This man gets it!!!
Yes, this man gets it!
We need to nerf the freedom of making mistakes, to protect the victims!
1 Like
There is plenty of room for mistakes in all areas of EVE, but when it comes to managing the assets and ISK of an entire alliance, i would like to have some security features in place that stop a disgruntled higher-up from transferring all assets, ISK and control with a few mouse clicks.
There is grandular access. You can assign roles. In CO2’s case, judge was a director. It just so happens that he was the highest level. You don’t need directors though. You could assign limited roles and such. Limit hanagar access to only one hangar and do it the hard way. Director is just the easy way to grant access and people tend to use the easy path.
Two man rule is useless as in many cases, all people would do is make someone have 2 accounts. People are given rolls to accomplish tasks and to delegate responsibility. Requiring two people would just mean people would be lazy amd give access to a character and an alt and nothing would change.
Votes? You need to understand how votes work. Each share is given A vote. A vote requires the majority of votes cast to determine a winner. However, if only one vote is cast, that vote wins. So to use votes, you have to give people shares amd you open yourself up to losing it all because anyone with shares can initiate a vote.
The reality is, all the mechanics you want exist. People just tend to not use them or they open people up to other problems. And the truth is, you need help to run a big corp. And there is always a chance your help will betray you. This is why you also have to work to keep your underlings happy. And here’s the kicker… Id Gigx had been paying attention to the judges mood, had been being a good CEO and listening, the judge would have been happy, and none of this would have happened.
What you’d like, though, is irrelevant. You’re not a top level diplomat, who had enough of his shitty leader being a shitty asshole. There is no need for protection, just stop following .poop: and don’t put all your stuff where it’s not safe.
In two weeks, this incident will barely be talked about anymore. you want a significant nerf to freedom, just because a 
got what he deserved, with you being those who followed that . what happened here was natural selection. He deserved it. You deserved it for following him. He also deserved it, because he trusted someone he didn’t know irl. When you run an alliance like that, and act like , then you deserve what’s coming.
Yes it is! If you’ve seen the “Red wedding” then you already know that. One betrayal and an entire war was prevented. 
We just get more of these weddings in EVE which makes it awesome!
Hey look, Drac calling for more risk free play in null and calling anyone who disagrees a troll. How many threads have we seen this in before?
2 Likes
I feel bad, because of my post. the last part of his seemed so happy.
Well technically speaking I was calling for more PvP explosions rather than the abortion of content that it turned into. But don’t let a good whine about me get in the way of that fact…
That is because I don’t give a flying feck what you lot think of me, that was more of an an info thing that from 10th October you will not see me on the forums at all, though I will still be doing CTA’s and ticking over the Indy for my PvP.
CCP won’t change this at all, but people can of course express an opinion on it, pointing out that people who fought CO2 and enjoyed that content and regretted the abortion it turned into seems to have enraged a few of the more troll like posters when mentioned by me, what a pity, not!
nevermind… it’s not worth it.
You’re saying betrayal is a bad thing in EVE. That’s calling for less content. Right now thanks to the CO2 situation that entire group now has to fight to get back what it lost. That’s a huge amount of content that was just generated. You should be thanking bob that betrayal happens due to all the content it creates.
It’s so unbelievably sad how much you are against what makes Eve unique. Why do you even play this game?
How often do alliance shattering heists take place? Isn’t this like the 2nd one in the history of the game? The concept of someone stealing everything that’s not nailed down is working as intended by CCP.
1 Like
And another conflict just takes it’s place. No, I don’t think betrayal is to powerful.
Also the last event of this scale where… BOB? It’s not like such things happen on a monthly basis.
1 Like
You mean the structures grinding it resulted in for TEST and co? Hate to tell you this but this didn’t create any meaningful content for anyone. Meanwhile the remnants of CO2 are not fighting anybody, those who have not decided to throw in the towel are now looking for new corps/alliances to join. Ya, thank BOB for this content and spike in player activity!
Seriously dude, where did you pull that idea from that this has created content? These betrayals have never resulted in anything but quick grabs for space and structures grinds. Far less content than would have been generated from a prolonged war with fights over said structures grinds which would have at least had a chance of being contested and generate… actual content.
As for the idea of betrayals within the game. Nothing really needs to be done directly. However, what does need to happen is something CCP has put off for years and that is expanding upon corp and alliance level roles and permissions. The fact that this game is so horribly binary in roles is what allows for so much power to fall into the lap of a single person.
Corps/Alliances should be able to set themselves up however they desire and the roles and mechanics within the game should be designed to allow such variance.
Related example as to transferring of structures.
Current:
Person initiates transfer of structures. Transfer goes through.
Possible control:
CEO should be able to set the requirements that need to be met to perform specific vital actions. From no change to what we have now, to requiring CEO permission to complete, to requiring a majority vote from directors.
Simple structure mechanics example:
Current:
The role that allows for anchoring also gives you the role to take down and chance ACL.
Possible:
Make each anchor/unanchor/ACL be toggles within an individual role! This role in particular is held tight because of what power it gives with no way or reigning it in.
Example for roles involving wallet access.
Current:
You have access or you don’t.
Possible:
Allow access to wallets with a specific withdraw cap for day/week/month.
Currently the only way to mimic this requires you do dump funds into a second wallet division to the amount you want them to have access. But this doesn’t help when a CEO/director with greater roles needs to be gone for an extended time and things come to a grinding halt because of it.
Meanwhile in the real world businesses a single director can never just decide to sell or transfer all assets without board approval, or however that business is set up. We have no way to mimic this.
Businesses issue CCs with spending caps or automated stipends to their employees to manage without literally giving them access to all corporations funds. Again we have no way to mimic this without manually dulling out funds into separate wallet divisions which falls apart the moment a CEO or directors need to step away for real life events.
In short, what we horribly need within this game is to have more control over what certain roles allow for as well as a way to set up automated corp-level features. Such as refilling a wallet division each day at server reset etc. That alone would put a stop to most of these grand thefts that leave us all wondering how the hell a single person got so much power when the answer is obvious. Director allows for everything and a CEO has no way of restricting access or requiring permission or a vote to occur before carrying out such acts. I mean, aside from the old locked assets in stations which doesn’t even exist within citadels! So now your only real option to protect assets is to not grant director to anyone for the
very real reality that they can literally take everything in a matter of seconds.
TL; DR - Corp roles need layers such that they are not so binary in what they allow a member to do! A role may be needed to accomplish X but is tied to YZ which can be detrimental to a corp or alliance. A task within game may be simple but is tied directly to another ability which a CEO may want to grant approval before allowing it to continue (unanchoring/wallet transaction over XXX amount/etc). CCP has been promising to revamp corp roles, I believe the time has come that they stop putting that off and make it a top priority.
1 Like
Nasar,
This did create content. For people who enjoy being in that part of space. If someone quits a corp or alliance because they don’t want to help build it or keep it going, they shouldn’t be in a corp or alliance that holds player owned structures.
When did people decide they don’t want any risk in EVE? Everything you described can be done by players. Corps are built on trusting your corp mates, especially leadership. If that’s not something that’s interesting, there are plenty of places to live that have NPC stations.
Yes, everything I described is something that can be done by players within a corp. But the problem is they’re all tied to a very few select roles which grant abilities up and over what any sane CEO would want to place on others so freely. There are varying levels of trust, but when it comes to roles in EVE it is very binary and doesn’t allow for any varying degree of access/power.
And lets get one thing straight, the members of CO2 didn’t quit because they didn’t want to rebuild or fight for what they had. They had the ability to fight for, and most of what they had TO fight for, ripped out from under them by a single person. They were fighting every day until then, at which point their assets were locked away and they had no way to fight. You’re making it sound like CO2 just rolled over and gave up because they got tired of fighting which is not remotely true.
2 Likes
If someone quits CO2 because of what happened, that’s the definition of rolling over and giving up.
Don’t fly what you can’t afford to lose, don’t keep what you can’t afford to recover from losing in player stations. If people had so much of their assets permanently lost because of this, they learned a lesson on not keeping too much in player controlled space.
When it comes to roles it is binary, and should be, especially in null and WHs. If you as CEO give someone access to your corp, you better trust them enough.
This did create content. If you lose your home, take your main ISK/ship stockpile and start resupplying as close to what you lost as you can. Start trying to build up again. That’s about as much content as anyone can ask for.
I get it, people are frustrated because it’s not the content they wanted. People wanted to log in, get in a fight, and get back to their home systems. That’s the problem, you’re not living in NPC space, part of that is the danger of living 100% with other players. If people don’t like that, finding a corp with NPC stations for asset safety isn’t hard.
1 Like
What if it would have been Gigx instead of The Judge? What if Gigx had decided he had enough and made off with everything? All the hard work that The Judge put into the alliance - gone! All the assets and ISK that thousands of his followers had stored up - gone!
Would you still be crying if it was a CEO of an executor corp that decided to do this?
3 Likes
The trouble with focusing on the recurrent evils of freedom is that one can lose sight of the only alternative, which is tyranny.
Nobody made the CO2 folks gang together like a swarm of obedient creatures. They chose to do that. Everyone in CO2, or in any other hierarchical power structure in new eden, is choosing to be part of a hive mind. Possibly the trade off is that they feel the warm thrill of power by belonging to a large group. Possibly being told what to do by other folks is not as offensive to this group of folks as it would be to more individually minded folks.
Regardless, everything we have learned about gigx and the judge indicates that these folks were part of a culture that embraced power over other players, rather than power sharing between players.
What can be more fitting and just, than that they should tear each other to pieces in a display of power?
Large corporations should collapse and die. If they do not, tyranny is confirmed.
Show me the institution that has endured without tyranny.
1 Like