Suggestion: Corporate and Alliance Renovation

Hello Pilots and CCP members,

A list of QOL improvements, and a design pass to corporate system below to help improve corporations.

  • Create a rule that make it so that if a player leaves a corporation, they obtain a debuff when at war. This will force them to sit in the starter corporation until the point of time which the war declaration ends on the corporation.

This mechanic is intended to correct and stop the abusive creation and drop of corporations when a war declaration is made to escape the effects of a war declaration.

  • When a corporation or alliance is “closed” they are not deleted from the system, they will no longer be recoverable, but will need to be fully recreated. Additionally, corporations or alliances that have sat inactive for prolong periods of time will also, likely be deleted. All players remaining in them will be placed in starter corporations.

These mechanic is intended to free up names, and effects of alliances that have been idle for the longest time. The intent behind this change is to make creation of corporations or alliances much easier.

  • Create additional corporate symbols for the creation of corporations, along with at least an equal number of colors. If possible, modify eve to allow any color to be applied, with an advanced setting to apply it by a hex color code format.

This is to help diversify corporate logo’

  • Create a “check corporation” option (like there is one for a ticker), and improve its functionality so that people can look for a ticker or name and be suggested with up to 5 alternatives. Additionally, create a Random name generation option.

Intended to help the creation of a corporation

  • Create unique tax properties that allow a ceo to set tax for ratting, trade, mining, etc individually.

This is intended to improve the ceo’s ability to manage the corporation in detail.

  • Refine the search mechanics for corporations to allow for search by region feature for joining a corporation.

this will help finding and locating corporations.

redesign corporate information to include new values and remove some of the existing ones.

  • remove corporation member count and add new values

  • Activity will demonstrate how many population have logged in, in the last month. This will demonstrate a value, low, medium, high, very high, extremely active based on the population of the corporation that logs in in that period. starting at 20% and gaining each level. 0-19 for low, 20-39 for moderately active, and so forth.

  • Creating a second attribute will also demonstrate the corporations growth rate over the last month. this will demonstrate based values. <= 10% of max population being low growth rates, <= 20% population growth rate being moderate, and >=30% being massive growth rates. This means that the corporation is growing to a value greater then the population of the corporation, they will display accordingly. So a 100 man corporation that grows more then 30 people in a month, will show as massive growth rates.

  • add a statistic that show corporation members online for each day over the week per hour values.

Wrap all of these statistics into graph charts all of these can be viewed publically

all of these mechanics are intended to help out people trying to join corporations to get a more active idea of how active the corporation is

add all of these values for a search option for joining corporations.

Create skills that dictate the maximum amount of war targets and allies to a limit of 5, 1 per a level.

this is intended in breaking up wars and mega alliances into smaller, more loyal groups.

1 Like

Many of these I don’t have an opinion on, however the ones that I do:

De-buffing people who don’t want to participate in a war they don’t have control over is counter sandbox

I understand that the war declaration system needs a buff/update, hell I agree. However, it is often one sided and that side is typically on the attacking side. There are people that have no interest in PVP, forcing them into something they do not wish will simply make many of them not undock. The problem with changing war decs in this regard is that as a defender (especially a smaller one) you really don’t have many options if a larger group wants your stuff. On the other side, you can’t simply make a corp invulnerable to war decs as that is also counter sandbox.

I will be the first to admit, I have dropped from a corp or two that has been wardec’d. I didn’t want to engage. Regardless of the reason, in a sandbox, I have the ability to walk away / run. Heck even in PVP people do this by escaping the fight. Pick better targets that actually want to fight. Don’t punish those that don’t (in terms of mechanics).

Why would removing corporation member count be a suggestion? You can just add an activity value (or you can do something similar to EveWho’s Activity in addition to the member count)

1 Like

Any mechanic that encourages people to not play is terrible.

  1. The anti leave corp mechanic is to punish abuse of this system, and leaving during a war is a minor form of that abuse. the war declaration is in effect to help encourage pvp in high sec (so people dont cozy to much there), which is good for the game to a degree (that has been massively overshot in its current state).

  2. I have made suggestions to ccp to make “mutual war decs” required for high sec pvp, a mechanical change to the conditions of pvp in high sec from the reaction based timer of concord, completely removing suicide combat, and unconditional pvp from high sec outs side of war declarations. i personally like the idea of pirating in high sec being moved into low sec to help validate its existence, atm, its really not used for anything beyond faction war and pirating. moving there could help improve low sec pvp options.

i also love the idea of nullsec alliances needing war decs more, and paying more for per sov rates they have. I also believe that aggressors should be punished in high sec more, regardless of how the other mechanics are changed, and i believe this should be done with a tax system that increases the per corp cost per a week. I think that rate should increase 25% per a week, up to 8 weeks. its far to easy and profitable to make isk in high sec waring, and it needs to be made harder at the minimum so that it dies off a little, additionally encouraging anti-high sec entities to come into the game is a good option.


removing corporation count is to help corporations recruit. starting corporate are to hard dependent on that number. there is to much power in that number. and there is to much cap on corporation population ( it really needs to be lowered to 500 max, probably less).

If your defense is to make mutual war decs required, then there is no purpose for the debuff as the mutual war dec will be enough (as those that dont want to fight, will just not go mutual). The problem with this is structures. Many war declaration entities are paid to destroy a target. If it then requires mutual war decs then that entire playstyle is eliminated.

One thing I have learned playing eve, is there is no one size fits all solution. There will always be another thing that counters the either the strategy or the mechanics.

My suggestion (that is in no way flawless) is to create “clubs” that people can join outside of a corporation. Allowing those that want a social experience under the same flag to do so. Clubs could be anything from a group that likes to run incursions together like Warp to Me to a NPSI group such as Spectre Fleet… This would allow those that are not really in it for pvp and just want a social entity to hang and represent to do so without the worry of wars and assets. If they want to make corps on the side they can, but would give these players a place.

This would make corps more for those that want benefits such as anchoring structures. War decs can then be made to be about engaging with those that have structures (something to lose…aka a reason to fight). Anyone that does not need this, can still make a corp, but cannot be wardecced unless they have a structure. You can also make it so that to declare war you need at least one structure. And if it is destroyed you will need another before you can declare again. This would help alleviate the issue described where war declaration entities mass declare for targets as they could be overwhelmed be multiple targets against their structure(s).

I said mutual wars in high sec, not all of eve. High sec should be for new players, or those who are ok with accepting lower income rates for the trade off of optional pvp.

we can draw them out with some minor economic changes to the income rates (like making 50-60m the norm in high sec, and 110-120m / hr in null).

Mutual war dec requirement does not invalidate wars in high sec, it just makes them highly unlikely for non-pvp entities, and that is perfect for what we need for high sec (since 62% of the population lives there and does not perfer it).

You cannot just opt out of PVP. That goes against the core of Eve and would make destroying structures in highsec too difficult.

Again we are back to forced pvp in high sec. Wont you get off it all ready? The majority of this game does not want your (and my) style of game play.

structure spam in high sec is an insanely fix and in no way is an issue. i can think of a few ways to solve it, some of which already exist(ed) in the game.

PVP is the foundation that Eve is built on. You wouldn’t be able to opt out of it. It’s what keeps this game going. Creation and destruction go hand in hand.

Who said that pvp is the foundation? Last i checked Sandbox game play is its foundation. And sandboxs are decribed by building things, not destroying them. Just because pvp is not conditional (to a degree) in eve, does not mean it is in any way its foundation. I get you (and i) are a pvper. but you need to get that we are a minority, and this game is by no means running on pvp. there is undeniable metric data to prove that over half this game (2/3) do not engage in ANY PVP AT ALL

No, No its not. All mmo’s are built upon a number of things, most notable to them is social interaction for mmos, which generally also includes a form of cooperative or competitive content (or eve both). People compete to mine in eve, but have nothing to do with pvp being high sec miners who found a nice quiet, pirat free zone to hang out in. People like that make up over 65% of the game.

If you take all the pvp players out of this game, the population would drop from 40,000 to 26,000 players. Which means, this game is not even close to running on pvp. So get out of here with your "making up bs reasons to keep farming people in high sec. Its not going to work with a developer/designer that has been working in the industry for around two decades.

You should quit your job then because you are quite bad at it. You keep forgetting what kind of game you are giving ideas to.

  • Yes, PVP is one of the core ideas that Eve has been built on. The whole point is that you aren’t ever completely safe. Whenever you press undock, you can lose your ship. If you aren’t ready for that, you can leave.
    -If there was no PVP, nothing would be destroyed, thus nothing would get traded on the market and nobody would make any money. Decreasing PVP will make the game cease to function as designed.

exactly the problem im pointing out. If mutual wars are required (Even just in hi sec) then that means that structures in hi sec are in all sense indestructible as you can just not accept war to protect your structure(s).

and just for reference … there are people that are reliably making over 200mil / hour running level 4s in hi sec. so the economic changes would not be “minor”.

Again, I am in agreement that war declaration mechanics need to be looked at, but the suggestion(s), I don’t believe will help.

These sorts of things can easily be dealt with.

Removing the need for war decs to attack stations without reaction of concord is a simple fix. the war decs are more an abusive mechanic to players (being camped etc) then they are assets.

another option is to make it so that the cost isk to run, like the old post system. its easy to set the isk higher then the income rate of a single player so that in general it has to be a team effort. You could make it so that if they dont pay, the npcs will pop , or offline if the bill gos unpaid and makes it free to be attacked.

Stations are not an issue, these are 10 second solutions to the problem which will resolve them. You could make standings required to 10 for corporation to drop them, The spam of stations is not an issue, you just want to pop ones of corps that cant protect themselves. All that does is validate that war decs need to be mutual.

Why do you feel that i just want to pop them … i can’t remember the last time i structure bashed something. I just dont support making them (near) invulnerable. I feel they do need to have risk associated with them. On the other side if you make them so that they don’t require wars to engage them then this will severely hamper small groups as they will not be able to defend at all (where they are supposed to be able to have them).

In regards to your comment on the spam of stations (I’m assuming your talking of citadels) is not an issue: that is not the point. The point is risk vs reward. If you drop a structure it needs to be be destroyable. But, you need to balance that destructibility to other factors such as size of owner group, sector of space, among others. You can’t give that much capability and then make them near invulnerable.

There is no risk in high sec, its high sec. That is the point of the zone. You just defeated your position with your own statement “risk vs reward” (A concept i am very familiar with as a designer).

More on that point even the “risk” in high sec is clearly geared toward new players. Is rats in 0.5 system a threat to anyone in a hulk, or even proc? Of course not. The rats in high sec are dangerous only to new players, thus the entire concept of high sec in and of itself is clearly designed from the ground up for new players. The only possible exception to this as it seems now is mission running, with level 5’s (as i understand it).


If it is risk vs reward, Who said the risk has to be pvp? These are all evidences that you are pvpers trying to argue for abusive systems (ie pirat alts or the similar). High secs battles should be limited to mutual wars, and faction war. Why ccp allowed alliances to war dec corporations i dont know, but it is probably hands down the worse change they could of done to support abusive game play.

No risk in High Sec? seriously? it is limited, and there are consequences. but you are allowed to suicide gank another player (unless they are new player actively doing npe, career agents, soe epic arc). FOBs are actually quite dangerous and can kill older player rapidly (i’ve even seen marauders get alpha’d off the field by the response fleet). Incursions are also dangerous if you don’t know what you are doing, as are burner missions. There is plenty of risk in Hi Sec, even as an older player. its just limited compared to low, null, or wh space.

The point of hi sec is not “no risk”, that is like saying Concord Protect (for reference they reprimand criminal action). What other (effective) risk is there to pvp / asset lost? Maybe I’m not understanding your viewpoint, however as a game designer (i’m assuming game), sandbox should mean something. Anything that restricts said sandbox, is not a direction I would support.

You just pronounced how utterly clueless you are (I didn’t bother reading your other posts). Low risk is still risk. Player-imposed risk is still risk. Highsec is a low-risk zone, not a perfectly-safe zone.

Do you realize what kind of game EVE is? Why it’s designed the way it is? Your post makes it really clear that you have zero clue.

1 Like

Not strictly a reply about corporations and wardecs but still valid (maybe?)

High sec is low risk, indeed you can get ganked but generally as long as you do not put too much value in your ship high sec is generally safe. I generally find high sec boring but I can and have lived there (generally doing l4 missions and escalations for ISK), and some people prefer it so why should they not live there happily if that is what they want.

Perhaps a potential solution would be to reduce the number of high sec systems by changing the security level of systems, therefore risk will increase. Maybe this could be achieved by allocating a single capital system in each region and the security level will go down in a radius away from that system and then rise again as you near the capital of another region.

The systems do not necessarily have to go to 0.4, but with a lot more 0.5/0.6 systems the risk would increase because CONCORD will take longer to arrive.

The point of hi sec is not “no risk”, that is like saying Concord Protect (for reference they reprimand criminal action). What other (effective) risk is there to pvp / asset lost? Maybe I’m not understanding your viewpoint, however as a game designer (i’m assuming game), sandbox should mean something. Anything that restricts said sandbox, is not a direction I would support.

thanks for falling for the trap.

It seems you are here to argue for the sake of argument. When just a moment ago you made the statement that null should be for risk and reward.

so which is it, is null for risk and reward, or high sec?

If its high sec, lets dump the security and make it all null.

You mistook me entirely. I stated that and I quote " There is plenty of risk in Hi Sec, even as an older player. its just limited compared to low, null, or wh space." That is NOT the same. I am not here just to argue for the sake of argument. I am TRYING to be constructive, it just seems that you are not comprehending the opposing argument(s).

You are missing the point. Its BOTH that are risk and reward, but to different degrees. High sec has LESS RISK for LESS Reward than null (and low / wh). And there are activities in each that have higher than normal reward and [should] have more than normal risk (but this is a different topic). This is what risk vs reward / risk and reward means. The different security space zones also have different mechanics than each other changing game play in small degrees (for example, Concord in hi sec)