Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Anthar Thebess
1614
|
Posted - 2016.07.15 13:16:14 -
[1] - Quote
During the eve history cap level for members in the corporation was constantly increased, allowing bigger and bigger groups to emerge. How good or bad to eve could be reducing this size, and placing additional cap on alliance size.
Stop discrimination, help in a fight against terrorists
Show your support to The Cause!
|
Mephiztopheleze
Laphroaig Inc.
796
|
Posted - 2016.07.15 13:40:53 -
[2] - Quote
it's a bit of a moot point as most of the better organised groups, from individual corps through to giant coalitions at the alliance level, usually use a lot of out-of-game channels to co-ordinate with each other anyways.
enlarging in-game mechanics to reflect that simple reality is just good business sense, nothing more.
Occasional Resident Newbie Correspondent for TMC: http://themittani.com/search/site/mephiztopheleze
This is my Forum Main. My Combat Alt is sambo Inkura
|
Memphis Baas
1720
|
Posted - 2016.07.15 14:14:58 -
[3] - Quote
IMO it would just make things more cumbersome. We're already fighting the UI to play the game; you can't really block people from forming groups and interacting socially in a game by controlling the UI. Alliances form Coalitions, and even without those, there are NAPs and the standings system that aid in the management of large groups. Alliances didn't grow because CCP increased the limits, it's the other way around, CCP increased the limits because alliances got big. |
Sustrai Aditua
Intandofisa
383
|
Posted - 2016.07.15 15:26:48 -
[4] - Quote
Seems to be a matter of practical application. It's widely believed bigger is better. In terms of military force that gets a yes and no. A certain military power sees a 1 to 10 kill ratio due to training, tactics and equipment, it tends to lean toward a leaner force. Another such power has no hope to achieve a competitive level of tech (equipment), and doesn't have the social structure to field an educated force (training) has to use a different approach.
In management of large groups of people, the smaller the managed unit the better. A certain military force has this unit down to two people - you and your "battle buddy." Another one uses sets of three. It's also wise to deal with things at the lowest level of command to avoid having to overly-burden those who do command the larger force structure. This tells us the more people under a command, the fewer the command responsibilities must be for that commander. It has to do with efficiency and efficacy.
SO...size matters. However, do we want artificial limitations on size? Again, dipping into force management practice, the only limitations one wants are natural limitations. Artificial limitations reduce flexibility and fluidity - the two main factors in making decisions on the fly. Artificial restrictions from on high, understood only by the headshed, serve only to handcuff the structure.
SO. as in all things EVE, it's there in quantity. That doesn't mean it's a good idea to fill it to the brim. Also, how some people go about solving problems or accommodating situations differs from how others would. Why fix the circumstance to favor one way of thinking at the expense of any alternatives?
There's a logical answer to a question that smacks of "changing things just to be changing them." I don't want to accuse the OP of that, as the OP may be ruminating on the fact that with BoB of old and the Blue Donut Brigade of recent times, one of the characteristics both groups share is the size involved. However, as BoB's fate revealed, and recent developments seem to validate, bigger doesn't look like a good idea. However, why keep your opponent from shooting himself in the foot?
If he wants to be the brontosaurus in a room full of sabretooths, let him.
If we get chased by zombies, I'm tripping you.
|
Shiloh Templeton
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
559
|
Posted - 2016.07.16 01:09:14 -
[5] - Quote
We don't need a new reason for experienced content creators to leave the game. Besides, WWB proved that any size group can be taken down a notch.
|
Sustrai Aditua
Intandofisa
391
|
Posted - 2016.07.16 10:31:13 -
[6] - Quote
Shiloh Templeton wrote:...experienced content creators... Woo hoo! A promotion! Experienced content creators! I'm breaking into the dev game with this one! Imagine that on your resume "Experienced content creator - played EVE Online." The industry will just eat that up!!
"Here, Mister Content Creator, we'll triple your salary above that of actual game developers! After all, you played EVE Online! You must be good! Coding? Oh, you don't neeed no steenkeeng coding! You played EVE ONLINE!!! YOU'RE HIRED!! Have a limo!!"
Experienced content creators wanted. Salary and benefits, with retirement. Please, apply inside.
BWAAAHAAAAAHAAAA HAAAAA!!!! Experienced....content creators....hooboy.
If we get chased by zombies, I'm tripping you.
|
Gimme Sake
State War Academy Caldari State
402
|
Posted - 2016.07.16 11:26:21 -
[7] - Quote
Prob a low cap/member limit in a desireable corp would force members to be more organised and active or be replaced.
"Never not blob!" ~ Plato
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |