1 (edited by Arga 2011-06-13 17:37:15)

Topic: Perpetuum Alliance Feature Discussion

First thing you should do, if you haven't, is listen to Incoming Transmission #7

http://forums.perpetuum-online.com/topi … published/

The devs asked the Panel; What would you like to see in an Alliance feature?

So this thread is to open the discussion to the rest of the community.

One main question I got out of the panel;

Do we need an Alliance system at all, or is it too soon or just the right time to implement one?

Re: Perpetuum Alliance Feature Discussion

First thing I would say, is that the term "Alliance" is probably a hold over from Eve and the terminology makes us focus on the combat benefits of corporate cooperation only. While providing military support is certainly one of the reasons corporations would choose to work together, it's not the only one; Production is the other side of the Perptuum coin.

The game clearly promotes players to specialize to be most effective, and this would be equally true for corporations too, but there is no easy way for Corporations to cooperate. Recently PIE worked with another corp to produce some high-end goods that would have been a challenge for either corporation to do ourselves. Both of us being small corporations, literally in different parts of the world, weekends were the only time we were able to conduct business.

What I would invision would be a Logistics supply chain feature; we call it Extra-net here in the business world with tie-ins to programs like SAP. I'm not suggesting we implement SAP in the game, because that's overkill, but being able to place and fill orders between corporations would greatly encourage team play. This feature is something that smaller corps would find more usefull, hence promoting smaller corps, but not hindering the creation of larger corps.

As we see in the real world, even large compaines will subcontract out to smaller ones, the Build vs. Buy model. Or they may choose to aquire the company and run it as a wholly owned subsidiary; and this is where I think we replace the term "Alliance" with "Mega-Corp", simply meaning more than one corp. This is another level above 'extra-net' compaines involving a greater degree of integration between the corporations. The subsidiary's have a certain amount of autonomy but have to meet certain expectations from the parent corporation - be it production or number of combat troops.

Any cooperation feature has to mention outposts, and Mega-corps would technically share outposts, since the outpost would be owned by the mega-corp.

Re: Perpetuum Alliance Feature Discussion

While I do think the game would be better off if we avoided the alliance mentality, for all intents and purposes there are already alliances, conglomerates, coalitions whatever you want to call it in existance now even without ingame mechanics to allow the management of it.

People will always want to form groups for various reasons, the most common of course would be mutual protection. I would love it if there were enough indenpendant corps or even small alliances on every beta island.

So that being said if it doesn't take alot of time, energy and money to implement some alliance features then fine, alliances will be a fact regardless of if there is an actual alliance mechanic or not.

Re: Perpetuum Alliance Feature Discussion

From the pod cast, what I got from the Alliance features that were talked about, is they wanted an alliance to be like a Mega-corp. Where one CEO and a group of officers made changes to roles and set access for all the corporations that belonged to the 'alliance' and allowed them to basically operate a large group of corps as they would want to operate a single corp.

Re: Perpetuum Alliance Feature Discussion

Any features making alliances easier - thereby encouraging larger groupings (and the stalemated or un-challengable blobs that go with them) - are IMO detrimental to gameplay, especially considering the current low player population.  Five small to medium groups competing for resources makes for infinitely more enjoyable gameplay than 1 or 2 supergroups that force all others to either pick a side or stay out of the arena.

We've seen the gameplay effects of 1 superpower and few would wish it back.  Don't make it easy for the Borgs to assimilate us all. smile

Re: Perpetuum Alliance Feature Discussion

No alliance features are needed, like the others said focus on other corp features like showing corp leaders what is in production etc or help develope pve content.

More basic functionality in the game, and more pve.

7 (edited by Gut Punch 2011-06-14 16:31:42)

Re: Perpetuum Alliance Feature Discussion

IMHO, Alliance systems are unnecessary.  The current standings system works just fine.  Please focus on building corp management tools to track production at the corporate level and setup a contracts system.  In addition, please focus more on retention of new players.  This game needs new blood to stay around instead of just checking it out and going away.

Re: Perpetuum Alliance Feature Discussion

contracts are a good idea, that would make corps work much better, I've forgotten them.

Re: Perpetuum Alliance Feature Discussion

We've been asking for player contracts since release smile

It could also help to retain new players, but giving them a non-npc related way to engage the game. However, as I stated above, the system would need to be, for lack of a better word, automatic.

Player accepts a contract, gets a sealed container of specified size, in 6,21,80, or 240 U configurations. The deliver it to the destination station and the contract completes. When you create a contract, the materials are 'sealed' and the NIC is taked out of your account - just like making a buy order on the market; in fact the contract section could be IN the market and opens a window just like an assignment. If the 'goods' are not delivered within the specified contract time, the cargo teleports back to the orginal station.

Both sides are protected, so it's new user safe.

Re: Perpetuum Alliance Feature Discussion

I really enjoyed hearing the various views of the panel and hope this discussion continues.

from my point of view, I agree we don't need alliance features. In fact I want more corps features and reasons to not move into the blob mentality. 20-30 people in a corps should be more than sufficient, however any mechanics I have seen or have dreamed up can be gotten around using alts and alt corporations so the deal is harder to manage.

I would love to see corporations having to specialise, the whole prototyping system is fundamentally busted IMO in that it a) relies on a sole char and b) is not tied to corporation faction. This makes smaller corps which specialise and then use a supply chain a moot point in this game. You make a TMA char and you can research everything in game???? WTF, like that happens in RL at all, personally I would have preferred tiers of tech to be tied to faction standings but that's just me.

The other issue is that geographically, the islands themselves don't promote smaller corporation ownership. They encourage blobbing and demand for Alliance features as you can't segregate a section off from others and defend a small patch, with current design you hold the whole island or none.

We don't need alliances, but we do need some of the current mechanics altering to focus on smaller group play and not on longer term numbers of 2000 people all grinding like mad so the alliance prototyper can eat kernels to have the complete tech tree in their head and then have a bad morning and reset their account (had to put that in there TBA, hugs n kisses buddy smile )

sorry for the soapbox moment big_smile

"like Kalsius, a shameless carebear and jitalover" - Syndic
http://www.perpetuum-intelligence.com
http://www.perpetuum-intelligence.com/killboard/

Re: Perpetuum Alliance Feature Discussion

I think because of the population, what we now consider a large corporation, 100+ active players, will in the future be considered Med or even a small corp. In that frame of reference, the current size of the Islands is just about right and the large corps would be holding either multiple Islands or gamma Islands.

Where I think we are having growing pains, is that the game is difficult, so many 'strong' players have been retained. A case of too many leaders and not enough followers; resulting in lots of smaller corps and solo players; and maybe a set of wanna-be leaders.

Alliances are being formed because the leader of 12 active players doesn't want to merge and give up their corporation, but they are too small to do what they want.

As active player base increases, some corps will grow larger and be less willing to ally with smaller corps. We've seen this already happen at launch time. Those players in the small corps that no longer have access to beta, because they aren't allied, will leave and some of those corps will collapse; others will move to alpha.

So, there's the long game and the now. I don't think we need alliance tools either, but for a different reason then preventing 'blobs', but we do need Inter-Corp cooperation tools. If these tools support alliance operation, so be it, but being able to cooperate without needing to be specifically allied is a step away from that.