These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Social Corps

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#541 - 2015-05-28 00:04:58 UTC
Tyberius Franklin wrote:

What part of this differs from that?


The part where they get a bunch of benefits of a player corp, and the supposed downsides are not being able to use a mechanic that is a pain in the ass anyway?

Do player corps really need to have what few benefits they provide watered down further?

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#542 - 2015-05-28 00:08:12 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Tyberius Franklin wrote:

What part of this differs from that?


The part where they get a bunch of benefits of a player corp, and the supposed downsides are not being able to use a mechanic that is a pain in the ass anyway?

Do player corps really need to have what few benefits they provide watered down further?

What are these benefits that are being granted? Specifically which ones? How are they meaningful in creating a draw to player corps?
Avaelica Kuershin
Paper Cats
#543 - 2015-05-28 00:33:11 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Mike Azariah wrote:
I am not making a 'safe haven' to avoid wardecs . . . that exists already and is called npc corps.


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

This is definitively superfluous.


Hmm...

"Hey, can you link that fit again"
"Anyone got that overview setting?"

And sure you can reload the MOTD, but having extra tools for an NPSI fleet, or an informal mining fleet would be nice.
Or even, for a suicide ganking society.

I do wonder, would being in a suicide ganking society at the same time as an anti-ganking society be as easy as being in the relevant chat channels?
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#544 - 2015-05-28 00:47:22 UTC
Avaelica Kuershin wrote:

I do wonder, would being in a suicide ganking society at the same time as an anti-ganking society be as easy as being in the relevant chat channels?


It is right now. Chat channels also have the delightful functionality of not tying you into a corp ticker, so you can be a member of numerous ones at once.

Which this, notably, is not capable of.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#545 - 2015-05-28 00:55:26 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Avaelica Kuershin wrote:

I do wonder, would being in a suicide ganking society at the same time as an anti-ganking society be as easy as being in the relevant chat channels?


It is right now. Chat channels also have the delightful functionality of not tying you into a corp ticker, so you can be a member of numerous ones at once.

Which this, notably, is not capable of.


Per the CSM minutes posted on the feature:

"It would also allow you to belong to multiple clubs, and would have no impact on your corporation membership."

Did we get follow up information differing from that?
malcovas Henderson
THoF
#546 - 2015-05-28 00:59:04 UTC
Tyberius Franklin wrote:

What are these benefits that are being granted? Specifically which ones? How are they meaningful in creating a draw to player corps?


There are probably several ways into reading this. I can see two

First is a Corp with social tools available to the members. Allowing people to step up from NPC, into a player run Corps. Allowing them to use the available tools to "socialise", and organise social events. Being a player run Corp, one has to assume Tax will be a Corp issue, and not a fixed removal issue, like in NPC corps. Bearing in mind that this type of Corp will be unwardeccable. This type of Corp, will only truly benefit the Risk adverse, who stay in NPC corps to avoid being WD, AND be a tempting prospect for single player Corps.

Second is a social "group". This is like an alliance, but for the player participating, not for his corp, and that player can join many "social group" as he/she chooses. This type of thing I could certainly get onboard with.


The First is a dead cert slippery slope, and will certainly cater more to the risk adverse, than to what its actual "intentions / design" would be.



Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#547 - 2015-05-28 01:14:06 UTC
malcovas Henderson wrote:
Tyberius Franklin wrote:

What are these benefits that are being granted? Specifically which ones? How are they meaningful in creating a draw to player corps?


There are probably several ways into reading this. I can see two

First is a Corp with social tools available to the members. Allowing people to step up from NPC, into a player run Corps. Allowing them to use the available tools to "socialise", and organise social events. Being a player run Corp, one has to assume Tax will be a Corp issue, and not a fixed removal issue, like in NPC corps. Bearing in mind that this type of Corp will be unwardeccable. This type of Corp, will only truly benefit the Risk adverse, who stay in NPC corps to avoid being WD, AND be a tempting prospect for single player Corps.

Second is a social "group". This is like an alliance, but for the player participating, not for his corp, and that player can join many "social group" as he/she chooses. This type of thing I could certainly get onboard with.


The First is a dead cert slippery slope, and will certainly cater more to the risk adverse, than to what its actual "intentions / design" would be.

Upon reading what was posted by the CSM in the thread I'm not sure the first opposition is accurate:

"Corp lite: It's like an npc corp, but with your own name and logo.
For those people who would otherwise stay in NPC corps."

This doesn't suggest to me that taxes would or should be different than current in an NPC corp, and I haven't found anything specifically suggesting that it will. If anything it does sound intended to cater to the risk averse, not by giving them freedom from NPC corp restrictions, but rather by allowing those restrictions to persists in a player controlled organization.

If the issue is fear of the creation of player corps that only have the distinction of being undeccable, yes, that would be an issue but I haven't seen that actually suggested, just what amounts to NPC corp subgroups with corp organization tools. If the issue is those groups having those organizational tools I'd as why in a social game making socializing harder for anyone is desirable.

Regarding it's target, I agree only the risk averse would see it as desirable, I just see no issue in that at any level.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#548 - 2015-05-28 01:19:03 UTC
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Avaelica Kuershin wrote:

I do wonder, would being in a suicide ganking society at the same time as an anti-ganking society be as easy as being in the relevant chat channels?


It is right now. Chat channels also have the delightful functionality of not tying you into a corp ticker, so you can be a member of numerous ones at once.

Which this, notably, is not capable of.


Per the CSM minutes posted on the feature:

"It would also allow you to belong to multiple clubs, and would have no impact on your corporation membership."

Did we get follow up information differing from that?


hook.jpeg

These are chat channels. Even you admit it.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#549 - 2015-05-28 01:25:04 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
hook.jpeg

These are chat channels. Even you admit it.

Never denied it, I just asked why placing some of the legwork currently handled by the corp membership infrastructure couldn't be leveraged to make administration easier.

You actually made the claim it was something more sinister, though I'm still curious as to what specifically that is that leads to any harm.
Kaely Tanniss
Black Lotus Society.
Something Really Pretentious
#550 - 2015-05-28 04:46:31 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Kaely Tanniss wrote:
Conflict is composed of all kinds of thing. Shooting is just one of them. But to think you can be excluded from the shooting too is just selfish...isn't it? Stations are where you go afk or do other things...but when in space, be prepared for conflict..this includes getting shot at..yes..even in "safe-sec". Your comparison is ludicrous. Attempt to troll someone else, it doesn't work on me sweetheart.
Nobody is aiming to be excluded. Even in a social corp people can still be shot. What you whining abut is people in NPC corps - who already can t be wardecced - might be allowed to join in on player driven content and still remain in NPC corps.

Kaely Tanniss wrote:
You see, the difference between myself and the others who whine about Eve is I accept it for what it is. I will not "SOD" off. I have been here and will stay as long as CCP doesn't turn it into another theme park. I accept risk and embrace it. It's good when something evolves..but what Eve does NOT need is rampant de-evolution due to the whiney minority... Just like in rl. It is what it is..adapt or fail.
Good for you. CCP will continue to make changes that benefit plaers and some of those you won't like, so get over it. It's not going to become a themepark, though you will continue to whine as if it is because you're irrational. In your mind if someone isn't shooting stuff and their gameplay is improved, that's themepark.

Kaely Tanniss wrote:
Just because other MMO's such as WoW are having drop offs and players are seeking a new game doesn't mean since they choose to come to Eve that we, or anyone, should cater to them. Eve is a completely different kind of animal.
This has NOTHING to do with wow players. In fact most of the desire for soical corps comes from NPSI players, players who actually venture outside of highsec to shoot things, unlike the carebear PvPers that sit around in highsec wardeccing industrial corps.

Kaely Tanniss wrote:
Most of us pay to sub, we all have a right to speak what we think...but not to cry about it because it's not what you want it to be. ...and no, you can't haz my stuff Blink
And yet here you are, crying about a change that's been announced and whether you like it or not is coming because most sane people see the massive benefits it brings.


Lucas, there is no point in talking to you. I'm glad responding to me makes you feel important as a forum warrior. You are not comprehending. I am sick of the whiners..you seem to be one of them. So your retort to my statements is to accuse me of whining? If you would have actually read and comprehended my first statement, you would have understood..maybe not agreed..that is you perogative, but at least understood. so I leave you with this sweetie...since it seems to apply so eloquently..

"And yet, will we ever come to an end of discussion and talk if we think we must always reply to replies? For replies come from those who either cannot understand what is said to them, or are so stubborn and contentious that they refuse to give in even if they do understand." - Augustine of Hippo

If I had a nickel for every time someone said women don't play eve, I'd have a bag of nickels to whack the next person who said it..
Sibyyl
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#551 - 2015-05-28 05:07:00 UTC

I think what bothers me is what is bothering a lot of people in the thread - the way in which "social groups" is being positioned.

You know how a lot of folks don't care about being in Player Corporations because they've never tried it, or they've had a terrible experience?

The "social groups" present an unfortunate impression (in my view) that says exactly the following: dear casual EVE player, you don't need a corp! See? We will give you all the tools to get together with people and do stuff, and you can pretty much do all of the things a casual player in a Player Corporation would do. Therefore, you don't have to join a Corporation. You never have to explore that part of EVE - and as a side effect that player will always have an "outsider's" view of SOV, and wormholes, and some of the more esoteric parts of the game.



There is a key dilemma here. Consider this:

1. EVE consumes a lot of time
2. If you want to be an effective contributor to a corp, being casual is going to make that difficult
3. A lot of people fall in the category of not being able to give EVE a lot of time (I'm one of them), ie: casual players



The dilemma is:
Option 1: Do we acknowledge that the casual player will probably never be a good fit for Player Corporations.. and instead relent and give these casual players tools to socialize, which would let them come back to the game and do more stuff...

-or-

Option 2: We draw a line and say casual players will likely be stuck in NPC Corps without the benefit of social tools available to Player Corporations with IT people and Jabber and Teamspeak and websites and such. Casual players will have a high turnover in EVE and that is ok, because HTFU and such.



I think this is the fundamental divide in this thread.

Joffy Aulx-Gao for CSM. Fix links and OGB. Ban stabs from plexes. Fulfill karmic justice.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#552 - 2015-05-28 07:03:11 UTC
Omar Alharazaad wrote:
What is stopping players from having an active social life as things stand?
I mean seriously. With player channels, the fleet finder tool and all that jive, is it really that hard to hook up with other like minded folks to do things you all enjoy as it is? My only issue with this is that it seems completely redundant, as all of the tools for folks to get out there an play with others are already implemented.
Nothing is stopping them, but what's wrong with making it easier for people to group up? The game improves over time, and right now we have a situation where NPSI groups have to jump through a lot of pointless hoops. So let's take away those hoops.

Honestly, I can't believe there's so much friction over a change which will primarily benefit PvP players.

Lan Wang wrote:
ofcourse they can be shot and ganked but they cant be wardecced like a player corps can, which to a lowsec/null/wh pvp player is a disruption because highsec is only accessible via neutral alts, so why would you join a player corp if you can remain 99% safe in highsec away from wardecs and have a safety island where you can pvp whenever you want
For the exact same reasons you'd join a player corp now when there's NPC corps. Adding social corps won't make more people stay in NPC corps. They offer nothing that the average carebear would care about, so there's no reason to think that their introduction would create an exodus of players from real corps to social corps. What it allows is people to group up to try things their main corp doesn't do in the same way as a corp player or an NPC player can right now go and join ganked or spectre and go off shooting people. t just makes it an easier and smoother experience to join those clubs.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Aralyn Cormallen
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#553 - 2015-05-28 07:08:59 UTC
Avaelica Kuershin wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Mike Azariah wrote:
I am not making a 'safe haven' to avoid wardecs . . . that exists already and is called npc corps.


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

This is definitively superfluous.


Hmm...

"Hey, can you link that fit again"
"Anyone got that overview setting?"



How do you imagine existing corps/alliances solve this problem? (note, I see those two questions all the time in coalition fleet chats)

I assure you, its not in game, they put this information on Forums. Why can't your NPSI organisation host a forum again?
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#554 - 2015-05-28 07:11:17 UTC
Feyd Rautha Harkonnen wrote:
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.
Of course we know, enough info has been released to know that much. Of course you're into ignoring fact and just chiming on about how terrible everything is regardless so it's no surprise you're trying to push it as if that's actually going to happen.

Feyd Rautha Harkonnen wrote:
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.
You want more than just these to die though, that's clear. The thing is "content creation" come in many forms. Most of the players you call content creators I tend to believe the game would be better off without. The good thing is that as time move on, the power of players like yourself to halt progress is weakening since you complain an unreasonably large amount and don't get taken very seriously because of it.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#555 - 2015-05-28 07:16:16 UTC  |  Edited by: Lucas Kell
Feyd Rautha Harkonnen wrote:
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.
First off, this would be pointless. You'd just end up with anyone who wanted to be in a NPC corp making a 1 man corp to join societies and either playing on an alt or just ignoring the wardeccer (since most societies are likely to be PvP based in low/null/wh) if someone was dumb enough to pay 50m to wardec one guy.

Secondly, it would go against the point of societies which is to have a low barrier of entry.

Feyd Rautha Harkonnen wrote:
I can get behind that, as long as these 'societies' arent ultimately a wardec avoidance tool.
These would make it no easier to avoid wardecs, that's the part you seem to be getting stuck on. What you want is to punish people "waah, you're not allowed new featured because you're in an NPC corp... waaah". NPC corps are a valid part of the game, get over it.

Aralyn Cormallen wrote:
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?
nothing is stopping them, but it's a pain in the ass, isn't it? There are a lot of people that don't want to just though all of the hoops just to do casual PvP, so make it easier to join in. It's called progress.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
March rabbit
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#556 - 2015-05-28 07:25:43 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Mike Azariah wrote:
I am not making a 'safe haven' to avoid wardecs . . . that exists already and is called npc corps.


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

This is definitively superfluous.

Well... Something about 50% of ships in the game is not unique and the same can be said about modules. Do you support removing unnecessary ships and modules too?

The Mittani: "the inappropriate drunked joke"
Omar Alharazaad
New Eden Tech Support
#557 - 2015-05-28 07:27:05 UTC
I'm not really upset about this to be honest, just puzzled as this seems redundant in it mirroring mechanisms that are already in place. It just sends up red flags for me when so much effort is put into something like that. Leads me to wonder about where it will be taken from there, assuming that what's in place is already adequate.

Maybe I've been playing too much EVE lately, as this just has me looking to see what the nature of the trap is.
I'm assuming that there is another shoe, and it has not dropped yet.

Come hell or high water, this sick world will know I was here.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#558 - 2015-05-28 07:36:02 UTC
Kaely Tanniss wrote:
Lucas, there is no point in talking to you.
Then don't, **** off. Click my name, click "hide posts". Job done.

Kaely Tanniss wrote:
I am sick of the whiners..you seem to be one of them. So your retort to my statements is to accuse me of whining?
I'm not whining, what do I have to whine about? CCP are likely implementing the feature we are discussing here that I agree with and it has the support of multiple CSM members. I have literally nothing to whine about since what I want will most likely come to pass. You on the other hand are whining about "the carebears" and how "they" want to ruin the game. So yes, I stand by that accusation.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#559 - 2015-05-28 07:43:23 UTC
Sibyyl wrote:
I think what bothers me is what is bothering a lot of people in the thread - the way in which "social groups" is being positioned.

You know how a lot of folks don't care about being in Player Corporations because they've never tried it, or they've had a terrible experience?

The "social groups" present an unfortunate impression (in my view) that says exactly the following: dear casual EVE player, you don't need a corp! See? We will give you all the tools to get together with people and do stuff, and you can pretty much do all of the things a casual player in a Player Corporation would do. Therefore, you don't have to join a Corporation. You never have to explore that part of EVE - and as a side effect that player will always have an "outsider's" view of SOV, and wormholes, and some of the more esoteric parts of the game.
Ah, see, now this is where we differ. The way I see it those players who have had a bad experience and now sit in NPC corps, they will never join a player corp. These casual clubs though give them a non-committed opportunity to try out different types of content, perhaps something they'd never have tried or never would have enjoyed alone. Maybe following that they will give corps another go with a new perspective. And if not, no loss, they go back to what they were already doing before.

To give a similar example, a mate of mine stopped playing EVE a few years back, purely because he found it quite boring and good content hard to find. He rejoined recently and I sent him to spectre fleet. After a few fleets he really got the feel for it and now he's with a small group somewhere out in null blowing stuff up. I'd like to see these tools make that much easier to do.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Aralyn Cormallen
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#560 - 2015-05-28 07:54:06 UTC
Sibyyl wrote:

The "social groups" present an unfortunate impression (in my view) that says exactly the following: dear casual EVE player, you don't need a corp! See? We will give you all the tools to get together with people and do stuff, and you can pretty much do all of the things a casual player in a Player Corporation would do. Therefore, you don't have to join a Corporation. You never have to explore that part of EVE - and as a side effect that player will always have an "outsider's" view of SOV, and wormholes, and some of the more esoteric parts of the game.

There is a key dilemma here. Consider this:

1. EVE consumes a lot of time
2. If you want to be an effective contributor to a corp, being casual is going to make that difficult
3. A lot of people fall in the category of not being able to give EVE a lot of time (I'm one of them), ie: casual players

The dilemma is:
Option 1: Do we acknowledge that the casual player will probably never be a good fit for Player Corporations.. and instead relent and give these casual players tools to socialize, which would let them come back to the game and do more stuff...

-or-

Option 2: We draw a line and say casual players will likely be stuck in NPC Corps without the benefit of social tools available to Player Corporations with IT people and Jabber and Teamspeak and websites and such. Casual players will have a high turnover in EVE and that is ok, because HTFU and such.


See, to me the problem is that it feels like they are giving up on corps, both your options embrace a fundamental untruth in my opinion, and untruth that we should be fighting to eradicate, not perpetuate. Corps can be and are in many, many cases very casual friendly. In all parts of the game (I'll accept Wormholes may be excempt from this as I don't know enough about them to know for sure), and all playstyles, there are possibilities for casual players to get involved. You call yourself a casual while wearing a BNI ticker, I am a casual, and I wear a Goonswarm one. Goonswarm. I have played many MMOs before (and during) EvE, and I have never experienced a more casual-friendly environment than Goonswarm/CFC/Imperium, and I was in RvB!

Its all about education, and I can't see more "casual friendly" solutions helping, since those people who haven't tried something because they have convinced themselves it doesn't suit their time commitments still wont try the new solutions for the same reason.

And are these social corps in fact any better for the casual player? I don't think they are. There has been talk here about in-game calendars for social groups. Calendars? You mean having to plan free time in advance? In game? You mean I will need to log in to EvE to determine whether there is an event (that I have to plan in advance the time for) coming up? No thanks, I'll happily have my unobtrusive jabber notifier sitting open in the background of my computer and be free to decide at the moment the fleet is forming if I have some free time to play EvE. And if I don't have the time, I can still check the log later to find out if anything happened, so I don't feel detached from my space-brothers by my inability to join up that time. Now that's a casual-friendly solution.