EVE General Discussion

How is this different to a corp? If you are telling me Spacemonkeys put coalition fits and all their alliance info in the in-game corp notice board, I will call you a liar. Do Spacemonkeys use the in-game calander to schedule ops? Of course not. All this will be found on Spacemonkeys forums. Whats stopping Spectre fleet running a forum?

Eli wrote a good piece back there and I recommend folks go back and read it.

I was answering off the cuff and still sipping my morning coffee so I did not have the full wish list to hand.

On a related note I have asked for (in the past) expiring bookmarks that might last a day or for the duration of the fleet to better ease fleet movement but not overload a players bookmark folder. This would also be a boon to Social fleets but was far more wide reaching than just that.

The finer details of role management for mailing list or public cleet advertisements would also be the nitty gritty details.

Not to mention the toggle they all would gain to turn off all pvp and make them unlockable by enemies. That just goes without saying.

/me grins

ok, I lied about the last one.

m

Honest question here since no-one has broached the "feature" which I consider the tipping point, as likely down to not considering it as deliberately avoiding it.

Where do you place a a visible membership name; look to the left, do you invision being able to place "Spectre Fleet", "Bombers Bar" or "the Imperium" there below (or above) my corp and alliance title on these here forums?

And do you envision allowing these social corporations to have a logo, be it a constructed one as Corps do, or a Submittable one like Alliances? And as Alliance logos appearing on ships is a talked about thing, would such a Social Corp logo appearing on ships be a long-term thing you personally would support?

To me, this is the line. What side of it do social corps fall?

I'm sure you just missed seeing this Mike, and that's why you haven't confirmed support for it. You know, that whole balanced-approach compromise thing you always claim while I am a radical..well here's your chance.

Mike?

F

NPC corps exist today, but there is an existing incentive to leave them which is the corporation feature set! The problem is that you want to give NPC corp members some of these corp-like features 'for free' without the associated risks that come with being in a corp (ie. exposure to wardecs).

As a secondary to you incentivizing people to just stay in NPC corps forever and never join a real corp, I also fear many more will simply drop current corp memberships, revert to NPC corps and effectively reform under these 'society' abominations -- which then for all purposes would reduce the ability of mercenaries to prosecute wars and nerf their content.

Your could have allayed all of these fears and confirmed support for tying these new features to corp membership as a compromise, but you didn't -- clearly displaying the sham you are enacting here Mike. It's not about just adding features is it, it's about giving corp features to carebears hiding out in NPC corps, so they never have to leave.

I rest my case.

F

Maybe it is.

Maybe the whole perspective is wrong.

Maybe it is about acknowledging first that those who do not wish to defend themselves will never ever do so.

These players should have their place in the game, no matter what anyone else says,
and they are still subject to non-consensual combat aka suicide ganking.


Maybe it is about raising the value of a corporation.

Maybe it is about changing our society's structure.


There is an abundance of corporations out there, dropping the value of the absolute majority of corporations to zero.
To give corporations value, the supply has to be reduced to those who are willing to defend themselves.

Those who are not up to the task will be crushed back into the npc corp through natural selection.

The small rest will be able to defend themselves and grow, teaching others.
I would strongly suggest all already established corporations to simply grow their own competition.




Maybe it's about what we see and not about what they do.


The CONCORD/Drifter storyline introduced a completely unknown factor into the game,
which allows them to completely re-write everything if they feel the need to do so.

Looking at the last months it absolutely looks like they are re-inventing the game.
Slowly. Over time. Even the game's current fundamentals.

There is not a quantum of a doubt that high-sec mechanics will get re-invented, because CONCORD is losing it's grasp on the empires, the Drifters are definitely coming and then there's also the Imperium ..............


"Social groups" are a way to raise the value of corporations by reducing the supply.



My personal wish regarding high-sec mechanics is for War Declarations to simply vanish in favour of a system which forces everyone to defend himself unless he explicitly chooses not to. That is a system one can build-up on. The current one isn't.

And those who do not wish to defend themselves can still be ganked anyway.




Hail Tyrannos !

Indeed, and that feature set includes things like:

• SOV ownership.
• Shared corp assets (hangars, containers, ISK)
• POS deployment (which includes things like moon goo income and refining arrays.)

Holding SOV, living in wormholes, maximizing refining - those things are impossible, or exceedingly difficult, without corp membership. They can be fantastically profitable, so there's great incentive for people to engage in those activities if they'd like to.

Corp-specific features do not include things like:

• Events calendar
• Mailing list
• Fit sharing
• Killboard tracking

I, as a member of NPC corp CAS, can not do any of the former three items, no matter how much I might want to.
I, as a member of NPC corp CAS, already do all four of the latter items; I just happen to do them with tools outside the game.



Well, the post of mine a while back that Mike referenced does not contain any items that are corp-specific game mechanics. Mike seems to like that, so I'll go out on a limb and say that no, he in fact does not want to give NPC corp members any corp-like features.



Personally, I'm perfectly okay with people staying in NPC corps forever, as long as they continue playing. If somebody wants PvP combat and can't find it in highsec because there aren't any player corps to declare war on, I think they should simply HTFU and move to null or low. We get fights in null and low all day long. It's quite exciting. And almost all our targets can shoot back, so operating in these systems is an engaging challenge. You calling for the nerf of highsec safety so mercs have more to shoot there is like me calling for the elimination of wardecs so that people interested in PvP move to null and I have more to shoot there.

And for the record, I'll restate my belief that NPC corp life can be (and is, for many) a very social, engaging and rewarding style of play, that keeps players around, generating content, for years and years.



That is incorrect. It's about giving new players low-commitment access to social interaction with the EVE player base, the most important factor in new player retention IMO, so that the game can grow and deliver more content to everybody.

And social corps exist already, they're called chat channels.

This is definitively superfluous.

Which is, if you ask me, exactly why Mike is in favor of this. He knows full well the likely results of these freaking things, and that would be to cut the population of wardec viable targets by a huge number.

They are 100% superfluous for any other use.

Except that's not what this is.

If you want to improve the mailing list mechanic, do that. Don't be disingenuous about it. I fail to see the need, to be honest. EVE is leaps and bounds ahead of even contemporary MMOs in terms of social features anyway. If I wanted to do what CODE does in WoW, SWTOR, or Guild Wars(2), I'd need to host my own website.