These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Joe Risalo
State War Academy
Caldari State
#961 - 2015-05-25 02:14:37 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Joe Risalo wrote:

This has the blind assumption that high sec ganking is hard..
I've killed a Orca, Mackinaw, and a pod with an untanked Caracal before.
All at the same time.


I see we're into the "lying" phase.

I'm not even going to play around and ask how, I'm simply going to tell you that you did not successfully suicide gank those ships with a Caracal, that you're a liar, and that you should probably just drop out of this thread now.


I didn't say I suicide ganked, now did I?
Nevil Oscillator
#962 - 2015-05-25 02:30:55 UTC
Joe Risalo wrote:


I didn't say I suicide ganked, now did I?


No you simply added wardecs to the equation which is an entirely different thing.

There is no high sec mechanic for wardecs, if you are war deced it is no longer high sec for those involved.

Suicide ganking needs to exist because otherwise there would be no sensible amount of protection based on the said cargo to make you a less viable target.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#963 - 2015-05-25 03:00:23 UTC
Joe Risalo wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Joe Risalo wrote:

This has the blind assumption that high sec ganking is hard..
I've killed a Orca, Mackinaw, and a pod with an untanked Caracal before.
All at the same time.


I see we're into the "lying" phase.

I'm not even going to play around and ask how, I'm simply going to tell you that you did not successfully suicide gank those ships with a Caracal, that you're a liar, and that you should probably just drop out of this thread now.


I didn't say I suicide ganked, now did I?


You did say "ganked", yeah. Killing someone in a wardec is not ganking.

"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.
Scipio Artelius
Weaponised Vegemite
Flying Dangerous
#964 - 2015-05-25 05:49:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Scipio Artelius
Joe Risalo wrote:
It doesn't matter how much tank you fit on an exhumer, if you want them dead, they will die.
Same goes for a PVE boat. You know that their capability to fight back in PVP is non-existent, because doing so means they can't perform in PVE.

Why can't they perform in PvE if they fit capable of fighting back?

My own experience seems at odds with that. I do all of my PvE in null and it's all done in pvp fit ships in case someone comes visit (which is always enjoyable).

Being in a pvp fit ship doesn't cause any problems, even running the sites solo, so it's difficult to see how being able to fight back makes it impossible to perform in PvE.

There may be an issue with efficiency. I can't claim to be the most efficient PvEer because I detest it when I have to do it and I'm not focussed on maximising how many red crosses I kill per second or minimising the time it takes to run a site. So players trying to min/max their fits is a choice they make. If that makes them more vulnerable to other players, then that's the consequence of that choice. They could easily make a different choice.

In terms of highsec pvp, it's not the fault of the ganker/wardeccer that people choose not to defend themselves. Those are choices the targets make and they suffer the consequences of doing so. Every single person in highsec could make things more difficult for aggressors just by deciding to defend themselves. But they don't and they are the only ones responsible for how easy it is to kill them.
Joe Risalo
State War Academy
Caldari State
#965 - 2015-05-25 05:59:47 UTC
Scipio Artelius wrote:


Aside from that, in terms of highsec pvp, it's not the fault of the ganker/wardeccer that people choose not to defend themselves. Those are choices the targets make and they suffer the consequences of doing so. Every single person in highsec could make things more difficult for aggressors just by deciding to defend themselves. But they don't and they are the only ones responsible for how easy it is to kill them.


Agreed..

That said, the majority of the discussion here, as of late, has been talk of making life more difficult for high sec players by forcing them out of NPC corps, and also adding mechanics to make it easier to take out a carebear corp.

My point here was that, if they want them to die, they can kill them. So why make it easier for them to kill them?

The other point was, if carebears did start fighting back, all these people complaining of making life harder for carebears would likely quit, as there life would get harder. They don't want food that fights back; otherwise, they'd be out in low/null/wh space.

Just because they want easy kills doesn't mean we should make it even easier.
Sibyyl
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#966 - 2015-05-25 06:03:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Sibyyl
Demerius Xenocratus wrote:

How can I freely engage them with no repercussions when they're always docked up waiting out timers? I've got better things to do than camping out in a system for hours scouting belts, trying to guess which unranked retriever will be targeted next, just so I can possibly kill a 10M ISK destroyer and empty pod before his target pops.

It's like you think I don't understand how ganking works, or that it's done on dedicated alts with empty pods in ships whose loss is already a given.


You are describing stuff you can't be bothered to do, because :effort:. Do you know who do spend hours doing this? Gate campers. Freighter gankers scanning ship after ship after ship on gates. People who hunt explorers. Doing a bunch of boring stuff for the 5-10 seconds of intense activity describes 95% of EVE. This is how the game is designed. Everything requires planning and a meticulous amount of research and patience for it to pay off.

You can't be bothered to do that? Then I don't think you have any right to complain about it.

When you pop a ganker's ship, you're not blowing up a 10M ISK cheap fitted destroyer, you are saving millions and billions of ISK or ore of a potential target. The way you visualize value is completely backwards, and it's no surprise you see no point in suiciding the suicide ganker.



Demerius Xenocratus wrote:
There's always going to be easy targets in highsec, whether they be new, casuals, slow learners or just plain dumb. Why are you so attached to farming kills off that crowd endlessly?


Joe Risalo wrote:

You're there in high specifically because the kills are easy.
If you wanted a challenge, you'd go to low/null.

Let's say you logged on tomorrow and all the carebears suddenly started fighting back, to great effect.

You would likely unsub long before you considered accepting the challenge.


The point of war is to fight asymmetric battles. You fight your enemy where they are outnumbered, weak, and easy to kill. EVE allows the basic tenets of warfare to be played out. You're complaining about humans stacking the deck for a favorable outcome.

Unlike low and null, asymmetric warfare is easy to counter in hisec. There are no bubbles, no free-for-all engagement rules, and a constantly-updated and fresh Local list.

And Joe, I don't back out of any challenge. Feel free to test that out. To me, every scar is a victory.

Joffy Aulx-Gao for CSM. Fix links and OGB. Ban stabs from plexes. Fulfill karmic justice.
Scipio Artelius
Weaponised Vegemite
Flying Dangerous
#967 - 2015-05-25 06:07:28 UTC  |  Edited by: Scipio Artelius
Joe Risalo wrote:
The other point was, if carebears did start fighting back, all these people complaining of making life harder for carebears would likely quit, as there life would get harder. They don't want food that fights back; otherwise, they'd be out in low/null/wh space.

Just because they want easy kills doesn't mean we should make it even easier.

I doubt it. When I look at ALOD loss mails and occasionally look at the results of ganks on kill boards, there's a lot of lowsec and nullsec pvpers that day trip to highsec to gank.

Overwhelmingly when those people post on the forum (eg. Miniluv) the message is they do it because it's fun and for profit, not because it's easy.

I suspect that if people began fighting back, it wouldn't drive them from the game. They'd either get more fun from it, or just give up the day tripping and carry on with their other activities.

I have a strong suspicion though that if people did begin to fight back, their level of enjoyment would increase too, especially when they become successful at it.
Sibyyl
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#968 - 2015-05-25 06:10:35 UTC

Joe Risalo wrote:

Let's say you logged on tomorrow and all the carebears suddenly started fighting back, to great effect.

You would likely unsub long before you considered accepting the challenge.




Joe, I'll post a quote from reddit which is a better retort than mine to your statement.

Quote:
Mud wrestling with pigs don't work, because the pig love it.


Joffy Aulx-Gao for CSM. Fix links and OGB. Ban stabs from plexes. Fulfill karmic justice.
Joe Risalo
State War Academy
Caldari State
#969 - 2015-05-25 06:23:31 UTC
I just found a comment from a CSM that I find pertinent to this conversation.


I'll highlight the most important part.


Jayne Fillon wrote:
I also think that wardecs are the cancer of Eve, so that's entirely unsurprising. Even if these social groups were being designed with the sole intention of allowing carebears to evade wardecs, you'd still be extremely hard pressed to convince me that it was a bad idea. Eve is not a PvP game, but a Sandbox game with PvP aspects. Community is another aspect within the Sandbox, and your misguided attempts to restrict positive player interaction will be the death of this game.

Hopefully the only game that dies is the perverted version of Eve that you're convinced should exist.
Mara Pahrdi
The Order of Anoyia
#970 - 2015-05-25 09:58:33 UTC  |  Edited by: Mara Pahrdi
Joe Risalo wrote:
I just found a comment from a CSM that I find pertinent to this conversation.


I'll highlight the most important part.


