Re: Player Conglomerate Suggestion

Are you that terrible that you need 75% of the population allied to you in order to feel safe?

You are part of the reason this game is just not fun.

Re: Player Conglomerate Suggestion

It's more like 30% if you have to use numbers:
http://www.perpetuum-online.com/~gargaj/

afaik NEX, 62nd, M2S, TOG,F-Navy, Morte and FOOM are not in the alliance, and they make like 60% of the game world/active players big_smile

<GargajCNS> we maim to please

Re: Player Conglomerate Suggestion

I agree that there needs to be something in place for intrusion 2.0, but, specifically for that mechanic!

I dont agree that we need alliances features with such an ever shrinking player base.

Kudos to the OP for a well thought out system.  Maybe Dev's could book mark it for a future time when/if the PCU is above 1000.

Re: Player Conglomerate Suggestion

WilliamH Bonney wrote:

The new mechanics mean that you need 24/7 online "support" within corporation to defend your outposts.

How many Corps have players in strong numbers (20-30) in every prime time zone?

In that case, the issue is with the proposed Intrusion mechanics, and that's what we should be arguing to change if we want to support the ability of single corps/small entities to hold outposts.

You're saying that the main problem will be having enough people to man the SAPs 24/7. Does this mean alliances can attack SAPs also, as an alliance? If so, your solution will provide considerably more benefit for large alliances than it will for single corps/small alliances, because they will always have many more members to attack other outposts.

Even if this feature is defensive only, it will make it so that the benefit increases proportionally with the size of your alliance.

So while the addition of an alliance feature would be fine, I don't support alliance held outposts.

"...playing a game is the voluntary attempt to overcome unnecessary obstacles."
Bernard Suits, 1978

Re: Player Conglomerate Suggestion

Pyro craniac wrote:

Are you that terrible that you need 75% of the population allied to you in order to feel safe?

You are part of the reason this game is just not fun.

By your reasoning 75% of the population would not agree with you roll

Didnt this thread use to be longer?

Affiliated with CIR, Not actively playing, not neutral

Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen. - Winston Churchill

Re: Player Conglomerate Suggestion

Nidhogg wrote:
Pyro craniac wrote:

Are you that terrible that you need 75% of the population allied to you in order to feel safe?

You are part of the reason this game is just not fun.

By your reasoning 75% of the population would not agree with you roll

Didnt this thread use to be longer?

Yup, seems you need to be loudmouth forum warrior to be counted in this game

Re: Player Conglomerate Suggestion

Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.

wink

*Disclaimer: This post can contain strong sarcasm or cynical remarks. keep that in mind!
Whining - It's amazing how fast your trivial concerns will disappear

Re: Player Conglomerate Suggestion

Krupp wrote:
Nidhogg wrote:
Pyro craniac wrote:

Are you that terrible that you need 75% of the population allied to you in order to feel safe?

You are part of the reason this game is just not fun.

By your reasoning 75% of the population would not agree with you roll

Didnt this thread use to be longer?

Yup, seems you need to be loudmouth forum warrior to be counted in this game


Or because those signed/+1 didn't add anything of value, discussion does. And while you did a good job at mobilizing your alliance to gain weight this isn't a democracy in case you didn't notice.

Re: Player Conglomerate Suggestion

Repeating stuff like a broken record does?

Re: Player Conglomerate Suggestion

Krupp wrote:

Repeating stuff like a broken record does?


No, that's why this thread is significantly smaller in size now.

61 (edited by Sundial 2011-08-22 15:20:17)

Re: Player Conglomerate Suggestion

Norrdec wrote:

It's more like 30% if you have to use numbers:
http://www.perpetuum-online.com/~gargaj/

afaik NEX, 62nd, M2S, TOG,F-Navy, Morte and FOOM are not in the alliance, and they make like 60% of the game world/active players big_smile

MORTE is a recruiting corp for a Nova corp.

NeX has lost the majority that came over but stil has a decent prescense, as was expected. FOOM is tiny as of now.

Point is you are exaggerating your claims heavily.

Looking forward to new players and new conflicts.

Re: Player Conglomerate Suggestion

There are a lot of non-aligned, hard working smaller corporations out there and we believe they could use these tools to band up with politically or otherwise like-minded fellow corps in order to create some ripples in the established order much more easily.  Alliances are part of the game wether we like it or not: It allows corporations to retain their identities while playing a significant part on the greater political scene. Why not give them tools to make such endeavours more efficient?

So here's what we would like to see in new alliance features in order to help smaller groups work together in order to become relevant on the planetary-level political landscape
(some of these suggestions have been made already,  credits to whoever posted them already):

  • Proper alliance entity. (It has to exist first and be recognized as so by the game mecanics).

