|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Stratio
Minmatar
Mirkur Draug'Tyr
Ushra'Khan
   |
Posted - 2009.11.11 13:50:00 -
[1]
Edited by: Stratio on 11/11/2009 13:55:21
 Originally by: Section 6.4
CCP and the CSM agreed that alliances could be allowed to join FW, but holding sovereignty will not be allowed during participation. These terms are those under which an alliance participation in FW will be considered.
That is just so crazy ... 
I suppose that way they hope to exclude the largest alliances.
As has been said before, the standings requirement would be a far better way to ensure that random 'big players' do not stomp all over FW.
Btw, even long before we moved into our new home, one corp in U'K had one sov claiming POS in K0CN-3, should that really in itself have prevented us taking part in faction warfare?
_____________________
For Tribe and Honour! |
Stratio
Minmatar
Mirkur Draug'Tyr
Ushra'Khan
|
Posted - 2009.11.12 18:20:00 -
[2]
Igonoring the fact that faction warfare is as meaningless as Red vs Blue without the RP/backstory aspect (and I know RvB is great fun!) ... I don't think the RP players are asking for favours.
If U'K were able to form one huge corp which met the standings requirement and called it UshraKhan, we'd be able to join FW now. So why should a large allianc (RP or not) be prevented from joining FW if the alliance as a whole meets the standings requierments?
_____________________
For Tribe and Honour! |
Stratio
Minmatar
Mirkur Draug'Tyr
Ushra'Khan
|
Posted - 2009.11.12 22:17:00 -
[3]
Originally by: TeaDaze
Because a corp can't hold Sov so that avoids the issue.
My question would be why is holding sov an issue?
Originally by: TeaDaze
The OP specifically stated "find a way to allow (at the very minimum) the major RP alliances to participate in FW". CCP and the CSM supported the idea with the restriction that no Sov could be held while in FW.
Thus specifically excluding the two oldest alliances in this game.
Originally by: TeaDaze
However there hasn't yet been a convincing argument for allowing a single alliance to take part in Sov 0.0 and FW
What kind of argument is needed beyond 'some of us would like to' ? It is a question of counter arguments surely.
Originally by: TeaDaze
An Alliance with 0.0 Sov has access to more resources than a pure FW Corp/Alliance and at the same time doesn't give anything back to FW in exchange.
I really do not understand what you are saying here. An alliance which joins FW would be just as much part of the militia. What it 'gives back' would be the resources it can invest in FW.
_____________________
For Tribe and Honour! |
Stratio
Minmatar
Mirkur Draug'Tyr
Ushra'Khan
|
Posted - 2009.11.13 15:02:00 -
[4]
As Becq has requested that this should not become a deabte I'll finish by saying the following:
Originally by: TeaDaze
Maybe I'm missing the point, but you've not given a good reason why you should be able to have both abilities.
To me, that's like asking why I should be able to run hi-sec missions while also ratting in 0.0!
Originally by: TeaDaze
It isn't specifically targetted at you. It appears the aim is to exclude any Alliance from FW that wants to hold Sov instead.
It certainly was an outcome they would have known about full well. They know who is pushing for access and they know that those two alliances hold sov.
Originally by: TeaDaze
That isn't how it works. You want to make a change to the game thus it is you who need to make a convincing argument why. Come up with a good one and I'll support you fully.
The arguments have been made by others repeatedly. The question now is why should sov holding alliances be excluded? I've not seen a convincing answer.
Originally by: TeaDaze
It isn't hard. The Alliance would gain access to all the benefits of FW (easy pew pew, missions, LP store etc) except that unlike the rest of the militia it also has access to 0.0 Sov benefits as well.
You seem to ignore that we work for that 0.0 sov.
Originally by: TeaDaze
Give us a better suggestion instead 
I'm not running for election. 
_____________________
For Tribe and Honour! |
Stratio
Minmatar
Mirkur Draug'Tyr
Ushra'Khan
|
Posted - 2009.11.13 16:50:00 -
[5]
Edited by: Stratio on 13/11/2009 16:57:22
Originally by: TeaDaze
And FW people work for their "Sov". You want to influence theirs but they can't retaliate against yours, does that seem fair? You gain the benefits of their work, they can't gain the benefit of yours, does that seem fair?
If alliances can be in FW then FW corps can also form alliances. I really don't get your them vs us which you keep bringing up.
Keep in mind in all this that we are also arguing that our arch enemies like CVA should be allowed to join. That would for example allow Pie. to join CVA. It's not all just for our benefit.
Originally by: TeaDaze
At this point I've asked many times for a reason to support your aim and each time you've avoided the question.
And I said repeatedly why I do not think holding sov is an issue. Eg. at the top where I said one of our corps once help one little system.
I do however respect your standing by your views. Let's leave it there.
_____________________
For Tribe and Honour! |
|
|
| |
|