| 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.
|
Dark Shikari
Caldari
Imperium Technologies
Firmus Ixion
|
Posted - 2006.09.06 10:43:00 -
[31]
Originally by: Chewan Mesa
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.
Utterly true. Then make that 4).
--[23] Member--
Originally by: DB Preacher
The only time BoB's backs are to the wall is when Backdoor Bandit is in local.
|
Tecam Hund
Minmatar
The Buggers
|
Posted - 2006.09.06 10:44:00 -
[32]
Edited by: Tecam Hund on 06/09/2006 10:44:41
I think that there should be no limitations as far as forming alliances goes except maybe minimal corp count and minimal member count for the original founding corps. If in the future number of corporations and members in them falls below the limit the alliance is to be disbanded.
This way everybody will have an equal chance despite their wealth, or fame, or sp count. Maybe forming alliance isn't anything special anymore, but it is still special to be a known alliance. How many alliance names can an average person name from the top of their head?
|
Kuolematon
Space Perverts and Forum Warriors United
|
Posted - 2006.09.06 10:49:00 -
[33]
Kali will bring Alliances of Alliances. 
Unnerf Amarr!
"Just because you can utterly ruin another player's game doesn't mean that you must."
|
Tecam Hund
Minmatar
The Buggers
|
Posted - 2006.09.06 10:55:00 -
[34]
Originally by: Kuolematon
Kali will bring Alliances of Alliances.
Really...  Makes a single person feel utterly useless. Yet another evil cometh.
|
Miss Overlord
Gallente
Garoun Investment Bank
|
Posted - 2006.09.06 10:55:00 -
[35]
a) dead alliances need to be taken off the list
b) up the monthly charge to 50 or 100m
c) colation and empires sounds like an idea
d) minimum member limits could work or be delisted ie 200 players miniumum to create alliance (perhaps all corps and the executioner corp would need to join together beforehand)
e) 2-5B to create
f) good ideas all round
|
Pepperami
Art of War
Cult of War
|
Posted - 2006.09.06 12:27:00 -
[36]
Nothing wrong with lots of alliances, but if CCP want less, it's easy - give corps proper tools - standings to alliances and ability to claim sov; then less people will feel the 'need' for an alliance. Hell, corps need the standings tools more than anything.
The only time I get dissapointed to see another alliance is when they're 20 members and not worth war dec'ing :(
|
Velsharoon
Gallente
Corsets and Carebears
Whips and Chains
|
Posted - 2006.09.06 13:51:00 -
[37]
I think there are to many tbh, our was just for war decs till we went pirate...
Wild Rho is def on to something but it would need to be supported by CCP. What about the different types of alliances tho, ala pure pvp ones? I dont want an outpost or a POS or anything (0.0 is scary empire gate ganking is were its at)
To answer the questions
1) The amount of alliances is boring, because they are not differentiated between true alliances (LV, BOB, D2..and stuff like whips and chains, chribbas underworld thing)
2 & 3) More levels for a proper alliance are needed but their needs to be other types. hell even an industrial alliance were they get increased mining yields if they ally themselves with a certain NPC factions for using their refinery or something, true empire conglomerates (my pirate self screams for this to be low sec empire and 0.0 only ofc)
Then theres the afore mentioned PVP alliance...pirate alliances...
|
APOC UK
Dark Fusion Technologies
Free Space Alliance
|
Posted - 2006.09.06 14:14:00 -
[38]
Thing is, we were one of those original 20 alliances created. back then it felt great to be an alliance of friends. now it just doenst hold the same value because theres far too many alliances. is it true they lowerred the skill requirements to empire control level 1? its a rumour i heard but it was level 5 when we started out.
What people dont realise is that it makes it easier for the big powerful alliances such as bob and lotka voltera because the "competition" so to speak is spread out and dont want to work with each other, and they dont really need to be given advantages given what they can achieve.
I definately agree that the standings on a corp level needs to be reviewed as at the moment its ridiculous and like you all have been saying its what is forcing people to create alliances.
As for monthly membership increases i dont see a problem with that really. even the small alliances like ours can handle that, as we really do want to be an alliance, and i think thats whats important
Consider it this way. a real life alliance is like a few companys or countries, they arent allied with other alliances and factions etc, your either in there alliance neutral, or against them. On an eve scale its harder to achieve this but we need to seriously consider these points.
I Hope the devs have a read of this post and understand just what it is that needs to be done.
by the way this has been one of the most intresting reads on the forums for a while :)
Were Creating a new Megacorp.
For more info, convo me in game or join channel NewMegaCorp |
NATMav
F.R.E.E. Explorer
EVE Animal Control
|
Posted - 2006.09.06 14:25:00 -
[39]
Edited by: NATMav on 06/09/2006 14:26:50
Guilty by reason of insanity of standings. 
Three factors contribute to this madness:
1) Alliance with 20-30+ corps
2) Inability for corps to set standings toward alliances
3) 300 slot limit on standings
For us, this meant setting ASCN red and FLA blue was taking up over 50 of our available slots and me spending an hour a day fixing standings. When Deklein went nuts and corps and alliances were changing sides daily, I spent more time on standings than fighting, so the 1 billion to create our "faux" alliance was a no-brainer. Now my workload is about 5 minutes, if that, per day.
Either CCP don't care about it or they enjoy the ISK sink.
On the other hand, the shared standings between corps, and shared communications between corps was a bonus for us.
|
Zimi Vlasic
F.R.E.E. Explorer
EVE Animal Control
|
Posted - 2006.09.06 21:44:00 -
[40]
Originally by: Josiah Bartlet
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.
I would totally go for this fee, and CCP fixing corp standings, ONLY IF they refund our ******* billion isk.
Find Roid, Examine, and Excavate Explorer |
Maggot
Minmatar
Freelance Unincorporated
Ushra'Khan
|
Posted - 2006.09.06 22:16:00 -
[41]
Allowing Hardin and others (are there any?) to offer their cheap alliance creation service devalues the whole alliance committment.
Having to do those skills for empire control etc was a bloody nightmare. Only to see that they are not really necessary at all.
If the alliance executor does not have the skills required for alliance creation then the alliance should become invalid. Nothing personal Hardin, me old slaver m8.
I want to say more but I will breach forum rules.
|
Yazoul Samaiel
Caldari
Black Nova Corp
Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2006.09.06 23:27:00 -
[42]
Originally by: Wild Rho
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.
ROFL very nice 1 wild Rho made me laugh a lot, also very good ideas they could be the very basic to creatign enteties that can challange the 4 empires them selves.
On topic i agree with seleene , every one now a days and their grandmother are creatign alliances , when ever i fly in 0.0 "Who the F*** are those guys" is the usual quote of the day from all the different alliances who no one has ever heard of which basicly means these alliances are just created not to represent an entity that is a real alliance just some corps who spent a bill to get standigns with x alliance or so .
"What ever that doesn't Kill me just makes me stronger"
|
Terrorv1z
Caldari
InterGalactic Corp.
Imperial Republic Of the North
|
Posted - 2006.09.06 23:54:00 -
[43]
Edited by: Terrorv1z on 07/09/2006 00:00:10
Originally by: Wild Rho
Edited by: Wild Rho on 06/09/2006 09:16:20
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
Stage 2: Colony
Stage 3: Small Nation
Stage 4: Large Nation
Stage 5: Empire
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.
Great post - don't neccessarily agree with all the ideas (edited so as not to **** off all who read by length) - but it would really add something to the big alliances. Also different bonus/bonii (plural?) for different types of alliance could make life interesting - ie-
Merc Alliance - No need for Sov but restricted numbers (limited menership) but some sort of bonus/ability to finding peeps online (enabling true bounty hunting??) or show all "hunted" members online on map - current agent locator is c**p
Industrial Alliance - Large Sov requirements, reduction in refining/building loss %ages, high member requirements
Combat Alliance - Medium Sov/Member requirements, some sort of middle ground for building/hunting peeps, maybe some sort of bonus to warp scramblers/webbers etc.
Vague I know & I'm not trying to "WoW" Eve but I think it could, combined with Wild Rho's post make things a bit more interesting & make peeps think more about the allinaces that they create. Also the Bonii are obviously vague/rubbish (delete appropriate) but I think it could make things more challenging as corps/alliances would really have to decide what they wanted to do & not just on what someone trains to allow them access to .
Flame Away
|
Xrak
Black Nova Corp
Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2006.09.07 00:10:00 -
[44]
Make corps set standings to alliance as whole entities.
Allow sov. to work for corps.
Increase cost of alliance to 10bil
Add running cost equal to 5m per member per month.
Minimum of 250 unique accounts for alliance to be created and allowed to run.
Taken me about 10 mins and lots of spell checking to get this write, weekday drinking ftw.
|
Riddari
Celestial Fleet
Ascendant Frontier
|
Posted - 2006.09.07 01:15:00 -
[45]
1.) What are your thoughts on the above?
Buhu.
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?
Why?
3.) What about non territorial 'alliances'? Could / should there be a seperate game mechanic for them?
Why?
You seem to have a problem with a buerocratic stamp which once was perhaps considered prestigious but presumably no longer is.
The alliance entity should be just like anything else in the game, like the ships and modules, something which allows the players to show their creativity in using it in ways others didn't think of.
Creating a hierarchy for a buerocratic form would be an act of idiocy.
¼+¼
a history |
TressX
Trinity Nova
|
Posted - 2006.09.07 02:09:00 -
[46]
Originally by: Seleene
Edited by: Seleene on 06/09/2006 06:28:51
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 three questions for everyone:
1.) What are your thoughts on the above?
I most definately think 'alliance' has lost its value as a driving force for unity. Realistically, it is merely a convenience for communication and governmental entity which at best is a breeding ground for political nightmare. On occasion corporations use them for escaping war declarations and hostilities.
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?
I totally agree with this sentiment. It would be incredibly useful to identify an alliance type. Perhaps having different types of alliances listed with specializaton and even division - Military Alliances, Industrial Alliances, and such as you have listed above. Perhaps a loose structured non-governmental alliance such as a Coalition, or a business based alliance for trading.
Quote:
3.) What about non territorial 'alliances'? Could / should there be a seperate game mechanic for them?
Most definately it would be useful if territorial alliances had more defense capability, and remain self sufficient using nothing but the resources at hand within thier own territory.
May God have mercy upon my enemies, because I won't. |
Sharmina
ANZAC ALLIANCE
Ascendant Frontier
|
Posted - 2006.09.07 03:07:00 -
[47]
I firmly believe that it is wrong that a skilled person can create an alliance and then hand it over to an unskilled person to run, this is absolute nonsense and completely undermines the skilling process. There would probably be far fewer alliances if only skilled people could be the CEO of an executor corp, and this is logical in my eyes and really needs to be fixed.
I think that the ability to have real coalitions would be a great idea. A coalition would be a temporary joining of alliances in wartime for example, so that it can be visible ingame to see who is aligned with whom and maybe some other game mechanics to allow the coalition to work together yet still keeping them as separate alliances.
I also think another tier over alliances would be good but haven't really thought it out properly.
The iron fist in a velvet glove
R |
Miss Overlord
Gallente
Garoun Investment Bank
|
Posted - 2006.09.07 03:46:00 -
[48]
lets get alliacne tools in palce first (alliance wallets - divisional wallets - alliance deployable POSes) thats just for starters now for high sec gangs all alliance members should be treated as corp mates.
So many bugs so little time and kali being rammed thro us like nothing before.
Mmm agreed now alliances for alliacnes (empire etc) good idea.
|
Seleene
Body Count Inc.
Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2006.09.07 04:24:00 -
[49]
Originally by: Riddari
1.) What are your thoughts on the above?
Buhu.
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?
Why?
3.) What about non territorial 'alliances'? Could / should there be a seperate game mechanic for them?
Why?
You seem to have a problem with a buerocratic stamp which once was perhaps considered prestigious but presumably no longer is.
The alliance entity should be just like anything else in the game, like the ships and modules, something which allows the players to show their creativity in using it in ways others didn't think of.
Creating a hierarchy for a buerocratic form would be an act of idiocy.
"Buhu"? "Idiocy"? 
Riddari, stop letting your personal dislike of me derail threads. It's been generally agreed upon that the current game mechanic is lacking in many ways and there is nothing wrong with discussing it or how to possibly improve gameplay. The alternative is stagnation.
The number of dead alliances on the current list and the fact that at least half the people in this thread say the only reason they started theirs was so they could adjust standings better is, frankly, sad. There should be alternatives and improvements that help players. If you don't want to create an alliance, you shouldn't have to.
Eve is about choice. You can't compare it to ships and modules because there is no choice. You have only ONE form of "Alliance". If it would be possible to allow players a bit more depth and level of identity for their organizations, why not discuss that?
-
Remember Shaelin |
Baun
Celestial Apocalypse
|
Posted - 2006.09.07 06:24:00 -
[50]
You made reference to this but I think the primary issue the price of creation.
One of the reasons that people took notice when a new alliance was created was that the price was a non-insignifcant detterant. This is not to say that 1 billion isk was a huge sum of money, but rather than it was large enough at the time that the number of alliances created was small enough that people took notice every time it happened.
Now 1 billion isk may still be large enough to make fuel cost reduction alone a bad reason to form an alliance for a small group, but the significance of the amount has now so diminished that people are far more likely to have that amount of disposable income lying around.
Increase the cost and this problem (to the extent that it can even be remedied after the fact) will go away.
The Enemy's Gate is Down
|
Riddari
Celestial Fleet
Ascendant Frontier
|
Posted - 2006.09.07 09:34:00 -
[51]
Originally by: Seleene
"Buhu"? "Idiocy"?
You asked for our opinions. Don't approve of them? Tough.
Originally by: Seleene
The number of dead alliances on the current list
This is due to the fact that an alliance can not be closed down. I guess CCP didn't foresee that scenario?
Originally by: Seleene
at least half the people in this thread say the only reason they started theirs was so they could adjust standings better
Standing limit set by CCP, if they can fix the "set standings to alliance" this would be a mute point.
Originally by: Seleene
Eve is about choice. You can't compare it to ships and modules because there is no choice. You have only ONE form of "Alliance". If it would be possible to allow players a bit more depth and level of identity for their organizations, why not discuss that?
There is one kind of ship called Omen around. How you use it depends on yourself however, do you fit it for mining, npc-ing, ganking, tanking?
Why shouldn't we have 1000 alliances if people wish to create their own? Why should we limit their numbers? What is your and others problem with a small corproation creating their own alliance. So what if they don't control a region or even a constellation. So what if they never leave empire. They obviously had a goal in mind and didn't mind to throw 1 billion (which for me is still the sum of my wallet) into it.
I find this thread pointing towards the elitism mentality that we so often see crop up.
"Damnit, now everyone and their dog is in a cruiser!"
"Damnit, now everyone and their dog is in a battleship!"
"Damnit, now everyone has a POS!"
"Damnit, now everyone has a carrier!"
"Damnit, now everyone has a dreadnought!"
"Damnit, now everyone has an alliance!"
What is your point? Would you equate the ASCN alliance with the CVA alliance or the Ushra'Khan alliance or the MC alliance? Do these alliances not differ greatly not just in numbers but also in their roles and goals? Sounds to me like this is working just fine.
I don't see the point in adding other tiers of an alliance, "megahemonic alliance blob" or otherwise.
Yes congratulations on being in one of the first 20 alliances. Is your beef that you now want to enjoy the epeenery of having one of the first 5 "super-duper" alliances?
I'm asking in earnesty because I have not seen any argument from you as to WHY a large number of alliances is undecirable for EVE and HOW they are a detriment to it. All I see is vanity. Correct me please if you have arguments as to why the above points are wrong and hurt EVE.
¼+¼
a history |
Turkantho
Asgard Schiffswerften
Dusk and Dawn
|
Posted - 2006.09.07 10:20:00 -
[52]
I was told that with Kali corps will gain the ability to set standings towards alliances.
And yes alliance creation and upkeep (2mil/corp/month) are to low nowadays. That is one of the reasons that abandoned alliances stay as a one person alliance, maybe out of sentimentally reasons, maybe because of "he we might be needing this one time".
Upkeep should be increased to at least 20mil per corp or a fixed sum 100mil maybe, this would make some of the dead alliances go away.
________
Asgar[D]¦ |
Seleene
Body Count Inc.
Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2006.09.07 11:21:00 -
[53]
Edited by: Seleene on 07/09/2006 11:22:44
Quote:
Originally by: Riddari
Originally by: Seleene
"Buhu"? "Idiocy"?
You asked for our opinions. Don't approve of them? Tough.
I'm not trying to approve or disapprove of your opinions, but I appreciate the attention you always seem to give me. 
Quote:
Originally by: Seleene
The number of dead alliances on the current list
This is due to the fact that an alliance can not be closed down. I guess CCP didn't foresee that scenario?
Actually, when the system was first established, no, they didn't. I've asked.
Quote:
Originally by: Seleene
at least half the people in this thread say the only reason they started theirs was so they could adjust standings better
Standing limit set by CCP, if they can fix the "set standings to alliance" this would be a mute point.
Agreed, yet it hasn't happened yet.
Quote:
Why shouldn't we have 1000 alliances if people wish to create their own?
Fine by me.
Quote:
Why should we limit their numbers?
Nowhere have I said this.
Quote:
What is your and others problem with a small corproation creating their own alliance?
Nothing at all. What I would like to see, however, are a few options outside of the generic "alliance".
Quote:
So what if they don't control a region or even a constellation. So what if they never leave empire.
Fine by me.
Quote:
They obviously had a goal in mind and didn't mind to throw 1 billion (which for me is still the sum of my wallet) into it.
As stated by many here, their sole reason was the 'standings' issue.
Quote:
I find this thread pointing towards the elitism mentality that we so often see crop up.
Then you're misunderstanding the entire point of not just my initial post, but several posts in this thread.
Quote:
Yes congratulations on being in one of the first 20 alliances. Is your beef that you now want to enjoy the epeenery of having one of the first 5 "super-duper" alliances?
Ummm... no. I was simply using it as an example as to how, in the beginning, few people took advantage of the game mechanic and how some that did have now left behind empty shells.
Quote:
I'm asking in earnesty because I have not seen any argument from you as to WHY a large number of alliances is undecirable for EVE and HOW they are a detriment to it.
Because I really haven't said that.
Quote:
All I see is vanity. Correct me please if you have arguments as to why the above points are wrong and hurt EVE.
Gladly. Read on, please.
Quote:
What is your point? Would you equate the ASCN alliance with the CVA alliance or the Ushra'Khan alliance or the MC alliance? Do these alliances not differ greatly not just in numbers but also in their roles and goals? Sounds to me like this is working just fine.
It's working "fine", but that's not to say that it could not be improved upon some nor does that mean than an intelligent debate on the issue is out of line.
In response to your questions, no, I actually don't equate any of those mentioned alliances with each other, any more than I do with the NPC 'Empires'. ASCN is a gigantic nation state covering multiple regions with ambitions that rival that of any NPC faction. MC is a small, well-funded military force with a few systems/stations. UK is a tribal group of warriors whose goals are s... |
Eyeshadow
Caldari
Sharks With Frickin' Laser Beams
Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2006.09.07 11:43:00 -
[54]
Originally by: Riddari
Originally by: Seleene
"Buhu"? "Idiocy"?
You asked for our opinions. Don't approve of them? Tough.
+ lots of other stuff
Heres an opinion for you: Your a ******* *****.
Get that chip off your shoulder and sort your attitude out
burk
My Latest Vid (18/04/06) |
Gragnor
Order of the Arrow
|
Posted - 2006.09.07 11:44:00 -
[55]
Let's throw a giant cat amongst the pidgeons:
Allow corporations to claim sovreignty over a single system so they can put down Capital ship arrays. Only Alliance's can claim sovreignty over constellations and only an Alliance can anchor a station.
Then permit anyone who holds a system to put up sentry guns.
Imagine the carnage that would ensue.
You know it makes sense.
|
Turiya Flesharrower
Beagle Corp
|
Posted - 2006.09.07 11:45:00 -
[56]
The number of alliances ingame does not bother me in the least, it's a corporation's choice if they want to spend money on making an alliance an no-one else's business as far as I'm concerned. However, having to create an alliance in order to compensate for the inability to set Corp-> Alliance standings is ludicrous and should be fixed by CCP ASAP. Dead alliances (ones which no longer have any active members/fee-paying members) should be purged in my opinion, however if an alliance has one or more active members who pay the maintenance fee then I don't see a problem.
There's a lot of elitism and chest-beating going on in this thread; how does it affect you in any way of a small corporation decides to create an alliance of its own past the 'Who the hell are they?' moment. Fees should not increase, pre-requisites should not become any stricter and there should be no imposed member limit. I believe that the 'Tiered' alliance level is a nice idea and would add a lot of spice and competition to the scene. I also believe that any features added to the alliance system as a whole are a good thing. However making it more difficult to make an alliance is a bad move and has no motive to it apart from vanity.
-----
|
Riddari
Celestial Fleet
Ascendant Frontier
|
Posted - 2006.09.07 11:53:00 -
[57]
Why yes, I do stalk your topics as my uhh.. posting history... doesn't exhibit!
Originally by: Seleene
Look at the EVE 'cannon' Empires:
Amarr - Theocracy
Gallente - Democracy
Caldari - Corporate State
Minmatar - Tribal Representative Republic
They certainly are not "Alliances"; they are something more than that. At some point CCP is going to need to address the fact that the "Egger Alliances" are as well.
That's what this thread is about: additional options for everyone.
So what exactly are the additional options you would want to see and how would an alliance advance betwen these different "states" of "alliance"?
Automatic corporate tax delivered into alliance coffers?
What if U'K, in the EVE universe a small group of warriors (with their own outpost) suddenly get an influx of members from The Roleplaing Assocation of Freeing Slaves, veterans of Civil war enactments, and become a megasized alliance. (My apoligies to Namtzaar'Kin and the other minnie rp-ers but this is for demonstrational purposes only).
- Will they now need to pay additional ISK to allow their membership rise above a certain level?
- Will their executor have to purchase a skill for 50 billion isk to enable it?
- Will they be required to deploy a super-mammoth-mega control tower to be able to upgrade and claim an additional constellation?
- Would the cost of a war dec against them rise ten-fold?
Suppose they then wish to move their RP endavours from 0.0 back to Empire. Would their alliance dissolve because they no longer hold 0.0 systems? Would they have to run the same super-mammoth-mega control tower in low sec space?
One "problem" that seems to be behind lots of players suggestions requiring more skills and more ISK sinks is their look at their own wallets and concluding that everyone is too damn stinking rich.
Last I knew most RP-ers (such as U'K) are on the lower end of the ISK-ownership spectrum (with some notable exceptions... who are indeed the exceptions) and I myself have never had any problems with keeping my wallet lean so for me any ISK sink (such as capital skills) which is aimed at sucking back a tiny fraction of the wallet of the stinking rich (LV talking about under 100 billion being poor) sucks my entire wallet.
To those who have 60 billion in their personal wallet the 1 billion startup cost for an alliance seems like pittance but for those who are not rolling in the money it is a considerable sum. I can't fathom why some people advocate for that fee to be raised.
If it is too much ISK that people are worried about a more proper and fair ISK sink would be simply to tax EVERY EVE CITIZENS AND CORPORATIONS wallet each month, 1% of their total wallet (so thats 6 billion for some, 12 million for me!) goes to keep their capsule license registered!
¼+¼
a history |
Riddari
Celestial Fleet
Ascendant Frontier
|
Posted - 2006.09.07 11:54:00 -
[58]
Originally by: Eyeshadow
Originally by: Riddari
Originally by: Seleene
"Buhu"? "Idiocy"?
You asked for our opinions. Don't approve of them? Tough.
+ lots of other stuff
Heres an opinion for you: Your a ******* *****.
Get that chip off your shoulder and sort your attitude out
burk
Aww man. I totally forgot you existed. Love you!
¼+¼
a history |
Valkazm
Amarr
Cursed Spawn
Knights Of the Southerncross
|
Posted - 2006.09.07 12:04:00 -
[59]
I find the new alliances to be intresting more intresting the old ones i hope they can really pack a punch later on and change the politics more and teritorially its changed all the time ..
Theese are indeed intresting times were more players are on the field in scheming and ploting and im sure a mega power will spawn from empire out of all the new corporations .. with the right leadership and goal im sure something will form to surprise us all an alliance in empire that finally makes it move ..
Cursed Spawn recruitment |
Seleene
Body Count Inc.
Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2006.09.07 12:14:00 -
[60]
Edited by: Seleene on 07/09/2006 12:17:29
Edited by: Seleene on 07/09/2006 12:16:40
Originally by: Riddari
So what exactly are the additional options you would want to see and how would an alliance advance betwen these different "states" of "alliance"?
That's KINDA why I started this thread. 
Quote:
Automatic corporate tax delivered into alliance coffers?
COOL!!
Quote:
What if U'K, in the EVE universe a small group of warriors (with their own outpost) suddenly get an influx of members from The Roleplaing Assocation of Freeing Slaves, veterans of Civil war enactments, and become a megasized alliance. (My apoligies to Namtzaar'Kin and the other minnie rp-ers but this is for demonstrational purposes only).
- Will they now need to pay additional ISK to allow their membership rise above a certain level?
No, I'm not really a fan of hard coding anyone to have to do something like that. You could have 5,000 people in your 'alliance' and still go about things as you do today. However, what I am an advocate of is that there be options for management that are not necessarily tied to membership numbers.
Quote:
Will their executor have to purchase a skill for 50 billion isk to enable it?
I could certainly see some type of new alliance structure requiring a few new management skills. Besides, 50 bil isn't what it used to be. ISK sinks 4tw, tbh.
Quote:
Will they be required to deploy a super-mammoth-mega control tower to be able to upgrade and claim an additional constellation?
Perhaps. Perhaps not. Considering that the actual game mechanics for constellation sovereignty are currently being worked on, it seems reasonable that this would be an ideal time to examine how new forms of corporate / alliance management might tie into that.
Quote:
Would the cost of a war dec against them rise ten-fold?
Perhaps. Perhaps not.
Quote:
Suppose they then wish to move their RP endeavors from 0.0 back to Empire. Would their alliance dissolve because they no longer hold 0.0 systems? Would they have to run the same super-mammoth-mega control tower in low sec space?
A super-mega what?! OMG, GIMMEH!!
Quote:
One "problem" that seems to be behind lots of players suggestions requiring more skills and more ISK sinks is their look at their own wallets and concluding that everyone is too damn stinking rich.
You claimed you had 1 billion ISK in your wallet earlier which is about 29 times what I had in my wallet when I started BDCI. With smart management, that gives you access to just about anything you could want in the game...
Quote:
Snip major rant on ISK
DUDE!!! Slow down! You're getting off topic here. In my original post, I asked three questions. You seem to think I asked them as some sort of ego trip or that my motivation was in some way Machiavellian. Whatever your problem is, it's not with just me.
I've no problem talking about the potential for change / improvement in the game, but the current state of play isn't my fault. I started this thread to be pro-active. I'm not out to screw the little guy; I'd like to see some options for smaller alliances. Maybe there could be benefits to setting up a deep 0.0 industrial alliance? Perhaps a group of corps that specialize in ice mining in low sec Empire could form a 'Conglomerate' and qualify for special tax/refining breaks?
Options, man. What's wrong with them?
-
Remember Shaelin |
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 |
pershphanie
Destructive Influence
Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2006.09.10 23:19:00 -
[91]
I'd still like to hear a reason why the alliance system should be changed at all. "because there are too many" isnt a reason. If you think there are too many than please explain why you think having too many has a negitive effect on game play.
Untill there is a good answer to that question I dont think ccp should change a system that isnt broken. Think about it for a second. A few player yell rabble rabble so ccp decides to completly overhaul the unbroken alliance system making it much more complex. What could go wrong there?
|
Agent Kenshin
Caldari
Body Count Inc.
Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2006.09.10 23:57:00 -
[92]
Edited by: Agent Kenshin on 10/09/2006 23:58:02
Originally by: pershphanie
I'd still like to hear a reason why the alliance system should be changed at all. "because there are too many" isnt a reason. If you think there are too many than please explain why you think having too many has a negitive effect on game play.
Untill there is a good answer to that question I dont think ccp should change a system that isnt broken. Think about it for a second. A few player yell rabble rabble so ccp decides to completly overhaul the unbroken alliance system making it much more complex. What could go wrong there?
Its broken because corps are off spending a billion isk just to get access to better standings. The fuel cost for POS are a good idea but when your forced to setup an alliance for the soul purpose of tracking standings then something is broken. Now for other things there is nothing wrong with the number of alliances. But just how many are created to take advantage of this feature? Im not exactly sure.
Thats the major issue atm is that the current alliance system isnt broken but corporation standings system. But creating different "alliances" for different things like creating true mega corps. Which give you added bonus to sell orders and such things industrial and empire based. As well as going all the way up to alliances of alliances to create player controlled empires.
-----
Station Invunerablity POS Module
|
Sharmina
ANZAC ALLIANCE
Ascendant Frontier
|
Posted - 2006.09.11 02:03:00 -
[93]
Originally by: pershphanie
I'd still like to hear a reason why the alliance system should be changed at all. "because there are too many" isnt a reason. If you think there are too many than please explain why you think having too many has a negitive effect on game play.
Untill there is a good answer to that question I dont think ccp should change a system that isnt broken. Think about it for a second. A few player yell rabble rabble so ccp decides to completly overhaul the unbroken alliance system making it much more complex. What could go wrong there?
Well it most certainly is broken, as I have said in an earlier post, players without the relevant skills should not be able to be CEO of an executor corp. If you don't have the correct skills to be a CEO of a corporation then all your members get dropped from the corp. The same sort of consequences should apply to Alliances, otherwise why have skills for it in the first place.
The iron fist in a velvet glove
R |
pershphanie
Destructive Influence
Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2006.09.11 02:07:00 -
[94]
Originally by: Agent Kenshin
Edited by: Agent Kenshin on 10/09/2006 23:58:02
Originally by: pershphanie
I'd still like to hear a reason why the alliance system should be changed at all. "because there are too many" isnt a reason. If you think there are too many than please explain why you think having too many has a negitive effect on game play.
Untill there is a good answer to that question I dont think ccp should change a system that isnt broken. Think about it for a second. A few player yell rabble rabble so ccp decides to completly overhaul the unbroken alliance system making it much more complex. What could go wrong there?
Its broken because corps are off spending a billion isk just to get access to better standings. The fuel cost for POS are a good idea but when your forced to setup an alliance for the soul purpose of tracking standings then something is broken. Now for other things there is nothing wrong with the number of alliances. But just how many are created to take advantage of this feature? Im not exactly sure.
Thats the major issue atm is that the current alliance system isnt broken but corporation standings system. But creating different "alliances" for different things like creating true mega corps. Which give you added bonus to sell orders and such things industrial and empire based. As well as going all the way up to alliances of alliances to create player controlled empires.
Ok. You have me sold on the corp standings towards alliances issue. I completly agree alot of alliances are created for standings purposes only and thats kind of a waste. Still no actual changes need to be made to the current alliance system to fix that. Sure specific alliance types would be neat in some ways but wouldnt you rather see ccp focus its efforts in other areas rather than that?
|
Agent Kenshin
Caldari
Body Count Inc.
Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2006.09.11 03:31:00 -
[95]
Originally by: pershphanie
Ok. You have me sold on the corp standings towards alliances issue. I completly agree alot of alliances are created for standings purposes only and thats kind of a waste. Still no actual changes need to be made to the current alliance system to fix that. Sure specific alliance types would be neat in some ways but wouldnt you rather see ccp focus its efforts in other areas rather than that?
Well im not saying i want to see CCP focus on it but a few other options for empire dwellers and industrialists with the option to upgrade to alliance if they plan to claim some space. I just think it would be kinda nice for them. Instead of an alliance of industry corps they would form a megacorp or conglomerate.
-----
Station Invunerablity POS Module
|
Seleene
Body Count Inc.
Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2006.09.11 05:32:00 -
[96]
Originally by: pershphanie
Ok. You have me sold on the corp standings towards alliances issue. I completly agree alot of alliances are created for standings purposes only and thats kind of a waste. Still no actual changes need to be made to the current alliance system to fix that. Sure specific alliance types would be neat in some ways but wouldnt you rather see ccp focus its efforts in other areas rather than that?
Persh, the people who develop content and those who code are two different animals. Talking about or developing an improved alliance system has no bearing whatsoever on lag, bugs or anything of that nature because two different groups of people work on it. Granted, this stuff would eventually have to be coded, but the hard part is figuring out what needs to be coded.
As to your previous post, it all leads back to enriching game play and, most importantly, empowering players and giving them more choice in how they run their organizations. Perhaps 'tiers' or 'levels' of alliances is a bad way to explain it. Those words push people into thinking in terms of:
"If I have X people in my alliance for X months, then I qualify for X kind of alliance."
No. While some rules such as that might be applied for certain benefits, the primary goal here would be to allow players to specialize their role in the game and have an actual mechanic that supports that. There have been several posts in this thread talking about 'Mining' or 'Industrial' alliances with small benefits as a result of being in that kind of alliance. That's another example of good brainstorming.
In addition to all out problems like no alliance wallet, standings, etc..., there is simply nothing "cool" about them. One alliance today is the same as pretty much any other as far as the game mechanic is concerned. My point is that I hate stagnation, and the current broken alliance system is certainly stagnated. I'd like to see it evolve into something a bit more interesting is all.
-
Remember Shaelin |
Nooey
Omerta Syndicate
|
Posted - 2006.09.11 05:55:00 -
[97]
GoGo/Seleene: Fair points...I'll give you that. 
Even still, I stand by what I say about what should be the focus for the desire to change/improve things, even still people are latching onto that and attacking it as a reason...because, you have to admit, it's nowhere near as clear cut as the standings nonsense that Jas just laid out beautifully, or any other number of issues currently surrounding alliance infrastructure. But...yeah, I see what you're saying GoGo, fair enough.
____ |
pershphanie
Destructive Influence
Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2006.09.11 06:47:00 -
[98]
Edited by: pershphanie on 11/09/2006 06:47:24
Originally by: Seleene
There have been several posts in this thread talking about 'Mining' or 'Industrial' alliances with small benefits as a result of being in that kind of alliance. That's another example of good brainstorming.
Well seeing how mining is for****gots I dont really care about them getting any sort of industrial bonuses. Even though that would provide for some great war decing (which is what i think youre really after here). Also if youre going to give love to the carebears you have to spread it all around. What would you do for pvp alliances, an alliance wide rof bonus? It just seems like if this happend it you would not only be opening a huge pandoras box here but youd cause even more seperation between pvpers and carebears. Carebears would form their alliances and lose contact with pvpers and xenophobia would spread. Soon youd have pvpers playing counterstrike against coveters all over eve. This would cause resource prices to go up all over eve. So help me god if i have to pay 300mill for a vagabond because you guys think industrial alliances would be a neat new feature then im comming to get all of you who lobbied for this!
Eve has achieved some sort of balance atm where pvpers and carebears are codependent on each other. Carebears need pvpers to keep low sec space safe so they can get their minerals and pvpers need carebears to run pos's and secure their soverignty. It might be dull at times but it works. In eve 90% of the content has always been player based. Bored? Create some drama. Always worked for me.
Originally by: Seleene
In addition to all out problems like no alliance wallet, standings, etc..., there is simply nothing "cool" about them. One alliance today is the same as pretty much any other as far as the game mechanic is concerned.
Maybe some small changes could be nice, but you are talking about a whole new system. If your alliance isnt cool then do something to make it cool, thats not necessarily ccps job. I think the ingame alliance function should be convient and equal for everyone. Thats how it is now. Anything beyond that is what you make of it. No one wants stagnation. But the best way to prevent that is not through CCP. Its for a few players to come up with a couple evil ass plots and get others to go along with them and make the game intertaining. Thats really all you need. Eve isnt television. You dont sit back and expect it to entertain you. People here are responsible for that themselves. Bored? Go a different direction in the game. Personally I'd find it hillarious if MC announced they were going pirate. I'd bet you guys might get a kick out of it too.
Any nub with a billion isk can go out and start an alliance. If he does something extrodinary with that then he's the **** and so is his alliance. No special game mechanic there. Its fair to everyone. I dont see anything broken about that.
|
Seleene
Body Count Inc.
Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2006.09.11 07:23:00 -
[99]
Edited by: Seleene on 11/09/2006 07:24:13
Originally by: pershphanie
Well seeing how mining is for****gots I dont really care about them getting any sort of industrial bonuses. Even though that would provide for some great war decing (which is what i think youre really after here).
Right. That's why I started this thread. War decs... 
-
Remember Shaelin |
Drilla
Shinra
Lotka Volterra
|
Posted - 2006.09.11 07:44:00 -
[100]
Alliances in EVE are all doomed as the gameplay is very much focused on alliances - but the game/server/whatever can not accomodate the players in the same grid the game requires.
Seek not to bar my way, for I shall win through - no matter the cost! |
Wild Rho
Amarr
Imperial Shipment
|
Posted - 2006.09.11 08:19:00 -
[101]
An alliance type should come from the reputation it creates, not from a game mechanic used to categorise it (that would be somthing WoW does, not Eve).
What is needed is either an Alliance as a base level to build and grow upon into somthing bigger or some defined criteria that must be met to both create an alliance AND keep the alliance (i.e. if the alliance fails to meet the base criteria after X time it is offically dissolved).
The problem there is defining exactly what the criteria could be as every alliance is different and whether one is a "true alliance" is really a matter of opinion.
WE ARE DYSLEXIC OF BORG. Refutance is systile. Your ass will be laminated. - Jennie Marlboro
|
K Shara
Caldari
Contraband Inc.
Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2006.09.11 15:46:00 -
[102]
I also like teh idea of a tiered alliance system.
These are not fleshed out ideas below, just broad outlines.
Hows this..
Following premis' in effect
Cost to create alliance doesnt increase.
If you don't have the pre req's you default to stage 1 alliance benefits.
Stage 1.
Cost to create -1 bil isk.
Req - 1 Corp (exec), Skills to create IGA.
Benefits - as per current alliance system
Stage 2.
Cost to create - no extra cost (auto upgrade)
Req - as above + POS with claimed sov
Benefits - as above
Stage 3.
Cost to create - no extra cost (auto upgrade)
Req - as above + hold outpost or player controlled station
Benefits - as above
Stage 4.
Cost to create - no extra cost (auto upgrade)
Req - as above + 3 outposts in same constellation. sov in every system of constellation.
Benefits - as above + able to anchor sentry guns in a system with an outspost
Stage 5.
Cost to create - no extra cost (auto upgrade)
Req - as above + 3 constellation sovs (ie the above x3)
Benefits - as above + able to anchor sentry guns in a consterllations with sov as above.
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 :: [one page] |