It’s a simple QOL for the casual player, but please, keep over dramatizing it 
1 Like
All Social Corp does, compared to what can be done in NPC Corps, is cost you isk to form a Corp and gives you a Corp Tag so you can pick a logo and write a nice description.
That’s literally the only difference, and has no effect on wardec mechanics at all.
If they go Player Corp, the same issues as now will be there, all over again, and unchanged.
I don’t need to know, I’m not CCP. I just want you to submit any evidence you have to CCP, so they can clean things up, and not make accusations you can’t support. That way lies mob rule, and anarchy.
Also, I’m not a propaganda specialist. I run the Fitting team. You want MiniTru.
As opposed to just standing around the festering dung bucket at present?
Social Corporations aren’t subject to wars. This addresses the retention issue that is arising due to war declarations against non-PvP oriented casual players.
Another tired talking point. This exists already and the data says it does not help.
It is not needed in terms of the activity of mining being impacted in capability or capacity, yet as stated before it is a huge quality of life improvement.
1 Like
Which is preferred, disabling war declarations wholesale, or creating Social Corporations as just the first step among many towards a better war declaration mechanic?
2 Likes
Oh dear, REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE, you may want to troll me and look bad doing it, but please stay on topic. Personal attacks on people who come up with suggestions are a way to discredit the ideas of that person, you have not refuted anything I said, just made a glib comment that made you look…, need I say more…
Doesnt address the wardec mechanics issues at all.
It doesnt even touch the wardec mechanics issues.
It changes literally nothing about the current wardec issues.
It hasnt helped.
Neither will a Social Corp which differs in NO way from what is currently possible in NPC Corps, except you get to pick a name and a logo.
Thats it.
Wwrdec mechanics are the problem, not the lack of a Social Corp that allows you to pick a name and logo, and is otherwise the same as an NPC Corp.
How is being able to pick a name and logo, a “huge QOL improvement”?
Uhm… ok? So asking you to be a responsible adult is trolling? Good to know. I’ll go back to ignoring your nonsense now.
Good because you added nothing to this debate with that pathetic little troll dig, apart from proving that you had nothing to refute what I said. Seriously…
1 Like
Yes.
You are claiming he is irresponsible and not an adult.
That is trolling.
1 Like
At this point, ‘this debate’ is meaningless. There’s like 5 people going around in circles, bickering about social corps and making all sorts of wonderful proclamations about how things work that don’t even exist at this point. Meanwhile, actually spitballing new ideas and trying to figure out if they’ll do any good has been completely ground underfoot by the ‘DO IT MY WAY’ back and forth over one or two minor pieces of the puzzle.
Any real, substantive analysis and problem-solving needs more data. We just don’t have enough information, nor enough granularity of information, to do real systemic social engineering with any reasonable chance of success. Until we have that data, we’re just throwing darts off a cliff and hoping there’s a dartboard somewhere down there.
And we’re not going to get any data until at least Monday. We’re probably not going to get that data at all, because if CCP wanted us to have it, they’d have given it to us, but you know, we can at least attempt to remain optimistic while we wait.
No, I am suggesting the course of action a responsible adult should take. That doesn’t presume him to be or not be either part of that term. Whether or not he chooses to take that course of action is entirely up to him.
1 Like
Calenders, MOTD, Roles, Decorations and Titles, recruitment, communication, easy access to who was last online etc. the list goes on.
How are basic corp abilities not a huge QOL to groups of friends as opposed to NPC Corps. This is an MMO you know?
4 Likes
That is a better post. In effect CCP needs to have a proper look at the issues in hisec in its entirety and war decs are a major part of the issue, but it is more than just war decs.
Do adults throw in troll bait posts like this on well known botting activity that was detailed in a number of Reddit and Eve forum threads. You were trying to be smart and looked like a child in doing so.
So please post like an adult, you can do it.
CCP has demonstrated that they can and do take action against botters. Allegations on reddit, and these forums, are meaningless. They are just sound and fury, signifying nothing. If there’s evidence, it needs to get submitted to CCP so the problem can be solved.
And yes, an adult would say ‘if you have proof of a crime, take it to the police. If you don’t, don’t go making accusations’. I’d hope you can understand that.
You are digging yourself deeper due to your personal antipathy towards me. The botting activity was commented on by CCP and was well and truly proven and bans were applied. So I can talk about it as fact, and you should not be giving that simple minded put down on a well known event so you can make yourself feel superior, that is not the act of an adult, but a man-child.
It was not an accusation, it was a well known and commented on bot activity by the then CEO of PIRAT. Seriously mate, what the hell…
If bans were applied, then the problem’s been addressed, no? So why bring it up?
