Regular Updates Weekly

My name is Hallan Turrek. This is my blog.

Tuesday, July 27, 2010

Taking Over An Alliance Is Broken

So, CCP, I know you're booked on your fantastic new content for the next two years, but I've got a few ideas on how to improve your current game. You know, so that people who spend half a decade creating that player based content you rave so much about aren't so easily kicked in the teeth by griefers.

So I'd like to start off by saying that I think turning a director should be an easy path towards destroying an alliance. It absolutely enriches the EVE experience for that to be possible. But even with that said, there should be a 24 hour timer on executor corp actions, which are cancelable if the CEO notices it in time. I think that strikes a good balance between the two extremes.

Beyond that, CREATE A FUCKING DIPLOMAT ROLE. Make a role for setting standings that doesn't require directorship. If you do nothing else do that. How much development time would be required for that? Seriously. Just fucking do it. Take a week and get it done.

But while those changes would've helped the CVA's, and BoB's of the world, it would've done nothing for UK. UK was taken over by a shareholder vote. So what's wrong with that? Legit game mechanics and UK being dumb led to their downfall, right?

Only the mechanic is unrealistic and dumb in and of itself. Lets take a real life example, since we're talking about corporations here. In almost every state, there is a legally required quorum of 51% before a shareholder vote can be considered carried. Even if you weren't required to do that legally, it seems very much like the kind of thing you'd write into your charter.

Only in EVE, that's not even an option. Anyone with any shares can start a vote(assuming they are in that corporation). A quorum of 1 vote is no real quorum at all. There should be a field that allows you to set a quorum or not, or 51% should be the standard. Anything else is unrealistic.

CCP: It is not complicated, it is common sense. Seriously.

1 comment: