So for all of my searching, I cannot find anything that states the membership of a production faction must remain above the slot requirement for generic datacards owned. The membership requirement only seems to apply for purchasing more generics.
I'm looking at a (completely independent, non-NAT) production faction with datacards that would demand a whopping 46 members to purchase...so at what point does this become abuse? I seriously doubt that they maintain anything close to 46 members. So the tactic is likely to flood a faction with members and obtain most of the generics before dropping back to a probable 5 members?
So, again, at what point does this become abuse of the system? Or is this an entirely intended use of the generic datacard system?
“ Purchasing a generic requires slots*5,000,000 credits and the total number of active members in your faction must exceed the total number of slots of all generics that your faction owns. Generics can be sold to free up slot room, in this case no money is returned.
It would be a mess trying to sort it out but I do think we should have some way of revoking those cards. You'd have to think of previous assignments (especially unlimited ones) though, the effect it has on contracts, etc.
There are other circumstances that involve membership, Tomas.
EDIT to correct and apologize for misspelling Tomas' name
The rest i don't have time for but sorry for the poor grammar too.
What if a faction newly created started with 5 members as per the rules, steadily grew in members, purchasing DCs as they did so, and then several members went inactive or quit at level 1? Are the inactive members, in your suggestion, considered still members? Or are you just considering active members as a requirement?
Total Number of Members: 24
Initial Number of Members: 5
Current Number of Active Members: 8
^^ As an example.
And since manufacturing faction member count is questioned for those that access generic pools, what about those faction that do not select from the generic pool and have quite a bit of DCs but only five members? Do their DCs get revoked too?
Edited By: Tal Dorn on Year 18 Day 92 11:16 ____________
Active members, obviously... How does it make Any sense to count "all the people how have ever joined a faction and never left" when we only count the actives for any other member requirement check? I could have ALL the DCs in my faction right now just by virtue of the faction having Existed for nearly a decade.
Pre-Existing DCs on some of the older Factions are a separate ball of wax. Those ones (AFAIK) cannot actually purchase any Generic DCs as long as they have any Non-Generic DC in their inventory.
@Lexor: It was discussed publicly at the time, and it was definitely deemed a punishable exploit if someone did it. It's a clear interpretation of the Rules as-written, and absolutely an expected 'spirit of the rules' meaning for people not to just dump a bunch of members into their faction to buy Generics and then kiss them off later. I don't see why the intention is in question at all.
I personally see this as needing a clear "Dissolution Timer" style warning and consequences, giving factions time to fix it by dropping the excess DCs of their choice or regain enough members to cover it for a countup-period like with Activity Requirements. 46 Slots-worth is willful abuse and a breach of the Golden Rule, IMO, but I'll leave that to the ASIMs.
If you have a ton of inactive members why should they allow you to have a large volume of DCs? You have 8 active members, so you should probably get the equivalent DCs of 8 members. The idea on getting more DCs is that you have enough active people to retain them
I know the Active check looks at Active Members. There's just nothing implemented that periodically checks TotalDCSlotsHeld vs Active Members and warns you that you're way over your limit.
I have to admit it's somewhat impressive that they could find 46 characters to hop in and be active within a Week. I would NOT be surprised, however, if it turned out some of those recently (or not-so-recently) banned multis were involved as well.
I believe the question was of abuse... is it an abuse that members go inactive or quit. I did not tie the total members into how many DCs one has, but to show that at one time the faction may have had enough ACTIVE members to purchase the DCs because an Active count is how you are able to purchase them at the time of purchase. It is not off of the total members. < This is clearly not abuse, but it is an unfortunate circumstance due to the lack of involvement by a player.
I remember a line of abuse when the Nebulon-B Medical Frigate had better stats and was only producible once by a medical faction. To circumvent the rules, there were a few who opened a medical faction after a ship was produce. I do not believe this person was never punished because they were clearly "playing by the rules".
"Total Number of Members: 24
^Does this number go down when someone drops or leaves a faction?"
Yes to both. Inactives, no.
"Med-Neb abuse" nah, we don't need to try to find something else that's considered abuse to hold it up. We're perfectly capable of examining a situation independently and deciding that it's abusive.
Tal consider how "Active Members" are not uniquely recorded, such that the same 46 players who hopped into SOMEFACTION to acquire the additional DCs can do the same for another faction, and another, and another. Suddenly EVERYBODY who can pay to have 46 sitters jump into their faction can have whatever number of DCs they want at the same time, permanently.
Do you not see how this is abusive of a feature?
As for "Punishment", we "punish" Factions that can't keep the Mininmum number of members up with dissolution. Why wouldn't we want to punish factions that abuse a system meant to allow access to DCs, but facilitate Trade and Interaction between factions?
"That number never said you had 24 active members. It just says you have 24 people registered in your faction, who may have been active at one point."
That number reflects the total members, meaning that to squire generics, there was a path to do so.
So for example, our Guardian Engineering Corps, didn't buy the generics we have all at one time, we grew in numbers acquiring them as we did so, but then some members went inactive left or whatever. Did we abuse the system? Or would it be considered abuse because we didn't keep enough active members to maintain the active member count requirement to buy DCs?
I see Kay's line of abuse that can be investigated, but again what would be the standards for "punishment"?
"but again what would be the standards for "punishment"? "
Ah I see. You're concerned about being grouped in with people and being subject to punishment for having "abused" the system, and you think that'd potentially be unfair to you for 'honestly' following your (faulty) interpretation of the rules.
I leave that judgment call to the ASIMs, but like I said way way above, it really ought to be an automatic Check that warns people and gives them an opportunity to ditch DCs if their active membership drops below what's necessary.
You should probably just check your active members, check your total Slots, and voluntarily get rid of the DCs that are excessive.
My personal thoughts on this matter are a bit more harsh than others (though I've discussed this with Kay and we seem to agree on the approach).
What I'd like to see happen is we implement a system to "punish" (it's not actual punishment, I just really like the word) production factions for abusing the system. Specifically, once you drop below the required member count for the number of dcs, a count down begins. Once that count down begins, you're unable to complete production, assign dcs or be used for production until 1 of 2 things happen: you get rid of the excess dcs, leading to immediate restoration of functionality, or you get back to the correct number of users, leading to a count up before you get your functionality restored.
Factions that choose to ignore this (pretty impossible considering they can't do anything tbh) get punished by having dcs deleted from newest to oldest at the end of the count down without their consent. 1 dc is deleted per day until the count is matched, which is then followed by the same count up as with the players solution.
Thats probably the only way we could effectively prevent people from abusing this system while not too horribly punishing factions that are genuinely struggling with member counts.
Edited By: Ulrike Rayne Schultheiss on Year 18 Day 92 11:50 ____________
TriNebulon News: Y18 D30 - Y19 D170 RIP :(
Voted worst art team member of Y19
Kay, how can that be "(faulty) interpretation of the rules."?
No where does it say that minimum active members must be kept. It only defines PURCHASE requirements..
Purchasing a generic requires slots*5,000,000 credits and the total number of active members in your faction must exceed the total number of slots of all generics that your faction owns. Generics can be sold to free up slot room, in this case no money is returned.
My two cents on this heated discussion: Golden Rule.
Interpretation of the rules, as with laws, can be tricky, bit if the "bottom line" (in this case - a faction with 6 active members and 30-something DCs) sounds wrong it probably is.
Confer to your local ASim for further inquiries, I'd say, and give us his / hers decision on the matter.