Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Odetta Harpy
|
Posted - 2008.10.29 12:35:00 -
[1]
There are currently players, corps and alliances, yet nothing that is bigger than that. There are currently a few coalitions in eve between some alliances, but nothing to show this. So i prepose that coalitions should be added as another level of group. This would make it so all the people in that coalition is auto made blue to the other people in it and red to those that are at war wirh the coalition.
|
Odetta Harpy
|
Posted - 2008.10.29 12:35:00 -
[2]
|
Bagehi
Association of Commonwealth Enterprises FOUNDATI0N
|
Posted - 2008.10.29 20:03:00 -
[3]
I think there was a dev blog suggesting they were thinking of doing this awhile back. "Nations" - I think is what they called them.
|
Col Callahan
Oberon Incorporated Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2008.10.29 22:40:00 -
[4]
/Signed _
|
Drake Draconis
Minmatar Shadow Cadre
|
Posted - 2008.10.29 23:02:00 -
[5]
That would be cool.
Not just that... but have an "go blue +5" status or something you pre-set for any members of the alliance.. its always a pain to make everyone do the work when it could just be "A do all" option.
/me signed.
|
Bunyip
Center for Advanced Studies
|
Posted - 2008.10.30 05:08:00 -
[6]
I agree. There are already four major conglomerates (aka coalitions, nations, etc), and this would give them an easy interface to control everything. There are also a few lone wolf alliances, but those are rare.
For instance, we have the Greater BoB community, the Northern Coalition (IRON, Mostly Harmless, Razor, etc), the Southern Coalition (Goon, Red, IAC, etc), and the Providence Coalition (CVA, et al). This would allow them to set NAPs and control rights for outposts automatically, giving a greater sense of community in the game.
-Bunyip
"May all your hits be crits." - Knights of the Dinner Table. |
TornSoul
BIG Libertas Fidelitas
|
Posted - 2008.10.30 19:38:00 -
[7]
BIG Lottery |
Garion Avarr
Zero Zero Traders YTMND.
|
Posted - 2008.10.30 20:18:00 -
[8]
Supporting the idea, I think it could use a lot of thinking over and refinement, though. I'd like to see this as possibly something that individual corps can be members of, not just alliances, and that is not just for big groups in 0.0, but for small coalitions in lowsec as well.
|
Becq Starforged
Minmatar Ship Construction Services Ushra'Khan
|
Posted - 2008.10.30 20:25:00 -
[9]
I'll support this in that's it's an idea worth investigating, though I'd want to hear more about specifics before supporting it being implemented, of course!
-- Becq Starforged Ushra'Khan
The Flame of Freedom Burns On! |
Garion Avarr
Amarr Zero Zero Traders YTMND.
|
Posted - 2008.10.30 20:56:00 -
[10]
Additional thought: perhaps if this were implemented in some form, FW could work like coalitions -- so some alliances could join, but big 0.0 powers that wanted to form their own coalitions could not. Just a thought!
|
|
Drake Draconis
Shadow Cadre
|
Posted - 2008.10.30 21:46:00 -
[11]
I've never wantted to join an allaince due to the obvious poltical overtones that would be forced on the member corps so to speak.
But a this.... this allows formal "pacts" between alliances so they can maintain a bit of independence... but support each other none-the-less.
/me forgot to hit support
|
Alvar Kesh
Ealurian Wolves Aegis Militia
|
Posted - 2008.11.05 15:31:00 -
[12]
|
Orb Vex
|
Posted - 2008.11.30 10:18:00 -
[13]
|
Pliauga
Federal Defence Union
|
Posted - 2008.12.01 08:49:00 -
[14]
---------- DRONE love rulez!! 'mkay?! . |
I SoStoned
|
Posted - 2008.12.01 18:16:00 -
[15]
Good idea...
Unfortunately alliances like BloB don't care much about diplomacy or coalitions or nations. They'll rp apart a blue as quickly as a neutral just because they're bored and know that no one will do anything about it.
|
Scatim Helicon
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.12.01 18:56:00 -
[16]
What would this add that we can't do already, exactly?
If a group of friendly alliances are incapable of sorting out a bluelist and a shared intel channel without an ingame tool to hold their hands for them, it doesn't say much for the communication or organisation abilities which they'd need if and when somebody comes along and attacks them (and no amount of ingame tools are going to sort out things like Teamspeak and forums access or the inter-alliance chain of command).
Its not a really awful idea or anything, just that its usefulness seem a bit limited. -----------
|
Li Fengxian
Gallente Brothers In Scarlet
|
Posted - 2008.12.01 19:29:00 -
[17]
I agree with the last poster. Alliances are in informal coalitions all the time in the game. I do not disagree with the proposal per se, but what we need is more meat for administration of territories and politics as a whole
a) In-game political institutions, like roles in cooperations but of bigger political consequences (Ministries, senates, elections, governorships, bureaucracies, military commands, agent maintenance).
b) The possibility for Empire and/or Factions, via GMs and CCP helpers, to delegate titles and/or responsabilities over regions or constellations in exchange for an oath of allegiance to that said Faction.
|
Herschel Yamamoto
Bloodmoney Incorporated
|
Posted - 2008.12.01 21:12:00 -
[18]
Originally by: Scatim Helicon What would this add that we can't do already, exactly?
If a group of friendly alliances are incapable of sorting out a bluelist and a shared intel channel without an ingame tool to hold their hands for them, it doesn't say much for the communication or organisation abilities which they'd need if and when somebody comes along and attacks them (and no amount of ingame tools are going to sort out things like Teamspeak and forums access or the inter-alliance chain of command).
Its not a really awful idea or anything, just that its usefulness seem a bit limited.
Exactly right. There's really nothing for these coalitions to do that can't already be done by methods outside the game and the standing system. ---------- Thanks to all those who voted for me. |
Haakelen
Gallente Fire Mandrill
|
Posted - 2008.12.01 21:16:00 -
[19]
And what happens in two years when there's coalitions of coalitions?
|
An Zeth
Auctoritan Syndicate Curatores Veritatis Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.12.01 23:21:00 -
[20]
Edited by: An Zeth on 01/12/2008 23:23:00 Edited by: An Zeth on 01/12/2008 23:22:10
Originally by: Scatim Helicon
If a group of friendly alliances are incapable of sorting out a bluelist and a shared intel channel without an ingame tool to hold their hands for them, it doesn't say much for the communication or organisation abilities which they'd need if and when somebody comes along and attacks them (and no amount of ingame tools are going to sort out things like Teamspeak and forums access or the inter-alliance chain of command).
I have to disagree there, keeping standings aligned alone is a good amount of work and a serious problem if you need to deal with threads within minutes. Besides that this work is needlessly multiplied with each member alliance.
I¦d like to see something that: -Allows to share standings between the members -Ability to explicitly NOT share/autoupdate specific standings -Empire Wars should remain on alliance level and be possible within the coalition (civil wars anyone?) -Maybe some extended POS Access Patterns (jump bridges, cynogenerators etc... for easier management)
It shouldnt do much more in my view, just make management easier and not enforce too much Equalization as I see its biggest strength in enabling its members to keep their identity while being aligned to something greater.
This would definitely make things easier and most important, more fun as we spend less time on boring stuff and have more time to shoot things.
Supported.
|
|
Swifteh
Minmatar Unus Dominus
|
Posted - 2008.12.02 13:45:00 -
[21]
You're not thinking ahead far enough. In the case of the NC (MM/Rzr/...) & the SC or RSF, you would need to make a platform where you could make coalitions of coalitions so 90% of eve is blue to each other.
|
Dex Nederland
Lai Dai Infinity Systems
|
Posted - 2008.12.03 05:26:00 -
[22]
Can we get something in between alliance and corp as well? Megacorp for example that provides some of the tools of an alliance but doesn't gain all the benefits?
|
Danton Marcellus
Nebula Rasa Holdings
|
Posted - 2008.12.03 09:31:00 -
[23]
Coalitions chose the hard way to work together, not banding in one single alliance, leave it be.
I'd rather see alliance hangars before coalitions get put into easy mode.
Should/would/could have, HAVE you chav!
Also Known As |
Ignition SemperFi
Private Nuisance
|
Posted - 2008.12.03 14:39:00 -
[24]
not supported.
Leave control of standings and other stuff to alliances. Fix alliance/corp workings before even trying to tackle coalitions.
Are you trying to encourage 1 massive unity controlling everything?
------ People Say Im paranoid because I have a gun, I say I dont have to be paranoid because I have a gun.
Garmon - "I LOK ON TO ROMULAN WARBIRD AND GO POW POW POW" |
Dasfry
Demio's Corporation 101010 Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.12.04 00:49:00 -
[25]
Coalitions,
I'm in favor of it. It makes it easier to know who to shoot at.
However I also believe players will always reach to control more then mechanics allow. So even if you reach the coalition point, you'll see multiple Coalitions, work together to control vastly larger territories.
*********** Dasfry, Director Demio's Corporation
Military Tactics |
Tusko Hopkins
|
Posted - 2008.12.04 15:29:00 -
[26]
As an executor of an alliance part of a powerblock, I support changes to help getting standings sorted.
CSM representative CSM candidate for 2nd cycle Campaign website http://myeve.eve-online.com/ingameb |
Esmenet
Gallente
|
Posted - 2008.12.04 15:35:00 -
[27]
Making bigger powerblocs should not be encouraged, even though you technically can already do it with the standings system.
|
Tusko Hopkins
|
Posted - 2008.12.04 15:50:00 -
[28]
I think discouraging stuff by making it annoying is not the way to go.
CSM representative CSM candidate for 2nd cycle Campaign website http://myeve.eve-online.com/ingameb |
Esmenet
Gallente
|
Posted - 2008.12.04 15:54:00 -
[29]
Originally by: Tusko Hopkins I think discouraging stuff by making it annoying is not the way to go.
Then what are you going to do? Give penalties for beeing in a coalition but making it simple to set up?
|
Tusko Hopkins
|
Posted - 2008.12.04 16:02:00 -
[30]
I would like to point out that this thread is NOT about how to nerf powerblocks. It is aimed for making the administration of standings easier. Nerfing and discouraging the formation of powerblocks is a completely different topic and should be discussed separately. I am not very happy about having bigger and bigger powerblocks in game myself, but I have not been thinking about a solution either. It simply not that a huge problem yet.
I think this coalition could happen in the same way alliances were added into the game: first, there were only players and corps. Than corps decided to form alliances, but the game did not support it yet, so they had huge blue lists set to each other. CCP saw that and implemented alliances. And it was all good. I think the same is happening with alliances now. Time for the game to catch up with the society.
CSM representative CSM candidate for 2nd cycle Campaign website http://myeve.eve-online.com/ingameb |
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |