open All Channels
seplocked Features and Ideas Discussion
blankseplocked Stop "one man disbanding" alliance metagaming
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: [1] 2

Author Topic

Sue Malorie
Caldari
Dai Dai Hai
Posted - 2009.10.28 22:29:00 - [1]
 

Edited by: Sue Malorie on 28/10/2009 22:38:35
This is the second time one single person (character) happens to disband an alliance or doing something that made the same result. What happened to CVA is under investigation by CCP and therefor I will not start any discussion about that, but in general, it should not be possible for one or even 2 persons to disband alliances. Most (??) of us tought that Bob accident thingie was fixed, but it seems not.

I beg CCP to fix this so it will be need of 3 persons (or something like that) of the holding corp to disband an alliance. If an alliance breaks up, it will affect alots of players. Myself had no business to do with either Bob or CVA, but this way to make alot of mess it is no good.

If some military want to launch nukes (hopefully not!!) RL, it neends a "go" from a leader, password from a general or some high ranked officer and 2 persons have to turn the key (or press the button). This is just an example how it will be done to prevent one crazy dude to start a nuke war. The same thing should CCP do with EvE alliance settings. Result; None can disband alliance with one button pressed, hacked account or not.

Cheers,
SM

Barakkus
Posted - 2009.10.28 23:23:00 - [2]
 

/signed

Wiley Peterson
Posted - 2009.10.28 23:30:00 - [3]
 

Shouldn't there be a voting system from member corps?

Robert Caldera
Posted - 2009.10.28 23:47:00 - [4]
 

yip, it sucked for BOB and it sucks for CVA.

Sue Malorie
Caldari
Dai Dai Hai
Posted - 2009.10.29 00:07:00 - [5]
 

There may be alot of folks who may disliked CVA and BoB, but if this happens to them, we may see more of these "one man disband" soon if not CCP decide to make disbanding harder, like it needs alot of votes, "cool down time - timer to set", needs more than one persons to press the button etc. What will EvE turn out to be if we see AAA, KIA, RzR, Goons disbands like this.

There is no doubt that CCP want to see blood, sweat and tears when it comes to pvp. It's part of the game to see corp and alliances loose big time and some may dissapears from the space map, but when it comes to one man show disband, it may not have nothing to do with the game.

Cheers,
SM

The Riddik
Posted - 2009.10.29 00:18:00 - [6]
 

it needs a 24 hour timer with veto power.

plain and simple.

CCP what the flock is the point of putting in cash and effort playing a game to have some idiot disband all your work in one click?

its not sandbox, its friking bull****., fix your game.

Kara Sharalien
Gallente
Federal Navy Academy
Posted - 2009.10.29 00:32:00 - [7]
 

on the contrary, instant disbanding buttons are important. you need absolute trust in your allience directors. if you give them the power to push that button, and then they do, you just failed @ alliences, and your allience deserves to die.

make it some kind of veto system, and you could give out allience directorship randomly, without consequence.

Kahega Amielden
Minmatar Ship Construction Services
Ushra'Khan
Posted - 2009.10.29 00:39:00 - [8]
 

It's simple. If you don't trust your directors, don't give them the director role. Call them "Directors", but give them all the roles they need to do their normal duties WITHOUT having the actual "Director" role which lets them instantly disband alliances.

Dorian Wylde
Posted - 2009.10.29 00:39:00 - [9]
 

Originally by: Kara Sharalien
on the contrary, instant disbanding buttons are important. you need absolute trust in your allience directors. if you give them the power to push that button, and then they do, you just failed @ alliences, and your allience deserves to die.

make it some kind of veto system, and you could give out allience directorship randomly, without consequence.


As someone pointed out in other threads on this topic, you can NEVER have absolute trust in anyone in this game.

Fifinella
Caldari
Nosferatu Security Foundation
Posted - 2009.10.29 00:40:00 - [10]
 

Edited by: Fifinella on 29/10/2009 00:40:03
Timers.

Player-adjustable executive power timers.

Let exec set alliance disbanding to take 1-7 days, for example, and initiating the disbandment will sent an evemail to all CEOs.

Oh, and changing a timer will take as long as the timer is currently set to.

So:
1) Alliance formed, exec sets disbanding timer to 7 days.
2) Ebil spye gains control of alliance.
3a) Ebil spye initiates a disband. All CEOs receive an EVEmail saying "omghax! Alliance will be disbanded in 7 days and counting." Or words to that effect. Plenty of time for CEOs to vote a new executor corp.
3b) Ebil spye changes disbanding timer to 1 day. The change will take 7 days, and all CEOs will receive an EVEmail saying "omghax! Alliance disbandment timer has been changed. Change will be applied in 7 days." Or words to that effect.

Kane Plekkel
The Necronomicons
Posted - 2009.10.29 00:46:00 - [11]
 

Originally by: Kara Sharalien
on the contrary, instant disbanding buttons are important. you need absolute trust in your allience directors. if you give them the power to push that button, and then they do, you just failed @ alliences, and your allience deserves to die.

make it some kind of veto system, and you could give out allience directorship randomly, without consequence.
That's plain dumb. Trust in EVE is hard to come by, even among corp/alliance-mates. The best and only real trust I've found is thru RL connections, and those are sketchy sometimes.

In my humble opinion, based on this (and the BoB event) and random chatter/feedback from alliance and corp directors, and a bit of my own experience, this is a change that needs to happen, because there is simply no reason for it not to be. To do almost anything else in a corp requires a 24h wait period, I've assumed because of exploit issues, and here we have a HUGE exploit staring us right in the face! This is the type of thing that redefines aspects of space (ownership) and characters (alliance/corp disband, potentially meaning substantial loss of corp "shared" assets), and its something that can be done at will? That is incredibly wrong.

To be honest, the current corp/alliance managment system should be next on the list for "things to overhaul." From the latest devblog, if everything works out as it says, the whole fleet system is a huge step forward. Can we have something with that much of a "good change" happen to alliance/corp managment? I've got a hunch that the new COSMOS thing may be akin to a redesign, but that isn't nearly enough.

I'm half tempted to start a thread here asking for what players want out of an alliance/corp system and what to change from what's in now...

Syberbolt8
Gallente
The Scope
Posted - 2009.10.29 01:21:00 - [12]
 

Originally by: Kahega Amielden
It's simple. If you don't trust your directors, don't give them the director role. Call them "Directors", but give them all the roles they need to do their normal duties WITHOUT having the actual "Director" role which lets them instantly disband alliances.


This, TBH its there own fault if a Director disbanded the alliance, its simple, never give anyone director role in your corp, no one needs it but the CEO, and his alts, and ofc never share your PW on public or private boards.

CCP gives you the tools to avoid this kind of thing, but you the players have to use them.

If this account was hacked, then CCP will right it. If it wasn't then guess what, thats what you get for giving full roles to a corp member of any kind.

Casey Windstrom
Nanobots Industries
Posted - 2009.10.29 01:42:00 - [13]
 

Edited by: Casey Windstrom on 29/10/2009 01:42:19
I have to agree here. The current permission system in corps/alliances needs an overhaul. The current system is clunky and unwieldy, to say the least. A more customizable corporation would benefit everyone, and these kinds of changes should be extended to the alliance level as well.

To those who say 'No, the current way is better, survival of the FITTEST!!!'... Eve Online is growing more mainstream, which means more players, which is good, both for Eve and for our pewpew. The more people we get, the MORE Eve will be a target for RMT's, and they just plain love hacking your account, taking everything they can, and destroying your characters. They do it in Wow... In Eve, it's even more damaging. Instead of ruining your corp's week, you destroy 1000 people's last 5 years of work.

This is not fun. A game is supposed to be fun and enjoyable. A game as complex as Eve can be fun, but it can also be heartbreaking when things do not go as planned... And devastating if it's out of game things (hacking, and so on) that overcome you.

Please, CCP, give us better control over our Corporation and Alliance with a better permissions system. Something where we can allow outside people to use our research labs, or maybe even let people within our own corp use them, without having to give them hangar access, a wallet, and /management/ settings JUST to start a research job.. and thus able to stop anyone else's research. Let us have a timer at the very least for disbanding an alliance, or better, a customizeable system as suggested, up to a week long.. Not everyone logs into this game every 24 hours, after all. I'd love corporate votes to be 2 days. Or even 3!

Casey

Markus Reese
Caldari
New Eden Weekly Sentinel
Posted - 2009.10.29 01:50:00 - [14]
 

Players who espionage got that 24hr cooldown before you can quit. So why can espionage in any form/hack be able to disband an alliance. If there are directors, other corps, etc, it should be to a vote.

/signed and if hacked...

Concord managed to salvage CVA from providence but was unable to return lost equipment

At the very least...

Jenna Sol
Posted - 2009.10.29 02:02:00 - [15]
 

In real life you wouldn't be able to do something like this (without getting in jail), so why is people able to do so in EVE? Sounds like something that needs fixing straight away.

Kara Sharalien
Gallente
Federal Navy Academy
Posted - 2009.10.29 02:31:00 - [16]
 

Originally by: Kane Plekkel
Originally by: Kara Sharalien
on the contrary, instant disbanding buttons are important. you need absolute trust in your allience directors. if you give them the power to push that button, and then they do, you just failed @ alliences, and your allience deserves to die.

make it some kind of veto system, and you could give out allience directorship randomly, without consequence.
That's plain dumb. Trust in EVE is hard to come by, even among corp/alliance-mates. The best and only real trust I've found is thru RL connections, and those are sketchy sometimes.


why would you start an alliance with people you dont trust?

would you start out building a business IRL with someone you dont trust to do the right thing? no, you wouldnt.

alliances arnt fun and games, they are as srs business as you can get in an internet spaceships game. there is genuine profit to be made with them, and there should be genuine risk as well. if you give someone the keys to the kingdom, you had better be sure they wont use them to set of the nuke silo. if you arnt and give them those keys anyway, you deserve everything you get quite frankly.

Esiel
Renegade Serenity
Posted - 2009.10.29 02:35:00 - [17]
 

Originally by: Kara Sharalien
on the contrary, instant disbanding buttons are important. you need absolute trust in your allience directors. if you give them the power to push that button, and then they do, you just failed @ alliences, and your allience deserves to die.

make it some kind of veto system, and you could give out allience directorship randomly, without consequence.


This made me laugh it was so full of fail, I am just a corp CEO and I still worry about giving director roles to people. There is no way that some sort of veto system over disbanding alliance will make people give out directorships randomly.

Reason that this game is so "dark", is there is no real punishment for the person that does wrong. Kill them, they laugh, hound them they sell the character and buy a new one. There is no punishiment due to the constructs of the game.

Basically the only answer people have said is never trust anyone allways assume they are the enemy. This makes for a lousy MMO that is centered on groups. There needs to be some tweaks so that a disinfranchized player can do damage but not distroy everything in an instant.

Ehris Bok
United Kings
Strategic Operations Brigade
Posted - 2009.10.29 02:36:00 - [18]
 

/signed

CCP fix this it was a laughable joke the first time (tho still shouldn't have happened to bob) a second time is just ridiculous!!


Altaica Amur
Pan Galactic Gargle Blasters
Important Internet Spaceship League
Posted - 2009.10.29 02:50:00 - [19]
 

Just a note to all those crying out that it's their own fault for trusting yadayada... Keep in mind that doing anything significant in EVE requires trust of other players and any sizable alliance will develop blind spots as it becomes progressively more difficult for one person to keep track of everyone in key roles. Even worse as we saw with Haag, people change, either because they no longer feel the way they used to towards the alliance or perhaps as a parting jab at the game as a whole they disband and ruin an alliance of thousands for lulz. Quite a few things need to be changed about corp/alliance roles and this is one of them.

/signed

Danton Marcellus
Nebula Rasa Holdings
Posted - 2009.10.29 06:04:00 - [20]
 

Two brain halves using two hands simultaneously signing this thread.

BruisedMoon
Amarr
Lunatic Monkey Syndicate
Posted - 2009.10.29 06:17:00 - [21]
 

i like the meta-gaming with disbanding alliances. unless it involves hacked accounts but then the stuff is reimbursed. but i agree there should be a 24 hour timer.

kveldulfson
Ayame Corp
Posted - 2009.10.29 07:42:00 - [22]
 

It does not take much thinking about to realise this should have been fixed long ago. That 1 person can instantly ruin the game play of thousands (all of whom pay CCP dont forget)is wrong. Espionage is a part of the game its true and in many ways quite valid. But 1 person deciding to go all Emo and disband an alliance is in my opinion not valid at all.

Please CCP get your fingers moving and fix this!

High Star
Posted - 2009.10.29 08:08:00 - [23]
 

Total agree.

A simple solution could be that ALL CEO's get a vote and a 75% yes vote is needed to disband an alliance and the vote must have a minimum time like 7 days to allow corps to make up their own minds.

Atleast then everyone knows it could happen

Azran Zala
Fleet of the Damned
Legion of The Damned.
Posted - 2009.10.29 10:27:00 - [24]
 

/signed

Alliance mechanics need a 24hour cooldown period to kick a corp or disband alliance, with opertunity to revearse decision with a majority vote before 24hours are up. But once there is already a majority vote in favour of kicking a corp/disbanding alliance... then it can be immediate.

R Mika
Posted - 2009.10.29 11:54:00 - [25]
 

Edited by: R Mika on 29/10/2009 12:01:39

I do not believe the hypothesis and conclusion proposed by the original poster has been thoughrouly considered.

Alliances are merely tools for social organization within the structure of the game. The issue at hand is not that any one leader or director can damage the social structure, but rather the specific results of that action based on current game mechanics. In other words, the disolving of goverment results in the disvoling of all sovereignity.

If disbanding an alliance had little or no effect on sovereingity, and all the mechanics tied to sovereignity, then disbanding would simply cause short-term social chaos, which is historically exactly what it has done. The problem is that one person, and one person only can ruin sovereignity, and hence the fundemental tools required to defend one's space for thousands of players in tens, or hundreds of systems.

While not all of the new mechanics of sovereignity in Dominion are clear, it does appear that systems are owned by corporations in the alliance and not the alliance, itself. This allows property assets to be spread thoughout an alliance. Which of course means that no one person or corp (even the alliance leadership) can completely ruin system ownership. Under these new mechanics alliance disbanding will only have the affects it should have -temporary social chaos and anarchy. If for any reason this is not the case, and even under the new system in Dominon sovereignity and all the required defensive and offensive tools tied to it can be removed by alliance leadership with the click of a button, then we will continue to have a serious problem on our hands.

The rules for disbanding an alliance are fine and need to be kept how they are. It is the results on sovereinity, system ownership, and other game tools that tied to that disbanding that need to be adjusted.

Akura kawanaka
-Mostly Harmless-
Posted - 2009.10.29 12:30:00 - [26]
 

Edited by: Akura kawanaka on 29/10/2009 12:29:58
don't forget to support this thread:

http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1205337

Plave Okice
Krazny Oktyabr Revolyutsiya
Yezhovshchina
Posted - 2009.10.29 13:02:00 - [27]
 

Edited by: Plave Okice on 29/10/2009 13:03:18
Originally by: kveldulfson
That 1 person can instantly ruin the game play of thousands (all of whom pay CCP dont forget)is wrong.


No, it's awesome and what makes Eve different to the rest.

I agree with the reinstate in CVA's case as it seems to have been a hacked account that was used, but alliances should be formed and run on trust and adding yet more nanny protection is against the spirit of Eve. Personally I love the idea of "click buttan, cause chaos", it really makes who you build you relationships with so important.

Originally by: Jenna Sol
In real life you wouldn't be able to do something like this (without getting in jail), so why is people able to do so in EVE? Sounds like something that needs fixing straight away.


Yeah because it's perfectly ok to kill millions of people and destroy billions of dollars worth of property in real life without going to jail.

That's a really dumb analogy.

Larinioides cornutus
Posted - 2009.10.29 13:10:00 - [28]
 

Edited by: Larinioides cornutus on 29/10/2009 13:10:17
Originally by: Plave Okice
Yeah because it's perfectly ok to ruin million hours of work and destroy hundreds thousand dollars worth of virtual property in real life without getting any scratch.

That's a really dumb analogy.


Fixed

Bal'Ayle
Minmatar
Exodia Industries
Posted - 2009.10.29 13:13:00 - [29]
 

as things stand i thought owning shares gives you the option to vote on things like this? for instance if you owned 20% person b owns 20% and person c owns 20% and i own 40% but am the leader you technically, if teamed up own the majority share and so i would require at least one of you to vote thru something like this

or doesnt it work like that?

Pan Dora
Caldari
Organization for Nuclear Research
Posted - 2009.10.29 13:26:00 - [30]
 

Originally by: Plave Okice
Personally I love the idea of "click buttan, cause chaos"


Confirming that we need more I-win buttons.



Pages: [1] 2

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