Five Virtues of a Successful Alliance

[Felix]

I was reading the Minor Threat threads and found myself thinking about what divides successful alliances from unsuccessful ones.

All alliances start(ed) without those; blue lists, infrastructure and GIA equivalents are the products of survival, not the cause of it.

Going through some of the threads here, you see snapshots of the inner workings of a lot of different alliances. These aren't necessarily unbiased or show the whole truth, but it's interesting to see groups that on paper seem to have excellent prospects (Requiem for instance) fail and shatter. Given this site has seen the inside of a lot of alliances, I thought I'd see if I could get a discussion going on what factors lead to a healthy alliance, which factors don't, and maybe some examples.

For my contribution, I'll parrot a couple obvious ones I've heard:

That charismatic dictators help and democratic/councils don't. Alliances benefit from decisive action and reasonably fast decision making and the more people you add to a group, the more likely you'll have morons in it. BRUCE being a good example of the bad, and what I read in the BoB director forum suggested BoB genuinely thought FIX's democratic tradition was killing it.

Groups with out-of-game self-identity are stronger than ones without. The old Red Alliance with it's Russian identity was a good example, the goons with their "Brotherhood of the 10bux" could be another. In both cases the alliances survived catastrophes. If ex-BoB survives as an organization they might be a third, as I am given to understand that their core has ten years of association together.

Here's a question for extra credit: If you wanted to lead an alliance, how would you go about forming it? Recruit veteran corps, indoctrinate newbies, etc.



So what separates the winners from the losers? The Razors from the Hydras?

[Alex Clomsaver]

One must not overestimate one's own ability to count to five...

Anyways, if I had a choice to form an alliance I would only use one corporation and those members would all come from one out of game source. Whether its a guild from another game (KIA, TOG, RKK, etc.,) or an offsite forum (SA, FinnNexus, PennyArcade, etc.,) its better to get people who know each other and have an identity.

That isn't enough however, you also have to get people who are familiar with the game and willing to make a long-term plan in order to be successful. The being familiar with the game isn't as important as long as you luck into someone quick on the uptake but the long-term plan is absolutely crucial.

There are several cases where groups have had only one of the two and they just don't work. BRUCE, for instance, had leadership that knew how to play the game (in NPC space, at least) and had a plan but hemorrhaged members when losing due to its lack of identity.

On the other hand there are groups that have an identity, such as Scalar Federation (group of Turkish players,) but will never amount to anything since they suck at the game and are seemingly unable to learn better tactics.


Finally, there is something that I've seen that never works and that is mass recruiting corporations. If you are a member of an alliance for over a month and a half or so and don't know who half of the corps are* then I recommend getting the hell out.

*doesn't apply to personal corps, obviously

[Felix]

Fuggin doublepost

[Felix]

One must not overestimate one's own ability to count to five...

My post concept changed midway through and the title was the only part that avoided the Stalinist purge. Thanks for your contribution.

[Glomp]

Leading by committee never works. That said if you go for the Dictator approach you have to be transparent so it is a sort of "Yes I boss you around but here are the benefits" sort of thing.

[k]

Leading by committee never works. That said if you go for the Dictator approach you have to be transparent so it is a sort of "Yes I boss you around but here are the benefits" sort of thing.

it worked with BRUCE though.

[CrusaderKnight]

Leading by committee never works. That said if you go for the Dictator approach you have to be transparent so it is a sort of "Yes I boss you around but here are the benefits" sort of thing.

Agree 100%. Back when I played SWG (before SOE ruined it) I made the mistake of trying the "idealistic democratic" method of guild management. It did well for awhile and then crashed and burned as always happens (think BRUCE) because it simply won't work.

The best form of corp/alliance management is the "benevolent dictatorship". IE, there is plenty of room for individual input, etc (this is a friggin game after all, we are here to have FUN, not work a 2nd job), but when the time comes the leader makes the decision and that's that.

There has to be transparency as well. Previous alliances I've been in have forced the rank and file to risk (and lose) lots of expensive ships to take/defend moons (with no ship reimbursement at all) and I never saw anything that even suggested that money from high ends were benefiting the alliance AT ALL (individual corps were funding/building Dreads themselves through their own taxes), nor would alliance "high command" ever give the rank and file any idea what they were doing. Details need to be held secret, of course, but those who are out there earning the ISK for the alliance have a right, at least, to know the generalities.

And we knew they had tons of ISK, what from several moons and a refinery monopoly with a 15% tax.

It didn't help that the leader was AFK most of the time and used his semi-literate brother who has a tendancy to piss off anyone he speaks to as his mouthpiece.

That said, I have no desire to ever try leadership again myself. It's a thankless job.

[Fartman]

his semi-literate brother who has a tendancy to piss off anyone he speaks to as his mouthpiece

You were in SMASH?

[CrusaderKnight]

You were in SMASH?

No, lol, but I was on the other side and did get to experience Peoke.

[John Smith]

Start a corp, not tolerate stupidity, lead PVP ops, have fun and be successful. The rest will come with time.

[Vinata]

You don't necessarily need a good intel/spy division, but you sure as hell need a counter-intel division.

The only cases I know of where there is a group with an intel division and no counter-intel division are the Militias, as they can't actually refuse or kick people (due to a lot of their group being in an NPC corp)

[Roy Awesome]

Most Alliances are great until someone attacks them. During peacetime, any method of running the alliance works, but, when things need to happen during a fight, someone has to take over.

I have been in an alliance where during peace time, it was very democratic, every CEO and one appointed director had a vote. We voted on what to do when a smaller alliance encroached on our space, etc. But when we were attacked, or our allies were attacked, the democratic process ended, and the CEO of the sov holding corp stepped up and lead the alliance.

Unfortunately, due to a terrible logistics situation, fucked up space usage rules, and the fact that only one corp in the alliance was pulling all the weight, it collapsed.

[Dog Sol]

I agree with transparancy being important. It builds trust within an alliance. That and having FC's or leadership that inspire people and build the trust of the membership.

I took part in leading a small alliance AWHILE back which was the UCC. Despite honestly never holding space for any extended period of time (helped NBSI, got owned by the 5?, helping LV, got owned by RA..and we lost at least one or two more stations in its duration), the alliance never really broke apart until we finally spent an EXTENDED period of time in empire ice mining for dreads I think people mainly stuck together because people trusted the management structure and we were usually attempting to punch above our weight so we were not overly surprised when we got owned in the face right out of our stations.

Coming from my experience, if you always assume your space/moon/station won't be yours for much longer, you are not upset or surprised when a larger force comes and evicts you. As roy said, its always wartime where the tensions come to a head, especially if you are losing.

[Felix]

As roy said, its always wartime where the tensions come to a head, especially if you are losing.

Reminds me of G00dfellas in Deklein, actually. I stopped reading their posts almost immediately because, Jesus Christ, I'm not putting myself through that for no reason. But they were supposedly an aggressive PvP alliance with some battlefield successes and settled into a fairly profitable region. I was surprised how fast and easily they folded, even given the odds against them.

I presumed at the time it was a result of lack of solidarity among the corps, poor logistics, and poor diplomacy. I suppose another reason might go along with what Dog Sol said, they weren't very realistic about their strength and their position.

I don't know what happened to them after their eviction, but at least they stopped posting on CAOD.

[Roy Awesome]

I don't know what happened to them after their eviction, but at least they stopped posting on CAOD.

I heard they went to fountain, got curbstomped, then failurecascaded.

[k]

The Republic of Rome had provisions for a dictatorship:

Dictator: Roman magistrate with extraordinary powers, appointed during an emergency. The word dictator originally meant 'the one who dictates' or 'gives orders'. The negative connotation is a later development.

Rome's first dictator was Aulus Postumius Albinus, who was appointed in the first decade of the fifth century BCE, when the Latin allies revolted. This was a serious crisis and the Romans thought that only one man with extraordinary powers could solve the problems. This measure was successful and was sometimes repeated. A consul or (in emergency situations) praetor could appoint a dictator; this proposal could not be vetoed.

The dictator was more powerful than a consul, which was shown by the fact that he had twice as many bodyguards (24 lictores) - at least, this is what the Roman historian Livy seems to have said about the dictatorship of Sulla (Periochae, 89). On the other hand, his magistracy lasted half as long: at most six months.

It was impossible to appeal against the measures of the dictator. In fact, we can summarize his magistracy as a military potentate who briefly took over the government. This can also be deduced from his second title, 'master of the infantry' (his right-hand man was the 'master of the cavalry'). The Greeks correctly translated the title as strategos autokrator, 'military ruler', or even as monarchos.

In the fifth and fourth century, the dictatorship was also used to solve internal problems, e.g., to conduct difficult elections or solve a constitutional crisis. After 202, the dictatorship was abolished; in emergency situations, the Senate gave extraordinary powers to the consuls (the senatusconsultum ultimum, the proclamation of the state of emergency). When Sulla and Caesar became dictator (in the first century), their magistracy was nothing but a tool to exercise personal power.

Every year, the Romans appointed a dictator whose only task it was to fix a nail to the wall of the temple of Jupiter (the meaning of this ritual is unclear). One is reminded of the modern custom of King Carnival.

You might want to read Plutarch's Life of Sulla or some history fiction from McCullough, The First Man in Rome.

[Yorda]

Dictators were usually appointed because both counsuls died in battle. Also they were only appointed for a specific reason and were forced to give up their positions once that reason / issue had been solved

[Felix]

:hist101: I'm from a town named after Cincinnatus.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cincinnatus

I have been in an alliance where during peace time, it was very democratic, every CEO and one appointed director had a vote. We voted on what to do when a smaller alliance encroached on our space, etc. But when we were attacked, or our allies were attacked, the democratic process ended, and the CEO of the sov holding corp stepped up and lead the alliance.

Which is actually exactly what a Roman dictator did, as opposed to the modern ones.


To get back to EVE, could someone explain to me how IRON survives as an organization? I understand they have been kicked out of their space several times, lost a titan, etc. What keeps them alive?

[Alex Clomsaver]

Northern generosity.

[Bodger]

What killed G00dfellas was their own ego. They convinced themselves they were super amazing PvPers and that they could take on tremendous odds. The fact that it tooks them weeks to take down one cynojammer in Deklein after IRON had already been broken should have been a hint that they're not as good as they think they are, but they kept on thinking they were amazing. When they got evicted from Deklein, they chalked it down as being blobbed out of the region, so their "image" was intact. Once they got owned in the face time and again in Fountain, I imagine the internal flame wars that ensued were nothing short of epic.

The best thing an alliance can do is be honest with itself. The moment you convince yourselves that you're the best and nobody can beat you, it's just a matter of time until somebody comes and proves you wrong, leading to giant ego fallout.

[k]

What killed G00dfellas was their own ego. They convinced themselves they were super amazing PvPers and that they could take on tremendous odds. The fact that it tooks them weeks to take down one cynojammer in Deklein after IRON had already been broken should have been a hint that they're not as good as they think they are, but they kept on thinking they were amazing. When they got evicted from Deklein, they chalked it down as being blobbed out of the region, so their "image" was intact. Once they got owned in the face time and again in Fountain, I imagine the internal flame wars that ensued were nothing short of epic.

The best thing an alliance can do is be honest with itself. The moment you convince yourselves that you're the best and nobody can beat you, it's just a matter of time until somebody comes and proves you wrong, leading to giant ego fallout.

I'll look if there are any tears or rage to harvest.

[Alex Clomsaver]

Also, looking back at the quote in the first post I have to say that those things are both a means and an end forming a cycle of success.

[Rotor]

That said, I have no desire to ever try leadership again myself. It's a thankless job.

I might have asked you before...but were you in Ka-Tet?

[CrusaderKnight]

I might have asked you before...but were you in Ka-Tet?

Nope. Heard they had huge issues though. Most drone alliances can't resist the lure of the refinery monopoly and the billions and billions that come from that. The drone regions don't need moons, refineries are where the money is made.

I've never done leadership in EVE, though I have in a previous MMO I played. I started up a guild that peaked at about 150 members before I got sick and tired of dealing with people whining about each other which sucked all the life out of the game for me.

That took away any desire for me to start or run a corp in EVE.

[Shadoo]

The best thing an alliance can do is be honest with itself. The moment you convince yourselves that you're the best and nobody can beat you, it's just a matter of time until somebody comes and proves you wrong, leading to giant ego fallout.

This right here, is in my experience the key in EVE.

[Viper ShizzIe]

The best thing an alliance can do is be honest with itself. The moment you convince yourselves that you're the best and nobody can beat you, it's just a matter of time until somebody comes and proves you wrong, leading to giant ego fallout.

Once you start taking yourself too seriously you start failing.

[cappellodilatta]

Reminds me of G00dfellas in Deklein, actually. I stopped reading their posts almost immediately because, Jesus Christ, I'm not putting myself through that for no reason. But they were supposedly an aggressive PvP alliance with some battlefield successes and settled into a fairly profitable region. I was surprised how fast and easily they folded, even given the odds against them.

I presumed at the time it was a result of lack of solidarity among the corps, poor logistics, and poor diplomacy. I suppose another reason might go along with what Dog Sol said, they weren't very realistic about their strength and their position.

I don't know what happened to them after their eviction, but at least they stopped posting on CAOD.

Goodfellas was created to have fun in small pvp warfare and roaming gangs across the universe, and we did it very very well for months. Alliance was small (< 300 people), everyone knew each other, the month before moving to deklein we did same number of kills as the great alliances with 1500+ people and we had some amazing pvpers.

Then the mighty Endeva noticed we could easily take Deklein as only fail alliances like Pure and IRON were leaving there, and NC was busy with MAX. Plan was simple, go there, kick IRON and Pure out, milk the hi-end moons while the NC blob is busy somewhere else. When the blob comes, just pack our stuff and leave.

Hoewever 300 people were not enough (our best gang was like 50 people with 4 dreads), so we recruited a hell lot of corporations to boost numbers. After mass-recruiting 15 corporations we could field 150 people easily in our prime time and in less than 3 weeks we took all Deklein (11 outposts IIRC). That was in August.

Then some day in october (?), the same day we killed Razor Titan, BoB announced they were leaving the North, and we knew Deklein infinite-isk adventure was over. When the NC blob arrived to us, we just left, with all the money from dyspro and prometh in a bag.

What to do next ? Plan was to merge the 4 original Goodfellas corporations in a new corp, but first we wanted to do the alliance pvp tournament ! So we relaxed in Delve until then. We placed 3rd in the tourney and immediately after we just disbanded goodfellas and merged the original corps in a new one, as planned.

The new corp, Tr0pa de Elite, is currently in Triumvirate. All the 15 corps that we mass recruited in 2 weeks to boost our numbers to take Deklein, have left or have been kicked weeks ago.

I still have Deklein isk in my wallet (~20 high-end moons for 3 months), I will always be grateful to Pure and IRON for folding so fast.

o/

[Agathor]

I still have Deklein isk in my wallet (~20 high-end moons for 3 months), I will always be grateful to Pure and IRON for folding so fast.




So your saying that you exploited your grunts to make you fabulously rich ?

[Bodger]

I'd sure be glad to have that guy heading up my corp

[SlazengerHarris]

You don't necessarily need a good intel/spy division, but you sure as hell need a counter-intel division.

Obviously the intel section consists of spys, forum access, bribes, etc etc
But what does a counter-intel division involve?
I've heard of the text changing within certain threads for individuals, don't really know much information on that and well I'm guessing forum security would come under that also?

I still have Deklein isk in my wallet (~20 high-end moons for 3 months), I will always be grateful to Pure and IRON for folding so fast.

So you recruited 15 corps into the alliance to enable you to take Deklein, get rich via the moons and leave once shit hits the fan.
Then go back to just the original member corps rich enough to pay for losses.
Nice way to use those 15 corps.....

[Murtas]

If i remember correctly, all goods CEO said at the time, that they hadn't an cap fleet, was because the most of the hi-ends money was going into infrastucture. (which is very believeable, because as you said, you had to claim an entire region, when you had 0 towers)

[Felix]

o/

Apparently if you mention G00dfellas three times they show up and make you remember why you hated their posts on CAOD.

[Vinata]

Obviously the intel section consists of spys, forum access, bribes, etc etc
But what does a counter-intel division involve?

The purpose of a counter-intel division is to make sure other people's intel divisions aren't doing a good enough job.

[cappellodilatta]

So your saying that you exploited your grunts to make you fabulously rich ?

I'd sure be glad to have that guy heading up my corp

So you recruited 15 corps into the alliance to enable you to take Deklein, get rich via the moons and leave once shit hits the fan.
Then go back to just the original member corps rich enough to pay for losses.
Nice way to use those 15 corps.....

I didnt say that I personally have all the isk we made from Deklein. Money from hi-end moons was equally splitted between all corporations in Goodfellas. We didnt use anyone, each corporation that joined Goodfellas left with billions of isk in their wallet.

