Shouldnt the Bar be raised to create corporations?

[Solonius_Rex]

@March_rabbit

Somehow we were able to start without it. And some of us still here.

And yet CCP and veterans alike understand that this is a problem.

@March_rabbit

I mean it’s difficult to seriously think about need for this protection because “it is not big deal”. Feels like pure theoretical discussion with pure imagined arguments.

It wasnt theoretical enough for CCP, which is what lead to the wardec changes.

[Dracvlad]

@Solonius_Rex

The impression that we got from CCP and the CSM regarding wardecs against smaller corporations, was that the new players who were caught up in this, didnt simply realize they were just in a crappy corp and decided to move to another, better corp. Instead, the CEO they were trusting to lead them, probably sent them a mass evemail saying “just dock up and dont play the game for a week”.

That is your impression on what the CSM and CCP said and think, I think it is totally incorrect, so therefore we will never agree if you make this wild assumption.

@Solonius_Rex

Sure. Looking back at it, im sure you have fond memories. But not everyone makes it into the latter category. Not everyone moves on to new corporations. And while you may have had a good time, its completely possible that a corpmate of yours didnt. Atleast your CEO wanted to move out to Nullsec, which is a lot more than what most hisec corps are willing to do.

I went to nullsec on my own back.

@Solonius_Rex

I dont think you read my comment. I understand that fun is all relative, but i think youd agree with me that most people will have to try out a lot of things in order to find something that they consider fun. A crappy experience in a crappy corp because of a crappy CEO who couldnt lead you to water if you were thrown off a boat, isnt going to get you to that point.

It did not matter if the CEO was crappy or not, you seem to have a hang up on this issue.

@Solonius_Rex

But I feel like this conversation is a little surreal, because most new players dont want to make mistakes. Its only fun for most people to make mistakes, when they look back on it and learned from it. But chances are, mistakes will only frustrate new players, and many will want to avoid it, especially those that cost progress/isk.

If you ask a new player running missions who just lost his ship to a ninja salvaging baiter, what do you think his opinion will be? WIll he be glad he made a mistake and learned from it? If given the option, would you think he wouldve preferred not to make the mistake, and had been told by others whats going on beforehand so that he didnt have to lose his 200 mill ship?

That is common sense.

While you think it is all abnout bad CEO’s only you will not understand the issue.

[Solonius_Rex]

@Dracvlad

It did not matter if the CEO was crappy or not, you seem to have a hang up on this issue.

Were talking about the creation of new corporations, by crappy CEOs. If thats not what youre discussing, then youre discussing a completely different topic.

If you want to discuss a corporation that is just made up of friends where no one really expects anyone else to be better, know better or do better, then sure. It doesnt matter if the CEO is crap, because no one is expecting him to be anything else.

But If your corporation wants to recruit other people outside of your group of friends, and youre advertising your corp as something more than just “Were here to hang out and thats it, we offer no support, no training, no help”, then yes, the discussion shifts to whether a CEO is crap or not.

If youre crap, you can appoint someone as director who isnt crap and handle your affairs for you. You can appoint and delegate your responsibilities. But in the end, youre the one who chooses, and its on your shoulders.

@Dracvlad

That is common sense.

Sure.

@Dracvlad

While you think it is all abnout bad CEO’s only you will not understand the issue.

Im not saying its all about the CEOs being bad. But it is the responsibility of the CEO.

Its like this. If a CEO appoints a director that does poorly, its not the CEOs fault that the director was crap, but it is the CEOs fault for appointing him, and moreover, its the CEOs responsibility to remove the roles and/or kick out the bad director.

[Dracvlad]

@Solonius_Rex

Were talking about the creation of new corporations, by crappy CEOs. If thats not what youre discussing, then youre discussing a completely different topic.

You are talking about raising the bar on creating corps, crappy CEO’s is the reason why you want to do that. And you seem to be blaming the war dec changes on that, I am stating that there is no reason to raise the bar on creating corps.

[Solonius_Rex]

@Dracvlad

You are talking about raising the bar on creating corps, crappy CEO’s is the reason why you want to do that. And you seem to be blaming the war dec changes on that, I am stating that there is no reason to raise the bar on creating corps.

Raising the bar for Corp creation seems to be the easiest method of raising the experience of new players who get recruited into these corps, as well as tax haven corps that can no longer be wardecced.

I understand that your position seems to be one of “keep it as is and let the new players experience and leave crappy corps.”

But now that we’ve lost the Avenue of wardeccing these corps to demonstrate to the new players just how crap their Corp is, how else do you propose to inform players to choose better corps?

[Dracvlad]

@Solonius_Rex

But now that we’ve lost the Avenue of wardeccing these corps to demonstrate to the new players just how crap their Corp is, how else do you propose to inform players to choose better corps?

Local is a good way to communicate. Tell them, and if they have structures then blow them up.

[Mala_Zvitorepka]

@Solonius_Rex

Why wouldnt it? It seems to work on other aspects of the game. Players are more careful and take less risks on ships that are expensive, as they do with cheaper ships. They tend to be more protective of something if it costs more.

Yeah because ship blown up is gone for good. This isn’t the same here - pay once and corp is eternal. Rather make recurring costs if you want something closer to these ships getting blown up.

2b cost will simply lead to higher risk and reward when setting up a corp. People will be less inclined to make a corp as a way to make money, but their “victims” will be also harder to leave as they won’t have money to make their own corp (and the simple get rich scheme is 10% tax for no rewards - NPC corps have it 11% for same no reward, so going back to the NPC corp isn’t a viable alternative for them, just searching for another corp is).
(assuming existing corps will have to pay 2b as well. Otherwise you just gave a nice benefit to existing corps at the expense of upcoming ones)

[Nevyn_Auscent]

You have yet to explain how increasing the isk grind raises the CEO abilities of people.
If the issue is bad CEOs then work out how to actually address that, not put some arbitrary isk grind in.

[Aergri_Evingod]

Okay let’s turn the view around bad players are unlikely to happen to be flying in a Protheus or a Titan however they can forgo this by putting in massive isk yet they are never going to realy enter and live through null-sec still they are allowed to Play eve by ccp and ccp needs them to play eve for ccp to survive.

Badly managed Corps might not make it to null either and not survive a war should the build a structure. However they might be needed by ccp for the playerbase to grow psychologically, sociological or group wise.

So much on this view. In line with this view might be instead of a new psychological deterrend now on possible CEOs some kind of LEGUE OF CORPS (in highsec) something in name akin to LEAGUE OF LEGENDS similar to alliance tournament running the whole year with possible prices, titles and ladders (in combat, trade, industry, science, construction, missions, financial)

Well just another idea.