They get a mail from a corp that has 100s or 1000s of members so they assume it’s an active group that actually does what they state to do. They join it and only 1-5% of the total people are actually online (at peak) and most of those don’t talk because they’re multibox indie alts. They’re already struggling with the game as that’s just how EVE is and then they get into this sort of depressing void.
It just increases the risk of of them uninstalling just as being told by everyone, their corp (because they will “buy back” those minerals for their own use) and even the game itself that people should be mining.
Is there a perfect solution? No. But EVE being a player driven pvp sandbox the obvious solution is indeed that, obvious: Make every corp above a certain size wardeccable, it’s not going to fix all of it but it is going to make it far more difficult for such groups to grow and gain more momentum.
But I found my place and built up my knowledge precisely by engaging in the sort of bashing that you now think would be bad for noobs. I would never have gained the confidence to now move on to solo PvP play, which i am increasingly doing, without prior experience in Wrecking Machine and Absolute Order. And the irony is that AO is one of the groups often decried for sucking in noobs and ‘using’ them…yet no-one mentions just how much actual experience this does actually give new players. Being cannon fodder in some war is not a bad thing…it is the best way to learn to sink or swim.
Right, and if anything, your personal EvE story is exactly the one I am promoting: get knowledge, make choices, and find your way. But there are more paths than there are individual goals. I’ve written a few times that EvE tends to hold up a mirror and shows how one is as a player left to make one’s choices and carve a life in New Eden. If someone wants to “waste away” in a sham alliance, well… tough ! But that’s how it is if one cannot be arsed to look further. And it’s not up to CCP to handhold and cradle new players in a sandbox.
But I would not support a “new rule for structure ownership of alliances” to humor a few trigger happy hisec wardeccers, no. They have enough potential targets. And if they think they do not, they can ask Aiko how to find some more, and adjust their play style. As much as I learned the game by joining nullsec after a few months into EvE, I would not force it on anyone either. Let people find their own path !
That would work.
I still like the idea of alliances having to own common structures. If anything it would serve as an isk sink and it’s not like they can’t afford it.
In the end, it does not matter if a corp that is spamming thousands of invitations belongs to an alliance or not. For the recruit it matters even less. Unless you would require all corporations to own a structure, but I’m sure no one sane would suggest that…
The base concept of the OP seems flawed to me. “Some people are in casual social alliances that take little effort to maintain, and this must be prevented. People should be forced to more intensively support and operate game mechanics if they just want to socialize.”
I honestly don’t see how this would “shake up” anything, since pretty much by definition most corps in such an alliance are having little impact on the structure of the space they operate in. And I seriously doubt you’re going to turn these kinds of players into combatants by taking away their chat channels.
CCP and other devs learned long ago that players will stay in a game to interact with their social group more than they stay to interact with the game mechanics.
If your goal is to get more players doing more active things in more active corps, those kind of goals are best achieved by creating targeted incentives to do so, and by removing barriers to progress in that direction. Not by creating arbitrary limitations to prevent people from choosing their own path differently than yours.
Identify the barriers that prevent players from joining decent corps. Provide incentives to join a decent/active corp (beyond the “Well you can save some taxes on some activities” incentive). Provide incentives to corps to run and maintain a more active corp that is rewarded for recruiting and progressing newer players.
“It’s a sandbox, players have to do everything themselves” is the wrong answer. The point of a sandbox game is that players should have access to the tools that allow them to create more interaction and more content. You get there by providing more creative tools, not by restricting their options or by neglecting to provide the tools in the first place.
Its super easy in this game to do tons and tons of damage and have no way at all for people to strike back at you, and this suggestion solves that issue.
Let me add to it:
You cannot set safety to red unless you are in an alliance.
You cannot fly a freighter if not in an alliance.
So if want to attack gankers you just have to destroy their structures and remove their alliance then they cannot gank until they rebuild their structure and reform their alliance.
And people cannot avoid wardecks by freighting in on a npc corp char.
TBH this is starting to sound more like a “stop other people from playing the way they want to, force them to play the way I want them to” thread.
Your specific post sounds like you dislike the ganker mechanics and want to force them to put more value at risk than the disposable ships they use. What it would most likely end up doing is pushing most gankers to form a couple large alliances. And since they’re generally more combat-ready than their targets, it’s unlikely they’ll end up having to “reform their alliance” due to vengeance strikes.
As for “no way at all to strike back”, that’s what the whole anti-ganking faction is about. You can tell how much gankers dislike it by how much they ■■■■■ and whine about Githany Red et al. in forums and chat.
Note: I’m no fan of the ganking/crime mechanics in EVE, nor of most gankers, nor in fact of much of the PvP in EVE. Just saying that “force people to play the way I want them to” generally never accomplishes much other than driving another X% of players away from the game.
Gankers see anti-ganking as a joke tbh they don’t really do any damage to them all all.
But hey I’m not a high sec player so if you guys don’t mind them running amok with no counter play then who am I to complain.
Just giving my thoughts.
Of course there are ways for people to strike back. Admittedly, it requires organizing and some creative thinking. If the aim is to kill gankers, use the kill rights. It the aim is to finish wardeccers, kill their structure… Either way, you’ll have to be able, willing and organized.
If, on the other hand, you wish to minimize the chance of someone getting back at you, choose your victim well.
And camp fires would lite up all over hisec, singing Kumbaya. Especially good for those who want hisec “safe” and risk free.
Why not add “you cannot do trading if not in an alliance” while you’re at it, lol. Or “you cannot fly a cloaked ship if not in an alliance”. That would break the market even more substantially, and annoy the hell out of cloaky campers everywhere (and perhaps reduce the need for more accounts).
Apparently you feel that wardecs need a boost. At least you’re honest about it. Personally I don’t see it that way. Wardecs should have a purpose that goes beyond collecting easy kills, and going through the list of available wardec-able groups, just like what @Kezrai_Charzai wrote about incentives for running a decent i.e., content providing alliance. There’s a reason why these wardec’ing groups have looooooong lists in their active wars tab, unless they are put out of action for a while by targeting a group that does defend itself and swoops in to kill their ■■■■. They learn to their detriment that messing with the wrong group puts pressure on their particular brand of business model. So they mostly prey on the weaker groups - such as those you’d want to be obliged to own structures.
It wouldn’t be risk free gankers are already in an alliance it just means they can strike back at them.
So you will use a 10mil kill right to kill their 4mil catalyst? I don’t see that as winning at all.
There is no counter play its an alt that is only used for that task and only sits in that ship.
Where as forcing them to defend a structure means they need to bring their mains into it with bigger more expensive ships and put those at risk.
People being able to do damage to others is completely fine but they need to put their cards on the table first, this risk averse bs is lame.
Any group that does that generally has structures, I can’t think of any “legit” group over, say, 500 members that doesn’t provide “decent content”. The ones over 500 members who don’t “provide decent content” tend to be the ones slurping up the newbies and letting them rot other than “stealing” from them using buy back options and taxes.
Can you explain how that would help innocent EvE pilot Joe in his struggle with gankers ? How will it help him get organized and knowledgeable enough to strike back and kill a structure ?
Having been involved in some hisec structure demolitions, they’re more demanding than similar actions in nullsec, with the added layer of extra hisec rules that are anything but “legitimized aggression” friendly. How would that help anyone but the already organized groups capable of killing such structures and monitor and hold off / fight “allies” of their foes ? Attacking a structure in hisec requires a wardec, in case anyone forgot. And I doubt anyone not capable of the above would venture in lowsec, null or w-space to kill a structure…
If such a mechanic exists anti gank wouldnt seem like a waste of time so more people would join them even the new bros and they would grow so big as to have the strength to wardeck and kill ganker group structures.
They die to a gank, solution? join the anti gank group.
But as of right now its pointless and hence no reason to join them.
I do not disagree with you. Those naive-newbie-targeting alliances are not doing anything but feed their owners, in ways similar to renter bosses in null (until now, let’s wait and see about Equinox). And maybe it does lead to some people simply leaving the game by being in the wrong group (which is a poor reason). But rather than force structures on every alliance in the game, providing alternatives to players is, in my opinion, the better step. As usual, even with the best of intentions you cannot do more than bring the horse to the water.
