These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
#1061 - 2015-05-29 00:50:53 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Joe Risalo wrote:

Shouldn't be too long before you regret that...
Maybe 4 weeks before the market falls apart and the price of everything doubles.


If your best argument involves publicly demonstrating that you have zero clue how the economy works, you should have just stayed out of the discussion.



I think you have no clue, of the value high sec players provide to the economy.

In your attempt to publicly shame me, you have only managed to show you have no knowledge of what high sec brings to the table.


You very much underestimate the power of the care bear stare..
Amy Undergood
Mexican Avacado Syndicate
#1062 - 2015-05-29 01:02:47 UTC  |  Edited by: Amy Undergood
Joe Risalo wrote:
I think you have no clue, of the value high sec players provide to the economy.

You very much underestimate the power of the care bear stare..

Carebears are just a convenience, nothing more.

Those that aren't afraid to play the game are happy to take care of their own needs if the carebears weren't there, whether directly by manufacturing themselves or finding someone that will.

The only thing Carebears offer is self interest. This thread is a good example of that.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#1063 - 2015-05-29 01:33:19 UTC
Joe Risalo wrote:

I think you have no clue, of the value high sec players provide to the economy.


And the demonstration continues.

"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.
beakerax
Pator Tech School
#1064 - 2015-05-29 01:39:22 UTC
Sibyyl wrote:
Justify your "get off my NPC porch" rant all you want, but what you are really clinging onto is that sweet, sweet wardec immunity.

Some people have posted that they stay in NPC corps because of wardec immunity. Other people have posted that they stay in NPC corps for reasons other than wardec immunity. There are two options:
– they're all liars
– you are wrong about what these other people find worthwhile

Quote:
Feeling antisocial? Don't want to take orders? Make a one-man corp.

I still don't see how this is an improvement for anyone.
Demerius Xenocratus
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#1065 - 2015-05-29 01:44:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Demerius Xenocratus
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Demerius Xenocratus wrote:

But I don't see a way to solve the first problem beyond some kind of intricate barrier to corp creation.


You solve a player created problem with other players. Specifically, those gankers and wardeccers you so despise.

Bad corps should die on the vine, but in the ridiculous safety that is highsec, that's far too difficult to do. Incentivize conflict, make it more accessible and more widespread, and watch these bad corps die.


I don't despise gankers all that much, nor even war deccers per se. I have an issue with people flying strategic cruisers who slaughter bads in shitfit barges and railgun battleships and think that makes them elite pvp authorities, and wonder why "HURRDURR duh careebears won't undock CCP make them."

This is a game. Not everyone is going to invest the same amount of time, effort, or real world cash that you do. In light of that it is unreasonable to expect people to compete on your terms in every area of the game. I don't see a problem with giving people a relatively safe place to make ISK where only egregious stupidity will kill you.

Bad corps are never going to stop being created. And you wouldn't want that to happen anyway, because then who would you shoot?
Sibyyl
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#1066 - 2015-05-29 02:18:47 UTC

beakerax wrote:
Sibyyl wrote:
Justify your "get off my NPC porch" rant all you want, but what you are really clinging onto is that sweet, sweet wardec immunity.

Some people have posted that they stay in NPC corps because of wardec immunity. Other people have posted that they stay in NPC corps for reasons other than wardec immunity. There are two options:
– they're all liars
– you are wrong about what these other people find worthwhile


If losing wardec immunity isn't a problem, then the thread can end.

I don't think anyone has an issue with NPC Corps if wardec immunity is removed. It's about as simple as that.

Joffy Aulx-Gao for CSM. Fix links and OGB. Ban stabs from plexes. Fulfill karmic justice.
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#1067 - 2015-05-29 02:33:23 UTC
Sibyyl wrote:

beakerax wrote:
Sibyyl wrote:
Justify your "get off my NPC porch" rant all you want, but what you are really clinging onto is that sweet, sweet wardec immunity.

Some people have posted that they stay in NPC corps because of wardec immunity. Other people have posted that they stay in NPC corps for reasons other than wardec immunity. There are two options:
– they're all liars
– you are wrong about what these other people find worthwhile


If losing wardec immunity isn't a problem, then the thread can end.

I don't think anyone has an issue with NPC Corps if wardec immunity is removed. It's about as simple as that.

Well, I imagine the inhabitants of NPC corps would. I can't see them becoming vulnerable without seeing significant drops in membership.

After all at the point wardec immunity is dropped they become significantly inferior to one man corps in every way whether players want to be social or not.
Joe Risalo
State War Academy
Caldari State
#1068 - 2015-05-29 02:35:00 UTC
Amy Undergood wrote:
Joe Risalo wrote:
I think you have no clue, of the value high sec players provide to the economy.

You very much underestimate the power of the care bear stare..

Carebears are just a convenience, nothing more.

Those that aren't afraid to play the game are happy to take care of their own needs if the carebears weren't there, whether directly by manufacturing themselves or finding someone that will.

The only thing Carebears offer is self interest. This thread is a good example of that.




Ohhh... Look at the little elitist.... So cute...

You're seriously blind if you don't think Care Bears arent a major factor in the economy.
Regardless of self interest, the loot, salvage, and minerals procured and sold in high sec are not marginal.


The point still stands that if you make high sec less safe, you're not making it better for yourself.
You're only making it better for groups like the goons...

Remember when they blew up any ship that tried to mine in Gallente space?
Yeah... Now just imagine if what they did was made easier.

Don't think it affects you?
You're sorely mistaken.


We've already established that it's not all that difficult to get kills in high sec.
We've established that there's plenty of risks in doing so.
We've even established that being in an NPC corp does not make you safe.
....and all this was established by the people on your side of the fence.

So.. I fail to see what the issue is...
Oh wait... That's right... You want to kill people easier.... My bad
Sibyyl
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#1069 - 2015-05-29 02:41:46 UTC  |  Edited by: Sibyyl
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Sibyyl wrote:

I don't think anyone has an issue with NPC Corps if wardec immunity is removed. It's about as simple as that.

Well, I imagine the inhabitants of NPC corps would. I can't see them becoming vulnerable without seeing significant drops in membership.


Yes, I believe I said exactly this at the top of the page.



Quote:
After all at the point wardec immunity is dropped they become significantly inferior to one man corps in every way whether players want to be social or not.


This would be the system working as intended. Players get exposed to content (ie: getting shot by a war target), they join Player Corps, or make their own. Either way, they get access to new parts of the game, like structures, SOV, you name it.

Why is this such a problem?

Joffy Aulx-Gao for CSM. Fix links and OGB. Ban stabs from plexes. Fulfill karmic justice.
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#1070 - 2015-05-29 02:50:26 UTC
Sibyyl wrote:
This would be the system working as intended. Players get exposed to content, they join Player Corps, or make their own. Either way, they get access to new parts of the game, like structures, SOV, you name it.

Why is this such a problem?

It's not a problem as evidenced by the working examples on non-NPC corps, but with that said why is the inverse an problem?

Why is the ability to select content and risk in this manner so different from any other? Why are wardecs seen as such an important linchpin of a mechanic in themselves that every players needs to be affected by them? for that matter how did that single mechanic become equivalent to the whole of content?

Why can't players decide they have no interest in sov or structures and tailor play accordingly?
Mr Epeen
It's All About Me
#1071 - 2015-05-29 03:00:50 UTC
Sibyyl wrote:

There is no justification for any corp in EVE to have wardec immunity.


That's about NPC corps, right? If not, then ignore what I write next.

I'm pretty sure that the sudden loss of a significant portion of the player base is a pretty good justification for keeping immunity. On the other hand, if immunity is removed the people who stay in NPC corps will be wardeccing everyone and utterly destroying any corp less than 500 people.

People won't even bother making player corps. No point to it. Most NPC corps will be larger than the current alliances. The game will be completely changed.

So you have two options. A game that is slowly but steadily increasing it's playerbase with immunity as it stands now or a game with half the population we have now where everyone is jammed into a dozen mega-corps.

It may seem a simple thing to remove immunity, but I feel you haven't really looked at the consequences of doing it.

Mr Epeen Cool
Sibyyl
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#1072 - 2015-05-29 03:04:20 UTC

Tyberius Franklin wrote:
It's not a problem as evidenced by the working examples on non-NPC corps, but with that said why is the inverse an problem?

Why is the ability to select content and risk in this manner so different from any other? Why are wardecs seen as such an important linchpin of a mechanic in themselves that every players needs to be affected by them? for that matter how did that single mechanic become equivalent to the whole of content?

Why can't players decide they have no interest in sov or structures and tailor play accordingly?


I will flip the question on you.

If it is not such a problem, what is the issue with removing wardec immunity? Players are free to "have no interest in sov or structures and tailor play accordingly", but I don't see what all that has to do with having wardec immunity? Can't they continue to have all those aspirations while being vulnerable to wardecs in the same way that everyone else is in the game?



Why would I want wardec immunity removed?

  • Because it removes exposure to content from players who are most vulnerable to quitting. We can argue about NPC Corps and quitting, but we all agree that content causes people to stay in the game. Wardecs are content.
  • Because it's too powerful. Travel is an essential component of EVE. Travel can consume a significant portion of gameplay for someone who is out in space. Wardecs make travel in hisec for non-haulers 100% safe. Being immune during an activity that constitutes most of your time in space in hisec is too powerful.
  • There is no lore or gameplay balancing reason for wardec immunity to exist.
  • There is no statistical reason for wardec immunity to exist (see below).


From the horse's mouth:
CCP Rise wrote:
We have tried and tried to validate the myth that griefing has a pronounced affect on new players - we have failed. The strongest indicators for a new player staying with EVE are associated with social activity: joining corps, using market and contract systems, pvping, etc. Isolating players away from the actual sandbox seems very contrary to what we would like to accomplish.




Mr. Epeen see the quote above. Your assertion that players will leave is incorrect.


Joffy Aulx-Gao for CSM. Fix links and OGB. Ban stabs from plexes. Fulfill karmic justice.
Sibyyl
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#1073 - 2015-05-29 03:10:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Sibyyl
Wanted to reply to this. *rubs your shiny noggin*

Mr Epeen wrote:
I'm pretty sure that the sudden loss of a significant portion of the player base is a pretty good justification for keeping immunity. On the other hand, if immunity is removed the people who stay in NPC corps will be wardeccing everyone and utterly destroying any corp less than 500 people.

People won't even bother making player corps. No point to it. Most NPC corps will be larger than the current alliances. The game will be completely changed.


Why would being in an NPC Corp give you a magical ability to bring more people together or create larger fleets than you could in a PC Corp?

Having access to a shared Corp chat with a massive number of players is no guarantee (at all) that you'll get anyone to participate. Even if you did get a massive number of people to participate, you would have no magical ability to have those participants be skilled and good PVPers. If you doubt me, you should look at my corp ticker.



And look at it this way. If someone succeeded in running massive NPC Corp fleets killing war targets all over hisec, then voila.. we just exposed NPC Corpies to content instead of it being solo-ville.



Win-win.



Edit: And I never argued that NPC Corps should *get* the ability to declare war. NPC Corps have no leadership, and as such should have no ability to declare war.

Joffy Aulx-Gao for CSM. Fix links and OGB. Ban stabs from plexes. Fulfill karmic justice.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#1074 - 2015-05-29 03:13:33 UTC
Demerius Xenocratus wrote:

This is a game. Not everyone is going to invest the same amount of time, effort, or real world cash that you do. In light of that it is unreasonable to expect people to compete on your terms in every area of the game.


So, do I get an easymode because I'm bad at the market? Or does this kind of coddling only apply to combat?

"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.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#1075 - 2015-05-29 03:16:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Kaarous Aldurald
Mr Epeen wrote:

I'm pretty sure that the sudden loss of a significant portion of the player base is a pretty good justification for keeping immunity.


It wasn't a good enough justification for the ISBotters. They can't hold the game hostage by threatening to withdraw their subs anymore, and CCP standing up to that selfish, petty tyranny is a good thing.

"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.
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#1076 - 2015-05-29 03:19:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Tyberius Franklin
Sibyyl wrote:
I will flip the question on you.

If it is not such a problem, what is the issue with removing wardec immunity? Players are free to "have no interest in sov or structures and tailor play accordingly", but I don't see what all that has to do with having wardec immunity? Can't they continue to have all those aspirations while being vulnerable to wardecs in the same way that everyone else is in the game?



Why would I want wardec immunity removed?

  • Because it removes exposure to content from players who are most vulnerable to quitting. We can argue about NPC Corps and quitting, but we all agree that content causes people to stay in the game. Wardecs are content.
  • Because it's too powerful. Travel is an essential component of EVE. Travel can consume a significant portion of gameplay for someone who is out in space. Wardecs make travel in hisec for non-haulers 100% safe. Being immune during an activity that constitutes most of your time in space in hisec is too powerful.
  • There is no lore or gameplay balancing reason for wardec immunity to exist.
  • There is no statistical reason for wardec immunity to exist (see below).
100% safety in space doesn't exist. It never has and likely never will, and in the off chance that the whole of CCP goes insane and it does, the conversation becomes moot. And no one denies wardecs are content, though there is no mandate for every player to participate in all content and more than enough forms of content to never receive a wardec while still never running out of things to do. Wardecs alone don't hold a special place for being content and thus can't be necessary for that reason.

Sibyyl wrote:

From the horse's mouth:
CCP Rise wrote:
We have tried and tried to validate the myth that griefing has a pronounced affect on new players - we have failed. The strongest indicators for a new player staying with EVE are associated with social activity: joining corps, using market and contract systems, pvping, etc. Isolating players away from the actual sandbox seems very contrary to what we would like to accomplish.
This statement is not relevant save for the case of new players and even then does not draw exclusively to wardecs or against NPC corp membership as single actors in new player retention (note wars specifically were never mentioned and only one aspect mentioned is specifically ship to ship PvP).

It certainly states that the notion of coddling new players from content is wrong, but we're dealing with a group that has made a conscious choice rather than having left out of ignorance of what the game has to offer. The argument you are making now is that the affected players made the wrong choice somehow and need to be forcibly corrected because someone else knows what their game play time should be spent doing better than they do.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#1077 - 2015-05-29 03:23:42 UTC
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
The argument you are making now is that the affected players made the wrong choice somehow and need to be forcibly corrected because someone else knows what their game play time should be spent doing better than they do.


No, we're making the argument that no one should be able to completely ignore certain parts of the game without consequence, just because they made the deliberate choice to be bad at that part.

As before. I suck at the market. Should I get to be immune to that mechanic, just because I'm bad at it? Because this is EXACTLY what you are suggesting should be true about wardecs.

"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.
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#1078 - 2015-05-29 03:27:09 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
The argument you are making now is that the affected players made the wrong choice somehow and need to be forcibly corrected because someone else knows what their game play time should be spent doing better than they do.


No, we're making the argument that no one should be able to completely ignore certain parts of the game without consequence, just because they made the deliberate choice to be bad at that part.

As before. I suck at the market. Should I get to be immune to that mechanic, just because I'm bad at it? Because this is EXACTLY what you are suggesting should be true about wardecs.

No, the argument was that statistics about new player retention were relevant for older players in NPC corps. That was what that was in response to. And we should be able to understand why it doesn't apply.

Also your easy mode is buy orders, and as with NPC corps it comes at a price.
Joe Risalo
State War Academy
Caldari State
#1079 - 2015-05-29 03:54:15 UTC
Got a solid Idea everyone should consider.


If you're in an NPC corp, then you're limited to the territory of that Faction.
IE - if you're in a Gallente corp, you're limited to Gallente high sec.

This does many things.

Casuals can keep war dec immunity while forcing people that take full advantage of the system out.

Want a hauler for cross faction trading, or even delivering goods to low/null/wh space? Join a corp.
Want to move out of Gallente space? Join a corp.
Want to do low sec roams? Join a corp.


A casual that is just mining or missioning is not really the major problem.

The problem is those that use war dec immunity for safe travel in support of other corps or engage in PVP activity but use the security of NPC corps to avoid being locked into a war.
Sibyyl
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#1080 - 2015-05-29 04:01:38 UTC


Tyberius Franklin wrote:
The argument you are making now is that the affected players made the wrong choice somehow and need to be forcibly corrected because someone else knows what their game play time should be spent doing better than they do.


Actually my argument is very stark. I have nothing to say about all of the 1,000 reasons that people have for staying in NPC Corps. I am perfectly fine with those justifications, those players are welcome to these preferences, and I will never ever argue against their right to have these desires. I said earlier that these preferences are irrelevant because they cannot be debated. They are 100% subjective.

I just don't think these players should be immune to wardecs. Wardecs have as much power to force participation as any other aspect of the game - which is to say wardecs can't force you to participate at all. In the sandbox, you can use a variety of methods to deny kills and deny content (hint: docking up is only one such way. There are hundreds).

No player can be forced to PVP through a wardec. Hence, the removal of wardec immunity is not a challenge to any playstyle or player preference in the sandbox.



How can you force a player to do anything at all? It is not possible, you know.. free will, human ingenuity, and all that.

Joffy Aulx-Gao for CSM. Fix links and OGB. Ban stabs from plexes. Fulfill karmic justice.