Corp Skills - encouraging players to join and stay in corps

Your suggestion would add a straight-up bonus to corp members’ effectiveness; there’s nothing balancing this sudden bonus, other than perhaps wardecs. Because of this, these CEO skills will basically become mandatory time sinks, every CEO will need to train them, otherwise people won’t join. So that screws newbie characters who want to create their own corp, for whatever reason, much like the Learning skills used to screw newbie characters.

In addition, corps that operate in low, null, and wormhole space are fine; they attract new people on their own without the need of any extra stuff. Your suggestion is primarily for high-sec corps, who don’t have any incentive to keep their members, because everything can be done solo in high-sec. But instead of some sort of bonus for ACTIVE CEO’s that try to put some effort into attracting and recruiting people, you’re just suggesting a blanket bonus for everyone, regardless of how active they are.

Ultimately, you’re trying to make staying in high-sec more enticing, compared to getting the hell out and joining a real corp where the game is at its best. Which is ok I guess, but probably not what CCP wants. So I doubt that they’ll implement this.

Moved. :slight_smile:


I’m gonna add my no to this.

Players should have the freedom to drop corp without a mechanic like this. What they shouldn’t do is then be able to instantly start/join a new corp for a pittance. The op’s idea in its current state tells me i should dock up and just wait a dec out.

I’d also prefer this kind of boost attached to a structure (structures that provide system wide boosts to corp/alliance). The defending corp cant just wait out a dec.

On top of that i still feel there should be a 7 day cooldown after leaving/switching a player corp. (but you can always leave to an npc corp). And of course making new corps needs to have a cost similar to wardecs.


Even if the skills were corp tied, with bonuses obviously lost when not in it, to discourage players from leaving or disbanding, what exactly prevents me from taking some time off my main queue and rolling corps skills for account secondary/tertiary character and making that the CEO, which effectively eliminates any “alpha-restrictions” while at it?

So the alt that never gets played but holds on to the skills of the corp itself is now a kingpin, members drop the corp and the alt just arranges them back in, Ta-Da!

And we are back to square one.

Adding anything like this would require a massive change to the current wardec system though. As things stand right now the ability to simply invalidate the wardec by dropping corp is pretty much the only available counter to mass-dec groups.

Personally I don’t think CCP has a big enough problem with anything in the current state of affairs to put in the kind of time that this level of rework would require, nor do they have any reason to take on the level of risk that it would entail.

Also keep in mind that if you put a 7-day cooldown on swapping corps like this you’re basically saying that the person should either A. drop anyway, because at least they can do some flying for those 7 days, or they should just dock up anyway and wait it out because they’ll be under NPC Corp tax for those 7 days. IMO not a particularly great set of incentives there, considering that the main groups impacted by the current corp-dropping mechanics are High Sec players primarily focused on missions and similarly taxed activities.

That’s precisely the penalty you should pay for avoiding decs. Thats the meaningful choice. I’d even npc corp tax their lp.

If 11% tax means they don’t play eve at all that’s their own dumb decision. 89% of bounties and lp is still better than none. They can also go mine or do exploration.

How is that even remotely a problem?


“But muh ISK/hour ! You inhuman monster, forcing me to make a choice and/or trade-off!”

1 Like

Because since that’s not how things have been, ever, in Eve it’ll feel like a punishment, and like they’re not spending their time optimally if they play while under NPC taxes. That sort of arbitrary feeling punishment is the sort of thing that makes people go “nah, I’ll play something else until the penalty wears off.”

Sure, logically making something instead of nothing is better, but that’s not the thought process people tend to use when figuring out how to spend their time.

Plus your base assumption here is that avoiding a wardec like that is worth imposing a penalty on. Personally I don’t think it is, considering the original cost of the war itself is extremely cheap and if you’re forced to spend even a day in an NPC corp you’ve already lost more than it cost someone to declare on you, which would make that a very much not balanced penalty compared to the cost of imposing it on someone.

I really like the idea of making corp membership more relevant but I think putting the “skill training” part of it on the corp instead of the CEO might be a better implementation else it would make corp CEO even more of an alt job for not wanting to “waste” your training on your main. You could have the bonus reset if the CEO leaves or change. It would make it like corp have non player “staff” that get better at supporting the capsulers with the skills trained but they lose some or all that efficiency when the boss change because of the shuffling this usually involve in RL corporation.

1 Like

It’s not wasted. Training corp buffs would be ‘skills’ for the corp, not the character. The character in charge of the corp would have an extra queue IN ADDITION to training character skills. There would be no extra SP accumulation on the CEO character itself.

1 Like

Avoiding a war by dropping corp is definitely worth stripping all benefits a corp can provide for a duration.

Otherwise any war is made null and void at a stupidly low cost (and you think wardecs are cheap).

Even if you make corps expensive, its only a one off fee and i can make unlimited alphas to be ceo’s of as many corps i can afford and switch freely as many times as i like.

A system that greatly favours the rich and alt heavy over newer poorer players. Where as a cool down is flat and fair to all.

1 Like

Yup, because it costs 1.5m to make a new corp and about 2m to war-dec one. Since the attacker can dec you wherever you go for that same low fee it absolutely seems fair this way. If the cost of declaring war was significantly higher or was in any way a risk or detriment to the attacker then I’d agree that wars should be harder to avoid, but right now it doesn’t make sense to impose the kind of penalties you’re talking about for jumping Corp to avoid a war.

I’m utterly against the idea. This would give corps - already more beneficial to players than being solo - even more of an advantage, making solo play absolutely ridiculous.

Basically this, and add to that the fact that the already inflated market would downright explode if the big null corps had % bonuses to stuff like mining.

I’d say no as well.

We already see CEO’s that are virtually inactive placeholders so that everyone else is free to come and go without penalties. I would certainly abuse this mechanic.

I would prefer the bonuses come from structure(s) in space where they can be ‘interacted’ with. Nice incentive for both wardeccing groups and defending groups to put something tangible out there for the benefits provided to them.

It costs a minimum of 50million to start a war. And the ally system plus no retraction option means an attacker can be locked into a war with anyone the defender allows.

Edit- and you can be permanently locked into a war that a defender makes mutual.

Even a war made mutual will eventually allow you to retract it. Couldn’t find the docs but I have done exactly this. I believe it was one week.

I see. It used to be the case where you could be perma decced by the defender.

My mistake on the cost, I was thinking of the old corp vs corp costs.

That said, you’re over blowing the risks here. Most of the groups making significant use of the war dec system don’t care if anyone makes a war mutual or who they drag into it. It’s just more targets for them.

Pretending that 50m is a lot of money or that there’s any significant risk to someone declaring a war is ridiculous.

Also as Wanda said you can’t actually end up perma-dec’d if someone makes the war mutual. It just removes the cost to renew the dec. If you retract it the other side has to pay to declare on you if they want to keep fighting.

  1. you should be providing incentive for people to stay in your corp / alliance not some artificial system.

  2. this idea was put into WOW and it sucked hard.

  3. Would become a game balancing nightmare within hours of release.

I actually get where a lot of people are coming from, but the following are arguments against absolutely nothing in EVE Online.

And? It’s a multiplayer game. Solo is not meant to be easy. I fly and PVP solo sometimes, sure, but I play with other people. “It makes solo harder” is not an argument against anything in a multiplayer game by virtue of the fact that anyone with numbers already has an insurmountable advantage over you, so much so that they can dictate whether or not you’re even capable of undocking.

This amounts to “it sucked in that game therefore it’ll suck in this one”. I’m sorry, but that’s no more an argument than “it worked in that other game, therefore it’ll work in this one”. As it happens, guild skills are also available in Black Desert Online and they work great over there, which is a PVP game much more like EVE than WOW has any chance of being. If we’re going to talk about what kind of games it does and doesn’t work in, I’m going to win that argument. But again, it’s a non-argument to begin with. EVE isn’t WOW, and it isn’t BDO.

There are strong arguments against this kind of thing being implemented in EVE, and I appreciate that kind of feedback. The two I’ve responded too, however, are worthless. People need to stop pretending/believing that EVE is a solo game, and people also need to stop slotting it up against other games as if it’s anything like them.

1 Like