| Pages: [1] 2 3 4 :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Seleene
   |
Posted - 2004.08.31 09:09:00 -
[1]
Edited by: Seleene on 31/08/2004 09:13:24
So... if I am reading this correctly, the day is coming where corps like BDCI, Guiding Hand, Sharks, Alcohol Fueled, Mercenary Forces, etc... are all going to be pretty much out of business. The day of a tactical strike against a single corp will be over if that corp is in an alliance. If you want to declare war on a corp in an alliance, you have to declare on the whole alliance. If you are in an alliance, you can't declare war on a single corp that is harassing you; you have to convince the Executor of your alliance to do this on behalf of the entire alliance.
In principle, it seems sound, but for obvious reasons I dislike this. For the most part, I like the new alliance system and what it's trying to do, but I'm not sure people realize just how much individuality they are going to be giving up due to this new system. I know a lot of people will enjoy the protection being part of an alliance entails, but I wonder how those same people are going to feel the first time the Alliance Executor tells them "No." on an issue that is important to them. Granted, most corps will go into an alliance with their eyes open, but knowing something and experiencing it are two different matters.
Anyway, back on topic. Where does this new system leave corps like mine that have spent months working hard, building a reputation, making friends and all that? Essentially, Shiva is going to destroy our current way of life. Fine. I can adapt, but the problem is that there is no other mechanic that I can see that will allow us to conduct business as usual. Why do I have to declare on a whole alliance?
For example: If I declared a "Shiva War" on NSN (because I want to pod Leafo on camera and someone hates his movies), why do I have to fight the entire PA by default? Why is it not up to the individual corps of the PA if they want their membership in Empire to be at risk by assisting their friends in NSN? Maybe NSN doesn't want any help and would rather deal with "the pesky mercs" on their own?
This kind of all or nothing system is just wrong IMO. It turns alliances into THE BLOB diplomatically instead of allowing for individual corps within an alliance to follow their own agendas. So is the answer that the merc corps have to form our own BLOB? That sucks.
Frankly, I am amazed that there hasn't been more debate about this! What do some of the rest of you think?
EDIT: If I've somehow tottaly misunderstood the new system, please feel free to set me straight. 
-
T2 Weapons Testing in progress! Volunteer today! |
Seleene
|
Posted - 2004.08.31 09:09:00 -
[2]
Edited by: Seleene on 31/08/2004 09:13:24
So... if I am reading this correctly, the day is coming where corps like BDCI, Guiding Hand, Sharks, Alcohol Fueled, Mercenary Forces, etc... are all going to be pretty much out of business. The day of a tactical strike against a single corp will be over if that corp is in an alliance. If you want to declare war on a corp in an alliance, you have to declare on the whole alliance. If you are in an alliance, you can't declare war on a single corp that is harassing you; you have to convince the Executor of your alliance to do this on behalf of the entire alliance.
In principle, it seems sound, but for obvious reasons I dislike this. For the most part, I like the new alliance system and what it's trying to do, but I'm not sure people realize just how much individuality they are going to be giving up due to this new system. I know a lot of people will enjoy the protection being part of an alliance entails, but I wonder how those same people are going to feel the first time the Alliance Executor tells them "No." on an issue that is important to them. Granted, most corps will go into an alliance with their eyes open, but knowing something and experiencing it are two different matters.
Anyway, back on topic. Where does this new system leave corps like mine that have spent months working hard, building a reputation, making friends and all that? Essentially, Shiva is going to destroy our current way of life. Fine. I can adapt, but the problem is that there is no other mechanic that I can see that will allow us to conduct business as usual. Why do I have to declare on a whole alliance?
For example: If I declared a "Shiva War" on NSN (because I want to pod Leafo on camera and someone hates his movies), why do I have to fight the entire PA by default? Why is it not up to the individual corps of the PA if they want their membership in Empire to be at risk by assisting their friends in NSN? Maybe NSN doesn't want any help and would rather deal with "the pesky mercs" on their own?
This kind of all or nothing system is just wrong IMO. It turns alliances into THE BLOB diplomatically instead of allowing for individual corps within an alliance to follow their own agendas. So is the answer that the merc corps have to form our own BLOB? That sucks.
Frankly, I am amazed that there hasn't been more debate about this! What do some of the rest of you think?
EDIT: If I've somehow tottaly misunderstood the new system, please feel free to set me straight.
-
T2 Weapons Testing in progress! Volunteer today! |
Qwertyifshag
|
Posted - 2004.08.31 09:11:00 -
[3]
I agree Seleene this needs to be modified in some way, i just became a mercenary to have fun, and in a month this could br a dead profession, PLEASE something needs to be modified 
|
Qwertyifshag
|
Posted - 2004.08.31 09:11:00 -
[4]
I agree Seleene this needs to be modified in some way, i just became a mercenary to have fun, and in a month this could br a dead profession, PLEASE something needs to be modified
|
Mephorios
|
Posted - 2004.08.31 09:17:00 -
[5]
Perhaps the option to be able to have specific, time limited hits out against specific players/corps could be implimented?
|
Mephorios
|
Posted - 2004.08.31 09:17:00 -
[6]
Perhaps the option to be able to have specific, time limited hits out against specific players/corps could be implimented?
|
Orestes
|
Posted - 2004.08.31 09:19:00 -
[7]
To be honest, I very much doubt that alliances will make use of the alliance system.
In any case, try to get this asked at the coming Dev chat. I'll point a dev to this thread anyway, but due to Shiva, they might not have time to reply 
Join the IC! |
Orestes
|
Posted - 2004.08.31 09:19:00 -
[8]
To be honest, I very much doubt that alliances will make use of the alliance system.
In any case, try to get this asked at the coming Dev chat. I'll point a dev to this thread anyway, but due to Shiva, they might not have time to reply
Join the IC! |
Miso
|
Posted - 2004.08.31 09:23:00 -
[9]
I thought the whole point of being in an alliance was that you shared a common goal and outlook?
Ok, I've just read that sentence in light of Eve and respectfully withdraw it
I think Orestes is right though.
--------------------------------------------
Dead
|
Miso
|
Posted - 2004.08.31 09:23:00 -
[10]
I thought the whole point of being in an alliance was that you shared a common goal and outlook?
Ok, I've just read that sentence in light of Eve and respectfully withdraw it
I think Orestes is right though.
--------------------------------------------
Dead
|
Seleene
|
Posted - 2004.08.31 09:23:00 -
[11]
Edited by: Seleene on 31/08/2004 09:25:58
 Originally by: Orestes
To be honest, I very much doubt that alliances will make use of the alliance system.
For the reasons I stated about individuality? It wouldn't surprise me...
Originally by: Orestes
In any case, try to get this asked at the coming Dev chat. I'll point a dev to this thread anyway, but due to Shiva, they might not have time to reply
Obviously I'll try to push this and any Dev comments you can get to this thread would be great.
Thanks, Orestes.
-
T2 Weapons Testing in progress! Volunteer today! |
Seleene
|
Posted - 2004.08.31 09:23:00 -
[12]
Edited by: Seleene on 31/08/2004 09:25:58
Originally by: Orestes
To be honest, I very much doubt that alliances will make use of the alliance system.
For the reasons I stated about individuality? It wouldn't surprise me...
Originally by: Orestes
In any case, try to get this asked at the coming Dev chat. I'll point a dev to this thread anyway, but due to Shiva, they might not have time to reply
Obviously I'll try to push this and any Dev comments you can get to this thread would be great.
Thanks, Orestes.
-
T2 Weapons Testing in progress! Volunteer today! |
Maule
|
Posted - 2004.08.31 09:29:00 -
[13]
Originally by: Orestes
To be honest, I very much doubt that alliances will make use of the alliance system.
In any case, try to get this asked at the coming Dev chat. I'll point a dev to this thread anyway, but due to Shiva, they might not have time to reply
Tbh if an alliance is not using the alliance system when it kicks in its not an alliance imo. just someone claiming to be an allince but to afraid of using the alliance system. that goes for all alliances and if I was in an alliance that was not using that system I would leave that alliance..
|
Maule
|
Posted - 2004.08.31 09:29:00 -
[14]
Originally by: Orestes
To be honest, I very much doubt that alliances will make use of the alliance system.
In any case, try to get this asked at the coming Dev chat. I'll point a dev to this thread anyway, but due to Shiva, they might not have time to reply
Tbh if an alliance is not using the alliance system when it kicks in its not an alliance imo. just someone claiming to be an allince but to afraid of using the alliance system. that goes for all alliances and if I was in an alliance that was not using that system I would leave that alliance..
|
Wren
|
Posted - 2004.08.31 09:29:00 -
[15]
Alliances who formalize also have to share the costs of wars and other stuff.
I doubt you will see any alliance use the system because it would make it easier for them to be attacked.
--------------------------------------------------
|
Wren
|
Posted - 2004.08.31 09:29:00 -
[16]
Alliances who formalize also have to share the costs of wars and other stuff.
I doubt you will see any alliance use the system because it would make it easier for them to be attacked.
--------------------------------------------------
|
Amerame
|
Posted - 2004.08.31 09:39:00 -
[17]
You can't really argue against a feature that's just common sense, if you're attacking someone in an alliance, everyone in said alliance should be able to fire on you.
Anyway, with shiva, don't you think you are going to have business in 0.0 mostly ? At the moment it's ok to run to safespot as soon as an enemy is spotted, because you have nothing to defend, why would you hire mercenaries in wars ? Hopefully fleeing / hiding won't be an option anymore : fighters services will actually be valuable, not just a distraction.
|
Amerame
|
Posted - 2004.08.31 09:39:00 -
[18]
You can't really argue against a feature that's just common sense, if you're attacking someone in an alliance, everyone in said alliance should be able to fire on you.
Anyway, with shiva, don't you think you are going to have business in 0.0 mostly ? At the moment it's ok to run to safespot as soon as an enemy is spotted, because you have nothing to defend, why would you hire mercenaries in wars ? Hopefully fleeing / hiding won't be an option anymore : fighters services will actually be valuable, not just a distraction.
|
Orestes
|
Posted - 2004.08.31 09:40:00 -
[19]
Originally by: Seleene
For the reasons I stated about individuality? It wouldn't surprise me...
No, for the reason that it leaves their empire-based operations completely vulnerable for packs of hunters. In other words, PvP-ers that start an alliance of their own, and war deccing for the hell of it
Originally by: Orestes
Obviously I'll try to push this and any Dev comments you can get to this thread would be great.
Thanks, Orestes.
No problem 
Join the IC! |
Orestes
|
Posted - 2004.08.31 09:40:00 -
[20]
Originally by: Seleene
For the reasons I stated about individuality? It wouldn't surprise me...
No, for the reason that it leaves their empire-based operations completely vulnerable for packs of hunters. In other words, PvP-ers that start an alliance of their own, and war deccing for the hell of it
Originally by: Orestes
Obviously I'll try to push this and any Dev comments you can get to this thread would be great.
Thanks, Orestes.
No problem
Join the IC! |
coldheat
|
Posted - 2004.08.31 09:41:00 -
[21]
isnt an alliance for helping each other out?
|
coldheat
|
Posted - 2004.08.31 09:41:00 -
[22]
isnt an alliance for helping each other out?
|
Liz Bathory
|
Posted - 2004.08.31 09:44:00 -
[23]
garuanteed to make life intersting for the empire miners supporting the low end needs of the rest of the alliance though
tey;'ll be dragged into many fights they would never have gon invoved in otherwise
|
Liz Bathory
|
Posted - 2004.08.31 09:44:00 -
[24]
garuanteed to make life intersting for the empire miners supporting the low end needs of the rest of the alliance though
tey;'ll be dragged into many fights they would never have gon invoved in otherwise
|
coldheat
|
Posted - 2004.08.31 09:47:00 -
[25]
well you can always create a mining corp outside alliance so no fighting then
|
coldheat
|
Posted - 2004.08.31 09:47:00 -
[26]
well you can always create a mining corp outside alliance so no fighting then
|
Wren
|
Posted - 2004.08.31 09:53:00 -
[27]
So, what, Merc corps could be hired to fight the Shadow/Alt corps??!??!?!?!
Winner!
--------------------------------------------------
|
Wren
|
Posted - 2004.08.31 09:53:00 -
[28]
So, what, Merc corps could be hired to fight the Shadow/Alt corps??!??!?!?!
Winner!
--------------------------------------------------
|
Xavier Arron
|
Posted - 2004.08.31 09:54:00 -
[29]
Edited by: Xavier Arron on 31/08/2004 10:05:50
IÆm going the other way on this, I really like the idea a lot, since it will force alliance corps to honour the so called "alliance" and actually get involved.
The whole point of being in an alliance is to have mutual protection by being stronger as a group, and the new system enforces this which I like.
Being in an alliance obviously there is a collective responsibility and you have to agree on whom to declare war on, etc... and if you donÆt like the decisions being made then you leave and join another alliance.
Empire will become a slaughter ground if two large alliances declare open war on each other  - and no doubt pirates will love it too for that reason  since they can declare war on an entire alliance and have plenty of helpless targets. (Those who can get into empire that is )
I really hope the devÆs keep this in, even just to see how it pans out .
Edit: In this scenario maybe alliance space will become safer than empire for alliance corps, and perhaps we will see more corps moving a larger part of there operations out in to their territory, especially with the new facilities POS will provide.
|
Xavier Arron
|
Posted - 2004.08.31 09:54:00 -
[30]
Edited by: Xavier Arron on 31/08/2004 10:05:50
IÆm going the other way on this, I really like the idea a lot, since it will force alliance corps to honour the so called "alliance" and actually get involved.
The whole point of being in an alliance is to have mutual protection by being stronger as a group, and the new system enforces this which I like.
Being in an alliance obviously there is a collective responsibility and you have to agree on whom to declare war on, etc... and if you donÆt like the decisions being made then you leave and join another alliance.
Empire will become a slaughter ground if two large alliances declare open war on each other - and no doubt pirates will love it too for that reason since they can declare war on an entire alliance and have plenty of helpless targets. (Those who can get into empire that is )
I really hope the devÆs keep this in, even just to see how it pans out .
Edit: In this scenario maybe alliance space will become safer than empire for alliance corps, and perhaps we will see more corps moving a larger part of there operations out in to their territory, especially with the new facilities POS will provide.
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] 2 3 4 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |