EVE General Discussion

I sorry. I haz been in NPSI fleets before. They were full of people who I already knew of and respected. Folks who interacted with others (albeit in a 'only my priest and my doctor can touch me there' kind of way), yet they were also members of player driven organizations that enjoyed shooting at other players. Heck, while I still look forward to roaming with them again, I still must reconcile myself to the fact that I may in fact end up flying side by side with people who are ACTIVE WAR TARGETS.

How will I deal with this? Well, who freakin knows? I'll probably still show up, and if we end up turning around and shooting each other to death it will still be fun regardless. The suspense in this regards is almost half the fun... the rest is blapping the everloving bejesus out of any poor sod who stumbles across our path.

It's fun. It's like gambling... will X corp be at war with mine when the roam happens, or will they not? Does it matter? Not really as long as we all have fun in the process.

EDIT: Obligatory edit. The funny thing is, even if I were to turn round and just insinkerate said wartarget to antimatter and back, I'm sure THEY would understand and be able to laugh at it as readily as I. This is where we are facing the primary schism between the worldviews. Some folks are just taking things and themselves far too seriously.

Teamspeak and mumble are awesome for this. They let you directly connect with that icon on your screen from across the globe.
I find it really hard to dislike someone who's lighting my ship on fire when I can actually hear them giggling like an idiot over comms. It's just plain contagious.

The kinds of people you're discussing this with are more into a kind of ideology rather than observing what people actually do.

This whole discussion is moot, the 'societies' won't hurt anything because there are already many ways to avoid war decs and such, but neither will they help anything, because people who want to cooperate and communicate with people already do that with the tools they have.

It's dumb to believe that "if you just make this easier" people who weren't doing it before will suddenly change and start doing something. This is why CCPs quest to lower the game's barriers haven't resulted in some huge influx of new players, because it wasn't the barriers that were the problem, it was the general incompatibility of most gamers with what EVE really is (which is "an opportunity for freedom and self reliance", most gamers want direction and a good, immersive, interactive movie).

The 'societies" will simply be used by NPSI communities, null coalitions and incursion communities to formalize what they already do with chat and intel channels, they won't do squat for most players. CCP would be better off spending their time on things that might actually have an impact, like TREATIES.

They can be shot. NPSI groups follow the same rules as everyone else. They have to gank in highsec, get shot by gate guns in low sec and free fire in wh/null. That will be no different, they simply will have in-game tools to organise themselves rather than having to rely on a plethora of external tools.

That said, I've suggested in the past that social corps could also have free mutual only wardecs between each other if they want them to encourage more fighting in highsec between groups wanting to fight each other.

As single thing likely to bring in more players who are unaware of NPSI fleets: advertisement. Another? Simplicity of membership. Spectre is great, bu joining 3 mailing lists, a 2 chat channels and fumbling through welcome posts and motds for fits and info is a pain. Having an in-game list of available social groups that you can just click and apply to (or even freely join if they allow it) would go a long way to encouraging peopel to give more things a try.

Well, in post #360 I put down some ideas on specific implementations of in-game social tools. What do you think of them? It's worth nothing that these are ideas that do not impact gameplay whatsoever - everything in my list can be accomplished by third-party tools outside the game. Having CCP develop them in-game would simply make them more convenient and more visible to the playerbase, hopefully engaging new players more and leading to a richer, more populated New Eden.

Will they get to actually have corp hangars, posses, lower taxes even, things like that which have an ingame effect other than: we have a name and can hang out together and share fits and chat channels (which happens now also?)

No, they wont, according to the info we have. So the same reasons to join a corp instead of staying in a NPC corp.

Some people just wont be happy till noone plays their own style and plays like the person doing the talking. This goes for PVP and PVE both.

It's a good set of ideas, and maybe you're missing shared bookmarks in your list.

However, features like shared standings and fits, though convenient seem like "handing out" corp benefits without the downsides: APIs, Wardecs, obligation, and so on. I'm personally not an advocate of "stick" methods, and I don't think we should block players from collaboration tools just because we have a fundamental HTFU bylaw, but if Wardecs or corp histories or intrusive APIs are a problem, shouldn't we fix those so that players will want to join Player Corps to socialize?

I think what gets a lot of people about these suggestions is the distinct sense that Corporations are being abandoned for being fundamentally broken. Broken how? They come with too much risk. Doesn't this seem like we're paddling in the wrong direction to the ideas this game seems to be built on?

I'm not interested in being dogmatic about any single viewpoint is why I am asking these questions.

We don't know, neither you nor I, it hasn't been released yet. What we do know however is that in a delta from status-quo the carebears are proposing they get access to some corporation features as a new 'feature', without putting skin in the game and accepting risk of a wardec.

(Basically, they want their cake and eat it too. I actually don't care how big that slice of cake is, you need to pay the baker for it regardless...)


That's an unfair mischaracterization as ultimately the content-creators and conflict advocates like myself are quite happy if this 'societies' abomination simply dies in concept stage and status quo is maintained. I am not the one pushing any change on this issue, its the carebears that are pushing this 'societies' change to give NPC-corp hideouts access to corporation functionalities, without the wardec risk that should come with that.

The real measure of integrity you need to take of the people arguing both sides is this.... One side is up front and honest about advocating the preservation of existing non-consensual conflict drivers. The other side however pursues nerfs to status quo while pretending otherwise to avoid uprising.

I will let you decide which side is at least worthy of respect, and which is comprised of duplicitous pansies.

F

How about we simply agree to require that to join these envisioned 'societies', one must already be member of a full corporation first. Most importantly, if you revert to an NPC corp all your society memberships also drop, and you cannot rejoin those same societies for one week if you had active wars at the time.

I can get behind that, as long as these 'societies' arent ultimately a wardec avoidance tool.

I suspect however the envisioners of this new mechanic will never agree to these terms, because their real agenda is wardec avoidance, not simply 'tools' as they claim

Mike?

F

Nope, not can they wardec anybody else.



If you read what I am asking for I wonder if you notice which corp features I left out, that I am not suggesting for the Societies. Notice and material management? Hangers? Pos structures? No? Because I believe THEM to be in the domain of corps.

I do have lines of demarcation between Societies and Corps. and yeah, wardecs IS one of them. But not the only one.

m