Shouldnt the Bar be raised to create corporations?


(John Wicksz) #41

The number of corporations in the game is, to put it bluntly, none of your goddamn business. In whichever way people decide to group with one another is entirely up to them.

I can’t wait for this now. Can you please elaborate on how the amount of corps in the game is negatively impacting your gameplay ?

How are people to learn if not from their own mistakes ? An incompetent CEO has a better chance of improving by trying and failing rather than not trying at all. Once again, this is something that does not concern you directly or your own play style.

That might well be the case. However, you shouldn’t take away people’s power to make their own decisions by charging a fortune to open their own corp.


(Sepheir Sepheron) #42

People in high sec who rat for taxable income (bounties, mission rewards) are already so gimped this wouldn’t matter. Anyone who is making money in hs is either boxing ten orcas, blitzing burners for lp or doing incursions for lp. Ore and LP are not taxed so all this will do is hurt noobs.

If you want to gank mission runners go get some catalysts and tornados like eveyone else. You’re just beating up children if you go for tech i fit 2018 players.

If you’re going dry with targets and don’t want to suicide on people go hunt people in null who krab all day and actually deserve this kind of attention.


(Solonius Rex) #43

It would provide a deeper engagement than the current model, where anyone and everyone on their first day can create a corp.

But you talk about grinding isk for something like if it was a bad thing. No one wants to grind, but we have a system in place where things cost a certain price for a reason. Theres a reason why CCP sets the price of Capital Skillbooks from NPC stations at several hundred million isk. Its such a simplistic way of looking at it, to say that because something makes it grindy, therefore its bad. No one wants to spend time getting isk, or leveling up, or walking from point A to B, but there isnt a single MMO out there that doesnt have a progression system. And theres a reason for that.

Well, no.

Can any idiot buy plex and skill inject and make 10 bill isk blingy golem? Absolutely.

The question is, though, whether the price of a golem and the skills required to fly it, provide a heavy enough barrier so that most people who reach it through normal means, would be skilled and knowledgable enough to fly it with some sort of degree of decency, and whether they would be more willing to reach out and ask for help. Does a Golem or Marauders cost, warrant more people to reach out and ask for help as to whether it is actually a good idea to invest in something so expensive to run missions? Will a person who flies a golem, be more careful and pay more attention? Will a person who flies a golem, be more willing to ask for help from his fellow corpmates before or during times when he feels as though he may lose his ship?

Most people, if they can help it, dont want to lose a billion isk ship. Most people, who can help it, dont want to lose a 500 million isk corp. This goes double for new players, who cherish their isk more, and who have a harder time grinding for it.

tl; dr: grind barriers are there for a reason.


(Nevyn Auscent) #44

None of which provides a thing to support putting one in here. If there is to be a barrier it should be based on skills related to being a CEO. Not to do with your ability to grind.
You did post a lovely wall of words though… even if it didnt actually say anything.


(Solonius Rex) #45

I believe i did mention skills in my very first post. Im fine with it being based on skills only, too, as long as the bar is raised.

So youre agreeing with me. Thanks.


(Solonius Rex) #48

I agree.


(Eric Kalfren) #49

I’m an alpha clone with no clue. No nothing to my name. I can start a corporation for less than a shitfitted Slasher :laughing:

It’s a good question.


(Solonius Rex) #50

Sorry, something went wrong with the quoting so im gonna repost:

Again, no one is saying we should remove the ability to create new corporations. It will still be entirely up to other people as to how they decide to group up together.

But you realize what you did, right? You posted a sentence, then you posted a second sentence, in the same paragraph, that was completely disconnected with the first sentence.

Were not talking about my gameplay specifically, but the general gameplay, especially with regards to new players. Thats what the wardec changes are mostly about, and what this discussion is about. Were also talking about the fact that its not the amount of corps in game thats the problem, its the system that has lead to the amount of corps in game that is causing a problem. But sure, certainly.

Will a new player be better at teaching and supporting other new players about this game, than veterans?

The answer is an almost definate No. Veteran players would be, in most cases, in a better position and have more wealth and experience than a new player in helping other new players learn about eve and get settled in. Most people would agree with this.

Okay, so would it benefit a new player to create their own corp and recruit other new players, or to join a corp under a veteran and learn about Eve?

To answer this question, we need to look at two metrics. Activity, and support. The problem is, activity is experience/wealth-neutral, while support is not. Anyone can be active. Not everyone can provide support.

So how does this have to do with the amount of corps in the game, negatively impacting gameplay?

Well, since anyone can make a corp with very little isk and skill involved, naturally weve had an overflow of corporations over the years. Im not against the creation of a new corp. What I would like to see, is new players actually joining corps that would further their education and experience in EVE so that they can enjoy the game. EVE has always been complicated, and the NPE has always sucked at educating new players. And to no ones surprise, new players also suck at educating other new players.

But the truth is, that more active corps are generally going to be larger, because not everyone can play EVE 15 hours a day, every day, and most people are going to get home from school or work and play, which means that the more people in a corporation increases the likelihood of someone being online to interact with you.With 10 people that can only play 2 hours a day, during various times of the day, a new player will have a higher likelihood of interacting with other players if all 10 are in the same corp, rather than if all 10 were in 10 different corps.

Making mistakes and learning from them is fine, if it only affects the person making them.

You shouldnt be making mistakes at the expense of the players under you, though. New players who join your corp, shouldnt be made to pay for your mistakes. They shouldnt be penalized for your mistakes. Guess what allows an incompetent CEO to have a better chance of recovering from his mistakes, and lessening the aftereffects to his corp members? Knowledge, experience and wealth.

And its about the player retention of EVE and our increase in interactions with other players, which i would argue concerns quite a few of us, myself included.

Just because the bar, the requirements are higher, doesnt mean that the power to make your own decision about whether to open a corp no longer exists. Its harder in the sense that, yes, getting into a rorqual is harder because of the sheer cost of the hull and the drones, but there is still the option of skilling and getting into a rorqual.

The thing is, we had a guy ask about getting into a rorqual in the past few weeks in the NC Q&A, which I frequent. The guy hadnt trained into one yet, but had asked if it was a good idea. The response was pretty much a unanimous "No". Almost everyone said it was a bad idea, that you need a lot of infastructure to fly a rorqual.

Guess what he decided? Ill quote him here:

And thats perfectly fine. We told him it was probably a bad idea, and he, apparently, went for it anyways.

We always have the power to choose, no matter what the cost. But Id rather prefer a new player ask whether its a good idea, before he chooses. And that knowledge, usually can only come from someone more experienced. The thing is, the more expensive the choice, the more hesitant and careful the player. I want a player to ask whether its a good idea to fly a rorqual, or start a corporation before he does so, and risk losing his rorqual, or risk bringing down a bunch of new players with him into quitting. Isk is certainly an aspect that determines whether a new player goes for it or not, and Id want a new player to get the best experience in EVE.


(Daichi Yamato) #51

Learning from others and learning the game rather than starting a corp in your first week.

And yes as I’ve mentioned, the more bad corps there are the harder it is to find the good ones.


(Gleb Koskov) #52

It took them 15 years yes?


(Humongous Trithead) #53

I do not agree everything should remain as it is for corporation creation.


(Ramona McCandless) #54

How does it do that?


(Solecist Project) #55

I don’t think you have enough in depth understanding about this to form a proper opinion. Instead it seems you believe everyone has opinions and the amount of background knowledge is irrelevant, which is nonsense of course.

So let me teach you a bit, so you can step out of your ignorance.

The fact that everyone can create a corp from day one means that …

… many people create corps with no idea how to run them. They just want it for the ego, to beleaders, and most people actually don’t know how to be leaders.

… many people create corps and eventually let them run dry and quit, meaning that the name is basically lost potentially forever. Keyword: Forever. Tons of corps out there with good names and no one using it as Identity.

… society lacks structure. Freedom without restrictions tends towards chaos. That’s a fact, not an opinion. Giving people options to choose from, to lead them on an informed path is far more beneficial than giving everyone who just wants something the ability to have it.

… corporations lack value. Economics 1o1. The more corporations there are, the less actual value has each one of them. 90% are just copies of copies of copies doing the same things with the same goals, achievingnothing. If these people actually grouped up more tightly, chances of them actually achieving something skyrocket.

Someone who starts a corporation without ever being part of one only risks ruining not only his own, but also thegame of other people. There should be minimal requirements, like - example - being active in an active corp for a few months. The Activity Tracker can help with that. A lot, actually.

What actually good reasons do you have to oppose the idea thatnot everyone should be able to start a corp from day one? I wrote my part, now let me know yours.


(gust prefect) #56

Damn right.

But I disagree on the corp thing. New players should be able to organise on their terms. Let them try things out, don’t shake your fist at them when they mine in a cormorant. Let them try stuff out and see what works best for them. One day the will take their step from highsec into THE DEEP. And experience A WHOLE NEW playstyle refreshing their interest into EVE Online. I think psychologically it’s important to let them make their mistakes and learn in a reasonable -not hellcamped- way before they venture deeper into the dark depths of the abyss.


(Aergri Evingod) #57

So buying some PLEX and selling them on the market is the new way to get money for creating a corporation?

The OP is indeed correct assuming an eve corporation is realy more then the simple player clan with added economical tools and acounting interfaces.


(Abruzzi Oskold) #58

Actually there is nothing wrong with those “drawbacks” you laundry-listed.

As well those other, issues, are kind of trivial and simply means someone looking to join a corp actually needs to do their homework.

The whole idea that it is too cheap to start a corp despite the fact you can buy PLEX is kind of… heh,
We all know what this is about, really. :smiley:


(Solecist Project) #59

Well, I’m not a fan of isk balancing, though to be fair … people who use the money to get around the “restriction” aren’t usually that many … and they will learn that it’s not the way to move forward. So while I’m not a fan, I can actually see that work.

Still, a better way is tracking their activity to make sure they actually know what they want to do.

Nice to see you actually agree. :slight_smile:


(xxxTRUSTxxx) #60

Well that has little to nothing to do with it, people who as you say hide in NPC corps are already in a social group, it has all to do with them not wanting to PVP and doing anything to avoid it , gotta say we can’t say all people in NPC corps, some people just dont want to join a player run corp and are happy to PVP from an NPC corp. The answer is already in the game.

You want to avoid wars, easy, don’t join a player run corp, no need for a so called fix.

I don’t hold out much hope for the new changes neither, why dec a corp? because they have a station, turning wars into nothing but station grinds, why do i think this, well let’s see, people who dont’t want to PVP will not PVP.
you can tell them they have to show up and in most cases they will (for a while) but their heart isn’t in it and they never speak about PVP the way they do about PVE or Industry.

they never theory craft fits or tactics, they have no clue about what ships are dangerous and what’s not, they have a weak understanding of combat and agro mechanics and always find themselves knowing enough to get themselves into shite but never enough to get out of it.

The new war dec system needs to encourage PVP not encourage people to stick their stations in alt holding corps and never show for a fight, people that don’t want to PVP will just pull the modules assets and fuel and move it all to another station and right the loss off with their non station owning war dec free main corps profits which you won’t be able to disrupt.

you can lead a horse to water but you can’t make it drink, CCP needs to find a way to make the horse drink or at least encourage it to do so.

this new system stinks of alt holding corps for structures and people avoiding PVP at all costs while the worry of the loss is only based on isk and hey, why worry about isk when you can pretty much print it with out ever having the worry of a war dec or any disruption to your isk faucet.


(Mala Zvitorepka) #61

I don’t see the point behind paywalling corps behind 1b. What problem is that going to solve? Yes, it will make bar to have corps higher, but why would that be a good thing? To push people towards established corps? I believe having corps where you can play with just whoever you want to makes more sense.

I believe the best would be that corp costs 1m to create, then 1m + 100k/player per month (average number of players taken). Cheap enough anyone can afford making a corp, yet not free so the corps would get disbanded if inactive.

Regarding corp skills - Having number of people locked behind pretty arbitrary skills makes no sense to me. I would prefer to see CEO requiring special skills to have corp structures, offices and so on.


(Mala Zvitorepka) #62

Eh, then the alt corp gets wardecced, the structure destroyed without opposition and now what? That isk faucet closes. Running operations on NPC structures is trivial from NPC corps too. With all the bonuses for structure based production, trade and so on, CCP was probably sure everything will move to player based stations that will be source of a lot of conflict - ruin competitors’ manufacturing or reprocessing centers etc etc. But it didn’t happen (yet).

The thing is that NPC corps let you do almost everything player run corps do. Make ingame chat channel for just people you want to pretend are your corpmates, stay in NPC corps and you have 99% of the corp experience, even with people from different NPC corps. You do miss out on structures, offices, corp contracts and similar mostly irrelevant stuff.
So, with such close capability, it is pointless to have player corps with meaningful risk that isn’t present for NPC corps (on the other hand, having NPC corps permanently in war would make player corps safer and this is even more stupid).