Suggestion: QOL Improvements to Corporate Search, and Hire Allys

EVE Technology and Research Center Player Features & Ideas
1

Hello pilots and developers,

I recommend making improvements to the searching type of features in eve.

Looking for a Corporation

  • Add an option to select a region of operation for corporations, and select a region of operation for players who want to work in said region. This way, a player can search for a corporation that works in delve, or tash murkon for example. Base the corporations “region of operation” off where their HQ is, and provide a benefit for stationing the HQ in that region (like bonus income, or no office rental costs).

Search settings will not find corporations for you in the region you have selected, and will ignore results from other regions unless all regions is selected. By default this will be set to your current region.

Looking for an ally to hire in war

  • add a ratings that is provided by success or loss rates of corporations that help others in need of war.
  • provide a search option to sort the hire corporation based on their ratings.
  • Provide a temp boost to ratings to corporations that pay for “Advertisement” This is a new feature that will artificially increase your ratings for 0-50 victories based on your isk pay rate (up to 5b for 50 ratings). This should then be reduced by 50% for newer corporations with less then 10 victories ( to help new corps who are doing anti-griefing and pirating to get a take off in their ratings climb).
  • positive is givn for war wins, and negative ratings for a loss all distributed by the system, not player votes (thumbs up or down is to easily exploited)
  • Victory will now provide an isk value based on the character count of players in the defended corp and will provide an isk per member value based on SP in the same brackets applied on an injector that is paid by the corporation at the end of the war

@CCP_Falcon @CCP_Rubik @CCP_Fozzie

2

Your war mechanic is broken because there is no automated system for determining the winner or loser of a war. In fact, there isn’t necessarily even a single system that both sides in a war would agree on. It’s entirely possible in EVE to have a war where both players feel that they are the winner. Your rating system would be worthless, especially since you undermine your own system with the ability to buy a positive ranking.

( to help new corps who are doing anti-griefing and pirating to get a take off in their ratings climb)

What makes you think this would only be used by “anti-griefer/pirate” corps? Why wouldn’t it be used the same way by everyone else? For example, what if I buy a positive rating for my spy corp, collect the fee for my services, and then spend the whole war doing nothing but giving intel on my employer to my PvP corp that started the war?

Victory will now provide an isk value based on the character count of players in the defended corp and will provide an isk per member value based on SP in the same brackets applied on an injector that is paid by the corporation at the end of the war

Where does this ISK come from? Is it a payment from the hiring corp to their mercenaries? If so, why should the fee be set automatically rather than negotiated between the players involved? Is it a payment made by the game, like bounty payments? If so, then **** no that has no place in EVE.

3

psst.

its not a rating chance. ITS AN ADDITION FOR RANKING. please read what is being posted for the love of the amarrian empire!

You pay it as the defend corp. Like you pay for war decs when you launch them, or corps when you hire them. its a mechanic already in the game.

4

I read it. It’s a terrible idea because it’s a ranking based on something the game can’t evaluate, with a built-in system to bribe your way to a better rank.

You pay it as the defend corp. Like you pay for war decs when you launch them, or corps when you hire them. its a mechanic already in the game.

Exactly. It’s a mechanic already in the game. The defending corp can make an offer to their mercenaries and pay it. We don’t need an automatically-calculated payment based on SP values replacing player interaction.

5

Atleast those two points were intended iterations on when they made the “mercenary marketplace” back in 2012. (read the future bit)

But as all new things, it was deemed “good enough” and nothing ever got iterated on.

6

Atleast those two points were intended iterations on when they made the “mercenary marketplace” back in 2012. (read the future bit)
But as all new things, it was deemed “good enough” and nothing ever got iterated on.

The problem is, like with many things in EVE, the fact that alts exist. Ratings are worthless in a game where you can have a bunch of alt corps spam positive ratings for your corp. The only thing they’d give any evaluation of is how determined a mercenary corp is to have a perfect rating. So, if the system is so obviously exploitable and pointless, why invest development time into it?

7

It really depends on how they implement such a mechanic.

On top of my head… have the defender put out a public merc contract, if there are any takers there are goals set within the contract.
If goals in contract are met, voila you as an aggressor have positive rating.

I doubt people will use alt corps to sacrifice structures etc just for a bump on the stat?

All tho… I agree with you, there are much more important things to invest development time on. Like finishing crimewatch to account for other mechanics and fixing things that have been broken since they made it. :wink:

8

No, but they could certainly create alt contracts with goals like “destroy 1 ISK worth of ships” and pile up easy “successes”.

And there’s also the problem of how to define goals in such a contract. What if my goal is something less obvious than destroying a structure? For example, I might want to deny you safe use of key market systems and disrupt the operations of the alliance you’re an alt corp for. Even if my mercenaries never destroy any of your ships I have still accomplished the goal of hindering your operations as long as you’ve been limited in your Jita access. Or maybe I’m tired of you depleting all of the belts in my system, so victory consists of forcing you to mine elsewhere. Or maybe I just hate you personally, and success is measured in how many of your obscene rants my mercenaries see in local as you’re sitting camped in station 23/7. An automated contract system can’t handle that kind of complexity, and would have little purpose.

9

You know, I have been a highsec merc for 6+ years doing all kinds of contracts.
Its a matter on how its implemented, ofc there cant be a option for every scenario like grudges etc.

10

You claim that you read the post, Yet I explicitly said “The ratings are based on war wins/losses, not player votes because that would be to easily exploited”. Now we have established you are a liar, who is just here trolling. Go back and read the post, or shut up with your whining.

The purposeful is to make a ranking system based on how a corp helps another to win a war.

11

Again, the automated win/loss rating you are talking about is impossible to create. The only possible system for rankings is one where the players submit their own rankings, and it would be exploited. There is no point in discussing a hypothetical system that can not exist.

PS: even if you magically create a win/loss system it would be exploitable by alt corps. Start a fake war, “win” it with your main. Repeat until you have a sufficiently high rating.

12

Your bs level is really going through the roof.

Alt corps wont matter if you assign activity requirements on the back end of the corp system to detect exploits like that.

Alt corps would also require you to use your isk to gain ratings, in which case would not really work to well, as you’d pay for ratings that were useless as an alt corp, especially since you have to win war to gain anything of value.

13

Great, now you’ve made your rating system worthless. Let’s say I get a war dec on my industrial corp. I hire mercenaries to protect my corp. The aggressor corp, upon seeing that I have a powerful PvP force on my side, promptly departs the region in search of easier prey. That’s a clear win for me, a win my mercenaries deserve credit for, but because it has no “activity” it would not count under your system.

Alt corps would also require you to use your isk to gain ratings, in which case would not really work to well, as you’d pay for ratings that were useless as an alt corp, especially since you have to win war to gain anything of value.

You’re misunderstanding the use of alt corps. The alt corps create a fake war, which the real corp “wins” and gains ratings for. The alt corps are not getting the ratings, they’re a tool for helping your real corp.

14

Yes it would, because the rating is assigned by War Victor or Surrender. If you surrender, then your ally obtains a loss rating. If the aggressor retracts the war decalaration, it is counted as them surrendering, and your ally would obtain a positive rating.

15

And you misunderstood what i said. The development team can code in the back end of the game (in hardcore) some conditions. These are called “if statements” (generally what we use). it would look something like this (not written in code format)

If Aggressor corporation (corp a) declares war on a corporation (corp b) and aggressor population less than or equal to 1, then “apply ratings” does not work (equals false)

If corp c (Allied/hired corporation’s) population is less than or equal to 1, “apply ratings” does not work (equals false).

A series of statements like this can be written in the code, setting a minimum requirement for population. These rates can even be set up to do something like

corporation a (aggressor) must have minimum 50 pilots who have logged in the last 30 days to apply settings.

Various types of conditions and rules can be applied to this system to prevent abuse, however that being said the system is nearly abuse free by default. The reason for this is as follows

  1. If you create a corp and do use the mechanics of the system to gain rating, you will only be a 1 man corp that has rating. That rating is only there to help other corporations who are in need to decide to hire you or not. Think of it as a “recommendations for hire”.

  2. Even if you accomplish rating as a single man corp, its useless. Since as a single man corp is nearly impossible/unlikely that you would cause an entire high sec corp to stop pvp, and if you did you deserve the ratings (because you earned it naturally with in the harmony of the system).

Lastly,
People already exploit the mechanics of eve. So the entire argument is not a valid reason not to add these changes, its just a desperate cry for not being taxed (which exposes you are a player in a entity like pirat).

16

At which point we’re back to the situation where I make a bunch of fake wars with alt corps and immediately surrender to give my main corp a positive rating. If no ship losses are required then it’s trivially easy to make an arbitrary number of fake wars and manipulate the ratings system.

The development team can code in the back end of the game (in hardcore) some conditions. These are called “if statements” (generally what we use)

Which makes a system that is, again, easily exploited (and yes, I know what IF statements are). If the minimum population is 2 then the alt corps will just have 2 members, easy enough with alpha accounts. If the minimum aggressor population is 50 then the alt corps will have 50 alpha members, and legitimate aggressor corps with 45 members will be unreasonably excluded.

If you create a corp and do use the mechanics of the system to gain rating, you will only be a 1 man corp that has rating.

Why are you making this assumption? What is preventing a larger corp from using the same exploit? In fact, it will be much easier for a 50-man corp to exploit it because now each player has to run fewer alpha accounts to populate the alt corps. A 1-man corp would have to manage 50 alpha accounts to make a fake 50-man aggressor corp, a 50-man corp would only have to get each of its members to run a single alt account each to create the fake aggressor corp.

Since as a single man corp is nearly impossible/unlikely that you would cause an entire high sec corp to stop pvp

So what? I collect my payment for the war, then ignore it. I’m paid, who cares what happens next. The war ends somehow, maybe I take a loss, but who cares. I have 50 more alt wars generating positive ratings and keeping my overall rating high.

People already exploit the mechanics of eve. So the entire argument is not a valid reason not to add these changes, its just a desperate cry for not being taxed (which exposes you are a player in a entity like pirat).

And this is just ****ing stupid. I have no personal stake in this either way because I don’t operate in highsec, I just dislike people who post bad ideas without bothering to think through how they will be exploited.

17

Try to read what i posted. When you accomplish that major challenge for your level of intelligence, let me know. When you are able to understand the following words in the english language let me know by quoting it. Other wise go do something else you troll.

18

Hey genius. You dont get the bounty until you win the war, you rocket scientist. I know your not a smart one, but wow.

19

And i dislike people like you who troll forums, Skimming through posts and missing important parts to explain how to stop abuse/exploitation of mechanics, especially when they are explained in detail almost to the point of how the code is written.

20

Oh, that will work really well, expecting people to work on credit…

PS: if you can’t see the obvious fact that any corp that is in danger of winning the war and having to pay their mercenaries will immediately “surrender” to count the war as a loss and evade payment, well, you clearly aren’t thinking your proposals through very well. Cash up front is the only possible way to get mercenaries.