EVE General Discussion

I don't think you'll see that at all, and am willing to find out. Just to be clear, awox'ing was dropping a fleet on a blue, which will still be do-able in low and null, where it started. The change gives corps the option to not allow their members to shoot each other.
One unintended consequence of this change will be freighters who travel with webs. They will either have to allow intra-corp hostilities, or have limited engagements between the freigher and webber(s). Which either changes nothing for them, or means the awox'er has to volunteer as a webber. (woops, thats a point not a web.....)

Does it stop the people who joined someone's corp, went on a mission with them, then killed them? Sure, but that was in need of balancing, as they had all the reward of ganking (loot fairy) with none of the risk. It wasn't like there was a risk to it, the worst that happened was getting booted out of corp - which they were going to leave anyway.

I am for this that would also eliminate the need to give API or your own corp Awoxing you I assume because you would not be able to Grief these corps correct me if I'm Wrong.

Hi-sec is already "EVE-Lite" so I see no need for this corp-lite. The percentage of the EVE population that are "griefed" due to the current war-dec system is too small for this major a change. Just because a minority is loud does not negate that fact that they are indeed a minority.

Rarely, if ever. I've heard of newbie corps made by rookies being wardecced into stations, but this does not match being "driven out of the game". Yes, these corps collapse. Yes, those rookies learn valuable lessons. Those rookies then leave that corp, go join an established corp that can actually look after its members due to a proper setup and decent defence, and learn skills that will eventually put them on a path to being suitable to join their own corp. This type of risk-adverse BS is ridiculous; this game is not single-player, nor should it be made so that a small group of people can avoid game mechanics entirely. It can and will be abused. If you want people to be able to avoid war, give them a second server and good riddance. If a corporation can take part in the economic life of the game without any repercussions besides those which merit CONCORD retaliation then they have a ridiculously unfair advantage.

The problem is there is no point in being in a real corp for the majority if highsec players. Make a one man corp. No wardecs and you can still use mail lists and player channels to organize groups. Joining a corp only hurts you if you don't want to pvp. And if you do want a real corp, just fill it with inactives and Alts. Then have the real players all drop corp when wardecced.

There needs to be a reason beyond "I have honor!" For players to be in a high sec corporation if they nd don't use corporate hangars(most don't in highsec).

Handicapping players ability to play with friends is a terrible way to get them into wardecable corps.

Nice lattice-work discussion. As much is being left out as is included. It seems some posters believe they have a handle on the entire situation, and are fluent enough in the entire game dynamics to pose as authorities. However, if you read objectively, it looks like a Swiss cheese paradigm being parsed with a colander.

In such situations I'm reminded people tend to emphasize what they favor, leave out what doesn't interest them, and argue against what they have a grudge against. So, unless I see the level of objective authority rise in this "discussion", which I highly-doubt can happen, I'm sitting here praying CCP doesn't regard this thread as definitive of anything significant other than an exposé of how certain very vocal people "think".

That these CSM members are in it up to their elbows only tells me they have but a shallow understanding of matters such as these (monkeying with the dynamics of very complicated systems), and therefore inspire even less confidence, as they are seen to "represent" us. I agree:

Boycott the elections. Disband CSM. "We" promise we won't burn Jita again if you do. (Is it ridiculous enough yet?)
Lord knows what a bunch of gamers "flying" pixels around a station will do for your press.

A big heaping portion of revisionist history with a little conspiracy sprinkled on top and a side of egotistical preening is just what this thread needed.

Thanks, Shailagh.

Mr Epeen

We must be considerate of the goals being aimed to achieve when we evaluate a given change. The goal of a feature like social corps is to increase player interaction within highsec, in itself noble.

In the context of this feature standing on it's own we will predictably see a gain in interaction between friendly entities at a cost of loss of interaction between hostile entities. The argument to scrap the feature under such a realization is certainly understandable and it's hard to disagree with the worries brought up in the last 6 pages.

Within a different context though, could the feature cause not a loss of interaction between hostile entities, but a gain? Social corps introduced within a larger context can achieve this goal but that only begins when CCP engage in a more dignified discussion on the risk-reward model of all the choices players can make in the game. As long as we keep applying band-aids to a broken ankle, the ankle stays broken. What we need is a cast.

...who you are.