EVE General Discussion

This is like saying being able to CTRL-Q out of the game instantly while in the middle of PVP to save your ship is "balanced" because 'everyone can do it'. You shouldn't be able to 'CTRL-Q' out of the consequences and content of playing in a sandbox PvP-driven game, nor should you be able to 'NPC corp' your way out of it either. This is basic common sense.

This is all fine and dandy if someone wants EVE as a 2nd Job. Too much of this special kind of BS will indeed cause a lot of folks to stop playing utterly.

But then fanatics have always dealt the final blow to the things they claim to like and support.

You are just seeing ghosts around every corner. Get real and maybe we can eventually be convinced of your silly 'arguments'.

When a character is created, they are in an corp by default. Unless CCP can come up with a way to kick people out of an npc corp, the safer haven of npc corps will never change. I dont see CCP doing anything to give other players the ability to wage war on NPC corp players besides through ganking. If this game is to be a sandbox, ccp isnt going to force players to leave npc corps. Nor are they going to expose npc corp pilots to the war dec mechanic.

It doesnt matter if there is a valid arguement for either side as to whether NPC corp saftey should change. IMO, CCP wont do much to make it easier to grief players in NPC corps.

As far as the freight corp brokering contracts for NPC corp freighter alts to run issue that the OP is talking about, the only thing I believe CCP would ever do is to make it so that courier contracts can only be accepted by player corps and not npc corps. That would make more sense to me. If players are taking advantage of using NPC corps as a bypass to protect their player corp business(freight company), then why not make it so they have to accept the risk of only using freighters in players corps?

ITT: Reverse psychology.

Generally these arguments end with posters like you crying and ISDs rushing to save the thread.

Right, highsec was intended to be safer, not "safe". It was never intended to be based around a "PVP/danger optional" design. This is why corphopping and wardec evasion were for the majority of EVE history considered an exploit, before relatively recently being declared 'no longer an exploit' by GM Homonoia. Homonoia did this presumably because wardec evasion was the only way for PvErs in highsec to stay competitive against each other in the pursuit of ISK (danger and loss being unneccessary overhead), and its use was spiralling out of control and no longer enforceable by the GMs. It was never an intended 'feature' of highsec. Now players such as yourself have been raised on the status quo and believe that this is what it was meant to be. I'd say highsec's original design was best where players still had recourse to compete directly as well as indirectly through the market, and that allowing such to happen (by puttin in place corphop timers and making NPC corps individually deccable) would result in better gameplay for everyone.

yes it's a sandbox game and people game the system, that's why we play it. possibilities.

that's why when npc corps are removed the next thought is either a 30 days training plan for a noob alt or why don't i just contract this publicly?

so the correct answer you were looking for all along is: gank them.

Anyone can pick up a public contract though. Are you going to wardec every single courier you see?

that could get very expensive and also doesn't stop them delivering as it takes 24 hours for them to become a target.

Part of the problem is that wardecs themselves are too expensive, wide-encompassing and don't actually resolve the ostensible reason for their existence - resource/access contention.

I mean it's not like under the current system if you're in a mining corp that grew claws and camped the small ganker corp into a station that you're going to disband half your fleet and go back to belt mining or whatever. And at the end of the day if the defender or aggressor chooses not to engage and really forfeit the war, there's no negative consequences for not doing so.

1) There should be some sort of limitation of the scope of a wardec which the aggressor sets, in return for a lowered wardec fee. I don't need to kill this corp wherever they go in highsec, I just want to kill him if I see him in this belt I want, or using this station I've claimed. Scale wardecs in terms of belt/station, system, const and region instead of just one universal size-fits all. This permits large-sized alliances to be wardec'd again regularly without reverting the system back to its old 'Privateer'-centric ways.
2) There should be some sort of tracking system to see who is winning a war, either through a FW-style control point system or isk ratio or whatever
3) There should be consequences for coming out of a war as a loser over small-scale objectives, such as generating a criminal flag for entering a 'lost' belt, or being unable to use the station services (but still dock) over a 'lost' contested station.