EVE General Discussion

No it's not, and it never has been. In fact there's quotes from GMs stating that it's fine.

I've seen far more PvE corps disband than that. The problem is that wardec mechanics as they are encourage merc groups to attack weaker targets. There's no risk/reward balance for them either, so taking low risk high value targets is the best course of action and with no limits on how many wars you can have open at the same time, mass PVE/industry player farming exists. Growing a non-PvP corp in highsec is pretty much impossible which is why you see no large scale non-PvP corps in highsec. And that's part of the problem. EVE is a sandbox, it's now just about pew pew, so why are PvE corps so much less viable? Personally I'd like to see the wardec mechanics scrapped and replaced with something that encourages PvP groups to fight each other and passively affects local PvE groups who have the option to fight for control if they want it. But that's a whole different thread.

But how could corps be made to matter, and why would incursion runners and missions runners be force to PvP to be able to survive, while PvP players wouldn't be force to do anything? Do you honestly think it would help player retention to have a sandbox game where people who join for PvE get told "actually, you have to spend most of your time fighting because these guys like PvP and don't like you being able to do what you want"?

It's a sandbox, it's as challenging as you make it. If you stick around in highsec you are opting for less challenge.

I'm not sure how you think they are limiting it any more than it is currently.

I've had a very short stint in one a while back. And yes, I understand that players all working together would potentially make it difficult for some mercs, though a legion wouldn't melt very fast with the 50 neutral logi that would be on it in an instant. The problem is that most merc groups are specifically targeting people they know won't work together and writing off ones that will. You're talking about peope who are speifically trained in PvP and play every single day fighting people and suggesting that people who's interests lie in PvE have a reasitic shot at taking them down. It's just not true. Unless the targets themselves are PvPers (they won't be) they'll get whelped.

So why does it come across like you think that conflict can only exist if people can shoot each other? There's so many different forms of conflict that don't involve firing a shot and can be done right under concords nose.

HA I think I made the same mistake !
At some point I wondered how I'm actually calling it. *facedesk*

This is something I also want to throw some words at. Leaving corp lite aside, while most are fine with societies as a concept there is still and has been conflict with people active on this thread regarding NPC corp membership for the sole reason of opposition to extending improved social tools to NPC corp members.

Those objections have been stated in reference to that idea only and not just by Feyd.

I think most of us can agree that corp-lite would add very little on top of societies. Unfortunately that hasn't stopped opposition to the latter so long as NPC corps can potentially access them.

Not sure if you are being deliberately obstinate given the details I have already provided...but lets try again...

There is this existing mechanic called 'corporations', as well as 'alliances' that players are already free to avail themselves of. What we don't need is a watered-down or bastardized 'corp lite' version of an NPC corp, who's real purpose is to reward players who are hiding out in the equivalent of a non-wardeccable NPC corp, while giving them access to corp features. EvE is founded on the concept of risk vs reward, and the notion of creating additional retention within an NPC-styled corp by giving it more features is antithesis to that concept. If you want 'corp features', join a corp, and assume the wardec risk that comes with that increased benefit.

Regarding 'societies'. I support them, provided the person is first a member of a full corporation. Key here is that again this mechanic should not create more incentive to people in NPC corps to stay there forever, nor give them access to additional 'corp' features without acceptance of wardec risk. If the supporters of the 'society' mechanic would simply accept that constraint, we could all move forward, and those more informal groups could indeed be a big boon to EvE social interactions. However, we are stuck on the fact its proponents want to eat their cake (i.e. more corp-like features for NPC corp members) but also want to have their cake too (i.e. no exposure to wardecs like in a full corp).

I would also close in saying we should simply not be further incentivizing players to stay in NPC corps, but to get them into full corps. The reason to do that today is 'more features'. Remove that draw, and they are less likely to upgrade to full corp. Not good.

Worse, many people already in full corps would look at these new features available to NPC corp members and DROP corp to simply reform under a 'society' within NPC corps, so they can have their corp-cake and now not be exposed to wardecs. (Hello entire incursion community...)

I am ultimately not being the obstinate one here, I am arguing for 'status quo', do no harm -- but if you really want these 'social communities' then simply tie them to full corp membership, and the people putting skin in the game re: risk of wardec to get those corp features.

What you really need to ask, is why are the advocates of these new mechanics so deathly afraid of tying them to full corp membership and wardec risk...then you have your answer on why they are being proposed in the first place.

All of which, is being done without a tinkers damn of consideration for the robust hisec mercenary community, who's war based content would take a nosedive, as more people either stay in NPC corps forever, or drop corp to flee to them.

F

Yet none of that justified why those features should be corp specific or why in a multiplayer game social tools should be locked behind the wardec mechanic.

It's an interesting observation of current mechanics, but not a reason for maintaining that specific parts of them. I'd be more convinced if anyone could provide reasoning that the social tools alone provide real draw for player corp membership. So far I've only seen the opposite argued by those claiming the societies feature useless since out of corp solutions exist.

Fundamentally if the draw for player corps is weak then the individual exclusive attributes are weak. And no harm is done by making the weakest of those elements, as they are effectively convenience only, available to everyone. Even more, part of the point of this is to expand social tools beyond corp boundaries anyways making the argument "corps already exist" pretty irrelevant.

Beyond that the primary opposition at this point seems to be the idea that tools that serve the same function to the same end for player and NPC corp characters benefit from having a **** tier.

There's a report button which allows you to annoy them in private.
I do that all the time. Please tell them "Sol said Hi" the next time you're using it.

Thanks !

No, this is not a fair statement. NPC Corp players operate primarily** in hisec due to the nullsec/WH-specific mechanics that NPC Corps are excluded from (SOV/structures, respectively). These predominantly-hisec NPC Corps are given a whopping advantage like wardec immunity, and here you are wondering why Player Corps are unattractive in comparison.

Player Corporations are unattractive because they don't come with "God Mode" travel in the primary operating space of the corp. It's as simple as that.



**obv I'm excluding CAS. CAS + CAStabouts is awesome.

Just to clarify things a little,

so far it has been argued that non player corps should have access to an extended set of social features.
Even though, it has been proven without a shadow of doubt that those in non player corps are fully capable of creating emergent game play without the need for added tools...

Concerns about added social features being extended to non player corps has been either dismissed entirely or belittled as a non issue. Points have been raised throughout the thread on how the ideology, "that non player corps do not need any more buffs to their current game play" are somehow isolating those players or preventing them from getting more enjoyment out of eve.

Suggestions that social corp tools be focused on buffing player corps. Creating tools that allow for player corps to create content to entice non player corp characters into their corps are also dismissed or belittled . With some repeatedly using the war dec mechanics as an example as to why social corp tools are needed in game for all. While ignoring the concern that added social tools for all players of eve will dilute the need for player corps within game. Instead they start insisting that non player corp characters have the same rights to in game content as player corps, throwing the point off topic.

so i want to refocus the topic.

how do we keep extended social tools from diluting the necessity of player corps ?
are player corps even necessary any more, if so how will extended social tools aid player corps?

it has been demonstrated quite extensively that players do not need player corps to immerse themselves in eve online.

So it bears to reason that the creation of a tool set allowing all players to socially interact with each other better, will unintentionally make player corps a relic in the annals of eve history.

you can argue that point, but it is a important concern and should be addressed satisfactorily . it has been demonstrated that there is no need for player corps in eve online. and that the extended social tools will be more than enough to allow players to enjoy eve online without the need for player corps.

So, again these social tools being made available to all . how exactly are we to be certain that it will not diminish player corps to a trivial subset of eve.

or are we really at that point, that it is time for player corps to die. and now is the time to embrace the new social eve online?

I'm still feeling that these two topics need to be properly separated into different threads so that their individual merits and flaws can be discussed in a coherent fashion without crossing the streams so much.

I'm pretty sure that at least half of the bickering that's gone on for the last 35+ pages has been due to misunderstanding exactly which idea was being discussed.

And discussion is merited, as parties from all sides of the fence have brought up some pretty decent ideas and well formed opinions on both matters... heck I even found myself agreeing with Lucas once or twice, and that almost never happens.

The problem with both of those charts is that they treat it like these are all side by side options, while social groups would be additional features for all players over the top of whatever choices they've made for their actual corp membership. Social groups are an improvement to the dire features to assist with socialising outside your corp in EVE, not to replace corp membership.