EVE General Discussion

The key question is which of these necessitates being in a corp. Revisions to crimewatch made it possible to attempt mutual defense against any eligible aggressor without being in their corp. Support in the form of boosts is fleet based rather than corp. In pooling resources cans can be abandoned and trade or contacts created to transfer assets. All of this still requiring the same level of trust as being in a corp and doing the same.

So again we don't have a reason to join a corp vs being in independent single corps and just working together anyways. Also the activities involved there are non taxable. So we still have a useless function in that 10% tax.

Plus, even if we're forced out of npc corps, and into player corps, what makes people actually think we'll do what they say to begin with? The entire corps warring somewhere over in null, screaming at all available bodies to get in there, and I'd be way out in highsec, twiddling my thumbs and ignoring every cry/command. Rather be floating alone in the dark than dealing with some corp I wanted nothing to do with in the first place.

A thousand times this. The auto response to "herp derp, you belong in a player corp" needs to be this.

Removed some off topic posts. Keep it civil and on topic please. Thank you.

On the first part, CCP's data suggests otherwise and even if it didn't, it doesn't matter.

CCP have said that players who take part in more social aspects early have higher retention. That was the correlation they have referred to. That includes many aspects other than pvp. Market trading, using chat channels, taking part in fleets, combat pvp, manufacturing and selling, using voice comms have all been stated by CCP as types of activities that retained players take part in early and CCP are interested in trying to expose that 90% of unretained players to those kinds of experiences.

There is nothing about a new player Corp or the old tutorials that exposed players to that. New players try the game and end up playing solo without structures around them that actively encourage trying those more social activities that some of them might like.

That's where the move to player Corps is one way that CCP have also stated, provides greater exposure to those things. Being in a player Corp isn't itself a cause for higher retention. Player corps however do have much higher rates of use of voice comms, use of chat channels, fleet operations, pvp activities, industry activities, etc., especially when compared to starter corps.

Some starter Corps also have many of those things (eg. CAS), but it's not part of what the structure of a starter corp is in comparison to what is acheived in the organisation of player Corps many of which also go way beyond that with irc servers, slack teams, forums, wikis, new player starter kits, skill plans, training sessions, teamspeak, mumble, buyback programs, fitted ship contracts, 1-on-1 mentors, instructional videos, ship replacement programs for new players and specific targets they aim for.

Starter Corps provide minimal input to helping people find that sort of content, where player Corps often include all of that content.

So it's not about player corps as such. If starter corps provided that environment as part of what they did, then the idea of encouraging people to move to player corps wouldn't need to be considered. But they don't, where player corps provide that opportunity that CCP are trying to encourage (as stated by CCP).

On the second part, I totally agree. Kind of what this is all about.

Hells bells, even if it were true that people just want to make highsec pvp more accessible and more widespread by giving NPC corps the nerf they have deserved for half a decade...

How is that a bad thing? PvP activity is undeniably the best path to better player retention anyways. If your interests are in the way of that, sucks to be you for standing in the way of improving the game.

The pvp aspect isn't the one on trial here. It's the part of some omni brain trust telling us who and who we can't pvp against.

I'll give you a list of reasons why people stay in NPC corps.


They're and alt of a null/low/worm player... (safe isk) also... this is not me.


Here are the reasons why non-alts stay in NPC corps


1) Awoxing
2) Reverse awoxing
3) Non-consensual wars that favor the aggressor
4) We don't like null/wh/low
5) We're casual players that don't like being forced to do something
6) We can't trust other players... because of other players...
7) Bad corp leaders
8) The casual corps we want to be in are surprisingly not active enough to merit being in a corp
9) There's not much positive outcome from being in a player corp
10) Most of the people in a player corp that will fleet up, have crap ships. So, you're essentially carrying the load.
11) If you're joining a player corp to learn stuff, they typically know less than you do.
12) Stupid arguments of stupid things.
13) Did I mention Non-consensual wars that favor the aggressor?


I'm sure I could think of more if I really dug into it, but why?

I would instead argue that is an issue with a lack of attrition being enforceable against bad player corps.

I would argue this has increased recruitment for ALL corps.
Most players aren't worried about reverse awoxing in obviously casual corps.

Most are worried about joining a corp in a major alliance, just so they can blow up your ship and take all your hard earned goodies.