These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

why do players stay in npc corps?

First post
Author
13kr1d1
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#681 - 2015-05-15 20:59:50 UTC
Valkin Mordirc wrote:
Necroing threadnaughts should be a bannable offense.


Fielding forum suppressive ideas should be a bannable offense. Would you prefer someone made a new identical thread to this one to continue discussing it? Oh wait, then it'd be locked because there's already an open thread discussing it.

******** ideas like preventing people from talking about something on the forums, because it rustles your jimmies, need to be considered the trolly material they are and treated as such.

Don't kid yourselves. Even the dirtiest pirates from the birth of EVE have been carebears. They use alts to bring them goods at cheap prices and safely, rather than live with consequences of their in game actions on their main, from concord to prices

Black Pedro
Mine.
#682 - 2015-05-15 21:30:26 UTC
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Wardecs are intended, but so is any other form of possible aggression. If all intended actions cannot be griefing, griefing effectively cannot occur.

And that's if we ignore the common general use of the term griefing and restrict it to the definition found within the EULA. There can't really be any doubt that some people do use permissible actions to provoke emotional reactions.

Exactly. Complaining that people using the wardec mechanic are engaging in "grief decs" is the same as whining about losing your ship to a gate camp in nullsec or being evicted from a wormhole. These are intended forms of PvP enabled by the the developers to drive the player conflict the game is built on.

Whether someone blows you up, or declares war on you because they want your cargo, want the kill mail, because you mouthed off in local, because someone paid them to, or because they want a emotional response is beside the point. As long as they stay within the EULA such player conflict is intended to occur in this game.

What gets me is how quick highsec carebears are to blame anyone who dares interfere with thier gameplay as a "griefer". How can they even know what is motivating an aggressor? Sure it could just be out of some desire to smash someone's sandcastle (which in itself is a reason perfectly acceptable to the developers) but it could equally be for direct profit (as with mercenaries), to eliminate a competitor, or just because one corp member insulted the wrong person. The reasons are opaque to the defender unless they are informed, so why must wardeccers always be sociopathic griefers looking for "easy" kills?
13kr1d1
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#683 - 2015-05-15 21:37:07 UTC
Black Pedro wrote:
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Wardecs are intended, but so is any other form of possible aggression. If all intended actions cannot be griefing, griefing effectively cannot occur.

And that's if we ignore the common general use of the term griefing and restrict it to the definition found within the EULA. There can't really be any doubt that some people do use permissible actions to provoke emotional reactions.

Exactly. Complaining that people using the wardec mechanic are engaging in "grief decs" is the same as whining about losing your ship to a gate camp in nullsec or being evicted from a wormhole. These are intended forms of PvP enabled by the the developers to drive the player conflict the game is built on.

Whether someone blows you up, or declares war on you because they want your cargo, want the kill mail, because you mouthed off in local, because someone paid them to, or because they want a emotional response is beside the point. As long as they stay within the EULA such player conflict is intended to occur in this game.

What gets me is how quick highsec carebears are to blame anyone who dares interfere with thier gameplay as a "griefer". How can they even know what is motivating an aggressor? Sure it could just be out of some desire to smash someone's sandcastle (which in itself is a reason perfectly acceptable to the developers) but it could equally be for direct profit (as with mercenaries), to eliminate a competitor, or just because one corp member insulted the wrong person. The reasons are opaque to the defender unless they are informed, so why must wardeccers always be sociopathic griefers looking for "easy" kills?



a 100 man carebear blob could hastily wreck a 10 man highsec merc wardeccing corp. They choose not to do it because "they dont want to deal with politics/etc" and want to play solo. Who said a 100 man carebear blob has to be politic minded? A PC corp that is designed solely as an offshoot of NPC corps, to house 100's of players who don't want politics, which does nothing but allow people to fight back in groups, sounds better than simply whining that they can't play solo because of griefers.

Don't kid yourselves. Even the dirtiest pirates from the birth of EVE have been carebears. They use alts to bring them goods at cheap prices and safely, rather than live with consequences of their in game actions on their main, from concord to prices

Valkin Mordirc
#684 - 2015-05-15 21:38:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Valkin Mordirc
13kr1d1 wrote:
Valkin Mordirc wrote:
Necroing threadnaughts should be a bannable offense.


Fielding forum suppressive ideas should be a bannable offense. Would you prefer someone made a new identical thread to this one to continue discussing it? Oh wait, then it'd be locked because there's already an open thread discussing it.

******** ideas like preventing people from talking about something on the forums, because it rustles your jimmies, need to be considered the trolly material they are and treated as such.



This topic has been beaten about so much it's been, Resurrected beaten again, the topics family, friends and co-workers have been beaten into pulp to much that the the red smear left on the ground is all that's left of this topic and anything related to it. Isn't there something about redundant posting?

Don't freak out over a joke. It makes you look like an idiot by the way. This thread is the most ridiculous troll bait thread sitting on the front page right now and should've died off in February when it started. I just get tired of seeing the same people arguing over the same thing.
#DeleteTheWeak
March rabbit
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#685 - 2015-05-15 21:38:38 UTC
Black Pedro wrote:
What gets me is how quick highsec carebears are to blame anyone who dares interfere with thier gameplay as a "griefer". How can they even know what is motivating an aggressor? Sure it could just be out of some desire to smash someone's sandcastle (which in itself is a reason perfectly acceptable to the developers) but it could equally be for direct profit (as with mercenaries), to eliminate a competitor, or just because one corp member insulted the wrong person. The reasons are opaque to the defender unless they are informed, so why must wardeccers always be sociopathic griefers looking for "easy" kills?

Huh man.... Do you REALLY care why that mosquito just baited you? Shocked
For me it does not matter. I don't like to be baited by mosquitoes so i evade it at all cost. And every mosquito is damn beast which purpose it to bait me and steal some of my blood Lol

The Mittani: "the inappropriate drunked joke"

Venom Anarchy
Venom and Bullet Corporation
#686 - 2015-05-15 21:41:10 UTC
I started my Corp after a few months of playing to see how it works. It was quite useful for organising assets with my other character.
Later I signed my corporation up to Factional Warfare.
I never had to fight another player until then.

There are several FW corps that have asked me to join but I like to organise my own corp, it has it's roots down.

If I was in an NPC corp when I signed up I would probably join a player Corp because a lot of PVP involves teams and I would receive heads up on a battle much earlier.

As it is , I like organising stuff, I would recruit players buy I don't yet have the time to give them the attention they need to be part of my corp.

I don't have a problem with players being in NPC corps. If it is providing what you need then it is the best choice but some player corps seem to have more to offer if you are going their way.

V & B Corporation

Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#687 - 2015-05-15 21:56:35 UTC
Black Pedro wrote:
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Wardecs are intended, but so is any other form of possible aggression. If all intended actions cannot be griefing, griefing effectively cannot occur.

And that's if we ignore the common general use of the term griefing and restrict it to the definition found within the EULA. There can't really be any doubt that some people do use permissible actions to provoke emotional reactions.

Exactly. Complaining that people using the wardec mechanic are engaging in "grief decs" is the same as whining about losing your ship to a gate camp in nullsec or being evicted from a wormhole. These are intended forms of PvP enabled by the the developers to drive the player conflict the game is built on.

Whether someone blows you up, or declares war on you because they want your cargo, want the kill mail, because you mouthed off in local, because someone paid them to, or because they want a emotional response is beside the point. As long as they stay within the EULA such player conflict is intended to occur in this game.

What gets me is how quick highsec carebears are to blame anyone who dares interfere with thier gameplay as a "griefer". How can they even know what is motivating an aggressor? Sure it could just be out of some desire to smash someone's sandcastle (which in itself is a reason perfectly acceptable to the developers) but it could equally be for direct profit (as with mercenaries), to eliminate a competitor, or just because one corp member insulted the wrong person. The reasons are opaque to the defender unless they are informed, so why must wardeccers always be sociopathic griefers looking for "easy" kills?

Reasoning likely seems rather opaque because of their self evaluations as targets. If they aren't targets of value then a profit motive makes no sense. Killmails themselves hold questionable value. Arguably they hold no value from a practical standpoint for the individuals generating them, especially against soft or unprepared targets. That leaves either issues they likely can't trace or actions/words which the whole may not be aware of as you state, and yeah, that leads to the characterizations.

And while they may be to some degree wrong, they are to some degree also right. The default reaction to encountering someone not affiliated to you that you could reasonably kill is to try to do so. The players may not be murderous sociopaths, but the characters we create largely are. Add to that a subset of players salting the wounds of their victims, which I personally don't think is a majority but that's how vocal minorities work, and you have traced the root of the attitude you yourself despise.

The EULA itself doesn't help matters because arguably "for the lulz" and killmail farming, with it's lack of tangible gain, qualify as "making others’ lives miserable" since from a practical standpoint the aggressing player "does not profit from it in any way."
Kaelynne Rose
WTB Somalians
#688 - 2015-05-15 22:06:04 UTC
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Black Pedro wrote:
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Wardecs are intended, but so is any other form of possible aggression. If all intended actions cannot be griefing, griefing effectively cannot occur.

And that's if we ignore the common general use of the term griefing and restrict it to the definition found within the EULA. There can't really be any doubt that some people do use permissible actions to provoke emotional reactions.

Exactly. Complaining that people using the wardec mechanic are engaging in "grief decs" is the same as whining about losing your ship to a gate camp in nullsec or being evicted from a wormhole. These are intended forms of PvP enabled by the the developers to drive the player conflict the game is built on.

Whether someone blows you up, or declares war on you because they want your cargo, want the kill mail, because you mouthed off in local, because someone paid them to, or because they want a emotional response is beside the point. As long as they stay within the EULA such player conflict is intended to occur in this game.

What gets me is how quick highsec carebears are to blame anyone who dares interfere with thier gameplay as a "griefer". How can they even know what is motivating an aggressor? Sure it could just be out of some desire to smash someone's sandcastle (which in itself is a reason perfectly acceptable to the developers) but it could equally be for direct profit (as with mercenaries), to eliminate a competitor, or just because one corp member insulted the wrong person. The reasons are opaque to the defender unless they are informed, so why must wardeccers always be sociopathic griefers looking for "easy" kills?

Reasoning likely seems rather opaque because of their self evaluations as targets. If they aren't targets of value then a profit motive makes no sense. Killmails themselves hold questionable value. Arguably they hold no value from a practical standpoint for the individuals generating them, especially against soft or unprepared targets. That leaves either issues they likely can't trace or actions/words which the whole may not be aware of as you state, and yeah, that leads to the characterizations.

And while they may be to some degree wrong, they are to some degree also right. The default reaction to encountering someone not affiliated to you that you could reasonably kill is to try to do so. The players may not be murderous sociopaths, but the characters we create largely are. Add to that a subset of players salting the wounds of their victims, which I personally don't think is a majority but that's how vocal minorities work, and you have traced the root of the attitude you yourself despise.

The EULA itself doesn't help matters because arguably "for the lulz" and killmail farming, with it's lack of tangible gain, qualify as "making others’ lives miserable" since from a practical standpoint the aggressing player "does not profit from it in any way."


Join a corp outside of FW and ill grief you out of it bro.
Kaelynne Rose
WTB Somalians
#689 - 2015-05-15 22:07:53 UTC
Also this is an internet spaceship game. If i want to blow up your internet spaceship with lasers cuz it gets me off, thats what i pay ccp $15 for a month and thats what i will continue to do.

There are other games for you that you dont have tangible meaninful losses in. That is a key aspect of this game bear
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#690 - 2015-05-15 22:09:43 UTC
13kr1d1 wrote:
a 100 man carebear blob could hastily wreck a 10 man highsec merc wardeccing corp. They choose not to do it because "they dont want to deal with politics/etc" and want to play solo. Who said a 100 man carebear blob has to be politic minded? A PC corp that is designed solely as an offshoot of NPC corps, to house 100's of players who don't want politics, which does nothing but allow people to fight back in groups, sounds better than simply whining that they can't play solo because of griefers.

The issues being horrendously missed here are personal motivation and personal capability.

Personal motivation in that individuals who don't want to fight don't suddenly develop the desire to do so when grouped together. I've had characters in PvP oriented corps. It made it no more enjoyable. The flip side to those same motivations is that fighting still means you aren't doing whatever it is you would otherwise prefer to be doing. Both of those considerations favor evasion to grouping.

The other issue, capability, becomes manifest when capable pilots engage lesser skilled blobs. To be honest, I don't know where the average skills of a carebear in PvP lie, but all I know how to do is get rekt. That also ties into any actual solo operators or those who try in any capacity to enjoy their chosen in space activities being better off just evading.

I get the sentiment here, but it ignores the reality that there is no good reason to fight for someone who doesn't want it, whether able or not.
Venom Anarchy
Venom and Bullet Corporation
#691 - 2015-05-15 22:22:10 UTC
The economics of wardecing a newb don't add up, how can they be doing anything that is worth that much effort ?

V & B Corporation

Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#692 - 2015-05-15 22:22:45 UTC
Kaelynne Rose wrote:
Also this is an internet spaceship game. If i want to blow up your internet spaceship with lasers cuz it gets me off, thats what i pay ccp $15 for a month and thats what i will continue to do.

There are other games for you that you dont have tangible meaninful losses in. That is a key aspect of this game bear

Flawed premise. Meaningful loss is at the very core of evasion. As a result evasion is also a key aspect of the game.
March rabbit
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#693 - 2015-05-15 22:27:58 UTC
Venom Anarchy wrote:
The economics of wardecing a newb don't add up, how can they be doing anything that is worth that much effort ?

It's not so easy. Thanks to CCP.

My PvP is mostly ganking Caldari FW farmers. Sometimes i feel myself sorry for it. You know: killing n00bs....
But then once in a while i get 150-300 million killmail after such kill.... Like it happened last April: person even was on Trial and already carried about 400 million ISK to Jita to sell! It's crazy but it is offtopic.

What i wanted to say: CCP made it very complicated to decide if this n00b worth attack or not. It's too easy to make loads of ISK these days.

The Mittani: "the inappropriate drunked joke"

Khan Wrenth
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#694 - 2015-05-15 22:50:53 UTC
I won't claim to speak for anyone but myself, but I did want to shed a little bit of light from my own experience.

This is my main character and the one that I use to post to the forums with. After playing this game a few months and getting a better feel for it, I did make a PvP toon and get him into a player corp. During the recruitment process, of course, I had to submit an all-inclusive API and go through some interviews. When I first joined that corp, some of the leaders had suspicions that I was a spy because I was asking questions like "when is everyone online?", and "Do you guys do roams together? And when?". Because of course I thought it was prudent to find a corp that was active when I was online (first player corp that toon joined had a bunch of people, but nobody online ever).

As I said, I did get to join the corp, but they keep a close eye on me and this toon. I've got nothing to hide from them, but I think they'd freak out if this toon suddenly joined another corp.

If that experience is anything like other people's, where corps may be suspicious of accounts where different toons are in different corps, then perhaps it is normal for the average account to have 1 corp toon and 1 npc toon. So if that scenario is in any way common, there will always be a great deal of NPC toons...but that doesn't mean (some) people aren't playing within corps, it just means there's alts. This is alts online after all. You can have up to three characters per account, maybe people are creating two NPC alts for every corp toon? I can't say for sure, but it is something to consider.

Besides that, it just makes sense not to have all toons in one corp/basket anyway. If I need to spy on another corp for war, move supplies around, engage in the market, or anything like that, it is best done with a neutral party. That's just the way the game is structured, and I play within those rules. Being in a player corp provides no benefits or incentives to any of those activities anyway.
13kr1d1
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#695 - 2015-05-15 22:57:31 UTC
Valkin Mordirc wrote:

Don't freak out over a joke. It makes you look like an idiot by the way. This thread is the most ridiculous troll bait thread sitting on the front page right now and should've died off in February when it started. I just get tired of seeing the same people arguing over the same thing.


Then you better get going on human sterility so that people will die off and not continue to have thoughts that others had before them.

I have a pet saying "There's no such thing as a new idea, just an old idea rehashed and remixed". You ever go to bonsai or electronics forums? Same ****. People will keep coming up with new ideas that have been thought of before, new topics that hae been gone over, and new questions that are so basic that there's pages full of the same question if you use the search function on the forums.

To this I say "what of it"?

Should we kill all communication because everything has been discussed in bonsai or electronics, or in EvE? If the idea is simply to keep things from being slightly redundant, and force people to use a search function for information, then most forums can go ahead and close up shop after around 4-5 years and just become an archive of searchable questions, answers, and asshattery.

That's not what forums are for, however. They're for people to be able to talk to each other, even if you've personally been around to see it all before.

Don't kid yourselves. Even the dirtiest pirates from the birth of EVE have been carebears. They use alts to bring them goods at cheap prices and safely, rather than live with consequences of their in game actions on their main, from concord to prices

13kr1d1
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#696 - 2015-05-15 23:00:11 UTC
Kaelynne Rose wrote:
Also this is an internet spaceship game. If i want to blow up your internet spaceship with lasers cuz it gets me off, thats what i pay ccp $15 for a month and thats what i will continue to do.

There are other games for you that you dont have tangible meaninful losses in. That is a key aspect of this game bear


If it gets you off IRL to blow up defenseless people in a game, that might tell you something.

Don't kid yourselves. Even the dirtiest pirates from the birth of EVE have been carebears. They use alts to bring them goods at cheap prices and safely, rather than live with consequences of their in game actions on their main, from concord to prices

Shailagh
6Six6Six6Six
#697 - 2015-05-15 23:10:33 UTC
Valkin Mordirc wrote:
13kr1d1 wrote:
Valkin Mordirc wrote:
Necroing threadnaughts should be a bannable offense.


Fielding forum suppressive ideas should be a bannable offense. Would you prefer someone made a new identical thread to this one to continue discussing it? Oh wait, then it'd be locked because there's already an open thread discussing it.

******** ideas like preventing people from talking about something on the forums, because it rustles your jimmies, need to be considered the trolly material they are and treated as such.



This topic has been beaten about so much it's been, Resurrected beaten again, the topics family, friends and co-workers have been beaten into pulp to much that the the red smear left on the ground is all that's left of this topic and anything related to it. Isn't there something about redundant posting?

Don't freak out over a joke. It makes you look like an idiot by the way. This thread is the most ridiculous troll bait thread sitting on the front page right now and should've died off in February when it started. I just get tired of seeing the same people arguing over the same thing.


I dont care what you tire of bear.

This is my thread and it'll die when i choose..

Also from what i gather so far, risk adversion and war evasion are the main reasons given so far. Other than i like to play with myself
Solecist Project
#698 - 2015-05-15 23:29:15 UTC

This thread could be fun if someone switched the t for a lower case L.

That ringing in your ears you're experiencing right now is the last gasping breathe of a dying inner ear as it got thoroughly PULVERISED by the point roaring over your head at supersonic speeds. - Tippia

Venom Anarchy
Venom and Bullet Corporation
#699 - 2015-05-16 00:49:45 UTC
March rabbit wrote:
Venom Anarchy wrote:
The economics of wardecing a newb don't add up, how can they be doing anything that is worth that much effort ?

It's not so easy. Thanks to CCP.

My PvP is mostly ganking Caldari FW farmers. Sometimes i feel myself sorry for it. You know: killing n00bs....
.


There is no shame in that . they know the risks.. well actually they don't because newbs expect the danger to be from the Gallente. Speaking of which, when I send my other charcter to join Gallente, they have to leave corp and go in stasis to get rid of their corp roles so there is a transition period where they are in NPC corp. Two members of the same player corp cannot be in two different militias

V & B Corporation

Persifonne
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#700 - 2015-05-16 00:56:15 UTC
Venom Anarchy wrote:
March rabbit wrote:
Venom Anarchy wrote:
The economics of wardecing a newb don't add up, how can they be doing anything that is worth that much effort ?

It's not so easy. Thanks to CCP.

My PvP is mostly ganking Caldari FW farmers. Sometimes i feel myself sorry for it. You know: killing n00bs....
.


There is no shame in that . they know the risks.. well actually they don't because newbs expect the danger to be from the Gallente. Speaking of which, when I send my other charcter to join Gallente, they have to leave corp and go in stasis to get rid of their corp roles so there is a transition period where they are in NPC corp. Two members of the same player corp cannot be in two different militias


You can just right click and pick remove all grantable roles and join gall FW immediately. And your entire corp is in a FW militia, thats why individual members cant join individual militias within a corp. Glad you understand basic game mechanics though