Backstage - OOC Forums
EVE-Online RP Discussion and Resources => EVE OOC Summit => Topic started by: Nmaro Makari on 20 Sep 2011, 09:36
-
Basically, with EVE still not working I've had plenty of time to waste pondering a few questions. One such question came when I sank to the level of looking through an entire page of IGS threads.
Each of the empires seems to have a dedicated loyalist alliance dedicated to combatting priacy and/or economic prosperity, bar the Gallente
Minmatar - Electus Matari
Caldari - Ishuk-Raata Enforcement Directive, plus Lai Dai Infinity Systems is often on the same page
Amarr - CVA
Gallente - ???
So, am I just not looking hard enough or do the Gallente just not do this thing?
If not, then I think there could be a real opportunity for some. Particuarly as the IGS is now having Gallente-Caldari "debates" for the first time in ages.
-
Acheron Federation was one of the latest alliances to try.
Note, TRY. Died, long ago. There have been a few others and a multitude of corps trying this, pretty much all of them died or went innactive. At this point there is Federal robotics, not sure they count, Eleutherian Guard, Mixed Methaphor, not sure they count either and... I can't recall others. Not anyone I've heard of recenty, anyhow.
-
There are Gallente loyalist corps, but a lot of them are in the militia, which precludes them being in an alliance :(
Far as I know, there are fewer Gallente players than any other race, which may mean that there just aren't enough Gallente to put together a meaningful alliance. Or it may be an issue of free-thinking type people being really hard to organize because of how rarely they agree on things.
-
Did wonder about federal robotics. So basically at this point we all think a Gallente alliance is cursed or something?
-
STRIX was "the" Gallente RP group when I started paying attention.
Or it may be an issue of free-thinking type people being really hard to organize because of how rarely they agree on things.
Mata holds the view that the logical progression of Gallente thinking about individual liberty is anarchism, and that JERIC and early STIM are actually Gallente-inspired.
-
Statistically speaking, Gallente characters are more common than any other race.
Having no cohesion actually somewhat fits the Gallente, really. As for RPers, the whole Fed RP scene is very "war"-orientated atm. It's only EL-G and Advent which are the Gallente RP corps connected to this scene, and even I'm having a hard time with things right now (hit a high of 21 members, currently 15, something EL-G has always hovered around).
-
I would love to see a Gallente RP alliance, have been waiting for one for years. I think it would help the Caldari/Gallente RP quite a bit.
-
Statistically speaking, Gallente characters are more common than any other race.
Having no cohesion actually somewhat fits the Gallente, really.
Does it? They have a reasonably long lasting and vibrant Federation, which has been reasonably successful at what it does. Lasting a few hundred years (I have no idea when the Federation was founded) and a number of wars implies at least some cohesion and ability to mobilise in the same direction, wouldn't you say?
-
Statistically speaking, Gallente characters are more common than any other race.
Having no cohesion actually somewhat fits the Gallente, really. As for RPers, the whole Fed RP scene is very "war"-orientated atm. It's only EL-G and Advent which are the Gallente RP corps connected to this scene, and even I'm having a hard time with things right now (hit a high of 21 members, currently 15, something EL-G has always hovered around).
And even then Advent isn't really "Gallente."
Sure it's run by one, operates in Federation space when not in the wormhole, and I believe half our members are Gallente-descent, but due to the nature of wormhole space it makes more sense for Advent as a whole to just leave the politics behind.
-
At least two Gallente RP alliance formation attempts have collapsed this year, one on 21 June, the second one on 18 September. As far as I can tell, no drama was involved, some of the key people were just called back to real life before anything got done.
-
Ken and I and Bastian's player had been working on a few things, but haven't been able to get anything concrete off the ground. :(
-
Statistically speaking, Gallente characters are more common than any other race.
Quick check of http://cdn1.eveonline.com/community/QEN/QEN_Q3-2010.pdf (p. 9) says that Gallente characters are equally common to Minmatar characters (20.5%), which is more common than Amarr (18.4%), but much less common than Caldari (35.8%).
-
Caldari - Ishuk-Raata Enforcement Directive, plus Lai Dai Infinity Systems is often on the same page
...
If not, then I think there could be a real opportunity for some. Particuarly as the IGS is now having Gallente-Caldari "debates" for the first time in ages.
To the first part - I hope we, LDIS, are not generally on the same page as I-RED. There should be only a few major issues where I-RED and LDIS & friends (I suppose we have some friends) are on the same page. Otherwise we probably have positions that are largely independent and sometimes contrary to the others.
One of the issues is that for I-RED's and LDIS's (and 4TH's) senior leadership is that most debates on IGS are repeats for us. We all have in-space goals that largely do not align and we have learned lessons about advertising/telegraphing our actions (especially on IGS).
As for the topic at hand - what benefits is an alliance to a group of Gallente corporations? any group of corporations?
-
As for the topic at hand - what benefits is an alliance to a group of Gallente corporations? any group of corporations?
In general? Critical mass, shared infrastructure and overheads (diplomacy and such), easier war-decs...
Alignment towards shared goals and mutual assistance in achieving them, while retaining individual corporate character and identity.
-
Caldari - Ishuk-Raata Enforcement Directive, plus Lai Dai Infinity Systems is often on the same page
...
If not, then I think there could be a real opportunity for some. Particuarly as the IGS is now having Gallente-Caldari "debates" for the first time in ages.
To the first part - I hope we, LDIS, are not generally on the same page as I-RED. There should be only a few major issues where I-RED and LDIS & friends (I suppose we have some friends) are on the same page. Otherwise we probably have positions that are largely independent and sometimes contrary to the others.
No no, I didnt mean it like that, but if I ask anyone to name some caldari loyalists, you would be mentioned alongside I-RED
-
Statistically speaking, Gallente characters are more common than any other race.
Having no cohesion actually somewhat fits the Gallente, really.
Does it? They have a reasonably long lasting and vibrant Federation, which has been reasonably successful at what it does. Lasting a few hundred years (I have no idea when the Federation was founded) and a number of wars implies at least some cohesion and ability to mobilise in the same direction, wouldn't you say?
There is cohesion, however there are thousands of views interpreting that cohesion. An alliance is a political body with a flag and in order to be functional must have purpose, identity, goals.....not just cohesion.
The current Fed alliance is the Gallente Militia, period.
Problem every Fed alliance face is the idea to cover all the different views and interpretations of a typical gallente activitist while maintaing a certain degree of homogeneity. You could say that holds true for every other alliance, however none have to deal with the basic concept of "personal liberties" as exacerbated as the gallente have. (ie: if my alliance dont want to fire on that pie, i don't care, i will).
-
Acheron federation got twisted up into a cult of personality towards one corp, causing animosity and angst with the other, and failed to follow through on its basic principles of mutual defense. A single wardec toppled it.
In the end, an alliance needs strong, dependenable and durable leadership to be anything more than a text box and diplomat list.
-
Are we talking Gallente paramilitary organizations? Cause there are thousands of corporations out there run by Gallenteans.
-
Are we talking Gallente paramilitary organizations? Cause there are thousands of corporations out there run by Gallenteans.
He asked for gallente loyalist alliances. I'll translate that into the far more accurate Federation loyalist alliances - and those need to be populated by corps run by players that identify their corps as pro-Fed and likely RP as such.
Otherwise, any corp with a 'gallente' toon could be seen as 'pro-Fed' - an extremely innacurate remark, unless we want to call the ILF pro-Fed, or CVA as a whole when a gallente was executor. Those are merely two examples.
Far as I can recall off-hand some of the most well-known pro-Fed corps are STRIX, MXD, EL-G, Federal robotics, Moira. and a few others, some of these are dead, some can't be counted as pro-Fed anymore. If an alliance is to be the formed with a primarely positive viewpoint on the Fed, then it will need to be made, led and directed by corporations that agree on the need and use of such an alliance and who/how it should be run. Given how widely the above-mentioned corps think and run themselves the likelyhood that even 3 decently able corps that can agree on the needs of such an alliance is nearly zero, and if there are any less that this the need for an actual alliance goes away - two corporations, even 3, 4 or more could easily simply work together and share +10 standings with one another, possibly intel channels etc.
To be honest reffering to the militia as a pro-fed alliance is false. They are not an alliance - they are the NPC militia, a different thing, and have their opponents in similar groups in the Empire and State, an ally in the Republic. They don't count, but individual corps in the militia could count. Now, the difference between corps who RP as fed-loyalists in the militia and those who simply find themselves in the militia is quite pronounced - EL-G is a small less-than-20 member corp in the FEDEF that RP as pro-fed - Shadows of the Federation, on the other hand, recently returned to the FEDEF from a months long trip into null-sec in all it's forms and even piracy. As a corp, they are about as hard on the 'pro-fed' RP as LDIS is pro-SDII, though individual members might RP as such from the confines of their corporation.
Pro-Federation alliances are unlikely to ever form because to do so will require Pro-Federation corporations that work, and have stable futures - they can't be a flare-of-the-month creation with little planning and no goals or member activety ratings. Once a number of corporations like this have formed that have similar enough goals to work together, but unique enough ideas and methods to remain their own corporations, the prospect of an alliance with a common theme becomes a reality - if a Pro-Fed alliance is born, all the corps in it must agree that it is needed and aim to maintain it, all comming adverseries and issues be damned. If they don't, it won't last a single month simply because the member-corps don't honestly need it and will drop it as soon as any serious issue arrives, no matter what that is. No-one will maintain an alliance worthy of that title just for the hell of it - they must want it and believe that maintaining it is the better option.
-
I was kinda shocked to see IXDS join TEST a while ago. Seems they're in TNT these days. Add CYI to the list of those long-gone alliances.
As alliances do not give a lot of in-game advantages (indeed, the only "real" advantages are shared standings and shared war decs), it is quite possible to have an alliance-lookalike between corporations, so it can be done within the militia, too. (The militia itself is not a coherent entity as entry is not regulated.) EM did that for the 1.5 months we were in the militia. It does work to some extent, but for some reason, we started to drift apart more and more during that time - somehow, the common alliance tag does give a stronger cohesion. It was good to be back in the alliance after that.
-
Ah yes Cyrene Initiative, forgot about it......was my first foray into alliance mechanics as a newbie :bear:
-
Are we talking Gallente paramilitary organizations? Cause there are thousands of corporations out there run by Gallenteans.
He asked for gallente loyalist alliances. I'll translate that into the far more accurate Federation loyalist alliances - and those need to be populated by corps run by players that identify their corps as pro-Fed and likely RP as such.
Otherwise, any corp with a 'gallente' toon could be seen as 'pro-Fed' - an extremely innacurate remark, unless we want to call the ILF pro-Fed, or CVA as a whole when a gallente was executor. Those are merely two examples.
I read this and it made me smile. The parallels between the OOC sentiments here and my IC participation in the debate in the Gallente thread on IGS (https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=8623) are clear to me and reinforce my point there nicely even if I can't really use this conversation as a reference :)
-
Well yeah, saying gallente = federation has been a very long and mistaken concept for many.
I've always looked at the issue as a reminder of the origin, the gallente were the promoters of the Federation in the beginning, but today is a multicultural endeavour. Saying "gallente federation", is plain wrong, its just the "Federation".
And probably that is the mistake many "gallente alliances" inavertdly make in the first place. They are not "gallente" in the same way other racial-aligned alliances can be, they are aligned with an utopic ideal of equality and liberty. The ILF is an alliance promoting the Intaki culture and economic sphere of influence, but they are as much inclined to promote intaki to leave the Federation altogether as to actually making reforms that make the intaki more prominent. How can you create a politically aligned entity that correctly represents both views for the Federation?.
I agree any "gallente" alliance, by the label alone, could be classified as Pro-Federation. But what is exactly Pro-Federation? that probably was one of the longest running arguments inside Strix. These were the basic points in the discussion:
- Continuation of the goverment mechanic and strengthen citizen representation
- Cultural openness, with dominance in the way it is delivered (therefore the message of another's people culture can be re-interpreted as needed)
- Economic strengh to allow individuals to work towards their goals
- National pride for those citizens working for the Federation (in the case of government figures or employees)
- Integration of others into our fold, not by subjugation but by incorporation their traits and aspects into our own (without subjugating us of course).
Many more were. Cultural dominance by variety, saturation and other means. Differentiation of regions as individually unique (people from Sinq Laison were proud and compared themselves against Solitude for example). Lobbyst groups manipulating all aspects of the grand scheme decisions, often fooling citizens to think its the right path and so on.
Personally i think it is a daunting task to think there is an alliance that can actually call itself "gallente" or "pro-fed" in broad terms. Probably the idea of corporate/politically-aligned ones is more reasonable (much like caldari ironically).
-
Are we talking Gallente paramilitary organizations? Cause there are thousands of corporations out there run by Gallenteans.
He asked for gallente loyalist alliances. I'll translate that into the far more accurate Federation loyalist alliances - and those need to be populated by corps run by players that identify their corps as pro-Fed and likely RP as such.
Otherwise, any corp with a 'gallente' toon could be seen as 'pro-Fed' - an extremely innacurate remark, unless we want to call the ILF pro-Fed, or CVA as a whole when a gallente was executor. Those are merely two examples.
That's entirely NOT what I was implying at all. There are a multitude of organizations that espouse Gallentean values without behaving being flag-waving nationalists, which is the crux of my question. Are you looking for a flag-waving hard-line nationalist Gallente Alliance to shoot at and argue over cultural differences, or commercial/industrial/combat focused organizations with a Gallentean mindset? ie. democratic, equal-opportunity, and individualist in design.
As far as I've seen, most of the nationalist alliances have integrated themselves into faction warfare, including the Gallenteans. I think this is a good thing. No, I'm not worried about gallente rp dying, i've been hearing that forever....and i continue to hear it ad nauseum.
-
We have a slight misunderstanding Kaleigh. I know what it is too, but I'm far to sleepy to get it down effectively. I'll be back to reply to this when I've had some sleep and cleared my mind.
-
As for the topic at hand - what benefits is an alliance to a group of Gallente corporations? any group of corporations?
In general? Critical mass, shared infrastructure and overheads (diplomacy and such), easier war-decs...
Alignment towards shared goals and mutual assistance in achieving them, while retaining individual corporate character and identity.
