| Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
WhatIsItGoodFor
Absolutely Nothin
   |
Posted - 2007.10.13 20:17:00 -
[1]
Previously: War Analysis Part 3: CCP Sucks
Coldest of All Cold Monsters
Today, I'll be examining the social/governmental structures of the two major "powerblocs," describing the pros and cons of each.
Personally, I find this aspect of Eve the most interesting. Despite CCP's in-game terminology of "corporations" and "alliances," very few corporations resemble a business whatsoever (and CCP's tools for such operations are surprisingly poor). "Alliances" is a word evoking a broader entity than the alliance mechanic embodies, and would be more fitting for the entities most consider as supra-alliances of powerblocs, such as RSF and allies or the GBC.
Rather, most of the group dynamics in Eve should be reflected in governmental terms; states, nation-states, semi-feudalism, representative democracy, dictatorship, communism, authoritarianism, or, for you Amarr roleplayers, theocracy.
As Eve is a video game, most of the populace of the game involved in such politics don't actively think of their organizations in this way -- and I doubt many of their leaders spend much time thinking in this way either. The dynamics of most organizations are not actively modeled after real-world forms of government; they spontaneously arise as players feel out how to best operate their particular group, perhaps tweaking here or there to increase the utility of the organization, rather than to adhere to an established method of governance. Naturally, there are exceptions. I would argue that most of the groups actively modeled after existing governmental models are the democracies; while democracy works admirably well in the real world, it requires a significant amount of effort to establish a unique set of rules to apply it to Eve and is thus more likely to be an artificially imposed structure than one that naturally evolved.
Further, corporations have been in the game since it started -- and alliances (formal or informal) have existed nearly as long. The length of their existences has allowed for significant development of different governing styles, which has resulted in the variety we now see. However, organized supra-alliances or "powerblocs" are arguably a relatively recent development in the lifespan of Eve.
The Greater BoB Community -- A Semi-feudal Model
The business arrangements between BoB and their tenants are not always clear, although many have been divulged as time has gone on. It appears that some are relatively "standard" deals -- 6 billion ISK per month per constellation is the most frequently quoted figure -- but that variations are made based on proximity to the battle lines or based on individual alliance (for example, MC paying in a week of free mercenary service per year).
However, I am unaware of any tenancy deals that are entirely free; in short, all tenants within the GBC must provide some type of payment to BoB in order to hold space within BoB's sphere of influence. Whether this is military payment, monetary payment, developmental payment (dropping outposts), or maintenance payment in hostile areas (front-line tenants still must provide and maintain all POSes that hold the area), it still represents an exchange that makes the semi-feudal characterization the most apt.
In return, tenants gain a section of space that is exclusively their own without having to conquer it themselves; assuming it is relatively unassaulted by hostile forces, it would take most alliances very little time to earn the money to pay their rent each month in addition to their own profits.
|
WhatIsItGoodFor
Absolutely Nothin
|
Posted - 2007.10.13 20:18:00 -
[2]
Pros
First, the model creates a clear chain of command; BoB is in charge. Tenants are likely given a degree of autonomy, in that I doubt they are obligated to join BoB military fleets but rather frequently do so because they see the mutual benefit in defending against a hostile territorial invasion. However, it is clear that BoB is in charge of those joint fleets. Disputes among tenants are likely to be settled by BoB as well, and any development of the area (dropping outposts) is likely either ordered by BoB or only allowed when first cleared by BoB.
Second, the model inherently creates a bond of loyalty between lord and tenant; as most tenants are, at least at the beginning of their agreement, incapable of or uninterested in taking space by force, BoB offers them an opportunity that would not otherwise be open to many of them. This, in turn, motivates them to assist BoB when it is requested.
Third, the model results in nearly uniform politics and diplomacy; those who are red to BoB are red to the GBC, and those who are blue to BoB are blue to the GBC. While there are likely a few exceptions here or there (even within BoB itself -- for example, RKK being positive to Jericho Fraction while the rest of BoB is negative), it does result in a more efficient, centralized model of diplomacy.
Fourth, the model distributes the responsibility of 0.0 development in an organized fashion; rather than making one (or three, in the comparative case of the core three RSF alliances) responsible for developing multiple regions of space.
Cons
First, the central premise of the semi-feudal model is based on the assumption that BoB is able to protect the entirety of 0.0 territory that it rents out from territorial invasion; while this was a safe assumption to make when it was the most powerful supra-alliance or powerbloc in Eve, it is no longer this case. This weakens BoB's position to make demands of both with prospective tenants (see the recent defection of M.Pire) as well as existing tenants.
Second, feudalism is has inherent instabilities that encourage the revolt of tenants. BoB must necessarily delegate the responsibilities of 0.0 development and defense from roaming incursions to the tenants themselves; as tenants develop into stronger entities, they may grow to feel an ownership of their particular areas and desire greater independence. To avoid revolt, BoB must thus either bind their tenants to them by fostering their loyalty early, or maintain enough power that even their strongest tenants will not revolt for fear of eviction by BoB itself.
Third, it brings together tenants that may have difficulty cooperating with one another unless under direct supervision from BoB itself. Whether it is in mutual defense from roaming incursion gangs or cooperation for space development or resource sharing, it is less likely for that tenants will naturally assist one another in a semi-feudal environment unless the structure of that assistance has been established by BoB itself -- examples would include GBC-wide cooperative programs and intel channels. The very nature of semi-feudalism encourages division -- tenant A pays BoB for constellation X, tenant B pays BoB for constellation Y. While it is certainly possible for a semi-feudal system to develop cohesion among tenants, there is no cohesion inherently built into the system itself.
The RedSwarmFederation -- A Cooperative Nations Model
In this instance, RSF applies to not just the three alliances present in the title (RA, GS, TCF) but also the smaller alliances considered part of that powerbloc, such as UNL and KOS.
|
Ramlir
0.0 Corp
|
Posted - 2007.10.13 20:18:00 -
[3]
im ***
|
WhatIsItGoodFor
Absolutely Nothin
|
Posted - 2007.10.13 20:18:00 -
[4]
I exclude IAC and AAA, only because while those groups are part of the powerbloc in the current war, if the war were to go in the favor of the larger Coalition's favor, it is questionable whether they would maintain as close a political relationship -- I suspect that AAA in particular would reset standings with many, if not all, of the RSF powerbloc with the exception of RA due to their history. This is not due to any perceived hostility between AAA and the rest of the RSF powerbloc, but rather simply that AAA are one of those groups that notoriously dislike an abundance of blues.
The defection of M.Pire also raises similar issues; if the GBC were to win the War, it is obvious that the new territory absorbed would be managed in a fashion similar to their current semi-feudal model. However, if the RSF were to win the War, it is highly unlikely that existing RSF alliances would absorb the entirety of former GBC space.
In that event, it remains to be seen whether the alliances that do claim some of that space will, at the end of the War, be part of the RSF powerbloc or not. For example, should M.Pire fully defect (where they stand with RSF is unclear, as comments from M.Pire members have conflicted) and take space in conjunction with RSF forces in Feythabolis or Esoteria, are unlikely to remain friendly to the core RSF alliances after the War concludes (although they may negotiate non-territorial invasion pacts).
This is all a long way of saying that while additional alliances may work with core RSF alliances and claim former GBC space (if the war tips in that direction), the discussion of the RSF as a Cooperative Nations model is primarily about those that are likely to remain in that powerbloc even after the War has concluded.
Another note worth making: the Cooperative Nations model also likely applies to the current Old North of RZR/MM/Pure and allies.
The Cooperative Nations model is as it sounds; a group of larger, autonomous alliances working cooperatively toward goals that benefit the whole. While individual alliances within the RSF may have smaller tenants, I am unaware of any such tenants that claim space; Amerame's term of "civilians" is particularly fitting. Each territorial claiming alliance has autonomy within their claimed space, and it is also not uncommon for overlap or sharing of space among those alliances to occur as well, as long as it does not interrupt efforts or tenant agreements of the sov-claiming alliance.
Pros
First, increased likelihood of cooperation militarily (either in defense of roaming gangs or in territorial warfare) and financially (sharing of space or resources). As the primary purpose of the Cooperative Nations model is mutual defense rather than rental of space, the individual alliances will be more motivated to assist one another to the end of making the larger powerbloc stronger.
I realize some will take issue with my use of the phrase "mutual defense," as the RSF has and continues to engage in offensive warfare; however, as I have argued previously, I believe that as soon as the GBC and the RSF coalesced into the entities they are today that war between them was inevitable -- the war is arguably one of defense for both, as neither believes they could ever coexist. In other words, I believe that, should the RSF win this War, that they will not engage in offensive territorial warfare as a single entity in the future (although individuals within the powerbloc may do so without the assistance of the rest) unless they encountered another threat to their existence like the GBC.
|
Kirex
Vale Heavy Industries
Molotov Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.10.13 20:18:00 -
[5]
COMBO BREAKER
|
WhatIsItGoodFor
Absolutely Nothin
|
Posted - 2007.10.13 20:19:00 -
[6]
Second, the limitation of sovereignty maintenance and control to alliances experienced in and equipped to handle them even under hostile conditions. While the GBC model distributes this effort across multiple tenants, the RSF model relies on a select handful of alliances to handle the effort in order to ensure it is handled properly. Even the weakest logistics link of the five RSF alliances named above, KOS, has exhibited much better logistical abilities than many GBC tenants -- for example, during the attempted GBC invasion earlier this year in C3-0YD.
Third, as each individual alliance is considered autonomous, the Cooperative Nations model do not contain any inherent reasons for revolt.
Cons
First, a lack of any clear chain of command. This means that any cooperative battle plan must be proposed, reviewed, and approved by all alliances that are involved, rather than being in the hands of a single alliance's leadership.
Second, a lack of centralized diplomacy can lead to diplomatic incidents or mixed standings; particular incidents of note would be those involving SMASH and Roadkill earlier this year, and more recently Curse Alliance. A similar situation could emerge should M.Pire fully side with the RSF in coming weeks, as it is difficult to imagine M.Corp (ex-LV) and RA setting standings to one another. In essence, the benefits of autonomy can result in mixed standings across the RSF alliances.
Third, while I argue that this model has no inherent qualities to encourage revolt or infighting, the effects of a major fallout among the alliances in the RSF powerbloc would be far more disastrous than the revolt of a BoB tenant. At the least, if a single member of the RSF powerbloc defected, it would result in a hostile entity close to the rest of the bloc (and, should that defector ally with other enemies, offer a beachhead for strikes at the rest of the RSF). At the worst, it could result in the dissolution of the entire powerbloc.
Conclusions
Ultimately, both the GBC semi-feudal model and the RSF cooperative nations model have significant pros and cons for all involved parties, whether landlord, tenant or ally, both in peace-time and during war.
In peace-time, the semi-feudal model is far more beneficial to small alliances; it offers the opportunity for them to reap the benefits of 0.0 territory without requiring the ability to claim it, whereas the cooperative nations model only offers such opportunity to smaller corporations operating as "civilians," or large friendly alliances capable of claiming space for themselves.
In war-time, the precise opposite is true, for reasons outlined in Part 1. Large alliances (including those in the cooperative nations model, as well as BoB and their most powerful tenants in the semi-feudal model) are able to withstand the challenges of war, and "civilians" in the cooperative nations model can flee with relatively few losses. However, the small tenant alliances of the semi-feudal model can likely do neither; the very reason the semi-feudal model benefits them in peace time is that they do not have adequate military power for territorial warfare, and attempts to flee will likely mean abandonment of significant assets used in the development of 0.0 infrastructure.
In truth, this means that the War is more likely to affect the semi-feudal model than vice versa -- I suspect that either BoB's weaker tenants will be removed by hostile forces, or BoB will pro-actively choose to rearrange its agreements and treat those weaker tenants as "civilians" who are not accountable for claiming territory or expected to engage in the War.
|
WhatIsItGoodFor
Absolutely Nothin
|
Posted - 2007.10.13 20:20:00 -
[7]
On the other hand, the cooperative nations model is more likely to affect the War than vice versa -- specifically, the RSF's ability to continue acting as a cohesive entity despite being multiple entities will significantly affect their success or failure in the War, while it is unlikely that the War will change their model in an significant way.
Tomorrow will be War Analysis Part 5: The Bait of Sin. This will examine and debunk popular talking points and trolls used as propaganda by both sides of the current War. While I appreciate the posters who have complimented my threads to date as being a "refreshing change for CAOD," the intention of these threads has not been to change the style of CAOD discourse (which is impossible). I appreciate good trolls and snappy comebacks; the key word there being good. I hope that discussing the most common ones for their accuracy or relevance will prompt people to, at the least, come up with better ones.
|
Mi Tinkura
Heimdall Space Transportation Systems Holding
|
Posted - 2007.10.13 20:21:00 -
[8]
epic first
|
Rbel Ion
|
Posted - 2007.10.13 20:23:00 -
[9]
I've not read any of your posts.
|
Ramlir
0.0 Corp
|
Posted - 2007.10.13 20:24:00 -
[10]
to those wondering what i was saying above, it was im ga y
|
Kurt Armstrong
Rionnag Alba
Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2007.10.13 20:35:00 -
[11]
Again another interesting read.
|
Natas Dog
Caldari
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.10.13 21:07:00 -
[12]
Not bad. I'm curious which trolls are going to be called out in the next installment.
_______________________________________________________________
He who laughs last... is usually the one the joke was about. |
Sokratesz
Paradox v2.0
|
Posted - 2007.10.13 21:09:00 -
[13]
you just broke my eyes
Paradox V2.0 is recruiting! |
Nek Tuomatta
Advanced Combat Machines and Equipment
Stellar Economy Experts
|
Posted - 2007.10.13 21:09:00 -
[14]
Will be a nice read. Did I make first page?
You are now reading my sig!
