EVE Search - Alliance Fix... The BOB senario

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Assembly Hall

Alliance Fix... The BOB senario

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Mytshoumi Celtic Anarchy Force Of Evil	Posted - 2009.02.06 04:11:00 - [1] I hope CCP will take note of what happened to BOB and implement some fix to stop a disgruntled director form killing an alliance as easily as it was done. What solution could be implemented to made what happened to BOB more difficult to do? Your ideas below...
Kahega Amielden Minmatar Suddenly Ninjas	Posted - 2009.02.06 04:55:00 - [2] I don't see anyone ***ing when, say, a hisec empire corp gets cleaned out because the CEO gave too much power to one who couldn't be trusted. Why should 0.0 alliances be exempt from this? Originally by:** Catharacta My CNR runs on salvager tears.
Bunyip	Posted - 2009.02.06 05:37:00 - [3] What happened to BoB has left a power vacuum, but that's the way Eve is. I lost over a billion ISK from a high-sec gank a week ago, but that's also what happens. Eve is rough, and that's one of the appeals, as that's how new products get sold.
Imperator Jora'h	Posted - 2009.02.06 06:11:00 - [4] Originally by: Kahega Amielden I don't see anyone ***ing when, say, a hisec empire corp gets cleaned out because the CEO gave too much power to one who couldn't be trusted. Why should 0.0 alliances be exempt from this? Originally by:** Bunyip What happened to BoB has left a power vacuum, but that's the way Eve is. I lost over a billion ISK from a high-sec gank a week ago, but that's also what happens. Eve is rough, and that's one of the appeals, as that's how new products get sold. Corp theft is one thing. This is a whole other. It is like comparing someone stealing your TV to Russia taking over the US in one night because the President got ***ed and pulled the plug. World of difference. Ganks are fine (as a concept). Espionage is fine. Theft is fine. A single person...one...having such power is game unbalancing. Anyone, in any alliance, is at risk of this. Perhaps it never occurred to anyone before but it has now. Anyone in an alliance has to now wonder if all they have done might go poof* because one guy/gal gets a bug up their butt about something or other. BoB got caught under current mechanics seemingly fair-and-square. Fine. But I'll bet dollars to dimes CCP plugs this particular mechanic in the near future. BTW...already another and longer thread on this here: http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=990910 -------------------------------------------------- "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!"
Venkul Mul Gallente	Posted - 2009.02.06 07:55:00 - [5] While I dislike what was done, it is hard seeing how it can be fixed. 1) director ejecting corporations from the alliance. It is a needed mechanic, but it can be abused like in this situation. It can't be limited by a "alliance wide corporation vote" or some similar mechanic. 2) director closing the alliance. Ok, this is a bug, it should be limited to the CEO of the executor corp. But it would have changed almost nothing, all the other corps would have been outside the alliance with all the negative effects.
Lareon Denery Los Chupacabras	Posted - 2009.02.06 09:42:00 - [6] Originally by: Venkul Mul 1) director ejecting corporations from the alliance. It is a needed mechanic, but it can be abused like in this situation. It can't be limited by a "alliance wide corporation vote" or some similar mechanic. Maybe it needs a "secure mode": the approvation of... half the director of executor corp, for example (or just 2-3... something to prevent the fool action of a single). Anyway, i agree with op
Scagga Laebetrovo Ammatar Free Corps	Posted - 2009.02.06 11:06:00 - [7] Originally by: Bunyip What happened to BoB has left a power vacuum, but that's the way Eve is. I lost over a billion ISK from a high-sec gank a week ago, but that's also what happens. Eve is rough, and that's one of the appeals, as that's how new products get sold. I'm with bunyip on this one, a fine comparison he has made.
Abulurd Boniface Gallente Mercantile Exchange for Mining And Exploration	Posted - 2009.02.06 12:17:00 - [8] The events in Delve indicate a material weakness not only in the corporate user interface but more importantly in the way corporations and alliances work. The dissolution of an alliance should either happen as the result of a voting process or by individual corporations opting to remove themselves from the alliance. The decision to dissolve an alliance should be made on the CEO level and not on the director level [in the case of the normal eb and flow of the existence of an alliance, director input is of course of vital importance, this is not an argument against directors]. This attack on Band of Brothers was masterfully executed by the Goonswarm who made expert use of the game mechanics. It should stand, by all means, however it should never have been this easy. Joining an alliance is a conscious collective decision. It should not be possible to undo it by the acts of an individual agent. This is not an argument against corporate theft or high-level [alliance] intrigue. These are what make New Eden such a rich and daunting place to reside in. It is the thought process behind corporate/alliance mechanics that needs an overhaul, along with the user interface. Abulurd Boniface ME ME CEO
Omber Zombie	Posted - 2009.02.06 12:25:00 - [9] CCP has asked CSM to discuss this topic, so any and all input is appreciated before the meeting on Sunday.
Venkul Mul	Posted - 2009.02.06 12:32:00 - [10] Edited by: Venkul Mul on 06/02/2009 12:39:11 Edited by: Venkul Mul on 06/02/2009 12:33:54 Originally by: Lareon Denery Originally by: Venkul Mul 1) director ejecting corporations from the alliance. It is a needed mechanic, but it can be abused like in this situation. It can't be limited by a "alliance wide corporation vote" or some similar mechanic. Maybe it needs a "secure mode": the approvation of... half the director of executor corp, for example (or just 2-3... something to prevent the fool action of a single). Anyway, i agree with op I suppose that the best compromise between speed and security is to request the approval of the CEO alone or 2 directors to expel an alliance member. For disbanding an alliance the approval of the majority of the executor corporation shareholders should be required. It would require some better system for the management of the corporation shares (forced buy back from leaving members? that can be a big problem) but I see little need for a rapid closure of a alliance, so speed don't seem the most important factor. Edit: support to the discussion. Further edit: If the ejection of a corporation from the alliance require the approval of 2 director, it should have a time limit and a cancel option from the CEO to avoid situations where a disgruntled director can start the procedure against several corporations and the leave it pending forever. Note that the CEO would not need a second director to approve his action for a simple reason: he can always nominate a new director, so this limitation would not have effects on him.

achoura	Posted - 2009.02.06 13:17:00 - [11] I really don't understand why people are so aghast at a single person changing the patch of an alliance. All it takes to destroy a nation in rl is a single person. The second world war was started by a single person and a single politician drove Germany down a dark and bloody route. Eve is a cruel and unforgiving place. It is not ment to be any easier and rl, if it was there would be no suicide ganking, corporate thefts would not happen and scamming would be banned. I do however fully support an overhaul of the corporate ui which is quite frankly horrible. Total pain to preform almost the simplest of tasks and very easy to miss the details (i love the way the roll fields stretch wider that most of ccps user screens ), there's also the question of how much power is actually needed for individual tasks. A director, no questions asked, should be a powerful position. The problem is rolls are currently bundled together under one umbrella mostly and given how poor the ui is, it's often easier to simply press the director button rather than attempt negotiating those windows. Pos fuel technician was introduced to help alleviate some of the strain of pos fuelling which previously fell only to directors, the same with pos gunners but still some of the simplest things, e.g. the ability to create/edit titles, require directors rolls. I think the real question though, is improving the corporate ui part of the planned ui improvements/re-write ccp have mentioned several times in past dev blogs/posts and more over, will there be a review of the rolls alogne side it? Can we please, please, have a simple visual indicator of which member has what rolls/powers rather than the horrid horizontal check-box listing that stretches beyone so many users screens.
Drake Draconis Minmatar Shadow Cadre Worlds End Consortium	Posted - 2009.02.06 15:54:00 - [12] AS I said before.... you reap what you sow. No one said anything was fair in this game... Adapt or GTFO. Although i agree... overhaul of the Corp UI is needed... but a fix to the mechanics... no.
Imperator Jora'h	Posted - 2009.02.06 16:02:00 - [13] Originally by: achoura I really don't understand why people are so aghast at a single person changing the patch of an alliance. All it takes to destroy a nation in rl is a single person. The second world war was started by a single person and a single politician drove Germany down a dark and bloody route. WWI was started by one person sort of. If you want to extend your analogy Goons are one country and BoB another. Their leaders steered them down a dark and bloody route and they took to beating the snot out of each other. Great! All well and good in EVE. If RL was like EVE in this case then basically Winston Churchill would have decided he was ticked about something or other and handed all the British ships and planes over to the Germans, turned off all their radar and listening posts, **** down their large ship industry and dissolved Parliament and the country. And all that in about 20 minutes of work. It does not make sense. In RL or the game (and yeah I know comparing to two is dodgy procedure around here but works for illustration purposes).
Odetta Harpy	Posted - 2009.02.06 16:03:00 - [14] screw it, DEATH TO BOB :)
TraderJoseph	Posted - 2009.02.06 16:12:00 - [15] BOB is not special, BOB is not special, BOB is not special. This has happened before to other alliances
Imperator Jora'h	Posted - 2009.02.06 16:17:00 - [16] Originally by: TraderJoseph BOB is not special, BOB is not special, BOB is not special. This has happened before to other alliances Yeah...and it should have been fixed then. That does not mean it shouldn't be fixed now.
Thann Starlinbow Minmatar Slacker Industries The Boat Violencing Initiative	Posted - 2009.02.06 16:25:00 - [17] Originally by: Imperator Jora'h Originally by: TraderJoseph BOB is not special, BOB is not special, BOB is not special. This has happened before to other alliances Yeah...and it should have been fixed then. That does not mean it shouldn't be fixed now. There's nothing wrong with the mechanics. Don't give ultimate authority to someone you can't trust.
Imperator Jora'h	Posted - 2009.02.06 16:29:00 - [18] Originally by: Thann Starlinbow There's nothing wrong with the mechanics. Don't give ultimate authority to someone you can't trust. Everyone has their price and history books are replete with instances of people who were thought to be trustworthy going turncoat. If you have a magic Trust-o-Meter we can use share it. Otherwise this is still a bad mechanic.
Thann Starlinbow Minmatar Slacker Industries The Boat Violencing Initiative	Posted - 2009.02.06 17:01:00 - [19] Originally by: Imperator Jora'h Originally by: Thann Starlinbow There's nothing wrong with the mechanics. Don't give ultimate authority to someone you can't trust. Everyone has their price and history books are replete with instances of people who were thought to be trustworthy going turncoat. If you have a magic Trust-o-Meter we can use share it. Otherwise this is still a bad mechanic. So what you're saying is because someone can be bought out and do a lot of damage, CCP should change the game mechanics to limit the damage? Hell no. These are the kind of things that make EVE interesting and unique. This event even gave CCP free advertisement in the form of an article on Slashdot.
Dav Varan	Posted - 2009.02.06 17:18:00 - [20] Edited by: Dav Varan on 06/02/2009 17:24:50 Alliance interface needs tightening up to prevent this happening to others. Alliance security is more vital since the introduction of Sovereignty but has not being upgraded. I propose that Alliance structure is altered from having 1 exec corp to having multiple exec corp. Exec corp have 1 vote each on issues affecting the alliance. Issues which require majority vote include. .Addition of member corp. .Removal of member corp. .Promotion of member corp to Exec status. .Demotion of member corp to associate ( standard ) status. .Dissolution of Alliance. Each director of each exec corp gets a vote which in turn decides the vote cast by the exec corp as a whole. I think this is a way of implementing an alliance system that does not place excessive power in 1 players hands. What has happened to BOB will happen to others. Esp. now that this "Mechanic" is so widely known. When it has happened 10 Times are people gonna bother with the ingame alliances mechanics anymore. Or are IG alliances just gonna be limited to secure alt alliances for supercap production etc? With the real alliance being maintained through mutual standing and OOG means as before the introduction of the alliance mechanics in the first place. Kind of means all the work done on the IG alliance system was in vain and alliance systems just becomes a burden that needs to be negotiated via Meta-gaming. Whatever happens something needs to change. A director should only have enough power to betray those who have placed trust in him ( his corp mates ). Corporations of an alliance place there trust in an exec corp not in an individual member of the exec corp. Therefore at a minimum it should require the betrayal of a majority of the members of an exec corp to bring down an alliance, not 1 player.

Imperator Jora'h	Posted - 2009.02.06 17:28:00 - [21] Originally by: Thann Starlinbow So what you're saying is because someone can be bought out and do a lot of damage, CCP should change the game mechanics to limit the damage? Hell no. These are the kind of things that make EVE interesting and unique. This event even gave CCP free advertisement in the form of an article on Slashdot. It is not "a lot" of damage. It is complete damage. Scorched earth. They went from a multi-corp, 3,000 player Alliance to no-alliance in a matter of minutes. There is no check. There is no balance. There is no undoing it. EVE has always been about letting players at least have some option or means to protect themselves. They may get outplayed, they may get tricked and that is fine. But this...there is no way to stop it. Any person with similar roles in an Alliance anywhere in EVE can dissolve their alliances right now. They can do it so fast even if the CEO is online it is doubtful that person could be stopped before it was done. Again, not a good gameplay mechanic.
Thann Starlinbow Minmatar Slacker Industries The Boat Violencing Initiative	Posted - 2009.02.06 17:41:00 - [22] Originally by: Imperator Jora'h Originally by: Thann Starlinbow So what you're saying is because someone can be bought out and do a lot of damage, CCP should change the game mechanics to limit the damage? Hell no. These are the kind of things that make EVE interesting and unique. This event even gave CCP free advertisement in the form of an article on Slashdot. It is not "a lot" of damage. It is complete damage. Scorched earth. They went from a multi-corp, 3,000 player Alliance to no-alliance in a matter of minutes. There is no check. There is no balance. There is no undoing it. EVE has always been about letting players at least have some option or means to protect themselves. They may get outplayed, they may get tricked and that is fine. But this...there is no way to stop it. Any person with similar roles in an Alliance anywhere in EVE can dissolve their alliances right now. They can do it so fast even if the CEO is online it is doubtful that person could be stopped before it was done. Again, not a good gameplay mechanic. You really need to rethink your position if you think losing a name is 'scorched earth'. What did BOB really lose in this whole thing? Sov., some dreads and a little isk and a name. The real damage in this entire affair has been pride, plain and simple. With the sov. damage a close second. No ones account got deleted, their POS are still in place. This is not the big deal you are trying to make it out to be. Yes, it stings, but it's hardly the end of the world. Even the BOB members are saying as much. Stop rabble-rousing
Imperator Jora'h	Posted - 2009.02.06 18:00:00 - [23] Originally by: Thann Starlinbow You really need to rethink your position if you think losing a name is 'scorched earth'. What did BOB really lose in this whole thing? Sov., some dreads and a little isk and a name. The real damage in this entire affair has been pride, plain and simple. With the sov. damage a close second. No ones account got deleted, their POS are still in place. This is not the big deal you are trying to make it out to be. Yes, it stings, but it's hardly the end of the world. Even the BOB members are saying as much. Stop rabble-rousing You're missing the point. We are talking about a game mechanic. Can you name any MMO where a single person can wield this much power? Unchecked power at that? Where one person can wtfpwn a 3000 person alliance with the press of a button? On what planet does that make any sense at all?
Abulurd Boniface Gallente Mercantile Exchange for Mining And Exploration	Posted - 2009.02.06 19:31:00 - [24] Edited by: Abulurd Boniface on 06/02/2009 19:31:33 Originally by: Imperator Jora'h You're missing the point. We are talking about a game mechanic. Can you name any MMO where a single person can wield this much power? Unchecked power at that? Where one person can wtfpwn a 3000 person alliance with the press of a button? On what planet does that make any sense at all? Seconded. Moreover, it is even inconsistent with other game mechanics. It takes 24 hours to declare or stop a war, it takes 24 hours after someone has dropped all roles from a corp to expel them from a corporation, it takes 24 hours of being without ties to another corporation before they can be allowed into another. It even takes 24 hours before a corporation's addition to an alliance comes into effect. Apparently, an alliance can be disbanded by a single director, without approval or cooperation from any other executive in the alliance. An action that has such dramatic consequences on the ongoing operations of thousands of individuals is mere administration by a single agent. This mechanic is flawed. The design of the interface is so poorly conceived that it cannot assign limits to responsibilities for executive officers which, in the New Eden universe, is nothing short of amazing naivety. At the same time someone with the role of personnel manager, whose job it ostensibly is, cannot even remove a person from the corporation. At the very least the other executive officers and the CEO and, in this case, the alliance chain of command, should be notified of this kind of activity and have an option to reverse it. Why the interface was not designed with these checks and balances built-in is ours to ponder, but it bespeaks a limited understanding of how the functionality should be implemented to serve the needs of an alliance that is building a lasting presence in a persistent universe. Abulurd Boniface ME ME CEO For good to survive it suffices for evil to acquire a deadly, incapacitating disease.
Abuta Beki	Posted - 2009.02.07 00:47:00 - [25] Things like this should not be possible. It doesn't have anything to do with EVE being harsh or not. That is a hollow statement, because it does not create harshness. It is simply ****ed. It could be compared not to a highsec gank, or a senior officer who steals money from a corp. It could be compared to Senator Joe **man disbanding the United States simply by sending unfriendly letters to all the states and telling them to frell off, then disbanding the Union and everyone would have to go along with it because he does it on a sunday evening, when everyone is at home with their families. It should not be possible to disband an alliance with the same simplicity as you scrap a frigate. Even switching a character from one corp to another is more complicated than that.
Saralle Zhukov Win Tech	Posted - 2009.02.07 01:38:00 - [26] I had to think about this for awhile and take bob out of my thinking, I just don't see the joy in here anywhere, even for the button pusher who ends an alliance. I read the **** analogy above and it just doesn't pass the muster test, ** never acted alone, he had a giant organization following him and it only went down with most of the world arrayed against him. I mean is there anyone here who seriously thinks Goering could have disbanded ** Germany (Deuschtland)? This is just complete sophistry. I absolutely endorse a reworking of the Alliance mechanic.
Isaac Starstriker Amarr Solaris Operations	Posted - 2009.02.07 02:10:00 - [27] Ok, your complaint is that a guy with CEO-LIKE POWERS, used them to his advantage as though he was A CEO. Hmm.....I'm sorry, but I sense a pattern. CEO, CEO-like powers....considering that the executor DOESN'T HAVE TO give out director powers and that he himself can disband the alliance with 1 push of the button says that: "It works as intended". Unless game mechanics are changed for the CEO, I do not support any change to directors. You don't need them. Do not like how much power they have? Do not promote them. Easy as that. Our corp has like what 2 directors? We're still managing just fine too. Whether its changed is up to CCP. As I see it, this feature works fine as intended. If I heard the Bob representative on Eve-radio correctly, "This person was NOT supposed to be a director in the first place". Basically, it was a mistake and BoB paid for it. --Isaac Isaac's Haul*Mart
Kalia Masaer Rosa Castellum	Posted - 2009.02.07 02:27:00 - [28] I believe espionage and theft are good for eve, there is nothing wrong with theft or offlining a POS's and cynojammers or numerous other espionage activities. The problem though is the ability to utterly disolve an alliance within the course of an afternoon by kicking all member corps is a detriment to the game. I can see crippling an alliance but not disolving it. Perhaps a limit on the number of corps that may be removed per day or a delay like there is when removing a member from a corp would stop this, or requiring the confirmation of a second director to complete the action. For corp a form of limited director with only access and the ability to grant access to certain roles and divisions could be very useful to reduce the risk of it being completely cleaned out in the course of an afternoon by a single individual. It would also be useful for the directors to be able to propose a vote to expel another director rather than just the CEO as there are times a CEO may be gone for a few days and must be removed from that role.
xVx dreadnaught	Posted - 2009.02.07 11:05:00 - [29] It isnt a matter of stpping corp thieft, or spys from doing damage... This is that they must have forgot to add something to the cancel alliance option... Everything else in alliances needs votes or has timers, hell even leaving an alliance has a 24hr timer. But the fact that 1 Director has the power to close an alliance??? kinda sounds strange, It should be the Ceo of the holding corp and even then there should be a 24Hr timer and if there is more than 50% object from the corps/share holders, then it cancels. I'd also think there could be an impeachment option, If a corp/alliance feels that there CEO's or directors are making bad choices or are corrupt they can vote to overthrow them.
Miner Nine Caldari Caldari Provisions	Posted - 2009.02.07 11:12:00 - [30] I got a crazy idea, how about only have people you trust be a director. If they decided to screw you over, not much can be done but strip them as fast as possible.



Pages: [1] 2 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.