open All Channels
seplocked EVE General Discussion
blankseplocked safeguarding the many over the one
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Author Topic

Max Godsnottlingson
Amarr
Max G Storage and Logistics
Posted - 2011.04.02 18:05:00 - [1]
 

I have just been watching the video put out by CCP to hook folks into the Dust/Eve game.

Now while it all looks very nice, it does raise one question that is worrying me some.

The ability of a single player, to basically, shaft thousands of other Eve players.

Two examples that come to mind are

1. the BOB director who handed control and access codes over to Goonies (as we are led to believe happened) in a fit of pique after some internal disagreement.
2. The whole Goon movement getting screwed over because a single player decided that they wanted to do the 'uber' screw over.

Now I accept that Eve is a harsh, in your face game, where anything is possible. But, at the end of the day, Eve is a game, a game where people are willing to put in hours and hours of commitment and a commitment that usually costs a lot of real world money.

Now we see an official video, which seems to show that this sort of play is an is an acceptable part of Eve.

The question is; should it be?

Or, should there be some level of safeguard in place to try to protect the bulk of the players from the actions of a single player?

I accept that both the BOB and Goon incident does not seem to have had a negative effect on player numbers. But I do know that it is something that left a very bitter taste in many players mouths as they came to terms with all their efforts being for nothing in the long run.

Taattii
Posted - 2011.04.02 18:05:00 - [2]
 

The needs of the many outweight the needs of the few, or the one.

This isnt Star Trek


Captian Conrad
Minmatar
Empyrean Warriors
Posted - 2011.04.02 18:10:00 - [3]
 

Get Back To Hello Kitty Island! Twisted Evil Laughing

baltec1
Posted - 2011.04.02 18:11:00 - [4]
 

The ability for one guy to have an impact upon thousands is one of the reasons I play eve.

Feligast
Minmatar
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2011.04.02 18:11:00 - [5]
 

FREE KARTTOON

It's part of life. Those with power can choose to abuse that power. Those without power bear the burden for those choices. Thankfully Eve is a GAME, and when people go all :****goons:, we dust ourselves off and move on, just as I assume BoB did, or we stop playing. The moment you start thinking about "how much RL money" you've put into this game, quit. Very seriously.

mkmin
Posted - 2011.04.02 18:19:00 - [6]
 

In the video, the person who screwed everyone over... well, that was total fiction. There's nothing to discuss about it because it does not apply to any game mechanics that exist nor will probably ever exist in quite that way.

Now for the bob/goon screwover, yes, being able to disband an alliance unilaterally and immediately is a godawful game mechanic. You're not the first person to suggest it. Who knows if CCP will ever admit to it being flat out bad (though probably not, because screwing over thousands of real world people helps them make the real world news.) A more appropriate game mechanic would be to treat it like a democracy. If any structural changes to an alliance are made by the executor corp, there should be a 24 hour delay in which corps can challenge it with a vote. If any particular corp is becoming a problem, it should be possible for them to be voted out with no appeal.

Such an idea would add some interesting richness to the game, but I doubt CCP ever will. There's not enough $ in it, and there's $ in the headlines from leaving it as it is.

Abdiel Kavash
Caldari
Paladin Order
Fidelas Constans
Posted - 2011.04.02 20:16:00 - [7]
 

And then there you have people complaining that nobody short of a thousand man "blob" can ever accomplish anything in EVE.

Xercodo
Amarr
Xovoni Directorate
Posted - 2011.04.02 20:20:00 - [8]
 

Edited by: Xercodo on 02/04/2011 20:21:26
Edited by: Xercodo on 02/04/2011 20:20:58
Originally by: Max Godsnottlingson

Now we see an official video, which seems to show that this sort of play is an is an acceptable part of Eve.



that one shows it...THIS ONE highlights it and plays it up


edit: WTF just happened everything was like super huge font O.o

Ishtanchuk Fazmarai
Amarr
Posted - 2011.04.02 20:29:00 - [9]
 

Originally by: Captian Conrad
Get Back To Hello Kitty Island! Twisted Evil Laughing


...where there are no consequences in being a bastid... Rolling Eyes

EVE's abbility to grief is based upon the complete lack of consequences to it.

It's not like if they could hunt you and permanently remove your char from the game, is it?

So yes, welcome to Free Griefing Online, where girly thugs can grief without consequences that jeopardize their little egos.

Spurty
Caldari
V0LTA
VOLTA Corp
Posted - 2011.04.02 20:39:00 - [10]
 

Well, you have a vivid imagination at least.

Eternum Praetorian
PWNED Factor
The Seventh Day
Posted - 2011.04.02 20:43:00 - [11]
 

Edited by: Eternum Praetorian on 02/04/2011 20:43:55
I believe we covered this in my epic thread titled "EVE Forever WTF Was That"


There we explored peoples lack of reading comprehension and inadvertently (and conclusively) proved that what you see in that video will never EVER make it into the game (TM) So I wouldn't worry about it...



J Kunjeh
Gallente
Posted - 2011.04.02 21:19:00 - [12]
 

Originally by: mkmin

Now for the bob/goon screwover, yes, being able to disband an alliance unilaterally and immediately is a godawful game mechanic. You're not the first person to suggest it. Who knows if CCP will ever admit to it being flat out bad (though probably not, because screwing over thousands of real world people helps them make the real world news.) A more appropriate game mechanic would be to treat it like a democracy. If any structural changes to an alliance are made by the executor corp, there should be a 24 hour delay in which corps can challenge it with a vote. If any particular corp is becoming a problem, it should be possible for them to be voted out with no appeal.




While I like the idea above, I think it should be totally in control of the CEO. If they want to run their corp so that 1 high level corp member could screw their entire operation, then that's their choice (and the corp members choice to join or not). But, they could also choose to set up a corp wide voting system, or maybe just a system that only includes a few top members. Basically, your idea, only with more options and more flexibilty for different setups.

mkmin
Posted - 2011.04.02 21:27:00 - [13]
 

Edited by: mkmin on 02/04/2011 21:27:58
Originally by: J Kunjeh
Originally by: mkmin

Now for the bob/goon screwover, yes, being able to disband an alliance unilaterally and immediately is a godawful game mechanic. You're not the first person to suggest it. Who knows if CCP will ever admit to it being flat out bad (though probably not, because screwing over thousands of real world people helps them make the real world news.) A more appropriate game mechanic would be to treat it like a democracy. If any structural changes to an alliance are made by the executor corp, there should be a 24 hour delay in which corps can challenge it with a vote. If any particular corp is becoming a problem, it should be possible for them to be voted out with no appeal.




While I like the idea above, I think it should be totally in control of the CEO. If they want to run their corp so that 1 high level corp member could screw their entire operation, then that's their choice (and the corp members choice to join or not). But, they could also choose to set up a corp wide voting system, or maybe just a system that only includes a few top members. Basically, your idea, only with more options and more flexibilty for different setups.

Well, I was talking about an alliance, not a corp. Right now the directors of an executive corp can disband the entire alliance without notice. By default, if you're not a director of the executor corp, you're a slave corp, and everything is in the hands of a couple guys who could leave you stranded in 0.0 with no blues, nowhere to dock, and no way to get your assets out, all because one guy who weaseled his way in (which as a non-executor corp member you have zero means to affect) and thought it would be funny.

A corp can run however it wants, but should the alliance mechanic be the same way?

J Kunjeh
Gallente
Posted - 2011.04.02 21:33:00 - [14]
 

Edited by: J Kunjeh on 02/04/2011 21:34:40
Originally by: mkmin

Well, I was talking about an alliance, not a corp. Right now the directors of an executive corp can disband the entire alliance without notice. By default, if you're not a director of the executor corp, you're a slave corp, and everything is in the hands of a couple guys who could leave you stranded in 0.0 with no blues, nowhere to dock, and no way to get your assets out, all because one guy who weaseled his way in (which as a non-executor corp member you have zero means to affect) and thought it would be funny.

A corp can run however it wants, but should the alliance mechanic be the same way?


Oh, I guess I didn't read that close enough (and yeah, I'm new enough not to know too much about the inner workings of corps and alliances in Eve). But yeah, in an alliance it's even more important that there are optional mechanics in place that allow what you described (as a corp, you'd have the choice not to band up with an alliance that doesn't use a voting mechanism for these kinds of actions).

Nuniki
Percussive Diplomacy
Posted - 2011.04.02 22:34:00 - [15]
 

yes.

it should be and it is.

Sentient Blade
Posted - 2011.04.02 23:35:00 - [16]
 

The many can screw the few because assets in EvE (supposedly far advanced and in the distant future) are lacking in the kind of security controls you'd expect even a drunken car park attendant to have mastered...

"Uh... sorry mate, but I can't let you take out ALL the ships without a note from the boss"

A 10 year old could design a better security policy than the supposedly advanced mega-corporations have available to them in game. Basic things, like throttles, multi-person confirmation, and don't even get me started on POS setup.

Yes, some people are douchebags who would happily screw players out of their enjoyment and not give a damn what happens to them after, but more often than not they can only do it because of feeble internal game mechanics.

"Uh, hey CONCORD... just to let you know, we don't want you to allow our corp to shoot each other"

So on and so forth.

Antihrist Pripravnik
Scorpion Road Industry
Posted - 2011.04.03 01:41:00 - [17]
 

Originally by: Max Godsnottlingson

The question is; should it be?

Or, should there be some level of safeguard in place to try to protect the bulk of the players from the actions of a single player?



Both.

Shar Tegral
Posted - 2011.04.03 02:04:00 - [18]
 

Hiya Max,
Originally by: Max Godsnottlingson
But I do know that it is something that left a very bitter taste in many players mouths as they came to terms with all their efforts being for nothing in the long run.
I can honestly say the BOB thing left a foul taste in my mouth and I wasn't even remotely connected to BOB.

I'm gonna be honest, there were a few people in BOB I could not stand. As for BOB, didn't have any particular like for them or any use either. Generally to damned arrogant to act intelligently most of the time. I, like many others, look forward to their day of defeat. But... well... emasculating them in such an ignominious manner?

The fact that certain game mechanics that are so apparently flawed, that have been so abundantly abused, and nothing has been done to change this?

I mourn not for BOB and their loss. I simply mourn for how lacking the system is and still is. Quite simply there are just some things one doesn't want to know.

This should never have happened.

The Mittani
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2011.04.03 03:31:00 - [19]
 

death2allbob

Tippia
Caldari
Sunshine and Lollipops
Posted - 2011.04.03 03:45:00 - [20]
 

Originally by: Max Godsnottlingson
The question is; should it be?
The answer is: yes.

Arthur Frayn
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Posted - 2011.04.03 03:47:00 - [21]
 

Edited by: Arthur Frayn on 03/04/2011 03:48:52
Originally by: Max Godsnottlingson
Or, should there be some level of safeguard in place to try to protect the bulk of the players from the actions of a single player?


If you want to make a literal conclusion from the video without any form of interpretation, then it also looks like the single player who forced a respawn for all the others on the ground won't be getting one for himself as he was shot in the head outside of his pod. Which means loss of all assets, skills, and even the character itself. As a consequence of his actions, that guy loses years of achievement which translates into real life years he will never get back, and now he has has to re-roll and start from scratch or ragequit.

Seems fair to me... if you interpret that video literally.

Ladie Scarlet
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2011.04.03 08:14:00 - [22]
 

Don't sweat it. Nothing in that video is ever going to happen in-game.


 

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