You are running for CSM, yes?
A self acknowledged griefer/scammer and tear farmer running for CSM?
Im still listening to this podcast. You people are sick.
It just gets worse as it carries on.
Legit sociopaths.
http://mindclash.live/the-mind-clash-podcast-episode-55-clash-of-scams/
What have you done Salvos, we are now doomed, all those scams will start again!
The_Judge, also mentioned in the podcast above, currently CSM, stole 3 trillion, @1:21:00.
You can buy a lot of votes with 3 TRILLION isk.
He wasnât new, but you could assume his character was alpha only levels with only 1 or two in mining frigate.
Instant lock slasher and a tornado.
2, 3 , 4, popâŚ
Someone even tried to help by shooting at the slasherâŚ
Thatâs what happened. They were organised with multiple ships. Maybe they got bored and just wanted tears and didnât care for the ISK value.
This guy mined before the venture was a thing, and to him, EVE hasnât changed.
I do not disagree, but taking one ship from a veteran with several ships and millions of ISK isnât the same relative impact, especially when you look at the fact the perpetrators were back at the gate once their criminal timers lapsed.
This is entirely relevant to the present topic. High security space is too stagnant. The big fish rarely engage each other and so look downwards for content, eating all the new fish. Perhaps Briscâs idea of removing war declarations isnât so outlandish, when you consider that a minority of players are declaring most of the wars.
If player owned structures in high security space were removed, along with pocoâs and ice belts it would create a necessity for players to enter into low security space to find conflict. While it might not directly solve player retention, it would at least move conflicts into areas with much more variety in their PvP mechanics.
Thatâs alot of posts arguing over a bunch of degenerates pushing an agenda that favors their group/groups.
In the grand scheme of things goons got the right idea when not if PA asks for more creative cash shop stuff PLEX will be the power curency.So better put your quarrels aside and go farming
You cant be serious.
Are you a troll alt to derail?
Remove Citadels, POCOS/PI and Ice from HS?
You have to be trolling.
Stop projecting Salvos
Hi. Doing your job I see.
Idk, is it I who is trolling by calling you out?
Or is it you by turning this thread into a âFaylee is as bad as Erotica1â thread? 
EVE existed before such things.
Without war declarations, existing player owned structures would have an inherent unfairness. Flip them all over to Interbus and let those who want more seek it outside of empire space.
If CCP read this thread and in the short term had to choose between doing social corporations and removing war declarations, which do you think would have more support?
Youâre being obstinate and trying to poison the well. Its exhausting watching you keep going âno it isnâtâ while everyone else says âyes it isâ.
Ok! Good! You answered! Thank you. Now, back to substantive discussion, because that was the whole point:
Q1: How is this gained by restricting Social Corps to HS, but not gained if theyâre not restricted to HS?
You answered:
This tells us that thereâs no specific gain to not restricting people, but it doesnât tell us what we gain if we do restrict them, which is what I asked. As we established days ago, restrictions are only justified when there is something to gain from the restriction. So while I appreciate you attempting to answer, this answer doesnât actually address the question.
Maybe thatâs my fault. Maybe Iâm not being clear. What Iâm trying to find out is⌠what specific benefit is there to this specific restriction? You said:
Ok. Letâs assume for a moment that social corps will do that.
None of the things that make social corps different from regular corps under your proposal have any effect in LS/NS/WHs. Wardecs, as you point out, are meaningless there. So, if social corps will achieve those goals, then social corps will do that regardless of whether or not their members can go into LS/NW/WHs, right?
Do you see some reason social corps would not achieve their goals if theyâre allowed into LS/NS/WHs? Because see, one bit of what you said is very important:
Itâs about being social. Itâs about being able to do things with your friends. Right? But our friends arenât always on when weâre on. Our friends donât always want to try out the same things we do, at the same times. So let me set you an example:
Youâve got a social corp. Thereâs 10 players in it. Theyâre in HS. They enjoy doing stuff together. One of them decides he wants to see what wormholes are like. Heâs not looking to move into j-space and join up with HK or anyone, he just wants to check them out, poke around, get an idea on whether or not he should try to get his friends to give them a try.
He doesnât want to leave his friends. After all, heâs there to play with his friends.
Why should he be forced to quit his corp just to see if wormholes are a thing he might enjoy? Why should he be forced to quit his corp if heâs running L4 missions, and one of them sends him into lowsec (because they do, if youâre near LS)?
Because I see thatâforcing people to choose between their friends, the very social interaction that keeps them playing, and just trying new thingsâas a major problem. I see that as something that will make the idea crash and burn.
So: what specific benefit, over and above achieving the goals of Social Corps, do you see being gained by restricting them to HS?
Thatâs a legitimate concern, and Iâve outlined why.
Now, on to Question 2: What benefit is gained by restricting gankers from doing everything they can do in an undeccable NPC corp, in a social corp?
Ok, so⌠and tell me if Iâm getting this right⌠the benefit you see is that it will prevent gankers from joining social corps. Thatâs fair, I can see that as something youâd consider a benefit. Iâm not sure I agree, but Iâm not sure Iâd disagree either. But at the same time⌠I canât help but think of our friend who wanted to investigate wormholes, but canât without leaving all of his friends.
What if someone in one of these social corps, which, again, exist so small groups can maintain their own identity without worrying about the systemic, organized PvP of a wardec being dropped on them (they can still get ganked, after all)⌠what if someone in a social corp wants to try ganking for the first time? Theyâve never done it. They donât know what the big deal is, but theyâre curious.
Again, youâre forcing them to choose between âinvestigate more of the gameâ and âstay with my friendsâ. Why? People progress through things at different rates. They get interested in different things at different speeds. But that doesnât mean they want to ditch their friends. That doesnât mean they want to abandon the group identity theyâve built up with those friends. Forcing them to do that seems unnecessarily restrictive.
Iâve mentioned that when I first started, I was one of those HS miners who didnât want to PvP. Iâve even mentioned that our corp eventually moved into wormholes. We didnât all decide âletâs try thisâ at once. Our CEO got curious first, and he started poking around in j-space on his own. He saw the much, much better ore in there, and started thinking maybe we should consider day-tripping into wormholes when there was one around.
It was another three months before the whole corp went mining in a wormhole. Hell, it was six weeks before his wife went in.
Why should he have been told âif you want to try something new in EVE, you have to leave your wifeâ? Why should HS groups that want to do the âsocial corpâ thing have to be stuck in HS, and stuck doing PvE, without being able to try new things unless they abandon their friends? âYouâre in a social corp, youâve never ganked anyone⌠and youâll never be able to unless you leave your buddiesâ. It just seems like theyâre trapped. It feels like⌠not EVE. Like opportunities being taken away, instead of offered.
Thatâs what I donât get here. Thatâs why Iâm trying to find some upside to that specific restriction.
Boil it down.
Iâm not reading that wall of waffle, much less responding to it.
Get rid of the space wasters and the unnecessary/irrelevant.
I dont care about your origins as a miner, or any of the other trash there that is irrelevant to what we are discussing.
You should, it was a good read.
There were none. My origins are relevant, because we would have been a Social Corp, if such had existed.
If CCP go with the social corps idea, they definitely should not make them black holes for PvE players. They need to be able to do all the same s**t everyone else can do in Eve i.e. gank, roam, scam etc. Otherwise theyâll be stuck forever.
I answered your questions.
Now you answer mine.
Describe to us, specifically, exactly, what a Social Corp would allow, or not.
Post it as CCP would, as a list of what it is, and is not, in patch notes of Social Corps release.
Dear Lord. To shoot a Venture with a hold of ore? Was there some Skill Injectors or something else in there?
Iâm also not even sure it is possible with an insta-locking Slasher given you need at least two warp scrams or better, three disruptors for range, to stop a Venture. Fitting it that way makes it not instalocking anymore, and in any case would likely require an unlucky/lucky gate spawn to be in range of the tackling ship given even an alpha clone has a Venture in warp in just a few seconds.
Iâm not saying it is impossible, just that I donât think it a very reliable way to catch a Venture.
In any case, I believe you so that is like 100 times the cost in gank ships to kill a sub-million ISK mining frigate. If it happened like this, your friend should be laughing at this disproportionate attack and take pride in winning the ISK war by so much.
But maybe it isnât much consolation to some newer or returning player, but I canât imagine such an event is very common.
I agree that would be a possible model, but removing wars and player structures from highsec would be incredibly disruptive at this point. There are so many player-owned stations and POCOs in highsec now. It would upset a lot of people and require a lot of work. I donât see a feasible option.
Limiting wars to non-structure owning groups somehow seems much easier.
As for getting people to fight, that is the eternal problem that is something CCP seems to always have problem with. Given the lack of objectives for people to actually fight over in highsec, it doesnât surprise me that most of the conflict can be characterized as âlow meaningâ or even âgriefingâ. I mean, when you donât give real objectives for highsec players to fight over, it is up to them to come up with reasons for conflict that often arenât more than âyou existâ.
Some people dont want to fight.
They are skill and isk invested into non-PvP skills/ships/fits and engage only in PvE.
There is no way to make them want to fight, nor do they have the means to do so.
Just to see if I understand your request here: while weâre discussing what a social corp should be, you want me to spell or for you what one is? Isnât that the whole point of discussing what they should be?
If itâs what you want, though, Iâll lay out what I think they should be, when I get back to the keyboard and can compose my thoughts (still in the waiting room). But I just want to be sure I understand what youâre asking, first.
I want you to post how you think CPP should implement Social Corps, in the format that CCP would introduce it in patch notes on launch of it.
Do you understand that?
TLDR: Post your Social Corps idea, as if it was in the CCP patch notes on its launch.