I’m pretty sure they got called out in another thread as a feeder alliance for a Null corp.
for who?
If only there was a system of representative government!
True, though the data was recorded as being presented by CCP in the CSM summit notes to the CSM. If there is doubt on the notes, there’s always the option of asking the CSM of the time what they saw, or if CCP fabricated the whole thing.
I think a stand out statistic was that 5 organisations were the source of over 50% of the wars, and the kills to death ratio was 100:1 in favour of the war aggressor. Another stand out was that corporations that were the victim of a war were likely to see huge drops in activity as the war went on with no recovery in engagement.
Victim of several wars, corporation full of bitter vets and noobs who were essentially Care Bears. Lost an orca to Pirat, war keept being extended. The vets had no incentive to log in during the war as there weren’t enough of them to fight, and the care bears wanted to do their mining crap regardless of the danger. In the end, CCP lost out because we were all part of the one gaming group, after awhile we just all stopped playing EVE and played World of Tanks more, along with other games where we actually could have fun.
Yes, if the war mechanics of today were around in 2009, I wouldn’t have stopped playing.
Timezone taking of citadels, high security islands, lack of motivation for both sides, lack of rewards. Current war mechanics aren’t perfect, but at least they aren’t causing a haemorrhage of players out of the game.
1 Like
I wasn’t paying that much attention but I ‘think’ and please bear in mind that this is very much a think as I’m not sure I’m remembering who it was right, that it was a feeder for Brave.
Look at the corporation membership, its almost like its a purpose built ballot stuffing organisation. 
Not according to Nicolai
Let’s say the data shown to the CSM was flawed in that there’s room to argue that external factors outside wars were effecting retention rates. Do you think they would admit it? Hell no! It was their time to make big moves and finally do something that almost the entirety of Nullsec was against - Wardecs. Not a single one was going to propose other reasons in which retention is effected.
I can provide explanation for that quite easily. People and groups involved with wars have shrunk dramatically. Throughout the years CCP has nerfed and taken the axe to various playstyles in Highsec that would drive people away to other areas of space or ultimately quit. There used to be a vibrant ecosystem of Highsec pvp and Wardec corps. You’d see tiffs and differences settled through guerilla warfare in game and trash talking on the forums.
Over time when the direction CCP was taking the game it made more sense to either move on or consolidate into larger groups that relied less on the effort of “hunting” and instead would interdict high-traffic areas.
So your example was a list of 5 groups. That list has now turned into a list of 2 groups - Pirat and Hell Dawn. The problem was remedied, but just caused more of what people have been complaining about.
The k/d ratio is still the same as before, although now we’ve seen maybe a few battles where significant losses were incurred, not much has changed. You want to fix the problem? Make it easier for those that want to pvp in Highsec to do so. Why are we surprised that fights are so one sided when CCP has pushed people out of Highsec that would be the ones to fight?
Another tired line… 
I blame the leadership of said corporation / alliance. There’s plenty that even new players en mass can accomplish. The methods that war dec groups would use on these unwilling participants is guerilla warfare and it is a two-way Street. How many of these players would have quit anyway? Let’s see some statistics on the retention rate of players that only mine in Highsec or only run missions / salvage in Highsec as a new player.
I wonder what would have happened if you were taught how to fight back or defend yourself back then? Learning how to survive and operate in the face of adversity is a pretty important part of the game. I know you weren’t particularly interested in it I can assume, but it’s kinda part of the central theme of the game.
1 Like
yeah from Olmeca…He has more alts than ■■■■■■■ entire Delve…
I think its more likely the numbers were so bad that war declarations got bumped up the priority list in ways other changes could only dream of.
Last I looked, declaring war was not required to shoot at people in null.
Taking the axe to play styles that make people quit is a good thing.
Half the wars were from 5 corporations. Nothing in the changes stop good wars from happing. On the other hand, who wants to fight a war were its constraint structure grinding? That’s not the kind of 31337 PvP people turn into slick youtube videos to paste onto concord billboards.
Caused more of what people have been complaining about?
This may be true, though its focused on only part of the outcome. In the new system, the k/d ratio is irrelevant because non-consensual wars were removed.
Like getting a candidate on the CSM? The deck is stacked in the incumbent’s favour. It was a meaningless reaping of the spawn, to borrow a FPS parlance.
Some players don’t want to PvP. “You can’t train a group of hoty men and pacifists and turn them into the dirty dozen.” - Lister (paraphrase)
My old null character could fly everything not amar or triglavian that wasn’t a capital. I knew how to fight, that wasn’t the problem. It was a casual gaming group. We played World of Tanks, star trek online, team fortress, hell even Minecraft. People wanted to log into the game and do what they wanted to do and had not interest in learning to fight if it got in the way of running level 4’s or mining.
As it was highlighted at the time, that the optimal strategy for avoiding loss from war declarations was to not log in. Every other strategy had much higher risk.
That can be your interpretation. I am done with being in a corporation and doing PvP. I run incursions and post crap on the forums. People can yell until they are blue in the face that this is a PvP game and I can sit in Jita doing project discovery proving them wrong.
2 Likes
The CSM shortlisted war decs. Before there was no mention of CCP looking at data regarding wardecs, because they probably weren’t.
So why do you think the vast majority of null groups are involved in wars?
Remains to be seen. Player log ins went down after the wardec changes. Apparently data exists that retention is better now, but its not available to us.
For all we know it could simply mean 50% of new players quitting after two days changed to 50% of new players quitting after three. And there’s still no reason to believe that the better retention is related to wardec changes and still no reason to believe that the players that quit due to wardecs aren’t quitting for other reasons anyways.
If the effect of wardecs were so horrific on retention as suggested, these newly retained players don’t play very much…if at all.
If thats your metric of good gameplay then you should know that before wardecs were nerfed there were indeed youtube vids of wardec pvp.
The argument was that 5 groups were doing 50% of decs, as though having such a large amount of decs concentrated in a small amount of groups was bad.
But now apparently that situation is worse than before with a higher concentration of decs from fewer groups.
Wars were always opt-in. They are as non-consensual now as they were before.
You’re comparing a popularity contest with limited spots to game mechanics available to everyone, and tossing in ‘think of the children’ to boot, even though CCP expressly said new players were not the target of wardecs.
And yet it has been done. Hi-sec players aren’t as defenceless as people want to make out. Some players don’t want to PvP true (I don’t want to pvp either when i’m moving stuff in a freighter)…but that doesn’t matter. EVE is a PvP sandbox game where PvP can happen anywhere. If not wardecs, then ganking, baiting, theft, scamming etc. You may not seek out PvP, but you should be ready for when it comes.
The saying ‘its not yours if you are not willing to defend it’ comes to mind.
People can play the wrong game, the same way i don’t play WoW and demand i be able to suicide gank anyone anywhere.
These players have never been forced to opt-in to wardecs. They could also leave a dec anytime.
And i can build settlements in Fallout 4, one person (or even a few people) doing one minor feature of a game and ignoring the rest doesn’t prove anything other than there is more than one facet to a game.
It doesn’t change the nature of the whole game for the rest of the players. You would never suggest that project discovery become the main feature of eve online would you?
EVE is a pvp game, and you can yell till you’re blue in the face telling yourself otherwise. It is fundamentally designed so that players cannot be left alone to do their thing. In fact we’ve learned that allowing players to do their thing unmolested was a very bad idea.
The issue isn’t really what area of EVE they are from nor what group or play style they like to do. I admire the ability and determination of the Imperium and other large blocs to not only organize effectively, but keep their passion for the game at a high level. We want driven, enthusiastic people on the CSM.
The issue lies with the general attitude of most CSM members that most areas outside of their own is worth far, far less and, therefore, not worthy of much of CCP’s development time and effort. That time after time, most of the CSM has shown through both their efforts and own words that groups or playstyles outside of their selected playstyle are worthy only of their derision and disdain. That we are losers and whiners, crybabies who aren’t playing the game correctly in their eye. Since their faction “won” the election, they control the feedback of ALL players given to CCP. Very few CSM members are empathetic to other views, something that’s off for a focus group supposed to distil and focus ALL of EVE’s players views, the specific goal that CCP is asking for from the CSM.
CCP development has always been a very shaky hand on the helm; zig zagging like a destroyer trying not to be torpedoed. While the CSM has been trying to prevent disastrous planning choices done by CCP, they have also gone out of their way to advise that their preferred way of playing EVE is actually the only true way to play EVE. That by utilizing the same cutthroat and self centered methods that won them power and wealth in the game should translate over to the CSM. They seem to act as if the CSM is an extension of EVE gameplay and not as a real life independent advisory group.
Bottom line is that we still need the CSM, but a CSM composed of members that realize that their role on the CSM lies OUTSIDE of their ingame group or identity. Doesn’t matter what group or area they are from, but rather they have the ability to think independently and in an unbiased manner. Cut out the sneering and jeering at other types of players, recognize the whole EVE ecosystem is important. That the ability to think outside of one’s own self interest or treat others with common courtesy shouldn’t be that hard to accomplish…should it?
4 Likes
@Faylee_Freir - this story right here. This explanation of how war decs impacted him is a story I heard a HUNDRED times if I heard it once when we were working on the war dec changes. This is the reason the changes were made.
I know you guys don’t like to hear this, and I know you all sneer at the idea that the way you liked to play the game was driving players out, but that’s what the data showed and that’s why it had to be addressed.
4 Likes
Except no one in that story had to be wardecced. No one had to lose that Orca and the war didn’t have to be extended. The carebears could have done their mining without any danger (of wardecs). All those issues could have been addressed with by making information around wardecs more available. And with regards to the changes themselves, nothing like was implemented was required to prevent such a story from happening.
But, as for most things outside of null sec, CCP didn’t engage with the players involved and opted with a half arsed band aid (more like a sledgehammer).
1 Like
They wanted to be in a corp together. That desire, alone, should not have been sufficient to drive them out of the game.
And, for the record, CCP did engage with the players involved. The Devs had everything the War Dec project put together and had folks in that discord for more than a year.
3 Likes
Except we went way beyond that didn’t we.
Wardecs in regards to that story could have been solved without going so far.
Yes indeed.
Had folks in that discord for over a year, but didn’t even look at wardecs until the CSM shortlisted it (and to think we were so glad when you did!). And when CCP were looking at the data regarding decs did they show it to the Discord or the CSM? And when taking on ideas and feedback did they listen to the Discord or the CSM?
Like i know the structure based idea was first put forward by me, but i also know that the general feedback mostly negative (including from people that would later join that discord). And I know that linking war eligibility to structures didn’t come from me and i doubt it was from anyone in the discord…
This is why i declined to be part of the discord. Unless CCP saw something in the discord that they absolutely hated and wanted to exterminate, it doesn’t seem they’ve paid much attention, and the impression i’m getting from people that were in the discord is that CCP haven’t taken on their feedback. If anything they have taken more from my idea.
We didn’t go that far beyond it.
This is not accurate. It took 3 consecutive CSMs to get CCP just to look at the data to see if what the CSM was reporting from the community was accurate and the current mechanics were driving people out of the game. They finally did that, and that’s when the realized that the CSMs who had brought this up were correct and that something needed to be done to fix the system as quickly as possible.
They showed the data to the CSM, not to the players in the discord. Why? Because all of that stuff is NDA material.
CCP are the game designers and the game developers. They are the ones who identify the problems (with help from the CSM and the larger community) but they are the ones who decide how to solve those problems. That’s their job. That’s literally what they get paid to do. We don’t need to solve these problems for them.
You seem to be operating under the false belief that the only way CCP can properly demonstrate they have gotten your feedback is to do exactly what you suggest to them. That’s not the case. They take in the feedback, they review it, and then they decide what makes the most sense to them, what their longer term goals are, their resources, priorities and the like.
That they finally addressed war decs at all means your feedback worked - you guys wanted them addressed. That they didn’t do exactly what you asked for does not mean that your feedback was ignored.
3 Likes
Thats what i’m talking about.
Wardecs were a common topic long before the CSM even started trying to get CCP to look at it. The wardec project was apparently in its early stages in 2015. I don’t know when CCP or the CSM became aware of it, but i’m guessing it was quite a while after.
And by your wording i’m guessing that when the CSM took it to CCP it was done with a certain subtext of ‘wardeccers are hurting player retention’ (you’ve made it clear how unsympathetic you are). So CCP looked to confirm what they had already been told.
That’s what people are complaining about when they say the CSM does not represent them very well. They filter ideas and feedback with a personal bias, and CCP are influenced by it. That’s the whole point isn’t it?
I can’t tell if the issue had reached CCP from different people in a different way that the data would have been handled completely differently. Again i have to guess how the data was handled because it was never shared.
And even today, a year and a half after, its not clear to the greater public if it was the right thing to do because things haven’t gotten better in any obvious way despite wardecs having such a ‘stark’ effect on retention.
I figured as much. But some data is NDA, and some is not. As an outsider I cannot see which is which and why its under NDA. Not that its important, but you must understand i’m still wondering why that information wasn’t more useful given to a wardec focus group than a group of null seccers.
In this particular instance i might be. The parts of the discord i know about suggested it was a pretty serious and thoughtful discussion involving multiple perspectives, and it had been going for years. What we got was a sledgehammer shaped band-aid that you yourself have described as ‘quick’. From my standpoint i can’t see how the current iteration was decided over all else. Its even counter intuitive to everything that has been argued about improving null sec. It looks like CCP panicked and just about held off the delete button (i know i know, worlds smallest violin playing in your office).
But in the broader sense; I’m saying that the CSM, as it is, is limited in the areas in which it can give comprehensive feedback. Wardecs are an example of what can go wrong.
CCP could have presented to the wardec focus group what the perceived issue with the wardecs was (player retention) and asked for their possible solutions. This would not have required anything covered in NDA and might have resulted in suitable solutions that better served both ends of the spectrum of players.
As I presented above, the second largest alliance in the game is virtually untouchable in HS. They will be the largest soon… and they will use their leverage in the CSM process.
1 Like
This too.
What hints at data were released in the CSM minutes could have been brought up in the Discord before hand.
I just cannot believe that CCP had a look at wardecs, had an adult back and forth discussion with hi-sec players (as i imagine happens with null sec discussions) and thought:
100mil per week- Yes!
Requires a 500mil structure- Yes!
No structure = Immune to decs- Yes!
That didn’t happen did it? It just didn’t. Don’t try to tell me it did, because i know it didn’t lol.
Null sec to CCP - Structure bashing is boring.
CCP to Null sec - We shall spend 5 years trying to deliver and balance fozzie sov and citadels
Wardecs to CCP - Structure bashing is boring
CCP to Wardecs - You shall ONLY structure bash…mwah hahahahaha!
1 Like
They started bringing it up on CSM 10 in…2015.
I can’t speak for how previous CSMs took it, but after I saw the data, you’re damn right my issue was wardeccers were hurting player retention. I was far more neutral on the issue beyond it needed to be addressed because people wanted it to be addressed before I saw the data. When I campaigned on fixing war decs, I said it wasn’t working as intended and was often used as a griefing tool. That’s a pretty neutral statement and I didn’t endorse any specific way of fixing it.
Welcome to representative democracy.
The CSM were elected to represent the entire player base, and, frankly, having a group of folks who weren’t invested in the outcome one way or the other and could focus on the best interests of the game was kind of a good thing. I mean, after all, one of the biggest criticisms of the CSM that you and others have made is that they’re all just self-serving. This is one situation where they had no dog in the fight.
Regardless, at best, the CSM simply told CCP that they needed to make the war dec changes a top priority. CCP, correctly, agreed and they did that. How they chose to fix it was their decision, and it was made having all your feedback in hand.
I think the vast majority of the player base, like me, thinks wardecs are an example of what went right.
2 Likes