So wtf was your point again?
What a pointless exchange and waste of my time.
Have patience.
Towards what?
You?
I had patience, answered you on your round trip on the carousel, and here we are again, right where we began.
Try finding compromise by the method you proposed. See what happens, and whether you can toe your way through it, or get repeatedly attacked/derailed from all sides.
I know what will happen.
Prove me wrong.
I do agree we could use more types of corporations. But I think a more important point would be to first make people want to be in a corporation.
A big part of the problems of High-sec come from NPC-corps being a viable alternative to PC corps and being so facilitating (as in being used to dodge wars).
For you. You have no given one reason why a war structure would not be viable, and you have made zero effort to see how we can avoid it being exploited. It having impacts is a moot point, any change is bound to have impacts in one or more areas of the game, that’s the whole point.
And you being afraid of a meta change is yet one clear indication that your issue here is just that you are afraid of change and try to defend the status-quo.
2 Likes
Well, they already are in a corporation. So it will be more about getting them into a different one.
Now one cannot fix lazy players, but one can lure them out - or as they say “make it and they’ll come”. But I’d be careful with it and only introduce one type, the “social corp” type, which should be very similar to NPC corporations and only so players can group up. If this finds acceptance then one can take a next step and see if there is enough interest in a third type, a “limited corp” with some benefits and some risks. It’s a process and takes time and one cannot just snap the finger and say “that’s going to fix it all” as it may also wreck it all or just do nothing.
In the end does it not even have to be new corporation types, but it could be a simple setting in the corp interface, which enables a benefit while it also enables a risk linked with it.
Only as example:
[ ] Corporation Tax (replaces NPC tax, allows unlimited members, allows one war at a time)
[ ] Structure Anchoring (allows for unlimited wars)
It’s easy to say that any suggestion is non-viable when A is wrong because it lacks B. Then A is wrong because it contains B.
Structure.
Say it, Intel Gathering Structure 
.
I think this might be the one foray we have made in this thread.
A social corp needs to happen. Like it was suggested in this thread, something a bunch of friends or coworkers could create in order to be able to play together without the administrative overhead and the threats of a normal corp.
I actually like your idea of perks/cost. Corps could little by little customize themselves into the type of corps they want to be. You want Corp tax? You have to do X and Y. You want to anchor structures? You have to be open to Z.
You’d essentially start with a social corp. A corp where you cannot anchor structures, with no corporation tax (but with still a NPC tax), and with hangar and such.
Still I wonder, what could this type of corp offers that an NPC corp and a channel couldn’t. That’s the key here to defining what a social corp actually is.
Renting an office gives you the hangars. This can be in an npc station or another corp’s deployed upwell structure. Has a cost attached to it and a limitation as well.
You don’t know?! To be pretend to be famous, to fap about it, to be elitist, to be edgy, anything that makes sense to someone who is new to EVE and brings a lot of outside expectations with them.
Intel Gathering Structure ← I’ve said it.
Only I think a “war probe” would be easiest to implement as we already have survey and combat probes with a whole mechanic and interface around them. It wouldn’t fall under anchorable structure nor further contribute to increased ice prices either.
And making wars mutual should make enemies visible on the map so each side can see where everyone is. That’s going to lift the “fog of war” and accelerate the fighting. No further CONCORD costs, but higher risk.
1 Like
As far as I know, you cannot warp to probes and interact with them. All you can do is D-scan them and use them and that’s it. I like the idea of people actively being out to find whatever intel device is on them and shooting it, might be harder to do with probes.
But hey, I see nothing inherently wrong with the idea, outside of probes not being supposed to last that long.
You don’t need a corp to have an E-peen, the forums are plenty example of that .
But yeah, to me part of the problem wars will have to deal with is that very few corps are worth the hassle of the going through wars. Very few structures have the profits justifying losses of plenty of ships that quickly be worth more than the structure itself.
I think outside of Moon Mining structures and POCOs in High-sec, very few structures are worth going to war over. A new type of structure/resources should be exist to make more common structures that would be worth fighting over.
Outside of that, one thing I think could help make Corps a clear better alternative than being in NPC corps:
Restricted access to all structures when corp-less.
Yes, this is drastic, but people affected will always have stations to fall back to.
Now another question is “how do you discourage 1-man corps”…
This is never a good solution in a sandbox game. You want the openness. Players can close access to their structures if they choose, too. They only choose not to and they make ISKs by allowing others to trade, refine, manufacture and research at their structures. You’d be denying them this form if income, too.
To discourage one thing it’s best to find another thing, which they want more.
This is not the most elegant form, I agree. I understand disliking just strictly forbidding something, however you do need to restrict what corp-less characters can do and how they can benefit of something other have to put real risk as a corp in making available.
In your example of corps that would activate/turn on some features by exposing themselves to something, making it so that corp-less players can’t access Structures would allow that to be an obtainable feature, at don’t at what cost though.
Also, I think I have figured out something to discourage 1-man corps and encourage “bigger” ones.
The whole HS Wardec thing needs to be rebuilt from the ground up with better support and integration into the game environment. Yeah, that would likely mean some massive changes, but…
When “Do Nothing” is a viable defensive strategy… something be broken.
When “Wardec EVERYONE!!” is the standard to find fights… something be broken.
The desired outcome of a system should be the most likely to occur, in the case of the current Wardec, it is the least likely to occur.
There are some really interesting ideas from all sides that have been floated for a while, someone should probably be paying attention looks over at CCP … never mind.
1 Like
I’ve got a new one for you. Double the reaction time for Concord response in highsec. Have any corps 7+ days in existence get the benefit of the old standard Concord response time.
And there you have it. You can either be in a wardecable corp and have good Concord protection, or be in an NPC corp and deal with Concord taking a lot longer to respond to your needs.
[note I’m not really serious about this, we just need something new to discuss]
2 Likes
I like the principal direction your idea is going, but it will very likely create more player corporations with more war-evading pilots. Basically what your idea will do is to drive a percentage of players (a bit like cattle) out of NPC corporations (which I think is good), but you haven’t controlled where you want to drive them.
So you’ll be driving them to where we currently are, meaning, we get more player corporations, but with mostly war-evading pilots. This will drive some of the warfaring corporations, who aren’t yet spamming wardecs, more towards spamming of wardecs, with the current wardec spammers taking it up a notch.
On the upside, many of those who are leaving NPC corporations because of such a change may go straight into null- and WH-corporations, and those corporations will be happy about the change.
You know, I don’t buy into “blanket wardecs” being a problem. It’s a side-effect of a system, and only that. It’s not something I want to “solve”. So I understand your point and I agree it might be a consequence of such a change, but I disagree with the framing of it being a bad thing. It’s just a thing.
I also don’t really want to direct where to drive them. I find that to be un-sandboxy. But for all the talk there is about using taxes to leverage people into player corps, it only effects mission runners. Literally everybody else could not possibly care less. And that is something I find to be problematic. An entire mechanic designed to incentivize people to grouping up and being a part of the larger community…only effects one select band of people. Sorry, but that’s a failure of a mechanic at that point. Heck, I’d be okay with reducing or doing away with NPC tax in exchange for the Concord change.
The only people that could dismiss the Concord change as irrelevant to their operations, are people who don’t undock anyway: traders. And that’s perfectly fine. I don’t want to interfere with that. But for players who undock, Concord is the one universal point all pilots can and are directly effected by. So any discussions about creating an incentive for people to create and value their corps will have to revolve around that.
For what it’s worth, it’s why I mentioned that the corp would have to be founded for 7+ days before earning the proper Concord protection. Just rolling corps to get away from wardecs would mean you’d still be more vulnerable to ganking. Or maybe we can pin that data point to individual pilots instead of corps: you as a pilot have to be within a corp for seven days before Concord will have proper response times for you.
1 Like
Point of order: Ganking does not actually get solved via your change. Merely increases the time the gankers get against npc corps.
As what do you see ganking? Would you say it’s the cause of a problem or would you say it’s a symptom to another problem?
Most complaints on ganking only ever try to see it as the cause, meaning, players see it as the cause of their problem. And the solution then ends up being the “burn it with fire” approach. A bit like having a bad rash and wanting to burn off the skin.
But if ganking is seen as a sympton to another problem, then one could try to solve this other problem. So to say, finding the cause of the rash and trying to solve the underlying problem instead of burning the skin off.
Point understood. But I don’t think ganking is a problem, and I’m not out to “solve” it. So pointing out that ganking does not get “solved”, is a bit of a red herring I guess? I just pointed out that the tax mechanic is a failure of design, and that there is really only one way to tackle the perceived problem of people hiding out in NPC corps or rolling corps to avoid wardecs - to make them vulnerable elsewhere. As for the second sentence, yes, that’s the point.
I know you weren’t asking me, but may I respond anyway?
I perceive ganking as primarily (not exclusively) a tool borne out of frustration, or a tool of last resort. Wardecs exist as a mechanic exclusively to enable PvP between individuals without Concord response. But wardecs have immense limitations on them, and for good reason. But eventually you might reach a point where you have ample motivation to destroy someone’s ship but they evade the use of the traditional mechanic to enable PvP (or are otherwise immune). So what do you do?
When it comes to ganking, you’re reduced to generally using a few select ships that are cheap for the amount of DPS they can output, and you have to stack up a bunch of friends (or alts) and hope to ambush someone. Outside of the obvious of freighter ganking, suicide ganking a random person is a monumental task, especially so if they are in any way alert or fit tank. And even attempting to do so incurs very steep penalties on the attacker. Again, for good reason, but it has a result of making the hurdle of taking out a select person or group of people way too high and out of reach of most.
Question: why, in a game about spaceships blowing up, in a game that needs destruction to function, do we see the emergence of bumping as a significant tactic? Because someone is in a high-hp ship, in highsec, and it’s basically impossible to effectively gank them. The hurdle is too high, the penalties too steep, so they resort to just lamely pushing them around. I know bumping as a mechanic is contentious by itself, but there’s little else left at this point. And don’t pretend for a moment that bumping is interesting gameplay for either the victim or aggressor. It’s just the only tool left to deal with otherwise unassailable targets.
2 Likes