| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Horizonist
Yulai Guard 2nd Fleet
Yulai Federation
14
   |
Posted - 2011.04.08 10:19:00 -
[1] - Quote
Currently, it is possible for corp members to aggress each other without repercussion from Concord. I do not suggest that this should be removed, rather, allow CEO's to enable or disable it.
Mechanics:
- Upon changing aggression policy, a 12-hour (can be discussed) timer is put in before the change actually takes place. Along with this, a corporate notification will be sent out to all members regarding the upcoming change of policy.
- If the policy is set to non-aggression, any act that would normally provoke Concord interference will be met with a standard pop-up warning window, in case one corpie tries to aggress another.
- New members to the corp should be able to easy see, by opening their Corporation UI, what manner of policy the corporation is currently running.
|
Sahnsa
Tri-gun
3
|
Posted - 2011.04.08 10:39:00 -
[2] - Quote
Supported. |
Alua Oresson
Elisium Minerals and Industry
Partners of Industrial Service and Salvage
14
|
Posted - 2011.04.08 11:08:00 -
[3] - Quote
Eve is a cold, harsh universe. And actually, by using your own logic, that switch could itself be used to grief. If you allow mechanics such as this to be variable you also introduce a means by which you can confuse people and cause them grief. Think about it for a while. Imagine that you want to grief a large number of newer players and you have this mechanic available to you. I would recommend that while coming up with ideas of this nature, you think about it from a griefer point of view. |
Andski
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
1
|
Posted - 2011.04.08 12:20:00 -
[4] - Quote
Not supported. Accepting people into your corp should always carry a risk. |
De'Veldrin
Self Preservation Society the 2nd
3
|
Posted - 2011.04.08 13:51:00 -
[5] - Quote
The issue I have with this is that it can be disastrous for corp members accidentally.
Consider - I have a corp mate locked because we're RR'ing in a level 4.
I accidentally hit the "Launch Cruise Missiley Doom" button instead of the Remote Repper right beside it.
CONCORD shows up.
Thanks Mr. CEO.
Someone in corp you don't like? Challenge them to a "sparring match", flip the switch, and make sure they shoot first.
This is a horribad idea as presented. I know what you're trying to achieve - defanging the asshats who make a habit of joining corps and then ganking folks in mining ships and industrials because it's amusing to them - then they refuse to dock sso you can't kick them out.
But this will cause far more harm than good, I promise you. |
Horizonist
Yulai Guard 2nd Fleet
Yulai Federation
14
|
Posted - 2011.04.08 14:00:00 -
[6] - Quote
De'Veldrin wrote:The issue I have with this is that it can be disastrous for corp members accidentally.
Consider - I have a corp mate locked because we're RR'ing in a level 4.
I accidentally hit the "Launch Cruise Missiley Doom" button instead of the Remote Repper right beside it.
CONCORD shows up.
Thanks Mr. CEO.
Someone in corp you don't like? Challenge them to a "sparring match", flip the switch, and make sure they shoot first.
This is a horribad idea as presented. I know what you're trying to achieve - defanging the asshats who make a habit of joining corps and then ganking folks in mining ships and industrials because it's amusing to them - then they refuse to dock sso you can't kick them out.
But this will cause far more harm than good, I promise you.
Of course, it should neither be instantaneous nor vague. If the "flip is switched", there should be a timeout (as in the case of wardecs) before it goes into effect. Along with that, the entire corp will receive a notification about the (upcoming!) change of policy. Finally, if the switch is off, there should be a Concord warning popping up in the case a corpie tries to aggress another. All to avoid mistakes and abuse.
These features were planned when I wrote the original proposal, I will add them now after your feedback.
|
Furb Killer
1
|
Posted - 2011.04.08 14:07:00 -
[7] - Quote
De'Veldrin wrote:The issue I have with this is that it can be disastrous for corp members accidentally.
Consider - I have a corp mate locked because we're RR'ing in a level 4.
I accidentally hit the "Launch Cruise Missiley Doom" button instead of the Remote Repper right beside it.
CONCORD shows up.
Thanks Mr. CEO.
Someone in corp you don't like? Challenge them to a "sparring match", flip the switch, and make sure they shoot first.
This is a horribad idea as presented. I know what you're trying to achieve - defanging the asshats who make a habit of joining corps and then ganking folks in mining ships and industrials because it's amusing to them - then they refuse to dock sso you can't kick them out.
But this will cause far more harm than good, I promise you.
How exactly were you planning to miss the popup that clearly says concord will kill you? Even with an instantanious switch that gives no message to corp members I dont see how it could be abused, since you always get a message before doing something that will not be appreciated by concord.
Good idea tbh, make people spend a little bit more effort if they want to kill rookies in high sec. |
Alua Oresson
Elisium Minerals and Industry
Partners of Industrial Service and Salvage
14
|
Posted - 2011.04.08 14:20:00 -
[8] - Quote
You won't always get the pop up. There are people that have the pop up turned off. There are also people that don't make a habit of checking their mail. Personally I am in the first group, but not the second. I still think this is a bad idea. |
Horizonist
Yulai Guard 2nd Fleet
Yulai Federation
14
|
Posted - 2011.04.08 14:25:00 -
[9] - Quote
Alua Oresson wrote:You won't always get the pop up. There are people that have the pop up turned off. There are also people that don't make a habit of checking their mail. Personally I am in the first group, but not the second. I still think this is a bad idea.
Can you elaborate on why you think so? I addressed most of the issues you raised (thanks for them btw) in my last edit. |
Baaldor
Igneus Auctorita
Gentlemen's Agreement
0
|
Posted - 2011.04.08 17:44:00 -
[10] - Quote
Yes, lets add more hand holding to protect the sheople form unwarranted molesting. |
Lost'In'Space
196
|
Posted - 2011.04.08 18:13:00 -
[11] - Quote
De'Veldrin wrote:Someone in corp you don't like? Challenge them to a "sparring match", flip the switch, and make sure they shoot first.
It can be made it so that the change only comes into affect following the DT, so it's not insta.
Supported!
|
Horizonist
Yulai Guard 2nd Fleet
Yulai Federation
14
|
Posted - 2011.04.08 18:32:00 -
[12] - Quote
Baaldor wrote:Yes, lets add more hand holding to protect the sheople form unwarranted molesting.
One day, I will hopefully be as elite as you are. |
Baaldor
Igneus Auctorita
Gentlemen's Agreement
0
|
Posted - 2011.04.08 18:42:00 -
[13] - Quote
Horizonist wrote:Baaldor wrote:Yes, lets add more hand holding to protect the sheople form unwarranted molesting. One day, I will hopefully be as elite as you are.
It has nothing to do with being "elite". And no, you will never be.
It is more to do with the basic understanding of the game with all the risks, rather than sitting there, hand wringing with fear, because the bogeyman is out to get you .
|
Horizonist
Yulai Guard 2nd Fleet
Yulai Federation
14
|
Posted - 2011.04.08 19:00:00 -
[14] - Quote
Baaldor wrote:Horizonist wrote:Baaldor wrote:Yes, lets add more hand holding to protect the sheople form unwarranted molesting. One day, I will hopefully be as elite as you are. It has nothing to do with being "elite". And no, you will never be. It is more to do with the basic understanding of the game with all the risks, rather than sitting there, hand wringing with fear, because the bogeyman is out to get you .
Apologies if you were not trolling.
You will never see me wringing hands, and yet I want this change to go through.
Can you elaborate on why it should be "handholding" that CEO's get more control over corp policies? CEO's already have the ability to restrict rights to corp assets, giving them a tool to protect against the menace of corp theft. How is it wrong that CEO's also have the right to restrict this as well?
After all, Eve is a social game, where it can be argued that the corp is the atom of the social aspect. It is hardly handholding, as I see it, to give the leaders of such atoms the right to restrict the possibilities of griefing within the corp.
|
Baaldor
Igneus Auctorita
Gentlemen's Agreement
0
|
Posted - 2011.04.08 19:36:00 -
[15] - Quote
The CEO is given tools to run the corp by allowing and granting roles for select areas based on whatever the CEO/Director benchmark they use. This is mechanical. It is basic, like handing out bathroom keys.
By allowing the CEO to "flip the social behavior switch" because the CEO/Directors have an issue with herding cats, means they probably should not be in that position.
This is social manipulation. You are giving too much control the CEO/Directorship to adjust behavior on a whim.
By restricting " behavior" that is with in the parameters of the EULA , is interfering with a players rightful game play.
|
Horizonist
Yulai Guard 2nd Fleet
Yulai Federation
14
|
Posted - 2011.04.08 19:45:00 -
[16] - Quote
Baaldor wrote:The CEO is given tools to run the corp by allowing and granting roles for select areas based on whatever the CEO/Director benchmark they use. This is mechanical. It is basic, like handing out bathroom keys.
By allowing the CEO to "flip the social behavior switch" because the CEO/Directors have an issue with herding cats, means they probably should not be in that position.
This is social manipulation. You are giving too much control the CEO/Directorship to adjust behavior on a whim.
By restricting " behavior" that is with in the parameters of the EULA , is interfering with a players rightful game play.
I can't agree with that - restricting aggression between corp member for the purpose of protecting corp members is by no means restricting people from their "rightful game play". If you do not like the corp policies, or if you do not feel the corp is letting you play the way you want to, then leave and go somewhere else.
By the same analogy, It is your "right" (as per the game mechanics) to commit corp theft if you are able to, but in order to do so you need the proper privileges. Assuming these mechanics were to be implemented, it is still your right to gank other corp members, but again, you need the proper privileges in order to do so. In fact, the only thing here being regulated is whether or not Concord should intervene - ganking will still be very much possible, but as in the context of any other suicide gank.
While it may be a far-fetched analogy, consider that CEO's already, effectively have the means of manipulating social behavior through the mechanics you and me agree are already there. By raising taxes, for example, you can effectively inhibit your corp members right to mission and rat (since the purpose of either is personal income - unless the corp members expressly want to take one for the team).
The important thing in the above illustration is that, of course, the members can still mission and rat, even if they make no ISK at all from it (which no sensible person trying to make a living in Eve will do). The consequences of being allowed to control intra-corp behavior follows the same principle, but is in fact less severe - you can still kill other corp members just as you did before, the issue being only that you will lose your ship for doing so. |
Baaldor
Igneus Auctorita
Gentlemen's Agreement
0
|
Posted - 2011.04.08 20:04:00 -
[17] - Quote
Oh I see, you want someone else to deal with your problems so you don't have to.
Threatening your members "If you don't behave, you will get concroded!"
Corp thief is a strawman arguement.
|
Horizonist
Yulai Guard 2nd Fleet
Yulai Federation
14
|
Posted - 2011.04.08 20:14:00 -
[18] - Quote
Baaldor wrote: Oh I see, you want someone else to deal with your problems so you don't have to.
Threatening your members "If you don't behave, you will get concroded!"
Corp thief is a strawman arguement.
It is not - corp theft is something which requires privileges that can only be granted by the Command of the corp. Likewise, the mechanism I propose follows the same pattern, but is in fact more lax than the mechanics regarding corp theft.
Let me explain - in order to commit corp theft, you will need the keys to the corp coffers. If you do not have them, it is effectively impossible for you to do it, unless you violate the EULA and somehow gain access to the account of the CEO.
In order to commit corp ganking (under the mechanics I propose), you do not need any permission from the CEO at all - the CEO cannot stop you from doing it, he can only make sure that Concord will pop you (as per the standard game mechanics) if you do do it.
This "threatening" really differs nothing from all the other threats that are available. "Do not gank other corp members (which you can still do anyway in a platinum insured T1 ship) or you will get Concorded". "Do not dare to call me a noob in corp chat again or I will set taxes to 100% and kill your ratting". "Do not do X or I will boot you". Etc, etc. In fact, the latter are even more capable of restricting behavior within the corp then the Concord gimmick.
Why does this imply that CEO's who do this "want someone else to deal with their problems, so they don't have to"? The problem of corp ganking will still be there, CEO's will merely have the ability to discourage it - in the same way that hisec does not forbid or even prevent ganking, but merely discourage it by the fact that the attacker will get Concorded and take a sec loss.
All in all, I do not believe this mechanic is out of place in any way, it is simply an addition to help CEO's manage their own corps, and protect their own members. The element of risk is still there - as are all other risks - the only thing this would change would be giving the CEO's a tool to handle it with. |
Baaldor
Igneus Auctorita
Gentlemen's Agreement
0
|
Posted - 2011.04.08 20:27:00 -
[19] - Quote
Whatever, it is not even worth the effort anymore.
|
Horizonist
Yulai Guard 2nd Fleet
Yulai Federation
14
|
Posted - 2011.04.08 20:53:00 -
[20] - Quote
Baaldor wrote:Whatever, it is not even worth the effort anymore.
As you like. |
| |
|
| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |