That's not entirely correct.. if you declare war on an NPC corp you are then a legal target for everyone in that NPC corp.

The responsiblity of getting newbies more deeply involved with the game is left almost entirely to other players . . . the question is what should be done about it.

GÇô some of whom are in NPC corps, most of whom are in player corps.

People generally agree that this is the case

Why should the focus be on other people pushing new players to play? Why shouldn't the focus be on empowering new players to take matters into their own hands?

i can haz data point?

I'm so ******* angry right now I can't even formulate a coherent response. AHHHHHHHH!!!!



I saw it one time, on the internet or maybe it was at the library. It's there. I promise. Google it "data pointz". #whereiswaldo #truestories

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 sincerely hope I am interpreting your response correctly.

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.

You've lost me there , not sure what it has to do with being efficient.
Correct me if I am wrong, NPC corps do nothing other than tax you.

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.

Depends how much it costs to war deck an NPC Corp

The responsibility of getting newbies more deeply involved with the game is primarily the responsibiliy of the newbies themselves. Why should the focus be on other people pushing new players to play? Why shouldn't the focus be on empowering new players to take matters into their own hands?

This idea of subordinating new players to more entrenched participants of the game might even be the problem.

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

Ill say this,

After being in numerous corporations in Eve, and forging a few friendships (and enemies), I can honestly say the game is much much better when played with others. Content is key in any game and Eve players are my favorite to go to for such things.

I think a lot of players are like me.. I generally don't liked being told what to do with my time, especially if it sounds boring (personality trait). Why should I go orbit a hostile POS at full speed for hours when I can go mine Kernite in my Tormentor? (I DO NOT recommend this) The point of a game like Eve is to play it the way YOU want to, and that's why I love it. I created a one man corp and never looked back. I still socialize. I may even join an Alliance.

However...You should not be forced to do something that you don't want to do. Being ganked or flipped is one thing (because...mechanics), forcing Players to lose their possessions in non-consensual, true PVP combat is not something CCP intended, which is why I believe they implemented Crimewatch/Weapon safeties etc.

Eve is impossible to enjoy alone. No matter where you go, NPC corp or Lone Wolf, there will be a ganker, flipper, war target, or a confused player who hasn't quite grasped the rules and engages your ship without provocation. These things in and of itself create the best content I've experienced to date. They are unintended consequences of game mechanics, but when it crosses the line in to non-consensual combat that results in the loss of prized virtual possessions, it turns most people off.

So to answer your question, I think people stay in NPC corps because they're not informed enough, don't like the extreme risk, and/or they're generally anti-social even in RL.

Eve is like an orgy. It's best enjoyed with others.

So to answer your question, I think people stay in NPC corps because they're not informed enough, don't like the extreme risk, and/or they're generally anti-social even in RL...and it should be no one else's business as long as subscriptions are being paid and the time is being enjoyed.

Who is trying to subordinate anyone?

If you were CCP and had an issue with new player retention, wouldn't you try to do something to change that?

That's all CCP are doing. They aren't forcing people to do anything, nor subordinating anyone. The only thing they are trying to do is provide conditions where new players discover the content that hooks them and they are doing it based on the data they have showing the types of experiences that the 10% of retained players get into early. Empowering is exactly the right word for what they are trying to do.

Of course it's ideal if new players take responsibility for getting into the game. At the same time, CCP is trying to address the huge difference that exists between the expectations of players before they join and then the reality of the experience they find when they do. All of those other experiences that attracted them are there. The old approach to the new player experience just didn't help them find it.

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.

If, for example, wars could not be dodged, and people were forced to use the surrender mechanic as it was intended.

Within half a year, the highsec corps that were left would be ones that you know have passed the test, and could be counted on to be worthwhile to their members.

Pointing people towards good corps is all well and good as an idea, but enabling the removal of the oh-so-many bad corps from the pool is far more important.

I don't need to justify the price difference, it's a completely invented number in the first place.

So carebears declare war?

I still have not found a corp for mid-life crisis, shift working, Zen-Buddhists. But I am hopeful.

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."

You keep begging the question by saying that penalizing NPC corporation players or buffing player corp players is an attempt to fix a problem with player retention. Until you can prove that NPC corporations are the source of the problem, you can't prove that disrupting their function is a solution to that problem. I have yet to see a compelling piece of data that says that players are more likely to leave the game because staying in an NPC corporation is an option. I don't think there is such a piece of data and, unlike you, I don't think CCP thinks there is such a piece of data.

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.