|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
GateScout
|
Posted - 2009.02.05 17:14:00 -
[1]
Edited by: GateScout on 05/02/2009 17:15:28 You have it wrong.
A (at the time) BoB Director with the appropriate and required authority utilized his roles to disband an alliance via kicking corps from said alliance. This is a designed game mechanic. You may argue over the correctness of this implementation, but it certainly isn't "unintended."
|
GateScout
|
Posted - 2009.02.05 17:38:00 -
[2]
Originally by: Genya Arikaido How about the simple solution that an executor corp director cannot kick a corp from the alliance without a vote by all directors and the CEO?
Since he could theoretically kick all the other directors, he still wouldn't be able to kick the CEO, resulting in a 1-1 tie vote that achieves nothing, provided the CEO is uncompromised.
It's a valid solution...A change in game mechanics is, I'm sure, one thing CCP is looking in to. It may be a very good idea.
Regardless of how distasteful I think this was, I, personally, like this game mechanic. If for no other reason, it has the ability to create massive change in a short period of time and forces alliance to compartmentalize as much as possible. Ironically, the largest issue isn't the loss of an alliance...it's the instant loss of SOV that's the real killer.
It'll be interesting to see how this evolves.
|
GateScout
|
Posted - 2009.02.05 18:15:00 -
[3]
Originally by: Mastin Dragonfly one single person can't make that willingness go away against the will of all other parties. An alliance should not have some sort of on/off switch, it's not something physical.
Why not? Why cannot I dismantle the my alliance? There is nothing stopping all of BoB's players from reforming intermediately under a differnet organization. ...and, nothing 'physical' was lost. Nothing.
|
GateScout
|
Posted - 2009.02.05 18:44:00 -
[4]
Originally by: Mastin Dragonfly I'm talking about the basic concept of an alliance. If you and 5 other parties form an alliance than you can not close that alliance, you can only leave it and the other 5 parties can go on if they are willing to do so.
Sure. That's one way to go...but why? Is that necessarily better? Perhaps, but I don't think so...not as far as this game is concerned.
I would argue that the ability for the executor corp CEO (or anyone he foolishly designates) of an alliance can kick corps out at will should remain. If that closes an alliance, so be it.
|
GateScout
|
Posted - 2009.02.05 18:48:00 -
[5]
Originally by: Navtiqes So it's been ingame since Alliances were first introduced, but it didn't become intended before last night?
CCP designed an alliance to close when no corporation were left in that alliance. This can only occur by actions of the Alliance's Executor Corp CEO. This is exactly what happened. What, exactly, was unintended?
|
GateScout
|
Posted - 2009.02.05 19:13:00 -
[6]
Originally by: Corduroy Rab There is NO ONE in this thread, save a CCP dev, that can tell us anything about intention.
Just for the sake of argument...
CCP designed alliances to close when no corps remain in said alliance.
CCP designed the Director / Alliance structure to allow Executor Corp directors the ability to remove corps from the Alliance at will.
What, exactly, was unintended? What wasn't foreseen?
Would we be having this conversation if this happened to a small, unknown alliance? Nope.
|
GateScout
|
Posted - 2009.02.05 20:38:00 -
[7]
Edited by: GateScout on 05/02/2009 20:38:32
Originally by: Xessej This comes down to a simple concept, does this mechanic, clearly not intended to be used this way, result in more or less fun for the affected players.
What mechanic is that? Allowing Executor Corp Directors to remove corps from their alliance or closing an alliance when there are no corps?
Fun for the majority is the deciding factor? Did you think about all those corps, alliances and players that have been crushed by BoB? Are you sure you want 'fun' to be the deciding factor?
|
|
|
|