These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Social Corps

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Scipio Artelius
Weaponised Vegemite
Flying Dangerous
#421 - 2015-05-24 13:55:28 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
We are talking about this section:
Quote:
4) Corp recycling to evade war decs
Not an exploit. Players are free to close and recreate corporations as they see fit due to the inconveniences usually involved in closing down a corp and the (miniscule) costs of founding a new one.

Read it. It's says "Not an exploit". It doesn't say anything about it having ever been an exploit, it doesn't say "No longer an exploit".

So no, you're wrong. Learn to read.

I guess I might need to learn to read to Lucas, or maybe you are thinking you responded to something else that Feyd wrote:

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5764568#post5764568

Seems pretty clear you responded to corp hopping, not corp recycling.
Wendrika Hydreiga
#422 - 2015-05-24 13:58:24 UTC
Hey! Hey! Here's a good idea!

Remove Wardecs as a mechanic.

Then add a bunch of "social corps" named after Pirate Factions (Guristas/Sansha/Serpentis) that exempt you from CONCORD intervention from aggression in Highsec and make you a criminal target. Give also the option for player Corporations and Alliances to sign to these "social corps" like if they were a Militia.

Then everyone would be happy, Highsec would cease to be the safe haven everyone loves to hate and eventually dissolve into a Darwinist survival jungle of chaos and anarchy! Piracy everywhere for days!

This is a fair compromise right? Gankers would be able to gank with impunity, people that don't want to be ganked would learn to defend themselves and the game would be the pure PvP experience some of you want it to be.

I'd for one would be all over a Guristas themed social corp.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#423 - 2015-05-24 14:24:03 UTC
Scipio Artelius wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
We are talking about this section:
Quote:
4) Corp recycling to evade war decs
Not an exploit. Players are free to close and recreate corporations as they see fit due to the inconveniences usually involved in closing down a corp and the (miniscule) costs of founding a new one.

Read it. It's says "Not an exploit". It doesn't say anything about it having ever been an exploit, it doesn't say "No longer an exploit".

So no, you're wrong. Learn to read.
I guess I might need to learn to read to Lucas, or maybe you are thinking you responded to something else that Feyd wrote:

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5764568#post5764568

Seems pretty clear you responded to corp hopping, not corp recycling.
Again, that's not the corp hopping exploit, that's simply leaving a corp and going to an NPC corp, which was never an exploit. The corp hopping exploit that was actually declared an exploit is no longer possible through the mechanics.

Not to mention that Carrie-Anne Moss was explicitly talking about corp recycling as shown by her quote:
Carrie-Anne Moss wrote:
The quote that was linked that i dont feel like finding was a developer saying exactly
"Folding and recycling corporations to evade wars is NO LONGER CONSIDERED TO BE AN EXPLOIT.
which is categorically wrong.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Carrie-Anne Moss
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#424 - 2015-05-24 17:04:22 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Scipio Artelius wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
We are talking about this section:
Quote:
4) Corp recycling to evade war decs
Not an exploit. Players are free to close and recreate corporations as they see fit due to the inconveniences usually involved in closing down a corp and the (miniscule) costs of founding a new one.

Read it. It's says "Not an exploit". It doesn't say anything about it having ever been an exploit, it doesn't say "No longer an exploit".

So no, you're wrong. Learn to read.
I guess I might need to learn to read to Lucas, or maybe you are thinking you responded to something else that Feyd wrote:

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5764568#post5764568

Seems pretty clear you responded to corp hopping, not corp recycling.
Again, that's not the corp hopping exploit, that's simply leaving a corp and going to an NPC corp, which was never an exploit. The corp hopping exploit that was actually declared an exploit is no longer possible through the mechanics.

Not to mention that Carrie-Anne Moss was explicitly talking about corp recycling as shown by her quote:
Carrie-Anne Moss wrote:
The quote that was linked that i dont feel like finding was a developer saying exactly
"Folding and recycling corporations to evade wars is NO LONGER CONSIDERED TO BE AN EXPLOIT.
which is categorically wrong.

Dude the old "known exploit page" listed it. When they changed the rule, they took it off the damn page.
Google cache doesnt go back that many years.
You are wrong bear
Lan Wang
Princess Aiko Hold My Hand
Safety. Net
#425 - 2015-05-24 17:50:43 UTC
Wendrika Hydreiga wrote:
Hey! Hey! Here's a good idea!

Remove Wardecs as a mechanic.

Then add a bunch of "social corps" named after Pirate Factions (Guristas/Sansha/Serpentis) that exempt you from CONCORD intervention from aggression in Highsec and make you a criminal target. Give also the option for player Corporations and Alliances to sign to these "social corps" like if they were a Militia.

Then everyone would be happy, Highsec would cease to be the safe haven everyone loves to hate and eventually dissolve into a Darwinist survival jungle of chaos and anarchy! Piracy everywhere for days!

This is a fair compromise right? Gankers would be able to gank with impunity, people that don't want to be ganked would learn to defend themselves and the game would be the pure PvP experience some of you want it to be.

I'd for one would be all over a Guristas themed social corp.


