Corporation power structure


(Alex Dujev) #1

Allow players to choose the structure of corporation, vote mechanics and management.

It means there could be 2 or more equal CEOs.
There could be 50%+1 voting or 100% voting.
There could be possibility to make decisions and management actions only when all key figures agreed.

All this management options could be available on the point of corporation creation to determine the future style of the corporation.

At the moment all the corporations are confined into the same only one management system.

(Kenneth Endashi) #2

Shareholders should be able to force a CEO to step down, like Papa John’s Pizza did to Papa John.

(Ivory Harcourt) #3

That’s possible and it’s often used for hostile takeover.

(Amanari Talar) #4

i am currently working on a game, and we have three types of corporations in our game.

  1. Dictatorship (works like they do in eve, wow etc)
  2. Democratic (all members can vote)
  3. Oligarchy (the founding ceo is the council leader, and can appoint up to 4 other council members, only they can vote).

(Alex Dujev) #5

Construction of the corporation structure covers and this side of game as well. The thing is not all corporation models are vulnerable to takeover by hostilities. The more susceptable is dictatorship and more stable is democratic.
The corporation where main decisions are made not by CEO but counsill couldn’t fall under outer threat.
We should have possibility to design this: the power participation and decision making mechanisms.

There also must be votes interface for all corporation members. So corporation could host the whole-scale referendum or just have a possibility for players to share their opinions through voting.

(Alex Dujev) #6

On corporation creation we must be able to design our own corporation roles with intended functionality - not only those which predefined.

(Wander Prian) #7

That is one of the legacy code -issues that isn’t possible to fix until CCP does a total rework of the corporation code as far as I know.

(Ivory Harcourt) #8

During my EVE life I’ve seen many different ways of hostile takeover. Most of them included a situation where a guy invited his awoxing alts and friends in and managed to secure the majority of shares. This is hostile takeover of the democracy. It can be done easily and especially in highsec it used to be quite common way.

This is also why all new CEO guides explicitely advice CEOs to hold all the shares on their characters (so, dictatorship)

Erm… I hae a feeling that you are mixing a real life dictator with EVE dictator. While hostile takeover is indeed a threat, it’s not the only threat. I don’t know any successful nullsec entity that operates under democracy, practically all including my corps are dictatorships. Now here is very important thing: dictators in EVE are not the same as dictators in real life. There is absolutely no way whatsoever I can, as a CEO-dictator, force you - a member - to do something, because I don’t have any control over your life, your family, your money etc. In fact, a random team leader in any job has more power than the most powerful dictator in EVE, precisely because of that.

I can ask you, I can beg you, I can manipulate you (not necessarily in a bad way), but I can never say “do this or I’ll send cops to your house”.

Some corporations in highsec give shares to every new member and then they do votes via voting system. Not sure why you need to implement something additional. When a CEO starts the corporation it is entirely up to him to decide whether he wants to give the shares to everyone and therefore make the voting available for everyone, or not. This is a sandbox, people do have tools for universal voting, it’s just that the majority have decided to not use it.

(Ivory Harcourt) #9

Not necessarily on corporation creation, but I agree. Currently the only way to assign own corporation roles (sort of) is via titles, which is extremely clunky. And as Wander said, it’s the legacy code, and I think it’s even tied with POS code shivers.

(system) #10

This topic was automatically closed 90 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.