EVE Search - Cost of carelessness

All Channels

Corporation, Alliance and Organization Discussions

Cost of carelessness

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 1 post(s)
thoth foc	Posted - 2005.12.08 23:44:00 - [1] Edited by: thoth foc on 08/12/2005 23:46:32 I have heard it suggested by various alliances, that fining careless NPC'ers or miniers is a good way to reduce carelessness amongst them.. so i'm curious what reaction if discussed here it would receive.. if the players are buying their own ships, why would the corp or alliance take it onto themselves to further add to the lose? if accepted as a good solution, and the isk generated was being passed back into the corp/alliance military, what sorted of return would the "donors" expect? personnally, for every 100 mill received by these ppl, i would expect to see at least 1 BS or HAC kill, would this be a view shared by everyone? any other ideas? --thoth --thoth [5], ex-Curse Alliance ex-DSMA
Darpz	Posted - 2005.12.08 23:50:00 - [2] Edited by: Darpz on 08/12/2005 23:49:50 if the loss of a rating ship (mine aren't useually cheap) isn't enough incentive to not be stupid I doubt another 100M would. Originally by: TomB Originally by: Darpz Originally by: Sobeseki Pawi CCP will nerf this probably, but hey, worth a try so your saying I should of kept my mouth shut? Yup.
Kaleeb	Posted - 2005.12.08 23:52:00 - [3] Tbh most big corps have tax's and conq stations to make money, If an alliance wanted to fine me for losing a ship i`d tell them to **** off. Unless it was during an alliance op or something where all hands are needed on deck. Care to elaborate which alliance are suggesting this?
Vina	Posted - 2005.12.08 23:59:00 - [4] Originally by: Kaleeb Care to elaborate which alliance are suggesting this? Gee I wonder... ----------------------------------- btw, threatening to close 1 account really hurt my eyes. - xaioguai
Alex Krause	Posted - 2005.12.09 00:07:00 - [5] Originally by: Vina Originally by: Kaleeb Care to elaborate which alliance are suggesting this? Gee I wonder...
thoth foc	Posted - 2005.12.09 00:09:00 - [6] Edited by: thoth foc on 09/12/2005 00:09:30 Originally by: Kaleeb Care to elaborate which alliance are suggesting this? since it didnt effect me directly, i thought a general discussion more appropriate --thoth [5], ex-Curse Alliance ex-DSMA
Jherek Cornelian	Posted - 2005.12.09 00:10:00 - [7] Edited by: Jherek Cornelian on 09/12/2005 00:12:13 unsuprisingly I have quite a few ideas for you thoth. All of which would leave me with a ban Which various alliances would dare to fine careless NPCer's ?? If I was part of one of these alliances I would leave immediately, the very gall of some people. Poncing around in faction heavy battleships NPCing while enemies are in system should be encouraged throughout the entire alliance. I will of course be writing to my MP about this outrage. Personally for every 100 mill received by these rotters I would expect to see at least an oven ready turkey at christmas or at the very least a nice box of christmas *****ers. I really glad you raised this issue on eve-o it certainly is an interesting one. edit Christmas Crac.kers are not offensive yo ho ho
Dianabolic	Posted - 2005.12.09 00:19:00 - [8] I have heard of this policy and I've been seeking to have it confirmed, not because I disbelieve it is happening, that because it's just completely foreign to me that a) people would pay it and b) things were in such a state as to have such a policy imposed on anyone, corp or alliance. Hats off to whoever thought of it, because if people don't learn from their own stupidity they may well learn when they become very, very poor. And, well, the faster you can make the stupid, poor, the less kills they are likely to feed your enemy. A fool and his money are easily parted, as they say. Still find it amazing that such a policy is required, though. Originally by: Thomas Jefferson A society that will trade a little liberty for a little security will lose both and deserve neither.
Amthrianius	Posted - 2005.12.09 00:20:00 - [9] I find it most hilarious today that the people who the money goes to, just did the same thing as what they are fining people for today. ---------------
Jherek Cornelian	Posted - 2005.12.09 00:21:00 - [10] Originally by: Alex Krause Originally by: Vina Originally by: Kaleeb Care to elaborate which alliance are suggesting this? Gee I wonder... You seem to pop up on every thread, very brave of you to go to all the trouble of making an alt character then putting one line answers all over eve-o. If your so - I'm sorry I hate using this expression but it's the only language you'll understand - If your so 'uber' post with your main.
FowlPlayChiken	Posted - 2005.12.09 00:23:00 - [11] this is the most subtle smack of f-e alliance ive yet seen! nice one mate. bawk!
Blacklight	Posted - 2005.12.09 00:25:00 - [12] Any alliance with players daft enough to need this additional 'incentive' to not get ganked needs to either lose those players, disband or get the hell out of 0.0. Why keep a load of dead wood on your books? Eve Blacklight Style
pershphanie	Posted - 2005.12.09 01:07:00 - [13] Originally by: FowlPlayChiken this is the most subtle smack of f-e alliance ive yet seen! nice one mate. bawk! I dont consider this smack at all.
Bracius	Posted - 2005.12.09 01:08:00 - [14] Originally by: thoth foc Edited by: thoth foc on 08/12/2005 23:46:32 I have heard it suggested by various alliances, that fining careless NPC'ers or miniers is a good way to reduce carelessness amongst them.. so i'm curious what reaction if discussed here it would receive.. if the players are buying their own ships, why would the corp or alliance take it onto themselves to further add to the lose? if accepted as a good solution, and the isk generated was being passed back into the corp/alliance military, what sorted of return would the "donors" expect? personnally, for every 100 mill received by these ppl, i would expect to see at least 1 BS or HAC kill, would this be a view shared by everyone? any other ideas? --thoth Dunno, sometimes i wish i would have carebearkiller doomsday weapon, but in general it is hard to get any reasonable balance. I don't really feel like camping something to get a kill. And ganking stuff around doesn't really count for those 100mil isk i got for his 'protection'. But i bet you are not really in position to talk about careless carebears? I just contributed 0 to this topic :)
Naphtalia	Posted - 2005.12.09 01:08:00 - [15] I think this is a totally stupid idea, if you pay for your own ship it is your own choice to lose it or not, none of the biz to the alliance! The person that came up with this should be kicked from the alliance.
Ituralde	Posted - 2005.12.09 01:10:00 - [16] If they get ganked because they are dumb, thats 100 mil that could go to people who are being useful to their alliance. After all, why cull the stupid when you can make money off of it? Sure, an enemy might get to brag on their 'Perfect' killboards about their l337ness, but hey, that's a free 100 mil for the rest of the alliance. Man, whoever came up with this plan must have been incredibly brilliant. In fact, I want to know who that person is and join their alliance, because clearly it must be the most amazing alliance ever. Oh wait. Thanks to ATUK and the .5. to sharing the wisdom imparted on them by others with the rest of the EVE community. So modest to make their flame, that is to say, wisdom, under the modest cause of idle curiosity. Really, ATUK, if you are that curious, just check your spies and TS spies to find out what you want to know. With all of them that you have everywhere you guys really probably do not even need to use the forums. Maybe if you want to see those kills per every 100 mil ISK then you can try flying without using spies when you outnumber the enemy significantly. Not that the .5. would ever do something of the sort... To the rest of the EVE community, learn to flame like thoth, his buddies in ATUK and the rest of the .5. do, they make it at least well worth responding to; many denizens of the forums could learn much.
Naphtalia	Posted - 2005.12.09 01:12:00 - [17] Ituralde, keep it nice.. totfoc wasn't smacking/flaming :)
pershphanie	Posted - 2005.12.09 01:21:00 - [18] Well my opinion on the subject is that this does a few positive things for the alliance. It taxes people who are not making a contribution and diverts that money to people who are. Assuming the money is going to a ship replacement progream for your pvpers or some other place that helps your alliance. It keeps people on their toes. It helps make people you who are having a negitive effect on your alliance pay closer attention and possibly get them more interested in having a positive effect on your alliance. And finally it will indentify and weed out people who just arent prepared for 0.0 survival yet. It's definatly not a nice thing to do. However I do believe it is something that could immediatly benifit an alliance in a postive way.
Metal Dude	Posted - 2005.12.09 02:10:00 - [19] My take on this subject is that thatÆs EVE communism, which I theory should work very well. However, with corruption, itÆs always the leaders that get rich off of the little people and before you know it, they are gone with all of the money. Remember CA? Remember all the ****ing when they broke up about where all the isk and minerals went? How about FA and their passport system? Do you think anybody other then the leaders seen any of that money? ThereÆs countless others that IÆm sure can tell you how they were used by their corp or alliance with taxes and fees and at the end, they never received anything. So if you want communism in your allaince/corp, then donÆt expect to not be disappointed later on when you remember this post. The truth will set you free Proud to be ATUK *
SengH	Posted - 2005.12.09 02:35:00 - [20] Originally by: thoth foc Edited by: thoth foc on 08/12/2005 23:46:32 I have heard it suggested by various alliances, that fining careless NPC'ers or miniers is a good way to reduce carelessness amongst them.. so i'm curious what reaction if discussed here it would receive.. if the players are buying their own ships, why would the corp or alliance take it onto themselves to further add to the lose? if accepted as a good solution, and the isk generated was being passed back into the corp/alliance military, what sorted of return would the "donors" expect? personnally, for every 100 mill received by these ppl, i would expect to see at least 1 BS or HAC kill, would this be a view shared by everyone? any other ideas? --thoth Thoth... the same standards that work for us do not work for everyone else.Not trying to be elitist, but our corps expect a certain level of "proficency" from 0.0 pilots. Ie. if we lost 3-4 BSes in the space of 10 mins just goofing around.. someone would be having a word with the directors the next morning heh. Some people CAN and HAVE learned from their mistake. Ie. in one incident with Supremacy, we just had a merger and had some people who were very new to pvping in the corp at the time. There was no one from pre merger Supremacy available at the time and we lost 3 BSes to Painball in the space of 4 minutes. However they LEARNED from their mistakes very quickly (after some advice from the veterans) and never let the incident repeat itself again. Today these people have the same level of proficency that we would expect from anyone in our alliance and I'm very proud to say that theve come a long way. On the other hand there are people who refuse to learn and truck about 0.0 like its their own back yard, refuse to obey the simple rules of surival and then complain when they get ganked solo flying their BS with faction loot or their hauler full of zyd. No offense but the "FAT" alliances with alot of freeloading members have this problem. FOE had some dude complaining about being unable to move his covetor up to jzv during the wars. The bigger the alliances get # of corps wise the more "fluff" makes it into the alliance. The ideal alliance atm seems to be a small # of self sufficent Megacorps. Not a large number of small corps. Ofc this makes it more prone to factions forming within alliances such as seen by the split in the Big Blue alliance.
Saeris Tal'Urduar	Posted - 2005.12.09 02:44:00 - [21] Okay say someone is ratting in 0.0 in a tier 2 BS with a highend fitting. A covert op ship jumps in, and in about a min or so finds his belt. The gank gang then jumps in and kills him. The ratter looses 200M-500M in mods and on top of that you want to fine him another 100M? Who decides if they were just unlucky or if they were careless? Then how would you decide that if in, say a fleet engagement someone didnt fit sensor boosters and got damped or forgot NOS or drones and got ganked, would they be fined for the loss of their ship. Or maybe they just didnt align to the right moon for a gang warp, or jumped in too soon or too slow. I got a feeling sht would hit the fan kinda quick. Seems a little harsh. Seems a little pyramid-like* to me. So do tell, what alliance has this in place?
Tadis	Posted - 2005.12.09 02:51:00 - [22] Question: How many carebears needed to check local and use intel? Answer: nobody knows, they havnt managed it yet :) Jokes aside usually a talking down from their CEO should be enough. Usually a explanation on recruitment would be the best policy of avoiding it, but some people just dont listen or use their brains.
SengH	Posted - 2005.12.09 02:53:00 - [23] Originally by: Saeris Tal'Urduar Okay say someone is ratting in 0.0 in a tier 2 BS with a highend fitting. A covert op ship jumps in, and in about a min or so finds his belt. The gank gang then jumps in and kills him. The ratter looses 200M-500M in mods and on top of that you want to fine him another 100M? Who decides if they were just unlucky or if they were careless? Then how would you decide that if in, say a fleet engagement someone didnt fit sensor boosters and got damped or forgot NOS or drones and got ganked, would they be fined for the loss of their ship. Or maybe they just didnt align to the right moon for a gang warp, or jumped in too soon or too slow. I got a feeling sht would hit the fan kinda quick. Seems a little harsh. Seems a little pyramid-like* to me. So do tell, what alliance has this in place? I'm not sure if im applying my alliance standards to yours. The minute you see a single hostile in local why are you still sitting there ratting? Get to a safespot and determine his shiptype. Fleet engagement setups are standard setups... if you really dont know what it is, ask your CEO... if he doesnt know... leave the alliance. All the rest is just basic discipline and knowledge that should be expected of any pilot involved in pvp.
Recluse Viramor	Posted - 2005.12.09 02:54:00 - [24] Originally by: Saeris Tal'Urduar Okay say someone is ratting in 0.0 in a tier 2 BS with a highend fitting. A covert op ship jumps in, and in about a min or so finds his belt. The gank gang then jumps in and kills him. The ratter looses 200M-500M in mods and on top of that you want to fine him another 100M? Who decides if they were just unlucky or if they were careless? Then how would you decide that if in, say a fleet engagement someone didnt fit sensor boosters and got damped or forgot NOS or drones and got ganked, would they be fined for the loss of their ship. Or maybe they just didnt align to the right moon for a gang warp, or jumped in too soon or too slow. I got a feeling sht would hit the fan kinda quick. Seems a little harsh. Seems a little pyramid-like* to me. So do tell, what alliance has this in place? My opinion on this matter is by no means official in any capacity. This whole fine thing applies only to known hostiles that have been called out in intel channels, if someone gets ganked after warnigns have gone out, then such a fine would apply.
Saeris Tal'Urduar	Posted - 2005.12.09 02:55:00 - [25] Originally by: Ituralde If they get ganked because they are dumb, thats 100 mil that could go to people who are being useful to their alliance. The thing is it was never your 100M to begin with. Or your ship. Or your mods. If it was your corps ship and someone lost it because they did something stupid. Hell yeah fine them for the insurance and then some. And then kick them from the corp. But if you've had no investment in that ship, then you have no right to ask for compensation for them losing it. If all you had to do with that player and what was being in the same corp or alliance, and you tried that on me I'd tell you go f'yourself. And anyone stupid enough to pay that kind fine, would be a great addition to any alliance.
Melko	Posted - 2005.12.09 03:06:00 - [26] I would ask the "military" (if one existed) to pay me 100 mil for every time I got ganked Especialy when it's the same people at the same time every day. I hate logging in only to hear "stay docked ATUK are in local" FFS get them out of our space already!!!!!!!!!!!!
Saeris Tal'Urduar	Posted - 2005.12.09 03:09:00 - [27] Originally by: SengH Originally by: Saeris Tal'Urduar Okay say someone is ratting in 0.0 in a tier 2 BS with a highend fitting. A covert op ship jumps in, and in about a min or so finds his belt. The gank gang then jumps in and kills him. The ratter looses 200M-500M in mods and on top of that you want to fine him another 100M? Who decides if they were just unlucky or if they were careless? Then how would you decide that if in, say a fleet engagement someone didnt fit sensor boosters and got damped or forgot NOS or drones and got ganked, would they be fined for the loss of their ship. Or maybe they just didnt align to the right moon for a gang warp, or jumped in too soon or too slow. I got a feeling sht would hit the fan kinda quick. Seems a little harsh. Seems a little pyramid-like* to me. So do tell, what alliance has this in place? I'm not sure if im applying my alliance standards to yours. The minute you see a single hostile in local why are you still sitting there ratting? Get to a safespot and determine his shiptype. Fleet engagement setups are standard setups... if you really dont know what it is, ask your CEO... if he doesnt know... leave the alliance. All the rest is just basic discipline and knowledge that should be expected of any pilot involved in pvp. I understand your logic. I just disagree with it. If people are f'n around when they shouldnt be, on say on a combat op. and are webbing each other waiting for the order to jump. Or scramming each other when alinging to warp. Then those people need to be podded and then kicked from the corp/alliance. But anyone one can get ganked because they are careless. It happens to the best of PvP'rs. The problem I see is there are going to be exceptions and the ones to get away with out paying are going to be someones buddy. Or have a nice full set of lips. People are going to get played as favorites and others wont, and it will come back and bite you in the ass. If you really think they are that noob for your alliance that they need to be fined, then they really just need to be kicked.
Eskiban Vlasic	Posted - 2005.12.09 03:22:00 - [28] Fining someone for losing an alliance ship due to their own stupidity is fine. Fining someone for losing THEIR OWN ship is completely asinine. - Vlasic of TW Fame TribalWar, INC Sister corp to FREE Explorer
SengH	Posted - 2005.12.09 03:50:00 - [29] Edited by: SengH on 09/12/2005 03:52:04 I suppose I worded my reply a bit differently. In general there are 3 types of reasons why people lose ships in 0.0. Incompetence - Hate to say this but some people are just not cut out for life in 0.0. It would be far more benifitial for the alliance to just have them sit in empire. These are the people that think travelling setups involve flying BSes around with named long range guns with faction loot equipped, no stabs and no scouts. No matter how much you explain to these guys they will not watch local and will blindly jump into a gatecamp even though theres a big fat blob of 40+ ships killed in the last hour on the map. They keep losing ships over and over again Carelessness - Occasionally people just dont use the tools available to them. They dont have the appropriate channels open or arent on TS. Theres not much difference though between extreme carelessness and incompetence. Unlucky - There are some situations when you just happen to be at the wrong place at the wrong time. Ie. your scrambled and no one saw the hostile fleet. Local shoots up and within 60s their pounding on you and your wallet starts flashing. The problem with this plan is that you bag the unlucky guys along with the rest. But for "that alliances" leadership it seems eliminating 2 evils at the cost of the unlucky guys is worth it. Edit: I cant say its the best solution but it surely is one. Its the alliance leaders decision to make, and if they deem the benifits > cost, its thier call. The members of the alliance can vote with their feet.
pershphanie	Posted - 2005.12.09 05:16:00 - [30] Originally by: SengH Edited by: SengH on 09/12/2005 03:52:04 I suppose I worded my reply a bit differently. In general there are 3 types of reasons why people lose ships in 0.0. Incompetence - Hate to say this but some people are just not cut out for life in 0.0. It would be far more benifitial for the alliance to just have them sit in empire. These are the people that think travelling setups involve flying BSes around with named long range guns with faction loot equipped, no stabs and no scouts. No matter how much you explain to these guys they will not watch local and will blindly jump into a gatecamp even though theres a big fat blob of 40+ ships killed in the last hour on the map. They keep losing ships over and over again Carelessness - Occasionally people just dont use the tools available to them. They dont have the appropriate channels open or arent on TS. Theres not much difference though between extreme carelessness and incompetence. Unlucky - There are some situations when you just happen to be at the wrong place at the wrong time. Ie. your scrambled and no one saw the hostile fleet. Local shoots up and within 60s their pounding on you and your wallet starts flashing. The problem with this plan is that you bag the unlucky guys along with the rest. But for "that alliances" leadership it seems eliminating 2 evils at the cost of the unlucky guys is worth it. Edit: I cant say its the best solution but it surely is one. Its the alliance leaders decision to make, and if they deem the benifits > cost, its thier call. The members of the alliance can vote with their feet. I agree with this assesment. Which is why in order to do this you would need to assign people to determain whether or not the accident could have been avoided. Blindly fining everyone who loses a ship is obvoisly not a good idea.

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.