This would solve a few issues :)

Domination Nephilim - Angel Cartel

Calm down miner. As you pointed out, people think they can get away with stuff they would not in rl... Like for example illegal mining... - Ima Wreckyou*
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#426 - 2015-05-24 18:42:59 UTC
Carrie-Anne Moss wrote:
Dude the old "known exploit page" listed it. When they changed the rule, they took it off the damn page.
Google cache doesnt go back that many years.
You are wrong bear
Prove it. It's that simple. If it was against the rules then we would see a cached page, or the wiki history or a GM/DEV post on eve-search, but it's not there. The reason is because it was never an exploit to remake a corp to avoid a wardec. Some random said it once and people like you jumped on it and believed it.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Sibyyl
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#427 - 2015-05-24 18:46:05 UTC

Carrie-Anne Moss wrote:

Dude the old "known exploit page" listed it. When they changed the rule, they took it off the damn page.
Google cache doesnt go back that many years.
You are wrong bear


Adding "dude" to the argument doesn't make it any less weak.

The Minerbumping article about decc dodging from 2012 has a GM Homonoia quote from 2011 which specifically uses the language "never an exploit".

If that's not convincing enough here is a circa 2009 quote from GM Nythanos

GM Nythanos wrote:
Closing a corporation and opening a new one with the same members is allowed, and the people who declared war on your now closed corporation can declare a new war on your new corporation if they choose to do so.


Lucas is correct on this one.

Joffy Aulx-Gao for CSM. Fix links and OGB. Ban stabs from plexes. Fulfill karmic justice.
Carrie-Anne Moss
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#428 - 2015-05-24 19:49:25 UTC
That was back from when wars cost like the exact same price as opening a corp.
Now wars are 50mill and still 3mill to open a corp.
See the problem with that now?
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#429 - 2015-05-24 20:39:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Lucas Kell
Carrie-Anne Moss wrote:
That was back from when wars cost like the exact same price as opening a corp.
Now wars are 50mill and still 3mill to open a corp.
See the problem with that now?
Nope, since you can only recycle a corp with ease if it's tiny and has no assets. If a wardeccer is picking a target small enough to simply recycle, then they picked the wrong target and should exercise better judgement.

I get that you don't like it, but it's the way it is.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Sibyyl
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#430 - 2015-05-24 20:52:50 UTC

Carrie-Anne Moss wrote:
That was back from when wars cost like the exact same price as opening a corp.
Now wars are 50mill and still 3mill to open a corp.
See the problem with that now?


I would think that the point of any game mechanic is for both involved parties to have fun. At the moment I think wardecs are not meaningful encounters, either for attackers farming kills and not pewing a capable opponent, or defenders who are either too lazy to learn how to watch Local and scout ahead or too new to game mechanics to figure out what happened.

Closing the decc avoidance mechanic or lowering the decc cost won't solve that fundamental problem.

Joffy Aulx-Gao for CSM. Fix links and OGB. Ban stabs from plexes. Fulfill karmic justice.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#431 - 2015-05-24 23:20:40 UTC
Sibyyl wrote:

I would think that the point of any game mechanic is for both involved parties to have fun.


It can be, but it's not being used correctly. Since it can be trivially dodged without consequence, people do not have to engage with the opposing side, and thus the fun of fighting is denied to everyone.

Fixing wardecs starts with making them not functionally consensual.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.
Sibyyl
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#432 - 2015-05-25 00:27:21 UTC

Kaarous, I think we both know that in the present system:


  1. Aggressor pays the bill for the war upfront
  2. Defender can opt out any time by rolling corps. They can even opt to keep the original corp from being shuttered by having an alt for a CEO. The aggressor has no recourse here.
  3. Defender can call in allies. Aggressor has no equivalent ability here.
  4. NPC corps are unconditionally sheltered against war declarations, but pod killing an NPC Corp player has dire Player->Corp standings loss implications (47.5-75% loss depending on the situation, even in cases where sec status hit wouldn't be incurred due to aggression).


And people have been arguing about how one sided it is in the opposite direction.

Joffy Aulx-Gao for CSM. Fix links and OGB. Ban stabs from plexes. Fulfill karmic justice.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#433 - 2015-05-25 00:38:00 UTC
Sibyyl wrote:

Kaarous, I think we both know that in the present system:


  1. Aggressor pays the bill for the war upfront
  2. Defender can opt out any time by rolling corps. They can even opt to keep the original corp from being shuttered by having an alt for a CEO. The aggressor has no recourse here.
  3. Defender can call in allies. Aggressor has no equivalent ability here.
  4. NPC corps are unconditionally sheltered against war declarations, but pod killing an NPC Corp player has dire Player->Corp standings loss implications (47.5-75% loss depending on the situation, even in cases where sec status hit wouldn't be incurred due to aggression).


And people have been arguing about how one sided it is in the opposite direction.



Their flagrant bias in the matter is easily understood if you realize that these people actually believe that a chance of non consensual PvP greater than 0% is not acceptable.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.
Urziel99
Multiplex Gaming
Tactical Narcotics Team
#434 - 2015-05-25 05:48:31 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Sibyyl wrote:

Kaarous, I think we both know that in the present system:


  1. Aggressor pays the bill for the war upfront
  2. Defender can opt out any time by rolling corps. They can even opt to keep the original corp from being shuttered by having an alt for a CEO. The aggressor has no recourse here.
  3. Defender can call in allies. Aggressor has no equivalent ability here.
  4. NPC corps are unconditionally sheltered against war declarations, but pod killing an NPC Corp player has dire Player->Corp standings loss implications (47.5-75% loss depending on the situation, even in cases where sec status hit wouldn't be incurred due to aggression).


And people have been arguing about how one sided it is in the opposite direction.



Their flagrant bias in the matter is easily understood if you realize that these people actually believe that a chance of non consensual PvP greater than 0% is not acceptable.
Tipa Riot
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#435 - 2015-05-25 06:18:25 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Sibyyl wrote:

Kaarous, I think we both know that in the present system:


  1. Aggressor pays the bill for the war upfront
  2. Defender can opt out any time by rolling corps. They can even opt to keep the original corp from being shuttered by having an alt for a CEO. The aggressor has no recourse here.
  3. Defender can call in allies. Aggressor has no equivalent ability here.
  4. NPC corps are unconditionally sheltered against war declarations, but pod killing an NPC Corp player has dire Player->Corp standings loss implications (47.5-75% loss depending on the situation, even in cases where sec status hit wouldn't be incurred due to aggression).


And people have been arguing about how one sided it is in the opposite direction.



Their flagrant bias in the matter is easily understood if you realize that these people actually believe that a chance of non consensual PvP greater than 0% is not acceptable.

Just to put that into perspective, highsec wardecs are abused to farm easy kills on noobs who neither have the knowledge nor the skills/power to defend themselves. This with the perverted safety of highsec in favour of the aggressor (read pimped, max implanted highend PvP ships).

I'm my own NPC alt.
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local
Break-A-Wish Foundation
#436 - 2015-05-25 06:25:05 UTC
That's literally a "Think of the children" argument.

People with intellectual integrity don't make those.
Sibyyl
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#437 - 2015-05-25 06:26:41 UTC

Tipa Riot wrote:

Just to put that into perspective, highsec wardecs are abused to farm easy kills on noobs who neither have the knowledge nor the skills/power to defend themselves.


Citation needed. I assume you'll provide CCP statistics or zkillboard stats as a response.



Quote:
This with the perverted safety of highsec in favour of the aggressor (read pimped, max implanted highend PvP ships).


You guys should decide if you want to complain about "10M destroyers with empty pods" or "pimped, max implanted highend PvP ships".

Joffy Aulx-Gao for CSM. Fix links and OGB. Ban stabs from plexes. Fulfill karmic justice.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#438 - 2015-05-25 06:45:46 UTC
Sibyyl wrote:
Tipa Riot wrote:
Just to put that into perspective, highsec wardecs are abused to farm easy kills on noobs who neither have the knowledge nor the skills/power to defend themselves.
Citation needed. I assume you'll provide CCP statistics or zkillboard stats as a response.
89% of all wars with recorded kills were won by the aggressor. 76% of all wars with recorded kills are completely one sided to the aggressor (no kills from the defender) . You can check this with CREST.

It's obvious why this is the case. Wardec mechanics provide no additional rewards for going after targets that can fight back, so the most efficient way to run wardecs is to go after targets with juicy ships to lose and no ability or desire to fight back. For the most part this is rookie players who haven't yet realised how to evade wardecs or why their support characters should just live in NPC corps.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Tipa Riot
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#439 - 2015-05-25 06:50:19 UTC
Sibyyl wrote:

You guys should decide if you want to complain about "10M destroyers with empty pods" or "pimped, max implanted highend PvP ships".

I'm not "you guys", I'm far from complaining. Lol ... on the other side ... suicide gankers at least put some effort into their business.

I'm my own NPC alt.
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local
Break-A-Wish Foundation
#440 - 2015-05-25 06:53:41 UTC  |  Edited by: Vimsy Vortis
Tipa Riot wrote:
Just to put that into perspective, highsec wardecs are abused to farm easy kills on noobs who neither have the knowledge nor the skills/power to defend themselves. This with the perverted safety of highsec in favour of the aggressor (read pimped, max implanted highend PvP ships).

And subsequently there is a magical button that allows them to publicly ask for help and for any willing party to help them near instantly, for no cost and without the aggressor being able to do anything about it or respond in a similar way.

Yet somehow that help, help that you would think would be provided by some of the people who proselytize at length the plight of the newbies and how the newbies need to be protected from bad highsec meanies never shows up.

People who continuously lament the plight of the newbies in the oh-so-harsh environment of highsec don't actually give a flying crap about helping newbies.

If you don't like non-consensual PVP and you don't think it should be in the game or you think it should be so heavily restricted that it's generally impractical we'd all appreciate it if you could just say that rather than thinly veiling your intent in tired, insipid arguments and totally disingenuous claims of caring about other players.