Sometimes you gotta remember the weird to get past the crazy. Incidentally you don’t need to get the additional fleet hangars you can abuse as a solo corp by just paying the cost to rent an office. You can get without ever doing such.
https://wiki.eveuniversity.org/Corporation_Mechanics_101
I recommend a refresher before you go further.
That’s also an issue for some. Some have asked for personal wallet divisions and personal hangars, and the common answer is to use containers.
The suggestion to lower CONCORD response time for players in NPC corporation is still interesting for when one wants to put pressure onto NPC corporations in order to move players out of it. Where they then go is still their choice to make, but I don’t see an awful lot running from NPC corps into 1-man corps for several reasons. If they wanted to be alone they’d already have left NPC corps and ganking isn’t as big as an issue as some make it to be, and there are other corporations where they might go to, which will be a benefit for those corporations.
This is the comedy of a solution of making a penalty for being in an NPC corp. To change this we promote less communication. Or we have to introduce another corporation which will just gain the same complaint about that people are diving into to avoid war. A solution which just repeats the problem in another location is not a solution.
NPC corporations don’t consist of only one type of player, the one who wants to avoid war. There are many types of players in it. The suggestion speculates that different types of players react differently, and not all in the same way. Hence will it not simply turn NPC corporations into just scoial corporations, but it will slit it up into more refined corporations, and less the big, gray mass that NPC corporations are.
Of course not. But the problem of doubling the concord timers isn’t really changing war ditchers in any format.
What do you mean?
Okay the problem is that you just admitted the exact change you said doesn’t happen. People ducking out of wars are made a bit more vulnerable to attack outside of said wars.
People who the second war is declared that switch to npc corp for “protection” from being fought in a standard format are an issue. It promotes corp dropping as a solution to war with no penalty and instant benefits. If it was the primary reason you wanted to shoot at person X and they dropped corp you are now denied any hope of ever doing such.
Now they get to play on without you being able to fight them openly in space. They can even fanny waggle if they feel like it to taunt you. Then you’re back in sacrificing a ship to attack (ganking) in order do what you wanted. The act of attacking with gankers is killing a target in minimal time with minimal risk (and getting the pod if you can) and thus the act of ganking won’t change with bigger timers. It’ll just spread negatives to npc corp players and anyone in a social corp would be a declared war target for me. If I can’t war dec the “social” corp then it’s an npc corp. If it’s an npc corp we’re back at square one of people using npc corps to evade war.
As long as dropping from a corp is allowed, will this always be possible and also happen.
A wardec is not a guarantee for a kill, not even for just a fight. A target can always run away, dock up or not login. You cannot make the wish to kill someone become an expectation and a guarantee for a fight.
How do you there suggest to fix corp dropping?
It needs a penalty for doing. You gain a benefit but there is no penalty. As I’ve mentioned before if you war dec a corp or alliance you flag the players with a debuff. Thus a person who drops corp still has this debuff allowing you to fight them in space without concord intervention. It refreshes in a week for anyone still in corp/alliance so long as you continue the war (Not going to discuss the how in this part) and any players who have actively ditched corp/alliance to evade can not return until you end the war. They did declare they aren’t part of that corp/alliance anymore.
But you are supposed to at least have a chance to fight. Corp ditching prevents you from having that chance without pushing you back into suicide ganking. You at least have a chance or you inflict a negative upon them for that war.
Incidentally this will also give you a chance to kill a corp off by just forcing the war to continue as long as you continue to pay for it until either everybody leaves the corp or the cost to maintain the corp suffers so drastically that they can’t afford anything anymore.
Like I said were you never given a guarantee for a fight. You don’t have that and dodging a war therefore isn’t a benefit. Just like turning on a warp scrambler doesn’t give a guarantee for holding a ship in place. Some get away, because they’re clever, others get caught and made a mistake in the end. It’s no different with wardecs. Some you get, some you don’t.
…
I’ve got to go. I hope you don’t mind. NN.
Everything I’ve ever suggested is about benefit gained at risk taken for a cost.
Benefit: Leaving the war.
Risk: Might never be able to return to that corp.
Cost: The remainder of your war time you spend without a corp you can still get fought and after that Concord respects your decision to leave said corp’s war so long as you remain out of that corp until the war is over. Concord will ****block you from returning to that corp for this benefit.
Sounds like a reasonable change tbh.
Through this you incentivize the worst of both worlds. You still have to drop a corp to avoid a long-term wardec you aren’t prepared to engage in (or you have no faith your current corp has the chops to handle it), but then you also have to log out for several days because you still don’t even have limited Concord protection. So instead of one bad solution or the other, you’ve now mandated both.
When players still can be fought, then you might as well lock up the corporation and disallow dropouts during war, because nobody will want to leave their corp and still be a war target, but no longer have their corp behind them.
It’s too radical and once implemented will larger corps just go all out and drive smaller corps to dock up, and who will then still be playing EVE?
You cannot beat people into fighting you.
Option 1: Learn to fight the war dec’s with your corp.
Option 2: Learn to evade the war dec’s with your corp.
Option 3: Leave corp and attempt to get out of war by playing NPC until the war ends and then return.
Option 4: Switch to another corp, hope they can defend you, or otherwise help you evade war dec until it expires and continue gameplay to your effective targets.
Option 5: Switch to a hired mercenary group which prays the people hunting you are really hunting you and then they return the favor in hunting the war dec people.
Option 6: Go NPC corp forever and a day because what you want to do doesn’t really gain any benefits from being in a corp anyway as you can do it all from just being blue and in a fleet.
ALL of the above remain the same with the change. You want to ditch corp to go NPC there is no risk to that currently. That really is a benefit without a risk at the cost of temporary leaving of a corp which (also a benefit) you can return to at any time.
I am 100% about benefits with a risk at a cost.
The comedy of what is already happening being called what will happen if something is changed…
It’s already 100% possible for larger corps to go all out against a smaller corp and drive them out of Eve. It’s even 100% acceptable to do such. Nothing prevented Band of Brothers from being targeted in this format. Nothing prevented Circle of Two from being betrayed and ripped apart. It already has happened more times than the big ones ever mention. So no. That’s not an argument Whitehound.
It all circles back to what did you risk to declare war and gain the benefit of Concord sitting the fights out. Currently it’s nothing. So with nothing risked groups looking for fights go around New Eden with limited clues about who is where and who will actually show up to a fight with no idea if they will play the game of evasion, fighting, or the NPC waggle dance. So I give the benefit Concord accepting that you target the corp’s membership. In a week you can continue to target the current membership, and people who have decided not to be in the war can’t return effortlessly. I give you as attackers a benefit to help you fight at a cost of an object you risked rather than a nothing that makes filthy rich people free to continue doing the current uselessness. This gives defenders a means to fight back and a reason to finally because with nothing they can do to fight back we circle stations endlessly staring back and forth.
It’s boring to do that. It’s boring to be the targets who can’t fight back because the enemy won’t fight unless they win always. War is boring in it’s current format. It needs ANY kind of change to make it at least semi-interesting. With this tiny little base we have an effect we can actually start to look at which changes war.
■■■■ happens, events change, battles get fought. Or… player actions can result in nothing happening. Welcome to dock when wardec shows up. The station dance is yours?
Do you remember when it was important to dare to do things? I do… CCP does…
I miss the “here comes the boom”
I miss high sec and low sec having a use for this song.
Mental note… use my standard links, not gaming.
No. Right now can they leave their corporation and disband and return to the NPC corporation when they’ve decided they’re just getting pummeled and have too many losses.
With your suggestion can they not do it. Even when they undock will they end up getting podded and be send back into the station.
It’s too radical and can only increase the number of players leaving EVE when they have no more alternative.
A lot of players in EVE don’t know when to stop, and the only way to still keep playing is to get away from it. I’d say your wish of forcing players to stay in wars is your way of saying that you also don’t know when to stop.
Which of your statements is what you are presenting? That you can’t or you can currently do this?
What do you mean?
I’m still saying that your suggestion is too radical.
Statement A presents your opinion that larger corps will change into active driving out of smaller corps.
Statement B presents your opinion that larger corps already can active drive out smaller corps.
So is your objection that what currently happens is wrong and needs to be changed? It’s very confusing for you to change your opinion on what is wrong will continue to be wrong as an objection as it doesn’t change.