Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Si Omega
|
Posted - 2011.08.24 00:20:00 -
[1]
Here's a wild thought, presented as a potential solution to get more people into null and restrict alliance sizes, fleet sizes and make PvP fun.
I flew for 2 alliances in null. CTA this, CTA that. Kill this, kill that. My financial reward. NIL.
Now I respect that alliances have sov and infrastructure bills etc. but where the hell does all the profit actually go? I never fought for me (which might give me an incentive to go back to null and fight), I fought and someone else got the isk!
So I went back to empire to make MY money. I couldn't rat all day in null because 1) it got boring or 2) so lameass AFK'er neut logs in system and goes to bed (another thing they need to fix imho).
So consider this. Alliance funds (AFTER COSTS) are distributed automatically to corp/alliance members.
Potential benefits
1) Alliances would not (or more specifically could not) fund SRF. This will allow more personal choices in ships and subsequent fits. This will force better strategy PvP for FC's and make what *I* trained for much more fun. As it stands, you have to find an alliance that fits what YOU are trained to fly or you have to fly on a set of substandard skills.
2) Hard work and team effort, whether through defense of space or harvesting of resources will see the profits distributed among members.
3) Too many members in corp/alliance will either 1, reduce income and/or 2, make for stronger teamwork. Slackers and casuals get booted the usual way.
4) Caps/super purchases moves to the hands of the individual. This makes them personally more valuable and makes them less likely to be deployed like a $2 toy.
I'm sure there are other benefits inherent. This is just a discussion piece that doesn't require nerfing caps, high etc. etc...
|
Nikodiemus
Caldari Perkone
|
Posted - 2011.08.24 00:25:00 -
[2]
Whatever happened to a player driven sandbox? Don't join ****ty alliances or renters. I fought for my alliance and corp from being a single system renter to being a large and successful alliance and I benefited through SRP, nullsec ore, nullsec sigs, and oh yea I got to **** in so many peoples' porridge it would make the three bears **** themselves.
|
Si Omega
|
Posted - 2011.08.24 00:36:00 -
[3]
Edited by: Si Omega on 24/08/2011 00:44:17 Read it again. This would not restrict or inhibit the sandbox regime. It simply reduces a single char from holding the alliance wealth.
The neccessity to fight, grow and work as a team in null becomes LESS one-sided. The benefits of doing that same fighting become MORE rewarding. Same game, better rewards.
Added: SRF is a scam. If I fight and lose my ship, it's replaced. NETT benefit. Zero. If I do NOT fight, I do not lose my ship. NETT benefit. Same. Zero.
If I am getting a slice of the Tech moon pie directly I will fight harder and longer to keep that wealth. No chicken ass, "I've got RL issues" to avoid CTA's so I only log for rats and rocks.
PS: Of course, it would also inhibit the ability to RMT from corp/alliance accounts.
|
mechtech
SRS Industries SRS.
|
Posted - 2011.08.24 00:38:00 -
[4]
Edited by: mechtech on 24/08/2011 00:42:20 Most good corps/alliances dump back all profits into some kind of ship reimbursement system.
The real "problem" is that the passive profits just aren't that high. You can spend billions of isk on ships, not to mention hundreds of hours of player time to take a constellation, but it won't give any passive income back to you apart from moons (which actually are a pain in the ass to manage on a large scale). In essence you're fighting for good ratting/mining grounds. Even then, high sec space can make almost as much if you're efficient with grinding out lvl4s w/ high end equipment.
Realize that unless you're planning on setting up botting grounds like some alliances do, the space you're fighting for is hardly worth the massive time and isk investment. 0.0 conquest isn't about profit... so many of those pilots that take part in blob warfare are basically poor players, and the alliance/corp wallets of many of these 0.0 organizations really aren't that impressive either unless they're botting or have the top tier moons. No, 0.0 combat is about fun... no wait that can't possibly be right. Well maybe people are just fighting there because people will always find an excuse to blow each-other up given enough time...
The moment you start thinking about isk/hour in 0.0 is the moment you'll think about just joining a wormhole corp or start trading. Holding a high end wormhole with a close knit group of players takes a FAR smaller investment in time and isk than 0.0, and gives greater rewards if you have a decent team. Perhaps you can try and find a respectable merc corp? (but they don't really make much isk/hour do they?)
Yeah, it's funny to me that 0.0 grunts spend 100s of billions of isk in resources fighting for space that's what, 1.5x as better for isk making as perfectly safe high sec? Maybe it actually is fun to some people...
edit: Quote: I fought for my alliance and corp from being a single system renter to being a large and successful alliance and I benefited through SRP, nullsec ore, nullsec sigs, and oh yea I got to **** in so many peoples' porridge it would make the three bears **** themselves.
And that's 0.0 in a nutshell. Actually I'd be into that too, but I think it's delusional to think that blowing up a T2 fit BS in this day in age is really hurting anyone. Even titans are easy to farm up and crank out these days.
|
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2011.08.24 00:56:00 -
[5]
Originally by: Si Omega If I am getting a slice of the Tech moon pie directly I will fight harder and longer to keep that wealth.
Let's say (purely hypothetically speaking) your 1000-man strong corp is controlling 50 Technetium moons. The average INCOME from all of that is only about 360 mil ISK per month per alliance member, net profit is smaller. Not even enough for a PLEX. Also, how exactly will you determine who gets a larger or a smaller portion of that ISK ? You wouldn't give a newbie flying poorly fit ships the same amount of ISK like some vet that shows up in a supercarrier, or would you ?
_
Akita T USEFUL EVE LINKS collection |
Si Omega
|
Posted - 2011.08.24 01:02:00 -
[6]
Quote: In essence you're fighting for good ratting/mining grounds. Even then, high sec space can make almost as much if you're efficient with grinding out lvl4s w/ high end equipment.
Exactly. And if I do not mine or rat what am I fighting for? Some pew-pew? So I'll use my fleet doctrine ship, get it blown up and replaced with, you guessed it, a fleet doctrine ship! How mindless can it get?
Put the power in MY hands to pick my ship and my fit and I will get my kicks knowing that I am fighting to support MY habits and those of my mates, not the CEO's new car and mistress...
|
Voka Vokan
|
Posted - 2011.08.24 01:05:00 -
[7]
Not all alliances have CTAs (ex: Goons and TEST don't). Most of the spending goes towards reimbursements for ships and funding supers.
|
Si Omega
|
Posted - 2011.08.24 01:13:00 -
[8]
Quote: Also, how exactly will you determine who gets a larger or a smaller portion of that ISK ? You wouldn't give a newbie flying poorly fit ships the same amount of ISK like some vet that shows up in a supercarrier, or would you ?
A valid question but this is where corp/alliance sizes might get pulled down in size.
Vet corps would be mindful of who they recruit so that wealth is distributed equitably. You're not going to sign up some soft BC pilot that only goes to null to rat and RL their way out of CTA's. Of course, new corps pick up the noobs and build their skills accordingly, as a team.
Either way, there'd be less incentive to sign up every noob just to lagfest the systems.
Perhaps something as simple as restricting wealth distribution to corp level allows alliances to run multiple "skill-level" corps that you would aspire to. If you want the big bikkies, you need to get into a cap or ship X etc.
|
Pok Nibin
Amarr
|
Posted - 2011.08.24 01:35:00 -
[9]
Edited by: Pok Nibin on 24/08/2011 01:36:07
I see a lot of posts by people who have been in this game a good, long while. It makes me wonder how long it's been since they were in the beginner's zone watching the rookie chat. Corporations are known, as general knowledge (common knowledge/conventional wisdom,) as stupid things to join because all they're for is to take your money and give it to someone else.
Now, it's not up to me to ferret out why corporations in EVE are known as organized theft rings, stealing from their own members. But, it's not something that can be easily overlooked as a key feature to the influx of new players and how they view the nature of their EVE careers...and thus the game itself.
But, I'd venture a guess that it has something to do with experience, collective if you will. If the collective experience were different (over this long passing of time), I'd be willing to bet the reputation of the "idea" of a corporation would be different as well, and would actually reflect THAT difference.
You may now saturate with ad hominem.
Please wait as this sig- nature finishes loading
|
White Tree
|
Posted - 2011.08.24 01:43:00 -
[10]
For all the whining and moaning that goes on about Goonswarm, TEST and the CFC as a whole: We don't have CTAs. And most of the Alliance-level profit goes into reimbursing ship losses. The CFC is a grand socialist experiment that has ultimately been successful. We don't punish people into fighting, we give them a stunning level of fiscal autonomy and they end up coming out and wanting to fight, rather than being forced too. _______________________________________
Follow me on Twitter! |
|
Tyears
|
Posted - 2011.08.24 01:48:00 -
[11]
Originally by: White Tree For all the whining and moaning that goes on about Goonswarm, TEST and the CFC as a whole: We don't have CTAs. And most of the Alliance-level profit goes into reimbursing ship losses. The CFC is a grand socialist experiment that has ultimately been successful. We don't punish people into fighting, we give them a stunning level of fiscal autonomy and they end up coming out and wanting to fight, rather than being forced too.
Some parts of the CFC have CTAs, FA for example.
|
KaarBaak
Minmatar Seatec Astronomy
|
Posted - 2011.08.24 02:07:00 -
[12]
Fix the Corp shares system and a corresponding Alliance shares system. In theory, isn't this what they were for?
Issue X shares for joining Corp. Y shares to FCs. Z shares to directors. All shares revert back to Corp ownership when player leaves Corp. Distributions first of every month.
It would make it impossible to own shares if not a Corp member (outside investors) but I'm not sure anyone really uses them for that anyway.
He who breaks the law shall be punished back to the House of Pain. -- Sayer of the Law |
Si Omega
|
Posted - 2011.08.24 02:16:00 -
[13]
My alt flew for FA AND for Test and both points regarding CTA's is correct.
But, in BOTH cases, I was ONLY reimbursed for ship loss if I flew doctrine ships and ONLY if I lost them in defensive/offensive ops.
And again, the loss of a ship to defend space simply so I can rat/mine is not incentive enough. SRF is a consequence of fighting, not a reason too.
Keep in mind that half the guys I flew with, in both FA and TEST, logged when an op came up, CTA or otherwise. I fought for their lame-asses.
My main point is being missed though. Some of the alliance profits may well go back to an SRF but that's what, to protect the resources so you can pay for an SRF? If that were the case, there'd be no point in null at all.
There IS profit, it's not going back to players, either by corp choice and/or the lack of ingame tools (like a proper share system) to do so.
In Eve, Fred Nerk can have you fight for "glory" and "honor" while he keeps the coin. Period.
|
Ira Theos
|
Posted - 2011.08.24 02:29:00 -
[14]
Si Omega:
You have highlighted one of the MAJOR problems with the game mechanics regarding Corporations and Alliances. You have described the very reason that I left Sov-wars and the Alliances in zero. Until CCP wakes up and corrects this, there is very little reason for any new pilot (new meaning "new" to zero) to waste his time or effort in zero sov-wars. There simply is nothing in it for them. Depending on the fickle promises of egocentric RMT pricks in zero is simply a non-starter.
So I salute your suggestion of formalizing pilot rewards through defined benefit game mechanics in Corporations and Alliances in zero. This would take the candy away from the egocentric space pricks pretty quick if enacted. A good idea!
|
Ira Theos
|
Posted - 2011.08.24 02:40:00 -
[15]
Originally by: KaarBaak
Fix the Corp shares system and a corresponding Alliance shares system. In theory, isn't this what they were for?
Issue X shares for joining Corp. Y shares to FCs. Z shares to directors. All shares revert back to Corp ownership when player leaves Corp. Distributions first of every month.
It would make it impossible to own shares if not a Corp member (outside investors) but I'm not sure anyone really uses them for that anyway.
******
QFT !!
|
Ira Theos
|
Posted - 2011.08.24 02:42:00 -
[16]
Originally by: Si Omega My alt flew for FA AND for Test and both points regarding CTA's is correct.
But, in BOTH cases, I was ONLY reimbursed for ship loss if I flew doctrine ships and ONLY if I lost them in defensive/offensive ops.
And again, the loss of a ship to defend space simply so I can rat/mine is not incentive enough. SRF is a consequence of fighting, not a reason too.
Keep in mind that half the guys I flew with, in both FA and TEST, logged when an op came up, CTA or otherwise. I fought for their lame-asses.
My main point is being missed though. Some of the alliance profits may well go back to an SRF but that's what, to protect the resources so you can pay for an SRF? If that were the case, there'd be no point in null at all.
There IS profit, it's not going back to players, either by corp choice and/or the lack of ingame tools (like a proper share system) to do so.
In Eve, Fred Nerk can have you fight for "glory" and "honor" while he keeps the coin. Period.
******** Quoted for ABSOLUTE TRUTH !!
|
Ladie Scarlet
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
|
Posted - 2011.08.24 02:51:00 -
[17]
Originally by: Tyears Some parts of the CFC have CTAs, FA for example.
FA was treated horribly by the NC. It's going to take some time to recover from that but they'll come around eventually. I'm rooting for them just because of how badly they've been ****ing off PL recently.
|
Ethan Bejorn
Caldari Provisions
|
Posted - 2011.08.24 03:35:00 -
[18]
Are you Obama?
|
Si Omega
|
Posted - 2011.08.24 04:02:00 -
[19]
I'd be more like Trotsky if it's me you're talking to. Socialist "for the good of the ppl" reform is all I want. Sheesh, I hate corruption and greed.
Ohhhh.... hang on.
Are we talking about massive corps where all the wealth is character-centric and I do not have to distribute shares and give the profits *to my shareholders*? We do everything "for the state"??!
Now I am confused. Is my office on Wall Street or in Lenin Square?
|
Jacob Stiller
|
Posted - 2011.08.24 04:09:00 -
[20]
If you create a trade alt, you could try your hand at redistributing wealth from the pockets of impatient wealthy people to your own.
|
|
Si Omega
|
Posted - 2011.08.24 04:26:00 -
[21]
lol. I do this and have made myself rather fabulously rich.
tbh, it enforces my point. I can get rich w/o having to sit on a bridge for 3 hours, listen to an FC rag at me because I didn't align fast enough as we go rep/protect a tech moon that I never get the financial benefit of.
Now if you were to give me a 1% share of the 50 tech moons (or whatever), then it's in my best interests to protect MY wealth. i.e. It'll be "gate is red" all the way to the fight to hold me back.
More of us will go back to null (or start) and fight like mangy cats over a fishbone.
|
Simetraz
|
Posted - 2011.08.24 05:01:00 -
[22]
As other said this can be done within the current game mechanics if the alliance wants to.
But here is the interesting twist. The alliance really has no abilities but claiming SOV., and several house keeping items
THe mechanics are built around corporations. Well almost.
CCP should finish the job and let corporations take SOV and then form an alliance if they so choose. It would definitely change 0.0 and it would make things a lot more interesting.
|
Donald MacRury
Gallente LankTech Galactic System Lords Alliance
|
Posted - 2011.08.24 07:17:00 -
[23]
I might not be an expert on this and could be complety wrong. But if I were in charge of an alliance. My position on this would be to scrap the SRF idea and just pay people for there efforts for showing up. Maybe a little bonus if they get good kills.
|
Alissa Solette
|
Posted - 2011.08.24 08:33:00 -
[24]
Join an Alliance that has a decent reimbursement system. |
Kunming
Amarr T.H.U.G L.I.F.E Xenon-Empire
|
Posted - 2011.08.24 10:12:00 -
[25]
Originally by: Alissa Solette Join an Alliance that has a decent reimbursement system.
Better join an alliance that isnt RMTing tech-moon income...
|
Brooks Puuntai
Minmatar Nomadic Asylum
|
Posted - 2011.08.24 10:30:00 -
[26]
Edited by: Brooks Puuntai on 24/08/2011 10:30:53 Most corps/alliances do a ship reimbursement program because its the easiest to monitor and control. Trying to do isk payouts to individual players based off of productivity won't work at least when you are decent sized. Its harder to monitor activity when you have more members, not only that but how do you justify how much something is worth? In the end you will have alot people complaining because so and so go paid more for the same job.
People seem up overstate the amount of actual revenue alot of alliances get. Comparing that to costs of Sov, upkeep, reimbursements, Awox reserves there really isn't a whole lot left. Most corps find ways to try to either invest the reserve to make more or just keep it as a rainy day fund, just in case some **** goes down.
Being a member usually just grants you access to the space they hold, as well as some benefits depends on the corp/alliance(reimbursements, Cap/Super assistance, etc). What always annoyed me when being CEO or Director was hearing people ***** and moan about expectations or benefits from the corp, yet those same usually aren't willing to do anything for the actual corp itself. |
Kunming
Amarr T.H.U.G L.I.F.E Xenon-Empire
|
Posted - 2011.08.24 10:44:00 -
[27]
Originally by: Brooks Puuntai Edited by: Brooks Puuntai on 24/08/2011 10:30:53 Most corps/alliances do a ship reimbursement program because its the easiest to monitor and control. Trying to do isk payouts to individual players based off of productivity won't work at least when you are decent sized. Its harder to monitor activity when you have more members, not only that but how do you justify how much something is worth? In the end you will have alot people complaining because so and so go paid more for the same job.
People seem up overstate the amount of actual revenue alot of alliances get. Comparing that to costs of Sov, upkeep, reimbursements, Awox reserves there really isn't a whole lot left. Most corps find ways to try to either invest the reserve to make more or just keep it as a rainy day fund, just in case some **** goes down.
Being a member usually just grants you access to the space they hold, as well as some benefits depends on the corp/alliance(reimbursements, Cap/Super assistance, etc). What always annoyed me when being CEO or Director was hearing people ***** and moan about expectations or benefits from the corp, yet those same usually aren't willing to do anything for the actual corp itself.
We call em dead weight
It is true alot of ppl overstate the alliance revenue, but alliances usually understate it on the forums. My own grievance with the situation is that all the moon-goo income requires no player efford, you just set it up and cha-ching! While the rest has to split its time between earning money to recover losses and actually fighting to gain any riches at all.
|
Brooks Puuntai
Minmatar Nomadic Asylum
|
Posted - 2011.08.24 10:53:00 -
[28]
Originally by: Kunming My own grievance with the situation is that all the moon-goo income requires no player efford, you just set it up and cha-ching! While the rest has to split its time between earning money to recover losses and actually fighting to gain any riches at all.
Depending on what your doing. POS maintenance if you are doing several reaction chains can be mind numbing and one of the worst things to do in this game. Even still unless you are doing massive Tech chains the income isn't what most expect once you factor in fuel costs, mineral costs(unless you have all moons needed for reactions), and logistical costs. Its not as simple as place tower and watch wallet blink. |
Doramina
|
Posted - 2011.08.24 11:41:00 -
[29]
As a casual gamer who likes combat PVP, earning ISK is a problem for me as to earn it takes me away for combat PVP. ISK incomes such as PI, datacores, trading, PVE, invention, mining & manufacturing bore me and are time intensive(except for datacores). Mildly interesting at first.
I think you should get ISK for the payment subscription transactions. At least it would devalue the ISK and would be able some care-free fun. Buying at PLEX for ISK is folly. The virtual currency does not support business operations such as running a server and staff remunerations.
For me ISK = Fun tickets to PVP.
|
Cipher Jones
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2011.08.24 15:22:00 -
[30]
Originally by: Si Omega Edited by: Si Omega on 24/08/2011 00:51:08 Here's a wild thought, presented as a potential solution to get more people into null and restrict alliance sizes, fleet sizes and make PvP fun.
I flew for 2 alliances in null. CTA this, CTA that. Kill this, kill that. My financial reward. NIL.
Now I respect that alliances have sov and infrastructure bills etc. but where the hell does all the profit actually go? I never fought for me (which might give me an incentive to go back to null and fight), I fought and someone else got the isk!
So I went back to empire to make MY money. I couldn't rat all day in null because 1) it got boring or 2) so lameass AFK'er neut logs in system and goes to bed (another thing they need to fix imho).
So consider this. Alliance funds (AFTER COSTS) are distributed automatically to corp/alliance members.
Potential benefits
1) Alliances would not (or more specifically could not) fund SRF. This will allow more personal choices in ships and subsequent fits. This will force better strategy PvP for FC's and make what *I* trained for much more fun. As it stands, you have to find an alliance that fits what YOU are trained to fly or you have to fly on a set of substandard skills.
2) Hard work and team effort, whether through defense of space or harvesting of resources will see the profits distributed among members.
3) Too many members in corp/alliance will either 1, reduce income and/or 2, make for stronger teamwork. Slackers and casuals get booted the usual way.
4) Caps/super purchases moves to the hands of the individual. This makes them personally more valuable and makes them less likely to be deployed like a $2 toy.
5) Added: Of course, it would also inhibit the ability to RMT from corp/alliance accounts without collusion.
I'm sure there are other benefits inherent. This is just a discussion piece that doesn't require nerfing caps, high etc. etc...
What the **** is wrong with you? Seriously. You need to go sit in timeout and think about what you said.
I never want to hear talk like this on my forums again.
. Adapt and overcome or become a monkey on an evolution poster.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |