Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Alizabeth]

I am fine with there being consequences for a character.  Any attempt, however, to apply consequences to a corp or alliance will just be metagamed so hard that (complete the sentence in the dirtiest way imaginable--in your head).
If I gank a Minnie Tribal chief, and I know--ahead of time because CCP has informed me--that this means I will never be allowed to dock at a Minmatar station ever again, I'm cool with that. 

[lallara zhuul]

It is only that if you use a disposable alt for such an act, your main or any character that matters to you will have zero consequence for the players actions.

[Korona]

It is only that if you use a disposable alt for such an act, your main or any character that matters to you will have zero consequence for the players actions.

Some of us would be very happy to get those consequences on the characters that matter.

What happened to Koro, Boma and friends back in the Incursion event days is a good start.

Attack faction actors in highsec, receive appropriate but harsh standing penalties.

It was a sad day at the office when this was undone despite the extensive petition war and IC arguments with Dorgiers demanding the penalties stick (or at the least, give a -10 to the Republic if they insisted on taking away the concord -sec penalty).

[Alizabeth]

It is only that if you use a disposable alt for such an act, your main or any character that matters to you will have zero consequence for the players actions.

Characters matter.  If I murder a Minmatar on Aliza, should my Minmatar alt, in good standing with the Republic (and who is not even in GSF) receive consequences?
Make killing these actors difficult, something that a dozen catalysts won't kill.  Make it require the damage of a dozen Taloses.  Then, we're talking some actual time investment, not just a throwaway character, and ISK investment.  (Yes, GSF is rich.  We put in a lot of time per month, three or four hours at the least emptying our tech moons.  Don't be hatin'!)

[Katrina Oniseki]

I am fine with there being consequences for a character.  Any attempt, however, to apply consequences to a corp or alliance will just be metagamed so hard that (complete the sentence in the dirtiest way imaginable--in your head).

Are you suggesting your alliance might suffer negative consequences from metagaming, and thus you don't want the feature in the game? I certainly hope that is not the case, considering Goonswarm is one of the most infamous users of metagaming to destroy other alliances.

Or are you suggesting that you all would not be subject to the consequences because of your clever use of metagaming? In which case... you're rejecting a feature because it wouldn't apply to you? Seems odd.

[Alizabeth]

I'm saying GSF would metagame around it.
Not only that, but it would be possible to metagame another alliance into taking the fall for this stuff:
Goons make alts.  Goons join say I-Red (hypothetical) and then gank some Caldari actor.  Now, I-Red as an alliance can never dock in Caldari space again? 
(Wait, I think I just came up with something . . . )

[Ciarente]

I'm saying GSF would metagame around it.
Not only that, but it would be possible to metagame another alliance into taking the fall for this stuff:
Goons make alts.  Goons join say I-Red (hypothetical) and then gank some Caldari actor.  Now, I-Red as an alliance can never dock in Caldari space again? 
(Wait, I think I just came up with something . . . )

 Kat did not suggest permanent banning from docking, but corporation and alliance security standings.

[Alizabeth]

I'm saying GSF would metagame around it.
Not only that, but it would be possible to metagame another alliance into taking the fall for this stuff:
Goons make alts.  Goons join say I-Red (hypothetical) and then gank some Caldari actor.  Now, I-Red as an alliance can never dock in Caldari space again? 
(Wait, I think I just came up with something . . . )

 Kat did not suggest permanent banning from docking, but corporation and alliance security standings.

I know.    I just picked the worst case scenario that had been mentioned. 

[Ciarente]

By you. Inventing a proposal in order to apply a reductio ad absurdum argument against it in order to justify your opinion is called 'straw-manning'. Even when not used to deliberately troll, it contributes nothing to a discussion and certainly doesn't strengthen the case it's intended to support.

[Matoko]

R.e. corp rep blitz; That's what limited and full API keys are for. Send the key to the interviewer or CEO (and only one or the other). Interview and background check over, generate a new API, and you're on your way. Adopt a little of the meta into the RP game.

Plus, if corp standings are character derived (as suggested by Kat; forgive me for it is late/early and my brain is not processing fully), one way to repair standings would be to fire "problem" employees. You can't completely guard against it, of course. Just like you can't completely guard against other forms of attack. That is, really, more or less the risk you take with big corporations and alliances.

Couple that with having actors or important NPC VIPs wander around in battleship or capital-class vessels (another nifty idea; I'd love to see a proper fleet formation in game one day), and you're talking weeks to months of training time for a cutout alt. Obviously not all events will be like this. Nor should they, to be honest. The option for the actor being killed should be considered. Heck, even if they handwavium it into "they punched out in an escape pod, and were rescued by the defending fleet," the event was still there. The killmail is still there. And maybe what the defenders were hoping for still happens too.

There's possibility for stuff to happen. There just need to be better tools. Like NPCs giving a shit if some null-sec corp keeps fucking up their shit. But that's just my world-consistency side talking.

[Katrina Oniseki]

I'm saying GSF would metagame around it.
Not only that, but it would be possible to metagame another alliance into taking the fall for this stuff:
Goons make alts.  Goons join say I-Red (hypothetical) and then gank some Caldari actor.  Now, I-Red as an alliance can never dock in Caldari space again? 
(Wait, I think I just came up with something . . . )

Ganking dev actors has nothing to do with my suggestion at all, Isis. Please re-read it.

Secondly, we'd probably end up with negative sec status as an alliance anyways, as most members in most of our corps can't enter high-sec. RDC is probably the only corp with majority positive sec status, and that too is changing. Low-sec fighting takes a toll. In other words, you wouldn't achieve much by 'infiltrating us' to ruin our sec status... since it's already ruined.

[Alizabeth]

By you. Inventing a proposal in order to apply a reductio ad absurdum argument against it in order to justify your opinion is called 'straw-manning'. Even when not used to deliberately troll, it contributes nothing to a discussion and certainly doesn't strengthen the case it's intended to support.

I have 4 threads over this particular subject going on.  Plus numerous debates in game.  I did not suggest this to begin with, I assure you. 

"The consequences of trying to kill heads of state in high sec on a peaceful mission would be immediate and permanent CONCORD KOS in highsec for the rest of eternity for the offending pilots and their organizations." -Silas Vitalia, Eve Online Forums

"Lets say they are and you killed a Tribal delegate, you would expect your corp/alliance to instantly be set -10 by the republic and docking rights removed in all republic stations." -Radgette Eve Online Forums

"Correct right now there is 0 penalty for attacking NPC actors. If you want to kill them that's super fine, but don't expect to ever dock in one of their stations or use their stargates ever again." -Silas Vitalia, Eve Online Forums

" After a proper debate in CCP to make sure it is fair and appropriate, alliances should be set to -10 or +10 or whatever, based off of their actions. And no amount of mission running should change that. And docking in stations of said faction should be impossible, and be a "shoot on sight target", etc."  -Sepherim, Eve Online Forums

I'd like an apology for accusing me of fabricating a strawman argument and faulty logic.  You may think me just some dumb Goon.  I do, however, have a BS degree in PoliSci with a focus on law and am well versed in formal logic.

I'm saying GSF would metagame around it.
Not only that, but it would be possible to metagame another alliance into taking the fall for this stuff:
Goons make alts.  Goons join say I-Red (hypothetical) and then gank some Caldari actor.  Now, I-Red as an alliance can never dock in Caldari space again? 
(Wait, I think I just came up with something . . . )

Ganking dev actors has nothing to do with my suggestion at all, Isis. Please re-read it.

Secondly, we'd probably end up with negative sec status as an alliance anyways, as most members in most of our corps can't enter high-sec. RDC is probably the only corp with majority positive sec status, and that too is changing. Low-sec fighting takes a toll. In other words, you wouldn't achieve much by 'infiltrating us' to ruin our sec status... since it's already ruined.

Apologies of getting ahead of the debate.  However, oddly enough, pretty much every Goon has 5.0 sec status-as a benefit of living in null.  Not only that, but in null going from -5.0 to +2 only takes a few hours. 

Again, though, any attempt to punish a corp or alliance for a player action will be metagamed around.  It will wind up hurting RPers more than anyone else, since they (we?) seem to hate the metagame.

R.e. corp rep blitz; That's what limited and full API keys are for. Send the key to the interviewer or CEO (and only one or the other). Interview and background check over, generate a new API, and you're on your way. Adopt a little of the meta into the RP game.

I laughed when I read this.  Most null sec alliances have security much tighter than this and spies still get in.  A bit of advice.  Always make them give your their full API for all accounts.  If they are a corp director or CEO, a corp API as well.  Keep this on file (make sure it was set to no expiration).  Every month pick some random employees for background checks.  And that is just to start with.  The rest of the stuff, I can't really go into.

[Ciarente]

You're right. I should have said introducing a proposal, since it certainly wasn't part of this discussion, in order to apply a reductio ad absurdum argument against it in order to justify your opinion is called 'straw-manning'.

[kalaratiri]

I have 4 threads over this particular subject going on.  Plus numerous debates in game.  I did not suggest this to begin with, I assure you. 

This could well be the problem. A debate is good and all, but people rapidly start losing interest and start getting irritated when you bring it up over and over and over again. Maybe try and centralise your posting a bit?

[Alizabeth]

I have 4 threads over this particular subject going on.  Plus numerous debates in game.  I did not suggest this to begin with, I assure you. 

This could well be the problem. A debate is good and all, but people rapidly start losing interest and start getting irritated when you bring it up over and over and over again. Maybe try and centralise your posting a bit?

There is this forum, Goonfleet.com, Live Events and the IGS (which is really more lulz).  Plus TMC.com jabber, plus my ooc channel.  All of them are looking at slightly different aspects.