These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Getting people out of NPC corporations

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd
#81 - 2015-02-02 04:14:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Alvatore DiMarco
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:
Risk minimal and reward is high.


If the risk in highsec is too minimal for you, go out there and be the risk in highsec. Bump some miners. Probe down some missioners and "help" the rats. Make people pay for "hauling permits" and then gank them anyway. Kill that idiot who thinks it's safe to travel through highsec in their pod. Dead ships and lost implants cost money to replace. With one good ship kill you've not only made highsec more dangerous for someone but you've also taken from them some of that high reward as replacement costs.

Don't just ***** about highsec being too safe; be part of what makes it less safe. You can always buy back sec status if it gets too low.

True truth: CCP views suicide ganking as a critical part of what keeps highsec balanced. It was mentioned in .. I believe it was the CSM7 (possibly CSM8) Winter Minutes.
Jenshae Chiroptera
#82 - 2015-02-02 04:18:19 UTC
Alvatore DiMarco wrote:
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:
Risk minimal and reward is high.
If the risk in highsec is too minimal for you, go out there and be the risk in highsec.
I have more than enough reds to keep me satisfied. I do not even need to go, anywhere.
The compositions are far more interesting and they are gears to fight not just die.

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.
Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd
#83 - 2015-02-02 04:19:33 UTC
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:
Alvatore DiMarco wrote:
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:
Risk minimal and reward is high.
If the risk in highsec is too minimal for you, go out there and be the risk in highsec.
I have more than enough reds to keep me satisfied. I do not even need to go, anywhere.
The compositions are far more interesting and they are gears to fight not just die.


Then why are you complaining?
Jenshae Chiroptera
#84 - 2015-02-02 04:26:30 UTC
Alvatore DiMarco wrote:
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:
Alvatore DiMarco wrote:
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:
Risk minimal and reward is high.
If the risk in highsec is too minimal for you, go out there and be the risk in highsec.
I have more than enough reds to keep me satisfied. I do not even need to go, anywhere.
The compositions are far more interesting and they are gears to fight not just die.
Then why are you complaining?
Markets and high sec roamers, same faces over and over full of bling ships with horrible fits. It makes me feel compelled to make a high sec alt just to farm ISK.

That isn't right. That isn't the concept of EVE.

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.
Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd
#85 - 2015-02-02 04:54:49 UTC
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:
Alvatore DiMarco wrote:
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:
Alvatore DiMarco wrote:
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:
Risk minimal and reward is high.
If the risk in highsec is too minimal for you, go out there and be the risk in highsec.
I have more than enough reds to keep me satisfied. I do not even need to go, anywhere.
The compositions are far more interesting and they are gears to fight not just die.
Then why are you complaining?
Markets and high sec roamers, same faces over and over full of bling ships with horrible fits. It makes me feel compelled to make a high sec alt just to farm ISK.

That isn't right. That isn't the concept of EVE.


Actually, it is the concept of EVE minus one thing - someone there to harvest the fat sheep and remind them that it's not safe to be so fat. The prey is doing their part by being enticing. Do yours.
Lady Rift
His Majesty's Privateers
#86 - 2015-02-02 05:11:26 UTC
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:
ashley Eoner wrote:
Anthar Thebess wrote:

Because players moving out of the NPC corporations means actually more player to player interactions. Making new friends, and new enemies.
No one has provided a legitimate reason for pushing people out of NPC corps.
EVE has the premise that it is a harsh universe.
Staying in high sec and hiding in a NPC corp is like saying in the tutorial zone in most other MMOs. However, in most tutorial zones you are capped, where as here you can fly what ever ship you like under the safest conditions you can find.

Ideally a change to NPC corps would see large groups of veterans and newbies making large player corps. Check my kill board, I am not some newbie kill farmer.




You know eve has a tutorial zone right? Its the rookie systems where grefing and ganking new players isnt allowed at all.
https://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Rookie_Systems



Donnachadh
United Allegiance of Undesirables
#87 - 2015-02-02 05:12:59 UTC
Alvatore DiMarco wrote:
Actually, it is the concept of EVE minus one thing - someone there to harvest the fat sheep and remind them that it's not safe to be so fat. The prey is doing their part by being enticing. Do yours.


This would require to much work. And given that he/she admits to having all of the "reds" they need leaves only one conclusion possible.
They hate the high sec play style but they are not willing to do anything in game to change it so they want CCP to do it for them.

But then I will never figure these folks out anyway. They sit in high sec killing people that do not want to fight and then come here and talk like they are the "elite" PvP players in the game, or post up trash like this topic about how CCP needs to force these high sec players into a different game play style that fits their narrow perspective of what EvE is supposed to be.
ashley Eoner
#88 - 2015-02-02 07:49:59 UTC
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:
ashley Eoner wrote:
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:
Star Citizen.
Elite: Dangerous.
Star Trek Online
Just to name some off the top of my head.

Star Citizen isn't even out of beta and it's an entirely different game from what eve is. Elite Dangerous isn't even in the same realm as eve either.
Star trek online... really? You're going to say that's the same gameplay as eve?
They talked about EVE as though it was the only game with Internet space ships. It is not.

Edit: Check my kill board. I am not a high sec ganker. I just think it is silly that people fly bling ships in the starting corp and area and make huge amounts of ISK.
Risk minimal and reward is high.
Space Merchant was "internet spaceships" . Doesn't mean they are remotely in the same actual field of gaming.
Sylveria Relden
#89 - 2015-02-02 13:42:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Sylveria Relden
You know, we see a lot of these threads going back and forth, all in the name of "buff lowsec" (nor null) or "nerf hisec" and it doesn't seem to be stopping.

I think we should call their bluff. Let CCP nerf empire security for 3-6 months. Call it a CONCORD strike or something.

Let's see what happens to the market, both in game and out of game. Seriously.


  • Mineral prices
  • Ship/module prices
  • PLEX prices
  • SOV space blobs
  • Lo-sec lack of interaction

etc.

If the "gankers" are right, then they'll have more interaction in null/low security because hisec won't be a "safe" area anymore (therefore it won't matter where they go, right?) and the markets will somehow magically "stabilize" themselves in terms of isk.

If the "carebears" are right- prices will be much higher than current, as availability will become more scarce. Oh and you won't see as many accounts logged in- because people won't bother subbing to the game. So CCP's income will take a dramatic loss as well.

The numbers will speak for themselves- and then perhaps we can get an "official" stance from CCP regarding player whining and we can stop seeing these ridiculous threads over and over (and over) again. I'm speculating here- but perhaps that's exactly why we never see an official stance, because they know damn well what will happen.

TL;DR If you didn't read the entire post perhaps you're probably ADHD. (seek help)
Jenshae Chiroptera
#90 - 2015-02-02 14:23:33 UTC  |  Edited by: Jenshae Chiroptera
Lady Rift wrote:
You know eve has a tutorial zone right? Its the rookie systems where grefing and ganking new players isnt allowed at all. https://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Rookie_Systems
Yes and newbie's duelling option should be turned off for a week or two when they start.
Donnachadh wrote:
Alvatore DiMarco wrote:
Actually, it is the concept of EVE minus one thing - someone there to harvest the fat sheep and remind them that it's not safe to be so fat. The prey is doing their part by being enticing. Do yours.
talk like they are the "elite" PvP players in the game, .
Donnachadh: - It makes me want to become one of the fat sheep.
Alvatore: - I would say the most skilled PVP is in frigates, sorting out transversal, doing what you can do with tiny resources, being in a ship that always has a counter or two.
Put me in a frigate and I am hopeless. I am far and away a long, long shot away from being an elite PVPer.
My ability to PVP relies on either drifting up and shooting them in the face, seeing who melts first or keeping as far away as possible while repairing others.
Sylveria Relden wrote:
I think we should call their bluff. Let CCP nerf empire security for 3-6 months. Call it a CONCORD strike or something.
Let's see what happens to the market, both in game and out of game. Seriously.
... or the middle security space idea where high sec has four islands and between that factions help you in certain systems if you have high standing with them and they send ships that will repair the first attacked ones and can be blown up as easily as other players.

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.
Sylveria Relden
#91 - 2015-02-02 14:44:00 UTC  |  Edited by: Sylveria Relden
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:
Sylveria Relden wrote:
I think we should call their bluff. Let CCP nerf empire security for 3-6 months. Call it a CONCORD strike or something.
Let's see what happens to the market, both in game and out of game. Seriously.
... or the middle security space idea where high sec has four islands and between that factions help you in certain systems if you have high standing with them and they send ships that will repair the first attacked ones and can be blown up as easily as other players.


Sorry, but I disagree and I think we should "go big or stay home" with this one, and here's the reason why:

The majority of threads I've seen for "deregulation" are "all or nothing" threads- and I think we should seriously let it happen. It will be good for the numbers- so we can actually determine just where everything truly sits without the constant smoke and mirrors "charade".

We'll get a truly "definitive" answer- without skewed perspectives, suggestions or misdirection. Either markets will regulate, or they won't. People will engage- or they won't. The greatest thing about a "temporary" nerf is that it can always be removed without hurting the "lore" of the game, too. They can even make it a creative thing like some sort of EMP activity that disables security systems, etc.

TL;DR If you didn't read the entire post perhaps you're probably ADHD. (seek help)
afkalt
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#92 - 2015-02-02 14:51:13 UTC
Sylveria Relden wrote:
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:
Sylveria Relden wrote:
I think we should call their bluff. Let CCP nerf empire security for 3-6 months. Call it a CONCORD strike or something.
Let's see what happens to the market, both in game and out of game. Seriously.
... or the middle security space idea where high sec has four islands and between that factions help you in certain systems if you have high standing with them and they send ships that will repair the first attacked ones and can be blown up as easily as other players.


Sorry, but I disagree and I think we should "go big or stay home" with this one, and here's the reason why:

The majority of threads I've seen for "deregulation" are "all or nothing" threads- and I think we should seriously let it happen. It will be good for the numbers- so we can actually determine just where everything truly sits without the constant smoke and mirrors "scheherazade".

We'll get a truly "definitive" answer- without skewed perspectives, suggestions or misdirection. Either markets will regulate, or they won't. People will engage- or they won't. The greatest thing about a "temporary" nerf is that it can always be removed without hurting the "lore" of the game, too. They can even make it a creative thing like some sort of EMP activity that disables security systems, etc.


We have a glimpse of this from history, where concord was tankable.

That ended with the devs directly intervening on TQ and scattering the players involved to the far reaches of the galaxy.

So whilst there may be an element of smoke and mirrors, there is historical precedent.
Sylveria Relden
#93 - 2015-02-02 14:55:12 UTC
afkalt wrote:
Sylveria Relden wrote:
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:
Sylveria Relden wrote:
I think we should call their bluff. Let CCP nerf empire security for 3-6 months. Call it a CONCORD strike or something.
Let's see what happens to the market, both in game and out of game. Seriously.
... or the middle security space idea where high sec has four islands and between that factions help you in certain systems if you have high standing with them and they send ships that will repair the first attacked ones and can be blown up as easily as other players.


Sorry, but I disagree and I think we should "go big or stay home" with this one, and here's the reason why:

The majority of threads I've seen for "deregulation" are "all or nothing" threads- and I think we should seriously let it happen. It will be good for the numbers- so we can actually determine just where everything truly sits without the constant smoke and mirrors "scheherazade".

We'll get a truly "definitive" answer- without skewed perspectives, suggestions or misdirection. Either markets will regulate, or they won't. People will engage- or they won't. The greatest thing about a "temporary" nerf is that it can always be removed without hurting the "lore" of the game, too. They can even make it a creative thing like some sort of EMP activity that disables security systems, etc.


We have a glimpse of this from history, where concord was tankable.

That ended with the devs directly intervening on TQ and scattering the players involved to the far reaches of the galaxy.

So whilst there may be an element of smoke and mirrors, there is historical precedent.


Yes, but still no "official" policy... which is why (as definitive of itself) history repeats itself yet again.

People will continue to scream and whine until CCP intervenes- as before and it will be so again. They need to take an official stance on this one, IMO. We often see a lot of people talk about the players "balancing" the system- yet at the end of the day, how exactly is this happening?

This is why neither order nor chaos can exist without the other. You must have a balance of the two.

TL;DR If you didn't read the entire post perhaps you're probably ADHD. (seek help)
ashley Eoner
#94 - 2015-02-02 17:42:11 UTC  |  Edited by: ashley Eoner
Sylveria Relden wrote:
You know, we see a lot of these threads going back and forth, all in the name of "buff lowsec" (nor null) or "nerf hisec" and it doesn't seem to be stopping.

I think we should call their bluff. Let CCP nerf empire security for 3-6 months. Call it a CONCORD strike or something.

Let's see what happens to the market, both in game and out of game. Seriously.


  • Mineral prices
  • Ship/module prices
  • PLEX prices
  • SOV space blobs
  • Lo-sec lack of interaction

etc.

If the "gankers" are right, then they'll have more interaction in null/low security because hisec won't be a "safe" area anymore (therefore it won't matter where they go, right?) and the markets will somehow magically "stabilize" themselves in terms of isk.

If the "carebears" are right- prices will be much higher than current, as availability will become more scarce. Oh and you won't see as many accounts logged in- because people won't bother subbing to the game. So CCP's income will take a dramatic loss as well.

The numbers will speak for themselves- and then perhaps we can get an "official" stance from CCP regarding player whining and we can stop seeing these ridiculous threads over and over (and over) again. I'm speculating here- but perhaps that's exactly why we never see an official stance, because they know damn well what will happen.
Yeah what could go wrong? Other then maybe a mass quitting as people don't want to deal with that ****.

This is a win win for the "gankers" as they get to harvest more tears and they get to watch CCP shoot themselves in the foot.. Bad idea doesn't begin to describe what you're suggesting.

We already know what it was like without concord. 24/7 curb stomping till you managed to get away from people and even then you were one station camp away from being unable to play.

CCP already knows the numbers and clearly they disagree with you and the others that want to hurt the game..


Sylveria Relden wrote:
Yes, but still no "official" policy... which is why (as definitive of itself) history repeats itself yet again.

People will continue to scream and whine until CCP intervenes- as before and it will be so again. They need to take an official stance on this one, IMO. We often see a lot of people talk about the players "balancing" the system- yet at the end of the day, how exactly is this happening?

This is why neither order nor chaos can exist without the other. You must have a balance of the two.

There's already an official stance and you can see it daily in how eve is setup. Tough crap that it's not what you want but we've already been there done that and have no desire to repeat stupid history just for the sake of repeating stupid history.

Don't like it? Stop being lazy and gank then or whatever it is you feel that highsec is missing.
Jenshae Chiroptera
#95 - 2015-02-03 01:11:16 UTC  |  Edited by: Jenshae Chiroptera
If it was demiliterised for a fixed term, people might suspend their accounts for those few months.

There would need to be warning and very clear info.

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.
Sylveria Relden
#96 - 2015-02-03 01:13:20 UTC
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:
If it was demiliterised for a fixed term, people might suspend their accounts for those few months.

There would need to be warning and very clear info.


That's the idea of the proposed time limitation. As I said- they can creatively call it a CONCORD strike or something. I think CCP could get some valuable info with the data regardless... how many people actively log in and play, how many subbed during the period of time, how many kills, prices in the market, etc.

TL;DR If you didn't read the entire post perhaps you're probably ADHD. (seek help)
Sylveria Relden
#97 - 2015-02-03 01:24:53 UTC
As the saying goes.... "Be careful what you wish for...."

I think in terms of people's proposals- they'll learn that "consequence" has a whole new meaning in this game. Big smile

TL;DR If you didn't read the entire post perhaps you're probably ADHD. (seek help)
Jenshae Chiroptera
#98 - 2015-02-03 01:25:17 UTC
Sylveria Relden wrote:
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:
If it was demiliterised for a fixed term, people might suspend their accounts for those few months.
There would need to be warning and very clear info.
That's the idea of the proposed time limitation. As I said- they can creatively call it a CONCORD strike or something. I think CCP could get some valuable info with the data regardless... how many people actively log in and play, how many subbed during the period of time, how many kills, prices in the market, etc.
Thing is it might still be a false reading. More people might return to EVE or be drawn in and that could take time to seep into the wider market.
There might be knee jerk suspended accounts but people might come back and find they enjoy it, etc.

Trouble is it would be a large risk and still might not give a good reading.

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.
Sylveria Relden
#99 - 2015-02-03 01:34:37 UTC
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:
Sylveria Relden wrote:
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:
If it was demiliterised for a fixed term, people might suspend their accounts for those few months.
There would need to be warning and very clear info.
That's the idea of the proposed time limitation. As I said- they can creatively call it a CONCORD strike or something. I think CCP could get some valuable info with the data regardless... how many people actively log in and play, how many subbed during the period of time, how many kills, prices in the market, etc.
Thing is it might still be a false reading. More people might return to EVE or be drawn in and that could take time to seep into the wider market.
There might be knee jerk suspended accounts but people might come back and find they enjoy it, etc.

Trouble is it would be a large risk and still might not give a good reading.


And the "counter proposal" is?

I agree- that it may indeed be skewed by other mitigating factors... but without a test we'll never know for sure.

At the end of the day- I still believe in "balance" and moderation in all things. Too much of anything can be harmful.

But hey, if people want to stick their hand on the stove to see just how hot it is, more power to them.

TL;DR If you didn't read the entire post perhaps you're probably ADHD. (seek help)
Donnachadh
United Allegiance of Undesirables
#100 - 2015-02-03 01:55:58 UTC
Sylveria Relden wrote:
You know, we see a lot of these threads going back and forth, all in the name of "buff lowsec" (nor null) or "nerf hisec" and it doesn't seem to be stopping.

I think we should call their bluff. Let CCP nerf empire security for 3-6 months. Call it a CONCORD strike or something.

Let's see what happens to the market, both in game and out of game. Seriously.


  • Mineral prices
  • Ship/module prices
  • PLEX prices
  • SOV space blobs
  • Lo-sec lack of interaction

etc.

If the "gankers" are right, then they'll have more interaction in null/low security because hisec won't be a "safe" area anymore (therefore it won't matter where they go, right?) and the markets will somehow magically "stabilize" themselves in terms of isk.

If the "carebears" are right- prices will be much higher than current, as availability will become more scarce. Oh and you won't see as many accounts logged in- because people won't bother subbing to the game. So CCP's income will take a dramatic loss as well.

The numbers will speak for themselves- and then perhaps we can get an "official" stance from CCP regarding player whining and we can stop seeing these ridiculous threads over and over (and over) again. I'm speculating here- but perhaps that's exactly why we never see an official stance, because they know damn well what will happen.

While I like the idea as a concept the possible negative consequences for the game make this a really bad idea, if there were mass un-subs as a result CCP and the game may never recover.

Turn your idea 180 degrees and remove war decs and ganking from high sec for that period of time and se what the results are. While this may cause mass un-subs from the war dec and ganker communities the loss in number of players would be significantly less and would be more survivable for CCP and the game.