2080 active members
  284 are online

Year

19

Day

328

Time

14:32:18

Guest
Login
snewsgnewsmessagegeneralfactioninventorycombatroom
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6
Year 18 Day 92 16:43
Ulrike Rayne Schultheiss

Plenty of companies IRL stop producing and offering things because their workforce is diminished. Either way, rules don't have to follow "real life" equivalents nor should it be expected that they do. It has nothing to do with "real life". It has to do with balance. Is it fair for a faction of 5 people to hold every single DC while a faction of 20 people only holds half of them? That faction of 5 can now rent out all of those DCs for almost pure profit to other factions that don't have the DCs. That's the reason these rules are in place.

In order to make it fair, this means we also need to apply these same rules to those that legitimately are having a hard time keeping member counts. You can't selectively enforce rules without pissing people off, even if those people getting pissed off are abusing a system that's in place to help the game's economy. That's why this sort of stuff needs to be enforced uniformly and without discrimination. It would also be stupidly difficult to determine who willingly abused the current way the system works vs. who legitimately lost players since someone abusing it could easily just pad out losing their members over a month or two of time.


Edited By: Ulrike Rayne Schultheiss on Year 18 Day 92 16:47
____________

TriNebulon News: Y18 D30 - ???
Voted worst art team member of Y19
ulrike_r
Year 18 Day 92 18:33
There was no "intended use" that would result in a faction of 5 controlling a set of DCs that would require 50 people to buy and maintain.

Ulrike's paraphrasing of Selatos' response was accurate; there is the possibility that we will be investigating misuses of the system (both intentional and accidental) and working on a method to regulate usage for the foreseeable future.


____________

May your path be swift, and your pockets heavy:
Signatures.png

6kXRT.png
Year 18 Day 93 1:45
Tal Dorn

So, I am gathering that there should be a Rules Update suggestion made in that forum basically changing this:""1/ Generic Datacards
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."

To something like below?

1/ Generic Datacards
Purchasing a Generic Datacard:
1. Requires an active member count equal to or exceeding the slot value of the datacard.
2. Datacard fee equal to 5,000,000 credits per slot value of the datacard.
and the total number of active members in your faction must exceed the total number of slots of all generics that your faction owns at the time of purchasing.

Total number of active members in your faction must be equal to or exceed the total number of slots of all generics that your faction owns to maintain ownership.

Generics can be sold to free up slot room, in this case no money is returned.

Year 16 Day 230 18:44 Question about going generic
Kay Dallben -
"Slots is Not redundant, just a clear depiction of the number of members you need o support that dc.

And yes, the Cost is exactly 5mil per slot.

Charlena again has the correct info (as last heard and tested by me) regarding dipping below the active members you need to buy DCs. You do not auto lose the DCs, but of course you no longer meet requirements to buy new ones. The Asims/Admins will be monitoring for abuse of this, so don't be cute. You can bet they won't be happy if they have to implement dissolution timers for generic DCs because of yahoos who hop piles of people to buy a bunch of dcs and hop them out again."


The following generic datacards are available for purchase:(listed in rules)
-------------------------------
Modified the existing rules page on generic DCs to clarify the missing comma that Kay pointed out; '...there should be a comma before the conjunction "and" to be proper..".
Added what Kay stated from a different topic regarding the DCs and member requirements since I cannot find it anywhere else stated plainly that active member count must be maintained, but I can find his statement on abuse.

Edited to include and underline/bold an important part of Kay's statement regarding purchase only - not maintaining. again, cannot find anything on having to maintain an active member count.


Edited By: Tal Dorn on Year 18 Day 93 2:09
____________

Lhorai5.png

AreUnyk.png
Year 18 Day 93 3:36
Deleted Post
Deleted by Syn. Reason: Does not contribute to the thread
Year 18 Day 93 5:34
There is no comma placement that gives the rule clarity. A layman's reading still includes maintaining an active member count worth the number of slots you own.


____________

May your path be swift, and your pockets heavy:
Signatures.png

6kXRT.png
Year 18 Day 93 5:36
Carth Falte

My two cents here...

I feel if you purposely game the system, pay some people to join a faction just to get the DCs then having them leave because their job is done. THAT constitutes as abuse to me.

