Topic: Player Conglomerate Suggestion

Using in game terminology, any "Alliance" features in which a group of player corporations come together to work toward the same goals, would be considered a "Player Conglomerate."

Why the need for such a feature? Mainly, there's way too many chiefs that play sandboxes, and not enough injuns. We all want to run our seperate corporations differently, those of us who enjoy being Guild/Corp leaders. It's quite a bit of work just with 10 members, even more so once you get to the 25+ numbers. Having Player Corporations in the 100s and 1000s is really tough. Of course it has been done before, but Perpetuum isn't really big enough for that.

The basics of the "Player Conglomerate":

Control over player held Outposts could be transferred over to the Conglomerate. This would be a voluntary control mechanism of the Corp CEO currently holding said Outpost. That Corp must first be apart of a Player Conglomerate.

Now, defense of said Outpost can be conducted by all player sub-corporations to strengthen the control of that Outpost, and all sub-corporations receive the same benefits from the Outpost Facilities (refinery, factory etc...)


Creation of a Player Conglomerate

I had originally thought about a new Extension for this, but not sure that would work. So far this is what I've come up with:

Any Corp CEO can create a Player Conglomerate. It is not considered a True Conglomerate until a certain number of Corporations has signed up for it. I was thinking three, however two might suffice.

Once a Player Conglomerate has the sufficient number of Corporations within it, a "Board of Directors" is established. That "Board" consists of all Sub-Corporation CEOs. The CEO who originally created the Conglomerate, would be the First "Head of the Board." Read further for more.


Board of Directors:

The Board of Directors would bring in a new feature. That feature being a voting system. Now, this voting system could be simple, as in just CEOs able to vote in an equal part, or more complex. So far this is what I've come up with:

1. All Votes by the Board are a majority system. The Board Head has the ability to "vote twice" if there is any tie.

2. The Board votes on the adding or removal of other Player Corporations into the Conglomerate.

3. The Board votes on the "Board Head."

4. A lot of other features could be added here, as in, Declarations of War, Intrusion Participations, and other Conglomerate Features, I'm open to suggestions.


The Head of the Board:

People change over time, folks leave games to go try new ones. Any sort of "Alliance Leader" never stays the same over the course of any MMO. With that in mind:

Every 3 months the Congomerate Board of Directors votes for the "Board Head."

The powers of the Board Head are really only three things.

First is veto powers over any vote except for "Board Head" elections.
That means, if the Board Head at the time, decides anything the rest of the Board decides on to be bad for the Conglomerate, that person will be able to Veto that decision. For example: If the board decides to remove a Corporation, and the Head decides that is not a good idea, the Head can veto that decision to keep that Corporation a part of the Conglomerate.

Second, in the case a Vote from the entire Board comes out as a tie, then the Head gets a 2nd vote in order to be the Tie-Breaker.

Finally, bring up different topics to vote on.


Votes and Elections:

Any time the Board Head brings up a new topic to Vote on, the Board of Directors have 48 hours to vote on that topic. If they have not voted within the 48 hours time period, they are considered "Abstained" and have no vote.

Board Head Elections take place on a 3 month Schedule. Every three months a new Election takes place. This could either be purely a Board of Directors vote, or we could suggest allowing all Players in the separate Corporations within the Conglomerate to Vote on this. Elections would be a 72 hour voting window. Anyone who doesn't Vote during that time would be considered Abstained.


Any feedback or further suggestions from the rest of the community is highly appreciated.

2 (edited by Sundial 2011-08-18 23:50:41)

Re: Player Conglomerate Suggestion

This seems a bit one size fits all in the voting system. This game needs more stuff for small corps. Big corps are not suffering. This will only encourage mega power blocks / blobbing.

IMO you can already set standing, or even hold others outpost for you. Before stuff like this is added, smaller corps needs need to be looked at.

While I don't disagree that this would be useful, I think this is not immediately needed. Its a good idea William, but I don't think the game is ready for it.

Looking forward to new players and new conflicts.

Re: Player Conglomerate Suggestion

Sundial wrote:

This seems a bit one size fits all in the voting system. This game needs more stuff for small corps. Big corps are not suffering. This will only encourage mega power blocks / blobbing.

IMO you can already set standing, or even hold others outpost for you. Before stuff like this is added, smaller corps needs need to be looked at.

While I don't disagree that this would be useful, I think this is not immediately needed. Its a good idea William, but I don't think the game is ready for it.


