Alliances don’t own assets, corporations do. Wardecs can and do occur at the corporation level.
Adding corporations into an alliance affects voting rights, requires an executor, costs 1 Billion ISK to establish, etc.
Those mechanics have nothing to do with wardecs, but are you seriously suggesting that for a defender to have allies, they need to pay 1 Billion ISK to set up an Alliance, and they can never have another alliance as allies, only other corporations, because Corps can’t be in 2 alliances at the same time?
Are you also suggesting that Alliances that already exist, need to put their Alliance and asset ownership at risk in order to take on allies, because voting rights can be used to seize executor power and disband an Alliance completely, and transfer asset ownership? Where does that leave defenders that have their Alliance destroyed from the inside and all their assets stolen?
Thus an alliance is actually an alliance rather than “just a guild” which people tend to think is the problem with corps but somehow magically this doesn’t extend to the bigger group? An alliance can always join defenders. You target Corp A which is in Alliance B they remain the target but Alliance B is also a target.
Either Corps and Alliances act like Corps and Alliances or we just forget war on them. Stop trying to turn words into equal meaning of fluffy bunny poops.
Costs and benefits of joining an alliance are there. The benefits just extend beyond being a single corp and actually having declared allies. Make an alliance an alliance or don’t. It’s not like these are repeat costs. Maybe they need adjustment for costs and maybe they don’t. Maybe we make these “wars” an actual declared event where the attacker declares war and the defender can request people to join the defenders alliance.
Or you know… nothing happened in war with alliances. Just silly things that are pointless.
CCP has right to fully adjust numbers to be balanced. They could just change war to be 1 billion to declare right now. Or they can make war actual objectives. Or they can eliminate the cost of war in full and require you to join null sec to ever fight making all structures in high sec immune to war. Or they could make any system security above 0.4 not possible to place anything and the npc stations rule with draconian fists where if you don’t have additional fuel costs of their faction “Starbase Charter” your station becomes a target of npcs.
We could throw hypothetical solutions out all year long every hour.
… This is comedy. An event that can already happen is a bad thing but only if there is change that makes it more likely to be possible to happen?
I will guess you have never heard of the term “hostile takeover” then. I will also guess you have no idea what The_Judge did. I will also assume you have no idea that this has happened before in eve.
Alliance mechanics have nothing to do with wardecs. Attackers can also be in alliances and forcing defenders to be part of an alliance just to access allies is idiotic.
No. I’m saying Alliance mechanics have absolutely nothing to do with wardecs.
Your proposal conflates Alliances with wardecs and overlays a heap of additional requirements on small Corps (as defenders) that they should never have to meet (eg. pay 1 Billion ISK to establish an Alliance, just to have allies in a war).
Additionally, current alliances in highsec open themselves to potentially catastrophic risk, just to have allies in a war.
The whole proposal is stupid around allies being tied to Alliances. There’s no need for it.
What’s currently wrong with the allies mechanics in wars that requires Alliances to be formed?
CCP is the balance for what it should be. Not me. Not you. But if I joined an alliance and suddenly my alliance CAN’T do anything in a war what exactly does that say?
All alliances open themselves to potentially catastrophic risk to have allies. This is a redundant statement.
Then you don’t consider alliances… what the name actually says.
Of course they are. That’s given. This isn’t CCP’s suggestion though. It’s yours and everyone is free to comment on how stupid parts of it are.
If you can’t do anything in a war because you are in an Alliance? WTF are you talking about.
If your alliance is wardecced, then of course you can do something. Where are you getting this stuff from, as you clearly lack knowledge of the mechanics?
Declaring something “stupid” then refusing to list all options and focusing on specifically the one that makes it “stupid” is a way of ignoring facts. For example a high sec corp does not have to form an alliance as they could just join one. A thing you consider a catastrophic problem due to risk that joining an alliance inherently has for everybody because alliances are risky. A circular logic conclusion.
You are strawmanning again. If an alliance is unable to defend an ally in a war then there is no such thing as an alliance. Which is your declaration above.
If your corp is targeted for war then your alliance should be able to support you. You declared they should not be. You then tried to make it sound like I declared they should not be. You are also flipping mechanically what you want to be in place of what is and how you can break that.
In short you are not arguing for or against anything but are trolling.
You declared above that to have allies, a corp would need to be in an Allaince.
Why? What is wrong with the existing mechanics that require a Corp to be in an Alliance, just to have Allies?
What Alliance is going to accept a Corp that has a wardec against them, thus bringing the wardec to the Alliance?
What if the Corp is already in an Alliance, but another potential Ally for a war is available, who is in a different Alliance? How does this work? They can’t be an ally under your proposal, where they can now.
Again, what do Alliance mechanics have to do with anything. Why should someone be forced into an Alliance just to accept an Ally?
Why should a Corp, that has a war declared against them, who isn’t in an Alliance, then need to go and potentially spend 1 Billion ISK to form an Alliance, when they don’t have to do that now?
Simply, what is wrong with the current ally mechanics and should force Corporations into Alliances and/or force Alliances to accept Corps that are already at war, or that could change the voting patterns, causing the Alliance to lose all of its assets by transfer?
If they’re in an alliance then they have allies, but you want that alliance to not be allowed to ally and put another alliance in place of the first alliance while remaining in the first alliance?
They don’t have to make an alliance. You seem to be fixated on forcing people to ally when they’re at war. They don’t have to. Anyone can choose to go it alone. If they want allies then they can join an alliance, or form one of their own. NOBODY is ripping 1 billion ISK out of anyone’s hands by force besides you.
An alliance is NOT forced to add someone to their alliance. Never has been. Never will be. You keep changing your stance but provide no actual objections besides “I like to troll” so if you can’t speak in logic stop posting.
Right now, people are free to work together without having to formalise it by joining the same corp or alliance. That’s intended in the game design, and won’t be changed by CCP. They will ignore your suggestions for the sake of keeping this sandbox game a sandbox game, where players are afforded as much freedom as possible to operate as they choose and along with that, options. This includes the option to work with other people without formalisation.
And no, your WWI/II analogies are irrelevant. You can’t double jump in the real world. This is a video game. Mechanics and balance > reality or any emulation thereof. This is also the same reason why your ideas of ‘responsibility’ are all wrong, and why the reasons for declaring war are whatever you want without exception.
100% true. Nobody is forced to work together. Joining a corp or alliance does not force people to work together either. This is a basic thing in eve and CCP has no need to change it.
People do not lose options here. They just commit to them. Or abandon them. Or convert fluffy bunny poops into the topic because anything that would make a word actually act like it’s word is unnecessary and thus a game breaking situation.
In which case we have no need for “war” as a mechanic. You want to shoot people go right ahead. Nothing stopping you from pressing F1. No need for war. No need for alliances. No need for a chat box. No need for forums. No need for discussion. No need for balance. Oh wait…
I just had an idea, though. The Transgression Exception. If someone in a corp does something against someone else in a corp that causes a flag (suspect or criminal), that transgression is recorded. Once multiple (say five suspect and one criminal, or something like that) transgressions are recorded between members of one corp against another, the corp that has been transgressed is offered a free wardec against the transgressors. Adding this to the current system without taking the option to wardec anyone at any time for a fee would certainly increase available options, especially for smaller corps. It might even encourage people to get out of NPC corps since they wouldn’t be included. Additionally, to discourage people using NPC corps as shelter from transgression exception wardecs, make everyone who is in an NPC corp who earns a flag in high sec lose sec status for their transgression. People who want to steal loot from ganks, harass missioners, etc thinking they can use an NPC corp to do it with virtual impunity will have to rethink their strategy and maybe start taking more responsibility and accepting more risk for their actions.
No. The alliance mechanics are not the same as the allies mechanics in a wardec.
And not all Alliances are big, strong groups. Many are just a couple of Corps filled with alts. The one not making sense here isn’t me. You are trying to layer completely different mechanics over the top of the current allies mechanics, yet can’t even explain why.
You’re making totally incorrect assumptions about how every alliance can defend itself on its own. The allies mechanic currently doesn’t stop others helping.
What’s so wrong with the existing allies mechanic that it needs this at all?
Actually, they do lose options. Commit or abandon is a dichotomy with no breathing room for strategy. There are many reasons to declare war, sometimes the stated intention not being the actual intention, and there’s no room for that with your idea. There’s no room for subterfuge or bluffing. Those are the options people lose. You really need to learn how EVE works. You think it’s all played on a keyboard, but that’s about 15% of it. The other 85 is played in the mind.
Join a corp like E-Uni. Make friends and learn the game. Learn to operate under constant wardec. As you get more experience help teach other newbros. Graduate and move into a corp that suits your interests.
Why are telling me this? I’m not a new player, and you’re just spouting off the same generic advice I would typically see copy/pasted into Rookie Help by tired vets.
An an example of what I’m talking about, consider how a rookie would even find a corp without having seen a specific endorsement from another player. We have the garbage Corp Finder tool in the sidebar with its limited number of displayed results and near-useless filters (because a lot of corps just do a little bit of everything in their adverts seemingly to increase visibility in the tool). We have the trash-strewn ghetto that is the Recruitment channels, occupied mostly my advert spammers and itself hidden behind a submenu accessed by a tiny, tiny button on the interface that is never pointed out by the game (amazing that an MMO wouldn’t highlight a social tool in TYoOL 2018; Iboften quip to rookoes that half of learning EVE is just learning where all the menus are hidden). Then you have out-of-game recruitment forums which are alright but don’t allow any kind of filtering for personal preference.
So basically, just the simple act of trying to find a corporation (and, more importantly, a corp that can teach you adequately and won’t burn you) becomes a complete chore unless you go with the generic recommendation of a vet you happen to encounter.
My point, as before, is that EVE needs better strategies for player retention if it is to survive for much longer. An easy method of getting players anchored by a social connection in this MMO would be to facilitate the establishment of those connections with some easy-to-locate resources for new players. Like, bare minimum, CCP could just add an additional text box pop-up at the end of the tutorial highlighting the tutorial videos in the in-game Help window, as I believe some of those specifically focus on Corporation creation and dynamics.
CCZp must recognize this need, because certain things said by CSM members on Talking in Stations after the Summit and release of the minutes seem to indicate that they have grasped the concept and are looking into it in some capacity.
Y’all are aware that there are different types of alliances, right?
We only have one ‘alliance’ mechanic, but it has to cover economic, military, political, etc.
Maybe the alliance mechanic needs to be split and specialized.
Honestly, all EvE alliances are currently economic in nature as corporations form them - not nations - and corporations in the biggest right-to-work state that is New Eden.
Alliances are a subset of corporation mechanics that link multiple corps together. Now if Alliances are not actually permitted to support in a war dec then they are really not alliances. We go thru this over and over with no description of what you consider wrong with allies supporting allies in a war.
And you are trying to delete one of the mechanics in the game. If alliances are not allied then they aren’t really alliances. You are trying to put additional support in which already is accounted for as being able to declare war on the people who are attacking is entirely within reason as an impossibility. I will not remove the ability for people to declare war for your humor. I’ll break it down for you.
Corp A is in Alliance Alpha.
Corp B wishes to declare war on Corp A. Nothing stops them from doing so.
Corp B (in declaring war on Corp A) is in effect adding in Alliance Alpha as a target. This would be because Concord recognizes Alliances as Alliances. This does not change Corp B from specifying that they wish to wage war against Corp A. Corp A just enjoys the protections of being in an Alliance. Nothing forces Corp B to attack Corp Z of Alliance Alpha. Nothing forces Corp B to attack anyone at all or even to undock once they have met the requirements to declare war.
Corp C (a mercenary corp) wishes to be paid to support Corp A in the war. Corp A hires them and pays them ISK for Corp C declaring war on Corp B. If Corp B is in Alliance B then this extends to Alliance B being declared war upon by Corp C. Corp C is not under any obligation to attack Corp B. Corp C is not under any obligation to attack Alliance B. Corp B might be a non-allied sub corp of Corp C who only declared war to extort Corp A (or Alliance A) from the start. Corp B might be the primary of Corp C who just got paid to declare war on itself and they instantly surrender after payment leaving Corp A with an alliance who didn’t really do anything to help them.
The extortion methods go on and on if you’re clever enough.
And the adjustment will not change how it works either. It merely makes undeclared allies need to put something into the fight to become an ally. This puts risk on being an undeclared ally. This makes it HARDER for defenders while making it EASIER for attackers. Previously you were against making it harder for attackers and easier for defenders. Now you have flipped sides. You’re still not actually discussing the change but instead wish to insert what you think should happen (no changes because the current method benefits you the most) rather than discuss the ability to put accountability into it.
It’s ok. I understand you don’t like accountability for your actions. Sadly that is not a function in life or in eve.
Next:
There is a crapton of subterfuge and bluffing on the table in this method. Some are listed above. I’m sure that intelligent people will find ways to screw over others within this method as I didn’t actually close any of the best methods of things. But lets break it down for you.
War still gets declared. Joining an alliance just means the alliance supports your corp if declared war upon. The alliance is not required to keep your corp in the alliance. The alliance is not forced to fight for you. This is a risk alliances should have because that is what an alliance is. There is nothing that prevents a corp from deciding they don’t wish to support this alliance any further and dropping out of it when someone else is getting them war decced all the time. Eve mechanics would prevent them from rejoining the alliance while the war in question continues. It does not prevent that war from including them in the future by being declared upon directly by the attackers. It does not make this alliance take them back because they suddenly find themselves at the same risk they had before they left the alliance.
Choices exist even if you refuse they are choices.
One two three four I declare a war. What changed when the requirement to declare war is an actual object? Just the object. There is no changes in why you declared war. Just how. We could declare the Fluffy Bunny Poops war against DJ’s Retirement Fund (which would just happen to include Goonswarm as an ally and thus have them added in as free targets, yolf) and anyone who leaves that alliance would be unable to rejoin until the war ends.
This does absolutely nothing to null sec. People are free to come and go as they can (or can prevent) there. You’re not required to be in an alliance in null sec to attack or defend because in null you don’t need to actually declare war. You just wage it.
There’s no room for making an alt corporation who declares war on a member of your alliance with the intent of making them scared and turning over their station control to the main alliance and then the main alliance kicking them out leaving them with no stations, no allies, and still being targeted by the alt corporation because they accept the alliance surrender and switch targets to the corp they kicked out? Nifty. Glad you put that in when it didn’t exist ever and won’t exist with the change I propose.
Should 15% of eve be at a keyboard (I consider that estimate too high) then this is the only piece that is changed. The remaining 85% (I consider that too low) doesn’t change.
Next:
There is nothing that is required to present economic alliances. That’s just money shuffling hands.
Military is also not required but is entirely optional in null.
Political… well alliances already can be different but technically allied in null by just “blue” status. Mini-nations effectively.
This is funny. I would applaud (though not join) anyone who makes Space Union Corp which has entirely the project of making the players in it rich while the CEO just keeps business running. Really think they would just S.U.C though.
