Hey, maybe CCP can make the Drifters wage war on all the NPC corps and attack their member pod pilots much like war decs. So if you want to avoid the slew of nasty NPCs attacking at every gate, you leave the NPC corp for a player corp that has neutral standings to the Drifters.

Why does it fall on CCP to implement a features to drive players out of player corps, rather than players doing things to attract players into their organizations?

A lot of the criticism of why people don't join player corps shared in this thread come down to players having to jump through arguably unreasonable hurdles to join, their privacy compromised, how they play compromised (Stay docked, cease all activity during war), and exposing themselves to even more potential for griefplay to name some of the ones that come up repeatedly. All of these are the result of player/community instituted actions, behaviors, and policies.

It seems that other players drive players away from player run organizations, particularly in High Sec. Is it that NPC corps are the problem, or is it that the player corp landscape has been made so unattractive by the players.

CCP implements tools to alleviate some of the more glaring things, having an option for concord intervention in intercorp aggression, implementing more robust networking tools for players in the form of social corps; things that will directly increase the likelihood of being able to build some measure of the trust required to join a player corp and it is viewed as the end of days.

Why would or should they do anything with NPC corps to absolve the players of their culpability in the environment they themselves created? And when they do step in to address the things we are doing that are keeping players out of our own corps, we condemn the actions. Classic damned if you do, damned if you don't scenario.

So, you'd support just removing them then?

It does not reflect on the mechanical level of risk that we accept that other people don't have the balls to do anything about it. I swear, with people like you playing the game, we could fly around in totally tankless ships and not have to worry about it. Oh wait, we do, because you thumbless cowards never bother shooting back.

If you won't defend what is yours, you also relinquish the right to complain. I say "won't" because EVE is a sandbox and not defending yourself is a choice.

As you know, farming kills in the sandbox is possible. Screaming to be left alone on the other hand doesn't work quite as well. Being victimized and farmed for kills is the sandbox working as intended. The question is, what would these so called victims do in the sandbox to change that?

Before Demerius comes back in here to tell me what he thinks I believe, I'll go ahead and summarize it:

I have no problem shooting at people who can shoot back.

What I do have a problem with is petty little videogame fascists who want to tell me who I should or shouldn't be able to shoot at.

And since those people very often coincide with the people who would like to see my ability to shoot at them disappear entirely, they become preferred targets.