 Originally by: Gaius Kador
Nothing surprises me as to the lengths Star Fraction will go to push their propaganda on the public masses.
|
Calimor
Caldari
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.10.13 21:16:00 -
[15]
Nice read, good job.
|
Ramlir
0.0 Corp
|
Posted - 2007.10.13 21:16:00 -
[16]
The OP is a goon btw and his continued seriousposting is an embarassment.
|
Ramlir
0.0 Corp
|
Posted - 2007.10.13 21:16:00 -
[17]
Originally by: Ramlir
The OP is a goon btw and his continued seriousposting is an embarassment.
mlyp
|
Dr Paithos
Minmatar
Republic Deep Space Institute
|
Posted - 2007.10.13 21:18:00 -
[18]
Originally by: Ramlir
to those wondering what i was saying above, it was im ga y
You should really start a new thread for that, want help with the banner?
Originally by: RedFall
How dare you try to argue my point with your so called "evidence". I don't need any, I have truthiness on my side.
|
Doddy
Omega Fleet Enterprises
Executive Outcomes
|
Posted - 2007.10.13 21:25:00 -
[19]
Very nice post, tho tbh i worry for you reading so much from a game of internet spaceships. Then again some of us do take it all a bit too seriously dont we :)
|
Mag's
MASS
Ministry Of Amarrian Secret Service
|
Posted - 2007.10.13 21:31:00 -
[20]
Great read once again, many thx. 
Mag's
|
Phrixus Zephyr
D00M.
Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2007.10.13 22:13:00 -
[21]
Originally by: Ramlir
to those wondering what i was saying above, it was im ga y
Nobody cares.
Originally by: consider telos
..then we had a fight and he was so dead and
then I like became champion of eve and then
ccp gave me a medal and a t-shirt and asked
me to go out with him on a date to mcD' |
Celestra Doxaila
Enosis
|
Posted - 2007.10.13 22:23:00 -
[22]
Thanks for some more good analysis. This is the kind of stuff I play eve for.
|
KIZERIAN
Caldari
SKORPION CORP
Endless Horizon
|
Posted - 2007.10.13 22:24:00 -
[23]
Originally by: WhatIsItGoodFor
I am unaware of any such tenants that claim space.
Good to see our pet alliance cloak t2 works a treat.
KIZ
|
Lunas Feelgood
S.A.S
Cruel Intentions
|
Posted - 2007.10.13 22:25:00 -
[24]
Simply awesome. Really enojoyed that
Picture
Image changed to link as you may only have 1 image in your signature. -Yipsilanti ([email protected])
|
Dark Shikari
Caldari
Imperium Technologies
Firmus Ixion
|
Posted - 2007.10.13 22:35:00 -
[25]
In on the first page \o/
Reading now.
23 Member
EVE Video makers: save bandwidth! Use the H.264 AutoEncoder! (updated) |
Ramlir
0.0 Corp
|
Posted - 2007.10.13 22:36:00 -
[26]
Originally by: Phrixus Zephyr
Originally by: Ramlir
to those wondering what i was saying above, it was im ga y
Nobody cares.
homophobe
|
Nez Perces
Amarr
Black Spot.
|
Posted - 2007.10.13 22:36:00 -
[27]
Excellent analysis IMO, spot on. I believe you have conveyed the differences between the GBC and RSF model excellently.
Semi-Feudal/Feudal and Cooperative Nations, describes the two models perfectly. I'm going to have to quote you from here in another thread, to hammer home a few points.
Furthermore..
Originally by: WhatIsItGoodFor
I appreciate good trolls and snappy comebacks; the key word there being good. I hope that discussing the most common ones for their accuracy or relevance will prompt people to, at the least, come up with better ones.
Really looking forward to this..... some lessons in forum etiquette for CAOD are long overdue !!
|
Darkstar Deceiver
|
Posted - 2007.10.13 23:01:00 -
[28]
first page!!!
|
Digicomm
The Scope
|
Posted - 2007.10.13 23:22:00 -
[29]
You can tell by now that you are not writing as a neutral observer. As it has been said all along there is no Neutral in EvE, everyone has a side, everyone is rooting for someone else and of course hoping another one to fail.
You fail at being completely objective. You have even put your spin on some things. Use less opinion and more fact.
However, I like to see more of this of course it does beat Goon circle jerk posts about Rise and the like.
|
Grimpak
Gallente
Trinity Nova
KIA Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.10.13 23:34:00 -
[30]
Originally by: Digicomm
You can tell by now that you are not writing as a neutral observer. As it has been said all along there is no Neutral in EvE, everyone has a side, everyone is rooting for someone else and of course hoping another one to fail.
You fail at being completely objective. You have even put your spin on some things. Use less opinion and more fact.
However, I like to see more of this of course it does beat Goon circle jerk posts about Rise and the like.
you might be right, but this guy over here is pretty much more neutral than 99.9% of the populace that frolics here in CAOD.
---
planetary interaction idea! |
| |
|
| Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |