I didn't say that, I said you can't catch them if they're careful. Unless you're saying you can hear their communication. For every time you caught someone, there are twenty times they got away with it. Every time they got away with it, they gained an advantage over the honest ones.

What is the point of even defining it? For what purpose?

If you say no info sharing, players can take it on other mediums like icq.

No asset sharing, harder to hide but nowhere near impossible. Move small pieces instead of large

Acting together? Please; Butcher is right when there is blood in the water the sharks will circle. Its super easy to yell mega when your losing.

The game is about asset's, speaking from experiance we have activly held back on invading corps just waiting for the other corp to attack and often fail first.

Allot like subspace crawling is it the most fair thing.... No

But it happens, its not a bug and if you happen to be on the recieving side it sucks to be you.

Its actually common place for people to work together to defeat larger enemies, unless the game activly prevents it like in most FPS games. An exmple was during vanilla wow the guild i was in often worked with the horde to kill world dragons because a group of 40 could not do it back then. We took turns defeating a larger enemy even if it was not the most "ethical" way of defeating a boss designed to be near unbeatable.

You only need to define it if you make a rule against it. If there's no rule there's no problem.


I share your opinion, but it sounds like others disagree and will continue to try to enforce it. In such cases, the honest ones will follow the rule, and the dishonest ones will continue to gain advantage by not following it.

Just say the rule is No Megacorping, only the dishonest will need a definition. Its not "In such cases....", its "In every case...".

H

You cant enforce a no MC rule, there is no un-biased way. Its all strategy in the right context.

We all start presumably at the same time, we mostly all sit afk with active bots recording chatter. If say on day 3 someone attempts to invade corp A but fails. Its quite easy to decide to also attack corp A as your fairly sure their still weak and the other corp likely will also have used many assets in the process.

Lets say I'm the invading but failed corp. is it MC if i tell someone over icq, etc where they are? Or is it good strategy because i want to bring there assets to my level . What if I didnt actually invade but know that corp C is weaker than A and will fail. Wouldnt it be good tactics to set them up for failure?

I mean the point of the game is to win and in my book short of bugs that's by any means possible.

Including breaking your scripts with a cby command. Sharing tactical information if it benefits me. Or temporary truces because some corp has turtled the entire game.

I don't get what you're saying. To me, information sharing is not megacorping, but I think to others it is. If you say no megacorping, people need to know your definition of megacorping.

I like that H, plain, simple, and to the point

So it would be easy to apply this rule to, say, the current situation?

That question is moot, there is no rule about megacorping in this BOTE

H

This has been my point all along, it's common place and good stratagy. The way you describe it here is not any form of MC or sharing, it's just stragy plain and simple.
But as soon as you "call in another corp" or "send a location" (other than what's aready in the logs) then it's a MC and if there is a no MC rule, then it's been busted.

As H already said, there was no rule, so the question is dead. We need to move away from that for the time as it gets to heated to make any form of conclusion.

Oh. For some reason I'd figured there was some kind of rule, because of all the debate... In this case, it's easy for RP.

Yes, in this case it is easy,
But in past games I've seen it come to play, and I'm sure in future games as well.
It's easy for two corps to work together in a game when there's no rule against it, and the looser of that effort is always gonna cry in some way shape of form.
The purpose of this discussion was to determine some way for a sysop to gauge what is and isn't MC'ing and how to prove it.
In my oppinion, and the way it would be run on my site if I were to incorporate a no MC or Asset Sharing rule, is that if two teams are working for a common interest, it's a MC.
So that being said, a CEO knowing of such rule, should see that if an attack happens in a game, let them finish before you enter into said attack. If the logs show, or you're able to determine where this attack was held, and you care to move in after and mop up, that's good stratagy. But if there is evidence of the two teams sharing information, or teaming up, they'd both be disqualified.

Anyone remember that guy CC Bee? This totally has to do with him!

Ouch. All that sounds like an excellent argument for NOT implementing such a rule. Sounds so complicated and difficult to police.