If you are just a faction that doesn't try to game the system and just have members go inactive naturally over time... It's simply a "it happens" situation.

I know Ulrike won't agree and some of you won't either with my view on this but simply put: I find it unfair that Factions that are having an iffy time and who will probably go back to a normal member count are being put in the same box as people genuinely gaming the system and who are breaking the golden rule with the fullest intent to do so. Whatever you want to call removing Generic Datacards it will still be a punishment.


____________


ACrgui
q9aUQd
9tJQf2
Year 18 Day 93 6:13
Ulrike Rayne Schultheiss

Carth, If an automated system is put in place to handle this situation (as was intended in the original implementation), it won't care whether or not the players are lost due to intentional abuse. It's equally abusive to intentionally game the system or to not follow the rules just because you lost players naturally. That's why I proposed the automated system have a count down. Factions that legitimately lose players aren't screwed if they make back up the players, while factions that attempt to abuse it either have to get rid of everything or have to maintain a membership count.

Edit: I feel the need to say I don't have any say in whether or not this gets implemented into code or not, just so it's clear. I also don't have any say in how the asims enact the rules. So worry not, my "harsh" preference toward everyone that abuses this rule, intentionally or otherwise, doesn't affect anyone! :p


Edited By: Ulrike Rayne Schultheiss on Year 18 Day 93 6:20
____________

TriNebulon News: Y18 D30 - ???
Voted worst art team member of Y19
ulrike_r
Year 18 Day 93 6:41
Tal Dorn

Erek, no disrespect, but the rules state:
"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."

Purchasing requirements and Maintaining ownership of DC or the cause of their deletion should be separate.

My understanding has always been as stated in the rules PURCHASING and what Kay replied to Charlena that I added in my previous post and again posted bel0w, which covers the possibility of abuse control, after he explains that dipping below active members, you; "no longer meet requirements to buy new ones.".

Year 16 Day 230 18:44 Question about going generic
Kay Dallben -
"Slots is Not redundant, just a clear depiction of the number of members you need o support that dc.

And yes, the Cost is exactly 5mil per slot.

Charlena again has the correct info (as last heard and tested by me) regarding dipping below the active members you need to buy DCs. You do not auto lose the DCs, but of course you The Asims/Admins will be monitoring for abuse of this, so don't be cute. You can bet they won't be happy if they have to implement dissolution timers for generic DCs because of yahoos who hop piles of people to buy a bunch of dcs and hop them out again."





____________

Lhorai5.png

AreUnyk.png
Year 18 Day 93 6:56

Year 16 Day 230 18:44 Question about going generic
Kay Dallben -
"Slots is Not redundant, just a clear depiction of the number of members you need o support that dc.

And yes, the Cost is exactly 5mil per slot.

Charlena again has the correct info (as last heard and tested by me) regarding dipping below the active members you need to buy DCs. You do not auto lose the DCs, but of course you The Asims/Admins will be monitoring for abuse of this, so don't be cute. You can bet they won't be happy if they have to implement dissolution timers for generic DCs because of yahoos who hop piles of people to buy a bunch of dcs and hop them out again."
 


____________

May your path be swift, and your pockets heavy:
Signatures.png

6kXRT.png
Year 18 Day 93 8:00
My two credits, I think people are getting offtrack of the original post by Tomas O`Cuinn, especially this section.
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.

- Tomas O`Cuinn
 


Tomas and Tal both questioned at what point does an abuse of the system happen. Tal went further by trying to explain what he thinks is an example of non-abuse using the Guardian Engineering Corps as an example.

Total Number of Members: 24
Initial Number of Members: 5
Current Number of Active Members: 8

If my addition is correct, the total amount of DC slots the GEC owns is 16. makes it look like they slowly lost active members, for whatever reason, in what I assume is a faction status entry above. But it doesn't look like intentional abuse at all and as Ulrike stated, this should not make a difference.

Tal went further in trying to clean up the rules about maintaining owned DCs by supplying a suggestion which supports these statements.
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.

- Tomas O`Cuinn
 


I think it does explicitly say that:
“ 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.
- Generic Datacard rules”

This was (I recall) discussed publicly at the time so people should know better. We have ASIMs now, Sic em!

- Kay Dallben
 


- which is odd because if people were not in on these discussions, how would the know better?

Right, but that's discussing the requirements to purchase new datacards, not keep the ones you already have.

- Tomas O`Cuinn
 


In conclusion that the requirement to maintain ownership of DCs is nowhere to be found in the rules or the rules are completely lacking in understandable formation if several people cannot plainly quote the requirement from the rules and can only reference quotes from other peoples' forum posts from discussions a year and a half ago.





____________

When they will not see the light, expose them to the heat.

xtcTlR4.png

Year 18 Day 93 8:20
The requirement has been quoted. The rule can have the wording updated if it is found lacking, but I shouldn't need to hire a lawyer every time I want to tell you that you're doing something wrong. A misplaced comma does not a stay of execution make.


____________

May your path be swift, and your pockets heavy:
Signatures.png

6kXRT.png
Year 18 Day 93 9:51
I'm so glad that thread wasn't archived away from public view. I would have quoted it in full myself, but TBH I wasn't sure if it was in the Leaders Forum and/or somehow Tal Dorn never saw it before it was archived. It must've been in the Questions forum at the time.

My knowledge and information came from testing the new feature on request of the Dev Team, and noting that potential exploit. Charlena Halo did the same. The part of the quote Tal emphasized ("You do not auto lose the DCs, but of course you no longer meet requirements to buy new ones.") refers to the results of my testing, and is crucially clarified by the next statement regarding abuse of same to signify the intended use of the feature. Clearly the majority of players understood this, as the vast majority of production factions appear to be (or definitely are) in compliance.

@Carth: "I find it unfair that Factions ... are being put in the same box as people genuinely gaming the system and who are breaking the golden rule with the fullest intent to do so. Whatever you want to call removing Generic Datacards it will still be a punishment. "

Oh, so somebody else evaded paying a billion dollars in taxes, and you just made a mistake in deducting a couple expenses twice. Tell me more about how we're being unfair to you when talking about making people pay their taxes owed. Billion Dollars Evasion - in the order of 46 slots worth of Generic DCs; Deducted your copier purchase twice - in the order of being a few members short of your current held DC Slots... Any chance of real punishment* to most is slim to none, but Tal's vehemently trying to maintain that unfair advantage his factions have enjoyed for the past years, and that's not worthy of sympathy or defense, Carth.

* Seriously... Punishment would be bans and/or asset-fines. If you fail to pay your taxes, it's not a Punishment when the IRS / CRA forcibly takes some of your wages to collect what you owe. The punishment in that RL example is (duh) penalties assessed in addition to what you owe. In this case, factions like Tal's are not being punished at all, they're simply being required to comply with the rules that the vast majority of production factions have always been complying (or substantially complying) with, on an ongoing basis. Some factions got an advantage after exploiting lack of robustness in the code and creatively interpreting the Rules, a few MUCH more than others. It's a settled issue that the intention was always that the membership requirements were to maintain as well as purchase, so without arguing the feature's intention was different, tell me why they should keep that unfair advantage ongoing?

@Jastan Vul : " if people were not in on these discussions, how would the[y] know better?" Because it was publicly discussed - #swc-members #swc-help / etc. on IRC, forums, and SimNews, and because clearly the majority of players Know Better (evidenced by their compliance with the membership requirements), and Tal and others ought to, as well.

Every opportunity is/was there for people to ask the questions and seek clarification on rules, and sometimes ambiguity slips through the cracks because we think it's bloody obvious you shouldn't abuse a feature. Some people breach rules consciously, others allow self-interest to blind them to the proper and reasonable interpretations of the rules, and others have such poor reading comprehension and ability to think critically that they're helpless against misinterpreting the rules, and yet others claim the rules are so terribly worded that they can't possibly be held to any interpretation of them. We get a decent number of inquiries in #swc-help about rule clarification, and players are absolutely welcome and encouraged to hop in and ask those kinds of questions.

The Rules really are mostly clear enough to understand the intention on their own, but clarifications come about when people like Tomas ask the right questions. A highly technical reading of the Rule in question could result in construing only purchasing having requirements, but any second thought about the Golden Rule makes it obvious there's no intention to allow factions to recruit a bunch of active characters and then retain significant DC access after their membership drops down. I have little sympathy for people who play dumb or blame 'poor rule drafting', - those who notice ambiguity in the Rules and say nothing and enjoy unfair advantages as a result deserve any inconvenience they get. Tal noticed at the time and asked the question (which got lost amidst the rest of his and others' ranting). He may have even gotten clarification elsewhere as well (my quoted thread). Those others who intentionally breach rules and abuse features deserve any punishment they get.

