| Pages: 1 2 [3] :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Baku Canal
Baku Canal Corp
   |
Posted - 2008.06.25 14:46:00 -
[61]
 Originally by: hope3434
Leadership ego would never let this happen.
lol
Obviously. This person!! Is a distressed member from, one of the two corps listed. Mostley HaRmless, or Ket Tat (More like Cut Potatoes AMIRITE!!).
CEO and Lead Diplomat of BNC
BNC: Where your dreams come true!
Baku Canal
|
Baku Canal
Baku Canal Corp
|
Posted - 2008.06.25 14:54:00 -
[62]
Originally by: Wendat Huron
We see alliances crumble and fold without much resistance once assailed weekly, what we don't see is alliances pre-empting their own downfall by merging with another alliance in a similar situation. Why is this?
An example would be Ka-Tet and Mostly Harmless, surely they must've seen the writing on the wall.
a lot of the problem lies in the leadership decisions as has been previously stated, but more of it inlies in the trust (i don't know if this has been stated in the past two pages because im too lazy to go back and read it) that the corporation ceos have
from my experience (albeit limited) corporation ceos normally form alliances based on trust, and the smart ones form their alliances with a small number of corporations and establish roots before taking in new corporations (as was seen with mostly harmless), they built on dusk and dawns failed foundations, taking 3 member corps from D2 and one from destiny) -
this worked fairly well as we have seen but there have been multiple disruptions in the backbone of the alliance, people who were ****ed left and those who were causing "problems" got kicked without question.
in mostly harmless' case, they won't merge with another alliance because of their ego.
i don't know about kat-tote or whatever their name is
http://www.shawnjohnson.net/ I bet she gets gold in Beijing.
CEO and Lead Diplomat of BNC
BNC: Where your dreams come true!
Baku Canal
|
El'Niaga
Republic Military School
|
Posted - 2008.06.26 04:52:00 -
[63]
Originally by: Jack Gilligan
This sounds nice but wouldn't work. If you limit corp sizes you will just see the superpowers create more corps, which wouldn't accomplish anything. If you limited alliances to only being able to claim X systems you would just have the superpowers create more alliances as well. Make it more expensive to maintain alliances again only benefits the superpowers who have the ISK factories to pay those fees.
Quality is of course better than quantity but quantity always has it's own level of quality, to a point. It's easier in the short run to just balloon up numbers and bring a bigger blob to fight the enemy's blob, but in the long run much harder to manage it. More people = more cats to herd.
The carebear/ratter/moon ***** vs pvp debate is interesting to me as well, I personally would rather log into EVE and fight than mine or rat. I can do those things, just don't enjoy them. There are those who do, more power to them, but that's not me.
BTW, some very good and interesting discussion in this thread, unlike most of CAOD.
Some good points. I pointed out at this late date you couldn't make the changes needed. However it might be useful for EVE II for discussion (or if they ever opened another server and wanted to use slightly different code).
As you admit though the more people the harder to control. By having lower corp population limits you would have a situation where you had to use multiple corps to achieve the same numbers. It is more difficult to control multiple corps than to control one. In my thoughts somewheres around 250 to 300 would be a practical limit. The skills that increase beyond that would just need to be removed.
Next would be limiting the number of corps in an alliance. Alliance Management would allow 2 corps per level to join your alliance. Advanced Alliance Management would allow 2 additional corps to join. (So max becomes around 20).
You look at that and say that still allows 5000 to 6000 member alliances. Yes it does, however they are no longer one major corp with a bunch of minor corps.
Next would be three skills to control sovereignty: System Control, Constellation Control, and Region Control. The first allows 1 system per level, the next 1 constellation per level, and the final 1 region per level. These skills must be had by the CEO of the executor corp.
Next would be to impose supercapital ship limits based upon command points. Each POS would generate a certain number of command points. In addition each alliance should have enough command points to maintain 1 Titan and 1 Mothership without any POSs. (This wouldn't affect normal caps, only say titans and motherships and of course the theoretical battlestars. If you lose command points below the number you have then the extras are locked down until the situation is rectified.
As for POS fuel, persoanlly I'm for eliminating it. We are in a space age society that no doubt has at least access to solar power. Perhaps have the fuel used only during reinforced mode kinda of a backup generator type thing. This would help make it more fun too I think as logistics is a nightmare.
Anyway just some of my ideas.
|
Spoon Thumb
Paladin Imperium
Curatores Veritatis Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.06.26 11:36:00 -
[64]
It's still completely unnatural and unrealistic to impose an arbitrary limit on corp size. There is no "population limit" IRL, and forcing people into certain behavior will just cause them to seek ways around it (and complain)
|
Iroku Mata
Endovelicus Heavy Industries
|
Posted - 2008.06.26 12:28:00 -
[65]
Originally by: Moon Kitten
BoB is a good example of mergers of failed alliances.
I think, BoB is a good example of a very good working alliance that knows how to cativate old friends into his good working and oiled management.
|
Ambrosious Martin
Son of Man
Pirate Coalition
|
Posted - 2008.06.26 17:22:00 -
[66]
im a nobody but this my .2isk.
I persoanlly think all the major corps/alliances that fail of merger or ownage of territory, is from a real lack of leadership, over abundance of ego.
lets look at Insurgency... they have very recentelly failed to do both of these things becuase of both of these reasons. They were trying to hold space in a place where they were just not organized enough to be there. They could have done so much more with the alliance if they had been willing to let EGO go. Let me say I thought the leadership of Insurgency had some real potentional do become a major,major player in eve. especially after they joined with TRIumvirate. Why does every alliance in this game feel it a NEED to OWN space? Especially the space where you need to run massive amounts of stupidly irritating POS logistics just to have your little ticker in the upper left cornor of the screen.
Im personally happier with an entire alliance who wants to not own a whole region but maybe as a good group should just own one or 2 nice constellations. Theres no need to have so much space that every man can have his own system to NPC in. Theres this thing called UNITY that IMO it seems most players have forgotten about.
THeres more than enough ways for players in this game to make ISK it shouldnt be so hard to learn the theory of cooperation and all for one and one for all.
|
El'Niaga
Republic Military School
|
Posted - 2008.06.26 17:41:00 -
[67]
Originally by: Spoon Thumb
It's still completely unnatural and unrealistic to impose an arbitrary limit on corp size. There is no "population limit" IRL, and forcing people into certain behavior will just cause them to seek ways around it (and complain)
It's not really about being realistic or natural, it should be about providing a fun environment, and lets face it it is not fun trying to fight the major powers as the game is currently coded.
In essence using the idea I put forth and comments by the previous poster you in essence could still have a large number of corps and people, after all you could use a SMASH and R0adkill model of two closely associated alliances if the number suggested wasn't enough. As I said though there is no real way to reverse engineer EVE to that state, you could only do it with a new build from ground up.
|
Lenaria
Ursa Ritor
|
Posted - 2008.06.26 17:44:00 -
[68]
Limiting corp/alliances sizes will do nothing but add more hassle. Next thing you know there appears BoB1, BoB2, BoB3 alliances instead of one BoB, all led by alts of same person ofc.
We already had this situation with f.e. Goons - before skill what allows large corps they were forced to creater 3-4 "split" corporation. All of them were in fact 1 corp, with 1 leadership, etc. More hassle while not solving anything.
Moreover, even now main problem is NOT single alliances blob - but rather multi-allinces blob. Like GBC - there are dozens alliances inside. Like RSF - again, several at once. NC, Smashkill, DroneBlock - you name it. Again, artifically splitting these forces will not achieve anything - they will just form 30 "fake" alliances.
There is only 1 way to limit blob sizes to some extent - get rid of super-expencive caps AND rework POS-mechanic. You need to change both of the points, just taking care of 1 will not solve blobs.
==============================================
|
El'Niaga
Republic Military School
|
Posted - 2008.06.26 17:51:00 -
[69]
Originally by: Ambrosious Martin
im a nobody but this my .2isk.
I persoanlly think all the major corps/alliances that fail of merger or ownage of territory, is from a real lack of leadership, over abundance of ego.
lets look at Insurgency... they have very recentelly failed to do both of these things becuase of both of these reasons. They were trying to hold space in a place where they were just not organized enough to be there. They could have done so much more with the alliance if they had been willing to let EGO go. Let me say I thought the leadership of Insurgency had some real potentional do become a major,major player in eve. especially after they joined with TRIumvirate. Why does every alliance in this game feel it a NEED to OWN space? Especially the space where you need to run massive amounts of stupidly irritating POS logistics just to have your little ticker in the upper left cornor of the screen.
Im personally happier with an entire alliance who wants to not own a whole region but maybe as a good group should just own one or 2 nice constellations. Theres no need to have so much space that every man can have his own system to NPC in. Theres this thing called UNITY that IMO it seems most players have forgotten about.
THeres more than enough ways for players in this game to make ISK it shouldnt be so hard to learn the theory of cooperation and all for one and one for all.
1. Trust. All of the major players in the game have at one time or another betrayed one or more corporations/alliances who sought serf status. Thus there is a lack of trust.
2. Restrictions. You pay millions of isk in rent and then every week they impose new limits as to what systems you can mine in or rat in.
3. PVP Requirements. Let's face it they are paying the major power rent for defense purposes. Forcing them to then dedicate half or more of their forces to defense is just a slap in the face. It also causes a spiral that causes many smaller alliances to be unable to pay the rent after a few months because they have to many people tied up trying to defend the major powers territory.
