Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
corbin12
|
Posted - 2009.03.09 18:33:00 -
[1]
an unk to me pirate joined corp, wanted to do missions and destroyed my rokh. Since he was in the same corp he could legally fire on my ship!, as well as warp scramble, there was nothing I could do as the ship was fitted for the mission not pvp. This gives pirates an EXTREMELY unfair advantage by joining corps and posing as new players, ie spy.
This rule needs to be altered so corp members CANNOT fire on each other in HIGH SEC. or make a restriction that the ceo has to authorize friendly fire between 2 or more corp members. I have filed a petition to ccp about this but they referred me to here.
this cost me 300 mil and i think im entitiled to some of it back due to this policy?
Regards Corbin12
|
Ki Tarra
Caldari Ki Tech Industries
|
Posted - 2009.03.09 18:37:00 -
[2]
Or you could just improve your recruiting policies.
You are supposed to be able to trust corp members. If you can't then maybe you should look for a new corp.
|
Corbin11
|
Posted - 2009.03.09 18:44:00 -
[3]
No this is an unfair game policy which gives pirates access to attack other corp members via working on the inside, and exploiting the friendly corporate combat policy, which allows other corporate members to kill each other, without concord intervention in high sec systems. I have suggested to ccp that a ceo control policy be set up to ALLOW and DENY corporate friendly fire, so if an important corp op is taking place, the ceo hits a button making it illegal for friendly corp fire and this problem is solved peroid!
Then if players want to practice their skills the ceo can set a time limit for friendly corp fire, and thus allow the function to take place when pvp is the focus, so pirates cannot expoit corp op events, and destroy expensive ships which are set up for the corp op.
|
Solid Prefekt
Minmatar Sebiestor tribe
|
Posted - 2009.03.09 18:45:00 -
[4]
It is not an extremely unfair advantage as they can only do it one time. When recruiting it is easy enough for you to check prior corps to make sure they left in good standings. The mechanics are fine. I don't see any reason why you did a petition as the mechanics of the game were not breached.
|
Corbin11
|
Posted - 2009.03.09 18:47:00 -
[5]
Yeah now I suppose all the pirates will be posting saying this is a bad idea!
|
Ki Tarra
Caldari Ki Tech Industries
|
Posted - 2009.03.09 18:50:00 -
[6]
Originally by: Corbin11 More stuff
The point is there should not be pirates in your corp.
You choose who gets into your corp. If you don't trust them don't hire them.
If you don't want anyone to be able to attack you then stay in an NPC corp and for an association for independant pilots: ie a chat channel.
There is no real reason that you need to be in a player corp unless you trust the other members of the corp.
|
Ki Tarra
Caldari Ki Tech Industries
|
Posted - 2009.03.09 18:51:00 -
[7]
Originally by: Corbin11 Yeah now I suppose all the pirates will be posting saying this is a bad idea!
Not just pirates.
Carebears that understand how the game is intended to work will also oppose this idea.
Good luck making the sales pitch, but I don't expect much to happen any time soon.
|
Corbin11
|
Posted - 2009.03.09 18:55:00 -
[8]
yeah i agree there should be NO pirates in the corp, but pirates always find a way to get around the background checks, including alt. character, newly signed up account and then have their pirate friends show up at the planed corp op and attack even in high sec.
Ok if you dont want to modify the combat corp policy, then how about putting in an automatic screening system which identifies possible pirate players so they DONT get hired into the corp.
|
Corbin11
|
Posted - 2009.03.09 19:00:00 -
[9]
Also i am not asking for the combat policy to be dropped (did you read it?) I am asking that the corp combat policy be altered so the Ceo of the corp can activate a button saying ok corp members now you can practice pvp on other corp members thus making it legal friendly fire. Then have another button for the ceo to push saying ok friendly fire will NOT be permitted by any corp members because we are performing a corp op., and thus no corp members can attack other members or they will be SHOT BY CONCORD.
I think my statement is pretty clear Corbin
|
Lear Hepburn
Caldari Ascendant Strategies Inc. The Transcendent
|
Posted - 2009.03.09 19:04:00 -
[10]
Originally by: Corbin11 I think my statement is pretty clear Corbin
It is. You're a carebear and you want more love.
|
|
Ki Tarra
Caldari Ki Tech Industries
|
Posted - 2009.03.09 19:08:00 -
[11]
Your requested feature is available in NPC corps.
What do you need in a player corp that is not available in an NPC corp?
|
Corbin11
|
Posted - 2009.03.09 19:21:00 -
[12]
well since i own the corp it brings me in isk!!! NPC corps dont!
I guess thats a good reason
regards C.
|
Ki Tarra
Caldari Ki Tech Industries
|
Posted - 2009.03.09 19:29:00 -
[13]
Originally by: Corbin11 well since i own the corp it brings me in isk!!! NPC corps dont!
Oh! You want to be able to have a risk free ISK fountain by scamming noobs.
Just move your main into an NPC corp and use an alt to run the corp.
You should even be able to keep the SP low enough on the alt that even getting podded by discruntled slav... I mean corp members will cost you nothing.
|
Corbin11
|
Posted - 2009.03.09 19:39:00 -
[14]
Funny how fancy words end up saying things I never stated!
The isk is for the corp not for me, to help supply ships to the players and pay the bills(ie its not free to run a corp), and to help me also, in making ships with the ore generated from corp mining events. Now if the folks in NPC corps were not drunk all the time maybe they could actually do this, but in reality will never happen as NPC corps are every man woman for themselves, free of tax, free of wars. Theres nothing wrong with that idea, and no i cannot use my alt to run the corp since the corp ops require my HIGH skilled player not my low skilled player. Alhtough it is a valid idea, just add 40 Mil sp points to my alt player account and this should work out just fine. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Here is a post i found of other corp ceo's having the same or similar issues with regards to hiring PIRATE spy players,who exploit the unfair combat policy set up by ccp.
"Who are you? Question
Eve is an old game, and CCP sanctions character trading. The 2004 player next to you didn't create the toon, nor did the person who sold it to him, or did he? Is the guy applying for your corporation the same one that stole billions from the defunct XXX Empire? As EVE ages, grows, the problem of Who Are You increases. It's inversely-proportional to the accuracy of the employment history.
Also certificates are immutable; the owner of a Toon is not. Yet the display of certificates is customizable, and employment histories remain fixed. Doesn't make much sense.
Omnipotent Recruiters.
Real corporations are to Eve corporations, as resumes are to certificates + employment backgrounds. Doesn't work.
Real corporations do not possess chronological list of every company you've worked for in your existence. They know what you let them know, in contrast to an employment list misleading recruiters to think they know the history of a toon that for all we know has changed hands 6 times in the last 4.62 years, you know? Wink
Smart recruiters in this environment would assume the toon had one master from its inception. This punishes those who purchase toons through an officially sanctioned CCP program, nonethewiser to the sellerĘs malicious activities while in his possession. It also deprives corporations of good players.
This might work Razz
The employment history should either be removed due to general uselessness and inaccuracy, or players should be allowed to adjust the visibility of its contents. In this case the only non-adjustable entries should be the toons current corporation, and the starter corporation. This rectifies the whole supergalactic character trading , omnipotent recruiter bombshell of inaccuracy that has been building the moment the first toon changed hands in eve."
so yes it is easy for pirate to join a corp and exploit them from the inside out! ccp has even given pirates the ability to kill other corp members once inside the corp hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
a fair vantage?
Corbin
|
Ki Tarra
Caldari Ki Tech Industries
|
Posted - 2009.03.09 19:50:00 -
[15]
Originally by: Corbin11 i cannot use my alt to run the corp since the corp ops require my HIGH skilled player not my low skilled player.
So why can't you fleet up for the corp op? What part of the corp op requires your high skilled character to actually be in the corp?
|
Corbin11
|
Posted - 2009.03.09 20:03:00 -
[16]
Fleet up,,, yeah we fleet up, whats that got to do with anything?
Me and the pirate were fleeted in a op for doing a mission and was told by the pirate to change my ships from a drake to a rokh and when i got back to the mission gate the pirate warp scrambled and open fired and blew up my 300 mil ship(with 100 mil mods).
how is this a fair vantage?
|
Corbin11
|
Posted - 2009.03.09 20:06:00 -
[17]
since it is a small corp and i so far have the most skills, I am curently the only one that can fly the biggest ship in the corp so I have to be in the corp with the my skilled player so the corp op can be successful!
C.
|
swisher
Caldari Mentis Fidelis Un-Natural Selection
|
Posted - 2009.03.09 20:09:00 -
[18]
wow. just, wow. this is by far the BEST post ever!
I think we need to extend this policy to low sec - even more, don't let anyone shoot anyone regardless if it's corp or not. In fact - we should just remove all ammo and drones and smartbombs from the game entirely. People don't need to fight, i think we should all just set autopilot (because that's the only way to travel, right?) in our freighters and dock in jita.
why don't you just go to 0.0, where your corp is actually trying to do something, ie. kill reds.
Please resize your sig to a file size no greater than 24000 bytes - Mitnal |
Eisbrecker
Minmatar DevilDog Brigade
|
Posted - 2009.03.09 20:12:00 -
[19]
Corbin, I believe the concensus is that you either:
A: Solo play as part of a npc corp and you will be protected against griefers infiltrating your corporation but you won't be able to enjoy the benefits of taxation upon your corp members.
or..
B: You keep you player corp but you will have to use stricter means of recruiting members so that pirates don't get in or accept the inevitability of a pirate possibly joining and loosing a ship from time to time.
As they said, you will know from the moment they attack that they are up to no good so it's easy for you to learn and kick them.
Perhaps the ways in which you are recruiting new members are making you an "easy target", do you spam local, do you over tax your members? I know it can get expensive but usually corp taxes are very low unless you are collectively saving for a goal (capital ship whatever).
It's best to be up front with players and trust them, usually a faker won't last when your surrounded by friends that trust your leadership.
There have been players that have ripped off corps for much more than a rohk, so it could be worse, a lot worse.
|
Corbin11
|
Posted - 2009.03.09 20:14:00 -
[20]
"I think we need to extend this policy to low sec"
Nope again said nothing about low sec whatsoever, this is in regards to HIGH sec space only!.
I have nothing wrong with open fire in low sec or 0.0. go back and read #1 post this is in reagards to pirates joining corps and then opening fire in high sec on corp members.
|
|
Corbin11
|
Posted - 2009.03.09 20:21:00 -
[21]
Yeah thats fancy talk again,
Pirates have ways of exploiting any character, with any history so as not to bring up red flags on the background checks when joining a new corp...
Again this policy needs to be changed why is that so hard?
All im asking for is for 2 buttons under the ceo control panel
1 to make corp members be able to legally fire on each other in HIGH sec..... 2 to make corp members be able to illegally fire on each other in HIGH sec, which results in concord intervention....
I think the pirates have exploited this combat policy FAR TOO LONG
|
Corbin11
|
Posted - 2009.03.09 20:37:00 -
[22]
Also without "change" to this ccp policy it allows corp members to "gang" up on 1 individual in the corp and take all their goods as well as any ship losses. Not saying that "trusted" corp members would do that, but if a mutiny was started among corp members this would give them an advantage against that individual, by also exploiting the corp combat policy. Yes i have see this done numerous times against ceo's of corps. I myself have even participated in one in trying to kill my former ceo.
I guess it comes down to fairness and trust. Would this give an unfair advantage to the ceo of the corp if no-one could attack him from within the corp, I dont know, he paid the bills, its his corp, why should pirates and mutiny players be allowed to exploit this policy?
|
Sir Substance
Minmatar MagiTech Alliance Inc. MagiTech Corp
|
Posted - 2009.03.09 20:39:00 -
[23]
corbin got owned.
|
Ki Tarra
Caldari Ki Tech Industries
|
Posted - 2009.03.09 20:46:00 -
[24]
Originally by: Corbin11 Also without "change" to this ccp policy it allows corp members to "gang" up on 1 individual in the corp and take all their goods as well as any ship losses.
That is exactly why that feature is there: it allows corps to inflict "justice" upon its membership.
|
corbin12
|
Posted - 2009.03.09 20:50:00 -
[25]
Edited by: corbin12 on 09/03/2009 20:54:47 Yeah your right sorry
|
Ki Tarra
Caldari Ki Tech Industries
|
Posted - 2009.03.09 20:54:00 -
[26]
Originally by: corbin12 A good analogy...
That has nothing to do with anything that you have posted here.
|
Imertu Solientai
|
Posted - 2009.03.09 21:49:00 -
[27]
Edited by: Imertu Solientai on 09/03/2009 21:49:44 an unk to me pirate tried to join the corp but was rejected, and hence couldn't do any harm to us. Since he wasn't in the same corp he couldn't legally fire on my ship!, apart from smack, there was nothing he could do as he wasn't in the corp. This gives carebears an EXTREMELY unfair advantage by employing decent recruiting policies.
This rule needs to be altered so anyone can join any corp in HIGH SEC. or just remove Concord. I have filed a petition to ccp about this but they referred me to here.
this saved me 300 mil and i think im entitiled to feel smug due to this policy?
Regards Imertu Solientai
PS: It's usually a bad idea to recruit a guy called 'PirateAlt40234'.
|
hawtalt pr0nmistress
|
Posted - 2009.03.09 22:27:00 -
[28]
Originally by: corbin12 Waaaaaaaaaaaaa I fail at recruiting!!!!!
This
Dude, don't recruit people who will kill you. Also, don't post on the forums about how badly you run your corp and expect anything but napalm.
|
Solid Prefekt
Minmatar Sebiestor tribe
|
Posted - 2009.03.09 22:31:00 -
[29]
CCP is fine with a spy (or person turned spy) taking down an entire alliance and causing the destruction of 460 POS's, the biggest station camp of eve history, countless billions in isk lost from ships, and you think the problem you described is 'EXTREME'? Spies are part of the game. CCP has said this numerous times. Deal with it. Don't turn this game into WOW. What you are proposing attacks the very essence and soul of what this game is about. I have personally lost billions of isk in ships and I accept it because I want this game to stay harsh and violent. I would be strongly against anything that even smells like what you have suggested and would fight those changes with every character I got.
|
Barrus Inane
|
Posted - 2009.03.10 02:45:00 -
[30]
Eve is founded around sandbox. Even the kamikaze pilots, one which cost me 150 mil is within game realm. The proposal postings are best if they work within a realm of realism. Free invite, well, people take advantage. if you want to talk about in corp piracy, may we point you back to Bob. They hate the guy who tore them down, but in the end, was a well played they said. How about the extremly rare Imperial apoc or armageddon that one CEO lost to a corp member who was in corp for a year? Just gotta watch what you do.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |