EVE General Discussion

Well consider your fears resolved as the core concept of a groups that can't be interfered with in space doesn't exist, whether NPC corp or player corp. No such mechanic with proposed could create that or alter the ability of a player or group of players to resist interference.

It never needed stated that any social tools should remain corp exclusive as that position is entirely untrue and wholly unjustifiable as the supposed bubbles of immunity never existed and the rules that keep them from existing would remain intact.

Improving the social aspects of an MMO should benefit all the players, not a subset who have a false sense of superiority for how they chose to use their space pixels.

Play eve fully means joining up in a corp participating in fleet battle and doing the in game things you see in the marketing promos, marking a target as primary and watching it go boom, or participating in that event through gathering the intel, or creating/transporting/defending the stuff used to accomplish the referenced task, taking and holding sov, building your corp from the bottom up, creating content for the players of new eden to engage in.

you are not playing eve fully sitting in a non player corp shooting rats . im sorry but your not. and yes im saying that in order to experience eve fully you need to be engaged in the game. if im not willing to risk why should i be rewarded ? if im not willing to devote the time necessary why should i have access to content that similar players are putting forth effort to obtain ? non player corps are paradise. they offer plenty of content for players. it is ashame that players corps have so few tools available to them to draw in players from non player corps. the argument is that non player corp characters should be using tools provided from player corps to find in game content. The emergent game play you refer to is a awesome by product of eve core fundamentals. They allowed for this play style to emerge with out the need for added social tools.



The majority of this content should be coming form player corps. CCP should be working on ways to allow for player corps to create content that will draw those out of non player corps. Social tools that erode the purpose of player corps. should be avoided.



if not implemented with a degree of caution then yes social groups could be yet another reason to not join a player corp.



I agree, lets not castrate player corps in the process.



while it may not be the intention alot here in this thread is treading very close to allowing players, to by pass player corps.

glad to see the ridiculous mass wardec nonsense is being brought to an end. People should be able to operate in a social fashion in highsec without exposing themselves to endless unwinnable wars.

Fixed that for you.
You is welcome.
\o\
/o/
\o/

pretty much. One of these things is pretty alright, the other one has many peoples' hackles up for reasons that have been delved into at length.

To be more clear. The idea of social clubs/cults/groups/societies or whatever you want to call them isn't half bad. If implemented properly it could result in a handy new tool that will make things more accessible to both pvp and pve players alike for enjoying their chosen activities.

The other idea is pretty much a steaming pile of dookie. With sprinkles.

That's cool. I'm going to stick to my opinions on the separate matters. The societies seem like a decent idea and don't really pose a threat to any kind of gameplay, nor do they have that bad smell of entitlement to them.

Corp Lite sounds very very bad to me, and smells funny.

Honestly these two things should have been given separate threads for the discussion of them individually. Most of the friction here is due to porkbarreling a not bad idea in with another not good idea, and then farting enough smoke over the mess to make it hard to distinguish the two for sake of argument.

Firstly, that entirely depends on "fully". Someone in an NPC corp is playing the game as much as anyone else, their playstyle is valid whether you like it or not. I don;t like people who sit around in highsec wardeccing industrial corps and hiding behind concord the rest of the time, but I'd not whine about them not playing the game fully.

Secondly, it's not adding the featured that were restricted to corps. Nothing stops people using social features now, you can joi channels and mailing lists and use sites like fleet-up regardless of what type of corp you are in. What these features would do is streamline that process and make it easier to advertise.

Thirdly, restricting it to player corps removes a big point of adding it, which is to get players who would normally not group up to try something new, which would only further segregate players.

Finally, even if they restricted it to player corps only, many people who didn't want to be decced would just create one man corps anyway to bypass the restriction.

This.

Which NPC corps players do. See here for some proof. The only thing they don't take part in is highsec wardecs. Neither do I, I don't go to highsec and my alts while in player corps avoid all wardecs, so I guess that means I'm not playing EVE fully either.

At the end of the day, I don't think people should be excluded from content because they choose not to put themselves at the mercy of merc groups who are specifically trained to kill them constantly in highsec. I'm certainly not going to agree with your premise that someone living in an NPC corp is automatically playing the game less while someone who sits outside Jita undock all day shooting wartargets is somehow playing fully.

Bombers bar and Spectre both accept NPC corp players. The changes suggested here are to make groups like that able to run more smoothly and advertise more easily.

Yep, all 5 of those things would be brilliant enhancements to the game. Ones that should be given to everyone, not tied up in a prettily-coloured parcel and handed only toy Spectre fleet and CAS. Personally I want to be able to give my Supercap alt my massive collection of POS tower bookmarks, I want to give my neutral ganker alt my standings so I don't accidentally gank a friendly.

I think we are on the same wavelength here, the UI as it stands could do with massive improvements, and a lot of what the social groups are asking for are features that we could all do with making easier and more intuative. It feels that the "Social Corp" proposal is addressing the problem in the wrong way, and its not actually solving half the problms they think it will (I can't stress this enough, existing corps DO NOT USE the in-game calendar, why do social groups want a feature that real corps have universally agreed is utterly worthless?), and would be better served by just going to the root of the problems (if chat channels and mailing lists aren't providing quite what you need, get them fixed so they do, don't ask for corp notice boards which equally wont provide quite what you need).

Ultimately, I think thats why this proposal is meeting with resistance. On the surface it makes no sense to address the problem social groups have in this way, because it doesn't solve their problems. There are much simpler and more direct ways of doing that. Which then leads to the question "If this solution doesn't solve the problem they say they have, what problem does it solve that they are not talking about", and we know where that thought leads ;)

Sure they do. We don't use it on an alliance level, but corp level events are generally put on there.

It kinda does solve the problem though. The difficulty right now is advertising it, getting people signed up to the 50,000 systems they need to be in it, then organising who's actually involved vs who's just signed up and buggered off (since the only lists of who's in it is really the mailing list membership). These social groups should make it a lot easier for everyone to create interest groups though even players who want to group their alts into one across multiple corps, it's just the main benefits go to groups like spectre who would use the features day to day.

I'll give you advertisements, there really should be a way for you guys to get your message out, but I would take bets any "social group finder" will get as clogged with tiny 1-man social corps used as Jita trade adverts and scams as the current corp finder is clogged with tiny worthless corps. An overhaul of the entire corp finder system (adding in ways for mailing groups and special interest channels to also be shown), adding a non-gameable "feature" search, or some other way for someone looking for a specific breed of corp or mailing group to parse down the list, would probably better serve than to just add you guys in to whats already an unhelpful geletinous mass that hurts the head to trawl through.

As for knowing whose signed up and buggered off, this proves my point about asking for things that aren't giving you what you want. Existing corp member lists only show when a character has logged on, not when they last participated (we have pap links for that, don't we ), so you'll still have a huge list full of lurkers who sit in the channel but aren't really members, and the corp member list does not (and currently cannot) differentiate alts, so you might easily (and regularly) purge active guys less-active alts. Some have said that social corps should have "automatic acceptance" as a settable feature (shouldn't corps be allowed this option if they want too), but if you have that, you'll have no way of regulating inflow, and even with regular inactivity purges, people can app right back in next day (you and I both see this regularly with coalition SIGs). Why not give channel and mailing list moderators an "activity check" option that pings the entire membership, and if not responded to within a time set by the one pinged, they get automatically removed. You could even set a automatic check-interval so the entire process is automated. Takes away a lot of the drudgery and does so better than any corp tool (which still has the drudgery).

As for "active" and "inactive", how about a function in fleet creation where you can "register" the fleet to a chat channel or mailing list (or multiple), so that it automatically adds the fleet to the MoTD for the duration it is active (or as I said in previous posts, why do channels not have a tabbed second page for important notices and information in place of the currently imperfect MoTD system), and then it can remember in the channel/mailing list settings how many "linked" fleets the member attended in whatever set interval you chose.

These are off the top of my head stuff. My point is, just giving social groups a handful of corp-tool is a fudge, and not really providing the functionality you are asking for, just giving you another stepping stone imperfect solution. Lets aim for the perfect solution instead.