Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Jayne Fillon
779
|
Posted - 2015.09.01 12:41:08 -
[1] - Quote
Eve is a community driven game, however Eve also paradoxically lacks the basic functionality for players to create groups that are not tied to specific gameplay mechanics. Corporations and Alliances are the only two functional groups currently in existence, however those comes with roles, risk, and changes to fundamental playstyles. Players should be able to create custom groups such as those that already exist with the Haulers Channel, Anti-Gankers, Incursion Runners, Lore Aficionados and Roleplayers, and of course the Public Fleet Channels. Giving these groups and official way of establishing themselves, even if it's only automatic communication tools, is an absolute must for these specialty groups in Eve to thrive.
Some ideas:
Groups should have the option of being open or requiring invites, as well as being public or private. The groups should have automatic and permanent communication tools, such as "fixed" chat channels.
There is a lot of room to expand upwards if the functionality is wanted from the playerbase. However, to start with, it's important to give these groups that already exist, the means to organize and grow within the community. If you have any ideas or comments, please leave a comment below. I'll be taking these suggestions and comments of support to CCP during this upcoming summit.
Can't shoot blues if you don't have any. Long Live NPSI.
|
Jayne Fillon
779
|
Posted - 2015.09.01 12:53:33 -
[2] - Quote
Additionally, if you have any thoughts about how to improve the chat system (including local, direct convos, and chat channels) please leave your thoughts below. tia
Can't shoot blues if you don't have any. Long Live NPSI.
|
Amarisen Gream
Divine Demise Apocalypse Now.
113
|
Posted - 2015.09.01 14:29:00 -
[3] - Quote
Jayne Fillon wrote:Additionally, if you have any thoughts about how to improve the chat system (including local, direct convos, and chat channels) please leave your thoughts below. tia
Want a suggestion?
Blizzard redid theirs in WoW a long time ago. Allowed one window that showed all your chats - and color coded the text. Allow players to stack windows - and color the text accordingly. As well as unstack those windows or break a chat from a grouped chat.
This would allow someone like to me to merge my corp/alliance into one channel, and see green or blue text. I could have intel channels merged and pick different shades of red or w/e.
Social Groups:
I would love to have them... Only if CCP doesn't **** them up.
Rebuilding Corporation and Alliance from the ground up.
1: Make it harder to create a corp - discourages the one man corps. 2: Set max corp size to say 500-1000 after all skills. 3: Create Mega Corps - This is the place where standard corps come to get into a larger group. When a Corp joined a Mega Corp - it becomes a Corp Division - The CEO becomes the division head. --This would allow the Mega Corp to more effectively work with the members in their Mega Corp - If they wanted to place a guy in a Division as a POS fueler for the Mega corp they could. 4: Coalitions - Would replace the Alliance.
**Extra things that would be nice. If a division wanted to merge with another division in a mega corp - they could run a vote on it. If a division had inactive leadership - the Mega corp Leader could merge the groups - would have to figure out a way to handle assets, but that should be easy.
xoxo
Amarisen Gream
|
Leto Aramaus
Spiritus Draconis Spaceship Bebop
223
|
Posted - 2015.09.01 15:53:14 -
[4] - Quote
Amarisen Gream wrote:
Rebuilding Corporation and Alliance from the ground up.
1: Make it harder to create a corp - discourages the one man corps. 2: Set max corp size to say 500-1000 after all skills. 3: Create Mega Corps - This is the place where standard corps come to get into a larger group. When a Corp joined a Mega Corp - it becomes a Corp Division - The CEO becomes the division head. --This would allow the Mega Corp to more effectively work with the members in their Mega Corp - If they wanted to place a guy in a Division as a POS fueler for the Mega corp they could. 4: Coalitions - Would replace the Alliance.
1. Agree 100%, maybe a minimum number of players need to start a corp together? 2. What is it now? I don't think max # really matters 3. These are called alliances. Why just change the name? Mega Corp, Alliance... tomato, tomahto. What's the point?
The UI update we deserve
|
Rivr Luzade
Exclusion Cartel The Kadeshi
1844
|
Posted - 2015.09.01 16:05:08 -
[5] - Quote
Corps and Alliances are no the only groups systems in the game. A simple chat channel with loads of people from different entities is already a group that has nearly no added risk (except for exposing yourself to the group). In these channels, you can set whether people can invite other people or whether the chat is closed and only certain people with roles can invite more people.
Station Tab :: UI Improvement Collective
|
Amarisen Gream
Divine Demise Apocalypse Now.
115
|
Posted - 2015.09.01 19:27:18 -
[6] - Quote
I am not say to make it impossible - but harder to establish a corp.
Take World of Warcraft - a kids game - it takes 10 people to make a guild plus a decent fee.
I don't want to see the removal of 1 man corps, I wanna see a system that allows players like myself who run a mostly single player corp the continued thought, do I maintain this corp or do I close/merge with another group to help lessen my over head.
If a corp had to declare their operation type at creation and each type had a fee, with each addition "corp role" adding to that fee. And then a monthly upkeep fee to Concord (Isk sinks), it would make people in smaller corps wonder if it is worth it.
But, before anything like that happens (not yelling) CCP HAS TO LOOK AT ROLES, CORP MEMBER SECURITY, AND HALF A BILLION OF CORP FEATURES THAT NEED TO BE IN PLACE SO THAT THE LITTLE GUY ISNT FRACKED FOR JOINING A MORE ESTABLISHED GROUP, AND THAT THE CORP LEADERSHIP AND OTHER MEMBERS ARE NOT FRACKED OVER BY A GUY WITH A CORN CUB UP HIS BLACKHOLE. (Not yelling)
I think that covers that point.
xoxo
Amarisen Gream
|
Rivr Luzade
Exclusion Cartel The Kadeshi
1845
|
Posted - 2015.09.01 20:19:39 -
[7] - Quote
My biggest concern about joining a corp with my alts is that I do not control what they do. With my alt, I have a couple of corps that I would potentially be interested in joining. However, one of them recently started a little crusade against pirates. I, on the other hand, have no real interest in joining a war with a char that cannot fight and is not supposed to fight. Which means that I would have to leave that corp for the duration of the war in order to continue with my business and then be at their mercy for accepting me back. Therefore, my drive for joining up with other people is primarily satisfied by being part of the haulers channel and talking with people there or striking deals with people there. This is as much social interaction as I feel comfortable with without compromising my gameplay unnecessarily.
Station Tab :: UI Improvement Collective
|
Avvy
Republic University Minmatar Republic
137
|
Posted - 2015.09.01 20:26:07 -
[8] - Quote
Amarisen Gream wrote: Take World of Warcraft - a kids game - it takes 10 people to make a guild plus a decent fee.
It doesn't, but it used to.
In fact WoW was a pain in the butt when it required 10, because you kept getting pestered if you weren't in a guild to sign a guild registry. Once those pestering got 10 names they would kick 9 and end up with a solo guild.
Think WoW reduced it to requiring 3 but even that is too many imo.
In GW2 you can make a solo guild very easily (doesn't require anyone else to sign) you can also invite all your alts to it even when they're off-line. Actually I have a solo corp. in GW2, which has all my characters in it.
There are new players that in EVE that don't like being in NPC corps they prefer to be on their own. I don't really see an issue if somebody wants to be in their own corp., I'm sure that chat won't be up to much but they must like it.
|
Zappity
Stay Frosty. A Band Apart.
2445
|
Posted - 2015.09.01 20:48:34 -
[9] - Quote
What is the poin of the thread? This is very well-trodden ground after the last summit.
I guess this means that CCP isn't yet ready to actually do anything about it?
Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec.
|
Avvy
Republic University Minmatar Republic
137
|
Posted - 2015.09.01 21:00:51 -
[10] - Quote
Zappity wrote:What is the poin of the thread? This is very well-trodden ground after the last summit.
I guess this means that CCP isn't yet ready to actually do anything about it?
Do what about what exactly? |
|
Black Pedro
Yammerschooner
1524
|
Posted - 2015.09.01 21:04:58 -
[11] - Quote
Jayne Fillon wrote:Groups should have the option of being open or requiring invites, as well as being public or private. The groups should have automatic and permanent communication tools, such as "fixed" chat channels. These already exist. You can already make a public or private persistent chat channel that has a MOTD that contain links, fits, fleet links and so forth.
What more are you proposing? A calendar? An icon on the character bio?
Seems like the functionality is basically already there. I am not sure what more you would want to give these social groups. Maybe searchable in game? Although you can already search for chat channels. |
|
|
|
Pages: [1] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |