Jenshae Chiroptera 1165	Posted - 2015.03.27 00:22:57 - [241] - Quote Ra'Shyne Viper wrote: People stay in npc because of war dec simple as that, until they remove war dec people will stay in npc They are sidelining supers, removing fighter assist, changing SOV. At some point they will look at High Sec and see how unbalanced it is. CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids. . SOV is stagnant because Low Sec is not the next step from High Sec and a viable place to grow alliances to the point they can challenge Null alliances. Fozzie is treating a symptom.
Donnachadh United Allegiance of Undesirables 207	Posted - 2015.03.27 01:03:53 - [242] - Quote Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: At some point they will look at High Sec and see how unbalanced it is. No doubt about that, problem is you may not like the outcome as CCP continues to look at the CASH bottom line and how a high sec free of worthless war decs could play a large role in that. So as they say watch out what you wish for.
Jenshae Chiroptera 1166	Posted - 2015.03.27 01:47:49 - [243] - Quote Donnachadh wrote: Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: At some point they will look at High Sec and see how unbalanced it is. No doubt about that, problem is you may not like the outcome as CCP continues to look at the CASH bottom line and how a high sec free of worthless war decs could play a large role in that. So as they say watch out what you wish for. They are looking at it from this point of view: The average Null Sec veteran is 5 years. The average High Sec veteran only lasts 1.5 years. Therefore, High Sec is bored with conflict happening between the wrong people. CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids. . SOV is stagnant because Low Sec is not the next step from High Sec and a viable place to grow alliances to the point they can challenge Null alliances. Fozzie is treating a symptom.
admiral root Red Galaxy 2566	Posted - 2015.03.27 02:02:00 - [244] - Quote Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: Therefore, High Sec is bored with conflict happening between the wrong people. Or more highsec players need to be exposed to space violence. No, your rights end in optimal+2*falloff \| No-one hates you, none of us care enough for that. Sabriz for CSM
Jenshae Chiroptera 1166	Posted - 2015.03.27 02:08:20 - [245] - Quote admiral root wrote: Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: Therefore, High Sec is bored with conflict happening between the wrong people. Or more highsec players need to be exposed to space violence. Yes, from 6 or 8 months old to a year or 14 months old before they quit. CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids. . SOV is stagnant because Low Sec is not the next step from High Sec and a viable place to grow alliances to the point they can challenge Null alliances. Fozzie is treating a symptom.
Donnachadh United Allegiance of Undesirables 207	Posted - 2015.03.27 14:45:21 - [246] - Quote Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: Donnachadh wrote: Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: At some point they will look at High Sec and see how unbalanced it is. No doubt about that, problem is you may not like the outcome as CCP continues to look at the CASH bottom line and how a high sec free of worthless war decs could play a large role in that. So as they say watch out what you wish for. They are looking at it from this point of view: The average Null Sec veteran is 5 years. The average High Sec veteran only lasts 1.5 years. I see no relevance to this statistic. How long an average player lasts in high versus nul is not relevant, what is relevant is how many of each type of player are in the game each month when CCP collects the cash. IF high sec has the largest paying player base on a month to month basis does it matter one little bit if those are all new players every month or players that have been in the game a long period of time? CCP often posts many statistics about us players, the one that I have never seen is perhaps the most crucial to these arguments and that is a comparison of where the cash comes from. Do the players in nul pay more cash in subs and buy more plex, or do the high sec players pay more cash in subs and buy more plex? Casue in the end it is all about the cash. I often wonder what is the problem with having a nearly 100% safe limited in size region of space anyway? I wonder how many of those 1.5 year high sec players would stick around and pay subscriptions if they had this nearly 100% safe area? Personally I would like to see CCP add just such an area to the EvE universe as a way of attracting these WoW style of players simply as a source of cash they could use to make the rest of the game better for the rest of us. Yes I know the whole EvE is a game of shooting people and things and if they do not like it they should leave, and all I can say to this is it is extremely short sighted.
Jenshae Chiroptera 1167	Posted - 2015.03.27 16:23:00 - [247] - Quote Donnachadh wrote: Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: The average Null Sec veteran is 5 years. The average High Sec veteran only lasts 1.5 years. I see no relevance to this statistic. . The relevance is that EVE can be played for 5 years on average, so they want more of the High Sec people to play more of the game and pay longer, that gives a more stable revenue and would increase the number of players and accounts over time. CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids. . SOV is stagnant because Low Sec is not the next step from High Sec and a viable place to grow alliances to the point they can challenge Null alliances. Fozzie is treating a symptom.
Eli Stan Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 99	Posted - 2015.03.27 16:57:22 - [248] - Quote Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: NPC corps + High Sec + veterans = too little risk for too much reward. Can you expand on what you consider a "veteran"? Is it anybody who has subbed? A six month player? A two year player? Also, what activities are they performing that brings in this reward? IIRC, you've previously stated it was Incursions. Wouldn't you then be better off advocating for the nerf of highsec Incursions, rather than NPC corps which is a playstyle that extends into null and low?
Jenshae Chiroptera 1167	Posted - 2015.03.27 18:42:40 - [249] - Quote Eli Stan wrote: Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: NPC corps + High Sec + veterans = too little risk for too much reward. Can you expand on what you consider a "veteran"? About to get busy so quick reply. Can fly any of these: T2 cruisers, battle cruiser, battleship, T3 Destroyers, cruisers Capitals T2 Indy Exhumers CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids. . SOV is stagnant because Low Sec is not the next step from High Sec and a viable place to grow alliances to the point they can challenge Null alliances. Fozzie is treating a symptom.
Anhenka Infinite Point Nulli Secunda 1315	Posted - 2015.03.27 18:52:59 - [250] - Quote Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: Eli Stan wrote: Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: NPC corps + High Sec + veterans = too little risk for too much reward. Can you expand on what you consider a "veteran"? About to get busy so quick reply. Can fly any of these: T2 cruisers, battle cruiser, battleship, T3 Destroyers, cruisers Capitals T2 Indy Exhumers 12 Whole days to a confessor! So what, a month to a t2 Indy? Less? Evemon says 24. 45 days to a Skiff! 50 to a HAC! These.... are not veterans.
Lady Rift What Shall We Call It 189	Posted - 2015.03.27 19:20:14 - [251] - Quote Anhenka wrote: Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: Eli Stan wrote: Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: NPC corps + High Sec + veterans = too little risk for too much reward. Can you expand on what you consider a "veteran"? About to get busy so quick reply. Can fly any of these: T2 cruisers, battle cruiser, battleship, T3 Destroyers, cruisers Capitals T2 Indy Exhumers 12 Whole days to a confessor! So what, a month to a t2 Indy? Less? Evemon says 24. 45 days to a Skiff! 50 to a HAC! These.... are not veterans. 50 to sit in a HAC? or to actually be able to decent fit and fly it?
Anhenka Infinite Point Nulli Secunda 1316	Posted - 2015.03.27 20:04:40 - [252] - Quote Lady Rift wrote: 50 to sit in a HAC? or to actually be able to decent fit and fly it? Let's not pretend that new players wait to fly something until they can fit it well.
Jenshae Chiroptera 1169	Posted - 2015.03.28 01:11:44 - [253] - Quote ISK and ships to make ISK. If a newbie is living by pirating in a Confessor then I say they graduated early. CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids. . SOV is stagnant because Low Sec is not the next step from High Sec and a viable place to grow alliances to the point they can challenge Null alliances. Fozzie is treating a symptom.
Anhenka Infinite Point Nulli Secunda 1318	Posted - 2015.03.28 02:19:12 - [254] - Quote Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: ISK and ships to make ISK. If a newbie is living by pirating in a Confessor then I say they graduated early. Wait, when did our hypothetical newbie suddenly start being a pirate and making a living through piracy? That's the 0.0001% of new players.
Serendipity Lost Repo Industries 897	Posted - 2015.03.28 02:48:12 - [255] - Quote I want to force the puppet master wannabees to stop posting in this thread as much as they want to force folks out of npc corps. If we did this, it would make the game better.
Jenshae Chiroptera 1169	Posted - 2015.03.28 03:08:55 - [256] - Quote As much as I hate it, life expectancy of a High Sec bear is 1.5 years while a Null sec bear is 5 years. Safety, isolation, lack of group identity, boredom and so forth. They need a push out of the comfortable nest. CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids. . SOV is stagnant because Low Sec is not the next step from High Sec and a viable place to grow alliances to the point they can challenge Null alliances. Fozzie is treating a symptom.
Galison Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 4	Posted - 2015.03.28 04:02:04 - [257] - Quote You keep bringing up life expectancy were are your numbers from? beyond that theres way more people sitting in and enjoying highsec if not ccp would have changed it as odd as it is I know people that like nothing more to sit in quiet systems and mine yes I personally think these people are mentally ill but meh its how THEY choose to spend their time in game a game mind you that they PAY for to sandbox how THEY choose. This keepscoming down to YOU aren't happy with how highsec is guess what that's your choice but it doesn't mean your ideas should override anyone elses ideas. Untill you personally pay for everyone elses account you you have no say in how they choose to play absent you getting off yoru ass and going to high sec to fore your play style onto them period. Get off your soap box and stop tring to poush your ideas on how highsec which you don't seem to be in anyways operates ccp clearly doenst agree or they would have changed how it works long ago.
Jenshae Chiroptera 1169	Posted - 2015.03.28 04:12:41 - [258] - Quote Not the right link but close enough - https://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/EVE_playing_behaviour CCP will eventually get around to High Sec while revamping the game. Hopefully we can avert a Fozzie Sov disaster. CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids. . SOV is stagnant because Low Sec is not the next step from High Sec and a viable place to grow alliances to the point they can challenge Null alliances. Fozzie is treating a symptom.
Donnachadh United Allegiance of Undesirables 210	Posted - 2015.03.28 05:01:01 - [259] - Quote Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: Not the right link but close enough - https://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/EVE_playing_behaviour CCP will eventually get around to High Sec while revamping the game. Hopefully we can avert a Fozzie Sov disaster. Nice link but it fails miserably when used as a tool to support your claims. First there is no indication in any of this information if these players are in high, low or nul so this link does not answer the question you were asked about what is the source of your information. "There are more players who prefer to play solo than players that play as part of a group in EVE Universe." In fact the stats show us that 55% of all of the players in EvE either play solo exclusively, or play solo most of the time. Expand that to the next step and include those who play solo and in groups equally and you have accounted for 80% of the players in EvE. Even if we add the players that split group and solo play equally you would still be in the minority at 45% of the players. Moving this back to your arguments that high sec players are more likely to play solo then this link proves what many of us have been saying all along and that is the simple fact that the majority of people that play EvE call high sec home. And so, while I have no doubt that CCP will get around to changes to high sec at some point in the future, the stats in this link make it even more obvious to an intelligent person that those changes will not make high sec a more dangerous place, and they will not make it a place the tries to force a group game play style. To do so would go against common sense and the need to preserve your largest paying player base. Oh and thank you for providing the stats needed to counter many of your arguments.
Serendipity Lost Repo Industries 897	Posted - 2015.03.28 06:31:12 - [260] - Quote Ganking in HS is a big part of the problem. It's like alcoholism and beating your children - it's getting passed down through generations. Elite HS gankers gank some noobs - outcomes: 1. noob quits game 2. noob 'learns' and becomes a ganker - outcomes: 1. low skill noob taught to gank by low tallent vet = low skill and low tallent ganker ganking noobs 2. low skil and low tallent noob gets bored - outcomes: 1. low skill and low tallent noob quits game 2. low skil and low tallent noob joins non-elite pvp group that doesn't do low tallent empire ganking - actual pvp pilot is born. There are a lot of off ramps between getting ganked in empire as a noob and becoming a pvp pilot. It's a really poor business model. The leet empire 'pvp' folks that club baby seals all day only pull in and retain a few low tallent pilots. Most quit and a very few go on to be actual pvp pilots. My assumptions is that the noobs destined to become great pvp pilots would find their way wether they got ganked by the empire 'teachers' or not. If leet HS gankers really wanted to teach newbros how to pvp they would: 1. Actually learn how to pvp 2. Teach through mentoring and actual instruction (not by curb stomping a baby seal and then proclaiming they are doing the game a favor) If we could get rid of the current rash of low tallent noob ganking, then I think more folks would find their way in eve and hang around to be a part of it.
Anhenka Infinite Point Nulli Secunda 1319	Posted - 2015.03.28 06:57:30 - [261] - Quote Donnachadh wrote: Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: Not the right link but close enough - https://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/EVE_playing_behaviour ~snip~ On a side note, that survey is from three years ago. Also rather deceptive in it's options. I'm a base line grunt for a nullsec coalition, and yet I still would say I "usually play solo, but sometimes play as part of a group" After all, I don't spend the majority of my time in EVE actively in fleets with others. P.S: If you go search around, there were some numbers released at fanfest that would support various facets of peoples arguments regarding new player retention and PvP involvement. And they wouldn't be three years out of date.
Mag's the united 19180	Posted - 2015.03.28 07:49:53 - [262] - Quote Serendipity Lost wrote: Ganking in HS is a big part of the problem. It's like alcoholism and beating your children - it's getting passed down through generations. Elite HS gankers gank some noobs - outcomes: 1. noob quits game 2. noob 'learns' and becomes a ganker - outcomes: 1. low skill noob taught to gank by low tallent vet = low skill and low tallent ganker ganking noobs 2. low skil and low tallent noob gets bored - outcomes: 1. low skill and low tallent noob quits game 2. low skil and low tallent noob joins non-elite pvp group that doesn't do low tallent empire ganking - actual pvp pilot is born. There are a lot of off ramps between getting ganked in empire as a noob and becoming a pvp pilot. It's a really poor business model. The leet empire 'pvp' folks that club baby seals all day only pull in and retain a few low tallent pilots. Most quit and a very few go on to be actual pvp pilots. My assumptions is that the noobs destined to become great pvp pilots would find their way wether they got ganked by the empire 'teachers' or not. If leet HS gankers really wanted to teach newbros how to pvp they would: 1. Actually learn how to pvp 2. Teach through mentoring and actual instruction (not by curb stomping a baby seal and then proclaiming they are doing the game a favor) If we could get rid of the current rash of low tallent noob ganking, then I think more folks would find their way in eve and hang around to be a part of it. Ignoring the obvious recent information we have been given, do you have any facts to support this diatribe against ganking? Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the lions will ignore you in the savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
Serendipity Lost Repo Industries 898	Posted - 2015.03.28 08:39:20 - [263] - Quote Well, we could ask them, but they've all quit. I'm not against ganking. I'm against ganking noobs. I'm against ganking covetors. It's not the act of ganking that is bad, it's all the low skill no tallent garbage running around in cats wonking on noobs. If you bring down a 3 bil isk marauder in a mission hub - I'll be the first to high five you. Roast a guy in a freighter - big deal - if he's in game long enough to pilot a capital ship, he knows the deal. Use a throw away alt in a dessie to club baby seals - you're a no tallent tool that had better not claim what you are doing is pvp or teaching the new players a valuable lesson. It's utter garbage to claim either. Don't lump me in w/ the anti-ganking crowd. I just detest pvp posers and SENSELESS NO-TALENT ganking. I hope we're clear now. I'm just calling crap game play.... well crap game play.
Mag's the united 19180	Posted - 2015.03.28 08:44:36 - [264] - Quote So no facts then, just anecdotal and feelings. Glad we cleared that up. Now go look at the recent information we have been given, (fanfest) then come back to me. Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the lions will ignore you in the savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
Serendipity Lost Repo Industries 898	Posted - 2015.03.28 09:09:13 - [265] - Quote Mag's wrote: So no facts then, just anecdotal and feelings. Glad we cleared that up. Now go look at the recent information we have been given, (fanfest) then come back to me. Your recent information doesn't prove anything. It's a collection of statistics that can be interpreted to suit your needs. You or CCPs interpretation is also just what you feel the selected set of statistics represent. When you can show me the actual exit comments, then what we will be dealing with is facts. Glad we cleared that up. Now go spin a few graphs however you like. I'll stand by my opinion - no tallent sensless ganking is bad for the game. Well planned strategic or monetarily driven ganks are just fine. If you can't see the difference between the two cases and feel a need to hang your hat on 'all ganking is good for eve' and promotes players staying in the game, well you're entitled to your opinion. I think we're at the point in earth history where if one poses a plausible possibility, many folks feel inclined to give in to what ever random notion that plausible possibility supports. I'm not one of those many folks. I don't care how many times you say ganking noobs is good for the game, what statistics you wrap it up in or any of that. No one likes losing in a game. No one likes losing w/out warning and very little understanding of what happened. New players just don't type in local how awesome it was to just have their stuff blown up in mere seconds for no apparent reason. THAT crap isn't good for any game. Ganking is a part of eve. It goes to its very core and very spirit. Not only do I get that, but I'm also very good at suicide ganking. Just don't do it to noobs and then tell me it's good for the game. That would be a load of garbage. TL/DR There's 2 kinds of ganking. One encompasses the very soul of our game (the good kind) and the other is clubbing baby seals (the bad kind).
Olivias Lahoe Black Market Imperium 3	Posted - 2015.03.28 12:04:46 - [266] - Quote One of the worst ideas in a long time. Once again, an example of controlling people wanting to make others play the game the way 'they' want, when they don't pay the other players subscription. Do you get that? You don't pay for the players subscription so you have no say in the way they choose to play the game. And you shouldn't.
admiral root Red Galaxy 2571	Posted - 2015.03.28 15:00:20 - [267] - Quote Serendipity Lost wrote: Ganking in HS is a big part of the problem. Oooh, the rare, valid point from you. Yes, the lack of highsec ganking is a huge problem with regard to retaining players. No, your rights end in optimal+2*falloff \| No-one hates you, none of us care enough for that. Sabriz for CSM
Mag's the united 19182	Posted - 2015.03.28 15:04:14 - [268] - Quote Serendipity Lost wrote: Mag's wrote: So no facts then, just anecdotal and feelings. Glad we cleared that up. Now go look at the recent information we have been given, (fanfest) then come back to me. Your recent information doesn't prove anything. It's a collection of statistics that can be interpreted to suit your needs. You or CCPs interpretation is also just what you feel the selected set of statistics represent. When you can show me the actual exit comments, then what we will be dealing with is facts. Glad we cleared that up. Now go spin a few graphs however you like. I'll stand by my opinion - no tallent sensless ganking is bad for the game. Well planned strategic or monetarily driven ganks are just fine. If you can't see the difference between the two cases and feel a need to hang your hat on 'all ganking is good for eve' and promotes players staying in the game, well you're entitled to your opinion. I think we're at the point in earth history where if one poses a plausible possibility, many folks feel inclined to give in to what ever random notion that plausible possibility supports. I'm not one of those many folks. I don't care how many times you say ganking noobs is good for the game, what statistics you wrap it up in or any of that. No one likes losing in a game. No one likes losing w/out warning and very little understanding of what happened. New players just don't type in local how awesome it was to just have their stuff blown up in mere seconds for no apparent reason. THAT crap isn't good for any game. Ganking is a part of eve. It goes to its very core and very spirit. Not only do I get that, but I'm also very good at suicide ganking. Just don't do it to noobs and then tell me it's good for the game. That would be a load of garbage. TL/DR There's 2 kinds of ganking. One encompasses the very soul of our game (the good kind) and the other is clubbing baby seals (the bad kind). Edit: we're off topic, i'm right and you're wrong. let's leave it at that and get back to how you experts can come up with a way to force eve players to play the way you want them to. KK thanks. Yea let's ignore the information that goes against your stance and move on. Facts be damned. Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the lions will ignore you in the savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
Mag's the united 19182	Posted - 2015.03.28 15:05:00 - [269] - Quote admiral root wrote: Serendipity Lost wrote: Ganking in HS is a big part of the problem. Oooh, the rare, valid point from you. Yes, the lack of highsec ganking is a huge problem with regard to retaining players. I see what you did there. Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the lions will ignore you in the savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
Kaarous Aldurald Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE. 12323	Posted - 2015.03.28 15:05:17 - [270] - Quote Serendipity Lost wrote: Well, we could ask them, but they've all quit. I'm not against ganking. I'm against ganking noobs. I'm against ganking covetors. It's not the act of ganking that is bad, it's all the low skill no tallent garbage running around in cats wonking on noobs. So you hate the game, then. You know, because CCP has told us in no uncertain terms that newbies who get ganked are the most likely to stay in the game, and contribute to better player retention. The only griefers here are your kind, who want to bore new players to death with the worst PvE in the industry. Meanwhile, the people you hate on with such vitriol are contributing more to the health of the game than you ever will. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs.
Kaarous Aldurald Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE. 12325	Posted - 2015.03.28 15:09:43 - [271] - Quote Serendipity Lost wrote: I'll stand by my opinion - no tallent sensless ganking is bad for the game. That's not an opinion, you're just wrong. You can have as much commitment to being wrong as you want, but it doesn't change the truth. Quote: I don't care how many times you say ganking noobs is good for the game, what statistics you wrap it up in or any of that. No one likes losing in a game. No one likes losing w/out warning and very little understanding of what happened. New players just don't type in local how awesome it was to just have their stuff blown up in mere seconds for no apparent reason. THAT crap isn't good for any game. Except for, oops! The part where it is good for the game, and what you want is actively bad for the game. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs.
admiral root Red Galaxy 2574	Posted - 2015.03.28 15:20:53 - [272] - Quote Serendipity Lost wrote: I'm not against ganking. I'm against ganking noobs. Noobs are the last people who deserve any protection at all. Tell me, why are you so interested in protecting them when they absolutely deserve whatever happens to them? This isn't the first time you've singled them out in your forum posts. No, your rights end in optimal+2*falloff \| No-one hates you, none of us care enough for that. Sabriz for CSM
Jenshae Chiroptera 1171	Posted - 2015.03.28 17:21:11 - [273] - Quote Serendipity Lost wrote: I'm not against ganking. I'm against ganking noobs. To me: newbie = absolute new player n00b = wilfully ignorant (e.g. constant fail fits many years into the game) I don't think the problem is that gankers are killing newbies left, right and centre. That takes too much effort. I think when it comes to ganking, the problem is that the newbie has everything or too much invested in the battleship or freighter, when they lose on their maiden voyage. I have also put forward ways to make a corporation worth staying in when you are in High Sec and suggested ways for corps and alliances to get help with improved mechanics. This is not a "be all and end all" suggestion. P.S. The stats that the gankers are clinging to like gollum with his preciiiiouuuussss are blatently flawed. CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids. . SOV is stagnant because Low Sec is not the next step from High Sec and a viable place to grow alliances to the point they can challenge Null alliances. Fozzie is treating a symptom.
Arthur Aihaken Narada 4235	Posted - 2015.03.28 17:56:44 - [274] - Quote Here's another reason for remaining in an NPC corporation: The "White Knight". Occasionally you'll see a flashy red criminal ship or pod in high-sec, and you might feel it's your solemn duty to send them to that "pod in the sky". If you're in a corporation, it's almost a given that you'll receive a subsequent threat/ISK demand or face the consequences. If you don't pay you can expect to find the full wrath of a several hundred+ member corporation or alliance WarDec'ing you. Your only recourse is to disband the corporation or go inactive until the WarDec expires (or they tire of harassing you). It's basically legalized extortion to ensure they can continue their ganking activities unhindered and unopposed. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Anhenka Infinite Point Nulli Secunda 1320	Posted - 2015.03.28 18:16:38 - [275] - Quote Arthur Aihaken wrote: Here's another reason for remaining in an NPC corporation: The "White Knight". Occasionally you'll see a flashy red criminal ship or pod in high-sec, and you might feel it's your solemn duty to send them to that "pod in the sky". If you're in a corporation, it's almost a given that you'll receive a subsequent threat/ISK demand or face the consequences. If you don't pay you can expect to find the full wrath of a several hundred+ member corporation or alliance WarDec'ing you. Your only recourse is to disband the corporation or go inactive until the WarDec expires (or they tire of harassing you). It's basically legalized extortion to ensure they can continue their ganking activities unhindered and unopposed. Far, far, far more likely situation. Red flies through highsec, gets killed because he's bad. Red goes to his corp and says "Guys this random guy killed me when I was flying though highsec while -8, lets wardec them" Red's corp goes "Why the **** would we do that, and why were you flying around in highsec in something slow you absolute blathering fuckwit?" See the thing is Arthur, is that PvP groups don't actually look at losing a ship due to their own mistake as a reason for a massive vendetta. Maybe in a few isolated incidents, but typically it's just an opportunity to laugh at the person who was bad enough to lose a ship to a random highseccer on a gate.
Arthur Aihaken Narada 4235	Posted - 2015.03.28 18:27:16 - [276] - Quote Anhenka wrote: Far, far, far more likely situation... See the thing is Arthur, is that PvP groups don't actually look at losing a ship due to their own mistake as a reason for a massive vendetta. Every single capsule that I've podded (legally) in high-sec while in a player corporation has resulted in a WarDec. The last ship I engaged was a criminal cyno alt that CONCORD destroyed (don't ask me wtf he was doing), so I locked and podded him. Within 48 hours a was the recipient of a 1000+ alliance WarDec. "Because". I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
admiral root Red Galaxy 2574	Posted - 2015.03.28 18:37:41 - [277] - Quote Arthur Aihaken wrote: The last ship I engaged was a criminal cyno alt that CONCORD destroyed (don't ask me wtf he was doing), so I locked and podded him. Within 48 hours a was the recipient of a 1000+ alliance WarDec. "Because". There's nothing there to suggest the pod kill was the reason for the wardec. Maybe you did something else to someone else. No, your rights end in optimal+2*falloff \| No-one hates you, none of us care enough for that. Sabriz for CSM
Arthur Aihaken Narada 4236	Posted - 2015.03.28 18:50:28 - [278] - Quote admiral root wrote: There's nothing there to suggest the pod kill was the reason for the wardec. Maybe you did something else to someone else. Actually, it was. He emailed me demanding 35m ISK for his 'no-implant' clone or face a WarDec. I replied that he could have his frozen corpse back for same, then the WarDec followed in short order. Apparently he didn't have a sense of humour... I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
admiral root Red Galaxy 2574	Posted - 2015.03.28 18:56:32 - [279] - Quote Out of interest, what was the final score from the war in question? No, your rights end in optimal+2*falloff \| No-one hates you, none of us care enough for that. Sabriz for CSM
Vector Symian 0 Fear 485	Posted - 2015.03.28 22:24:29 - [280] - Quote People go where they like and of course the Scope welcomes them with loving arms
Eli Stan Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 99	Posted - 2015.03.28 22:43:49 - [281] - Quote Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: Eli Stan wrote: Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: NPC corps + High Sec + veterans = too little risk for too much reward. Can you expand on what you consider a "veteran"? About to get busy so quick reply. Can fly any of these: T2 cruisers, battle cruiser, battleship, T3 Destroyers, cruisers Capitals T2 Indy Exhumers So players that are, assuming they take time to train some core skills, several months old... (Definitely outside the purview of CCP's 15-day new-player presentation at Fanfest.) Cool. Now... what activities are these players engaging in, in highsec, that you consider too lucrative for the risk involved? I ask because I do believe that it's important to move players out of highsec. IMO it's highsec that promotes solo play - I don't believe NPC corps have anything to do with solo play. I'm a null denizen, so personally I wouldn't be upset by a highsec income nerf. I do think highsec is important for trading and shipping, though. The EVE economy is vital for the operation of the game, IMO, and the free production and movement of goods is vital for the economy. So manufacturing, market manipulation, and freighting? All important aspects of highsec that need to be preserved. Good for staging in systems with a null or low gate, too. But mining, ratting, Incursions, exploration and missioning? Meh. Can go away in highsec, IMO. (Except low-levels of such activity in constellations with a starter system.) This would eliminate the ability for the "level my Raven" players to actually do such an activity - they might quit, but they do that anyway, or they might end up joining a group, for protection, in order to move into null/low, and become another hooked player. (And really, after a long time of high occupancy by lots and lots of people, it would make sense from a lore standpoint that natural resources like asteroids are all mined out in highsec, and pirates don't venture into the space. Criminals, yes, but not Spers or Guristas or similar.)
Vector Symian 0 Fear 486	Posted - 2015.03.28 23:41:37 - [282] - Quote As a devoted worker and defender for the Npc corps I feel I must protest at this assumption that the Npc is a place to leave as quite simply it is the best place ever -they have no war -they learn to tolerate all types -we are better looking -and it has a endless supply of funny gifs We at the Scope Project have endeavoured to end this terrible bigotry and will leave you with this... If a player based corp was such a good idea why are the majority of them dying,caving under griefer corp wardeccs and general god complexes?
Syn Shi School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State 165	Posted - 2015.03.29 00:52:01 - [283] - Quote Move to null and pay rent to risk averse F1 monkeys......no ty. If isk is what you seek then leave the safety of the blob and explore the rest of null. Or stay in the blob with your tail between your legs saying you cant earn isk because 90% of the blob is doing the same thing as you.
Jenshae Chiroptera 1171	Posted - 2015.03.29 04:43:31 - [284] - Quote Vector Symian wrote: If a player based corp was such a good idea why are the majority of them dying,caving under griefer corp wardeccs and general god complexes? Thread has some suggestions to help fix that. CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids. . SOV is stagnant because Low Sec is not the next step from High Sec and a viable place to grow alliances to the point they can challenge Null alliances. Fozzie is treating a symptom.
Vector Symian 0 Fear 531	Posted - 2015.03.29 04:56:28 - [285] - Quote Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: Vector Symian wrote: If a player based corp was such a good idea why are the majority of them dying,caving under griefer corp wardeccs and general god complexes? Thread has some suggestions to help fix that. But thats the thing...I don't have to im in a npc corp
Jenshae Chiroptera 1172	Posted - 2015.03.29 05:03:59 - [286] - Quote Vector Symian wrote: But thats the thing...I don't have to im in a npc corp ... or you can join a high sec alliance that WH dives and Low Sec roams to have some fun and build up a group to branch out. CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids. . SOV is stagnant because Low Sec is not the next step from High Sec and a viable place to grow alliances to the point they can challenge Null alliances. Fozzie is treating a symptom.
Vector Symian 0 Fear 538	Posted - 2015.03.29 05:07:28 - [287] - Quote Very true but I do that already its called the Scope Project ALL HAIL !!
Jenshae Chiroptera 1173	Posted - 2015.03.29 05:27:45 - [288] - Quote Vector Symian wrote: Very true but I do that already its called the Scope Project ALL HAIL !! No POSes, no SOV, just paddling around and around in the shallow end until you get bored and get out of the pool. CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids. . SOV is stagnant because Low Sec is not the next step from High Sec and a viable place to grow alliances to the point they can challenge Null alliances. Fozzie is treating a symptom.
Donnachadh United Allegiance of Undesirables 213	Posted - 2015.03.29 15:14:02 - [289] - Quote Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: No POSes, no SOV, just paddling around and around in the shallow end until you get bored and get out of the pool. You do not have the right to choose what other players do for fun in this game. If they want to "paddle around the shawllow end" that is their choice to make. Who says playing in high sec is boring? On my first character I launched into the whole low and nul is where it is at theory and I was absolutely miserable and nearly quit. Then I got smart and started another character and have been happily "paddling around the shallow end" for more than 5 years and see no reason to stop now. I personally know dozens that happily sit in ore belts for hours at a time mining. Yea hate that myself but this is about them not you and me. I know dozens that gather together to run missions as a tool to help teach fleet tactics to the new players headed for their low sec group, everyone has a great time and some people even learn a thing or two. I have a group of low sec players that routinely join me in high sec mission runs for many reasons the primary being standings boosts and the fact that we are all real life friends separated across multiple continents and this game is the easiest way to gather and do things together. Personally the most fun I have ever had in this game is doing what I do right now and to be honest I could not do it as effectively as I do anywhere but high sec. The same low sec groups that I mission with send me new players with a list of skills both character and personal that need to trained and I get the privileged to do that. It gives me great enjoyment to see their wonder as they start to experience what EvE is and can be, and even more enjoyment when they have completed their time with me and I get to see them finally achieve a game play style they have been working towards. But you can do all this in low or nul and you are correct it can be done there however as a group we have found high sec to be a better training ground for the initial parts of this training. Why? because in high sec we are reasonably free to concentrate on skills to be learned instead of watching local and d-scan for potential problems. Yes you are correct and using the d-scan is one of those things we work on, but in high sec it is not a required part of staying safe it simply becomes another tool to learn how to use. And no I do not send out fully trained players, there are many aspects of life in low/nul that I simply cannot prepare them for since it is impracticable or impossible in high sec. And so after giving a brief about how you can have tremendous amounts of fun in high or be terribly bored in low/nul we get back to where I started. You and I, in fact no one has the right to tell people what they should be doing in this game for fun, and no one but CCP has the right to limit their options. We all play this game for fun, we all pay for that in some way, and we ALL get to choose what we do.
Mag's the united 19193	Posted - 2015.03.29 15:18:29 - [290] - Quote Donnachadh wrote: Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: No POSes, no SOV, just paddling around and around in the shallow end until you get bored and get out of the pool. You do not have the right to choose what other players do for fun in this game. If they want to "paddle around the shawllow end" that is their choice to make. ...snipped for space.... Great post, but it will fall on deaf ears. +1 Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the lions will ignore you in the savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
Arthur Aihaken Narada 4247	Posted - 2015.03.29 15:45:17 - [291] - Quote Donnachadh wrote: And so after giving a brief about how you can have tremendous amounts of fun in high or be terribly bored in low/nul we get back to where I started. You and I, in fact no one has the right to tell people what they should be doing in this game for fun, and no one but CCP has the right to limit their options. We all play this game for fun, we all pay for that in some way, and we ALL get to choose what we do. I think the term you're looking for here is "risk averse". Most high-sec players realize that low-sec is rigged, and that the only content to be found there are the tears most low-sec players are after. Corporate WarDecs, station games, duels, can flipping, miner bumping and ganking are all a form of legalized harassment because there aren't a lot of players (or content) in low-sec other than Faction Warfare and gate camping. Hence why we repeatedly see calls for the elimination or restriction on high-sec NPC corporations to ensure the area with the largest player base can be further exploited. You can't change how NPC corporations work without also first making changes to high-sec WarDec mechanics, duals and other aspects of player interaction. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
WhyYouHeffToBeMad IsOnlyGame 7315	Posted - 2015.03.29 17:03:49 - [292] - Quote Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: Getting people out of NPC corporations AKA Alliance & Corporation Recruitment board. Everything's a game if you make it one - Uriel Paradisi Anteovnuecci Frostys Virpio > CCP: Continously Crying Playerbase
Lienzo Amanuensis 58	Posted - 2015.03.29 18:05:13 - [293] - Quote Realistically, everyone wants to be a mercenary, and hardly anyone is. Some part of that is lack of AR/AP tools for corporations, and good fleet logging option tools for FCs. A bigger part is that players will line up for any content, instead of finding themselves choosing between opportunities for content. Encounters between players is decidedly uncommon in the context of the vast population of them. If players were making such choices, corps would have to incentivize their content over other content, and it would probably involve some model that involved taking and protecting assets, but also making that financially worthwhile to their members. As is, groups of players have to put in long hours to find interaction with other groups of players. Economically, we have instead this bottom up model of financing, whereby isolated individual activity involving npcs and avoiding other players dominates all forms of funding for organizations. The logic behind that is to bootstrap players quickly, but at the cost of goals. We also have unscheduled pvp mainly happening during travel or load-in points, with the overall arc of engagement aimed at dis-incentivizing most forms of activity. This results in a mostly dead universe, with the freedom to go anywhere and no reason to bother doing so. Realistically, the only way to get people to work together more is to either make pve look more like pvp, or make pvp look more like pve. That would mean new structures, more farms and fields, more peripheries for fast paced sov activity, faster factories for ship replacement, new corporate deadspace environments in hisec, losec, null and WHs. Perhaps having limitations to hoarding without risked assets, or constant inflation would provide the stick for players to be more active. Getting people into corps is just an euphemism for getting people to undock. Corps are just supposed to represent new opportunities for players. Even the things we do have are often just not used in the intended manner. Few major corps let their line members do anything with POS, corp hangars, anchoring structures, or most anything else that makes being in a corporation worthwhile. Not even HERO bucks the trend in that regard. In most such organizations, players that attempt to expand their options tend to get accused of poaching, or other such autistic sensibilities.
Mike Azariah The Scope Gallente Federation 2702	Posted - 2015.03.29 18:19:38 - [294] - Quote Mag's wrote: Donnachadh wrote: Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: No POSes, no SOV, just paddling around and around in the shallow end until you get bored and get out of the pool. You do not have the right to choose what other players do for fun in this game. If they want to "paddle around the shawllow end" that is their choice to make. ...snipped for space.... Great post, but it will fall on deaf ears. +1 Well, not all are deaf. I make this sort of argument in defense of hisec on a regular basis. Oddly we did manage to get a hisec guy onto the council. m Mike Azariah Gö¼GöÇGöÇGö¼n++ ¯\|(pâä)/¯
Arthur Aihaken Narada 4251	Posted - 2015.03.29 19:37:34 - [295] - Quote Mike Azariah wrote: I make this sort of argument in defense of hisec on a regular basis. Oddly we did manage to get a hisec guy onto the council. Which we truly appreciate. And it's not a coincidence (I suspect you were the first vote choice for many of us). I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Jenshae Chiroptera 1173	Posted - 2015.03.29 23:37:18 - [296] - Quote Mike Azariah wrote: Mag's wrote: Donnachadh wrote: Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: No POSes, no SOV, just paddling around and around in the shallow end until you get bored and get out of the pool. You do not have the right to choose what other players do for fun in this game. If they want to "paddle around the shawllow end" that is their choice to make. ...snipped for space.... Great post, but it will fall on deaf ears. +1 Well, not all are deaf. I make this sort of argument in defense of hisec on a regular basis. Oddly we did manage to get a hisec guy onto the council. m Easy ISK -> Inflation -> Distorted Markets -> Players stay in comfort zone. CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids. . High Sec needs a stepping stone to other areas of space, where they can grow. Fozzie is treating a symptom.
Donnachadh United Allegiance of Undesirables 215	Posted - 2015.03.30 04:12:22 - [297] - Quote Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: Easy ISK -> Inflation -> Distorted Markets -> Players stay in comfort zone. So what is the point your are trying to make here? All players stay in their comfort zone not just those in high sec. All you need to do to understand that is go read through the "I hate Jump Fatigue" threads. Read all the complaints about how they are spending huge amounts of time waiting out jump fatigue instead of playing the game. There are only 2 reasons that is an issue, 1. poor planning on the part of alliance/corp leaders or FC's 2. living deep in your alliances held territory where it is just as comfortable and safe as high sec.
Jenshae Chiroptera 1174	Posted - 2015.03.30 08:41:54 - [298] - Quote Donnachadh wrote: Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: Easy ISK -> Inflation -> Distorted Markets -> Players stay in comfort zone. So what is the point your are trying to make here? All players stay in their comfort zone not just those in high sec. All you need to do to understand that is go read through the "I hate Jump Fatigue" threads. Read all the complaints about how they are spending huge amounts of time waiting out jump fatigue instead of playing the game. There are only 2 reasons that is an issue, 1. poor planning on the part of alliance/corp leaders or FC's 2. living deep in your alliances held territory where it is just as comfortable and safe as high sec. Yes and that fatigue is getting blamed for ships blowing up. I am loving it. CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids. . High Sec needs a stepping stone to other areas of space, where they can grow. Fozzie is treating a symptom.
Serendipity Lost Repo Industries 906	Posted - 2015.03.30 13:28:42 - [299] - Quote admiral root wrote: Serendipity Lost wrote: Ganking in HS is a big part of the problem. Oooh, the rare, valid point from you. Yes, the lack of highsec ganking is a huge problem with regard to retaining players. Easy there snippy doodles. I put what I would call a minor wall of text. Just taking a one liner out of context kind of hurts my feelings.
Serendipity Lost Repo Industries 906	Posted - 2015.03.30 13:53:03 - [300] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Serendipity Lost wrote: Well, we could ask them, but they've all quit. I'm not against ganking. I'm against ganking noobs. I'm against ganking covetors. It's not the act of ganking that is bad, it's all the low skill no tallent garbage running around in cats wonking on noobs. So you hate the game, then. You know, because CCP has told us in no uncertain terms that newbies who get ganked are the most likely to stay in the game, and contribute to better player retention. The only griefers here are your kind, who want to bore new players to death with the worst PvE in the industry. Meanwhile, the people you hate on with such vitriol are contributing more to the health of the game than you ever will. I actually love the game. I'm perfectly OK with ganking. I would say I'm better at it than the average cat flying covetor ganking code guy. I've contributed plenty to the ganking scene. Remember 2 years or so ago - the 'burn apanake' weekend. Overall the weekend was not a success (due to way more low skill tools than I had expected), but if you dig through the threads you'll see that I'm the one that instigated it. I didn't run it (lazy girl here), but I got the ball rolling. The main issue was you low skill flashy guys in cats getting concorded before we could bring down a respectable target (your ilk are only suited for taking down the might covetor). So.... you pro ganking dudes (as usual) line up and loudly try to shout down anyone that doesn't agree w/ your low skill form of game play. That's cool, it's not like I didn't know it was coming. If I had a wish it would be that you code guys would space grow up a little bit, learn to manage your sec status properly and graduate from low end barge bonking and get into pulling down the mission boat cream puffs. Seriously, if you want to bring about all the crap you puke out onto the forums, then do it right. It's not the 3 month old covetor pilot you're having a problem with, it's the 6 year old npc mission tool. You guys complain about one thing, but gank another. You want to clean up HS, then go after the career mission runners. Try to see the difference between some new player just getting his arms around the game and the real cancer that rots HS. Again, ganking isn't bad and actually speaks to the sould of the game - it's the low end cradle killings that run off a lot of the potential future of the game before it even figures out what's going on. It's just dumb and well... too easy to brag about.
Jenshae Chiroptera 1178	Posted - 2015.03.31 13:27:45 - [301] - Quote Serendipity Lost wrote: ... then do it right. .... Ssssshhhhh! I have a strategy that to people I trust, I mention only one tactic that is a part of it and they go. I won't lay it out. I won't do it because it is game breaking. It is worse than the pipe bomb tactic. So, here I am on the forums trying to push for a few changes here and there and hoping people remain sub-average until a few changes go through. CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids. . High Sec needs a stepping stone to other areas of space, where they can grow. Fozzie is treating a symptom.
Eli Stan Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 99	Posted - 2015.03.31 14:48:08 - [302] - Quote Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: NPC corps + High Sec + veterans = too little risk for too much reward. Last week you said you were too busy to answer, so maybe you have time now so I'll ask again. What specific activities are veteran NPC corp players doing that you think brings in too much reward?
Jenshae Chiroptera 1178	Posted - 2015.03.31 21:27:10 - [303] - Quote Eli Stan wrote: Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: NPC corps + High Sec + veterans = too little risk for too much reward. Last week you said you were too busy to answer, so maybe you have time now so I'll ask again. What specific activities are veteran NPC corp players doing that you think brings in too much reward? Pretty much everything if they are any good at EVE; from Incursions paying way too much, through to multi-boxing miners, freighters with multiple alts, crushing missions really quickly or even ganking and freighter bumping, all while being protected from war declarations. CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids. . High Sec needs a stepping stone to other areas of space, where they can grow. Fozzie is treating a symptom.
Urziel99 Multiplex Gaming The Bastion 72	Posted - 2015.04.01 05:17:15 - [304] - Quote Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: ~words~ Are you paying my subscription? No? Then you have exactly ZERO power to dictate to me or anyone else what corp they are in or where and how they play. Get over yourself.
Arthur Aihaken Narada 4267	Posted - 2015.04.01 06:05:24 - [305] - Quote Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: Pretty much everything if they are any good at EVE; from Incursions paying way too much, through to multi-boxing miners, freighters with multiple alts, crushing missions really quickly or even ganking and freighter bumping, all while being protected from war declarations. Please show us on the ship where the (incursion\|mining\|freighter\|mission\|bump\|gank) touched you. Eliminating NPC corporations won't change anything. If you have more than one player account, you have two player-owned corporations you can jump between. If you want to encourage more PvP interaction in high-sec there are other ways to go about it. Reforming the bounty system would be one way. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Mag's the united 19210	Posted - 2015.04.01 07:05:02 - [306] - Quote Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: Eli Stan wrote: Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: NPC corps + High Sec + veterans = too little risk for too much reward. Last week you said you were too busy to answer, so maybe you have time now so I'll ask again. What specific activities are veteran NPC corp players doing that you think brings in too much reward? Pretty much everything if they are any good at EVE; from Incursions paying way too much, through to multi-boxing miners, freighters with multiple alts, crushing missions really quickly or even ganking and freighter bumping, all while being protected from war declarations. Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: Dots wrote: Red Frog uses NPC Corp alts for hauling, so I'm not sure wardeccing really applies to them. Edit: Grr, autocorrect Spies and suicide gankers do apply Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the lions will ignore you in the savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
Jenshae Chiroptera 1189	Posted - 2015.04.01 17:14:05 - [307] - Quote Arthur Aihaken wrote: Reforming the bounty system would be one way. I do have previous suggestions say that I think it should work like courier contracts. " X hull type(s) for Y ISK" it could even be a case function, example: "Killing Arthur has a total of 5 billion in this contract Marauder class 500M T3 cruiser 250M T2 cruiser 75M Battle cruiser 20M " Then you can issue them and they can be accepted by corps / alliances, you an make multiple contracts or have contracts with multiple kills. CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids. . High Sec needs a stepping stone to other areas of space, where they can grow. Fozzie is treating a symptom.
McChicken Combo HalfMayo The Happy Meal 541	Posted - 2015.04.01 17:43:16 - [308] - Quote Urziel99 wrote: Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: ~words~ Are you paying my subscription? No? Then you have exactly ZERO power to dictate to me or anyone else what corp they are in or where and how they play. Get over yourself. Everyone has the right to contest your gameplay if they feel it negatively impacts the game. There are all our dominion Gate camps: "Its like the lowsec watercooler, just with explosions and boose" - Ralph King-Griffin
Jenshae Chiroptera 1195	Posted - 2015.04.02 00:54:03 - [309] - Quote McChicken Combo HalfMayo wrote: Everyone has the right to contest your gameplay if they feel it negatively impacts the game. High lighted to OP. Thank you. CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids. . High Sec needs a stepping stone to other areas of space, where they can grow. Fozzie is treating a symptom.
Donnachadh United Allegiance of Undesirables 218	Posted - 2015.04.02 01:28:17 - [310] - Quote McChicken Combo HalfMayo wrote: Everyone has the right to contest your gameplay if they feel it negatively impacts the game. No one has the right to contest what I do or do not do in the game as along as what I am doing is within the rules. You do have the right to play within those rules and try to enforce your ideas but that is all. You have the right to come here suggest / lobby for CCP to make changes. just as we have the right to attempt to counter your arguments. Only CCP has the right to dictate to players what they can and cannot do within the game.
Arthur Aihaken Narada 4278	Posted - 2015.04.02 01:39:55 - [311] - Quote The biggest problem with WarDecs is that they're grossly unfair. You get a large corporation (or alliance) essentially brutalizing a smaller one. Add neutral logistics to the fray and you end up with a slaughter. This isn't 'gud fights' - it's legalized ganking. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Jenshae Chiroptera 1196	Posted - 2015.04.02 03:37:32 - [312] - Quote Arthur Aihaken wrote: The biggest problem with WarDecs is that they're grossly unfair. You get a large corporation (or alliance) essentially brutalizing a smaller one. Add neutral logistics to the fray and you end up with a slaughter. This isn't 'gud fights' - it's legalized ganking. Always been in the OP that I am aware of this: Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: There are some related problems: - War dec mechanics CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids. . High Sec needs a stepping stone to other areas of space, where they can grow. Fozzie is treating a symptom.
Arthur Aihaken Narada 4278	Posted - 2015.04.02 05:10:11 - [313] - Quote Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: Always been in the OP that I am aware of this. With respect to one of the ideas in your OP, what determines the value of a high-sec system? Typically the lower the rating the more ore, NPC rats and missions are worth. I do agree that the AI could stand an overhaul, if only to better prepare players for the eventuality of PvP. This means a substantial mission overhaul with varying degrees of difficulty, ship configuration and AI for rats, substantially smaller numbers and vulnerable to all forms of EW. And then we still have the WarDec issues. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Urziel99 Multiplex Gaming The Bastion 76	Posted - 2015.04.02 08:10:03 - [314] - Quote McChicken Combo HalfMayo wrote: Urziel99 wrote: Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: ~words~ Are you paying my subscription? No? Then you have exactly ZERO power to dictate to me or anyone else what corp they are in or where and how they play. Get over yourself. Everyone has the right to contest your gameplay if they feel it negatively impacts the game. Contest =/= demand, which is exactly what the OP is doing. Last time I checked, this was a sandbox where the pilots are free to play by their own rules, in their own way. For some, like OP and CODE it means taking a crap on someone else's cheerios. For some it means using any and all means available to avoid said defecation. Don't like it? Too Bad. My sub, my pilots, my accounts. So pardon me while I express my right to tell you to go play in traffic.
Jenshae Chiroptera 1202	Posted - 2015.04.02 19:03:39 - [315] - Quote Arthur Aihaken wrote: Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: Always been in the OP that I am aware of this. With respect to one of the ideas in your OP, what determines the value of a high-sec system? Typically the lower the rating the more ore, NPC rats and missions are worth. I do agree that the AI could stand an overhaul, if only to better prepare players for the eventuality of PvP. This means a substantial mission overhaul with varying degrees of difficulty, ship configuration and AI for rats, substantially smaller numbers and vulnerable to all forms of EW. And then we still have the WarDec issues. Similar to SOV ungrades only it works for one system where your corp HQ offices are based. CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids. . High Sec needs a stepping stone to other areas of space, where they can grow. Fozzie is treating a symptom.
Quintessen Messengers of Judah 489	Posted - 2015.04.02 19:37:40 - [316] - Quote I'm probably in the small minority, but I have generally had a bad experience in most of the corps I've been in. I'm not a huge fan of a lot of the corp's dudebro attitudes. I know it's better to be in a non-NPC corp even with wardecs and would like to be. What I would like to see is the ability for corpmates to rate the corp they are in or were in. Only non-biomassed characters would count. That would at least limit some of the abuse by alts in a rating system. It wouldn't be a perfect system, but it might be better than nothing. Basically I'm looking for something like Glassdoor or Yelp. Then I could at least get a sense of the corp through more than their advertisement and their, theoretically, charismatic recruiting officer.
Jenshae Chiroptera 1202	Posted - 2015.04.02 19:44:58 - [317] - Quote Quintessen wrote: ... I'm not a huge fan of a lot of the corp's dudebro attitudes. ... Nothing to do with a solution but you will find the large alliances and coalitions have social sub-groups. The gate camping "dude-bros" and the quieter ratters and industrialists. CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids. . High Sec needs a stepping stone to other areas of space, where they can grow. Fozzie is treating a symptom.
Joia Crenca Science and Trade Institute Caldari State 98	Posted - 2015.04.02 20:25:44 - [318] - Quote This is still a 'make everyone play the way I want them to play' thread? But it doesn't take into consideration whether 'forcing everyone to play my way' would close the playground. If 'too many people' are doing things 'not the right way', and choosing not to play your way when they have a choice, the forcing you demand would only force them out the door, not into your playstyle, and the fact that there are 'too many' also means that it's likely their subscriptions are what's keeping EVE afloat financially. I haven't seen corporation / nullsec members stomping out of EVE in droves because 'I saw a high sec NPC person flying the other day and it was disgusting to see them not playing MY way.' But I don't have the numbers to prove that the declining subs -aren't- solely because of that either. It seems unlikely though.
Jenshae Chiroptera 1202	Posted - 2015.04.03 00:32:00 - [319] - Quote The suggestion is to try help CCP get more in line with the orginal vision / core of EVE. CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids. . High Sec needs a stepping stone to other areas of space, where they can grow. Fozzie is treating a symptom.
Donnachadh United Allegiance of Undesirables 221	Posted - 2015.04.03 01:40:18 - [320] - Quote Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: The suggestion is to try help CCP get more in line with the orginal vision / core of EVE. To survive in a highly competitive would of online gaming companies MUST be willing to adapt and adjust to what ALL of their players want and to what the "competition" is doing. To try and stay 100% true to a thought from more than a decade ago is to go down a path of utter futility. The original vision of EvE is and always should be a guide, or an anchor of sorts if you will but it should not and cannot be THE thing that determines where this game goes and how it morphs to meet the ever changing needs of it's players and the competition for our gaming time and money.
Mag's the united 19231	Posted - 2015.04.03 14:14:13 - [321] - Quote Joia Crenca wrote: This is still a 'make everyone play the way I want them to play' thread? Yes, basically. Eve is a sandbox, but the OP wants to determine the size of that box and what we should do in it. Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: The suggestion is to try help CCP get more in line with the orginal vision / core of EVE. As your idea wasn't ever a part of that and does no such thing, I will flat out call you a liar. Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the lions will ignore you in the savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
Eli Stan Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 110	Posted - 2015.04.03 16:39:20 - [322] - Quote Ooph. I know not all corps are like this, and it's gratifying to see a lot of negativity directed at EE for it, but this is a prime example of the sort of stuff many of us who have our main character in an NPC corp want to avoid. http://www.reddit.com/r/Eve/comments/30s0qb/join_easily_excited_2day/
Arthur Aihaken Narada 4292	Posted - 2015.04.03 16:43:06 - [323] - Quote Eli Stan wrote: Ooph. I know not all corps are like this, and it's gratifying to see a lot of negativity directed at EE for it, but this is a prime example of the sort of stuff many of us who have our main character in an NPC corp want to avoid. This is typical of more than a handful of corporations. Most hold killboards sacred. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Jenshae Chiroptera 1215	Posted - 2015.04.04 23:05:27 - [324] - Quote Donnachadh wrote: Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: The suggestion is to try help CCP get more in line with the orginal vision / core of EVE. To survive in a highly competitive would of online gaming companies MUST be willing to adapt and adjust to what ALL of their players want and to what the "competition" is doing. To try and stay 100% true to a thought from more than a decade ago is to go down a path of utter futility. The original vision of EvE is and always should be a guide, or an anchor of sorts if you will but it should not and cannot be THE thing that determines where this game goes and how it morphs to meet the ever changing needs of it's players and the competition for our gaming time and money. EVE has been steady because it doesn't cleave to the methods of other games. That it is a niche and not a WoW clone is why it has a solid subscriber base. The more it stands out for that the better it will do. (I am not saying turf them out of the NPC Corps (as more than a joke) without fixing some other things. The key is to make it challenging on both sides, for those running an industrial through red space and those hunting it down. Not serve up a bunch of victims or they will refuse to go into the kitchen.) CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids. . High Sec needs a stepping stone to other areas of space, where they can grow. Fozzie is treating a symptom.
Donnachadh United Allegiance of Undesirables 229	Posted - 2015.04.05 01:46:12 - [325] - Quote Arthur Aihaken wrote: I think the term you're looking for here is "risk averse". Most high-sec players realize that low-sec is rigged, and that the only content to be found there are the tears most low-sec players are after. Arthur please forgive a multiple pages late post and I hope you read this. This statement has bothered me since I read it shortly after you posted it. I think "risk averse" is the wrong term to use not only here but in many other situations, so lets look at this a little more in depth. My son has spent most of the last 7 plus years in this game playing in low/nul and he is hardcore PvP and even he will not warp into or un-dock into a situation that he knows is stacked against him, most around here call that being smart. When we apply this same situation to a high sec player who will not un-dock during a war dec all of a sudden they become "risk averse" carebears why is that? I will agree there are many in high sec who justly deserve to be called "risk averse", but to apply the term to someone who refuses to un-dock when they know they will quickly become kill board fodder is harsh and unfair. To me the risk averse are the ones that dock up the moment an entry shows up in local chat that is yellow or red even though that player does not even show up on overview.
Jenshae Chiroptera 1216	Posted - 2015.04.05 01:54:31 - [326] - Quote Donnachadh wrote: When we apply this same situation to a high sec player who will not un-dock during a war dec all of a sudden they become "risk averse" carebears why is that?. It is not limited to High Sec. I have seen 10/40 - 15/80 fighting invaders in Null Sec. People docking up and waiting until the enemy are gone. A few easy kills given to the enemy with no resistance. The risk adverse silently refusing to train a combat ship or make a frigate / destroyer alt to help the others. A week of training and a 1-2M ISK ship is just too much to expect, it would seem. It doesn't matter that if the reds were consistently killed they would not come back and the resulting blue systems would be more profitable. CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids. . High Sec needs a stepping stone to other areas of space, where they can grow. Fozzie is treating a symptom.
Arctic Estidal Harbingers of Chaos Inc Gentlemen's.Club 18	Posted - 2015.04.05 13:55:37 - [327] - Quote The war dec mechanics are the sole issue and are completely broken. CCP needs to fix war decs. It is a signficant exploit for trolling and farming kills. It is completely one sided and needs to be fixed. That is why I have alts in NPC corps, there is just no benefit to putting them in a corp that can be war dec'd.
Donnachadh United Allegiance of Undesirables 229	Posted - 2015.04.05 14:31:09 - [328] - Quote Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: The risk adverse silently refusing to train a combat ship or make a frigate / destroyer alt to help the others. A week of training and a 1-2M ISK ship is just too much to expect, it would seem. It just keeps coming back to his with you. EVERYONE should be required o fight in PvP engagements. Involvement in any form of PvP (shooting other players ships) i nows, always has been and if CCP is smart it always will be a CHOICE we are all free to make so adjust to it and move on. I keep asking and none of you elite high sec war dec PvP (shooting other players ships ) players have even tried to answer. When / if CCP ever gets rid of the PvE (not shooting other player ships) players who are you going to pick on? When / if CCP removes all PvE content are you so risk averse that you will quit instead of facing others who want to blow you apart? And ultimately I have to wonder where all the hate comes from. PvE players are using perfectly valid and legal game mechanics to play in this sandbox the way they want to. In many cases (see list below) they are using the exact same mechanics that the PvP( shoot others players ships) players do. You know things like Staying docked when the odds are not in your favor. Staying docked when you face a ship / fit that you have no chance against. Staying docked when you face a player whose skill is far greater than your own. Jumping corp for whatever. Playing on alts so you can avoid the war dec that you filed.
Jenshae Chiroptera 1221	Posted - 2015.04.05 15:47:43 - [329] - Quote Donnachadh wrote: Staying docked when the odds are not in your favor. My Null Sec example is where the odds are in their favour. Donnachadh wrote: Staying docked when you face a ship / fit that you have no chance against. Home advantage means you can adjust and swop ships or change fleet composition. Donnachadh wrote: Staying docked when you face a player whose skill is far greater than your own. Your skill does not improve if you stay docked. Arctic Estidal wrote: The war dec mechanics are the sole issue and are completely broken. CCP needs to fix war decs. It is a signficant exploit for trolling and farming kills. It is completely one sided and needs to be fixed. Agreed. CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids. . High Sec needs a stepping stone to other areas of space, where they can grow. Fozzie is treating a symptom.
Herzog Wolfhammer Sigma Special Tactics Group 6751	Posted - 2015.07.03 01:34:46 - [330] - Quote I think this thread is fraught with all kinds of good ideas, even if they conflict at times. Overall we can all agree one this: there is an observable tendency for a lot of new players to reach a point where they can get into PVP early on and enjoy this game which is PVP oriented, or get past that point and fall into a rut of grind and asset accumulation and become risk averse. The latter will leave out of boredom sooner than the former will leave out of simply outgrowing the game. This is why I feel that if NPC corporations periodically wardecced each other from time to time, this could jog a lot of players out of their grinds and ruts. There are starter corporations, which for the most part are faction corporations (Federal Navy and State Protectorate for example) and there are those NPC corps that players get shunted into when they drop their membership in player corps. Strife between the NPC starter corporations would be one good way to introduce new players to a kind of low level faction warfare, like an "FW Lite" so to speak. Get them shooting at each other early on and for a "good reason" (us and them which is the core of any group PVP) and I think they will have a good time and no hard feelings. As for the NPC corps for older players who end up in them, I would make it an angle regarding storyline. Why would these NPC run corps, which have CEOs and boards, not fight each other from time to time? It can become part of the eve storyline, maybe even NPC CEOs having feuds of sorts. I would not make these never-ending wars or add complications. There are a lot of players who end up in NPC corps and the context of NPC wars is such that it's less toxic than being decced in a player corp by a bunch of bittervets. If players get more PVP in this context they are more apt to handle PVP and general warfare with other players as well. I think a good time will be had by all. I've said as much in that thread. I hope CCP considers it. Bring back DEEEEP Space!

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 .. 12 :: [one page]

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.