I am of the opinion any alliance should be formed with the intent to take and hold null-sec space, preferably of a profitable nature (a single system can cost 1B ISK to take if it is undefended and making that all back from sov savings can take weeks to months). I once made a suggestion on Chatsubo (http://www.eve-chatsubo.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=34&t=5029) that would have put the Gallente-Caldari RP scene on its side. I-RED & IPI could pursue it now possibly, but only if they desired to try and take nearby space and decided to conslidate a bit.
The point was to go all ORE/Serpentis/Mordu's and build a truly corporate state, where ethnicity/background did not matter.
-
The problem is that the core of Gallente is diversity; you have politicians, economists and militarists all in equal measure and in overriding/combining capacities. Militant activists, corporate soldiers, or just pure paramilitary or pure businessman.
An alliance would have to account for the entire range of Gallente pursuits.
-
So, the alliance has to give the Activists, Soldiers, and Businessmen something they are all interested in.
The Activist become the "soul" of the alliance. They provide its guiding frameworks and principles. For example a pure Federal alliance might have "protections" for its member pilots to ensure they have a say in the alliances policies, not just the corporation CEOs/Boards of Directors. (In contrast to the corporate alliance structure I linked.) The alliance becomes an exercise in practicing democratic, egalitarian ideas with New Eden as a backdrop for it.
The soldiers become the alliances defenders. Yes, ever pilot must rise to defend the alliance, the rank&file acting more as militia/citizen soldiers than professional soldiers. The professional soldiers are those who display skill and leadership. When the alliance finds itself under attack, they become the Officers and NCOs for the alliances military. They must know how to fly & fit a multitude of ships, how to build synergistic squadrons, wings, & fleets, and how to quickly instruct and train the guy who spends his time ratting/exploring/mining/building/etc in what he needs to do. Their challenge is to not become the alliances raison d'etre.
The businessmen make the alliance powerful. They look at the worthless space, they have managed to move into and turn it into a profitable system for all the individuals interested in using it. In other alliances, these are logistics specialist, but here they are create opportunities for others (the citizens) to make ISK. They might be Starbase parts builders or Capital Ship manufacturers, but at the end of the day, they are interested in not having to build, find, buy, move, etc all the parts that go into their products. This creates opportunities for even the most junior member to feed into the larger projects.
At its core, it is becomes about creating opportunities in-game and maybe even learning something about actually creating a democratic, egalitarian society.
-
What Dex said about the facets of alliances. I don't think nullsec is necessary, though. :)
-
The problem is that the core of Gallente is diversity; you have politicians, economists and militarists all in equal measure and in overriding/combining capacities. Militant activists, corporate soldiers, or just pure paramilitary or pure businessman.
An alliance would have to account for the entire range of Gallente pursuits.
Yes, harder to set up, but that diversity of backgrounds can also be a strenght.
-
I am of the opinion any alliance should be formed with the intent to take and hold null-sec space, preferably of a profitable nature[snip]
Interesting. Can you explain why you think this?
Electus Matari is, by its nature, unlikely to ever explore holding sov in nullsec. I still think that as an alliance it is a useful framework for the Republic loyalist corporations within it. What argument would you make that we should instead attempt to hold sov somewhere?
Or, if your alternative is that we shouldn't be an alliance, could you explain why not?
-
I am of the opinion any alliance should be formed with the intent to take and hold null-sec space, preferably of a profitable nature[snip]
Interesting. Can you explain why you think this?
Electus Matari is, by its nature, unlikely to ever explore holding sov in nullsec. I still think that as an alliance it is a useful framework for the Republic loyalist corporations within it. What argument would you make that we should instead attempt to hold sov somewhere?
Or, if your alternative is that we shouldn't be an alliance, could you explain why not?
By mechanics an alliance allows for a preciseness or corporations to pursue claiming null-sec. Outside of that mechanic, I am unaware of anything mechanical that an alliance allows that a corporation does not allow. I understand it does allow common standings between member corporations (which trickles down to members), but so can discussing standings list routinely.
I understand the non-mechanical perceived benefit of maintaining corporate identity, however to outsiders I think said identity is lost. Those outside of EM, U'K, I-RED, CVA, or 4TH do not interact or see the corporations in those alliances as individuals, they see the alliance as an individual entity not a collection of entities. I can name maybe 1 or 2 corporations in each of those alliances off the top of my head and are sometimes the executor/founding corporation. If LDIS joins 4TH or I-RED, it will lose part of its corporate identity. Maybe not inside the corporation, but to those outside.
-
Given the number of alliances which exist without ever going near nullsec, I'd suggest that there's more. Or, that the advantages an alliance offers outside of nullsec are worth more than you given them credit for. For example, my carebear main/alt started out in an hisec alliance that only really existed for mutual protection - it looked like a run of the mill industrial alliance, but the exec was friends with some mercs who would join up any time we were wardecked, romp and stomp for a bit, and then leave after the dec. Greifer decs were usually withdrawn after a few days.
Anyhow, I think there's plenty of value to wardecs outside of trying to claim SOV.
-
Outside of that mechanic, I am unaware of anything mechanical that an alliance allows that a corporation does not allow. I understand it does allow common standings between member corporations (which trickles down to members), but so can discussing standings list routinely.
Electus Matari currently has 788 standings set. There is rarely a day where we do not add or remove some standing. We have 2-3 people regularly set standings based on requests from about half a dozen diplomats, because just 1 person doing it tends to burn that person out pretty fast.
Of those standings, 170 are positive. Arranging for blue standings for a number of corps instead of just an alliance gets diplomatically much more complicated (BTDT, don't want to go back). And we already have trouble with diplomat burnout.
So, no, I don't believe the shared standings are some kind of irrelevant detail that we could do just as well on corp basis. (We tried in the past, it's a nightmare.)
Another mechanical benefit are shared war decs. War dec cost from multiple corporations on a single alliance quickly become simply prohibitive.
I understand the non-mechanical perceived benefit of maintaining corporate identity, however to outsiders I think said identity is lost.
Yes, it is.
An alliance is a middle thing between a group of separate corporations and a single corporation.
Compared to the group of separate corporations, it gains much closer cooperation. As I mentioned elsewhere, when we dropped out of the alliance to join the militia for a bit over a month, we already noticed how we were "drifting apart" - we lost cohesion and a feeling of "belonging together", even though we shared standings and had an "alliance channel" for all corporations. The alliance really adds the feeling of "belonging together", and we do want that feeling. We are proud of flying "as EM", and we like others seeing us as "Electus Matari". That is, we like the shared identity.
Compared to a single corporation, though, alliances retain much more corporate identity. This is mostly important for our pilots. For example, BIONE and LUTI are totally different corporations (and both awesome) - the pilots there are different, the "corporate culture" is different, and what they do outside of alliance ops is different. Different people enjoy different cultures and "climates", so with different corps, there is much more variety on where to go and what to pick. We have had people move between corps in the alliance in the past, and that is fine - there is no "one size fits all", and people can join the corps they are comfortable the most, while still keeping in touch easily with others. For all of this, it's mostly irrelevant whether outsiders know what those differences are.
So yes, if your corporation does not want to give up some of its identity, an alliance will be bad for it. But an alliance offers different ways of cooperating than just merging corporations would (or trying for a "coalition of corporations"), and those ways can be useful for some people. So I wouldn't restrict alliance usefulness to sov-holding only.
-
Then ignore my opinion, I am not going to try to and change how you play. I am just presenting my viewpoint. I also think that lots of null sec alliances claim worthless systems and spend 6n/a day to have their name on the map.
-
A related question is, what are the currently active Federally aligned roleplaying corporations, excluding those in the militia?
-
So, the alliance has to give the Activists, Soldiers, and Businessmen something they are all interested in.
The Activist become the "soul" of the alliance. They provide its guiding frameworks and principles. For example a pure Federal alliance might have "protections" for its member pilots to ensure they have a say in the alliances policies, not just the corporation CEOs/Boards of Directors. (In contrast to the corporate alliance structure I linked.) The alliance becomes an exercise in practicing democratic, egalitarian ideas with New Eden as a backdrop for it.
The soldiers become the alliances defenders. Yes, ever pilot must rise to defend the alliance, the rank&file acting more as militia/citizen soldiers than professional soldiers. The professional soldiers are those who display skill and leadership. When the alliance finds itself under attack, they become the Officers and NCOs for the alliances military. They must know how to fly & fit a multitude of ships, how to build synergistic squadrons, wings, & fleets, and how to quickly instruct and train the guy who spends his time ratting/exploring/mining/building/etc in what he needs to do. Their challenge is to not become the alliances raison d'etre.
The businessmen make the alliance powerful. They look at the worthless space, they have managed to move into and turn it into a profitable system for all the individuals interested in using it. In other alliances, these are logistics specialist, but here they are create opportunities for others (the citizens) to make ISK. They might be Starbase parts builders or Capital Ship manufacturers, but at the end of the day, they are interested in not having to build, find, buy, move, etc all the parts that go into their products. This creates opportunities for even the most junior member to feed into the larger projects.
At its core, it is becomes about creating opportunities in-game and maybe even learning something about actually creating a democratic, egalitarian society.
Nice.
Hm...if Amarr RP minor houses...if Caldari RP corporate subsidiaries...if Minmatar RP clans...then Gallente RP could be a sub-state? Perhaps a capsuleer corporation contracted as the spacegoing arm of a planetside province? Capsuleer representatives of a lowsec world that hasn't, and probably never will be, mentioned in PF?
An "alliance" could thus follow a national model, truly, as alliances were intended.
-
I still think most alliances are Gallente loyalists, if not in name then in principle. The individualist hedonistic principle most strongly brought forth by the Gallente culture/Federation seems to be the default way most players play their characters.
-
It's not unusual that people just decide to support a particular a brand name or ideology, or start doing unpaid work for some company or interest group. In the same way, nothing prevents people from reading about tribal traditions and starting to follow them. From real world examples one can assume that such activities can go on as long as they are not of great interest for the owner of the trademark.
However, when people create nations within nations, having their own government, military and rules, the authorities usually don't view such efforts as loyalism and in most places it's strictly against the law. So if a loyalist alliance would follow such model, some kind of explanation for their relationship with the Federation itself would be desirable. A nomadic tax haven would face the same problem.
Another challenge in creating a group representing the interests of a nation would be to know what actually are those interests? Even if the nation was something in the uncharted losec space, one might need to break the unidirectional relationship between the game world and the players, and make up a lot of things to make it work. It would present additional challenges because many players are active in opposing that kind of gameplay.
What if the purpose of the alliance nation was to be a genetic reserve? Since it would basically be a privately funded but serve a public interest, the authorities might leave it alone. While some kind of Gallentean flavour would be involved, the theme wouldn't heavily constrain the actions of the members. Because anyone could set up such a group in real life, no missing pieces of PF would be needed. It would also be natural for it to be self-governing and represent as many interests as possible.
-
I still think most alliances are Gallente loyalists, if not in name then in principle. The individualist hedonistic principle most strongly brought forth by the Gallente culture/Federation seems to be the default way most players play their characters.
If you define Gallente as individualistic & hedonistic and believe most alliances support capsuleer/player individualism, sure. I am skeptical of the idea that most alliances support actual individualism and are much more dictatorial in what their members do.
I think of most alliances, especially null-sec alliances, as being warrior-kingdoms led by warrior-kings, who keep their warriors loyal through providing treasure & hunting grounds for the warriors to pillage. Infrastructure, citizens, etc is an afterthought.
-
In my eyes, a pro-Gallentean alliance would be
♦ egalitarian in nature (as in: not racist, sexist, etc.)
♥ making sure all of its members had the same opportunities to prosper in a manner they desire (I have a small mining team, but Bill likes to nuke the local rats in belts.)
♥ unified in the defense of its territory. (militia style, as opposed to a warrior caste system)
♥ democratic with its members in the large and long term goals of the organization. ("we're in this together, everyone should have a voice.")
Now, does it mean there can't be a corporate style alliance that behaves differently? Of course not, but a Gallentean, in my eyes, would certainly object to aspects of the decision process that they are suddenly cut from. Capsuleers corporations are NOT the same as megacorporations or any corporate outfit you see around you. Treating fellow capsuleers as underlings is a sure-fire way to lose all your employees, 'cause cyborgs with near unlimited capability' aren't going to put up with it being treated like underlings for long.
-
Pretty much, I think a Gallentean Alliance would really have to set the standard in terms of internal democracy, perhaps even going so far as to directly elect the executor.
However, Therein lies the problem, figuring out how to balance alliance stability against internal democracy, and keeping a framework that is flexible but also no too flexible.
-
Pretty much, I think a Gallentean Alliance would really have to set the standard in terms of internal democracy, perhaps even going so far as to directly elect the executor.
However, Therein lies the problem, figuring out how to balance alliance stability against internal democracy, and keeping a framework that is flexible but also no too flexible.
Thats the crux of the issue, a true federation loyalist organization must operate in a democracy-like mechanic, which means ANY and all major decisions must reach consensus, be negotiated and reviewed by a group of leaders. Few people would be willing to do that on a constant basis just for the sake of functioning as an alliance.
After all, this is supposed to be a game to have fun....(it doesn't quite fulfills that goal entirely though).
-
<snip>, a true federation loyalist organization must operate in a democracy-like mechanic, which means ANY and all major decisions must reach consensus, be negotiated and reviewed by a group of leaders. Few people would be willing to do that on a constant basis just for the sake of functioning as an alliance.
I'm not sure I understand why you think this should be. Just because a Federation is governed by a democracy doesn't imply to me that every organisation in the Fed must be likewise a democracy. I'm willing to bet their military isn't a consensus building democratic organisation, for instance.
The Fed have some very competitive and successful corporations, I'd expect that those corporations are run by a CEO and Board who either own the company, or are appointed by the shareholders, rather than elected by the workers. I wouldn't be surprised to see some successful ones being essentially charismatic dictatorships run by one person with a vision that everyone else who works there buys into.
So for a Gallente corp, a strong leader could easily work. For an alliance, there are weaker ties to the charismatic leader, so a little more persuasion than orders are necessary, but I don't think that full-on democracy is necessary or even desirable.
-
It depends largely on the purpose of the alliance.
If it is an alliance meant to promote Federation values through example, then it should strive to provide a voice to all its members.
If it is an alliance of profit-focused corporations then it certainly could be modeled on the megacorporate or State model. Then it is a Federation alliance in its actions and politics and not its organization. It could run on the same model a State, Republic, Empire, or Freelance alliance might. It is a Federal EM or I-RED, but other than its operating area and claimed politics it is not uniquely Federal.
It becomes a question of what kind of decisions are made at an alliance level. A democratic alliance very likely will need to include a constitution outlining what activities truly are democratic decisions. For example, a decision to go to war (war dec) might be a democratic decision, but whether to conduct a patrol of local space might not be. There could be representative elections that cut across the corporations and important positions, like senior diplomats and a long-term planning committee might be elected. The options the planning committee comes up with might also be put to an alliance wide vote.
Democracy is hard in the real world and it would be easier for many to simply be led by a charismatic leader, but that also leads to dangerous places.
-
There is a difference between "democratic" and "consensus-based". PF for the Federation seems to me to suggest that, while the president is elected, after election he seems to have quite the decision power.
And while Ulphus is quite right in saying that you don't need a democracy in a fed loyalist alliance, I can totally see an EVE alliance electing the leader by popular vote. ("Federation" would suggest to me that the federal states included therein each vote, not every citizen, but the PF on presidential elections seem to differ.)
That's miles from trying to have every decision be based on consensus.
-
Note of the Federation and voting: I don't think it is exactly impossible to some "states" within the Fed to have direct-vote mechanisms, some might have U.S. style "winner takes it all" districts etc. etc.
So in Gallente Prime, for example, every vote might be counted. And then the voting on a distant colony (as measured when the law was last changed) might have district voting, or even voting for electors.
-
I wouldn't classify the Federation as consensus-based at all. I would classify it as charisma/personality-cult based. The voting in capsuleer alliances takes place with people's feet, not in a ballot.
-
I wouldn't classify the Federation as consensus-based at all. I would classify it as charisma/personality-cult based. The voting in capsuleer alliances takes place with people's feet, not in a ballot.
A capsuleer alliance does not have to replicate the structures of the culture it is trying to emulate, rather it can attempt to pursue/emulate the idealistic version of that culture.
Don't most capsuleer alliances not give the majority of their members any say in the alliances future and thus they have no alternative but to vote with their feet? If you only have one option (leave) and cannot pursue any avenue to change the alliance's direction (like leadership elections) then you have to go with the only option you have. The suggestion is that an alliance establish a structure/constitution that gives its members an alternative other than their feet.
-
Nvm the specifics of a Gallente alliance.
It needs leaders. Players with extensive mechanical and gameplay experience, who have the time, enthuse and energy to invest in it.
Doesn't need to be more than a conglomerate, that is merely there for mutual defence and mutual aggression, nothing more (a microcosm of the wider Fed for capsuleers). It merely exists to "extend Gallente interests/ideals into the wider capsuleer community".
Any takers? :yar:
-
Nvm the specifics of a Gallente alliance.
It needs leaders. Players with extensive mechanical and gameplay experience, who have the time, enthuse and energy to invest in it.
Doesn't need to be more than a conglomerate, that is merely there for mutual defence and mutual aggression, nothing more (a microcosm of the wider Fed for capsuleers). It merely exists to "extend Gallente interests/ideals into the wider capsuleer community".
Any takers? :yar:
Sometimes in this context, the daily matters of an alliance have been envisioned to be run by a synedrion. The synedrion would consist of elected representatives of the member corporations, and they would also act as the leaders of the alliance. Most people who already run corporations probably feel that they have competence, time and energy to do that. In this kind of model the executor character would be just an akolouthos, having no real power, saying what he's told to say.
If the alliance were primarily a military entity, then perhaps a single, charismatic leader could be more efficient than a board of directors having a wide variety of interests and opinions. However, several reservations against such arrangement have already been presented in this thread, and it's hard to say how well it would work in practice.
Maybe players interested in a Gallente alliance could open a new, dedicated out-of-character chat where the discussion could flow more freely?
-
After my extended absence, Saxon will soon be returning to space with a new focus. I've used my time away from the game to clear my head and I feel good about what Saxon will be doing when I do re-enter Eve.
Why am I posting this in this thread? Because should a Pro-Federation alliance be forming, I want to throw down the gauntlet so to speak.
What makes an alliance come together? The same thing that brings any group together: a common enemy. I let the Saxon character wax and wane too much in the last year to 18 months and he got soft. This was partly due to the fact that he didn't have a clearly defined enemy.
Without giving too much away, Saxon will be going back to his secessionist roots and he will have little use for anyone who proclaims the virtues of the Gallente vision of democratic Utopia.
-
Uh, for as long as I've been in the scene, the Feds have never had a shortage of enemies. Ultranationalist Caldari, zealot Amarr, drug-pushing Serpentis, zombifying Sansha, murderous Blood Raiders, secessionist Intaki, Mercenaries, UDI, aaaand the list goes on, and on, and on...
-
Uh, for as long as I've been in the scene, the Feds have never had a shortage of enemies. Ultranationalist Caldari, zealot Amarr, drug-pushing Serpentis, zombifying Sansha, murderous Blood Raiders, secessionist Intaki, Mercenaries, UDI, aaaand the list goes on, and on, and on...
This. The shortage is on the Pro-Federate roleplayers these days.
-
Uh, for as long as I've been in the scene, the Feds have never had a shortage of enemies. Ultranationalist Caldari, zealot Amarr, drug-pushing Serpentis, zombifying Sansha, murderous Blood Raiders, secessionist Intaki, Mercenaries, UDI, aaaand the list goes on, and on, and on...
This. The shortage is on the Pro-Federate roleplayers these days.
With the Feds being as diverse as they are, I'm sure "themselves" also falls into this list somewhere. :P
-
They will always have :cube:
-
Uh, for as long as I've been in the scene, the Feds have never had a shortage of enemies. Ultranationalist Caldari, zealot Amarr, drug-pushing Serpentis, zombifying Sansha, murderous Blood Raiders, secessionist Intaki, Mercenaries, UDI, aaaand the list goes on, and on, and on...
It's true the Gallente have no shortage of enemies, but the Caldari are prone to infighting, the zealot Amarr hate everyone, Serpentis are more concerned with making a profit than actually fighting the federation, etc. etc.
To use a sports analogy, it's like two rival teams in a league. They play against every other team in the league, but the competition between the rivals rises to a whole different level.
I think there is enough Pro-Fed sentiment that has been sown in the militia that a focused effort by a few dynamic personalities could pull them together under a single (even is loosely bonded) banner.
-
Without giving too much away, Saxon will be going back to his secessionist roots and he will have little use for anyone who proclaims the virtues of the Gallente vision of democratic Utopia.
Qansh may have to move this way one day, even though that will involve shaking off some Federation pixie-dust. In any event, I'm glad to see that you're staying (or returning to its proper path) the course.
-
I think there is enough Pro-Fed sentiment that has been sown in the militia that a focused effort by a few dynamic personalities could pull them together under a single (even is loosely bonded) banner.
