Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Income is earning ISK, regardless of the means or sources. What you are talking about is ISK generation. Earning ISK by ISK redistribution from one character to another is Income generation. By your logic, market activity or contracts wouldn't be an income generation.

Nothing is derailed here by me, I merely point to particularities and interesting cases that you like to ignore to suit your cause.

This is all semantics.

There are plenty of ways to make an income in this game, but from a game design point of view the most problematic ones are where resources are generated out of nothing and put into the economy. Resources like ISK from incursions/ratting, LPs from missions, ore from mining, etc. All of these need to be gated with risk (or at least significant effort) to prevent them from flooding into the economy and destroying it. This is where risk vs. reward is important.

Bumpers, gankers, traders, scammers, corp thieves, pirates and the like do not put resources into the economy. They move them around, and by this can generate an income for a player, but this is not really relevant to the risk vs. reward design of the game. The success of these PvP activities have risk and effort levels determined completely by other player's actions and ultimately do not affect the overall economy detrimentally. Whereas resource farmers do present a danger to the global economy by addinh resources to it.

That all said, I have no problem with bumpers, gankers, scammers and the sort being forced into wardeccable player corps, as long as that is the rule for all players. What is good for the goose is good for the gander, so if carebears are forced into player corps, so should bumpers. But ultimately I think NPC corps play an important role as a temporary place a besieged player can fall back to if needed so they should exist in some form. It just shouldn't be the most optimal way to play the game as it is now.

Sorry OP for not commenting on your proposal, but I do have some ideas on how to make wardecs more useful and engaging. I will save them for a later post though.

I read through your proposal (including post 4), unless you added or edited anything since?

*Snip* Please refrain from personal attacks. ISD Ezwal.

To be clear you point out that you don't hang around in space because of facpo(which doesn't cover you npc scanning alts of course) yet complain that wartargets use every means available to do the equivalent to avoid summary execution. You use a word very often here that fits perfectly...

Before you rant about me wanting to make wardecs harder I don't. Every time I have made a suggestion here it is with making wardecs worth fighting in mind. You want to force people into it which will never work. I prefer to entice the percentage who might by giving them reason to.

I have removed a rule breaking post and those quoting it.

The Rules:
4. Personal attacks are prohibited.

Commonly known as flaming, personal attacks are posts that are designed to personally berate or insult another forum user. Posts of this nature are not beneficial to the community spirit that CCP promote and as such they will not be tolerated.

The end result is the same, both sides are mitigating practically all risk. The ganking side avoids it by using npc scan alts who can't even be wardecced and only launches the gank alt when a target has been identified. Trying to catch that alt is like trying to intercept an icbm. Players who don't want a war use legal mechanics to avoid a part of the game that they don't want forced upon them. Until CCP deem this to be wrong there is nothing illegal or exploitative about it. Those declaring war just need to pick their targets more carefully. It should be obvious from war histories who will fight and who will not...

Not at all. There's an order of magnitude's difference between giving player corps a carrot that is otherwise not obtainable, and the absurdly heavy handed restriction of losing availability of certain ships.

The latter is only used in a few small instances in the game, because it's such a big deal.



And there you are, rambling off topic again.

No, it doesn't fit because:

You can't really do anything to them without using an insanely heavy handed mechanic.

And because they are not income generating activities, and those are what is subject to risk vs reward. Only activities that create assets, not ones that just move them around.

Even you can tell the difference, but you're ignoring it to suit yourself.




Wrong. Their existing vulnerabilities still remain, vulnerabilities that you and the other carebears here have whined about for a long time. Thus exposing your argument as self contradictory, purely to be argumentative.




That, or I have a brain, and I realize there really isn't any action for which you can slap a killright on a neutral hauler?

You're throwing a ranty, childish tantrum at this point, and you need to settle down.




It is a balanced approach, that's why you hate it so much. Because your goal is not balance, it's to maintain the unbalanced advantage you currently enjoy.

Being able to dec dodge means not running any job that takes over 24 hours. Pretty hobbling in itself. And if someone dodges a wardec you can always gank them. I also thought that a new corp can't stand up a POS for 7 days which would be most inconvenient for any large producer.

Interesting how you see the use of alts to avoid being wardeccable as a tangent, seems to be very relevant to me.

That's just is, isn't it? It's entirely relevant.

People want war to mean something, to be unavoidable, to have meaningful player impact. But only so long as their gameplay choices to avoid war are well left alone.

NPC corps shouldn't lose select access to certain gameplay aspects - if they're losing then they must lose globally. Anything else is not balanced, it's fairly simple.

To quote Black Pedro - what is good for the goose.....

The argument could be summed up as "Dear CCP, nerf rock, paper is fine - love scissors".

Income generating or ISK generating?