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.

That's a complete load of bullshit. I've never said such a thing.

Quite the opposite. Get off the NPC Corporations are the source of the probelm and open your mind. NPC Corporations are not the issue (can't believe I had to right that again).

The reason you haven't seen the data that 90% of new players leave the game within their first 30 days is because you've done nothing but whinge for it to be given to you here. Stop being lazy and go read/watch the information from CCP like the rest of us have.

NPC Corps are fine.

I don't really have an argument with you then. NPC corps are a side issue within the greater problem of player retention and mostly a red herring thrown out by highsec pvp all stars that want more things to shoot.

Terrible, terrible people forming player corps in highsec, recruiting newbies and then giving them absolutely no guidance on how to not to get violenced by wardeccers and gankers are a much bigger issue. That's player corps and the people who start them. A new player experience which leaves people completely unprepared for the dark side of EVE (scamming, wardecs, the prevalence and utility of alts for griefing, ganking) is another problem.

But I don't see a way to solve the first problem beyond some kind of intricate barrier to corp creation.

It's really a case of casualism and/or min/max.
Many of the people that test Eve, likely have come from another MMO.
Their experience, prior to Eve, revolved around games with zones that are dedicated to non-PVP without consent.
They are also familiar with level grinding, which in many games, can get you from newb to end game content in a month.
As we are all aware, this is not the case in Eve.
There is no end game content and there is no option for pure safety.

That said,'I am NOT suggesting a change for the formula in order to support this.
The market would fall apart as most players, including those with alts in high, would gravitate their characters towards this area.

However, I do not support the alternative of taking away safety, as it is. This would not only deter new players, but would likely cause the dropping of many so to say "carebears" as well as cause alt accounts to drop, due to lack of safer gameplay.

As far as retention of players, both new and old, I think this is an issue of two cases.
1) community - There's got to be social interaction. This is not an issue of corps(player or NPC), but instead the fault of the players.
We have essentially built a barrier inhibiting player interaction. Remember the Eve Moto of "Trust no one"? Well, this has the alternate effect of inhibiting the social interaction with new players. Not very many people want to help a new bro, as you can't trust them.

2) Content - we're all aware that it takes a bit of time to become efficient at combat. This leaves mining as the most effective activity a newbro can involve themselves in for at least the first two weeks. Even after that, their combat efficiency is extremely limit. However, once you've developed efficient combat skills, you still likely have developed funding, so PVP involvement is extremely limited, unless you manage to get into an alliance with a ship hand out program.
If you do manage to get interest from an alliance, there's about a 50-50 chance that you're being baited.

Content can be corrected by providing more low level and high level content in all security areas.

As far as community, well... Eve players are a$$holes...

If you are having trouble keeping your own story straight, just imagine how confused I must be about what it is you are trying to say. In one post you're claiming player corps are better and that's why CCP needs to push players into them. In the next, you're denying having said that. You are telling us about supposed data that says NPC corp players quit more, then you are back tracking and pointing to a 90% attrition rate for new players as if that somehow has to do with NPC corp membership. I can't figure it out, either. But, I am not going on a wild goose chase looking for phantom data that makes your case for you. Find it yourself and provide a link to it or STFU about it.

But I don't see a way to solve the first problem beyond some kind of intricate barrier to corp creation.

You solve a player created problem with other players. Specifically, those gankers and wardeccers you so despise.

Bad corps should die on the vine, but in the ridiculous safety that is highsec, that's far too difficult to do. Incentivize conflict, make it more accessible and more widespread, and watch these bad corps die.

Shouldn't be too long before you regret that...
Maybe 4 weeks before the market falls apart and the price of everything doubles.

If your best argument involves publicly demonstrating that you have zero clue how the economy works, you should have just stayed out of the discussion.

I think you have no clue, of the value high sec players provide to the economy.

You very much underestimate the power of the care bear stare..

I think you have no clue, of the value high sec players provide to the economy.

Justify your "get off my NPC porch" rant all you want, but what you are really clinging onto is that sweet, sweet wardec immunity.

Feeling antisocial? Don't want to take orders? Make a one-man corp.

You solve a player created problem with other players. Specifically, those gankers and wardeccers you so despise.

Bad corps should die on the vine, but in the ridiculous safety that is highsec, that's far too difficult to do. Incentivize conflict, make it more accessible and more widespread, and watch these bad corps die.

Some people have posted that they stay in NPC corps because of wardec immunity. Other people have posted that they stay in NPC corps for reasons other than wardec immunity. There are two options:
GÇô they're all liars
GÇô you are wrong about what these other people find worthwhile

If losing wardec immunity isn't a problem, then the thread can end.

I don't think anyone has an issue with NPC Corps if wardec immunity is removed. It's about as simple as that.

Carebears are just a convenience, nothing more.

Those that aren't afraid to play the game are happy to take care of their own needs if the carebears weren't there, whether directly by manufacturing themselves or finding someone that will.

The only thing Carebears offer is self interest. This thread is a good example of that.

Well, I imagine the inhabitants of NPC corps would. I can't see them becoming vulnerable without seeing significant drops in membership.

After all at the point wardec immunity is dropped they become significantly inferior to one man corps in every way whether players want to be social or not.

This would be the system working as intended. Players get exposed to content, they join Player Corps, or make their own. Either way, they get access to new parts of the game, like structures, SOV, you name it.

Why is this such a problem?

There is no justification for any corp in EVE to have wardec immunity.

It's not a problem as evidenced by the working examples on non-NPC corps, but with that said why is the inverse an problem?

Why is the ability to select content and risk in this manner so different from any other? Why are wardecs seen as such an important linchpin of a mechanic in themselves that every players needs to be affected by them? for that matter how did that single mechanic become equivalent to the whole of content?

Why can't players decide they have no interest in sov or structures and tailor play accordingly?

We have tried and tried to validate the myth that griefing has a pronounced affect on new players - we have failed. The strongest indicators for a new player staying with EVE are associated with social activity: joining corps, using market and contract systems, pvping, etc. Isolating players away from the actual sandbox seems very contrary to what we would like to accomplish.

I'm pretty sure that the sudden loss of a significant portion of the player base is a pretty good justification for keeping immunity. On the other hand, if immunity is removed the people who stay in NPC corps will be wardeccing everyone and utterly destroying any corp less than 500 people.

People won't even bother making player corps. No point to it. Most NPC corps will be larger than the current alliances. The game will be completely changed.

This is a game. Not everyone is going to invest the same amount of time, effort, or real world cash that you do. In light of that it is unreasonable to expect people to compete on your terms in every area of the game.

I'm pretty sure that the sudden loss of a significant portion of the player base is a pretty good justification for keeping immunity.

I will flip the question on you.

If it is not such a problem, what is the issue with removing wardec immunity? Players are free to "have no interest in sov or structures and tailor play accordingly", but I don't see what all that has to do with having wardec immunity? Can't they continue to have all those aspirations while being vulnerable to wardecs in the same way that everyone else is in the game?



Why would I want wardec immunity removed?

• Because it removes exposure to content from players who are most vulnerable to quitting. We can argue about NPC Corps and quitting, but we all agree that content causes people to stay in the game. Wardecs are content.
• Because it's too powerful. Travel is an essential component of EVE. Travel can consume a significant portion of gameplay for someone who is out in space. Wardecs make travel in hisec for non-haulers 100% safe. Being immune during an activity that constitutes most of your time in space in hisec is too powerful.
• There is no lore or gameplay balancing reason for wardec immunity to exist.
• There is no statistical reason for wardec immunity to exist (see below).

From the horse's mouth:

The argument you are making now is that the affected players made the wrong choice somehow and need to be forcibly corrected because someone else knows what their game play time should be spent doing better than they do.

No, we're making the argument that no one should be able to completely ignore certain parts of the game without consequence, just because they made the deliberate choice to be bad at that part.

As before. I suck at the market. Should I get to be immune to that mechanic, just because I'm bad at it? Because this is EXACTLY what you are suggesting should be true about wardecs.