Player Features and Ideas Discussion

...is not really an issue.

You're trying to treat a symptom of the problem you see, instead of going after the problem itself. People corp hop because there's little reason to stay in the corp, and below a certain threshold it's trivial for a corp to just pull its vulnerable assets and wait for the dec to expire. So lobby for more deployable corporate assets with long unanchor times. It allows smaller, casual corps to stay "agile" by forgoing the infrastructure, which puts them at a competitive disadvantage. Risk/reward and all that.

The NPC corp tax outweighs all that to me.


But you pretty much are trying to stop them. By effectively extending the wardec to them, you're removing their only reason for leaving.

There's already recourse for leaving. You have a permanent record of leaving the corp. And since there are wardec histories now, anyone can see that that's why he left. In addition, you lose all benefits of being in the corp for the duration of the war.


The wait for research jobs is far from negligible. It's a pretty significant limit. There are already lots of people saying that waits for manufacturing should be longer... maybe that could help. *shrug* There's a ton of room for new deployable, attackable 'perks' for corporations. I just want to be careful that we're providing incentive for corporations to increase their risks, and not forcing them to.

Yes, because it is so much better to make players like John dock up and not play at all. John has already signaled he does not want ship-to-ship PvP. Why would this change his behavior?

*shrug* It's just an example. Point is, I think it makes sense to give corporations opportunities to gain more reward by subjecting themselves to more risk, beyond just "POS or not". I think if it could be balanced such that enough corps opt in to use it, it might just reduce some of these threads trying to increase the overall background risk for everyone.

First off I like the post its a good and valid point to discuess It beats the nerf cloaking threads i'm use to seeing. I think the best way to solve this is both with the carrot and the stick.

The Stick:
People dropping to an NPC corp is just like a corp dropping from an alliance in a war dec, its a dec shield. I'm for the idea of extending the war dec to an individual for the term of the original dec. If you don't like the dec you still can drop corp and log off for a week and be free of it afterwards.. much as if you were in corp and avoiding the corp by not logging in.

The Carrot:
Its about time we give advantages for joining corps other then corp hangers and poses. My thought was an upgradable corp charter that gives bonuses, upgrades would include a concord monthly fee depending on the upgrade and level. Each fee could be set as a flat rate or a per member rate depending on how CCP wanted to balance it. Upgrades could include mining yield, rat bounty, scan probe strength or speed, PI yields or any other non PVP related attributes. These upgrades would be similar to implants in scale 1-5 or 1-10% increase. You shouldn't be able to have all the upgrades running at the same time so you must make a choice to specialize in whatever your doing.

By using both the carrot and the stick i think this would help to rain in some of the tears that come from carebears fearful of wardecs and also make the war dec system make more sense. It would also be a buff to most high sec corps over the long terms of mining yields and NPC bounties

The stick is going to prompt tears, no matter what. And if anything it will encourage people to avoid PvP as well, after all if a guy is going to bail on the corp (a group of players) over a war dec chances are as a solo player he wont engage any war targets either.

This is where the crux lies. Disrespect. So many of these players who go through such short lengths to avoid war do nothing more than insult and belittle those who declare war, often making calls of 'cowardice', 'bullying' and even threatening others with real life harm.

It seems obvious that an actual discussion on the mechanics of this thisis going to be hard to maintain, when so much irrational hate and childish behavior is displayed by those who so firmly assert that it is OTHERS who are somehow being unreasonable by seeking combat in a game where the tutorial tells you that you are accepting the risks when you undock.

Being a hisec player in an industry corp, I am fiirmly ashamed that these are the individuals who try to represent hisec interests. I stand against piracy and war, but its clear to me that if some of the posters in this thread were being suicided daily, I would not come to their defense.

Why would I, when they won't fight to defend themselves.



Side note: I will never accept a member who left during war. Leave any other time. Hell, go afk or play an alt. But don't expect loyalty and trust when you won't show it.

Hmm. Changing my quote. How very friendly of you, and constructive.

Please read the entire original post. I understand you feel witty and slick, but you've actually lowered your apparent intelligence by responding like this, because it shows you neither fully read nor comprehended the concepts.

This, of course, does again show that while hisec players who are against ship to ship combat may not all be immature and incapable of adapting to a video game with mature content, themes, and mechanics ... some vocal fiew on these forums apparently are.

Did I mention, by the way, that I'm a hisec industrialist?

Our corp has paid protection fees, but to mercenary corporations to defend us. Emergent gameplay.

We also have a pvp-capable corp. We may not war dec others, but we'll undock and fight back if we feel we can get a kill or two. Or we'll log alts on and wait out the week or more if the enemy is too organized.

We've also had to remove more than one corporation from the alliance during or after wars because they would smack talk in local. All in all, those that have war dec'd us have been straight forward and fairly intelligent gamers. There might be a little goading here and there, but no outright disrespect. I've personally kicked out players who acted disrespectfully in local, and will continue to do so.

Again, I see this 'lol rage kiddie' happening primarily from other hisec industry corps, who insult others after being killed and rage quit during fights. I've seen players ragequit during wars, too. I've played the pirate and the nulsec cog, and in each I found idiots and great players. Only in hisec does it seem there are more of the former, but I play here because I don't have the time or energy any more to focus on the more demanding playstyles.

Also, our corp takes the tax money from our missioners (myself, the other director and the CEO included, us being the major mission runners) and it goes into purchasing new BPO's and funding mercenaries during times of war. Our BPO library is locked and sealed, and open to every corp member to use as they need. Fully researched, we have about 80% of the non T2 library.

I'll undock to take the heat off a corp mate. I'll fly a dozen systems to help them get a kill right achieved. I will show loyalty to those who will show it back, and have a great collection of mates for doing so.




My point? No, not all corps are equal. But each corp is what the members make it to be. Work, loyalty, and shared interest. If you don't have that, your corp is destined to fail.

One of the points of growth in this game is that, when war strikes, you know who will stay loyal and who is worth keeping. People show their worth then. And this is now, when there really isn't anything in hisec worth fighting over.

If some of us succeed in getting changes to hisec corporate mechanics, to make it more worthwhile and supportive of loyalty and team play, this will be a huge step in the right direction. But it would also be great if they could hamper the avoidance of legitimate mechanics, such as war decs, at least a little bit.

Because despite what is claimed, all wars are NOT specifically about 'lol rage kiddies getting easy kills'. In fact, most are about using the mechanics to stop others from affecting their gameplay, or about expressing their interest in player-on-player activities.

Besides, I have yet to meet a pirate who doesn't have an industry alt that is online more than they are.

this whole thread is operating under the assumption that a player left his corp because there risk averse. No leeway is given if the person left because the corp wsop was not to fight and they wanted to. Better yet, if the person left due to real life time constraints.

I left my last corp due to the fact that my play time dropped from 20+ hrs a week down to less than 10. With me be a null bear I didn't want to spend my few hours of play time chasing off roaming l33t pvpers. Most of whom warped out as soon as we would get on grid. So I left and moved back to hi-sec. Since it was a renter alliance and there are always perma decced, I should be penalized because of real life changes? How does any of that make sense?