My HS alts are in:
NPC Corps
Personal Corps,
or in this one case, a ganker.
And if I needed to, I could get them added to the ACL.
I think you are overstating the issue of social corp use by HS alts of NS mains
If there is an issue with social corps, it’s that many players will be in them while using shell corps for structures.
That then leaves the structures vulnerable though. So that’s hardly a real issue. If you want to get them identify their structure, blow it up.
Mechanically the same (same taxes, same no structures, ff illegal) and just a name and a logo you like?
Speaking of friendly fire. That could be enabled to allow infiltration and give the concept some risk. 
Or would that just lead to people not using it either over NPC corps because the burden of background checking recruits is annoying.
Just like NPC corps have friendly fire?
Though I wouldn’t be against having it as an option to allow people to practice PvP before going live as a war deccable corp. But it certainly should be an off by default option if it is.
Yet your answers above make it mechanically almost identical to a regular Corp, not an NPC Corp.
Seriously Proteus. You’ve had basically identical answers from wildly different people. The whole thing has been spelled out to you multiple times. WTF are you on this crusade of misinformation and spin at this point.
Because I see what will happen, as I detailed above.
You are trying to sell a wolf in sheeps clothing.
There is no wolf in sheeps clothing.
The whole idea can literally not be abused in any way that is not already possible.
No. It is exactly identical to an NPC corp, except for the player determined name and logo.
You do hint at an underlying problem with the basic game design - player corps don’t have very many advantages over the NPC corp, but that is another problem. I can imagine ways to buff player corps over civilian/NPC ones, which I am all for adding to the game, but to solve the problem of player corps having nowhere to go together to avoid unwanted wars, NPC-corp like protections are fine and barely change the existing game balance.
The point I’m making is that the imbalance of helpless noob and focused, professional merc is the very reason this thread is all in panic mode. If CCP is gonna do this, then they need to do it right and proper so that we don’t end up with a scab for years to come.
I refuse to elaborate of specific mechanics that are able to be abused in a cancerous way. If elected to CSM I would totally discuss these mechanics in a private setting and explain how they hinder natural pvp.
I can go into detail on a few things that aren’t related to abusing mechanics though…
Upwell Structures need to have more intrinsic value. what we have now are people carelessly throwing structures up woth little to no consequence because they are a pain in the ass to remove and there is very little to gain by doing so.
I suggest looking into limiting the number of structures in a given system (not including athanors and such).
Remove damage caps
Create something like an “Intel” service module that serves as a tool for both sides to determine if War targets are active. Not looking for full-functionality like the watchlist was but we need something that doesn’t involve us chasing ghosts around New Eden.
——
Your Carrot on a Stick
I agree that there should be incentives for not taking the easy way out and dropping to NPC or just not playing Eve Online. Here are what proper incentives look like:
Proper Balance
Two groups that find themselves at war with the same group should be able to provide neutral assistance while not going suspect. This will incentivize groups working together and using emergent strategy to fight a more powerful group.
I do not believe at this moment that requiring structures for war is the way to go. Unless there are some major changes to access lists, it’s too abusable. The whole point of wars is to allow players to interact with each other in a meaningful way (as should be the goal of everything in Eve Online) and of you require a structure for war that is not what you will get. What you will get is she’ll corps that own the structure with a single member - an alt to hold CEO. What that corp will do is use access lists to allow everyone to remain in a corp without structures, thus completely dodging the chance of meaningful content.
I know many of you might be scoffing at “meaningful content” but I will point you here, where you will find meaningful emergent content that is the essence of what makes Eve Online so ■■■■■■■ interesting.
If you tie war to structures then what you will have is highsec pvp that consists of shooting shitty structures and maybe the occasional fleet that chooses to defend one (hint: it’s not very common!)
Ships are assets that are at risk just as the defenders ships are at risk. I am not saying that balance or changes aren’t needed, but risk is there.
The same risks we would take if we had a war structure if that’s the case. Since it would be another asset we have in space that they wouldn’t want to shoot.
Other then contracted wars the rest are random, we don’t target non PvP mining corporations and how can one even determine that in this game? They have the ability to pvp the same as I have the ability to go mining.
Uhhh, You are behind the times Faylee… They already have done that.
A big way to make structures matter more is to make them more vulnerable in high, aka give them the same timers as in null so it’s not weeks to remove them, but then give them similar bonuses. Possibly also higher upkeep in High with things like the old charter permits also needed or the NPC’s will turn up and reinforce them if you run out of charters.
Reward doing things at war is open to abuse in reverse, war dec your alt corp and get shinies.
Any reward has to end up paid for by the ‘losing’ side.
The A at war with B & C, B & C being able to rep each other is a huge thing I agree with.
The structure limits I’m not sure I agree with, but if there is a limit it should be global, not just a high sec limit but everywhere. The high sec limit could take NPC stations into account also though to encourage living in places without stations. It could be lore wise based on baseliner manpower availability or something like that. Or you could have some kind of escalating cost if you go over a certain limit so you can’t prevent someone dropping their own structure simply by filling the slots (aka POS moon filling, which wasn’t a fun mechanic), but you are both then incentivized to blow the other person up, because you both have higher costs.
In essence I agree with a lot of what you say here though
An NPC Corp can be entered by anyone, and you cannot be kicked out.
Afaik, NPC Corps cannot be given preferential access or rates at structures (correct me if Im wrong).
NPC Corps cannot be created, or destroyed.
NPC Corps have no shared hangars.
NPC Corps have no leadership/authority system.
Your Social Corp is distinct from, not identical to, NPC Corp mechanics in the ways above.
I’m not talking about low power. I’m talking about all structures just not having a timer for shields.
You’re right that it is open to abuse. I like the general idea and would love to hear what CCP has for ideas to incentivize not taking the easy way out.
I think this will make sov even more difficult to assault. What groups will do is fill their weak points up with Citadels so that you HAVE to remove those before you can continue with an assault by anchoring your own staging fort. It’s not that it’s a bad idea, but it’s also up for player abuse.
That’s already been done. All structures can have their shields attacked at any time.
Hence my point about maybe making it a soft cap beyond which there is an escalating cost. That achieves the idea of a limit without the problems that hard caps bring.
You are wrong. Also individual pilots can be given preferential access and rates at structures as well.
The rest of it, blah blah. None of it other than shared hangers means a damn for balance, and shared hangers is a point that everyone who has made a proposal on has said is negotiable.
You are wrong. You can abuse this idea of tying wars to structures by having all your members in a corp that is immune to decs while reaping all the benefits of having access to structures.
Wat…
This can be gamed immediately by wardeccing an alt corp, to improve your ores and mission rewards without any risk of aggression.
THINK before you post nonsense.
This allows powerful groups to join together as well.
Believe whatever you want.
This already happens throughout EVE.
You also wouldnt have to defeat the structure to end the war as defender. Just gives you an option to.
It’s not nonsense. It’s actually a required thing for a good wardec system, is the defenders need rewarding if they undock and do things in space while under threat. Because that makes people in space for the attackers to shoot (& maybe get shot by).
It just was a quick slap idea Faylee posted that didn’t take abuses into account, but some kind of reward is actually important.
Thats exactly what NS based HS Social Corps would do, and now you call it abuse.
Did you even read my posts, or just repeating a list of talking points issued to you?
Are you even thinking about what you are posting?