Author |
Message |
Runaway Proton
Gameop
Joined: Thu Aug 24, 2006 2:00 am Posts: 1737 Location: USA
|
Megacorping Discussion
Megacorping, what is it, and how would you prove it.
I'd like to establish what the community feels is acceptable, and not acceptable.
Asset Sharing is hard to prove at times, but it's more distinguishable in the game. Asset Sharing in my book is trading of ships, figs, or credits between corporations. When two teams join forces to defeat a common enemy, that can be viewed several ways I"m sure, but is it "asset sharing" in any way?
This is not an accusation of any team, for any game, but simply being brought up for discussion. Let's not get personal in discussion here please.
_________________ American soldiers don't fight because they hate what's in front of them...they fight because they love what's behind them. http://www.runawayproton.com <-- Expired telnet://runawayproton.dyndns.org:223 V2.20b Games <-- Expired http://www.twsubspace.com <-- Expired Teamspeak 3 50.23.212.53:4196 <-- Expired Just a has been now.
|
Sat Jan 07, 2012 11:46 am |
|
|
Cruncher
Ambassador
Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2001 3:00 am Posts: 4016 Location: USA
|
Re: Megacorping Discussion
At one time, it was legal to Mega corp, before we knew about mega rob we ran mega corps rather than mixed corps to preserve the red's exp. points.
Mega corping was sharing assets - one "team", two corporations one red and one blue.
Mega corping was the blue corp protecting the red corp.
Mega corping was sharing data and joint attacks/invasions.
Mega corping was also sharing the same sub-space channel (before TWX and Mombot).
If the only deffinition of Mega Corping today is sharing assets, like you said this is nearly impossible to prove. Anyone can transfer credits in the SD bank.
What's easier to see is truces or non-agg pacts between corps. But truces and non-aggs have always been a part of large games.
_________________
BOTE 1998 Champs: Team Fament HHT 2015 Champs: Cloud09 Big Game 2016 Champs: Draft team HHT 2018 Champs: Rock Stars Big Game 2019 Champs: Draft Team
Classic Style Games Here: telnet://crunchers-twgs.com:2002 Web page from 1990's: https://web.archive.org/web/20170103155645/http://tradewars.fament.com/Cruncher/tradewar.htm Blog with current server info: http://cruncherstw.blogspot.com Discord: https://discord.gg/4dja5Z8 E-mail: Cruncherstw@gmail.com FaceBook: http://www.facebook.com/CrunchersTW
|
Sat Jan 07, 2012 11:58 am |
|
|
Kaus
Gameop
Joined: Tue Nov 19, 2002 3:00 am Posts: 1050 Location: USA
|
Re: Megacorping Discussion
Cruncher wrote: At one time, it was legal to Mega corp, before we knew about mega rob we ran mega corps rather than mixed corps to preserve the red's exp. points.
Mega corping was sharing assets - one "team", two corporations one red and one blue.
Mega corping was the blue corp protecting the red corp.
Mega corping was sharing data and joint attacks/invasions.
Mega corping was also sharing the same sub-space channel (before TWX and Mombot).
If the only deffinition of Mega Corping today is sharing assets, like you said this is nearly impossible to prove. Anyone can transfer credits in the SD bank.
What's easier to see is truces or non-agg pacts between corps. But truces and non-aggs have always been a part of large games. Pretty much sums it up
_________________ Dark Dominion TWGS Telnet://twgs.darkworlds.org:23 ICQ#31380757, -=English 101 pwns me=- "This one claims to have been playing since 1993 and didn't know upgrading a port would raise his alignment."
|
Sat Jan 07, 2012 2:21 pm |
|
|
T0yman
Veteran Op
Joined: Sat Dec 29, 2007 5:06 pm Posts: 2059 Location: Oklahoma
|
Re: Megacorping Discussion
Kaus wrote: Cruncher wrote: Mega corping was sharing data and joint attacks/invasions. Pretty much sums it up This one looks very familiar
_________________ T0yman (Permanently Retired since 2012) Proverbs 17:28 <-- Don't know it, most should it would stop a lot of the discussions on here.
|
Sat Jan 07, 2012 3:47 pm |
|
|
Kaus
Gameop
Joined: Tue Nov 19, 2002 3:00 am Posts: 1050 Location: USA
|
Re: Megacorping Discussion
T0yman wrote: Kaus wrote: Cruncher wrote: Mega corping was sharing data and joint attacks/invasions. Pretty much sums it up This one looks very familiar Im pretty forgetful; help a brother out?
_________________ Dark Dominion TWGS Telnet://twgs.darkworlds.org:23 ICQ#31380757, -=English 101 pwns me=- "This one claims to have been playing since 1993 and didn't know upgrading a port would raise his alignment."
|
Sat Jan 07, 2012 4:00 pm |
|
|
Cruncher
Ambassador
Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2001 3:00 am Posts: 4016 Location: USA
|
Re: Megacorping Discussion
Kaus wrote: Cruncher wrote: At one time, it was legal to Mega corp, before we knew about mega rob we ran mega corps rather than mixed corps to preserve the red's exp. points.
Mega corping was sharing assets - one "team", two corporations one red and one blue.
Mega corping was the blue corp protecting the red corp.
Mega corping was sharing data and joint attacks/invasions.
Mega corping was also sharing the same sub-space channel (before TWX and Mombot).
If the only deffinition of Mega Corping today is sharing assets, like you said this is nearly impossible to prove. Anyone can transfer credits in the SD bank.
What's easier to see is truces or non-agg pacts between corps. But truces and non-aggs have always been a part of large games. Pretty much sums it up Yeah, but the thing is, our "team" was a mega corp, one red and one blue. We never mega corped outside of our own "team". We would have truces and non-agg pacts, depending upon situations. Maybe two other teams wanted to go head to head without interference from others for a short while. Or a small weak team would ask for a truce - more of a stay of execution, just so they could last a little longer in the game, at that point they weren't a threat. All of those politics were between the CEO's. Two "teams" sharing data and running joint attacks or invasions was illegal.
_________________
BOTE 1998 Champs: Team Fament HHT 2015 Champs: Cloud09 Big Game 2016 Champs: Draft team HHT 2018 Champs: Rock Stars Big Game 2019 Champs: Draft Team
Classic Style Games Here: telnet://crunchers-twgs.com:2002 Web page from 1990's: https://web.archive.org/web/20170103155645/http://tradewars.fament.com/Cruncher/tradewar.htm Blog with current server info: http://cruncherstw.blogspot.com Discord: https://discord.gg/4dja5Z8 E-mail: Cruncherstw@gmail.com FaceBook: http://www.facebook.com/CrunchersTW
|
Sat Jan 07, 2012 4:35 pm |
|
|
Runaway Proton
Gameop
Joined: Thu Aug 24, 2006 2:00 am Posts: 1737 Location: USA
|
Re: Megacorping Discussion
This is why I ask the question. Today shared assets are frowned upon, and two teams doing a joint attack on a third team is also looked on by some as Megacorping.
In the rules of my game it is written: 2.No transfer of traders or resources between the different teams.
So this is asset sharing, and easy enough to understand. But Megacorping has always troubled me how to define. I like Crunchers explanation of two teams, one goal, kinda like if you have 10 playing in a 5 man game, so you assemble two teams. This I can see clearly as a megacorp. I also see the wisdom in two teams working together to eliminate a common enemy, call it a truce or pact between the teams, or some call that Megacorping. I'm wanting to establish a clear way to define future games if they have a megacorping rule. Do we say two teams simply can not assist each other? Seems harsh to those doing the pact, and it's a gift to that third team getting beat on the playground. Where should the line be drawn for such a rule, how would you go about proving if it was broken, and should such a rule even be placed in a game?
_________________ American soldiers don't fight because they hate what's in front of them...they fight because they love what's behind them. http://www.runawayproton.com <-- Expired telnet://runawayproton.dyndns.org:223 V2.20b Games <-- Expired http://www.twsubspace.com <-- Expired Teamspeak 3 50.23.212.53:4196 <-- Expired Just a has been now.
|
Sat Jan 07, 2012 4:49 pm |
|
|
Cruncher
Ambassador
Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2001 3:00 am Posts: 4016 Location: USA
|
Re: Megacorping Discussion
Runaway Proton wrote: Where should the line be drawn for such a rule, how would you go about proving if it was broken, and should such a rule even be placed in a game? That's very difficult to say. We need more opinions weighing in. #1 Might be better if we had more than 2-3 teams playing. I think it comes down to sportmanship, and how far are you willing to push the boundaries to play and win? Sysops cannot "police" this, players must agree to a code of ethics.
_________________
BOTE 1998 Champs: Team Fament HHT 2015 Champs: Cloud09 Big Game 2016 Champs: Draft team HHT 2018 Champs: Rock Stars Big Game 2019 Champs: Draft Team
Classic Style Games Here: telnet://crunchers-twgs.com:2002 Web page from 1990's: https://web.archive.org/web/20170103155645/http://tradewars.fament.com/Cruncher/tradewar.htm Blog with current server info: http://cruncherstw.blogspot.com Discord: https://discord.gg/4dja5Z8 E-mail: Cruncherstw@gmail.com FaceBook: http://www.facebook.com/CrunchersTW
|
Sat Jan 07, 2012 5:09 pm |
|
|
T0yman
Veteran Op
Joined: Sat Dec 29, 2007 5:06 pm Posts: 2059 Location: Oklahoma
|
Re: Megacorping Discussion
Kaus wrote: T0yman wrote: Kaus wrote: Cruncher wrote: Mega corping was sharing data and joint attacks/invasions. Pretty much sums it up This one looks very familiar Im pretty forgetful; help a brother out? Not you, but in a game we are currently playing. The one I quoted Cruncher in was being used against us.
_________________ T0yman (Permanently Retired since 2012) Proverbs 17:28 <-- Don't know it, most should it would stop a lot of the discussions on here.
|
Sat Jan 07, 2012 5:22 pm |
|
|
Runaway Proton
Gameop
Joined: Thu Aug 24, 2006 2:00 am Posts: 1737 Location: USA
|
Re: Megacorping Discussion
Cruncher wrote: I think it comes down to sportmanship, and how far are you willing to push the boundaries to play and win? Sysops cannot "police" this, players must agree to a code of ethics. Assume most players/corps will push the limits, or exploit every loophole to win these days. Sportsmanship is hard to find in a lot of games. If you put a rule in a game "no megacorping" should that be read as "no two corps should form an alliance or work together in any capacity"?
_________________ American soldiers don't fight because they hate what's in front of them...they fight because they love what's behind them. http://www.runawayproton.com <-- Expired telnet://runawayproton.dyndns.org:223 V2.20b Games <-- Expired http://www.twsubspace.com <-- Expired Teamspeak 3 50.23.212.53:4196 <-- Expired Just a has been now.
|
Sat Jan 07, 2012 6:25 pm |
|
|
Comet
Commander
Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2002 2:00 am Posts: 1158
|
Re: Megacorping Discussion
I think it's hilarious! That two power house corps GZ and Kraaken would even stoop to the level of what is clearly shown in the pictures. T0yman and Cruncher publicly both said they didn't expect a chance to win but look at this. hold of a evasion! nice job guys!!!! This will be one for the record books I am sure
|
Sat Jan 07, 2012 6:30 pm |
|
|
Helix
Ambassador
Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2008 8:57 am Posts: 3554 Location: Long Beach, CA
|
Re: Megacorping Discussion
Comet wrote: I think it's hilarious! That two power house corps GZ and Kraaken would even stoop to the level of what is clearly shown in the pictures. T0yman and Cruncher publicly both said they didn't expect a chance to win but look at this. hold of a evasion! nice job guys!!!! This will be one for the record books I am sure Could be worse, they could be subspace crawling. H
_________________ Helix Do I really look like a guy with a plan? You know what I am? I'm a dog chasing cars. Lest we forget I had to ask myself WWSGD?
|
Sat Jan 07, 2012 6:32 pm |
|
|
Comet
Commander
Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2002 2:00 am Posts: 1158
|
Re: Megacorping Discussion
Runaway Proton wrote: Cruncher wrote: I think it comes down to sportmanship, and how far are you willing to push the boundaries to play and win? Sysops cannot "police" this, players must agree to a code of ethics. Assume most players/corps will push the limits, or exploit every loophole to win these days. Sportsmanship is hard to find in a lot of games. If you put a rule in a game "no megacorping" should that be read as "no two corps should form an alliance or work together in any capacity"? Oh and as far as megacorping. I think it would be in the eyes of the beholder. Even if you were to put up a no alliance pact or whatever between two corps who's to say they can't talk about stuff of icq private hail or whatever else means? You can always bust a level 1 up and load it up with 999,999,9999 credits and someone can grab it and put it back into another citadel without even being caught.
|
Sat Jan 07, 2012 6:33 pm |
|
|
Comet
Commander
Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2002 2:00 am Posts: 1158
|
Re: Megacorping Discussion
Helix wrote: Comet wrote: I think it's hilarious! That two power house corps GZ and Kraaken would even stoop to the level of what is clearly shown in the pictures. T0yman and Cruncher publicly both said they didn't expect a chance to win but look at this. hold of a evasion! nice job guys!!!! This will be one for the record books I am sure Could be worse, they could be subspace crawling. H Nothing wrong with macroing someone to cby. I've done it a time or two
|
Sat Jan 07, 2012 6:33 pm |
|
|
Runaway Proton
Gameop
Joined: Thu Aug 24, 2006 2:00 am Posts: 1737 Location: USA
|
Re: Megacorping Discussion
Comet wrote: Oh and as far as megacorping. I think it would be in the eyes of the beholder. Even if you were to put up a no alliance pact or whatever between two corps who's to say they can't talk about stuff of icq private hail or whatever else means? You can always bust a level 1 up and load it up with 999,999,9999 credits and someone can grab it and put it back into another citadel without even being caught. There are many ways to get around it I'm sure, in the case of the above invasion by two corps if they simply attacked at separate times it couldn't be proven they were even working together. So to police this would be a nightmare. I'm not wanting to use any single example here for obvious reasons. I'm not wanting to turn this into a finger pointing (or extending) session. If I were in a game, and an opposing corp came to me and said "I'll call a truce with you if you want to help me destroy this asset" I'd have to give it some consideration, would that not make for a fine opportunity to elminate some of the opposition? I'd also have to seriously consider the risk of after said invasion, I'd attack the one I'd held the truce with, hoping they were weakend more my the attack than I was. Now however if you're one of the two attacking teams, you're happy (I hope) by the outcome. But the attacked team is gonna feel far more inclined to cry foul. Was this "unfair" game play? You just said you thought it was hilarious that two teams "stooped to the level,.." but what about it two weaker teams pooled together to take out the stronger? Would that be viewed the same?
_________________ American soldiers don't fight because they hate what's in front of them...they fight because they love what's behind them. http://www.runawayproton.com <-- Expired telnet://runawayproton.dyndns.org:223 V2.20b Games <-- Expired http://www.twsubspace.com <-- Expired Teamspeak 3 50.23.212.53:4196 <-- Expired Just a has been now.
|
Sat Jan 07, 2012 7:00 pm |
|
|
|
Who is online |
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests |
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
|
|