These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

When NPCs become detrimental to PVP

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Remiel Pollard
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#101 - 2017-01-01 03:00:13 UTC
Scipio Artelius wrote:
Remiel Pollard wrote:
The problem is that getting to -5 occurred by virtue of attacking players in that NPC corp, not attacking the corp itself.

Including, even if that is just defending yourself.

If a player in DCM attacks you and you win the fight, even just pretecting yourself, you still lose standings to DCM, impacting the way NPCs that you have no interest in, respond later on. Even worse if you not only win the fight but also pod him, even though he was the aggressor.


Scipio gets it.

I'm not asking to not be attacked by rats. I'm asking that the reason they attack makes sense. Now in my OP, I did take issue with these new NPCs interfering in PVP, but reading your comments and others, I've since changed my position on this. Yes, it adds a new dynamic that I can, and already have, adapted to. But the big problem I'm having is how those negative standings came about to cause me to be KOS to DCM.

“Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'. Jam those ones first, and kill them last.” - Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104
Herzog Wolfhammer
Sigma Special Tactics Group
#102 - 2017-01-01 23:05:25 UTC
Remiel Pollard wrote:
As we all know, killing players in an NPC corp results in a standings loss with said NPC corp. I'm not sure how or why it works that way, but up until now, it hasn't really been a huge issue for lowsec dwellers.

However.

Deep Core Mining is one such NPC corp, and it turns out, if you have -5 standings or worse with them, landing in a belt with their mining fleets will result in an immediate NPC response fleet, one of the new improved advanced ones which I actually enjoy to fight, without any aggression. That is, the moment you land, the NPC miners start warping out, and the NPC fleet starts landing and immediately aggros.

This is detrimental to PVP because now we have very player-like NPCs potentially determining the outcome of a player-driven event in what's meant to be a player-driven game. Sure, this has happened before with Guristas potentially jamming out parties in a PVP engagement, but never on this scale.

Now, any engagement in an asteroid belt where NPC miners might suddenly land could be decided by said NPCs instead of players. I don't think this is right for this game.

INB4 "what did you lose". I didn't lose anything to this situation, yet, but when I was testing NPC fleet reactions, I was in a belt alone and had a DCM mining fleet land in the belt I was in, and then immediately warp off followed by an NPC combat fleet, which I evaded. Now imagine if I'd been engaged with a player in that belt, was winning the fight, but he had me scrammed when the NPC response fleet came. Now I've lost a fight because of NPCs.

Is this a player-driven game or not?

I can think of a few solutions to this. The first and most obvious is making adjustments to what corps can spawn mining fleets, and get rid of them in those corps in which players can be a part of. I have fought two DCM mining fleets total, with a corp mate. The vast majority of my negative standings with this corp is due to killing players in it.

Another solution would be to remove the immediate aggression that these NPC corps go to just because you land in their belt, without attacking anything.

And before you say, "but Rem, the actual solution is to fix your standings and stop killing players in NPC corps." To the first, I say, I'm working on it. Been running lvl 1 missions out of DCM in Hogimo to do just that. To the second, no, no one should get this kind of special protection from PVP just because the NPC corp they are in runs mining fleets that can kill a solo PVP'er just by looking in his direction.



Well this is indeed a happy new year.

A thread from a Pro-PVP player who sides with the concept of pushing PVP on PVe players against their will is a little perturbed about PVe getting pushed on PVPers against their will.

No offense to you personally, Remiel, but I have to stay true to my character and say this:
HTFU
Lol

Bring back DEEEEP Space!
Remiel Pollard
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#103 - 2017-01-01 23:14:36 UTC  |  Edited by: Remiel Pollard
Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:



Well this is indeed a happy new year.

A thread from a Pro-PVP player who sides with the concept of pushing PVP on PVe players against their will is a little perturbed about PVe getting pushed on PVPers against their will.

No offense to you personally, Remiel, but I have to stay true to my character and say this:
HTFU
Lol


None taken. How can I possibly be offended by a complete misunderstanding of the actual problem at hand? Please read how the thread, and the conversation around it, has actually developed before diving in halfway through with no context.

“Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'. Jam those ones first, and kill them last.” - Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104
Herzog Wolfhammer
Sigma Special Tactics Group
#104 - 2017-01-01 23:15:01 UTC
Dracvlad wrote:
[quote=Torin Corax][quote=Veronica Static]

I am actually finding myself agreeing with something Jann a'Side posted...



And I as well. Mark the date and time.










...while I go outside and burn myself to death.


Bring back DEEEEP Space!
Herzog Wolfhammer
Sigma Special Tactics Group
#105 - 2017-01-01 23:35:51 UTC
Remiel Pollard wrote:
Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:



Well this is indeed a happy new year.

A thread from a Pro-PVP player who sides with the concept of pushing PVP on PVe players against their will is a little perturbed about PVe getting pushed on PVPers against their will.

No offense to you personally, Remiel, but I have to stay true to my character and say this:
HTFU
Lol


None taken. How can I possibly be offended by a complete misunderstanding of the actual problem at hand? Please read how the thread, and the conversation around it, has actually developed before diving in halfway through with no context.



I did.

And the salt is delicious. Thank you.

You know, for many years now I have been saying that NPC corp standings should matter. Unlike the mouth-breathing "muh ISK/Stats" community, I actually care about the lore and interaction with the Eve universe, that the experience needs to be deeper than doing everything for ISK and stats with one eye always on the wallet or killboard.

It's people like you who have helped kill that and turn the community towards being ISK/stat obsessed (like human bots). Casual players who played this game just because they liked it are driven off by path you and your ilk ceaselessly clamor for. .

Now, many years ago, maybe in an F&I thread (not sure if I started it), I actually suggested something like this. Yes, I actually pushed this very idea, that NPC corp standings should have some results towards interaction with other players.

My idea was a little less ham-handed. But intricate (and usually impossible) details by people who have never seen the legacy source code is pretty much the way of F&I. If the devs never read F&I who could blame them?

But don't worry. You are gank-aligned. Meaning CCP will hear your complaint and fix it in short order. It won't take as long to fix it as it took to fix can-flipping (which was a player solution: you go suspect to everybody, but the TEARS guys it turned out never wanted PVP even though they used that name to label what they were doing, and out of that butthurt rose CODE. ) and nowhere near as long as it is taking to fix bumping. You'll be OK.

Bring back DEEEEP Space!
Remiel Pollard
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#106 - 2017-01-01 23:42:47 UTC  |  Edited by: Remiel Pollard
Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:
Remiel Pollard wrote:
Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:



Well this is indeed a happy new year.

A thread from a Pro-PVP player who sides with the concept of pushing PVP on PVe players against their will is a little perturbed about PVe getting pushed on PVPers against their will.

No offense to you personally, Remiel, but I have to stay true to my character and say this:
HTFU
Lol


None taken. How can I possibly be offended by a complete misunderstanding of the actual problem at hand? Please read how the thread, and the conversation around it, has actually developed before diving in halfway through with no context.



I did.


Judging by the rest of your post, you haven't, because the problem isn't the corp standings, or the results of those standings, but where they come from. Try again. There is a very simplified breakdown a few posts up, for the simple minded, like yourself, who find reading too hard. There are also no tears. And for the record, for the last couple of days, I've been testing ways whereby I can use this to my advantage and to the full detriment of people who would rather sit in asteroid belts all day and mine, and I've found a few. If you think you're seeing tears in this thread, you ain't seen nothing yet.

“Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'. Jam those ones first, and kill them last.” - Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104
Herzog Wolfhammer
Sigma Special Tactics Group
#107 - 2017-01-01 23:48:29 UTC
Remiel Pollard wrote:
Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:
Remiel Pollard wrote:
Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:



Well this is indeed a happy new year.

A thread from a Pro-PVP player who sides with the concept of pushing PVP on PVe players against their will is a little perturbed about PVe getting pushed on PVPers against their will.

No offense to you personally, Remiel, but I have to stay true to my character and say this:
HTFU
Lol


None taken. How can I possibly be offended by a complete misunderstanding of the actual problem at hand? Please read how the thread, and the conversation around it, has actually developed before diving in halfway through with no context.



