These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

why do players stay in npc corps?

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Demerius Xenocratus
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#921 - 2015-05-23 03:02:51 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Demerius Xenocratus wrote:

They don't leave station so it's irrelevant. I did say that all the bittervet combat support and hauler alts hiding in NPC corps should be at risk also, rather than ONLY the people flying industrials or mission boats in highsec as their primary activity.



Risk vs reward purely reflects against income generating activities.


Well no. Risk vs. Reward should apply to kills and other forms of content more than meaningless space bux.
Demerius Xenocratus
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#922 - 2015-05-23 03:05:55 UTC
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Scipio Artelius wrote:
Syn Shi wrote:
I have played Eve for 2 years...solo. According to CCPs analysis I should have been gone...but I am still here.

So much for you data.

No, I don't believe that is a valid conclusion from CCPs analysis.

At Fanfest this year CCP Rise gave an anecdote about another CCP employee who had joined the game many years ago and had happily played in his starter Corp since then, involved in a range of highsec PvE activities. It is a perfectly fine choice.

However, when all the data is aggregated, that style of play is not the most successful way to produce long term subscribed players. For those it suits, it's great.

For the bulk of people, other experiences seem to be more likely to result in long term subscription.

The issue causing the butting of heads now seems to be the idea that the CCP employee in Rise's story should, by some viewpoints, be barred from leaving his NPC corp, or at least from starting a corp even for like minded pilots unless dramatically changing to a more confrontational response to aggression such as a wardec.

Basically one party is saying that because that is not the optimal course, alongside possibly some other information, one following that course should not be allowed to make or be in a corp.



Actually what they want is a 20-30% NPC corp tax rate or one sufficient to make PvE without exposure to wardecs impossible. Basically, they want every player in highsec that is there with the goal of farming ISK to be open to attack. NPC alts of characters farming in other areas of space secured by their respective blob will be unaffected.
Joe Risalo
State War Academy
Caldari State
#923 - 2015-05-23 03:10:25 UTC
Demerius Xenocratus wrote:
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Scipio Artelius wrote:
Syn Shi wrote:
I have played Eve for 2 years...solo. According to CCPs analysis I should have been gone...but I am still here.

So much for you data.

No, I don't believe that is a valid conclusion from CCPs analysis.

At Fanfest this year CCP Rise gave an anecdote about another CCP employee who had joined the game many years ago and had happily played in his starter Corp since then, involved in a range of highsec PvE activities. It is a perfectly fine choice.

However, when all the data is aggregated, that style of play is not the most successful way to produce long term subscribed players. For those it suits, it's great.

For the bulk of people, other experiences seem to be more likely to result in long term subscription.

The issue causing the butting of heads now seems to be the idea that the CCP employee in Rise's story should, by some viewpoints, be barred from leaving his NPC corp, or at least from starting a corp even for like minded pilots unless dramatically changing to a more confrontational response to aggression such as a wardec.

Basically one party is saying that because that is not the optimal course, alongside possibly some other information, one following that course should not be allowed to make or be in a corp.



Actually what they want is a 20-30% NPC corp tax rate or one sufficient to make PvE without exposure to wardecs impossible. Basically, they want every player in highsec that is there with the goal of farming ISK to be open to attack. NPC alts of characters farming in other areas of space secured by their respective blob will be unaffected.


It might also be noted that they want more forced PvP.
They could give two craps about what you/we enjoy.
They want what they enjoy to be forced on others, so that they have more people to enjoy killing.

Why would they go out and shoot targets that fight back?
That's no fun....
Syn Shi
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#924 - 2015-05-23 03:11:35 UTC
Scipio Artelius wrote:
Syn Shi wrote:
I have played Eve for 2 years...solo. According to CCPs analysis I should have been gone...but I am still here.

So much for you data.

No, I don't believe that is a valid conclusion from CCPs analysis.

At Fanfest this year CCP Rise gave an anecdote about another CCP employee who had joined the game many years ago and had happily played in his starter Corp since then, involved in a range of highsec PvE activities. It is a perfectly fine choice. (e. It might have actually been the CCP employee himself and not Rise who relayed the anecdote. I'll try to find it)

However, when all the data is aggregated, that style of play is not the most successful way to produce long term subscribed players. For those it suits, it's great.

For the bulk of people, other experiences seem to be more likely to result in long term subscription.

CCP are also not interested in forcing people down one specific path. They just want to expose people to more varied experience early with some control to ensure they get the needed skills and then hopefully more will find the play style that hooks them, whether that's solo npc Corp play or not.



My in game play time is not a conclusion of CCP's analysis.
Scipio Artelius
Weaponised Vegemite
Flying Dangerous
#925 - 2015-05-23 03:12:50 UTC
Demerius Xenocratus wrote:
Actually what they want is a 20-30% NPC corp tax rate or one sufficient to make PvE without exposure to wardecs impossible. Basically, they want every player in highsec that is there with the goal of farming ISK to be open to attack. NPC alts of characters farming in other areas of space secured by their respective blob will be unaffected.

Who is 'they'?
Scipio Artelius
Weaponised Vegemite
Flying Dangerous
#926 - 2015-05-23 03:21:25 UTC  |  Edited by: Scipio Artelius
Syn Shi wrote:
My in game play time is not a conclusion of CCP's analysis.

I doubt CCP have looked individually at your play time, but if they did how could they deny it? That would make no logical sense.

If your saying CCP have no data on the different play styles and specifically the solo play style, they clearly do have that data and recognise your play style as just as valid as any other.
Yuri Ostrovskoy
Doomheim
#927 - 2015-05-23 03:23:10 UTC
Scipio Artelius wrote:
Demerius Xenocratus wrote:
Actually what they want is a 20-30% NPC corp tax rate or one sufficient to make PvE without exposure to wardecs impossible. Basically, they want every player in highsec that is there with the goal of farming ISK to be open to attack. NPC alts of characters farming in other areas of space secured by their respective blob will be unaffected.

Who is 'they'?


"They" are in for a huge disappointment when myself and countless others just drop the npc corp to avoid the tax, and carry on as usual.
Joe Risalo
State War Academy
Caldari State
#928 - 2015-05-23 03:24:47 UTC
Regardless of what any of us thinks, based on changes since Eve began, it appears CCP is well aware, and conforming to the fact that the only way to bring in and retain more players is to develop a more casual and user friendly game.

Changes to med clones as a prime example.
Scipio Artelius
Weaponised Vegemite
Flying Dangerous
#929 - 2015-05-23 03:30:23 UTC  |  Edited by: Scipio Artelius
Yuri Ostrovskoy wrote:
Scipio Artelius wrote:
Who is 'they'?
"They" are in for a huge disappointment when myself and countless others just drop the npc corp to avoid the tax, and carry on as usual.

Yeah but where is the specifics of who 'they' is?

Who has called for a 20-30% NPC Corp tax?

I know of one character calling for that figure, but one person is hardly worthy of classification as a broader group.
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#930 - 2015-05-23 03:39:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Tyberius Franklin
Scipio Artelius wrote:
Yuri Ostrovskoy wrote:
[quote=Scipio Artelius]Who is 'they'?"They" are in for a huge disappointment when myself and countless others just drop the npc corp to avoid the tax, and carry on as usual.

Yeah but where is the specifics of who 'they' is?

Who has called for a 20-30% NPC Corp tax?

Follies of collectivism aside it's not really productive to name and shame, but we've had claims that increasing the tax would provide incentive to player corps.

And as for that one, yeah, most recent example sure. We've had other participants in the thread claim higher numbers over the various incarnations of this conversation.
Scipio Artelius
Weaponised Vegemite
Flying Dangerous
#931 - 2015-05-23 03:45:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Scipio Artelius
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
[quote=Scipio Artelius]Follies of collectivism aside it's not really productive to name and shame, but we've had claims that increasing the tax would provide incentive to player corps.

And as for that one, yeah, most recent example sure. We've had other participants in the thread claim higher numbers over the various incarnations of this conversation.

Nothing to do with naming and shaming. Everything to do with basing discussions on valid information and not imagined details.

Yes there have been a few calls for increased taxes, that's not the same as a group of people calling for 20-30% and on the whole they are easy to just completely ignore.

If people invent details and credit them to others in order to argue the validity of their own point or a counter argument, there's no point to the discussion at all. It's all fantasy.
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#932 - 2015-05-23 03:50:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Tyberius Franklin
Scipio Artelius wrote:
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
[quote=Scipio Artelius]Follies of collectivism aside it's not really productive to name and shame, but we've had claims that increasing the tax would provide incentive to player corps.

And as for that one, yeah, most recent example sure. We've had other participants in the thread claim higher numbers over the various incarnations of this conversation.

Nothing to do with naming and shaming. Everything to do with basing discussions on valid information and not imagined details.

Yes there have been a few calls for increased taxes, that's not the same as 20-30% and on the whole they are easy to just completely ignore.

Were the conversation limited to this thread I would agree. It hasn't been. We've seen numbers above 30% and claims with no numbers at all. These aren't imagined, though for the claim that they are shouldn't the legwork be yours? Know that to actually do it justice you wouldn't be limited to just this thread.

The only recent call I've seen was actually for 20%, was the one you saw different?
Scipio Artelius
Weaponised Vegemite
Flying Dangerous
#933 - 2015-05-23 03:55:22 UTC
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
The only recent call I've seen was actually for 20%, was the one you saw different?

No, same one. I acknowledged it in an edit to my post above. I've said my bit on inventing information so will just drop it from here because we are way off topic with this and it'll never change anyway.
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#934 - 2015-05-23 04:02:27 UTC
Scipio Artelius wrote:
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
The only recent call I've seen was actually for 20%, was the one you saw different?

No, same one. I acknowledged it in an edit to my post above. I've said my bit on inventing information so will just drop it from here because we are way off topic with this and it'll never change anyway.

I'll leave it alone as well after adding that the search tool here was forthcoming with suggestions ranging from 20% to 50% from various posters. The issue with saying opinions are invented is that those written opinions can often be found with minimal effort.
Scipio Artelius
Weaponised Vegemite
Flying Dangerous
#935 - 2015-05-23 05:03:14 UTC  |  Edited by: Scipio Artelius
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
The issue with saying opinions are invented is that those written opinions can often be found with minimal effort.

Why is there always an "I'll leave it alone...only after just adding one more point to hammer my own view home..." instead of, both of us have a reasonable view, lets just leave it there.
Sibyyl
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#936 - 2015-05-23 05:25:41 UTC  |  Edited by: Sibyyl
I'm going to quote Sabriz in a roundabout way, but disincentivizing something, like 50% tax, is akin to saying "we shouldn't have it in the game at all". It is not a good design.

Instead give PVE bonuses that scale with number of members and time spent by a member in that corp and the lifetime of the corp. Incentivize people to band together and then stick it out. Membership loyalty benefits is a well known and widely used incentivizing tactic.

Edit: grammar

Edit 2: Really surprised by the back and forth discussion above. Here's a suggestion on the front page of GD for a 50% NPC tax.

Joffy Aulx-Gao for CSM. Fix links and OGB. Ban stabs from plexes. Fulfill karmic justice.
beakerax
Pator Tech School
#937 - 2015-05-23 06:15:15 UTC
what happened to your head?
Solecist Punk
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#938 - 2015-05-23 06:36:00 UTC
lol Yuri sent me a mail calling me a damaged individual.

For that I will kill someone in your name, scum.
Black Pedro
Mine.
#939 - 2015-05-23 06:55:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Black Pedro
Joe Risalo wrote:
Regardless of what any of us thinks, based on changes since Eve began, it appears CCP is well aware, and conforming to the fact that the only way to bring in and retain more players is to develop a more casual and user friendly game.

Changes to med clones as a prime example.

Perhaps more accessible, but not more solo or PvE friendly.

The presentations at fanfest made it clear and posts like this one from CCP Rise make it clear that CCP is moving the game in direction of social and competitive play. They have recognized that solo, "leveling my Raven" play is not where Eve shines and expect to see more things to encourage players to get out of NPC corps and try other things than solo missioning or mining.

That's not to say they will eliminate NPC corps or make them so punitive that no one can stay in them as there are players that enjoy that style of play. But there will definitely be more efforts to "encourage" players, especially new players, to get into corps and other social groups. How can anyone come here and argue with a straight face that is not a good thing? This will be done by increased social tools, and I predict more carrots rather than sticks to get players out of NPCs corps. These will be things that are only available to corps, some which buff income, like new structures.

NPC corps will and should always exist for the player that has lost everything and needs to rebuild, or for a new player or extremely casual player just messing around. But they shouldn't be a place where established players can hide forever and make a competitive income in near-complete safety from other players. Players should be encouraged by the game mechanics to form and defend player corporations and be rewarded for that.

The 8 Golden Rules of Eve

Why Do They Gank?
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#940 - 2015-05-23 10:23:16 UTC
Demerius Xenocratus wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Demerius Xenocratus wrote:

They don't leave station so it's irrelevant. I did say that all the bittervet combat support and hauler alts hiding in NPC corps should be at risk also, rather than ONLY the people flying industrials or mission boats in highsec as their primary activity.



Risk vs reward purely reflects against income generating activities.


Well no. Risk vs. Reward should apply to kills and other forms of content more than meaningless space bux.


It already does, that's what the Loot Fairy is for in the first place.

But income generating activities, those things that you can do that add assets into the game world, those are what risk vs reward primarily targets.

It exists to combat rampant inflation, because the economy is driven by loss.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.