Crime & Punishment

Out of curiosity, why do you guys go so ape about how terrible the idea of allowing "carebears" to have the ability to be "completely safe" would spell disaster and cause you to can your accounts, while elite offers that exact option (in a far bigger way than EVE ever will) and that's OK? Legitimate question.

Feyd has taken a slightly subtler approach where someone from CCP saying they might do X is thrown into close proximity with a CSM member saying if X was done they'd like to see it done in a certain way.

I'd like to see social corps... in a certain way, but not the same way. If they provide no game mechanical advantage over NPC corps - no reduction in corp tax, etc, basically just an easier way of organising a chat channel - but could then become a real corp with all the issues thereof - sure, no bad idea. Certainly better than being in a one-human corp and dodging corp tax that way.

Also, Fuel Rats best Rats.

OK, that kinda makes sense, though it's strange that EVE adding a solo feature would be seen by most as the end of EVE while in elite it's not. Would you see it as a positive change if EVE gained more players by adding more abilities for carebears to do their own thing without being so aggressively attacked at the same times a loosening up the mechanical restrictions on PvP (like concord) for those who want to engage?

The biggest problem I see is that a lot of the "grr carebears" people want to have a ready pool of soft targets to gank, but don't want CCP to make changes that attract more carebears in the first place. Personally I'd be happy to see changes like:
- Wardecs restricted to corps that opt in
- Only opt-in corps and alliances able to place or attack structures in space.
- Add player owned structures that tax local PvE players at rates set by the owners (up to a limit)
- Reduce the effectiveness of bumping (because since it was buffed it's ridiculous)
- Reduce highsec rewards
- Move highsec incursions to lowsec
- Drastically increase trading taxes (once citadels are out, with citadels having significantly reduced NPC tax)
- Increase NPC contract costs and fees between opt-out and op-in war corps (so it enforces costs to use a safer hauler and industrialist)

I don't see a problem with people being able to play with reduced risk, I think they should just use carrots to get people to choose to take more risks rather than the current "THERE MUST BE ONLY STICKS" approach taken by a lot of players.

If you can fly a drake and want to pvp - send me a mail. If we're a good match we'll go forward to greatness from there.

Here's my ***** about ALL of this. Eve is eve. Wow is wow. Elite is Elite.

What really burns my biquits is when folks come into this or the features and ideas forums and try to implement change to Eve to make it more like something else. My biggest gripe is the re re nerds that try to silk screen real life morals, ideals and concepts of fairness into my fantasy space game. When we log in we all bring out own personal code of ethics into the fantasy. That's great - it makes things interesting, but DON'T try to force your ethos on others by changing the game. Do it through player interaction. Leto is a good example. He likes some stuff in Eve and plays Eve for that stuff. He does the same in Elite. That's cool. He's not trying to change either game.

If you change the way eve is to mimic elite (stay with me here) you end up with elite behind and eve log in screen. That's garbage. You like Elite - freakin great, go play it. You like eve - awesome - go play it. They are both unique and you should be making you play choice at the login screen, not morphing one game into another.

If you want to make eve better and have an idea - great! Let's talk about it. If you want to make eve into some other game or try to force your morale code of ethics onto everyone trying to play a space fantasy game - FO GUCK YOURSELF!

You feeling me Lucas?

but you can dec their actual corp still?

you cant just be in a social corp- they're purely administrative for want of a better term.

As long as there is a financial difference between social corps and normal corps (=motivation to grow to a normal corp), I'm not against it. But I do need to see how they want to implement this first, before I can judge it.

More social corps = more player interaction = more players playing/staying in Eve = if implemented well, more normal corps = more people to war dec who might fight back = more fun for the HTFU guys like me.

Ps. You're showing a screen from Fozzy, not Falcon.

lol, you're not a HTFU guy, you're a "my playstyle should always be easy" guy. You're a prime example of a carebear. Miners take more risks than you since they move away from the docking ring.

Dat slippery slope. It's a fallacy bro. Any change could be declared to be a catalyst for further changes down the road, so if we go by your slippery slope fallacy, CCP should just stop developing EVE. If instead you look rationally at each suggested change as it is, not what you fear it would one day potentially lead to if they make several hundred other changes, then you'll get a lot further.

What benefits? incursion folks already exist in 1 man corps which the roll if they get decced or NPC corps, and they hang around in private channels. Adding social corps won't improve their safety, nor will it grant them any further benefits.