These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Jenshae Chiroptera
#301 - 2015-03-31 13:27:45 UTC
Serendipity Lost wrote:
... then do it right. ....
Ssssshhhhh! I have a strategy that to people I trust, I mention only one tactic that is a part of it and they go. Shocked

I won't lay it out. I won't do it because it is game breaking. It is worse than the pipe bomb tactic.
So, here I am on the forums trying to push for a few changes here and there and hoping people remain sub-average until a few changes go through.

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.
Eli Stan
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#302 - 2015-03-31 14:48:08 UTC
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:

NPC corps + High Sec + veterans = too little risk for too much reward.


Last week you said you were too busy to answer, so maybe you have time now so I'll ask again.
What specific activities are veteran NPC corp players doing that you think brings in too much reward?
Jenshae Chiroptera
#303 - 2015-03-31 21:27:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Jenshae Chiroptera
Eli Stan wrote:
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:

NPC corps + High Sec + veterans = too little risk for too much reward.
Last week you said you were too busy to answer, so maybe you have time now so I'll ask again.
What specific activities are veteran NPC corp players doing that you think brings in too much reward?
Pretty much everything if they are any good at EVE; from Incursions paying way too much, through to multi-boxing miners, freighters with multiple alts, crushing missions really quickly or even ganking and freighter bumping, all while being protected from war declarations.

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.
Urziel99
Multiplex Gaming
Tactical Narcotics Team
#304 - 2015-04-01 05:17:15 UTC
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:
~words~




Are you paying my subscription? No? Then you have exactly ZERO power to dictate to me or anyone else what corp they are in or where and how they play.

Get over yourself.
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#305 - 2015-04-01 06:05:24 UTC
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:
Pretty much everything if they are any good at EVE; from Incursions paying way too much, through to multi-boxing miners, freighters with multiple alts, crushing missions really quickly or even ganking and freighter bumping, all while being protected from war declarations.

Please show us on the ship where the (incursion|mining|freighter|mission|bump|gank) touched you. Eliminating NPC corporations won't change anything. If you have more than one player account, you have two player-owned corporations you can jump between. If you want to encourage more PvP interaction in high-sec there are other ways to go about it. Reforming the bounty system would be one way.

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Mag's
Azn Empire
#306 - 2015-04-01 07:05:02 UTC
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:
Eli Stan wrote:
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:

NPC corps + High Sec + veterans = too little risk for too much reward.
Last week you said you were too busy to answer, so maybe you have time now so I'll ask again.
What specific activities are veteran NPC corp players doing that you think brings in too much reward?
Pretty much everything if they are any good at EVE; from Incursions paying way too much, through to multi-boxing miners, freighters with multiple alts, crushing missions really quickly or even ganking and freighter bumping, all while being protected from war declarations.

Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:
Dots wrote:
Red Frog uses NPC Corp alts for hauling, so I'm not sure wardeccing really applies to them.

Edit: Grr, autocorrect
Spies and suicide gankers do apply

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
Jenshae Chiroptera
#307 - 2015-04-01 17:14:05 UTC
Arthur Aihaken wrote:
Reforming the bounty system would be one way.
I do have previous suggestions say that I think it should work like courier contracts. " X hull type(s) for Y ISK" it could even be a case function, example:

"Killing Arthur has a total of 5 billion in this contract

Marauder class 500M
T3 cruiser 250M
T2 cruiser 75M
Battle cruiser 20M "

Then you can issue them and they can be accepted by corps / alliances, you an make multiple contracts or have contracts with multiple kills.

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.
McChicken Combo HalfMayo
The Happy Meal
#308 - 2015-04-01 17:43:16 UTC
Urziel99 wrote:
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:
~words~




Are you paying my subscription? No? Then you have exactly ZERO power to dictate to me or anyone else what corp they are in or where and how they play.

Get over yourself.

Everyone has the right to contest your gameplay if they feel it negatively impacts the game.

There are all our dominion

Gate camps: "Its like the lowsec watercooler, just with explosions and boose" - Ralph King-Griffin
Jenshae Chiroptera
#309 - 2015-04-02 00:54:03 UTC
McChicken Combo HalfMayo wrote:
Everyone has the right to contest your gameplay if they feel it negatively impacts the game.
High lighted to OP. Thank you.

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.
Donnachadh
United Allegiance of Undesirables
#310 - 2015-04-02 01:28:17 UTC
McChicken Combo HalfMayo wrote:
Everyone has the right to contest your gameplay if they feel it negatively impacts the game.

No one has the right to contest what I do or do not do in the game as along as what I am doing is within the rules.
You do have the right to play within those rules and try to enforce your ideas but that is all.

You have the right to come here suggest / lobby for CCP to make changes. just as we have the right to attempt to counter your arguments.

Only CCP has the right to dictate to players what they can and cannot do within the game.
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#311 - 2015-04-02 01:39:55 UTC
The biggest problem with WarDecs is that they're grossly unfair. You get a large corporation (or alliance) essentially brutalizing a smaller one. Add neutral logistics to the fray and you end up with a slaughter. This isn't 'gud fights' - it's legalized ganking.

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Jenshae Chiroptera
#312 - 2015-04-02 03:37:32 UTC
Arthur Aihaken wrote:
The biggest problem with WarDecs is that they're grossly unfair. You get a large corporation (or alliance) essentially brutalizing a smaller one. Add neutral logistics to the fray and you end up with a slaughter. This isn't 'gud fights' - it's legalized ganking.
Always been in the OP that I am aware of this:
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:
There are some related problems:

- War dec mechanics

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.
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#313 - 2015-04-02 05:10:11 UTC
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:
Always been in the OP that I am aware of this.

With respect to one of the ideas in your OP, what determines the value of a high-sec system? Typically the lower the rating the more ore, NPC rats and missions are worth. I do agree that the AI could stand an overhaul, if only to better prepare players for the eventuality of PvP. This means a substantial mission overhaul with varying degrees of difficulty, ship configuration and AI for rats, substantially smaller numbers and vulnerable to all forms of EW. And then we still have the WarDec issues.

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Urziel99
Multiplex Gaming
Tactical Narcotics Team
#314 - 2015-04-02 08:10:03 UTC
McChicken Combo HalfMayo wrote:
Urziel99 wrote:
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:
~words~




Are you paying my subscription? No? Then you have exactly ZERO power to dictate to me or anyone else what corp they are in or where and how they play.

Get over yourself.

Everyone has the right to contest your gameplay if they feel it negatively impacts the game.



Contest =/= demand, which is exactly what the OP is doing.
Last time I checked, this was a sandbox where the pilots are free to play by their own rules, in their own way. For some, like OP and CODE it means taking a crap on someone else's cheerios. For some it means using any and all means available to avoid said defecation.

Don't like it? Too Bad. My sub, my pilots, my accounts.

So pardon me while I express my right to tell you to go play in traffic.
Jenshae Chiroptera
#315 - 2015-04-02 19:03:39 UTC
Arthur Aihaken wrote:
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:
Always been in the OP that I am aware of this.

With respect to one of the ideas in your OP, what determines the value of a high-sec system? Typically the lower the rating the more ore, NPC rats and missions are worth. I do agree that the AI could stand an overhaul, if only to better prepare players for the eventuality of PvP. This means a substantial mission overhaul with varying degrees of difficulty, ship configuration and AI for rats, substantially smaller numbers and vulnerable to all forms of EW. And then we still have the WarDec issues.
Similar to SOV ungrades only it works for one system where your corp HQ offices are based.

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.
Quintessen
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#316 - 2015-04-02 19:37:40 UTC
I'm probably in the small minority, but I have generally had a bad experience in most of the corps I've been in. I'm not a huge fan of a lot of the corp's dudebro attitudes. I know it's better to be in a non-NPC corp even with wardecs and would like to be.

What I would like to see is the ability for corpmates to rate the corp they are in or were in. Only non-biomassed characters would count. That would at least limit some of the abuse by alts in a rating system. It wouldn't be a perfect system, but it might be better than nothing.

Basically I'm looking for something like Glassdoor or Yelp. Then I could at least get a sense of the corp through more than their advertisement and their, theoretically, charismatic recruiting officer.
Jenshae Chiroptera
#317 - 2015-04-02 19:44:58 UTC
Quintessen wrote:
... I'm not a huge fan of a lot of the corp's dudebro attitudes. ...
Nothing to do with a solution but you will find the large alliances and coalitions have social sub-groups. The gate camping "dude-bros" and the quieter ratters and industrialists.

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.
Joia Crenca
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#318 - 2015-04-02 20:25:44 UTC
This is still a 'make everyone play the way I want them to play' thread?

But it doesn't take into consideration whether 'forcing everyone to play my way' would close the playground. If 'too many people' are doing things 'not the right way', and choosing not to play your way when they have a choice, the forcing you demand would only force them out the door, not into your playstyle, and the fact that there are 'too many' also means that it's likely their subscriptions are what's keeping EVE afloat financially.

I haven't seen corporation / nullsec members stomping out of EVE in droves because 'I saw a high sec NPC person flying the other day and it was disgusting to see them not playing MY way.' But I don't have the numbers to prove that the declining subs -aren't- solely because of that either. It seems unlikely though.
Jenshae Chiroptera
#319 - 2015-04-03 00:32:00 UTC
The suggestion is to try help CCP get more in line with the orginal vision / core 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.
Donnachadh
United Allegiance of Undesirables
#320 - 2015-04-03 01:40:18 UTC
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:
The suggestion is to try help CCP get more in line with the orginal vision / core of EVE.

To survive in a highly competitive would of online gaming companies MUST be willing to adapt and adjust to what ALL of their players want and to what the "competition" is doing. To try and stay 100% true to a thought from more than a decade ago is to go down a path of utter futility. The original vision of EvE is and always should be a guide, or an anchor of sorts if you will but it should not and cannot be THE thing that determines where this game goes and how it morphs to meet the ever changing needs of it's players and the competition for our gaming time and money.