EVE General Discussion

+1

Now "new CCP" is different from old CCP I think, they don't seem to be making as many mistakes. But yea, the whole "if CCP brings in all these new players, they will have more money to give us awesome stuff" thing is just dumb, like you say it's not supported at all by anything in CCP (or gaming, or business) history.

It's like saying "If I can get more people to eat McDonalds, McDonalds will improve their food because they are making more money!".

If anything, giving a business more money/customers makes things worse because of inflated unrealistic investor expectations (ie they expect you to be able to deliver ever increasing returns forever and when you don't good people start getting fired) and more apathy directed at customers (as a business gets larger, it gets more impersonal, think mom & pop corner store vs the customer service you get at Wal-Mart).

For some reason the "more money = happiness from ccp" crowd just didn't pay attention to how crap CCP was when it was a bigger company compared to now.

Looking at TQ population and the Rift's neverending development, I wouldn't worry much about CCP having any surplus of money anytime soon.

Noone's forgetting it. Please detail how this is bad, because the people who will go to this (if it turns out to be the corp variety), would have else stayed in NPC corps also, and would also not be able to be wardecked. Or how its different from people who'd just make their own one man corp and remake it if they are decced?

The only thing i read about the corp version is that its an NPC corp with your own name/logo. What's the problem there? The people creating/joining those will still have to pay the 11% tax and have all restrictions of an NPC corp, they just will have a chosen corp name/logo.

How is this "change" which is being discussed an attack/nerf on content creation? Considering that else those people would stay in an NPC corp anyway, and you can't wardec those either. You can still attack/gank them, just like you can now. You can do -everything- you can do now, to those people. They'll just have a corpname/logo of their own :p

(i'm going by the information we have now, without speculation of what might happen in the specifics. Only going by the facts now)

The map and the stats tell me that any pvper worth their salt is losing faction hulls in GE- while this hisec detail is being fiddled with.
I look forward to the howling whine-storm incoming from the truly entitled: the empire wardec zombies. Immune to decs doesn't mean immune to pvp, it means a regulation of the harassment of newbros and those committed to pecking empire crumbs forever.
Hateful illiterates like OP fail to recognise that a section of the playerbase just freeze up when faced with player aggression. Their temperament will never be able to thrive under endless violence. Notice how none of my posts suggest new policy? I applaud ccp for treading a fine line: keeping the game harsh and challenging, while not chasing away all but a narrow crowd of Redbull chugging leet pvp bros.
Empire decs are for interrupting null logistics, you want non-pansy action?
Get out of hisec, sweety.

Ok. Please point me to where it would give the corp any benefit other than Name/Logo? That is the only information we have gotten sofar, not a single benefit other than basically a chat and name, all other things the same as in a NPC corp (so no POS, no wardecs themselves. Purely a social thing. I'd like to see an example of your: "hang on, we can get everything we needed to make a corp for, but with extra benefits", based on the official info we have available. These people would just make a corp anyway with an alt, one man or small, and leave corp/afk when they are decced, and have a lot more of the benefits ;).

Also: what you are thinking is what if people will regress to such a corp. Why wouldn't it also work the other way around and people use social corps as a stepping stone and go from NPC to social to full corp?

The corp is even just one of the options. From the info we got they are also looking at cross corp social groups (alliance/coalition lite :p).

Imo, anything that can bring people together can be a good thing and should be encouraged. Speculating now wont do any good so just stick to the info given and based on that give your feedback. If CCP actually would say they get controllable taxes or anything, i'm not pro either but nowhere is it stated (except by rumormongers) that any social corp would get any benefit whatsoever ingame which couldn't be had by using a chat channel and fleeting up.

Edit: i really need to learn how to write "benefit" :p

So every one makes one man corps. and just remakes them when they get wardeced. All that with a 0% tax

Why the stipulation of "other than"? Do you not consider a name and logo a key benefit of forming your own corp (I would say an "identity" is one of the largest, and certainly one of the most common reasons for players to wish to band together)? Sure, a name would be a requirement (for database and invite/acceptance purposes at the least), but why a logo? Should Diet Corps even be shown on a character sheet or a forum sidebar like a "Full" Corp. What then would make it easy to identify a Corp as a "Full" one or a Diet one? Should you be able to see the difference from the outside? If we can't, then what is the point of a "Full" Corp to the line member without POS roles or hanger access anyway? The answers to these questions shouldn't be viewed as a given.

But even that aside, its a little churlish to suggest those of us opposed to this step cannot make a stance clear just because something has not been clearly indicated as a feature. I would argue that anything that hasn't been clearly stated as not being a feature is potentially on the table and needs to be considered and discussed (How would CCP know whether changeable tax rates are or are not acceptable if we don't mention it?)

Why are they playing this game, then?

"I get scared easily and have a heart condition, but oh boy, I just can't wait to go to that haunted house attraction I've seen some advertisements for!"


Question:

Why should I get out of high-sec, if the pvp it offers is both extremely satisfying, and the most profitable?


Sounds like an issue that should be addressed.

See, now you're just being silly.

So, in your opinion, these corps will absolutely not have a CEO (who designs the logo?), ability to assign Roles (who accepts applications?), ability to form fleets (might want to let the Bombers Bar and other NPSI groups know who earlier in the thread were assuming this is a feature), or have a notice board. See? There are going to be "other" features, and talking about which ones are or are not acceptable is only sensible.

I'll use an example of Roles here; no-ones talked about them in this thread, so what do we assume, they are in or out? It would be easy to cast them out thoughtlessly as a lot of things they govern will be gone (no worrying about stations, hangers, POSes, etc), but someone still has to accept and reject applications, and kick troublesome members. Is this being dumped solely on the shoulders of the Corps creator? I would say that is a guaranteed way to cause problems (CEO on holiday for a fortnight, no-one can kick the troublemaker spamming corp chat and making everyones life miserable). So if Roles are in, does this mean the ability to appoint a new CEO is in. So, do we need shares to be in? It goes on. Assumptions are the mother of all F-ups.

There are a lot of ideas for this, but they'd all be wasted breath, really. Because the carebears talk about how nice it would be to give corporations true meaning with the face on the front of their heads, but the face on the back talks about how everyone would quit if there's even a shred of profitability difference between being in an NPC corporation and a player-made one.