| Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Quillan Rage
   |
Posted - 2006.06.28 13:50:00 -
[1]
Hi,
I am asking this question to hear opinions of people who have first hand experience of this, as I intend to write an article on the topic, thus value your input.
With the recent introduction of POS, many smaller alliances have taken the decision to disband rather than continue throwing isk down the drain in order to support the infrastructure, and give the necessary time needed to run and defend this network - which is ultimately needed for the production of the bigger capital ships.
With the introduction of Capital ships (the biggest of which will only be available to alliances) and the ability of the bigger alliances to destroy at will (Bob v Trust, MC v Big Blue) - do people feel that the end result will be a mass merger of the smaller alliances to pool resources or alternatively the assimilation of the smaller corps, or will there remain a continutation of people trying to take over where others have failed?
|
NereSky
|
Posted - 2006.06.28 14:06:00 -
[2]
I think its always been the case of smaller 0.0 Alliances to side with thier stronger nieghbours not only is it economically sound but also militarily so as well,
With the superpowers coming to bear lately its i think more of a necessity than ever ,
As it appears no small to medium alliances will just be trampled over by the superpowers and thier large blob and super weopons,
tbh there is no hope for small to medium alliances to survive 0.0 without a super power backing them up
The arrival of the capital ships will mean the end of smaller alliances unless they become part of a coalition or move to Empire.
Either way change is always a good thing but we will see more Treaty organisations made of of many corps and alliances.
|
Marcus Aurelius
|
Posted - 2006.06.28 14:37:00 -
[3]
I think the new political landscape makes for new roles for smaller and medium alliances.
They just have to adapt, and seeing that they're not the big and most succesfull alliances logic dictates that many of them will need some time for that.
Small and medium allainces are usefull in a cold-war situation too. They make good regimes in regions one of the larger powers wants to have secured or stabilised. And of course they make targets for the war machines as you say. They can also be very usefull in securing access to resources without needing to harvest those resources yourselves.
I'd say some realistic diplomacy is what these groups should practice. Pride is no longer something smaller alliances with a wish for their own space can afford. But if they know their worth to the bigger groups they can thrive anyway.
|
Alaesa
|
Posted - 2006.06.28 15:28:00 -
[4]
Mc isnt that big :) but is powerful
the smaller alliances eithe rneed to band together or have a larger sponsor.
|
Plutoinum
|
Posted - 2006.06.28 15:49:00 -
[5]
Smaller alliances without capital fleet and strong logistics and a lot of players will:
a) live in npc space or even empire
b) live in conquerable space under the protection / in contract with a bigger alliance (e.g. a sponsored meatshield  )
c) team up with other alliances
d) improve/modernize/whatever their alliance to keep up with the new demands
|
Lorth
|
Posted - 2006.06.28 15:57:00 -
[6]
Its perfectly possible for a small allience to claim, and live in 0.0 regions. I can actually name a couple alliences who are 'small' and are doing so rather well at this time.
You must remember that while not everyone is a big fish, they don't have to be. The game isn't all about who can field the most dreads, or has the most pilots online to make the uberest blob. At least half of being a successfull allience is politics, the type of stuff we don't really pay attention to on the forums.
That being said. I know of a number of small alliences who can give some of the big guys a run for thier money. Organization, teamwork, and willpower are for more important then numbers. In general, an allience is succesfull because of the above reasons, and numbers don't play so much of a part as most would believe.
 |
thoth foc
|
Posted - 2006.06.28 16:42:00 -
[7]
Edited by: thoth foc on 28/06/2006 16:43:26
I'm not really sure how connectioned all these events you talk about really are..
The risk to 0.0 life really isnt connected to "suprepowers" directly.. it is connected to how busy 0.0 is certainly but ppl live in 0.0 without "superpower" labels and a gank squad from empire is as dangerous as a gank squad with a superpower label..
i understand that it's mainly the superpowers that used their capital fleets in pvp, but how often is there a focused attack on the scales u mentioned, particularly against small alliances? certain they remove hostile POS's from their own areas.. it is rare u hear of a focused capital ship attack outside an alliances sphere of influence..
i think the more important point u make is that the small alliances arent finding the POS's profitable enuff to be worth the risk.. rather than fear of large alliances corps and alliance naturally grow and shrink/explode.. skilled players "flow" to the better corps/alliances.. always have.. always will
a point u missed in the examples u used was, that neither stayed in the area after.. both attacks were to destroy and leave.. not to take and hold an area
|
Plutoinum
|
Posted - 2006.06.28 17:04:00 -
[8]
Edited by: Plutoinum on 28/06/2006 17:05:02
But a big fun part of this game is alliance warfare and the requirements for those, who are interested in it, have grown.
If I look at V history although I'm only here for some months, I think the time when they were without a war against another alliance were really short. And I expect it to continue like this, even after the RA war ends, if that ever happens.
E.g. LV is an example of the development of a superpower. Ok, maybe they can be seen as a replacement superpower for 'The 5'. Will be interesting to see what they are aiming for after the RA-thing is over ( again if that ever happens  )
I don't know, somehow I think there is a tendency of the pvp alliances, who enjoy alliance warfare, to grow and become bigger/better with their capital fleets, logistics etc.
We'll see.
(As always just a personal view of the whole thing. )
|
DigitalCommunist
|
Posted - 2006.06.28 17:18:00 -
[9]
Three corrections;
1) POS are not recent additions
2) You don't need them for standard capital production
3) Unless you're doing something wrong, its not isk down the drain
People who supposedly disbanded because they didn't like the 'pos warfare and blobs' were just using it as an excuse to avoid confronting bigger issues with leadership, direction, performance. I won't get into it, but IRON is a good example of this.
Purchasing Complex Fullerene Shards, contact me ingame. |
Otto Torivus
|
Posted - 2006.06.28 17:21:00 -
[10]
I think it will be a mix of both.
I see small groups and alliances working together quite well. But as for mass mergers Ego seems to be the big factor in why things go bad for an alliance and im betting the smaller alliances have just as many ego maniacs as the bigger allaices. Most people can be talked at, but not every one can be talked to.
While its true building capital ships can be difficult for a small alliance, being able to buy them is becoming common. Right now im fairly sure you can go into escrow and buy three or four dreads today built, maybe even a few carriers. I know your thinking of Motherships and Titans but the build time and the number of people who seem to take offense and show up if they suspect you of building them is a massive indication of how common they will be for now.
POS's are a pain but even small alliances should be able to put enough up in one system to hold a station. Again this is an Ego thing if they go out of there way to make enemys it wont last long.
Time to kill a commie for Jesus |
Marodi Alivar
|
Posted - 2006.06.28 17:24:00 -
[11]
I think it is very much like real life. You aren't going to see a small country like one of the pacific island's trying to build a nuclear weapon.
Same is with the game.
|
Death Merchant
|
Posted - 2006.06.28 18:12:00 -
[12]
 Originally by: DigitalCommunist
Three corrections;
1) POS are not recent additions
2) You don't need them for standard capital production
3) Unless you're doing something wrong, its not isk down the drain
People who supposedly disbanded because they didn't like the 'pos warfare and blobs' were just using it as an excuse to avoid confronting bigger issues with leadership, direction, performance. I won't get into it, but IRON is a good example of this.
1 correction;
1)IRON didn't disband. We downsized 
Signature removed - File size too large.Laurelin |
Sovy Kurosei
|
Posted - 2006.06.28 21:58:00 -
[13]
Originally by: Quillan Rage
do people feel that the end result will be a mass merger of the smaller alliances to pool resources or alternatively the assimilation of the smaller corps, or will there remain a continutation of people trying to take over where others have failed?
I feel it is going the other way around, that there is an increase in more smaller alliances and that there are going to be fewer superpowers in the game. Actually, as proof, take a look at these maps.
Map from last year
The latest map
The latest map has more smaller alliances claiming just constellations instead of regions like you see in the map from last year, where most alliances were larger and claimed entire regions.
One of the key points that make it possible to survive as a small alliance, as Lorth put it, is in the politics. **** everybody off and you'll be seeing yourself removed from null sec space. Remember the fiasco with Orc A, in regards to the war between FIX and SA? That is a failure in politics.
___________________
|
Eximius Josari
|
Posted - 2006.06.28 22:25:00 -
[14]
Originally by: DigitalCommunist
Three corrections;
1) POS are not recent additions
2) You don't need them for standard capital production
3) Unless you're doing something wrong, its not isk down the drain
People who supposedly disbanded because they didn't like the 'pos warfare and blobs' were just using it as an excuse to avoid confronting bigger issues with leadership, direction, performance. I won't get into it, but IRON is a good example of this.
The Five is a better example. Although it took them awhile to finally disband as an alliance.
Click Above |
Ab Initio
|
Posted - 2006.06.28 22:34:00 -
[15]
Edited by: Ab Initio on 28/06/2006 22:35:40
Having watched the landscape for awhile now, I see things going one of two ways:
1. The Superpowers exercise there ability to 'destroy at will'. This will most likely lead to the super powers becoming "Empires" more than standard alliances. I would foresee something along the lines of the symbiotic relationship we share with Xelas, becoming the norm. This would benefit the entire Empire, as the sovereign alliance continues to grow in strength, while the alliances actually located in these regions are allowed to grow and become strong as well.
2. The Superpowers do not exercise there destructive ability. Things will continue to progress as they are, with the shift to many smaller alliances all claiming small sections of the map. I would imagine that even if this is the direction things go, the superpowers will still keep upcoming alliances in check. This is one area where the official support of a Superpower is extremely valuable.
|
DeathForMeh
|
Posted - 2006.06.28 22:49:00 -
[16]
Nothing has changed really in the past few years as far as supper powers. If you look in the past 2-3 years there has always been about 4 super powers in eve. This is the same up to today they only thing that really changed is new game mechanics and more players have made it look like there are more alliances in eve then there really are. IĘd say the 4 supper powers control about 75% of 0.0 space and the space they donĘt control is more so that way because they cant be asked to bother with ****ty regions.
--------------------------------------------
X I was here |
DigitalCommunist
|
Posted - 2006.06.28 22:50:00 -
[17]
Originally by: Eximius Josari
The Five is a better example. Although it took them awhile to finally disband as an alliance.
Are you serious?.. 
Purchasing Complex Fullerene Shards, contact me ingame. |
Jonis Sinmaker
|
Posted - 2006.06.28 22:55:00 -
[18]
Originally by: Eximius Josari
Originally by: DigitalCommunist
Three corrections;
1) POS are not recent additions
2) You don't need them for standard capital production
3) Unless you're doing something wrong, its not isk down the drain
People who supposedly disbanded because they didn't like the 'pos warfare and blobs' were just using it as an excuse to avoid confronting bigger issues with leadership, direction, performance. I won't get into it, but IRON is a good example of this.
The Five is a better example. Although it took them awhile to finally disband as an alliance.
The five disbanded for a totally different reason...because ATUK disbanded. And those who were in the five that were left started ERA or went to other alliances that thought just like the FIVE. The Five may be disbanded but their direction and ideas still move on. Last I checked all corporations that were in the five are doing the same thing they were while they were in the five...taking other peoples space.
STOLEN EVE ACCOUNTS! |
Aeaus
|
Posted - 2006.06.28 22:56:00 -
[19]
Originally by: DigitalCommunist
Originally by: Eximius Josari
The Five is a better example. Although it took them awhile to finally disband as an alliance.
Are you serious?..
Five was a very good, powerful alliance that defeated their enemies and then said "---- this, we need a break."
They were by no means an example of weakness.
My Guides (Recomended Reading) |
Quillan Rage
|
Posted - 2006.06.28 23:15:00 -
[20]
Thanks - some great feedback and opinion, and a thread with no flame - got to be a highlight!
A point to note is that all the opinion is based on current times with no titans and no fleet of motherships.... when these start entering the game do you not think there will be a change in the way eve is played?
|
MaryTyler Moore
|
Posted - 2006.06.28 23:16:00 -
[21]
This thread is wrong on two fronts....
First, MC doesn't do anything for grins. MC gets paid to do such work. So, there was a financial reason for Big Blue's destruction.
Second, every large military power in EVE has one OR MORE shadow corps driving the weapons engine. Find the source of the isk, and you can cut off the military engine. |
Elve Sorrow
|
Posted - 2006.06.28 23:19:00 -
[22]
Originally by: Eximius Josari
The Five is a better example. Although it took them awhile to finally disband as an alliance.
The Five is about the worst example. After getting bored of POS wars, the alliance still existed, in its original form, and fought the entire north, both in empire wars and in 0.0 for a good while. And won.
|
Gunship
|
Posted - 2006.06.28 23:40:00 -
[23]
imho I think you will see the smaller A's getting bigger and with Kali using system defences to claim a small but well defended part of space.
Bigger A's will claim less space than they used to (if they are smart).
So you want to join us? |
Ab Initio
|
Posted - 2006.06.28 23:48:00 -
[24]
Originally by: Quillan Rage
Thanks - some great feedback and opinion, and a thread with no flame - got to be a highlight!
A point to note is that all the opinion is based on current times with no titans and no fleet of motherships.... when these start entering the game do you not think there will be a change in the way eve is played?
My hope is that Titans / Motherships push the game more towards an empire type system as mention in my previous post.
With logistics based cap ships such as Carriers, Motherships and Titans being used by the superpowers, it allows control of a much larger area of space. (eg. It takes me longer to move a BS 5 jumps in Delve, than to move a cap ship to Fountain from Delve).
I see this strengthening the position of the alliances with large capital ship fleets, and leading to the control of larger areas with other alliances living within the empire borders. Day to day defence would be handled by the alliances themselves, while relying on the empire capital fleets to stop any attacks on infrastructure.
|
Quillan Rage
|
Posted - 2006.06.29 00:11:00 -
[25]
Edited by: Quillan Rage on 29/06/2006 00:12:39
Originally by: MaryTyler Moore
This thread is wrong on two fronts....
First, MC doesn't do anything for grins. MC gets paid to do such work. So, there was a financial reason for Big Blue's destruction.
Second, every large military power in EVE has one OR MORE shadow corps driving the weapons engine. Find the source of the isk, and you can cut off the military engine.
The point isn't the reasoning behind why it is done, just the fact it can be done - as someone pointed out earlier, MC are nowhere near the biggest alliance ingame, but they are one of the most effective and arguabkly most equipped - I was more interested in the path EVE will potentially follow given that the major powers, should they wish, be able to attack or claim areas of space should they choose. The point being if they choose
|
Seleene
|
Posted - 2006.06.29 06:07:00 -
[26]
There are many types of "superpowers" in EVE but the true ones are those that have two qualities above all others: will and vision.
You need to have the industrial capacity to support a military capable of projecting power and defending home. Capital ships are no longer an option but a requirement. If you think you can live in 0.0 now without Dreads and Carriers even as a defensive force, you're just marking time until someone comes along and schools you. Just remember that having them is not an I-WIN button in itself nor is it about numbers so much as proper application.
You also need the proper people to take advantage of that capacity. Recruiting in EVE today is starting to become another form of PvP. Organizations like the MC are very selective and we aren't shy about poaching high profile people. (HINT: keep a close eye on which corp CEOs are off playing WoW or whatever other elf-dancing nonsense...) You have to make your alliance attractive to players for them to stay in.
Most important, to tie all of this together, is a small group of people with the vision to play the game six months ahead of where it is today. The alliances with that kind of leadership are self-evident as they are the ones who have been around for more than a year even though they have been tested in combat.
The more established alliances have now evolved to a point where any war to take them out would require a serious effort. This is why BoB/D2/ASCN/LV, etc... are not in any real hurry to duke it out. Oh, and it's summer and most of the good wars in EVE happen when it's cold and wet outside anyway. 
-
History of the MC movie! |
Buddrow
|
Posted - 2006.06.29 06:17:00 -
[27]
Originally by: Seleene
There are many types of "superpowers" in EVE but the true ones are those that have two qualities above all others: will and vision.
You need to have the industrial capacity to support a military capable of projecting power and defending home. Capital ships are no longer an option but a requirement. If you think you can live in 0.0 now without Dreads and Carriers even as a defensive force, you're just marking time until someone comes along and schools you. Just remember that having them is not an I-WIN button in itself nor is it about numbers so much as proper application.
You also need the proper people to take advantage of that capacity. Recruiting in EVE today is starting to become another form of PvP. Organizations like the MC are very selective and we aren't shy about poaching high profile people. (HINT: keep a close eye on which corp CEOs are off playing WoW or whatever other elf-dancing nonsense...) You have to make your alliance attractive to players for them to stay in.
Most important, to tie all of this together, is a small group of people with the vision to play the game six months ahead of where it is today. The alliances with that kind of leadership are self-evident as they are the ones who have been around for more than a year even though they have been tested in combat.
The more established alliances have now evolved to a point where any war to take them out would require a serious effort. This is why BoB/D2/ASCN/LV, etc... are not in any real hurry to duke it out. Oh, and it's summer and most of the good wars in EVE happen when it's cold and wet outside anyway.
i think the most important things is as you put it the small group with the vision and dedication to play the game with a vision of the future.
those who lack or loose this ability lose the mojo of thier said alliance. you can see the great alliances fall quickly after a leader... for a vision is what builds an empire, and yes IRON was a perfect example of what can happend when all your leadership is dragged from the game without proper failsafes in place.
leadership is everything, poeple follow strong leadership and nothing else for the most part. because strong leadership breeds success and everything along with it.
----------------------------------
"Give me but one firm spot on which to stand, and I will move earth."
Archimedes c.287 - 212 BC
|
Luthien Firefoot
|
Posted - 2006.06.29 07:05:00 -
[28]
Originally by: DigitalCommunist
Three corrections;
1) POS are not recent additions
2) You don't need them for standard capital production
3) Unless you're doing something wrong, its not isk down the drain
People who supposedly disbanded because they didn't like the 'pos warfare and blobs' were just using it as an excuse to avoid confronting bigger issues with leadership, direction, performance. I won't get into it, but IRON is a good example of this.
Considering that you were asked for opinions based on first hand experience, this is both :
a) misinformed
b) judgmental
Unless of course you were in IRON at the time, which I don't seem to remember.
Signature removed - Too wide.Laurelin |
Lobo13
|
Posted - 2006.06.29 07:23:00 -
[29]
This is the best thread I have read in a long.
Please continue....
Lobo13.
Your bound to get dirty when you party naked. |
Ian Novarider
|
Posted - 2006.06.29 08:28:00 -
[30]
I see a lot of parallels to real life history in the current developments in EVE.
Large countries give border regions to strong independent leaders/groups so they can form a meatshield against the barbarians. Over time successful border regions that survive the death of the original founder/strong leader and stay stable become provinces in their own right. If they are even more successful they can go from border region/province to independent country, which could still be allied to its sponsor nation (but does not have to). And when the inevitable decline of the old powers that be comes along, they are heirs to their old sponsors (by force or diplomacy).
Alternative scenario is that one sponsor sends a strong group into someone elses border region to conquer and hold it. But thats just a different scenario start .. it soon merges into the first scenario.
Possible variations :
1) Deniability ... sponsor stays hidden for a while to see if the endeavor is successful.
2) Betrayal ... sponsor sends out a group that is becoming too large too fast for its own good and arranges their defeat by carefully placed indiscretions (hurts your internal rivals and also hurts your enemies).
3) Bedazzle ... send out a group to artifically create a situation that stops people thinking about internal problems
4) Unification ... send out a spearhead to focus all your people on a common goal to form bonds and give your hotheads something to do
5) Training ... send out a group. Its not important what the end result of the expedition will be - its only about gaining experience.
6) Resource war ... surgical attack to conquer important locations (outposts, complexes, strategically or economically important node systems).
Thats why I like EVE ... its more "realistic" than all the other MMOPRGs out there (that I know).
Have fun
Ian Novarider
PS :
But we all know ... in the end the hobbits win 
Quote:
Know thy enemy and know thyself and thou will be victorious in all thy battles.
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |