John McCreedy
Caldari
Eve Defence Force
   |
Posted - 2011.08.15 11:40:00 -
[1]
 Quote:
Being big should bring drawbacks as well as benefits, and getting big should be a lifestyle choice or a chosen specialization, rather than a necessity. Some sorts of operations should benefit a little more than others from being larger, but it should not be the case that being big is a straight-up advantage. You get diminishing returns in terms of social value above a certain point, and anecdotally trying to grow quickly to remain competitive is a leading cause of corps and alliances failing.
This is the case now which is why larger Alliances have to take more space. On a corp. member's basis, the more people in the Alliance, the greater the strains upon your ability to make money. In order to achieve what you're talking about here, there needs to be a disincentive to own multiple regions.
Quote:
When assessing the value of a given area of space, there should be many different possible measures of "good", and each area of space should have a different combination of "good" and "bad" measures, to as fine a granularity as is practical. This should ensure that all bits of space are good for something and therefore worth fighting over; that for any given measure of good there's a "best" bit of space that people after that particular thing will want to fight over and hold; and that there are many different "best bits" corresponding to different specific requirements, so there's no clear "best overall" bit of space that allows one organization holding it to dominate everyone else.
Remember that an Alliance is only as strong as its constituent corporations. Corporations are only as strong as their members. All null sec regions, particulary conquerable regions, must have something that's "good" for an average player. Failure to do so will result in an exedous back to Empire again.
- Grunts involved throughout
Quote:
Corp and alliance leadership are very important to the game because they often do a lot of work to make sure that thousands of other players are having a good time. We should be careful not to put the cart before the horse, though. Wherever possible we should make sure that interesting tools and decisions are being given to all rather than just the few leaders. If a feature is trying to make the often-thankless job of leadership easier, it should be aimed at the leaders. If it's trying to add something new and interesting to the game, it should be aimed at the "grunts".
The Corporate roles system is crying out for an overhaul. There needs to be a lot more flexibility within it. By extension, Alliances should be able to hand out roles without having to have characters within a holding corporation. Something like "Can have Alliance roles". When granted, Alliance executors can then hand out roles to people. Recruitment, standings etc. all being able to be handled on a persons main that does not need to reside within the executor corporation. This would ease the burden upon Alliance leadership.
Quote:
Up for removal. Still thinking about how much we should try and mitigate time zone issues for people, and how much we should leave them to figure out the problem themselves.
You will undermine everything you're trying to achieve with nullsec if you allow tz sov ping pong games to return. This shouldn't mean you can't make inroads in to soverignty attacks outside of someone's time zone though. Time zone saftey also discourages neighboring Alliances from large scale invasions of each other and shifts the emphasis of combat back to the small scale. Allowing it so that you wake up one morning and find someone's taken all your sov will result in daily grinds and soverignty wars being even more firmly entrenched within the "He who gets bored first looses" way of winning wars.
Find us on Facebook and Twitter |