These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Getting people out of NPC corporations

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Reeses Peices
Doomheim
#181 - 2015-02-18 04:17:29 UTC
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:
Discussing it today with some people, the conclusion was that there needs to be better ways for corps to band together.
Maybe some sort of list of "white knight" corps that would move into newbie corp's system and join the war with them.


Do these even still exist, I was in one years ago, but they tend to fold to Awoxx tactics, and eventually those white knights eventually join the dark side as well. The rest are just the care bears who refuse to put SP into anything capable of PVP.
Jenshae Chiroptera
#182 - 2015-02-18 06:52:44 UTC
I wouldn't know. Never was in one. I just stick to my principles and to hell with the rest.
If a group of gankers ever rose to a point of being able to blow up every ship I had to try prove a point .... why then I would just fly rookie ships and accept that is my version of EVE. I would rather spite people than cave.

AWOXing can now be turned off.

CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids

Not even once

EVE is becoming shallow and puerile; it will satisfy neither the veteran nor the "WoW" type crowd in the transition.
Jenshae Chiroptera
#183 - 2015-02-18 07:00:23 UTC
Donnachadh wrote:
This whole topic and dozens of others like it are a sad testimony to the state of ...
... EVE. There are too many ways for veterans to circumvent risk and strike out at others.
There are too many ways that people sit far too safe, farming and skewing the markets. (This goes for Null Sec also and I have posts and a thread or two addressing that.)

CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids

Not even once

EVE is becoming shallow and puerile; it will satisfy neither the veteran nor the "WoW" type crowd in the transition.
Reeses Peices
Doomheim
#184 - 2015-02-18 07:28:07 UTC
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:
I wouldn't know. Never was in one. I just stick to my principles and to hell with the rest.
If a group of gankers ever rose to a point of being able to blow up every ship I had to try prove a point .... why then I would just fly rookie ships and accept that is my version of EVE. I would rather spite people than cave.

AWOXing can now be turned off.



You can't turn off true awoxxing. It is best done leading corp mates into a trap with alts or friends.
Jenshae Chiroptera
#185 - 2015-02-18 13:56:47 UTC  |  Edited by: Jenshae Chiroptera
Reeses Peices wrote:
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:
AWOXing can now be turned off.
You can't turn off true awoxxing. It is best done leading corp mates into a trap with alts or friends.
I don't really get it. People say that it has nothing to do with their personality but when given absolute freedom they make the choice to ruin someone's day. That says to me that they have some tendencies that they might be in denial about.

CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids

Not even once

EVE is becoming shallow and puerile; it will satisfy neither the veteran nor the "WoW" type crowd in the transition.
Dave Stark
#186 - 2015-02-18 14:10:30 UTC
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:
ever considered just introducing things that players would actually want to work together for that offers some tangiable benefit other than a wardeccable chat channel?.
Completely rough idea but jotting it down before I forget it.

What if high sec systems worked a bit like null sec in that:

- If your corp HQ is in a system
- and your faction with the rulers of that system as a corp and individual are high
- then you can raise the value of that system.

Value:
- better ore anomolies with larger rocks (not suggesting low, null or WH ore be in them)
- better ratting, tougher sites, more frequent and paid sites (again in line with how high sec ISK levels should be)
- better trade with your home station
- better piracy options - missions get directed to your system more often.

Now, you have a system you want to defend, either keeping people out or drawing them in and into your corporation. If everyone leaves the corporation then all that value degrades rapidly and they have to try build it up again.


i'll be honest, none of those make me want to not fold a 1 man alt corp and run incursions all day for isk.

bigger asteroids - pretty much irrelevant. if i'm at the keyboard i won't be mining for isk, and if i'm afk then i don't really care about the isk per hour. if you actually want the minerals - it's still better to just chain incursion sites in a fleet then buy the minerals.

unless the sites offered a better isk/hour than l4 missions and/or incursions, i won't be bothering to defend them either.

unless my home station is jita 4-4, i won't be trading there either.

not sure if i really give a **** how many other people are missioning in my system to be honest, unless maybe i was selling ammo at a silly mark up.

also depending on how this system is "attacked" and "defended" would depend on how inclined i am to bother to try and do either of them. still - there's not a lot there that i'd be interested in defending.
Black Pedro
Mine.
#187 - 2015-02-18 16:18:54 UTC
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:
ever considered just introducing things that players would actually want to work together for that offers some tangiable benefit other than a wardeccable chat channel?.
Completely rough idea but jotting it down before I forget it.

What if high sec systems worked a bit like null sec in that:

- If your corp HQ is in a system
- and your faction with the rulers of that system as a corp and individual are high
- then you can raise the value of that system.

Value:
- better ore anomolies with larger rocks (not suggesting low, null or WH ore be in them)
- better ratting, tougher sites, more frequent and paid sites (again in line with how high sec ISK levels should be)
- better trade with your home station
- better piracy options - missions get directed to your system more often.

Now, you have a system you want to defend, either keeping people out or drawing them in and into your corporation. If everyone leaves the corporation then all that value degrades rapidly and they have to try build it up again.

These are good ideas that could be fleshed out a bit into a workable system that provides some risk vs. reward to highsec. You could also tie these bonuses to deployables which are moderately expensive and/or take some group effort to put up (kind of like POCOs), but provide significant bonuses (and are vulnerable). Corporations would then have a persistent identity, the added income potential would give a reason for players to join, and more importantly a reason to stay with and defend the corporation. Those that don't want the responsibility of defending a corp still can operate in highsec, but at reduced income without them.

The trick is balancing it so that once established, these corps are attractive, but not too lucrative so that no one can start a new one and be competitive in a reasonable time, and that these income bonuses can be attacked and disrupted/destroyed by a wardec, but not too easily so that no one ever bothers to build/upgrade/deploy them. It also naturally favours larger corps, which I don't think is a necessarily a problem but may require some other mechanisms to even the playing field a bit for medium-sized corps.

Dangle a big enough carrot and many players will leave NPC corps and band together for mutual benefit.

The 8 Golden Rules of Eve

Why Do They Gank?
Syn Shi
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#188 - 2015-02-18 18:21:15 UTC
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:
ever considered just introducing things that players would actually want to work together for that offers some tangiable benefit other than a wardeccable chat channel?.
Completely rough idea but jotting it down before I forget it.

What if high sec systems worked a bit like null sec in that:

- If your corp HQ is in a system
- and your faction with the rulers of that system as a corp and individual are high
- then you can raise the value of that system.

Value:
- better ore anomolies with larger rocks (not suggesting low, null or WH ore be in them)
- better ratting, tougher sites, more frequent and paid sites (again in line with how high sec ISK levels should be)
- better trade with your home station
- better piracy options - missions get directed to your system more often.

Now, you have a system you want to defend, either keeping people out or drawing them in and into your corporation. If everyone leaves the corporation then all that value degrades rapidly and they have to try build it up again.



As long as negative standings are included.

Shoot a player, lose standing with who they have a positive standing in.
You have a negative standing, no access to anything that faction controls.
Negative standing low enough, ship destroyed and you are podded.
If you have items in their station and drop below a certain level, you lose your items.

I am sure there is more risk we can include but its a start.
Ravasta Helugo
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#189 - 2015-02-18 19:15:40 UTC
FoxFire Ayderan wrote:
Antonio Steele wrote:



I'll make a counter proposal. Allow players to return to their starter corps once they leave player corps rather than forcing them into places like the scope. It doesn't really hurt things as either way they get the NPC corp perks and penalties, and it would possibly get a lot of people like me (and there are many of us) to try players corps, and quite possibly stay. What's the worst that could happen?


Counter-counter proposal. Allow players to choose the NPC corp they'd like to be in (contingent on personal standings). Each can have their own plusses and minuses. Maybe one has much higher taxes (say 20%), but you get quicker CONCORD response where they have offices. Maybe one has much lower taxes and CONCORD takes longer to arrive to a ganking, or they are open to limited War Decs. One corp has a better community like your NPC corp, so that could be an appeal. They might have different modifiers to standing increases with various factions. Different market tax rates. Different locations and stations of course. I'm sure there would be a number of ways to balance the good and bad of each NPC corp.




Woah, that's actually a really good idea.

And if any benefit/penalty was unbalanced they could just tweak it in the next patch a corporate policy update.

I do like the idea of some corps being at war with other corps though, as long as it wasn't troublesome.
Jel Kishmond
Flame Out
#190 - 2015-02-18 22:54:51 UTC  |  Edited by: Jel Kishmond
For me, its not about AWOX at all so the toggle does nothing for me.

The ease of abuse and one-sidedness of wardec mechanics by griefer corps is my #1 reason for still being in CAS (even today with 4+ years on the clock). I've always preferred small groups and the current wardec system is a pretty good way to kill a small corp.

I doubt it will ever be fixed but I would rather see wardec costs overhauled. Include one-sideness as a significant cost component rather than only the size of the target. Having a 1000v10 wardec should cost a heck of a lot more than a 500v500. With that level of imbalance it is more of an extermination than a war and should be priced accordingly.

Forcing people out without dealing with the reasons why (like the one-sided wardec problem) isn't really a solution.
Jenshae Chiroptera
#191 - 2015-02-19 02:07:41 UTC
Syn Shi wrote:
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:
Now, you have a system you want to defend, either keeping people out or drawing them in and into your corporation. If everyone leaves the corporation then all that value degrades rapidly and they have to try build it up again.
As long as negative standings are included..
I agree there would need to be something on the flip side.

CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids

Not even once

EVE is becoming shallow and puerile; it will satisfy neither the veteran nor the "WoW" type crowd in the transition.
Donnachadh
United Allegiance of Undesirables
#192 - 2015-02-19 02:47:56 UTC
Anhenka wrote:
Donnachadh wrote:

Everyone keeps telling me this is a sandbox where we all have to figure out how to live and play next to all the others in the box. When a PvE player complains about the state of things you PvP players are quick to trot out the "sandbox" flag and tell them to adapt or quit playing. Well here is your "sandbox" flag right in your face, adapt to how others want to play the game or get out.

Please don't lump all PvP players in with the OP. That's just insulting.

Most of us want improvement so that people choose to fight over things, not forcing everyone else to fight on principle.

P.S: I have corrupted many a miner and indy player in the past. Even those who believed they would never like it. A lot only like small gang and home defense stuff, but typically even the most die hard miner gets a bit of a rush from yolo charging at an enemy group while in a home defense fleet. Don't knock it till you try it. Highsec gankers and wardeccers are basically the pond scum of the PvP world, don't use them as an example for what you think all primary PvP players are like :(

Anhenka
No insult was intended, it is simply a statement of truth. All one needs to do is browse around these or any other EvE related forum on the net with an open mind and they will see the endless stream of play my way in high sec or get out of the game ideas proposed by the PvP crowd. Likewise and usually it is these same people who are quick and sometime savage in their responses when anyone proposes ideas that would curtail the PvP side of the high sec game, especially ganking and the useless high sec war dec mechanic. All I can think is that life in nul and low sec must be really bad for these players since they keep trying to force others into a game style they do not want especailly when they are so quick to point out htis is a sandbox.

I am still given cause to wonder if these people want real PvP action where people can and will fight back, why are they hangin in high sec? On my low sec character I have always found high sec to be a wasteland with no real thrill in it all. Give me a 15 or 20 jump low sec roam with nothing but empty space any day compared to this crap they call PvP in high sec.

I know what you mean, I seem to be on a role here in my corp, get new players in give them a little character skills training guidance, give them a little human skills training then take them on a roam with my low sec friends and off they go to have fun blowing stuff up. Makes me feel good when I see them go off knowing that I had a role to play in getting them into something they enjoy in this game, but damn I do miss a lot of them cause they was fun to fly with.
McChicken Combo HalfMayo
The Happy Meal
#193 - 2015-02-19 02:58:08 UTC  |  Edited by: McChicken Combo HalfMayo
Sobaan Tali wrote:
It surprises me to this day how so up-in-arms people get about other players' playstyles. What difference does it really make to you or I what the hell Joe Schmoe does or doesn't on the other side of New Eden unless he is directly and adversely affecting your gameplay? Last time I checked, being in an NPC corp isn't really hurting anyone else's way of playing (and they are already paying a pretty hefty tax for being there too). "But, they can't be war-decked." So? Since when was that the only way to blow up his stuff? Get a few friends together and suicide him, if you're that adamant on getting up in his face. "Adapt and overcome," sounds familiar, doesn't it?

It's a sandbox. Everyone has some level of effect on others as minute as it may be. That gives players all the right to try and impede another player's gameplay.

The point your crowd misses on this topic is that it's about risks and rewards, not an inability to theoretically kill a ship. CCP rightfully believes it to be healthy for the game to encourage players to interact with others through player corps. Being in a player corp mechanically increases your risk however. It only makes sense then that it also mechanically increases your rewards for taking that risk. If not, you are not encouraging players to join player corps.

To put it more simply, it's not about killing ships. It's about giving players a reason to put themselves at increased risk.

Donnachadh wrote:

I am still given cause to wonder if these people want real PvP action where people can and will fight back, why are they hangin in high sec? On my low sec character I have always found high sec to be a wasteland with no real thrill in it all. Give me a 15 or 20 jump low sec roam with nothing but empty space any day compared to this crap they call PvP in high sec.

If they don't hang out and promote PVP in highsec, it will become a mostly PVP-free zone. It will then become the defacto place to earn your isk, making non-highsec a mostly PVE-free zone. For the sake of balance outside of highsec, it is important to promote PVP elements within highsec.

There are all our dominion

Gate camps: "Its like the lowsec watercooler, just with explosions and boose" - Ralph King-Griffin
Jenshae Chiroptera
#194 - 2015-02-19 03:24:08 UTC
Donnachadh wrote:
.... endless stream of play my way in high sec or get out of the game ideas proposed by the PvP crowd. Likewise and usually it is these same people who are quick and sometime savage in their responses when anyone proposes ideas that would curtail the PvP side of the high sec game, especially ganking and ...
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5207164

CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids

Not even once

EVE is becoming shallow and puerile; it will satisfy neither the veteran nor the "WoW" type crowd in the transition.
Donnachadh
United Allegiance of Undesirables
#195 - 2015-02-20 03:01:22 UTC
McChicken Combo HalfMayo wrote:
If they don't hang out and promote PVP in highsec, it will become a mostly PVP-free zone. It will then become the defacto place to earn your isk, making non-highsec a mostly PVE-free zone. For the sake of balance outside of highsec, it is important to promote PVP elements within highsec.

I have no problem with them hangin around in high sec and trying to increase the risk factor, we will have to agree to disagree that such additional risk is needed as a balance in the game, but this misses the point to be made entirely.

If they want PvP where other players will actually engage them and shoot back then they NEED to go where that kind of activity happens and stop whining about the high sec players that have no desire to fight.

And if they want to hang in high sec to add the "balance" you think is needed then they need to accept the rest of the high sec play style and stop trying to change it into something that it is not.

CCP has done a masterful job in general of providing a game that has something for just about every style of gamer and that is what makes EvE unique in the MMO world and it is what keeps thousands of players with diverse interests paying their subscriptions every month. And when we break this down to it's most basic level subscriptions is what CCP needs, and making alot of the changes proposed here and in many other forums would put CCP at risk of losing a large part of their monthly subscriptions.


Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:
Donnachadh wrote:
.... endless stream of play my way in high sec or get out of the game ideas proposed by the PvP crowd. Likewise and usually it is these same people who are quick and sometime savage in their responses when anyone proposes ideas that would curtail the PvP side of the high sec game, especially ganking and ...
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5207164

Interesting, but I fail to see how a topic about a ship that cannot be used in high sec has any bearing on a topic about high sec.
And further I fail to see how this has anything to do with your ideas for getting players out of NPC.
Jenshae Chiroptera
#196 - 2015-02-21 04:07:05 UTC
Donnachadh wrote:
CCP has done a masterful job in general of providing a game that has something for just about every style of gamer and ....
... was (most likely is) not their plan but more of happenstance.
Quote:
The company was started in 1997 when a handful of people bailed out of OZ Interactive, an Icelandic dot-com that gained some measure of fame for cooking up impressive virtual reality technology during the early days of the Internet boom. The founders wrote the beginning of Eve’s plot and sold prospective employees on this vision of creating a space game. They just had no money to fund the effort.

“It is about building a world where everything is an action and reaction to what other players are doing. It targets the base human emotions. People have always formed tribes, and someone always wants to be king.”
“Since there’s no legal system, the economy resembles that of a developing nation where people trade based on trust and social relations.”

CCP's creative director Torfi Frans Olafsson took to the stage to outline the developer's grander ambitions for Eve...
An emphasis on the importance of collaboration between miners was also made.
CCP is committed to placing more of the universe into players' hands, with the aim that all services in the game - such as manufacturing and research installations - should ultimately be controlled by players.

Senior Producer Andie Nordgren near the end of the presentation ..."Think about home, and then imagine what could lie beyond the known if only you could construct the right kind of stargate."

There was a project called "EVE United" that was briefly shown during the final keynote of Fanfest in Iceland, and this is the real prize for CCP.
The demo we were shown included a single screen that could launch Eve Online, Vaklyrie and Project Legion, along with a single character you controlled in each game.

Many MMOs change too much content over their lifetimes, ruining the game or diluting it away from the original vision - Olafsson.
My interpretation is that PVE is meant only as a way to gather resources and people together to go out and fight, try and own sectors of space.
Not to sit around grinding the same AI and have that be the start and end of their game.
So, there is not intention to provide PVE for "carebears," it is there to equip PVPers.

I don't exactly like or agree with it whole heartedly but there it is, so at some point, expect high sec to change quite drastically.
Donnachadh wrote:
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:
Donnachadh wrote:
.... endless stream of play my way in high sec or get out of the game ideas proposed by the PvP crowd. Likewise and usually it is these same people who are quick and sometime savage in their responses when anyone proposes ideas that would curtail the PvP side of the high sec game, especially ganking and ...
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5207164

Interesting, but I fail to see how a topic about a ship that cannot be used in high sec has any bearing on a topic about high sec.
And further I fail to see how this has anything to do with your ideas for getting players out of NPC.
Orcas go to high sec. Matter of tar brushing.

CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids

Not even once

EVE is becoming shallow and puerile; it will satisfy neither the veteran nor the "WoW" type crowd in the transition.
Ryuu Towryk
Perkone
Caldari State
#197 - 2015-02-21 08:56:25 UTC  |  Edited by: Ryuu Towryk
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:
Hopelesshobo wrote:
1 man corporations do wonders.
Just as bad for the hassle of declaring war on them.
There should be a minimum number and activity requirement after the first two weeks.

Why does me being a one-man corp hurt you?
Do I smell?
*Sniffs*
Oh...
P

Quote:
You know, as well as I do, that a corp made as a tax dodge that is hollow is not how the corp system is intended to work.

So what? Seriously, why is this an issue? Is it because I'm not being sociable? Not annoying corpmates?

Where would you force me to be if you did away with one man corps?
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#198 - 2015-02-21 13:27:57 UTC
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:
My interpretation is that PVE is meant only as a way to gather resources and people together to go out and fight, try and own sectors of space.
Not to sit around grinding the same AI and have that be the start and end of their game.
So, there is not intention to provide PVE for "carebears," it is there to equip PVPers.

I don't exactly like or agree with it whole heartedly but there it is, so at some point, expect high sec to change quite drastically.

Emergent Game play.
Otherwise known as significant changes to highsec will destroy the ability of people to do the first part you mentioned, as it will be possible to prevent someone gathering resources in any meaningful way.
As soon as that is possible it becomes possible to actually grief someone out of the game, so the kings can eliminate even the remotest spectre of a challenge by destroying potential opponents while they are still at the highsec gathering stage.

Hence why High sec can't significantly change, even if some people do use it to infinitely farm NPC's and not put that money anywhere.
Redbull Spai
Twenty Questions
#199 - 2015-02-21 13:32:17 UTC
Not everyone wants to fight (fight meaning PvP), a vast number of players want to play the game fight-free, if all you want is a fighting game, play counter strike. The simple fact is, by joining a player corporation, you can be forced to fight, by merely a 1-man corp paying fifty million measly isk to ruin your corp. By not joining a player corp, you cant be forced to fight. The best thing about EVE is you do not have to fight to play the game. And 90% of the ships out there cant fight - haulers, mining ships, exploration ships, and PvE fit ships, if they get into a fight, its not a fight, its a one sided gank. Players in NPC corps can still interact and fleet up through common chat channels without having to leave themselves vunerable to gankers. Invent a mechanic where non-PVP focussed corps cant be wardecked, and people will join player corps more.
admiral root
Red Galaxy
#200 - 2015-02-21 14:07:35 UTC
Jel Kishmond wrote:
The ease of abuse and one-sidedness of wardec mechanics by griefer corps is my #1 reason for still being in CAS


Wow. First of all, if you've been here 4 years and haven't yet realised that Eve is meant to be one-sided, I strongly suggest another game. Secondly, if there are so many "griefer" corps out there, why haven't you filed support tickets? Probably because there's no such thing.

Hello Kitty Online is that way --->

No, your rights end in optimal+2*falloff