These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Players in NPC Corps should not be able to:

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Sol Weinstein
Lunatic Warfare Federation
#181 - 2013-02-05 06:08:33 UTC
Derath Ellecon wrote:
Sol Weinstein wrote:
You will be given the same instructions as the other people: please read all the posts in this thread on all the pages.

I gave my reasons and I suggest you give the thread and posters the respect of reading them.

Thank you.



Not too far up the thread you said you updated the OP. Now I have to read through the entire 9 pages, hoping to not miss some small piece?

The fact that you maybe answered those questions 8 pages later is proof of your failure to outline your proposal (both it's justifications and fixes) in your original post.

Good luck however with your arguments. Happily given your inability to formulate anything in a concise manner couple with your overly arrogant attitude will pretty much ensure something this stupid will never get implemented.


Skimming should get you to the posts you need.

Just because you can't (or are unwilling to) find the information doesn't mean that I have an "inability to formulate anything in a concise manner".

Overly arrogant. Mhm. I expect you to read the information and educate yourself on the topic in order to be taken seriously. Just acting out and making personal attacks, using name-calling, and other remarks about the post or the poster doesn't do anything but make your points invalid.

"Something this stupid." And here you fail to point out exactly how "stupid" it is. But, thank you for your negative opinion. It has been noted down and will be taken into consideration.

Thank you.
Humera Arran-Tiar
Doomheim
#182 - 2013-02-05 06:39:46 UTC
I seriously thought this game was all about the freedom to do whatever you wished within the scope of the "sandbox". As individuals we choose freely whether to work for a company/corporation or go into business for ourselves. Your ideas of "forcing" people out of NPC corps and into player owned corps. How many one-man corps do we really need? The chat in NPC corps can be rather invigorating at times. Placing such constraints, imho, limits the game and deviates from the "free" path.
Morrigan LeSante
Perkone
Caldari State
#183 - 2013-02-05 08:23:18 UTC
Humera Arran-Tiar wrote:
I seriously thought this game was all about the freedom to do whatever you wished within the scope of the "sandbox". As individuals we choose freely whether to work for a company/corporation or go into business for ourselves. Your ideas of "forcing" people out of NPC corps and into player owned corps. How many one-man corps do we really need? The chat in NPC corps can be rather invigorating at times. Placing such constraints, imho, limits the game and deviates from the "free" path.



No, apparently you're doing it wrong. You see, it seems that any attempt to deprive some people of blasting the snot out of people who aren't interested in it and aim to avoid that is not allowed.

Apparently, you can play the sandbox wrong, afterall. Who knew.

I also find the hilarity of argument "they shouldnt be able to hide and affect MY economy" bottomless. STATION TRADERS. How many of them has anyone ever killed? I'll help: ZERO.

How big an impact do they have on your economy? Significantly larger than the carebear mission running people you are so VERY desperate to shoot.

Repeat after me people: There is more to PvP than pew pew.
Mikhael Taron
Four Winds Industry
#184 - 2013-02-05 09:06:52 UTC
Sol Weinstein wrote:
Mikhael Taron wrote:


NPC players are hit with 11% tax on earnings and have no way to reduce it. For that level of tax I want something in return. Everything you complain about is paid for by that tax.



I fixed this for you.

NPC players that aren't smart enough to trade their goods to an alt are hit with 11% tax on earnings only in three areas of the game, ratting bounties, mission bonus/payouts, market transactions, and have no way to reduce it, other than join a Player Run Corporation or by use of an alt in a PRC. For that level of tax I want something in return, even though I will ignore the fact that a mere 11% affords me virtually complete protection from PVP unless I choose to go into the areas of space that allow me to be shot at without CONCORD protection, and absolutely no form of backlash for any of my actions or Choices™. Everything you complain about is paid for by that completely avoidable, or such a small amount that I can basically ignore it, tax.

You're welcome.

Thank you.


You appear to be hearing voices, as I haven't thanked you for anything, certainly not this vain attempt at an intellectual discussion.

You have fixed nothing, though you're under the delusion that you have..

Quote:
a mere 11% affords me virtually complete protection from PVP unless I choose to go into the areas of space that allow me to be shot at without CONCORD protection


Exactly right! It's a player choice, something that is vital in a player-driven game. In your opinion we ought to be limited to choices approved by you?

You can fool some of the people all of the time. You can fool all of the people some of the time. You can make a fool out of yourself anytime.
Rented
Hunter Heavy Industries
#185 - 2013-02-05 09:08:47 UTC  |  Edited by: Rented
1. Pointless.
2. Pointless.
3. Stupid.
4. Also Stupid.

I think that about covers it.

Now for my input. Get over it. Play how you want. Want other people to play differently, "get lost". *snipped personal attack* - CCP Eterne
Mikhael Taron
Four Winds Industry
#186 - 2013-02-05 17:41:59 UTC
Mustard Mitt, this is a wonderful trollthread. Ten pages and still active. I'm impressed.

You can fool some of the people all of the time. You can fool all of the people some of the time. You can make a fool out of yourself anytime.
Maverick Ice
Covetous Tears
#187 - 2013-02-05 20:32:55 UTC
Sol Weinstein wrote:
This has been changed after several pages of discussion. Some of the original ideas were poorly thought out and I have amended the post to reflect this. Read it all.

So the new list is:

1. Place bounties on players
2. Place bounties on corps
3. Rent manufacturing or research slots in any station that is not owned by their NPC corp
(This goes both ways. Those slots should be reserved for the members of that NPC corp.)
4. Anchor cans or secure cans in space.

I might add in "light a cyno", but since they have to do it while in some form of 'harms way', I suppose we can let this one slide.


Thank you.

========


While I agree that NPC corps should be limited to some degree, it is my opinion that the ones you listed are a tad bit harsh and not needed.

I would amend the list to be something similar to this...

1. Be able to declare war on an individual in a NPC corp. Said war-dec would follow the person for 24 hours after they leave the corp, and would set a 24 hour war with the receiving corp/alliance.
2. Disallow the CEO to disband a corp under a war-dec, except as a term of surrender. This would prevent corp-hopping single-man corps.
3. Any corp member that leaves a corp/alliance under war-dec would receive a 24 hour personal war-dec, that would follow them into whatever corp they join...if that corp is a player run corp/alliance, said corp would also get that 24 hour war-dec.
Optimo Sebiestor
The New Eden School of trade
Organization of Skill Extracting Corporations
#188 - 2013-02-05 21:47:14 UTC  |  Edited by: Optimo Sebiestor
Sol Weinstein wrote:


Players in NPC Corps should not be able to:
1. Place bounties on players
2. Place bounties on corps
3. Rent manufacturing or research slots in any station that is not owned by their NPC corp
(This goes both ways. Those slots should be reserved for the members of that NPC corp.)
4. Anchor cans or secure cans in space.

.


I support this list!
Sol Weinstein
Lunatic Warfare Federation
#189 - 2013-02-06 07:44:26 UTC
Humera Arran-Tiar wrote:
I seriously thought this game was all about the freedom to do whatever you wished within the scope of the "sandbox". As individuals we choose freely whether to work for a company/corporation or go into business for ourselves. Your ideas of "forcing" people out of NPC corps and into player owned corps. How many one-man corps do we really need? The chat in NPC corps can be rather invigorating at times. Placing such constraints, imho, limits the game and deviates from the "free" path.


No one said anything about "forcing players out of NPC corps". Stop reading between the lines and making stuff up. Your mistaken analogies are not what this thread is about.

This is not about 1-man corps.

That is awesome that the chat may or may not be invigorating at certain times. (Yet you ignore that fact that it can be downright horrendous whenever it isn't "invigorating at time". And that is STILL not what this thread is about.)

Placing "such constraints", in my opinion, does not limit the game at all. Also, which points that I made would limit the game? The bounties? Okay. Explain. What about the lab slots? Okay. Explain. And the one about anchoring cans and secure cans? Okay. Explain.

You read what you wanted to read. I'm sorry you can't see that.

Thank you.
Sol Weinstein
Lunatic Warfare Federation
#190 - 2013-02-06 07:54:58 UTC
Maverick Ice wrote:
Sol Weinstein wrote:
This has been changed after several pages of discussion. Some of the original ideas were poorly thought out and I have amended the post to reflect this. Read it all.

So the new list is:

1. Place bounties on players
2. Place bounties on corps
3. Rent manufacturing or research slots in any station that is not owned by their NPC corp
(This goes both ways. Those slots should be reserved for the members of that NPC corp.)
4. Anchor cans or secure cans in space.

I might add in "light a cyno", but since they have to do it while in some form of 'harms way', I suppose we can let this one slide.


Thank you.

========


While I agree that NPC corps should be limited to some degree, it is my opinion that the ones you listed are a tad bit harsh and not needed.

I would amend the list to be something similar to this...

1. Be able to declare war on an individual in a NPC corp. Said war-dec would follow the person for 24 hours after they leave the corp, and would set a 24 hour war with the receiving corp/alliance.
2. Disallow the CEO to disband a corp under a war-dec, except as a term of surrender. This would prevent corp-hopping single-man corps.
3. Any corp member that leaves a corp/alliance under war-dec would receive a 24 hour personal war-dec, that would follow them into whatever corp they join...if that corp is a player run corp/alliance, said corp would also get that 24 hour war-dec.



This isn't bad. Although I do not agree that my original suggestions are harsh at all. But that is simply my opinion.

Thank you for actually contributing to the thread instead of acting out like everyone else. This is the point of the thread. To start a dialogue and discuss some of the issues that are having a negative impact on the game.

To the rest of the people:

I find it absolutely entertaining that people are getting so up-in-arms about my idea to restrict bounties. Bounties, in the way they are now, wasn't in the game for 9.5 years. You needed to bounty an actual criminal. Someone who had a standing of -2 (maybe it was -1, not 100% sure) before December 5th, 2012. And the players who are against my ideas are holding on to this like it is the holy grail of EVE and NPC corps and "freedom". I could at least see the anger over anchoring cans and secure cans. But to get so enraged over a mechanic that is literally 2 months old is very entertaining.

I will go out on a limb here and suggest that, in my opinion (because you have to say that now or people don't seem to get it), these same people are the ones who are gleefully... let's call it "taking advantage of" (and not say "abusing" or "exploiting", because those words seem to be flags that incite rage)... the new lax in the bounty assigning mechanics introduced exactly 2 months ago.

Thank you, Maverick Ice, for taking the time to see that all I wanted was to start a dialogue about a topic. Shame on the rest of you for using it as your podium for anger, rage, aggression, and just plain old bullying in this forum.

Thank you.
Sol Weinstein
Lunatic Warfare Federation
#191 - 2013-02-06 08:21:11 UTC  |  Edited by: Sol Weinstein
Mikhael Taron wrote:
Sol Weinstein wrote:
Mikhael Taron wrote:


NPC players are hit with 11% tax on earnings and have no way to reduce it. For that level of tax I want something in return. Everything you complain about is paid for by that tax.



I fixed this for you.

NPC players that aren't smart enough to trade their goods to an alt are hit with 11% tax on earnings only in three areas of the game, ratting bounties, mission bonus/payouts, market transactions, and have no way to reduce it, other than join a Player Run Corporation or by use of an alt in a PRC. For that level of tax I want something in return, even though I will ignore the fact that a mere 11% affords me virtually complete protection from PVP unless I choose to go into the areas of space that allow me to be shot at without CONCORD protection, and absolutely no form of backlash for any of my actions or Choices™. Everything you complain about is paid for by that completely avoidable, or such a small amount that I can basically ignore it, tax.

You're welcome.

Thank you.


You appear to be hearing voices, as I haven't thanked you for anything, certainly not this vain attempt at an intellectual discussion.

You have fixed nothing, though you're under the delusion that you have..

Quote:
a mere 11% affords me virtually complete protection from PVP unless I choose to go into the areas of space that allow me to be shot at without CONCORD protection


Exactly right! It's a player choice, something that is vital in a player-driven game. In your opinion we ought to be limited to choices approved by you?


I am glad I have finally convinced you to agree with me! Thank you so much for admitting it here, too. You get a few extra brownie points from me! It shows a great fortitude of character to admit in public that you might have been mislead before and have now seen things in the correct way.

We both agree that player choice should have an impact on the gameplay of that person. And choosing to play in a NPC corporation should have impact on those choices. Some of that impact will be positive; and the other half will be negative. I am glad that you finally admitted to seeing the truth of how things work in this game and in real life! This is exhilarating to me!

You're welcome. And, thank you.
Kogh Ayon
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#192 - 2013-02-06 08:23:23 UTC
How about add this : "Any player corporation will have at least 10 people(and no trail accounts) after the day it founded, otherwise the corporation will be disbanded by concord."

No 0% tax private corps.
Sol Weinstein
Lunatic Warfare Federation
#193 - 2013-02-06 08:32:37 UTC
Kogh Ayon wrote:
How about add this : "Any player corporation will have at least 10 people(and no trail accounts) after the day it founded, otherwise the corporation will be disbanded by concord."

No 0% tax private corps.


I don't really understand this. Nor do I agree with it.

Again, this thread isn't about making PRCs better. It's about players who choose to play in a NPC corp to be impacted by that decision. I feel, again... *sigh*... in my opinion, and the point of the discussion, there are certain luxuries afforded to players in NPC corps that should not be available to them. I listed those things in my original post. However, I am more than willing to discuss them here!

My Suggestion #3 (see original post on page 1 of this thread) actually works in total favor of a player in a NPC corp!! Oh. My. Gosh. No. Way!

To get back on your suggestion, I feel that eliminating 1-man corps is just as harmful as forcing people out of a NPC corp. I like my 1-man corp. Also, there is a direct cost (1.6mil and the properly trained skills) to form a PRC, as well as indirect costs (open to wardecs, etc.). If the playerbase or CCP feels that these "costs" aren't in line with the benefits of being in a PRC, that should be handled in another forum thread. As that is not the discussion intended to take place here. However, feel free to post a synopsis of that thread and a proper link to it in this forum if you choose (as long as doing so would not violate the forum posting rules!).

Thank you.
Zilero
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#194 - 2013-02-06 09:23:12 UTC
Not sure if this has already been posted but:

Trial accounts should not be able to post links to outside webpages and contracts in chat channels.
Niveuss Nye
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#195 - 2013-02-06 14:26:42 UTC
Hate versus NPC corps aside, I do see one issue that will be abused with your suggestion as written.

If you restrict them to research stations only in thier own NPC corp, many will stay in the starter corp or leave the corp they are in for research spots. Especcially if only those in that NPC corp can use them. Ever tried to find an empty research slot?

It would accomplish the opposite of what I think the OP wants to achieve.
Sol Weinstein
Lunatic Warfare Federation
#196 - 2013-02-06 19:37:51 UTC
Niveuss Nye wrote:
Hate versus NPC corps aside, I do see one issue that will be abused with your suggestion as written.

If you restrict them to research stations only in thier own NPC corp, many will stay in the starter corp or leave the corp they are in for research spots. Especcially if only those in that NPC corp can use them. Ever tried to find an empty research slot?

It would accomplish the opposite of what I think the OP wants to achieve.



Yeah. You're probably right.

It would be nice to see added slots to the universe. But, not sure if that would ever happen. Even though on Sunday there was over 50,000 players online (some might have been Dust514 players, but still), they still haven't seeded a few new slots around EVE. I'm sure the GMs know what they are doing.

Good point, Niveuss Nye. What do the rest of you think of this revelation?

Thank you.
Sol Weinstein
Lunatic Warfare Federation
#197 - 2013-02-06 19:49:55 UTC
Zilero wrote:
Not sure if this has already been posted but:

Trial accounts should not be able to post links to outside webpages and contracts in chat channels.


In other games Trial Accounts have tighter restrictions, such as not being able to trade or make a personal message (whisper) to other players, form Corps (guilds), and fully use the in-game 'black market' (auction house).

Having said that, this post was not about Trial Accounts. Because in EVE, Trial Accounts are not restricted in these ways. TAs are only hindered by not being able to train certain skills and/or fly certain ships. Ironically, even a TA can both train the Corporation Management skill AND form PRCs.

But, we are getting off track a slight bit. I would ask that this topic be further discussed in another forum thread. Feel free to link that thread here, as long as it doesn't violate the forum rules.

Thank you.
Reuben Johnson
Gal-Min Industries
#198 - 2013-02-06 21:32:08 UTC
Sol Weinstein wrote:
Niveuss Nye wrote:
Hate versus NPC corps aside, I do see one issue that will be abused with your suggestion as written.

If you restrict them to research stations only in thier own NPC corp, many will stay in the starter corp or leave the corp they are in for research spots. Especcially if only those in that NPC corp can use them. Ever tried to find an empty research slot?

It would accomplish the opposite of what I think the OP wants to achieve.



Yeah. You're probably right.

It would be nice to see added slots to the universe. But, not sure if that would ever happen. Even though on Sunday there was over 50,000 players online (some might have been Dust514 players, but still), they still haven't seeded a few new slots around EVE. I'm sure the GMs know what they are doing.

Good point, Niveuss Nye. What do the rest of you think of this revelation?

Thank you.

I already posted on that same "revelation." While on the surface the OP suggestion sounds good, it doesn't take much imagination to realize what you'll have is even more indy alts being created just to have one or two in every NPC Corp, spamming productions lines all over again.
CCP would love it, though, 12 NPC starter Corps, 12 alts, 4 accounts..then there's the 12 holder NPC Corps, 4 more accounts. The failrly new or porr player will still have to wait days for an open line, and the older and richer players will gum up the works.
Sol Weinstein
Lunatic Warfare Federation
#199 - 2013-02-07 16:37:17 UTC
Reuben Johnson wrote:
Sol Weinstein wrote:
Niveuss Nye wrote:
Hate versus NPC corps aside, I do see one issue that will be abused with your suggestion as written.

If you restrict them to research stations only in thier own NPC corp, many will stay in the starter corp or leave the corp they are in for research spots. Especcially if only those in that NPC corp can use them. Ever tried to find an empty research slot?

It would accomplish the opposite of what I think the OP wants to achieve.



Yeah. You're probably right.

It would be nice to see added slots to the universe. But, not sure if that would ever happen. Even though on Sunday there was over 50,000 players online (some might have been Dust514 players, but still), they still haven't seeded a few new slots around EVE. I'm sure the GMs know what they are doing.

Good point, Niveuss Nye. What do the rest of you think of this revelation?

Thank you.

I already posted on that same "revelation." While on the surface the OP suggestion sounds good, it doesn't take much imagination to realize what you'll have is even more indy alts being created just to have one or two in every NPC Corp, spamming productions lines all over again.
CCP would love it, though, 12 NPC starter Corps, 12 alts, 4 accounts..then there's the 12 holder NPC Corps, 4 more accounts. The failrly new or porr player will still have to wait days for an open line, and the older and richer players will gum up the works.


Very true. However I don't believe there is anything that will stop players using the NPC corps to get ahead in EVE.

But, it has become more obvious over the course of this thread that perhaps I went about it in the wrong way. Or I simply Chose™ poorly.

I think the general idea I was going for is: I believe that a player in a NPC corporation should not be able to impact a Player Run Corporation on a personal level. Giving the ability to bounty a PRC (impact on a personal level) is way too powerful. Some players in PRCs form them to be an extension of their in-game persona. It could also be part of a roleplay experience for the players of that corporation. To allow a person who has chosen to not take place in the experience of personalization of gameplay through the extension allowed by the PRC should not be able to impact those things in another player or corporation or alliance.

Perhaps player to player bounties are acceptable. But a NPC corp player should not be able to bounty a corporation or alliance.

Thank you.
Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd
#200 - 2013-02-07 20:09:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Alvatore DiMarco
Posting in a troll thread.

EDIT: I suppose I should try to be constructive. So, here we go with that constructive-ness.

It seems very strongly to me as though OP has been the victim of a bounty placement, with the bounty-placer being the member of an NPC corp. In order for him to come here and make a thread about it, he must have had zero bounty before this alleged bounty-placement occurred, thus making him extremely angry. He decided to wardec the corporation of the person who bountied him, only to find that they are in a wardec-immune NPC corp. His blood boiling and his veins now pulsing with throbbing angry rage, OP decided "NPC corps are overpowered! They shouldn't be allowed to do this! Not to me! This is wrong! This is an EXPLOIT!" and came here to post his thread about how NPC corps are equal to rancid feces in terms of being vile and needing to be made less-rancid, according to his opinion of what is and is not desirable. However, because one cannot create a justifiable thread on the act of placing bounties alone, OP decided that he should expand upon his original idea and came up with a hastily-prepared list of other ways to shackle, lock up, tie down, chain and otherwise inhibit the sandboxy freedom of anyone who's in an NPC corp.

Another Edit, Because I am Good at Editing: Watch as the OP responds to my post, accusing me of personally attacking him (I may or may not be, I didn't pay a lot of attention to that) and proceeds to condescend to me in the most demeaning and insulting way possible.

Edit Three (Last one, I promise) : I just noticed that OP is Amarrian. Maybe his condescending to everyone who isn't him is actually in-character! If so, then that would also explain why he dismisses the lion's share of disagreement as "not wanting to discuss" and/or "personal attacks", as well as insinuating very strongly that he only wants this thread populated by posts of people who agree with him.