I did.


Judging by the rest of your post, you haven't, because the problem isn't the corp standings, or the results of those standings, but where they come from. Try again. There is a very simplified breakdown a few posts up, for the simple minded, like yourself, who find reading too hard. There are also no tears.



You want to make the argument about that. Go ahead.

If this thread never existed, and instead the gankers started putting alts in DCM so AG would start getting DCM loss for podding gankers, and then someone from AG complained about it, you would be in the front lines of the HTFU brigade.

(and that would also ensure CCP never fixed it)

Now I have very high standings with SoE. If I'm attacked in a belt, will some space nuns show up and smack the knuckles of the antagonists with a big space ruler?

Bring back DEEEEP Space!
Remiel Pollard
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#108 - 2017-01-02 00:00:11 UTC  |  Edited by: Remiel Pollard
Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:
Remiel Pollard wrote:
Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:
Remiel Pollard wrote:
Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:



Well this is indeed a happy new year.

A thread from a Pro-PVP player who sides with the concept of pushing PVP on PVe players against their will is a little perturbed about PVe getting pushed on PVPers against their will.

No offense to you personally, Remiel, but I have to stay true to my character and say this:
HTFU
Lol


None taken. How can I possibly be offended by a complete misunderstanding of the actual problem at hand? Please read how the thread, and the conversation around it, has actually developed before diving in halfway through with no context.



I did.


Judging by the rest of your post, you haven't, because the problem isn't the corp standings, or the results of those standings, but where they come from. Try again. There is a very simplified breakdown a few posts up, for the simple minded, like yourself, who find reading too hard. There are also no tears.



You want to make the argument about that. Go ahead.

If this thread never existed, and instead the gankers started putting alts in DCM so AG would start getting DCM loss for podding gankers, and then someone from AG complained about it, you would be in the front lines of the HTFU brigade.

(and that would also ensure CCP never fixed it)

Now I have very high standings with SoE. If I'm attacked in a belt, will some space nuns show up and smack the knuckles of the antagonists with a big space ruler?


I made this thread, I'm pretty sure I know what it's about, and what the core problem is, hence my first 'fix' suggestion in the OP goes to the very core of the problem, and that problem is, Herzog, it's ONE NPC corp with mining fleets that also happens to have players in it, which means if you kill those players, you lose standings with the mining fleets, whether you attack them or not. Maybe you kill one of those players in self-defence, in a belt with a DCM mining fleet, and it happens to tip your standings just enough to summon the response fleet. Herzog, climb out of your bias for a few seconds, and just try to take look at this from an impartial perspective. Whenever I see you post in disagreement with someone, you always seem to be taking everything so personally, as if they insulted your mother. Stop doing that, I didn't post this thread to attack anyone, but here you are, and a few other bitterbears, attacking me.

I don't mind becoming KOS to the NPC response fleets if it's a decision I've actively made with a full understanding of the standings mechanics. But if I want to not lose standings with DCM, I have to not attack players in DCM, and they become a specially protected group by virtue of that. Now, go sit in a corner with your thinking cap on, and see if you can't figure out why that's a problem.

“Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'. Jam those ones first, and kill them last.” - Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104
Scipio Artelius
Weaponised Vegemite
Flying Dangerous
#109 - 2017-01-02 00:01:15 UTC
Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:
Remiel Pollard wrote:
Please read how the thread, and the conversation around it, has actually developed before diving in halfway through with no context.



I did.

If you've read it and came to the conclusion this is about PvPers want to attack PvEers, then that's unfortunate. That's not the point at all.
Herzog Wolfhammer
Sigma Special Tactics Group
#110 - 2017-01-02 02:19:29 UTC
Scipio Artelius wrote:
Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:
Remiel Pollard wrote:
Please read how the thread, and the conversation around it, has actually developed before diving in halfway through with no context.



I did.

If you've read it and came to the conclusion this is about PvPers want to attack PvEers, then that's unfortunate. That's not the point at all.




Right.

Gaslighting and telling lies is what the (forum) PVPers are all about.

Already I'm getting my words twisted.

My prediction is, the real problem will be strawmanned and red-herringed into non-existence, it'll become all about something else, CCP will get the impression there is a problem where there is none, "fix" that problem in a way that does not fully address it (because the root is obfuscated), and if someone loses a kill over it, it'll be called a "nerf", or if gankers exploit it to death to reign carnage, it'll be called "working as intended", unless it looks so ridiculous that CCP has to fix it, THEN it'll be called a nerf and the church of HTFU will scream and cry as usual.

So.... "one corp".... how about ALL OF THEM? Even the Navy corporations, on patrols, around stations and gates, and if you gank members of those navy corps - some of them noob NPC corps - you get the same result too? That would be nice.

See, I can call for a "solution related to the 'problem'" too. Twisted

Of course I am a little biased: I like to give gank-aligned forum warriors what they have given me, and honestly, NPC involvement in PVP is something I have wanted to see for a very long time. For years I have stated that this game would benefit greatly if NPC corporations declared war on each other sporadically. Were it up to me™ high security status players would be able to garner limited navy help in lowsec (at a cost of standing each time because aspergers - read: it can't be "gamed" to death) .


My solution: make NPC corporations more active in this. Especially with navy and pirate patrols in lowsec. As many as possible, and spread this to stations too. You have low standing with Sansha, you don't dock at NPC station in Stain (instead stations guns blap you). Take this approach and throw gasoline on it.


In the meantime, I'm sure another 20 threads like this in one month will ensure that the change will come in one month. I'm serious. Maybe the renegades devs that dared interfere with holy PVP will be fired too.

Bring back DEEEEP Space!
Remiel Pollard
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#111 - 2017-01-02 02:26:15 UTC
Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:
So.... "one corp".... how about ALL OF THEM? Even the Navy corporations, on patrols, around stations and gates, and if you gank members of those navy corps - some of them noob NPC corps - you get the same result too? That would be nice.


It would. It would be a very nice incentive to stay in NPC corporations, hence why it's completely ********.

“Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'. Jam those ones first, and kill them last.” - Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104
Scipio Artelius
Weaponised Vegemite
Flying Dangerous
#112 - 2017-01-02 02:29:15 UTC  |  Edited by: Scipio Artelius
Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:
Scipio Artelius wrote:
Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:
Remiel Pollard wrote:
Please read how the thread, and the conversation around it, has actually developed before diving in halfway through with no context.



I did.

If you've read it and came to the conclusion this is about PvPers want to attack PvEers, then that's unfortunate. That's not the point at all.




Right.

Gaslighting and telling lies is what the (forum) PVPers are all about.

Already I'm getting my words twisted.

I'm not really sure what lies, gaslighting or other stuff most of that is on about. I don't really care about the forum pvp, just good discussion.

It wasn't my intention to twist your words by any means, which is why my reply began 'If you've read it and came to the conclusion..."

Not an absolute, it just seemed to me that based on this "...sides with the concept of pushing PVP on PVe players against their will is a little perturbed about PVe getting pushed on PVPers against their will..." that it's what you thought the thread was about, when it isn't.

As an example, a player just ratting in lowsec or NPC nullsec totally not looking to PvP, can still lose standings to DCM if a player in DCM warps in and aggresses them, but they win the fight. That PvE player, not initially looking to PvP just defends himself and takes a negative standings hit to DCM if he wins the fight. That could affect other PvE he wants to do later on. Not an issue limited to affecting only pvpers, although that is one effect - and not just a pvper hitting a pve player, but 2 or more pvpers fighting each other, with no PvEers involved at all.

But no sweat. If I was mistaken in your comprehension, my apology.
sero Hita
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#113 - 2017-01-02 04:14:19 UTC  |  Edited by: sero Hita
If you are in FW, you often have to defend your plexes from neutrals(or wartargets with a neutral alt around). You can not really chose who you fight. Some of us who have been in FW for a long time have crappy NPC standings to a lot NPC corps due to this.

Sure, there are consequences of everything you do, it just seems hamhanded in this case to introduce a miningfleet that helps players of one NPC corp. I will just adapt and avoid belts, or fly around in groups so big with logi, that we can tank the defence fleet. Not very good for small fleet combat in low though...

It just seems arbitrary IMO to pick a corp people have had 13 years to loose standings to? Why not more NPC corps? Hopefully if this stays, the belt pirates will help people with high npc pirate faction standings then to balance it out.

Personally I would have made a new upwell spinoff mining npc corp if I were CCP....

"I'm all for pvp, don't get me wrong. I've ganked in Empire, blobed in low sec. Got T-shirts from every which-where.. But to be forced into a pvp confrontation that I didn't want is wrong ccp." RealFlisker
Scipio Artelius
Weaponised Vegemite
Flying Dangerous
#114 - 2017-01-02 04:35:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Scipio Artelius
sero Hita wrote:
Why not more NPC corps? Hopefully if this stays, the belt pirates will help people with high npc pirate faction standings then to balance it out.

Based on the original announcement of SiSi testing, this seems to be the intent (see the note towards the bottom of the post):

Note:
Current Mining Operations are, Amarr, Caldari, Gallente, and Minmatar. There are three mining corporations running operations from each of these all over the universe. Pirate operations will be coming soon.

That could eventually mean that current miners and anyone that does PvE will be affected way more than most pvpers by this, since their standings are normally trashed to pirate corporations as a result of killing rats; and anyone with good standings to those pirate corporations could attack people in belts and potentially receive NPC logistics support when doing so.
Eve Griefer
Doomheim
#115 - 2017-01-02 05:02:12 UTC
Scipio Artelius wrote:
Remiel Pollard wrote:
The problem is that getting to -5 occurred by virtue of attacking players in that NPC corp, not attacking the corp itself.

Including, even if that is just defending yourself.

If a player in DCM attacks you and you win the fight, even just pretecting yourself, you still lose standings to DCM, impacting the way NPCs that you have no interest in, respond later on. Even worse if you not only win the fight but also pod him, even though he was the aggressor.


I'm carefully considering ways I can get AG and miners to take me on to their detriment.
And it will be within the rules of the game and thus Emergent Gameplay. Pirate
Salvos Rhoska
#116 - 2017-01-02 08:27:29 UTC
Remiel Pollard wrote:
it's ONE NPC corp with mining fleets that also happens to have players in it, which means if you kill those players, you lose standings with the mining fleets, whether you attack them or not. Maybe you kill one of those players in self-defence, in a belt with a DCM mining fleet, and it happens to tip your standings just enough to summon the response fleet.

I don't mind becoming KOS to the NPC response fleets if it's a decision I've actively made with a full understanding of the standings mechanics. But if I want to not lose standings with DCM, I have to not attack players in DCM, and they become a specially protected group by virtue of that. Now, go sit in a corner with your thinking cap on, and see if you can't figure out why that's a problem.


(Quote edited for relevance)

1) If NPC corps are becoming more dynamic and reactive to player behavior:
---It makes sense that they dont care whether their corp member is the aggressor, or the aggressed. All they care about, is the corp member.
---It also makes sense that they respond to players according to their standing with the NPC corp in question, regardless of whether they are corp members or not.
---- Such that if your standings are good, the NPC corp will assist you. If they are bad, the NPC corp will hinder you.
---- This largely mirrors the behavior of Player corps.

2) Atm this only applies to DCM, but I would expect this is only a temporary system, perhaps a pilot project, till this is applied more universally to other NPC corps.
----Such that the existing underlying web of diametrically aligned NPC corps both in natural antagonism/sympathy to each other, and as affected by player behavior in favor, or detriment of any one of them automatically improves/reduces their position in that standings web, becomes relevant to EVE in a real practical sense.
----Perhaps so that you can only join NPC corps when you have enough standing, and are kicked out if it drops. Or such that membership in the NPC corp applies different NPC degrees of assistance/aggression, greater than that of standing.

PvE v PvP <> Old School Exploration <> CODE Licenses <> CODE Special Agent
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Astral Alliance
#117 - 2017-01-02 08:44:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Dracvlad
Scipio Artelius wrote:
Railyn Quisqueya wrote:
No, it isn't. You'd like it to be a strawman. But it isn't. NPC attacking miners in belts is indeed not very player driven. The difference here is that this change doesn't benefit you personally, so it must obviously be a strawman. You're attempting to draw the line at A.I. level when the design "flaw" as you present it in your OP applies to both the same.

I'd prefer the opposite.

Beef up all rats. Make them all the new AI and after any player attacks them, have a response fleet.

That will draw out some tears.


I would go with that, bring it on, I want pirate dreads in hisec belts for gods sake.

Remiel has it right in terms of players being in a single corp that does these mining activities, that needs to change perhaps, though it does give an advantage to picking a certain race and type of character. So it should be all as Herzog suggested or none, but then again DCM is a mining corp and stopping them from mining as NPC's breaks the lore.

I rather like Herzog's suggestion because it really gets interesting, would CCP be brave enough to do that?

And I don't care if DCM get upset with me if I shoot a ganker who is in DCM, in fact a ganker hiding in DCM is rather amusing is it not?

When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.

Blocked: Teckos Pech, Sonya Corvinus, baltec1, Shae Tadaruwa, Wander Prian, Daichi Yamato, Jonah Gravenstein, Merin Ryskin, Linus Gorp
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#118 - 2017-01-02 08:46:15 UTC
Scipio Artelius wrote:
Remiel Pollard wrote:
The problem is that getting to -5 occurred by virtue of attacking players in that NPC corp, not attacking the corp itself.

Including, even if that is just defending yourself.

If a player in DCM attacks you and you win the fight, even just pretecting yourself, you still lose standings to DCM, impacting the way NPCs that you have no interest in, respond later on. Even worse if you not only win the fight but also pod him, even though he was the aggressor.


Hmmm...I was leaning the other way on this issue, but this is a very good point. If you lose standings irrespective of who fired first that is a problem....and not one I see that is easily fixed....hmmm

Okay, radical idea:

Player characters in a noob or NPC corp are not, in a strict sense, employees of that corp, but are instead "contractors" and as such they do not get the same benefits as employees which includes the standings loss due to combat. If you do attack employees (NPCs) then you get the standings loss and all the problems that entails.

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#119 - 2017-01-02 08:53:58 UTC
Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:


But don't worry. You are gank-aligned. Meaning CCP will hear your complaint and fix it in short order. It won't take as long to fix it as it took to fix can-flipping (which was a player solution: you go suspect to everybody, but the TEARS guys it turned out never wanted PVP even though they used that name to label what they were doing, and out of that butthurt rose CODE. ) and nowhere near as long as it is taking to fix bumping. You'll be OK.


The change to can flipping was not a player solution, it was a CCP solution: a top down ham-handed solution that actually cut the players out because...nobody flips cans anymore.

You really don't understand what a sandbox game means, and every post you make further reinforces this view....so keep posting.

BTW: My first few days in EVE I was mining in my noob ship and was approached by a guy who wanted me to fleet up with him, he'd then drop a can and I'd put my ore in there. Then he'd wait a can flipper would come along and he'd engage him and kill them. That is a player driven solution to can flipping.

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#120 - 2017-01-02 09:10:33 UTC
Scipio Artelius wrote:
sero Hita wrote:
Why not more NPC corps? Hopefully if this stays, the belt pirates will help people with high npc pirate faction standings then to balance it out.

Based on the original announcement of SiSi testing, this seems to be the intent (see the note towards the bottom of the post):

Note:
Current Mining Operations are, Amarr, Caldari, Gallente, and Minmatar. There are three mining corporations running operations from each of these all over the universe. Pirate operations will be coming soon.

That could eventually mean that current miners and anyone that does PvE will be affected way more than most pvpers by this, since their standings are normally trashed to pirate corporations as a result of killing rats; and anyone with good standings to those pirate corporations could attack people in belts and potentially receive NPC logistics support when doing so.


Yup. My industry alt that I periodically use to mine would be kinda screwed if he were to mine anywhere that ends up having Serpentis, Guristas, or Angel cartel pirates. Note this alt is not a PvP alt. So the idea this just hurts PvPers suggests that people thinking this way are suffering from more than "a little bias".

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online