Where is the ignore button for someone on the new forums?
6 Likes
Then it changes the existing corporate warfare and gets others unhappy. And weâve in fact have already seen players complain about the idea and we know how players can dislike structure bashes.
So itâs more of an idea for an additional type of warfare, but not a fix for a problem, when it sacrifices other players for it. Meaning players, who have stayed, but who you are now willing to risk losing.
A group who do not want to fight wonât suddenly decide to grind a structure instead. Theyâll dock up and bleed players just as now.
I propose the system sec change as an option because it doesnât involve changing current corp mechanics, or existing corps. It allows players to still operate whilst under wardec, keeps them in game with a reason to log in.
If you want merc groups to consolidate even more, go ahead. The only thing youâll achieve is cutting off wars to poor people and smaller groups / solo playersâŚ
Ok,
I am detecting multiple agendas here.
- People saying Social Corps cannot happen because they could be abused by conflating NPC Corps and Social Corps.
If Social Corps are to exist, they do not have to be a copy of NPC Corps. I repeat, they do not have to be a copy of NPC Corps.
The restrictions on both NPC Corps and Social Corps can both independently be tweaked to balance both of them.
So saying that Social Corps cannot happen because they would suffer from the possible abuse NPC Corps suffer from is disingenious.
- Wardec Structures cannot happen because only the big players will be able to use a structure
When I said that the idea of Social Corps and Wardec Structure go hand-in-hand, itâs for this exact specific reason.
The type of Structures you deploy, whether they are war-related or not, can define the type of Corps you are.
Using that, we can pair you with similar corps and make them eligible for war to or against you. This is how you make sure that people bite what they can chew in High-Sec.
So saying that Wardec Structures cannot happen because of big players is disingenious, the structure is actually the best way to make sure big players donât hog down Wars.
- Bashing Structures is boring, nobody wants to do it for Wars
The Structure used for War declaration does not have to be the same as the other structures.
A lighter, more practical, easier to reinforce structure can be used.
The goal is to provide a point of interest where both sides can front against each other, the structure is merely an excuse for that, it does not have to be Asset-protected, have Tethering, or any of that â â â â .
So saying that Structure Bashing is a point against Wardec Structures is disingenious, Wardec structures do not have to be the same as the other structures.
- You wonât make people, who donât want to fight, fight.
Yes, but you can nurture them into wanting to fight. Not 100% of them, but a sizable portion of them, multiple of the systems in the game prove that (all the spaces outside of HS actually).
You can educate people into liking PvP, into seeing the value in it, the same way you can encourage people in society to act in the proper way. And that asks for you to show them what is good for them in what you are trying to make them do.
And this is why the idea of Soft Targets is critical. People have to look forward to being in Wars as it opens them to a set of new targets, opportunities and rewards they can go after. The targets will do the job of slowly educating and exposing them to PvP, with the goal of preparing them to undock together and go after the Wardec Structure targeting them.
This is the key to making people not logoff during and war, and coming back during one.
So saying that people who donât fight will never fight is disingenious, if you leave things as-is you have the sulfilled prophecy of people some of you wish would not fight, well, not fight. If you introduce rewards they can go after during the war, you can educate them into fighting so that they can join the ranks of PvPers in EVE society.
1 Like
That, also, is why Social Corps are a fail idea.
Give it up.
Its never going to happen and there is no arguments for it.
So somehow, miners and newbros will want to go pop a structure?
Please 
âSystem sec changeâ?
What is that exactly?
Could you please make a thread as well?
Right in GD.
Let us know your thoughts. I always keep reading the thoughts of people who arenât even doing any wardecs, which makes this whole â â â â â â â â even worse than it already is.
Someoneâs probably going to flame me for this ⌠
⌠but youâre an authority on the topic!
4 Likes
No. remember what this is all about? Itâs about players leaving because of wars. They already are unhappy.
1 Like
https://crossingzebras.com/eve-universe-podcast-episode-2/
Asterothi talking about wardecs. Mar 21 2018.
2015 social corps dissed:
Steve Ronuken defends:
There are two proposals with social groups, which donât majorly overlap.
Corp lite: Itâs like an npc corp, but with your own name and logo.
For those people who would otherwise stay in NPC corps.Cross Corp Social Groups: For gatherings of players, like the various NPSI communities, where people want a way to organise, without requiring people to leave their current corporation. So you can have fleet adverts, shared fittings, bulletins and so on, restricted to that group. Also, searchable, to improve discoverability which can be a real problem in Eve. (also handy for groupings within a corporation/alliance, like MinLuv)
tbh, Iâm in favor of both. How often have you heard of a group of newbies, being âgriefed out of the gameâ, when all they wanted was a name of their own. Iâd like Corp lite to be able to be upgraded to full corporations, but not the opposite.
from 2015 to 2018 is 3 years.
2 Likes
Social Corps wont fix that.
Maybe you should stop provoking, generating and collecting rage-quit EVEmails, chat screenshots showing them to your friends as trophies, if you are concerned about people leaving EVE.
Its making them unhappy.
Youâre not the one asking for them.
1 Like
Neither are you.
I, on my part, am completely against Social Corpsm cos, as you agreed, it changes nothing from what is already possible.
But Im not the guy farming tears, rage-quit EVEmails and chat screenshots as trophies when they leave.
You are.
No, but Iâm willing to let them have it.
Youâre the guy on the bridge that says âYou donât get to pass, not while Iâm hereâ.
1 Like
The idea I put forward a few times.
1.0, 0.9, 0.8 systems are secure Empire systems, and the Empires will not allow you to prosecute wars in their space under any circumstances.
All content currently in these systems remains, but missions are limited to level III at most. Ganks are still an option of course.
0.7, 0.6 and 0.5 systems are where the Empires are losing control to a degree. Hence stronger pirates being there in the form of level IV missions, burner missions etc. In this space corps can be wardecced, and the Empires choose to stay out of it.
Corps remain the same, no need for social corps, as these can just stay in higher sec systems. Corps who want higher grade highsec PVE need to be in the lower sec systems. It may be required to make being in a player corp necessary for level IV missions etc though. Basically incentivize moving down, but put players at greater risk if they do so.
That would be the first step, stop the bleed of players by giving them areas they can still operate in under wardec, but with an associated lowering of possible rewards.
After that wardecs should be reworked to include victory conditions, but that should be a seperate task.
1 Like
Maybe if you stopped causing them to quit, and collecting EVEmails and screenshots as trophies when they do, that might help stop them quitting?
Maybe you are the problem, and not them?
Oh, I definitely am a problem. And Iâm loving it. I guess that makes me a happy customer. 
1 Like
I like it.
Should definitely be added to the list of options for consideration.
Yet that means only you are retained vs how many others have left as a result of you.
So its you, as 1 vs an indeterminate number of leavers.
This is not a good argument for you, or on this issue.
Youve flat out admitted you are a âproblemâ, which makes it clear that you are what needs to be removed or mitigated to fix this.
It never ceases to amaze me how hard, and repeatedly, you fall on your own face.