[quote=“Remiel_Pollard, post:40, topic:8894”]
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.[/[/quote]
Well, I don’t know if our understanding of “solo play” is the same, TBH. To me, you’re always playing EVE with other people.
When I talk about solo play I’m talking about solo instead of group play. Some games are meant to be played in groups - like League of Legends and Payday 2 - and they can only be played solo with bots or similar AI. Their entire design is centered around group cooperation towards a common goal; you can play it alone, but that’s not the designed experience. AFAIK, this is not the case in EVE: the game was designed with player associations and groups in mind - and in some cases that’s highly encouraged - but the core game experience does not require the player being in a group. There is solo mining, exploring, PvP and PvE. In other words, I get it that, in EVE, being in a corp is better in most cases, but never, ever, mandatory.
So what you’re saying is, you can play solo, and still be part of a corp at the same time??
Still a non-argument then.
No, that’s not what I’m saying. I’ll try to be clearer.
EVE is not a co-op group PvE game, like for example Borderlands. EVE is not a group PvP game, like for example Overwatch. EVE is not, in any shape or form, necessarily a group game. It’s a game that can be played solo; It’s a game that can be played in groups. CCP puts it much better than I do:
Player-created empires, player-driven markets, and endless ways to embark on your personal sci-fi adventure. Conspire with thousands of others to bring the galaxy to its knees, or go it alone and carve your own niche in the massive EVE universe. Harvest, mine, manufacture or play the market. Travel whatever path you choose in the ultimate universe of boundless opportunity. The choice is yours in EVE Online.
Therefore, it needs to be balanced in such way that being a part of a corp, a fleet or any kind of group is possible gameplay and being solo is also possible gameplay. Group play should be, IMO, more efficient than solo play but not to the point of making solo play too irrelevant or too inefficient. Or to the point of making joining a player corp mandatory to enjoy the game. Again, IMO, the proposed change would make corporations even stronger and more attractive, maybe to the point of making solo play - that is, playing outside of player owned corps - irrelevant. And, even if it didn’t, I don’t think that there’s need to make player corps more attractive or buffing them in any way, because they’re already better than solo. If anything, this change would make the economy of EVE even worse, because the problem of uncontrollable null ISK faucets would be compounded by corp buffs.
Of course, this is my opinion, you can disagree. Some might say that it would add much needed flavor to corps and I can see why. Others that I’m wrong and that EVE should force you to play in a group. In any case, that’s just my opinion. Feel free to disagree. However, I ask that you don’t disqualify it as a non-argument, because that’s just intellectually dishonest.
Speaking about a system identical to the one you want to put into the game is relevant whether you like it or not, since there is no way to know what it will be like in EVE we have as our only source of prediction about it’s outcome other such systems that we do know about and make a prediction based on actual use of the system.
When you bring BDO into the argument it is a statement you are making that it is more like EVE and therefore a better predictor of the introduction of your idea into EVE. Doing so invalidates your own argument that outcome of other games with the same system is predictive of its introduction into EVE. You then back peddle at the end of your statement thus making any retort to your statement inherently invalid.
This is the cowards way to argumentation and certainly isnt an assurance of argumentative victory as you claim.
If you are so steeped in argumentative form as you imply than you should realize that the argument that, “I win because I get to decide what is and isnt relevant”, isnt an argument but rather a serious case of self-delusion.
Also, calling other peoples opinion worthless also isnt a valid argument and so i must seriously question just how poorly you really understand argumentative forms when your entire post is just a mass of argumentative blunders. I would have to say that it almost seems like your understanding of argumentative form is better summarized as, ‘I win’ and less actual proper argumentative discourse.
I’ll add here also since i didnt mention it before, i belong to a HUGE corporation and there are already plenty of good reasons to belong to a corporation that is being run well.
If for some reason you are struggling to get members into your corporation and feel you need artificial incentives to get them and keep them, then i would suggest that perhaps a more ‘worker-bee’ form of game play as opposed to leadership better fits your talents as a player.
[quote=“Cindy_the_Sewer, post:44, topic:8894, full:true”]
Speaking about a system identical to the one you want to put into the game is relevant whether you like it or not, [/quote]
No it’s not, because we’re talking about two completely different games that do completely different things - what works for one will never work for the other in the same way, and the point I was making by bringing up BDO is that I can give examples of where it does work, which essentially cancels out your example of where it doesn’t. Let me be clear, when I suggested this initially, it wasn’t because I want it in the game, it’s because I wanted to hear opinions of why it would or wouldn’t work. Your opinion here that it doesn’t work in this other game, that’s directly countered by the fact that it does work in another one. Therefore, it’s a non-argument. Whether it works or doesn’t work in any other game is irrelevant. Why it would or wouldn’t work here in EVE Online is all that matters.
That’s a negative, kiddo. I’m explaining why your argument, and mine if I used BDO as an example, is irrelevant, but due to the fact that concepts in BDO are more similar to EVE than anything in WOW, I can argue that it’s more likely to work in EVE because it works in BDO. Pay close attention now, because this is important - I never said I AM arguing this, I said I CAN argue this. You really need to actually read the words I’m using because I’m not trying to compete. I’m also not arbitrarily deciding what is and isn’t relevant, I gave my reasoning and showed my work. All you did was, “it didn’t work in WOW and therefore won’t work in EVE”.
Well, the bottom line is, “it does work in BDO therefore will work in EVE” is no more an argument in support of the idea as yours is one against it. It really is that simple. I’m not steeped in anything, just explained why your argument is never an argument for or against anything changing in EVE Online.
One more thing, in regards to this.
I was critiquing one part of your argument against this. Everything else you said was fine, it was just this one point that I was demonstrating doesn’t work as an argument ever. The argument amounts to, “this doesn’t work in game A therefore it won’t work in game B”. This is never an argument, especially if you’re talking about two games with completely different featurescapes. If the featurescapes are more similar, it becomes stronger, but it’s still not an argument because how a thing being changed dynamically applies to specific mechanics (be it directly or indirectly) will never be the same from game to game, featurescape to featurescape.
All I did was explain this so that you’d understand better. It was a critique of your argument, not a personal attack or a diagnosis of mental illness.
If your response to that is to turn around and call me delusional, then you need to grow the ■■■■ up. I’m getting so sick and tired of this childish knee-jerk reaction to criticism on these forums and others where a grown adult subject to something as mundane as a spelling correction can end up acting like their mother has been insulted or something. If you can’t handle criticism yourself, then stay away from criticising others until you can behave like an actual adult.
i think maybe different systems can give different bonuses
some are more desirable than others
this means more desirable systems will have higher index ratings
and hopefully encourage corps to blow up the other structures in their system to keep the index down
I have a better understanding of what you’re saying, and I agree. But as an argument for people trying to play the game entirely on their own, it doesn’t work. That’s where I thought you were coming from. Because not only is that person already grossly disadvantaged, they are also more than capable of creating their own one-man corp.
Just a side note: those people, who want to play the game on their own are what causes so much ‘carebearing’ in my opinion. They confuse what I call group play with multiplayer - as I said, I think EVE is not a group game, but it certainly is a multiplayer game - and no matter what you do, you’ll always deal with other players and their agendas.
This is the reason why, while I don’t agree with it, I think that your idea comes from a very important place. Corps are, indeed, in the heart of the game and IMO they need improvements always. Personally, I think that the share holding system could be ravamped and the financial system of EVE could be improved to be more complex and maybe incorporate debt insurance systems, account-wide permanent debt and financial liability and punishment. I have no idea how to implement those things exactly, but my take on corps is that they would be more interesting as close as they get to real life corporations.
I like this. In it’s raw form it makes sense and seems to add something of value. I’ve read through most arguments and your counter-points and again see that the raw idea behind it could actually work out. Just be sure that people can’t apply injectors to corpSP, else it’s useless. It’s not a final solution for the problem corporations face in regards to importance and value (i believe not everyone should have the simple right to form a corp, because most people are completely unfit for leadership positions and many - directly and or indirectly, on purpose or by sheer incompetence - abuse new players, even as actual new players themselves)
/me spreads “hearts” all over Remiel’s “thread”. 
This is something I think about often, which is why I tied it to the CEO, and used it to tie the CEO to the corp. Leadership is a position of responsibility, one that most are not prepared or able to take, but new players who’ve been at it for a few weeks are creating corps and filling them up with other new players, and no one in those groups are learning or accomplishing anything of value for themselves, or for the game as a whole. I’m a firm adherent to the idea that, before you can learn to lead, you must learn to follow. Leading isn’t about expecting things from those who follow, it’s also about what those who follow expect from their leader.
You’re smart. Sometimes you have anger management issues 
, but you’re smart nonetheless.
You have my support, in case it’s ever needed. You actually think things through and thus deserve it.
I see you wish to continue frothing at the mouth as if I’ve insulted your mother. The fact you believe it implies you implied it, otherwise, why bring it up? You’re just waffling at this point though, and I don’t have time for your tantrums. I’m just going to block you now so I don’t have to put up with them.
Frankly, if your charisma, management skills, and overall aptitude for running things are subpar, then even this wont incite people to join your corp, let alone stay for long. Same as if you’re no different than a slave driver in a sweat shop.
Secondly, there’s several problems you have to resolve-
-Most bonuses people would want to see are those that would require the skills to give fractional percentiles (ie 0.1% and the like), otherwise the bonuses are too in favor of older corps
-How would you protect the corp against the loss of bonuses via coups or other available forms of corporate espionage? (conversely, how would you prevent abuse via CEOalts?)
-Why? What reason is there to add this, or a problem this is meant to fix?
That being said, if you want people to start taking your idea seriously, you should probably stop being childish too.
Was writing out a serious response to your points. Then I read this, which you could have just left alone since that’s exactly what I intended to do to the person involved in the ‘drama’ here. This is off-topic. I am not being childish, I was responding to someone who was throwing a tantrum at my criticism of their arguments against and called me delusional. I have responded appropriately to the level of pretentiousness with which said poster has treated me.
People have already taken it seriously enough for my liking and provided good arguments against. Given that I didn’t post the idea as something I wanted implemented, but rather to gather the thoughts of players on the subject out of curiosity given my positive experience with a similar system in other games, I am satisfied with the arguments provided so far that it wouldn’t work for EVE Online. I really don’t require you to take it seriously, especially if you’re so blind as to think I’m the one acting like the child. Maybe you haven’t followed this thread for long enough, or read it in full and gathered enough context, to make that judgement, and perhaps you should just stay on topic rather than deviate like an easily-distracted child yourself.
I’ve removed some off-topic posts. Please keep your arguments constructive 
As usual… I’m late to the party, but here are my thoughts.
I’m iffy on this idea.
Most of the counterpoints to the OP I more or less agree with, though I don’t hate the idea by any means.
However, I would like to see a reason for non-CEO’s to learn corp skills.
If the skills were tied to - or perhaps enhanced - a role within the corporation, then there might be an avenue for a corp skills shake-up.
In the end I would love to see a set of corp skills that regular members of the corp could train to help out the corp as a whole.
I’m at work, so my mind in in a different mode right now, but I’ll edit in some specific ideas once I’m home.
–GadgetCorp earns level 2
The problem is if you don’t solidly attach the skills to the corp itself, people will just bounce because the corp itself is back to being borderline irrelevant. Corps definitely need to matter more to their player. If corp have more meaning to it’s member beside being a liability to get killed in HS if someone threw money at CONCORD, you might be able to get a more meaningful corp interaction system where wars stop being what they are now. If the skill are just linked to the character as long as he is flagged as role X in the corp, people will just make everyone have role X in that corp and the same role as soon as they join corp Y.
This is basically what corp level assets like Upwell structures are though.
The corps that have these assets tend to be tighter nit and more cohesive than tax-evasion corps, and that’s fine, but the benefits they offer aren’t the sort of “must have” bonuses that the OP is talking about, they’re just an option.
IMO the core issue here is the idea that it’s a desirable thing to force people into guilds/corps/ect and that that will lead to a better game experience when there’s evidence this won’t actually be the case. Both from how players in Eve tend to react to bonuses like this (exploiting them) and how players of other games have reacted to similar setups (anger, resentment, bonuses eventually removed or changed).
This has been introduced into World of Warcraft with the Cataclysm expansion. A guild had certain levels obtainable by doing stuff (the difference is unimportant), each level brought certain perks for guild members, amongst others faster leveling. This encouraged people to join guilds in a following way:
- Create a main or an alt
- Join one of many “leveling guilds”
- From lvl 1 to lvl 100 use the perks of the guild
- Never see a single word uttered on guild chat
- Never say a single word
- Never run dungeons, do quests or anything with your corpmates (you have LFG for it)
- The moment you hit lvl 100 and the leveling perk is not important for you anymore, leave and forget you’ve ever been there.
Mind you, this works for World of Warcraft, where the idea is to quickly level up to reach the endgame. But this is EVE. This is a social game, not solo-with-hundreds-others game like WoW. People who join such “boosting corporations” will still not have any reason to talk to others in the corp - they didn’t join for socialisation, they joined purely for 5% DPS bonus or whatever. Is that what you want?