EVE Search - Tithes - an approach to dealing with corp-jumpers

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Crime and Punishment

Tithes - an approach to dealing with corp-jumpers

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 [2] :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
druid 99	Posted - 2008.05.29 10:36:00 - [31] admitidly i do like poping a macro i picture the look on the guys face when he comes back from where ever he is and lost his hulk dont ask why im might just be wired but its fun course if they responded i would ask them for a ransom but no responce= afk/macro the pop
Kami Nodachi Lobstosity	Posted - 2008.05.29 10:37:00 - [32] Originally by: Toria Nynys Originally by: Kami Nodachi No! He is right! High-sec wardec corps who pick on people that aren't able to fight back should be given a method to earn money while they sit on their asses! This is SUCH BS. There is absolutely nothing which stops a newbie corp from docking their mains, rolling untrained alts and blobbing wardeccers with nearly free frigates. I can't see 'aren't able to fight back' as a possibility, ever. And if the target is a big industrial corp with lots of POSes -- well, defense should be part of the business plan. Cough up a few B to hire mercs to blob your war targets 10 to 1. If you don't care to defend -- going out of business is part of the cost of undercutting other corps who DO have defense priced into their products. You miss the point completely. Just because a corp can field an annoying fleet of frigs doesn't mean they can effectively fight off an aggressive corp, but that isn't the point either. The point is the OP wants an option in game for corps to 'opt out' of wardecs by handing over a steady income stream to the pirates, ie wants to get paid for sitting on his ass because he only decs corps that are too scared to do anything but opt out. -Minna miteite kure-
Kami Nodachi Lobstosity	Posted - 2008.05.29 10:39:00 - [33] Originally by: Chainsaw Plankton Originally by: Huberek Morchu Originally by: Brother Welcome Corp A (high-sec war-deccers) dec B (high-sec carebears). Corp B does not want to fight. Redress is needed between the aims of A and B. Suggested redress is tithes. Corp B members are not permitted to move corp while dec exists (or if they do they carry it with them) however they can convert dec status to vassal status by tithing a stipulated amount (as with decs, this would be fixed but maybe a declining scale rather than increasing for multiple tithes). Like decs, tithes 'can't be refused'. While tithing to A carebears are safe from A... indeed, A may feel it to be in their interests to protect B. <add various refinements to avoid exploits and abuse> -BW Or, just pick on someone your own size? Someone people dont want to fight. some people also like to wave around $100 bills in the ghettos and then claim they didn't want to get robbed I see this everyday... wait, what? -Minna miteite kure-
Brother Welcome Icarus' Wings	Posted - 2008.05.29 12:03:00 - [34] Edited by: Brother Welcome on 29/05/2008 12:05:09 Originally by: Kami Nodachi Originally by: Faife Isn't tithing specifically for the church? And isn't it by definition 10% of your income? Heck, just take the other corp into your alliance and put a tax rate on them. Tithing is a form of taxation from feudal times when the castle would get a certain percentage of all the produce of his landholders. What the OP doesn't seem to understand is that the landholders were protected by the castle in return. My understanding from the history is that tithing was originally a payment to the church, literally 'tenthing' or as Faife has it a 10% contribution. If you examine the literature you find that there were so many exceptions to this that the figure can at best be treated as putative. That notwithstanding, it is common in game design to take a word near enough to one's meaning and retool it to a new purpose. Tithing seemed a good pick to me, because making the amount a %age is interesting: it means that the PvPer profits most when their carebear vassal is most productive. That in turn should produce a saddlepoint where it is better to protect the carebear than to gank them. You will know of course that feudalism did not exist in the sort of pure form we tend to talk about, but the fee paid on fiefs were calculated on the basis of actual production. A form of expert collector would assess tax based on fields, headcount, and such like. In the online resource of medieval documents you can read examples. For the system to play an effective role in EVE I believe support has to exist for it in the game engine. Really, it is just a form of extended contract: X will pay Y this %age, Y will not dec X. I am honestly agnostic on whether X should be bound to accept the dec in other instances, but CCP seem to be contemplating that and it seems to me all too readily avoidable if there is not some reasonable enforcement. Kami points to protection, but what (s)he fails to understand is that in medieval times (and now!) that protection most directly arrived in the form of not being griefed by the person you are paying your fee/tithe/tax to. In the case of the church, your immortal soul was protected, as well as quite a number of other legal benefits (marriage and in many places in Europe records of land ownership, and so forth), while from 'the castle' you were 'protected' by paying the knights not to do you physical harm. Only secondarily were you in any sense protected from third-parties; for example by a right to sanctuary inside the walls at the castellans pleasure. Or so the historical record reflects. There are other aspects of using a %age that I will leave for the reader to discern. -BW
Kami Nodachi Lobstosity	Posted - 2008.05.29 13:19:00 - [35] So you are saying every feudal system was based on someone with power bullying others? Castles and churches that didn't treat their people right had a bad habit of collapsing, which is backed up in historical records. Try the Aztec empire, for instance. The spanish convinced most of the Aztec vassal states to fight with them against the Aztecs PRO BONO, because they were all so tired of the Aztec's constant warfare and taking of captives for sacrifice. No one in their right mind would pay your tithes, because they are hemorrhaging ISK for nothing. If you want a feudal system then your tithe system would have to include any wardecs against your 'vassals' being redirected towards you. -Minna miteite kure-
Tsiros	Posted - 2008.05.29 16:19:00 - [36] Originally by: Kami Nodachi If you want a feudal system then your tithe system would have to include any wardecs against your 'vassals' being redirected towards you. +1 on that. good thing with that idea is that there will be no fake corps trying to make easy money. if you want to ''own'' someone and tax him/her then you should also protect them in order to make sure they keep paying you. question is if the ''protector'' gets attacked and fails what happens to the carebear corp that was paying. will the payment continue and if yes to who?
Brother Welcome Icarus' Wings	Posted - 2008.05.29 18:31:00 - [37] Originally by: Kami Nodachi If you want a feudal system then your tithe system would have to include any wardecs against your 'vassals' being redirected towards you. Nice idea! I need to think it over for abuses and issues, but it sounds promising. Of course, even if they were not redirected towards you, your loss of income may lead you to take an interest in them. I don't know of a feudal system that was not based on someone with power bullying others. The example you cite rather proves the case: I'm not as familiar with Central and South American history as with European, but I believe what happened was disaffected vassals who had been paying various kinds of levy (including a contribution of bonded labour) grew tired of their feudal (Aztec) overlords bullying them, and supported the Spanish instead. What they failed to take into account was that the Spanish would quickly replace the Aztecs in the role of bully, leading, for instance, to relocation of populations and redirection of labour, to suit Spanish interests, resulting in famine and, in the weakend population, susceptibility to imported disease. So yes, you give a fair example: one I'd agree with.
M'ing Pai The Really Awesome Players	Posted - 2008.05.29 21:24:00 - [38] The mechanics of the game already allow for this idea. Corp A wardeccs Corp B. Corp B says 'no wai' Corp A says 'orly?' Corp B says 'ya srsly' Corp A says 'you be joinin ma aliances den, and be payin teh taxes, 50mil isk a week' There you have it. /thread
Nyterra	Posted - 2008.05.29 21:37:00 - [39] Originally by: M'ing Pai The mechanics of the game already allow for this idea. Corp A wardeccs Corp B. Corp B says 'no wai' Corp A says 'orly?' Corp B says 'ya srsly' Corp A says 'you be joinin ma aliances den, and be payin teh taxes, 50mil isk a week' There you have it. /thread You know ... its really hard to argue with such sound LOLgic.
Brother Welcome Icarus' Wings	Posted - 2008.05.30 09:56:00 - [40] Originally by: M'ing Pai The mechanics of the game already allow for this idea. Corp A wardeccs Corp B. Corp B says 'no wai' Corp A says 'orly?' Corp B says 'ya srsly' Corp A says 'you be joinin ma aliances den, and be payin teh taxes, 50mil isk a week' There you have it. /thread Misses the point of having a 'must-take' out in reply to the 'must-take' in of deccing. <sigh>

Rolf Smith Royal Hiigaran Navy	Posted - 2008.05.30 10:10:00 - [41] I think the word you are looking for is not "tithe" but more along the lines of "danegeld".
M'ing Pai The Really Awesome Players	Posted - 2008.05.30 14:08:00 - [42] Originally by: Brother Welcome Misses the point of having a 'must-take' out in reply to the 'must-take' in of deccing. <sigh> Misses the point that a sovereign entity can declare war against whoever it chooses, whether or not the recipient of said war wants to engage. Otherwise it would be a 'duel'.
Dariah Stardweller	Posted - 2008.05.30 14:24:00 - [43] Originally by: Kami Nodachi No! He is right! High-sec wardec corps who pick on people that aren't able to fight back should be given a method to earn money while they sit on their asses! Yes, we need more ways for grieving ****ers to earn isk without playing the game!!
Jakke Logan F Off And Die	Posted - 2008.05.30 14:29:00 - [44] No way anything like this should be done. This would allow wardecs to be used to grief a corp in not allowing it to add members, or to KICK members. I can see this scenario: 1. An alt of Griefercorp gets into a corp (Corp A) that they want to grief. The person starts stealing, harassing, generally acting bad, etc. 2. Griefercorp wardecs Corp A, thus preventing them from kicking out the misbehaving person, sustainable FOREVER as long as they are willing to pay the war fees. This would simply give too much power to the wardec'er.
Jakke Logan F Off And Die	Posted - 2008.05.30 14:32:00 - [45] Originally by: Kami Nodachi Originally by: Toria Nynys Originally by: Kami Nodachi No! He is right! High-sec wardec corps who pick on people that aren't able to fight back should be given a method to earn money while they sit on their asses! This is SUCH BS. There is absolutely nothing which stops a newbie corp from docking their mains, rolling untrained alts and blobbing wardeccers with nearly free frigates. I can't see 'aren't able to fight back' as a possibility, ever. And if the target is a big industrial corp with lots of POSes -- well, defense should be part of the business plan. Cough up a few B to hire mercs to blob your war targets 10 to 1. If you don't care to defend -- going out of business is part of the cost of undercutting other corps who DO have defense priced into their products. You miss the point completely. Just because a corp can field an annoying fleet of frigs doesn't mean they can effectively fight off an aggressive corp, but that isn't the point either. The point is the OP wants an option in game for corps to 'opt out' of wardecs by handing over a steady income stream to the pirates, ie wants to get paid for sitting on his ass because he only decs corps that are too scared to do anything but opt out. Which brings us to this point... If the wardec'ers really wanted a fight they'd declare on corps that are actually capable (and have a history) of fighting, instead of noob mission running/mining corps. Declare on the former, they will get a fight. Declare on the latter, don't come here *****ing and moaning that they won't fight (mainly because they can't) and try to evade the war.
M'ing Pai The Really Awesome Players	Posted - 2008.05.30 18:29:00 - [46] Originally by: Jakke Logan Which brings us to this point... If the wardec'ers really wanted a fight they'd declare on corps that are actually capable (and have a history) of fighting, instead of noob mission running/mining corps. Declare on the former, they will get a fight. Declare on the latter, don't come here *****ing and moaning that they won't fight (mainly because they can't) and try to evade the war. That's just it: it's not just the 'noobs' using this tactic. So-called "griefcorps" are also using the tactic to avoid wardecs from the mercs hired to kill them by their "carebear" targets. It's broken. Admit it. When taken to it's extreme, it renders the entire wardec mechanic moot. And what's all this CRAP about making allowances for a corp not being capable of fighting? If they aren't capable of fighting, why the hell are they exposing themselves to that risk by creating a corporation? Don't you think that common defense should have somehow been factored into their business plan? If not, why should they have the competitive edge over other, more thoughtful corporations (that DO budget for their defense) by not having defense expendetures hitting their bottom line? Sorry, I have no sympathy for you or anyone else who thinks that a group can form a corporation and compete in the market against other corporations without somehow factoring defense into their expendetures. Our corp reserves the right to declare war against any we feel deserve it, whether they are prepared for war or not. Your corporation has that right too. Remove the risk of wardecs from the game (which is essentially what this 'exploit' does) and many consequences of a corporation's actions are also removed. Remember that if another corporation decides to conduct an extended campaign of suicide ganking against your industrial efforts and then evade your wardecs by corp hopping to their 4 dummy corps.
Nexa Necis The Really Awesome Players	Posted - 2008.05.30 19:18:00 - [47] Edited by: Nexa Necis on 30/05/2008 19:20:11 Edited by: Nexa Necis on 30/05/2008 19:18:36 Originally by: Jakke Logan Which brings us to this point... If the wardec'ers really wanted a fight they'd declare on corps that are actually capable (and have a history) of fighting, instead of noob mission running/mining corps. Declare on the former, they will get a fight. Declare on the latter, don't come here *****ing and moaning that they won't fight (mainly because they can't) and try to evade the war. Not even close to being true. We have a supposed pvp alliance dec'd right now. They logoffski, stab, permacloak and sit docked in Empire and low sec/0.0 all day long. When they do undock, they die. When they logoffski, we probe. When they stab, we HIC 'em. One time they showed up to fight, or so we thought. They had a stabbed up Arazu, a Raven and Eos. I was in a Phobos and corpmate was in a Hurricane. I got my Domi, and they refused to engage even after my corpmate logged out. Another corp we dec'd advertises the strength of their pvp wing, yet they never come to fight. So now people have to do market research on a corp to see how much they fight back? Your theory is fail.
Brother Welcome Icarus' Wings	Posted - 2008.05.30 19:27:00 - [48] Originally by: M'ing Pai Misses the point that a sovereign entity can declare war against whoever it chooses, whether or not the recipient of said war wants to engage. Otherwise it would be a 'duel'. I guess you don't mean to introduce a 'it should work like it does in the real world' argument here. Originally by: M'ing Pai Remove the risk of wardecs from the game (which is essentially what this 'exploit' does) and many consequences of a corporation's actions are also removed. There's nothing in the war-dec mechanic that makes it a consequence for actions beyond the action of simply existing. You intimated that corps in Eve need to make a provision for defence. What is the argument against that provision being ISK? If there were a formal extension of the contract system to bind parties in a fashion similar to games such as Empires in Arms, which attempts to simulate Napoleonic diplomacy and warfare, then corps could be brought to make a provision for defence. If they don't like PvP, they effectively pay the PvPer's to go elsewhere. Setting aside arguments about getting the mechanics to be foolproof, what is the argument against it in principle? -BW
M'ing Pai The Really Awesome Players	Posted - 2008.05.30 20:25:00 - [49] Originally by: Brother Welcome There's nothing in the war-dec mechanic that makes it a consequence for actions beyond the action of simply existing. You intimated that corps in Eve need to make a provision for defence. What is the argument against that provision being ISK? If there were a formal extension of the contract system to bind parties in a fashion similar to games such as Empires in Arms, which attempts to simulate Napoleonic diplomacy and warfare, then corps could be brought to make a provision for defence. If they don't like PvP, they effectively pay the PvPer's to go elsewhere. Setting aside arguments about getting the mechanics to be foolproof, what is the argument against it in principle? -BW There's no argument against that provision being ISK. In fact, I would argue that a corporation that wants to be purely industrial SHOULD enter into an alliance that contains PvP minded corporations, and should, as part of their business plan, pay fees to the alliance, and likewise provide ships/mods/ammunition to their defending allies. The arguments against your system have been stated by several different people in the thread. I would add to those that it isn't needed: the mechanics in place already allow for it without hardcoding those kinds of agreements. You want your mining/missioning/manufacturing corporation to be safer against wardecs? Negotiate an agreement with a mercenary/pirate/highsec wardec corp wherein you give them a weekly fee to keep one of thier slots open so that if you're wardecced, they're on retainer. You could also join a "PvP capable" alliance and pay their weekly/monthly fees and supply their war efforts in return for protection. Hell, you could even recruit PvP capable pilots into your own corporation and fund it from the inside. There's plenty of options for industrial corps. No need to rope them into fuedalism through game mechanics.
Kami Nodachi Lobstosity	Posted - 2008.05.31 05:50:00 - [50] I think the only mechanic that really needs to be added is some kind of gaurantee that anyone paying a ransom to get out of a wardec will actually get out of it. -Minna miteite kure-

Antarr Slagh	Posted - 2008.05.31 06:18:00 - [51] Originally by: Rutefly Another trend is, as decent miners come up with different things to amuse themselves with, and the need for minerals grows in eve in generel, macrominers gain more ground. Sure hit the isk buyers helps with the isk picture but not sure it does much to the mineral scene. Less decent miners = more macro nubs = more pirate whine. We dont leik the macro fools anymore than you. Actually less. Many of us has taken up piracy because teh veldspar doesnt love us anymore. Macro's actually brought pirates and miners closer together. I think thats frak'in beautiful. cheers You made me cry.
Newbear	Posted - 2008.05.31 06:35:00 - [52] Whats a tithe? Sounds perverse! Just leave things the way they are, or introduce personal war decs! Declare war on individual players. Personally I think this game is too carebear oriented. Lets raise the stakes on pvp! If you die, the killer loots 30 days from your account play time. Click here for my High Security POS Service
Hanneshannes	Posted - 2008.05.31 07:33:00 - [53] Originally by: Newbear Whats a tithe? Sounds perverse! Just leave things the way they are, or introduce personal war decs! Declare war on individual players. Personally I think this game is too carebear oriented. Lets raise the stakes on pvp! If you die, the killer loots 30 days from your account play time. W00t /me fits a ton of SBs to BS and flies to jita 44.


Pages: 1 [2] :: 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.