| Pages: [1] 2 3 4 :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Seleene
Body Count Inc.
Mercenary Coalition
   |
Posted - 2006.09.06 06:11:00 -
[1]
Well, it seems like creating a new alliance is the new thing to do these days. Have we broken 250 yet? 
Back when I created the MC IGA, I remember it being a rather momentous occasion. Our corps debated the pros and cons for at least two to three weeks on and off. When we finally did it, we even got our own thread about it along the line of, "OMGZ!! Teh Mercs are an alliance now!!" When we finally did it, there was much rejoicingà followed by a lot of shooting. 
I was looking around last night and discovered that MC was one of the first twenty alliances created in EVE. In fact, in the first six months that alliance creation was even allowed, barely twenty entities took advantage of the game mechanic. Even BoB drug their heels for a long time before the sovereignty issue forced their hand. Of those initial twenty, about 25% no longer exist.
Then, I guess, people realized that CCP tied POS fuel consumption to sovereignty and the alliance list exploded. Today, there are so many alliances on the list that it boggles the mind. Each one is a potential nation-state yet, for most, it's just a tool for a common chat channel and cheaper POS's, etc...
Today, the creation of a new æAllianceÆ barely raises an eyebrow. ItÆs commonplace and passT. The mystique and grandeur of being in an 'Alliance' is now lost it seems. A billion ISK is a pittance for setting one up TBH. Even if the price were raised to ten billion I wonder how much it would parse things down.
I have two questions for everyone:
1.) What are your thoughts on the above?
2.) Should there be more 'levels' to the whole alliance structure? If you control X number of systems / constellations / regions, could you not pay CONCORD an additional fee to be upgraded to a Hegemony, a Cluster, a State, an Empire? With benefits to each level?
IÆm looking forward to peopleÆs thoughts and have a Happy Wednesday! 
-
Remember Shaelin |
Righteous Fury
Slacker Industries
Exuro Mortis
|
Posted - 2006.09.06 06:23:00 -
[2]
Edited by: Righteous Fury on 06/09/2006 06:23:31
dammit eve, dont eat my posts, now I have to retype
|
Seleene
Body Count Inc.
Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2006.09.06 06:29:00 -
[3]
 Originally by: Righteous Fury
Edited by: Righteous Fury on 06/09/2006 06:23:31
dammit eve, dont eat my posts, now I have to retype
That's good, because I snuck in a third question. 
-
Remember Shaelin |
Righteous Fury
Slacker Industries
Exuro Mortis
|
Posted - 2006.09.06 06:33:00 -
[4]
Originally by: Seleene
Originally by: Righteous Fury
Edited by: Righteous Fury on 06/09/2006 06:23:31
dammit eve, dont eat my posts, now I have to retype
That's good, because I snuck in a third question.
Oh damn you, now I'm going to have to go back and add another couple of paragraphs.
|
MarKand
Minmatar
FinFleet
Lotka Volterra
|
Posted - 2006.09.06 06:36:00 -
[5]
I really like the idea of expanding a Alliance to more, for example a Empire. The mechanics could be used to balance the game as it is today, so that being a Empire will have serten "bonuses" and some drawbacks.
I have not your age in-game but I do also think that Alliances have become what corps used to be. Create one in the morning to run a special OP then throw it away in the evening. Everyday people in our alliance is working on new standings issue, its very time consuming and a very very very irretating thing. Since new alliances are popping up like flowers in a garden, new everyday alsmost. It¦s becoming hard to keep track of FoF, and the most typed Q in alliance chat is : ( x name ) FoF ?
My thoughts are also that maybe one should harden the rules for making an alliance, for example, the Exe-corp cant leave a alliance until 3 months etc, or founder corps are to be "stuck" in the aliance they made for some time. It would make people think little more about joining in, found a allaince, or just , not fun , lets go mentality.
And for the POS part, oh-dear, I dont even go there. Hope everybody has a Titan soon, so we can get the POS-wars to balance. Then we finally can have 50+gangs roaming and popping POS:es, so that we can return later to pop them out of reinf. and start shoot the 50+ new ones anchored.
Well just my 2 cents , good post Seleene, a valid and just question.
Soz for gramma and spelling, English is not my native language.
Best reagrds
MarKand
PS: To end all POS-spam, make Anchoring a rank 16 level that have to be lvl 5 to use ,, hohohoh j/k....
|
Mr Happ
Gallente
Hellbound Saints
|
Posted - 2006.09.06 06:39:00 -
[6]
To be honest, as valued an alliance as you are, you have no right to critize others if they wish to create an alliance.
It's not a *special thing* and it's hardly expensive. Regardless of how you feel Seleene, you can't stop the alliances from forming and having a go on here will simply make u look a bit silly as if to say
*darn, the more alliance that are out, the less manish the MC looks*
Point being, get used to it
We need a YEAR without ANY 'new content'. Nothing but BUG FIXES.
New content that does not work is WORTHLESS. |
Eutectic
Caldari
VentureCorp
CORE.
|
Posted - 2006.09.06 06:41:00 -
[7]
Edited by: Eutectic on 06/09/2006 06:41:29
Well I tend to agree that alliances are now a dime a dozen and for certain Venture is just as guilty as most for the proliferation.
That being said, the main reason a lot of the small alliances like Core. have formed is for one main reason, standings. Having lived in the North for a very long time we have quite a few enemies. Since only Alliances can set standings to other Alliances without forming Core. we would have been stuck with task of managing hundreds of standings versus the 90 or so we do right now.
So for the sake of convience of our Directors and Destable, we spent a billion isk to be able to toggle groups of corps standings vs. one corp at a time. Pricey yes. Worth it to us, undoubtably.
|
Seleene
Body Count Inc.
Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2006.09.06 06:43:00 -
[8]
Originally by: Mr Happ
To be honest, as valued an alliance as you are, you have no right to critize others if they wish to create an alliance.
It's not a *special thing* and it's hardly expensive. Regardless of how you feel Seleene, you can't stop the alliances from forming and having a go on here will simply make u look a bit silly as if to say
*darn, the more alliance that are out, the less manish the MC looks*
Point being, get used to it
Ummm.... you kinda missed the point of my post, m8. I'm actually asking for opinions and possible solutions to the current situation of just having one generic alliance structure. The creation of new 'tiers' or types of alliances within EVE would probably be welcomed by many and add even more depth of gameplay.
-
Remember Shaelin |
Seleene
Body Count Inc.
Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2006.09.06 06:47:00 -
[9]
Originally by: Eutectic
So for the sake of convience of our Directors and Destable, we spent a billion isk to be able to toggle groups of corps standings vs. one corp at a time. Pricey yes. Worth it to us, undoubtably.
Ugh. You and RF are absolutely right - the standings issue is certainly screwed and in need of looking at. TBH, it shouldn't even be part of a discussion like this because... well, if it worked efficiently, you wouldn't have had to spend a billion isk.
-
Remember Shaelin |
Mr Happ
Gallente
Hellbound Saints
|
Posted - 2006.09.06 06:51:00 -
[10]
Originally by: Seleene
Originally by: Mr Happ
To be honest, as valued an alliance as you are, you have no right to critize others if they wish to create an alliance.
It's not a *special thing* and it's hardly expensive. Regardless of how you feel Seleene, you can't stop the alliances from forming and having a go on here will simply make u look a bit silly as if to say
*darn, the more alliance that are out, the less manish the MC looks*
Point being, get used to it
Ummm.... you kinda missed the point of my post, m8. I'm actually asking for opinions and possible solutions to the current situation of just having one generic alliance structure. The creation of new 'tiers' or types of alliances within EVE would probably be welcomed by many and add even more depth of gameplay.
Oh, gotcha now, i apoligise, still dont like u tho, u prettyier than me l?
We need a YEAR without ANY 'new content'. Nothing but BUG FIXES.
New content that does not work is WORTHLESS. |
Randay
0utbreak
|
Posted - 2006.09.06 06:53:00 -
[11]
Has the cost of creating an alliance been adjusted for inflation? One billion used to be a whole lotta dough, now its nothing really.
|
Josiah Bartlet
Destructive Influence
Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2006.09.06 07:09:00 -
[12]
Maybe CCP should implement a weekly or monthly maintaince fee of say 100M a week to stop this madness. If they do that, they need to fix how standings are set however.
I do like the idea or an Empire as a super alliance. Maybe they could work that in with constelation soventry when we gt that in fy 2010.
---
SigPl/HQ&Log Coy/MNB(C)/KFOR |
Joshua Foiritain
Gallente
Coreli Corporation
|
Posted - 2006.09.06 07:16:00 -
[13]
Tbh standings management is reason enough for me to create an alliance in the near future. Theres of course a few other advantages such as sov, cool logo, and the ability to protect alt corps from wardecs. But for me, standings management is reason enough.
-----
[Coreli Corporation Mainframe] |
Rina Shanu
Peace Loving Criminals
|
Posted - 2006.09.06 07:30:00 -
[14]
Quote:
2.) Should there be more 'levels' to the whole alliance structure? If you control X number of systems / constellations / regions, could you not pay CONCORD an additional fee to be upgraded to a Hegemony, a Cluster, a State, an Empire? With benefits to each level?
Am not sure about it.
I think it will only add to the prestige unless there is more to it.
If it will be more to it, like certain advantages, being able to raise small npc frigs to roam arround and all, as an empire or different content things, or tradeing between empires, etc. than yes. but just for the name, no.
Quote:
3.) What about non territorial 'alliances'? Could / should there be a seperate game mechanic for them?
Yes there should be a difference between territorial allaicnes and empire allaicnes. They should be separated by "naming" e.g. one called emp-lliance and the other turf-lliance . This is because it is not easy to take and hold territory and some allainces stay only in empire and are rather under the radar. Empire allainces should have less advantages unless they upgrade and hold some space.
RECRUITMENT
this ok dear? |
Leno
Caldari Provisions
|
Posted - 2006.09.06 07:33:00 -
[15]
I'm too tired to state my feelings (yet anyway) so i'll just say:
I agree
---------------
RIP - Smoske, My Friend
|
Hamatitio
Caldari
ISS Navy Task Force
Interstellar Starbase Syndicate
|
Posted - 2006.09.06 07:34:00 -
[16]
More tiers! yarr.
---
I'm going through sigs fast these days. |
Shittake
RONA Deepspace
Rule of Three
|
Posted - 2006.09.06 07:54:00 -
[17]
Selene, you are most definately correct about the early days and the "mystique" in creating an in-game alliance - but that was only because it was new - and once benefits to game mechanics were tied to their creation it was only logical to expect an explosion in the numbers of in-game alliances. Hell, my Corp Management skills alone were borrowed to create 3 alliances (NBSI, YouWhat, and Rule of Three).
What I would like to see, which I believe you may have been illuding to, is some kind of tiered progression of standard alliances into something bigger. It should not be tied to mere member count, or corp count. Perhaps when medals and junk like that comes into the game, tied with solar systems claimed, you could advance your alliance into something bigger - say a mega-alliance and then a super-alliance. Each progression would give you certain benefits countered with additional time/ISK-sinks for that status.
Alliances are like battleships. Way back in the early days I remember working with dozens of corpmates to build a single battleship (July 2003). Nowadays, any noob with a month or so of training can fly them and a single afternoon of ratting in 0.0 space could get you the low-ends to build 5 of them.
|
Malachon Draco
eXceed Inc.
Ascendant Frontier
|
Posted - 2006.09.06 08:12:00 -
[18]
Good point, even though under current game mechanics you can hardly blame anyone for not forming an alliance. CCP certainly wasn't helping with restricting the tournament recently to alliances...
Some tiers in alliances would be interesting, but then you'd get a huge debate over the requirements for 'levels' and what benefits each level should get. But longterm it seems certainly like the way to go.
|
Tao Han
Caldari
Perkone
|
Posted - 2006.09.06 08:48:00 -
[19]
Quote:
1.) What are your thoughts on the above?
Yes I think there are way to many alliances. It doesnt mean anything to be in an alliance anymore and I'm pretty sure that raising the cost to 10B would not change anything. If ppl can, ppl will.
Quote:
2.) Should there be more 'levels' to the whole alliance structure? If you control X number of systems / constellations / regions, could you not pay CONCORD an additional fee to be upgraded to a Hegemony, a Cluster, a State, an Empire? With benefits to each level?
All that would change is EvE from a RP point of view, its just a name. But it would look better I agree with that. That would mean that Alliances are 2-3 connected corporations in Empire space, while a State is an alliance that actually holds space. Give the higher tier alliances better bonuses and we are good to go.
Quote:
3.) What about non territorial 'alliances'? Could / should there be a seperate game mechanic for them?
Yes, but I dont know what or how.
Sig removed, lacks Eve-related content - Cortes
Leave my sigs alone *sob - Tao Han
But they're as close to you as we can get  <3-Cathath |
Taschenflak
Federation of Synthetic Persons
YouWhat
|
Posted - 2006.09.06 08:59:00 -
[20]
Yes, there is an alliance spam. But whats up with an option, that if you want to create an alliance you need X members for it? Maybe 50 members for an alliance as a minimum?
|
Sharcy
Sonnema
|
Posted - 2006.09.06 09:06:00 -
[21]
I agree that there are way too many Alliances, like you said, it takes the "romance" out of it. I don't think adding more layers to the political structure would do or solve much. I feel that an alliance should be truly that, an Alliance; of several independent entities. If an Alliance doesn't consist of at least 5 corporations, each with an x amount of members, it should cease to exist (to make it harder for someone to setup bogus alts in otherwise empty corps to bypass the mechanics). If an Alliance loses a member corp and drops to 4, CONCORD should send a notice saying "We have noticed that you no long fit the requirements to be recognized as an Alliance. You have 14 days to meet these requirements to avoid being suspended."
I don't have first hand knowledge of the mechanics of POS's and sovereignty (yet), but the "one more than the other guy" system as I understand it is a bit silly. You should not be able to claim sovereignty if there are still enemies on your turf. That would make it less attractive to be in a (very) small alliance, since kicking someone out would take some force.
--
|
Eddie Gordo
Minmatar
Masuat'aa Matari
Ushra'Khan
|
Posted - 2006.09.06 09:10:00 -
[22]
Some milestones in terms of holding space imo should be :
1) Holds a system
2) Holds an entire constelation (ties in with proposed sentry guns ect)
3) Holds an entire region. (maybe spawn own npcs?)
Now Recruiting |
Phoenix Pryde
Caldari
Infinite Improbability Inc
|
Posted - 2006.09.06 09:13:00 -
[23]
Considering how many more players there are compared to when alliances were introduced (nearly 2 years ago now ..) i guess it cant be really suprising that there are that many alliances nowadays. Also the alliance landscape itself changed a lot.
While there initially actually were only a few very large alliances (especially compared to active players) there are nowadays much smaller much more focussed alliances. Granted, some still control a 3 regions or so, but in relative comparison the alliances of today are much smaller then they were.
Besides, what is an alliance really, its sort of the next step after the corporation. Quite some alliances are probably just the extension of some corps, to give their corp and a friendly one a joint presentation or however you call it.
i dont really want to go into the debate if 1b is so much less worth then it was 2 years ago, relatively it seems to be the case tho. So effectively many more people are willing to spend that one billion just for an alliance tag.
Souvereignity, yeah, most definitely another reason for so many corps wanting to be in an alliance.
I guess all in all there are plenty of reasons for so many alliances, nobody can be really surprised there.
The 'mysticism' or 'coolness', or however you call it, of the initial few alliances is surely gone, yes. I sort of miss that too. Even the alliance map regularly brings another suprise with an alliance name i never heard of =)
so to 2.) yeah, some differentiation between the 'real' alliances of large that try to claim their corner of space and try to establish something ressembling a nationstate or such would certainly be nice. It probably could/should be tied to some sort of territorial control, although i couldnt really answer of the head how to do that. It shouldnt simply be 'size in numbers' tho.
ad 3.) well i guess that would tue directly in your suggestion above. If an alliance is non-territorial then its quite clearly nothing like a nation or state, so i guess it would be ok to remain a simple alliance like now.
and on this occasion, a big yay to the first ingame alliance ever established. XF forever \o/ 
TRUST Shop // Infinite Improbability Inc [3-I] |
Wild Rho
Amarr
Imperial Shipment
|
Posted - 2006.09.06 09:15:00 -
[24]
I see the alliance as the first stage in building an empire.
Other titles further on up to full Empire status should be based on conditions rather than isk that have to be maintained each week in order to keep the status.
The examples below are just pulled straight out of my head as I type this so don't argue the semantics of the name please, because tbh I don't give a toss.
Stage 1: Alliance
Conditions
- Requires more than 2 corps.
- 1 Bil isk startup fee.
Benefits
- Can claim sovereignty.
- Reduced pos fuel.
Stage 2: Colony
Conditions
- Must be an alliance
- Must have sovereignty of at least 4 adjacent systems.
- Must have at least one outpost within the 4 adjacent systems.
Benefits
- Outpost Modules are available for integration.
- Bonus to moon mining yields.
Stage 3: Small Nation
Conditions
- Must be a colony.
- Must have an alliance population above "X" members.
- Must have sovereignty of at least 8 adjacent systems.
- Must have 3 outposts within the adjacent systems.
Benefits
- Data on moon minerals within all controlled systems is made "visible" without the need to use probes.
- Bonus to POS research and production module speeds including capital ship assembly array production speed.
Stage 4: Large Nation
Conditions
- Must have be a small nation.
- Must have a population above "Y" members.
- Must control at least 12 adjacent systems.
- Must have at least 6 outposts within the adjacent systems.
Benefits
- Basic gate defences (i.e. sentries)
- Basic outpost defences (i.e. sentries)
- Advanced POS modules can be deployed (i.e. warp sig tracking array - allows specialised ships to warp directly to anyone in the system).
Stage 5: Empire
Conditions
- Kill all Jedi
- ***** slap Yoda
- Must control 16 Adjacent systems.
- Must have 9 outposts in the adjacent systems.
Benefits
- Alliance leader gets to dress as emperor, secondary leaders get to dress as Darth Vadar, Maul etc.
- Everyone else gets to dress as storm troopers.
- Free lightsabres and tie fighters for all.
I ran out of ideas for the last one but you get the gist of what I'm getting at.
I think that to gain additional status in eve it should be based on what you can actually achieve, not how much isk you can grind instead with full empire status being somthing that is akin to the holy grail of empire builders.
Of course achieving the status isn't enough, you would have to keep it as well with maybe a weekly or monthly re-evaluation to ensure that if an empire is getting beaten down it's reflected in it's status.
WE ARE DYSLEXIC OF BORG. Refutance is systile. Your ass will be laminated. - Jennie Marlboro
|
CelticKnight
Celestial Horizon Corp.
Ascendant Frontier
|
Posted - 2006.09.06 09:55:00 -
[25]
I like the way you think Wild
Problem is, there is only a VERY small amount of alliances (what? 2 maybe 3) in the game that can actually AFFORD the huge pos spam required to do that.
It would certainly make the upper levels of alliance very unique..
and you would TELL those alliances on the map because thier region would light up like a christmas tree!!
Im dont have a sig. |
Eddie Gordo
Minmatar
Masuat'aa Matari
Ushra'Khan
|
Posted - 2006.09.06 10:05:00 -
[26]
Originally by: CelticKnight
I like the way you think Wild
Problem is, there is only a VERY small amount of alliances (what? 2 maybe 3) in the game that can actually AFFORD the huge pos spam required to do that.
It would certainly make the upper levels of alliance very unique..
and you would TELL those alliances on the map because thier region would light up like a christmas tree!!
Most 250+ alliances can afford to hold sov to cover a constelation, only systems with outposts in need a large number of towers.
Now Recruiting |
Saerid
Amarr
FinFleet
Lotka Volterra
|
Posted - 2006.09.06 10:14:00 -
[27]
Wild Rho is onto something there. As for OP
1) The alliances have lost their shine pretty much when everyone can have one at will. Starting them just as standings management tools says it all really. Agreed
2) A big yes. The question is how to select the criteria by which you're sorting the alliances. Reasonable to say the original and main intent is alliance the territory holding entity , as opposed to alliance the merc or mining company (for example). So system sovereignty, possibly as % of the constellations and regions where you have sovereignty claims. Or outposts and conquerables, better yet. Best simple metric for "these guys have lot of ISK at stake".
Rewards.. I'm not overly fond of automatic defenses. Or if there are some, make it information. Like providing real time ship count/type data from systems where you have sovereignty , and refine that information as you go further up the ladder.
"z0mg - 4 BS, 3 cruisers and 6 frigs in TPAR"
"z0mg - 2 Megas, a tempest and a geddon + cruisers x,y,z and frigs so and so in TPAR"
"z0mg - thar be chowdown in a tempest and ... so forth in TPAR"
For icing on the cake, include access to POS scanner arrays in your own station systems at higher levels. Basically an automatic scan probe type of affair that works 23/7 and watches all warp tracks in the system. If a ship stops for, say, 30 seconds in the system they'll appear on the ov like a cyno.
3) If you can come with viable mechanism for measuring who deserves what. Member count is not it, or you'll end up with all sorts of catchall alliances with no cohesion and people recruited just to pad the numbers. Need some way to reward organization if it is done.
|
Tyrrax Thorrk
Amarr
Umbra Congregatio
Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2006.09.06 10:15:00 -
[28]
Edited by: Tyrrax Thorrk on 06/09/2006 10:18:54
What really sucks is how incomplete the "alliance" and outposts management stuff is..
People aren't kidding when they say EVE is still in beta or alpha testing in a lotta ways ;P
Here's a few things that should've been sorted months and months ago, or here's a thought, from the very beginning..;
Standings, the 300 cap might be tolerable if the system wasn't so horribly inadequate, f.i. WHY can't a corporation set standings to an alliance ?
Only directors in the executive corp can delete alliance mails / set standings / declare wars etc etc. 
This should simply be a role you can assign to anyone in any corp within the allinace.
Alliance wallet ?
More on topic, meh nostalgia, doesn't matter to me, if there's lots of IGA or who was first or the mystique or grandeur of days gone by (none of which i really noticed, alliances always seemed pretty lame to me and something people were forced into.)
Expanding on the current system before it's even remotely in an acceptable state seems pretty stupid but CCP electing to do so anyway wouldn't surprise me, seems like they like to skip making things work and just keep plowing onwards and adding more and more shoddy content.
Sigh.
PS, I think that no alliance is too small to hold a constellation sov, only need one small pos in each system theoretically, just do it somewhere really off the beaten path and don't annoy anyone.
|
Dark Shikari
Caldari
Imperium Technologies
Firmus Ixion
|
Posted - 2006.09.06 10:22:00 -
[29]
Edited by: Dark Shikari on 06/09/2006 10:22:38
Very simple.
1. Allow corporations to claim sovereignty.
2. Allow alliances to cash in their alliance for 1 billion ISK.
3. Remove 300-standing limit.
--[23] Member--
Originally by: DB Preacher
The only time BoB's backs are to the wall is when Backdoor Bandit is in local.
|
Chewan Mesa
Beagle Corp
|
Posted - 2006.09.06 10:26:00 -
[30]
Originally by: Dark Shikari
Edited by: Dark Shikari on 06/09/2006 10:22:38
Very simple.
1. Allow corporations to claim sovereignty.
2. Allow alliances to cash in their alliance for 1 billion ISK.
3. Remove 300-standing limit.
1 & 2 sound good, the problem with 3 is, its a pain to keep standings to several alliances up to date for your corp, as they have new members, old corps leaving, and if you want to set a new alliance with 20 corps to +...
You need to be able to set standings towards an alliance as a whole as a corp imho.
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] 2 3 4 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |