These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Assembly Hall

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
123Next pageLast page
 

Corporations Killing Orca and other Indies
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
AnJuan Jackson
Red Star Trading Corporation
#1 - 2012-12-05 19:11:07 UTC  |  Edited by: AnJuan Jackson
I would like anyone who has thoughts on how Corporation members killing another Corp members Orca or other high priced industry ship is "Combat mechanics working as intended." I understand corporation members allowed to engage in combat, perhaps for practice or what have you. But A disgruntled corporation members getting a free Orca kill or taking out a mining fleet? And nothing you can do except hold the memory hard in your heart and never talk to other players? This type of behavior kills relationships with other players.

Though I have never lost an Orca, I have seen examples of this kind of abuse and find it disturbing that there is nothing to really be done except forget about recruiting for corporations. Perhaps someone can explain why this is perfectly acceptable or how one might avoid this kind of abuse.

And yes, it is abuse. Scoring free kills because of a "Lolz, you let me in your corp" gets around the mystical ever watchful eye of CONCORD.

I would think CONCORD would respond to non-combat vessels in distress... or why bother having them in the first place?


Edit: I might add, with the new safety feature, the excuse of friendly fire accidently Concording them shouldn't be a problem anymore.
De'Veldrin
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#2 - 2012-12-05 19:31:15 UTC
Have you tried shooting back?

De'Veldrin's Corollary (to Malcanis' Law): Any idea that seeks to limit the ability of a large nullsec bloc to do something in the name of allowing more small groups into sov null will inevitably make it that much harder for small groups to enter sov null.
AnJuan Jackson
Red Star Trading Corporation
#3 - 2012-12-05 20:37:02 UTC  |  Edited by: AnJuan Jackson
You try combat in an Orca against battleships, let me know how far it gets you :)

Besides, What I'm mostly referring to is two core problems.

1. Concord believes attacks on Industries is okay in High Sec? I don't see how this would make sense on any level... they assume that Corporations are approving these actions?
2. Corporation members are allowed to betray each other and get away with it. No criminal flags are going to be thrown, this Retribution patch completely ignores this still present problem. Someone can do close to a billion ISK worth of damage to you for free, and the only recourse is "Well, don't trust anyone and play alone if you don't like it!"

There must be some middle ground... some way of allowing you to group with other players and not have this giant loop hole to worry about constantly. A corporation member should be the one person you can trust on some small level, as CCP does not allow you to recruit Orca's into your corporation for the sole purpose of killing them, neither should CCP allow members to join corps for the purpose of killing Orcas.



Edit: This comes from a GM reply to my concerns, stating that this is Corporation mechanics as intended. I have come to argue there is problem, where industrial ships are concerned. I think this should be reviewed as an exploit.
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
#4 - 2012-12-05 22:24:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Gizznitt Malikite
AnJuan Jackson wrote:
You try combat in an Orca against battleships, let me know how far it gets you :)

Besides, What I'm mostly referring to is two core problems.

1. Concord believes attacks on Industries is okay in High Sec? I don't see how this would make sense on any level... they assume that Corporations are approving these actions?


There are a several good reasons why you would allow corp mates to shoot industrials:
-- They could be used in some entertaining battle badger like tournament.
-- You might be insurance frauding them....
-- You are testing the their tank...
-- You are trying to stop a corp thief that is hauling your valuable assets off...
-- You are pissed off at the corp and want to inflict major damage to it...
-- Web-to-warp Freighters and Orcas

So why should concord defend them????

Furthermore, if you truly believe these ships to be of such value, why don't YOU step up and keep it safe?

Examples:
a.) If it is so valuable, then why don't you have protection for it? Escort it with a Blackbird or Falcon or even a griffin so it can "get away". You could even store these ships inside the ship maintenance array, and have your corp mates switch to them if you get attacked.

b.) Alternatively, you can keep your valuable assets in an alt corp, away from potential hostilities of an AWOXer.

AnJuan Jackson wrote:

2. Corporation members are allowed to betray each other and get away with it. No criminal flags are going to be thrown, this Retribution patch completely ignores this still present problem. Someone can do close to a billion ISK worth of damage to you for free, and the only recourse is "Well, don't trust anyone and play alone if you don't like it!"


Trust should be earned.... My corp has "trial" periods, where members are given limited rights until they pass the trial period. You can use social media and forums to publicly declare AWOXers and Untrustworthy players for all of EvE to know about. Your ENTIRE corp can gang up on the member and destroy his stuff until he leaves corp, and then you can place bounties, declare wars, suicide gank, and socially sabotage him until you feel vengeance/justice has been served.

AnJuan Jackson wrote:

There must be some middle ground... some way of allowing you to group with other players and not have this giant loop hole to worry about constantly. A corporation member should be the one person you can trust on some small level, as CCP does not allow you to recruit Orca's into your corporation for the sole purpose of killing them, neither should CCP allow members to join corps for the purpose of killing Orcas.


You see all those options I listed above... that's the middle ground... What you are asking for is the ability to just straight up prevent someone from AWOXing your valuable industrial operations. That's not looking for a middle ground, that's flipping an OFF switch to make you and yours safe because you don't want to utilize any of the other methods.

AWOXing has a long tradition in EvE, and you need to have a VERY compelling argument why it should not be allowed! Frankly, all you've brought to the table is, it's not Socially/morally fair.... EvE is a dystopia, and Social/Moral unfairness is not only allowed, but encouraged!!!

Now, can you show why it is Mechanically Unfair? Can you give a reason, NOT centered around a moral compass, that these actions should be inhibited? Can you explain why the current AWOXing situation is unmanageable? Then, and only then, will you have an case worthy of discussion.
AnJuan Jackson
Red Star Trading Corporation
#5 - 2012-12-05 23:04:44 UTC
Morality and Money are the two things that govern laws. This mechanic abuses both.
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
#6 - 2012-12-06 00:40:01 UTC
AnJuan Jackson wrote:
Morality and Money are the two things that govern laws. This mechanic abuses both.


Not in a dystopia...

A dystopia is a society most notable for it's Injustices, typically enforced by biased societal laws...

EvE Prides itself on allowing morally grey or inept behavior. The dev's purposely allow AWOXing, Scamming, in-game Stealing, Suicide Ganking, Piracy, Extortion, and all other socially reprehensible activities. If I steal your BPO collection from the corp hangar, should concord force me to give it back or pay you restitution? If I disband your alliance, should Concord re-form it for you?

CCP Dev's purposely avoid creating a mechanically enforced social/moral code. They purposely leave that to the player base, and it's up to you to enforce it...

Now, I provided you several examples of how to keep yourself safe, I gave several examples of why people want the ability to shoot corp mates. If the only reason for nerfing AWOXing is AWOXing conflicts with your personal moral code and causes you economic hardship, then you lose. Especially since you can take ingame steps to limit your vulnerability!!

/thread
AnJuan Jackson
Red Star Trading Corporation
#7 - 2012-12-06 00:44:45 UTC
I still think your love of every other aspect of this game would not be bothered by an adjustment of the mechanic where industrial are concerned. Nice rant, but I don't see much credit to the argument that "It's the way it is because it has been."

That's why I'm asking for improvement..
Sheynan
Lighting the blight
#8 - 2012-12-06 00:52:17 UTC
You're supposed to trust the people in your corp. That is all this mechanic is about.
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
#9 - 2012-12-06 01:11:44 UTC
Sheynan wrote:
You're supposed to trust the people in your corp. That is all this mechanic is about.


And this idea, essentially, is about forcing people in your corp to be trustworthy.... I don't particularly find that appropriate for EvE, and am vehemently against it.
AnJuan Jackson
Red Star Trading Corporation
#10 - 2012-12-06 01:15:40 UTC
I think you abundantly made your point, Gizznit. I would like to hear some other views.

And, may I point out if you did want to attack your former corp members, there is a multitude of ways to do so...

And my argument is strictly high sec. There's no limits what you can do in other places of space. Live the life you want to, and don't assume we all wish to keep this faulty mechanic just because you find it "fitting."
Michael Loney
Skullspace Industries
#11 - 2012-12-06 03:00:29 UTC
Easy fix. Make a new trial corporation for yourselves. This way everything is separate.

I know fleet mechanics can factor in as well but you can always kick them from fleet and let CONCORD do their job.
AnJuan Jackson
Red Star Trading Corporation
#12 - 2012-12-06 03:02:53 UTC
Michael Loney wrote:
Easy fix. Make a new trial corporation for yourselves. This way everything is separate.

I know fleet mechanics can factor in as well but you can always kick them from fleet and let CONCORD do their job.



This is a good temporary solution for me, so thank you for posting ^^ I hadn't considered this. Even so, I think it's still valid I shouldn't have to have two corporation to do the job of one. But, I will adopt this technique for now.
Reppyk
The Black Shell
#13 - 2012-12-06 09:45:17 UTC
Michael Loney wrote:
I know fleet mechanics can factor in as well
No, you can't shoot a fleet member (unless you're part of the same no-NPC corporation ofc).

I AM SPACE CAPTAIN REPPYK. BEWARE.

Proud co-admin of frugu.net, a French fansite about EVE !
Danika Princip
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#14 - 2012-12-06 10:30:44 UTC
Ways to solve this:

Have recruitment standards.
AnJuan Jackson
Red Star Trading Corporation
#15 - 2012-12-06 16:01:10 UTC  |  Edited by: AnJuan Jackson
Danika Princip wrote:
Ways to solve this:

Have recruitment standards.



Because even the most well known pirate can't make a 1 day alt and pretend to be friendly or new?

Or lets say I take one a 10 Mill SP minimum and API check for industry skills, but they decide **** it, they never get kills and there's and Orca right there protected by a bunch of retrievers. Fit battleship out for, well, doesn't matter does it? Concord isn't gonna stop them anyway.

With almost no combat skills and a warp distrupter, boom, dead Orca. Maybe it was because they got into an argument with someone, maybe they want to turn pirate, or maybe they are just an asshat.


My point is I don't care why they suddenly choose to abuse this stupid mechanic, I haven't heard a real reason to keep it. Just ways I should be working around it.


Saying I can work around it isn't a reason for the mechanic to exist.... Thanks anyways though.
AssassinationsdoneWrong
Deep Core Mining Inc.
#16 - 2012-12-06 16:20:20 UTC
Danika Princip wrote:



My point is I don't care why they suddenly choose to abuse this stupid mechanic, I haven't heard a real reason to keep it. Just ways I should be working around it.


Saying I can work around it isn't a reason for the mechanic to exist.... Thanks anyways though.


One reason to keep the mechanic is because the average hisec bear pilot doesn't have his/her overview setup to defensive or pvp tabs. Accidentally shooting each other whilst trying to defend a corpie is a real possibility.

TBH though if you have gotten to the point of disgruntled employee suspicion and not taken action first (removed roles, get ready to boot if it goes the way it is already, keep indy's out of harms way whilst the 24 hours cool down period ticks off etc. etc. ) then something bad is going to happen 9/10 times.


The Nexus 7's

What we fall short of in numbers we more than make up for in stupidity
AnJuan Jackson
Red Star Trading Corporation
#17 - 2012-12-06 16:26:59 UTC  |  Edited by: AnJuan Jackson
AssassinationsdoneWrong wrote:
Danika Princip wrote:



My point is I don't care why they suddenly choose to abuse this stupid mechanic, I haven't heard a real reason to keep it. Just ways I should be working around it.


Saying I can work around it isn't a reason for the mechanic to exist.... Thanks anyways though.


One reason to keep the mechanic is because the average hisec bear pilot doesn't have his/her overview setup to defensive or pvp tabs. Accidentally shooting each other whilst trying to defend a corpie is a real possibility.

TBH though if you have gotten to the point of disgruntled employee suspicion and not taken action first (removed roles, get ready to boot if it goes the way it is already, keep indy's out of harms way whilst the 24 hours cool down period ticks off etc. etc. ) then something bad is going to happen 9/10 times.





The problem is even if you are ready to boot someone, kicking them out after the fact isn't going to help much. They already got what they wanted and were planning on leaving after anyway.

Edit: With the safety button, this is no longer a concern about shooting eachother.
Elinea Marcutz
#18 - 2012-12-06 17:34:32 UTC
Firstly, As the person that wants to change the existing system the burden of proof is on you. Prove to us that your mechanical enforcement of your moral standard will make the game better for EVERYONE.

Secondly, The first rule I learned in EvE was never trust someone out side of punching distance. If someone is out side of the range of your IRL fist, assume they have a dagger with your name on it.

Third, HTFU

THIS IS A FORUM ALT!
AnJuan Jackson
Red Star Trading Corporation
#19 - 2012-12-06 17:46:02 UTC  |  Edited by: AnJuan Jackson
^ Removing a mechanic that only occurs a percentage of the time and wouldn't effect the game in a negative way for any of the people complaining about this, but improve the game for the people who are affected by it... Yeah I see why I need to explain my proof even further.

The only purpose of the Corporation Kill Mechanic seems to be to allow for abuse. And though players are forced to find ways to deal with it, still doesn't seem to be any evidence that it's existence is good, beneficial, or logical.

The one argument was friendly fire, which Retribution has made moot. So, I ask again, why should this not be revisited? If not across the board, at least where Industrial vessels are concerned.


Taking advantage of this in the past does not mean it should continue for the rest of the game.
De'Veldrin
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#20 - 2012-12-06 17:47:17 UTC
AnJuan Jackson wrote:
You try combat in an Orca against battleships, let me know how far it gets you :)


You could, you know, have other corpmates shoot them. You do have other people in your corp, right? Some of them have ships that mount guns, right?

Right?!?

Snarky trolling aside, if you want to protect your valuable assets, man up and protect them instead of crying to CCP to do it for you.

De'Veldrin's Corollary (to Malcanis' Law): Any idea that seeks to limit the ability of a large nullsec bloc to do something in the name of allowing more small groups into sov null will inevitably make it that much harder for small groups to enter sov null.
123Next pageLast page