1 Like
The affects are still apparent, if I build an entity based on cheating which is causing a game imbalance and that the entity survives the reaction to that cheating because it got built up to a degree to be able to take it, then has the problem really been addressed. That is why I bring it up.
As they are the number one blanket war decker then they are part of this issue and understanding this is key to solving the war dec issue. That is why I keep pushing the Propaganda structure which ends war decs, because to beat PIRAT that is what is needed. And that has been built on the back of cheating…
The distortion due to the Tech imbalance for example is still there.
1 Like
Sure, but there’s only so much CCP can do without extending their ‘corrective’ measures into things they can’t measure. Where’d that money go? Well, it was used to buy things. Which things? A certain percentage (because money is fungible) of literally everything PIRAT has purchased since the botting began. Ok, so just take that much money away… except that the things they bought were used to secure other money… and that spending benefited other players (the people they bought things from).
How far down the money trail do you go? Heck, some of the things they bought with the botting money blew up things owned by other players. Do those players get those things back? How can you tell which things those were? How can you fairly attempt to remove the influence of that money, since the use of that money is part of what secured later contracts for them, and so took money away from (at the time) non-PIRAT groups like (then) VMG etc?
I’m not saying all this to troll you, either. I’m trying to illustrate that this, much like the wardec issue, is a large, complex problem to which there probably isn’t a simple or clear solution. So CCP’s instituted policies that make it clear ‘we take X action and trust the game’s ecosystem to be resilient and sort itself out over time’.
That applies equally to everyone. It applies to PIRAT as well as it does to GSF, or FRT, or TEST, or DRF, or CO2, or any organization where people have been banned for violating the rules. CCP makes these rules, and they make clear enforcement policies (and when the policies aren’t so clear, they’ll clarify them). Applaud them catching the bad guys and meting out justice in accordance with those policies… and move on. Continuing to focus on the lingering, long-term effects of the crime, which can’t be mitigated without causing more issues on a larger scale, can only ever be counterproductive, and self-defeating.
1 Like
Part of the problem of designing any LONG term solution to the WD player retention is CCP’s seemingly refusal to granulate/graduate both corporations and war itself.; it’s either you are out “completely” or “full bore in” as some people say. While we don’t need to have a full spectrum of options for either, a third or fourth choice instead of “A” or “B” could be part of the solution.
In regards to war, most of the WD corporation members that quit do it because the odds are so stacked against them, both in available manpower but, and far more importantly, the huge difference in capability (force available) and percentage of assets risked. Small corp risk what little combat assets they have (if mining/exploration corp) and at a much lower combat skill point level against a seemingly endless fleet of larger more powerful ships and veteran pilots. Even if the smaller corp wins a skirmish somehow, this just results in more WD activity and the instant resupply of enemy assets; the smaller corp actually gains little for its effort. So they log out and mostly fail to log back in if a WD is still active. A balanced spectrums of war levels based on size of the defender (total based on alliance size of defender, so that even 1 man holding corps can get their war type elevated) could encourage more frequent balanced wars. A defender is more likely to engage if he feels that a) he’s not risking most of what he has worked (and yes, for some small corps, it IS a lot of work) and b) there is even a small hope that he might win at least 1 of the battles he will face when he undocks. A war based on frigates only, then cruisers/bc and lower, then full out war could be the tier system.
In regards to structure, part of the social corp appeal would be the establishment of some physical form of corporate/group identity: the “BOYS SUPER SECRET CLUBHOUSE” at its most basic levels. The ability to have a corporate office in a NPC station should be the least option to offer otherwise, and I REALLY hate to admit it, part of Proteus’ argument holds true. Even if you upgrade it to the equivalent of only 1 “suped up” anchored giant secure storage container with tethering capabilities, you need something to fulfill the player’s need to be able to point at something and say “I’m special”…and I fully comprehend all the ironies with this last sentence. All structures in an alliance should be combined to determine the limit; i.e., 1 small corporation with one structure and 2 small corps with no structure equals 1 medium alliance with 1 structure in determining what level war can be waged on them. That means that a full war type could be waged on a one man corp even if he granulated his alts into a bunch of one man corps,each with/without its own super secret clubhouse, which helps reduce the current structure spam in HS (or prevents making the current matter much worse). I agreed that a balance will have to be found and that this will take effort, but I also think that it could be done in the LONG term
For the short term, Black Pedro’s idea is reasonable.
1 Like
What makes you think these Social Corps wont fail as proposed, to even carry their own weight? Who wants to join a such a Social Corp?
What makes you think Social Corps have a candles chance in a hurricane once they go Player Corp status, unless wardec mechanics have been changed between now and then?
Social Corp going Player Corp will be lambs to a slaughter.