I’ve been a CEO for 5 years and am utterly disappointed in what’s shown in this blog post.
A UI Update we don’t really need, probably just an excuse to shove mobile UI elements in everywhere. The current UI is fine; it’s the functionality that needs fixing and expanding
Boring projects. This system doesn’t need more basic goals like “Salvage Wrecks”, it needs more basic functionality, like being able to specify multiple input materials for projects. The SRP system is the only thing that is marginally exciting, and even that seems to be painfully limited
And… that’s it. Everything else is unrelated to group/corp stuff.
I sure hope that there’s more coming in Equinox for corp management. Maybe like fixing this years-old bug
No matter what, nobody will always be happy about changes. I think the salvaging is a cool concept for corp jobs. 1 cleans up trash in space, may actually tackle the wrecks seen on dscan but cant warp to.
Plus newbies in corps ive trained, always started out salvaging to make isk while training to fly a decent starter ship
I wish I had corp projects when I was a small ceo back in 2019. We would have KILLED it with player engagement.
Amazing time to be a corp leader these days. Get a good personality. Have nearly no-life when it comes to EVE Have plenty of ISK and you have a decent shot at being a leader in EVE.
I think salvaging is a fine idea for Projects. I just think it should have been here on day 1, or with the last batch of basic Project types. Now that it’s here, I’m not going to act like it’s a fantastic update.
“Corporation management” and related stuff was supposed to be a big part of Equinox. If this is all it is, it’s underwhelming, and I’m disappointed.
It’s actually a frequently asked for update. The tooltips especially.
This is still stuff that has been asked for. Delivering on it is a win, even if it is small or boring.
That is not a bug, that is a player who isn’t accepting roles. That player is able to change that if they want to, CEOs can’t and shouldn’t be able to give roles to someone who doesn’t want them.
Don’t assume things that aren’t said then. Sure it is a part of Equinox, but never did CCP say it was a big part.
There is a difference between being happy about a change and there being a change that lacks tangible meaning. The whole point of this post is to point out window dressing limited functionality with a fancy UI, still results in a system that essentially has not changed since it was introduced.
Want to give builder roles, but limit the ability to see/cancel/remove items?
No.
Want to hand out ships that are Insured at the corporation level, so the corporation gets the insurance money?
No.
Want to tax people for relic hunting ?
No.
Want to tax NPC bounties at the alliance level?
No.
Want to auto-kick people who do not log in for over 30 days?
No.
Want to do a Project that is ‘damage ship X’ but only count damage to a ship that is killed?
No.
Which is boring AF.
Amen. This should be on the mining API endpoint, as well as relic and data modules.
Yep. Very disappointed if ‘thats it’.
Sure, some better documentation around how the roles work would be nice, but its not a reason to break out the champagne. Knowing how the mechanics work shouldn’t require a Rosetta Stone and the Dead Sea scrolls.
There is an episode of the simpsons where the lottery is like 100 million dollars and the school is planning improvements, because they get a cut of the ticket sales. Skinner ends up getting presented with an eraser for their share. Sure, its a win, but is it really?
Can still give them a title that has roles attached.
If its highlighted in a video or a brochure it better be more than just an icon that changes colour when you tilt it.
And a prompt that simply says ‘Continue’ or ‘Abort’ is too much to ask?
But for sure there are disagreements about what is meaningful and what isn’t. There are points in your list of ideas I would strongly argue against having them in the game at all and maybe CCP is more on my line of thoughts there.
Tbh they could just bind rewards to the Activity Tracker that already exists. People would get rewarded occasionally when completing a level, newbs that need it most of course more often than vets who might have all those on V already. And Level V could have some unique Skins or Apparel, so people could even brag a bit as a “completionist”. Much better than these “daily things” so people do stupid and completely meaningless stuff like repping their own alt, just to grab some free gimmicks.
I completely agree with you %
I like daily rewards but I like your idea better now. A game is made to be played. If we’re going to get free stuff for not playing then it defeats the purpose of having all those graphics and sounds. Just mail me the stuff in that case and I never have to log in.
That would indeed work, if the Activity Tracker hadn’t been broken for the past 5 years. And apparently they have no plans whatsoever to fix it. It stopped tracking mining progress and several other metrics years ago.
People who manage corporations and alliances want these features, this naturally will result in a minority of the player base having any interest at all.
That does not mean they are not important, especially considering the value of the assets involved.
Thats not what I meant. Some features may be useful for “corporation management” or “alliance management” but the key question is “does it benefits the game as a whole?”. Making it too easy for single persons to manage large corporations or alliances with less effort and especially without the need to give out any permissions (aka investing trust) concentrates power in the hands of few. It removes natural barriers for growth and lifetime of said groups, which are useful to keep the field of competition leveled so newer and smaller groups who joined later have chances to keep up with the established ones. Corporations and Alliances breaking up or slowed down from the inside because of betrayal, theft, infiltrations, spying etc. is a must have feature of the game to make sure stale empires that are basically untouchable by force can be hurt from the inside. Those owners or leaders who want maximum security, should have maximum effort, they shouldn’t have it easy.
All the convenience changes over the last years (especially those attached to Upwell Citadels - which are imho the greatest game design mistake CCP has ever done) were great for alliance leaderships, but bad for the game in the long run. It enabled corps to outsource Structures to Holding Groups under control of a few Alts and letting others use their services and tax them without having any other access than just “use”. Those changes were of course demanded by the corporation- and alliance leaders - but in my opinion they have even more skeletized the gameplay. It was way more inconvenient, but also way more interesting, when you only could use services that your OWN corp actually provided (like with POSes). Those trust-issues prevented 100% of such groups in the hands of 1-2 people, because given enough growth, it was just too much effort to manage and maintain all those structures and services so they had to give out permissions in order to keep them running, keep them producing, keep them making profits. Things like the currently seen POCO-Empires in HighSec or “Holding Corps” owning the structures for alliances of thousands of other people who are actually doing the “work” (like protecting and refuel them) should be impossible.
That being said, I know most CEOs/Directors who are actually in charge will disagree, because they want all power in their hands and they don’t want any chance of internal challenge. But I am convinced that in the long run this stalemate of power we currently see is a direct result of large-group-management being way too easy. And thats bad for the game, competition and challanges that keep everyone on their toes are what is needed and any forms of automatisms or safe power projection (and yes, offering taxable services or profit options in the hands of few that can’t be taken from them because there is no risk of misuse of given trust/permissions involved also is “power projection”). Power of the leaders must be reduced, power of the members must be increased, it would be a better and more interesting game in the end.
Corporations are the backbone of the MMO and ‘player driven’ aspects of the game.
So yeah. duh.
Running any kind of effective corporation requires someone in the circle to have some basic IT skills in setting up comms, a forum and organising ‘events’ be they logistical, entertaining or military in nature.
Conversely, these third party services are also a lot easier to maintain control over, there is no possible way for an in game event to kick people out of a server they rent, change their admin passwords or shut down due to an insider threat.
Natural Barries for growth? If a corporation does not have a Standard Nerd who can set up tech, growth is a pipe dream when a foot will not make it past the door.
That boat has long since sailed. Tranquility is on the same trajectory as Serenity, its only a matter of time before Null is run by one big group and the game stagnates.
True, a number of large alliances have been brought down from the inside, though this happens with less frequency than in the past. Whilst it might not be obvious, larger groups who are still around will no doubt be deploying alternative measures to make up for the lack of in game failings.
For example. Nobody gets a director role without a mobile telephone number, a street address and a real name. People are a lot less likely to FAAFO when they are not some random behind a screen.
When a group changed its leadership and the ‘new’ entity wanted to use ‘their’ artwork, CCP was forced to make changes in response to the assertion of copyright. Why should CCP get a pass on being the weak link for other aspects of the game that are essential theft?
They were bad because the new structures were deficient in much of their functionality. Drilling Platforms and Refineries were supposed to be separate. Compression and Refining two separate services. A fortizar has a laughable amount of offensive power compared to a Death Star POS.
And this is different to using a NPC station how?
This is incorrect. POS’s could be shared with the alliance. You are probably thinking of POCO’s, which used to be Corporation Only. I would not mind one bit if POCO’s went back to corporation only, only problem being this would instantly be mitigated via the use of a PI corp.
One person could run over 100 POS’s with a handful of alts. Billions in their hands to fund the entire alliance, SRP and SCC sov bills. Now, especially with the patch coming up, people are spending magnitudes more time shuffling resources around instead of conflict. For all the early adopters of the new structures, there will be a point at which they will loose interest in running transport fleets to babysit materials around the galaxy. The current crew of hardline industrialists will just add it to the list of mundane rote tasks they mindlessly work through.
POCO’s are only concentrated because they require no upkeep. Its essentially free ISK in space. The people doing the work never ask what their time is worth and there is always some rube ready to replace them the second they try.
If they own all 1000 shares from a corporations creation, they have nothing to worry about, unless they hand out to roles.
Bring back jump fatigue? Large groups with good process and strong organisation are always going to do better than those that do not, even those with considerable military power. The patch that is coming is going to show that in the very least, but it does not mean the game is going to change. One thousand monkeys on one thousand typewriters will still eventually write war and peace.
It was called ‘Active Moon Mining’ and it took a fountain of ISK away from leadership and into the hands of the rank and file. All it did was push up prices, and the game is certainly not in a better state than when moons mined themselves and the masses were slaves to the SRP moon goo welfare.
%