And if you want to care about corp hangars or tax breaks, great, but those really don’t provide anything that can be abused. There’s nothing a ganker would get from this that he doesn’t have now, for example. Even if you want to rail about ‘corp hangars’, he can login an alt in a player corp, hand the stuff to his NPC gank-corp alt, and roll on.
They already do that. How do you think Miniluv gives out thousands of destroyers for Burn Jita every year? We don’t all have characters in the corp Miniluv uses for storing assets.
Social corps don’t seem a good idea to me. They will either be too open, or restrict players in their activities too much. In respect to the oft quoted CSM quote of retention issues, if is war scope that is the problem, not corporations.
This is why I propose limiting war scope by system sec status. Corps stay as they are, the system change can be put in quickly, POCO and citadel issues can be sorted after. Address wars directly where the problem is.
So your view of what will fix issues, is a Social Corp that is identical to Player Corps, except it cant join Alliances, cant own structures and has a 100 member limit?
Thats it?
Amazing, you really have no shame pushing your agenda.
You really dont care about the repercussions as long as your interrsts benefit, do you.
Either that, or you are outstandingly ignorant to the fact you are creating more problems instead of solving one.
I don’t think anyone (other than Proteus’ outburst) has said they’re ‘the’ solution. It’s certainly not a panacea. But it’s an option for CCP to look at. Addressing war mechanics would be a longer-term measure.
When you say limting war scope by system sec status, do you mean changing the status of systems, or limiting war activities to like 0.7 and below?
You keep talking about my ‘agenda’. Exactly what agenda am I supposed to have here? What ‘plans’ do you keep referring to?
And once you answer those questions (which have been asked multiple times, and you keep not answering them), what problems do you think that would create?
The latter, this concentrates the focus areas for wars, allows corps to avoid war systems if they don’t want to fight. They can stay in higher sec systems to avoid PvP, but at a loss in ISK generation, but equally can dip their to in to combat as and when they want. Then they can still earn ISK to recover from losses too.
Structures could only be owned in war dec systems (hence the issue with existing POCOs and structures). If you want a citadel, be prepared to defend it.
If my suggestion of moving level IV agents to war systems were adopted this would have the advantage of promoting player run missioning markets in these areas.
In short address the problem of wars by addressing wars with a proper plan. Changing corps is a different can of worms which doesn’t start to directly fix wars.
I admire your patience but it’s quite clear he’s trying to get you to answer questions intended for the others of us who have merely suggested social corps as one fix to player retention.
The problem is HS small group and solo players logging off during wardec, and not returning.
That is the hole to be plugged.
They dont need yellow/red safety to commit suspect or criminal acts, or to go to LS/NS/WH where wardec is irrelevant.
They just need wardec immunity and a Corp tag for identity.
Thats all.
You are trying to expand and weaponize this issue beyond its purview, and beyond the solution necessary.
Stop trying to shoehorn your own interests into it to ride in on its coat-tails in ways that are not relevant to the issue at hand and create more problems.
I appreciate that, but this isn’t patience. Like I told him: I’m a pedantic jerk. I enjoy this. This is playing with my food.
I figure he got fed up with everyone telling him he was wrong to insist on the earlier idea of a wardec structure instead of social corps (when, you know, both could be implemented in parallel, but he didn’t want to hear that), so he’s trying to co-opt what he saw as the ‘popular’ position and has no idea how to actually defend it, because he doesn’t have the first clue what he’s trying to achieve.
Well, except you said my approach would cause more problems. The question is what problems are those? When I’ve had objections to things you’ve suggested, I’ve been able to outline why, beyond just repeating some meaningless boilerplate of ‘because that’s not what it’s for’.
You present these things, the ability to alter your safety, or the ability to go through certain gates, as ‘extras’… they’re not extras. They’re what’s already there, and they’re things that aren’t dependant on corporate mechanics at all.
That means you’re talking about adding more conditionals for the code to have to check, and more complexity in how it has to work. It’s that—the added complexity—that needs to be justified, not the ability of players to engage in default behavior that’s already coded and which doesn’t need to be touched whatsoever to address wardec issues.
Weaponize it how? Again: Just what do you think my ‘agenda’ is?
It’s like trying to discuss an issue with a 9/11 truther.
This is problematic as for a player to try out LS/null/WHs they then have to drop corp and leave their friends behind. Limiting what players can do does not help with limiting wardecs.
This doesn’t meet the needs of the people who are leaving EVE at the highest attrition rate. Instead of encouraging them to form starter corporations and grow together, you are saying “hey guys, form a group and you cannot be decced but we are going to remove at least half of your playground and reduce your other play options even more.”
…and the possible long term paying customer looks at another MMO for more freedom and options to play.
Kind of like a husband and wife in an abusive relationship:
Wife: I’m tired of being beaten, I’m leaving.
Husband: I’ll stop beating you.
Wife: Well,OK, maybe I’ll stay
Husband: But in return, you can eat only dogfood,wear rags, and sleep in the garage.
Wife: Hello,Uber?
Why do people want to “improve” EVE by incorporating even more restrictions?