Senior CorpSec NPCs
Alternative to reducing equipment costs and adjusting rarity

We need more PC on PC conflict especially topside not to endorse more PvE, in my opinion.

NPCs in corpsec buildings are force multipliers and when these buildings are assaulted all of these NPCs become options for the GMs defend sovereign territory with. If they are in the open they may even respond on their own to a PC being attacked near them. Add NPCs that are even better equipped than usual and you're not really accomplishing anything unless you bring a ridiculous amount of firepower with you.

All resources that exist in the game came from player versus environment gameplay at the root, and the players that can claim they only supported themselves from player versus player gameplay were more privileged to be able to so, rather than more pure. Their rewards were still coming from PvE, they were just being laundered through the actions of others doing it.

There are PCs who have gear that can be taken though. A GM plot isn't really necessary in this case as even in the factions these NPCs would've been created in, there exist PCs with this type of equipment. Though it would be more accurate to say that a GM plot wishing up this gear isn't necessary, anything that brings chaos to the upper sectors and makes corporates more vulnerable is always welcome to me. I always play a filthy mixer so I do have a bias of course.

There are PCs who have gear that can be taken though.

How many people, do you think, would rather raid a corporate lobby than try to take a suit of Xo3 that never leaves an apartment on Green?

I suspect most people would choose the lobby raid, though I could be wrong.

I didn't speak up on this before because I didn't want to be contrarian but at least when it comes to upper levels of the game I don't think that the cost of equipment is why there's little to no physical conflict. It's more that nobody wants to die even when they do have the piles of spare gear and the chy to recover, which is because of a cultural shift that's occurred on the game.

One side "plays smart" and someone else suffers because of it, then everybody is "playing smart" and now nobody is opening themselves up to attack anymore. It's more stubborness and SD endgame PvP having become a numbers game.

There are characters who don't really exist in the world in that they have no actual routine, and only show up to be part of a mob. It may be a pessimistic point of view but I don't think making things cheaper is suddenly going to solve the play to win issue. Nobody dies because nobody is okay with dying.

That would be a more appropriate discussion for the original thread, but I'll respond here anyway, since I used gangs as an example in my original post.

Gangs fight constantly, die a lot sometimes, and rarely seem to back off the gas. If the problem is a "play to win" mentality, and not a matter of resources or cost, then why is ganging still being enjoyed by so many?

@Quotient

I agree with you and that's a problem I've been grappling with ever since I first had a max UE character, which was over half a decade ago. My point is more that this NPC you'd be hitting in a lobby raid will then be assisted by the same character who will get their Xo3 off of Green specifically for this one attack. Do we really need the people who can just play tower defense to receive additional support when they already have the standard building guards, some of whom have guns, as well as the WJF to call on?

I'd rather see more plots that put the corpsec agents with the Xo3 in danger because that accomplishes the same thing.

Here's the thing. I think they are not going to take the Xo3 off the mannequin. I think the more danger they believe they're in, the more they're going to try to rely on the NPCs to take the brunt of the damage, and put on less expensive/more common gear, like Protek. That is the strangeness of the situation of the game right now, where you do not wear the best armor in the game because it protects you from harm. You wear it when you are safest, for clout.

There are recent examples of this exact thing happening. Though I have seen the opposite as well (and hope those players got their comeuppance).

I'll give the game away a bit here and say that Xo3 as general use gear is a very bad idea unless you're max UE and sure you can properly contest the stat sheets of your enemies. This might seem really stupid but I think if you could eat and drink with a Xo3 helmet on the armor would actually be used more often than it is now. Things are disabled for realism or balance and they can make certain gear a pain to use. I would compare this to limiting what armor can be worn while using cyberware weapons because of coverage issues.

If in the mix then there's also the issue of being recognized everywhere you go due to the current rules on meta. You can disguise yourself as well as you want to but someone may guess that the guy always wandering around in hot pink Xo3 is you.

Topside this is of course different if you always have the support of the guards in the tower, but I've kinda lost steam arguing for people to wear certain gear if they don't want to. Would I like it if they wore the Xo3 and occasionally made themselves a target? Yes. Will that happen? Meh.

It ties into my point about players just not being willing to take the risk even if they can recover. Cheaper gear that is more readily available may lessen this problem somewhat but I don't think it'll get to the root of it. Again, potentially pessimistic opinion.

@0x

I'm definitely not pointing to myself there, players like Reefer and Villa have been good at taking hits and keeping it moving on the PvP scene for a while now. It's just… we used to all be able to find each other even one on one more frequently than we can now. We would take those risks and it would actually be more low stakes if you did die?

How you ask? Well if you realize that the opposition only comes outside when they are at their best your only option is to attempt to mobilize enough people to go after them all at the same time. This means that if you lose you are losing far more gear because more people on your mandatory team have died. It's ironic because the increased stakes and planning time make high level combat even less likely to happen.

Every time I've been able to engage a max UE PC who's rarely outside I've had to decide to just go for it and that puts me at an immense disadvantage. Eventually you decide to play it just as safe.

Just going to mention that I am not against prices being lowered, I just think it's not the entire issue.

I know you're not! I'm pointing to you! And I do agree with you that cost is part of the issue rather than the whole issue, and that the pressures on high-level conflict are somewhat unique and involve sunk costs that go way beyond literal chyen costs.

The issue stems from bad culture (eg class divide is not always mixer vs corpie, and corpies shouldn't take their jobs for granted) and bad expectations (eg no you can't can walk up to the VS tower with a death squad, set it on fire and murder everyone there then walk off to trumpets and confetti).

Combat is always going to be less common topside because it's bad for business, and doesn't make a lot of sense from a themely point of view for corps to kill each other on the street in plain broad light.

Corpies have the same venues of acquiring gear as mixers do, and even better. And corpies are allowed to go to Red on a safari hunting for gear. Any topside combat should be secretive, shadowy and on "unofficial grounds" to avoid diplomatic and PR disasters.

If you want hardcore every day on your face combat you should be a Mixer.

I'm going to laser focus on the "people coming to you to die" thing because it's repeated so often yet I've never understood who's actually asked for this. It's the ultimate strawman when it comes to SD PvP that anyone expects someone to just come out and be their victim.

A character deliberately not having any kind of routine is a choice that's made to avoid being targeted, this is okay on an IC level and I'm not going to ask that it's changed OOCly either because it does make sense. However, rarely is anyone ever actually falling for any trap and if someone walks into an ambush it's on purpose because they want to see what's going to happen or because they don't mind potentially taking a loss to move a plot forward.

This would be perceived by some to just be "showing up to die" but in reality the character doesn't know they may not walk out of that situation alive, the player does. It's the player's knowledge that this trap may lead to suffering that was suppressed in order for the character to get there anyway.

What's contradictory is also characters being "around" but usually when they're "around" they are also in a disguise, and in an attempt to not smallworld we can't realistically assume that they are nearby. Similarly I'm not going to ask that these characters go everywhere without a disguise on but I'm also not going to attack a shroud if I don't know who's behind it. Investigating a random shroud is also a bit much in most cases.

My point here has always been that in order for there to be a back and forth people have to be willing to show themselves, but it can't be forced. I am just acknowledging that if nobody is willing to show themselves then physical conflict at an endgame level will just never happen. It comes back to what I mentioned in an earlier post on this thread, that if we're all "playing smart" it's incredibly easy to just never die.

I'm going to laser focus on the "people coming to you to die" thing because it's repeated so often yet I've never understood who's actually asked for this. It's the ultimate strawman when it comes to SD PvP that anyone expects someone to just come out and be their victim.

A character deliberately not having any kind of routine is a choice that's made to avoid being targeted, this is okay on an IC level and I'm not going to ask that it's changed OOCly either because it does make sense. However, rarely is anyone ever actually falling for any trap and if someone walks into an ambush it's on purpose because they want to see what's going to happen or because they don't mind potentially taking a loss to move a plot forward.

This would be perceived by some to just be "showing up to die" but in reality the character doesn't know they may not walk out of that situation alive, the player does. It's the player's knowledge that this trap may lead to suffering that was suppressed in order for the character to get there anyway.

Let's say the location of my character's pad gets leaked. His input gets kidnapped. She's screaming on SIC for help. He rushes up to the door, opens it. Five shrouds standing right outside. Nope. Shuts the door. That bitch doesn't ride that well.

If your expected outcome from that situation is that he charge directly into those five shrouds, and "see how that turns out", I don't know what to tell you. There is some definite level of entitlement I pick up from PCs sometimes. Like "We all came here. Entertain us." There has to be a realistic limit of your expectations.

Could that scenario actually turn into something interesting? Sure. It could, but that's a one way road with a more or less certain outcome, engaging in that situation is entirely unrealistic. More importantly, is that sort of engagement worth it, beyond a certain point? This is my personal opinion, but that is something I would expect (and have participated in) at lower level conflicts. As impactful as high level conflicts can be, I expect more from those opponents than "I performed some low level, simple activity. Now, come here."

It comes back to what I mentioned in an earlier post on this thread, that if we're all "playing smart" it's incredibly easy to just never die.

This is probably the only thing I can fully agree with, but I also don't think a character dying is any sort of major contribution to the game except when it starts or allows a plot to come to its conclusion.

Beyond that, I just wanted to clarify that my comment on shrouds may have been worded poorly. I was not suggesting I, you, or anyone just go follow random shrouds. I was attempting to say that I enjoy the challenge of properly sussing out a target that utilizes them. This is directly in contrast to some of the sentiments that were voiced in the past that ultimately led to shrouds being updated to heavily impact agility, a change made as a direct result of people arguing that it was too difficult to locate a target that used them.

Again, I think we have very different playstyles and derive entertainment from different parts of the game, so I don't know if we're going to see eye to eye. I also don't know that this discussion (off topic as it is), can really proceed any further without hinting at IC events or characters. I do want to say though, that I have not really observed the things you're pointing out. Sort of the opposite, actually, which is why I quoted Bubbles earlier.

Expecting someone to run into five shrouds if they know those five shrouds are there is unreasonable. An example more in line with that I'm talking about would be:

An attack is reported at a corporate tower and all corpsec agents online are alerted through their key. One of them decides not to go at all because they feel like there's a reason someone might be waiting for them there. That agent doesn't actually know who's there or even if after they are being specifically hunted but the decision has been made to stay away.

It's fine that they made that decision in the interest of their own self preservation but their boss is probably not going to be happy with them.

I did get what you meant about shrouds though, what I was trying to say is that there often aren't really ways to figure out where someone is or what they're wearing unless you have access to certain equipment, and even then it's difficult. Visibility remains an issue if someone does not want to be seen.

On characters dying I tend to think that this is good in spite of perceivable progress to plot so you're right on us seeing things differently there. That's okay, I look at it more as gear entering the secondhand market especially when I know that a character has far more than I do. That statement isn't going to apply to most characters anyway.

I am also of the opinion that no one clone should be able to live forever and have a habit of going after endgame characters who haven't died in a while, or at least I used to have that habit. When I did it was with the mindset that when you're at your peak there's always going to want to be someone who wants access to things they believe you're gating access to, whether it's true or not. The new cartel always has to be more vicious than one which has already been established.

All of that said, I'm not telling anyone how to play, just the way I see things. I have been engaging with PvP less as of late because I've realized it's mostly come down to being a numbers game and that's always going to favor whoever's been around longest. I'm not about to hold it against anyone if they have their own reasons for not wanting to engage. To me it's just not as fun as it used to be, and to clarify when I did find it fun I was also taking losses, but there was a back and forth, characters who would wander around on their own after a victory. This is less the situation now.