I actually disagree as the major power blocks are already established and working together. This will allow smaller groups with similar goals to work together without sacrificing the corp identities that they want to protect, therefor allowing them to gather enough force to attempt to live on a beta island.

4 (edited by WilliamH Bonney 2011-08-19 00:37:50)

Re: Player Conglomerate Suggestion

Sundial wrote:

This seems a bit one size fits all in the voting system. This game needs more stuff for small corps. Big corps are not suffering. This will only encourage mega power blocks / blobbing.

IMO you can already set standing, or even hold others outpost for you. Before stuff like this is added, smaller corps needs need to be looked at.

While I don't disagree that this would be useful, I think this is not immediately needed. Its a good idea William, but I don't think the game is ready for it.

Eh, my idea stems from wanting to see more folks out on Beta islands, period.
From what I can tell, the stuff about to be implemented, doesn't really promote that.  Is mostly just more help for the "big powerhouses" to secure what they have already, easier.

Something like this however, will allow smaller corps an easier time grouping together, and controlling space out on the Betas.  It's simply safety in numbers, but allowing those numbers to play the way they want (seperate corps) instead of everyone under 1 corp tag.

From my experience, mmo'ers (myself included) do not like that.  We like playing "our own way" rather then in huge massive Corps/Guilds.

This will allow those smaller corps, to work better with other smaller corps, to attain the ultimate goal of living on Beta's.  And with terraforming coming in the near future, even more game content opened up for them.

Re: Player Conglomerate Suggestion

I'm offer to give a veto right not for conglomerate leader but for other corp CEO which one can be choosed by voting aswell. Or they both can have such right.

/signed as CEO of DoY

Have a productive day, runner!
R.I.P. Chenoa, you'll never be forgotten.
DEV Zoom: Line, sorry, I was away for christmas.
http://perp-kill.net/?m=view&id=252086

Re: Player Conglomerate Suggestion

WilliamH Bonney wrote:
Sundial wrote:

This seems a bit one size fits all in the voting system. This game needs more stuff for small corps. Big corps are not suffering. This will only encourage mega power blocks / blobbing.

IMO you can already set standing, or even hold others outpost for you. Before stuff like this is added, smaller corps needs need to be looked at.

While I don't disagree that this would be useful, I think this is not immediately needed. Its a good idea William, but I don't think the game is ready for it.

Eh, my idea stems from wanting to see more folks out on Beta islands, period.
From what I can tell, the stuff about to be implemented, doesn't really promote that.  Is mostly just more help for the "big powerhouses" to secure what they have already, easier.

Something like this however, will allow smaller corps an easier time grouping together, and controlling space out on the Betas.  It's simply safety in numbers, but allowing those numbers to play the way they want (seperate corps) instead of everyone under 1 corp tag.

From my experience, mmo'ers (myself included) do not like that.  We like playing "our own way" rather then in huge massive Corps/Guilds.

This will allow those smaller corps, to work better with other smaller corps, to attain the ultimate goal of living on Beta's.  And with terraforming coming in the near future, even more game content opened up for them.

for more folks on beta islands, we need defensible player build structures. so small corps can manage their own presence. the population at the moment does not support features for larger palyer groups (too few players).

Re: Player Conglomerate Suggestion

you DO realize that this tool benefits smaller corps/alliances more than big ones? oO

Re: Player Conglomerate Suggestion

DrZli wrote:

you DO realize that this tool benefits smaller corps/alliances more than big ones? oO

Smaller corps can work together as is, standings can be set as is, why would they need alliance type tools?

Re: Player Conglomerate Suggestion

Because with the new intrusion changes that are coming;

1. It is unfair to all non-outpost owner corporations that they receive 0 benefit from assisting in defense of alliance-outposts, aside from benefit of being on a secure Beta island.
2. It is impossible to assist in defense of alliance-outposts without camping the SAP for 2 hours since the game treats your allies as aggressors on your outpost if they attempt to help.
3. It promotes merging of small corps into one giant mega-corp of 500+ people.

To quote the Dev Blog:

The random nature of the times neither benefits defender, nor attacker - one’s ability to hold an outpost is largely luck, combined with the number of players one can bring to bear in a specific time zone. This encourages superalliances, and overconcentration of players (a.k.a. blobs) in order to ensure the safety of these locations. While we have no problem with people banding together as they see fit, we don’t want that banding together to be the “one correct option” - and the current system encourages this.

What people are asking for is game-mechanic support for people who wish to band together as they see fit, just like there is already a game-mechanic that supports people who wish to be completely isolated as one corp vs everyone else.

Without this game-mechanic, the "one correct option" will be to merge all small 10-30-50-100 man corporations into one mega-corp.

That is not a problem, as I will be the first CEO in SovNov to disband my corp & move into an alliance mega-corp if it is needed to ensure equality among all paying players who call Novastrov home and motherland.

[18:20:30] <GLiMPSE> Chairman Of My Heart o/
CIR Complaint Form

The Imperial Grand Wizard of Justice

Re: Player Conglomerate Suggestion

Dev Blog


While we have no problem with people banding together as they see fit, we don’t want that banding together to be the “one correct option”


Syndic


What people are asking for is game-mechanic support for people who wish to band together as they see fit


So you do want that to be the "one correct option"



Do not take this the wrong way but the game population atm does not support a method for herding cats as you seem to want, when the server population hopefully becomes much larger and player retention is up these 'cat herding' tools can and most probably will be implemented.


At this point in the games development we need Dev time to be spent on features that benefit player retention and new player experiences, the PVE for example needs a ton of work, that will help subscriptions to rise, thus enabling ideas like Williams to be floated.


Just not at this point Syndic, put your effort into ideas that will help the game grow, not cat herding tools that only encourage "one correct method", that is for later.

Re: Player Conglomerate Suggestion

One mans efforts to keep his sovereign rein over his pets with out having say sorry you can not have the outpost aura cause your not CIR. "Now drop corp and kiss the ring, excelent Mr. Smithers". Oh good team work on haveing the whole SOVNOVABLOB sign the thread. Can you go press the E-war kill mail and PVE mission threads like that too?

Participate, Congratulate cause everything else will be seen as HATE.
Max yellow max all skills lvl 10 min max for the win

Re: Player Conglomerate Suggestion

Add an alliance feature.
I'm against it but this game is on the verge of going back to sleep again.
New featured need ASAP.

Alliance features will let blobs blob no different. Make alliance channel optional however but not require a password and be locked to alliance members only.

Re: Player Conglomerate Suggestion

Syndic wrote:

Because with the new intrusion changes that are coming;

1. It is unfair to all non-outpost owner corporations that they receive 0 benefit from assisting in defense of alliance-outposts, aside from benefit of being on a secure Beta island.
2. It is impossible to assist in defense of alliance-outposts without camping the SAP for 2 hours since the game treats your allies as aggressors on your outpost if they attempt to help.
3. It promotes merging of small corps into one giant mega-corp of 500+ people.

To quote the Dev Blog:

The random nature of the times neither benefits defender, nor attacker - one’s ability to hold an outpost is largely luck, combined with the number of players one can bring to bear in a specific time zone. This encourages superalliances, and overconcentration of players (a.k.a. blobs) in order to ensure the safety of these locations. While we have no problem with people banding together as they see fit, we don’t want that banding together to be the “one correct option” - and the current system encourages this.

What people are asking for is game-mechanic support for people who wish to band together as they see fit, just like there is already a game-mechanic that supports people who wish to be completely isolated as one corp vs everyone else.

Without this game-mechanic, the "one correct option" will be to merge all small 10-30-50-100 man corporations into one mega-corp.

That is not a problem, as I will be the first CEO in SovNov to disband my corp & move into an alliance mega-corp if it is needed to ensure equality among all paying players who call Novastrov home and motherland.

You're quoting the wrong part of the blog. Basicaly they are changing intrusions from once per week to 24/7 at random time. How does THAT benefit the small corps ie beyond me  (you have to cover the timezones now 24/7). Also the feature discussed in this thread was never introduced to help corps share an outpost, it's just your spin now when it's being rejected.

Anyway we need other features more urgently at the moment.

Re: Player Conglomerate Suggestion

Hugh Ruka wrote:

You're quoting the wrong part of the blog. Basicaly they are changing intrusions from once per week to 24/7 at random time. How does THAT benefit the small corps ie beyond me  (you have to cover the timezones now 24/7). Also the feature discussed in this thread was never introduced to help corps share an outpost, it's just your spin now when it's being rejected.

Anyway we need other features more urgently at the moment.

I am quoting the correct part of the blog.

It doesn't benefit small corps in any way, shape or form. Thus, the only solution to own an outpost is for small corps to merge into a mega-corporation capable of fielding a presence 24/7.

I would much rather have a game full of allied small corporations doing their own stuff, then a game with 3-4, max 6 corporations with 500-600 members.

You should say "I need other features more urgently at the moment" rather then "we". We, from Novastrov, have very clearly shown what feature we wish to have. smile

[18:20:30] <GLiMPSE> Chairman Of My Heart o/
CIR Complaint Form

The Imperial Grand Wizard of Justice

15 (edited by Hugh Ruka 2011-08-19 12:34:30)

Re: Player Conglomerate Suggestion

Syndic wrote:
Hugh Ruka wrote:

You're quoting the wrong part of the blog. Basicaly they are changing intrusions from once per week to 24/7 at random time. How does THAT benefit the small corps ie beyond me  (you have to cover the timezones now 24/7). Also the feature discussed in this thread was never introduced to help corps share an outpost, it's just your spin now when it's being rejected.

Anyway we need other features more urgently at the moment.

I am quoting the correct part of the blog.

It doesn't benefit small corps in any way, shape or form. Thus, the only solution to own an outpost is for small corps to merge into a mega-corporation capable of fielding a presence 24/7.

I would much rather have a game full of allied small corporations doing their own stuff, then a game with 3-4, max 6 corporations with 500-600 members.

You should say "I need other features more urgently at the moment" rather then "we". We, from Novastrov, have very clearly shown what feature we wish to have. smile

Since sharing an outpost is not possible with ingame mechanics (the already mentioned defense problems) in any reasonable way (at least I get that impression from your coments), it would make more sense to request that instead of corporation management features that are just cosmetics at the moment.

we means most people not in CIR :-) just kidding. I do admit you have more experience in the game and you've seen much more about it. but you are also biased in maintaining your position which I am not. that does still not validate my own feature requests, it just shows a different angle of view.

Re: Player Conglomerate Suggestion

Unbelievable, you have utter contempt for this game Syndic, not content with forcing smaller, independent corporations out of the game and griefing new players, you want to be able to blob with impunity.

You say this is for intrusions and the ability to defend, well i can see past your spin and know this is desired by yourself so you can Blob anyones outpost that you do not want on beta/ doesn't kow tow to your will.


You and your ilk are killing the game, grow up.

Re: Player Conglomerate Suggestion

Paranoid  Marvin wrote:

Unbelievable, you have utter contempt for this game Syndic, not content with forcing smaller, independent corporations out of the game and griefing new players, you want to be able to blob with impunity.

You say this is for intrusions and the ability to defend, well i can see past your spin and know this is desired by yourself so you can Blob anyones outpost that you do not want on beta/ doesn't kow tow to your will.


You and your ilk are killing the game, grow up.

at least give him credit for the correct part. the suggested features allow small corps to band together and force some hurt on CIR too. however he does not suggest functions that would make the actual combat/contest easier for the others :-))

Re: Player Conglomerate Suggestion

Oh look its the CIR/Nova signing the head count thread. looks like we now know your true active strength. First its stop shooting so I can be the killer now its log on the forums and sign a thread to waste the dev's time on a mechanic that is A. Not needed at this time and B. irrelevant to all Alpha corps who BTW are the small corps your claiming this will help. Whats next Spin Doctors?

I would be willing to say this is a good idea in a year from now, if and when the server population is either increasing or holding steady. As it is right now this wouldn't bring anyone to the game. PVE is whats driving them out fix that then worry about other things.

Participate, Congratulate cause everything else will be seen as HATE.
Max yellow max all skills lvl 10 min max for the win

19 (edited by Mara Kaid 2011-08-19 15:43:07)

Re: Player Conglomerate Suggestion

Not signed, this is a propaganda move by the people wanting to have more blobs into the game, and does really nothing but allow them to sit on their haunches, having an alliance effectively removes the benefits smaller corps get from the new intrusion system.

check a piece of the modt from their intel channel:

"http://forums.perpetuum-online.com/topic/3479/player-conglomerate-suggestion/ post your support for alliance features pls"

Check this as well

Now, defense of said Outpost can be conducted by all player sub-corporations to strengthen the control of that Outpost, and all sub-corporations receive the same benefits from the Outpost Facilities (refinery, factory etc...)

Aren't we trying to avoid this?

Re: Player Conglomerate Suggestion

Sundial wrote:

While I don't disagree that this would be useful, I think this is not immediately needed. Its a good idea William, but I don't think the game is ready for it.


Yes, while it is a good idea, it's not ready for this stuff.

Re: Player Conglomerate Suggestion

meh, we know guys. Everyone in the biggest ingame alliance wants alliance features.

Syndic, what I find silly is you saying you will merge many corporations into your own if they don't do this. We both know that is not good for the game... Whats wrong with your allies defending your saps and you defending your allies saps? No direct benefit? Im sorry, but this makes 0 sense at all.

Looking forward to new players and new conflicts.

22 (edited by Syndic 2011-08-19 16:01:28)

Re: Player Conglomerate Suggestion

Try reading. I can't very well merge many corporations into my own, if I'm the first CEO to disband my own corporation can I now? smile

What is wrong is that you cannot defend your allies SAP because the game treats it as "aggressing", thus if you try to capture the SAP you end up destabilizing your own ally's outpost. Or you can camp the SAP for 2 hours. Potentially every day. Potentially twice. lol

I mean, its fine for you guys since you don't own any outposts, but those of us that do don't really fancy the possibility of sitting out there twiddling our thumbs for 4 hours every day. There's other stuff we can camp when we want to camp. smile

[18:20:30] <GLiMPSE> Chairman Of My Heart o/
CIR Complaint Form

The Imperial Grand Wizard of Justice

23 (edited by Sundial 2011-08-19 16:04:38)

Re: Player Conglomerate Suggestion

Syndic wrote:

Try reading. I can't very well merge many corporations into my own, if I'm the first CEO to disband my own corporation can I now? smile

What is wrong is that you cannot defend your allies SAP because the game treats it as "aggressing", thus if you try to capture the SAP you end up destabilizing your own ally's outpost. Or you can camp the SAP for 2 hours. Potentially every day. Potentially twice. lol

I mean, its fine for you guys since you don't own any outposts, but those of us that do don't really fancy the possibility of sitting out there twiddling our thumbs for 4 hours every day. There's other stuff we can camp when we want to camp. smile

Just sit there and defend the sap instead of trying to capture it?

They are your allies after all, wouldn't they do the same for CIR?

Looking forward to new players and new conflicts.

Re: Player Conglomerate Suggestion

The idea is fine. The mechanics are untested and im unsure if its worth the devs time to get it right when they could be getting other things...right. My concern is that the game is slowly becoming one large mock-corporation rather than a PVP centered game. In my time spent in-game, i have to deal more with corporation details than actual PVP game play. And being that i am not a ceo, i can only imagine how much more a ceo must deal with corp details than i.

Improve the community interactions that exist Outside of corps and increase the active player base. Those art the priorities i would vote for.

I would /vote for this in about 6 months.

25 (edited by Balfizar 2011-08-19 16:55:42)

Re: Player Conglomerate Suggestion

A: no surprise that the biggest blob in perp that is constantly blueing new corps wants a alliance feature as u only see nova blob members wanting this in mass

B: like williamH bonney said "Of course it has been done before, but Perpetuum isn't really big enough for that." perp is not big at all promoting alliance features and alliances will always keep this game 1 sided

C: as it stand there 1 main power block and its killing the game b/c it constantly blueing everything and discourages people to strike out on its own

D: I can see this feature if perp had atleast 1k players on constantly. more people would be in game and there would hopefully be more factions running around but as it stand this feature just would incourage more blueing less pvp and a dead game

E: the new intrusion feature will hopefully encourage people to brake away from the nap fest and force them to go out on there own if they wish to own a out post witch would = more pvp less blobing


The game is dieing no one wants to come in and play a game thats one sided wasnt that novablob whole propaganda against M2S in the first place? M2S really is no longer a threat to the whole server. yet you people trade one tyrant for another when its suits u! This community has failed its self and will be its own undoing more will leave never to return b/c people like CIR RG ROME HYDRA DOY MORTE CHAOS ADLN SK RIDE THS (yes i know i left some out CIR has so many blues its hard to keep track) and more all stay blue and prob blueing more corps as we speek. sure your on top the game u have power and b/j parties every friday but at what cost? Choking the life out of this game is the price u are paying.

So I say to you devs do not add more B/S to make it easy for people to blue up and form alliances add ur new intrusion system and force people out on there own!


Props to F-navy for leaving the nap fest and striking out on there own!