Internet Spaceships Super Drama

By Jim Rossignol on February 5th, 2009 at 11:38 am.


In what is probably the biggest backstab in Eve Online’s rather stabby history, a director of one of the key corporations in key PvP alliance Band Of Brothers has turned out to be an agent of their biggest enemies, the Something Awful spawned GoonSwarm. The consequence of this is some huge in-game material losses, but also the disbanding of the alliance itself. This means that the sovereignty game mechanic which holds Band Of Brother’s galactic empire together has gone offline, leaving them horrendously exposed to attack. Worse, Goonswarm have stolen the name and ticker of an alliance that has been running for almost five years.


GoonSwarm director The Mittani has had the pleasure of disbanding his enemies, reportedly thanks to access granted via a disillusioned BoB player turncoating to the Goon side. After deciding to backstab his former chums the BoB director was able to get to the controls and kick out the member corporations, and a steal a huge stack of capital ships and cash. Spying like this does not involve illegal activities such as hacking accounts, it’s purely down to players lying, and is therefore a valid tactic within the game.

This event is now the most significant coup in Eve history, not because of the money lost, but because the disbanding of an alliance means that all its defensive infrastructure lies exposed. Without alliance ownership various system-access jammers, jumpbridges between systems and other vital machinery of Eve’s alliance mega-game are put offline. It’s a titanic victory for the Goons, who had often quoted griefing Band Of Brothers as one of their core goals. The catastrophic effect this has means that BoB’s empire is now totally exposed to attack from its enemies, and Goon fleets are reportedly already at the heart of the former BoB stronghold.

While this is indeed an impressive work of infiltration and an amazing betrayal of trust, and wholly in the spirit of Eve, I can’t help feeling sad for the thousands of players who put so much into that alliance, only to have it taken away by a single person. Theft of the name itself is, indeed, a painful thing. In some ways it proves what an astonishingly clever space of possibilities Eve provides for this kind of meta-gaming, and in others: what a total bastard.

(Thanks to the two dozen people who mailed me this morning.)

.

226 Comments »

Sponsored links by Taboola
  1. Anonononomous says:

    Why are so many of you blaming Goonswarm when they just accepted the disillusioned BoB leader? If he wanted to leave he could have gone anywhere. He just chose to go to Goonswarm. It’s not the US’s fault that Captain Ramius stole the Red October.

  2. pepper says:

    Doesnt surprise me, this is the way the goons operate, therefore they must be smashed down may the first signs of there appearance arrive in any game.

  3. Grandstone says:

    Guys, guys, guys, the Roman Empire just fell. The Dark Ages might have sucked, what with the holy wars, the plagues, and the endless, meaningless conflict over tiny tracts of land, but they sucked because people really suffered and really died. This is a game, and warring over the remnants is going to be fun. We even have the Byzantines–Bob still technically exists.

    My only problem with what happened is that, as far as I know, you can mark out a particular space as owned by GoonSwarm. It’s an empire that wants to abolish empires. We’ll see how that works out for them now that people know how to destroy an alliance. I suspect they’ll go out like Bob did, after a little more difficulty. Goons have dedicated internet detectives, and they won’t trust easily.

  4. jalf says:

    Eve Radio rocks. I should tune in from time to time even though I’m no longer subscribed to the game. They also play some great music from time to time. :)

    By the way, it’s probably worth mentioning that as harsh and unfair as this seems to the outsider, it really is not all that unique. It has happened before, it will happen again. Abusing people’s trust is a well-known and accepted form of warfare in Eve. It’s the rules of the game. CCP knows this, and *every* player involved in PvP on this level knows it. No, this has not caused a significant number of people to quit. To the vast majority, it’s a spectacular example of “business as usual”. The goons are not heroes, no, but they’re certainly not villains either. They’re simply playing the game. They were faced with a once-in-a-lifetime chance, and they took it. And they won their war. That’s not good or bad. It’s just “well duh, what else should they have done?”
    In most Eve-players’ eyes, they haven’t cheated. They haven’t even violated the spirit of the game. They’ve been real bastards, but this isn’t WoW. To survive more than a week on the level they’re playing, being a bastard goes without saying. BoB were bastards too. That’s to be expected (and respected, if not loved)

