| Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
mokmo3
Asteroid Miners Consortium
Apoapsis Multiversal Consortium
   |
Posted - 2009.10.29 15:07:00 -
[91]
Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
+1
----
New to Eve ? Eve University is there for you!
Join channel: "Eve University" or read here
|
Master Akira
Child Head Injury and Laceration Doctors
|
Posted - 2009.10.29 15:28:00 -
[92]
+1
|
Kyra Ivanova
|
Posted - 2009.10.29 15:30:00 -
[93]
Supported.
|
Tiny Tove
|
Posted - 2009.10.29 15:53:00 -
[94]
It's the Perfect Problem (tm).
A simple to fix problem of a relatively simple mechanic that most people only know about through reading headlines, almost no knock on or side effects from implementing a tight voting system. All to fix a problem that hardly ever gets heard since it happens so rarely.
And the CSM will be able to claim credit for putting the Virtual Gun(tm) to CCPs head over it and all along CCP know that they just got some junior monkey who didn't stand a chance of being in the HTFU video to knock up a little vote window, and they made the CSM and it's myriad of fevered fanboiz feel like it was actually relevant and important.
One Perfect Problem (tm). May there be many more, just like it.
---
WTB: Unwritten Forum Rules and list of posters you're not allowed to Report. |
Sinsong
|
Posted - 2009.10.29 16:09:00 -
[95]
/signed
|
Mitsuki deLune
|
Posted - 2009.10.29 16:10:00 -
[96]
Absolutely!
|
TenTaxi
|
Posted - 2009.10.29 16:11:00 -
[97]
Edited by: TenTaxi on 29/10/2009 16:10:47
+1 |
Jarvis Hellstrom
The Flying Tigers
Elysium.
|
Posted - 2009.10.29 16:13:00 -
[98]
Absolutely - much better control is needed for something as complex as an Alliance.
Personally, I like the idea that as long as an Alliance has members (and their fees are paid) that the Alliance stays. The only way to 'end it' would be for all members to leave or the bills to be unpaid.
Of course in this case you would need a solid mechanism for preventing the "Kick everyone and then leave to close it" method - so kicking perhaps should be something that requires more than one person and a timer if the vote isn't unanimous.
My .02 ISK anyhow.
May God stand between you and harm in all the Empty places you must walk
(Old Egyptian Blessing) |
Asuri Kinnes
The Bastards
The Bastards.
|
Posted - 2009.10.29 16:47:00 -
[99]
Supported.
|
Hun Jakuza
24th Imperial Guard
|
Posted - 2009.10.29 16:53:00 -
[100]
not suported
meta gaming is a feature and i wanna see alliance disbands like BoB and CVA :DDDDDD
|
|
|
Tellenta
Invicta.
Advocated Destruction
|
Posted - 2009.10.29 17:02:00 -
[101]
Edited by: Tellenta on 29/10/2009 17:02:17
Supported, but this really shouldn't be an issue the CSM needs to bring up. CCP had their warning shot with bob now there is no excuse it is just laziness there has been several patches since bob got the axe working a 'fix' in there somewhere should have been a self initiated task not something you need to work through the gamer geek bureaucracy.
|
Amy Garzan
The Warp Rats
Core Factor
|
Posted - 2009.10.29 17:51:00 -
[102]
/signed
101010 The Answer to Life, The Universe, and Everything |
Orokar Blane
Neh'bu Kau Beh'Hude
Ushra'Khan
|
Posted - 2009.10.29 17:56:00 -
[103]
Fully supported
|
Song Li
MinmaTire Corporation LTD
|
Posted - 2009.10.29 18:19:00 -
[104]
Completely supported. The whole alliance/corp interface needs a complete overhaul.. takes 24 to leave a corp, but 0 minutes to delete an alliance..
Check out, Missions Collide, the official podcast of the HelpMyMission channel
http://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewPodcast?id=328905582[img]http://www.missionscollide.com/wp |
Anubis Xian
Reavers
|
Posted - 2009.10.29 18:38:00 -
[105]
Add allowing people the option to elect to takeover the alliance when the executor has decided to use the disband option.
 Originally by: CCP Oveur
The client handles no logic, it is simply a dumb terminal.
|
Dianeces
The Illuminati.
Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2009.10.29 18:38:00 -
[106]
Absolutely not. How else will I get tons of absolutely hilarious threads to troll?
|
Blazde
4S Corporation
Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2009.10.29 18:54:00 -
[107]
Yes.
_
|
Amun Khonsu
Royal Order of Security Specialists
|
Posted - 2009.10.29 19:15:00 -
[108]
Supported
|
Furb Killer
|
Posted - 2009.10.29 19:48:00 -
[109]
This is first step, but there should be more ways corporations and alliances can secure their assets.
|
CommanderData211
|
Posted - 2009.10.29 19:56:00 -
[110]
The issue isn't that metagaming is bad. To the contrary I think that it is amazing that we have people that care so much about EVE and playing that they spend years to build themselves into an alliance only to wreak havoc (hacking is different).
I think though that with the current mechanic they are able to wreak WAY too much havoc. Theres nothing wrong with a spy throwing a wrench into the cogs, but to be able to throw the entire machine out the window and ship it to Antarctica without anyone noticing seems a little extreme.
All we ask for is better management tools for something as complex as alliances so that all the eggs aren't in one basket. Yes spies can still do damage internally, but the ability for ONE PERSON to close out an entire alliance is a bit ridiculous.
|
|
|
Mr Intel
|
Posted - 2009.10.29 20:55:00 -
[111]
Originally by: Hun Jakuza
not suported
meta gaming is a feature and i wanna see alliance disbands like BoB and CVA :DDDDDD
2/10 for effect
7/10 for effort
Overall = 4/10
Thank you, please troll again.
----------------------------------
Support, As the BoB episode and now CVA has shown, there is somthing broken when an alliance can just "dissapear" in 30 seconds. Plus, recovering from somthing like this can take weeks (for sov re-gains) and billions of isks (for re-creating the alliance, jobs, outposts, ect.)
|
Destination SkillQueue
Are We There Yet
|
Posted - 2009.10.29 21:29:00 -
[112]
While the drama is always entertaining, the mechanic doesn't seem like a good one. This becomes even more obvious when you compare the effort needed to disband an alliance to the effort needed do much simpler things. They often have timers/require voting, so it seems intuitive, that actions with greater affects would require similar safeguards at minimum.
A high level traitor could still cause critical damage and would remain very useful to the enemy, so you would still need to maintain high security, but the shenanigans would stay at a more reasonable level.
|
Bel'shamharoth
|
Posted - 2009.10.29 21:29:00 -
[113]
/supported
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm not a fig plucker or a fig plucker's son, but I'll pluck figs till the fig plucking's done. |
Kafkan
|
Posted - 2009.10.29 21:54:00 -
[114]
Please fix it!
|
Saerynn
Lone Star Joint Venture
Wildly Inappropriate.
|
Posted - 2009.10.29 21:59:00 -
[115]
|
Clementina
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2009.10.30 01:26:00 -
[116]
This really has to be done. I am supporting this.
|
NaMorham Santorin
Caldari
Tech 1 Holdings Limited
Superior Eve Engineering
|
Posted - 2009.10.30 04:25:00 -
[117]
Originally by: CommanderData211
All we ask for is better management tools for something as complex as alliances so that all the eggs aren't in one basket. Yes spies can still do damage internally, but the ability for ONE PERSON to close out an entire alliance is a bit ridiculous.
I'm all for a change to the mechanics, but there should still be a case where this can happen. If an alliance could have a board of directors, each with an allocation of votes per director, then you can still have a dictatorship, there is no rule saying you must have more than one director.
If in the case of many directors an infiltrator can get themselves in a position where they control the majority of votes (based on a share, not the number of directors) then well done, and much more impressive. Any alliance that wont give other directors some voting share has to be aware that there is one person who can take it down.
Leave it open to choice. If you want to run a dictatorship then you can, if you want to ensure there is oversight and checks in place to stop this, also fine.
|
Ahsekuaw
House of Flying Daggers
The Ancients.
|
Posted - 2009.10.30 05:29:00 -
[118]
Agreed.
|
Koyama Ise
Equestrian Knight Order of Lolicon
|
Posted - 2009.10.30 06:26:00 -
[119]
The alliance mechanic should be more symbolic and ease the GUI rather than provide weakness to the system. It would be better if the alliance cannot be disbanded and members could only be kicked through majority votes, unless the alliance is specifically totalitarian.
Also the fact that Internet Spaceships IS serious ****ing business means that there will eventually be situations where people start paying RL money in order to get an alliance disbanded.
Removing this meta-gaming strategy will allow for alliances to properly be destroyed and will make for many more Epic battles. The whole BoB disband thing is not really respectable as it was not a gruelling battle of the forces but rather a sly deception and lack of trust. The CVA disband was the result of an outright hack, anything and everything they lost was due to something that was not just at all.
______________________________
I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it. |
Herschel Yamamoto
Agent-Orange
|
Posted - 2009.10.30 07:10:00 -
[120]
It was kind of amusing the first time, but still stupid. If it's going to continue though, the mechanic needs changing ASAP. Supported.
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |