Greedy Goblin

Wednesday, July 3, 2013

Trust issues once again

I wrote about it several times, but yet again, misplaced trust have cost some 200 systems to Nulli and 500B to TLC.

EVE is not real. In real life you have one life and it's precious to you. Going out to "awox" is pretty trivial, you just grab a kitchen knife and stab random people on the street. But sooner or later the cops come and either shoot you on site or you'll be arrested and spend the rest of your life in jail. This makes random awox fun a bit less lucrative. Spies in real life also made huge impact, like delivering the US nuke secrets to the Soviets. They got in the electric chair though.

On the other hand in EVE you have alts. If you steal huge amount of money, you can come out clean by simply biomassing the thief character. The victims of the awox, suicide gank or corp theft are completely unable to retaliate to the "real you". For this reason you must never ever trust anybody. How can you operate then? By clear trades and placing people of position into the position of personal risk. Let me explain it via a rental system that could prevent the S2N disaster. Currently the PvP alliance "owned" the system and several people managed it. Let's turn it upside down: the manager "owns" N systems. He rents it out, the rental income is his. As he clearly can't protect it, he pays a security payment to the PvP alliance. In step by step:
  1. Alliance owns systems.
  2. Guy pays upfront cost to get the systems. Scams can be prevented by using either third party escrow or giving systems one by one. He gets one system, pays for it, gets next.
  3. Now the guy owns the systems. If the alliance betrays him, they have to grind it back and lose credibility. Alliances can't easily be remade like alts as members can choose to not move with the leaders.
  4. Guy either rents them out or uses the systems himself, either way getting income.
  5. From time to time he pays security payment for the alliance to protect him. If the alliance doesn't protect him, he lost one payment only.
What about the own assets of the alliance? They can be owned by several members. If one or two goes rogue, he can only cause small problems and not drop the sov in regions. Every alliance asset can (and should) be in private hands of people who paid for them. This way thefts are impossible as you can't steal your own assets. An "alliance asset" that is managed by someone is a loot waiting to be taken.


Dàchéng said...

Gevlon, I think one of us hasn't thought this through completely (probably me).

You suggested that managers own the systems and pay the alliance for them. This still leaves an alliance asset (the money paid for the systems) in an alliance account, from which it can be stolen. The same applies to the oney paid to the alliance for security.

You suggest a solution: give the alliance assets to several individuals. I.e. the systems that the alliance owned (through conquest) are sold to managers in the alliance, and the money does not go to the alliance, but to some other managers. So the alliance itself fights for nothing. The only people who would benefit from such an alliance are a small number of managers: those who own the systems that the alliance captured, and those who own the ISK paid for those systems.

Does this remind you of oil and gas in the former Soviet Union?

Gevlon said...

"The alliance", the members would be instantly paid when the guy buys the asset via reimbursements, capital supports and whatever systems alliances use.

Currently the grunts fight for alliance assets what they might FEEL their own but they are wrong and will figure that out when someone steals it.

Anonymous said...

Every time SOV is transferred, you cannot put up cyno beacons for 21 days and jump bridges or cyno jammers for 35 days.

Defending SOV involves a lot of fiddling with timers, onlining and offlining cynojammers, rerouting JBs, etc, all of which require someone in the SOV holding alliance with proper roles to do.

Switching from having a single renter alliance to having ever renter corp/alliance own their own space both incapacitates travel/defence in that space for a month every time a contract changes, and massively increases the headache of coordinating defence.

Anonymous said...

Eve online is actually deliberately designed in such a way that if you want to do ANYTHING with respect to end game content you need a level of trust - and that level of trust can be broken for hilarious consequences.

The general model for alliance delineation of power is well evolved but still susceptible to this sort of stuff. And it isn't something that minor tweaks in structure can deal with without crippling the ability for an alliance as an entity to move collectively and fluidly as one big war machine.

These things happen because compromises have to be reached in order to make an alliance function

Von Keigai said...

Seems to me awoxes at this level are remarkably rare, all else equal. And there is a good reason: because the people running corps do actually know each other. They meet physically at EVE meets, they are on comms with each other constantly, they exchange cell #s, they have email contacts, etc.

In this case, I am not sure what failed but it appears that the guy running the account had either was hacked by Russians, or shared it with some friend who did the actual deed. In any case, the entire premise of your post is wrong: the people running N3 know who he is. They've talked to him IRL, probably because they have his cell #.

So, here's a counter proposal for how to run a corporation: never give director roles to anyone that the leadership group does not know personally IRL. This should include, at minimum, the following items:
(1) have met physically IRL with at least two other directors
(2) having cell # number(s)
(3) having email
(4) having spent at least a year in the alliance, active
(5) being on comms with alliance members frequently

I might also add that many of these awoxings seem to happen with accounts that have been idle for a while. Might make sense to remove director roles from anyone who has not logged for a week.

Anonymous said...

I generally trust people in eve as much as in real life, and I dont tend to give control of my assets in real life to "Random dude 12345" either.

If I apply strict controls to who has access to my stuff, either personally, or business-wise, in real life, where there are consequences for running off with the businesses funds (Although, it does happen IRL, and people are left holding the debt), then why the hell would I be less strict when giving access to people in a game were apparently there are no consequences?

Raziel Walker said...

@Von Keigal
Knowing someone in RL does not mean they have to be friends or can't turn into assholes and awox you.

Reviewing roles every week seems a bit burdensome, nobody is going to do this after the first month.