EVE General Discussion

Yup. That is the line. If these societies are just collecting a bunch of existing communication tools and putting them under a single banner with a name and logo then there is no problem. That can only help people with social engagement and increase their integration into the sandbox. I recognize the concerns of people that this will discourage players from leaving NPC corps and I agree, but I think that would be better dealt with by making player corps more valuable and worth fighting over, and/or nerfing the comfort of perma-residing in NPC corps, rather than isolating these players from the sandbox.

Even "corp-lite" I am in general favour of as it would allow some protection for new corps and casual corps that don't want to bother with a defense but still shoot rocks or red crosses with friends. But that support comes with the provision that there is a real and meaningful distinction between the income potential of these "corp-lites" and player corps. Players that spend the effort to establish and maintain a defense should be rewarded with increased ISK and hiding in a NPC corp (or fleeing to one every time a war is declared) or a "corp-lite" should not be a viable strategy to make a competitive income. You want to relax under the unassailable protection of CONCORD after work with a few missions or mine while watching Netflix fine, but you should make a fraction of what a competitive player who is responsible for defending themselves from wars when doing the same thing, and doing economically viable industry should not be possible in an NPC corp/"corp-lite".

You know, risk vs. reward.

I would argue that the logo is the other side of the line; people fight every day over identities (and indeed, "thefts" of name and identities have been major events in years past). If someone wants to hold a flag over their heads, proclaiming their identity to the galaxy, they should have to fight for it.

My bad about the assets in space thing. I was responding to Lucas having mentioned it, but my reaction may have simply been due to a punctuation fail on his end, or a reading comp fail on my end.

It was not my intent to muddy the waters in this discussion further.

The logo thing... yeah. Flags do kind of fall into the category of things worth fighting for.

As per my (first?) post in this thread, there are two concepts being conflated.

The corp lite version (which would have flags, names, and otherwise be the same as NPC corps)

The Social group version (Which likely wouldn't have flags, and would be in addition to regular corps. Still no hangars, POS, that kind of thing. just the social bits of corps)

I have no issue with the latter, as it sounds very much like a revamp of the chat channel functionality. The former is rather objectionable.

Player corps do not need to be watered down and diluted. There is little enough incentive to be in one compared an NPC corp already.

You say that, but name's aren't necessarily fought over. CODE for example have an alliance but most people who identify as CODE members don't need to join it. In the same way red-frog operates an alliance, yet runs exclusively from NPC corps. Pro synergy is yet another. Nothing stops people from creating a name and a logo and running with it while avoiding the conflicts.

Further, this is limited only to highsec. Outside of highsec wars are irrelevant anyway, so effectively what you're saying is that people shouldn't be allowed a name if they both live in highsec and are too small or not designed to defend themselves against griefer wardecs. Seems to me like a pointless limitation. I can understand why they wouldn't be able to run a POS and rent offices, because those are gameplay affecting benefits, but restricting people arbitrarily from labeling themselves? Seems dumb.

Nope, Fozzie confirmed on my question that structures above depots can only be launched from a player corp member. This with explicit reference to the wardec mechanics necessary to remove the thing afterwards.

That's the thing though Steve. The Difference between Highsec Corps and NPC corps is not enough to drive players to risk more. POSes POCO's Wardecs and Taxes are the things between the two. And that in my opinion, sucks. If a player has no interest in those two of those four things. They can stay in an NPC corp and not give a damn.

The fourth being Taxes which are easily avoid by corp rolling. Which is broken and we won't get into that. Which also voids out wardecs the third, a tactic which obviously SHOULD be an exploit but whatevers. This isn't what this about, just saying it so you can understand what I'm getting at. A player can also run incursions in a rolling corp. Negating the Tax as well. So One out of four things can are accessible to players easily with the fear of Wardecs right now. And that is POS'es and Pocos. Indy work. Which for Highsec takes a lot of time effort and isk to do anyways.


Player Made Highsec Corps NEED more content to make players want to be in them. Give them a damn reason to fight for what they are trying to get at. Highsec Corps NEED this or it's just going to make EVE basically into two servers anyways. One side for the casual gamer who stays in Highsec (server 1) And the dedicated gamer who enjoys all aspects of the game who go to Low and Null.

I'm down for Social corps. But only if more Highsec Content is given out for Player Made Highsec Corps.

Social corps can easily fill in a need to help with NPE, older players can teach younger players the game without interference. Which is a obviously a +1. However they need to have an end goal, Social corps should be that only 'corp' they stay in which will happen if this idea goes, or they go into single man rolling corps. Which SHOULD NOT be the next step for them ffs.

My two cents in general anyways, Give Highsec more Content. Don't take it away.

But it's not earned, even now. You just create a name and off you trot. Like so many corps show you can even operate from NPC corps while keeping your name unable to be attacked.

But that's the main reason people avoid making corps. When a 200 man pure PvP alliance declares war on a 10 man industrial corp run by a year old player, that's a griefer wardec, plain and simple. Back when a corp was more limited in how many wars they could declare at once they weren't so much a problem, but now the moment someone shows they are in a tiny corp but want to use anything above a battlecruiser, they become prime targets for mass wardec alliances.

That's always going to be the case though. Corps are already easy to make and you can just do anything important on alts. Why does it really matter if there's loads of corps though?

What Sol is trying to get at, by making a name for your is self is that the name MEANS something.

Marmite has a name that MEANS something whether you like or is irrelevant.

Space Monkey's have NAME that means something.


Somebodies one man corp named "blah blah awesome corp of awesome" means NOTHING. That is a problem Sol is getting at.


I think.


He is one of my favourite snowflakes posters, he's a cool dude (Lol cool snowflake I'm bloody hilarious), but sometimes his way of saying things confuses me. V.v