Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Valdezi]

I have some ideas about this based on some thigns I've been thinking for a while.

It seems like every one of the empires has a big role-playing alliance dedicated to pursuing the ideals of that empire.

For example, the Matar have Electus Matari, Ushra Khan (or whatever they're going by now), Annwn Matari among others probably.

The Amarr have CVA. The Caldari have I-RED.

But what about the Gallente?

It seems like all the big Gallente rp'ers went into Faction Warfare instead of creating a big Gallente alliance.

There are probably a number of reasons for this. I mentioned this elsewhere and people suggested that the Matar-Amarr conflict is more ripe for role play and attracts more people, but I'm not sure about that.

It seems like the Federation needs a Federation-centric alliance. I get excited on a Role Play level, about the idea of the EL-G, Moria. Mixed Metaphor, etc teaming up, even though I know that's practically impossible. I feel like the Federation needs more than what it's got.


I've been wondering what this organisation would do, on a practical level.

Ideas:
Killing Pirates and bringing law to Placid and Syndicate.
Continue fighting Caldari in Black Rise.
Get some sort of Industrial wing going.

I dunno. I probably haven't thought it all through.

Thoughts?

[John Revenent]

The Gallente have a rich RP community, though it is either fractured or heavily involved in FW.. which I like, though a Gallente Alliance could have benefits (maybe a tangible trade partner in eve... gah they are hard to find nowadays =( ), but I can see some difficulties mainly someone to lead it (and not give up) with combat/pvp in mind not pure industry or it will be targeted and crushed by some.

Any support to get such a thing going would have my full OOC/Backroom support =P

[orange]

I have some ideas about this based on some thigns I've been thinking for a while.

It seems like every one of the empires has a big role-playing alliance dedicated to pursuing the ideals of that empire.

...

The Caldari have I-RED.

But what about the Gallente?

It seems like all the big Gallente rp'ers went into Faction Warfare instead of creating a big Gallente alliance.

There are probably a number of reasons for this. I mentioned this elsewhere and people suggested that the Matar-Amarr conflict is more ripe for role play and attracts more people, but I'm not sure about that.

a Gallente Alliance could have benefits (maybe a tangible trade partner in eve... gah they are hard to find nowadays =( )

Ishukone has I-RED, and there in lies an important difference between Federation-State RP conflict vs Matari-Amarr conflict.  It is much easier for State-affiliated/Federal-affiliated organizations to step out and say "I don't like you, but right now there are bigger fish to fry" vs the Amarr/Matari.

As an example, if I-RED and say LDIS went to war (against each other), neither would cease to be State-affiliated.

I've been wondering what this organisation would do, on a practical level.

...

Thoughts?

Here is my 2 cents: alliances are 0.0 organisms.  Having an alliance of Motsu mission runners is pointless, join a single corporation.   People talk about having unlimited standings, etc; but who cares if you hated enemy is no where near your operating area?

Unless the players have 0.0 goals, likely involving sov, an alliance is a "status" symbol of look we can waste isk.

Better to form and maintain the pseudo-alliance structures that FW has seen established.

[Ulphus]

Here is my 2 cents: alliances are 0.0 organisms.  Having an alliance of Motsu mission runners is pointless, join a single corporation.   People talk about having unlimited standings, etc; but who cares if you hated enemy is no where near your operating area?

Unless the players have 0.0 goals, likely involving sov, an alliance is a "status" symbol of look we can waste isk.

Better to form and maintain the pseudo-alliance structures that FW has seen established.

I disagree.

An alliance is a way for a bunch of corporations who might be different in character, leadership and motivations, but who share over-all goals, to work together.

Electus Matari (the alliance) has people in it that I couldn't share a corp with for IC or OOC reasons, but who contribute in useful ways to the Alliance.

We have a reasonable collection of reds, most of whom are people we encounter from day to day inside the republic, and we do regularly run over the corporation standings limits.

One corp in the alliance is made up of French speakers. Their leadership speaks English, and most of their members know enough English to work in fleets, but they want somewhere they can hang out and relax without the stress of translating on the fly.

One corp accepts no Amarr trained characters, another accepts more dodgy characters. Having separate corps allows the RP to work, as well as the organisation. The stricter corp can go "Well, they're all a bunch of ex-criminals, but they can be relied upon to shoot at the right people, so we can work with them without having to have them in our corp" which means that people don't have to compromise their RP just to have more people in their cause.

Some players, and their characters, prefer more organisation and rigor. some prefer to be the mavericks and hot-dogs. Having an alliance of different corps allows those people to work towards a common goal (supporting and defending the republic) without having to "get on with" IC, or OOC, everyone else in the alliance.

It also allows us to attract new corps into the alliance without them having to give up everything that they've built up to that point. If it doesn't work out they can go back to being an independent corp without having to start again. This can be quite useful if you are trying to convince people currently in a corp to work with you to go in the same direction.

Thus, I think there are quite a lot reasons why an alliance can make sense without having to have nullsec goals.

[Valdezi]

In terms of RP, we often do things that aren't 'best practice' in game terms, for RP reasons.

[orange]

Plenty of groups do things in-game that are far from best practice based on mechanics (non-RP pirate alliances fx).

Having an alliance of different corps allows those people to work towards a common goal (supporting and defending the republic) without having to "get on with" IC, or OOC, everyone else in the alliance.

I do not think anything you described requires a formal Alliance with its associated investment (an easy billion isk).  Many of the points you provided can be done without the need for a formal Alliance (and may provide corporations with additional flexibility), by establishing shared channels (replicating Alliance chat) and mailing list (replicating Alliance mail).

The mechanical benefits (from my understanding) of a non-sov alliance are largely shared standings, wardec consolidation (likely w/o a cost savings)*, and no wardec limit.

*Alliance, say CVA, decides to wardec all EM - total cost 50m isk.  Say instead EM was a loose association of corporations and CVA wardeced all those corporations - total cost 350m (7 x 50m/corp).

In terms of RP, we often do things that aren't 'best practice' in game terms, for RP reasons.

You asked on a practical level.

On a practical level, full participation in FW excludes formal Alliances.    On a practical level, 1b isk investment buys you a clear mutual defense pact, 1 wardec captures all the formal Alliance's members (not necessarily a good thing), alliance maintenance fees (noise I know), shared standings, no wardec limit, and wardec consolidation.

I am presenting a different view point.  It doesn't make either of us wrong, merely different.

If a group of Federation-aligned corps want to pursue an alliance, it is likely better that they first attempt a pseudo-alliance with a set of defined goals either in regards to FW or some other shared goal.

[Valdezi]

I didn't mean to suggest that you were wrong; I appreciate the feedback.

I was just responding to the 'no point to non-0.0 alliances point.' I'm not sure I agree.

The whole point of the post was to say, from a Role Playing point of view, I'd like to see a Federation loyalist Alliance.

Name suggestions for entirely imaginary alliances:

La Fraternité
Les Aigles (The Eagles - that bird on the Gallente crest is an eagle, right?)
Fils de Liberté

[Goshien]

Sure I'll join ya.

[Ulphus]

I do not think anything you described requires a formal Alliance with its associated investment (an easy billion isk).  Many of the points you provided can be done without the need for a formal Alliance (and may provide corporations with additional flexibility), by establishing shared channels (replicating Alliance chat) and mailing list (replicating Alliance mail).

The mechanical benefits (from my understanding) of a non-sov alliance are largely shared standings, wardec consolidation (likely w/o a cost savings)*, and no wardec limit.

Another advantage is that there's no wait to war-dec someone. My understanding is that you need to have a corp vote for a corp to war-dec someone, but an alliance can do it without the vote. This is enough of an annoyance (and extra 24 hour delay) that some singleton corps create alliances just to avoid this.

*Alliance, say CVA, decides to wardec all EM - total cost 50m isk.  Say instead EM was a loose association of corporations and CVA wardeced all those corporations - total cost 350m (7 x 50m/corp).

Actually, it's worse, since I think war-dec fees stack, so 7 wars would be 50+100+150+200+250+300+350 = 1.4B (I think - not in game to check, and have never personally had to calculate it).

However, I'd expect that what a hypothetical enemy would do is they'd war-dec one corp of the loose association, and not the rest. Stomp the singleton, and then war-dec the next. The only way for the other corps in this "federation of corps" to get involved is to counter-war-dec, and wear the increased costs. For Corps who end up in high-sec wars, Alliances really do help defend against aggressors.

And for all that, EM war-dec's pirates about as often as people war-dec us.

Late last year, several EM corps did leave the alliance and join the Matari Militia. We tried the "shared channel" and "shared mailing list". The lack of shared standings was actually a significant pain, since EM has an NRDS engagement policy, and frequent standings changes, which is a job that is amenable to economies of scale (There's no more work to set standings for an alliance than a corporation, yet all the corps in an alliance can share the standings).

After a month in the militia, most of the members were very happy to get back into the alliance, and reluctant to leave again without good reason.

I think that you underestimate the value of the psychological effects of being part of an alliance. I think that EM finds that psychological effect of great value, and once the alliance is formed, well worth the monthly price.

If a group of Federation-aligned corps want to pursue an alliance, it is likely better that they first attempt a pseudo-alliance with a set of defined goals either in regards to FW or some other shared goal.

I think this is a reasonable piece of advice, but I wouldn't do it for too long.

If you're looking for something similar to EM, I probably would try to tie your reason for existance to something other than FW. It's a bit broken to RP around.

[Valdezi]

Yeah, I agree with all that.

Just a note, I'm not forming this alliance, it's purely hypothetical. I just wished there were one.

The reason I posted it on this board was to suggest a possible direction for the new EL-G, which Seriphyn was seemingly asking for.