EVE General Discussion

I'll start this by saying I'm a former NCO (non-commissioned officer) in the U.S. Air Force. As such, I don't mind being told what to do, but I tend to appreciate it more when that someone telling me qualifies in some way other than has an account and has been "in this corp" for a real long time. Maybe that's a problem. Maybe it's not. As a CEO, that rule still applies, even to me. Delegation is the key to management, and delegating authority with the responsibility the rule of the road. That being said...

I see here a lot of comments about not playing in low or null tied to experiences with alliances and corps. One of the most significant observations is experience characterized by serving in a less than humbling capacity for people who are oblivous to you unless you don't show up to do the drudge work. Behind this I see a hierarchy that apparently thinks very highly of itself, and views its less senior members as lackeys...there just to keep quiet and do the drudge work.

I'm curious if this is a mistaken impression. I mention being an NCO because others that have served understand there's a certain amount of training that goes along with that rank's status. Very little of it is "I'm the one who gets to tell the n00bs what to do." In fact, if that's all rank is to someone, it's doubtful they'll ever receive that promotion. The part about, "making sure everyone is trained up, part of a well-functioning team, doesn't get burned-out, and knows he/she is appreciated" IS very big.

I was just wondering if a lot of these corp members ragging on people are after someone to work with, or someone to work FOR them. The one is satisfying with lots of room to grow. The other is a slow form of suicide.

Any comments?

Seniority isn't everything, unless the corp is Terrible, merrit is far more likey to lead to promotions. But as a fellow Airman, I'm sure you're familiar with the terms "Time In Service" and "Time in Grade." Time can mean experience and trust. Trust is a big reason to promote someone for time, they're either really patient, or trustworthy, even if they aren't particularly good at their job.

Low is scary to many players who have had bad experiences there, people prefer "fly what you can afford to loose" more than "plan to loose whatever you fly". I do plan on moving out there though, eventually.

I served with 53FS 36TFW back in the 90s.

See what you mean there, but comparing RL experience to game experience and the factors involved are too vast to draw conclusions from.

Also looks to me like you were into that TQM stuff. Lots of mixed feeling and results about that. On the one hand, it would be simpler to just be told what to do via being given orders, on the other hand, "why" was important to help understand what the goals of the task or mission were. TQM was not properly implemented, in my opinion, because it was used on everybody when in fact some people, just by signing on, are ready to be told what to do and how to do it.

Hence the situation with 0.0 corps. How they advertise themselves, and what players should expect, can be two different things. A lot of people expect 0.0 life to be one of slavery or rentership, and being yelled at by some neckbeard because you took a half second longer to put the target painter on the primary or something like that.

Hence, expecting that, people don't sign on to it.

I very nearly trolled you when you started with your statement about being an NCO until you stated the reason.


If you strip away the junk this game comes down to two things

1. first up its a social simulator

and second

2. Its throwing people together with no rules and reason and telling them to organise themselves.

People band together for survival/knowledge/friendship/group work

being a senior member is normally based on

1. knowledge base (works on noobies)
2. fighting strength (again noobies)
3. Personal Charisma.

but thankfully EVE is a self organising system.

highsec is normally for those who like

1. Casual gaming
2. Manufacturing

Lowsec is mainly for

1. exploration
2. PvP

and is used by a lot of highsecers


Nullsec is for hardcore gamers who can put in a lot of time and effort, although there are those who swear differently. They normally dont have access to females they are not related to, nor do they have any employment. They confuse their real life friends with their EVE friends (holy moly i started trolling without even realising. What is happening to me)


and their you have it. Work out your level of emmersement and go from there.

My advice is highsec for the win. lowsec for the luls and nullsec if your life is worthless and you need something to take your mind away from it (did it again)

Oh yes..and "Up or Out." Yet, you also know that time in service involved very well-planned and coordinated training from technical know-how to how to deal with people.

I'm not sure what "TQM" means. I was in just as the all-volunteer force began. It put the military on a strange footing having members in on what were essentially business contracts they had to honor. A lot of what I had to deal with was trying to recover from the Nam debacle.

IRL, military or in this game, management of people, resources...time...the whole ball of wax, runs along the same lines if you want to get the most from what you have. (I like Karn's "social simulator" comment.)

Abdiel's observations about "knowing the big picture" and "the most ISK for themselves," are realities that can be planned for by how a person's entry into an organization is handled, and what kind of "supervision" or mentoring they receive. Knowing the big picture is a perennial problem that is solved systemically with communication via newsletter, or other inhouse organs of that nature.

Marginal performers, from what I was taught, are a tendency that isn't totally uncurable. I'm wondering now how many corps use an awards and decs system with this in mind. And, of course, some people won't cut it no matter what you do. Somebody gets fired now and again...just like the rain must fall.

There's a bit of a quandary in all that which you'll probably pass over if you put EVE organizations on even footing with physical real-world counterparts.

Supervision and mentoring are huge in both places, and I don't think anyone outside of very elite operations downplay it. The fact is; however, that when you look at the numbers those who need supervising so outnumber those with an ability to supervise that you have problems. IRL you would simply give the supervisory person a payroll that makes the headaches worth his while. In EVE, even the most perk-driven FC has a limited number of ways to be encouraged. I put in two years as an FC with a smaller alliance not too long ago and even though my ships were free and I could essentially have a few PLEX at the ready, my time was being impeded upon too much to matter.

Burnout of supervisors isn't the only issue you run into though. In EVE, it's essentially impossible to track a dishonest player. In the best of cases, you can work out whom a spy might be working for and burn some of their aliases (they'll simply sell them on the bazaar and get or grow new ones though). As you mentioned, trust is everything in a hierarchy, and when even the directors are suspect you can be damned sure that nobody below an FC role will be trusted with much of anything. That level of aloofness often drives even very good corps to make new members feel like they don't belong or that they're a very small part of a large impersonal machine.

Both of these factors limit the amount of human capital investment that takes place in the long term. If a player is generally extroverted (hard to find in the mmo-world honestly) and socializes a good deal, he will probably get an acceptable level of guidance and cease to be a slacker if that is possible. Most of the players thought, regardless of their dedication at first, will not speak out enough to get that attention they need. They will run their course as a grunt and find that nobody really trusts them and that will lead to a few of the most common events in EVE: corp theft, awoxing, or simply moving back to a more casual playstyle.

Some corps manage to find a balance for these issues better than others, but by in large you can bank on the fact that most corps and alliances slowly decay to these processes over time. Sudden injections of leadership (someone wholly giving over their life and time to EVE for a few months), new content, and out-of-game common backgrounds can only slow the descent.

Too lazy to check if my answer has already been covered, but I think part of this stems from the fact that having multiple corps on your employment history page is viewed as a bad thing. This might discourage newer players from leaving a "bad" corp, and create an accelerated sense of importance for those who were taught the game by such a corp.

Generally speaking in EvE I find that recruiters will covet a player that has never been a "free agent" and has been with the same corp for his entire career, but they rarely stop to consider the quality and reputation of that one corp. But that leads us to a totally different topic, what makes a good recruiter etc, and that's for another time.

Interesting the word "trust" keeps popping up. I tend to try to trust (love that alliteration) people with what they can be trusted...with. (How's that for butchering the language?) The observation that not trusting someone relegating them to drudgery which then creates resentment expressed by theft is quite astute in a pointing-out-the-obvious way. (No disrepect intended.) It seems to be the continual undercurrent.

Compartmentalization, or the good old "need-to-know" ethos, is the usual method to control the havoc potential of the untrustworthy. And, (my turn to point out the obvious) one doesn't discover the untrustworthy until they've created the havoc. It's always hindsight. This seems to finger something. (Did I say that?) Ahem...this seems to point something out.

Is it more profitable to the individual to work within a group, or to wing it alone? Someone said this is a social simulator, but isn't it just as much an economic simulator? Wouldn't that take-home pay provide some sort of incentive for loyalty? Why would someone betray the interests that serve them well?

A spy is usually sent. Spies are serving an interest already. On a percentage basis I'd say competent spies are pretty rare in this game. Penalizing the group for the outside chance someone, somewhere may be out to get you in a big way...trust...seems to turn a corp to a casualty, and is self-defeating as an attempt at self-preservation. (I hope that turn wasn't too tight.) Are the game mechanics truly such that to have an effective leadership hierarchy the corp has to expose its entire throat - be at the mercy of its members? If so, why bother to have them at all, other than a way to facilitate playing with a few friends?

Giving someone the keys to the kingdom and delegating responsibility with authority seem to go hand-in-hand here. The base EVE assumption is therefore, human nature is all bad, and there's no hope for better. So, all attempts to organize are doomed to fail. Is this really true? Or, is the possible disaster should that "one particular incident occur" enough to abandon the concept of loyalty?

I know this strays a bit from Vyl's OP, which presupposes the corp in question can assume their membership is ready willing and able...loyal...but bad leadership could be leading to bad experiences. This is all very interesting indeed.

Am I tired? I can't figure out what OP wants to say...

****** corps are ******. Group effort is fun. Restrictions and commands from Senior stupid leaders is not fun. Because their directions are stupid or boring or waste your online time.

:( dp