EVE Search - Alliance Creation 'Spam'?

All Channels

Corporation, Alliance and Organization Discussions

Alliance Creation 'Spam'?

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Riddari Celestial Fleet Ascendant Frontier	Posted - 2006.09.07 12:37:00 - [61] Hey... you renamed the topic title! Arr. The ISK thingie was due to many people constantly posting about the fee being "too low". As for my wallet its about to vanish since I am making a large purchase so it will hit lower than when you formed MC! The question is why the size of my wallet matters in EVE? Some of the most powerful people in EVE, many of them not famous, have never had much ISK themselves. I feel that the need for bigger and better skills, bigger and better alliance types is related to this ISK inflation. You said yourself: Originally by: Seleene 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. Mystique, grandeur, pittance. These are the points I attacked. ¼+¼ a history
Regat Kozovv Caldari Orion's Forge New Eden Conglomerate	Posted - 2006.09.07 13:17:00 - [62] I think part of what is at issue here (and what Seleene is trying to say) is that the creation of an alliance doesnÆt mean the said organization is actually an ôallianceö. Groups use this game mechanic for different reasons and to receive different benefits, many of which have been stated already. With those benefits come pitfalls, which is why some groups such as BoB may have been reluctant to declare themselves an alliance. Some more flexible options or choices may lead people to create looser structures such as coalitions or partnerships depending on their needs without the need for ôallianceö status. However, this is all just terminology. An alliance is more than just the tag in EVE when said group is created. Some of these ôalliancesö are coalitions, some are loose federations, and some are true alliances. All depends on their organization, leadership, goals, etc. Many times this is expressed in the actual title or description of the group. While the EVE list may show large number of alliances, only a handful can be truly considered so.
Evelyn Exe eXceed Inc. Ascendant Frontier	Posted - 2006.09.07 13:43:00 - [63] Edited by: Evelyn Exe on 07/09/2006 13:44:42 meh, this was a good post but there is no point posting here, everything gets twisted and flamed on this forum based on the tag under your name rather than what you say.
Riddari Celestial Fleet Ascendant Frontier	Posted - 2006.09.07 13:56:00 - [64] The original topic included the term alliance "spam" which hardly reflects favourably upon increasing number of alliances in the topic starter eyes. ¼+¼ a history
Nez Perces Amarr Black Spot.	Posted - 2006.09.07 13:59:00 - [65] Originally by: Evelyn Exe everything gets twisted and flamed on this forum based on the tag under your name rather than what you say. Thats a load of rubbish... if you chose your words carefully you can sidestep accusations of bias based on your affiliation to one entity or another. ... however if you barge onto the forums with what amounts to ranting then yeah you probably won't have a lot of fun... If you can type a coherent non-biased post and then somebody accuses you of being biased, based on your affiliation.. you can call them out on it and then they will end up looking stupid.
Nez Perces Amarr Black Spot.	Posted - 2006.09.07 14:08:00 - [66] Edited by: Nez Perces on 07/09/2006 14:11:29 /on topic.. When you pay your 1 bil isk to form an alliance, IMO you should be doing what it says on the tin, i.e forming an alliance. K.. what is an alliance? IMO an alliance is an alliance of corporations in order to pursue a common goal. The in-game alliance provides better communication tools and the ability to form a new identity without dispensing with the corporate identities. Different people may have different definitions for the term alliance. According to my own definition, a lot of the alliances listed on the alliance webpage shouldn't exist, particularly those created to bypass the standings problem (which CCP need to fix ASAP). As far as I am concerned the alliance system as it stands is broken with any Tom, D-i-c-k or Harry able to create an alliance as long as they have 1 bil isk. Hardin and others offering their services so that you don't even need to train up for it is also fubarred (CCP's fault again, not Hardin or the others). Then again CCP may have a different definition of what an alliance is...
Trak Cranker Feral Tendency Ratel Alliance	Posted - 2006.09.07 14:13:00 - [67] Seleene, I support that its entirely relevant to debate whether Alliances and intercorp structures needs improvement and/or changes. Especially as the concepts sees increased use. But the way you presented it, when you use words like _solutions_ and attach all kinds of subjective values to it, that you think has been lost through proliferation and increased occurance of the concept, does leave the reader with a sense of irritated ego and elitism. I am not attributing these things to you, mind you, but I can understand why some would attack the post for it. My opinions/thoughts on the matter? 1) Do we need predicates? And predicates indicating levels especially? Isn't that just a killboard for group leaders? :) 2) We should take great care not to bestow increasing bonii to the haves and not the have-nots. 3) Making game mechanical differences/options/benefits between alliance _types_ on the other hand... That could be VERY interesting. Off the top of my head I cannot come up with something specific. But I like the idea. :) 4+5+6) Give us the corp to alliance standing option. I won't even say please.
Regat Kozovv Caldari Orion's Forge New Eden Conglomerate	Posted - 2006.09.07 14:42:00 - [68] Originally by: Nez Perces Then again CCP may have a different definition of what an alliance is... Remember, CCP did not intend to have Alliances to begin with. It was a game mechanic introduced to provide some sort of framework for what corporations were already doing. I agree wholeheartedly that different people may have different meanings for the word Alliance. More importantly I think, is that people will use the alliance "tool" for different purposes, which I think we all agree. I'm not so sure that this is something that needs to be fixed per se. As Seleene stated, this is not a question of elitism, but whether some additional frameworks and game mechanics are needed for the many political organizations that exist in EVE, rather than every player group trying to shoehorn their organization into the Alliance framework.
fuze Gallente Chosen Path Lotka Volterra	Posted - 2006.09.07 14:58:00 - [69] Make the top 10 alliances keep their status and if another group of corp wants to become an alliance have them fight over it. More fights = more fun.
crice Caldari CRICE Corporation Lotka Volterra	Posted - 2006.09.07 16:41:00 - [70] What is an alliance? One corp? A new Channel called Allance channel?
Midiana Eternal Rising Freelancer Alliance	Posted - 2006.09.07 17:16:00 - [71] Seleene makes an interesting point about multi tiered alliances. Would be a useful isk sink as much as players hate em. Bigger skills/skill books = "bigger" or "improved" alliance with more bonuses and more bang for your (quite extortionate) buck. How much would you pay for a bonus to your reigonal defenses (if they ever put em in) .. or production speed at POS's.. maybe even further reducted Soverignity costs, there are plenty of possiblities that could be explored and it wouldn't be hard to ensure that you needed to be a fairly committed alliance to get access to them. This would again provide the distinction between being one of the "top" alliances... and being just an alliance.
Mistress Suffering Einherjar Rising Dusk and Dawn	Posted - 2006.09.07 17:28:00 - [72] I like the concepts where there are different levels of alliances and different benefits from having this. There is a downside to this, in that it encourages just large scale grouping. But let's face it, getting massive groups of people to work together towards a single goal is hard, so I'm not opposed to rewarding that. So yes, let's create some alliance 'levels', and put requirements on these. Active number of members, controlled space, POSs, etc... Ah, side suggestion: I'd like to see corps list not just the current inflated number of members but a truer 'active members'. I'd definte an active member as assigned to a currently paid account. No trials, no guys who stopped paying, etc.. Ideally, I'd even say the highest SP char on that account in order to discount multis too. It sure would be nice to be able to see how many real players all the various corps and alliances have, not the inflated inaccurate numbers that are displayed now.
welsh wizard Celestial Apocalypse	Posted - 2006.09.07 17:49:00 - [73] Edited by: welsh wizard on 07/09/2006 17:53:46 Some good ideas here. Until they sort out player owned stations, capital ships and the whole sovereignty issue this probably shouldn't be considered though. As it stands its simpily too difficult to fight a large entity that holds well reinforced space with any effect. The game mechanics don't really allow it. We all want to see the huge alliances going toe to toe but atm they don't want to because the game mechanics suck (or maybe they're just too happy in their current peaceful state?). My point (which I forgot to end the original post with) is that adding new alliance options that effectively make the entity stronger is currently a bad idea.
Zimi Vlasic F.R.E.E. Explorer EVE Animal Control	Posted - 2006.09.07 18:05:00 - [74] Edited by: Zimi Vlasic on 07/09/2006 18:05:09 Originally by: Evelyn Exe Edited by: Evelyn Exe on 07/09/2006 13:44:42 meh, this was a good post but there is no point posting here, everything gets twisted and flamed on this forum based on the tag under your name rather than what you say. That's totally not true. I have plenty of enemies ingame that say my posts here in the forums are awesome. Find Roid, Examine, and Excavate Explorer
Nez Perces Amarr Black Spot.	Posted - 2006.09.07 18:22:00 - [75] Edited by: Nez Perces on 07/09/2006 18:23:43 Originally by: crice What is an alliance? One corp? A new Channel called Allance channel? IMO this is the question on which this topic hinges. Right now an alliance seems to be whatever the founder wants it to be, as long as he has 1bil isk in his pocket + change to pay somebody to set it up for him. In theory if I had 30 bil isk I could set up 30 alliances and leave an alt in each of them just for a laugh. The game mechanics would allow it. (the term alliance would then take on the identity of a practical joke) Is this what CCP had intended? I guess only they can answer that question. Is it even right or wrong? I think its a bit silly... but hey horses for courses right...
Unss Gas Giant Industries	Posted - 2006.09.07 20:07:00 - [76] Originally by: Nez Perces Is this what CCP had intended? Yes. It was designed, implemented, tested, released, received feedback from customers and no changes have been made at any of those points where feedback could be acted upon.
Baun Celestial Apocalypse	Posted - 2006.09.07 22:56:00 - [77] Originally by: Unss Originally by: Nez Perces Is this what CCP had intended? Yes. It was designed, implemented, tested, released, received feedback from customers and no changes have been made at any of those points where feedback could be acted upon. Don't overestimate CCP's testing process or their responsive ness to known issues. Generally speaking they have a poor record on the former and a significant lag with respect to the latter. The Enemy's Gate is Down
Unss Gas Giant Industries	Posted - 2006.09.07 23:37:00 - [78] Originally by: Baun Don't overestimate CCP's testing process or their responsive ness to known issues. Generally speaking they have a poor record on the former and a significant lag with respect to the latter. Knowing about an issue, deciding what to do with an issue, and customers seeing an outcome are all distinctly different things that are commonly mixed up or assumed to be the same thing. I am positive CCP's testing process had feedback and suggestions on alliances. Significant lag on known issue is intended as CCP's priority on new content over fixing existing issues is what CCP has decided to do with their limited resources. Software companies know about thousand of things they decided to not fix, change, or implement and they will never tell the customer about their internal resolutions.
Louisa Torres Reikoku Band of Brothers	Posted - 2006.09.08 07:02:00 - [79] Originally by: Unss Originally by: Baun Don't overestimate CCP's testing process or their responsive ness to known issues. Generally speaking they have a poor record on the former and a significant lag with respect to the latter. Knowing about an issue, deciding what to do with an issue, and customers seeing an outcome are all distinctly different things that are commonly mixed up or assumed to be the same thing. I am positive CCP's testing process had feedback and suggestions on alliances. Significant lag on known issue is intended as CCP's priority on new content over fixing existing issues is what CCP has decided to do with their limited resources. Software companies know about thousand of things they decided to not fix, change, or implement and they will never tell the customer about their internal resolutions. I can confidently assure you that ccp's ability to forget, ignore, lose, misunderstand and otherwise hash up the feedback we give them knows no bounds. There have been known and REPEATEDLY reported issues / bugs in every patch I've ever experienced that STILL go un-fixed. CCP are of course only human, so this is aimed at you more than them: It isn't that they know about them, it's that they DO slip past q&a and other systems in place to prevent it. I will give the CONCORD debacle of the June (?) patch as an example and pos bonuses not working (since release of POS) but there are many, many more.
Oosel Nightmare Holdings	Posted - 2006.09.08 15:21:00 - [80] what about non combat orientated alliances that just want to form them for cheaper pos fueling not everyone earns fortunes and has billions so going down this route makes sense for a good few corps i know of......and please before flaming as much as you think eve is all ship combat it isnt i do like rho's ideas though yet again he is bang on the mark
Romble The Graduates Interstellar Starbase Syndicate	Posted - 2006.09.09 23:52:00 - [81] Lots of good ideas in this thread. Do the devs read this forum? Just to add a small thing I would like to see more homefield advantages to the alliances that hold sovreignty for defence. This like if they change their bm instas system with the gates that only the sov holding allinace can use insta jumps. All other non allinace entities would have to land 15km from the gate or something. Perhaps sentry guns on controlled station and other homefield type advantages. As for alliances, yes different tiers would be appealing in terms of size and territory to distinguish them. I agree corp standings need to be changed also.
pershphanie Destructive Influence Band of Brothers	Posted - 2006.09.10 09:50:00 - [82] Edited by: pershphanie on 10/09/2006 09:51:59 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 I agree. (someone shoot me) Why should the alliance game mechanic be reserved for the eve elite? Creation of an alliance never made you special nor was it ever a great accomplishment. It's what you do with that alliance that makes it special. I think thats how it should be. A group of corperations no matter how spectacular the corps are should be treated as nothing special until they do something note worthy. Paying a sum of isk (no matter what that sum is) is not noteworthy. So we dont need to throw a parade when new alliances are created no matter if there are only 10 alliances or 10000. I think having hundreds of avg ordinary alliances makes the game realistic. We are not all beautiful and unique snowflakes. Not everyone is special. If the alliance you make ends up doing something noteworthy people will notice. So I dont see any problem with the current direction eve alliances are going. I still have yet to hear a good reason why there shouldnt be so many alliances. "because I dont like it!" is not a reason.
The Beatnuts Rage and Terror Against ALL Authorities	Posted - 2006.09.10 10:00:00 - [83] 1) fix lag. 2) change alliance system. <za preved pizda>
Stulmar Eskanti Delta team Lotka Volterra	Posted - 2006.09.10 10:51:00 - [84] Looking at the alliance ranking, if u delete all alliances under 100 player u half the existing alliances. If u delete all below 500 ppl u are left with about 30 alliances. Just some stats
Nooey Omerta Syndicate	Posted - 2006.09.10 11:55:00 - [85] Originally by: Stulmar Eskanti If u delete all below 500 ppl u are left with about 30 alliances. Just some stats You'd be deleting a lot of prominent and worthy alliances there. U'K, CVA etc. Just some pondering on your stats. Anyways, quite obviously there's room for improvement with the current structure. The standings issue is particularly eye-opening. I mean if people are paying 1b just to have access to better standings resources, then it's pretty obvious something's not fully working as intended. Also, I think half of your post could have been left out Seleene. You really opened yourself up for attacks with the talk of granduer, mystique, being in the first 20, prolific increase in number of alliances etc. None of those are good reasons to alter alliances, and I can't help but agree with Riddari's sentiments regarding that stuff in particular. There's plenty of far better reasons to change things, it is those reasons that should be the focus of people's desire to see things improved upon. ____
Soho Torres VersaTech Interstellar Ltd. SMASH Alliance	Posted - 2006.09.10 11:57:00 - [86] Edited by: Soho Torres on 10/09/2006 12:01:43 The idea of an "empire" is pretty cool, as an empire you would need to own some space to be eligble or some sort of rules. It could come with benefits such as you could be able to place weapons around stargates which lead into your space.
GoGo Yubari Sharks With Frickin' Laser Beams Mercenary Coalition	Posted - 2006.09.10 13:22:00 - [87] Originally by: Nooey Also, I think half of your post could have been left out Seleene. You really opened yourself up for attacks with the talk of granduer, mystique, being in the first 20, prolific increase in number of alliances etc. None of those are good reasons to alter alliances, and I can't help but agree with Riddari's sentiments regarding that stuff in particular. They may not be reasons for enacting change in themselves, but they also happen to be things that make life interesting and worth something beyond a linear, statistical progression of levels. Somehow it seems that it is so often forbidden for there to exist within Eve something that is out of reach for many, but worth striving for its own novelty. Yet, in life, we are all drawn to look for those elusive and rare things and wish to come into contact with them. These are the things that make reaching for excellence such an interesting pursuit. Sure, it may smack of elitism, but there is an undeniable lure in being number one, of leading the pack, that will forever define humanity until we finally die out. There is nothing wrong with accepting that. Let me just note that in no way do I claim to have a stake in all these things cool and uber in Eve, but the point is that the very fact that such things exist for me and others to strive toward enriches my gameplay. Maybe all that's somewhat off-topic, however.
Seleene Body Count Inc. Mercenary Coalition	Posted - 2006.09.10 18:29:00 - [88] Originally by: Nooey Also, I think half of your post could have been left out Seleene. You really opened yourself up for attacks with the talk of granduer, mystique, being in the first 20, prolific increase in number of alliances etc. None of those are good reasons to alter alliances, and I can't help but agree with Riddari's sentiments regarding that stuff in particular. I was talking about EVE in general. That's how I feel about the game. Not everything posted, even on this forum, is about ego or thumping your chest. - Remember Shaelin
Jasmine Constantine Gallente Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2006.09.10 19:41:00 - [89] The standings issue is absolutely critical. At the moment thats the only real benefit JF gets out of being in an alliance: ability to set standings to other alliances rather than having to keep track of 11201930130139031 nbsi 0.0 corporations manually. Its worth the 1billion setup fee + maintainence to access this "improved functionality". To be quite honest we'd pay another 1billion isk if the alliance allowed us to store bookmarks in an "alliance folder" (available to all alliance members. Yet another billion isk if the alliance had improved hanger functionality a better organisational interface. I'm betting we'd pay 5 billion isk for a better "alliance font" and at least a few hundred thousand isk for an "alliance customisable warp sound volume level". Maybe thats the way to motivate the devs into fixing some other critical issues with the game, throw isk at them! _________________
Cavtrooper A.W.M Knights Of the Southerncross	Posted - 2006.09.10 22:48:00 - [90] Edited by: Cavtrooper on 10/09/2006 22:49:57 Originally by: crice What is an alliance? One corp? A new Channel called Allance channel? I agree here, it seems alliances are becoming one big corp. Your identified by your alliance, you identify your competitors by their alliance. You have to be in an alliance to compete with other alliances for the reasons stated above (i.e. setting standards expecially). Im not a big fan of alliances, they are a necessary evil. The other thing that bothers me is terminology, I think of an alliance as a confederation assembled to accomplish a goal. Not as an autonomus object that controls its members. Of course that is my personal idea, and every "alliance" is run the way its founders want it to be. But maybe we should call them something else, empires is good. The BOB empire, composed of its member corporations. 2 cents courtesy of CAVTROOPER visit www.awmcorp.co.uk for more utterly perposterous ideas

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.