Even if there is some magical reason why 80 is greater than 621 or 102 we’re still off topic about responsibility for corps.
Without understanding the mechanisms causing new player attrition or just player attrition, there is no way to address “accountability”. We don’t know what responsibility looks like unless we know what needs to be responded to.
Wardecs would primarily show their effect in the second group, those killed legally. But all we really know for now is that that group has a higher retention rate than group 3 and a lower retention rate than group 1.
Responsible for what?
Exactly the problem.
Why should a corp be responsible for new player retention?
Why should a corp be responsible for their membership doing stupid things?
Why should any corp have any responsibility for anything at all?
It’s a thing nobody wants but everyone will change into something they want instead.
I would go a step further to ask: Why are there corporations at all?
Maybe corps are the problem.
Corporations are an organization tool allowing allied players to retain communication easier and ability to display that affiliation.
Deleting corps from the game would also delete all the affiliation marks and thus end war in high sec in full.
Everybody in high sec would then be completely immune to war.
There would be no stations of the player controlled variety in high sec or low as corporation affiliation is required.
I do not see that as a reasonable outcome.
What would change and how would that support the notion should decrease the amount of non-consensual PvP in EVE?
Corporations come with a certain connotation, that of security within a group, loyalty among corp mates, cooperation. But what if it is exactly the violation of these expectations that is causing “the problem”.
Players have many other means of grouping together and communicating. Beyond the game mechanics functionality that corporations enable, what purpose do they actually serve that would not be better handled with the fleeting mechanism or the player channel mechanism or just being in the same site or system or . . . ?
There are other ways to display affiliation and new ones could even be introduced.
War in high sec doesn’t require a declaration. Ask CODE.
Maybe this would increase the overall number of players in group 1 (illegally killed). That might even lead to higher player retention rates overall, given that group 1 has the highest player retention rate of the 3 groups we’ve discussed.
Why can’t this be changed mechanically? I think it’s at least worth considering . . .
No, there is zero guarantees of security or loyalty. Some of the best security failures and loyalty failures are the best stories in eve. The_Judge for example…
Two. Non-game or in game private chats. Not all private chats are controlled.
Corps can be set to auto accept to fleet members. Without this sorting mechanism you would need every single person in fleet to be added to a list. No sub-lists would exist. You would make fleets considerably harder to form.
CODE. in high sec does not declare war. They gank. This has consequences and thus the responsibility for such already exists. This does not change if they join or do not join the corps in question. Now if you wish to make ganking equal to war that’s an entirely different can of worms and would result in all kills being ignored by concord. In which case we can just delete all npc stations also. They won’t be needed. ISK wouldn’t be needed either since you’d only be able to spend corp loyalty points or trade for items. Unfortunately you’d also be ending all blueprint original points in the game which would result in eventually one side wins because they eliminated the competitions blueprints. With zero ability to fight back successfully this would result in eve online subscribers leaving in droves and the game closing when it becomes non-profitable.
Unaffiliated to the topic. If we convert 100% of everything into A then A must be best for everything.
In regards to “corporation affiliation is required”
It can be changed mechanically. Start with your NPC faction standing being factored in because like it or not “State War Academy” is a corp. Every time you kill an npc or player within their corp your standings should be lowered until you are kicked out of the corp. Every time you kill an npc or player in their declared enemies list you should gain standing. If I was to go to your history it would look to me like you are just bounty scamming but you have also supported the church of evil justice. This would make you an alt of said group hiding with no corp history.
We have a catch 22. A a paradoxical situation from which an individual cannot escape because of contradictory rules. You are protected from being attacked by random entities within high sec space by concord (even if it’s not instant retribution strikes) due to your affiliation with the State War Academy. You gain the benefit of being prevented from being declared war upon due to your affiliation with the State War Academy. This doesn’t prevent you from supporting corps that are declared war upon. Lets change that first.
In order to repair this mechanic from being abused as a member of the State War Academy you are not allowed to assist non-affiliated players without standing loss. So every time you repair anyone not in the State War Academy you lose standing. Every time you ECM drone someone else to assist someone not in the State War Academy you lose standing. Upon going negative enough standing you are kicked out of the State War Academy and lose all their protections. This would then make you a pirate character which is hunted by concord in high sec.
Good luck.
Considering I don’t think that is the metric…I really don’t.
You do know that most of the wardec groups already own assets in space, and have for years?
Defenders could already be attacking them if they want, and just making it part of the mechanics will change nothing.
Weak, cowardly, ignorant CEOs will still be weak, cowardly and ignorant.
2 Likes
Then you agree that adding this in would change nothing to the attackers currently?
I don’t think it would change anything for anyone.
There’s plenty of data that already demonstrates what a pointless thing it would be.
2 Likes
Yep. So no responsibility exists and no changes will ever add responsibility.
Thus weak cowardly ignorant CEOs who hide from your attacks and wait until you get bored remain in eve exploiting the rest of the people because we should keep it that way.
Good talk.
What? You want CCP to make CEO’s responsible?
Maybe it is up to the people being exploited to impose costs on the CEOs for being weak, cowardly and irresponsible as opposed to having CCP engage in some sort of hand holding.
Weak, cowardly, ignorant CEOs make themselves known to their members eventually, and they lose their Corp.
However, what often happens in wardec suggestion threads, especially ones that propose structures as a basis for declaring war, is that people get so fixated on the large wardec groups, that they can’t even see any of the negative impacts of their proposal on everyone else in the game.
In the old forum, there was a ‘structure based wars’ thread running at the same time my own alliance had been declared war on. It was from a 1-person Corporation, who was responding to one of our guys being a douche in local chat.
He took what the mechanics provided for him and over 2 weeks, killed the guy that had been a douche, a couple of times. Good outcome for everyone.
In a structure based war mechanic, he wouldn’t have been able to do that. We would have just gone and killed his structure.
That’s what all of the structure based proposals would end up doing. They are so targetted at hitting PIRAT, etc. that they fail to see how they would also hit all the much smaller groups that use the wardec mechanics.
And in the end, the outcome they are looking for wouldn’t even be achieved, because it’s already possible to hit structures and no one does.
2 Likes
Lets break it down then.
Current war mechanics:
Spend 50m isk.
Proposed war mechanics:
Corporation has Upwell structure.
Corporation invests structure module to declare war against a group.
Corporation spends 50m isk to set the module target.
Corporation can lose war by losing structure or being unable to maintain the Upwell structure fuel costs.
Module limited to high sec.
One could argue that the “douche” didn’t agree it was a good outcome by his blowing up. They would just be more “douche” like to complain about it.
Factor in your corp was declared war upon. No risk was given to the attacker. The above situation with your “one man corp” could easily have expanded if his target was actually your corp. Would you continue to laugh it off as a corp if he had a structure powered? Would you continue to laugh it off if there were 300 players instead of 1? If these 300 players only wanted to blow up specifically that one “douche” player would you have responded the same way? This is where your argument falls apart. A 1 man corp with a citadel you would have gone out of your way to destroy to end a war vs a 1 man corp with a war where he pretty much killed one guy a couple times over 2 weeks.
You basically declared you respect a threat and ignore a threat of equal totals based entirely on the fact that you have ability to end a war. Not based on the fact that one person was a “douche” but because war is not war unless it’s a war you can win.
Hypocrisy - The practice of professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not hold or possess; falseness.
Because hitting structures DOES NOTHING to end wars right now. You just spend a lot of time blowing up a structure which the attacker really has no interest in defending because they can just end the war and watch your weeks of attacks against their citadel do nothing. They have no risk. They never have. They never will. Because nobody wants to put risk into war.
The game goes to substantial lengths to say, “Hey, player, these are your corp mates!”. What significance are players expected to read into that?
To some people, those are “the best” stories. To other people, those are just evidence of corporations being . . . outdated, both conceptually and in their implementation. I find myself wondering two things: Should “corporation” really include the functions it does and should it include other functions that it doesn’t? Should all those functions be amalgamated or should each of them be offered separately from the other components of “corporation”?
No, I would make exclusive fleets harder to form. Or, rather, I would prefer them to be what they naturally are, harder to form. Letting everyone in or no one in is naturally going to be easier than discriminating. In the real world, we don’t have a thousand “friends” partly because it wouldn’t be worth the effort.
An FC with 255 people in his fleet doesn’t know all 255 of them. I guarantee you. There’s ony 24 hours in a day and the human brain can only remember so many names. There is a reason things like the Rolodex and Blackberry were invented. The difference being that if someone puts you in their Gmail contacts list, you don’t come under the impression that they have any responsibility to you. You keep your guard up. But in a game, like EVE Online, there is the reasonable assumption that someone in your space guild, wearing the same space uniform as you, is on your side, in some sense. The simple solution is to disassociate that particular function, the space Blackberry, from the overall set of “corporation” functions. Why is that a bad idea?
Also, I don’t care how hard fleets are to form. If it’s too hard for you, then don’t do it.
CODE. and other gankers may or may not DECLARE war, but they certainly WAGE war. I’ll leave it to a different post to argue about whether there are meaningful consequences and whether responsibility exists.
No idea what you’re going on about here.
Huh?
I am protected by CONCORD because of my security status, not my status as a member of the State War Academy.
The State War Academy is a “special” corporation in that it can’t have war declared upon it. Beyond that, I’m not clear on what your point is. You seem to be going off the rails a little bit. Perhaps you could clarify?
CONCORD doesn’t hunt pirates. It only hunts characters with active criminal timers. I’m still not clear on what you are trying to say.
I can misquote you if you can misquote me. It’s only fair. Right?
Lets go back and quote it with the words you ignored. Your own.
Affirming the consequent – the antecedent in an indicative conditional is claimed to be true because the consequent is true; if A, then B; B, therefore A
Illegally killed players have better retention rates than legally killed players. Making all legally killed players illegally killed does not happen. Thus your declaration of B = A is a logical fallacy. B is being killed, A is being killed illegally. All people killed illegally are killed. Not all people killed are killed illegally. Trying to make them all such is how you roll everything into A resulting in your conclusion that A is best because everything is A.
Now that I’ve got your logical fallacy out of the way lets continue.
Every successful corp action has an equal and opposite failed corp action. CODE. actually professes their successes on a website. None of these successes exist without someone else preforming a failure. Or are you saying everything is always a success no matter who did what under all circumstances?
EVERYBODY WINS! Right? No changing your mind now.
No, you are not protected by CONCORD because of your security status. Shoot ONE person in high sec unprovoked or without a duel and your security status means zip. CONCORD will blow you up for that. What people CAN’T do is declare war on State War Academy. Your corporation. This is a protection you have. You even admit this.
Knowing full well that you can fly around without a war dec on your shoulders is cute. Come to the table when you can be declared war on or have been.
At which point I might blow him up if he is in my corp. 
Gee…why am I thinking this won’t lead to more people moving over to large war dec alliances that mass dec?
/sarcasm
There is little in the way of risk from CCP. CCP tends to operate via algorithms and those can end up being gamed–i.e. you figure them out and they are defeated.
Risk is usually dependent on one’s actions and those of others around you. Take freighter ganking. The freighter pilot is taking on lots of risk. The gankers are seeing this and taking advantage of it. It is right and proper that there is very little to no risk on the part of the gankers. They are being prudent and reasonable whereas the freighter pilot they are going to gank is being imprudent and foolish. There is nothing wrong here and literally nothing for CCP to fix.
In a war dec if one side faces no risk that is most likely because the other side has chosen to impose no risk on them. It is an element of the sandbox where players are interacting…not CCP. CCP does not “play the game” like players do. To complain about risk in this situation is a category error, IMO.
How many modules are you willing to spend to declare war?