|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
TeaDaze
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
|
Posted - 2009.11.10 19:02:00 -
[1]
From the finally published CSM-CCP September meeting notes
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.
So perhaps the wheels are already in motion...
Vote TeaDaze for CSM #4
|
TeaDaze
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
|
Posted - 2009.11.11 18:12:00 -
[2]
At the risk of losing potential voters I don't agree that RP alliances should have any special treatment in this matter. You choose to RP and I respect that, but it shouldn't give you special powers over and above any other Alliance.
I could just as easily complain that as I want to RP a Minmatar resistance fighter I should be allowed to sneak into a CVA outpost, set explosives and blow it up Yes extreme example but the principle is the same.
So setting aside RP the argument "simply" boils down to "should Alliances be able to hold space and still participate in Factional Warfare". The current CSM and CCP think not.
I've yet to see a convincing argument for letting space holding Alliances have their cake and eat it regarding FW (and why wouldn't they want their Cake? It's so delicious and moist! ). There may well be a good reason to let them, but simply pointing at RP isn't it.
It would be so easy to go hunting for easy votes and say I would support this but I would rather people saw how I approach these kinds of issues. So the short answer is I do not support your agenda in this form.
I would however be happy to take other RP issues to the CSM if voted in and am always willing to support a well reasoned argument.
Vote TeaDaze for CSM #4
|
TeaDaze
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
|
Posted - 2009.11.12 19:36:00 -
[3]
Originally by: Stratio 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?
Because a corp can't hold Sov so that avoids the issue.
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.
I don't have a problem with the idea of an Alliance with the right standings being able to join FW under those conditions.
However there hasn't yet been a convincing argument for allowing a single alliance to take part in Sov 0.0 and FW - the only proposal made so far is it would suit RP Alliances.
Hopefully you can understand the issue here. 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. Maybe it could be allowed if a Sov holding FW Alliance automatically sets the rest of their militia to +10 and thus gives them full access to their space and outposts? That way both the Alliance and the militia gain benefits.
Just a thought
Vote TeaDaze for CSM #4
|
TeaDaze
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
|
Posted - 2009.11.12 23:41:00 -
[4]
Originally by: Stratio My question would be why is holding sov an issue?
Personally I find the idea of an Alliance wanting the benefits of holding space out out in 0.0 as well as to participate and get the benefit of Factional Warfare to be rather greedy and also in many ways counterproductive. What is the point of holding space if you actually want to go and do factional warfare instead? CSM #3 and CCP took a similar position.
Maybe I'm missing the point, but you've not given a good reason why you should be able to have both abilities.
Originally by: Stratio Thus specifically excluding the two oldest alliances in this game.
It isn't specifically targetted at you. It appears the aim is to exclude any Alliance from FW that wants to hold Sov instead.
Originally by: Stratio What kind of argument is needed beyond 'some of us would like to' ? It is a question of counter arguments surely.
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 original request was to allow Alliances into FW and CSM #3 agreed with CCP it could be allowed as long as the Alliance wasn't holding Sov as well.
Originally by: Stratio 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.
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. I was suggesting a quid pro quo for an Alliance wanting to have Sov and join FW is that it would have to share its space with the militia it has joined.
Give us a better suggestion instead
Vote TeaDaze for CSM #4
|
TeaDaze
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
|
Posted - 2009.11.13 09:29:00 -
[5]
Originally by: Becq Starforged I have yet to see any new arguments being made that haven't been made many times over the last few years of struggling with this issue.
Indeed. No new argument for why this should be allowed past what has been agreed in principle thus nothing will change.
Originally by: Becq Starforged The bottom line is that the Alliances in FW issue isn't a new one, it's been one since before FW was turned on. CCP has weighed in on the issue several times, and in each of those times we were told that they would fix the situation so that alliances (such as ours) would no longer be barred from the RP war that we've been fighting for more than five years and that has since been largely usurped from us.
Firstly CSM #3 and CCP have agreed that Alliances could be allowed into FW. You are therefore not being barred for any reason other than your own reluctance to give up your Sov space in return.
You've been unwilling to explain why you think that is unreasonable.
People in Factional Warfare have concerns about large alliances steamrollering in, should we ignore their concerns over yours?
Originally by: Becq Starforged For those who think that the currently proposed solution is reasonable, consider that while Ushra'Khan -- an alliance that has been fighting for Matari freedom for five years -- and CVA -- an alliance that has done more to Reclaim space than the last dozen Emperors have -- will remain barred from joining the fight. On the other hand, the Privateer Alliance would be welcome to join the faction of their choice! \o/
Irrelevant argument. U'K and CVA would be fully able to join FW under the agreed terms, they just would have to make a choice between Sov 0.0 and FW/RP. What have Privateers got to do with anything? Have they tried to justify having cheaper war decs for some RP reason? Under the proposed solution any non Sov holding alliance would be able to join FW providing they reach the standings requirement. Are you saying that they shouldn't be allowed because they don't RP?
Originally by: Becq Starforged In any case, this thread isn't an 'issue' thread. It's a request for information on candidates. TeaDaze, your opposition to representing my perspective in the CSM is noted. Z0D and Sokratesz, your support for my concerns are likewise noted.
Would any other CSM candidates care to voice their position?
If you give a good argument for why an Alliance should be allowed into Factional Warfare as well as continue to hold Sov then I would be happy to represent your position. The problem is you keep rehashing the "because we've been RPing this war for 5 years and want special treatment" line.
I could have taken the easy option and agreed to represent your position for free votes, but I'm not that kind of person. Instead I gave my time to help you understand why CSM #3 and CCP might have decided on the restrictions they did and give you the chance to respond with an updated proposal. I even suggested a possible solution where you'd be allowed to join if you had to open up your Sov space to the militia you joined.
If I get to the CSM, I would be happy to present this issue again as is. But I'm honest enough to say I wouldn't vote for it without an update to explain why a Sov holding alliance should be allowed to join FW and retain the benefits of both.
Vote TeaDaze for CSM #4
|
TeaDaze
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
|
Posted - 2009.11.13 15:47:00 -
[6]
Originally by: Stratio To me, that's like asking why I should be able to run hi-sec missions while also ratting in 0.0!
I see your point, but it isn't comparable. It would be more like the FW militia asking to be able to capture your space. Remember, you are trying to change the current behaviour
Originally by: Stratio 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.
But you are the ones wanting to make a change! It isn't a matter of trying to find a reason not to make a change, it is simply a matter of you giving a good reason why the change is warranted.
I wasn't on CSM #3 (and at this rate I won't be on CSM #4 either ) but they decided that having Sov while in FW was wrong and CCP agreed with them. The ball is back in your court so make a strong case instead of gnashing teeth and pointing at 5 years of RP.
As to alleged bias against your alliances in particular, again I can't speak for CSM #3 but it does strike me that if Alliances are allowed in FW it has to be any Alliance that meets whatever criteria are required.
Originally by: Stratio You seem to ignore that we work for that 0.0 sov.
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?
Which is why I suggested an idea for allowing the militia you join to share your Sov as you share their FW. If anything that requirement would stop non RP alliances from joining FW so would be a benefit to your cause, right?
Originally by: Stratio I'm not running for election.
I'm not the one trying to make a change to FW to allow alliances to join on their terms not the terms agreed between CCP and CSM #3 .
I'm looking out for the Factional Warfare players at this point because until you (as a group of Sov holding alliances wanting to play in FW) provide a good reason why you should have the ability to join FW while having the benefits of Sov I don't see what the non Alliance FW players gain.
At this point I've asked many times for a reason to support your aim and each time you've avoided the question.
I'm sure some candidates will jump at the chance to get easy votes and state that I am an idiot. I've just been trying to point out that your case needs to be modified. I'll say again, if you can point to one good reason for allowing Alliances to hold Sov while in FW then I would be happy to support you.
As the argument is going in circles I'll say no more unless I'm misquoted etc or you supply that case for change
Vote TeaDaze for CSM #4
|
TeaDaze
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
|
Posted - 2009.11.13 17:41:00 -
[7]
Originally by: Stratio 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.
There is the cost and organisation involved and then it changes the dynamics a fair bit if it becomes (say) four big FW alliances rather than a loose association of individual players and corps.
I got the impression that CCP view FW more for casual players than Sov 0.0 and thus would like to keep the two separated.
From an RP point of view it makes perfect sense for CVA and U'K to represent their factions. But much as I respect both Alliances for what they have added to the game (even though CVA have us set red ) I don't feel RP alone is a good enough reason to make gameplay changes.
If there are other ways to improve the RP that don't require game balance changes then I'd be happy to support those proposals.
Originally by: Stratio I do however respect your standing by your views. Let's leave it there.
We agree to disagree on this specific issue. If I make it into CSM #4 I look forward to more healthy debates and maybe supporting you in other matters
Vote TeaDaze for CSM #4
|
|
|
|