These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
123Next pageLast page
 

Getting people out of NPC corporations

First post
Author
Jenshae Chiroptera
#1 - 2015-01-29 15:41:36 UTC  |  Edited by: Jenshae Chiroptera
Giving corporations value.

Perhaps EVE is giving new players the wrong impression?

Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:
I'd like to point out that I am generally considered anti-ganker.

I do not have a problem with high-sec
I do not have a problem with NPC corps
I do not have a problem with veterans in high secs

I do have a problem with veterans + NPC corps + high sec because that combination is far too safe for how lucrative it is.
Assign people from NPC corps after a certain account age to Faction Warfare

Latest: Arrow "Discussing it today with some people, the conclusion was that there needs to be better ways for corps to band together.
Maybe some sort of list of "white knight" corps that would move into newbie corp's system and join the war with them."

One issue raised is staying in contact with your friends from an NPC corp. They want an official public chat channel that comes up when you start the game. You can leave it but it means your starting corp can always stay in touch if they want.

Edit:
The possible issues (consider this in the eyes of CCP and the concepts they have for their game):

- NPC corps are too comfortable, veterans remain there from day one to the day they quit, not exploring other ways of play the game.
- Gankers and scouts hide in NPC corps to not be war declared on them and to anonymise themselves.
- Null Sec alliances hide haulers in NPC corps.
- People use NPC corps to hide from wars.

There are some related problems:

- War dec mechanics
- Freedom of choice for current players.

Arrow The goal of this thread is to discuss ways of getting veterans to take the step out of NPC corps, get a group of other veterans friends with them, make new corps and nurture newbies into exploring more of the game.

/ Edit

Maybe the carrot approach with social corporations is not the best idea?

How about something that should make people scream and gnash their teeth at first but should settle down with time?

In order to fly Tech 2 & 3 ships, pirate, faction and capital ships you need to be in a private corporation.
If you quit a private corporation and go back to an NPC one, you have 24 hours to move your ships before your license to fly them is revoked.

This means the new players are free to stay there in T1 ships safely while there is a foot pushing veterans out the door.

Hopelesshobo wrote:
1 man corporations do wonders.
Just as bad for the hassle of declaring war on them.
There should be a minimum number and activity requirement after the first two weeks.

Tora Bushido wrote:
You shouldn't be able to stay longer then 2-3 months in a NPC corp.


Reaver Glitterstim wrote:
I'm all for coaxing or coercing people out of NPC corps and all against forcing them out.

One of the ideas I have had was to let players join any NPC corp they want (if they meet the standings requirement), but have different tax rates in different corps, which would have wars on and off with each other. The basic four NPC corps would have no wars but a prohibitively high tax rate. Corps with only 1-2 wars against corps that are difficult to join, and who usually have the wars off, would have moderately high tax rates, while corps more frequently at war and in wars it's easy to get on the other side of would have much lower tax rates. There could be a few corps with very high standings requirements for entry which are constantly at war only with other corps that have very high standings requirements, and these may have a lowish tax rate. Others could have extremely low entry requirements, constant wars with large, easy to join corporations, and thus have very low tax rates perhaps even beating most player corps.


Yes. Why aren't the non-newbie NPC corps not at war with each other? Maybe then it would just be a matter of getting people out of the newbie corps?

From here
Diemos Hiaraki wrote:
At the minute to me it appears high sec is a playground for bittervets to hit players who can't or won't hit back.
... high sec just teaches players not to leave high sec, turtle up in station if war decced or get bored and quit alone. Sure you can earn isk in high sec in relative safety, but again this only teaches players not to leave high sec.
I think there is a gap between the bittervet and new player characters who got bored and quit entirely because of high sec mechanics..
I think high sec should be a lot smaller and possibly be four high security islands. Concord is retribution, not protection. Vets with plenty of ISK can lose it. Newbies can't throw ships away.

So, there should be a system of protection in starting systems, structures that repair the ships shot at for example. The resources should be scarce and as time goes on taxes keep rising for a player in a newbie corp.

Other NPC corps would be at war with each other.

Essentially, you can avoid fights, be so secure but it becomes more and more difficult to scratch out the ISK you want for the ships you desire.



Current highlight:

Everyone has the right to contest your gameplay if they feel it negatively impacts the game.

CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids

Not even once

EVE is becoming shallow and puerile; it will satisfy neither the veteran nor the "WoW" type crowd in the transition.

Mag's
Azn Empire
#2 - 2015-01-29 15:44:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Mag's
I do not agree with forcing players out of NPC corps in this way. It's a players choice and style and there is already a tax punishment for remaining in there.

No matter how you word it or what restrictions you suggest, I believe them to be bad for the game. This is just more of that toxic approach from you, I mentioned before.

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.

Samillian
Angry Mustellid
Lost Obsession
#3 - 2015-01-29 16:38:23 UTC
Coercion is a crude and blunt instrument of very limited utility when your target can so easily move to a different product with less hoops to jump through.

Not supported.

NBSI shall be the whole of the Law

Anhenka
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#4 - 2015-01-29 17:07:31 UTC  |  Edited by: Anhenka
Lead with the carrot, not with the stick.

Encouraging proliferation of 1 man altcorps with even less social interaction than NPC is even worse than people staying in the NPC corps.

At least then they have a shared chat channel with many others to maybe get them talking and involved with someone.
Zimmer Jones
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#5 - 2015-01-29 17:09:47 UTC  |  Edited by: Zimmer Jones
It also punishes the new player. Day one of playing eve, a new player can buy all the bling he wants, and should be encouraged to do so. Its something to work towards.

Players leaving player corporations for the first time already get a nasty shock. for the gallente example: CAS is a nurturing community(or so i have heard). upon leaving a player corp for the first time, CAS players are put into the scope. A bucket of cold water for the ones expecting a decent community.

-1

Use the force without consent and the court wont acquit you even if you are a card carryin', robe wearin' Jedi.

Paranoid Loyd
#6 - 2015-01-29 17:10:04 UTC
Seriously, you would do your campaign a favor by not posting ideas.

"There is only one authority in this game, and that my friend is violence. The supreme authority upon which all other authority is derived." ISD Max Trix

Fix the Prospect!

Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation
Pandemic Legion
#7 - 2015-01-29 17:10:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Rivr Luzade
Yet another person who is in favor of force applied by the game to move players somewhere instead of providing them with something and instead of changing the way they play (please read my posts in the Screws to Gankers thread to understand what I am talking about) in order to get players for their victimization complex.

Absolutely not supported.

--

Amendment: If I think about it, let's apply some force, shall we? But in the correct area: Whoever engages in an illegal activity, gets booted from the NPC corp they are in. While NPC corps are indeed after our money, they do not want to be connected with illegal activities against their other customers. This should force some people out of NPC corps who have no business there to begin with. Blink

UI Improvement Collective

My ridicule, heavy criticism and general pale outlook about your or CCP's ideas is nothing but an encouragement to prove me wrong. Give it a try.

FoxFire Ayderan
#8 - 2015-01-29 17:20:28 UTC

Not unless they also change War Dec mechanics.

If a corporation can pay off CONCORD to "look the other way", then the targeted corporation should be able to counter-bribe CONCORD. Highest bribe wins. But you lose the money regardless. It can go back-and-forth until one side doesn't respond to the previous bribe in 24 hours.

This would encourage more smaller corps to consolidate into larger corps with deeper pockets or at least form an alliance with bigger corps.

Zan Shiro
Alternative Enterprises
#9 - 2015-01-29 17:28:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Zan Shiro
Says a lot about your idea of the social aspect of eve when you are forcing people into ti to play the game in fun ships....sadly none of it good.



Maybe its me but what problem does this solve? Player wants to be in NPC...let them I say. Their game and sub money.


Don't say no war decs. Lets cut the crap...if you want their ship popped and pod killed....you are better off with ganking. As chance of undock you all nice and WT red in system is slim to none. I won't blame them either. Neut logi and neut fleet booster too common to assume its just one wt in system.

Gank you get the element of surprise at least
ShahFluffers
Ice Fire Warriors
#10 - 2015-01-29 17:59:33 UTC  |  Edited by: ShahFluffers
OP's "penalty" is WAY too stiff.

It is a better idea to just gradually increase the NPC corp tax (up to a maximum of 25%) over the course of a few months, starting from 0% for brand new players.



Additionally...

- creating a player corp should cost actual ISK... to make it more of an investment (so creating multiple "shell corps" can potentially be expensive) and set a (small) barrier of entry for newbies (so they don't create a corporation for giggles and find out the hard way why an "all newbie corp" is a bad idea).
50 million ISK would not be unreasonable considering that it is the minimum amount required to declare war.

- in lieu of the above... a "social corp" would be introduced as a new mechanic. "Social Corps" have a common chat channel, a "banner," and cannot be wardecced... but they will have none of the perks of an actual corporation (POS, POCO, corp tax, corp wallet, corp hanger, etc) and must submit to a 5-10% NPC tax.

- the tax system in EVE would be revamped to apply to every activity... including LP, Reprocessing Minerals, Market Orders, etc.
NOTE: Current Market and Reprocessing taxes would be modified accordingly so that there is no effective increase in taxes overall.
Lady Rift
What Shall We Call It
#11 - 2015-01-29 18:07:01 UTC
Why do you think 1 man corps are good for the game?
Jenshae Chiroptera
#12 - 2015-01-29 18:18:03 UTC
Rivr Luzade wrote:
Amendment: If I think about it, let's apply some force, shall we? But in the correct area: Whoever engages in an illegal activity, get's booted from the NPC corp they are in. While NPC corps are indeed after our money, they do not want to be connected with illegal activities against their other customers. This should force some people out of NPC corps who have no business there to begin with. Blink

This makes sense.
Lady Rift wrote:
Why do you think 1 man corps are good for the game?
How do you think one man corps can be solved?

CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids

Not even once

EVE is becoming shallow and puerile; it will satisfy neither the veteran nor the "WoW" type crowd in the transition.

Altirius Saldiaro
Doomheim
#13 - 2015-01-29 19:21:54 UTC
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:
Maybe the carrot approach with social corporations is not the best idea?

How about something that should make people scream and gnash their teeth at first but should settle down with time?

In order to fly Tech 2 & 3 ships, pirate, faction and capital ships you need to be in a private corporation.
If you quit a private corporation and go back to an NPC one, you have 24 hours to move your ships before your license to fly them is revoked.

This means the new players are free to stay there in T1 ships safely while there is a foot pushing veterans out the door.


No.
Antonio Steele
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#14 - 2015-01-29 19:47:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Antonio Steele
As a member of CAS for over 2 years I can say that a major part of why people stay in CAS at least is that we actually are organized and have events and stuff, and are a fun community that works together. We organize monthly nullsec roams with a swarm of cheap ships and take down some pretty juicy targets at times. We help foster new players and teach them about null and low sec and PVP and whatnot. We have players that have been here for years and stick around to foster the newer players and teach them about eve, and not just about highsec carebearing. I love the community we have built in CAS. I would love to try a player corp, but not ever being able to return to CAS once I leave is what keeps me there. If I had the ability to return to my original NPC corp rather than the scope I would be very inclined to try a player corp, and heck I might even stay out of NPC corps.

Also, screwing over NPC corps would quite possibly be the death of EVE. PVP and nullsec alliances may be what gets publicized and all, but a major backbone of EVE revenue wise is the highsec carebears who often are in NPC corps. Screw over NPC corps and watch subscription levels plummet. You might enjoy your victory for a bit, but not after EVE goes under.


I'll make a counter proposal. Allow players to return to their starter corps once they leave player corps rather than forcing them into places like the scope. It doesn't really hurt things as either way they get the NPC corp perks and penalties, and it would possibly get a lot of people like me (and there are many of us) to try players corps, and quite possibly stay. What's the worst that could happen?
ashley Eoner
#15 - 2015-01-29 19:48:23 UTC
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:
Maybe the carrot approach with social corporations is not the best idea?

How about something that should make people scream and gnash their teeth at first but should settle down with time?

In order to fly Tech 2 & 3 ships, pirate, faction and capital ships you need to be in a private corporation.
If you quit a private corporation and go back to an NPC one, you have 24 hours to move your ships before your license to fly them is revoked.

This means the new players are free to stay there in T1 ships safely while there is a foot pushing veterans out the door.

Why do you care if people leave a character in NPC corps?
Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd
#16 - 2015-01-29 20:06:16 UTC  |  Edited by: Alvatore DiMarco
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:
Lady Rift wrote:
Why do you think 1 man corps are good for the game?
How do you think one man corps can be solved?


As the CEO of a one-man corporation, why does my playstyle need to be "solved"? I left my rookie corporation to get away from the more toxic personalities that were in it, left the corporation I joined when it was clear that said corporation was never going to actually do anything (let alone be of any aid to my goals) and formed my own. I have plenty of social interaction with others via my chat channels and the miners in my home system whom I tend to deliberately annoy. All of this is off-point though, so I ask again: Why does my playstyle need to be solved?

Perhaps you are suggesting that I should be forced to choose between joining someone else's corporation (with all that it entails) or leaving EVE permanently?
Mag's
Azn Empire
#17 - 2015-01-29 20:06:33 UTC
Paranoid Loyd wrote:
Seriously, you would do your campaign a favor by not posting ideas.
It's why I wish they carry on. Big smile

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.

FoxFire Ayderan
#18 - 2015-01-29 20:37:28 UTC
Antonio Steele wrote:



I'll make a counter proposal. Allow players to return to their starter corps once they leave player corps rather than forcing them into places like the scope. It doesn't really hurt things as either way they get the NPC corp perks and penalties, and it would possibly get a lot of people like me (and there are many of us) to try players corps, and quite possibly stay. What's the worst that could happen?


Counter-counter proposal. Allow players to choose the NPC corp they'd like to be in (contingent on personal standings). Each can have their own plusses and minuses. Maybe one has much higher taxes (say 20%), but you get quicker CONCORD response where they have offices. Maybe one has much lower taxes and CONCORD takes longer to arrive to a ganking, or they are open to limited War Decs. One corp has a better community like your NPC corp, so that could be an appeal. They might have different modifiers to standing increases with various factions. Different market tax rates. Different locations and stations of course. I'm sure there would be a number of ways to balance the good and bad of each NPC corp.



Anhenka
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#19 - 2015-01-29 20:38:56 UTC
FoxFire Ayderan wrote:
Antonio Steele wrote:



I'll make a counter proposal. Allow players to return to their starter corps once they leave player corps rather than forcing them into places like the scope. It doesn't really hurt things as either way they get the NPC corp perks and penalties, and it would possibly get a lot of people like me (and there are many of us) to try players corps, and quite possibly stay. What's the worst that could happen?


Counter-counter proposal. Allow players to choose the NPC corp they'd like to be in (contingent on personal standings). Each can have their own plusses and minuses. Maybe one has much higher taxes (say 20%), but you get quicker CONCORD response where they have offices. Maybe one has much lower taxes and CONCORD takes longer to arrive to a ganking, or they are open to limited War Decs. One corp has a better community like your NPC corp, so that could be an appeal. They might have different modifiers to standing increases with various factions. Different market tax rates. Different locations and stations of course. I'm sure there would be a number of ways to balance the good and bad of each NPC corp.





How about we NOT encourage people to willfully stay in NPC corps, alright?

FoxFire Ayderan
#20 - 2015-01-29 20:45:02 UTC
Anhenka wrote:


How about we NOT encourage people to willfully stay in NPC corps, alright?



With people actively choosing their NPC corps they wouldn't remain strictly NPC corps because you'd wind up having more people with similar interests and play styles in various NPC corps. Which would foster a sense of community in those NPC corps.

Maybe if they then want the additional perks of a player run corp they decided to start one.

123Next pageLast page