EVE General Discussion

Wardecs, yes. NPC corps, no.

The only thing wrong with NPC corps is that they cause a flood of tears in this forum from people that like to use words like 'force' when discussing game mechanics. For some reason these alleged sandbox promoters seem to get real wound up when someone else is not using the sandbox the way they want them to.

Now wardecs on the other hand...where do I even start. The entire thing needs to be wiped out and started from scratch. So many years of patchwork fixes has done nothing but make it worse. CCP has had the time now to see what works and what doesn't. It's time to grab the bull by the horns and rewrite all that legacy code into something befitting of this century.

Sure, it'll be a pain in the ass for the coders and will use up a lot of time some might consider wasted, but it needs to be done. Else it will just keep getting more muddled and more unworkable as each new layer of 'fixes' gets rammed on to it.

Mr Epeen

I meant that you go on forever. Nice spelling catch though. You win he internet.

Why restrict yourself to being in a null alliance or being in a npc corp?

Among other things I keep an alt in a null alliance and an alt in RvB that I can switch to when I feel like that kind of gameplay. With my main I like being able to go around highsec without worrying about wardecs. I can join NPSI communities and take a ship into solo pvp in null. I can base out of NPC null and go back to HS when I feel like it. There is no shortage of pvp opportunities if you want to be in a NPC corp. I can do incursions to make a ton of money and do missions when I feel like it. NPC corp chat also provides a community. It's the best of all worlds.

Might want to do something about that unfortunate elf obsession...
Now, pretending I still take you seriously after that comment:


Aion ('demons' and 'angels') had permanent xp loss on death, last I played it, and Star Wars Galaxies (Science Fiction based sandbox) had permanent skill point loss on Jedi death (before NGE). In both cases meaning you had to just regrind the xp/sp.

You are in a free ship and risk nothing. If it's destroyed you just get new free ship. Failing a gank is literally like failing to walk irl - it's been made that simple, not just people with their eyes and ears closed, even dogs can do it. If you fail at ganking, then maybe you have to stop eve and start a tic-tac-toe career.
Gankers never have any risk, even loot fairy they complain about every time is averaging in the long run.

I wonder how many hours CODE would've existed if my proposed change "reduce CONCORD reaction time to multiple crimes on the same grid" passes. This change would mean you can't just spam 30 free wankalysts on anyone and have to choose your ship comp and wankompany size against reaction time reduction to achieve the same results of brainless wankalyst spam. This would introduce skill cap to ganking, and create some kind of limit in how much damage can top damage ships in X number do, before adding more numbers would start reducing overall damage done - around this limit a freighter ehp balance pass can be made to solve the N+1 issue of wankalyst gank, which gave CCP Lapdog(Fozzie) such a hard time in his latest attempt. And it practically doesn't affect "full yield miner" ganks in the slightest, so whoever is going to cry about those may kindly shut up.

And yes, targets of grief dec are carefully selected to have no ability to shoot back. Otherwise you won't grief dec them, because you are even afraid some useless allies are going to join them, even though they can do nothing to you while you use invulnerability exploit.

I have a draft on how to remake war decs with parts of Fozziesov(don't worry, not a single structure is in that draft, just one module), where they stay like now if defender doesn't want to fight, but have a way to challenge deccer to a fight in equal numbers the defender can field, with war funds as the prize, while deccer gets most of the war dec cost back if the defender doesn't turn up. The good part is that defender can hire mercs to challenge deccer for them, making them not useless for the defender, and if deccer doesn't fight, he loses his dec funds and war ends. In turn, defenders dropping corp has a cost which is added to the war fund grief deccer can claim if no challenge has succeeded. It has some problems I have no solutions for, but I will be publishing its draft for discussion somewhere in the next two weeks.

There is no way to manage grief dec at all, not to mention having fun.

Being new player is being cannon fodder in eve. It's a long way till minimum SP requirement to entry-level pvp.

Somebody in your corp does play with a half dozen alts to make it "manageable", so you can ask him, and thank him for leeching off his efforts.

It's because eve is a sandbox............

Its not about wars, risk reward ratio, or anything apart from the individual, their gaming experiences before eve, the hype behind them wanting to try eve and what they experience at the hands of others in game.

Many ppl can't handle teh sandbox its that simple




edit:
P.S. yeah i still a NOOB NPC

Who would that be Basil?

There isn't a single person in our Corp or Alliance that has that many alts. You are just imagining things to justify your own position.

No one leeches off anyone in our Alliance. We all help each other and we continue to have fun through wardecs, maybe because we aren't bitter and negative about everything.

Maybe you aren't able to manage wardecs, but that doesn't make them unmanageable for everyone. It's really not that difficult at all.

Utter rubbish, of course you can complain. In most war decs the defenders stand no chance. They are going up against people who hold all the cards. They have the advantage in every respect and it is almost impossible for the defenders to win.

In most war decs the choice is to station spin or not login to deny kills or get slaughtered.... Some choice.

I know of no other game where it is as easy to farm kills as it is in Eve with so little risk.

You can drone on about the sandbox as much as you like but ultimately it is the sandbox which is slowly killing this game.

I for one would be happy to sacrifice some small element of the sandbox if it means getting more new players into Eve and getting them to stay.

As far as I can tell, there are two anti-NPC corp arguments here:

1) NPC corp players are not social, do not interact with other players, and leave the game eventually because they get bored.
2) NPC corp players make too much ISK when they are veterans in highsec, since they cannot be wardeced and therefore face little risk while Incursioning or hauling or mining.


#1 is completely untrue. I definitely know there's a lot of social activity within CAS, and it sounds like FNA and SAK has some too.

#2 seems to be mainly an issue with highsec Incursions. If this is considered to be an unbalanced risk/reward situation, it's best to address it directly by some sort of modification to highsec Incursions directly, rather than indirectly by modifying NPC corps which have applications way beyond highsec activities. Regarding hauling, I think we see enough multi-billion ISK gank killmails to show it's not risk-free, or even low-risk. Mining isn't something I know a whole lot about, but it doesn't seem to produce much ISK, and is still subject to ganking. (To anybody advocation point #2 - I'd be interesting in hearing your more detailed thoughts on why npc-corp + veteran + highesc = too much ISK for too little risk.)


In conclusion, IMO there are still no good reasons to change NPC corps.