Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Jen Fravo
|
Posted - 2009.02.05 20:18:00 -
[61]
Originally by: Likewise
Originally by: Lunas Whisper
Wrong.
There are limits in microsoft. The Ceo doesn't have all the power. Their is the Board of Directors, stockholders etc to answer to.
So Enron means nothing to you, I gather?
It is certainly possible for ingenious/devious individuals to bring LARGE cooporations to their knees and worse.
So Enron was brought down by ONE person, eh? right..... |
Kiotsu Adler
|
Posted - 2009.02.05 20:19:00 -
[62]
Countries can't be turned off by a single man, even in dictatorships. I'm not against metagaming but mechanics should be looked at if it's so easy to turn off a whole region sov holding with a single click.
This is not good for the game, remember that this could happen to ANY alliance. If game is made around trust and it's so easy to destroy that trust it's counterproductive. The security mechanics over corps and alliance level should probably looked at by CCP. Make metagaming possible if you want, but don't make it so easy. |
Kahega Amielden
Minmatar Suddenly Ninjas
|
Posted - 2009.02.05 20:23:00 -
[63]
Quote: Countries can't be turned off by a single man, even in dictatorships. I'm not against metagaming but mechanics should be looked at if it's so easy to turn off a whole region sov holding with a single click.
And BoB wasn't turned off by a single man, either. A single man can definitely cause enough chaos, however, to allow that nation's enemies to come in and sweep up. BoB would be perfectly fine if Goons + Every other alliance in the area wasn't ready to rush into Delve and mop up.
Quote:
This is not good for the game, remember that this could happen to ANY alliance. If game is made around trust and it's so easy to destroy that trust it's counterproductive. The security mechanics over corps and alliance level should probably looked at by CCP. Make metagaming possible if you want, but don't make it so easy.
The fact that the trust can be abused is what MAKES THE GAME ABOUT TRUST. It would be meaningless if it couldn't be abused.
also, can someone explain to me why it's perfectly fine for a minor Empire corp to get cleaned out (In fact, people who whine about it normally get flamed ,hard), but suddenly it's "lame" if it happens to BoB? |
Xessej
|
Posted - 2009.02.05 20:33:00 -
[64]
This comes down to a simple concept, does this mechanic, clearly not intended to be used this way, result in more or less fun for the affected players. 1500 players just lost a huge amount of work they have put in. I think clearly that is not fun.
Others may have fun taking advantage of the situation but those 1500 players need to be kept in mind. |
Kahega Amielden
Minmatar Suddenly Ninjas
|
Posted - 2009.02.05 20:36:00 -
[65]
Quote: 1500 players just lost a huge amount of work they have put in.
strange. I wouldn't know, I've NEVER lost any work of mine due to someone else in EVE. I suspect, however, that it's because I play EVE as a game and not a job
Quote: Others may have fun taking advantage of the situation but those 1500 players need to be kept in mind.
Shall we make every system 1.0 sec, then, so that people wont "lose work" when people blow up their pixels? |
GateScout
|
Posted - 2009.02.05 20:38:00 -
[66]
Edited by: GateScout on 05/02/2009 20:38:32
Originally by: Xessej This comes down to a simple concept, does this mechanic, clearly not intended to be used this way, result in more or less fun for the affected players.
What mechanic is that? Allowing Executor Corp Directors to remove corps from their alliance or closing an alliance when there are no corps?
Fun for the majority is the deciding factor? Did you think about all those corps, alliances and players that have been crushed by BoB? Are you sure you want 'fun' to be the deciding factor?
|
Xessej
|
Posted - 2009.02.05 20:40:00 -
[67]
Originally by: Kahega Amielden snip blather
Brilliant. Completely fail to acknowledge the point that people play games for fun and for those 1500 players this certainly isn't fun and try to erect a strawman to attack again.
A truly brilliant example of the La Mancha gambit. |
Tippia
Raddick Explorations BlackWater.
|
Posted - 2009.02.05 20:44:00 -
[68]
Edited by: Tippia on 05/02/2009 20:44:35
Originally by: Xessej 1500 players just lost a huge amount of work they have put in. I think clearly that is not fun.
You mean like everyone else in EVE do on a daily basis, every time they get blown up or scammed or outbid or… (etc etc etc)?
Welcome to EVE. I hope they enjoy their stay.
Quote: Others may have fun taking advantage of the situation but those 1500 players need to be kept in mind.
No they do not. If they are such carebears, they can go back to WoW. |
Corduroy Rab
Chaos Reborn
|
Posted - 2009.02.05 20:50:00 -
[69]
Originally by: Xessej This comes down to a simple concept, does this mechanic, clearly not intended to be used this way,
... I give up.
Quote: I think clearly that is not fun.
Others may have fun taking advantage of the situation but those 1500 players need to be kept in mind.
You can't say anything about the fun factor for those guys in BoB, I am sure it is a mixed bag. While betrayed, their fight to reclaim what they lost might turn out to be their greatest experience in eve. At least the ones I talked to seemed excited in a way eve hasn't had them excited in a while. |
Lochmar Fiendhiem
Caldari Quicksilver Industries and Painful Effects Inc.
|
Posted - 2009.02.05 20:53:00 -
[70]
Originally by: Genya Arikaido 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.
you know this method is how bob usually resorts to killing enemies.
See: ASCN.
See: d2 titan
see: ascn titan
Originally by: Halkin bob is dead, goons are great, cheese is cheesy, there we go no need for any more threads
|
|
Julia Venatrix
|
Posted - 2009.02.06 12:13:00 -
[71]
Originally by: Xessej This comes down to a simple concept, does this mechanic, clearly not intended to be used this way, result in more or less fun for the affected players. 1500 players just lost a huge amount of work they have put in. I think clearly that is not fun.
Others may have fun taking advantage of the situation but those 1500 players need to be kept in mind.
Fix the sovereignty mechanic then.
BoB disbands and the sovereignty goes, and it is the lack of sovereignty which causes mineral loss in incomplete capital buids, and jumpbridge shutdown and all that.
I don't have a good solution, I'll admit - but the sovereignty mechanic feels forced and artificial even when it's functioning as we expect. |
Psiri
|
Posted - 2009.02.06 12:21:00 -
[72]
Well, lets start off by saying that from what information is currently available Goonswarm never infiltrated BoB. They just stumbled upon an unhappy BoB director and never hesitated to exploit that advantage whilst giggling like little schoolgirls.
I think that corporation and alliance mechanics have been flawed ever since EVE-Online was launched. This is yet another proof of this, hopefully CCP will learn from this and make appropiate changes.
I don't blame Goonswarm for abusing the game mechanics, that's just how EVE always has been played.
|
Navtiqes
Englebarna
|
Posted - 2009.02.06 12:27:00 -
[73]
Originally by: Psiri Well, lets start off by saying that from what information is currently available Goonswarm never infiltrated BoB. They just stumbled upon an unhappy BoB director and never hesitated to exploit that advantage whilst giggling like little schoolgirls.
I think that corporation and alliance mechanics have been flawed ever since EVE-Online was launched. This is yet another proof of this, hopefully CCP will learn from this and make appropiate changes.
I don't blame Goonswarm for abusing the game mechanics, that's just how EVE always has been played.
And apparently Goonswarm petitioned asking the GMs if it'd be legal first, and were given the green light. |
Xia Kairui
|
Posted - 2009.02.06 13:02:00 -
[74]
Originally by: Lunas Whisper I'm finding it jaw dropping rediculous one director can do this, but when I try to kick someone out of my corp, I have to wait till he's in the station for over 5 minutes.
QFT.
Corp and alliance tools need a serious revamp. It starts with hangar access rights, goes to common POS access and ends at the fact that a CEO vote can be set to take 24 hours without the means to set a minimum vote time. |
Garathyal
|
Posted - 2009.02.06 13:24:00 -
[75]
Originally by: Mastin Dragonfly
I'm not talking about the actual current game mechanics, I'm talking about the basic concept of an alliance. If you and 5 other parties form an alliance than you can not close that alliance, you can only leave it and the other 5 parties can go on if they are willing to do so.
And yes, in the game the brothers can band back together but the game mechanics tie a lot of thingies to this closing and reopening of an alliance, most of all the loss of sovereignity which doesn't get restored with the alliance. And this is a loss with far reaching consequences and something that should not be the result of the action of one person. Just because it works that way currently doesn't mean it should work that way.
Of course nothing physical was lost, it's a game. If I hack your account and delete your character then nothing physical was lost either, just data, but I'd bet you'd be upset.
This is precisely the point. I will be straight here. I never liked Bob for the way they played this game and in many ways I would support Goons (if they would stop spamming **** all over the forums that is) but this in my book bring Eve into new depths. This is an epic fail of game mechanics.
There is no way a single button should be allowed to disband an alliance. If someone does not like their alliance they should leave it - to allow one person to hit a self destruct button is simply stupid.
All Lameswarm did was use lame tactics, albeit legitimate mechanics, to destroy the people they were fighting. They don't appear to have stopped to ask of they should do this. Not once did they think maybe this is a big issue and we ought to talk to CCP about it.
No. What Lameswarm did was pick a cheap option. They lowered themselves below anything Bob ever did in the past. The sad thing is they have damaged eve. Why would anyone want to tyry and build anything up like this only for one griefer to dismantle it in one night all because of his own selfish views of his old alliance?
This actually damages the game. Like I said above its Lame - one griefer gets to grief everyone in his alliance.
All it proves is that Lameswarm are better at being lame than everyone else.
|
Garathyal
|
Posted - 2009.02.06 13:27:00 -
[76]
Originally by: Kahega Amielden
The fact that the trust can be abused is what MAKES THE GAME ABOUT TRUST. It would be meaningless if it couldn't be abused.
On the trust argument. No social organisation depends totally on trust for its security. in fact security is all about not having to depend on trust. The fact that this mechanic existed shows how flawed the game is. It is indefensible.
|
Vanessa Vasquez
KIA Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.02.06 13:49:00 -
[77]
Originally by: Garathyal
Originally by: Kahega Amielden
The fact that the trust can be abused is what MAKES THE GAME ABOUT TRUST. It would be meaningless if it couldn't be abused.
On the trust argument. No social organisation depends totally on trust for its security. in fact security is all about not having to depend on trust. The fact that this mechanic existed shows how flawed the game is. It is indefensible.
/signed.
You just have to take a look at the corp hangars/deliveries to see the many flaws.
|
Zey Nadar
Gallente Heavily Utilized Mechanic Mayhem Einherjar Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.02.06 14:05:00 -
[78]
Edited by: Zey Nadar on 06/02/2009 14:11:02 What happened was an intended use of current game mechanics, and wha happened wont change. We can however discuss possibilities of changing the mechanics for the better. Im sure theres lots to fix in corp/alli mechanics.
|
Inmaculada Divinity
|
Posted - 2009.02.06 14:09:00 -
[79]
Originally by: Benny Broadband Oh, here we go again, edited by the mediators. This is a forum that is labelled general discussion and we are suposed to be able to talk freely about what is happening in the game, but yet we are not allowed to imput content into our posts that comes from the Game Managers. Kewl. In other words, free speech and the right to quote others is squashed.
Either way, the only person that has the power to close an alliance is the CEO of the Executor Corp. This has been sent to me as a direct response to a petition that I filed when some assbag did the same thing to our Alliance. It is a bug. CCP dragged their collective flat feet and did nothing to prevent it happening to BoB, and as I see it, will continue to do nothing because they simply don't know what to do. If they labelled it as an exploit until further notice, it would be a step in the right direction, but hey, until that is done, why don't all you directors with a bit of power just start booting corps and closing alliances until the cows come home and see what kind of **** storm comes of it. I mean what have we got to lose and the ****s and giggles factor will be of the charts.
BB
Ok, so this happened to you and the GM's acknowledged it was a bug and restored your alliance. Now, that sets a past precedence.
That being the case if it's acknowledged as a bug AND the act was reversed for you it stands to reason that the same should also be done for BoB. Just because they are BoB and it's on a bigger scale does not mean it would be wrong for them to be restored. If they have done it for one, then it should be done for others. Not to do it because it's BoB would be just plain wrong, unfair and a show of double standards.
|
Korizan
|
Posted - 2009.02.06 14:22:00 -
[80]
I am not sure which would be worse. The current mechanics. or
One where Sovereignty is set by the corps and the only thing an alliance gives you is the ability to connect jump bridges between corps, and POS usage of course.
Then if somebody disbanded the alliance Sovereignty would not be effected. But the interesting side effect would be that kicking or having a corporation leave would create a civil war of sorts. YOu may have kicked the corporate but the corporation stills holds space and inorder to really remove them you must take them out as well.
This method would protect against a single rouge director if the corps want to remain a alliance but it would also cause some interesting situations if a corporation left an alliance and joined another and instantly changed space ownership from one alliance to another.
Either way the whole thing could have been avoided. There are warnings all over the boards and tutorials about giving the someone director roles. So you must choose your own level a risk and sometimes you pay for it.
|
|
Adunh Slavy
Ammatar Trade Syndicate
|
Posted - 2009.02.06 14:51:00 -
[81]
Originally by: Algey This game really needs a total security rethink. I don't mind spying, but this is beyond a joke.
/signed
Windows 3.1 was more secure
The Real Space Initiative - V5 (Forum Link)
|
Laechyd Eldgorn
Caldari Endemic Aggression Exalted.
|
Posted - 2009.02.06 14:57:00 -
[82]
it's funny how before no one cared about this most certainly intended game mechanic until now.
|
Slade Trillgon
Masuat'aa Matari Ushra'Khan
|
Posted - 2009.02.06 14:59:00 -
[83]
Edited by: Slade Trillgon on 06/02/2009 15:00:58 Edited by: Slade Trillgon on 06/02/2009 14:59:28 I am not up on corporation or alliance functions so my suggestion may be a moot point.
Wouldn't this be easily fixed if you required a majority of an alliance's directors to agree to the dissolving of an alliance? Of course the founder must be one that initiates the closing and/or also be able to close it by himself.
Slade
Originally by: Niccolado Starwalker
Please go sit in the corner, and dont forget to don the shame-on-you-hat!
≡v≡ |
Slade Trillgon
Masuat'aa Matari Ushra'Khan
|
Posted - 2009.02.06 15:10:00 -
[84]
Originally by: Laechyd Eldgorn it's funny how before no one cared about this most certainly intended game mechanic until now.
Go to the market discussion forum and read a few of the blarring threads there and you will see why this has made it a larger issue Not saying that things are different mechanic wise, just saying that if it effects more people more people will cry.
Slade
Originally by: Niccolado Starwalker
Please go sit in the corner, and dont forget to don the shame-on-you-hat!
≡v≡ |
Concorduck
Gallente
|
Posted - 2009.02.06 15:16:00 -
[85]
TL;DR -> Alliances are WAI -----------------------------------------
Originally by: Crumplecorn Contact the CSM about it, voting themselves into disbandment wouldn't be pushing the boundaries of absurdity for them.
|
DJ Geist
|
Posted - 2009.02.06 15:30:00 -
[86]
Given the current game setup, it appears that what was done WAS fully legitimate/not an exploit.
However
There is too little difference between the powers of a director and the powers of a ceo. I do think that CCP should rethink the corporate structure in a way that allows for more degrees of security clearance, especially with corp hangars. |
Schalac
Caldari Apocalypse Reign
|
Posted - 2009.02.06 15:39:00 -
[87]
All this is great and all but look at the sov map. Goons haven't even taken one system in Delve yet, and BoB is already filling many systems. Give it a month and it will be business as usual in Delve.
Nice region, we'll take it. . . |
Daoi Sith
|
Posted - 2009.02.06 15:50:00 -
[88]
Originally by: Algey The entire security mechanism for corps and alliances needs a total revamp anyway.
\
I agree with this. And so does CCP. They clearly state on their alliance page
Alliance System
"and while this is in development"
they just have not done it yet.
The alliance system page clearly says to be VERY careful about who has control in the executor corp.
|
Adunh Slavy
Ammatar Trade Syndicate
|
Posted - 2009.02.06 16:39:00 -
[89]
Originally by: Laechyd Eldgorn it's funny how before no one cared about this most certainly intended game mechanic until now.
I've been *****1ng about it longer than you've been playing eve.
The Real Space Initiative - V5 (Forum Link)
|
Glengrant
TOHA Heavy Industries
|
Posted - 2009.02.06 16:49:00 -
[90]
While the particular way the Goons did it was kinda lame (bored traitor vs months of infiltration) it was within existing rules and mechanics. We have no reason to assume that BoB wouldn't have done the same thing given such an opportunity.
But in future this needs improving. It turned out to be way to easy to kill an alliance (not its assets - but sov, name, channel - all that has real worth - not to mention the hit on morale).
Perhaps a vote (1 day minimum) to expel corps. That way a single director could have cancelled the disbanding by a single traitor.
Also I'd say that BoB should be able to get name back via petition. To take a name away like this - funny - yes :-) - but also stupid immersion wise.
I'm neither friend of nor enemy to BoB. Pretty much the same with Goons. --- Save the forum: Think before you post. ISK BUYER = LOSER EVE TV- Bring it back! Laptop, NVidia7900GS, Ubuntu 8.04, WINE |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |