Apparently, according to “them” here, one is good, the other is not.
So lets do the Social Corp thing.
By all means, implement it ASAP and watch EVE flush down the toilet.
Im all for the Social Corp suggestion now.
Lets do that.
It doesn’t need a special structure when it can be solved with a simple option in the GUI to corporations. It can be done with one, single checkbox.
[x] Enable corporate warfare and player structures. Note: cannot be disabled when player structures have been deployed.
That’s how simple this can be. To implement this by creating a new type of structure or whatever just satisfies the snowflakes, but really doesn’t make a big difference.
I think this is a foray that can be explored when it comes to finding ways to make the protection of Social Corps costly.
Maybe not the best lever, but it is one that can be considered if needed.
Clearly you people dont want a wardec structure, so why bother.
Instead you want Social Corps.
Lets do that instead.
Social Corps please asap in EVE so this whole thing can be flushed.
Is ranting a flagable offense?
I mean, we get the idea you really don’t like the idea of a social corporation, but…
1 Like
WarDec Structures and Social Corps go hand-in-hand.
One is the better way to make the other happen.
Limit the type of Corps you can be by the types of Structures you deploy.
Have the type of Corps you are sort out the type of groups that can declare war on you.
But I’m pretty sure you are more interested in raving up. So have at it.
1 Like
People want to fight wars without requiring a structure in space.
If it first requires the deployment of a structure before there can be wars in high-sec, then there will be far less wars. The structure becomes a hurdle to the warfare itself. Why would you want this?
If it gets too much then flag him for spam.
Quite the contrary.
I now love it, like you people, and want it to happen as soon as possible as described here.
This will fix everything and make EVE better, as you explained to us.
I was wrong before.
Now I want Social Corps very much.
It’s not a terrible idea in and of itself, it’s just not gonna fix this issue. I don’t think the social corps will, either. But you know all that already. But hey, if you wanna keep on with the passive-aggressive tantrum because people don’t agree with you, whatever, man. Just pixels on a screen.
1 Like
It no longer matters.
Only Social Corp matters.
Only Social Corp will fix this.
Thats what I was told, and I believe it.
They told me I was wrong and stupid before, repeatedly.
Now I’m right and smart cos I agree with them.
Social Corps please, as soon as possible.
This will fix EVE in so many ways.
He’s a Tang man.
1 Like
Its not my opinion, but its one I now represent.
Cos I was told to by the majority of idiots here.
If you can’t beat them, join them.
I sure as hell got little enough support in opposition.
Lets do Social Corps and run this ship in to the ground as soon as possible.
What convinced you? Was it me? Please say yes!
No, you convinced me that if i step in poo, it smells bad.
I already knew that, but Id rather not do it again.
Lets wreck the game with stupid decisions however you want, and ignore/attack anyone that tries to stop us.
That was what we are doing, right? That was your agenda, right?
To tie war to structures is just bad.
Some players come into EVE and their first thought is they want to shoot something or someone. I think it’s great. We need such players who drive conflict by not caring for a thing in the world.
In contrast to this is the idea of structures to enable war. Structures require players to plan ahead. From the construction or purchase, the transport and setup, to the defence of it all. While this supports the mindset of the careful and planning player does this also go against the reckless players (the Leeroy Jenkins type).
We don’t need this, because the careful and planning player is usually also more risk averse. They may see war more often as a cost than as fun. While the reckless type of player sees war as all out fun.
We need to respect both types of players, or we risk creating an imbalance among all the players when we support the one type of person over the other. Hence do I believe it is better to have wars even without structures, because some players want to have their fights without first caring for some structure.
If the numbers presented were as bad as implied, then EVE is hemorrhaging players at an unhealthy rate; a rate that jeopardizes its long term survivability. What people are proposing is similar to how you treat a gunshot wound in terms of level of treatment:
- Identify the source of the damage,stop the bleeding as quickly and safely you can do atm, and make the patient as stable as you can for survivability to the next level of care. In EVE’s case, this would either be ending HS wardecs or adding a social corp identity option.
- The next step would be a more diffinative care that utalized all the available assets to stabilize and implement healing and recovery that STARTS the patient back on the road to health, as well as undoing any unintended damage done by the emergency treatment. This process takes time and careful reexamination of what is wrong and changing treatment based on the results. This would correspond to EVE’s devs taking the time to create and implement changes in the basic game mechanics and make initial tweaks in what they implement.
- Final care reevaluates the current progress back to health,additional rehab/lifestyle changes, and preventive measures needed to be done to not create a reoccurance. In EVE, this would be following up on expected/actually observed results and making changes or additions in the gameplay.
At this point, we are at the initial,stop the bleeding stage. So far the options presented for a quick,effective treatment are do nothing, no wardeccing in HS, or the addition of a social corporation identity. While not a final solution, I think the social corp is the best of those three quick and dirty choices.
2 Likes
Is there even a dev team in CCP which would tackle that? 
I think it would have to be made from a rag-tag band of misfits, ranging from nonexistent balance team members to community devs.
No need for a social corp system as that can be gamed.
It’s really only a matter of numbers, being totally outmatched & outnumbered is the disabling factor here.
If you put a higher cost and hard limit to the numbers attacking a smaller corp - (if you have 75% - 200% member numbers compared with the corp you are attacking) then the feeling of being helpless lessens. The same applies with structures - you should have structures before you can attack a corp with them.
If you cap the numbers (+above & -below) - Then there should be no reason a corp with bad enough standings and enough members should not wardec an NPC corp.