Corp Alliance Chat

Suggestions Social
1

I would like to propose another chat-bar that the CEO of 2 or more corps in an alliance may create that can be

accepted in the same way that you would accept a squad or corp invite. this will only be able to be done between the leader of the alliance and the ceo of a corporation or 2 CEO’.

This will allow better communication between allies.

As well, I would also like to propose that Corporations, that are officially united in an alliance, may name their alliance as well as see who’s online in the other corporation.

2

Hello

at the moment we are still working on the improvements for corps so we won’t see alliances in the near future, but I will forward the suggestion to the devs.

3

Alliances; yes absolutely. I’ve had many chats with some specific other corporations about such options.

 

However, the way such an option is implemented is absolutely paramount. What you don’t want to encourage is several mass-recruitment corps banding together and forming a massive zerg ball.

 

E.g. a member limit (of say, 450, which is 3 full corporations) would be incredibly useful. This allows smaller, tighter corporations to band together and retain their individual identities - whilst still enabling bigger ones to use the system to bridge their sub-corporations. (DR/Cronus for example, could use this to ‘link’ their multiple corporations into one organised and recognisable unit)

 

The alliance would replace the individual entries of corporations on the leaderboard, which makes things tidier. There should be an option for players to click on an alliance in the leaderboards and see the breakdown of the individual corporations within it - how they rank within the corporation (so a sub-leaderboard). This enables people both a view on who’s in the alliance as well as still provide the leaderboard data for individual entities and give people an idea of the powers within each alliance.

 

In terms of alliance organisation and leadership - rather than forcing one method down our throats it would be nice to be allowed several options.

 

Council

 

Each alliance should have a council of representatives, who can bring forward and vote on ‘laws’. This creates a dynamic and interactive system.

 

 

Laws

 

Laws are what normally would be the settings screen if things were ran in the form of a dictatorship. Whether or not we want the option for dictatorships where one person simply controls all laws is subject to debate.

 

Representatives can select a law to ‘put forward to the council’ - after which a representative from another corporation needs to ‘second’ the motion before it becomes a poll/vote. Once it does - all representatives can vote, which ultimately results in the council passing or rejecting the motion.

 

–

 

Such laws could include (some quick ideas);

  • Councillors have equal voting power. (1 vote each)
  • Councillors have proportional voting power. (corporations size determines voting power)
  • Councillors have proportional voting power. (corporation pvp rating determines voting power)
  • Councillors have proportional voting power. (corporation number of controlled sectors determines voting power)
  • Adding/Removing member corporations requires a majority vote.
  • Adding/Removing member corporations requires an unanimous vote.
  • Changing alliance affiliation (Empire, Federation, Jericho, Neutral)
  • Adding a member corporation.
  • Removal of a member corporation.
  • Nomination of a new Chairman/President.
  • The chairman does/doesn’t have veto powers to reject any law. (these kind of votes become very interesting)
  • The alliance will be limited to X member corporations.
  • The alliance member corporations are limited to X members in their corporation.
  • The alliance will declare war on alliance/corporation X.
  • The alliance will sign a peace treaty (cancel a war) with alliance/corporation X.
  • The alliance will focus on territory <select one of the active conquest territories> - This will disable any members from selecting the other territory in sector conquest, focusing the efforts of the whole alliance on one specific sector. This law automatically expires when the sector is no longer available in sector conquest / the timer in sector conquest runs down.
  • etc. etc.

 

On initial creation of the alliance - all settings can be selected freely to create the most freedom. Once it’s going and as more members enter the alliance, it’s harder to dramatically change laws, representing the challenge of controlling a larger alliance.

 

More immersion. More interaction. More fun.

4

Thank you EvilTactician, you’ve thought a good deal on it.

And thank you, Error, for forwarding this.

5

Thank you EvilTactician, you’ve thought a good deal on it.

And thank you, Error, for forwarding this.

 

No, thank you for supporting the game and bringing forward ideas.

6

Alliances; yes absolutely. I’ve had many chats with some specific other corporations about such options.

 

However, the way such an option is implemented is absolutely paramount. What you don’t want to encourage is several mass-recruitment corps banding together and forming a massive zerg ball.

 

E.g. a member limit (of say, 450, which is 3 full corporations) would be incredibly useful. This allows smaller, tighter corporations to band together and retain their individual identities - whilst still enabling bigger ones to use the system to bridge their sub-corporations. (DR/Cronus for example, could use this to ‘link’ their multiple corporations into one organised and recognisable unit)

 

The alliance would replace the individual entries of corporations on the leaderboard, which makes things tidier. There should be an option for players to click on an alliance in the leaderboards and see the breakdown of the individual corporations within it - how they rank within the corporation (so a sub-leaderboard). This enables people both a view on who’s in the alliance as well as still provide the leaderboard data for individual entities and give people an idea of the powers within each alliance.

 

In terms of alliance organisation and leadership - rather than forcing one method down our throats it would be nice to be allowed several options.

 

Council

 

Each alliance should have a council of representatives, who can bring forward and vote on ‘laws’. This creates a dynamic and interactive system.

 

 

Laws

 

Laws are what normally would be the settings screen if things were ran in the form of a dictatorship. Whether or not we want the option for dictatorships where one person simply controls all laws is subject to debate.

 

Representatives can select a law to ‘put forward to the council’ - after which a representative from another corporation needs to ‘second’ the motion before it becomes a poll/vote. Once it does - all representatives can vote, which ultimately results in the council passing or rejecting the motion.

 

–

 

Such laws could include (some quick ideas);

  • Councillors have equal voting power. (1 vote each)
  • Councillors have proportional voting power. (corporations size determines voting power)
  • Councillors have proportional voting power. (corporation pvp rating determines voting power)
  • Councillors have proportional voting power. (corporation number of controlled sectors determines voting power)
  • Adding/Removing member corporations requires a majority vote.
  • Adding/Removing member corporations requires an unanimous vote.
  • Changing alliance affiliation (Empire, Federation, Jericho, Neutral)
  • Adding a member corporation.
  • Removal of a member corporation.
  • Nomination of a new Chairman/President.
  • The chairman does/doesn’t have veto powers to reject any law. (these kind of votes become very interesting)
  • The alliance will be limited to X member corporations.
  • The alliance member corporations are limited to X members in their corporation.
  • The alliance will declare war on alliance/corporation X.
  • The alliance will sign a peace treaty (cancel a war) with alliance/corporation X.
  • The alliance will focus on territory <select one of the active conquest territories> - This will disable any members from selecting the other territory in sector conquest, focusing the efforts of the whole alliance on one specific sector. This law automatically expires when the sector is no longer available in sector conquest / the timer in sector conquest runs down.
  • etc. etc.

 

On initial creation of the alliance - all settings can be selected freely to create the most freedom. Once it’s going and as more members enter the alliance, it’s harder to dramatically change laws, representing the challenge of controlling a larger alliance.

 

More immersion. More interaction. More fun.

Awesome suggestion. Particularly the alliance council. 

 

7

Awesome suggestion. Particularly the alliance council. 

 

 

Nice that someone noticed :slight_smile:

8

Very cool idea wolfkhan , this would be neat

9

Renewing page. Would anyone else like to have this?

10

Just make it similar to EVE. You can make your own custom chat channels with a password, then distribute the password to only people you want in it.

11

what type of chat channels? I only played eve for a day before stopping. If they are used via speech, then, no, I’d rather have a written channel with other abilities. hence, 

“Corporations, that are officially united in an alliance, may name their alliance as well as see who’s online in the other corporation.” if it’s just a channel, you won’t be able to see the other corp in its entirety.

12

Eve channel systems

 

Default primary systems, in order, cannot be removed:

  1. Local (solar system chat, mostly used for presence awareness)

  2. Corporation (npc and uncontrolled by default, player controlled if you joined a corp, main channel you will mostly use to interact, unless you plan on something else - see quaternary type)

  3. Alliance (only if you’re in a player corporation that’s part of an alliance, it then cannot be removed, it will not appear if you are not in an alliance corp, used for inter-corp arrangements, chatting, planning, coordination etc)

 

Secondary and can be removed, not important:

-Constellation (no presence awareness unless someone talks in it)

-Region (same as above)

-whatever else, not important

 

Tertiary, can be removed, utility channels, MOTD available, dev created, free to join:

-help (several languages)

-rookie channel

-trading (several channels for different things)

-recruitment

-radio

-whatever else

 

Quaternary, most important along with the primary channels, player created, password protected or not, with privilege setting abilities, invite only or free to join, MOTD and other settings available:

-intel-type channels for local players or inter-alliance / corp

-mixed operations channels

-secretive discussions channels

-personal use channels

-whatever strikes your mind

 

The type we need is the 4th one - the ability to create our own channels with MOTD, control designated to hand-picked players etc.

I used a specially created channel myself of the quaternary type to work together with 4 accounts / clients running at the same time on the same computer for fast links, coordination etc, and also with specialized MOTDs to help my trading and PI routes and schedules among all 12 characters. All were empowered to freely modify the boards for ease of access. It was total management freedom, an incredible boost to the quality of life in Eve.

So the quaternary type is my suggestion.