A corporation, which wants to expand and has ISKs will see value in anyone they can get their hands on.
I do expect smaller corporations to become even smaller and larger, richer corporations to grow more. But I think we have so many corporations that this may actually be a good thing, because more players end up in larger fleet fights and this is what many want.
lol. They gotta pay well.
Have you ever been a recruiting officer in any major alliance ?
we simply just can’t. We’ll look for another person, and motivated one. Not by ISKs.
If you are interested in iSKs, just go to Delve
Well, that’s EVE. But imagine for a second that your corp is losing a good player to another, bigger corp in your alliance. Right now that player is just going to leave a hole and you may not even like the other corp so much, because they keep soaking up your good players.
With a player market could the larger corp pay you, thus less stress between you and them, and you can use the ISKs to fill up your corp with new bros from the player market.
Right now though does nobody even care if it creates a hole for you or that you now have to get more active with your recruitment, sending players out to post in local, bump your thread on the forum etc… A player market will add a new and easier element for you in how you grow your corporation and maintain your numbers.
The more you talk, the worse the idea sounds.
The best reason to be against this idea? Because of the OP. Anytime someone questions his proposal his go-to response is “oh, well, that’s just because you’re a worthless human being.” Nope. Screw this proposal sideways. Throw it in the trash. It has no value.
If it gets me tears from you then it’s already worth it.
aaand, you’re trolling your own thread. I think this one ought to just be locked. edit: I’m gonna go ahead and mute this one for myself since nothing of value is going to come of it.
Bye-bye.
The reasons for my answer are clearly spelled out repeatedly by others above and they are numerous.
But I will add in my two letters as well and simply say, “No.”
Your idea is bad.
Seeing “people” as trade-able items/objects rather than individuals with choice is a sign of a Sociopath.
You do have a choice. You can stay away from the market or join into it. But when you think others shouldn’t be able to pick you up and also compensate your old corporation for their loss then you must think of yourself as worthless, easily replaceable and not worth picking up.
I wish someone who plays as an Amarrian would call it slavery.
Fun should never be a goal, or center point of thoughts. Fun is what you potentially experience on your journey towards said goal, and fun is what you experience when you enjoy thinking, or tinkering.
Anyhow.
This part is great and should be in the Agency.
…
See, I have tried. Really. Tried to come up with a response, addressing your post as a whole. Problem is that these blocks of text are … weird. I feel like you jump around, or something. For example:
I have no idea how that happens. I also have no idea why it would remove toxicity.
All I know is that your post is quite alright, right until “CEOs can decide…”. Then you lost me. You also lost me at “self-chosen adventure”, though I guess you mean that someone wants to be sold around, like a whore.
I mean … yeah … sure … the option should be available for people who like to play whores, because why wouldn’t you, it’s damn lucrative and whores usually know a lot about everything that goes on in the world … on a local level, at least … but I digress …
Your idea is around 10 years early. People are not yet used to what is still ahead of them in real life eventually. Most of it is great, but I recommend removing all parts that make people unwilling slaves, because that is all what they are going to see, even if you add an “whoever wants to”.
You need to re-frame this to properly sell it.
Honestly, I think you should rather stick to a different way of presenting ideas. First you present the idea with example steps happening inside …
( use …
… contexts and details, and THEN add some story to it. That way you will have in mind exactly what the reader knows, which helps avoiding confusing “plot holes” you might not be aware of otherwise.
You’re welcome. This is a stoner post (it’s saturday! \o/ ), but it is a good post nonetheless. : - )
If a stoner can get it, then not all hope is lost, is it?
And enjoy your weekend.
All I know is that you want a job market, with the ability to sell people, which is - of course - not how things should work, because it would be pushing the player into a situation in which the only winning move would be not to play.
Fun fact, though, is that you could have just written that and the actual content would be almost the same. Being stoned does not make me dumb. I smoke joints over time frames of half hours to an hour. It is not a cigarette.
You as well. 
How is this different from what we have now?
We already have corps who shoot their new bros for fun if this is what you’re thinking. You cannot prevent others from abusing recruitment. As long as players can change corporations can they run into any situation created solely by other players.
Even when you’re thinking in terms of corp tax or friendly fire can a CEO always change it. How do you want to give guarantees on what your next corp will be like?
Of course one could always try to sell the world and then not deliver on the promise…
Sounds like you are pretty disconnected from someone actually experiencing this.
Please tell me what I am thinking, instead of asking me what I am thinking …
Yes. Please explain to me how this is the same to what you are proposing, because it sounds like you are suggesting that it is and that your idea would change “basically nothing”.
There is no guarantee. Life needs no guarantees. Where is the argument here? You just go out there and find one, or try to, at least. And you learn by doing so.
So tell me what you’re thinking. What is it you think that makes a player stop playing?
Great!
I think that we will be getting a job market through the Agency eventually.
Absolutely convinced that it will appen.
I also think that you need to explain better how you imagine a player wanting to be sold on a market, to others, without having the choice of opting out Otherwise it would not be punishment. Alternatively, if you did mean he can opt out of being sold, what is the point of it in the first place?
Thanks!
Why would it be a punishment?
If this is about ending up in a corporation with friendly fire, a high tax or people you don’t like then this can be like a punishment, but I don’t know how anyone can ever prevent it from happening. I’m not saying one cannot change corporations outside of the market. I’m saying one can and the market is an alternative. Only nobody can give guarantees on what the future ultimately holds for a player.
One is not supposed to go into the player market with expectations of where one wants to be. This is what the current recruitment system is for and where one can filter corporations based on one’s expectations and also become active in one’s recruitment.
I’m not trying to suggest a recruitment system to “rule them all”.
One does not have the option to say “No, I do not want to work for you.” ?
Yes, you do. You get to say it directly to your new boss. Tell him to go and f’ himself if this is what you want to do. What’s he gonna do about it? Fire you?
You are way too focused on getting guarantees, Solstice. When your new boss then paid for you will he more likely try to make it work between the two of you than to toss you out.
But let me ask you, why don’t you want to work for them? Is there a specific reason you have in mind?
I have no idea why you, again, come up with guarantees of some sort. I am not looking for “guarantees” of some sort, I am looking for something that makes you aware of how this idea is not going to work out as you expect.
What kind of question is this? We are talking about a hypothetical scenario, not about me. You should not leave the “One” in favour of the “You”, just because no one else except us does it. I used to write “One” all the ■■■■■■■ time and you are the only other one I know who actually does it too.
I am simply telling you that this is not going to work out. People will not “hire people” when they can just refuse to do anything. Sure, great for scam opportunities, but people will see them everywhere. PLUS …
… well, this is GREAT for literally all the special snowflakes who constantly want ■■■■ just because they believe that their existence justifies it. This will just ruin the atmosphere in and around corporations everywhere, making “recruitment” (which it is, in a way) worse than it already is.
Yeah, no. I recommend re-framing the idea and finding a better way of writing it up.
Sorry.