EVE General Discussion

That is not a cost for joining an NPC Corp.
Its a tax on your income after joining an NPC Corp.

Two distinct and different things.

1) Id say yes, in the regard of being in almost perpetual state of war, it is working as intended.
2) If you are grossly outmatched, combat incapable/unwilling, or cant/wont hire/recruit assistance, there is obviously little point in fighting. If you do fight, however, you can attempt to negotiate a peace from a stronger position, depending on your success in the war.

and if you fight as defender you make sure the war will be prolonged.

1) Hmm. But this doesnt change Corp creation mechanics. So a wardecced Comp Corp can just reform as a new Social Corp, and swap back to the Comp Corp when the wardec expires.
2) Im not averse to a "society" system, might create/enable content. Unlikely, but possible. More social interaction is always a good thing imo. The annoyance of 100s/1000s of Social Corps can perhaps be diminished with a color/icon indicator.
3) I know its the case, but I dont like that its the case. Im more hawkish than you, and operate off a different premise. This toon has lived in its starting NPC Corp since day one, and I would not object to a single diametrically opposed NPC Corp introducing spontaneous risk/opportunity to it. Im not going to argue your subsequent explanation of why NPC Corps should only be subject to criminal action as PvP in HS. I see why you see that as imperative, just as Im sure you see why I see it my way.
4) No taxation? Do you mean no tax, or no control of tax rate? Would it be the nominal 10% sink as in true NPC Corps?

PS: I havent ignored the rest of your civil and constructive post though I didnt address it at this time.
It has been duly read, understood and appreciated.

Nothing.

Those who already are fine with PvP will do nothing.

Those who don't like PvP at all will simply log off for a week. This idea of having CCP try and put players who do not want ship-to-ship at all into PvP situations is not a good idea IMO.

Basically it is: if the carrot won't work beat them with the stick.

Are you "fine" with the current rate and format of PvP in HS?

That is not what I meant. I was indicating those who are not opposed to PvP will likely see little or no benefit to your suggested change. If I'm fine with ship-to-ship PvP I was probably not going to drop corp to begin with. Adding on an extra cost is going to have little effect on me.

What™?

If you know your income is going to be reduced by 10% pretty sure you'll see that as a cost.

If you were a business and there was going to be a change in regulations, for example, that was going to raise your costs by 10% you'd see it as a cost. You'd likely respond with reducing however much you produce, raising your price, both, and in some cases maybe even shutting down operations and moving on to the next best opportunity.

Clearly the proposal was towards those that are opposed to PvP.

Ofc it doesnt affect those whom are not.

You are stating the obvious, as if it refutes the proposal.
It does not.

But you didnt answer my question.
It was stated outright, not as a factor of context.

Are you "fine" with the current rate and format of PvP in HS?

No, that is what highsec is suppose to be. True, you can't formally claim space, but you are definitely suppose to be competing with other corps for power. Highsec isn't suppose to be some conflict-free PvE paradise where you can be left alone. It is why wars are in the game and have been left there despite all the grumbling for so long.

CCP has certainly failed to deliver many conflict drivers, and made some big mistakes like allowing invulnerable POSes to remain for so long, but highsec is every much a competitive place as elsewhere. The Upwell structures are a recent reminder that is this is their design intention.

Complaining that you are at risk to other groups in highsec too much is a waste of time. Being at war is "working as intended".

I think the current situation isn't idea and would support changes to bring back more hunting-style wars and more structure fights (perhaps by giving them lucrative yet limited benefits to their owners so there is reason to spend the effort to attack them), but I see no problem that someone can declare war on you without your consent or if they are overwhelmingly more powerful than you. If you don't want to deal with wars, just stay in the NPC corp as CCP intends for you to do. Your choice.

If someone wants to gank you, harass your shipping/trading, attempt to extort you using the war mechanic or try to attack you for whatever sandbox reason they have, it is up to you to play the defender and deal with it. That is perfectly healthy and even necessary for emergent player interactions to appear.

In this I agree completely with you. There are precious little real conflict drivers in highsec, and less and less in the whole game really. Highsec desperately needs more resources/bonuses/prizes to fight over like POCOs and Market Modules that are limited and valuable. When there is nothing to fight over, players have to invent reasons to actually shoot each other in a spaceship game about shooting other spaceships, reasons which more peaceful players are quick to label as 'griefing'. I think PvP would be much healthier in highsec if there were clear objectives that players could fight over and give them more reward for engaging in those PvP risks.

I also think this would provide engagement to a whole class of players who are interested in PvP, but never find a reason to actually attack someone and drift away from the game. They build and build in preparation for competing with other players, but when opposition never find them, and they never find anything worth fighting over, they get bored and quit the game. Adding some small objectives in highsec for smaller groups to fight over and claim may help keep them engaged and maybe even set them on their way to nullsec.