|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 4 post(s) |
LaVista Vista
Conservative Shenanigans Party
   |
Posted - 2009.03.24 15:22:00 -
[1]
Edited by: LaVista Vista on 24/03/2009 15:23:23
Grimmi,
due all respect, I think this could have been solved a bit nicer.
So tell me if I'm wrong, but here's what happened:
1. BOB was compromised and disbanded after they eliminated a built-in safeguard, in exchange for convenience.
2. They joined an alt-alliance in order to keep sov.
3. They then petition for their name back. CCP gets a second opinion from your friendly neighborhood friends.
4. Months later, you decide that there's basis for letting an alt-alliance, which suddenly became a main-alliance, change their name.
5. You try to justify it by saying that they have done it to other alliances too. However it's the case that alliances have only been given another chance, if they misspelled the name or the like.
I'm having a hard time figuring out exactly why it was warranted, that an re-utilized alt-alliance suddenly could get a renaming.
I could personally not care less if even goonswarm had their name changed. However the response of yours lacks a bit. You haven't justified a whole lot, which I had hoped for. It's also obvious that people weren't pleased with it.
I hope that you will address the issue further.
 Originally by: Vashan Tar
When their alliance was disbanded using in game mechanics they had the option of either reforming a new alliance (losing sov) or joining an existing one (kenzoku) and losing their name.
Well, they lost all their space. But still. I agree with this.
|
LaVista Vista
Conservative Shenanigans Party
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 16:59:00 -
[2]
Originally by: Cailais
Simply put there should be a mechanism within the game that allows Characters, Corps and Alliances to modify or change their name - subject to a fee - and provided the 'old' name is recorded in a publicly viewable history.
C.
I don't like the idea of that, to be fairly honest, because it breaks the immersion. It also gets us that much closer to micro-payments.
|
LaVista Vista
Conservative Shenanigans Party
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 18:48:00 -
[3]
Originally by: clone 1
Originally by: Iamien
One of the advantages of them joining Kenzuko was that they got sov sooner. One of the downsides is they didnt have the name they wanted. If they would had waited longer, they could of had this name in the first place.
Reverse it CCP.
Quoted for the cold calculated truth.
This.
|
LaVista Vista
Conservative Shenanigans Party
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 05:09:00 -
[4]
Originally by: Jade Constantine
What is the "built-in-safeguard" that prevents a director in the executor corp from kicking out all the corps in the alliance and disanding it?
There is none. I have no idea what the goonies are trying to say about shares, sorry. We can obviously discuss the fact that a director in the executor corp can kick all member-corps. But that's not relevant.
I was really trying to be a bit witty about the fact that they used a corporate structure in tin foil, which allowed for this to happen. In fact, if I'm not wrong, BOB claimed that it was a mistake that this director had such roles in the first place  .
Common sense is a built-in safeguard. By eliminating that(Well, most alliances do that anyways), they open themselves up to attacks. Pretty simple.
EVeconomics |
|
|
| |
|