Pages: 1 2 3 4 :: [one page] |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
SpaceSlag
Gallente the undivided Negative Ten.
|
Posted - 2009.02.05 17:00:00 -
[1]
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. Become a pirate without fear of death!
|
Jack Light
legion syndicate
|
Posted - 2009.02.05 21:04:00 -
[2]
Lol, a little disappointing at BoB's disappearance?
I for one, welcome our new Goon overlords.
|
Imperator Jora'h
|
Posted - 2009.02.05 21:41:00 -
[3]
I have to agree and it is NOT sour grapes about BoB on my part. No doubt they would have done the same to Goon if they had the chance.
It is just a bogus game mechanic and it scares me that one person can get a bug up their ass and wipe out everyone's work with the push of a button. So many other, more mundane, things cannot be done by a single person without backup from others. This seems spectacularly powerful a thing for one person to do.
DISCLOSURE: I am not nor ever have been a member of any BoB or Goon corp/alliance. I have no dog in this fight.
|
Random Caldari
|
Posted - 2009.02.05 21:49:00 -
[4]
Yeah EVE is broken
one disgruntled player can ruin years of effort by many thousands of players at the push of a button.
I guess ccp never saw this coming.
Fix the interface to require votes and roll-back BOB into existence.
If you dont then its gonna happen again and again to different alliances, until players realise there just no point in doing the alliance stuff if it can all be destroyed by one ass hat.
|
Thann Starlinbow
Minmatar Slacker Industries The Boat Violencing Initiative
|
Posted - 2009.02.05 21:52:00 -
[5]
:argh: Support denied.
The entire reason we formed an alliance is to be able to avoid the stupid "Vote for wardec. Wait 24 hours. Put wardec through. Wait another 24 hours" crap. |
Nnamuachs
Caldari Kiith Paktu Veneratio Venator Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.02.05 22:05:00 -
[6]
Originally by: Random Caldari Yeah EVE is broken
one disgruntled player can ruin years of effort by many thousands of players at the push of a button.
I guess ccp never saw this coming.
Fix the interface to require votes and roll-back BOB into existence.
If you dont then its gonna happen again and again to different alliances, until players realise there just no point in doing the alliance stuff if it can all be destroyed by one ass hat.
alright well lets roll back maximum yarrage and every other single alliance that was stolen this way as well.. just for the sake of fairness.
|
Imperator Jora'h
|
Posted - 2009.02.05 22:13:00 -
[7]
Originally by: Random CaldariI guess ccp never saw this coming.[/quote
According to The Mittani (I think it was him who said it in his interview) this has happened before. Just nowhere near this scale.
Quote: Fix the interface to require votes and roll-back BOB into existence.
Well...it was done as intended under current game mechanics. A roll back would be too much I think. Just fix it for the future.
-------------------------------------------------- "Of course," said my grandfather, pulling a gun from his belt as he stepped from the Time Machine, "there's no paradox if I shoot you!"
|
Imperator Jora'h
|
Posted - 2009.02.05 22:14:00 -
[8]
Originally by: Thann Starlinbow :argh: Support denied.
The entire reason we formed an alliance is to be able to avoid the stupid "Vote for wardec. Wait 24 hours. Put wardec through. Wait another 24 hours" crap.
There is a big difference between making a war dec and dissolving an alliance of a few thousand people instantaneously because one disgruntled person got a bug up his ass about something or other.
-------------------------------------------------- "Of course," said my grandfather, pulling a gun from his belt as he stepped from the Time Machine, "there's no paradox if I shoot you!"
|
Thann Starlinbow
Minmatar Slacker Industries The Boat Violencing Initiative
|
Posted - 2009.02.05 22:17:00 -
[9]
Originally by: Imperator Jora'h
Originally by: Thann Starlinbow :argh: Support denied.
The entire reason we formed an alliance is to be able to avoid the stupid "Vote for wardec. Wait 24 hours. Put wardec through. Wait another 24 hours" crap.
There is a big difference between making a war dec and dissolving an alliance of a few thousand people instantaneously because one disgruntled person got a bug up his ass about something or other.
Should treat your directors better and/or not put ultimate authority in the hands of someone you don't know if you can trust or not, maybe? Seems like sound practice to me.
|
SpaceSlag
Gallente the undivided Negative Ten.
|
Posted - 2009.02.05 22:33:00 -
[10]
This has no bearing on what side you are for in the massive threadnaught called, "B0B is fail." I really don't care about the politics or the bribery, or whatever excuse somebody wants to give.
This thread has ONLY to do with mechanics of the game. No one person in the alliance, whether or not it's the founder of the Alliance, the CEO of the executor corp, or some random director in the alliance should EVER have that much power to completely erase 4 years of thousands of player's hard work in one fail swoop that takes 30 seconds.
Whether you agree/disagree with the current events, I don't care. Please vote if you agree on some of the things mentioned here. If not, please be constructive and state why.
Ok... so I could concede the Wardec thing. Become a pirate without fear of death!
|
|
Thann Starlinbow
Minmatar Slacker Industries The Boat Violencing Initiative
|
Posted - 2009.02.05 22:45:00 -
[11]
Going to point out that 'Majority abstain = no' is also terrible due to the fact that sometimes things need to get done 'now'. Well, what if a couple of your CEO's are on vacation and suddenly you can't do anything because they 'abstain'?
You need to think this through some more. |
Imperator Jora'h
|
Posted - 2009.02.05 22:53:00 -
[12]
Edited by: Imperator Jora''h on 05/02/2009 22:54:18
Originally by: Thann Starlinbow Going to point out that 'Majority abstain = no' is also terrible due to the fact that sometimes things need to get done 'now'. Well, what if a couple of your CEO's are on vacation and suddenly you can't do anything because they 'abstain'?
You need to think this through some more.
I am not sure a specific mechanic need be decided here. Just that CCP should put some tripwire in place. Maybe have a 24 hour period where nothing happens once the "dissolve alliance" button is pushed and another Director or CEO can un-push the button. Have an automated e-mail sent to all members that says "Alliance will be dissolved in 24 hours from the time of this note."
Waiting 24 hours for an alliance to dissolve is not that onerus.
I'm sure people could put forth lots of mechanics. Point is to have some ability to stop one person who got his panties all in a wad over something or other from being a "You Lose" button for a few thousand people.
|
Thann Starlinbow
Minmatar Slacker Industries The Boat Violencing Initiative
|
Posted - 2009.02.05 22:54:00 -
[13]
Originally by: Imperator Jora'h
Originally by: Thann Starlinbow Going to point out that 'Majority abstain = no' is also terrible due to the fact that sometimes things need to get done 'now'. Well, what if a couple of your CEO's are on vacation and suddenly you can't do anything because they 'abstain'?
You need to think this through some more.
I am not sure a specific mechanic need be decided here. Just that CCP should put some tripwire in place. Maybe have a 24 hour period where nothing happens once the "dissolve alliance" button is pushed and another Director or CEO can un-push the button. Have an automated e-mail sent to all members that says "Alliance will be dissolved in 24 hours from the time of this note."
Waiting 24 hours for an alliance to dissolve is not that onerus.
Why? They havn't done anything about it happening in the past, why is it special now? BOB are not special, sorry. |
Nnamuachs
Caldari Kiith Paktu Veneratio Venator Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.02.05 22:58:00 -
[14]
The misunderstood thing here is there is no "dissolve alliance" option... all the corps need to be kicked out or leave on their own accord. Yes executor corps can kick out member corps with no regard, which is how it should be, the same way a ceo can kick out a member without needing to vote on it either. Additionally, all ceos/directors in alliance "can" pay alliance bills, they just don't have access to the alliance wallet and have to do it from their own. Heads of the alliance are there for a reason, they arent there to get everyones vote, they're there to provide the decision making process for the alliance as a whole, usually thats why theres one holding corp for alts so everyone can keep up to speed.. this voting process is removing power from those who it was willfully given to in the first place. |
Imperator Jora'h
|
Posted - 2009.02.05 22:58:00 -
[15]
Originally by: Thann Starlinbow Why? They havn't done anything about it happening in the past, why is it special now? BOB are not special, sorry.
It is special because of the scale of the thing. This affects all of EVE when the Alliance was on this scale. Of course for those of us on the sidelines it is all fascinating to watch and even an opportunity.
But ONE guy should not be able to wield power on this scale. There is supposed to be balance in games and this is not a balanced mechanic. It really makes no freaking sense. It'd be like the President of the United States hands over a substantial portion of US military equipment to the Russians, turns off all the nukes and radar defenses, dissolves the United States entirely then goes to bed. Just absurd.
|
Thann Starlinbow
Minmatar Slacker Industries The Boat Violencing Initiative
|
Posted - 2009.02.05 22:59:00 -
[16]
Originally by: Imperator Jora'h
Originally by: Thann Starlinbow Why? They havn't done anything about it happening in the past, why is it special now? BOB are not special, sorry.
It is special because of the scale of the thing. This affects all of EVE when the Alliance was on this scale. Of course for those of us on the sidelines it is all fascinating to watch and even an opportunity.
But ONE guy should not be able to wield power on this scale. There is supposed to be balance in games and this is not a balanced mechanic. It really makes no freaking sense. It'd be like the President of the United States hands over a substantial portion of US military equipment to the Russians, turns off all the nukes and radar defenses, dissolves the United States entirely then goes to bed. Just absurd.
Real life analogies don't apply to this situation well. Read the post above yours.
I'd post more but work is over and I'm going home now. Ciao. |
Arri Gato
|
Posted - 2009.02.05 23:04:00 -
[17]
sure, fail mechanic needs correction... |
Imperator Jora'h
|
Posted - 2009.02.05 23:05:00 -
[18]
Originally by: Thann Starlinbow Real life analogies don't apply to this situation well. Read the post above yours.
It does not make sense in a game either.
I understand what the guy above me is saying and it makes sense. Nevertheless allowing a single person that kind of power is silly. It's called game balance. The issue here is irrevocable and profound changes to all these people. Not just kicking one corp here or there. If the executor corp holds that much power fine with me. But then the Directors should come to some accord or have a veto option or somesuch so no one person can undo everything.
I strongly suspect if it happened to you then you would not be so keen on this mechanic.
No one is calling for a roll back (except that one guy). Just plug this glaring hole in the mechanics.
|
Thann Starlinbow
Minmatar Slacker Industries The Boat Violencing Initiative
|
Posted - 2009.02.05 23:15:00 -
[19]
Originally by: Imperator Jora'h
Originally by: Thann Starlinbow Real life analogies don't apply to this situation well. Read the post above yours.
It does not make sense in a game either.
I understand what the guy above me is saying and it makes sense. Nevertheless allowing a single person that kind of power is silly. It's called game balance. The issue here is irrevocable and profound changes to all these people. Not just kicking one corp here or there. If the executor corp holds that much power fine with me. But then the Directors should come to some accord or have a veto option or somesuch so no one person can undo everything.
I strongly suspect if it happened to you then you would not be so keen on this mechanic.
No one is calling for a roll back (except that one guy). Just plug this glaring hole in the mechanics.
Actually, I've had an alliance stolen out from underneath me before. I said "Welp." and wardec'd them, shot them for a while and then moved along.
Like I said, this isn't special just because it's BOB or just because it's big. It has happened before, it will happen again. |
Theqwert125
|
Posted - 2009.02.06 01:08:00 -
[20]
I think it should take more than one person in a high role to completely screw over years of work of over 3000 people. Corptheft and so on is FINE IMO, the problem is that such a major decision as DISBANDING an alliance and permenately losing sov takes only one guy deciding to screw everyone over.
BOB is dead. Fine, whatever. But fix this so that it can't happen again. Can you imagine the Goon whines if one of their leaders decided, "**** it, I am disbanding Goonsawrm, Neener neener"? This is only being hailed because everyone hated BOB and it was done with a spy. |
|
Nnamuachs
Caldari Kiith Paktu Veneratio Venator Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.02.06 01:30:00 -
[21]
Originally by: Theqwert125 I think it should take more than one person in a high role to completely screw over years of work of over 3000 people. Corptheft and so on is FINE IMO, the problem is that such a major decision as DISBANDING an alliance and permenately losing sov takes only one guy deciding to screw everyone over.
BOB is dead. Fine, whatever. But fix this so that it can't happen again. Can you imagine the Goon whines if one of their leaders decided, "**** it, I am disbanding Goonsawrm, Neener neener"? This is only being hailed because everyone hated BOB and it was done with a spy.
uh goon wouldnt care... they'd just shoot each other like they're want to do anyways.
Nothing wrong with this mechanic.. a single controlling CEO of a real corporation can drive it into the ground just as easily.. Corporations in and of themselves can maintain around 1300 people depending on the ceo's skills.. should the ceo have to get co-approval from his directors before booting people willy nilly? i think not. |
Agent Unknown
Fist of Eargon
|
Posted - 2009.02.06 01:33:00 -
[22]
In most cases this button would usually be the "I WIN YOU LOSE" button...or better yet potential for blackmail. /signed |
Ashley Thomas
Kiith Paktu Veneratio Venator Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.02.06 02:14:00 -
[23]
the reason bob disbanded, ceo was stupid enough to let it happen
|
Jack Light
legion syndicate
|
Posted - 2009.02.06 02:47:00 -
[24]
Edited by: Jack Light on 06/02/2009 02:47:02
Originally by: Ashley Thomas the reason bob disbanded, ceo was stupid enough to let it happen
This
Alliances are fine how it is. Adds to the risk. Part of the game. |
SpaceSlag
Gallente the undivided Negative Ten.
|
Posted - 2009.02.06 05:07:00 -
[25]
The whole purpose of this thread is for people to discuss falty alliance/corp game mechanics and hopefully respond with suggestive ideas of their own. The majority of the posts on this thread are constructive. -Great!
However, if you're going to state why not, then please post your reasons. Hopefully CCP can sort out the logical from the illogical by the time their grand expansion comes out in March.
For corps to leave an alliance, they should be able to whenever they please. However, if a corp is being kicked, then a majority vote should be cast. I think this would be the so called "tripwire."
The only deviance that should be accepted is to ask yourself the question, "What if this thing with B0B happened to my alliance? How hard would I be screwed?"
I know my original proposition needs some more hamsters spinning the wheel of thought, but hopefully more can contribute and this formulate into something definitive for CCP to implement or thoroughly hashed out so that game corp/alliance mechanics remain the same. Become a pirate without fear of death!
|
shuckstar
Hauling hogs
|
Posted - 2009.02.06 05:22:00 -
[26]
Originally by: Arri Gato sure, fail mechanic needs correction...
|
Imperator Jora'h
|
Posted - 2009.02.06 06:03:00 -
[27]
To those who think the current mechanic is fine as is:
Why do you think it is fine as is? What in your world of fair play suggests to you that a single person can undo an alliance *instantly*? How does that make sense to you on any level? No "BoB had it coming" stuff...this is not about that. It could happen to you just as easily. Why would you be ok with that? How are you comfortable knowing that some few in your alliance with appropriate roles can pull the plug on all you and hundreds or thousands of others have done and worked for overnight?
Espionage is fine. Corp theft is fine. But one person, for whatever reason (and there could be many), flipping 3,000 people in minutes is hardly good game design.
I am just not seeing it so please explain how this is a good game mechanic. How if you were designing a game you'd make sure such a mechanic existed because it made the game better somehow.
-------------------------------------------------- "Of course," said my grandfather, pulling a gun from his belt as he stepped from the Time Machine, "there's no paradox if I shoot you!"
|
Nnamuachs
Caldari Kiith Paktu Veneratio Venator Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.02.06 06:12:00 -
[28]
Originally by: Imperator Jora'h To those who think the current mechanic is fine as is:
Why do you think it is fine as is? What in your world of fair play suggests to you that a single person can undo an alliance *instantly*? How does that make sense to you on any level? No "BoB had it coming" stuff...this is not about that. It could happen to you just as easily. Why would you be ok with that? How are you comfortable knowing that some few in your alliance with appropriate roles can pull the plug on all you and hundreds or thousands of others have done and worked for overnight?
Espionage is fine. Corp theft is fine. But one person, for whatever reason (and there could be many), flipping 3,000 people in minutes is hardly good game design.
I am just not seeing it so please explain how this is a good game mechanic. How if you were designing a game you'd make sure such a mechanic existed because it made the game better somehow.
A CEO with a corp of 1300 could do exactly the same thing... an alliance is structured exactly like a corporation just a tier above it.
As for one man destroying an entire alliance from the inside and how its fair? it isnt... and thats the point, its not fair, its not supposed to be fair, if you want fair play hello kitty online. I dont remember at any point in time where CCP said this game was fair. If this game was fair, it wouldn't be fun. This is far from the worst thing ever pulled, sure it was massive.. but definitely not the worst thats ever been done in the history of eve.
If it happened to my alliance.. then thats life or should i say, thats how the game is... you accepted that that is how the game is when you agreed to the EULA and paid your monthly fee, and if it happens to you, you either strive on, or you emoragequit to the tune of "Can i have your stuff". |
Imperator Jora'h
|
Posted - 2009.02.06 06:22:00 -
[29]
Edited by: Imperator Jora''h on 06/02/2009 06:29:05
Originally by: Nnamuachs A CEO with a corp of 1300 could do exactly the same thing... an alliance is structured exactly like a corporation just a tier above it.
As for one man destroying an entire alliance from the inside and how its fair? it isnt... and thats the point, its not fair, its not supposed to be fair, if you want fair play hello kitty online. I dont remember at any point in time where CCP said this game was fair. If this game was fair, it wouldn't be fun. This is far from the worst thing ever pulled, sure it was massive.. but definitely not the worst thats ever been done in the history of eve.
If it happened to my alliance.. then thats life or should i say, thats how the game is... you accepted that that is how the game is when you agreed to the EULA and paid your monthly fee, and if it happens to you, you either strive on, or you emoragequit to the tune of "Can i have your stuff".
No need for a lecture on EVE being a rough-and-tumble place. One of the reasons I play it too and I am cool with that.
As for me being "emoragequit" please point out where I said or implied any such thing. If not then stuff that crap.
I am not nor have ever been, on any character I run, a member of BoB or Goon. I noted above I have no personal stake in this one way or the other. I have lost literally nothing over this. If a Dev wants to come by and tell you I have never been in BoB or Goon ever they have my blessing.
I am arguing purely from a sense that this is a bogus mechanic. You have not made a case for it being a good mechanic at all. Saying EVE is a tough place is not an argument for it. Maybe someone is playing football and pulls out a gun and shoots the other team to death. Saying football is a rough game does not make that ok.
I am all for the dark side of EVE. But there has to be balance in games and that much unchecked power in the hands of a single person is too much. It makes the game not fun for ALL of EVE since we now all have to wonder if it might happen to any of us on the whim of one person.
And note this is more than your case of being a CEO of a big corp. The Alliance holds sovereignty and along with that comes a whole raft of other stuff. Further...an Alliance is a group of corps. It is one thing for you to screw over your own people. It is another for you to take other corps down with you on a whim. Want to take other corps down fine. Great even...have at it. But you should have to work for it and not make it a matter of 10 minutes of work.
-------------------------------------------------- "Of course," said my grandfather, pulling a gun from his belt as he stepped from the Time Machine, "there's no paradox if I shoot you!"
|
Nnamuachs
Caldari Kiith Paktu Veneratio Venator Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.02.06 06:56:00 -
[30]
Originally by: Imperator Jora'h Edited by: Imperator Jora''h on 06/02/2009 06:29:05
Originally by: Nnamuachs A CEO with a corp of 1300 could do exactly the same thing... an alliance is structured exactly like a corporation just a tier above it.
As for one man destroying an entire alliance from the inside and how its fair? it isnt... and thats the point, its not fair, its not supposed to be fair, if you want fair play hello kitty online. I dont remember at any point in time where CCP said this game was fair. If this game was fair, it wouldn't be fun. This is far from the worst thing ever pulled, sure it was massive.. but definitely not the worst thats ever been done in the history of eve.
If it happened to my alliance.. then thats life or should i say, thats how the game is... you accepted that that is how the game is when you agreed to the EULA and paid your monthly fee, and if it happens to you, you either strive on, or you emoragequit to the tune of "Can i have your stuff".
No need for a lecture on EVE being a rough-and-tumble place. One of the reasons I play it too and I am cool with that.
As for me being "emoragequit" please point out where I said or implied any such thing. If not then stuff that crap.
I am not nor have ever been, on any character I run, a member of BoB or Goon. I noted above I have no personal stake in this one way or the other. I have lost literally nothing over this. If a Dev wants to come by and tell you I have never been in BoB or Goon ever they have my blessing.
I am arguing purely from a sense that this is a bogus mechanic. You have not made a case for it being a good mechanic at all. Saying EVE is a tough place is not an argument for it. Maybe someone is playing football and pulls out a gun and shoots the other team to death. Saying football is a rough game does not make that ok.
I am all for the dark side of EVE. But there has to be balance in games and that much unchecked power in the hands of a single person is too much. It makes the game not fun for ALL of EVE since we now all have to wonder if it might happen to any of us on the whim of one person.
And note this is more than your case of being a CEO of a big corp. The Alliance holds sovereignty and along with that comes a whole raft of other stuff. Further...an Alliance is a group of corps. It is one thing for you to screw over your own people. It is another for you to take other corps down with you on a whim. Want to take other corps down fine. Great even...have at it. But you should have to work for it and not make it a matter of 10 minutes of work.
I didnt say you were emoragequitting, just said those are the two options. If i havent given a reason for why its a good mechanic, in that same stance you havent given a reason for why its a bad mechanic... And if you consider what you listed as reasons for a bad mechanic then those in the same breath can be used as reasons for why its a good mechanic. One man with the power to screw over alot of people... puts alot of stuff in perspective doesnt it?
As for your comment on the whim of one person... that really is what eve boils down to.. i could be suicide ganked on the whim of another player... wardecced, decieved, scammed etc.. all at the whim of one person... it doesnt change as you go up or down the ladder... 1 person always has the power to destroy the many in one form or another.. its a mechanic of persistence, applicable to many situations, not just one. I think its a bit exciting to know that someone could go ballistic in my alliance and screw everyone over... thats why i keep my stuff in NPC stations
|
|
Andrea Griffin
|
Posted - 2009.02.06 07:40:00 -
[31]
I never knew that an alliance could just be disbanded like that. I'm surprised that the capability to disband an alliance can lie with one person. Seems to me that an alliance shouldn't be disbanded unless all of the member corporations leave, much like closing a corporation. It is active until it is empty.
|
Ghaelsto Kakram
Mindgamers
|
Posted - 2009.02.06 14:55:00 -
[32]
Stupidity > game mechanics. Don't give people roles they do not need. |
Drake Draconis
Minmatar Shadow Cadre Worlds End Consortium
|
Posted - 2009.02.06 15:49:00 -
[33]
/me thumbs down
You reap what you sow.
If your not smart enough to make sure your alliance is strong healthy and happy... don't expect it to last.
Countries have fallen over night.... no one said the member states would be left alone now did they?
What you propose would change nothing... just delay the inevitable. No support.... works as intended.
It's just a Corporate sabotage on a Macro-scale.... you pick a stupid ceo... you get a stupid event. Same goes for directors and what not.
And sorry to say... this screams bias towards what took place... stop crying over it here...we got better things to do.... if anything its disrupted the status quo and now things are getting a bit exciting in 0.0.
Why the hell not... I welcome the change... course I would have prefered a slightly different outcome.. but oh well. |
Imperator Jora'h
|
Posted - 2009.02.06 15:52:00 -
[34]
Originally by: Nnamuachs I didnt say you were emoragequitting, just said those are the two options. If i havent given a reason for why its a good mechanic, in that same stance you havent given a reason for why its a bad mechanic... And if you consider what you listed as reasons for a bad mechanic then those in the same breath can be used as reasons for why its a good mechanic. One man with the power to screw over alot of people... puts alot of stuff in perspective doesnt it?
As for your comment on the whim of one person... that really is what eve boils down to.. i could be suicide ganked on the whim of another player... wardecced, decieved, scammed etc.. all at the whim of one person... it doesnt change as you go up or down the ladder... 1 person always has the power to destroy the many in one form or another.. its a mechanic of persistence, applicable to many situations, not just one. I think its a bit exciting to know that someone could go ballistic in my alliance and screw everyone over... thats why i keep my stuff in NPC stations
Look...this is a game. As a game it is supposed to have sensible and fair rules. Not "fair" in that no one can ever get you (one way or another) but "fair" in that you have the ability to protect yourself, to turn the tables and so on.
Imagine the World Cup/Superbowl is taking place and the team captain on one team, ****ed off because the coach chewed him out, forfeits the game. His choice...not a damn thing anyone else can do about it, take your ball and go home. You'd be ok with that? You think that makes sense somehow?
This is an "Alliance". You simply must consider the scale and scope of what that means. It is not emptying out one corp hangar of all their ships. It is not turning off the cyno jammer to one system. It is not ganking one ship. You are affecting literally thousands of people in a profound manner because one person decides it is a good idea.
It is not game balance when you have no recourse, no protection. It wouldn't be if it was just you and me and it especially isn't when it is thousands who get the rug yanked out from under them and not a damn thing to be done about it.
|
Miner Nine
Caldari Caldari Provisions
|
Posted - 2009.02.07 10:59:00 -
[35]
Originally by: Imperator Jora'h Look...this is a game. As a game it is supposed to have sensible and fair rules. Not "fair" in that no one can ever get you (one way or another) but "fair" in that you have the ability to protect yourself, to turn the tables and so on.
Imagine the World Cup/Superbowl is taking place and the team captain on one team, ****ed off because the coach chewed him out, forfeits the game. His choice...not a damn thing anyone else can do about it, take your ball and go home. You'd be ok with that? You think that makes sense somehow?
This is an "Alliance". You simply must consider the scale and scope of what that means. It is not emptying out one corp hangar of all their ships. It is not turning off the cyno jammer to one system. It is not ganking one ship. You are affecting literally thousands of people in a profound manner because one person decides it is a good idea.
It is not game balance when you have no recourse, no protection. It wouldn't be if it was just you and me and it especially isn't when it is thousands who get the rug yanked out from under them and not a damn thing to be done about it.
Eggs Bread Toliet paper Socks Socks Socks Beer
Oh, sorry. I was out of paper and was making my grocery list.
I have to agree with this dude. Directors should not be allow to kick corps, nor should CEO be alow to kick corps. It must be voted upon.
Also, Directors should not be allow to kick members, nor should CEO be allow to kick members. It must be voted upon.
Also, random people shouldn't be appointed as Directors. It must be voted upon.
Also, random people shouldn't be able to start Corps. It must be voted upon.
Also, you shouldn't be allow to post. It must be voted upon.
EVERYTHING MUST BE A VOTED UPON!
|
Brick Hampton
Dark-Rising
|
Posted - 2009.02.07 11:00:00 -
[36]
I do believe this was an oversight by cpp.
|
Farinet
|
Posted - 2009.02.07 11:15:00 -
[37]
|
Cyberman Mastermind
|
Posted - 2009.02.09 14:42:00 -
[38]
A single director can not force a corp to war, but disband an entire alliance? Bad game design. |
Saralle Zhukov
Win Tech
|
Posted - 2009.02.09 14:58:00 -
[39]
Already expressed my reasons in another thread. Supported.
|
Fahtim Meidires
Caldari GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.02.09 16:23:00 -
[40]
Edited by: Fahtim Meidires on 09/02/2009 16:26:19 What if I want the ability to disband MY alliance. Imagine if I am alone in my own corp as CEO, and my corp is the executor or MY alliance. The alliance was formed under me and I am king. Do I not have every right to kick corps from MY ALLIANCE, then close it myself?
Too much power? Maybe. But what I created the alliance myself. I'd argue that I alone have the right to control the status of my organization and can disband it as I please.
CCP should examine other forms of Alliance organization other than executor control (high council, democracy, etc.) without removing but rather including the option of the current dictatorship model.
For example: Types of Factions NPC Faction (amarr, caldari, etc.) Player Alliance Player Empire Player Federation Player Democracy Player Tribe
Each with their own mechanics that govern power structures so that players have CHOICES instead of being forced to work around "FIXES". |
|
Imperator Jora'h
|
Posted - 2009.02.09 16:34:00 -
[41]
Originally by: Fahtim Meidires Edited by: Fahtim Meidires on 09/02/2009 16:26:19 What if I want the ability to disband MY alliance. Imagine if I am alone in my own corp as CEO, and my corp is the executor or MY alliance. The alliance was formed under me and I am king. Do I not have every right to kick corps from MY ALLIANCE, then close it myself?
Sure. You should just have to wait 24 hours and if no other Director cancels it then you are fine. In this case there is no other Director so that's that.
Sorry if waiting 24 hours seems a pain but you made an Alliance...you can deal with that hassle and is no worse than a lot of other things we have to wait for in EVE.
|
Ryuga VonRhaiden
Caldari Insurgent New Eden Tribe Systematic-Chaos
|
Posted - 2009.02.16 13:50:00 -
[42]
Originally by: Thann Starlinbow
Should treat your directors better and/or not put ultimate authority in the hands of someone you don't know if you can trust or not, maybe? Seems like sound practice to me.
that kind of authority comes "for free"... there is no "kick alliance members/disband alliance" role you can remove and detach from usual corp management directorship AFAIK...
Do not try and find the signature... that's impossible. Instead only try to realize the truth... There is no signature. |
NereSky
Domination. Force Of Evil
|
Posted - 2009.02.16 13:59:00 -
[43]
Agreed
A Alliance of Corperations flying under one flag should not be dissolved under the power of one person it should take a vote from every CEO of every corperation within that Alliance,
A complete re-working of Alliance/CEO powers should be relooked at.
|
Anna Kommenos
|
Posted - 2009.02.16 19:39:00 -
[44]
Originally by: SpaceSlag
This thread has ONLY to do with mechanics of the game. No one person in the alliance, whether or not it's the founder of the Alliance, the CEO of the executor corp, or some random director in the alliance should EVER have that much power to completely erase 4 years of thousands of player's hard work in one fail swoop that takes 30 seconds.
i disagree, firstly i would suggest that these comments are out of fear, not out of disagreement with the mechanism itself. i would also suggest that this mechanism, however flawed, is one of the best things that has happened in eve. it forces people in alliances to remember to be careful who they trust, and also not to p*ss off the directors, cos they can screw your whole game over. put basically, if the players and directors in TAFKAB had treated eachother a little more decently, this director guy wouldnt have emoraged the alliance right down to the 9nth circle of hell. god knows it might just teach people the fact that just cos theres an internet between them and other people it doesnt mean they can be d*ckheads.....
|
Torain
|
Posted - 2009.02.16 23:34:00 -
[45]
Originally by: Fahtim Meidires Edited by: Fahtim Meidires on 09/02/2009 16:26:19 What if I want the ability to disband MY alliance. Imagine if I am alone in my own corp as CEO, and my corp is the executor or MY alliance. The alliance was formed under me and I am king. Do I not have every right to kick corps from MY ALLIANCE, then close it myself?
Too much power? Maybe. But what I created the alliance myself. I'd argue that I alone have the right to control the status of my organization and can disband it as I please.
CCP should examine other forms of Alliance organization other than executor control (high council, democracy, etc.) without removing but rather including the option of the current dictatorship model.
For example: Types of Factions NPC Faction (amarr, caldari, etc.) Player Alliance Player Empire Player Federation Player Democracy Player Tribe
Each with their own mechanics that govern power structures so that players have CHOICES instead of being forced to work around "FIXES".
This
Every type of government would have benefits as well as drawbacks. One of those drawbacks of course being the result we're faced with now.
|
Trebor Notlimah
Lone Star EVE Group Veni Vidi Vici
|
Posted - 2009.02.17 00:51:00 -
[46]
With the whole bob deal aside -- its a broken mechanic that needs fixing. 1000's of peoples in an organization shouldnt be dissolved with the dissolved with the posh of a button.
|
Mirei Jun
Right to Rule FOUNDATI0N
|
Posted - 2009.02.17 04:45:00 -
[47]
I completely agree. This sort of thing is what the CSM is suppose to be all about.
Eve's entire "end game" (as defined by CCP) has been ignored for far too long. Alliance mechanics, POS warfar, titans... all this and much more needs to be addressed. I am pleased to see that many pf the CSM delegates have this at the top of their agendas. Remember, don't let some scandal or bug uncovered by CCP distract you from your cause.
|
Lady Alystra
Amarr Big Bong Quantum Big Bang Quantum
|
Posted - 2009.02.18 14:11:00 -
[48]
Although I support making disbanding an alliance harder, I do not think that all CEOs should have to agree before an alliance is disbanded. There is a reason there is an executor corp.
I do however think that it should be harder to disband an alliance than just pressing a button. The CEO of the executor corp should be the only person able to disband an alliance. Because we DGAF!
... and you can DGAF too.
DGAF recruitment thread: http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=471457 |
GATORAN
Child Head Injury and Laceration Doctors
|
Posted - 2009.02.19 04:22:00 -
[49]
I agree.
While I hold no personal stake or ties to KenZoku (formerly: Band of Brothers), in of itself the principle that 1 director from 1 corp can disband an entire alliance containing whichever amount of corps/people, at the whim of 1 instant button push, is a bit silly.
You may argue one way or the other about treating your high-ranked officers properly so that such a thing doesn't occur, but really that's not the point. It really is completely irrelevant whether or not you genuinely mistreated a director in a corporation, they still shouldn't be able to have such a massive impact on an alliance structure like that.
It also doesn't matter that this has happened before. This is the first time it has been really highlighted because it was such a massive event. So the fact that it didn't happen before, is irrelevant..the point is that it shouldn't be possible, and now a lot of people (myself included) know that it's possible. I will repeat for the sake of marking it down. It does *not* matter what happened, who did what to who, who said what nor what happened beforehand. The point is that it should be changed, because it really is terribly silly that 1 person can, without votes, disband an entire alliance regardless of what the OTHER DIRECTORS want, what the OTHER CORPORATIONS want, CEO's, shareholders and so forth, want.
This has NOTHING to do with picking sides between goons and kenzoku, this is about a game mechanic that affects everyone, and I genuinely hope people will treat it as such.
|
Darwin's Market
|
Posted - 2009.02.19 13:57:00 -
[50]
Not a single person from the affected alliance has supported this thread, so even they think it was alright. You really don't have to worry about your no-name alliance being the victim of this even if you post your account information here.
|
|
Sovereign533
The Collective Against ALL Authorities
|
Posted - 2009.02.19 14:16:00 -
[51]
the fact it is even possible is horrible =\ imagine it happenes to your own alliance =s
*Your signature file has been removed for the inclusion of inappropriate language. -- Fallout 3 |
GATORAN
Child Head Injury and Laceration Doctors
|
Posted - 2009.02.19 19:10:00 -
[52]
Originally by: Darwin's Market Not a single person from the affected alliance has supported this thread, so even they think it was alright. You really don't have to worry about your no-name alliance being the victim of this even if you post your account information here.
Obviously you didn't read my post. This has nothing to do with KenZoku, nor Goonswarm - This has to do with the game mechanic that makes it possible in the first place to disband an alliance at the click of a button. This has nothing to do with how famous your alliance is, or how special you think your own personal alliance is. I know you're an alt character from one of these alliances, or at least support one of them, and thats fine, but honestly I have little to no use of what your alliance thinks or feels about this. This is about the actual mechanic, simple as that.
|
Darwin's Market
|
Posted - 2009.02.20 03:34:00 -
[53]
Originally by: GATORAN
Originally by: Darwin's Market Not a single person from the affected alliance has supported this thread, so even they think it was alright. You really don't have to worry about your no-name alliance being the victim of this even if you post your account information here.
Obviously you didn't read my post. This has nothing to do with KenZoku, nor Goonswarm - This has to do with the game mechanic that makes it possible in the first place to disband an alliance at the click of a button. This has nothing to do with how famous your alliance is, or how special you think your own personal alliance is. I know you're an alt character from one of these alliances, or at least support one of them, and thats fine, but honestly I have little to no use of what your alliance thinks or feels about this. This is about the actual mechanic, simple as that.
Obviously you didn't read my post, there is no problem with this mechanic.
|
Nnamuachs
Caldari Kiith Paktu Veneratio Venator Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.02.20 15:08:00 -
[54]
Originally by: Darwin's Market
Originally by: GATORAN
Originally by: Darwin's Market Not a single person from the affected alliance has supported this thread, so even they think it was alright. You really don't have to worry about your no-name alliance being the victim of this even if you post your account information here.
Obviously you didn't read my post. This has nothing to do with KenZoku, nor Goonswarm - This has to do with the game mechanic that makes it possible in the first place to disband an alliance at the click of a button. This has nothing to do with how famous your alliance is, or how special you think your own personal alliance is. I know you're an alt character from one of these alliances, or at least support one of them, and thats fine, but honestly I have little to no use of what your alliance thinks or feels about this. This is about the actual mechanic, simple as that.
Obviously you didn't read my post, there is no problem with this mechanic.
I'd have to agree here, maybe not with the justification even though it is a bit valid... largest alliance in the game gets this used on em and doesnt complain about it, i dont think anyone else has a right to do so either.
But yeah, executor corp works exactly like CEO of a standard corporation, ultimate authority, no wait period to remove members (unless they have roles).
|
GATORAN
Child Head Injury and Laceration Doctors
|
Posted - 2009.02.20 22:00:00 -
[55]
Originally by: Nnamuachs
Originally by: Darwin's Market
Originally by: GATORAN
Originally by: Darwin's Market Not a single person from the affected alliance has supported this thread, so even they think it was alright. You really don't have to worry about your no-name alliance being the victim of this even if you post your account information here.
Obviously you didn't read my post. This has nothing to do with KenZoku, nor Goonswarm - This has to do with the game mechanic that makes it possible in the first place to disband an alliance at the click of a button. This has nothing to do with how famous your alliance is, or how special you think your own personal alliance is. I know you're an alt character from one of these alliances, or at least support one of them, and thats fine, but honestly I have little to no use of what your alliance thinks or feels about this. This is about the actual mechanic, simple as that.
Obviously you didn't read my post, there is no problem with this mechanic.
I'd have to agree here, maybe not with the justification even though it is a bit valid... largest alliance in the game gets this used on em and doesnt complain about it, i dont think anyone else has a right to do so either.
But yeah, executor corp works exactly like CEO of a standard corporation, ultimate authority, no wait period to remove members (unless they have roles).
What??? First of all it was a director that did it, not a CEO. Secondly, I dont give a pair of flying dingo's kidneys that some random big alliance didn't complain about it. It has absolutely no bearing on what I think. What I think is that it's a broken mechanic that I'd like to see changed
Third of all, you may not think the mechanic is broken, but I do..
|
FDIC Agent
|
Posted - 2009.03.04 10:09:00 -
[56]
Yeah, this is a broken mechanic. I mean aside from Hargaflemstickwhatever (forgot his name already) disbanding bob in couple mouse clicks. There should something done. Even if a CEO wants to step down he has to name a new CEO. I am not sure what should happen but a director should not be able to some crazy stuff like that.
I wonder how many alliances did some house cleaning on who are directors of their holding corps after this...
|
Trygonus
|
Posted - 2009.03.05 09:15:00 -
[57]
|
Tzar'rim
|
Posted - 2009.03.05 10:37:00 -
[58]
Lots of thing in EVE have a stasis period and some are more needed/logical than others but THIS should certainly have such a cooldown period. It's just not logical to not have it in place.
Self-proclaimed idiot
|
Orb Vex
R.U.R.
|
Posted - 2009.03.05 13:01:00 -
[59]
Edited by: Orb Vex on 05/03/2009 13:05:26 I dont support this because of BoB but because of unbalanced mechanics.
|
Reynolds
Third Return Inc. Blue Sun Trust
|
Posted - 2009.03.05 16:04:00 -
[60]
Edited by: Reynolds on 05/03/2009 16:04:19 Broken Mechanic needs fixing, should have at least a 24 hour timer and automatic post in alliance mail
Edit helps if I tick the support box
|
|
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] |