Crime & Punishment

Currently, player corps only offer limited benefits over NPC corps, and I think this is driving part of the stagnation of hisec. In order to get players out of NPC corps and interacting more, I think player corps need a buff.

2A. Tax NPC corps. Strictly speaking, yes, this is a nerf to NPC corps, not a buff to player corps, but the net effect is the same. After 90 days in an NPC corp out of the last 180, a player would be subject to a tax on all station-based activities (EDIT: and collected bounties) for as long as they remain in an NPC corp. I would place this tax at somewhere around double the current base NPC corp tax. This new tax would apply to placing market orders (buying and selling), creating contracts, installing industry and research jobs, reprocessing, repairs, and mission rewards. Anything that you do in a station would be taxed after you've been in an NPC corp long enough to meet the criteria. This tax can be eliminated by joining a player corp, but would be immediately re-imposed if you re-joined the NPC corp within 90 days due to the "90 out of 180" requirement. The goal here is to encourage people to leave NPC corps while requiring those who stay in NPC corps pay for the relative safety they are afforded by wardec immunity. I realize that this would not impact many things done in space, particularly mining, exploration, hauling, etc., and that these activities could still be performed in NPC corps with no penalty as they are now. However, refining, using, or selling any goods gathered in space, or buying and selling goods to be hauled, would still be taxed. I don't feel that a change to in-space mechanics (aside from taxes on bounties), which would likely be no small undertaking, justifies the potential benefit. As with all things, I am open to discussion about this though.

2B. Player corp "history". Currently, the standings between a player corp and various NPC factions and corps are determined entirely by the combined standings of its members. If all of the members of a player corp quit and re-formed a new player corp, the new player corp would have the exact same standings as the old one. These standings offer benefit to corp members in the form of lower fees, better access to agents, etc. This mechanism removes a solid incentive to retaining an old player corp over forming a new one and makes dodging a wardec easier. I propose adding some attribute to a player corp that is specific to that corp and provides some of the same benefits as NPC faction standings above and beyond the member-derived standings, but would not transfer when moving to a new corp. I'm thinking something along the lines of increased mission rewards or more efficient station/POS services (in other words, the exact opposite of the NPC corp taxes in 2A), but I don't have a particular mechanic in mind here and am open to suggestions. Perhaps this could be tied to some new hisec entosis mechanic coupled with system occupancy?


Currently, level 1-4 agents for empire factions are scattered approximately equally throughout empire space, whereas level 5 agents are available only in losec. This creates ample opportunity to earn a good living running level 4 missions in a 0.9 or 1.0 system, which I feel violates the risk vs. reward principle. I would propose that mission agents have their ISK and LP rewards scaled up with decreasing security status. be adjusted such that higher level and quality agents are only available in lower security status systems. Thus, in 1.0 systems you could find level 1 agents, maybe a low quality level 2 agent, whereas to find level 4 agents you'd need to go to a 0.5 system (or losec). This would re-distribute income sources in a manner more appropriate with the risk associated with them. It also makes more sense to me from a lore standpoint as the empires are weakest in their least-secure systems and would be more likely to require more advanced capsuleer assistance. Whether existing agents, with their associated player standings, are actually moved to different systems, or whether agents simply have their levels adjusted based on the security level of their system is something I'm willing to discuss. I am aware that this would likely cause a massive, yet hopefully brief, upheaval as hisec mission runners move their assets to find their new agents, but I feel the long term benefit will be more than worth the temporary growing pains.


Many people suspect that the current Sansha's Nation hisec incursions are ending with the coming of Drifter incursions, but I still wanted to call this out here. The current incursions in hisec offer far too much profit for far too little risk and I think this further violates the "risk vs. reward" balance crucial to EvE. The current Sansha's incursions in losec and nullsec are fine as far as I'm concerned.


Continued below....

That would tip the risk scale too far the other way. Even though I don't think that pilots in NPC corps should be able to operate as profitably as those in player corps, wardec-free NPC corps need to exist. There needs to be some (relatively) safe haven.

My joy ingame is to do what I like to do.

All boils down to the base line of what most combat people in EVE always imply:
"Play the way I like because that is the right way to play."

I feel that our discussion is no longer being productive as we keep talking around each other. At this point I will not be responding to further comments from you unless you actually present:
1. A new point.
2. An actual playstyle choice that I my proposals would eliminate.
3. Any explanation as to why living in a largely risk-free setting justifies being able to earn the same ISK income as living in a raskier setting.

The ever-loving irony.

You are literally saying in that same post that you only play the game to do what you want to do, and the game should not have any purview besides that.

You are the ONLY one suggesting there is only one way to play the game, and the only one demanding that the game be altered accordingly. We're just here to play the game the devs told us was there, you want that twisted around and cut into pieces so that we can't do things you don't like. And you absolutely refuse to countenance anything that conflicts with your unbelievably wrong view of EVE Online.

Up yours, hypocrite.

Well, I am not playing the game to not have joy. My joy ingame is to do what I like to do. I happen to work in real life doing what I like to do, and I do it in game because I like to do it. I respect my joy in being able to do it, and my joy comes most of the time from being able to confront a realistic simulation which is what devs strive so hard to make EVE be. If you dont care about your pixel ships, it is your right. Accusing me of insanity for not being like that is the same "You see the game as I see it because it is the right way to see it."

On my side note, it is interesting enough when that bites the rear of people. You have now 5 threads running when a "its just a game folk" cries over the fact they were massacred because they ambushed a person from a group who does the whole reality simulation thing. They say things like "It is just a game, why people get nervous and amass a horde to destroy all ships I have ?". See the issue ? If it is just a game, why cant I play the game fiercly while the so called "hardcore pvp" play the game in "softcore immersion" ?

Try to understand the views of people, not just judge them by yours.