This is going nowhere. I think it’s bad because it limit player experience for no reason and don’t do anything good for anyone. Surely, you don’t agree with me and never accept my point of view on this matter, so do not worry to respond, thank you.
It isn’t going anywhere because it’s like your deliberately ignoring that wardecs are completely optional.
If they want to partake in decs, they can stay in corp. They can pvp in this time or watch local. Just as though they were in null!
If they don’t want to be part of the dec they can leave corp and come back after the dec is over.
Where is their experience limited? Are you saying they should have the benefit of being in a corp and not have to worry about decs?
1 Like
This is tiresome.
I don’t want anyone to be immune to wardecs, where you getting this #@$ from?
I want newbro’s corporations be less appealing targets for wardecs. I think this is easy concept to get. I understand, what you disagree with me completely. I don’t see anything to discuss there anymore, since our points of view completely opposite and will not change.
The problem is 923872 posters before you used “newbros” as an excuse to water down EVE.
And the reality is, anyone who really belongs in EVE is not going to quit over pixel death or a little dent in their pride.
The people who quit were too emotionally sensitive to play EVE in the first place.
1 Like
How do you do this without making ALL corps less attractive to dec? How do you do this without making it harder for new corps to dec other new corps?
And keep in mind as well, the new corps chose to make a corp. They chose to be a valid war dec target.
2 Likes
They also chose to be prey by not trying to be predator 
I agree wholeheartedly! The more mechanics, red tape, and hoops to jump through with war decs, the the game feels like a sandbox.
This is point for discussion.
Every attacker have some target in mind, will it be structure removal, space control, some sort of
racketeering, or just kill or “tears” farming. Let’s call it profit or satisfaction.
For now, war cost is negligible, especially for wars against small corps. Wars around structures and space control already about some valuables, measured in billions of isk, so adding another 100 - 200 mil to war cost don’t do any harm.
Tears and kills farming is another story. How much attacker will want to pay to farm newbies? I think, and I may be wrong, much less players will want to spend 150-250 mil to just scare off some newbros, which is fine by me. It will make newbro corps less appealing targets without making them completely immune.
Numbers are subject to change, but you can get the idea.
Is where any actual noob corps wardecing each other? Can you point me to one, it will be interesting to check?
I think the cost of wars are fine. It’s been prove. In the past the raising war dec cost does nothing but make mercs join alliances together to offset the increased cost.
——
I would say Red vs Blue is a “new player friendly” Wardec group. I would suggest that be a first stop for any new player wanting to learn the very basics. If you pay attention you will notice a bunch of small isolated wars where some PVE groups will dec another group for any multitude of reasons. Seems that most people are fine with that type of content, but just have a problem with the career mercs.
Except for when it’s smaller groups that want to dec. And new corps are not always small. And not all small corps are noobs.
You’re looking at the likes of merc alliances and thinking that’s what all wardeccers are like. It’s not.
Raising wardec costs is non-starter. All you do is lock smaller groups out of decs and make mercs the only wardeccers left. It does ■■■■ all to help new players.
No. It makes ALL corps less appealing.
What’s a noob corp? The server does not understand noob.
But are there wardec initiated by small groups with a few week/month old players, yes. Go in game, open corp window. Wars tab. All wars.
Here you go 
So What? This is a competitive game, players can’t always have what they want.
But look at the OP again.
What does that even mean?
Does this part help?
Nope. This tells us nothing. Further it is incoherent. That part about, “…as the game does not know or care who won the war.” Precisely. The game does not care. Because the game is made up of all of use players and the Devs. Without us it is nothing except largely useless code. And guess what, I don’t care about some war dec in HS that does not involve me. I just don’t. The people who care are the players in the war dec themselves.
Does this help? Not really. It is fine if all you want to do is blow up pixels, but beyond that it provides absolutely no pathway for “pushing those miners our of system X”. None. In fact, this actually limits war decs in that you have to specify a reason and a victory condition…which leaves out things like “pushing those miners our of system X.”
This also limits conflict…and why doesn’t it make sense to shoot them all over New Eden? It is a war for crying out loud, not a table tennis match.
You can already run from a war, drop to an NPC corp. Move to another region. Running locator agents are not that good due to the watchlist changes.
Wow…just wow. So, this really fails to recognize that there are players who get war decced and simply do not want to fight at all. I mean at all. They’ll dock up and even log off for a week if necessary. Most will drop to NPC corps. This is why war dec mechanics are always a topic of whining, often by (some) players on both sides.
And now we are going to set these players as criminals who can be shot by anyone? Yeah…really bad idea. This is cramming PvP down players throats.
No, there really doesn’t. The reason for the war could be I think your player name is stupid so I’m going to start a war and try and shoot you.
Reduces conflict, the exact opposite of the stated goal.
What is this mysterious reward? Right now the benefit of a war is determined by the person initiating said war. Be it kills or some other intended result.
Now sit down and see how an older more experienced player could abuse this. And as noted, new players should be looking to corps that have more experienced players that can help them…or be willing to take the risk of starting their own corporation.
You have been around since 2009…maybe you haven’t been reading the forums much, but no this won’t help. Those who are fine with fighting and PvP often go to LS or NS and really don’t bother with war decs. Or they go into war deccing and don’t complain about war decs (unless it is about people dropping to NPC corps). Or they just do NOT want to enegage in ship-to-ship PvP at all. In which case nothing you can do will change their behavior.
IMHO this is one of EVEs core new player issues. Allowing new players to create corps just ends up isolating them from more experienced players that they could learn from.
Indeed. What id do here is:
Split corps into Full Corps and Social Corps. No change for full corps except they cost at least the same as a wardec to form. Social corps have zero assets and are just a killboard, calender and chat channel etc. Social corps cannot be decced. Social corps cost a few mil to form to stop spammage.
So “safe” corps and “real” corps.
No.
I agree in that it isolates players from a segment of the game. Join a safe corp and you can stop worrying about war decs. Sure you got ganks to worry about, but don’t be an idiot and you can ignore those too. The interesting thing about EVE is we are generally all in the soup together. And if you really want to hide from war decs you and your buddies join an NPC corp and create a private chat channel. For the other stuff, I’m sure there is something somewhere on the web that would meet that need for those who really need to dodge war decs.
1 Like
Sorry I wasn’t part of the discussion the last days. I’m moving soon and had some planning to do.
I read the answers now and to my eyes, there are some misconceptions people have.
The most important one is that “joining a corp” is the problem. Or means “Im ready for wardecs”. Only because the mechanic is bound does not mean this is a connection occuring or being felt by players. And just quitting a corp to avoid a wardec actually affects your game. You can’t use the hangar anymore, you have different tax, standings etc - bust most important it feels like you leave the poeple you wanted to play with. Yes, you can still be on their comms and fleets or whatever - but being actually part of a corp in game makes you play the game differently. At least that was the case for me 
The other misconception is, that reasons and goals are the same. I already read this on reddit a lot. So let’s clear this up: You can have ANY reason for a wardec. If you don’t like the colour of the corp’s logo, that’s fine. But if you (in my idea) want to start a wardec, you still need to select a variant how you want to “hurt” them. It’s important to see that “just shooting them” is still available. Although you need to set some sort of amount you’d like to extract via killmails. Maybe that can also be a something like “who killed the most in X days”, so it would even be more similar to the wardecs right now.
I still like the idea of the game recongnizing who won the war. Because it influences a lot of behaviour and emotions you connect with that war. And yes, nullsec wars usually have a clear winner. The Great War, Fountain War, Halloween War, The FCON vs TRI war, Casino War, the many DRF wars of the last years, the Providence war(s), etc.
Some exceptions are usually deployments who lack a clear goal - like the Goon attack on the north some time back, which was named as an example that you can’t tell winners in such conflicts. Well, those are pretty rare in my experience and as said, usually when there is no clear goal to observe or announced.
Another thing people use to say is, if you don’t live in highsec you have no idea about wardecs. Guess what, you can have spent a lot of time in highsec in the past (and the wardec mechanic didn’t change) OR you could have just talked to people and read about it. Maybe my idea is mostly from the viewpoints of “victims” as from attackers (which usually tend to describe the mechanic as “fine”), but I don’t think that they would be hurt with my proposal. I do think they would also have better gameplay and maybe less, but more interesting wars.
And last but not least: Yes, we - who discuss here right now - are obviously not been driven out of the game by wardecs. And yes, some players even get engaged more by those. But the majority of players I have talked to who have been part of wardecs paint a different picture. This is backed up by CSM btw. The trend is rather to avoid the game while being wardec, then to get involved with it. And that is simply a bad mechanic. Even if it is 100% sandbox or true PVP or whatever. If a mechanic or a meta drives people out of the game, you need to have a look at it.
This is basically the “it’s not broken” approach. Well, of course if you don’t think it’s broken you won’t like any change to it. I’d still like to ask you to be more open minded about it, especially if most of the old playstyle is still possible… and keep in mind that there are obviously a lot of players that don’t like the wardecs or don’t really know how to deal with them. This is a legit issue to raise btw.
What several people complained about, is that it’s more of a rough concept than an exact mechanic you could put into the game with the next patch. This is my fault, as I should have made it clearer that this is on purpose. I do think I wrote it detailed enough to be more than just some random ideas being thrown around, but of course not every number or solution is “finished”. It’s more of a direction things should go in my opinion. With examples how this could fit into the game. As I’m neither CSM nor dev at CCP I lack the data to make this a bulletproof concept of course. So instead of getting lost in numbers and percentages or whatever I rather wanted to put the idea into a design concept that (after some discussion) the poeple who actually have data can, if they wish so, use as a guideline.
As part of that, I really like the discussion that takes places. As CCP didn’t even have wardecs on the roadmap, I think this can only be a good thing if people talk about it.
So let’s continue with the arguments, maybe I will go into some details of the former posts later on. But surely will try to comment more up to date with the following posts.
The misconception is yours,
Wardecs are what balance being in a corp. They are the ‘cost’ of being in a corp. And people joining corps isn’t what we’re suggesting is the problem, its players that don’t know what they are doing are starting corps, inviting other new players and ruining their experience. This IS a problem. This is the root cause of your legit issue, players who don’t want to be in wars and don’t know what to do during a war. Its also the cause of other issues, like new players feeling they have no direction or purpose and finding the game so complex and daunting.
Getting decced, ganked, having a lack of direction, boredom, low engagement, not knowing how stuff works etc etc
These are things that happen (or become a bad experience) when you are in a poor corp.
2 Likes
So…joining a corp comes with trade offs. You gain various benefits and face the expected cost of possible war decs. Seems to me this is quite reasonable and working as intended.
Why? You say this is important, but fail to explain why it is important.
Again why? Can’t players define the win condition for themselves and determine if it has been achieved or not? Why should anyone else care?
People always say this and present no data…even the CSM who are nothing more than players who won an election. Assuming CSM are anything other than just players is foolish. And given that war decs have an opt-out mechanic I don’t think calling it a bad/broken mechanic is necessarily valid.