EVE General Discussion

Why don't you have militia alliances? Or even corps in the alliances that have more specific designations like Militia?

We have Decorations that are pretty cheap to assemble. They can work as ranking systems inside any alliance. Alliances can set thier own standards as to how these rankings systems work but as a suggestion, an alliance could have a rank system to create the optic of leveling. At level 20, you have the opening to request being taken out of the militia and put in a corp in the HQ alliance. These are only useless because we make them useless. They are dog tags if we want them to be dog tags. They are privlages if we decide to make them such. They are a classifacation system.

This is EVE, we are suppose to create our own content, so lets do it.

EVE is a game with no levels and people can associate levels with progress so lets make Levels. It doesn't need to be a system of importance either. Being in an Alliance miltia can be a play style. If as an example, Goons make the "Goon Miltia" one of the divisions might be a light PvP roam division. people in the goons Alliance might see this and say, hey I really belong there. Give that vet member added classifacation. he's be an Elite soldier in the militia light PvP roam division because you guys know where he came from.

Codes for the militia can be up to each alliance. Maybe discipline is the order of the day. Maybe the ability to make ISK. Maybe all you want are sled dogs, just be candid and point it out. We need a pit bull, we will pay you and give you ships, you will take orders, do what your told and say yes sir, right away sir. Maybe you are NRDS and a CVA militia has other value systems. Those players don't have or want any of the politics of CVA and Sov but they like the idea of being a defence fleet. Log in, do a roam, kill some reds, log out and not worry about losses.

-

All the tools that we see CCP put in the game can be reworked to accomodate our game play. They are nothing more than concepts that we can either manipulate to our needs or throw away for thier face value.

When you leave the New Eden universe, you don't need to be an EVE player, be a goony or a member of -A- or PL or whoever.

Essentially a Militia Satellite Alliance allows people to be part time Goons or part time PL. You aren't expected to do CTA, you won't be expected to or allowed to run Industrial jobs. It isn't your job.

--

CCP
- Add payroll to Corp wallet.
- Add a blue corp star tag for satellie alliances. Allow CEO and directors to confirm status of other alliances and allow us to check official status.
- Rename Sov to Incorporated. Corps don't own countries. I know it's an optic but incorporating a system defines it as an asset and that's what corps do. They secure assets. There are 4 states in EVE. They are used to define our ancestory. After that we define ourselves by our corp, not our state or ancestory. Some will try and argue it's different in the real world but in EVE, the game that's what we use to benchmark Sov.

This thread is not troll proof. In order to make a thread troll proof it must essentially have no content.

Corporate extraterritoriality. Cyberpunk. Megacorporation.
Go google those. Then you'll understand how corporations can own countries and be a law unto themselves.

That's not really where I was directing it. FW is more tied to racials and though that could serve as an anchor for satellite PvP.

I think if I had to condense what I said it would be, why don't alliances recruit at the alliance level, rather than corp level. Then allow people in the alliance through corps and roles and structuring to control Alliance security and loopholes in EVE.

I just needed to see it outside my head to make sense of it and weed out the flaws.

Well... I think a problem with this and in fact a problem that extends beyond what you propose and into problems in null sec and low sec as a whole as well is incentive. For some reason, CCP looks at things purely (it seems) from a collaborative perspective denying a fundamental truth in human nature: nothing motivates like self serving greed. Why would a player go through all the complexity of building these types of relationships between their alliance and their militia if they personally stand to gain nothing or only some marginal benefit? What you are suggesting seems to accomplish nothing in my view. For instance, adding a payroll to corp wallet? While I could see the benefit of that, it's currently possible to simply issue members shares in the corp and pay a dividend. Not many do that though, save some lottery or bank organizations just trying to establish credibility until they inevitably rob their own organization. So why polish an existing mechanic that isn't used? Also, I don't see an incentive for alliances to participate in this. You are adding more management functions to the already somewhat convoluted process of assigning alliance and corporation rolls which will only be a hassle for directors without any 'carrot' to make it worth their time. As an alliance member, you can already join a militia.... right?

I guess I don't understand what you are trying to accomplish. Why add layers of administration without incentive or need?

I don't even know what you mean by this ^

Because intel is an important part of how alliances maintain their power, having their members hoping between the comm services of two alliances or more is quite the intel leak. (Please do not start mentioning how CCP provides EVE Voice, no serious alliance will ever use an voice comm system that lacks 99% of the features TS3 and others provide).

The short answer is that people in leadership positions already have enough on their plate without monitoring every single person and giving them levels.

TEST has a whole killboard full of blue ships to prove that doing this leads to great emergent gameplay, high fleet participation and a general boost in morale.

You pretty much answered that with your own contributions?
In order for it to be effective, it's too cumbersome?

EVE is stale and shrinking. I think everyone can agree on that.

dumb