As CEO of one of the corps I have my part of that money (as all other corps do). Since that corp is now closed because of the merge, I used the money to buy dread to all pilots and pay for pvp losses.

[Rotor]

Since that corp is now closed because of the merge, I used the money to buy dread to all pilots and pay for pvp losses.

*cough*bullshit*cough*

[/constructive post]

[BLACK BOX]

having a spy network is helpful as hell. overall it just functions as a force multiplyer more then anything else. if your corp isnt good enough to shoot down the towers your spies have revealed to be dyspro towers, you're nothing but a forum troll

[Carebear]

I didnt say that I personally have all the isk we made from Deklein. Money from hi-end moons was equally splitted between all corporations in Goodfellas. We didnt use anyone, each corporation that joined Goodfellas left with billions of isk in their wallet.

As CEO of one of the corps I have my part of that money (as all other corps do). Since that corp is now closed because of the merge, I used the money to buy dread to all pilots and pay for pvp losses.

I think what he means is that you took on 15 corps with no intention of keeping them, basically paying them to help maintain the massive moon income. Kinda like what Haliburton did in order to secure their Iraq Contract - just send tons of randoms to fight and die protecting your assets and give them a bit of money so you can run your "oil/reconstruction" projects.

Do not get me wrong, at least you gave the slave corps isk, so they are pleb corps. PURE & co gave hardly anything so they had real slave corps. All that was being asked was if the plan from the start was to use these 15 corps as cannon fodder, or if there was a long term plan to intergrate the 15 corps?

[Luke Skyrider]

What killed G00dfellas was their own ego.

I pretty much agree and unfortunately the same is true for my own corp leadership (DAB). For those that dont know me (luke skyrider), I was co-founder of DAB and DAB Holding Corporation (macro is my CEO alt). CEO/director of DAB from 2004-2007.
While it's true that a pure democratic structure in EVE dont work well it has one major advancement compared to a 'dictatorship'. CEO accountability/check and balance. Power and fame corrupt just as easily in EVE as it does in real life. Power/fame corrupt because it flatter the ego. The biggest downfall in a leadership are always to much ego. From my experience in DAB I have seen first hand the destructive influence of power/fame.

A good source for how to run a succesful guild;
The Clan Bible
http://www.atomicwarrior.com/clubs/clanbible/page3.html

I. The LEADER is a power hungry ego maniac:

-If- you are starting a clan to "simply to be IN-charge" of it, I would suggest not bothering starting a clan at all. Because, that is the #1 reason so many clans DIE, it's their leader started the clan, simply to be "IN CHARGE" of 'a clan' and to boss people. The best clans are ran by people that actually enjoy helping other people. Immature ego maniacs usually have no idea how much work is involved with running a "SUCCESSFUL" clan, that LAST any amount of time. If you have a "BAD", UNFAIR", "LAZY", or "power hungry" leader, a CLAN WILL DIE.

To avoid this:
A clan should be ran by several people that SHARE the Work -AND- the SHARE the Authority AND ENJOY helping other people.

Another gem (Hi Aneu!)

III. You let a troublemaker into the clan:

NEVER let a person into your clan JUST because he is a "very good player" or has a server. EVERY person has to be "friendly person" or you do NOT want them. You DO -NOT- WANT JERKS in your clan. Sometimes, some of the best players and server owners (not all), are the most arrogant self-centered "#$%^s" on the planet, and all they ever do, is think about their OWN scores, and not about the clan. A troublemaker will go on to KILL a clan, because of their rude UN-compromising behavior, "lack of team work", and nasty attitude. Fun and FRIENDS, are ALWAYS more important then winning. It's better to play by yourself, then be in a clan that is a huge collection of troublemaking morons.

To avoid this:
Simply talk to the people before you let them in your clan. Invite them on to a Roger Wilco channel for an 'interview' to see what they want out of a clan. You can tell them "what will be expected out of them" and "what to expect from your clan". Its always a lot easier to NOT let a troublemaker in, then it is to kick him/her out. You should give TRY OUTS to new guys, and screen the jerks. Note, not all great players or server operators are bad people, some are actually some of the nicest people in the World.

What I like about the Clan bible are that it try to bring back basic gaming ethics and expose the delusional ideas that many leaders have about gaming. Attitude reflect leadership. Attitude outweigh everything. If any leadership dont have the right attitude they are doomed from day one. You can tell alot how good a corp/alliance will become just by knowing the attitude of the CEO's.

How do you implement check and balance within a dictatorship? I dont really know for sure but im asking the question because this are something that kill alot of good corps/alliance/guilds.
So far, the best alliance structure and management I have seen was suggested by Nez Perces while DAB was a member of FIX from late-2004 to mid-2005 (before they NAP with BOB). Nez Perces was one of the first JCOS's (alliance leader or an alliance administrator if you wil), one out of 5.
What he wanted was a 'soft dictatorship' or what you could call a hybrid between a democratic goverment and dictatorship.
Essential the JCOS would be dictators that could run the alliance as they see fit which provided for fast decision-making. The only power and only purpose of the 'elected' council that had representatives from each corp was to act as 'overseer/watchdog' to ensure JCOS accountablity (ability to unseat JCOS). The council would not be part of the JCOS decision making. In the early days of FIX (2004-2005) it had good alliance management and as BOB mention several times, fighting FIX was like fighting one big corporation.

Speaking as former RZR director one of the reasons they became succesful was definately not because of good alliance management (which sucked in the beginning). The success came because of;
1) Focus on internal expansion (few corps) rather than external expansion (recruite new corps). This also provided for relative easy co-operation between corps without the need of 'alliance dictators' or some 'central planners'. Good corp management should always be the building blocks for a good alliance. Alliances with alot of corps, especially small corps dont work well. In the long run it's much more rewarding to focus on co-operation between 6-8 corps.
2) Excellent diplomacy and staying true to oldschool friends/allies
3) Few ego maniacs
4) A healthy balance of industrials and pvp oriented players

Yes, running a dictatorship can be very successful but only as long you have the right leaders that are non-corrupt, fair, honest and transparent in what they do/say. The moment one or more of the CEO's grow corrupt and self-delusional the corp or alliance end up as a sinking ship.
Im not convinced that a 'pure dictatorship' is the best structure for EVE alliances because it has one major flaw and weakness as I pointed out (lack of accountability/check and balance). I believe that Nez Perces had the right idea for a good alliance structure. Unfortunately there was to many corp CEOs/directors in FIX that wanted a say and be part of the decision making.

my 2cents.

[Dog Sol]

Agreeing with the above poster in that ego is a big alliance/corp/leadership killer.

[Alex Clomsaver]

Congrats on founding DAB, it was a great looking corp for awhile. Then eventually it joined Goodfellas and then isn't it a member of AXE or something now? How the mighty have fallen.

[Ziester]

I still have Deklein isk in my wallet (~20 high-end moons for 3 months), I will always be grateful to Pure and IRON for folding so fast.
o/

What about that corp theft? Was that just CAOD nonsense or did it really happen?

"Yea i am sory you guys where wright. He scamed allaince. He scamed corp.He scamed all of us.Last but most important he scamed me. I am his RL friedn. Endeva how could you do it to me. This is totaly low. I cant belive that he did that. P.S.He posted screen of his wallet and he haw 84 bills + that dyspro. Omg this is biggest theft in EVE history.How could he do this to me!! -Tudum Zagorac "

"i didnt scam anyone i just took whats mine. -BruceLee CRO"

[Despotism]

Long time reader, first post.

1) Semi-Democratic leadership, CEO's and Directors all have says in the general direction of the alliance, however requires a 80% vote to actually pass on something. Meaning you don't get this 55% of the alliance CEO's and Directors say we go this way. It's too little, a major majority needs to all agree this is something to do. Put bluntly you need consensus to actually achieve something. That said this is targeted toward people that don't know each other. Goons are good example of following a more tight group of people because the members all know everyone from an external source. Either way the #1 virtue is definitely having consensus.

2) Be larger then you thought you needed to be.. There is no doubt about it a more successful alliance is built on the idea that you'll have 23/7 coverage of space. The only real way to achieve that is by large numbers. However large numbers also suffers from stagnant movement. Meaning that consensus is not more of a "Sum of the whole" rather then what's best for the alliance. Grow comes a lot slower the larger you get. However slow growth also makes it more stable. Getting instantly huge is just a formula for disaster.

3) The mixed blend. You can't really be a 100% PVP alliance and expect to hold any part of 0.0, and you also can't even hope to hold anything if your 100% Industry. You need a mix and it's higher then you'll believe, Probably slow to 40% industry and 60% PVP. PVPs are Inherently poor, they are very destructive and probably close to 50% of their "Stuff" they pulled from someone else's corps. While a PVP alliance can withstand a lot more pressure, they will eventually suffer from attrition. Eventually they will be overcome by loss of ships, preventing them from being able to get into the fight etc. This is why alliances like AXE which are heavy PVPers have "ISK" time where they rat for a week to build up ISK. A good alliance and good corp for that matter has an Industry arm and a PVP arm. For the most part Industrialists are filthy rich, giving up a billion here and there to help them continue to make billions is a small token. Put simply you need some sort of ISK generator one large enough to feed your corp or alliance, and that means Industrialists.

4) Separation of Alliance and Corp. Each Corp should be able to act on their own, do their own thing, Alliance objectives should be small and simple, take this system and this system only. Defend this one, pay the alliance bill. No alliance should be directing what the PVPers and Industrialists do at the corp level. Have alliance ops and so forth but don't make it a singular task. Everyone plays to have fun, so an alliance telling everyone what to do is not fun. This goes alone with the #1 and #2, with both those in effect an alliance should be able to expand slowly and defend it's space.

5) Support Network, Align with other near by Alliances rather then seeing them as a threat. It's in both Alliances interests to not fight each other. The first step is if both alliances have multiple outposts gift each other in each persons space the Outpost. This Spreads out both alliances more, I'm not talking about dock rights either I'm talking about full on Alliance outposts in each others bulk area. With the setup like this each alliance and all the members feel as if they are part of a much much larger plot of space. I'd say each gift a Gallente outpost for the Office spaces because you want the other alliance's "Smaller" corps to have offices in your space. In 0.0 smaller corps often feel left out, and will huddle together. Giving them all a single location to "group" in your Allies space is very comforting. That way if someone comes in, they'll have two alliances on their backs. As both will want to defend their space, which just happens to be your space as primary.

Notes on #5 - The reason you want a Gallente other then what was mentioned above is if all hell breaks lose the two alliances start a war, both alliances will go after the Outposts in their space. It'll be easier for the alliance to take out a heap of small corps then some of the major corps in the now enemy alliance

[Bodger]

Using AXE as an example of a successful alliance is probably not a good idea.

[Despotism]

I don't think you understood the post..

I said Alliances like AXE that are 100% PVP is NOT a good alliance setup.

Having 100% PVP has issues, and I pointed out what the Issue with AXE was.

[Dealer]

Long time reader, first post.

1) Semi-Democratic leadership, CEO's and Directors all have says in the general direction of the alliance, however requires a 80% vote to actually pass on something. Meaning you don't get this 55% of the alliance CEO's and Directors say we go this way. It's too little, a major majority needs to all agree this is something to do. Put bluntly you need consensus to actually achieve something. That said this is targeted toward people that don't know each other. Goons are good example of following a more tight group of people because the members all know everyone from an external source. Either way the #1 virtue is definitely having consensus.

2) Be larger then you thought you needed to be.. There is no doubt about it a more successful alliance is built on the idea that you'll have 23/7 coverage of space. The only real way to achieve that is by large numbers. However large numbers also suffers from stagnant movement. Meaning that consensus is not more of a "Sum of the whole" rather then what's best for the alliance. Grow comes a lot slower the larger you get. However slow growth also makes it more stable. Getting instantly huge is just a formula for disaster.

3) The mixed blend. You can't really be a 100% PVP alliance and expect to hold any part of 0.0, and you also can't even hope to hold anything if your 100% Industry. You need a mix and it's higher then you'll believe, Probably slow to 40% industry and 60% PVP. PVPs are Inherently poor, they are very destructive and probably close to 50% of their "Stuff" they pulled from someone else's corps. While a PVP alliance can withstand a lot more pressure, they will eventually suffer from attrition. Eventually they will be overcome by loss of ships, preventing them from being able to get into the fight etc. This is why alliances like AXE which are heavy PVPers have "ISK" time where they rat for a week to build up ISK. A good alliance and good corp for that matter has an Industry arm and a PVP arm. For the most part Industrialists are filthy rich, giving up a billion here and there to help them continue to make billions is a small token. Put simply you need some sort of ISK generator one large enough to feed your corp or alliance, and that means Industrialists.

