Wardecs are not the problem


(Solonius Rex) #1

I dont understand the whining thats going on about wardecs.

The problem isnt wardecs, the problem is the corporation you are in.

You join a crap corporation with a shitty CEO who only cares about exploiting his members for profit and cares little about anyone else. Then a wardec hits and he goes afk cause why bother helping his corpmates?

Whatever happened to responsibility? You should not be a CEO of a corp if you dont know how to run it. And knowing what to do when a Wardec hits, is part of knowing how to run a Corp.

We dont need a wardec nerf, we need a corporation creation nerf. We need to stop stupid people from creating crap corporations for little to no risk to themselves. We need accountability. We need responsibility.

Discuss…?


(Quelza) #2

I agree with some parts of this.

CCP has done a rather poor job in their MMO of explaining the tools that new players have at their disposal to find groups of people to hang with. They are not taught how to find and/or create chat channels (and, by extension, the horrendous recruitment chat channels), they are not taught how to find the Corporation tool, they are not taught about what kinds of services a corporation can offer its members that make it more functional than a private chat channel. Rookies are generally told to Google one of the few big nullsec “rookie-friendly corps” or go to the forums or r/evejobs.

I am of the opinion that inadequate information and tools to facilitate social interaction (or, at least, finding the right people to interact with) pushes players towards the most readily-identifiable unit of player organization, the corporation, before they are perhaps ready to deal with the consequences of being part of a corporation (in terms of corporation mechanics). Sort of an “any port in a storm” scenario, perpetuated for years and years. More often than not, a complete crapshoot, too.

Wardec mechanics do not need a nerf, as the wardecs themselves are not what I feel is the root of the problem. Maybe others feel they need a rework, but I personally don’t have enough experience with their mechanics to comment.


(Rivr Luzade) #3

If they get told that the people telling the rookies are the problem. Instead of funneling rookies into these meat grinders where they are nothing but a worthless number, every rookie should go through EVE University for a period of time.
There they learn things about EVE properly and not just how to rat in a VNI to generate tax revenue.

I would also argue that the contemporary players (new and old) are to blame a lot for their unsatisfying EVE experience. I have had no issues at all to communicate and learn in the Hedion University chat back when I started. In fact, I learned so much there and had such a good time that I didn’t even see the need to leave that corp for a long time. And no one helped me with ships or with ISK back then. A lot of people helped me with advice on how to earn ISK, on how to keep it, on how to use it. They gave me information and helped with questions, which was a lot more useful than a ISK handout and then no further advice. Where has this experience gone?
Neither crap corps nor the war system is to blame: But the utter incompetence and incapacity of the players (old and new) as a whole. You can restrict corp formation as much as you want, you can throws discovery tools for mechanics into people’s faces as much as you want, if they people themselves are not competent enough to learn and use tools, you won’t achieve any positive outcome.


(Quelza) #4

I do not disagree.

It’s simply that there is no good answer yet to the problem of inadequate dissemination of information of utmost value to rookies. Worn down vets in the Help channels end up resorting to parroting these phrases. They’ve started to give up. It’s like trying to stop individual lemmings in a herd as they follow some idiot over a nearby cliff.

You can’t save them all, and CCP’s over-reliance on its established playerbase to raise the next generation of EVE players is, in my opinion, misguided. I don’t want them to start holding players’ hands, but they need better (and easy to locate) resources so new players can learn for themselves and learn where to go to learn other things. Perhaps then we’d see slightly better player retention.


(DireTurnack) #5

I put all my alts in a corp together, much easier :slight_smile:


(Remiel Pollard) #6

I’ve been saying for a long time now, high sec corporations have no real reason to exist. Most people make them because they think they’re making a ‘guild’ and don’t understand the responsibilities are different on EVE.

Corporations need a reason to exist, they need incentives that discourage rolling or leaving them, and CEOs need (as OP stated) more accountability to their members. A while back, I suggested granting bonuses to members of corps based on the amount of time the corp was around, and the amount of time a member stayed in the corp. I think a lot of people misunderstood exactly how this would work, but basically, it was an idea I ripped from Black Desert Online that I’m sure, with a little balancing for the nature of EVE, and some polish, would work great. However, not many people liked this idea. They called it 'too unbalanced in favour of larger/older corps. The problem with that is, the larger/older corps already have an insurmountable advantage over new ones, so it would make absolutely no difference.

Anyway, the premises remain.


(Kannibal Kane) #7

Actually no…

CCP is the problem. They caused this issue with mass wardecs in the first place when they removed watchlists without a proper alternative… like watchlists between active warring corps.

In the past the wardeccing corps were a lot smaller and competed and attacked each other as well for work. Even larger corp could defend themselves against these corps by themselves or with the help of an ally.

Then CCP… CPP decided to remove the watchlists. And suddently all the little corps were forced to pillow buddies to keep doing what they are doing.

Add watchlists for warring corps…
Limit the amount of wars

That will force corps to actually choose value targets. Instead of any and all.


(Solonius Rex) #8

I agree with most of what you guys say, but this is part of it that i disagree with, atleast partly.

What youre talking about is starting from the bottom. Giving the new players and players looking for new corporations, the tools and ability to choose a better corp.

What im proposing is starting from the top. Weed out the sht corps and sht CEOs so that there are far, far less crap being flung around that eventually hits new players in the face.

Im all for helping the people, the new players at the bottom, but if we start from the top, it will help all the new players equally, and not just those that pay attention and are competent.

As it stands today, anyone who has played a day and has a milllion isk can make a corp. The bar is so low that its flooding the game with utterly crappy corps that have no reason to exist.

We need to make penalties for creating corps. We need to make penalties for leaving corps. We need to make penalties for joining corps. We need to make penalties for making corps. Corps should have more meaning.


(Piugattuk) #9

It’s a game, no nerf needed to stop people who may not be up to your organisational level, to call others derogatory names because you don’t like the fact that some choose not to stay active when a Dec drops is the same as calling the people the same when they stay in that Corp, kinda too judgemental, its only a game.


(Anderson Geten) #10

The rant is real … “CCP broke my tool so they are responsible of EVERYTHING”.

This. There are many reasons to make a corp. One of them is corp hangar, or corp jobs, or corp titles, or corp 0% tax.
Does not mean people in a corp want to make money from it, or have responsibility. IT’s just a tool.


(Solonius Rex) #11

I dislike it when people use “Its a game” as a blanket statement argument in response to someone else.

If CCP were to suddenly introduce Golden ammo, pay-to-win ships and weapons, there would be an outcry from the player base. And yet you would go in and say “Hey, its just a game”?

No one is saying this isnt a game. But we play to enjoy it, and we would enjoy a better game with a better experience, which is why we criticize it. Dont you want to enjoy the video games you play? And if you could improve your experience, and get even more enjoyment out of it, wouldnt you strive to do that?

Or, dunno, maybe youre a miner who prefers boring, stupid gameplay. After all its just a game, who cares if you have a bad, boring, stupid experience mining rocks, and waste time having no enjoyment whatsoever.


(Teckos Pech) #12

Time for Malcanis’ thought experiment again:

Well once again, I will point to my thought of the War Bond to illustrate the core problem. For this experiment, we will need to postulate that there is a mechanic to define “winning” a war; you can take your pick, or even imagine that there are multiple ways (eg K:D, structures surviving/being destroyed, activity, whatever.)

Suppose that on the formation of a corporation or alliance, in addition to the normal registration fee, CONCORD requested that the CEO deposit a war bond of equal or greater size. A bond which can be increased later at any time.

Should any other entity wish to declare war against that corp or alliance, they will have to match the war bond held on deposit. The winner of the war is awarded the loser’s bond.

This would give the defending entity an element of choice in the kind of conflict they wish to engage in: if the bond of Malc’s Minimal Tax Mission corp is 5M ISK, that may send a message that I don’t care about the corp at all; if wardecced, I will just abandon it and form another. (On the other hand, it might also communicate that I’d love to have a wardec because MMTX are also bored and welcome fights.) In essence, anyone with a ship to undock 5,000,000 ISK to risk can try their chances, but they should not have high expectations of the campaign.

On the other hand, let’s say that Malcanis’s Massive Industrial Machine (MMID) puts up a 500B bond. Anyone looking at that bond will realise that they have to put up half a trillion ISK to have a go. They might well infer that MMID has very sustantial assets in hisec that they want to protect, and in any case, there is a very large prize to be gained for winning a war with them. If MMID can afford a bond of that size, they can presumably afford to pay defenders, and might well have srsbsns allies. In short, any war declared on MMID will be almost certainly be a serious effort by a group willing to play for large stakes, who will expect to get one or more significant fights out of the campaign.
–Malcanis

Note, this is not a suggestion, it is a thought experiment. The purpose of which is,

It’s not a proposal, it’s a thought experiment designed to illustrate the problem with war decs in the first place. War deccers generally don’t like the idea beause it allows industrial corps to spend ISK to protect themselves. The Defending corps generally don’t like it because it allows them to protect themselves by spending ISK.

The experiment therefore illustrates the motivations behind both sides. in general, hi-sec war deccers are in it for low commitment, easy kill farming, with any profit being something of a bonus. So a system that requires them to commit ISK and which also allows the defender any agency in determining the terms of conflict is not popular with them.

Likewise, the defenders in general don’t want non-consensual PvP at all, and they want CCP to just stop it (see the post directly after the one I made above, for example.) So to them, the war-bond is a regressive step that they see as one more way of putting the responsibility for defending their ships and assets on them, rather than on CONCORD.

In short, the issue with war-decs is that they are non-consensual PvP in a way that, for example, a war between two 0.0 alliances isn’t. The 0.0 guys may complain about blobs or coalitions or cloaky camping or whatever, but that’s just tactics. They’re not complaining about the concept of another entity shooting at them at all. Wardecs on the other hand, typically involve a defender who doesn’t want to engage in combat PvP at all. How can you reconcile that desire with the desire for other players to play a FFA PvP game? The War Bond addresses the fig-leaf justifications that both sides put up. Deccers constantly complain that defenders can just quite their corps and reform another, risking nothing and losing nothing but a name. Defenders complain that they have no way to use their playstyle to protect themselves, and that the wardeccers commit nothing and take no real risks.

And yet when offered a mechanism that addresses these complaints, neither of them like it. In true EVE style, each want the other to do all the adapting.
–Malcanis


(Solonius Rex) #13

No one is discussing removing the validity of creating corps for those reasons.

What were debating are the corps that are run by crap CEOs who lure new players in, and end up creating a poor experience for everyone involved.

Its only a game. But i play EVE for fun. And id have a lot more fun if we didnt have these retarded corps around that offer nothing to newbies and are a general detriment to EVE. Why? Because my enjoyment from EVE comes with interacting with other players, and id have more fun if there were more people playing.


(Anderson Geten) #14

And maybe the crap CEO only wants to have friendly interaction with people whom he can trust ?
Maybe you need time and experience to become a good CEO, and waiting for it to appear magically is just prone to “no corporation” ?
Maybe making (beginner) mistakes is the basis of Eve Online ?


(Loutro Fift) #15

Beginner mistakes in Eve are usually fatal.


(Sugar Smacks) #16

O NOS a wardec in the future might mean you have to fight people with experience instead of fighting noobs
O NOS


(Piugattuk) #17

Lot’s of hostility, and because I may not do the activities you do you think I ascribe to be boring, stupid, wasting my life, and have no enjoyment, yet if you reverse that coin your side says hostile, low mannerisms, judgemental, and narrow thoughts.

See, there’s always that other side, people can make judgements about you because of your outbursts on a forum slinging poo at others, but crazy is as crazy does, take it easy man, calms, be tranquil.


(Kannibal Kane) #18

Becuase everybody seems to want to blame the issue on the wrong thing.

I do not care but put blame where it belongs in the first place as I have managed to work around it. Players react to changes that CCP implement. This issue with wardecs now is just result of those changes without proper thought on the affects it might have.

As a matter of fact, before the changes was put in place that is what the player that seem to understand the game mechanics better than CCP said would happen.


(Garresh) #19

Eve Uni? They’re really useful for training carebears, but their philosophy for the most part seems to teach people to run from their problems or hide. They do an okay job teaching PvP mechanics, but their graduates often miss some of the “philosophy” of conflict in Eve from my experience.

Not to worry though. We’re working tirelessly to oust these arrogant and parasitic corporations. We aggressively recruit the innocent newbros to ourselves, or other corporations with a history of treating their members right! The best thing you can do to a newbro in a bad situation is destroy that situation, newbro included. Then you tell them the why, the how, and teach them not to be exploited in the future while funneling them towards respectable outfits, Industrial or otherwise.


(Salvos Rhoska) #20

The same phenomenon occurs frequently even in exclusively PvE games.

People set up guilds/corps etc, though they have neither the know-how to lead it, nor put in the requisite effort to make them work.

Many want to be the boss, but not everyone is fit for the job, either in know-how or effort.