Player Features and Ideas Discussion

What is my proposal aiming at:
- account for risk vs. reward
- improve situation for new players who are confrontated too easily and early with wardeccs etc.
- tighten restrictions - its too easy to avoid wars for those who are going the risk

Proposal in a nutshell:
Similar to alpha chars there is an alpha corp status introduced. It limits the things the corp can do (low reward) but provides some benefits in terms of safety (less risk). An Omega corp is exactly what it is now (high reward) to actual conditions of safety (can be wardecced etc.).

An alpha corp can / cannot
- cannot have any structures (cita, pos, pocos)
- cannot have SOV
- cannot be wardecced but can also not assist in other wars
- cannot have members with security status less than 0

Omega corps
- can do as corps do currently
- in war times members have a 5 days join and leave timer (alternative to leave timer: members that leave may not join any corp within the next 10 days)
- cannot transfer citas / pocos in highsec during war times
- needs to have an Omega Char as CEO

Some additional details:
- Corps, including the existing, can switch between alpha and omega similar like "friendly fire" - it shall not be depending on number of members being alpha or similar, its just a choice what style is played. We dont want old players not being able to lead a corp of alphas.
- Corps can switch between these states without limitation - wouldnt make sense to deny a reversal to alpha as they can close and reopen it anyway
- with introducing it, all corps are omega status, new corps are per default alpha status
- Ceo can choose if members that receive negative security status are kicked or the corp goes omega - shall avoid awoxing an alpha corp
- Yes, it is intended that also old players can have it. If they outsource their structures they can only hire mercs to defend it as they can not hopp over to it. If they just want to have

Let the rage begin. Just kidding, your comments are welcome. Try not to cherry pick, you cant have just only one side :)
Regards, Threm

The social corp. One of F&I's favorite regulars.

Are wardecs really so oppressive that we need a protected status option?
Didn't that "wardecs not achieving objectives" thread begin with the Zkill stat that ~90% wardecs don't result in any kills?

Edit
Your proposed change to make corps more vulnerable to wardecs wouldn't be unwelcome, but the mere existence of a social corp option would relegate the purpose of corps to structure holding.

Your omega corp restrictions make it impossible for null groups to transfer assets, and force a five day timer onto joining or leaving any of them. - Understood not applicable in 00. It was taken from high sec perpsective. Then maybe limited there or just not doing it,

If your alpha corps get immunity to wardecs, are they also going to be unable to set a tax rate lower than the 11% of an npc corp? - No, wouldnt limit this one.

And whyt he sec status limit? Alphas should not be stopped from playing in lowsec. - Sure. You can do it if you have grined positive status, no limit. But this rule should avoid ganker corps get undeccable.

How would your system define nullsec corps if the restrictions won't apply then? I've been in null groups for years and the six wardecs I'm under right now is actually lower than the usual number.

If you want some kind of risk-reward balance, why are you allowing the reward of a 0% tax rate without the risk of a wardec?

And what's wrong with alphas ganking, and why is that worth preventing alpha groups from actually existing in lowsec?

Absolutely not. If you're going to have a "no PvP" corp at all (which is a terrible idea) as a "try the game" equivalent to alpha clones then it needs to have some incredibly harsh restrictions so that experienced players can't use it to farm PvE in complete safety. No ships/modules that alphas can't use, no missions above level 2, no mining more than Xm3 worth of minerals per day, no more than Y ISK worth of market transactions per month, no ability to activate modules on player ships, etc. These restrictions should be crippling enough that anyone who is not a newbie trying to learn the game will have no incentive to ever join one of these "no PvP" corps.

Social corps will be the same as npc corps but with a name, common chat, mailing list, fitting list etc or they wont work. Don't allow true corps to switch to social. Instead restrict frequent corp switching and corp creation.

Keep it simple. Use existing functions.

True corps as they are now need little change in function. Just need modernising, qol improvements and require more investment to make.

Bye

You mention risk vs reward. Where is the risk here?