    As far as calling them griefers, I’m not convinced. SomethingAwful in general, yes, of course. That goes without saying. But the Eve “detachment” specifically? It seems to me they’ve invested too much in the game to be labelled “just griefers”. They’re playing the game as much as BoB is/was. It may have started out as “just griefing”, but to me they look more like an alliance who wants to “win” at the game, in the exact same way that BoB did, and the alliances that dominated before BoB beat them into oblivion.

    This is exactly the reason why people play Eve. It’s never fun to lose so much, but when the stakes are high, it certainly becomes more interesting.

    Sooner or later they’ll splinter, they always do. But until then, I suggest EVE players welcome their new GOON overlords.

    Just as they accepted their BoB overlords until now.

  5. pepper says:

    The only ways the goons can be braught down is by either dividing them and then smash them into bits or wait untill they get bored.

  6. Grandstone says:

    jalf makes a good point about GoonSwarm merely griefing. They might have started out wanting to screw up the system, but is it such a bad thing to promote communication between entry-level players and to democratize the game a little (admittedly starting within a clique of SA members)? Have I misunderstood the way GoonSwarms work?

  7. KP says:

    It’s too bad EVE is such a boring clunky piece of shit. The metagame is amazing. I love hearing about Goonfleet’s intelegence organization. What other games can you do that in!?

  8. Duoae says:

    @no…. and yet some guy who was previously trusted for a couple of years can suddenly get bored and turn around and do what’s been reported….. There’s no protection against that. No one is 100% trustable when they gain nothing from the situation and face no consequences for their actions.

    Like was said above, there are rules to prevent the US or NATO from being disbanded…. because even if one person decides to leave they could never make the whole thing fall apart. Why isn’t there something like that in EVE? Seems like a major lack of foresight on the developers part rather than the players.

  9. jalf says:

    How is it a lack of foresight on the developers part, and not BoB’s? If NATO had written in their charter “Oh, and the general secretary can, at his discretion, disband the entire thing. So can his secretary, the security council, and the head of any member nation”, that would be NATO’s own fault, and not a problem with the rules of the universe. I believe that Eve’s system requires *one* person to have access to everything, and not more than that (I’ve never run an alliance, so not sure if even that is neccesary). Everyone else are given the specific privileges that the leaders decide. I agree that it’s risky for the game to require that any one person is able to disband everything, but that wasn’t the problem here. This wasn’t the founder quitting. This was someone whom BoB has actually given privileges to do everything he did. So the real question is “why the hell did BoB grant him, or anyone else, the permissions to do this?”
    The developers have provided the tools to ensure that only 1 person has the ability to disband an alliance. Perhaps that number should be 0 instead (making such decision possible only through a vote). But as it is now, I believe the minimum number is 1. One person must be able to disband the alliance. More people can be given the permission to do it, but that is not required by the game. So if BoB decided to grant that permission to more members than necessary, then it is their own problem. They, not CCP screwed up.

  10. Jubaal says:

    It’s certainly an interesting story, but not one that brings a smile to my face. I’m more disappointed by people’s reactions than the act itself. I think it is a sad indictment of our society how may people think this is “awesome”. To celebrate the petty actions of how one man has wrecked what hundreds of people have strived to build up over a number of years just doesn’t seem right to me. It seems like one more deluded individual trying to make a name for them self in our celebrity culture, where fame is perceived as being on a far higher pedestal than being a decent human being.

    Don’t get me wrong I like the fact that EvE is dark and edgy and I wouldn’t want the rules to change. That great freedom allows the game to work in a unique and exciting way, I just don’t like some of the consequences, but I accept them. François-Marie Arouet said it best “I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it”.

  11. Duoae says:

    @ Jalf – the fact that the programme has limitations on what the users can do as opposed to having free reign as in real life.

    The way the game works (as far as i understand it) there will always have to be at least one person who has access to ‘supreme power’ over an alliance or corp. Now, in a highly structured game environment that’s okay as long as the actions of that person do not adversly affect those playing with or under them…. but since EVE is so similar to real life you need to be able to say, this alliance is a council of corporations. It may be founded by 3 corps but now there are 29 in the alliance the original three can’t just disband the alliance – it is no longer just theirs.

    This is the reason why saying things like ‘it can happen in the real world so it’s great that it can happen in EVE’…. it’s an exploit. In the real world the users can address these problems when they arise and generally these types of problems are limited in the extent of the damage caused. In the real world, the dissolution of an alliance would result in sections of the alliance and alliance hardware and installations falling under local govern/ownership for a short time while things got sorted out – they wouldn’t just get turned off.

    The lack of foresight on the developers part is that they didn’t include the tools for users to avoid this very situation. There is always going to be one person in charge – one person whose account can be hacked, one person who can get bored and just rage quit, taking every imaginary thing down with his defunct account. That is the oversight…. are you disputing this point? Like i said, under this system there is no protection against one man going AWOL or whatever…. NATO, and other governing bodies and corporations etc. have failsafes against this very thing.

  12. Saul says:

    This is what computer games should be. Congratulations EVE.

  13. Bobby says:

    This is the reason why saying things like ‘it can happen in the real world so it’s great that it can happen in EVE’…. it’s an exploit. In the real world the users can address these problems when they arise and generally these types of problems are limited in the extent of the damage caused. In the real world, the dissolution of an alliance would result in sections of the alliance and alliance hardware and installations falling under local govern/ownership for a short time while things got sorted out – they wouldn’t just get turned off.

    That doesn’t make it an exploit. That merely means the real world’s rules are different from the game’s rules.

    Listening to Eve Radio right now this certainly seems to be perceived as one of the most interesting things happening in EVE lately.

  14. Aftershock says:

    As soon as the Goons start to splinter and break up, or dwindle in power, i’m starting EVE.
    I’ve always wanted to , but not having any money and the fact that there is a massively powerful corporation out there with the stated aim of griefing turns me off..

  15. Matt says:

    So, let me see if I can’t boil this down…

    One of the most massively shocking in-game events that could take place has – A traitor has taken down an empire. What a freaking awsome turn of events. But instead of this being a a shining achievement that should be held up as an example of what makes the game great, it’s a tragedy. No rules were broken. But this must mean that the rules are flawed, because this is event obviously illegitimate. But why is this event obviously illegitimate? Because the daggermen have a reputation for not taking their role-playing as seriously as they should.

    This is why I stick to single-player games.

  16. Anonymous says:

    @Swift Voyager

    BoB says that the ragequitting director did not actually ragequit but was hacked. No idea if they’re trying to save face on the forums by spreading false information or if they’re actively trying to trick an ignorant GM into listening to their petition, but there is just way too much evidence to the contrary to make their story seriously. Besides, the turncoat is in Goonfleet now.

  17. Rufus T. Firefly says:

    Holy shit, I am going to have to re-up just so that I can change my ticker from LWTAX to BOB and back again.

  18. whitebrice says:

    Man, you gentlemen have a lot of hatred for the forum goons, but I have to say, moments like these make me proud to be a goon. As for those who think Goonswarm only wants to grief BoB, hey, BoB started this with their Jihad. You really think BoB wouldn’t have done the same given the chance?

  19. Erlam says:

    I predict GoonSquad folds in the next two weeks.

  20. Klaus says:

    I think it is a sad indictment of our society how may people think this is “awesome”. To celebrate the petty actions of how one man has wrecked what hundreds of people have strived to build up over a number of years just doesn’t seem right to me.

    I think it’s awesome because it shows ingenuity. Regardless of whom did it for what reasons, I would find this awesome. I like the fact the one person can utterly wreck the work of hundreds or thousands of others. It’s inspiring.

  21. Anonymous says:

    The disbanding was not an ‘I win’ button. Do you have any idea how long it took Goonfleet to demoralize BoB until one of their top level directors finally decided to leave them and join Goonfleet?

    Most alliances will never have to worry about this, and the ones that do are probably awful anyway…why would you treat one of your own directors like shit to the point where he decides to not simply ragequit but also take down his entire alliance with it?

  22. Neil says:

    I think it’s awesome because it shows ingenuity. Regardless of whom did it for what reasons, I would find this awesome. I like the fact the one person can utterly wreck the work of hundreds or thousands of others. It’s inspiring.

    That would be fine if there were some way to defend against it, but there simply isn’t. In this game, you’re forced to rely on people you don’t really know to enjoy the game properly. You can do everything perfect with the information you have and still be utterly fucked. Since when is that good game design? Sure, it may make for interesting stories, but that in itself is not a sign of good game design.

  23. RhoSquadBestSquad says:

    I had a chance to discuss this with Haargoth last night in IRC and what it boils down to is that when he joined BOB, he was treated like a worm unworthy of the attention of the older members. When he joined OHGOD(Goonswarm), he was treated with appreciation, enthusiasm, and friendliness – all of that while everyone figured he was just some silly newbie who didn’t know Veld from Ark.

    You want to pity the thousands of players who spent time building that alliance? Don’t – they got exactly what they deserved.

  24. Jeremy says:

    There is a way to defend against.. don’t be a bad manager. These are corporations essentially, but with anonymity of the internet and no ethical ramifications, so you have to know who to trust, especially when you are enemies of the Goonswarm. It absolutely is survival of the fittest and people think it’s unfair? It’s a game and the point of the game is built from the context of those playing it, if you’re not prepared for everything, then you deserve to lose.

  25. SofS says:

    So the upshot of all of this is that the Goons are now the ones to beat and will have to defend what they’ve won or leave it behind, eh? That’s a funny turn of fortune.

  26. Lysenko says:

    I find it interesting that people are so upset by the introduction of an ancient aspect of warfare into a game that is at its heart about total war between states (and for all intents and purposes corporations in EVE are states, in the political science sense). History is full of examples of traitors who crippled and destroyed states and empires (Brutus and Co., Talleyrand), as is popular science fiction (Dr. Yue, Count and Gaius Baltar). It’s an integral aspect one of the main parts of the game, and that it’s evolved naturally rather than being codified in the forms of an in-game mechanic speaks to how well EVE has worked as a simulation of large scale conflict, not a problem with the game. As for the argument that “It’s bad because you can’t defend against it”, poppycock. It’s difficult, certainly, but just as there’s a vast body of material to draw from when devising your espionage plans in a game like this, so there’s likewise a vast body of material to draw your counterespionage plans from. Neglecting this aspect of warfare is short-sighted, and the attitude that “gentlemen don’t read each other’s mail” is going to be about as successful in game as it was in real-life.

  27. Neil says:

    That’s another game design fallacy – that successful emulation of real life is inherently good game design.

  28. marilena says:

    For me, the main question is – would you play a game where you can work 2 years on something, then see it go up in smoke?

    I wouldn’t. I don’t even care if what causes the loss is cool (super-battle) or retarded (deception). I just won’t play for these odds. At least in games like Travian servers get rebooted at regular intervals. But losing so much in a continuous, always moving, never ending game? I understand why some people enjoy it, but I wouldn’t, myself.

    Also, can anyone name recall an EVE story where someone was beaten in an awesome battle? It seems all the EVE stories are about deception, which I find rather crappy.

  29. huhaaa says:

    Classy move by (former) BoB: http://myeve.eve-online.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=991506

    I’m glad they have the strength to accept it and move forward.

  30. Paxeh says:

    What else should SirMolle do? He’s already with his pants down.

    Somehow this seems rather ironic: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hhcD10bqC74

  31. Bobby says:

    would you play a game where you can work
    Stop right there! That’s the problem! if it’s work and not fun there’s a problem. However, if the whole giga-alliance building was fun then rebuilding’s gonna be fun too.

  32. Bobby says:

    Whoops, that first line was a quote, looks like I didn’t format it correctly.

  33. Rob says:

    @marilena

    Also, can anyone name recall an EVE story where someone was beaten in an awesome battle? It seems all the EVE stories are about deception, which I find rather crappy.

    Battle stories are harder to make involving, particularly in a game like EVE where the player interactions are by far the most complex part of the game.

  34. Dinger says:

    so, is this opening of the BoB forums entirely altruistic. Any discussions there about allegations of CCP-BoB collusion. i suppose there wouldn’t be. Still, I’m sure there’s yet another good story in there, and this is but chapter 1.

  35. foop says:

    Jesus, I stop playing EvE for a week to finally play Far Cry 2 and this happens.

    I’m no BoB fan but I’d be happier if the Goons weren’t, in my experience, a bunch of complete arseholes. Not in the “oh no, you shot my internet spaceship” sense but in the “hmm, you’re slightly weird and unpleasant” sense. Of course, I haven’t met lots of Goons so, as ever, sweeping generalisations FTL.

  36. kenoxite says:

    Why the whines? That’s is EvE. Play it with all the consequences or just don’t. As I do.

  37. jalf says:

    That would be fine if there were some way to defend against it, but there simply isn’t. In this game, you’re forced to rely on people you don’t really know to enjoy the game properly. You can do everything perfect with the information you have and still be utterly fucked

    Once again, there is a way to defend against it. Don’t give members access to the killswitch. I’ll agree that as far as I know, there is one flaw in the system. The founder automatically has full access. That may be a problem, but that wasn’t the problem which was exploited here. Here, someone was *given* access to do pretty much anything with the alliance. BoB was not forced by the game mechanics to give him, or anyone else, access to this. But they did.

    @Duoae: The way the game works (as far as i understand it) there will always have to be at least one person who has access to ’supreme power’ over an alliance or corp. Now, in a highly structured game environment that’s okay as long as the actions of that person do not adversly affect those playing with or under them…. but since EVE is so similar to real life you need to be able to say, this alliance is a council of corporations. It may be founded by 3 corps but now there are 29 in the alliance the original three can’t just disband the alliance – it is no longer just theirs.

    Again, I agree, it’s a problem if at least one person has to have supreme power. But once again, while that may hypothetically be a problem, that was not what caused *THIS*. This was caused by BoB giving out privileges that they did not have to give out to anyone but that one trusted person. But they chose to let multiple people get access to the “kick corps out of the alliance” button.

    In the real world, the dissolution of an alliance would result in sections of the alliance and alliance hardware and installations falling under local govern/ownership for a short time while things got sorted out – they wouldn’t just get turned off.

    Not if the alliance is able to order them turned off *before* disbanding the alliance. Then they’ll be turned off until someone gets around to reactivating them.

    The lack of foresight on the developers part is that they didn’t include the tools for users to avoid this very situation. There is always going to be one person in charge – one person whose account can be hacked, one person who can get bored and just rage quit, taking every imaginary thing down with his defunct account. That is the oversight…. are you disputing this point?

    No, I’m disputing its relevance. I agree, if that happened, it’d suck for everyone involved. But since it was not that one person who betrayed them, I fail to see what it has to do with this event. In this case, the problem was not “CCP requires us to give full access to this guy who can’t be trusted”. It was BoB deciding, of their own free will, that “hey, I know it’s not required, but why don’t we give *all* our directors access to disbanding the alliance?”

    And THAT could have been prevented.

    Once again, you’re mixing together two separate issues. One is that it is certainly a weakness if one person is required to have full access. But another, which has nothing to do with this, is that an alliance who chooses to give full access to *more* than this one person, have screwed up big time.

    Also, can anyone name recall an EVE story where someone was beaten in an awesome battle? It seems all the EVE stories are about deception, which I find rather crappy.

    yes, there are plenty. But they don’t get much attention outside the Eve community, because they don’t stand out. There are people winning battles in WoW too. Eve’s might be bigger, but it’s still just a battle. A WoW player doesn’t care about that. But something like this certainly gets his attention ,because it’s so different from what he gets in his MMO of choice.

  38. butsenD says:

    I’m amused by all the sympathisers saying that it’s unfair and a broken mechanic that this could happen.

    It takes away the real human aspect, the way that people want to congregate together – and the way these societies choose to function and treat each other.

    BOB built themselves up valuing high-SP and seniority over most other concerns. The pride in these things meant new members were treated like dirt.
    If this had not been the case, if BOB had built themselves with a more welcoming and friendly attitude towards their OWN MEMBERS – this would not have happened.

    The game mechanic used was simply a means to and end of philosophic expression. There was no long rooted plan to do this, there was no conspiracy to do this. It was a cultural victory, not an abuse of game mechanics.

  39. Catastrophe says:

    One of the top guys of McDonalds realises he prefers Burger King Whoppa’s… logs into McDonalds network and clicks “Disband organisation”.

    Burger King now has no competition.

    Anyone else?

  40. MMORPG Center says:

    While i never liked Goons, i kinda hate them for their childish and wtf behavior, seems like some of them did an amazing job. GG!

  41. Tei says:

    @Catastrophe: He could push a friend the be the main distributor of software for all the company worldwide. Then add a troyan horse on all the computers. The payload could be:
    – Use all the credit cards available of clients, and buy stuff at random with then.
    – Pay giganteous ammounts of money to the people that work for then.
    – Send random “you are fired” checks everywhere.
    – Leak documents with the health risks of McDonalds foods
    – Delete all client data
    – Delete all proveers data
    – Lock all workstations *1
    – Lock all servers *1

    *1 you can force a program called “Stronghold” where everybody is mandatory to store all his passwords.

    If the server room refrigeration is operated by software, you finnaly disable it.
    If the backup system is fully automated, you can delete all backups, or corrupt it.

    If you do this everything at once, maybe will not vanish, but will face seriush problems.

  42. Doc Atari says:

    Eve Online spazzes make WoW dorks look like CoH geeks.

  43. mike says:

    cross-posted from SA:
    <blockquote cite=”Yeah why the hell would anyone want to defect from BoB to Goonswarm?

    There’s a ton of admitted account sharing in their director forums. I wonder if CCP will do anything about it once the forums are made public.

    Edit: They have a weird hardon for executing people commissar style. They actually want to blow up and pod their own members and allies for this shit.

    Don’t have Tech 2 guns? Executed.

    Don’t have BS or T2 ship? Executed.

    Lose your supercap? Executed. “>

  44. mike says:

    damit can’t edit my posts. something went wrong so here it is again:

    Yeah why the hell would anyone want to defect from BoB to Goonswarm?

    begin bob quote——————————————–

    2008-11-13, 21:29 #1
    Coranor
    BNC Member

    Join Date: Jun 2005
    Location: The Pub
    Posts: 832

    Default We’re being nice to people. Why?

    We’re being nice to people.

    When the fuck did we start being nice to people who bring rifters and fucking caracals to our fleets? WHY? Seriously why are we not just shooting these fuckers who’re treating it as a right to fly with us instead of the privilege it should be.We’ve been so afraid to move away from what works for so long that we’re stuck into this retarded blob mentality. Where we put up with shit from the likes of axe and (yes nilie) goodfellas because we need MOAR numbers. I’m sorry but enough is enough. Molle you want us to teach them thats fine. But if they don’t learn they’re getting the fuck out.

    We’re the old fogies stuck in our ways deathly afraid to try new things. Tri and pathetic legion are hoovering up most of the quality players because despite their ridiculous fear of losing they’re not afraid to try new things either. Case in point was the time they covert bridged a load of smartbomb typhoons onto a camping fleet. We never would have done that. Not got the imagination any more the idea never would have popped into our heads because so many of us are so quick to shoot down ideas. Myself included btw.

    RR bs setups, we’ve never tried them on any sort of large scale, its worth a shot especially now that lag is manageable. Interdiction squads of recon ships to kill enemy reinforcements before they get to the fight, why don’t we do that when we’ve seen the sheer amount of shit that its caused us watching idiots getting ganked on the way back by other idiots. We somehow think our idiots are dumber than their idiots and it won’t work? No we’ve become sucked into the blob. Stick everything we have into one. We don’t do this stuff not because we don’t think it’ll work. I don’t honestly know why we don’t do it. We got the people to run these things we just don’t seem to want to make them do it.

    We have been shit lads, not our members, us. We’ve allowed them to turn up in stupid ships and we’ve allowed them to get bored. We’ve allowed our allies to remain shit instead of kicking their leadership up to standards and making them teach their own fucking retards. We’ve allowed them to leach off us instead of growing their own infrastructure, fc’s and identities. We’ve allowed them to continue recruiting players and corps from the forums despite the fact we know the damage its causing them. Above all though we’ve allowed ourselves to get stuck in our ways, become fixated and to lose our grip on the lead in this game. We won the biggest war in eve then we got soft. I’m going to start trying to fix some of these things. Starting with my own corp.

    omfg that was cathartic.

    Ztrain, Disposition of the allies and targets for them in the north. So they can sort their own shit out. Then get them to knock off the recruiting from the forums or we’ll slap them silly.

    Wags nice rant on the evol forums btw. You’re dead right. Just wanted to say that really.

    This is not a rant for the sake of a rant. You all know i couldn’t be arsed typing all this just for the sake of it and you all know that we need to figure out what we want ourselves to be now. This sure as fuck isn’t what i want us to be.

    end bob quote——————————————–

    There’s a ton of admitted account sharing in their director forums. I wonder if CCP will do anything about it once the forums are made public.

    Edit: They have a weird hardon for executing people commissar style. They actually want to blow up and pod their own members and allies for this shit.

    Don’t have Tech 2 guns? Executed.

    Don’t have BS or T2 ship? Executed.

    Lose your supercap? Executed.

  45. some dude says:

    well, its happened, and its a really shitty way to get your back put against the wall. simple though; we will fight them on the pos’s, fight them on the cyno jammers (that dont work lol) and fight them some more.

    no way delve will fall without a huge frigging fight and many many many billions in lost hardware on bothsides.

    screw goonswarm, can see our side giving up.

  46. Kadayi says:

    “That would be fine if there were some way to defend against it, but there simply isn’t. In this game, you’re forced to rely on people you don’t really know to enjoy the game properly. You can do everything perfect with the information you have and still be utterly fucked. Since when is that good game design? Sure, it may make for interesting stories, but that in itself is not a sign of good game design.”

    This.

    Basically contrary to what a lot of people are claiming (rather naively it seems) how the real business world works and how the EVE game space works are entirely different entities. Attempting to drawing parallels as a point of justification in the face of what is quite clearly a case of plain bad game mechanics at work is truly hilarious.

    In real business there is a considerable amount of accountability that occurs from the bottom to the top. Directors and even CEOs are wholly accountable for their actions and beholden to the agreement of other board members on wide reaching decisions. Likewise CEOs can be voted off and out by other members of a board in the event of a vote of no confidence by the board. It’s rare unless a business is wholly privately owned that senior decisions are made without director board approval of some kind. Certainly something as far reaching as the dissolution of an alliance would never be undertaken by a director alone without agreement by other senior members.

    Appointing a person to a directorial position does not and should not mean that their actions are beyond future assessment. A Director should not be in the position of being a dictator.

  47. Bobby says:

    Kadayi> That’s just your opinion, based on our real world, and not the way the game, based on a crazy backstabbing sci-fi world, works. The BoB guys knew the way the game works, and chose to give the eventual turncoat the necessary privileges to spell their doom and then still treat him with enough contempt to trigger this.

    If they didn’t want him in the position of a dictator they shouldn’t have given him the power to disband. But they did give it to him, and have to live with the consequences.

    And the guy’s actions are not beyond future assessment. Despite the disbanding the bob guys have still got the resources to reassemble into a pretty big alliance, and you can bet once they’ve emerged from their current confusion they’re gonna take their revenge.

  48. Dinger says:

    Kadayi: er, “That’s just your opinion” is too validating for my taste. It’s “your unsubstantiated opinion” that only works by overestimating what checks and controls can do on one person (cf. Bagger, Madoff just in the last three months), and the actual damage done to the alliance in question.

  49. Kadayi says:

    Unsubstantiated? Way to lower the tone there Dinger. This is a games discussion site, and I discuss games, even the ones I don’t play. Regarding this particular issue, prior experience doesn’t seem to be a requisite, because it’s a common flaw across many MMOs (leadership is dictatorship). The argument that it’s not a design flaw is that it’s ‘realistic’. That argument doesn’t appear to hold up under scrutiny, and neither does appealing to notions of it being a reflection of ‘a back stabbing sci-fi world’. In business a corporation is a very specific entity in terms of it’s composition, structure, function and operation. If the corporations in game don’t accurately reflect that model, then the word is being wholly misused as a definition. A corporation should be more than an alternative name for a clan.

    I also believe peoples opinions on this tend to be coloured by how much shadenfreude they derive from the results. Clearly those with a hatred of BoB are overjoyed, those with a dislike of the Goons are horrified that more betrayals may follow (nothing is safe). Peoples time, especially their leisure time is a precious thing, that so much effort by so many can be undone so easily by a lone individual is a serious design issue. Right now the situation appears to be one where the individual concerned was the one who instigated the action. What if the scenario was that it was the case of another person physically accessing their account and inflicting the losses? A rival local player, a disgruntled (ex)-girlfriend, a childish brother/sister? In such a scenario would people be so willing to accept the lack of in game safeguards? Esp if the losses incurred were their own? I doubt it.

  50. Bobby says:

    Kadayi> You assume too many things. I don’t know who BoB or the goons actually are, so my opinion isn’t colored by anything like that. What I do gather from all the reports is that it’s a serious blow that was struck in a legitimate way for the concerned game, a blow that’s not even unheard of except for the size of the target. It is also a blow that did not, in fact, “undo so much efforts of so many”. If the ex-BoBs themselves are to be believed they can rebuild and reorrganize, the loss they suffered is crippling but not lethal.

    What’s more, it’s a blow that is actually providing a lot of other players with an exciting break in routine. Space that was once safe is now haunted by roving bands of pirates or aliances seeking to fill the momentary void of power.

    Also your hypothetical cases of the brother/girlfriend/enemy all imply either account hacking (in case of the enemy) or sharing (in case of the friend or relative), both things that are in fact forbidden by the EULA and thus not abiding by the game rules like the actual case was. i.e. they’re not the same thing, it’s playing versus cheating, and thus of course our reaction may be different.

    As for the argument about a corporation being a specific term that shouldn’t be misused, that’s like saying health bars or HP should be removed because health is not in fact a discrete quantity that can be measured. There may be a lot of reasons you may want to do away with HP, but it not being a rigorous analogue to reality isn’t one of them. They make sense as a concept and stay coherent within the game itself, and the name allows the user to immediately liken the principle to a concept they’re familiar with. Games use analogies and metaphors all the time, this is just one further example.