These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Rant: Creating a corp is not your god given right.

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Joran Dravius
Doomheim
#141 - 2013-02-20 22:09:15 UTC  |  Edited by: Joran Dravius
Takseen wrote:
Aye, and fair play to ya. I have a bunch of BNI propaganda saved in a folder. Very impressive.

I vaguely remember you from before I quit. I don't really remember who you are, but I instinctively get angry every time I see your name on the forum. I'm guessing at some point you were saying a lot of stuff I didn't like. Good news though! I've seen a lot of your posts since coming back and none of them made me want to pod you, or at least not more than I already want to pod most people. So...uh...congratulations? Keep up the good work I guess.
Joran Dravius
Doomheim
#142 - 2013-02-20 22:11:47 UTC
Arronicus wrote:
Psychotic Monk wrote:
When you, as a terrible CEO, make a corp, you're not potentially wasting your own play time, you're actively harming those around you. So yes, your correct. It's not that you can't, it's that please don't.

And yes, you have a right to play however you like. And I do, too. And my play is to crush your play. I'm not telling you how to play so much as I'm begging you to stop harming this game by making terrible players.



A terrible CEO will not be able to get many people to join his corp, nor will he be able to carry momentum to continue growing the corp.

On the contrary, terrible corps tend to be quite large due to indiscriminate recruiting.
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#143 - 2013-02-20 22:13:02 UTC
Joran Dravius wrote:
FloppieTheBanjoClown wrote:
Whitehound wrote:
FloppieTheBanjoClown wrote:
Whitehound wrote:
For Christ's sake, check OP's corp history. Roll


We refer to it as being weaponized. That thing can crash lesser clients.

What does his corp history have to do with the veracity of his statements?

About as much as the number of corpses stand for the competence of a medical doctor.

By that metric, a family practitioner is much more competent than an oncologist.

And dentists are the best doctors of all.

Insert obvious gynecologist joke here.

View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents: Virtual Realms.
FloppieTheBanjoClown
Arcana Imperii Ltd.
#144 - 2013-02-20 22:18:08 UTC
Ranger 1 wrote:
Joran Dravius wrote:
FloppieTheBanjoClown wrote:

By that metric, a family practitioner is much more competent than an oncologist.

And dentists are the best doctors of all.

Insert obvious gynecologist joke here.

I'm pretty sure OB/GYNs win out. After all, their net score is the only one that should run into the positives.

Founding member of the Belligerent Undesirables movement.
Joran Dravius
Doomheim
#145 - 2013-02-20 22:22:31 UTC  |  Edited by: Joran Dravius
Whitehound wrote:
Joran Dravius wrote:
Someone who speaks the English language. Ignorant means you don't have knowledge about something. New players are ignorant. That's what makes them new players. When they've been playing long enough to be knowledgeable they're not new players anymore.

You are arrogant and ignorant! Do you believe a new player does not know that he is new to the game? Do you believe they need you to point this out to them? To be patronized by some wannabe leader?? Lol

Anyone who would take up on your judgement is doomed to be lead by a fool. This I doubt is not what the OP had in mind, but, hey, lead away! The more, the merrier.

So my choices are to share your delusion of the existence of new players who are experts at Eve or else I'm arrogant and patronizing? Refusing to deny facts doesn't make me either of those things. All newbies are ignorant, including me when I was a newbie. I can't just call up Webster and tell them to change the definition of ignorant. I was actually probably more ignorant than recent newbies when I was in their shoes. There was no tutorial then, the meta-game hadn't been established and everyone I could ask for advice was just as ignorant as me.
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#146 - 2013-02-20 22:25:06 UTC
Whitehound wrote:
FloppieTheBanjoClown wrote:
Methinks you don't understand my point.

No, I do not care for your point. There is a difference here.

There are many ways to run a corp and even the biggest alliances have collapsed. Why should there be different rules for small, new corps?

OP really should be posting in the recruitment section of the forum and try his luck there. I doubt he will find many followers here in GD for his cause.

I'm curious, what exactly do you think "his cause" is?

From where I sit it is simply "if you decide to start a corp as a new player, try your best not to be bad at it as you may ruin the EvE experience for other new players inadvertantly", and then lists some of the things to avoid.

It's good advice and he has a point. New players in a corp like that really don't have the frame of reference that the rest of us do as to how easy it is for a corp to be bad or fold... and that it's not the end of the world if you have to move on. So try to avoid these mistakes.

I'm not sure what you find wrong with that message. You've always struck me as the type that would gladly give advice to a new player starting their own corp. To me one of the best pieces of advice has always been "don't hold your corp members back because of their age" and whenever possible "learn from someone who has already become proficient at what you are interested in doing, whatever it may be". Locking new players into specific limited roles in a corp is a very common mistake new player CEO's make. In the past I have been guilty of it myself.

Nothing wrong with steering them away from this if possible.

View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents: Virtual Realms.
Joran Dravius
Doomheim
#147 - 2013-02-20 22:25:12 UTC
Sorry for the double post, but I hit my quote limit.

FloppieTheBanjoClown wrote:
Ranger 1 wrote:
Joran Dravius wrote:
FloppieTheBanjoClown wrote:

By that metric, a family practitioner is much more competent than an oncologist.

And dentists are the best doctors of all.

Insert obvious gynecologist joke here.

I'm pretty sure OB/GYNs win out. After all, their net score is the only one that should run into the positives.

The metric was number of corpses and pregnant women have miscarriages. I stand by my dentist choice. Nobody ever dies from a cavity.
LHA Tarawa
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#148 - 2013-02-20 22:27:50 UTC
Psychotic Monk wrote:
LHA Tarawa wrote:

I don't think anyone is telling the new players this stuff.


It is literally happening, yes. I've seen internal mails from corps I've decced to not undock anything for the entire duration of the war because if they lose something it will encourage other people to also dec them. It is a sad, ****** state of affairs.



This is an absolute standing order for the high sec alliance I associate with, and all the industrial corps I've run.

BUT, this is the agreement LONG before I let the potential recruits join.

FIRST, they have to be interested in industry, THEN not interested in PVP, then agree to NOT loose a ship should we get a war dec.

When I ran a corp, if you lost a ship during a war, you were kicked out of my corp, and you KNEW that before joining.



For an industrialist, WAR is bad for profits and is to be avoided at all costs. As I've pointed out before, I'd rather lose 1 billion ISK by not undocking than undock, make 1 billion, and lose 100 million to war targets. WHY? Not because of the loss... Because of the additional war decs the loss will bring.

The ONLY way to limit the number of war decs that you get, is to blue ball the war dec'ers. It is our ONLY defense against the dec system.
HollyShocker 2inthestink
HOW to PEG SAFETY
#149 - 2013-02-20 22:30:49 UTC
Joran Dravius wrote:
HollyShocker 2inthestink wrote:
So who where these Vets when eve first started?

Me. This may come as a surprise to you, but Eve had a beta. Experienced players were forming corps on the very first day of launch.

Takseen wrote:
Jenn aSide wrote:


It's just like Real World militaries. Few military service members fight, but ALL train to fight and defend themselves, not only for their own well being, but for their buddies.
.


Then corporations are misnamed?

In case you haven't noticed, the entire Caldari state is made up of corporations. Pony Express couriers were armed IRL. Being a corporation doesn't mean you don't fight.

Whitehound wrote:
Who are you to call new players ignorant?

Someone who speaks the English language. Ignorant means you don't have knowledge about something. New players are ignorant. That's what makes them new players. When they've been playing long enough to be knowledgeable they're not new players anymore.



LMAO beta doesnt make you a vet and sure as hell doesnt make you knowledgable.
FloppieTheBanjoClown
Arcana Imperii Ltd.
#150 - 2013-02-20 22:35:37 UTC
LHA Tarawa wrote:
This is an absolute standing order for the high sec alliance I associate with, and all the industrial corps I've run.

BUT, this is the agreement LONG before I let the potential recruits join.

FIRST, they have to be interested in industry, THEN not interested in PVP, then agree to NOT loose a ship should we get a war dec.

When I ran a corp, if you lost a ship during a war, you were kicked out of my corp, and you KNEW that before joining.


While I think that's a terrible way to run a corp in a competitive game like Eve, you're up front with your expectations and everyone knows what they're getting into when they sign on. Fair enough.

LHA Tarawa wrote:
For an industrialist, WAR is bad for profits and is to be avoided at all costs. As I've pointed out before, I'd rather lose 1 billion ISK by not undocking than undock, make 1 billion, and lose 100 million to war targets. WHY? Not because of the loss... Because of the additional war decs the loss will bring.

The ONLY way to limit the number of war decs that you get, is to blue ball the war dec'ers. It is our ONLY defense against the dec system.


I can think of much better ways to blue ball them (us). Try getting more creative than "don't undock".

Founding member of the Belligerent Undesirables movement.
Joran Dravius
Doomheim
#151 - 2013-02-20 22:38:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Joran Dravius
LHA Tarawa wrote:
Psychotic Monk wrote:
LHA Tarawa wrote:

I don't think anyone is telling the new players this stuff.


It is literally happening, yes. I've seen internal mails from corps I've decced to not undock anything for the entire duration of the war because if they lose something it will encourage other people to also dec them. It is a sad, ****** state of affairs.



This is an absolute standing order for the high sec alliance I associate with, and all the industrial corps I've run.

BUT, this is the agreement LONG before I let the potential recruits join.

FIRST, they have to be interested in industry, THEN not interested in PVP, then agree to NOT loose a ship should we get a war dec.

When I ran a corp, if you lost a ship during a war, you were kicked out of my corp, and you KNEW that before joining.



For an industrialist, WAR is bad for profits and is to be avoided at all costs. As I've pointed out before, I'd rather lose 1 billion ISK by not undocking than undock, make 1 billion, and lose 100 million to war targets. WHY? Not because of the loss... Because of the additional war decs the loss will bring.

The ONLY way to limit the number of war decs that you get, is to blue ball the war dec'ers. It is our ONLY defense against the dec system.

Can anyone really be that stupid or are you trolling? High sec war decers are the equivalent of the school bully, not the Crips. They're looking for easy targets. You fight back and they leave. Even if you do it in cheap ships as long as you're not completely pants-on-head ******** you'll drive them off. Say you fight them and you lose two thoraxes, 5 merlins and a hurricane and then you're right back to work again. Compare that with the cost of staying docked for a week.
EI Digin
irc.zulusquad.org
#152 - 2013-02-20 22:40:12 UTC
If you want to fight people just get 10000 friends and you can defeat anyone.

Trust me.
Whitehound
#153 - 2013-02-20 22:41:48 UTC
Joran Dravius wrote:
... All newbies are ignorant ...

Are you still stuck on this?! Lol

Loss is meaningful. Therefore is the loss of meaning likewise meaningful. It is the source of all trolling.
Whitehound
#154 - 2013-02-20 22:43:22 UTC
Ranger 1 wrote:
I'm curious, what exactly do you think "his cause" is?

It sounds pretty much like "Do not shoot my barge. It is bad for the economy."

Loss is meaningful. Therefore is the loss of meaning likewise meaningful. It is the source of all trolling.
Psychotic Monk
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#155 - 2013-02-20 22:43:29 UTC
LHA Tarawa wrote:
Psychotic Monk wrote:
LHA Tarawa wrote:

I don't think anyone is telling the new players this stuff.


It is literally happening, yes. I've seen internal mails from corps I've decced to not undock anything for the entire duration of the war because if they lose something it will encourage other people to also dec them. It is a sad, ****** state of affairs.



This is an absolute standing order for the high sec alliance I associate with, and all the industrial corps I've run.

BUT, this is the agreement LONG before I let the potential recruits join.

FIRST, they have to be interested in industry, THEN not interested in PVP, then agree to NOT loose a ship should we get a war dec.

When I ran a corp, if you lost a ship during a war, you were kicked out of my corp, and you KNEW that before joining.



For an industrialist, WAR is bad for profits and is to be avoided at all costs. As I've pointed out before, I'd rather lose 1 billion ISK by not undocking than undock, make 1 billion, and lose 100 million to war targets. WHY? Not because of the loss... Because of the additional war decs the loss will bring.

The ONLY way to limit the number of war decs that you get, is to blue ball the war dec'ers. It is our ONLY defense against the dec system.


Speaking as the CEO of a wardec corp: that's patently untrue. When selecting targets I look for size an activity first. If they've got a history of losing expensive **** continually, I will definatly dec them, but having no loss history is of the same value as having a regular loss history as far as my decision to dec.

I will tell you of a corp several weeks ago that we were more or less forced to leave alone. They, like many of our targets, had several times our numbers. They were concentrated into about three or four systems, and when we were nearby they all dropped what they were doing and got into combat ships. There was maybe one BS on the field on their side. They'd usually have 2-4 rep boats, mostly of the t1 variety, and often but not always fielded a blackbird. Their fleets were roughly armor-themed, but that wasn't a hard and fast rule.

We never had enough dudes to break their reps and we couldn't catch anybody on their own. We lost some boats and ended up deciding we they weren't worth ******* with. gg

What we did see of their loss history showed fits that were somewhat derpy but still clearly good enough, considering their numbers advantage. Many of their pilots were less than a month old.

If everyone were on that level we'd either be put out of business or forced to radically alter our ways of doing business.

Belligerent Undesirables Selling Griefer Immunity
Joran Dravius
Doomheim
#156 - 2013-02-20 22:46:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Joran Dravius
Whitehound wrote:
Joran Dravius wrote:
... All newbies are ignorant ...

Are you still stuck on this?! Lol

I wasn't until I noticed you started calling me names. Are you going to address what I said or keep changing the subject because you can't win?
Takseen
Federal Defense Union
Gallente Federation
#157 - 2013-02-20 22:46:53 UTC
Joran Dravius wrote:
Takseen wrote:
Aye, and fair play to ya. I have a bunch of BNI propaganda saved in a folder. Very impressive.

I vaguely remember you from before I quit. I don't really remember who you are, but I instinctively get angry every time I see your name on the forum. I'm guessing at some point you were saying a lot of stuff I didn't like. Good news though! I've seen a lot of your posts since coming back and none of them made me want to pod you, or at least not more than I already want to pod most people. So...uh...congratulations? Keep up the good work I guess.


CCP basically changed everything about the game I didn't like, so now I have very little left to complain about.
Also I got to join a public fw fleet with people who actually knew what they were doing, got a few kills, and now I kinda wonder why more people don't get into pvp themselves.
Whitehound
#158 - 2013-02-20 22:48:13 UTC
Joran Dravius wrote:
Whitehound wrote:
Joran Dravius wrote:
... All newbies are ignorant ...

Are you still stuck on this?! Lol

I wasn't until I noticed you started calling me names. Are you going to address what I said or keep changing the subject because you can't win?

What is it you want to know?

Loss is meaningful. Therefore is the loss of meaning likewise meaningful. It is the source of all trolling.
Joran Dravius
Doomheim
#159 - 2013-02-20 22:48:36 UTC  |  Edited by: Joran Dravius
Takseen wrote:
Joran Dravius wrote:
Takseen wrote:
Aye, and fair play to ya. I have a bunch of BNI propaganda saved in a folder. Very impressive.

I vaguely remember you from before I quit. I don't really remember who you are, but I instinctively get angry every time I see your name on the forum. I'm guessing at some point you were saying a lot of stuff I didn't like. Good news though! I've seen a lot of your posts since coming back and none of them made me want to pod you, or at least not more than I already want to pod most people. So...uh...congratulations? Keep up the good work I guess.


CCP basically changed everything about the game I didn't like, so now I have very little left to complain about.
Also I got to join a public fw fleet with people who actually knew what they were doing, got a few kills, and now I kinda wonder why more people don't get into pvp themselves.

What changes were those? Your answer determines whether I resume hating you.

Whitehound wrote:
What is it you want to know?

Are you saying you quoted my post without reading it?
Whitehound
#160 - 2013-02-20 22:51:24 UTC
Joran Dravius wrote:
Whitehound wrote:
What is it you want to know?

Are you saying you quoted my post without reading it?

No. I have dismissed it as yet another rant.

Is there anything else you want to ask me?

Loss is meaningful. Therefore is the loss of meaning likewise meaningful. It is the source of all trolling.