These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

War is the Risk That's Needed

Author
Angeal MacNova
LankTech
#1 - 2014-09-02 20:32:49 UTC
It doesn't take much reading to see that there are some areas of the game needing a balance between risk vs reward.

Many players see all the NPC mining, manufacturing, and mission running as a way of making risk free isk. With mining and manufacturing being the biggest. Some have taken upon themselves to give risk where there would otherwise not be any. Ganking.

This opened up a new risk vs reward imbalance. This has much to do with defining what a "reward" is which can be different things to different people. Depending on the kind reward that is sought by gankers, they too can benefit from a low risk, high reward environment.

Then there are war dec mechanics and flaws there-in that allow war decs to be avoided. Not just by those who want to do the first mentioned activities but by the gankers as well.

The fix isn't as simple as "nerf this" or "buff that" and yet it doesn't need to be overly complex either. However, it will take making some changes that will take time.

Basically each flaw must be addressed individually without causing an adverse affect on any of the other flaws.

I believe the use of War is the key to adjust the risk.

So to start with the new player joining the game for the first time. The tutorial should take place within the one system. If, at anytime, the player decides to leave system, they are given a waring stating that they are leaving the starter system and assume all risks. By leaving, they are placed in their faction's FW as a start.

The only way not to be part of FW is by being part of a player corp.

So this new player moves out of the starter system. The systems where they will find L1 missions will be higher security systems well within their faction's territory. The reward is small (L1 to L2 mission rewards don't pay much) while the risk is appropriately small (not too many enemy faction pilots would infiltrate this far. More to follow on this).

As well as belts in these high security systems wouldn't be anything special either. Mostly veldspar and with low quantities.

As they work their way up through the mission levels, these higher level agents will be closer to the boundaries of their faction's territories. The likelihood of having enemy faction pilots in system should increase as you get closer to the boundaries. A higher reward but it comes with a greater risk.

OK, so this is the "more to follow" part. The risk to the infiltrating pilot increases the deeper they go into enemy territory. Navy response time increases, navy ship strength/numbers increase, etc. If need be, gate for systems of .8 and up could have webs and disruptors guarding them. This gives CCP a tool to work with that will adjust the risk for both sides at the same time. If it's too easy for the enemy to infiltrate deep and kill easy targets, then the enemy has too little a risk for their reward while the newer players have too much risk for their reward. So by adjusting this one tool, CCP can simultaneously adjust the risk for both. By increasing the risk for the enemy, you automatically decrease the risk for the newer players. Eventually, with some tweaking over time, find a balance that works.

I believe that this would achieve a Risk vs Reward balance for NPC corp players.

Now for player corps.

Well, the risk is that player corps can be war dec'ed and unlike the FW, the Navy and gate defenses don't care about a player corp that is after another player corp. That's a pretty decent risk. The reward is that the player corp can operate anywhere, can setup POS and have the benefits they bring. No tax or at least tax that can benefit the corp and its members.

The only thing left is war dodging. What about when a corp disbands and reforms to get out of a player war? This forces the aggressor to have to pay and war dec over and over for a war that will never happen. How do you get rid of this dodging tactic but still allow CEOs the right to kick members who may be trouble? How do you get rid of this dodging tactic but still allow players the right to leave the corp they're in?

Well, there are two ways that I see.

1. The players can drop corp but they have to wait one week before they can be in a player corp again. This means they have to be in FW for one week. Since it's possible for corps to be part of FW, then the aggressing corp can still go after the dodging players simply by enlisting their corp into FW. After one week, the dodging players can then form a new corp for which the aggressing corp will have to war dec the new corp. The aggressing corp gets the war they paid for, even if it's not in a conventional way. Not a perfect solution but it may be an easier one than the second.

2. If any player drops corp while the corp has a war dec against them, that player is still a war target for the week. So even if the war dec is still in the 24 hours to begin phase, and a player drops from the corp being war dec'ed, after 24 hours that player still ends up as a war target to the aggressing corp for one week. This plus the automatic FW should keep war dodgers from dodging because the dodger now has FW enemies, plus they still have the player corp WT that don't have to worry about any faction's navy (unless the aggressing corp is in FW).

That should fix many of the issues. Gradually get new players accustomed to playing the game with the existence of war targets they could come into system at any time. Trying to AFK mine is even more suicidal. Gives players an incentive to form player corps. Makes it impossible to dodge war decs.

Just a side note on the default FW. Which FW you default to depends on which territory you are in when you drop from player corp. This is so you don't drop corp in the middle of enemy territory.

http://www.projectvaulderie.com/goodnight-sweet-prince/

http://www.projectvaulderie.com/the-untold-story/

CCP's true, butthurt, colors.

Because those who can't do themselves keep others from doing too.

Danika Princip
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#2 - 2014-09-02 20:36:53 UTC
Angeal MacNova wrote:

Just a side note on the default FW. Which FW you default to depends on which territory you are in when you drop from player corp. This is so you don't drop corp in the middle of enemy territory.



What if you're in nullsec or wormhole space?

My amarr standings are awful, if I dropped corp in ammar space, would I be enrolled in their militia?

Why are you encouraging massive amounts of awoxing?



How does this do anything, at all, to benefit the game?
scorchlikeshiswhiskey
Totally Abstract
O X I D E
#3 - 2014-09-02 20:50:28 UTC
Danika Princip wrote:
Angeal MacNova wrote:

Just a side note on the default FW. Which FW you default to depends on which territory you are in when you drop from player corp. This is so you don't drop corp in the middle of enemy territory.



What if you're in nullsec or wormhole space?

My amarr standings are awful, if I dropped corp in ammar space, would I be enrolled in their militia?

Why are you encouraging massive amounts of awoxing?



How does this do anything, at all, to benefit the game?

I think I understand what they were going for, and it makes some sense. New players, without friends to pick them up on the spot, are encouraged to start in 1.0/0.9 space for a low risk/low reward, while anyone willing to go farther out for the higher risk also accepts the higher risk of roaming FW pilots who might drop on them. For the roaming pilots, the deeper they penetrate the more potentially juicy the targets they can catch, so it makes sense that the default is for FW corps. This allows content in High Sec, exposes new players to PvP in a manageable and gradual way that is much less intimidating, and might breathe new life into the FW system.

As for the corp dropping, I would much rather go with a variant of their 2nd option than the first since that week of waiting is quickly going to get very, very tiresome. What if the corp declaring the war has the option of, for additional cost, individually war decc'ing members who drop corp before a war has ended?

As for Null or J-space, it could be that you are automatically enrolled in the FW of the last Empire whose space you were in, the next Empire whose space you enter, or a default that places you in the FW of your pilot. I would prefer the 3rd option, a Caldari pilot who trained Caldari would be enrolled in Caldari FW the same as a Caldari pilot who skipped over to train Amarr after a week.

Overall.... I give it a +3/4
Jur Tissant
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#4 - 2014-09-02 21:07:45 UTC
The benefit of being in an NPC corp is wardec immunity. This is why many players choose to be in NPC corps. There is already a reasonable tradeoff for this in the form of higher taxes, lack of POS and other corp infrastructures, etc. Effectively locking off half of high-sec to these players is too much. Being in an NPC corp should not feel like the "wrong" decision unless you really want to participate in an active community.

I see no problem with players dropping corp to avoid wardecs. The aggressor pays a pittance for the license to hunt the corp down and this is a way to avoid that - the cost is that you lose all of the benefits of a corp for the length of the dec. If your complaint is that corps can disband and reband to avoid wardecs, then I would suggest targeting corps which are too well established for that to be an option.
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation
Pandemic Legion
#5 - 2014-09-02 21:08:11 UTC  |  Edited by: Rivr Luzade
Yay, more grieving. So wonderful. And the death to 1-man corps, which are essential to keep your belongings safe-ish from corp thieves and other adversities. Just wonderful. Roll

So, how does this make the life in Low sec and 00 sec better, more worthwhile and rewarding? How does this improve the game in the areas of space which are currently underused and lack incentives or reasons to stay there? How does this keep people interested in Low sec and 00 sec beyond ratting and blob?

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.

Adunh Slavy
#6 - 2014-09-02 21:12:35 UTC
"By leaving, they are placed in their faction's FW as a start.

The only way not to be part of FW is by being part of a player corp."

Not too bad an idea. But the whole podding/skill point loss/ clone fee thing needs to be done away with prior to this. Make PVP fun, not a burden.

Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.  - William Pitt

Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
#7 - 2014-09-02 21:15:24 UTC
We disagree on a fair balance of risk/ reward.

Under your system I have to risk several days worth of effort in the form of mission fit battleships and/or mining barges to do anything at all, while those that want to kill easy targets risk ships a fraction of the cost with very little chance of losing.

If you want that kind of play, go hunt in low sec. That's what it's for. Making high sec suck just as bad for bears as low just kills the game.
Komi Toran
Perkone
Caldari State
#8 - 2014-09-02 21:49:10 UTC
The balance is all wrong. Too much stick, very little carrot. Your proposal doesn't tackle the elephant in the room: how does a defending corp end a war dec? Instead, you've fed the elephant and made it bigger by punishing a corporation and its players for using the current (poor) mechanics to solve their problem and giving them no other alternatives.
Celthric Kanerian
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#9 - 2014-09-02 22:24:08 UTC
I don't even know where you're getting on with this...

This would be devastating for new players, they would be confused out of their minds with this puzzle of randomness.
Professor Headmash
Under the Influence Inc
#10 - 2014-09-02 22:51:50 UTC
This would just cause 'leet' pvp'ers to farm the crap out of the new players, who would be confused as hell as to why, then unsub....
Sara Tosa
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#11 - 2014-09-03 06:39:50 UTC
another "I like XXX playstile so everybody else HAS to play like I want" thread.
-1
Tex Raynor
Guardians of Asceticism
#12 - 2014-09-03 08:34:22 UTC  |  Edited by: Tex Raynor
While this idea has some merit given EVE is a space sim with 4 empire at war. However, given that most of these changes would affect highsec, I think it might be wise to account for missions runners and miners wishes. They do represent a significant portion of the player base there after all.

Here are some thoughts I think are worth considering:

1 - This would effectively segregate the empires as two major blocks of space, making it more tricky to haul 24/7 in a NPC corp between all trade hubs. Without completely removing trade routes, haulers need to choose wisely which player corps they want to associate with. They can also settle for trading Jita-Amarr or Dodixie-Hek/Rens by going NPC corp, trade-off being no AFK.

2 - This would need a tool to provide pimp-fit mission runners and AFK miners a way to somewhat reproduce the safety they have now. Perhaps they can pay-off CONCORD officials for their corp's immunity which makes them war-targetable only if the price is paid 5-fold or something by the deccers. This gives larger corps (which have more targets) a bigger buffer to getting decced while also providing an ISK sink both ways.
This could also be done the other way around; deccers pay today's normal fee, defenders have 24 hours to pay-off CONCORD the price for immunity from those deccers for a week (same ISK value paid by deccers). At the very least, both parties are loosing equal amounts of ISK until one gives up. Again, strong and wealthy highsec corps can defend their members efficiently by means other than using guns, at least from the wannabe deccers.

3 - It should be clear for new players that choosing your faction puts you at war with two others. Set warnings and tutorials accordingly and no newbie will think twice about getting blown up while in FW. I like the idea of having appropriate defences set up in higher sec, so no interceptor can effectively kill a moderately tanked barge in a 1.0 before navy reinforcements arrive. Cruisers and up should be at very high risk of getting pointed/webbed at the gate in a 1.0. Balance to 0.5 accordingly, even as far as making it almost impossible for anything bigger than a BC to "invade" the enemy's FW highsec. Logistics? Simply give the navy exponential DPS which would make the tankiest of setups fall under heavy fire/neuts after 5 mins tops. Anything but guerilla warfare in enemy highsec FW should be impossible to achieve.

4 - While I am a supporter of ganking (done it myself countless times), I would favour a system such as this one while simultaneously nerfing neg sec status from flying anything but a pod in empire space. Instead of dying to CONCORD, I either wardec or try to dodge the navy in my NPC corp. Might even get a couple catalysts out since navy does not guarantee a kill in 0.5. Overall, the difficulty of ganking my desired target should not change much from today's, but at least it makes more sense now. You must choose to either go player corp but maintain a healthy sec status or go NPC corp and only gank other NPC corps (Navy + CONCORD in 0.5 could = 1.0 safety).

5 - Consider perhaps involving faction standings towards making yourself harder to dec/gank when flying in space you have high standings by providing better CONCORD/navy response times or something. A fully-pimped mission runner with +10.0 caldari standings, whether in NPC/player corp should only really fear a suicide ganking party, provided they are now at least above -5.0.

TL;DR - Think of the pros/cons of your idea, make sure you are not just buffing one side and nerfing the other, but this idea does create a more logical frontier between the empires at war without separating by lowsec and introduces newbies to PVP earlier.
Zan Shiro
Alternative Enterprises
#13 - 2014-09-03 09:47:59 UTC
You know op it really says a lot about FW when you...and people before you... keep on wanting to draft people into it.


FW is so great....we makee the devs force you into it.


Catchy phrase, just sells FW so well too.


YOU want volunteers genius, not people forced into it. Volunteers tend to like like what they do and give 2 craps about it while doing it.

First FW whines about people in it only to farm, not "RP" enough, warp stabbed frigates, etc. Then we get people like you who apparently want to see more of it.



Velicitia
XS Tech
#14 - 2014-09-03 10:34:05 UTC
Komi Toran wrote:
The balance is all wrong. Too much stick, very little carrot. Your proposal doesn't tackle the elephant in the room: how does a defending corp end a war dec? Instead, you've fed the elephant and made it bigger by punishing a corporation and its players for using the current (poor) mechanics to solve their problem and giving them no other alternatives.



^ This.

For wars, the biggest "helper" would be something like declared objectives.

For example, deccer wants to nuke the defender's POS, so they choose the objective "Destroy Control Tower [Size]" and quantity (e.g. 2).

The game then automatically turns around and says "OK defenders, you have to destroy 500m* of their assets to win".

* - Defender's "destroy ISK" value changes depending on the rough aggregate value of the aggressor's choices -- so 2x small tower would be less than 2x large tower, etc.

Now, the only way for the aggressor to "win" is to destroy the control tower(s) that they said they were taking out - they lose if they don't destroy that many control towers after some set amount of dec renewals (note - further refinement needed -- we might need to say something like "you can't unanchor towers during the 24h dec warmup).


Now, towers aren't the "only" objective, there could also be stuff like
"Destroy XXX ISK"
"Destroy XXX [Ship Types]"
"Cause corp to disband"
"[None]" <-- this would be limited-use (e.g. "one week, that's it")


If the aggressor DOES NOT complete their objective in a week, then they can extend the dec as normal (barring the "no reason" objective). This is just an extension of the dec, so if the objective was "Destroy 3 small control towers", and the aggressor has already destroyed one, they need only destroy two more -- and if the defender's goal was "destroy 300m ISK", and they've already destroyed 150, then they've only another 150 to go in order to win.

Now, if the aggressor (or defender) completes their objective(s), then the war is over, a victor is declared, and everyone continues on their merry way. The aggressor and defender cannot go to war again (for a set cooldown period -- say a week), unless the former defender is now the aggressor, OR if the aggressor pays for the war as if it was continuing (IIRC, this means "additional cost every week").

One of the bitter points of a good bittervet is the realisation that all those SP don't really do much, and that the newbie is having much more fun with what little he has. - Tippia

Angeal MacNova
LankTech
#15 - 2014-09-03 23:08:09 UTC
Tex Raynor wrote:
While this idea has some merit given EVE is a space sim with 4 empire at war. However, given that most of these changes would affect highsec, I think it might be wise to account for missions runners and miners wishes. They do represent a significant portion of the player base there after all.

Here are some thoughts I think are worth considering:

1...


Before I reply I just want to say that the point of the suggestion was to change hi-sec. It was to address two current issues.

1. People can earn more isk in an NPC corp in hi-sec, then they can in some of the more riskier parts of the game. In an NPC corp, as an indy player, the risk is ganking. Indy in a player corp makes you vulnerable to war decs and you can still be ganked. The perks of being in a player corp (POCOs, POS) don't offer enough of an increase in benefit vs the increase in risk. So rather than nerf/buff the reward part (which has been done repeatedly before with little effect), I propose adjusting the risk part. I went with war and war targets as that risk because EVE is a PvP game.

2. War decs. Corp A can war dec corp B. While the 24 hour grace period is still in affect, the corp being dec'ed can disband and reform. Completely dodging the war. The aggressing corp then has to pay again to war dec the same group of players? Now I've seen someone talk about it being a defense against war decs. No, this is wrong. If wars were meant to be a mutual thing, then the crop being dec'ed would get a notification stating saying that "Corp A wants to declare war on you, do you accept". This is not how it currently works. Instead, Corp A can simply pay the fee and the war dec goes live in 24 hours regardless if Corp B likes it or not. Now there is no option for Corp B to pay a fee to have the war dec canceled. This, again, tells me that once the war dec is made, it's suppose to go through uninterrupted. All defending corps have done is found a loop hole within the games design and exploited it.

So to address this first point.

It wouldn't segratate all that much. As it is now, the FW systems are in pockets. There are ways to go between territories without going through low sec. Keep in mind that only those who are in NPC corp are in FW. You get out of FW by being in a player corp. This means you can trade and transport goods between factions with no issues from FW. Also keep in mind that it's Amarr/Caldari vs Gallente/Minmitar. So you can still be in NPC corp and trade between your current and allied faction.

Quote:
2...


The option to pay to cancel a war dec against you isn't that bad of an idea. Again it's risk vs reward. You remove the risk but this comes at a cost. The reward of joining a player corp is that you can make more isk but it comes with the added risk of being war dec'ed. You pay to remove the risk but this means a portion of your reward is being spent and thus, reward goes down with the risk.

Quote:
3....


Yeah, pretty much.

Quote:
4...


While I believe that a change like this would certainly reduce ganking (by fixing the reason why many gank in the first place), it certainly wouldn't eliminate it. After all, by being in a player corp, you are not part of the FW. This means that if you are in Amarr NPC corp (so part of the FW) and there is a player corp operating in Amarr space, well, there's nothing stopping you from ganking those in the corp. Hell, if you are in the Amarr NPC corp and there is another player in the Amarr NPC corp (so you both are in FW) and that other player is doing whatever (mining) you can still gank them. Nothing is stopping you there. However, this will cause CONCORD to step in as per normal. The reason I believe this would reduce ganking is because I believe that much ganking is to give hi-sec (specifically NPC hi-sec) the risk it needs to compensate the reward it offers. What you would have instead are the "gankers" now being FW war targets trying to infiltrate into enemy territory. However, unlike with CONCORD now that only responds after the act, the enemy's navy will persue the war targets upon entering the system.

Quote:
5 - Consider perhaps involving faction standings towards making yourself harder to dec/gank when flying in space you have high standings by providing better CONCORD/navy response times or something. A fully-pimped mission runner with +10.0 caldari standings, whether in NPC/player corp should only really fear a suicide ganking party, provided they are now at least above -5.0..


Well, it would make sense for a faction to look after those who have been loyal to them.

http://www.projectvaulderie.com/goodnight-sweet-prince/

http://www.projectvaulderie.com/the-untold-story/

CCP's true, butthurt, colors.

Because those who can't do themselves keep others from doing too.

Donnachadh
United Allegiance of Undesirables
#16 - 2014-09-04 04:25:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Donnachadh
Another let's try to force everyone in the game to PvP because that is what EVE is about post.

How does it help the game as a whole?

New players are easily confused and frustrated with the game and all its complexities and now you propose to force them to decide on a player corp or be forced into FW before they even know what those things are and how they will affect their game play. On top of that you remove any reasonably safe chance they have to get out and explore which part of the EVE Universe they want to call home? How does all of this help the game as a whole?
More importantly how does this help us keep these new players in the game long enough to learn what all these things are about and what they want to do in this game?

And what about serious level 4 mission runners? Any mission runner with any experience knows that the best payouts for ISK and LP are in the .5 systems. And yet your idea places them and their expensive ships right at the very leading edge of the FW battles even if they have no desire to be involved in that aspect of the game, how does this make the game better?

This game has many broken components and they all need to be addressed. However can we please find ways to fix these things that does not require everyone to be involved in PvP, FW or other aspects of the game that they have no desire to be involved in.

And please, please, please do not keep putting new players in a place where they have to make decisions that they do not have enough information or in game experience to make.
Angeal MacNova
LankTech
#17 - 2014-09-04 04:43:35 UTC
Donnachadh wrote:
Another let's try to force everyone in the game to PvP because that is what EVE is about post.

How does it help the game as a whole?


To make it clear that this is a PvP game and players joining a PvP game with the intent of avoiding and/or not getting involved with and/or crying on the forums about how people are trying to PvP them should rethink their game choice.

Hell, I came here from a locked thread requesting miners have a feature similar to a "911 call" to bring in CONCORD as a way of defending against gankers. I assume it was to bring them in before the gank has a chance to take place.

Quote:

fix these things that does not require everyone to be involved in PvP, FW or other aspects of the game that they have no desire to be involved in.


You picked the wrong game.

Keeping in mind that PvP is not just ship vs ship.

http://www.projectvaulderie.com/goodnight-sweet-prince/

http://www.projectvaulderie.com/the-untold-story/

CCP's true, butthurt, colors.

Because those who can't do themselves keep others from doing too.

Tex Raynor
Guardians of Asceticism
#18 - 2014-09-04 05:05:04 UTC
Donnachadh wrote:
Another let's try to force everyone in the game to PvP because that is what EVE is about post.

How does it help the game as a whole?

New players are easily confused and frustrated with the game and all its complexities and now you propose to force them to decide on a player corp or be forced into FW before they even know what those things are and how they will affect their game play. On top of that you remove any reasonably safe chance they have to get out and explore which part of the EVE Universe they want to call home? How does all of this help the game as a whole?
More importantly how does this help us keep these new players in the game long enough to learn what all these things are about and what they want to do in this game?

And what about serious level 4 mission runners? Any mission runner with any experience knows that the best payouts for ISK and LP are in the .5 systems. And yet your idea places them and their expensive ships right at the very leading edge of the FW battles even if they have no desire to be involved in that aspect of the game, how does this make the game better?

This game has many broken components and they all need to be addressed. However can we please find ways to fix these things that does not require everyone to be involved in PvP, FW or other aspects of the game that they have no desire to be involved in.

And please, please, please do not keep putting new players in a place where they have to make decisions that they do not have enough information or in game experience to make.


Just because I want to enjoy wormhole class 5 escalation sites for maximum ISK/hour without being attacked, does it mean CCP should add CONCORD to wormholes?
I mean, I really want it and probably will unsub if I don't get it.
Seems silly? Maybe because I am just one person, clearly I chose the wrong space/game.

Now consider this - what if over time, more than 70% of wspace population became carebears and only grinded anomalies, completely avoiding PVP?
Now suddenly all these risk-averse corporations petitioned for getting CONCORD added to wormholes since clearly, they would rather have it and clearly, they are the majority.

0.5's are still highsec, so criminal acts get your ship CONCORDOKKEN'D. They should be riskier to play in than 1.0, however. I am all for a smooth transition of risk/reward. This is why lowsec is constantly complained about, this is why nullsec rewards often seem out of place, this is why class 4 wormholes got a second static... All part of slow changes trying to make a smoother risk/reward progression.

And finally, for what you said about "forcing" new player into PVP... Can "PVP" players really avoid PVE? Can they really avoid getting ISK, one way or another? I believe this game offers both and as you get better at the game, you learn to optimize your time doing what you really enjoy most. Speaking of first hand experience, I can just as much play 100% one or the other, why should newbies not have to learn the same?
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#19 - 2014-09-04 05:38:15 UTC
If you want more FW, make it more welcoming. That's you, the player corps. I at one stage sent in messages to a bunch of corps looking to join FW, I got about a 10% response back from them, and only one got even as far as a second message. Not a single corp bothered telling me why they weren't interested in me joining.

So... why should I want to join FW if that is how people behave?

Corps need more carrots, then you won't see corp dodging the same way. Make the Corp leader have to have the skills himself, but make the skills give benefits to the corp (Rather than corp size limitations, 1 skill should do that if there is a skill for corp size). And you won't see 1 man alt corps sitting around either. Carrots are the way, there is enough stick already.