The CSM 13 Winter Summit Minutes are out

[Sade_Musana]

Not bad at all.
Some points could be refined to take into consideration casual players not fully understanding mechanics, but the first few options were good.

[Jenn_aSide]

Just an observation, but the wardec thing proves that some people are more interested in their agenda than in the truth.

Ccp tells the csm that a form of non-consensual PvP (wardecs) have a bad affect on players. This information is accepted in this thread, on this forum and on others without question or challenge. It is used by the usual ‘anti-non-consensual pvp’ suspects as leverage, in fine SEE, I TOLD YOU fashion lol.

The exact same posters reacted to ccp rise saying the opposite about another form of non-consensual PvP (suicide ganking) with questioning and disbelief. It’s as if they really didn’t want to believe that something they KNEW was bad wasn’t actually that bad.

So somehow ccp was lying about ganking but decided to tell the truth about wardecs? No, they were always telling the truth, people are just selective about what they believe.

[Litsea_Reticulata]

@Whitehound

Any corporation can apply to become a social corporation, but will need to meet the following conditions.

Please don’t create a bottleneck by requiring human assessments. The GMs and ISDs are likely quite busy enough already.

@Whitehound

All corporation members must have a security status of 0.0 or higher.

This seems quite reasonable, with the caveat that players who drop below 0.0 are automatically kicked back into a NPC corporation, rather than tarnish the whole organisation?

@Whitehound

When any of these conditions are failed will a social corporation lose its social status, become a normal corporation and can be wardecced again. A new application can only be made after all conditions have been met and not before one week has passed.

This will be exploited and a social corporation will be ruined the second some fool decides to go suspect in low-sec during a drunken misadventure. Punish those who commit the crime, not the innocent bystander.

@Whitehound

No corporation member is allowed to receive a suspect flag or a criminal flag.

How about locking safeties to green?

@Whitehound

No corporation member can have a kill right on them.

This would be unfortunate as I don’ think character bazaar listings detail if a kill right exists or not. Sure, a character with a kill right shouldn’t be able to join a social corporation, but a social corporation shouldn’t be worried about one ignorant member doing something dumb. Again, limit the punishment to who committed the crime…

@Whitehound

I know people want to limit social corps by member count and other means, but a social corporation should really be limited based on social aspects and their members’ behaviour. The challenge of meeting the conditions will help to keep the total number of social corporations to a meaningful number and help to avoid an uncontrolled explosion of social corps.

Quite right. Perhaps a bonus for good behaviour to tax them at a base %15 ( or whatever ) and reduce it by a % equal to the average security status?

[Litsea_Reticulata]

@Proteus_Onzo

You cant own the space or markets in HS, no matter how many Citadels you place.

You can own all the player markets in high security space if you blow up everyone else’s. A number of times you’ve proposed immunity that would make this impossible by allowing player corporations to purchase invulnerability.

@Proteus_Onzo

That can be fixed with an option to set overview to not show Player Structures.
Simple as that.

Stop trolling, you wouldn’t be able see the one structure out of the 100 you do want.

Brisc already stated that structure spam is a problem everywhere, and everywhere includes high security space, which I’ve highlighted below since you seem to have missed it.

@Brisc_Rubal

This is correct. When we’re in these meetings we almost never discuss things based solely on areas of space. Structure spam is a problem everywhere - not just highsec or nullsec. It’s something that needs to be addressed across the game. No reason for us to highlight one or the other.

[Litsea_Reticulata]

@Proteus_Onzo

Even if you place 1000 Keepstars in an HS system, and I place only one Astrahus, but mine has better buy/sell orders than all of your 1000 Keepstars offer, which you paid insane amounts of isk to get, the buyers/sellers will still come to my Astrahus and ignore your 1000 Keepstars, completely.

Good luck getting a market module on that Austrahus.

[Proteus_Onzo]

Social Corp:

• 10 member max.
• Corp cant be disbanded. If CEO leaves, another member becomes CEO, until there are no members left, and Corp is destroyed.
• No Corps hangars.
• 15% tax rate sunk to NPC.
• Cant join Alliances.
• Member Safety fixed to green.
• Minimum 0.1 Security status on members.
• Cannot be wardecced, or wardec.
• Cannot own structures, including POCO.
• Members cannot enter systems below 5.0.
• 1 week lockout after leaving Corp, from joining another Player or Social Corp.

Hows that?

[Whitehound]

@Proteus_Onzo

Hows that?

Bad. You really don’t understand the motivation behind social corps. What you suggest is worse than an NPC corp. Why would anyone want this? You’re really terrible at this.

[Proteus_Onzo]

@Whitehound

Bad. You really don’t understand the motivation behind social corps. What you suggest is worse than an NPC corp. Why would anyone want this? You’re really terrible at this.

Those things are necessary to prevent abusing the Social Corps for peripherally PvP related activities. A Social Corp should not be able, in any shape or form, to harm the activities of others. “Bumping” Social Corps are also something that will have to be addressed.

Neutral Logi is also an outstanding issue that would need addressing.

Permanent Green Safety is necessary to avoid their use for looting Suicide Gank related wrecks.
Sec-status to prevent pirates hiding in Social Corps.
Restriction to enter only >=5.0 systems so as to not move into sectors where wardec mechanics are not what they are in HS.

POCO restriction so they dont become undeccable POCO holding Corps.

Obviously no Corp hangars, cos NPC Corps dont have them either.

A legit HS Social Corp that only wants to mine, explore, mission in HS without wardecs will have no problem meeting the conditions I listed.

[Eve_Griefer]

@Whitehound

@Proteus_Onzo

Hows that?

Bad. You really don’t understand the motivation behind social corps. What you suggest is worse than an NPC corp. Why would anyone want this? You’re really terrible at this.

I totally agree. Not only does it seem that he completely fails to understand the social aspect of an MMO but the restrictions are clearly intended as a false compromise.

[Nana_Skalski]

@Jenn_aSide

No, they were always telling the truth

Its not truth, its statistics.

It can be correct for majority, but dont have to be for minority. There is always some error in it, small or big. Cant avoid that with statistics.

[Proteus_Onzo]

@Eve_Griefer

Not only does it seem that he completely fails to understand the social aspect of an MMO but the restrictions are clearly intended as a false compromise.

If they want a HS specific Social Corp that just mines, missions etc under their own name, and as wardec immune, they will be fine with those conditions.

A Social Corp, the purpose of which is to be wardec immune, has no business venturing into systems below 5.0, where they become vulnerable to PvP without wardecs.

[Eve_Griefer]

@Proteus_Onzo

A legit HS Social Corp that only wants to mine, explore, mission in HS without wardecs will have no problem meeting the conditions I listed.

You have deliberately neutered the idea of a social corp so no one would want to use it, especially with a higher tax rate than an NPC corp. What you are doing is obvious to all.

[Proteus_Onzo]

@Eve_Griefer

You have deliberately neutered the idea of a social corp so no one would want to use it

The Social Corp is for a group of friends that just wants to mine, mission, etc in HS without being wardecced.

The tax hike is necessary, as a cost for forming one, rather than running operations through NPC Corps.

Tell me, why should Social Corps move into LS and NS or WHs, where the wardec immunity doesnt work?

Why would a Social Corp member ever want to swap to yellow or red safety?

[Nevyn_Auscent]

@Proteus_Onzo

Those things are necessary to prevent abusing the Social Corps for peripherally PvP related activities.

No, they aren’t.

Social corps will not be immune to ganking, social corps will not be immune to PvP in low sec or null sec or WH’s.
So there is no need to restrict them from any PvP when PvP can be inflicted on them.
There is also no need for a worse tax rate than NPC corps, in fact making them worse makes it pointless and is a quick way to destroy the whole idea.

There is no need to worry about neutral logi, because neutral logi A: Goes suspect. B: Can be done from NPC corps therefore there is no new abuse.
Permanent green safety is also not needed, because they can loot Suicide Gank related wrecks from an NPC corp already, so a social corp will be no new abuse.
They may move into low sec/ns as part of something like Spectre fleet, on a roam.
They may go to WH’s to try exploration in WH’s.
They may want to try ganking, and given you can already gank from NPC corps, there is no reason to block them from doing so, it actually makes it easier for players to avoid them if the gankers make a social corp.

Basically, if they can do it in an NPC corp they should be able to do it in a social corp.

Which,… as others have said, shows you clearly don’t understand the point.

[Nana_Skalski]

@Nevyn_Auscent

There is also no need for a worse tax rate than NPC corps, in fact making them worse makes it pointless and is a quick way to destroy the whole idea.

I think if social corps would want to have some sort of structure, the only way to make it work would be to tax it additionally, like when you pay CONCORD for keeping it from wardecs all the time.

[Nevyn_Auscent]

There is no reason for that. There is no additional tax on player corps for having a structure . There is only an 11% tax for being immune to wardecs for an NPC corp. Combine the two and… you should come out at 11+0=11. Now you ‘could’ allow players to add a player tax on top of that I guess, that doesn’t really matter either way.
The no upwell structures limit is the only reasonable limitation here.

Edit. Assuming you meant organizational structure in your post. If you meant Upwell structure well then duh, they shouldn’t get anything that an NPC corp member can’t use of that sort of thing.

[Nana_Skalski]

Ideally, I though about 4 kinds of structures placed only in high sec, all 4 racial variations. The tax would be like in npc stations. Its like social corp would have its own social station. Overall a ISK sink and nothing more really.

[Proteus_Onzo]

@Nevyn_Auscent

Basically, if they can do it in an NPC corp they should be able to do it in a social corp.

I dont agree.

The whole point is an unwardeccable Social Corp that allows a group of friends to do PvE in HS without being wardecced.

You never need yellow or red safety to do PvE in HS. A Green Safety lock ensures the Social Corp mechanic is not abused against its intent, to do naughty things.

There is no reason why a Social Corp, the purpose of which is to be undeccable, and run HS PvE, should go to LS, NS or WH, where that undeccability is irrelevant. If they want that, they can join a Player Corp or go there under NPC Corp.

A minimum 0.1 Security status for membership ensures they arent abused by pirates to hide in.

Tax is negotiable, but imo should be higher than NPC tax, as a “cost” for a Social Corp.

[Eve_Griefer]

@Proteus_Onzo

You never need yellow or red safety to do PvE in HS. A Green Safety lock ensures the Social Corp mechanic is not abused against its intent, to do naughty things.

Mission thieves would love that. Steal loot, no chance of retaliation.

[Nevyn_Auscent]

None of your points provide any reason to restrict a social corp MORE than an NPC corp member is restricted other than ‘Because I want to be contrary’ or ‘Because I want to sink the idea on arrival then say I told you so’.
If they can do it in an NPC corp, they should be able to do it in a social corp or social corps become pointless if they are more restricted.

Pirates can hide in NPC corps right now for example, so who cares if they ‘hide’ in a social corp, if they want to all be pirates it makes them easy to spot, and their sec status is either going to stay above 0.1, which you can do and still be a pirate btw, or drop to -10 in which case the fact they are in a social corp is irrelevant as they can be shot at will with no Concord.

@Eve_Griefer

Mission thieves would love that. Steal loot, no chance of retaliation.

Green safety can shoot suspects. But it’s an irrelevant and counter productive restriction. Then again, Salvos is just trying to ruin everyone elses day by giving CCP dumb ideas and hoping they use them.