A lot of that sentiment is dependent on The Team you've chosen to play for, because your Team gives you chance to kick the living shit out of The Other Team every night. Easy to get pro-Team when it delivers the entertainment you are looking for and lets you play on the field every night with your mates.
Now pluck the players out of the Team, tell them they are now the Cheerleaders. Kind of part of the Team but can't actually participate in the game like the Team. While you are on the same side, Cheerleading is very different than being on the Team. So, your group starts to have disagreements about Cheering tactics or outright grow bored of it as playing on the Team was much more fast paced. So they go back to the Team or quit the game and turn into the Hooligans who kick everyone in the field and fuck the Cheerleaders when they have the chance.
It doesn't matter how good motivational speeches the Coach gives if he can't set up the matches to play in.
-
After my extended absence, Saxon will soon be returning to space with a new focus. I've used my time away from the game to clear my head and I feel good about what Saxon will be doing when I do re-enter Eve.
Why am I posting this in this thread? Because should a Pro-Federation alliance be forming, I want to throw down the gauntlet so to speak.
What makes an alliance come together? The same thing that brings any group together: a common enemy. I let the Saxon character wax and wane too much in the last year to 18 months and he got soft. This was partly due to the fact that he didn't have a clearly defined enemy.
Without giving too much away, Saxon will be going back to his secessionist roots and he will have little use for anyone who proclaims the virtues of the Gallente vision of democratic Utopia.
I'm looking forward to this.
-
After my extended absence, Saxon will soon be returning to space with a new focus. I've used my time away from the game to clear my head and I feel good about what Saxon will be doing when I do re-enter Eve.
Why am I posting this in this thread? Because should a Pro-Federation alliance be forming, I want to throw down the gauntlet so to speak.
What makes an alliance come together? The same thing that brings any group together: a common enemy. I let the Saxon character wax and wane too much in the last year to 18 months and he got soft. This was partly due to the fact that he didn't have a clearly defined enemy.
Without giving too much away, Saxon will be going back to his secessionist roots and he will have little use for anyone who proclaims the virtues of the Gallente vision of democratic Utopia.
Except there isn't any pro-gallente federation alliance forming. And we're-gonna-murder-you-all on an OOC thread won't be productive to those ends, won't it?
-
Yes, shame on Saxon for offering to RP with anyone who forms an Gallente alliance.
-
The RP would exist with him coming back to the game or not. As far as I can tell, the ILF still exists. However, taking an antagonistic stance against an organization that doesn't even exist in an OOC thread is unlikely to engender many possible individuals that wish to form an alliance to jump to the fray.
Unless I have something wrong about the whole "I'm gonna be the big bad villain, watch out" declaration he made, I dunno.
-
However, taking an antagonistic stance against an organization that doesn't even exist in an OOC thread is unlikely to engender many possible individuals that wish to form an alliance to jump to the fray.
Actually I do think it would be quite the opposite. A RP alliance does not start or collapse because of enemies, it collapses because of a lack of RP interaction imo. Enemies = interaction = motivations = source of dynamism.
-
Not in my experience for the past four years.
Any organization crumbles because of a lack of internal direction. Substituting 'omgzorz enemies are here' for that self-direction is a misguided form of leadership that merely staves off the inevitable failcascade, and might even accelerate it.
-
Not in my experience for the past four years.
I guess experiences in the past four years differ.
Any organization crumbles because of a lack of internal direction. Substituting 'omgzorz enemies are here' for that self-direction is a misguided form of leadership that merely staves off the inevitable failcascade, and might even accelerate it.
An integral part of leadership is motivation. To motivate, you need a purpose. "These guys need blowing up" is a pretty good purpose in a PvP game like EVE.
I actually think you agree. For example, in a recent discussion you mentioned that you can't abstain from piracy because your overriding concern as a CEO is to give your players things to do - I suspect Lyn means exactly the same thing (at least this is how I understood her).
-
Bringing up in character diplomatic commentary for an out of character debate? Very classy, Arkady.
And I believe your characterization of my statements is quite false.
Piracy isn't what we do. We have positive sec statuses, all of us (minus one or two who are between -0.0 and -3.0, in case you intend to dig through our corporate roster in an effort to contest this point).
Why do I even bother debating on this forum, anyway?
-
Bringing up in character diplomatic commentary for an out of character debate?
Huh?
First, I thought talking about "your players" and the Veto nashville summer camp would indicate that the mail is not IC, but I seem to have been wrong.
Second, if it was IC, what does that change? Is it somehow not valid anymore? This is not about piracy or what is or is not piracy. The point Lyn raised was that having enemies is useful for an alliance in EVE, and I think you do agree with that point.
-
Ahhhh, digging into the veto summercamp thread. I though we were going back to the Mikkel Lybecker discussions when electus set Moira to negative standing from blue.
The cited statement is still entirely irrelevant to this discussion.
-
@_@
The point Lyn raised was that having enemies is useful for an alliance in EVE, and I think you do agree with that point.
Yes..
-
Allow me to put my original statement in this thread into more blunt terms.
If you set up a strawman enemy for your corporation, to 'motivate them' to participate in fleet operations, you're insulting the intelligence of your players. The people that aren't just going to follow your every single command out of slavish devotion and loyality are going to get up and leave because they think it's BS. And rightly so!
Instead, in order for a corporation to thrive and grow, you must have higher goals, unifying principles, that cause people to place trust in the premise of the corporation. The rest of it, comradeship, friendship, community, organization, corporate success, follows from that.
We see PVP in eve as a enjoyable game mechanic. I'm not even bothering to look up my statements in the Summercamp thread, because I'm pretty sure me addressing what I said there isn't going to convince you, Arkady, so whatever.
The point is, pvp in eve is a constant. Piracy under the most strict terms is an activity done to grief the playerbase of eve in order to extract some kind of monetary concessions from them. That is not what we deal in. However, we will engage in pvp whenever possible.
Is this the same as applauding efforts for the creation of strawman enemies? No, absolutely not. Strawman enemies are still terrible for a sustainable community, for the reasons pointed out earlier.
And even if Saxon Hawke isn't going to be a strawman enemy, then he's simply declaring the OOC intention to cause ruin and destruction to whatever alliance that does grow up out of an interest in Federation roleplay. One of the two possibilities has to be the case here with that kind of vague threatening statement.
-
A couple points:
1) I think Julia has a good point; having an enemy isn't a primary motivator for success to an alliance. After all, your members have to feel confident they can win (or at least endure the conflict) the war, and if everyone's getting curb stomped and station-camped you're going to lose people. Internal cooperation and a sense of unity is a much stronger bond that can keep a group together, even through difficult times. PVP is a great way to 'strengthen' that bond, and keep boredom from taking hold, but is not a place-holder for goals.
2) NONE of you are going to MAKE a Gallente alliance, so why are you all arguing about this so much? :P
-
If you set up a strawman enemy for your corporation
What exactly is a "strawman enemy"?
I mean, we're roleplaying internet spaceships captains and blow up pixels, what exactly is not a "strawman" about any enemy there? I would go as far as to say that if you are fighting "real" enemies in EVE, you're taking this game too seriously.
And this is what I understood Saxon's post to be: "Hi guys, if you are forming a Federation alliance, you will have someone to fight". Not as OOC hostility, but as an IC enemy.
One of the best things that happened to EM in its history was the war with PIE. We were IC enemies and had very good OOC relations. It changed the alliance, it made us grow, and we learned a lot there. I'm not sure our pilots, who still talk with glee about that time, felt their intelligence insulted there.
-
Most of the points raised here have merit. There have been several attempts to form Federation based RP corporations lately. Two that come to mind are Federal Robotics and Advent. Both well planned, expertly done, but experiencing varying degrees of success. What John has done with I-Red is an absolute wonder, but that pattern may not work when overlaid onto “Federation Libertarianism”. Perhaps the answer is as simple as “From Many One”. There are some folks working on the problem. Keep the ideas coming. :bash:
-
Wow. Spend a few days away for the weekend and I miss out on a whole thread tangent that could possibly have been averted.
First, let me say I never said the ILF would be annihilating anyone. Saxon's return this week will be a return to a kinder, gentler secessionist movement. We will provide a foil, a counter point for pro-Federation RP, but wiping people out isn't what we do.
Next, I'm certainly not offering the ILF up as some sacrificial strawman. We've been able to outwit and outlast too many opponents to be called a strawman.
And finally, my OOC post was made in the OOC Summit. I thought that this was the place for OOC discussions about RP ideas. If I'm wrong on this point, can someone point me to the right place?
-
Well, let me reiterate what I said above because you do not seem to grasp what I imply :
However, taking an antagonistic stance against an organization that doesn't even exist in an OOC thread is unlikely to engender many possible individuals that wish to form an alliance to jump to the fray.
Actually I do think it would be quite the opposite. A RP alliance does not start or collapse because of enemies, it collapses because of a lack of RP interaction imo. Enemies = interaction = motivations = source of dynamism.
1) I never said RP enemies are the main and only factor for a RP alliance to work. I just said it is an important thing as it keeps your alliance fighting for something (even if you can find other motivators).
2) Who spoke about dummies or strawman enemies ? Enemies are to come naturally. Did KotMC put PIE in their list of iconic enemies just for the sake of unifying their members against someone ? No, it came naturally, and helped define what KotMC are in the amarrian political roster.
What I say : RP interactions, be them hostile, friendly, neutral, cold, hot, whatever, are the main motivator of any entity. You can stay in autarky in your alliance but you will either miss a lot of opportunities, and either lose a lot of your members that are naturally drawn to what happen externally.
And I do not speak about fake interactions or something. :roll:
-
The problem with EVE RP is that it's competitive, not cooperative. The very nature of EVE is competitive, in destroying other people's efforts and work, and CCP actively encourages this. In this regard, EVE RP is often used as an excuse to "piss on other people's cheerios".
So while I am interested in gathering people to see if an alliance could be formed, I'm pretty apprehensive over the fact that it'll probably be destroyed by Star Fraction, like the last one was.
-
Star Fraction had anything to do with Acheron Federation disbanding? Huh?
-
EVE RP is often used as an excuse to "piss on other people's cheerios".
Why would anyone need an excuse? RP only provides extra flavour to your piss. :yar: :ugh:
People will do it with RP or not....
-
Star Fraction had anything to do with Acheron Federation disbanding? Huh?
Wait, what? Did I miss a memo or something? :eek:
-
Star Fraction had anything to do with Acheron Federation disbanding? Huh?
Wait, what? Did I miss a memo or something? :eek:
I think Seriphyn is confusing Acheron Federation with the Caldari KD.
-
Hm...I'm sure Star Fraction pummeled some major RP alliance to the ground?
-
I'd actually really like to see a Gallente RP alliance. Unfortunately the only Gallenteans that have really jumped into the Gallente-Caldari debate have made themselves out to be complete idiots, with a few exceptions. Gallente RP does seem to be struggling a bit though, there's less desperate perpetuation to the Gallentean situation in the war than say the Minmatar in their struggle.
-
The Gallente alliance we fought (in the Star Fraction) was The Cyrene Initiative that was operating out of Stacmon and the loops area in the campaign "popular totalitarianism". I believe that after they split from the Star Fraction - Stimulus went on to punish some of the ex Cyrene guys who went with Acheron Federation but Bacchanalian could tell you more.
On the general point of whether its worth the bother of building a new Gallente alliance because it'll just be destroyed by the Fraction (or some other anti government fighters) I'd say look at the kind of alliance you are thinking of building really. Gallente culture in New Eden has some admirable traits and its not neccessary to always put the focus on the militarist/totalitarian fascist aspects of what it means to be Gallente. Why can't a Gallente alliance be pro-freespace for example? Why not be pro-trade pro-research and development? Be forward-thinking and enlightened? It is not neccessary to always parrot the NPC-driven dogma of the Faction Warfare plotline.
You could have the kind of Gallente alliance that is against the war with the State and wants to return to the golden age of expansion and space exploration with rights, freedom and prosperity for all.
What I'm trying to say really is don't hand-wring about "oh noes the star fraction will come and kill us!" before you have considered the kind of Gallente alliance you might build. Currently the Fraction is spending most of our time fighting pirates and road-blockers in Gallente and Intaki lowsec. We've found common cause with many indepedents, Caldari liberals, intaki separatists - why not with enlighted Gallente freespacers and commercial visionaries? In our time we've found ways to coexist with a lot of people.
But if a new Gallente alliance is going to follow the Cyrene/Acheron/Strix/Moira model of totalitarian/militarist mirror to Heth stuff then I guess you do invite opposition from anti government fighters - I'm just saying that you don't need to pidgeonhole yourselves in that way and shouldn't fear that an organization like the Fraction would stomp over your creation just because you name yourselves after a government - generally its the detail of what you do that counts and we are always open to fair and respectful diplomacy.
-
I believe that after they split from the Star Fraction - Stimulus went on to punish some of the ex Cyrene guys who went with Acheron Federation but Bacchanalian could tell you more.
TL;DR (because I'm drunk--Laphroaig 10 is too good for the price), we saw a fight between the Caldari and CYI+Acheron and got in on it. The Caldari approached us and begged for help as they were getting stomped, said they'd fight for freespace and pretty much give up the Caldariness (and eventually after flying with them in that war we assimilated most of them), so we kicked CYI and Acheron to death. CYI lived on after that, but they were mostly a ghost alliance even during that war, and certainly they were worse after it. Acheron simply collapsed like a house of cards after that, despite fighting rather valiantly, if incompetently, for the duration of the war.
FWIW, I still hold Acheron in the highest regard. They simply NEVER shied from a fight, ever, and were happy to take an honest shot at any fight we'd put before them. Good on em, and they took well to honest guidance (I would eve-mail their guys a lot after killing them on how to improve their fit or piloting).
Anyway, rather drunk post. Might add more when sober in the morning.
-
My old Amarr character may be somewhat stubborn in his views, but I can't help to partially agree OOC with the character's view that the Star Fraction is a Gallente alliance. Of course how SF exactly functions means that it won't be any kind of a nationalist alliance, even a liberal one and trying to grow a "Great Unified Gallente Alliance" out of SF would be outright silly. No comments on whether the idea of GUGA is silly on itself, though.
Alliances offer a common wardec, having more war slots, some additional options to POS (shield access, alliance-wide research etc.), common standings, and a system chat channel. Possibly something I've forgot. However, if those aren't needed (and for example private chat channels can be used otherwise than founding an alliance), then what is an alliance good for?
-
See, I thought Stimulus had already split from SF before then.
[mod]Snip, see here (http://backstage.eve-inspiracy.com/index.php?topic=2758.new#new)[/mod]
-
My old Amarr character may be somewhat stubborn in his views, but I can't help to partially agree OOC with the character's view that the Star Fraction is a Gallente alliance. Of course how SF exactly functions means that it won't be any kind of a nationalist alliance, even a liberal one and trying to grow a "Great Unified Gallente Alliance" out of SF would be outright silly. No comments on whether the idea of GUGA is silly on itself, though.
Alliances offer a common wardec, having more war slots, some additional options to POS (shield access, alliance-wide research etc.), common standings, and a system chat channel. Possibly something I've forgot. However, if those aren't needed (and for example private chat channels can be used otherwise than founding an alliance), then what is an alliance good for?
While certainly, I couldn't see Star Fraction ever being a Gallente Nationalist alliance *shock horror shiver* - I could see us cooperating with a progressive freespace-orientated Gallente Alliance that wanted to open up areas of lowsec/nullsec and work together against regressive pirate roadblockers and general nere-do-wells. Freespace activism is largely about recognizing and respecting independence from the old territorial bad-nationalist xenophobia and I think the Gallente national character in Eve is ideal for building something better.
Ironically for the history buffs Jericho Fraction once took a contract from the Quafe corporation to run security for the launch of its new Quafe Ultra range and ended up defending the starlets from extremist anti holo porn militants IN SPACE (with the militants played by members of the dev team). This ended up with us meeting the old president :)
-
Wow, sure is e-peen in here.
If an RP-centric Federation alliance ever formed, Mixed Metaphor would almost certainly have a hand in it if at all possible - heck, we might be one of the founding members. The concept certainly has been tossed about a few times within MXD's hearing since we formed, and we've even considered doing it ourselves a few times. Heck, if it needed a leader, I'd certainly be willing to give it a go - I'm a decent FC and I run a quiet, low-membership but financially successful corporation. Back when we had more members we had a pretty high level of military success as well. The main issue with a Federal RP alliance is twofold:
1. We don't need one. The Federal RP crowd is neither large enough (see point 2) nor cohesive enough that we have anything resembling a common agenda or any common enemies other than the ones that can be combatted through the broken, until-recently-abandoned militia system, which precludes involvement in an alliance due to developer shortsightedness. The Federal RP scene's currently just a loose cluster of like-minded individuals and corporations - it's not glamorous but it's worked so far and there's no need to change it at present.
2. The Federal RP scene lacks commitment. Mixed Metaphor is one of the oldest surviving Federal RP corporations. There was a brief time just before Empyrean Age where I believe we were one of only three or four. Most Federal RP corporations do not remain Federal RP corporations. Moira, which I helped found alongside Jonny Damordred and Julianus Soter - though they do their best to forget that little fact - was founded with the specific purpose of forming a new, powerful force in Federation roleplay and PvP. It managed the latter just fine, and it played the whole Federation RP thing OK up until the Viriette constellation was returned to Gallente hands and then it became... well, in terms of RP, I don't know what the fuck it became, but it ain't a Federal RP corp now, as far as I can tell.
Eleutherian Guard, although we've had our differences, is pretty much the only Federal RP corp that, founding-to-present, neither died nor abandoned its focus on Federal RP. The militia corps play at RP but they're not really that interested in it, and who can blame them? The Federal RP scene is kind of... boring. I myself have been tempted to move Mixed Metaphor away from Federal RP several times now - heck, I was even going to join Veto, until I decided it wasn't quite my lifestyle. But I've always come back, because hell, it's what I know.
I also dispute the notion that a Federal roleplay alliance would neccessarily have to be democratic in nature. Mixed Metaphor is a corporation that has on more than one occasion fought to defend the values of freedom, self-determination and democracy. We are not a democracy - if you want to have a say in corporate direction, you earn my trust and respect and you become a director - and if there's a corporate operation in progress, you're damn well expected to be a part of it. We are a private organisation which operates in support of a national entity. We are not required to organise ourselves in a democratic nature - I wouldn't expect anything different from a private alliance, either.
-
Glad to see to Pro-Fed block coming out to play on the Recall Roden thread. You're all welcome to show up in the freeintaki channel to debate such matters in real time, or, if I'm on you can find Saxon trying to win the favor of the Supreme Court in Villore.
-
To be honest, the whole Intaki/Caldari occupation arc is a storyline that should never have happened, so I try to distance myself from it as much as possible.
-
I wasn't a big fan of the story arc either, but it did reflect in-game activity, and that's something I do support.
That being said, it is an existing storyline and was good place for Saxon to re-enter the role playing scene after his absence.
This is especially true since he can't rail against the Federation for its lax defense of Intaki anymore. Any pro-Mordu's Legion's pilots out there? I've got a few things to talk to you about. :psyccp:
-
I wasn't a big fan of the story arc either, but it did reflect in-game activity and that's something I do support.
Except it's been pretty firmly established that it was illegitimate in-game activity, and where it wasn't illegitimate, it was a result of extremely imbalanced and poorly-tested game mechanics. That's really not the kind of thing I want to have influenced on the game, to be frank.
This is especially true since he can't rail against the Federation for its lax defense of Intaki anymore.
To be honest this is the only part of the storyline that I liked.
-
I wasn't a big fan of the story arc either, but it did reflect in-game activity, and that's something I do support.
This.
This is especially true since he can't rail against the Federation for its lax defense of Intaki anymore. Any pro-Mordu's Legion's pilots out there? I've got a few things to talk to you about. :psyccp:
What am I, chopped liver? :9
However, I too would be interested to see more Mordu's-aligned capsuleers.
-
If I remember correctly, Simca from I-RED identifies herself as Mordu's aligned.
-
I'd probably count myself more as a supporter of the Legion but not so far as "aligned" or "affiliated". Not something I've explored with Bataav yet, but am planning too in the not too distant future.
-
Mithfindel considers that he is from Wachi City, and as such, shares a tie with a lot of the Mordus' old guard. (He's since been Reborn, though.)
-
Okay then, all you Mordu's pilots, get off your butts and defend Intaki. You're under contract!
-
So far it seems Federal groups have been taking style notes from the Federation of Blake's 7. Perhaps a Gallente alliance could take a leaf out of another Federation's playbook. The one that starts "Space, the final frontier."
Play a group that will attempt to poke their noses into make their presence felt in as much of the cluster as it can, and wormhole space. Ostensibly for purely peaceful purposes. Of course there is always the "We come in peace (shoot to kill)" option. I suspect that would feature quite a bit in any 0.0 interaction.
Just don't call the lead ship of your fleet the Enterprise.
-
Mithfindel considers that he is from Wachi City, and as such, shares a tie with a lot of the Mordus' old guard. (He's since been Reborn, though.)
Hamish too.
-
reborn hamish wut
-
Actually I never worked out if Hamish was reborn or if Grandpa just thought he was.