Warfare & Tactics

This is pretty simple. With the recent advent of aggression changes (mostly for the better IMO, I might add), it would seem CCP is encouraging pod kills, since aggression and lawful engagement transfer to the pod after ship loss. I think this is great, but what I don't like is when the said pod is in an NPC corp (example: Fed Militia) and I take a rather HUGE standings hit to the CORP for the pod kill.

Now don't get me wrong, I am all for accepting responsibility for my actions, but I'm not understanding the following "exception to the rule," so to say.

CASE A:
-I shoot player target in player corp
-target shoots back, forsaking potential kill rights
-I win engagement, aggression rights transfer to target's pod, and I pop it
-altercation ends at this point: no kill rights awarded, no standings loss; target is send back to his clone and on his merry way

CASE B:
-I shoot player target in NPC corp
-target shoots back, forsaking potential kill rights
-I win engagement, aggression rights transfer to target's pod, and I pop it
-I incur an NPC standings penalty DESPITE the aggression mechanics being identical to CASE A....

Why does this disparity exist? I am dangerously close to losing locator agent access and I don't understand why this is occurring if the other party has "consented" to pvp aggression by shooting back. The bigger picture: I don't feel it is fair, or even relevant, to require skirmish pvpers the mundane task of grinding NPC corp standings as a penalty for podding people, especially when the aggression system lawfully allows me to pod said target.

Is this broken? Is it an ill-intended feature? Can/Should it be changed? At the very least, can this current mechanic reasonably be explained/justified?


Thanks for reading.

In Case A, player corp standings are determined by, y'know. Players. There is no automatic system for player corp standings determination, although there's an almost-100%-chance the player-corp will set you red.

In Case B, the fact that you're not committing a crime (which is only relevant to CONCORD) doesn't change the fact that you're committing a hostile action against a tax-paying member of that corporation. Why the **** would they be fine with that?

If any disparity exists at all, it's in the fact that the NPC corp will only ascribe a moderate penalty to your actions. The player corp will have skipped straight to -10.

True, and I would expect such.



Exactly, but this *IS* the disparity. I would expect, if anything, to be able to repair the standings hit with plain Jane sec status. But in the current system, I must repair it with potentially every NPC corp in the game? IMO that's not reasonable. I am totally for taking the hit if kill rights were incurred (i.e. if target never engaged me), but if the target shot back? Hell no!



And if player corps unconditionally provided, for FREE, jump clone services, reprocessing services, locator access, mission agent access, I'd be fine with it. They do not, however.

if losing standing is problem for you , do not pod, problem solved.

This is what I am doing, specifically avoiding podkills of members in Fed Militia. I don't feel like I SHOULD though, that's the point.

Maybe if I said the following, this will make more sense:

1) Player vs player should have absolutely no bearing on NPC standings, with the exception of access to highsec in the cases where agression rights weren't first established. Yes?

2) Given current aggression rights, I get heavily penalized, by random chance, if the podded target just happens to be in an NPC corp. The idea that I need to research a layer of NPC corp/alli membership on top of player corp/alliance membership is cumbersome, dull, and redundant. I feel like if I shoot someone, I am risking my relationship with that player and his friends. I totally accept I should have to watch my back for this person, his corp, and his friends for the foreseeable future. However, I also feel I should not have to worry about getting shot by some random station in highsec I just happen to be around six months after the fact.

3) Accepting current mechanics as they are, in the case of faction warfare:
3a) why don't I get an INCREASE in standing with amarr/caldari FW if I pod a gallente FW member?
3b) why should there be ANY change in NPC corp standing at all if I am not a member of any FW in the first place?

4) if players lawfully engage each other, shouldn't ALL standings changes be out the window for involved parties? Isn't this one of the purposes of "cyan" aggression?

5) If I shoot someone in lowsec without aggression rights first, I already incur a sec status hit. Assuming said target shoots back, why should I be double-penalized by the additional NPC corp hit on a podkill?

True, to a degree. Concord standing is the same as sec status. You make a good point though, vague semantics coudl get NPC corp standings mixed up with sec status, so I'll be sure to just call it sec status from now on.



Ok? In my particular cases, the podkills are lawful, so I'm not sure why you're saying this...




I've been wanting to break this down since you posted it, but I wanted to do it right.

Although I find your perspective on the matter to be highly tangential, I'll go ahead and continue on the path you've laid out. Also, this is dangling on the roleplay side of things, but since you brought it up: what he's paid in taxes, I've provided in mission services (much more so, I might add). You're saying that if two people get in an altercation, which has nothing to do with the organization at all, the legal victor of the altercation will get penalized by the organization? Further, no matter the outcome, someone gets the shaft? This is ok in the world you live in? Sorry, but It makes absolutely NO sense for an organization to get involved with the legal matters of two pilots who both have positive standings, so I'm not sure why you bothered mentioning it at all.

Consequently and additionally, I have accepted gameplay mechanics, as I've stated in another post of mine in this thread, by avoiding pod kills on Fed Militia members, thus it is not a "personal problem," yo. Princess Nexx seems to understand the gap to which I am referring; clearly I am not the only one who noticed this issue.

Now back to reality: I'm arguing consequences of gameplay mechanics and the spirit of recent changes to polish those gameplay mechanics: pvp aggression. I do not agree with them. Understand?

I thought I already did, but I'll do it again. NPC corps provide exclusive services like locator agents and missions among other things. I feel these things should not be subject to loss because I lawfully podded someone. It's that simple.


No, aggression rights do, which we both already established, has nothing do to with NPC corp standings.


I get it totally, in fact I would say I get it more so than you. As they are not a law-enforcement entity, they should not care about the altercation AT ALL. It's not their problem or concern. if I build standings with NPC corps in a process which is entirely devoid, irrelevant, and [what SHOULD be] inconsequential from the person whom I'm engaging, why does this person's fate suddenly get involved in a situation that has nothing to do with the NPC corp? You seem to want to make a connection between aggression rights and NPC corp standings, which I simply don't believe should be there. You also seem to ignore the fact that I happen to have better standings than said person in the first place, so in your world, if said NPC corp is to take sides, why aren't they taking mine? I have just as much to lose in the engagement as the other person, so if I lose, they should take a standings hit? Sorry, this is entirely illogical.


>.< Except you CAN'T! You can't do that in NPC corps! You CAN do it in player corps. You're simultaneously comparing apples to oranges while brilliantly presenting the exact disparity I am complaining about, but somehow you don't realize it.


I've stated several times, I am currently accounting for the game mechanics as they currently are. In light of this, I am asking CCP to either investigate my complaint, provide a solid explanation as to why they feel no change should be made, or propose a change that will prevent players from having to work with potentially dozens of NPC corps to undo NPC corp standings damage incurred over a relatively short stint of pvp (definitely short stint considering how long it takes to grind NPC corp standing in the first place).

I would kindly ask that you do not depict me as pouting, but presenting a rational debate instead.

Better not pod people in their corps, then, because it seems pretty obviously that if some **** keeps killing off their membership - regardless of circumstances, they might start observing that, hey, this guy is kind of a ****.



It has something to do with the NPC corp by virtue of the fact that he's in the NPC corp. Frankly, they should automatically -10 just like a player corp would for shooting at their members.



Because "we like you better, in general" doesn't preclude the possibility of you being the ******* in any given situation in any way, shape, or form.




I would kindly ask that you stop pouting and present a rational debate instead.

So, just to make certain I understand.

If you kill a (made) member of the Mafia, you'd not expect them to take note and care? Even if it was completely justified by them having shot at you first. Hmmm.... Not my experience. In some instance not only do they come after you, it may be open season on your affiliation too. Can't let these things go un-noticed. Lose too much Cred if you do.

It certainly sucks that for certain folks, you just shouldn't kill. Too costly! I kill someone in a gang (FBI, Police, Mafia, Special Forces, Medellin Cartel) there will be a price to pay, if they find you.

There is a price to pay if you're a member of an NPC corp. Whole lot less organization, hand-outs, training. Maybe standing minus/plus is the only thing you really get?