Stop hating. This is bullshit and has nothing to do with why it's bad.

If you cared more than just about yourself you
would understand that the underlying issue is bigger and affects the whole game.

You selfish, pathetic people.

LALALA WHY MAKE SENSE ANYWAY RIGHT NEVIL???

What for ?
Not like there is a point talking to you.
One just needs to look at your responses.

Lol ccp DID sort out the new player retention.
They said that players that stay in npc corps have significantly less retention and quit wayyyy more often.
To fix the retention they must then figure out how to force people out of the retention-killing npc corps.

Wtf is hard to understand? Ccp SAID that npc corps cause terrible retention.
They thread is about why players refuse to leave npc corps so we can stop the retention bleeding

New players start in NPC corps and those players are the most likely to quit. .

I stated that new players were at greater risk of leaving, not that one new player was at a greater risk than another. And since those new players would be more likely to be in NPC corps because that is where they start, such corps would have comparatively lower retention.

Further, since retention is pretty engagement related, that skews retention even further away from new players who remain in NPC corps.

Not to your original starter corp, no.

But always to the same npc corp every time you leave a player corp, yes.

Expounding upon 'Wrong.'
Even if you are in a NPC corp someone can crap in your sand, it just limits the manner in which that deuce may be dropped.
Without access to war mechanics the scatology becomes more one-sided actually. .

It's about those who stay isolated ...
... not about those who play with others.

Do you ever log in and undock ?

I can tell you. I was an awoxer for a long time, before CCP decided that should not be a thing anymore, so I've dealt with more than my fair share of them.

It's the vast majority of them. It's why I've argued for a while to put corp creation behind a harder barrier of entry.

How do you beat war dec immunity and low tax rates?

Who wants to play a MMO alone?

Tax is the problem. That is the intensive to get people to join player corps and leave the protection of the NPC corps.

I still haven't seen a compelling argument to persuade the sort of people who prefer to remain in an NPC to corp to join a player corp instead.

.

A lot of the activities wich require a group can be done without actually joining the corp/Alliance the others are in.

[quote=Shimoto]I
You won't see a compelling argument. because what any individual chooses to do is perfectly within their right.

What I do see is a set of players accustomed to doing their destruction in high sec that see that becoming more difficult and requiring a little more effort, and they are understandably not happy about it. If I'd been playing longer and developed an entire playing style around violencing stupid in highsec I'd no doubt feel the same way.

Making PVP more accessible, yes.
Making PVP more forced and mandatory, no.

See, you seem to be under the blind assumption that your play style is accepted by all, and what will keep Eve alive and profiting.
When in fact, the opposite it true.
For now, CCP seems to be happy with the income they gain from the dedicated, smaller group, that enjoy Eve exactly the way it is.

HOWEVER, if they want to be big, and bring in a lot more players, they'll have to take a more casual approach.

What everyone seems to be missing is that CCP is already doing this.

They changed the way Concord works, so that they respond faster.
They've made normally ganked ships beefier and/or given them accessibility to fit beefier.
They made changes to wardecs, though still one sided, gives the target a way out and makes it a bit more costly to the attacker.
Changes to awoxing.
Changes to the new player experience, which believe it or not, hard cores were against.
Removal of med clones.
There are likely other changes I can't think of.


Meanwhile, they're making null sec life more difficult, low sec more worthwhile, WH space more entertaining, and high sec more safe.
See, to me it appears they're trying to build a game that will accommodate all play styles and all types of players.

So, high sec will be casual, low will be a buffer to get experience with PvP, WH space will be a slightly safer version of null, while null will be fore the dedicated hard cores.

Give it time... I can see the shift.
Maybe you are oblivious?

The problem then becomes, where do you find PVE players that would accept the mission to attack another player?
I think it's a cool idea, but it should be something for bounty hunters.

Even after a series of well deserved nerfs, highsec PvP is INSANELY easy. And once you start bringing alts and multiboxing into the equation, it becomes less challenging than a good bit of PvE content. Untanked industrials and barges continue to litter killboards, and one of C&P's better known miscreants has inflicted billions of ISK in damage on at least a dozen highsec badcorps in the past month alone.

The funny part is that they think should be able to make such a bad decision without consequence.

I didn't say I suicide ganked, now did I?

CSM who outright says "EVE is not a PvP game".

Meanwhile, CCP says "EVE is a PvP game".

Man, I'm loving this.
Keeps getting replies that suggest high sec is as intended.

Move along.

Agreed, but neither is

"I can already destroy this guy in his freighter, but I'd like to force him out of NPC corps, so I can war dec him, then destroy him, or make him quit from a perma dec."

Because if they do such corps become inherently worthless in every way compared to a one man corp most likely.

They could be replaced by chat channels while not grouping largely unaffiliated players up to defend from the incoming wars.

90% of new players leave the game in their first 30 days. The status quo isn't very successful.

Which again, lacks a great deal of meaning when dealing with unaffiliated characters. There is a small chance of organized response while the aggressor gains a large pool of targets if people stayed. Which is exactly why most won't.

If you don't want to defend against a wardec now, why would you make it efficient to be placed in one?

I

But not that it all really matters at this stage, I'm sure it's been all well discussed.
I just wanted to throw my opinion at the OP title.

NPC corps prevent prevent you from being wardec'd. You proposed removing that, at which point a single wardec efficiently places all of those players who were avoiding wars into a war.

Conversely by forming one man corps each has to be wardec'd individually which increases costs for chasing the characters down in numbers and greatly decreases the chances of any lesser known or targeted characters from receiving wardecs.

It's demonstrably far less isk efficient to chase the individual targets than having a single entity to wardec, and with any luck you won't be chased at all.

Why would it have a cost calculated any differently than for any other corp?

That's not a justification for price differentiation. Alliances are different from individual corps yet have the same cost scaling.

An NPC corp of 10 people would need to cost more than an alliance/corp of 2000 for them to cost more to dec as a group than individually, so you would have a strong, relevant justification to make.

Sure, you aren't obligated to any justification, but I can't see this conversation going any further if you just handwave existing mechanics as "invented."

I like this wardec npc corps idea... unfortunately people who are far more voracious than I would put it to task.
It doesn't matter what the price is, as raising it will not discourage larger entities from paying the fee. A larger fee would only keep smaller entities, who ironically the NPC corps would have a much easier time dealing with, from being able to declare.
Meanwhile large groups who specialize in war will have their own little space orgy of violence because they CAN afford it.
So, ISK argument in this situation is actually a bad one.

Ah. so many posts, I admit freely to having skimmed the last 30 pages or so.
That would be interesting, but I have a feeling that those militias would be largely empty, with perhaps the exception of CAS.

Yeah. And don't forget the Awoxers either, Kaarous.

Whooie! Did they ever throw a fit. But y'all are still here after declaring your hate for the game that CCP destroyed with balance. None of you left. CCP didn't cave to your pathetic cries of falling skies and mass unsubs. No, you just moved to the next most risk averse PVP you could find. Like the ISBoxers are still here. Still multiboxing. Just adapted.

There's one thing that everyone has in common in this game. From the fluffiest carebear to the most heartless alliance leader, they all fill the forum with anger, threats and tears when it's their EVE that CCP is looking to fix.

Mr Epeen

Compare:
"Hiking is fun. Swimming is fun. Bob won't swim with sharks in the pool. We'll let sharks be taken out of the pool. Bob will be able to have more fun."
"Hiking is fun. Swimming is more fun. Bob likes to hike. We should break Bob's legs and throw Bob in the pool."

See the difference?

Why are CCP piranhas? What's wrong with them trying to increase player retention?

Why might that be?

. Fortunately we have this whole field of math dedicated to dealing with these kinds of problems.

is that 2 days worth of online and undocked time ? or 2 days worth of logged off ?

i asked about the 2 day timer because with a war dec being shorter it's too easy to just log off for 2 days,, but a week. not so easy
you can't force people to play the game as you want and it's rather silly to expect it, some love pvp, some like it and some hate it.
.

With wardecs, the most common reason to dec somone is for easy kills. This is why nearly 90% of all wardecs in which kills were made were won by the aggressor.

how would it not be an advantage if the dec was only 2 days. a 2 day dec wouldn't be designed to wipe a corp out,, it would be a bash and run type of dec. 2 days doesn't bother anyone really unless you've a timer on a pos say. but even then players will stayed logged off and not care about the tower getting bashed.
this is all just talk anyway, i've no data to say a 2 day war dec system would be good or bad or an advantage or not. it just sounds silly and easy to avoid. i'm sure CCP keep it at a week for a reason and the costs the same

Though some say nullsec is safer than highsec ...

... but then war deccers are sh** in hunting people.

That's hugely against the rules, last I heard. As in, first offense, perma ban.

but the defender is as commited as the aggressor. they have no choice, 2 day decs would encourage logging off for the timer. like it's not a long time to be offline don't ya think ?
but hey,, if it worked and encouraged better content and lolz i'd be all for it. i just don;t think it would work.

i've already explained why i think it's different. sure the current system would let you dec for 2 days then retract.. what you'd really like is a cheaper war dec. am i right?

ok.but still doesn't make sense when the current system allows for a 2 day dec if the aggressor choses so. or maybe i'm just not getting why you think it would be better. or is it not that it's better just more options ?

I'd personally almost recommend that all highsec Corps take a trip to nullsec and learn how to survive there.

Sure. If it's not a specific risk for a corp then they don't need to worry about it. For most, the risk of wardecs is a thing.

Sentry guns do nothing against war targets.

[quote=Aza Ebanu]

Non-consensual PVP is an essential part of the game.

We are talking about EVE, a non-consensual PVP spaceship game. We shouldn't provide a shallow end for a 5-year old player, just like we don't let 30-year olds stay in Kindergarten. I'm perfectly fine with rookies enjoying wardec immunity for a reasonable period of time. Why does a 5-year old player need this coddling?

If you wanted the shallow end hottub experience, isn't that what station spinning is for?

NPC corps are relatively neutral organizations of the four empires. Wardeccing an NPC corp is wardeccing an empire faction.

I enjoy NPC corps and EVE is better for it. I am just saying wardeccing an NPC corp should bring consequences. If a capsuleer thinks he is bad enough to take on the whole Federation Navy to attempt at those capsuleers, why not let him?

They can be, but there's a whole range of different ways.

Maybe because they don't want to? Contrary to popular belief, there's a lot more to do in EVE than shoot people, and there are groups who want to exist to do something that isn't pew pew. If the answer is "learn to shoot people", that's effectively writing off players corps as only for people who want to shoot other people, which is pretty much an exaggeration of the problem there is now.

I think that the main reason why players don't join a corpo is that the recruitment subforum is not at all representative of the wide choice of corporations in EVE. It's only representative of the corporations who advertise, and who are at 95% PvP oriented corpos (strong discipline, hierarchy, minimum SP, minimum commitment, TS3 obligatory, full API etc...)
There are a lot of corporations for people who don't wish to set PvP as their main goal, and who want a more relaxed and family atmosphere, but they are mostly invisible.

Which is why I went on a null-sec roam to get a feel for something different. Primarily I spend my time between exploration and (skill queue online) for industry.

CCP Rise said that less that a fraction of a percent of people who quit cite ship loss as the reason. How many multiples of that number were just bored out of the game?

Now apologise to the man for calling him a liar when he was in fact quite truthful.

You can already see corp members kill and lossmails. It's quite a useful feature, honestly, both in explaining to noobs what can/did happen to them and just as fodder for conversation.