Given just how many of the production factions are in or very close to compliance, it's clear who the outliers are who are just playing dumb or negligently ignoring the state of their faction, and it's clear who the abusers are who obviously exploited the system. To repeat my previous statements, that doesn't mean I think the dumb should be punished the same as the worst abusers (or punished at all in many cases). Again, since apparently I have to drill this point home... Forcing compliance with the Golden Rule is not a punishment.


Edited By: Kay Dallben on Year 18 Day 93 9:55
Year 18 Day 93 11:50
Carth Falte

Kay, may I start with this...

I now realize that manufacturing companies have a tough road to hoe.
70 million minimum capital
70 million registration fee
to purchase a DC, member count equal to the party slot of total DCs
and DC 5 million per slot value.

Why bother?

- "Relain Dala"
 


This. Why Bother. People can pay faction sitters to stay in the faction just so it can keep the DCs. Honestly wouldn't you prefer to give positive reinforcement to factions that DON'T do that crap, prefer to keep ACTUAL members of their faction and, you know, try to abide by the goddamn rules? Sometimes factions have a hard time retaining members because we can't FORCE people to stay in a faction just because we want to keep a DC, we can't force people to stay active and recruiting people only brings you that far so if you prefer a combine that's nothing but faction sitters and one or two giant production factions please, do keep a lack of sympathy for factions that TRY to play by the rules but just get screwed over in the process.



____________


ACrgui
q9aUQd
9tJQf2
Year 18 Day 93 12:05
Ulrike Rayne Schultheiss

Honestly wouldn't you prefer to give positive reinforcement to factions that DON'T do that crap, prefer to keep ACTUAL members of their faction and, you know, try to abide by the goddamn rules? 


First off, calm down. You need to stop freaking out every time someone disagrees with you. It's getting tiring.

Second off, they're not abiding by the rules if they don't have enough players to maintain their dcs. Erek has multiple times said that. It doesn't matter how the player count drops. While naturally losing players isn't nearly as bad as intentional inflation, they both need to be viewed as the same thing (and will be viewed as the same thing if this ever gets implemented in code). All you're doing is putting off a likely inevitability should for some reason "legitimate player loss" get an exemption.

Third off, seriously. You need to calm down. If you're negatively impacted by this, I'm sorry, but the rules are pretty clear. You're upset, sure, but it really isn't that bad.


Edited By: Ulrike Rayne Schultheiss on Year 18 Day 93 12:10
____________

TriNebulon News: Y18 D30 - ???
Voted worst art team member of Y19
ulrike_r
Year 18 Day 93 12:08
Jic Uiji

It doesn't lead to 1 or 2 factions, it can also lead to many small factions working together and trading DCs with each other.


____________

Jic Uiji


jic uili, intergalactic hutt crime lord
Year 18 Day 93 12:21
Let me start with: Those numbers are wrong, so why are you waving them around?
70 minimum capital that just has to stay in the faction. This includes RMP of all assets owned and credits owned, and doesn't disappear. 25mil registration fee is a real cost. 5 continuous active members to keep your Production faction from dissolving. These are existing requirements already needing compliance. It does not follow that complying with these rules means you should get to acquire and keep generic DCs just because your faction once had 18 recruits at once and 90 million in credits.

Let me continue with: They clearly didn't Try to abide by the Generic DC rules. When the majority of production factions are in compliance or appear to be, and there's only a few outliers, it's clear who TRIED and who didn't. I think it's reasonable to believe Tal just was negligent rather than malicious/abusive, but that doesn't mean the unfair advantage he enjoyed should be maintained.

"Why Bother?"
Yeah that's totally the answer. Give up. I'm happy to take your active members or send them to friends of ours in the GC while you give up because you can't have unlimited amounts of every DC you want, permanantly, for 100 million and no ongoing costs because your friends sat in your faction long enough to buy the DCs. I understand very well the difficulties in running a faction and keeping members logging in consistently - let alone actively engaged in the game. But then notwithstanding I've had good months with 20 active people in my NAT, I don't pretend to be entitled to own all the DCs I want, permanently. If I want access to a DC, I'll either rent it/negotiate for it from another faction who wants my business, or I'll sell current Generics I own and get the actives and buy it myself. That's how the system is intended to work.

Are people going to pay sitters to maintain extra DC Slots? Sure, but then that's their prerogative and it'll cost them that sitter's pay every month. Why should you and them get that benefit for free?

I really don't see how your `slippery slope` argument makes any damn sense at all. There's no more or less faction sitters than there are currently, and 2 Giant production factions would require the same number of members to maintain all the DCs as all the current smaller ones. Note also that there is NO Single Generic DC worth 5 slots, so there's literally NOTHING beyond the reach of a 5-person production faction if they manage their DCs and memberlist. Only difference is without the extra members, you have to deal with limited supplies of any given DC (paying a little extra here and there when you want to switch out DCs) or *Gasp* trading/exchanging with other factions.


Edited By: Kay Dallben on Year 18 Day 93 12:39
Year 18 Day 93 12:54
Carth Falte

Let me start off with this.

I am not personally affected by any of this, I am pissed off not because of a different opinion but just the general disregard for smaller factions who can keep all the DCs they have on a normal to good day and can't on a bad one.

Note that I said "they have" not just all the DCs.


From here on I am removing myself from this discussion.


____________


ACrgui
q9aUQd
9tJQf2
Year 18 Day 93 12:59
Ulrike Rayne Schultheiss

Probably for the best considering this won't impact smaller factions that aren't misusing this feature. Kay has been pretty clear that this is a select few factions that have a disproportionate number of dcs to members.


____________

TriNebulon News: Y18 D30 - ???
Voted worst art team member of Y19
ulrike_r
Year 18 Day 93 13:11
Relain Dala

Kay, this part of your statement is not correct "25mil registration fee is a real cost." this was already addressed in another forum.
Discrepancy in Registration Fees: http://www.swcombine.com/forum/thread.php?thread=70761&page=0

And minimum capital is explained in faction creation rules, it wasn't something we had to hunt for. Clarity in the registration fee was something we had to look for or verify anyways.

Tal already made a suggestion for a rules update for this topic. Why is it hard to place this in the rules? It kinda makes it clear, doesn't it?
1/ Generic Datacards
Purchasing a Generic Datacard:
1. Requires an active member count equal to or exceeding the slot value of the datacard.
2. Datacard fee equal to 5,000,000 credits per slot value of the datacard.
and the total number of active members in your faction must exceed the total number of slots of all generics that your faction owns at the time of purchasing.

(My addition
Maintaining Ownership of Generic Datacards:)
Total number of active members in your faction must be equal to or exceed the total number of slots of all generics that your faction owns to maintain ownership.

Generics can be sold to free up slot room, in this case no money is returned.


Edited By: Relain Dala on Year 18 Day 93 13:28
____________

UoGsEcr.png

Life is what you make it...don't stand by and let it make you.
Year 18 Day 93 13:45
That's surprising, but okay, Thanks Relain. Rules updates are a good idea obviously. All these pages of arguments are about one guy (and one supporter of little guys in general) complaining they shouldn't have to comply with rules cause they just try to run their faction (and/or overreacting out of fear of being harshly punished for being slightly out of compliance). Might need to wait until a backstop is coded so the Rules are finalized, but I'd support those clarifications or something similar.

Yeah, anybody who has 5 ish members and lessthan or equal to 5 slots worth of DCs isn't in breach so has nothing to worry about. Those who have 5ish members and magically have 15 DCs should just sell the extra 10 Slots worth at their earliest convenience and get into compliance. Devs will deal with whatever automation they settle upon, and ASIMs will deal with whatever massive abuse is punish-worthy.


Year 18 Day 93 13:53
Relain Dala

If you are talking about Tal not wanting to comply with rules cause they just try to run their faction (and/or overreacting out of fear of being harshly punished for being slightly out of compliance)., I don't think that is the case. I think he was trying to pose the same question as Tomas and ask So, again, at what point does this become abuse of the system? Or is this an entirely intended use of the generic datacard system?

And I think he was asking for clarity be added to the rules in general.


____________

UoGsEcr.png

Life is what you make it...don't stand by and let it make you.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6