Metagaming in EVE - Page 20

GM Grimmi
*
Yesterday we changed the name of the alliance KenZoku to Band of Brothers Reloaded as the result of a petition by their leadership. It has come to our attention that this was not a popular decision among some of our players and we’d like to take this opportunity to address those issues.
*
We have previously changed names provided a petition was created within a reasonable timeframe and the situation warranted such action. The leadership of KenZoku/Band of Brothers did petition us immediately after they were disbanded and their name was taken. While we worked on the petition for about two months we do not feel that they should suffer because of that. Having them disband and lose sovereignty again was not deemed appropriate in this case.
*
This action was limited to changing their name, as we have done before for others - we did not assist them in regaining their sovereignty after the Band of Brothers alliance was disbanded, nor did we assist with that now. Any other corporation or alliance finding themselves in the same situation would get the same treatment.
*

GM Grimmi
*
Lead Game Master

Unfortunately, this doesn't hold up for several reasons. Firstly, "KenZoku" was a pre-existing name that all the BoB corps joined under so they could immediately gain Sovereignty. KenZoku itself was founded four and a half months ago.

Secondly, no one can come up with an instance where an Alliance name was changed due to request. They have been changed when deemed to be inappropriate or eula-breaking, but not because someone asked.

Conversely, there are many precedents when an Alliance requested a name change and were denied. Stain Empire was accidentally created as "Stian Empire" and immediately petitioned to have their name changed. They were told to just make a new one and pay the 1 billion isk fee again. Against ALL Authorities failed to pay their Alliance bill once and ceased to exist. They petitioned it to have all their Sovereignty brought back, were denied, and had to pay 1 billion isk to remake AAA with Sovereignty starting over at zero. Ethereal Dawn had their name stolen from them by another group and reformed as RISE. When the thieves relinquished the name, RISE petitioned to have their name reinstated. They were told to disband, lose Sovereignty, and pay 1 billion isk to gain the name Ethereal Dawn again.

Thirdly, the CCP rules explicitly state that they do not change any name for any reason other than a judgment of inappropriateness.

Fourthly, it doesn't address the extra character in the name beyond the usual limit of 24.


Other than that, CCP has been locking/deleting all threads in the main section of their forums relating to the issue.

The best line on the subject I've seen so far is "See? They would have done this for any other Alliance the Goons were defeating."

On March 25 2009 08:01 CDRdude wrote:
Wow, that settles it. I'm never playing eve, because I'm not willing to give CCP money if they play favorites to this degree. I hope they come to their senses.

On March 25 2009 09:26 motbob wrote:
LOL you're boycotting them over this? Well, I'm going to be over here having fun playing EVE with other TL members, see you around I guess...

On March 25 2009 16:58 abcb wrote:


You might have fun now, but when it comes time for developer/GM to give favors the people you are fighting with and you lose all the stuff you grind endless hours for, it's no fun.

I mean why play poker if the dealer is just going to intentionally deal better hands to someone else.

On March 25 2009 16:58 abcb wrote:


You might have fun now, but when it comes time for developer/GM to give favors the people you are fighting with and you lose all the stuff you grind endless hours for, it's no fun.

I mean why play poker if the dealer is just going to intentionally deal better hands to someone else.

On March 25 2009 22:56 wswordsmen wrote:

No they changed your opponents name, against president, to a name over the character limit, when they never ever changed the name of an alliance before (Human Being said no one could recall when they changed a name due to petition) this is blatant favoritism, even if it is minor now, CCP has shown they will cross the line to support BOB illegally, which means they are likely to due more next time.

By the way you are clearly bias defending BOB on this, AAA pets are speaking out against it (once again quote from Human Being (quote of a quote actually)).

By the way you are clearly bias defending BOB on this

On March 25 2009 22:56 wswordsmen wrote:

No they changed your opponents name, against president, to a name over the character limit, when they never ever changed the name of an alliance before (Human Being said no one could recall when they changed a name due to petition) this is blatant favoritism, even if it is minor now, CCP has shown they will cross the line to support BOB illegally, which means they are likely to due more next time.

By the way you are clearly bias defending BOB on this, AAA pets are speaking out against it (once again quote from Human Being (quote of a quote actually)).

My case: After a few months of playing S9 ticker became available (didn't had it at that time). Kindly asked 2 times the GMs to give it to my corp since no-one was using it. "No, can't do!" So I had to close the corp - move all assets to corp members, get out/kick all corp members, and finally leave the corp only to re-do it 10min later with the ticker we wanted.

Other examples:

Stian Empire was created. Someone noticed the typo, told CCP. CCP told them to disband the alliance (and getting no refund from the 1bn isk needed to create it), recreate the alliance (and once again pay 1bn isk to create it) and make sure to spell the name correctly.

black 0ut was created. Someone realized how dumb this was, and so they asked CCP to change it to Black Out. CCP told them no, and that they'd have to disband the alliance (and get no refund from the 1bn isk needed to create it), recreate the alliance (and once again pay 1bn isk to create it) and make sure to spell the name the way they wanted to.

Against All Authorities had a slight mishap where someone didn't pay the maintenance build. They lost all their sovereignty, had to recreate the alliance, and had to once again front the 1bn isk fee. CCP did not reimburse any of that.

BoBR's case: The EULA clearly doesn't give you ANY rights to have your alliance name changed. As for bad game mecanics when BoB was first dismantled, it was no-ones fault (in-game), the same faulty game mecanics apply to EVERYONE in-game (other alliances can suffer the same fate sooner or later - until CCP changes something). You went down thru legitimate in-game mecanis - have the spine to recognize it.

The name itself has little importance (you can have yer old name back for all I care). But bending the EULA rules, still going strong for sov3 in some systems and not paying the 1bn bill - these FACTS clearly put CCP in a delicate position AGAIN because it clearly shows BoBR plays this game by one set of rules and us the rest by another set.

First among equals.

And lets make one thing clear, this is not BoBR's fault. This is a CCP failure, because they still want to interfere in Eve politics. Why is this happening.. idk, the only logical conclusion is that some people with A LOT of decisional power in CCP still have strong ties with BoBR. After the T20 problems, I sincerely doubt even lead GMs do something big like this without asking permision from the head-honchos.

Eve is not CCP's love-child anymore, it's a cash cow. And it shows. Milk it while you can. However some people will never understand that money, even BIG money can be made in a number of ways. It doesn't have to be like this.

If CSM has any voice whatsoever this issues will be on their agenda. And yes Internal Affairs should be notified about this, they should get mails from as many peeps as possible. Be decent, civil, but have a voice. Mail them!

Btw, BoBR I hope you understand why a lot of Eve hates you now. It's not yer so-called elitism. It's the cheating you need to resort to in order to win something, it's the lenghts you go to bend the rules.

As for sending us out for a walk in RL so we don't moan about internet spaceshipz business.. How about you follow yer own advice, and when you come back at the keyboard you try to play the game fair-play (and have some phun while you're at it).

The irony is that it's not gonna matter in the end. Enough entities in-game have the means now to take you down completely and keep you down. You're not the elitist alliance you once were. You're just average now (as A LOT of other peeps got into A LOT of caps now).

Fame lasts 15min, infamy lasts a bit longer.

This is a tough decision for me, because while I think what happened to BOB in the first place was fairly trashy, and unfortunate (certainly not the way I would want to bring down a foe), and I think Meta Gaming is lame true, but this is all part of what makes EVE great and it does seem like their may be some favoritism here.

If CCP could provide some proof that they have taken similar actions before (which I do not believe they have) then perhaps I would be more amicable to the whole name change situation. Furthermore, now that a precedent has been set, they better be ready and willing to change any alliance name.

In addition, if BOBR did get to keep their sov. despite the change that is fairly unconventional too I think, because usually an alliance to change their name would have to reform and lose sov. So BOB most likely should have had to undergo the same process at least, instead of just having a quick painless transfer.

So at the moment, with the given information, I support this cause, BOBR should have to disband, THEN they should reform with their new name and sacrifice standing etc, it just seems more fair that way. I do have sympathy for BOB because of the whole way they went down (very dis-honorable way to win goons imo...) but still it shouldn't get them sympathy from DEVS who should be un-biased and not show any form of favoritism.

Let's see how it shakes out.

On March 25 2009 23:43 motbob wrote:
the last person to pull something like that got discovered and fired.