These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
123Next page
 

Kicking the dead horse: inactive players and corporations edition
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Caleb Seremshur
Bloodhorn
Patchwork Freelancers
#1 - 2014-04-05 07:52:37 UTC
So it's that time again. Reasons have been posted a million times so here they are in bullet-point format.

  • game has over 5.5 million registered accounts.
  • only 8% of those accounts are active.
  • corporations created by those dead accounts remain 'valid' for all time, no matter how long the account has been unsubbed.
  • No way to oust or close those corporations unless the owning player re-subs and dissolves it.


It's really not a complex wish-list.
1. inactive players which never subscribed from their trial are deleted from the system permanently after 1 year.
2. corporations automatically suffer a tax to remain open and 'valid', which is tied to the corp at the time of their creation from an office - those who don't pay are automatically annulled and the corp is freed for re-birth somewhere else.
3. players which have their corporations annulled have all hangers and associated corporate assets deleted from the game.
4. POS remain in space as they're actually attackable

Any further suggestions or C&C please.
Salvos Rhoska
#2 - 2014-04-05 08:02:11 UTC
In an ideal world, yes.

But practically I think CCP shareholders would scream at the resulting figures.

Chafes my OCD too, but inactive are, well, inactive, so not of any actual consequence.

PvE v PvP <> Old School Exploration <> CODE Licenses <> CODE Special Agent
Caleb Seremshur
Bloodhorn
Patchwork Freelancers
#3 - 2014-04-05 08:09:16 UTC
They have a measurable consequence - tying up ""IP"" in dead players.

Get rid of them. 4.1 million accounts can be deleted with no consequence, as you said, and kill all their stupid 1-man inactive corps while you're at it too.
Solecist Project
#4 - 2014-04-05 08:14:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Solecist Project
I like how people throw around "no consequences", just because it has no consequences... for themselves.

That ringing in your ears you're experiencing right now is the last gasping breathe of a dying inner ear as it got thoroughly PULVERISED by the point roaring over your head at supersonic speeds. - Tippia
Caleb Seremshur
Bloodhorn
Patchwork Freelancers
#5 - 2014-04-05 08:24:32 UTC
Okay since you're the proposing there are consequences mind listing a few? Make sure you only address the points raised so far! No putting words in my mouth!
Jim Era
#6 - 2014-04-05 08:42:39 UTC
stuff 'n things

Wat™
Yarda Black
The Black Redemption
#7 - 2014-04-05 08:50:00 UTC
The only reason to do this from my perspective would be to free up names. Both playernames and corporation names.

Apart from that I dont care. Dont really care about the names either to be honest.

Dont see the upside for CCP. I doubt they dont know what you know about the 8% being active. I doubt those inactive records in their database are creating strain on anything.

If even 1 dude thinks "lets try this again, I made a cool character back in the day" then not spending time (and thus money) on "cleaning" the database may be worth it.
People that played and made a corporation may want to get back using that corporation as a starting point. Not having it, may dissuade them.

In short; I don't feel the need to do this.
Ramona McCandless
Silent Vale
LinkNet
#8 - 2014-04-05 09:18:20 UTC
Show me figures regarding players who return and how much DB info is taken up by these inactive characters and we can talk.

I assume you are for the forced decommissioning of derelict POS towers too?

"Yea, some dude came in and was normal for first couple months, so I gave him director." - Sean Dunaway

"A singular character could be hired to penetrate another corps space... using gorilla like tactics..." - Chane Morgann
Caleb Seremshur
Bloodhorn
Patchwork Freelancers
#9 - 2014-04-05 09:21:52 UTC
Ramona McCandless wrote:
Show me figures regarding players who return and how much DB info is taken up by these inactive characters and we can talk.

I assume you are for the forced decommissioning of derelict POS towers too?


Did I not specify in the OP to leave offline POS towers around, you mindless peon? If you're too cheap the hire mercs or shoot something defenceless yourself you deserve to suffer.
Thebriwan
LUX Uls Xystus
#10 - 2014-04-05 09:24:01 UTC
OP forgot the provide reasons for the points in his bullet list.

Additionally there is even a sub forum for this kind of posts called something with ideas...
Ramona McCandless
Silent Vale
LinkNet
#11 - 2014-04-05 09:26:42 UTC  |  Edited by: Ramona McCandless
Caleb Seremshur wrote:
you mindless peon?


Sorry, who am I serving to be a peon?

And I spoke my mind, disagreeing with you, so therefore by definition I cannot be mindless

So, fellow who insults people in a debate for no reason, please explain how terminating unused characters, and by their extention, their assets is in any way different from removing these towers? By extention some of those towers will vanish with the removal of inactive corps.

Also explain how a tower that is offline makes me suffer please.

Oh and this
Thebriwan wrote:

Additionally there is even a sub forum for this kind of posts called something with ideas...

"Yea, some dude came in and was normal for first couple months, so I gave him director." - Sean Dunaway

"A singular character could be hired to penetrate another corps space... using gorilla like tactics..." - Chane Morgann
Caleb Seremshur
Bloodhorn
Patchwork Freelancers
#12 - 2014-04-05 09:30:08 UTC
It's not a new idea anymore - this is the general discussion of something that's been around for years and years.

Here are my reasons,

1 & 2: inactive players provide nothing of value to the game and only take up space (in names and logos) that active players who are part of the current community could be using. Unless these players are of historical significance WHO CARES if they get deleted. The owners probably won't.

3: I want to call my corp something - oh look a guy made a corp with a similar name 6 years ago and hasn't logged in in over 5 years. It's a self explanatory issue.

4: I can wardec his corp but I can't wipe it off the face of the earth because with no way to actually generate upkeep on a highsec corp there's nothing keeping them from dying. This needs to change.
Sarah McKnobbo
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#13 - 2014-04-05 09:41:52 UTC
Good time to suggest this. Just as CCP have an incentive program running to get people to resub.....
Ramona McCandless
Silent Vale
LinkNet
#14 - 2014-04-05 09:43:57 UTC
Sarah McKnobbo wrote:
Good time to suggest this. Just as CCP have an incentive program running to get people to resub.....


OP wants resubbers to lose their stored characters just because he cant think of an original Corp Name Roll

"Yea, some dude came in and was normal for first couple months, so I gave him director." - Sean Dunaway

"A singular character could be hired to penetrate another corps space... using gorilla like tactics..." - Chane Morgann
Alastair Ormand
Mine all the things
#15 - 2014-04-05 10:09:43 UTC
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
In an ideal world, yes.

Chafes my OCD too,


I think they have a cream for that.

But yeah. Kill the dead corps. Finding a ticker that isn't taken is a b***h

I discourage running with scissors.
Caleb Seremshur
Bloodhorn
Patchwork Freelancers
#16 - 2014-04-05 10:11:18 UTC
CCPs own research in to the matter is more about reclaiming players who left within the last 2 years, not people from 5+ years ago who are *never* coming back.

CSM minutes from 2011 tell much. Gotta have the memory to see their bigger picture.
Sarah McKnobbo
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#17 - 2014-04-05 10:21:38 UTC
So, is it a Star Trek or Babylon 5 name that you want to free up for your corp?
Rannasha Kore
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#18 - 2014-04-05 10:23:53 UTC
You could have names and such from inactive players and corps expire after a certain time (say, 1 year). At this point, the name can be claimed by any active player and if the name is claimed by someone else, the inactive player will receive a notice to pick a new name when he comes back.

This way, you get the best of both worlds. Inactive players can't lock out desirable names indefinitely and characters and corps aren't deleted, so someone returning after a very long absence will still find all his stuff intact.
Caleb Seremshur
Bloodhorn
Patchwork Freelancers
#19 - 2014-04-05 10:31:27 UTC
The defence of inactive players priviledge to their corps and names is an inane as saying that ships cannot change - yet clearly slots get moved and you're told to harden up.
Ramona McCandless
Silent Vale
LinkNet
#20 - 2014-04-05 10:34:01 UTC
Rannasha Kore wrote:
You could have names and such from inactive players and corps expire after a certain time (say, 1 year). At this point, the name can be claimed by any active player and if the name is claimed by someone else, the inactive player will receive a notice to pick a new name when he comes back.

This way, you get the best of both worlds. Inactive players can't lock out desirable names indefinitely and characters and corps aren't deleted, so someone returning after a very long absence will still find all his stuff intact.


CCP have stated many many many times that names are pretty much fixed forever (except TOS breaking ones)

This is one of their mechanisms to avoid accidental taking of one in use

Something something harden the something something

"Yea, some dude came in and was normal for first couple months, so I gave him director." - Sean Dunaway

"A singular character could be hired to penetrate another corps space... using gorilla like tactics..." - Chane Morgann
123Next page