  • Alliance management dashboard (Member corporations, rights management, vote / share structure, officer roster, alliance wallet, Chairman,  etc.

  • Production depots (ability to provide resource access to industrials in a safe and automated way). This also needs to be done on the corporation level, ie.: "click here to use minerals/commodities from corp/alliance depot" checkbox in production/refining dialogs. Output of those activities should aslo work in a similar fashion (output of production runs gets dumped in corp/alliance depots).

  • Alliance market. One of the things that could help smaller corps get off the ground would be the ability to pool production resources and an alliance wide market would help greatly to that effect. Many say that the corporation internal market is killing the public market but the fact remains that most corps will simply not sell there before they can supply their own soldiers.

  • Alliance level control on Outpost and service usage&revenue sharing. Allowing each members of the alliance to get their share of the pie would be great... they all work for it.

  • Alliance level control on corporation admission to defense ops. If an OP owner can lockout enemies from docking (as per the announced intrusion changes) shouldn't he have the capacity to enable SAP defense for allies?  Lore rationalization: op managers gives out to allied officers the secret station codes for interacting with the SAPs in the field or in some sort of electronic FoF device manner...

  • Alliance hangars.

  • Alliance chat channel with restricted entry to alliance members.

  • Alliance wide message distribution.


While many argue that having these mecanics (which are really an extra level of federation over corporations) would empower already large political blocs, we do believe that this would in fact help smaller groups emerge and compete more readily against the established super-powers. By looking at gargaj's corp infographics, the first thing that comes to mind is how easier for a bunch of the smaller dots it would be to make good progress if they could get together in a way that doesn't require them to leave all their ideals at the door or lose members to overwhelming bureaucratic tasks.

Thank you all for reading.

Re: Player Conglomerate Suggestion

Bananfluga wrote:

Or because those signed/+1 didn't add anything of value, discussion does. And while you did a good job at mobilizing your alliance to gain weight this isn't a democracy in case you didn't notice.

People's opinions always have a value in well-developed games. Another person agreeing with the opinion of another person does have value. This IS a democracy, the kind in which people vote with their subscriptions. smile

I certainly hope the Dev who took the 30 minutes to remove 5 pages worth of people's opinion at least took 5 minutes to read the post everyone was agreeing to. Just because posts can be censored, doesn't mean opinions can be censored quite so easily. smile

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

The Imperial Grand Wizard of Justice

Re: Player Conglomerate Suggestion

Snowman wrote:

I agree that there needs to be something in place for intrusion 2.0, but, specifically for that mechanic!

I dont agree that we need alliances features with such an ever shrinking player base.

Kudos to the OP for a well thought out system.  Maybe Dev's could book mark it for a future time when/if the PCU is above 1000.

Nope, not once did I mention a Conglomerate could attack an Outpost and receive credit for said Outpost.

Alliances may "defend" Outposts that it has already had control given over to by the Corp that took it.  I intentionally left out attacking because that to me does promote the large thing, and not the smaller corps.  Defending, yes.  Attacking, no.

Re: Player Conglomerate Suggestion

Syndic wrote:
Bananfluga wrote:

Or because those signed/+1 didn't add anything of value, discussion does. And while you did a good job at mobilizing your alliance to gain weight this isn't a democracy in case you didn't notice.

People's opinions always have a value in well-developed games. Another person agreeing with the opinion of another person does have value. This IS a democracy, the kind in which people vote with their subscriptions. smile

I certainly hope the Dev who took the 30 minutes to remove 5 pages worth of people's opinion at least took 5 minutes to read the post everyone was agreeing to. Just because posts can be censored, doesn't mean opinions can be censored quite so easily. smile


Yes, of course peoples opinion has a value, that's why we have a forum. But don't mistake that for democracy, the devs will do as they please. The majority don't decide, the devs do, we can merely inform them what we need/want.

Sure, people will leave if they don't like the direction (and it's a little late to vote afterwards, don't you think?). People can also leave countries, does that make it a democracy?

Re: Player Conglomerate Suggestion

Mara Kaid wrote:

Dude there's so many basic corp features that need to be implemented before alliance features are in.

Um, I don't care what happens "first" to be honest.  Yeah, corp controls need looked at too, no one is arguing against that.  This is just something else I'd like to see them giving a thought to.

Mostly because as many are saying, it's already happening, NAPing, Blues, Greens, Yellows and Reds...  Corps are forming into their own communities.  It's the progression of a sandbox.

Can't think of a successfull sandbox that did not have an Alliance feature to be honest.

I personally do hope something like this does happen before the Terraforming islands come into play, Gammas or whatever people are talking about lately on forums.

It will be an entire game mechanic that any Small corp of 10-20 working alone will miss out on.  Heck, even if they do have an Alliance in how things work currently, will be rough for them.  Not saying I can see the future or I'm omnipotent, but I personally would regret my corp missing out on the fun.  If it's only controlled by the handful of larger Corporations out there, well, what's the point of that?

And if ya'll don't see that the new features for Intrusions and what they are talking about for Corporation-controlled Terraforming only promotes the "1 Big Corp" thing, well, dunno what to tell ya's.

CIR, 62nd, F-Navy, Chaos  TOG, M2S, ABT, Hydra/Morte...  Yeah, those corps will be able to play just fine with Corp-Controlled Terraforming features.  Probably NEX too at the time it comes into play.   Everyone else, well, sorry folks, but we're getting left out of the big picture.

Already the game is "Get big or go home" mentality, of not just the players, but the development it seems as well.  They keep saying "we don't want the blob,"  but they keep throwing stuff out there to promote a Blob, not prevent one.

In summation, what do we want this game to be?  This population size forever?  Me personally, not at all.  I want it to grow and develop over the years.  Lot of folks in here seem to want to take the "Massively" out of MMO.  I do enjoy small scale PvP fights, fun roams with 5-6 others.  But I would also like to see "large scale" battles at some point, in which "Armies" use true tactics rather then play the numbers game.

What I foresee:

Blues are grouped together and used as fast striking shock troops with mobility (Light Horsmen using  Speed, EWAR, and Nuet type Nexuses)
Yellows out on the front lines soaking in lots damage (Heavy Footmen/Infantry using Armor Tank and Damage type Nexuses).
Industrial Bots sitting 150m behind the Yellows and Greens, healing any damage taken. ("Medic" bots keeping friends alive with Remote Repping, Energy Transfer type Nexuses).
Greens sitting back and bringing down a rain of missiles (Archers with Crit, Assault and other Damage type Nexuses).

This alone would be a 60-80 man army.  Since Squads only get the benefit of 3 Nexuses, would be 4 different Squads under a different Commander.

So how do we get to this point?  Well, not gonna happen as a single corp Entity.  Has to be a group of Corps working together, on both sides, to create a battles such as these.  Truly Massive.  Not this piddling around where a 10 man gang is considered a "Blob".  That's getting tiring already.

So "the other side" is saying CIR/Syndic is "ruining the game."  I like Syndic, he's the sole reason I wanted to join up with SovNov.  Same with others of my corp.  We went out on roams, and he and his friends were the only ones out there that, though EP was very skewed, at least tried to give us a "fair fight" so we could learn how PvP truly works in this game.  And unless you're friends with M2S, he attempts to get his ilk to aide others in growing and developing.

Hell, have folks even thought to ask for a "ceasefire" or something for a week or two, so that bots could be built/replaced.  Your corp's could be strengthened and the fights more fun?  Not saying he'd go for it, but from what I can tell about the guy, he wants fun fights.  Hell, it's what I want, to play and enjoy the game.  I hate politics, more then anything that gets into Sandboxes, Politics to me ruins the game.

Well, enough of me rambling, and apologies for this Wall of Text, but eh, I'm in that mood today it seems. 

Have fun all, and remember, we are playing a Video Game...it's really not life or death.

Re: Player Conglomerate Suggestion

Red -

Wouldn't putting all of those features in an alliance, make the alliance like a mini-game within the game? Features like pulling commodities out of corp folders and putting produced items back is a nice feature, but corps can't even do that yet. Shouldn't there be 'room' for personal interaction within the alliance, the need for player interactions and assiging people to actually do things like that. I realize its a lot of logistics, but supporting an alliance should require heavy logistics. I think something that allows you to limit resources that can be removed from alliance folders, and being able to track in/out production is certainly needed.

tl;dr - I agree with Camp, that logistical tools need to be added at the corp level first, refined, then applied to alliances.

As far as Alliance held outposts, owning an outpost isn't necessary to live on beta. If your corp isn't strong enough to hold one without alliance help, your basically a renter(pet) to the alliance anyway.

The issue isn't with corp losing identites by merging into mega corps capable of holding an outpost, the problem is that 'now' the server population is so low, and its divided into so many smaller corps, that to achieve ownership there would have to be mergers. When another 1000 active players join Perp, as long as they don't go into a single corp, then more corps with intact identies can do the 24/7.

Its a 24/7 persistant world, having larger corporations won't lead to OMG-Blob, simply because the population has to be spread out over 24 hours. A corp trying to hold an outpost with 30 players online for 4 hours is going to have the same trouble as a corp with 200 players online for 4 hours.

Still, the system doesn't STOP a corp with 30 players online for 4 hours from owning an outpost. They simply won't get the full benefits from it. If not having the benefits makes the outpost useless, then it's no different than it is now, and that corp can just be alpha based and continue to raid beta.

Re: Player Conglomerate Suggestion

"What is not fair about the current system is that in order to have equality, an alliance would have to achieve 1 corp = 1 outpost. This is a) unpractical and b) very, very bad for the game. It is ludicrous that we can lock corporations out of our stations based on relations, but at the same time the game treats our "friends/allies" based on relations, as invaders if they try to take a SAP."

Now this makes sense. infact, i /vote for an immediate fix for this.

Re: Player Conglomerate Suggestion

Well let me give you the views from being in a smaller corp on the server that was trying to make a life on beta till we pulled back recently.

There are corps out there that take all incentive to ruin the PvP experience by running from fair fights that could have an outcome that turns out either way and are fun or use log-off and bait tactics just to catch a small number of ppl with a overwhelming force. All and all yes if i get caught by a bigger roam or I am out mining and die its part of the game and its going to happen more times than enough. I get in a fight where numbers were pretty close and we lose it was fun. If a small roam runs away from my bigger roam and gets reinforcement by all means. I would run too. But if you run away and get numbers that could make the fight fun for both sides and then just run around while we try and get an engagement out of you till you get 2:1 numbers or more and then just smash us. What was the point? Worst part is some of these ppl that do this are ones that are complaining about blobs and wanting pvp to be fun. Well you aren't helping the situation at all if not your making it worse. People are trying to have fun and enjoy pvp while taking you on. Don't get me wrong i've had some good fights with these ppl also.

Well what I'm trying to put into perspective is that without the Alliance system all the smaller corps have no chance on their own out in beta unless they band together to be able to fend off stuff like this. This won't happen if people can't work together and hold an outpost as an alliance with the benefits being shared equally.

Re: Player Conglomerate Suggestion

I am rather quite disappointed. It seems my post, which contained actual content and rationale for supporting the idea, got removed because I also /signed it. Apparently I'm not allowed to discuss the merits of the idea if I also express my agreement with it.

Re: Player Conglomerate Suggestion

WilliamH Bonney wrote:
Mara Kaid wrote:

Dude there's so many basic corp features that need to be implemented before alliance features are in.

Um, I don't care what happens "first" to be honest.  Yeah, corp controls need looked at too, no one is arguing against that.  This is just something else I'd like to see them giving a thought to.

lol what about terraforming, that'd be more attractivbe then an alliance feature. come on. Want to join a game that has the same sandbox stuff, or a new feature like terraform? I know which one I'd choose.

And do a ton of industry and ask me then how fun it is refining

Re: Player Conglomerate Suggestion

No matter what everyone's thoughts about this feature are, it's good that it was brought to attention.

Now devs can, if they want it to go the alliance way, do the next patch properly. With every bug or lack of features ironed out

<GargajCNS> we maim to please

Re: Player Conglomerate Suggestion

Arga wrote:

Red -

Wouldn't putting all of those features in an alliance, make the alliance like a mini-game within the game? Features like pulling commodities out of corp folders and putting produced items back is a nice feature, but corps can't even do that yet. Shouldn't there be 'room' for personal interaction within the alliance, the need for player interactions and assiging people to actually do things like that. I realize its a lot of logistics, but supporting an alliance should require heavy logistics. I think something that allows you to limit resources that can be removed from alliance folders, and being able to track in/out production is certainly needed.

Plenty of room for personal interactions. Matter of facts, its when the guys are swamped with industry tasks that they have less time for enjoyable interactions with the rest of the guys and gals. Giving them tools to expedite what they essentially do with a headache and bad mood would just make their gaming time more interesting. imo. Plus I fail to see why a bunch of guys able to telecontrol alien robots on an strange planet through a blackhole can't figure out JIT supplying and production tools to manage a supply chain... fedex has done it 20 yrs ago ffs  tongue 

And yes, like i said in my post, production tools should go in the corps first.

Re: Player Conglomerate Suggestion

Mara Kaid wrote:

lol what about terraforming, that'd be more attractivbe then an alliance feature. come on. Want to join a game that has the same sandbox stuff, or a new feature like terraform? I know which one I'd choose.

And do a ton of industry and ask me then how fun it is refining

As I've said, Terraforming will be for those corps that have the support on the "Gamma" islands.  Anyone in a small corp will miss out on this feature completely.  Sure, they can help out a larger Corp to build that station, but I bet if you don't "own" the outpost as a Corp, you won't be able to do terraforming around it at all.  So yes, it will make the game more interesting, for the Bigger corps.


As for industry, working on it, my industry toon just finally got to 75% ME for mass production, so it's now worth making Robots for my corp.  Made 5 of each light ewar, assault bot, and mech for each faction as well as industry.   So yeah, work in progress.

Re: Player Conglomerate Suggestion

I like this concept!

Some people play checkers, some play chess...  Once in a while you can find a guy playing GO.  The former is prey, the secondary is a teacher, and the latter is a general.