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.

xVx dreadnaught Caldari Xcellence Vs Xtreme	Posted - 2009.02.07 11:53:00 - [31] In alliances, especially big ones Holding corps are usually an alt corp inwhich all the Ceo's of the alliance have a Directors lvl char (so that they have equal rights as each other... to be fair) So Imagine if one of the say 10 Corps in the alliance have a fall out but dont want to leave... they could just boot everyone else out and there is nothing anyone can do to stop them (except boot them out first) Also I recon its about time they expanded to the next stage of group progression... Factions! would cost 25Bill to Create a faction. Factions are made up of multiple alliance. The Big Bonus to Factions would be Factions can deploy System defences (senty turrets) at gates and stations/outposts. They would use fuel and ammo and require Sov 4, max number of 4 per gate/station (depending on what size turrets you want) can be set to auto hit based on faction standings. Immune to all forms of ECM. Cannot be anchored at moons Fuel would be very little amount, I.E. The biggest sentry would only use 1/4th of what a small pos uses. *Something Elite Written here*
Reynolds Third Return Inc. Blue Sun Trust	Posted - 2009.02.07 13:45:00 - [32] Quick fix would be a 24 hour timer, and messages sent to all alliance CEOs and possibly directors saying who carried the action out, so they can reverse it and stop it from happening again.
StarStryder Zero-Hour	Posted - 2009.02.07 14:35:00 - [33] How about: 1) Leave Director's abilities to expel corps 2) Except the executor corp. This requires a vote. Can anyone see any issues or possible exploits with that?
xVx dreadnaught Caldari Xcellence Vs Xtreme	Posted - 2009.02.07 15:02:00 - [34] Originally by: StarStryder How about: 1) Leave Director's abilities to expel corps 2) Except the executor corp. This requires a vote. Can anyone see any issues or possible exploits with that? If the CEO has a 24H window to overturn the Directors Expel then yeah. That way if 2 corps fall out one doesnt kick te other. (unless ofc they are the CEO in which he can do whatever the hell he wants!) *Something Elite Written here*
Schnick Schnack	Posted - 2009.02.07 22:31:00 - [35] Originally by: Reynolds Quick fix would be a 24 hour timer, and messages sent to all alliance CEOs and possibly directors saying who carried the action out, so they can reverse it and stop it from happening again. Exactly - every character being turned to the biomass has a timer. Turning an alliance into nothingness should as well... "Merely" kicking out corps should have a shorter one of course, or the option to skip the timer by a second director countersigning the decision.
Rutger Centemus Joint Empire Squad	Posted - 2009.02.07 22:42:00 - [36] Originally by: Omber Zombie CCP has asked CSM to discuss this topic, so any and all input is appreciated before the meeting on Sunday. Priceless. Please make sure to provide a transcript of CSM-delegate Darius Johnsons take on this.
Rutger Centemus Joint Empire Squad	Posted - 2009.02.07 22:43:00 - [37] It seems like a very strange situation, though one that allegedly has happened before (be it at a much smaller scale). When compared to what has happened, it does appear silly that removing roles and subsequently kicking people from / leaving a corp, as well as a lot of other things have a cooldown period of 24 hours. Having to vote on every second decision where one single director could do this seems equally silly. I honestly am unsure what would be the best course of action - it boils down to what mechanics CCP thinks should and shouldn't be possible.
Kytanos Termek Caldari Darkstorm Command Ethereal Dawn	Posted - 2009.02.07 22:57:00 - [38] Edited by: Kytanos Termek on 07/02/2009 22:58:32 The issue is that the method of Band of Brothers disbanding was completely and entirely preventable. But also completely and entirely unstoppable. There are ways you can stop spies, There are ways you can stop disgruntled people. But what we had is a director who "disappeared" for awhile. So they just assume he's gone or something. Then simply logs back on his old char and disbands the alliance. Boom pearl harbor x10. Something like this should not be possible at an instant atleast. They had no defence nor way to stop it. In this reasoning it takes only 1 person with directorship to disband any alliance. While eve is based on risk, reward, and consequences these consequences have to be controlled as to not be out of proportion. While I agree he had CEO like powers, Dictator like powers. No 1 man should be able to undo the work of 3000 on a whim. What if this happens after a drama fallout or 1 directer just gets ** drunk, Has an argument on vent. And disbands the alliance in anger. Woke up the next day sober. And too bad. He screwed an entire alliance royally. 1 Man should not have this kind of game mechanic power unless he is the prime executer of the alliance. The primary issue I think is also the whole warning thing. There should be a 24 hour warning or wait before an alliance disband. It seems to be the way eve works. It is already an exsisting solution to many things. While it is cool and all to have realistic consequences for actions or lack of internal security. This was neither, This was a disgrunted employee who just Nuked band of brothers. This is neither a fun nor cool way for an alliance to end. No effort was expended to get him to do so. It was just a press of a button, No big infiltration schemes, Nothing. Gone poof! I would say change it. It just seems unfair and blown out of preportion, Sure 1 man can ** someone royally in real life if he is in the right position. But as far to cause the immidiate disolution of an organization? I dont think so. Imagin the president of the united states turning rogue. He would do alot of damage, But he couldnt disband the USA. He couldnt nuke the world. There are things inplace to prevent that. Queen of england? prime ministers of country's? Leaders and dictators? Highest men in their government? They can sure cause alot of damage if suddenly set against Their parent countries. But they cannot disband and utterly destroy it very easily. or instantly. Lets look at CEO'S. They can do alot of damage to. Maby even drive a company into the ground. But even at the highest position possible. Their is a limit to what they can do effortlessly and instantly. In eve it appears their is no such limit. It can be done without effort, or any invested time. And that is the problem. Mrr?
Syndicus	Posted - 2009.02.08 02:20:00 - [39] Edited by: Syndicus on 08/02/2009 02:20:03 BoB and everyone else this week, have learned a powerful lesson about world government.
Drake Draconis Minmatar Shadow Cadre Worlds End Consortium	Posted - 2009.02.08 08:23:00 - [40] Edited by: Drake Draconis on 08/02/2009 08:24:12 Originally by: Kytanos Termek Edited by: Kytanos Termek on 07/02/2009 22:58:32 The issue is that the method of Band of Brothers disbanding was completely and entirely preventable. But also completely and entirely unstoppable. There are ways you can stop spies, There are ways you can stop disgruntled people. But what we had is a director who "disappeared" for awhile. So they just assume he's gone or something. Then simply logs back on his old char and disbands the alliance. Boom pearl harbor x10. Something like this should not be possible at an instant atleast. They had no defence nor way to stop it. In this reasoning it takes only 1 person with directorship to disband any alliance. While eve is based on risk, reward, and consequences these consequences have to be controlled as to not be out of proportion. While I agree he had CEO like powers, Dictator like powers. No 1 man should be able to undo the work of 3000 on a whim. What if this happens after a drama fallout or 1 directer just gets ** drunk, Has an argument on vent. And disbands the alliance in anger. Woke up the next day sober. And too bad. He screwed an entire alliance royally. 1 Man should not have this kind of game mechanic power unless he is the prime executer of the alliance. The primary issue I think is also the whole warning thing. There should be a 24 hour warning or wait before an alliance disband. It seems to be the way eve works. It is already an exsisting solution to many things. While it is cool and all to have realistic consequences for actions or lack of internal security. This was neither, This was a disgrunted employee who just Nuked band of brothers. This is neither a fun nor cool way for an alliance to end. No effort was expended to get him to do so. It was just a press of a button, No big infiltration schemes, Nothing. Gone poof! I would say change it. It just seems unfair and blown out of preportion, Sure 1 man can ** someone royally in real life if he is in the right position. But as far to cause the immidiate disolution of an organization? I dont think so. Imagin the president of the united states turning rogue. He would do alot of damage, But he couldnt disband the USA. He couldnt nuke the world. There are things inplace to prevent that. Queen of england? prime ministers of country's? Leaders and dictators? Highest men in their government? They can sure cause alot of damage if suddenly set against Their parent countries. But they cannot disband and utterly destroy it very easily. or instantly. Lets look at CEO'S. They can do alot of damage to. Maby even drive a company into the ground. But even at the highest position possible. Their is a limit to what they can do effortlessly and instantly. In eve it appears their is no such limit. It can be done without effort, or any invested time. And that is the problem. TLDR Version = Don't pick an moron to be a director... and if he goes missing... yank his powers and put someone else in charge. Duh? Security 101.... you leave the bloody door open... what the frakking hell do you expect.... the inquisition? I'm sure 24 hours of delayed inability to do anything would be quite easily forgiven as opposed to leaving the alliance wide open to sabotage. Yes the system is unforgiving and probially not fair. But so is over half the bloody game... get used to it.. I had too with my corp.... this is just a much larger version of losing control of your own team.... metaphorically speaking of course. =============== CEO of Clan Shadow Cadre www.shadowcadre.com ===============

Furb Killer	Posted - 2009.02.08 08:58:00 - [41] This time it might have been preventable, but in general it isnt. It is not rocket science to make a new alt and infiltrate a random corp/alliance. In time you can become a director and you can screw them over. Without any risk to your main, because you used an alt anyway. 24 hours is required to kick a single char from a corp in the alliane, but you can disband the entire alliance in 24 seconds? Just put in a 24 hour timer in place, or voting for such things. --------------------------------------------- Originally by: Neth'Rae Military experts are calling this a troll.
Scatim Helicon GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.02.08 19:35:00 - [42] Now that its been been done against BoB to our advantage, I support changing things so nobody else can do it to us to our disadvantage! Great idea OP! -----------
Eudare Meswime	Posted - 2009.02.09 02:19:00 - [43] It surprised me greatly that a director in the holding corp could disband the alliance. It just never occurred to me. What happened, happened within the game mechanics, and is over and done with. That said, I feel there should be an apparatus similar to unlocking a bpo in corps, a 24 hour wait on confirmation if you will. Even with that, there would be a possibility of someone erasing an alliance, but the possibility would be there. But, the probability would drop greatly.
nuance rasam	Posted - 2009.02.09 03:19:00 - [44] Edited by: nuance rasam on 09/02/2009 03:19:20 From the Mitanni MP3... Theres no Bob towers, which means theres no sovereignty for Bob (So complete regions are wiped out in an instant) "They just lost every jumpbridge that they have" "They just lost every Sov for a capital" "They wont be able to have a jumpbridge for the next month" "They wont be able to have a Sov 4 for 3 months" "They wont have any cyno jammers" All at a click of a button? I think everyone is fine with eve being a harsh world, or go find another game tbh. The above seems out of line with this though. It takes months / years to build something up. It takes months to go to war to take that away from an alliance with logstics, planning, resources etc. all required. But all of this can be bypassed by one person by one (or two) clicks with no time period and no one can intervene. Votes (as with most things) should be needed.
Kalia Masaer Rosa Castellum	Posted - 2009.02.09 06:34:00 - [45] Actually it is 2 x # of corps in the alliance but that still pretty easy, plus a few more for looting the alliance wallets and the holding corp wallets and hangars. Though this probably still didn't take more than 30 minutes a mere pitance in time for the devastation it caused.


Pages: 1 2 :: [one 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.