4) Separation of Alliance and Corp. Each Corp should be able to act on their own, do their own thing, Alliance objectives should be small and simple, take this system and this system only. Defend this one, pay the alliance bill. No alliance should be directing what the PVPers and Industrialists do at the corp level. Have alliance ops and so forth but don't make it a singular task. Everyone plays to have fun, so an alliance telling everyone what to do is not fun. This goes alone with the #1 and #2, with both those in effect an alliance should be able to expand slowly and defend it's space.

5) Support Network, Align with other near by Alliances rather then seeing them as a threat. It's in both Alliances interests to not fight each other. The first step is if both alliances have multiple outposts gift each other in each persons space the Outpost. This Spreads out both alliances more, I'm not talking about dock rights either I'm talking about full on Alliance outposts in each others bulk area. With the setup like this each alliance and all the members feel as if they are part of a much much larger plot of space. I'd say each gift a Gallente outpost for the Office spaces because you want the other alliance's "Smaller" corps to have offices in your space. In 0.0 smaller corps often feel left out, and will huddle together. Giving them all a single location to "group" in your Allies space is very comforting. That way if someone comes in, they'll have two alliances on their backs. As both will want to defend their space, which just happens to be your space as primary.

Notes on #5 - The reason you want a Gallente other then what was mentioned above is if all hell breaks lose the two alliances start a war, both alliances will go after the Outposts in their space. It'll be easier for the alliance to take out a heap of small corps then some of the major corps in the now enemy alliance

I hope you are trolling because everything you said is 100% wrong.

[Carebear]

Bottom line.

If your alliance has wealth, do you, the common grunt, get to see any of it?

If not - Alliance is a scam or a slave alliance, move on.

[John Smith]

stuff

nice troll

[cappellodilatta]

I think what he means is that you took on 15 corps with no intention of keeping them, basically paying them to help maintain the massive moon income. Kinda like what Haliburton did in order to secure their Iraq Contract - just send tons of randoms to fight and die protecting your assets and give them a bit of money so you can run your "oil/reconstruction" projects.

Do not get me wrong, at least you gave the slave corps isk, so they are pleb corps. PURE & co gave hardly anything so they had real slave corps. All that was being asked was if the plan from the start was to use these 15 corps as cannon fodder, or if there was a long term plan to intergrate the 15 corps?

I understand what you're saying.

Hmmm, let me put it this way. If we didnt recruit like we did we would never have conquered Deklein. So we did put less care in the recruitment selection process, basically taking in everyone who applied and had a decent killboard, something that in normal circumstances we would have never done.

But I don't fee like we used them, all corps were given equal isk income, a place in the board and same chances as original corps. In fact when (2 months before NC even attacked us) we started talking about closing alliance and merging corps, the offer was extended to all corps. Also we were clear since beginning that if NC would come for us, we would bail out, as we had no chance to defend alone against them.

Of course there was also the possibility that BoB would beat NC, which is what we were hoping for, in that case we estimated we had about 6 months to get a decent coalition up, before NC would re-form.

[cappellodilatta]

What about that corp theft? Was that just CAOD nonsense or did it really happen?

"Yea i am sory you guys where wright. He scamed allaince. He scamed corp.He scamed all of us.Last but most important he scamed me. I am his RL friedn. Endeva how could you do it to me. This is totaly low. I cant belive that he did that. P.S.He posted screen of his wallet and he haw 84 bills + that dyspro. Omg this is biggest theft in EVE history.How could he do this to me!! -Tudum Zagorac "

"i didnt scam anyone i just took whats mine. -BruceLee CRO"

It was a joke, BruceLee CRO is endeva's alt and Tudum is his best friend.

One corp (Infusion) left the alliance shutting down towers in YA0 (so TCF could take their first station in Deklein without a fight) and stole 2b isk in dyspro/prometh and 1 large Pos.

[Despotism]

I never troll

I very much like to rejects peoples believes and substitute my very own self indulgent Utopian believes, ideas and concepts!

Besides if it was 100% wrong, you'd be the CEO of the executor corp with no directors, of a small insignificant alliance made up of unrelated/unknown people, hell bent on PVP, telling all the corps in your alliance this is the way it's going to be or I kill you, and shun/attack anyone anywhere all the time.

Good luck with that alliance model, tell me how it works out for ya!