I’m not talking about ‘corp skills’ as in those you train to create and build a corp, I’m talking here about skills you train for the corp itself. Let me explain.
Corp skills are skills a CEO can buy and ‘train’ for the corp. That is, they are skills that grant bonuses to players within the corp. The longer you’re in the corp, the more the skill applies. Skills can range from combat to industry. For example, Corp Member Mining Bonus:
at level 5, members of corporation all begin to receive a bonus of 5% to yeild per month of membership to a maximum of 25% (five months to get to max yield bonus).
This is just an example of what it could be, but I wonder what people would think of this provided it was well balanced.
In case there’s any confusion, skills would have to be trained by a CEO (there can be a corp skill queue in addition to their own), and would be also lost entirely upon that CEO leaving their position as a CEO, and would have to be retrained by a new CEO or if that CEO creates a new corp, retrained by him/her.
Aye, I’m having a job navigating these as well. They also fuck my bandwidth so hard. Here’s a screeny of my data usage. See if you can spot where I had to switch off the router for a while…
oh I need to stay off the forums on my phone connection than, thanks ccp. not everyone has first world internet. in my country, 1MB bandwidth is 320 usd a month and runs at 38kb/s which is the max ive had it. My school pays 55,000 a month for a 3mb dedicated line. my only connection to civilized world and my entertainment is my phone which can do 512 kb/s. also on the1mb running so slow I cant even connect to eve servers.
The idea here is to reward inclusion and participation, not penalise it. And this is a PVP game. Wardecs, whether you like it or not, are participation. Rewarding that participation, instead of penalising it, improves the game for everyone.
What are some lower key attributes and activities that membership longevity could influence? Diving right into direct bonuses for major industry activities may turn folks off.
Here are a few benefits that come to mind:
Tier 1 Benefits:
-More characters in bio and MOTD
-Reduced costs on medals Tier 2 Benefits:
-Anchored containers lasting longer in space
-Slightly faster mobile depot on-lining Tier 3 Benefits:
-Greater POCO capacity for corp owned PI structures (based on time in corp)
Wardecs:
Another facet to corp-wide benefits that require time to develop to potency is it can both help and hinder the wardec system. Under current mechanics defenders who receive a war declaration often have little incentive to remain in a corp that is under siege–simply quit and reform. However, if there is a loss for various quality of life features that require significant time to build up again this may discourage such desertion behaviors.
Maybe the wait time to full potency on these corp benefits could be decreased by the results of defenders in wars. e.g. counter attack x number of ships or reach x amount of attacker’s ISK destroyed to increase roll-out speed of tier 3 corporation benefits in 20 days rather than current estimated 28 days.
This is a good reason why this should be implemented. Whether these persistent and earned benefits are tied to the corporation itself, the CEO, or to structures owned by the corporation, giving corporations value would go a long way to providing an incentive to defend a corporation.
Personally, I think it makes more sense in a sandbox game like Eve to tie these benefits to corporation-owned structures (which can also serve as conflict drivers) rather than the CEO as the OP proposes, but however it is done, being part of a corporation and working together should earn some small benefit that disincentivizes shell corps and corp hopping.
What I’m suggesting ties benefits and the CEO to the corp itself. It’s easy to have a corp and no structural assets. Take any given mission-runner and his one-man corp that he just drops and reforms whenever he’s wardecced. He’d probably still do that but he might be more inclined to join or start a real corp if he knew he could get a 25% increase in mission earnings and agent standings, thanks to training corporate-wide skills.
This isn’t just for the sake of making wardecs more meaningful, though, but the corporate social experience itself as well. It would also incentivise people to give their corps more focus. Too many high-sec corp ads claim “we do a bit of everything” but they don’t do very much of any one thing as a result. These kinds of corps are usually made by new people who do want to do a bit of everything themselves, but don’t really know how to run a corp, resulting in bored members who quit the game in frustration.
Sure, but why not tie that to a structure owned by the corporation (which can be attacked), or just to the corp itself? Why should the CEO herself be such a “force multiplier”? I mean, if you want to make the corporation management skill, or some new skill have more meaning you could make that skill mandatory to enable the corporation benefits, but otherwise, I don’t see why giving a single character the ability to boost everyone else in the corp is a good idea.
But I largely agree. If a corp can “specialize” in a particular activity and offer benefits to its members that they in turn can contribute to improve those benefits, it would give corporations meaning and provide incentive to join one, and stay with one to defend it.
I do think though it will be a tough one to balance so that it scales across all sizes of corps so that small corps are not penalized too much nor it too trivial to earn all the bonuses that corps of any reasonable size max everything out. This is why I favour structures that can be fitted with corporation-boosting rigs or modules that in a more organic fashion can provide buffs and thus serve as a reason to join and stay with a corp, but also risks and not just something that happens automatically and cannot be “assailed” by the other players.
However we do it though, corporations need benefits and points of difference so people want to join them and defend them if they are going to have any value, and without value there is no reason to fight over them. Somehow though, I don’t think we are going to see CCP take a pass at wars or corporation mechanics anytime soon.
This Idea really just benefits vet alts in their own alt corp.
Increasing average/overall mining yield does not increase mining income, as the amount of effort stays the same mineral prices will find a new equilibrium tot keep the isk/h the same.
So all it really does is hamper newbie mining income.
Secondly, the idea is to encourage new players to join a corporation. Does it benefit veteran corps? Yes, it does. THAT’S THE PURPOSE! Long-standing healthy and social corps that have built up a community are demonstrably the most successful and most talked about in the game. The point is to reward participation and inclusivity, whatever the bonuses may be for sticking around long-term.
You’re not. You’re making them responsible for their office. Running a corporation should be a burden of responsibility, not some highfalutin claim to some banal, meaningless throne from whence you order your newbie minions about. They’re the one who’s ‘training’ the corp its bonuses, and should that person fail to provide a corporation environment with meaning and purpose to people who join, and they go somewhere else, or the CEO decides to roll the corp because wardec, goodbye bonuses. It also helps make sure active players are CEOs.
There are already pretty significant advantages to being in a Corp, like the lack of NPC corp tax, and any decently run organization will have more benefits besides.
What this would basically do is make being in a corp mandatory to be competitive. Forget something like a ridiculous 25% mining bonus, even 5% is a pretty big deal. Same goes for any other sort of numerical bonus. 5% to gun damage is literally worth almost a month of training for example, or hundreds of millions of ISK in implants, boosters, or expensive fittings.
Making it a skill train or something that accrues over time would just hand a bigger advantage to older players and corps, as well as creating lucrative targets for wardecers in High Sec.
Just no, there are so many things wrong with this idea. Not the least of which is that it isn’t needed. If people aren’t joining someone’s corp that’s a problem with that corp and the incentives the people running it have provided for joining, not a problem with the system not providing enough incentives.
There are already pretty significant advantages to being in a Corp, like the lack of NPC corp tax, and any decently run organization will have more benefits besides. [/quote]
Gee, that explains why so many people aren’t in corps then, doesn’t it.
[quote=“Cade_Windstalker, post:18, topic:8894, full:true”]
What this would basically do is make being in a corp mandatory to be competitive. [/quote]
No, this is encouragement to join a group in this MULTIPLAYER GAME. People who try to do things on their own don’t often get very far. It remains optional, not mandatory to any degree, because as it is, you already get a significant advantage being in a corp that has it’s ■■■■ together, vs not being in a corp at all, or being in one that has no focus or generally no idea what they’re doing. Additionally, you just directly contradicted yourself by suggesting that being in a corp already has significant advantages. You’re right to a degree - being in a corp does indeed make you far more competitive in the game. By your logic, it’s already mandatory.
[quote=“Cade_Windstalker, post:18, topic:8894, full:true”]
Making it a skill train or something that accrues over time would just hand a bigger advantage to older players and corps, as well as creating lucrative targets for wardecers in High Sec.[/quote]
THAT’S THE WHOLE POINT! It encourages people to keep corps intact for longer, so they have that advantage. Eventually, you end up with lots of corps that have been around for a long time with similar degrees of advantage. Starter corps can still compete in the same way that new players can rise up despite the older ones having 100mil+ SP.
Except that’s exactly the problem. High sec corps, right now, have ABSOLUTELY NO POINT. None. Not one iota. Not a jot. Nada. Give me one good reason to have a corp in high sec other than the inevitable wardec corps that rise up in response to the existence of a few thousand completely pointless ones.
On another note, I did secretly predict that the only people who would really resist this in such a vehement manner would be those in the single most pointless corps in highsec, the 1-man mission runner corp. GG, mate.
If you believe this then you’re not thinking hard enough, or not looking hard enough, or both. There are plenty of High Sec corps with a point, and with assets to protect, they just mostly get glossed over. Eve Uni is one, Red and Blue are another two, plus the various small and large industrial groups.
Also you seem to have missed something here. Me saying this is a bad idea has nothing to do with me being in a one-man corp currently. I’m in a one-man corp because I don’t want to deal with NPC corp tax and nothing I’m doing in-game requires me to join a larger corp. I’m still social, I still have people I play with in various other corps on a regular basis, but I’m not in their corps. Also nothing in your idea would prevent me from simply training corp skills for my little one-man and staying in it indefinitely. In fact I’d have an incentive to do so, since as soon as I leave I lose benefits and it would take me months to get them back.
This is just a bad idea built on bad incentives. People will be social if they want to be, you can’t force it and trying is a terrible plan.