Yes I know EVE is a PVP game, however the major alliances would be better off allowing the smaller and mid sized alliances to concentrate on mining and building war materials while they concentrate on combat. (There are exceptions, ISS and BB would have been better to have allowed some PVP corps to stay in their space long ago while they built the war materials etc. rather than remaining 'neutral'. )
4. Costs. For most small alliances, especially where the players are casual players the rent that most major empires charge is beyond what they can truly afford. Sure they can come out and make it for a bit but usually they either lose their ships and have to replace them causing them unable to pay rent, or they find all their time tied up in just trying to meet the rent.
|
Baku Canal
Baku Canal Corp
|
Posted - 2008.06.26 23:08:00 -
[70]
Originally by: hope3434
Leadership ego would never let this happen.
can someone tell me who omeeeega is from red alliance
CEO and Lead Diplomat of BNC
BNC: Where your dreams come true!
Baku Canal
|
Spoon Thumb
Paladin Imperium
Curatores Veritatis Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.06.26 23:43:00 -
[71]
Originally by: El'Niaga
Originally by: Spoon Thumb
It's still completely unnatural and unrealistic to impose an arbitrary limit on corp size. There is no "population limit" IRL, and forcing people into certain behavior will just cause them to seek ways around it (and complain)
It's not really about being realistic or natural, it should be about providing a fun environment, and lets face it it is not fun trying to fight the major powers as the game is currently coded.
In essence using the idea I put forth and comments by the previous poster you in essence could still have a large number of corps and people, after all you could use a SMASH and R0adkill model of two closely associated alliances if the number suggested wasn't enough. As I said though there is no real way to reverse engineer EVE to that state, you could only do it with a new build from ground up.
Well firstly, where do you draw the line, and who gets to decide that? Atm there is still a limit for corps at least and alliances have to pay more for ukpeep for being larger
Secondly, as someone else points out, this is the wrong solution to the right problem. IMO POS mechanics are the real culprit.
Alliances are like big steam powered battleships. Some are faster/slower more/less powerful, have more or less people on board, from those that man the guns to those simply passengers along for the ride. The people who refuel the POS are the ones shovveling coal into the furnaces deep in the bowels of the boiler room
TBH, it is time CCP upgraded us to deisel at least
But the point is you can't really merge ships, only have the crews hop from one to the other with their collective gear
|
Choralone
Celestial Horizon Corp.
Celestial Industrial Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.06.27 02:06:00 -
[72]
Originally by: Shamis Orzoz
Alliances fail because of poor leadership. 2 poorly run alliances can merge, but only to form 1 larger failure.
Damn, reminds me of a quote about a rl merger between two companies (but I can't remember the details): "If you put two dogs together you just get more barking."
|
El'Niaga
Republic Military School
|
Posted - 2008.06.27 05:22:00 -
[73]
Originally by: Spoon Thumb
Originally by: El'Niaga
Originally by: Spoon Thumb
It's still completely unnatural and unrealistic to impose an arbitrary limit on corp size. There is no "population limit" IRL, and forcing people into certain behavior will just cause them to seek ways around it (and complain)
It's not really about being realistic or natural, it should be about providing a fun environment, and lets face it it is not fun trying to fight the major powers as the game is currently coded.
In essence using the idea I put forth and comments by the previous poster you in essence could still have a large number of corps and people, after all you could use a SMASH and R0adkill model of two closely associated alliances if the number suggested wasn't enough. As I said though there is no real way to reverse engineer EVE to that state, you could only do it with a new build from ground up.
Well firstly, where do you draw the line, and who gets to decide that? Atm there is still a limit for corps at least and alliances have to pay more for ukpeep for being larger
Secondly, as someone else points out, this is the wrong solution to the right problem. IMO POS mechanics are the real culprit.
Alliances are like big steam powered battleships. Some are faster/slower more/less powerful, have more or less people on board, from those that man the guns to those simply passengers along for the ride. The people who refuel the POS are the ones shovveling coal into the furnaces deep in the bowels of the boiler room
TBH, it is time CCP upgraded us to deisel at least
But the point is you can't really merge ships, only have the crews hop from one to the other with their collective gear
Well in one of my earlier posts I did mention that POSs were a problem. I suggested removing fuel costs entirely or having them use fuel only while reinforced. The current system is to much like work I agree. This is an advanced society and the fact they aren't using the nearly unlimited power of the stars is crazy (solar power) or another advanced power supply that doesn't require fuel (gravity wave power generator for example).
I also suggested a command point system using POSs that controlled how many Supercapitals an alliance could have.
These are probably changes that could be made to EVE as it is now. The problem being what limit do you set for Supercapitals? I mean at the very base an alliance should be able to support 1 Titan and 1 Mothership without any POSs. Otherwise startup groups would never have a chance.
For Example:
Base Command Points: 750
POS Command Points Generated*
Large 5
Medium 3
Small 1
* Towers in systems you have sovereignty in produce twice
the amount of command points.
Ship Command Points Used
Battlestar 1000*
Titan 500
Mothership 250
* Theoretical ship mentioned by the Devs in the past, not sure if it is still in development or abandoned.
You could then also introduce a new POS Module
Command Center (+20 Command Points each)
Advanced Command Center (+50 Command Points each)
Fitting perhaps similar to either the Ship Maintanance Array or to the Labs.
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 [3] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |