Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Maximum KILLDEATHRATIO
Minmatar 24th Imperial Crusade
|
Posted - 2009.03.05 21:55:00 -
[61]
Remove all risk of meta-gaming.
Hell no! Its **** like this that makes eve so ****ing awesome. Just the possibility is enough to make a spy dream of grandeur. ___________________ Yes I'm bitter. (the taste you can see!)
|
Orion Sky
|
Posted - 2009.03.06 08:33:00 -
[62]
Well with the goon leader Darius Johnson as CSM leader or whatever, and if the CSM brought this topic forward for it to be fixed it would be going against the goon goals and stuff.
As long as their is a goon in the CSM, the EVE community will never get a bias representation.
|
Rhamnousia
Caldari Pelennor Swarm
|
Posted - 2009.03.08 09:12:00 -
[63]
A Director can kick a player out of the corp. An alliance director can kick a corp out of the alliance.
A Director cannot overrule the CEO without the issue being voted upon by shareholders of the corp. An alliance director cannot overrule the CEO without the issue being voted upon by shareholders of the executor corp.
A Director cannot disband a corp because he cannot overrule the CEO. An alliance director can disband an alliance EVEN when he cannot overrule the CEO.
how's that for a flipping failure of an oversight? ---------------------- What happens in Pelennor stays in Pelennor.
Forever Pelennor |
Deldrac
Ultrapolite Socialites GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.03.08 09:53:00 -
[64]
The problem with all of this is that you'd have to apply the same level of control to booting individual corps.
Which sounds all well and good, until you find one of your corps goes ****-'alliance' but you can't get them out for 24 hours.
|
Deldrac
Ultrapolite Socialites GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.03.08 09:57:00 -
[65]
Also, all 'disbanding' the alliance actually does is reset sovereignty to level 1 for a few weeks.
You lose cynojammers, jump bridges, and invulnerable stations is sov 4 systems. That is all.
All you lose is certain aspects of your defender's advantage for a few weeks.
The invading alliances still have to beat you on your own turf, you still have all your POS defences, and all your outposts, and all your allies.
|
Rhamnousia
Caldari Pelennor Swarm
|
Posted - 2009.03.08 11:14:00 -
[66]
Edited by: Rhamnousia on 08/03/2009 11:19:46 I find it very amusing that every single Goon cling to a supposed victory by utilizing an obvious oversight from CCP. Before this following sentence, I've never said one single word about BoB and Goon and how Haargoth disbanded BoB in 30seconds dissolving thousands of players' effort over the years.
All I did was raising a valid point of argument by comparing the one single difference that lead to this discussion between corp-level Director and alliance-level Director. Attempting to counter the argument with such feeble effort is self-serving and egocentric, but who am I kidding? You're a Goon.
The Mittani has the power to walk off with 5000-odds Goons' effort at this very particular moment. And God knows he would, he doesn't practice "space Bushido." The question is, should he be allowed to?
"All is fine and dandy." That's the same mentality that brought down BoB. You are only spelling your own downfall by refusing to let the flaw(s) in the system be rectified properly.
Also, please edit your post to English if and when you find the need to make sense. ---------------------- What happens in Pelennor stays in Pelennor.
Forever Pelennor |
Deldrac
Ultrapolite Socialites GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.03.08 11:48:00 -
[67]
Edited by: Deldrac on 08/03/2009 11:54:11 Yeah, I really don't think anyone was responding to your posts.
The OP's point would be fair enough if not for the problem that you can't put restrictions in without putting in the same restrictions on removal of individual corps (that is what happened to former-Bob, there is no 'disband alliance' function).
And not for the fact that it doesn't do as much damage as people seem to think it does.
Your point is just pendantic rules lawyering that I don't think anyone really gives a **** about.
One simple thing that could be done, would be to allow alliances to exist with only one corp left in them.
Bob would have kept their name and it would have been clearer to empire dwellers that all that happened was that cynojammers and jumpbridges were disabled.
|
Rhamnousia
Caldari Pelennor Swarm
|
Posted - 2009.03.09 15:05:00 -
[68]
Originally by: Deldrac Edited by: Deldrac on 08/03/2009 11:54:11 snip
you're avoiding the question, yet again.
alliances can already exist only one corp in them. the key to the problem is allowing a corp to be kicked out of the alliance immediately, without a period of time in between. when a player is kicked out of the corp, his/her roles have to be removed, and there's a period of 24 hours before s/he can be kicked. if you argue that alliances aren't corps, then you're only support the fact that this is an oversight, and in need of revisiting.
"it doesn't do as much damage as people seem to think it does" ... i think you should rethink that statement to be closer inline with the truth. Your alliance and your leader have done nothing but lobbying the damage that has been done since the opportunity to "exploit" an oversight presented itself in form of a disgruntled director with too much power in his hand.
and "pendantic" isn't a word in the English language. yet. so i think it's safe to say that your entire post make no sense whatsoever. ---------------------- What happens in Pelennor stays in Pelennor.
Forever Pelennor |
salvage alt
|
Posted - 2009.03.09 15:23:00 -
[69]
|
TNF absolution
Paxton Industries Paxton Federation
|
Posted - 2009.03.09 15:48:00 -
[70]
Edited by: TNF absolution on 09/03/2009 15:52:57 People keep drawing parallels between what happened to BOB and conglomerates in real life, but the whole picture is not taken into consideration.
In real life, you can kick all the corps in a conglomerate, but it can not be done overnight. Too much paperwork, and light stepping is involved to avoid a potentially bankrupting lawsuit. This was an oversight by CCP, and should be addressed.
*Edit*
Let us forget an alliance, a disgruntled director firing all the employees in a corp cos he was dissatisfied with the way he was treated will spend the rest of his career making money to pay his ex-employees
|
|
Sun Zue
Minmatar Core Research Expedition C. O. R. E.
|
Posted - 2009.03.09 16:19:00 -
[71]
I say the game mechanic should be modified. I'm saying modded do to some real Corp's do have 1 person in charge and by working with or for someone with that much power this is what can happen. Now i suggest that instead of one or the other something needs to be added. What i purpose is that an option be included for larger alliances maybe 7 and up corps, that they can divvy the power up between the corp their for giving them votes to. Kind of like Dictatorship vs Republic. CCP can work out the finer details. Remember, when Bill Gate's owned Microsoft he could have destroyed the Corp that he built. But let people buy stock and he didn't own the company anymore but stock holders. They voted a board of directors that to gether made the decision. As you can see One person or many can deside peoples fate, i think thats what needs to be added.
|
Aluthin
Squires of the Roundtable KnightRaven Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.03.18 15:01:00 -
[72]
Supported in general but would like to point out alliance level management roles and tools are non existent and that is most of the problem....
You need to be in an alliance to claim sov... but instead of alliance being a seperate window laid out like the corp tools window it is stuffed in with the corp window like an after thought with no thought or care put into it....
other posts have raised this issue and i believe the OP's points should be included in them |
Pesadel0
Minmatar Black Nova Corp KenZoku
|
Posted - 2009.03.18 23:45:00 -
[73]
Denied ,now that it happened i want to be able to destroy the enemy alliances has they did to us,The mechanic is bad but i hope that i can make my revenge.
|
CrestoftheStars
Recreation Of The World
|
Posted - 2009.03.19 00:04:00 -
[74]
signed ___________________________________________ Whoever appeals to the law against his fellow man is either a fool or a coward. Whoever cannot take care of himself without that law is both. For a wounded |
CrestoftheStars
Caldari Recreation Of The World
|
Posted - 2009.03.19 00:09:00 -
[75]
Originally by: Maximum KILLDEATHRATIO Remove all risk of meta-gaming.
Hell no! Its **** like this that makes eve so ****ing awesome. Just the possibility is enough to make a spy dream of grandeur.
meta gaming is properly against the eula, generally the meta gaming people are doing is illegal in most countries (hacking into vent/ts servers, forums, accounts, etc... all illegal in most countries..)
meta gaming should not be part of a game, since it is something that the game mechanic can't handle and let you take care off, hench you will need rl interference to deal with this and wupti again we properly got something illegal going on, soo meta gaming= bad and should be banneble ___________________________________________ Whoever appeals to the law against his fellow man is either a fool or a coward. Whoever cannot take care of himself without that law is both. For a wounded |
CrestoftheStars
Caldari Recreation Of The World
|
Posted - 2009.03.19 00:15:00 -
[76]
Originally by: Rhamnousia Edited by: Rhamnousia on 08/03/2009 11:19:46 I find it very amusing that every single Goon cling to a supposed victory by utilizing an obvious oversight from CCP. Before this following sentence, I've never said one single word about BoB and Goon and how Haargoth disbanded BoB in 30seconds dissolving thousands of players' effort over the years.
All I did was raising a valid point of argument by comparing the one single difference that lead to this discussion between corp-level Director and alliance-level Director. Attempting to counter the argument with such feeble effort is self-serving and egocentric, but who am I kidding? You're a Goon.
The Mittani has the power to walk off with 5000-odds Goons' effort at this very particular moment. And God knows he would, he doesn't practice "space Bushido." The question is, should he be allowed to?
"All is fine and dandy." That's the same mentality that brought down BoB. You are only spelling your own downfall by refusing to let the flaw(s) in the system be rectified properly.
Also, please edit your post to English if and when you find the need to make sense.
didn't even know they did that... but this is pretty obviously a exploit and should get a lot of people banned... at least in my oppinion anyway... sigh.. ___________________________________________ Whoever appeals to the law against his fellow man is either a fool or a coward. Whoever cannot take care of himself without that law is both. For a wounded |
Arpad Elo
|
Posted - 2009.03.19 08:29:00 -
[77]
voting no
having a timer on kicking a corp would allow the directorate to prevent one guy from nuking the alliance (there's a post on this - support it).
This would really remove the power of leadership in an alliance, which is not a good thing (makes for a less dynamic game).
|
Arpad Elo
|
Posted - 2009.03.19 08:30:00 -
[78]
Originally by: Orion Sky As long as their is a goon in the CSM, the EVE community will never get a bias representation.
You're doing it wrong.
|
Orion Sky
|
Posted - 2009.03.19 09:46:00 -
[79]
Originally by: Arpad Elo
Originally by: Orion Sky As long as their is a goon in the CSM, the EVE community will never get a bias representation.
You're doing it wrong.
What exactly are you trying to say here?
Is this code that belongs in COAD?
Stop trying to be clever or whatever and just say what you want to say. Unless you couldn't think of a reply but you simply had to put something.
|
Ixion Dracolich
Amarr
|
Posted - 2009.03.19 15:01:00 -
[80]
Originally by: Orion Sky
Originally by: Arpad Elo
Originally by: Orion Sky As long as their is a goon in the CSM, the EVE community will never get a bias representation.
You're doing it wrong.
What exactly are you trying to say here?
Is this code that belongs in COAD?
Stop trying to be clever or whatever and just say what you want to say. Unless you couldn't think of a reply but you simply had to put something.
Suspect it was something along the lines of what you MEANT to say i.e. "As long as their is a goon in the CSM, the EVE community will never get an unbiased representation."
|
|
Isaac Starstriker
Amarr Celestial Ascension Tenth Legion
|
Posted - 2009.03.19 15:13:00 -
[81]
Sorry, no support. If you can't trust the people in a position of power, DON'T HAVE THEM THERE. Wow, Genius. If a CEO of an alliance decides this alliance should no longer exist, guess what? He can do that.
Its life/Eve.
Under current mechanics, its working fine.
--Isaac Isaac's Haul*Mart
|
Orion Sky
|
Posted - 2009.03.20 07:43:00 -
[82]
Originally by: Ixion Dracolich
Originally by: Orion Sky
Originally by: Arpad Elo
Originally by: Orion Sky As long as their is a goon in the CSM, the EVE community will never get a bias representation.
You're doing it wrong.
What exactly are you trying to say here?
Is this code that belongs in COAD?
Stop trying to be clever or whatever and just say what you want to say. Unless you couldn't think of a reply but you simply had to put something.
Suspect it was something along the lines of what you MEANT to say i.e. "As long as their is a goon in the CSM, the EVE community will never get an unbiased representation."
ahh.. corrected then, tx
|
Elhina Novae
Ginnungagaps Rymdfarargille Blade.
|
Posted - 2009.03.21 13:51:00 -
[83]
Edited by: Elhina Novae on 21/03/2009 13:51:46 Logical all CEOs need to vote in order to disband alliance or any other major change, or lets say take in a new Corp for example?
The only reason anyone can be against this is because it's in some very inlogical way "supporting bob". ------------
Originally by: Boz Well
Originally by: SurrenderMonkey ... There's an Amarr problem?
Nothing that can't be solved by more Minmatar nerfs.
|
Gaogan
Solar Storm Sev3rance
|
Posted - 2009.03.23 20:14:00 -
[84]
Agreed, and in general access control methods need improved significantly so that a corporation can choose not to place such vast power in the hands of one person.
Oh, and an abstention does not count either way, so if only one person votes yes and everyone else abstains, the vote is carried.
|
Tobruk
Black Omega Security Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2009.03.23 21:49:00 -
[85]
I ABSOLUTLY SUPPORT THIS
but i also support the disbanding of BOBR. everyone has to play by the rules. this mechanic was legitimate at the time, so lets de legitimize it - what bob got was not legitimate. ----------------------------------------------
Sig removed. Elmo Pug removed my sig because he hates me
|
Julian Shran
Amarr Elderan Navy SOLAR WING
|
Posted - 2009.03.23 21:53:00 -
[86]
Originally by: SpaceSlag Edited by: SpaceSlag on 05/02/2009 17:00:27 Edited by: SpaceSlag on 05/02/2009 17:00:09 Executor corps in EVE should have to make a vote (notified by evemail) to the CEO's of all the other corps in an alliance whether or not they will disband. If the alliance doesn't pay it's bills, an evemail should be sent to all CEO's telling them of the potential delinquency. Everybody should be able to see who voted and how they voted. Alliance bills receivable/payable should be viewed by all CEO's in each corp.
Other issues to include on rights: -War Decs -Alliance HQ -Sovereignty -Outpost upgrades
Basically, if an alliance is going to make major political changes either for within or for external reasons, it should be the concensus of the ENTIRE alliance leadership. However, limit the roles to the CEO's for a speedy process. (and not every director in the entire alliance or every political role given)
Min timer on all votes: 24 hours (1 day) Max timer on all votes: 168 hours (1 week)
Person does not vote, then they automatically abstain.
Majority yes - action is executed. Majority no - action revoked for 24 hours. Majority abstain - action revoked for 24 hours.
Here is the mechanic you are looking for, it already exists:
"Declaration of Executor Support
All corporations in an Alliance can declare their support for another corporation to fill the executor role. If the present executor does not have the support of more than 50% of the member corporations, he cannot act on behalf of the Alliance. The corporation and its CEO will still be listed as the executor, but all administrative functions will be disabled (this is indicated by an error message that is displayed whenever usage of such a function is attempted by the executor). This means that the Alliance is effectively powerless until such time as the support of the executor is restored or a new executor is declared through gaining more than 50% of the support of the member corporations. The system will attempt to activate an executor once every 24 hours. Only when the established executor regains support or a new one is put in place will access to the administrative functions be restored.
As the executor of an Alliance is in a position of power, he must be replaced in cases where he does not possess more than 50% of the support of the member alliances, has stopped playing the game or is otherwise unreachable. Note that changing the CEO of the executor corporation automatically entails that the new CEO is listed as executor. The procedure through which executors are changed is based on the Declaration of Executor Support, which is a simplified form of voting. Every corporation in an Alliance can modify their support for the executor at any time. The default setting is to support the current executor. A declaration of support is only valid if a corporation has been a member of the Alliance for seven consecutive days. The declaration of support is confidential and is only available to the CEO and Directors of the corporation.
The Alliance system constantly checks whether an executor has 50% or more of the support of the member corporations. If support drops below 50%, the executor will be informed of this through the display of an error message when attempting to use administrative functions." Yarr!!
(and yes I DO like my hat :P... ) |
Buxaroo
Reikoku Band of Brothers Reloaded
|
Posted - 2009.03.23 21:59:00 -
[87]
Finally, a logical change thread. Although I think the 1 week max voting time is a bit too long . But I can understand it if the CEO is afk but then again that would be a serious problem in of itself.
|
Onawonkajuu
|
Posted - 2009.03.23 22:09:00 -
[88]
|
Zahadodrix
|
Posted - 2009.03.28 17:28:00 -
[89]
The way rights are organized period. Needs to be taken into consideration, AND better documented. The sheer bureaucracy thats being forced upon alliances just to function is absurd.
|
Lord Eremet
|
Posted - 2009.03.28 21:33:00 -
[90]
Originally by: Arri Gato sure, fail mechanic needs correction...
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |