open All Channels
seplocked Corporation, Alliance and Organization Discussions
blankseplocked What is the future of 'Alliances'?
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4

Author Topic

Dark Shikari
Caldari
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Posted - 2006.09.06 10:43:00 - [31]
 

Originally by: Chewan Mesa
Originally by: Dark Shikari
Edited by: Dark Shikari on 06/09/2006 10:22:38
Very simple.

1. Allow corporations to claim sovereignty.

2. Allow alliances to cash in their alliance for 1 billion ISK.

3. Remove 300-standing limit.




1 & 2 sound good, the problem with 3 is, its a pain to keep standings to several alliances up to date for your corp, as they have new members, old corps leaving, and if you want to set a new alliance with 20 corps to +...

You need to be able to set standings towards an alliance as a whole as a corp imho.

Utterly true. Then make that 4).

Tecam Hund
Minmatar
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
Posted - 2006.09.06 10:44:00 - [32]
 

Edited by: Tecam Hund on 06/09/2006 10:44:41
I think that there should be no limitations as far as forming alliances goes except maybe minimal corp count and minimal member count for the original founding corps. If in the future number of corporations and members in them falls below the limit the alliance is to be disbanded.

This way everybody will have an equal chance despite their wealth, or fame, or sp count. Maybe forming alliance isn't anything special anymore, but it is still special to be a known alliance. How many alliance names can an average person name from the top of their head?

Kuolematon
Caldari
Space Perverts and Forum Warriors United
Monocle Overlords
Posted - 2006.09.06 10:49:00 - [33]
 

Kali will bring Alliances of Alliances. Shocked

Miss Overlord
Gallente
Doomheim
Posted - 2006.09.06 10:55:00 - [34]
 

a) dead alliances need to be taken off the list
b) up the monthly charge to 50 or 100m
c) colation and empires sounds like an idea
d) minimum member limits could work or be delisted ie 200 players miniumum to create alliance (perhaps all corps and the executioner corp would need to join together beforehand)
e) 2-5B to create
f) good ideas all round

Tecam Hund
Minmatar
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
Posted - 2006.09.06 10:55:00 - [35]
 

Originally by: Kuolematon
Kali will bring Alliances of Alliances. Shocked


Really... Surprised Makes a single person feel utterly useless. Yet another evil cometh. Sad

Pepperami
Minmatar
Rionnag Alba
Northern Coalition.
Posted - 2006.09.06 12:27:00 - [36]
 

Nothing wrong with lots of alliances, but if CCP want less, it's easy - give corps proper tools - standings to alliances and ability to claim sov; then less people will feel the 'need' for an alliance. Hell, corps need the standings tools more than anything.

The only time I get dissapointed to see another alliance is when they're 20 members and not worth war dec'ing :(

Velsharoon
Gallente
Arcane Velshologies
Posted - 2006.09.06 13:51:00 - [37]
 

I think there are to many tbh, our was just for war decs till we went pirate...

Wild Rho is def on to something but it would need to be supported by CCP. What about the different types of alliances tho, ala pure pvp ones? I dont want an outpost or a POS or anything (0.0 is scary empire gate ganking is were its at)

To answer the questions

1) The amount of alliances is boring, because they are not differentiated between true alliances (LV, BOB, D2..and stuff like whips and chains, chribbas underworld thing)

2 & 3) More levels for a proper alliance are needed but their needs to be other types. hell even an industrial alliance were they get increased mining yields if they ally themselves with a certain NPC factions for using their refinery or something, true empire conglomerates (my pirate self screams for this to be low sec empire and 0.0 only ofc)

Then theres the afore mentioned PVP alliance...pirate alliances...


APOC UK
Caldari
Against All Odds
Posted - 2006.09.06 14:14:00 - [38]
 

Thing is, we were one of those original 20 alliances created. back then it felt great to be an alliance of friends. now it just doenst hold the same value because theres far too many alliances. is it true they lowerred the skill requirements to empire control level 1? its a rumour i heard but it was level 5 when we started out.

What people dont realise is that it makes it easier for the big powerful alliances such as bob and lotka voltera because the "competition" so to speak is spread out and dont want to work with each other, and they dont really need to be given advantages given what they can achieve.

I definately agree that the standings on a corp level needs to be reviewed as at the moment its ridiculous and like you all have been saying its what is forcing people to create alliances.

As for monthly membership increases i dont see a problem with that really. even the small alliances like ours can handle that, as we really do want to be an alliance, and i think thats whats important

Consider it this way. a real life alliance is like a few companys or countries, they arent allied with other alliances and factions etc, your either in there alliance neutral, or against them. On an eve scale its harder to achieve this but we need to seriously consider these points.

I Hope the devs have a read of this post and understand just what it is that needs to be done.

by the way this has been one of the most intresting reads on the forums for a while :)

NATMav
Caldari
F.R.E.E. Explorer
The Initiative.
Posted - 2006.09.06 14:25:00 - [39]
 

Edited by: NATMav on 06/09/2006 14:26:50
Guilty by reason of insanity of standings. Evil or Very Mad

Three factors contribute to this madness:
1) Alliance with 20-30+ corps
2) Inability for corps to set standings toward alliances
3) 300 slot limit on standings

For us, this meant setting ASCN red and FLA blue was taking up over 50 of our available slots and me spending an hour a day fixing standings. When Deklein went nuts and corps and alliances were changing sides daily, I spent more time on standings than fighting, so the 1 billion to create our "faux" alliance was a no-brainer. Now my workload is about 5 minutes, if that, per day.

Either CCP don't care about it or they enjoy the ISK sink.

On the other hand, the shared standings between corps, and shared communications between corps was a bonus for us.

Zimi Vlasic
Amarr
F.R.E.E. Explorer
EVE Animal Control
Posted - 2006.09.06 21:44:00 - [40]
 

Originally by: Josiah Bartlet
Maybe CCP should implement a weekly or monthly maintaince fee of say 100M a week to stop this madness. If they do that, they need to fix how standings are set however.

I do like the idea or an Empire as a super alliance. Maybe they could work that in with constelation soventry when we gt that in fy 2010.

I would totally go for this fee, and CCP fixing corp standings, ONLY IF they refund our ****ing billion isk.

Maggot
Minmatar
Mirkur Draug'Tyr
Ushra'Khan
Posted - 2006.09.06 22:16:00 - [41]
 

Allowing Hardin and others (are there any?) to offer their cheap alliance creation service devalues the whole alliance committment.

Having to do those skills for empire control etc was a bloody nightmare. Only to see that they are not really necessary at all.

If the alliance executor does not have the skills required for alliance creation then the alliance should become invalid. Nothing personal Hardin, me old slaver m8.

I want to say more but I will breach forum rules.

Yazoul Samaiel
Caldari
Sniggerdly
Pandemic Legion
Posted - 2006.09.06 23:27:00 - [42]
 

Originally by: Wild Rho

Stage 5: Empire
Conditions
- Kill all Jedi
- ***** slap Yoda
- Must control 16 Adjacent systems.
- Must have 9 outposts in the adjacent systems.
Benefits
- Alliance leader gets to dress as emperor, secondary leaders get to dress as Darth Vadar, Maul etc.
- Everyone else gets to dress as storm troopers.
- Free lightsabres and tie fighters for all.




ROFL very nice 1 wild Rho made me laugh a lot, also very good ideas they could be the very basic to creatign enteties that can challange the 4 empires them selves.

On topic i agree with seleene , every one now a days and their grandmother are creatign alliances , when ever i fly in 0.0 "Who the F*** are those guys" is the usual quote of the day from all the different alliances who no one has ever heard of which basicly means these alliances are just created not to represent an entity that is a real alliance just some corps who spent a bill to get standigns with x alliance or so .

Terrorv1z
Caldari
InterGalactic Corp.
Posted - 2006.09.06 23:54:00 - [43]
 

Edited by: Terrorv1z on 07/09/2006 00:00:10
Originally by: Wild Rho
Edited by: Wild Rho on 06/09/2006 09:16:20
I see the alliance as the first stage in building an empire.

Other titles further on up to full Empire status should be based on conditions rather than isk that have to be maintained each week in order to keep the status.

The examples below are just pulled straight out of my head as I type this so don't argue the semantics of the name please, because tbh I don't give a toss.

Stage 1: Alliance

Stage 2: Colony

Stage 3: Small Nation

Stage 4: Large Nation

Stage 5: Empire

I ran out of ideas for the last one but you get the gist of what I'm getting at.
I think that to gain additional status in eve it should be based on what you can actually achieve, not how much isk you can grind instead with full empire status being somthing that is akin to the holy grail of empire builders.

Of course achieving the status isn't enough, you would have to keep it as well with maybe a weekly or monthly re-evaluation to ensure that if an empire is getting beaten down it's reflected in it's status.


Great post - don't neccessarily agree with all the ideas (edited so as not to **** off all who read by length) - but it would really add something to the big alliances. Also different bonus/bonii (plural?) for different types of alliance could make life interesting - ie-

Merc Alliance - No need for Sov but restricted numbers (limited menership) but some sort of bonus/ability to finding peeps online (enabling true bounty hunting??) or show all "hunted" members online on map - current agent locator is c**p
Industrial Alliance - Large Sov requirements, reduction in refining/building loss %ages, high member requirements
Combat Alliance - Medium Sov/Member requirements, some sort of middle ground for building/hunting peeps, maybe some sort of bonus to warp scramblers/webbers etc.

Vague I know & I'm not trying to "WoW" Eve but I think it could, combined with Wild Rho's post make things a bit more interesting & make peeps think more about the allinaces that they create. Also the Bonii are obviously vague/rubbish (delete appropriate) but I think it could make things more challenging as corps/alliances would really have to decide what they wanted to do & not just on what someone trains to allow them access to .

Flame Away ugh

Xrak
Caldari
Pat Sharp's Potato Rodeo
Wildly Inappropriate.
Posted - 2006.09.07 00:10:00 - [44]
 

Make corps set standings to alliance as whole entities.
Allow sov. to work for corps.
Increase cost of alliance to 10bil
Add running cost equal to 5m per member per month.
Minimum of 250 unique accounts for alliance to be created and allowed to run.

Taken me about 10 mins and lots of spell checking to get this write, weekday drinking ftw.

Riddari
Gallente
VIT
Posted - 2006.09.07 01:15:00 - [45]
 

1.) What are your thoughts on the above?
Buhu.

2.) Should there be more 'levels' to the whole alliance structure? If you control X number of systems / constellations / regions, could you not pay CONCORD an additional fee to be upgraded to a Hegemony, a Cluster, a State, an Empire? With benefits to each level?
Why?

3.) What about non territorial 'alliances'? Could / should there be a seperate game mechanic for them?
Why?

You seem to have a problem with a buerocratic stamp which once was perhaps considered prestigious but presumably no longer is.

The alliance entity should be just like anything else in the game, like the ships and modules, something which allows the players to show their creativity in using it in ways others didn't think of.

Creating a hierarchy for a buerocratic form would be an act of idiocy.

TressX
Caldari
Doomheim
Posted - 2006.09.07 02:09:00 - [46]
 

Originally by: Seleene
Edited by: Seleene on 06/09/2006 06:28:51

Well, it seems like creating a new alliance is the new thing to do these days. Have we broken 250 yet? ugh

Back when I created the MC IGA, I remember it being a rather momentous occasion. Our corps debated the pros and cons for at least two to three weeks on and off. When we finally did it, we even got our own thread about it along the line of, "OMGZ!! Teh Mercs are an alliance now!!" When we finally did it, there was much rejoicing… followed by a lot of shooting. Twisted Evil

I was looking around last night and discovered that MC was one of the first twenty alliances created in EVE. In fact, in the first six months that alliance creation was even allowed, barely twenty entities took advantage of the game mechanic. Even BoB drug their heels for a long time before the sovereignty issue forced their hand. Of those initial twenty, about 25% no longer exist.

Then, I guess, people realized that CCP tied POS fuel consumption to sovereignty and the alliance list exploded. Today, there are so many alliances on the list that it boggles the mind. Each one is a potential nation-state yet, for most, it's just a tool for a common chat channel and cheaper POS's, etc...

Today, the creation of a new ‘Alliance’ barely raises an eyebrow. It’s commonplace and passé. The mystique and grandeur of being in an 'Alliance' is now lost it seems. A billion ISK is a pittance for setting one up TBH. Even if the price were raised to ten billion I wonder how much it would parse things down.

I have three questions for everyone:

1.) What are your thoughts on the above?



I most definately think 'alliance' has lost its value as a driving force for unity. Realistically, it is merely a convenience for communication and governmental entity which at best is a breeding ground for political nightmare. On occasion corporations use them for escaping war declarations and hostilities.

Quote:


2.) Should there be more 'levels' to the whole alliance structure? If you control X number of systems / constellations / regions, could you not pay CONCORD an additional fee to be upgraded to a Hegemony, a Cluster, a State, an Empire? With benefits to each level?



I totally agree with this sentiment. It would be incredibly useful to identify an alliance type. Perhaps having different types of alliances listed with specializaton and even division - Military Alliances, Industrial Alliances, and such as you have listed above. Perhaps a loose structured non-governmental alliance such as a Coalition, or a business based alliance for trading.

Quote:

3.) What about non territorial 'alliances'? Could / should there be a seperate game mechanic for them?



Most definately it would be useful if territorial alliances had more defense capability, and remain self sufficient using nothing but the resources at hand within thier own territory.



Sharmina
Gallente
ANZAC ALLIANCE
Southern Cross Alliance
Posted - 2006.09.07 03:07:00 - [47]
 

I firmly believe that it is wrong that a skilled person can create an alliance and then hand it over to an unskilled person to run, this is absolute nonsense and completely undermines the skilling process. There would probably be far fewer alliances if only skilled people could be the CEO of an executor corp, and this is logical in my eyes and really needs to be fixed.

I think that the ability to have real coalitions would be a great idea. A coalition would be a temporary joining of alliances in wartime for example, so that it can be visible ingame to see who is aligned with whom and maybe some other game mechanics to allow the coalition to work together yet still keeping them as separate alliances.

I also think another tier over alliances would be good but haven't really thought it out properly.

Miss Overlord
Gallente
Doomheim
Posted - 2006.09.07 03:46:00 - [48]
 

lets get alliacne tools in palce first (alliance wallets - divisional wallets - alliance deployable POSes) thats just for starters now for high sec gangs all alliance members should be treated as corp mates.

So many bugs so little time and kali being rammed thro us like nothing before.

Mmm agreed now alliances for alliacnes (empire etc) good idea.

Seleene
Minmatar
Body Count Inc.
Pandemic Legion
Posted - 2006.09.07 04:24:00 - [49]
 

Edited by: Seleene on 07/09/2006 04:59:47
Originally by: Riddari
1.) What are your thoughts on the above?
Buhu.

2.) Should there be more 'levels' to the whole alliance structure? If you control X number of systems / constellations / regions, could you not pay CONCORD an additional fee to be upgraded to a Hegemony, a Cluster, a State, an Empire? With benefits to each level?
Why?

3.) What about non territorial 'alliances'? Could / should there be a seperate game mechanic for them?
Why?

You seem to have a problem with a buerocratic stamp which once was perhaps considered prestigious but presumably no longer is.

The alliance entity should be just like anything else in the game, like the ships and modules, something which allows the players to show their creativity in using it in ways others didn't think of.

Creating a hierarchy for a buerocratic form would be an act of idiocy.


"Buhu"? "Idiocy"? Rolling Eyes

Nice.

It's been generally agreed upon that the current game mechanic is lacking in many ways and there is nothing wrong with discussing it or how to possibly improve gameplay. The alternative is stagnation.

The number of dead alliances on the current list and the fact that at least half the people in this thread say the only reason they started theirs was so they could adjust standings better is, frankly, sad. There should be alternatives and improvements that help players. If you don't want to create an alliance, you shouldn't have to.

Eve is about choice. You can't compare it to ships and modules because there is no choice. You have only ONE form of "Alliance". If it would be possible to allow players a bit more depth and level of identity for their organizations, why not discuss that?

Baun
Gallente
4S Corporation
Morsus Mihi
Posted - 2006.09.07 06:24:00 - [50]
 

Edited by: Baun on 07/09/2006 06:27:00
You made reference to this but I think the primary issue the price of creation.

One of the reasons that people took notice when a new alliance was created was that the price was a non-insignifcant detterant. This is not to say that 1 billion isk was a huge sum of money, but rather than it was large enough at the time that the number of alliances created was small enough that people took notice every time it happened.

Now 1 billion isk may still be large enough to make fuel cost reduction alone a bad reason to form an alliance for a small group, but the significance of the amount has now so diminished that people are far more likely to have that amount of disposable income lying around.

Increase the cost and this problem (to the extent that it can even be remedied after the fact) will go away.

In any case, there should be a separate mechanic for non-territorial alliances that allows them to gain access to a common channel and alliance standings but not to claim sovereignty.

Riddari
Gallente
VIT
Posted - 2006.09.07 09:34:00 - [51]
 

Originally by: Seleene
"Buhu"? "Idiocy"?

You asked for our opinions. Don't approve of them? Tough.

Originally by: Seleene
The number of dead alliances on the current list

This is due to the fact that an alliance can not be closed down. I guess CCP didn't foresee that scenario?

Originally by: Seleene
at least half the people in this thread say the only reason they started theirs was so they could adjust standings better

Standing limit set by CCP, if they can fix the "set standings to alliance" this would be a mute point.

Originally by: Seleene
Eve is about choice. You can't compare it to ships and modules because there is no choice. You have only ONE form of "Alliance". If it would be possible to allow players a bit more depth and level of identity for their organizations, why not discuss that?

There is one kind of ship called Omen around. How you use it depends on yourself however, do you fit it for mining, npc-ing, ganking, tanking?

Why shouldn't we have 1000 alliances if people wish to create their own? Why should we limit their numbers? What is your and others problem with a small corproation creating their own alliance. So what if they don't control a region or even a constellation. So what if they never leave empire. They obviously had a goal in mind and didn't mind to throw 1 billion (which for me is still the sum of my wallet) into it.

I find this thread pointing towards the elitism mentality that we so often see crop up.

"Damnit, now everyone and their dog is in a cruiser!"
"Damnit, now everyone and their dog is in a battleship!"
"Damnit, now everyone has a POS!"
"Damnit, now everyone has a carrier!"
"Damnit, now everyone has a dreadnought!"
"Damnit, now everyone has an alliance!"

What is your point? Would you equate the ASCN alliance with the CVA alliance or the Ushra'Khan alliance or the MC alliance? Do these alliances not differ greatly not just in numbers but also in their roles and goals? Sounds to me like this is working just fine.

I don't see the point in adding other tiers of an alliance, "megahemonic alliance blob" or otherwise.

Yes congratulations on being in one of the first 20 alliances. Is your beef that you now want to enjoy the epeenery of having one of the first 5 "super-duper" alliances?

I'm asking in earnesty because I have not seen any argument from you as to WHY a large number of alliances is undecirable for EVE and HOW they are a detriment to it. All I see is vanity. Correct me please if you have arguments as to why the above points are wrong and hurt EVE.

Turkantho
Caldari
AMT.
Ev0ke
Posted - 2006.09.07 10:20:00 - [52]
 

I was told that with Kali corps will gain the ability to set standings towards alliances.

And yes alliance creation and upkeep (2mil/corp/month) are to low nowadays. That is one of the reasons that abandoned alliances stay as a one person alliance, maybe out of sentimentally reasons, maybe because of "he we might be needing this one time".
Upkeep should be increased to at least 20mil per corp or a fixed sum 100mil maybe, this would make some of the dead alliances go away.

Seleene
Minmatar
Body Count Inc.
Pandemic Legion
Posted - 2006.09.07 11:21:00 - [53]
 

Edited by: Seleene on 07/09/2006 11:22:44
Quote:
Originally by: Riddari
Originally by: Seleene
"Buhu"? "Idiocy"?

You asked for our opinions. Don't approve of them? Tough.



I'm not trying to approve or disapprove of your opinions, but I appreciate the attention you always seem to give me. Wink

Quote:
Originally by: Seleene
The number of dead alliances on the current list

This is due to the fact that an alliance can not be closed down. I guess CCP didn't foresee that scenario?


Actually, when the system was first established, no, they didn't. I've asked.

Quote:
Originally by: Seleene
at least half the people in this thread say the only reason they started theirs was so they could adjust standings better

Standing limit set by CCP, if they can fix the "set standings to alliance" this would be a mute point.


Agreed, yet it hasn't happened yet.

Quote:
Why shouldn't we have 1000 alliances if people wish to create their own?


Fine by me.

Quote:
Why should we limit their numbers?


Nowhere have I said this.

Quote:
What is your and others problem with a small corproation creating their own alliance?


Nothing at all. What I would like to see, however, are a few options outside of the generic "alliance".

Quote:
So what if they don't control a region or even a constellation. So what if they never leave empire.


Fine by me.

Quote:
They obviously had a goal in mind and didn't mind to throw 1 billion (which for me is still the sum of my wallet) into it.


As stated by many here, their sole reason was the 'standings' issue.

Quote:
I find this thread pointing towards the elitism mentality that we so often see crop up.


Then you're misunderstanding the entire point of not just my initial post, but several posts in this thread.

Quote:
Yes congratulations on being in one of the first 20 alliances. Is your beef that you now want to enjoy the epeenery of having one of the first 5 "super-duper" alliances?


Ummm... no. I was simply using it as an example as to how, in the beginning, few people took advantage of the game mechanic and how some that did have now left behind empty shells.

Quote:
I'm asking in earnesty because I have not seen any argument from you as to WHY a large number of alliances is undecirable for EVE and HOW they are a detriment to it.


Because I really haven't said that. Smile

Quote:
All I see is vanity. Correct me please if you have arguments as to why the above points are wrong and hurt EVE.


Gladly. Read on, please.

Quote:
What is your point? Would you equate the ASCN alliance with the CVA alliance or the Ushra'Khan alliance or the MC alliance? Do these alliances not differ greatly not just in numbers but also in their roles and goals? Sounds to me like this is working just fine.


It's working "fine", but that's not to say that it could not be improved upon some nor does that mean than an intelligent debate on the issue is out of line.

In response to your questions, no, I actually don't equate any of those mentioned alliances with each other, any more than I do with the NPC 'Empires'. ASCN is a gigantic nation state covering multiple regions with ambitions that rival that of any NPC faction. MC is a small, well-funded military force with a few systems/stations. UK is a tribal group of warriors whose goals are self-apparent.

Look at the EVE 'cannon' Empires:

Amarr - Theocracy
Gallente - Democracy
Caldari - Corporate State
Minmatar - Tribal Representative Republic

They certainly are not "Alliances"; they are something more than that. At some point CCP is going to need to address the fact that the "Egger Alliances" are as well.

That's what this thread is about: additional options for everyone.

Eyeshadow
Caldari
The xDEATHx Squadron
Posted - 2006.09.07 11:43:00 - [54]
 

Originally by: Riddari
Originally by: Seleene
"Buhu"? "Idiocy"?

You asked for our opinions. Don't approve of them? Tough.

+ lots of other stuff


Heres an opinion for you: Your a ****ing prick.

Get that chip off your shoulder and sort your attitude out

burk

Gragnor
Minmatar
The Graduates
Morsus Mihi
Posted - 2006.09.07 11:44:00 - [55]
 

Let's throw a giant cat amongst the pidgeons:

Allow corporations to claim sovreignty over a single system so they can put down Capital ship arrays. Only Alliance's can claim sovreignty over constellations and only an Alliance can anchor a station.

Then permit anyone who holds a system to put up sentry guns.

Imagine the carnage that would ensue. Twisted Evil

You know it makes sense.

Turiya Flesharrower
Caldari
Caldari Provisions
Posted - 2006.09.07 11:45:00 - [56]
 

The number of alliances ingame does not bother me in the least, it's a corporation's choice if they want to spend money on making an alliance an no-one else's business as far as I'm concerned. However, having to create an alliance in order to compensate for the inability to set Corp-> Alliance standings is ludicrous and should be fixed by CCP ASAP. Dead alliances (ones which no longer have any active members/fee-paying members) should be purged in my opinion, however if an alliance has one or more active members who pay the maintenance fee then I don't see a problem.

There's a lot of elitism and chest-beating going on in this thread; how does it affect you in any way of a small corporation decides to create an alliance of its own past the 'Who the hell are they?' moment. Fees should not increase, pre-requisites should not become any stricter and there should be no imposed member limit. I believe that the 'Tiered' alliance level is a nice idea and would add a lot of spice and competition to the scene. I also believe that any features added to the alliance system as a whole are a good thing. However making it more difficult to make an alliance is a bad move and has no motive to it apart from vanity.

Riddari
Gallente
VIT
Posted - 2006.09.07 11:53:00 - [57]
 

Why yes, I do stalk your topics as my uhh.. posting history... doesn't exhibit!

Originally by: Seleene
Look at the EVE 'cannon' Empires:

Amarr - Theocracy
Gallente - Democracy
Caldari - Corporate State
Minmatar - Tribal Representative Republic

They certainly are not "Alliances"; they are something more than that. At some point CCP is going to need to address the fact that the "Egger Alliances" are as well.

That's what this thread is about: additional options for everyone.


So what exactly are the additional options you would want to see and how would an alliance advance betwen these different "states" of "alliance"?

Automatic corporate tax delivered into alliance coffers?

What if U'K, in the EVE universe a small group of warriors (with their own outpost) suddenly get an influx of members from The Roleplaing Assocation of Freeing Slaves, veterans of Civil war enactments, and become a megasized alliance. (My apoligies to Namtzaar'Kin and the other minnie rp-ers but this is for demonstrational purposes only).

  • Will they now need to pay additional ISK to allow their membership rise above a certain level?

  • Will their executor have to purchase a skill for 50 billion isk to enable it?

  • Will they be required to deploy a super-mammoth-mega control tower to be able to upgrade and claim an additional constellation?

  • Would the cost of a war dec against them rise ten-fold?



Suppose they then wish to move their RP endavours from 0.0 back to Empire. Would their alliance dissolve because they no longer hold 0.0 systems? Would they have to run the same super-mammoth-mega control tower in low sec space?

One "problem" that seems to be behind lots of players suggestions requiring more skills and more ISK sinks is their look at their own wallets and concluding that everyone is too damn stinking rich.

Last I knew most RP-ers (such as U'K) are on the lower end of the ISK-ownership spectrum (with some notable exceptions... who are indeed the exceptions) and I myself have never had any problems with keeping my wallet lean so for me any ISK sink (such as capital skills) which is aimed at sucking back a tiny fraction of the wallet of the stinking rich (LV talking about under 100 billion being poor) sucks my entire wallet.

To those who have 60 billion in their personal wallet the 1 billion startup cost for an alliance seems like pittance but for those who are not rolling in the money it is a considerable sum. I can't fathom why some people advocate for that fee to be raised.

If it is too much ISK that people are worried about a more proper and fair ISK sink would be simply to tax EVERY EVE CITIZENS AND CORPORATIONS wallet each month, 1% of their total wallet (so thats 6 billion for some, 12 million for me!) goes to keep their capsule license registered!

Riddari
Gallente
VIT
Posted - 2006.09.07 11:54:00 - [58]
 

Originally by: Eyeshadow
Originally by: Riddari
Originally by: Seleene
"Buhu"? "Idiocy"?

You asked for our opinions. Don't approve of them? Tough.

+ lots of other stuff


Heres an opinion for you: Your a ****ing prick.

Get that chip off your shoulder and sort your attitude out

burk
Aww man. I totally forgot you existed. Love you!

Valkazm
Amarr
Roving Guns Inc.
RAZOR Alliance
Posted - 2006.09.07 12:04:00 - [59]
 

I find the new alliances to be intresting more intresting the old ones i hope they can really pack a punch later on and change the politics more and teritorially its changed all the time ..
Theese are indeed intresting times were more players are on the field in scheming and ploting and im sure a mega power will spawn from empire out of all the new corporations .. with the right leadership and goal im sure something will form to surprise us all an alliance in empire that finally makes it move ..

Seleene
Minmatar
Body Count Inc.
Pandemic Legion
Posted - 2006.09.07 12:14:00 - [60]
 

Edited by: Seleene on 07/09/2006 12:17:29
Edited by: Seleene on 07/09/2006 12:16:40
Originally by: Riddari
So what exactly are the additional options you would want to see and how would an alliance advance betwen these different "states" of "alliance"?


That's KINDA why I started this thread. Cool

Quote:
Automatic corporate tax delivered into alliance coffers?


COOL!!

Quote:
What if U'K, in the EVE universe a small group of warriors (with their own outpost) suddenly get an influx of members from The Roleplaing Assocation of Freeing Slaves, veterans of Civil war enactments, and become a megasized alliance. (My apoligies to Namtzaar'Kin and the other minnie rp-ers but this is for demonstrational purposes only).

  • Will they now need to pay additional ISK to allow their membership rise above a certain level?



No, I'm not really a fan of hard coding anyone to have to do something like that. You could have 5,000 people in your 'alliance' and still go about things as you do today. However, what I am an advocate of is that there be options for management that are not necessarily tied to membership numbers.

Quote:
  • Will their executor have to purchase a skill for 50 billion isk to enable it?



  • I could certainly see some type of new alliance structure requiring a few new management skills. Besides, 50 bil isn't what it used to be. ISK sinks 4tw, tbh. ugh

    Quote:
  • Will they be required to deploy a super-mammoth-mega control tower to be able to upgrade and claim an additional constellation?



  • Perhaps. Perhaps not. Considering that the actual game mechanics for constellation sovereignty are currently being worked on, it seems reasonable that this would be an ideal time to examine how new forms of corporate / alliance management might tie into that.

    Quote:
  • Would the cost of a war dec against them rise ten-fold?



  • Perhaps. Perhaps not. Smile

    Quote:
    Suppose they then wish to move their RP endeavors from 0.0 back to Empire. Would their alliance dissolve because they no longer hold 0.0 systems? Would they have to run the same super-mammoth-mega control tower in low sec space?


    A super-mega what?! OMG, GIMMEH!! Twisted Evil

    Quote:
    One "problem" that seems to be behind lots of players suggestions requiring more skills and more ISK sinks is their look at their own wallets and concluding that everyone is too damn stinking rich.


    You claimed you had 1 billion ISK in your wallet earlier which is about 29 times what I had in my wallet when I started BDCI. With smart management, that gives you access to just about anything you could want in the game... Wink

    Quote:
    Snip major rant on ISK


    DUDE!!! Slow down! You're getting off topic here. In my original post, I asked three questions. You seem to think I asked them as some sort of ego trip or that my motivation was in some way Machiavellian. Whatever your problem is, it's not with just me.

    I've no problem talking about the potential for change / improvement in the game, but the current state of play isn't my fault. I started this thread to be pro-active. I'm not out to screw the little guy; I'd like to see some options for smaller alliances. Maybe there could be benefits to setting up a deep 0.0 industrial alliance? Perhaps a group of corps that specialize in ice mining in low sec Empire could form a 'Conglomerate' and qualify for special tax/refining breaks?

    Options, man. What's wrong with them?


    Pages: 1 [2] 3 4

    This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


     


    The new forums are live

    Please adjust your bookmarks to https://forums.eveonline.com

    These forums are archived and read-only