Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Alerce
|
Posted - 2006.02.23 18:45:00 -
[1]
Yup, with outposts and claiming soevereign about star systems, i think ccp should take a next step and combine it all. New alliances should get 4 weeks to claim some space somewhere, but existing alliances should need it, otherwise they will no longer be able to use the alliance system.
Why?
Simple, the game needs to get deeper and to get real player based "kingdoms and states and empires", they will need to claim space and have outposts and such in them as well.
In that way, every alliance is stimulated to spent a part of their time on building an empire with industrial parts as well, instead of just joining corps into a bigger system, that only has some pos to refuel/refine/rearm and that do nothing else then just pvp a bit, make war vs other alliances and do lots of npcing in 0.0.
Sure a lot of alliances will complain maybe, we dont need an outpost or things like that, but we have nowadays dreads, freighters and maybe even titans sooner or later(or is there one already? i ahve no idea actually :P) So what is more logical to force every alliance that wants to exist, to have also the outposts and other things that SIMULATE an empire? Force them to defend big things like outposts and force them to attack and force them to spent time on industrial stuff to form an EMPIRE.
Only in that way, we will sooner or later see a better simulation of player based empires. (It should be profitable for alliances to have open outposts for trading and such, but i think thats another step :)
Anyway, i think the game is ready for another serious step into player empire building and get rid of the dumb pvp alliances, that dont care for building empires. Alliances should be forced to have outposts, to defend, so they will build even dreads and titans to fight/defend any other "empire" that wants to take over their systems.
|
Coconut Joe
|
Posted - 2006.02.23 18:48:00 -
[2]
It would just result in new little alliances being exterminated immeadiatly by the bigger alliances fearful of future competition. ----
Sneeze and the whole world sneezes with you, fart, and you fart alone. |
Victor Valka
|
Posted - 2006.02.23 18:49:00 -
[3]
"Simple, the game needs to get deeper and to get real player based "kingdoms and states and empires", they will need to claim space and have outposts and such in them as well."
Except that some alliances choose not to be kingdoms, states or empires. They are not there to claim space. It is not their goal.
That said, I think it would be foolish to force the POS wars play style on them.
|
Tar Ecthelion
|
Posted - 2006.02.23 18:49:00 -
[4]
think this should be in the alliances forums .....
de gustibus non est disputandem
|
Eternal Fury
|
Posted - 2006.02.23 18:51:00 -
[5]
I'll disagree simply becuase I saw you use the word "Force" too many times in there.
I don't like being forced to do anything.
Would be better off giveing some sort of incentive to do all those things on their own. I'm a noob, and only getting the slightest idea of what corps and alliances are. But again, I HATE being forced to do things. I'd rather the incentives to do those things were enough. - - - - Q: Wheres the Search button on the forums? A: There isn't one. go here. www.eve-search.com
|
Haniblecter Teg
|
Posted - 2006.02.23 18:56:00 -
[6]
Youre silly.
00 alliances that own territory rely heavily on non-landed alliances to exist within their space. They bring defensive fleets, an economy, and poeple to refine/own offices at the conquerable stations.
Alliances are just another teir in the corporate sceme of EVE. Requiring alliances to own territory is silly Mr. Alt. ---------------------------------------- Friends Forever |
HippoKing
|
Posted - 2006.02.23 18:58:00 -
[7]
no, that would screw chribba
sigs of the 23/24/25 hijack just as well -eris yarrrr, i shall retake my sig -HippoKing Not a chance, our 1337 sig haXx0r sk1llz are too powerful! - Wrangler Ho-Ho-Hooooooo, Merry Saturday!11 - Immy Yo ho ho and a bottle of BReeEEEEeee.... - Jacques ARRRRRRchambault Stop spamming with "QFT" >:|. - Teblin
|
Thaylon Sen
|
Posted - 2006.02.23 19:00:00 -
[8]
lol
not a chance :)
Power to the people!
Peace Out |
Hohenheim OfLight
|
Posted - 2006.02.23 19:11:00 -
[9]
Thats just stupid your only actaul goels is to try and force peopel out in to 0.0 so you can have more peopel to fight against.
It will do nothing to enhance eve in any way ecept giving you more targets.
-------------------------------------------------
|
Joshua Foiritain
|
Posted - 2006.02.23 19:18:00 -
[10]
There should be a way to actually destroy an alliance, if an alliance had to claim space in order to exist then whiping them off the face of the universe would destroy the alliance too.
Sounds like a plan to me. -------
[Coreli Corporation Mainframe] |
|
Cmdr Sy
|
Posted - 2006.02.23 19:19:00 -
[11]
Some alliances choose to be nomadic, others are Empire alliances from the beginning, their purpose being trade and other forms of cooperation. What you suggest is a very narrow interpretation of politics.
|
|
Chribba
|
Posted - 2006.02.23 19:23:00 -
[12]
Originally by: HippoKing no, that would screw chribba
damn right it would... or... wait I just have to tick the claim system box and I'm set
No but really, there are alliances that are formed for the alliance cause but who operate within empire, forcing such out to 0.0 is just a way of losing players imo. It's already bad enough you cannot dock the Titan - but being forced to claim area no thanks :)
Vote no on props #5863 "Screw Chribba's alliance"
EVE-Files | EVE-Search | Get Email if thread updates |
|
Erotic Irony
|
Posted - 2006.02.23 19:23:00 -
[13]
Quite a silly suggestion, your typos and poor capitalization notwithstanding. The alliance system has alot to gain through contracts & improved auditing tools before making it more complex, or as you seem to think of it, "medieval".
See also: Jericho Fraction.
|
HippoKing
|
Posted - 2006.02.23 19:25:00 -
[14]
Originally by: Chribba
Originally by: HippoKing no, that would screw chribba
damn right it would... or... wait I just have to tick the claim system box and I'm set
you have 0.0 POSes, and enough of them and firepower to keep sovereignty of a system? all by yourself?
sigs of the 23/24/25 hijack just as well -eris yarrrr, i shall retake my sig -HippoKing Not a chance, our 1337 sig haXx0r sk1llz are too powerful! - Wrangler Ho-Ho-Hooooooo, Merry Saturday!11 - Immy Yo ho ho and a bottle of BReeEEEEeee.... - Jacques ARRRRRRchambault Stop spamming with "QFT" >:|. - Teblin
|
Kye Kenshin
|
Posted - 2006.02.23 19:29:00 -
[15]
I'm pretty sure ASCN has the closest thing to an 'Empire' as you describe. They have several outposts but im not sure what there stance on neutrals is.
To be honest you sound like a bitter solo player who wants a piece of 0.0 but without having to fight for it first
|
So'Kar
|
Posted - 2006.02.23 19:48:00 -
[16]
I dont like idea of forcing it, but better would be give more benefits for these alliances who claim system and increase upkeep for these alliances that dont claim any systems. These alliances who claim system in 0.0 have but big effort in upkeeping and defending their outposts.
|
F'nog
|
Posted - 2006.02.23 20:09:00 -
[17]
This would screw over RP alliances like the CVA and UK, so I think that would be pretty bad for the game.
Originally by: Bl4zer But, cmon, this is the Eve forums, we don't let facts get in the way of pointless speculation.
|
Garreck
|
Posted - 2006.02.23 20:19:00 -
[18]
Originally by: F'nog This would screw over RP alliances like the CVA and UK, so I think that would be pretty bad for the game.
Check your map: both CVA and U'K claim space. In fact, CVA has an outpost and I believe Ushra'Khan has sovereignty in seven systems...
That said, you're right in principle. Somebody else mentioned it as well: certain alliances don't have an agenda to "claim" anything. What about paramilitary alliances whose interests are directly linked to NPC empires?
|
Nyphur
|
Posted - 2006.02.23 20:21:00 -
[19]
Alliance does not mean 0.0 powerhungry spaceclaimers. The ISS doesn't even claim space.
Eve-Tanking.com - For the ultimate tanking spreadsheet and resources. |
Aran Cole
|
Posted - 2006.02.23 20:36:00 -
[20]
Being forced to claim sovereignty wouldn't screw AM functionally. We're perfectly capable of holding our own in that regard. That being said, however, it sure as hell doesn't make sense given our RP stance. I give this idea a hearty thumbs-down. _______________________
|
|
Malthros Zenobia
|
Posted - 2006.02.23 20:47:00 -
[21]
There's alot of alliances that don't have any claimed space, and this idea would ruin them completely.
Besides, an alliance has NOTHING to do with holding systems, it has to do with multiple corporations combining into 1 enity for mutual interests if anything.
Originally by: Istvaan Shogaatsu I'm probably one of the biggest Bush fanboys in Eve... This is like, Darth Vader, can't-reach-climax-without-killing-a-puppy evil.
RAWR!11 Sig Hijack!11 - Imaran |
F'nog
|
Posted - 2006.02.23 21:05:00 -
[22]
Originally by: Garreck
Originally by: F'nog This would screw over RP alliances like the CVA and UK, so I think that would be pretty bad for the game.
Check your map: both CVA and U'K claim space. In fact, CVA has an outpost and I believe Ushra'Khan has sovereignty in seven systems...
That said, you're right in principle. Somebody else mentioned it as well: certain alliances don't have an agenda to "claim" anything. What about paramilitary alliances whose interests are directly linked to NPC empires?
Ah, I didn't know you guys were claiming space. Good job.
Originally by: Bl4zer But, cmon, this is the Eve forums, we don't let facts get in the way of pointless speculation.
|
Maya Rkell
|
Posted - 2006.02.23 21:08:00 -
[23]
Alerce,
You will of course be giving CCP your brilliant soloution to the limited standings corps are allowed, which also enables you to quickly set entire alliance standings.
Right?
Ah, maybe there ARE other legit reasons for alliances. Heh.
Digital Communist> The Jin-Mei are probably more profficient in training for Tofu and Noodles than Spaceship Command |
Balazs Simon
|
Posted - 2006.02.23 21:32:00 -
[24]
There should be different alliance types.
So for example you could have a flag like the dictatorship one, that you alliance is indeed a "territoryal" allaince. This would give you a lots and lost of benefits, like 25% fuel cost for POS-es ... gang bonuses if you are in a claimed system... ect..
BUT you can not turn this falg off, and if you alliance lose all claimed space, it gets disbanded...
Nothing prevent you to reform it.. but the enemy infected a good 1 billion loss to you if you reform...
toughts ? - POST WITH YOUR MAIN!
This post is my personal opinion. It does not represent the standpoint of the HUN Corporation in any way. - |
Peregrine
|
Posted - 2006.02.23 21:40:00 -
[25]
I fail to see why an alliance:
1. 1. A close association of nations or other groups, formed to advance common interests or causes: an alliance of labor unions opposing the bill. 2. A formal agreement establishing such an association, especially an international treaty of friendship. 2. A connection based on kinship, marriage, or common interest; a bond or tie: the shifting alliances within a large family. 3. Close similarity in nature or type; affinity: the ancient alliance between mathematics and music. 4. The act of becoming allied or the condition of being allied: the church, acting in alliance with community groups.
needs to hold land to be an alliance.
|
Hoshi
|
Posted - 2006.02.23 22:35:00 -
[26]
And what about us that live in npc claimed 0.0 regions? Are we not allowed to have an alliance because the game mechanics make it impossible for us capture these systems from the angels? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
Karl Mattar
|
Posted - 2006.02.23 23:14:00 -
[27]
To the OP:
Why should some other alliance bow to how you feel they should play the game?
Worry about yourself, and stop telling others how to play. ---
Karl Mattar LT, CAIN
--- My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily reflect the official policy of my corporation or the State. --- |
Joshua Foiritain
|
Posted - 2006.02.23 23:30:00 -
[28]
Edited by: Joshua Foiritain on 23/02/2006 23:31:21
Originally by: Nyphur Alliance does not mean 0.0 powerhungry spaceclaimers. The ISS doesn't even claim space.
ISS claims following systems: KDF-GY, 6-K738, ZXIC-7, 2J-WJY, S-U2VD, GE-94X, W9-DID, OGL8-Q, N-8BZ6, ZQ-Z3Y, F-NMX6, GA-P6C, P-2TTL, 7X-VKB, KU5R-W, H1-J33, Y-C3EQ, OGV-AS, O3L-95, L-6BE1, 1M4-FK, MKD-O8, GOP-GE, SKR-SP, V-3U8T.
Originally by: Balazs Simon There should be different alliance types.
So for example you could have a flag like the dictatorship one, that you alliance is indeed a "territoryal" allaince. This would give you a lots and lost of benefits, like 25% fuel cost for POS-es ... gang bonuses if you are in a claimed system... ect..
BUT you can not turn this falg off, and if you alliance lose all claimed space, it gets disbanded...
Nothing prevent you to reform it.. but the enemy infected a good 1 billion loss to you if you reform...
toughts ?
Sounds like a good idea. -------
[Coreli Corporation Mainframe] |
Beringe
|
Posted - 2006.02.24 01:16:00 -
[29]
Originally by: Alerce
So what is more logical to force every alliance that wants to exist, to have also the outposts and other things that SIMULATE an empire?
How is that logical?
Think about it. Try replacing the word 'alliance' with the word 'corporation' throughout your post, and see how crazy that sounds.
EvE is about freedom to do what you want, not to be forced into one playstyle. ------------------------------------------- "Never underestimate the power of language."
--Daitan Beringe, honorary director in charge of bottles-- |
Kane Ululani
|
Posted - 2006.02.24 01:19:00 -
[30]
Originally by: Alerce Y Anyway, i think the game is ready for another serious step into player empire building and get rid of the dumb pvp alliances, that dont care for building empires.
Using 5 as a pvp alliance example, may I ask a question? How do you expect that the loss of alliance chat/mail will in any way hinder the operations of people, based on mutual trust, who share the same in-game values and beliefs?
There may be some "newer" players in these corp/orgs, but all the leaders became operators when there was no formal in-game alliances and managed just fine. TS is more powerful than alliance chat/mail, which is likely being monitored by opposition alts.
You can insert other alliances in the place of the 5, but you must answer the question, which still obtains. And speak slowly, I'm just a pilot, not especially bright and not understanding big innovations.
Finally, how will area-use limitations based on sovereignty, not equate to monsterous, game-killing lag? Won't this need to be calculated everytime a non-sovereign player jumps into a sovereign system?
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |