Crime & Punishment

That is exactly what I am saying. Doing something from a long time does not imply you know or like what you do.

Intuition varies according to what you are used to deal with. For me corp window is very friendly because it looks exactly like the interfaces of Comex Software, which I am very fond of.

I also happen to like what people find boring, and that is why I do corp man ONLY not TOO.

That is what I am saying to you. You saying you want to change something in ways it will differ from the way a person who likes it likes it to be, to turn it in to a tool that someone who does it TOO would like.

Capisce ?

So tell me what preciselly you want to change ? Because corporations are only corp management. Beyond that it has nothing to do with corp mechanics, it is all what members of a corp do and how the CEO classify that. There is nothing more to it.

Now, what you said clearly is that you want to achieve a goal that you have no idea how to achieve, but you think that corporations are the way to go. Further more, you are saying that there is a way to replace good management with good tools for crappy management. Welcome to the desire of 90 in 100 failed businessman in the World.

You are not seeing what you saying that way because you are focused on what YOU WANT TO DO rather than HOW IT CAN BE DONE.

What I say, I still saying, and will always be the counter for what you saying is that you are trying to change what people do by changing what people have. And that never works. To change what people do, you have the change atitude, not how people do things.

Making NPC corps less attractive wont change how they are used because:
- People in EVE mostly play this as a game, so spending more means stealing more, means scamming more, means selling higher, and not changing behavior.
- Present crappy corps wont change because people are challenge on remaining on NPC corps. Changing NPC corps just will change HOW THEY DO, not WHAT THEY DO.
- Private corps work as they are needed to, and the only way to change it is to change the corp system, And you mentioned changing corp mechanics. You were on and on about hangars and stuff, seeing the horizon as a MEMBER, and the things you said that may change, you seem to not realize that require change in the corp system from what it is to a lesser version of what it can be.

More or less, what you saying is that you want to force people to do what they dont want in order to change what people dont want to change. The reason for that is to favor a small portion of the playerbase that do care about other people like me who enjoy to do their thing and be distinct on that rather than flatline the system to favor people who does what everyone else is doing.

WHAT IS THE PROBLEM of remaining in a NPC corp and not being taxed for that ?

What makes moving to private corps, to action business model any more important than doing your thing, running missions in an NPC corp ?

EVE is not a streamlined game which we go around promoting steps people dont want to.

So, for all that reasons we end up concluding that you have to change both NPC corps and private corps to achieve a goal that end up diminishing options. Restricting people.

I have said nothing about corp management, other than I feel that the interface needs to be addressed to be more intuitive. In fact, I have specifically stated that the proposed changes are not focused on corp management at all. You can talk about corp management all you want, but I don't appreciate you putting words into my mouth and would ask that you refrain from doing so.


You seemed to have missed one of the major tenets of my platform, one that I've repeated several times as have several others.

EvE is built around the concept of Risk vs. Reward. In hisec, this concept is currently broken because players who risk less by staying in NPC corps can gain nearly as much in terms of rewards as those who take the additional risk of forming/joining player corps.

By encouraging (not forcing) players to form/join player corps, the Risk vs. Reward equation is better satisfied. If you want to earn the most ISK in hisec, you should have to take bigger risks, which means opening yourself up to wardec, corp theft, etc. A pleasant side effect of this is that it would drive inter-corp interaction by nature of the fact that there would likely be more/larger player corps.

I understand your statements about players of a certain mindset. I understand that there will be players in EvE who will never, under any circumstances, want to do anything other than play in an NPC corp. I'm not trying to change that. They are free to continue doing that in perpetuity as far as I'm concerned. EvE is a sandbox, which means that all styles of play are welcome, including living in NPC corps. But allowing a certain style of play doesn't mean that it should lessen the relative benefits of others.

And, I say it again, point out to me exactly where I'm restricting anyone? I'm suggesting offering consequences for existing choices. I'm not suggesting taking anyone's choices away.

If suicide ganking is so easy why is it so rare?

I welcome changes that increase highsec content and address the current imbalance in risk and reward. If, in some biazzaro scenario, yet another nerf to ganking would be good for the health for the game, I'd be all for it.

Agreed. As long as it has credible ability to improve the game, without creating a theme park that encourages risk aversion.

I didn't say I agreed with any of the nerfs we've seen so far.

The only real exception for me is the mining barge changes. But to me that's more about the improvements that come from offering legitimate choice, not the specifics of the changes. (I think Skiffs and procurers are stronger than is justified by their yield, or yield more than is justified by their strength etc. Hulk and Mack I'm fine with as is.)

As far as I can tell they've all backfired.

I don't disagree with the 'so long as it's good for the game' I just think CCP and I probably disagree on what that actually means. (probably not everyone at CCP, but certainly enough of them that we're in the situation we're in now)