These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

why do players stay in npc corps?

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#841 - 2015-05-23 00:41:14 UTC
If, for example, wars could not be dodged, and people were forced to use the surrender mechanic as it was intended.

Within half a year, the highsec corps that were left would be ones that you know have passed the test, and could be counted on to be worthwhile to their members.

Pointing people towards good corps is all well and good as an idea, but enabling the removal of the oh-so-many bad corps from the pool is far more important.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.
Joe Risalo
State War Academy
Caldari State
#842 - 2015-05-23 00:47:59 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
If, for example, wars could not be dodged, and people were forced to use the surrender mechanic as it was intended.

Within half a year, the highsec corps that were left would be ones that you know have passed the test, and could be counted on to be worthwhile to their members.

Pointing people towards good corps is all well and good as an idea, but enabling the removal of the oh-so-many bad corps from the pool is far more important.



What is your definition of a bad corp?

My expectations are that you assume any corp that does not wish to engage in pvp is a "bad corp."
This is a game that is attempting to accommodate as many players as possible, without breaking the mold of what is "Eve".

Casual corps have a right to exist.


Your suggestion is nothing more than a way to break any corp that can't fight or join a major alliance... Which is pretty much any corp that is not in a major alliance..
Scipio Artelius
Weaponised Vegemite
Flying Dangerous
#843 - 2015-05-23 00:50:03 UTC  |  Edited by: Scipio Artelius
Joe Risalo wrote:
I would argue this has increased recruitment for ALL corps.

Yeah sure, as long as you recognise just the same that our judgements/arguments are not evidence based and equally likely to be wrong, though I'm not sure of the significance of capitalising 'ALL'.

We have no data since the introduction of the friendly-fire switch, so we can't really know with any great certainty.

My judgement is just made on a lack of any observable change in associated activities (eg. no flood of new advertisements in the recruitment forum), no massive increase in the use of third party systems for recruitment like Reddit, Twitter or Facebook that I've seen, no increase in in game linking in local of Corp adverts, no huge increase in the number of characters active in the in game recruitment chat channel and no increase by characters in any of the channels I use in game mentioning that they are recruiting more than before.

All just personal judgement and based on my own very limited observations. Very likely to be wrong, but no more likely than any other argument at this point.

Data from CCP would be great.
beakerax
Pator Tech School
#844 - 2015-05-23 00:52:37 UTC
Scipio Artelius wrote:
Irrespective of cause and where the driver is for it (within mechanics or the meta) those experiences exist more commonly in player Corps than they do in starter Corps.

For sure. But if this kind of player engagement is both key to player retention and supplementary to the game mechanics of the corporation, looking for ways to incentivise it outside of corporations also makes sense. This seems to be on the table. ( I'm cautiously optimistic. )
Syn Shi
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#845 - 2015-05-23 00:54:03 UTC
Because they choose to.

Now take the stick out of your ass and accept people in Eve choose to not play the way you want them to play.
Demerius Xenocratus
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#846 - 2015-05-23 00:55:08 UTC
Scipio Artelius wrote:
Demerius Xenocratus wrote:
I think the notion that involvement with player corps leads to greater retention is erroneous.

Involvement with any number of engaged, knowledgeable players offering a constructive experience (not just blowing up newbie's first retriever or mission running brutix) is what will cut through the seemingly insurmountable challenges facing a new player.

On the first part, CCP's data suggests otherwise and even if it didn't, it doesn't matter.

CCP have said that players who take part in more social aspects early have higher retention. That was the correlation they have referred to. That includes many aspects other than pvp. Market trading, using chat channels, taking part in fleets, combat pvp, manufacturing and selling, using voice comms have all been stated by CCP as types of activities that retained players take part in early and CCP are interested in trying to expose that 90% of unretained players to those kinds of experiences.

There is nothing about a new player Corp or the old tutorials that exposed players to that. New players try the game and end up playing solo without structures around them that actively encourage trying those more social activities that some of them might like.

That's where the move to player Corps is one way that CCP have also stated, provides greater exposure to those things. Being in a player Corp isn't itself a cause for higher retention. Player corps however do have much higher rates of use of voice comms, use of chat channels, fleet operations, pvp activities, industry activities, etc., especially when compared to starter corps.

Some starter Corps also have many of those things (eg. CAS), but it's not part of what the structure of a starter corp is in comparison to what is acheived in the organisation of player Corps many of which also go way beyond that with irc servers, slack teams, forums, wikis, new player starter kits, skill plans, training sessions, teamspeak, mumble, buyback programs, fitted ship contracts, 1-on-1 mentors, instructional videos, ship replacement programs for new players and specific targets they aim for.

Starter Corps provide minimal input to helping people find that sort of content, where player Corps often include all of that content.

So it's not about player corps as such. If starter corps provided that environment as part of what they did, then the idea of encouraging people to move to player corps wouldn't need to be considered. But they don't, where player corps provide that opportunity that CCP are trying to encourage (as stated by CCP).

On the second part, I totally agree. Kind of what this is all about.


The whole point of my post was that you're just looking at NPC corps vs player corps and deciding NPC corps are the problem when in reality most highsec player corps are worse than NPC corps, no amount of raising the bar vis a vis corp creation requirements is going to change that, and in all cases it's the individual players that newbie interacts with that matter most.

Focusing on NPC corps as the root of all evil is just highsec pvp carebears wanting to force pve ships to play target while they continue to hide their neutral logi/scout/transport alts in NPC corps because tax rates don't affect those functions at all. Start talking about forcing those players to expose their alt minions supplementing their wardec toon to the same risk and I'll be more agreeable.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#847 - 2015-05-23 00:56:05 UTC
Joe Risalo wrote:

Casual corps have a right to exist.


They literally don't. That's what chat channels are for.

Player corps are for when you are ready to take a step into the larger world.


Quote:

Your suggestion is nothing more than a way to break any corp that can't fight or join a major alliance... Which is pretty much any corp that is not in a major alliance..


My suggestion is to remove the parasites who use newbies as tax farms, who prey on them by making them mine for months and lie to them that new players can't/shouldn't PvP.

Especially when such people stand directly in the way of improving player retention, and the betterment of the game as a whole.n Why do they deserve to exist, when all they do is hurt the game itself and grief newbies with toxic attitudes and boredom centric playstyles?

Enabling that bullshit is not what any game that wants to keep existing would do.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.
beakerax
Pator Tech School
#848 - 2015-05-23 00:57:52 UTC
Joe Risalo wrote:
What is your definition of a bad corp?

Can't speak for Kaarous but here are a few of mine:
- absentee leadership
- leadership who pretend to know more about the game than is actually the case
- leadership which is most interested in enriching itself rather than providing content for their members
- leadership who have an exceedingly narrow view of how to play the game and require that their members to abide by it

there's a theme here
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#849 - 2015-05-23 01:00:26 UTC
beakerax wrote:

- leadership which is most interested in enriching itself rather than providing content for their members


This is the big one. Speaking as a prolific corp thief and awoxer, I say with confidence that this is 90% or more of existing corps in highsec.

They are used as newbie tax farms, and they are griefing new players right out of the game with the weaponized boredom this game calls PvE "content".

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.
Scipio Artelius
Weaponised Vegemite
Flying Dangerous
#850 - 2015-05-23 01:00:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Scipio Artelius
Demerius Xenocratus wrote:
The whole point of my post was that you're just looking at NPC corps vs player corps and deciding NPC corps are the problem when in reality most highsec player corps are worse than NPC corps, no amount of raising the bar vis a vis corp creation requirements is going to change that, and in all cases it's the individual players that newbie interacts with that matter most.

Focusing on NPC corps as the root of all evil is just highsec pvp carebears wanting to force pve ships to play target while they continue to hide their neutral logi/scout/transport alts in NPC corps because tax rates don't affect those functions at all. Start talking about forcing those players to expose their alt minions supplementing their wardec toon to the same risk and I'll be more agreeable.

If that's what you think after reading my posts, then I'll admit to being an extremely poor writer. I have no clue what you are referring to with raising the bar vis a vis corp requirements. That's not part of anything I have said.

The player Corp vs NPC Corp is not the main issue. I totally agree that a fundamental cause of retention is who new players interact with.

Exposing new players to the experiences that CCP want to expose them to is the whole point. CCP have said, that happens more in player Corps. That's where the exposure to interactions is more likely when compared to starter corps and that is directly from data CCP have collected.

The player Corp is not the cause of higher retention. It's just an environment where the experiences that correlate with higher retention exist more commonly in comparison to starter Corps. It is CCPs argument, not something I am making up.
Solecist Punk
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#851 - 2015-05-23 01:01:11 UTC  |  Edited by: Solecist Punk
Joe Risalo wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
If, for example, wars could not be dodged, and people were forced to use the surrender mechanic as it was intended.

Within half a year, the highsec corps that were left would be ones that you know have passed the test, and could be counted on to be worthwhile to their members.

Pointing people towards good corps is all well and good as an idea, but enabling the removal of the oh-so-many bad corps from the pool is far more important.



What is your definition of a bad corp?

My expectations are that you assume any corp that does not wish to engage in pvp is a "bad corp."
This is a game that is attempting to accommodate as many players as possible, without breaking the mold of what is "Eve".

Casual corps have a right to exist.


Your suggestion is nothing more than a way to break any corp that can't fight or join a major alliance... Which is pretty much any corp that is not in a major alliance..

No they do NOT have ANY right to exist unless they can FIGHT for this right !

Is it that hard to understand ?
You and most people have absolutely NO CLUE what this is about !!

You have no goddamn right whatsoever !

When players want to decide that you can't have that corp ...
... then you can't have that corp ! THIS is true EVE ! THIS !

The irrational idea of "rights" comes from the false belief that there isn't a gigantic
machinery called government that grants you these rights as they see fit !

The ones with the guns dictate your reallife every day and you not notice,
realise, think about it or care !

Proof: If police was gone for a day, you'd all be goners !
Removed by those who know that only the police stood in their way
of robbing and murdering you ! The ones with the guns !



No rights.
Eve is based on natural laws !
The strong eat the weak, natural selection improves the situation as a whole !

Remove natural selection and suddenly everyone believes he has something valid to say ...
... because - and ONLY because - there is a force protecting you from being selected naturally !

CCP ridicoules the selection process in highsec and it led to this horrible state !
And instead of bringing back natural balance they apply a patch onto the wound THEY created !


N O !
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#852 - 2015-05-23 01:02:05 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
If, for example, wars could not be dodged, and people were forced to use the surrender mechanic as it was intended.

Within half a year, the highsec corps that were left would be ones that you know have passed the test, and could be counted on to be worthwhile to their members.

Pointing people towards good corps is all well and good as an idea, but enabling the removal of the oh-so-many bad corps from the pool is far more important.

How is the use of the surrender mechanic a mechanism for determining a good corp? That mechanic is nothing more than formalized isk concession for ending a war. This is a sign of having sufficient isk reserves, but how does that directly relate to being a good corp?

For example, how does that system not incentivize further abuse of members for isk to be able to surrender from wars? Also what happens when a bad corp goes for a considerable amount of time without being dec'd or simply goes inactive for the duration?

Also what keeps CEOs from abusing mechanics to kick members during a war and enable evasion, or do they lose that ability?
Demerius Xenocratus
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#853 - 2015-05-23 01:02:20 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
If, for example, wars could not be dodged, and people were forced to use the surrender mechanic as it was intended.

Within half a year, the highsec corps that were left would be ones that you know have passed the test, and could be counted on to be worthwhile to their members.

Pointing people towards good corps is all well and good as an idea, but enabling the removal of the oh-so-many bad corps from the pool is far more important.


So, casual players, new players and people that don't run five alts need not apply. I will say this for the thousandth time if you want to demonstrate your pvp prowess there are soooooo many people outside highsec who will happily oblige you. You are never going to stop idiots from making corps. You can slaughter all the newbies they recruit and forcibly shutter the corp and they'll just do it again in a few months with the same bunch.

Also I think It's pretty neat that NPC militia corps have no taxes, literally just found that out.
beakerax
Pator Tech School
#854 - 2015-05-23 01:03:24 UTC
Sol, maybe you should lie down.
Joe Risalo
State War Academy
Caldari State
#855 - 2015-05-23 01:04:49 UTC
Quote:
They literally don't. That's what chat channels are for.

Player corps are for when you are ready to take a step into the larger world.


So, your assertion is that they don't have a right to exist because they don't fit your definition of what is right..
I know a group of people that strongly agree with you. They're called the ***...


Quote:

My suggestion is to remove the parasites who use newbies as tax farms, who prey on them by making them mine for months and lie to them that new players can't/shouldn't PvP.

Especially when such people stand directly in the way of improving player retention, and the betterment of the game as a whole.n Why do they deserve to exist, when all they do is hurt the game itself and grief newbies with toxic attitudes and boredom centric playstyles?

Enabling that bullshit is not what any game that wants to keep existing would do.



I would like to note that most high sec, casual corps, have a 0% tax rate, and are often there just to have people to game with.
I would also note that many of these casual corps do eventually try to branch off into pvp once they feel they're strong enough and/or if they've retained members long enough.

It may also be note that people join these corps because it's the ability to do what you enjoy with other people, which I would argue, increases player retention.
Grinding lvl 4 missions solo isn't all that grand. However, when you have a fleet, regardless of the payout, it is much more enjoyable.


This is, again, and example of self proclaimed PVP elitists attempting to dictate what is Eve.
Yuri Ostrovskoy
Doomheim
#856 - 2015-05-23 01:06:22 UTC
Solecist Punk wrote:
Joe Risalo wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
If, for example, wars could not be dodged, and people were forced to use the surrender mechanic as it was intended.

Within half a year, the highsec corps that were left would be ones that you know have passed the test, and could be counted on to be worthwhile to their members.

Pointing people towards good corps is all well and good as an idea, but enabling the removal of the oh-so-many bad corps from the pool is far more important.



What is your definition of a bad corp?

My expectations are that you assume any corp that does not wish to engage in pvp is a "bad corp."
This is a game that is attempting to accommodate as many players as possible, without breaking the mold of what is "Eve".

Casual corps have a right to exist.


Your suggestion is nothing more than a way to break any corp that can't fight or join a major alliance... Which is pretty much any corp that is not in a major alliance..

No they do NOT have ANY right to exist unless they can FIGHT for this right !

Is it that hard to understand ?
You and most people have absolutely NO CLUE what this is about !!

You have no goddamn right whatsoever !

When players want to decide that you can't have that corp ...
... then you can't have that corp ! THIS is true EVE ! THIS !

The irrational idea of "rights" comes from the false belief that there isn't a gigantic
machinery called government that grants you these rights as they see fit !

The ones with the guns dictate your reallife every day and you not notice,
realise, think about it or care !

Proof: If police was gone for a day, you'd all be goners !
Removed by those who know that only the police stood in their way
of robbing and murdering you ! The ones with the guns !



No rights.
Eve is based on natural laws !
The strong eat the weak, natural selection improves the situation as a whole !

Remove natural selection and suddenly everyone believes he has something valid to say ...
... because - and ONLY because - there is a force protecting you from being selected naturally !

CCP ridicoules the selection process in highsec and it led to this horrible state !
And instead of bringing back natural balance they apply a patch onto the wound THEY created !


N O !


Hey bill, I think this one here drank to much of the punch....
Joe Risalo
State War Academy
Caldari State
#857 - 2015-05-23 01:06:43 UTC
beakerax wrote:
Joe Risalo wrote:
What is your definition of a bad corp?

Can't speak for Kaarous but here are a few of mine:
- absentee leadership
- leadership who pretend to know more about the game than is actually the case
- leadership which is most interested in enriching itself rather than providing content for their members
- leadership who have an exceedingly narrow view of how to play the game and require that their members to abide by it

there's a theme here



I would argue that these are better examples of null sec alliances and corps than they are of casual high sec corps.
ISD Dorrim Barstorlode
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
ISD Alliance
#858 - 2015-05-23 01:07:18 UTC
Removed some more off topic posts. Keep it constructive, thanks. Please don't make me come back for thirds.

ISD Dorrim Barstorlode

Senior Lead

Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)

Interstellar Services Department
Solecist Punk
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#859 - 2015-05-23 01:10:16 UTC  |  Edited by: Solecist Punk
beakerax wrote:
Sol, maybe you should lie down.
Nah, it's too spot on with narrative.


While what I write is true, as you only have granted rights by those with the guns ...
... and these people probably believe their existence alone gives them rights ......

... the whole situation is just too good not to be exploited.


Don't worry about *me*. I'm fine.
This is very funny for several reasons,
one also being that the weak never stop being delusional. :)

Anyway ... worry about them instead.

They need it. (:
I'll just play the storyline .....
..... and they believe it's real. :)
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#860 - 2015-05-23 01:13:50 UTC
Demerius Xenocratus wrote:

So, casual players, new players and people that don't run five alts need not apply.


Not with an attitude like yours, no.

Everyone else is welcome.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.