Jayne Fillon wrote:
I also think that wardecs are the cancer of Eve, so that's entirely unsurprising. Even if these social groups were being designed with the sole intention of allowing carebears to evade wardecs, you'd still be extremely hard pressed to convince me that it was a bad idea. Eve is not a PvP game, but a Sandbox game with PvP aspects. Community is another aspect within the Sandbox, and your misguided attempts to restrict positive player interaction will be the death of this game.

Hopefully the only game that dies is the perverted version of Eve that you're convinced should exist.

Maybe this CSM should read the official new pilot faq. Section 7. First sentence on p.22.

"The essential core concept of EVE Online is that it is full time PvP in a sandbox environment."

Remove standings and insurance.
Scipio Artelius
Weaponised Vegemite
Flying Dangerous
#971 - 2015-05-25 11:01:38 UTC  |  Edited by: Scipio Artelius
Joe Risalo wrote:
I just found a comment from a CSM that I find pertinent to this conversation.


I'll highlight the most important part.


Jayne Fillon wrote:
I also think that wardecs are the cancer of Eve, so that's entirely unsurprising. Even if these social groups were being designed with the sole intention of allowing carebears to evade wardecs, you'd still be extremely hard pressed to convince me that it was a bad idea. Eve is not a PvP game, but a Sandbox game with PvP aspects. Community is another aspect within the Sandbox, and your misguided attempts to restrict positive player interaction will be the death of this game.

Hopefully the only game that dies is the perverted version of Eve that you're convinced should exist.

Unfortunately being on the CSM doesn't mean you have a clue.

Many of them are awesome, work hard and are very knowledgable; but that comes from who they are. Being on the CSM doesn't itself bestow knowledge of the truth about Eve. CSM members can be as full of it as anyone else.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#972 - 2015-05-25 12:26:48 UTC
Mara Pahrdi wrote:
Joe Risalo wrote:
I just found a comment from a CSM that I find pertinent to this conversation.


I'll highlight the most important part.


Jayne Fillon wrote:
I also think that wardecs are the cancer of Eve, so that's entirely unsurprising. Even if these social groups were being designed with the sole intention of allowing carebears to evade wardecs, you'd still be extremely hard pressed to convince me that it was a bad idea. Eve is not a PvP game, but a Sandbox game with PvP aspects. Community is another aspect within the Sandbox, and your misguided attempts to restrict positive player interaction will be the death of this game.

Hopefully the only game that dies is the perverted version of Eve that you're convinced should exist.

Maybe this CSM should read the official new pilot faq. Section 7. First sentence on p.22.

"The essential core concept of EVE Online is that it is full time PvP in a sandbox environment."


This. His opinion, CSM or otherwise, does not matter compared to CCP's word on the matter.

"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.
Ma'Baker McCandless
The McCandless Clan
#973 - 2015-05-25 12:54:42 UTC
We have a new Joe, eh?

Awesome.
Joe Risalo
State War Academy
Caldari State
#974 - 2015-05-25 13:04:48 UTC  |  Edited by: Joe Risalo
Mara Pahrdi wrote:
Joe Risalo wrote:
I just found a comment from a CSM that I find pertinent to this conversation.


I'll highlight the most important part.


Jayne Fillon wrote:
I also think that wardecs are the cancer of Eve, so that's entirely unsurprising. Even if these social groups were being designed with the sole intention of allowing carebears to evade wardecs, you'd still be extremely hard pressed to convince me that it was a bad idea. Eve is not a PvP game, but a Sandbox game with PvP aspects. Community is another aspect within the Sandbox, and your misguided attempts to restrict positive player interaction will be the death of this game.

Hopefully the only game that dies is the perverted version of Eve that you're convinced should exist.

Maybe this CSM should read the official new pilot faq. Section 7. First sentence on p.22.

"The essential core concept of EVE Online is that it is full time PvP in a sandbox environment."


You have to consider that quote in context.

The comment by CCP does not mean that everyone shoots everyone all the time.

It means that no matter what you do in Eve, you're competing against others; be it on the market, in the belt/plex, or direct ship to ship combat.

Nice try though.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#975 - 2015-05-25 13:09:56 UTC
Joe Risalo wrote:

You have to consider that quote in context.


What context is needed? You claimed you were correct about your nonsense by quoting a CSM who outright says "EVE is not a PvP game".

Meanwhile, CCP says "EVE is a PvP game". Directly contradicting Jayne and you.

Are you kidding me with this smokescreen bullshit?

"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.
Harry Forever
SpaceJunkys
#976 - 2015-05-25 16:39:56 UTC
Shailagh wrote:
Im trying to make ccp money here. They have data that shows people that stay in npc corps quit more often. They said corp ceos dont like recruiting noobs cuz of fear of awox, do you believe this is the main reason?

I believe people stay in npc corps (and therefor quit more often) to evade wars.

Are wars the most dangerous aspect to retention (players staying in npc corps) and therefore should be nerfed to increase player corp levels and retention?

Nerf wars to save the noobs and make people join player corps to increase retention and ccps wallet?


because people suck

Harry Forever vs. Goonswarm
Nevil Oscillator
#977 - 2015-05-25 20:49:48 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:


CSM who outright says "EVE is not a PvP game".

Meanwhile, CCP says "EVE is a PvP game".


You would think at least one of them would manage not to be wrong.
Mayhaw Morgan
State War Academy
Caldari State
#978 - 2015-05-25 21:31:28 UTC
Mara Pardi wrote:
Jayne Fillion wrote:
Eve is not a PvP game, but a Sandbox game with PvP aspects.
Maybe this CSM should read the official new pilot faq. Section 7. First sentence on p.22.

"The essential core concept of EVE Online is that it is full time PvP in a sandbox environment."


Maybe YOU should log in and play the game, then what the CSM member said might make a lot more sense.
EVE is not JUST a PVP game. There is no such thing as JUST a PVP game. PVP takes place within an environment (PVE), in the context of one's own abilities and the abilities of others (PVS).
Sumo wrestling is JUST a PVP game. Boxing is JUST a PVP game. Chess is JUST a PVP game. And, yet, the rules of sumo are that you lose if you leave the ENVIRONMENT (the ring) or touch part of the ENVIRONMENT (the ground) with something other than your feet, same with boxing. In chess, your pieces are differentiated by how they interact with the ENVIRONMENT (squares of the board). Even just the rule set governing play could be considered a part of the environment.

If YOUR core concept of EVE is that you must attack others all the time, should it be any wonder that some others don't want to play with you or subject themselves to mechanics that make them more vulnerable to such attacks?
Scipio Artelius
Weaponised Vegemite
Flying Dangerous
#979 - 2015-05-25 21:42:43 UTC  |  Edited by: Scipio Artelius
Mayhaw Morgan wrote:
Maybe YOU should log in and play the game, then what the CSM member said might make a lot more sense.
EVE is not JUST a PVP game. There is no such thing as JUST a PVP game. PVP takes place within an environment (PVE), in the context of one's own abilities and the abilities of others (PVS).
Sumo wrestling is JUST a PVP game. Boxing is JUST a PVP game. Chess is JUST a PVP game. And, yet, the rules of sumo are that you lose if you leave the ENVIRONMENT (the ring) or touch part of the ENVIRONMENT (the ground) with something other than your feet, same with boxing. In chess, your pieces are differentiated by how they interact with the ENVIRONMENT (squares of the board). Even just the rule set governing play could be considered a part of the environment.

If YOUR core concept of EVE is that you must attack others all the time, should it be any wonder that some others don't want to play with you or subject themselves to mechanics that make them more vulnerable to such attacks?

Maybe you should re read what the CSM member said.

He didn't say, just a pvp game, he said it's not a pvp game.

He was wrong and directly countered by CCPs own view on what eve is.

There are non-pvp activities anyone can undertake in eve and many enjoy that as the way they play full time.

It doesn't change the essential core concept of the game however, in which pvp is not only about guns but many other activities in which one player affects another (eg. Market trading, scamming, running anomalies before someone else, etc.). It's all pvp related.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#980 - 2015-05-25 23:04:01 UTC  |  Edited by: Kaarous Aldurald
Mayhaw Morgan wrote:

If YOUR core concept of EVE is that you must attack others all the time, should it be any wonder that some others don't want to play with you or subject themselves to mechanics that make them more vulnerable to such attacks?


Why do you insist on playing the wrong game? Why do you so constantly demand that your delusions be made reality, instead of playing a game that is actually what you say you want?

In all seriousness, to hell with what you want. What you want is pure fascism, to dictate to others how they should be allowed to play, claiming that your playstyle demands the handcuffing of the freedom of others. You sicken me.

"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.