EVE General Discussion

Those are "corporations of shame". You can't get back into the noob navy once you leave it. I end up in Aliastra, a retail center basically. What am I going to do, sell shoes like Al Bundy?

Why can't people pick the NPC corp they can join when leaving a player corp and make it based on standings?

That I do not know about. It's always been contentious that we cannot pick which NPC corp we get shunted into. My best guess is that at one time a developer just picked a corp for each race and they never looked back on this feature. It's always been this way.


One thing I just realized, it's rather ironic that NPC standings are apt to mean something again with these minding fleets and their incident response but there were changes in the past that made NPC standings matter much less regarding mission agents and jump clones. There's a bit of a zig zag here but even more concerning, it was never meant to be a feature, just a mistake that people liked and so they kept it. It would be a contradiction to maintain this free JC unintended feature yet blap the wrong dude in space and you get a faction on your case. That's something I could probably agree with the OP on.

Yeah, but now some bloodlines have benefits others are denied, so that is not really an answer unless you have a flux capacitor lying around, not to mention a Delorean.

Any preferences for a particular fix?

The fixes I can think being suitable being:

1) Replace the DCM mining fleets with those from another Caldari NPC corp.
2) Move all players in DCM to another, non-miner, corp.
3) Remove standing loss with the NPC corp a player is in, when shooting that player.
4, not a fix) Make all the (24) NPC corps players can be in, into belt mining corps for extra mayhem.

My preference is for # 3 to bring it in line with what happens in the case of shooting someone in a player corp. (No automatic standings loss)

(Should we F&I this to formalise it?)

I'm not asking for no consequences, I'm asking for balanced ones. You really need to get that through your very thick skull, I have made that abundantly clear in no fewer than three posts on this thread so far, including the OP, and I'm getting very sick of repeating myself because people find reading too hard. But if you legitimately think there are no consequences for shooting at people already, then I'm afraid you just haven't shot at enough people.

I'm going to take another stab at this I'm afraid, in the hope that it will bring some understanding.

There is no way I can answer yes or no to your question while maintaining complete honesty. I have attempted to be open and honest about my stance on this subject, where that stance comes from, and why I hold it.


To illustrate exactly why I cannot answer yes or no honestly I will give two examples.

1) If you were to ask me whether I would support a change to missions that would include ( for example) mission rats changing damage types (within their racial weapons naturally) to counter a players native resists ( by racial ship type). Then in all likelihood I'd say yes. Missions may well benefit from being a little more involving and adaptive. I'd happily take a little longer on a mission if the mission itself was challenging and required I adapt to a fluid set of circumstance. Others may not like it, but I would.

2) (Extreme example). If CCP as part of a program to make NPC's more relevant and to give some substance to the lore behind them, decided that on date "x" all players, regardless of their desires, are to be automatically and irrevocably enrolled in faction warfare on the side represented by their characters race. Then I would answer no. (in fact my answer to that would quite likely involve the use of copious quantities of profanity). Not only would this impact very negatively on my game-play, but I would hazard a guess that quite a few people would be extremely upset...Just how many statues are there in New Eden out of curiosity?

Now these examples are at both ends of the scale, the relatively innocuous, and the utterly absurd (I hope). However, by the literal wording of your Yes/ no question both of these examples would qualify under the same answer.
I cannot answer yes to both, just as I cannot answer no to both. Whichever answer I gave would be at best a partial lie.

Now, if you feel that I have misinterpreted the question, then please elucidate on the exact meaning you were attempting to convey. The question as i read it was vague. It came across (whether it was your intent or not) as a deliberately loaded question, with no way for me to answer it honestly.

As far as the specific nature of the NPC interactions as laid out in the Op are concerned, I am still not in favor of them. The principle of interference in low sec PvP by NPC's is anathema to me. I honestly do not think this will encourage a greater degree of interaction between players. i do not feel that it will encourage people to enter low sec who would otherwise not of entered. I may be wrong of course, perhaps there are the odd few who will come to low sec specifically to see how this mechanic might be abused (this is the Eve player-base we're talking about). I would however guess that most of those players already frequent lowsec anyway.

YOU of all people are accusing someone of over-thinking it?!

You trashed this whole thread with your pseudo-philosophical drug dreams about "the awakening EVE" while the reality of the topic at hand are some simple NPC behaviour scripts and trigger rules, nothing we haven't seen before.

I would not call your question a loaded question, but simply a stupid question - and yes there are stupid questions - which completely misses the point that this things are already in place as long as there is an EVE universe but the only thing that changes are details about those NPC player interactions and those details matter.

This is no different to not being able to gate camp and engage players on a gate during a nullsec Incursion.

Deal with it.

And another one who doesn't read anything, just makes assumptions and misses the point entirely.