open All Channels
seplocked Crime and Punishment
blankseplocked Tithes - an approach to dealing with corp-jumpers
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: 1 [2]

Author Topic

druid 99
Posted - 2008.05.29 10:36:00 - [31]
 

admitidly i do like poping a macro i picture the look on the guys face when he comes back from where ever he is and lost his hulk dont ask why im might just be wired but its fun course if they responded i would ask them for a ransom but no responce= afk/macro the pop

Kami Nodachi
Gallente
Lobstosity
Posted - 2008.05.29 10:37:00 - [32]
 

Originally by: Toria Nynys
Originally by: Kami Nodachi

No! He is right! High-sec wardec corps who pick on people that aren't able to fight back should be given a method to earn money while they sit on their asses!


This is SUCH BS. There is absolutely nothing which stops a newbie corp from docking their mains, rolling untrained alts and blobbing wardeccers with nearly free frigates. I can't see 'aren't able to fight back' as a possibility, ever.

And if the target is a big industrial corp with lots of POSes -- well, defense should be part of the business plan. Cough up a few B to hire mercs to blob your war targets 10 to 1. If you don't care to defend -- going out of business is part of the cost of undercutting other corps who DO have defense priced into their products.




You miss the point completely. Just because a corp can field an annoying fleet of frigs doesn't mean they can effectively fight off an aggressive corp, but that isn't the point either.

The point is the OP wants an option in game for corps to 'opt out' of wardecs by handing over a steady income stream to the pirates, ie wants to get paid for sitting on his ass because he only decs corps that are too scared to do anything but opt out.

Kami Nodachi
Gallente
Lobstosity
Posted - 2008.05.29 10:39:00 - [33]
 

Originally by: Chainsaw Plankton
Originally by: Huberek Morchu
Originally by: Brother Welcome
Corp A (high-sec war-deccers) dec B (high-sec carebears). Corp B does not want to fight.

Redress is needed between the aims of A and B. Suggested redress is tithes.

Corp B members are not permitted to move corp while dec exists (or if they do they carry it with them) however they can convert dec status to vassal status by tithing a stipulated amount (as with decs, this would be fixed but maybe a declining scale rather than increasing for multiple tithes).

Like decs, tithes 'can't be refused'. While tithing to A carebears are safe from A... indeed, A may feel it to be in their interests to protect B.

<add various refinements to avoid exploits and abuse>

-BW


Or, just pick on someone your own size? Someone people dont want to fight.


some people also like to wave around $100 bills in the ghettos and then claim they didn't want to get robbed


I see this everyday... wait, what?

Brother Welcome
Amarr
Suddenly Ninjas
Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service
Posted - 2008.05.29 12:03:00 - [34]
 

Edited by: Brother Welcome on 29/05/2008 12:11:41
Originally by: Kami Nodachi
Originally by: Faife
Isn't tithing specifically for the church? And isn't it by definition 10% of your income?

Heck, just take the other corp into your alliance and put a tax rate on them.


Tithing is a form of taxation from feudal times when the castle would get a certain percentage of all the produce of his landholders. What the OP doesn't seem to understand is that the landholders were protected by the castle in return.


My understanding from the history is that tithing was originally a payment to the church, literally 'tenthing' or as Faife has it a 10% contribution. If you examine the literature you find that there were so many exceptions to this that the figure can at best be treated as putative.

That notwithstanding, it is common in game design to take a word near enough to one's meaning and retool it to a new purpose. Tithing seemed a good pick to me, because making the amount a %age is interesting: it means that the PvPer profits most when their carebear vassal is most productive. That in turn should produce a saddlepoint where it is better to protect the carebear than to gank them. You will know of course that feudalism did not exist in the sort of pure form we tend to talk about, but the fee paid on fiefs were calculated on the basis of actual production. A form of expert collector would assess tax based on fields, headcount, and such like. In the online resource of medieval documents you can read examples.

For the system to play an effective role in EVE I believe support has to exist for it in the game engine. Really, it is just a form of extended contract: X will pay Y this %age, Y will not dec X. I am honestly agnostic on whether X should be bound to accept the dec in other instances, but CCP seem to be contemplating that and it seems to me all too readily avoidable if there is not some reasonable enforcement.

Kami points to protection, but what (s)he fails to understand is that in medieval times that protection most directly arrived in the form of not being griefed by the person you are paying your fee/tithe/tax to. In the case of the church, your immortal soul was not condemned to an eternity of suffering, and you were not excluded from quite a number of important legal benefits (marriage and in many places in Europe records of land ownership, and so forth), while from 'the castle' you were 'protected' by paying the knights not to do you physical harm. Only secondarily were you in any sense protected from third-parties; for example by a right to sanctuary inside the walls at the castellans pleasure. Or so the historical record reflects.

There are other aspects of using a %age that I will leave for the reader to discern.

-BW










Kami Nodachi
Gallente
Lobstosity
Posted - 2008.05.29 13:19:00 - [35]
 

So you are saying every feudal system was based on someone with power bullying others? Castles and churches that didn't treat their people right had a bad habit of collapsing, which is backed up in historical records. Try the Aztec empire, for instance. The spanish convinced most of the Aztec vassal states to fight with them against the Aztecs PRO BONO, because they were all so tired of the Aztec's constant warfare and taking of captives for sacrifice.

No one in their right mind would pay your tithes, because they are hemorrhaging ISK for nothing. If you want a feudal system then your tithe system would have to include any wardecs against your 'vassals' being redirected towards you.

Tsiros
Minmatar
Posted - 2008.05.29 16:19:00 - [36]
 

Originally by: Kami Nodachi
If you want a feudal system then your tithe system would have to include any wardecs against your 'vassals' being redirected towards you.

+1 on that. good thing with that idea is that there will be no fake corps trying to make easy money. if you want to ''own'' someone and tax him/her then you should also protect them in order to make sure they keep paying you.
question is if the ''protector'' gets attacked and fails what happens to the carebear corp that was paying. will the payment continue and if yes to who?

Brother Welcome
Amarr
Suddenly Ninjas
Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service
Posted - 2008.05.29 18:31:00 - [37]
 

Originally by: Kami Nodachi
If you want a feudal system then your tithe system would have to include any wardecs against your 'vassals' being redirected towards you.


Nice idea! I need to think it over for abuses and issues, but it sounds promising. Of course, even if they were not redirected towards you, your loss of income may lead you to take an interest in them.

I don't know of a feudal system that was not based on someone with power bullying others. The example you cite rather proves the case: I'm not as familiar with Central and South American history as with European, but I believe what happened was disaffected vassals who had been paying various kinds of levy (including a contribution of bonded labour) grew tired of their feudal (Aztec) overlords bullying them, and supported the Spanish instead. What they failed to take into account was that the Spanish would quickly replace the Aztecs in the role of bully, leading, for instance, to relocation of populations and redirection of labour, to suit Spanish interests, resulting in famine and, in the weakend population, susceptibility to imported disease.

So yes, you give a fair example: one I'd agree with.




M'ing Pai
The Jagged Edge
Posted - 2008.05.29 21:24:00 - [38]
 

The mechanics of the game already allow for this idea.

Corp A wardeccs Corp B.

Corp B says 'no wai'

Corp A says 'orly?'

Corp B says 'ya srsly'

Corp A says 'you be joinin ma aliances den, and be payin teh taxes, 50mil isk a week'

There you have it.

/thread



Nyterra
Posted - 2008.05.29 21:37:00 - [39]
 

Originally by: M'ing Pai
The mechanics of the game already allow for this idea.

Corp A wardeccs Corp B.

Corp B says 'no wai'

Corp A says 'orly?'

Corp B says 'ya srsly'

Corp A says 'you be joinin ma aliances den, and be payin teh taxes, 50mil isk a week'

There you have it.

/thread




You know ... its really hard to argue with such sound LOLgic.

Brother Welcome
Amarr
Suddenly Ninjas
Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service
Posted - 2008.05.30 09:56:00 - [40]
 

Originally by: M'ing Pai
The mechanics of the game already allow for this idea.

Corp A wardeccs Corp B.

Corp B says 'no wai'

Corp A says 'orly?'

Corp B says 'ya srsly'

Corp A says 'you be joinin ma aliances den, and be payin teh taxes, 50mil isk a week'

There you have it.

/thread





Misses the point of having a 'must-take' out in reply to the 'must-take' in of deccing.

<sigh>


Rolf Smith
Caldari
Shiva
Morsus Mihi
Posted - 2008.05.30 10:10:00 - [41]
 

I think the word you are looking for is not "tithe" but more along the lines of "danegeld".

M'ing Pai
The Jagged Edge
Posted - 2008.05.30 14:08:00 - [42]
 

Originally by: Brother Welcome



Misses the point of having a 'must-take' out in reply to the 'must-take' in of deccing.

<sigh>




Misses the point that a sovereign entity can declare war against whoever it chooses, whether or not the recipient of said war wants to engage. Otherwise it would be a 'duel'.

Dariah Stardweller
Gallente
NO U111 Enterprises
Posted - 2008.05.30 14:24:00 - [43]
 

Originally by: Kami Nodachi


No! He is right! High-sec wardec corps who pick on people that aren't able to fight back should be given a method to earn money while they sit on their asses!


Yes, we need more ways for grieving ****ers to earn isk without playing the game!!

Jakke Logan
Caldari
F Off And Die
Posted - 2008.05.30 14:29:00 - [44]
 

No way anything like this should be done. This would allow wardecs to be used to grief a corp in not allowing it to add members, or to KICK members.

I can see this scenario:

1. An alt of Griefercorp gets into a corp (Corp A) that they want to grief. The person starts stealing, harassing, generally acting bad, etc.

2. Griefercorp wardecs Corp A, thus preventing them from kicking out the misbehaving person, sustainable FOREVER as long as they are willing to pay the war fees.

This would simply give too much power to the wardec'er.

Jakke Logan
Caldari
F Off And Die
Posted - 2008.05.30 14:32:00 - [45]
 

Originally by: Kami Nodachi
Originally by: Toria Nynys
Originally by: Kami Nodachi

No! He is right! High-sec wardec corps who pick on people that aren't able to fight back should be given a method to earn money while they sit on their asses!


This is SUCH BS. There is absolutely nothing which stops a newbie corp from docking their mains, rolling untrained alts and blobbing wardeccers with nearly free frigates. I can't see 'aren't able to fight back' as a possibility, ever.

And if the target is a big industrial corp with lots of POSes -- well, defense should be part of the business plan. Cough up a few B to hire mercs to blob your war targets 10 to 1. If you don't care to defend -- going out of business is part of the cost of undercutting other corps who DO have defense priced into their products.




You miss the point completely. Just because a corp can field an annoying fleet of frigs doesn't mean they can effectively fight off an aggressive corp, but that isn't the point either.

The point is the OP wants an option in game for corps to 'opt out' of wardecs by handing over a steady income stream to the pirates, ie wants to get paid for sitting on his ass because he only decs corps that are too scared to do anything but opt out.


Which brings us to this point... If the wardec'ers really wanted a fight they'd declare on corps that are actually capable (and have a history) of fighting, instead of noob mission running/mining corps.

Declare on the former, they will get a fight. Declare on the latter, don't come here *****ing and moaning that they won't fight (mainly because they can't) and try to evade the war.

M'ing Pai
The Jagged Edge
Posted - 2008.05.30 18:29:00 - [46]
 

Originally by: Jakke Logan

Which brings us to this point... If the wardec'ers really wanted a fight they'd declare on corps that are actually capable (and have a history) of fighting, instead of noob mission running/mining corps.

Declare on the former, they will get a fight. Declare on the latter, don't come here *****ing and moaning that they won't fight (mainly because they can't) and try to evade the war.



That's just it: it's not just the 'noobs' using this tactic. So-called "griefcorps" are also using the tactic to avoid wardecs from the mercs hired to kill them by their "carebear" targets. It's broken. Admit it. When taken to it's extreme, it renders the entire wardec mechanic moot.

And what's all this CRAP about making allowances for a corp not being capable of fighting? If they aren't capable of fighting, why the hell are they exposing themselves to that risk by creating a corporation? Don't you think that common defense should have somehow been factored into their business plan? If not, why should they have the competitive edge over other, more thoughtful corporations (that DO budget for their defense) by not having defense expendetures hitting their bottom line?

Sorry, I have no sympathy for you or anyone else who thinks that a group can form a corporation and compete in the market against other corporations without somehow factoring defense into their expendetures. Our corp reserves the right to declare war against any we feel deserve it, whether they are prepared for war or not. Your corporation has that right too. Remove the risk of wardecs from the game (which is essentially what this 'exploit' does) and many consequences of a corporation's actions are also removed.

Remember that if another corporation decides to conduct an extended campaign of suicide ganking against your industrial efforts and then evade your wardecs by corp hopping to their 4 dummy corps.

Nexa Necis
The Really Awesome Players
Posted - 2008.05.30 19:18:00 - [47]
 

Edited by: Nexa Necis on 30/05/2008 19:20:11
Edited by: Nexa Necis on 30/05/2008 19:18:36
Originally by: Jakke Logan
Which brings us to this point... If the wardec'ers really wanted a fight they'd declare on corps that are actually capable (and have a history) of fighting, instead of noob mission running/mining corps.

Declare on the former, they will get a fight. Declare on the latter, don't come here *****ing and moaning that they won't fight (mainly because they can't) and try to evade the war.



Not even close to being true. We have a supposed pvp alliance dec'd right now. They logoffski, stab, permacloak and sit docked in Empire and low sec/0.0 all day long. When they do undock, they die. When they logoffski, we probe. When they stab, we HIC 'em.

One time they showed up to fight, or so we thought. They had a stabbed up Arazu, a Raven and Eos. I was in a Phobos and corpmate was in a Hurricane. I got my Domi, and they refused to engage even after my corpmate logged out.

Another corp we dec'd advertises the strength of their pvp wing, yet they never come to fight.

So now people have to do market research on a corp to see how much they fight back?

Your theory is fail.

Brother Welcome
Amarr
Suddenly Ninjas
Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service
Posted - 2008.05.30 19:27:00 - [48]
 

Originally by: M'ing Pai
Misses the point that a sovereign entity can declare war against whoever it chooses, whether or not the recipient of said war wants to engage. Otherwise it would be a 'duel'.


I guess you don't mean to introduce a 'it should work like it does in the real world' argument here.

Originally by: M'ing Pai
Remove the risk of wardecs from the game (which is essentially what this 'exploit' does) and many consequences of a corporation's actions are also removed.


There's nothing in the war-dec mechanic that makes it a consequence for actions beyond the action of simply existing. You intimated that corps in Eve need to make a provision for defence. What is the argument against that provision being ISK?

If there were a formal extension of the contract system to bind parties in a fashion similar to games such as Empires in Arms, which attempts to simulate Napoleonic diplomacy and warfare, then corps could be brought to make a provision for defence. If they don't like PvP, they effectively pay the PvPer's to go elsewhere.

Setting aside arguments about getting the mechanics to be foolproof, what is the argument against it in principle?

-BW








M'ing Pai
The Jagged Edge
Posted - 2008.05.30 20:25:00 - [49]
 

Originally by: Brother Welcome

There's nothing in the war-dec mechanic that makes it a consequence for actions beyond the action of simply existing. You intimated that corps in Eve need to make a provision for defence. What is the argument against that provision being ISK?

If there were a formal extension of the contract system to bind parties in a fashion similar to games such as Empires in Arms, which attempts to simulate Napoleonic diplomacy and warfare, then corps could be brought to make a provision for defence. If they don't like PvP, they effectively pay the PvPer's to go elsewhere.

Setting aside arguments about getting the mechanics to be foolproof, what is the argument against it in principle?

-BW




There's no argument against that provision being ISK. In fact, I would argue that a corporation that wants to be purely industrial SHOULD enter into an alliance that contains PvP minded corporations, and should, as part of their business plan, pay fees to the alliance, and likewise provide ships/mods/ammunition to their defending allies.

The arguments against your system have been stated by several different people in the thread. I would add to those that it isn't needed: the mechanics in place already allow for it without hardcoding those kinds of agreements.

You want your mining/missioning/manufacturing corporation to be safer against wardecs? Negotiate an agreement with a mercenary/pirate/highsec wardec corp wherein you give them a weekly fee to keep one of thier slots open so that if you're wardecced, they're on retainer. You could also join a "PvP capable" alliance and pay their weekly/monthly fees and supply their war efforts in return for protection. Hell, you could even recruit PvP capable pilots into your own corporation and fund it from the inside.

There's plenty of options for industrial corps. No need to rope them into fuedalism through game mechanics.

Kami Nodachi
Gallente
Lobstosity
Posted - 2008.05.31 05:50:00 - [50]
 

I think the only mechanic that really needs to be added is some kind of gaurantee that anyone paying a ransom to get out of a wardec will actually get out of it.

Antarr Slagh
Amarr
The Arrow Project
Morsus Mihi
Posted - 2008.05.31 06:18:00 - [51]
 

Originally by: Rutefly
Another trend is, as decent miners come up with different things to amuse themselves with, and the need for minerals grows in eve in generel, macrominers gain more ground. Sure hit the isk buyers helps with the isk picture but not sure it does much to the mineral scene.

Less decent miners = more macro nubs = more pirate whine.

We dont leik the macro fools anymore than you. Actually less. Many of us has taken up piracy because teh veldspar doesnt love us anymore.

Macro's actually brought pirates and miners closer together. I think thats frak'in beautiful. *cheers*


You made me cry.

Newbear
Posted - 2008.05.31 06:35:00 - [52]
 

Whats a tithe? Sounds perverse! Just leave things the way they are, or introduce personal war decs! Declare war on individual players. Personally I think this game is too carebear oriented.

Lets raise the stakes on pvp! If you die, the killer loots 30 days from your account play time.

Hanneshannes
Posted - 2008.05.31 07:33:00 - [53]
 

Originally by: Newbear
Whats a tithe? Sounds perverse! Just leave things the way they are, or introduce personal war decs! Declare war on individual players. Personally I think this game is too carebear oriented.

Lets raise the stakes on pvp! If you die, the killer loots 30 days from your account play time.


W00t

/me fits a ton of SBs to BS and flies to jita 44.


Pages: 1 [2]

This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to https://forums.eveonline.com

These forums are archived and read-only