These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
12Next page
 

Corporate Teamwork and Member Incentive

Author
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#1 - 2013-05-20 16:04:03 UTC  |  Edited by: Nikk Narrel
Here is an idea I think will give corporations a more attractive aspect.

It also could be used to incentivize group play more, even if it is only a few players with multiple accounts in reality.

Version One: Mining and ratting bonus for members fleeted and on grid together.
For mining, additional bonus for each rorqual and / or orca on grid.
(boosting would stack with this, reflecting how teamwork is always better than soloing, and give boosters incentive to be on grid)

PvP? Possible bonus to this as well, but I would tread more carefully due to balance issues.

Maybe an increasing 1% per month PvE bonus for mining and ratting bonus for corp members, tied to being on grid with corp members.
After 6 months, you are getting 5% bonus, and it caps out till 1 year, when it goes up another 2% on your anniversary each year.

Add a deployed object on grid to the requirements of being on grid with corp mates to get that bonus.

The object can be placed and taken down in 5 minutes. It is disposable, but still expensive enough to be missed.
(Price point will reflect maximum bonus it can support, so older corps with higher bonus potential can afford the higher value deployable objects)

This creates a desire to protect an object, which is vulnerable.
This allows the object to be taken down in the event noone is willing to defend it from hostiles. The bonus will not be available while it is not active and on grid.

This means that PvE players during a war dec are risking a high ISK item in order to PvE, or can arrange for defense.

I also see this as something that will also encourage corp member retention during war decs, since losing and then rebuilding that bonus will feel worse than worrying about being attacked to many.
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#2 - 2013-05-20 16:52:57 UTC
Well shoot, there are so many stickies on page one the average thread has to be in the top 4 or 5 to have a chance being seen...

mumble mumble
Zor'katar
Matari Recreation
#3 - 2013-05-20 17:28:06 UTC
A couple of problems with individual incentives:

  • Only discourages people from leaving corp, doesn't encourage participation. They could just go play on another character until the war is over.
  • Not very "sandboxy".


Instead, give perks to the corporations in the form of deployable structures that can't just be pulled down in the wardec warm-up period. The corporations themselves will handle incentives for the individual pilots.

Just please make sure it's opt-in, so casual players who just want to bum around missioning with a couple of friends can continue to do so.
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#4 - 2013-05-20 17:35:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Teckos Pech
Zor'katar wrote:
A couple of problems with individual incentives:

  • Only discourages people from leaving corp, doesn't encourage participation. They could just go play on another character until the war is over.
  • Not very "sandboxy".


Instead, give perks to the corporations in the form of deployable structures that can't just be pulled down in the wardec warm-up period. The corporations themselves will handle incentives for the individual pilots.

Just please make sure it's opt-in, so casual players who just want to bum around missioning with a couple of friends can continue to do so.


What impact will deployable structures have on server load?

As for not encouraging participation:

Quote:
Version One: Mining and ratting bonus for members fleeted and on grid together.


Seems like that not only would encourage participation (you have to participate to get the bonuses) but also working together (you have to be on grid together).

Quote:
I also see this as something that will also encourage corp member retention during war decs, since losing and then rebuilding that bonus will feel worse than worrying about being attacked to many.


Would there be a degrading effect? The degrading effect might have a slight positive effect in getting corps that would normally dock up and wait out the war to undock and fight.

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online

Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#5 - 2013-05-20 17:48:54 UTC
Zor'katar wrote:
A couple of problems with individual incentives:

  • Only discourages people from leaving corp, doesn't encourage participation. They could just go play on another character until the war is over.
  • Not very "sandboxy".

You can't always make people participate in a war directly. PvP as combat will never appeal to everyone on that level.
But those willing and able to defend fellow pilots and assets will have more reason to take part in war activities.

As to being sandboxy, forcing participation rather than incentivising it fails that test more than anything else.


Zor'katar wrote:
Instead, give perks to the corporations in the form of deployable structures that can't just be pulled down in the wardec warm-up period. The corporations themselves will handle incentives for the individual pilots.

Just please make sure it's opt-in, so casual players who just want to bum around missioning with a couple of friends can continue to do so.

Deployable structures... if the corp had this mindset they would find existing POS items able to meet their needs.
With this, you suggest corps gamble over investments of time and ISK, when the players don't always have enough of either in amounts they can spare this way.

I find it more reasonable that the corp gives them enhanced playing ability, specifically when teaming up with other corp members. As the pilots gain skill using corp supported teamwork bonuses, it helps them even more.
(That is why it improves over time)
Zor'katar
Matari Recreation
#6 - 2013-05-20 18:22:46 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
As for not encouraging participation:

Quote:
Version One: Mining and ratting bonus for members fleeted and on grid together.


Seems like that not only would encourage participation (you have to participate to get the bonuses) but also working together (you have to be on grid together).

Sorry, I meant participating in the war.
Zor'katar
Matari Recreation
#7 - 2013-05-20 18:23:21 UTC
Nikk Narrel wrote:
You can't always make people participate in a war directly. PvP as combat will never appeal to everyone on that level.
But those willing and able to defend fellow pilots and assets will have more reason to take part in war activities.

100% agreed.

Nikk Narrel wrote:
As to being sandboxy, forcing participation rather than incentivising it fails that test more than anything else.

I'm not advocating forced individual participation (I have quite to opposite goal, actually), but an opt-in way for corporations to voluntarily expose themselves to increased risk in order to gain additional benefits. Anyone can opt out of that by simply not putting up the structures. Those who decide to put them up will need to provide incentives for their members to stick around and defend the corporate assets during war.

Nikk Narrel wrote:
Deployable structures... if the corp had this mindset they would find existing POS items able to meet their needs.

Not really. A POS has a fairly limited set of uses in highsec, and can be torn down before a wardec takes effect. I'm recommending expanding the list of options available, and basically providing a way for corporations to tweak the risk/reward balance to their own personal comfort level.

Nikk Narrel wrote:
With this, you suggest corps gamble over investments of time and ISK, when the players don't always have enough of either in amounts they can spare this way.

Then they're welcome to not put any structures up (besides possibly the current POSes if they can live together peacefully), and continue on just like they are today.

Nikk Narrel wrote:
I find it more reasonable that the corp gives them enhanced playing ability, specifically when teaming up with other corp members. As the pilots gain skill using corp supported teamwork bonuses, it helps them even more.
(That is why it improves over time)

The key there being that the corp should give them bonuses. Your system produces bonuses out of thin air, which is sort of the nature of my "not sandboxy" comment.

Xeros Black
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#8 - 2013-05-20 18:57:25 UTC
Agree their should be some bonus to being in a player corp besides the use of a corp hanger and a pos in high sec. I like the idea of a depolyable structure that hold the corp charter which can be upgraded in various ways. You could make it similar FW plexes instead of the ridiculous IHUB grinds. The location of the upgrade should be limited to the home system of the corp. My thoughts on what the upgrades should look like are as followed.

(Snipped this from another of my posts)

My thought was an upgradable corp charter that gives bonuses, upgrades would include a concord monthly fee depending on the upgrade and level. Each fee could be set as a flat rate or a per member rate depending on how CCP wanted to balance it. Upgrades could include mining yield, rat bounty, scan probe strength or speed, PI yields or any other non PVP related attributes. These upgrades would be similar to implants in scale 1-5 or 1-10% increase. You shouldn't be able to have all the upgrades running at the same time so you must make a choice to specialize in whatever your doing.

My 2 Cents
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#9 - 2013-05-20 19:47:17 UTC
Zor'katar wrote:
Nikk Narrel wrote:
Deployable structures... if the corp had this mindset they would find existing POS items able to meet their needs.

Not really. A POS has a fairly limited set of uses in highsec, and can be torn down before a wardec takes effect. I'm recommending expanding the list of options available, and basically providing a way for corporations to tweak the risk/reward balance to their own personal comfort level.

I think this is a key point where we have differing views.

The sample corporations, in many cases, exist strictly to play together with the PvE game aspect.
These groups find enough challenge in predictable fights with NPCs, and are already put off by the idea of suicide ganking (often unavoidable), and war decs (leave the now toxic corporate shell to avoid).

Now, to get bonuses, the idea that they would need to establish exposed war targets fails to take into account a rather important detail.
If they are not good at PvP, they cannot realistically defend them.
(They are probably not willing to consider trying, or else they would have developed some PvP skills)

To them, this means it must either be disposable, or not bothered with in the first place.
In both cases, remaining with their corp is meaningless, that bonus is going to be lost once the attacking force gets around to it.

It is better to have a difficult target, than none at all.
Maybe they will sit in the station ship spinning, maybe they will undock and try to PvE as a group for protection in numbers.
But if they feel enough value exists to remain in corp, they remain as targets as well.
They would not have logged in if they were not considering undocking, or at least playing to some degree.

Mary Annabelle
Moonlit Bonsai
#10 - 2013-05-20 20:01:22 UTC
There there, Nikk.

I think I see a major difference in what you two are trying to do.

Nikk is trying to give members a reason to not dump corp during a war dec, as well as promote team play over soloing.
Good stuff, even if he gets one guy with 5 accounts at least CCP makes a buck.

Zorkatar is trying to get pilots to defend an object in space. The incentive is that it gives PvE bonuses.

Two problems: One that they have to want both PvP as well as PvE style, which is probably not as many players as you think.
Two, if it is just the PvE guys who are wanting that bonus, hardly surprising, they will dump corp the moment their structure gets popped, since they no longer have a stake in the outcome of the war.

Zork's idea only has value if it is used in the first place, meaning no change the rest of the time, and no value after it gets popped either.
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
#11 - 2013-05-20 20:11:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Mike Voidstar
As I said in the other thread where this was suggested:

Quote:
I have certainly said in enough threads that one of the biggest issues with current PvP is that there is nothing worth dying for. There is plenty worth killing for, but nothing to die for.

It's an interesting idea to start granting bonuses to corps for PvE activities, expecially if you can tie them not only to the corp, but a specific area so that it does not become a simple matter to simply move about 20 jumps and resume as if nothing happened.

A new tier of Mission, meant to be run in groups (I know level 5's exist) with appropriate additional reward, that only unlocks from an agent once a certain corp standing is reached with that specific agent. Special LP store rewards could also be possible.

These benefits should degrade over time, so that the activitiy must remain continuous and active to attain and retain the bonus.

People will still evade war decs, but at least they would now have a reason to stand their ground.



Certain Agents, similar to locator agents, could be added so that a corp looking to start a war could research their enemies and see who has upgrades and might be less likely to flee a wardec because of them. Other info like current corp wallet balance, member locations, etc could also be made available for a price. Even better if hacking were upgraded so that any POS could be hacked for this information as well, and in general if POS could be hacked and had jobs and stuff installed in them and lock out the slots from the owning corporation.


I think the most important aspect of a plan like this would be that the effects degrade reasonably quickly---Someone should have to be in space doing something to support the bonus at least a little while every few days.

Secondly, limiting the scope, so that it focuses a corps efforts into a limited number of systems, providing them the incentive to stay and fight for their bonus.

I also think a way to improve the nature of war is to widen war efforts into more than just pewpew, which is why I suggest adding wartime utility to professions like Hackers, and I am sure other things could play in as well. Perhaps a system where a primarily PvE corp could run missions for an agent and instead of the standard reward they could chose to lower an enemy corp's standing with that corporation, or otherwise degrade the value of the missions or restrict their ability to place orders in the station, use station facilities, etc. Essentially you start working for an NPC corp to deny or degrade your war targets utility with that NPC corp, creating a sort of cold war between them played out through NPC proxies.


I mean, could you imagine a scenario where Grieftech Inc. decides to wardec Ratwreckers Inc. At first things go poorly for the Ratwreckers, as they are inexperienced in PvP, but over time they manage to begin a smear campaign against Grieftech, denying them access to station services such as repair, perhaps even eventually degrading their standing with the NPC corps so much that they are denied entrance to any stations owned by the NPC corp or the NPC corp begins to supplement the bounty on them giving Ratwreckers more incentive to engage Grieftech directly. As the cold war drags on supply chains lengthen, refits for ship loss become problematic, life in general becomes harder.

Expand the scope of war so that players of all professions can contribute and you will find more willing to engage on ground of their own choosing.
Zor'katar
Matari Recreation
#12 - 2013-05-20 20:31:11 UTC
Nikk Narrel wrote:
I think this is a key point where we have differing views.

The sample corporations, in many cases, exist strictly to play together with the PvE game aspect.
These groups find enough challenge in predictable fights with NPCs, and are already put off by the idea of suicide ganking (often unavoidable), and war decs (leave the now toxic corporate shell to avoid).

Now, to get bonuses, the idea that they would need to establish exposed war targets fails to take into account a rather important detail.
If they are not good at PvP, they cannot realistically defend them.
(They are probably not willing to consider trying, or else they would have developed some PvP skills)

To them, this means it must either be disposable, or not bothered with in the first place.
In both cases, remaining with their corp is meaningless, that bonus is going to be lost once the attacking force gets around to it.

It is better to have a difficult target, than none at all.
Maybe they will sit in the station ship spinning, maybe they will undock and try to PvE as a group for protection in numbers.
But if they feel enough value exists to remain in corp, they remain as targets as well.
They would not have logged in if they were not considering undocking, or at least playing to some degree.

I don't really disagree with any of that. Point is that the casual corps that don't want to invite any undue attention will just continue on as they are now, ignoring the new perks. The corporations that are willing to put out a little risk can put up the new structures and organize incentives for corp members to stick around and help defend in times of war.

The current state of affairs is that no highsec corps have any reason to stick around and fight when war is declared against them, so all the "Eve is harsh" crowd take to the forums to complain that highsec life is too easy, and you get the proliferation of threads calling for wardecs to follow individuals leaving corps and so on.

Under a system such as I described, the corps looking for war will be able to identify targets that will be far more likely to show up and fight, which makes them happy. The corps that voluntarily took a risk will be the ones defending, which may not make them actually happy, but at least they'll theoretically be more prepared to fight and/or hire mercs for defense than your average corporation currently. And the casual small corps that want nothing to do with PvP will benefit from not being an attractive target compared to those who have structures deployed.

The corps who are worst off are those that like to pad their killboards with weak targets. If they go after the casual corps, the war will be evaded by the usual methods. If they take to the forums to complain, you can tell them to shut up and choose better targets.

Ruze
Next Stage Initiative
#13 - 2013-05-20 20:49:26 UTC
Mary Annabelle wrote:
There there, Nikk.

I think I see a major difference in what you two are trying to do.

Nikk is trying to give members a reason to not dump corp during a war dec, as well as promote team play over soloing.
Good stuff, even if he gets one guy with 5 accounts at least CCP makes a buck.

Zorkatar is trying to get pilots to defend an object in space. The incentive is that it gives PvE bonuses.

Two problems: One that they have to want both PvP as well as PvE style, which is probably not as many players as you think.
Two, if it is just the PvE guys who are wanting that bonus, hardly surprising, they will dump corp the moment their structure gets popped, since they no longer have a stake in the outcome of the war.

Zork's idea only has value if it is used in the first place, meaning no change the rest of the time, and no value after it gets popped either.


I think both problems need addressed, as well. I offered a similar solution here:

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=237672&find=unread

In short, a two-way mechanic that can increase capabilities with both corp-wide bonuses very similar to character skills, and modules in space that provide additional (yet different) bonuses to defend in space ... if they corp wishes to invest in them.

Altogether the goals are the same: give players a reason to stay, to fight or maybe pay someone else to fight, and give a more resounding difference and benefit to choosing player corporations over NPC corps.

If you're driven to threaten others with harm or violence because of what they do in game, you can't separate fantasy from reality. That "griefer/thief" is probably more sane than you are. How screwed up is that?

Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#14 - 2013-05-20 21:30:54 UTC
Zor'katar wrote:
Under a system such as I described, the corps looking for war will be able to identify targets that will be far more likely to show up and fight, which makes them happy. The corps that voluntarily took a risk will be the ones defending, which may not make them actually happy, but at least they'll theoretically be more prepared to fight and/or hire mercs for defense than your average corporation currently.

That might be the core of the problem there.

Shift your perspective.

Using the cyno bait trap as an analogy, the one baiting the trap is not genuinely in need of the cyno except as a trap.
Therefore, it often fails to serve it's original logistics purpose of moving cap ships.

This structure will be scanned down by PvP interests the same way a PvE pilot hunts a hidden belt or anomalie.
Just to get in and get what they want.

That deployable structure will be more of an advertisement for war deccing corps than a realistic bonus provider to PvE pilots.

Following that logic, corps looking for war decs will be posting these things like date requests on EVE Harmony, hoping to get a war hookup with another corp.

Great for PvP, but I don't believe it will benefit PvE as much, or corp member retention. I think they won't stay or leave based on how much the bonus is for PvE, but whether or not they enjoy PvP.
Danika Princip
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#15 - 2013-05-20 23:01:02 UTC
Nikk Narrel wrote:
Here is an idea I think will give corporations a more attractive aspect.

It also could be used to incentivize group play more, even if it is only a few players with multiple accounts in reality.

Version One: Mining and ratting bonus for members fleeted and on grid together.
For mining, additional bonus for each rorqual and / or orca on grid.
(boosting would stack with this, reflecting how teamwork is always better than soloing, and give boosters incentive to be on grid)

PvP? Possible bonus to this as well, but I would tread more carefully due to balance issues.

Maybe an increasing 1% per month PvE bonus for mining and ratting bonus for corp members, tied to being on grid with corp members.
After 6 months, you are getting 5% bonus, and it caps out till 1 year, when it goes up another 2% on your anniversary each year.

I also see this as something that will also encourage corp member retention during war decs, since losing and then rebuilding that bonus will feel worse than worrying about being attacked to many.



Please, boost ISBoxer users some more :3
Xeros Black
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#16 - 2013-05-20 23:18:39 UTC
I think as a structure that upgrades a corp yet provides a hard immobile target is both a static target and also a defense point where allied fleets can focus on. Even if the PVE corp doesn't rise to the occasion they are much more likely to hire a merc corp to defend their asset that they put billions in. I think it could add more conflict to the game and the bonuses to the corp over the corps that manage to keep it would pay itself off in the long run. Both in increase income/minerals and increased members ship from having a corp with bonuses established. Rewards should be perportional to the effort expended and someone thats willing to risk the extra assets in construction and defense of the structure will be rewarded for it.
Zor'katar
Matari Recreation
#17 - 2013-05-21 00:44:23 UTC
Nikk Narrel wrote:
That might be the core of the problem there.

Shift your perspective.

Using the cyno bait trap as an analogy, the one baiting the trap is not genuinely in need of the cyno except as a trap.
Therefore, it often fails to serve it's original logistics purpose of moving cap ships.

This structure will be scanned down by PvP interests the same way a PvE pilot hunts a hidden belt or anomalie.
Just to get in and get what they want.

Except it's not nearly as simple. It'll require intel and logistics, and in the end they're up against an entity that has actual skin in the game. Your example also points at another potential pitfall for war-hungry corps: other PvP corps could set the structures up as bait to get a free war.

Nikk Narrel wrote:
That deployable structure will be more of an advertisement for war deccing corps than a realistic bonus provider to PvE pilots.

Following that logic, corps looking for war decs will be posting these things like date requests on EVE Harmony, hoping to get a war hookup with another corp.

There's lots of space between avoiding war at all costs and looking for war.

Nikk Narrel wrote:
Great for PvP, but I don't believe it will benefit PvE as much, or corp member retention. I think they won't stay or leave based on how much the bonus is for PvE, but whether or not they enjoy PvP.

Yeah, here's one where we definitely disagree. I think if balanced properly, corps that deploy these things will set up ship replacement programs and rewards for members that stick around and participate in the war, giving people a change to dabble without (much) personal investment. Some corps may require that people stick around, others may have a more open-door policy for those who really want to fight. Players will eventually gravitate to the corp that fits their style, and everyone will benefit (except those looking for easy targets).

Look at it this way. Right now it's trivial for players/corporations to avoid wardecs (except for the big ones that have a reputation to uphold or lots of infrastructure to maintain, and they probably have backing outside highsec). That situation is probably not going to last. The low/null crowd likes to shout about risk/reward imbalance, and they're not wholly wrong. We can either sit back and let them raise the risk floor for everyone with some heavy-handed hack like preventing pilots from leaving corps at war, or we can suggest something that will satisfy them while ensuring that those who just aren't interested in PvP don't get forced into wars. That's what I'm going for.
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#18 - 2013-05-21 01:05:21 UTC
I'm looking for something that can do two things, using as an example a small PvE corp with no interest in PvP specifically.
Not genuinely risk averse, but they need a good reason to NOT simply abandon the corp shell as toxic the moment it gets war decced.

I selected this as an example due to it's position on the extreme end of the spectrum that could reasonably be influenced by such a change.
PvP corps, as stated already, will grab this as an opportunity to attract wars, as would corps balanced to already have sov and holdings.

Something that could advertise them as interested in being active for PvP would be seen as sending the wrong message, and attracting undesired attention. No bonus but not being hunted would appeal to many who prefer a more casual experience, and are likely inclined to dump corp to avoid stress such as a war dec.

Now, if a player corp offered a bonus to corp teamwork, present in all corps so noone drew attention by deploying targets to be shot at more than their own ships already, then they are defending an earned seniority bonus.
It makes player corps more attractive, since NPC corps would not offer this bonus.

I think we would rather have them ship spinning in station waiting out the war dec, than just dumping corp to go on about their business.

That bonus keeps them with a target on their back, because they own it only so long as they keep that corp tag.
Losing it for 6 months or more as it rebuilt in another corp could feel like forever.

And while waiting, they can choose to take risks in a group to go out and play too.

I see this as a balanced solution to make players want to stay in corp, and take a risk, instead of bailing out.
Zor'katar
Matari Recreation
#19 - 2013-05-21 01:44:16 UTC
Nikk Narrel wrote:
I think we would rather have them ship spinning in station waiting out the war dec, than just dumping corp to go on about their business.

Not really. I would rather see people leave the corp and do something fun for a week than sit in station spinning their ship just because they don't want to lose their bonus. In fact, I think that would end up causing a lot of resentment among pilots who could be off doing something fun, but feel trapped because they don't want to break the chain. And it doesn't really encourage pilots to care about their corporation... only about their bonus.
Ruze
Next Stage Initiative
#20 - 2013-05-21 01:49:28 UTC
Zor'katar wrote:
Nikk Narrel wrote:
I think we would rather have them ship spinning in station waiting out the war dec, than just dumping corp to go on about their business.

Not really. I would rather see people leave the corp and do something fun for a week than sit in station spinning their ship just because they don't want to lose their bonus. In fact, I think that would end up causing a lot of resentment among pilots who could be off doing something fun, but feel trapped because they don't want to break the chain. And it doesn't really encourage pilots to care about their corporation... only about their bonus.


I would rather they dish some money together, hire a pvp corp to fight for them, and get some time in space during the war dec.

What, is it just me? If they can hire you to mine, why can't you hire them to fight?

If you're driven to threaten others with harm or violence because of what they do in game, you can't separate fantasy from reality. That "griefer/thief" is probably more sane than you are. How screwed up is that?

12Next page