Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Siigari Kitawa
Gallente The Aduro Protocol
|
Posted - 2008.02.20 11:51:00 -
[1]
Okay, so I've done plenty of thinking (everyone run quickly, I was thinking).
Alliances serve one major purpose in the game:
They let you claim space.
Period. That's really it. No other logistical reason for them to exist.
The OTHER REASON I find they exist is for a much more overly simple but made stupidly complicated reason:
A bunch of people with similar ideas want to create a unique force but nobody wants to "surrender" their corp into another.
Which makes me wonder... why do we always see people asking for corp "mergers" instead of corp "buyouts?" You'd think if EVE was an economic simulator, which in some senses it is, that corporations would buy out other corporations.
It has me wonder, because we just recently left an alliance. Sure, we all had similar ideas and goals, but finally I found out that the leadership wanted its own way (which is of course alright), but the leadership went about it in a way that excluded some CEOs, which means that the "unified alliance" is now split.
:\
I see lots of corporations in EVE that are strong and powerful and able to stand on their own two feet. Why would corporations with less experience try to retain their individuality so much when in the long run it can push you way ahead in the game?
I have been the little corporation before. The little corporations have slowly withered away, mostly because of lack of capital and income. However, now I am finding out what it is like to be a corporation with goals and the ability to reach those goals. I would consider buying out certain corporations, because "having a merger" seems so irresponsible and would just create issues down the road, both immediately and long term. In fact, the people you are trying to absorb into your corporation have their own ideas, and by "buying them" you state they are no longer the ones in charge, however they are getting a huge load of money in return for that sacrifice.
Buying a corporation is not always about members, but about assets. You can buy a corporation and the members can all join and then leave the next day (if they're jerks) but you get all their anchorables, their assets, their isk.. everything. It would not benefit the members to leave however, because you do have their stuff after all. They'd be broke... but you paid them a fair value of what their corporation was worth. So they'd be wiser to stay with you.
I'm just sort of blah. I want to avoid alliances for now. After we left our alliance I was literally inundated with alliance offers. Alliances in EVE, unless they actually claim space, seem like a giant waste of assets and time.
|
Mika Meisk
Caldari
|
Posted - 2008.02.20 12:29:00 -
[2]
Just as you yourself stated, alliances exist to let corporation keep their indentity and at the same time create a larger group of ppl working for a common goal. You speak of buyouts, mergers are in all effect the same thing most of the time. It basically means, liquidate your assets, distribute amongst members as fit, join in as a part of new corp. Mostly as either common minions or the old ceo can become director of new corp.
Assets are usually paid for in mergers or simply donated to the new parent corp. Also in empire alliances can serve as a little bit more advanced common intel chan. Usually used by players to relay hostiles/pirates/plexes etc. as well as finding mission buddies and the whatnot. I think the serve purpose enough.
//Mika
|
Incinerator570
Fusion Enterprises Ltd Mostly Harmless
|
Posted - 2008.02.20 12:38:00 -
[3]
It also costs more for a griefer or mercenary corp to war-dec an alliance, though if one has been contracted that isn't likely to stop them. Also, you get a shiny custom logo. :P
|
Erotic Irony
0bsession
|
Posted - 2008.02.20 12:43:00 -
[4]
itt siigari looks for people to defend his capital ships ___ Eve Players are not very smart. Support Killmail Overhaul
|
Danton Marcellus
Nebula Rasa Holdings
|
Posted - 2008.02.20 14:37:00 -
[5]
Let me see;
You get to workaround the crappy corporate logomaker to get a decent logo.
You get more expensive for peon griefer outfits to declare war on.
You get to make different divisions, read corporation, to keep things like tech II BPOs and capital prints out of the general public while still being included in the whole.
For all intents and purposes we're still one corporation, read cult. Oh yeah, the transformation also let us compete in the alliance tournament.
Not everyone rushes for the optimal at all cost. There is the easy way, the hard way and the Rasa way, which is the hard way only slower.
Should/would/could have, HAVE you chav!
Also Known As |
Francesca Fritzlestickz
Snopes
|
Posted - 2008.02.20 17:28:00 -
[6]
corporations make an alliance , instead of just setting everybody blue. maybe because they wanna claim space ok, whatever , but why is there no option to create a coalition? (multiple alliances create an official coalition instead of these blue nap fests) maybe cuz thats what the alliance feature was suppose to do? ccp limit the standings for godssakes , people are "blue to half of eve , literally! something wrong with this....
IM THE WORST POSTER EVER I fail at life, just like the person reading this |
Parsival
Minmatar The Avalon Foundation
|
Posted - 2008.02.20 21:48:00 -
[7]
Originally by: Siigari Kitawa Buying a corporation is not always about members, but about assets. You can buy a corporation and the members can all join and then leave the next day (if they're jerks) but you get all their anchorables, their assets, their isk.. everything. It would not benefit the members to leave however, because you do have their stuff after all. They'd be broke... but you paid them a fair value of what their corporation was worth. So they'd be wiser to stay with you.
This is where you are wrong. The number one asset of any corporation in EVE is its member base and the only reason to seek a merger is to bring together two like minded groups of people into one stronger entity.
As far as acquiring the 'physical' assets of any corp, they could be purchased without the need to implement a buyout of the target corp itself if that is the sole focus of your idea. That would require the co-operation of the target corp of course, and you seem to be describing more of a hostile take-over. Maybe one day when CCP stops messing around with window dressing (ie/ ambulation) and introduces an effective stock market system for corporations to list themselves on then we might see Gordon Gecko style corporate raiders buying underperforming corporations to asset strip them, but not now.
It could be argued that at its most basic level there is a mechanic for enacting a hostile take-over of another organisations assets: War dec followed by ransom demands. There are ofc no guarantees that your selected target will actually cough up the ransom though.
A hostile take-over to gain control of a member base will never work a) because there are no mechanics to enforce binding contractual agreements for members to stay in particular corps and b) because CCP would be committing commercial suicide if they ever tried. I would not play EVE if I was forced to stay in a corp I had no desire to be in, would you?
Originally by: Siigari Kitawa They let you claim space.
Period. That's really it. No other logistical reason for them to exist.
Alliances give corporations with differant internal cultures the opportunity to work together and declare their loyalty to each other. Fighting under the same banner is a powerful motivating force, not always 'logistically' sensible but a understandable human motivation none the less.
|
Razvic
Minmatar Wolfen Holding Company
|
Posted - 2008.02.21 02:44:00 -
[8]
Im going to introduce talking about goons and bob in this thread. POTENZA FOR PREZ!!!!!! |
Serathii
Simtech Productions Hydra Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.02.21 12:00:00 -
[9]
Edited by: Serathii on 21/02/2008 12:03:35 in response to parsival, if your forced to stay in a corp, they are forced to keep you, which makes for mutually agreeing to end that contract, or that person just going to misbehave to badly he would get kicked
being in a corp that you dont want to be in, while not allowed to leave, will make the members not allowed to leave ****ed, maybe even to the part of attacking people that are allied to that corp, after which its either, corp gets really bad reputation, or you get kicked out, which is what you want
you cant force people to do things in a game
edit: wait what? this is caod and theres no flaming? i think this tread belongs to general forums more then caod
|
Spoon Thumb
Caldari Paladin Imperium Curatores Veritatis Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.02.21 15:48:00 -
[10]
Edited by: Spoon Thumb on 21/02/2008 15:48:33 edit: meh, someone said exactly what i wrote below but more eloquently...
Corp buyouts don't work as there is no contractual obligation or other reason to stay at a corp if you don't like it. And most often, people are the most valuable asset a corp has, since you need alts and chars to haul all that stuff, build all those prints or bulk up your gangs
And no matter the amount of money, if they aren't getting any, they leave. And in fact those getting money might leave as well :P
Khaldari khanidpublic: RP channel for Kingdom loyalists
Recruiting |
|
nether void
Caldari Shrapnel Industries
|
Posted - 2008.02.21 16:57:00 -
[11]
It's already been mentioned, but yes the biggest difference with real life corps and eve is that in real life usually people are not assets; they're liabilities, while in eve people are your main assets. In eve you don't go hungry if you don't 'work'; therefore, the demand for work is always way higher than the supply of labor.
...
I think.
Working on a big project right now, and haven't cleared my mind of the project to really answer this question in full. lol -------------------- Jonas 'Jonesey' Arniman callsign: nethervoid CEO Shrapnel Industries "You like to blow s*** up, and we like to make that possible." PubChan: SHRAP |
DigitalCommunist
Obsidian Core
|
Posted - 2008.02.21 18:49:00 -
[12]
You're right about people not wanting to surrender their corp. Its the equivalent of sacrificing part of your identity and all of your history. Most people define themselves by what they've done in EVE, not where they're going. If you find a group of players that isn't afraid to sacrifice their corp for a greater purpose, that group has a good attitude. At the same time they might simply be quitters with a lack of imagination to do anything on their own.
You also have to consider that alliances are a dime a dozen. Only a tiny handful have any real leadership, or vision. The majority have people who are roleplaying leaders and doing their best to display that image. Even groups that would be willing to join the greater cause are wary with so many posers around.
Its unfortunate that joining one is seen as a step forward for growing corporations in EVE. They run into issues where, its simply too hard for them to obtain a strong military force or claim space on their own. Its also easier for corporations to establish their identity and have greater internal order when they're working with other corporations.
Many also join for the obvious benefits that you don't get with corporations:
- sovereignty; fuel savings for pos and name on map - cool custom logo; default logo options are HORRIBLE - higher wardec costs; better safety from pvp corps in empire
Corporations should be the base standard for established corps. All three of the above are reasons why the Alliances system wasn't very thought out, and could use some major revising.
When you look at the first problem, some corporations have become military powerhouses that rival most alliances. There is no logical reason why they should not be able to claim space. Even the 'EVE dream' of building a corporation and settling into your own station somewhere deep in 0.0 space is not possible because of this.
The second problem is just lame, because some rich people will simply pay 1bil isk to have a pretty logo. Its like a separate class in EVE society :\
The third problem is really fubar imo. Alliances are mutual defense pacts at their core, WHY oh WHY would it be easier to declare war on a group that's weaker? _______________________________ http://epicwords.net/ |
Ameri Boi
New Age Solutions New Age Solutions Amalgamated
|
Posted - 2008.02.21 19:12:00 -
[13]
I thought there already was a solution in regards to this matter-one corp buys the majority of another corps shares, and thus owns the corporation. Noone really gave clear answers on it though, so im not sure.
|
Joe Starbreaker
Starbreaker Spaceways
|
Posted - 2008.02.22 00:31:00 -
[14]
Originally by: Ameri Boi I thought there already was a solution in regards to this matter-one corp buys the majority of another corps shares, and thus owns the corporation. Noone really gave clear answers on it though, so im not sure.
No. For three reasons. One, the purchased corp's members could leave if they wanted to. Two, the purchased corp's CEO can still take the assets (except locked-down blueprints) and the money without being subject to a shareholder vote. Third, few corporations are majority owned by anyone other than their members, thus it's nearly impossible to buy another corporation without it's full permission, knowledge, and cooperation. Mergers are therefore a diplomatic issue only; the exchange of shares is almost symbolic.
|
Ameri Boi
New Age Solutions New Age Solutions Amalgamated
|
Posted - 2008.02.22 05:12:00 -
[15]
Originally by: Joe Starbreaker
Originally by: Ameri Boi I thought there already was a solution in regards to this matter-one corp buys the majority of another corps shares, and thus owns the corporation. Noone really gave clear answers on it though, so im not sure.
No. For three reasons. One, the purchased corp's members could leave if they wanted to. Two, the purchased corp's CEO can still take the assets (except locked-down blueprints) and the money without being subject to a shareholder vote. Third, few corporations are majority owned by anyone other than their members, thus it's nearly impossible to buy another corporation without it's full permission, knowledge, and cooperation. Mergers are therefore a diplomatic issue only; the exchange of shares is almost symbolic.
Than that pretty much sucks-makes it harder trying to absorb 8 man corps that wanna keep their autonomy and name....
It wouldnt really matter if some members left, its the assets that most mergers are looking for. And if an alliance were to merge into another bigger alliance, im sure that recipiant alliance would ask the tiny corps to merge into each other or a large corp too lessen the member-corp spam-makes POS deployment more difficult.
|
Letrange
Minmatar Chaosstorm Corporation Apoapsis Multiversal Consortium
|
Posted - 2008.02.22 18:26:00 -
[16]
I'll take a stab at this one.
In a lot of cases the corporations are not run as corporations but as private companies where all the shares are held by a single party. This makes the issue of "buying out" a corporation a little problematic as a lot of them don't necessarily see the difference between themselves and their corporation. With the smaller corporations this makes buyouts problematical in practice. It's much easier to 'merge' corps.
The other problem is that there is no "in game" stock exchange where the stocks of public corporations can be traded. One can create corporations in this game that are stock driven (finance corps for example) and the stocks are used to distribute profits of a venture by proportion of ownership. But even then to actually take control of the corporation one needs to be inside it.
So technically it is very hard to "buy out" a corporation in this game.
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |