Pages: [1] 2 3 4 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Genya Arikaido
|
Posted - 2009.02.05 16:24:00 -
[1]
Edited by: Genya Arikaido on 05/02/2009 16:26:05 ^^ That up there is the definition for "Exploit" as related to games. So let's take a moment and discuss the newest item up for being labeled as such.
Just let me say this first: I am not a BoB or GBC alt. I am not a Goon alt. In fact, my characters live elsewhere entirely.
So if I get all this right, the Goons infiltrated the BoB executor corp at the full director level enabling them to kick corps from the BoB alliance until there were none left in it, causing it's automatic closure.
Ok, that's the method.
Now, given that only the executor corp CEO has the direct ability to close an alliance, it seems that it was never CCP's intention to permit directors this same ability to close the alliance they belong to.
And now here's the question: Is it unintended use of game mechanics to force the closure of an alliance at the director level by using available tools? Did CCP intend for us to figure this out and use it as a covert operation feature?
Before the BoB and Goon storm drops in and starts up rabblerabble, let me just ask you all to stop and think.
This could happen to your alliance.
All it takes is a dissatisfied director at the executor corp level. Everyone has their price. The next thing we know, this becomes the new way to "prep" an enemy for invasion. eliminate their alliance organization entity, wait for sov to reset which offlines their jump bridges, cyno jammers and everything else....then jump in with everything you've got and wipe them off the face of the map.
The implications of overturning an alliance's infrastructure in a matter of hours scares me.
If any alliance could have their entire infrastructure base essentially "can flipped" in less than a day, why do we even bother building it all up? We build because we expect it to take weeks of hard, not to mention fun, fighting, fleet battles and more, to destroy it. We get to build and defend our hard work and enjoy the benefits of doing so.
To close, the Goons pulled off an amazingly effective, yet controversial, stunt that was extremely effective in neutering their enemy. My hat is off to you. However, from this point on, I fully expect alliance politics to reach a level of paranoia we haven't seen since before Exodus; when alliances had to be defined by a string of text in their corp info and standings.
I beg CCP to not let this happen again by this same method. It has the potential to overturn everything they've wanted 0.0 to become and revert us back to the pre-Exodus days. |
Sturdy Girl
|
Posted - 2009.02.05 16:28:00 -
[2]
I'm pretty sure this was intended. It'd be pretty hard to close an alliance by mistake.
IBTL. |
Genya Arikaido
|
Posted - 2009.02.05 16:30:00 -
[3]
Your use of the word 'intended' and my use of the same word, are in very different contexts. I suggest not skimming? |
Concorduck
Gallente
|
Posted - 2009.02.05 16:30:00 -
[4]
WAI |
Sturdy Girl
|
Posted - 2009.02.05 16:31:00 -
[5]
I didn't skim. I just felt that the tinfoil hattery should be met with facetiousness. |
Algey
The Littlest Hobos Ushra'Khan
|
Posted - 2009.02.05 16:35:00 -
[6]
The entire security mechanism for corps and alliances needs a total revamp anyway. You cannot limit take access from hangers to a certain quantity (steal all / take nothing), and now it appears that it is harder to start a war dec than to close an alliance.
This game really needs a total security rethink. I don't mind spying, but this is beyond a joke. |
Fail Cat
Sad Panda Inc.
|
Posted - 2009.02.05 16:37:00 -
[7]
Its working as intended and part of the game
Straight from the FAQ
Originally by: CCP 1.11 How does the massively multiplayer aspect of the EVE affect game play? The basic role-playing and space simulation aspects of EVE are really just the tip of the iceberg. When players band together to form factions and alliances, the game progresses to a more grand-scale strategic level. Political intrigue, corporate espionage and the very essence of Darwinism bring dimension and depth to the game as the struggle for fame and fortune ebbs and flows with each new day in EVE.
|
Genya Arikaido
|
Posted - 2009.02.05 16:39:00 -
[8]
Edited by: Genya Arikaido on 05/02/2009 16:41:20 True, and good point on hangar access.
Even the, dare I say it, WoW guild banks have daily item take limits based on guild member ranks. WoW guild members can even have their leadership allot a certain limit of game money for individual use on a daily basis. (think salaries...)
EDIT: This wasn't simple corporate espionage. Corporate Espionage could be defined as emptying the wallet and hangars and leaving a BM in the hangar named "Sucks to be you!" in it. This is something far worse because of the implications for the impending irrelevancy of 0.0 infrastructure.
-Only the anonymous can be taken objectively and unbiased. |
Fail Cat
Sad Panda Inc.
|
Posted - 2009.02.05 16:46:00 -
[9]
Originally by: Genya Arikaido Edited by: Genya Arikaido on 05/02/2009 16:41:20 True, and good point on hangar access.
Even the, dare I say it, WoW guild banks have daily item take limits based on guild member ranks. WoW guild members can even have their leadership allot a certain limit of game money for individual use on a daily basis. (think salaries...)
EDIT: This wasn't simple corporate espionage. Corporate Espionage could be defined as emptying the wallet and hangars and leaving a BM in the hangar named "Sucks to be you!" in it. This is something far worse because of the implications for the impending irrelevancy of 0.0 infrastructure.
Yes it is. What do you think spies do? If you get one high enough up, of course you can disband an alliance.
Spies in real life, and ingame as was just shown, can provide anything from basic intel, behind the scenes logistics nightmares or worse. Go watch james bond.
Also, look at it from an RP POV. What if the alliance is a "dictatorship" and the dictator defects? Of course he can be like "alright gl hf dd ds" and disband the alliance.
Be careful who you give power to, and dont give that much power to too many people. Plain and simple.
|
Dreamwalker
|
Posted - 2009.02.05 16:48:00 -
[10]
I think it is wrong that a director of a corp can shut down an alliance. Why isn't that a vote, or have to be the CEO of the executive corp that is the one who can shut down the alliance.
I understand that goons are happy but to think that all it took was to get a director to flip to close down a 1,500 man alliance is bull. CCP needs to fix this or there is no reason to try and build something out in 0.0
|
|
Concorduck
Gallente
|
Posted - 2009.02.05 16:49:00 -
[11]
Originally by: Dreamwalker I think it is wrong that a director of a corp can shut down an alliance. Why isn't that a vote, or have to be the CEO of the executive corp that is the one who can shut down the alliance.
I understand that goons are happy but to think that all it took was to get a director to flip to close down a 1,500 man alliance is bull. CCP needs to fix this or there is no reason to try and build something out in 0.0
yet WAI |
Genya Arikaido
|
Posted - 2009.02.05 16:49:00 -
[12]
To be honest, I'm not debating the espionage angle. My issue is with the simple fact that CCP gave executor corp CEOs the explicit capability to disband an alliance, but NOT directors. Therefore it begs the question of is the disbanding of an alliance by a director kicking out every corp in it is an exploit or not. |
Wotlankor
Mirkur Draug'Tyr Ushra'Khan
|
Posted - 2009.02.05 16:53:00 -
[13]
Good post.
I am sure CCP is sitting in a room talking things over and that those points are on their list.
|
Insane Industrialist
Outlandish Operations
|
Posted - 2009.02.05 16:56:00 -
[14]
Originally by: Genya Arikaido To be honest, I'm not debating the espionage angle. My issue is with the simple fact that CCP gave executor corp CEOs the explicit capability to disband an alliance, but NOT directors. Therefore it begs the question of is the disbanding of an alliance by a director kicking out every corp in it is an exploit or not.
you do realise that to do this they had to have a director in the executor corp. in big alliances like BoB, these special executor corps would hold only the most trust people in the alliance and only the most high-ranking officers. there is nothing wrong with what happened. they put the trust in someone who didn't like the way the alliance was with the game. all he did was disband the alliance which lost them 1bill(which for BoB, is pocket-change), and their name has now gone.
you shouldn't get yourself wound up about this all, its just another case of "they trusted the wrong guy" |
Genya Arikaido
|
Posted - 2009.02.05 17:07:00 -
[15]
Read what you quoted again. Slowly. It's not about corp theft or espionage.
IF executor corp directors could explicitly disband an alliance as the executor corp CEO can do, I would not be having this discussion.
As it is, they cannot.
However, the Goons apparently discovered that if you kick every corp from an alliance, you can close it, even if you DO NOT have the explicit permission to do so.
-Only the anonymous can be taken objectively and unbiased. |
Sturdy Girl
|
Posted - 2009.02.05 17:13:00 -
[16]
Er,
Well, kicking everyone out of an Alliance will always mean the Alliance closes. It is not logically possible to have an alliance consisting of 0 members (in fact its not really logical to have an Alliance with only 1 member).
So what do you propose?
Should Directors of an Executor corp not be able to kick corps? Or should Directors of an Executor corp be specifically given the rights to close the Alliance?
Without fundamentally altering the way corps and alliances work, you cannot have one without the other.
|
GateScout
|
Posted - 2009.02.05 17:14:00 -
[17]
Edited by: GateScout on 05/02/2009 17:15:28 You have it wrong.
A (at the time) BoB Director with the appropriate and required authority utilized his roles to disband an alliance via kicking corps from said alliance. This is a designed game mechanic. You may argue over the correctness of this implementation, but it certainly isn't "unintended."
|
Genya Arikaido
|
Posted - 2009.02.05 17:19:00 -
[18]
How about the simple solution that an executor corp director cannot kick a corp from the alliance without a vote by all directors and the CEO?
Since he could theoretically kick all the other directors, he still wouldn't be able to kick the CEO, resulting in a 1-1 tie vote that achieves nothing, provided the CEO is uncompromised.
-Only the anonymous can be taken objectively and unbiased. |
Mithos Victus
Aurelius Federation Apotheosis of Virtue
|
Posted - 2009.02.05 17:38:00 -
[19]
Originally by: Fail Cat Spies in real life, and ingame as was just shown, can provide anything from basic intel, behind the scenes logistics nightmares or worse. Go watch james bond.
Posting in a thread where James Bond is used as an example of how to be a spy in real life. _______________________________________________
[...a lion lurking in the plain] |
GateScout
|
Posted - 2009.02.05 17:38:00 -
[20]
Originally by: Genya Arikaido How about the simple solution that an executor corp director cannot kick a corp from the alliance without a vote by all directors and the CEO?
Since he could theoretically kick all the other directors, he still wouldn't be able to kick the CEO, resulting in a 1-1 tie vote that achieves nothing, provided the CEO is uncompromised.
It's a valid solution...A change in game mechanics is, I'm sure, one thing CCP is looking in to. It may be a very good idea.
Regardless of how distasteful I think this was, I, personally, like this game mechanic. If for no other reason, it has the ability to create massive change in a short period of time and forces alliance to compartmentalize as much as possible. Ironically, the largest issue isn't the loss of an alliance...it's the instant loss of SOV that's the real killer.
It'll be interesting to see how this evolves.
|
|
Benny Broadband
Fulcrum Mercenary Services
|
Posted - 2009.02.05 17:46:00 -
[21]
Edited by: Benny Broadband on 05/02/2009 17:47:20 BoB wasn't the first Alliance to get shamood by a director, that Honor goes to Methods of Mayhem Alliance. A director did the same thing, and perhaps laid down the template for all others to follow. This was ofcourse petitioned and fixed by a GM. Here is his reply.
"2009.02.05 04:47 Greetings Pee'd,
I have been looking in to this situation. A corporation that is not the executor is not able to remove the executor corp. They would have to have the backing to become executor themselves in order to be able to remove the other alliance corporations and themselves. If you have not yet done so, are you able to file a bug report detailing what had happened as well as any other information you may have on the matter so that the developers can look into this in full detail to find the cause that allowed this and address it?
Best regards, GM Nythanos The EVE Online Customer Support Team"
Although we got the alliance back and things got fixed, it told me that this game has so many bugs that anything and everything you do can be wiped out at anytime, so it really made me thnk about how much more time I want to invest in this game.
So if the Dev's take as much time to fix this as they took to fix the "Make free T2 components at your POS bug" which I guess really only took 3 years to fix, I would suggest that all CEO's that are in executor corps remove all the other directors and carry on. Protect yourselves as you see fit until this bug is fixed, in about 3 years.
BB
|
Genya Arikaido
|
Posted - 2009.02.05 17:47:00 -
[22]
Please don't post GM conversation content.
-Only the anonymous can be taken objectively and unbiased. |
An Anarchyyt
Gallente Battlestars GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.02.05 17:54:00 -
[23]
Everyone has their price?
We didn't pay him anything.
Originally by: CCP Wrangler Second, a gentile is a non jewish person
|
Gnulpie
Minmatar Miner Tech
|
Posted - 2009.02.05 17:55:00 -
[24]
Of course the whole alliance concept is bugged.
For example are there no real alliance roles which can be assigned to specific corp members or any useful management tools on alliance level.
I can only hope that after the release of Apokrypha a lot of people at CCP will get assigned to rework and improve the whole alliance concept - including sov system stuff.
So, saying that the BoB-thingy was an exploit is true but also it is not true. Because CCP themselves do not know what they actually want and how they want the alliances to function.
|
An Anarchyyt
Gallente Battlestars GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.02.05 17:55:00 -
[25]
Originally by: Benny Broadband
I have been looking in to this situation. A corporation that is not the executor is not able to remove the executor corp.
This was the executor corp.
Originally by: CCP Wrangler Second, a gentile is a non jewish person
|
Orivar
|
Posted - 2009.02.05 17:56:00 -
[26]
Edited by: Orivar on 05/02/2009 17:58:30 If the intent is to have being a Director work specifically as a Director position in reality, then voting would have to be implemented to kick. No other way around that.
Edit:: Originally by: Benny Broadband Edited by: Benny Broadband on 05/02/2009 17:47:20 BoB wasn't the first Alliance to get shamood by a director, that Honor goes to Methods of Mayhem Alliance. A director did the same thing, and perhaps laid down the template for all others to follow. This was ofcourse petitioned and fixed by a GM. Here is his reply.
"2009.02.05 04:47 Greetings Pee'd,
I have been looking in to this situation. A corporation that is not the executor is not able to remove the executor corp. They would have to have the backing to become executor themselves in order to be able to remove the other alliance corporations and themselves. If you have not yet done so, are you able to file a bug report detailing what had happened as well as any other information you may have on the matter so that the developers can look into this in full detail to find the cause that allowed this and address it?
Best regards, GM Nythanos The EVE Online Customer Support Team"
Although we got the alliance back and things got fixed, it told me that this game has so many bugs that anything and everything you do can be wiped out at anytime, so it really made me thnk about how much more time I want to invest in this game.
So if the Dev's take as much time to fix this as they took to fix the "Make free T2 components at your POS bug" which I guess really only took 3 years to fix, I would suggest that all CEO's that are in executor corps remove all the other directors and carry on. Protect yourselves as you see fit until this bug is fixed, in about 3 years.
BB
Shows a bit of things have to change.
~Bah. What signature? |
Shirley Serious
Amarr Imperial Academy
|
Posted - 2009.02.05 17:59:00 -
[27]
surely the only question is whether game mechanics should require a single turned individual, or a conspiracy of multiple turned individuals to achieve such results?
e.g. single individuals have the authority to spend funds as they see fit. There is no requirement for withdrawals to be countersigned by another authorised individual. Should there be? |
Strel Samodelkin
Caldari Nationalist Party
|
Posted - 2009.02.05 18:04:00 -
[28]
Whether intended or not, the players are not to blame for using a legitimate tactic that is allowed in the game. |
Mastin Dragonfly
Absolutely No Retreat Blade.
|
Posted - 2009.02.05 18:11:00 -
[29]
An alliance is a willingness of several parties to work together towards a common goal, one single person can't make that willingness go away against the will of all other parties. An alliance should not have some sort of on/off switch, it's not something physical. It's like the US president pressing a button and make 52 states forget hundreds of years of shared history and go solo from then on. |
Concorduck
Gallente
|
Posted - 2009.02.05 18:15:00 -
[30]
Originally by: Mastin Dragonfly An alliance is a willingness of several parties to work together towards a common goal, one single person can't make that willingness go away against the will of all other parties. An alliance should not have some sort of on/off switch, it's not something physical. It's like the US president pressing a button and make 52 states forget hundreds of years of shared history and go solo from then on.
it's more like microsoft going bankrupt and closing the show.
and, yes, one single person can make that willingness go away against the will of all other parties. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |