These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Why small corps can't access null sec ?

First post
Author
Rhes
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#81 - 2013-09-14 07:46:06 UTC
Infinity Ziona wrote:
If you made it scale by number of tcu's, like how war decs work, multiplying the cost they'd break the alliances up. Whatever fix you put in they would find a hole and exploit it because that's what they do because CCP allows it. Same as they allow them to drive war dec prices up by deccing themselves or avoiding wars by disbanding enemy alliances because one person forgot to kick a lasped account a few years ago.


CCP should ban making friends.

EVE is a game about spaceships and there's an enormous amount of work to do on the in-space gameplay before players (or developers) are ready to sacrifice it for a totally new type of gameplay - CCP Rise

Vera Algaert
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#82 - 2013-09-14 07:54:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Vera Algaert
Twylla wrote:
What makes you think I'd be so willing to have a 200 man corp? 20 is easier to manage and track if something goes wrong.

I don't care what style of corp you like and neither does the alliance that won't consider your corp for recruitment.

I'm not arguing that it is better for the corp to be large, I am arguing that alliances want to deal with a small number of corporations. As long as there are enough medium-sized corporations out there (and there are) this means the alliance has no need to go to the trouble of dealing with your 20man corp.

For an alliance small corporations create a disproportionally large amount of administrative overhead and drama. That's why alliances prefer large corporations. If you don't want to play in a large corporation then that's your choice and perfectly fine by me.

(Also of the 200 people in a corp approximately 195 don't need any corp roles so I don't buy your "corp theft" argument.)

.

Twylla
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#83 - 2013-09-14 08:42:59 UTC  |  Edited by: Twylla
Vera Algaert wrote:
Twylla wrote:
What makes you think I'd be so willing to have a 200 man corp? 20 is easier to manage and track if something goes wrong.

I don't care what style of corp you like and neither does the alliance that won't consider your corp for recruitment.

I'm not arguing that it is better for the corp to be large, I am arguing that alliances want to deal with a small number of corporations. As long as there are enough medium-sized corporations out there (and there are) this means the alliance has no need to go to the trouble of dealing with your 20man corp.

For an alliance small corporations create a disproportionally large amount of administrative overhead and drama. That's why alliances prefer large corporations. If you don't want to play in a large corporation then that's your choice and perfectly fine by me.

(Also of the 200 people in a corp approximately 195 don't need any corp roles so I don't buy your "corp theft" argument.)



Good point. When I was executor, the founding corps just spent all day bickering until I put my foot down and made a command decision. Started with the alliance name and just went downhill from there. I was *supposed* to just be flipping switches so nobody got a fat head. In the end, I wound up a more traditional leader babysitting the CEO's that were holding the whole operation together.

So I'm well familiar with the headache of having a lot of smaller corps with big egos. Big corps in alliances are just as tough to deal with, only with the added political BS of having to give them their way 'lest the CEO's ego calls for a balk and walk. You wouldn't believe the profundity of the ego-inflation that occurs when a corp becomes too big to kick in the nuts to bring them back in line.

That's when you get the lead FC going around popping and podding industrial alliance members and renters who aren't a part of the combat force.

When you have a leader with backbone, dealing with the 'many small corps' isn't nearly as bad as the prospect of having to shove your foot in the ass of an indispensably huge corp. Or not, as was the case of my previous example.

~Weapons R&D technician, arms manufacturer, weapons dealer, wormhole project manager, nulsec fleet pilot, armored warfare command/mindlink specialist, thanatos pilot, alliance executor, now retired~

I've done everything. NOW GET OFF MY LAWN!

Cavalira
Habemus
#84 - 2013-09-14 09:31:28 UTC
Why won't a company give me a nice good job before I graduate?

You can easily go in and start SBUing systems. EVE is a sandbox.
Vera Algaert
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#85 - 2013-09-14 09:41:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Vera Algaert
@Twylla I think we can agree that - no matter what exactly your preferred corp size is - it is a good idea to have roughly equally sized corporations in your alliance.

The example you outline (which is something I have seen happening before, so I have a fairly good idea of what you are talking about) is probably due to the relative size of the "big" corp compared to the other corporations in your alliance.

Dealing with corporations that are much bigger or much smaller than the average corporation in your alliance tends to introduce additional challenges and often invites trouble. Too big corporations have too much negotiating power and can strong arm your alliance, too small corporations will require to be judged by different standards than the other alliance members.

However, the "too big" side of the problem can in practice be mitigated by having the alliance-defining corporation (which also provides most of the leadership personnel) become so big that any potential alliance member will pale in comparison.

Goonswarm Federation doesn't have to worry about WIdot being twice as large as the next largest corporation (967 to 450 members) because GoonWaffe itself is more than 3x the size of WIdot (3395 to 967) and because WIdot - despite being the second largest corp - only makes up less than 10% of the alliance (967 out of 10653 = 9%, slightly more if you consider WIdot members in alt corps but not enough to matter).

So for these alliances (TEST was structured very similarly) the corporations that are "too small" tend to create more trouble than the corporations that are "too big" (yet still dwarfed by the alliance's core corporation).

.

Twylla
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#86 - 2013-09-14 09:57:48 UTC  |  Edited by: Twylla
Having small corps isn't always a problem. A headache, sure, but it shouldn't be a 'problem'. If you have trouble holding on to space without forced conscription, you're on pretty shaky ground to begin with.

@Vera Very true.

R&D and manufacturing groups have to stay small for security purposes, but they're some of the healthiest things to have in nullsec. Yet, at the same time, people have this unhealthy obsession with calling them 'freeloaders'.

Small corps, especially those with well skilled industrial development staff, can mean locally manufactured (and less expensive) supplies compared to Jump crews to move freighters.. only they're usually just thrown into unstable regions and fleeced as an improvised defense force. You'd get bitchy as someone who wants pvp to be told to shut up and mine at the drop of a hat every day. Works both ways, really. That's when you have problems with bitchy small corps.

There's too much to develop. R&D takes towers, space, and isk. Manufacturing needs time to accrue resources, which in turn needs teams of 'carebears' grinding up rocks which they are all too happy to do. That means guns, ships, ammunition, fits, all available on-site at the nearest station at the drop of a hat. Having the on-hand material resources to replace entire fleets already on the market beats having to JF replacement doctrine ships once a week.

Yet instead you've got maybe 1 guy with a bunch of alts (usually the CEO or director) out of every 2-300+ people supporting the critical industrial backbone, and that's usually just moongoo monopolizing, JF shipping, and capital ship production. And why is that? Because industrialists are carebears, carebears are freeloaders, and freeloaders should be kicked out? So says the 200-1000 man pvp corp CEO holding the space about the smattering of 'freeloading' small industrial corps.

Therein lies the rub. PVP corps work great big. Lots of gangs, fleet participation, roams, ops, etc. Industrial corps work best small, yet mixing big and small corps together creates the conflict.


Solutions? Why do "carebear" corps have to stay small?
Improving the security surrounding R&D and manufacturing is probably the biggest issue. Changes that help management build barriers against tampering so that industrial corps can get big without massive security holes (oops, did I just cancel that Nyx job?).

Corp management as a whole is a mess when it comes to compartmentalization. If you've got access to one thing, you've got it all, book, bag, and library.


TL:DR, I think I just established the correlation to why small corps have a hard time getting into nulsec as a result of CCP's horribad corporation management console.

~Weapons R&D technician, arms manufacturer, weapons dealer, wormhole project manager, nulsec fleet pilot, armored warfare command/mindlink specialist, thanatos pilot, alliance executor, now retired~

I've done everything. NOW GET OFF MY LAWN!

Benny Ohu
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#87 - 2013-09-14 10:32:08 UTC
Twylla wrote:
And why is that? Because industrialists are carebears, carebears are freeloaders, and freeloaders should be kicked out?

no it's because production or having something produced in highsec is better, more efficient, less risky and cheaper in every way due to poor game design meaning a producer in nullsec is wasting money, resources and space
Infinity Ziona
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#88 - 2013-09-14 10:35:27 UTC
Rhes wrote:
Infinity Ziona wrote:
If you made it scale by number of tcu's, like how war decs work, multiplying the cost they'd break the alliances up. Whatever fix you put in they would find a hole and exploit it because that's what they do because CCP allows it. Same as they allow them to drive war dec prices up by deccing themselves or avoiding wars by disbanding enemy alliances because one person forgot to kick a lasped account a few years ago.


CCP should ban making friends.

Or just lazy alliances that prefer to drop 50 TCU's at once and ninja stations rather than have a good fight eh? Although to be fair its more a result of the rest of EvE nullseccers being pussies and no one would have turned up to stop you grinding them anyway.

CCP Fozzie “We can see how much money people are making in nullsec and it is, a gigantic amount, a shit-ton… in null sec anomalies. “*

Kaalrus pwned..... :)

Twylla
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#89 - 2013-09-14 10:37:15 UTC  |  Edited by: Twylla
Benny Ohu wrote:
Twylla wrote:
And why is that? Because industrialists are carebears, carebears are freeloaders, and freeloaders should be kicked out?

no it's because production or having something produced in highsec is better, more efficient, less risky and cheaper in every way due to poor game design meaning a producer in nullsec is wasting money, resources and space



Without going into a massive essay again (slow night away from the computer), yes.

Attitudes are one part of the problem. Game mechanics like you mention are the another part.

There seems to be absolutely no overhead costs associated with highsec manufacturing that would allow POS-based manufacturing to compete. Sounds like an NPC slot price hike to me. Double benefit for being a bigger ISK sink.

~Weapons R&D technician, arms manufacturer, weapons dealer, wormhole project manager, nulsec fleet pilot, armored warfare command/mindlink specialist, thanatos pilot, alliance executor, now retired~

I've done everything. NOW GET OFF MY LAWN!

Benny Ohu
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#90 - 2013-09-14 10:40:01 UTC
i think attitudes would change very quickly once it became a viable and useful option

i mean, goonswarm saw a spreadsheet and now they're renting space
Twylla
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#91 - 2013-09-14 10:47:39 UTC  |  Edited by: Twylla
Benny Ohu wrote:
i think attitudes would change very quickly once it became a viable and useful option

i mean, goonswarm saw a spreadsheet and now they're renting space



So.. Corp Management, R&D, and manufacturing overhaul next? Now that I think about it, I don't think the mechanics for these have seen any evolution in the past seven years other than T2 processes.

~Weapons R&D technician, arms manufacturer, weapons dealer, wormhole project manager, nulsec fleet pilot, armored warfare command/mindlink specialist, thanatos pilot, alliance executor, now retired~

I've done everything. NOW GET OFF MY LAWN!

Solstice Project
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#92 - 2013-09-14 10:50:53 UTC
Yngwiedis wrote:
Lyris Nairn wrote:
Small corps are absolutely welcome in nullsec. Please contact me ingame to discuss getting your small corp set up in Vale of the Silent.


I will contact you if my friends want also to have a taste of null sec.
Thank you for your offer :)

She'll try to scam you.

The reason why smaller corps have a hard time is because they are small. And insignificant.
The space rightfully belongs to somebody and it's their right to do with it as they please.
What you or anybody else wants is completely irrevelant.

Renault T'Bonin
Doomheim
#93 - 2013-09-14 10:55:41 UTC
Benny Ohu wrote:
Twylla wrote:
And why is that? Because industrialists are carebears, carebears are freeloaders, and freeloaders should be kicked out?

no it's because production or having something produced in highsec is better, more efficient, less risky and cheaper in every way due to poor game design meaning a producer in nullsec is wasting money, resources and space


Oh no this is not true.

A decent sov holding alliance (doesn't even have to be big) has better control over their space than Concord. While I can make 100 to 150 mil a day in empire, that number is doubled or tripled when doing production in 0.0.

The one issue (which is a bit of an equalizer) is getting the products out to market in a situation where what I have to sell, cannot be sold locally. The ingress/egress to high sec is risky.

At the same time.... risk is our business.
Vera Algaert
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#94 - 2013-09-14 15:30:52 UTC  |  Edited by: Vera Algaert
Solstice Project wrote:
Yngwiedis wrote:
Lyris Nairn wrote:
Small corps are absolutely welcome in nullsec. Please contact me ingame to discuss getting your small corp set up in Vale of the Silent.


I will contact you if my friends want also to have a taste of null sec.
Thank you for your offer :)

She'll try to scam you.

The reason why smaller corps have a hard time is because they are small. And insignificant.
The space rightfully belongs to somebody and it's their right to do with it as they please.
What you or anybody else wants is completely irrevelant.


not necessarily, Vale of the Silent is rental space and scamming prospective renters is not cool.

(and you get a commission for finding new renters)

.

Jason Xado
Doomheim
#95 - 2013-09-14 16:07:05 UTC
Providence?
Molly Molou
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#96 - 2013-09-14 16:12:53 UTC
Gotta love all the people in big alliances with their 'It's only fair' comments.

The way sovereignty works is incredibly flawed and encourages only a handful of people to experience the majority of Eve. Any small corp has to lick the boots of an alliance or they will have a hundred carriers dropped on them whenever they try to take part. This is why everyone is crammed into the tiny high sec systems.
Rhes
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#97 - 2013-09-14 16:37:01 UTC
Infinity Ziona wrote:
Rhes wrote:
Infinity Ziona wrote:
If you made it scale by number of tcu's, like how war decs work, multiplying the cost they'd break the alliances up. Whatever fix you put in they would find a hole and exploit it because that's what they do because CCP allows it. Same as they allow them to drive war dec prices up by deccing themselves or avoiding wars by disbanding enemy alliances because one person forgot to kick a lasped account a few years ago.


CCP should ban making friends.

Or just lazy alliances that prefer to drop 50 TCU's at once and ninja stations rather than have a good fight eh? Although to be fair its more a result of the rest of EvE nullseccers being pussies and no one would have turned up to stop you grinding them anyway.


You don't believe in good fights. You've stated in other threads that you should be able to kill sov structures solo without having to deal with reinforcement timers.

EVE is a game about spaceships and there's an enormous amount of work to do on the in-space gameplay before players (or developers) are ready to sacrifice it for a totally new type of gameplay - CCP Rise

Benny Ohu
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#98 - 2013-09-14 16:38:17 UTC
Renault T'Bonin wrote:
Benny Ohu wrote:
Twylla wrote:
And why is that? Because industrialists are carebears, carebears are freeloaders, and freeloaders should be kicked out?

no it's because production or having something produced in highsec is better, more efficient, less risky and cheaper in every way due to poor game design meaning a producer in nullsec is wasting money, resources and space


Oh no this is not true.

A decent sov holding alliance (doesn't even have to be big) has better control over their space than Concord. While I can make 100 to 150 mil a day in empire, that number is doubled or tripled when doing production in 0.0.

The one issue (which is a bit of an equalizer) is getting the products out to market in a situation where what I have to sell, cannot be sold locally. The ingress/egress to high sec is risky.

At the same time.... risk is our business.

i'll trust sources that can drop towers thanks
Alavaria
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#99 - 2013-09-14 19:09:22 UTC
Rhes wrote:
Infinity Ziona wrote:
Rhes wrote:
Infinity Ziona wrote:
If you made it scale by number of tcu's, like how war decs work, multiplying the cost they'd break the alliances up. Whatever fix you put in they would find a hole and exploit it because that's what they do because CCP allows it. Same as they allow them to drive war dec prices up by deccing themselves or avoiding wars by disbanding enemy alliances because one person forgot to kick a lasped account a few years ago.


CCP should ban making friends.

Or just lazy alliances that prefer to drop 50 TCU's at once and ninja stations rather than have a good fight eh? Although to be fair its more a result of the rest of EvE nullseccers being pussies and no one would have turned up to stop you grinding them anyway.

You don't believe in good fights. You've stated in other threads that you should be able to kill sov structures solo without having to deal with reinforcement timers.

Ninjain structures with multiple, multi-day reinforce timers?

How does this work

Loyalty is a virtue, participation brings reward.

BoSau Hotim
Uitraan Diversified Holdings Incorporated
#100 - 2013-09-14 19:10:48 UTC
Twylla wrote:


Unless you're big into PVP, there are no rewards in nulsec. You do as your told, no more, no less. You're about 99% likely to simply be conscripted as fleet fodder on a daily basis.

If you are a combat/industrial mix corporation, your corp will likely get picked clean for your combat personnel and your corp will then get the boot.

It became a job. So unless you LOVE padding your pvp history with one-hit-mentions, there isn't much out there for you.

I'm not a carebear... I'm a SPACE BARBIE!  Now... where's Ken?