Player Features and Ideas Discussion

+1. The only thing I disagreed with was the freeze on "Yes" voters leaving. Not logging in is the same as leaving.

Freeze new NPC corp members' ability to vote for 3 to 7 days, whatever is found to work.

Setting up such a large takeover of an NPC corp as Nicolo suggests would become possible would be pretty hard to organize though, I think.

But oh, would it be funny!

I think that advantage would be sheer numbers, to be honest with you.

All the organization will come with victories and morale. They are inevitable consequences of this.

That said, I'm afraid I don't know what to say to a player whose character left a rookie corp for a player corp (with ostensibly more risk and more reward available), didn't like it but still wanted to play Eve in safety, and therefore left the player corp for an increase in safety. I think this is a remnant of a bad design. Players should never be left to stagnate by the mechanics of an MMORPG.

I kinda like this idea.

Because NPC corps are part of factions wardeccers would have to take part in FW. Like a 'pay to FW' thing. And I can't get this image of griefers running around and Caldari Navy chasing them out of my head.

+ All other FW stuff like undockable stations and such.

I'm feeling that the default NPC corps are a bad thought out mechanic, probably coming from CCP's data model not allowing to have corpsless characters as well as not allowing progression from player corp to player corp. Who actually wants to be in, say Viziam, from a storyline point of view? I envy those Khanids who at least get a staff position with the Ministry of War...

Overall I personally think there should be a corp/sec option for every tier of risk and reward, like very safe/next to no reward in an undeccable Highsec institution (with staying in Highsec) and highest risk/huge reward like living in a wormhole. All tiers have their place in the game.

What I agree on is that neither the safest nor the riskiest of these tiers should be made into a default tier. Actually the default state should be high risk/low reward. Say, being recruited into your nation's militia or navy (with permanent wardec to your enemy's navy) - the default state should be of a kind that shoul make people to want to leave it. But give the option, and make it a conscious decision to join a safe haven corporation for anyone who just wants to play around casually with no intention of amassing riches.

i.e.

- You are progressed from your training corporation into a militia/navy (with the added vulnerability as described above) after a given character age, logon time, skill point level.
- You can always join or leave a player corporation defaulting to that militia/navy.
- You can always join a safe haven corporation, with certain game mechanics taken from you (no contracts outside, so no neutral freighter pilots).

Just make sure none of these states is exploitable.

New EVE players are the ones that suffer now, because they are the ones who tend to hop in swiftly stomped newbie player-owned corps while the PVE alts of veterans grind away in NPC corp safety. New players are punished for wanting to socialize in an MMO to the benefit of vets under the current system.

This is Eve Online, a player driven video game. It is not CCP driven. If you want to shoot them, then you are the only one stopping you. Accept the consequences or stop complaining.

Actually I think it is laughable that everyone needs to fight. A lovely and bloody idea only true bullies would embrace.
It is like asking to have no police in real life. Guess what happens. People will stop being in your community where there is no police. Similarly if you force everyone to fight CCP will have a mass exodus of your infamous carebears.
So yes, a stupid idea is stupid. And a terrible business model.

Though if I am wrong, I am happy to let CCP do this and see what happens.

There was no mass exodus during Hulkageddon Infinity, nor during the PI fix, or Inferno, etc.
The only time mass exoduses have ever happened was when CCP began catering to carebears by implementing exclusively risk-free commodity/isk faucets, like Incursion, Incarna and Tyrannis. This is because the enjoyment derived by most players in EVE is from overcoming adversity, usually in the form of other players.

Players only use NPC corps to stick their PVE characters in because it competitively advantageous to do so. If NPC Corps were removed, or made risky in some manner, players would adapt; just like how the use of Covetors has exploded in highsec in the face of Hulk-pilot genocide - not by mass unsubs.

In short, your threat is an empty one, and we should go full on ahead in the move to ban NPC corps in the pursuit of a better, more balanced game.

I keep coming across this argument on here, and it still isn't making sense to me. You can't define the word "versus" like that without taking intent into consideration. People don't necessarily mine a rock in order to deny that resource to another person, even if that's one of the effects. It's like, if I get on the bus and there's no seats left, it's isn't because everyone else is against me. They're just doing their own thing. To think otherwise, you'd have to be some kind of paranoid nutcase.

I'm basically NPCing in my own two-alts-corp. I would rather be in that or in an NPC corps than in a larger player corp, because other corplings would have a negative impact on my playing style.

I guess I'm not the only one.