These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Corp Associates (alternative to Corp Lite / Social Corps)
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Drez Arthie
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#1 - 2015-02-03 00:10:32 UTC
There is discussion about creating new player community groupings, in addition to the current Corporations and Alliances, centered mostly on the social aspects of EVE. This possibility, together with the introduction of intra-corp CONCORD protection, is rightly viewed as a nerf to the "villain" role in high sec, since it allows PvE/industrial players to avoid attack from war aggressors and corp infiltrators with little penalty.

Instead of changing the nature of corporations and corp wars, change the nature of corp membership instead. The role of corporation associate is proposed, a sort of membership lite for social purposes. A player may only be a member of a single corporation, player or NPC, but can also become an associate of any number of player corporations. The associate joins the corp's chat channel, and the associate relationship is shown on their character sheet and the corp's information page.

The associate role carries little risk, since associates do not participate in the corporation's wars, either as attackers or defenders. However, the associate also gets no reward beyond social interaction, since they cannot use the corp's shared hangars, corp wallet or corp starbase modules. Risk and reward remain balanced. Please consider this alternative as a means of enhancing the EVE social experience without tampering with corp mechanics that have taken years to evolve to their current state.
Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd
#2 - 2015-02-03 00:15:57 UTC
You do understand that "Societies" would be in addition to existing corporations, right?

Also, you do understand that they wouldn't have the ability to put up towers? I don't know why you're upset about PvE players avoiding wars and infiltrators since they already do that in NPC corps.

The whole point of CCP introducing "Societies" (if they actually do it) and changing the awox mechanics is to get people out of NPC corps and into the larger social scene of EVE where they might instead go on to be part of something bigger and better.

I don't understand why people who hate that others stay in NPC corps are also opposed to getting people out of NPC corps.
Drez Arthie
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#3 - 2015-02-03 00:32:23 UTC
Alvatore DiMarco wrote:
You do understand that "Societies" would be in addition to existing corporations, right?

Also, you do understand that they wouldn't have the ability to put up towers? I don't know why you're upset about PvE players avoiding wars and infiltrators since they already do that in NPC corps.

The whole point of CCP introducing "Societies" (if they actually do it) and changing the awox mechanics is to get people out of NPC corps and into the larger social scene of EVE where they might instead go on to be part of something bigger and better.

I don't understand why people who hate that others stay in NPC corps are also opposed to getting people out of NPC corps.


Does the Societies idea also include that a character could belong to more than one society?
Nariya Kentaya
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#4 - 2015-02-03 00:34:24 UTC
Alvatore DiMarco wrote:
You do understand that "Societies" would be in addition to existing corporations, right?

Also, you do understand that they wouldn't have the ability to put up towers? I don't know why you're upset about PvE players avoiding wars and infiltrators since they already do that in NPC corps.

The whole point of CCP introducing "Societies" (if they actually do it) and changing the awox mechanics is to get people out of NPC corps and into the larger social scene of EVE where they might instead go on to be part of something bigger and better.

I don't understand why people who hate that others stay in NPC corps are also opposed to getting people out of NPC corps.

Im surprised more games didnt attempt the "societies" approach, back when I was a kid playing and watching the .hack// games/shows, a player in the series could be part fo a number of guilds at once, the reason? "why be forced to be only part of one official group and locked out of the others?"

always confused me why real MMOs didnt take the same idea.
Nariya Kentaya
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#5 - 2015-02-03 00:36:34 UTC
Drez Arthie wrote:
Alvatore DiMarco wrote:
You do understand that "Societies" would be in addition to existing corporations, right?

Also, you do understand that they wouldn't have the ability to put up towers? I don't know why you're upset about PvE players avoiding wars and infiltrators since they already do that in NPC corps.

The whole point of CCP introducing "Societies" (if they actually do it) and changing the awox mechanics is to get people out of NPC corps and into the larger social scene of EVE where they might instead go on to be part of something bigger and better.

I don't understand why people who hate that others stay in NPC corps are also opposed to getting people out of NPC corps.


Does the Societies idea also include that a character could belong to more than one society?

i do believe that twas the plan if i recall, people able to join/opt-in to groups based on certain functions, having all the benfits of a community, without the disadvantages that come from the mechanics/flag waving beign part of an actual corporation entails.

in short, corps are like your job, whereas societies are like signing up for your town's football and rugby teams. perfectly fine to be part of both (so long as schedules differ)
Drez Arthie
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#6 - 2015-02-03 00:42:59 UTC
Nariya Kentaya wrote:

i do believe that twas the plan if i recall, people able to join/opt-in to groups based on certain functions, having all the benfits of a community, without the disadvantages that come from the mechanics/flag waving beign part of an actual corporation entails.

in short, corps are like your job, whereas societies are like signing up for your town's football and rugby teams. perfectly fine to be part of both (so long as schedules differ)


In that case, this Associates idea is not very different from Societies. The difference is just that a corp with associates can also have full-fledged members, assets, etc., and that it would avoid adding a new grouping entity to the game.
Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd
#7 - 2015-02-03 00:46:36 UTC
There's nothing wrong with adding a new grouping identity and, in fact, the whole point is to add a new grouping identity to the game.
Drez Arthie
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#8 - 2015-02-03 00:51:35 UTC
Alvatore DiMarco wrote:
There's nothing wrong with adding a new grouping identity and, in fact, the whole point is to add a new grouping identity to the game.


It's easy to imagine a lot of corp-society pairs popping up e.g. "Bob and Jims Mining Corp" plus "Friends of Bob and Jims Mining", where everyone in the corp is also in the society, plus a few others are in the society. It would work but is just more clunky than a single entity (the corp) with various relationships to characters.