EVE Search - Who supports my agenda?

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Jita Park Speakers Corner

Who supports my agenda?

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Becq Starforged Minmatar Ship Construction Services Ushra'Khan	Posted - 2009.11.10 18:27:00 - [1] I'm looking for the candidate that will (verbally) beat CCP about the head and shoulders until they revert once again to they find a way to allow (at the very minimum) the major RP alliances to participate in FW. It is absolutely ridiculous that CCP has decided that the two oldest participants in the faction war -- having been fighting the war since long before FW existed and even before alliances existed -- will continue to be excluded from the FW mechanics. This after years of bashing our heads against them, finally getting them to agree to allow us access. Now with a slight tweak to their proposed changes, they've written us back out of the story. So, which candidate can convince me they actually care about RP issues, and mine in particular? -- Becq Starforged The Flame of Freedom Burns On!
TeaDaze Agony Unleashed Agony Empire	Posted - 2009.11.10 19:02:00 - [2] 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
Becq Starforged Minmatar Ship Construction Services Ushra'Khan	Posted - 2009.11.10 21:52:00 - [3] Originally by: TeaDaze 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... That is the very quote that has made me upset; I've emphasized the key words. This would exclude both CVA and Ushra'Khan from participatipating. These are two of the oldest alliances in the game, and have been RPing the faction war since the early days of EVE. Then CCP finally started working on the mechanics we'd been waiting to see for so long. And when the 24th Imperial Crusade was formed to Reclaim Minmatar lowsec, the group responsible for the largest territory increase in centuries (CVA) was told to go home, and when the Tribal Liberation Force was formed to break the chains of our kin, the oldest freedom-fighting alliance in the game (U'K) was told that our phone number would be blocked if we kept calling. Since then, we've been told that they were working on mechanics to fix that oversight ... and now this. So, my question stands. Which candidate actually cares about RP and will fight to get CCP to understand what all those letters in MMORPG stand for, as opposed to all of the ones in the CSM currently winding down? -- Becq Starforged The Flame of Freedom Burns On!
Ankhesentapemkah Gallente Ammatar Free Corps Curatores Veritatis Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.11 00:36:00 - [4] Edited by: Ankhesentapemkah on 11/11/2009 00:38:46 Take Care has raised this issue repeatedly after it was originally raised by Inanna Zuni. Number 1 Number 2 Number 3 CCP's reply is basically "yeah we still want to do this but it has no priority". I personally find the sov restriction silly as well, especially because CCP originally agreed to implement this under condition of the Alliance corps all meeting a high standing requirement! So vote for Z0D this round, as we have FW and roleplaying on the agenda. --- Z0D for CSM4!
Z0D Minmatar Rubycom Matrix United Corporations Of Modern Eve	Posted - 2009.11.11 00:56:00 - [5] Edited by: Z0D on 11/11/2009 00:56:37 Dear mister Starforged, Your concerns are valid. The outcome of Factional Warfare events does impact the backstory of EVE, and this backstory is of great value to roleplayers. For this reason, it is not logical that the major roleplaying alliances are excluded from affecting the storyline direction. I agree with miss Ankhesentapemkah that ruling out alliance participation in Factional Warfare based on the criterium of holding space is not an acceptable one. The standing requirement is a much more realistic marker, as only the most loyal roleplaying alliances can expect to meet these requirements or motivate all their members to raise corp standings to the required levels. You have my assurance that I will continue the work of our previous Take Care representatives and raise this issue until CCP implements it properly. Thank you for voicing your concerns. Z0D
Stratio Minmatar Mirkur Draug'Tyr Ushra'Khan	Posted - 2009.11.11 13:50:00 - [6] 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!
Ankhesentapemkah Gallente Ammatar Free Corps Curatores Veritatis Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.11 15:35:00 - [7] Originally by: Stratio That is just so crazy ... That accurately described everything CCP did regarding FW. Whoever does the game design on it is just incompetent and detatched from what the players want and do. --- Z0D for CSM4!
Sokratesz Rionnag Alba Against ALL Authorities	Posted - 2009.11.11 15:55:00 - [8] I am not involved in faction warfare or roleplay, but I have a great respect for CVA and UK as enemies and friends respectively. I have heard suggestions and comments about the situation from several CVA members already. If you would be willing to help me formulate a proposal, I will gladly push it. - Sok. Don't know who to vote for? Find out with CSM matchmaker!
TeaDaze Agony Unleashed Agony Empire	Posted - 2009.11.11 18:12:00 - [9] 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
Stratio Minmatar Mirkur Draug'Tyr Ushra'Khan	Posted - 2009.11.12 18:20:00 - [10] 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!

TeaDaze Agony Unleashed Agony Empire	Posted - 2009.11.12 19:36:00 - [11] 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
Stratio Minmatar Mirkur Draug'Tyr Ushra'Khan	Posted - 2009.11.12 22:17:00 - [12] 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!
TeaDaze Agony Unleashed Agony Empire	Posted - 2009.11.12 23:41:00 - [13] 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
Hirana Yoshida Behavioral Affront	Posted - 2009.11.12 23:41:00 - [14] The FW is balance of power is very fragile, particularly on the Amarr-Matari front, with a grudge match being carried out between plexers and PvP'ers alike. Big fleets happen but are the exceptions rather than the rule. An large influx of people from an alliance on either side (or both) would reduce it to mainly gate camps and other such wet blankets making it less than it is. Add to it the possibility of FW space being used by alliances to duke it out without jeopardizing their assets (ie. space) and you have the reason for the "no sov" idea. I have yet to see any idea that would keep FW's integrity intact while allowing major organized entities like alliances into the theatre. Has to be done with immense care if it is to remain a primarily small-scale conflict. You flew the Bleak skies Mr. Starforged, so you should know this
Becq Starforged Minmatar Ship Construction Services Ushra'Khan	Posted - 2009.11.13 03:21:00 - [15] 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. 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. 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/ 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? -- Becq Starforged The Flame of Freedom Burns On!
TeaDaze Agony Unleashed Agony Empire	Posted - 2009.11.13 09:29:00 - [16] 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
Stratio Minmatar Mirkur Draug'Tyr Ushra'Khan	Posted - 2009.11.13 15:02:00 - [17] 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!
TeaDaze Agony Unleashed Agony Empire	Posted - 2009.11.13 15:47:00 - [18] 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
Serenity Steele Dynamic Data Distribution	Posted - 2009.11.13 16:07:00 - [19] Becq, I think your issue is totally valid, and in fact outside of CSM I've been privately working on a player project to put the RP back into FW. The combination of FW and RP is a great untapped opportunity for some awesome player experience, not only for existing players, but as a theme to bring more new players to the EVE Universe. ≡v≡ Strategic Maps in Eve-Online Store. CSM 4 Candidate - Vote for Serenity Steele
Stratio Minmatar Mirkur Draug'Tyr Ushra'Khan	Posted - 2009.11.13 16:50:00 - [20] 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!

TeaDaze Agony Unleashed Agony Empire	Posted - 2009.11.13 17:41:00 - [21] 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
Hoo Is	Posted - 2009.11.13 17:43:00 - [22] 1) Create New Corp outside of your alliance 2) Join that Corp 3) Enlist corp into FW 4) ??? 5) Profit Tada... You can now go FW as a corp rather than an Alliance. Or, just drop out of your corp and go join the NPC FW corp. CCP has said NO on the Sov holding alliance, but they have still left you a way to enter FW. ---- a reply which adds nothing to a thread or results in a thread being bumped with no new discussion worthy content is considered spam and as such warrants a forum ban
Qual Gallente Cornexant Research	Posted - 2009.11.13 18:03:00 - [23] I can't support this as such. What you are asking is to be able to do both 0.0 alliance warfare and FW in the same context (that is from the same alliance). That kind of ruins the idea of FW as a stepping stone into 0.0 warfare. What I would support is a FW variant for alliances that would allow them to ally with a major faction and get LP for killing alliances loyal to the opponent alliances or something along those lines, but not get automatic access to FW in its current form. I can't support an idea that would allow 0.0 alliance of highly skilled players to go on a killing spree in FW and get LP's for that, without some practical barriers. "The short version: Qual is right." -Papa Smurf
Becq Starforged Minmatar Ship Construction Services Ushra'Khan	Posted - 2009.11.13 21:54:00 - [24] What is this "FW is a stepping stone into 0.0" nonsense? By keeping a rigid wall between FW and the rest of Eve, you are creating the opposite effect, divorcing the two sandboxes completely. What's needed is the existence of player structures that cross into both spheres, allowing players to test the waters in both without having to quit one to try the other. In much the same way that there are currently alliances that are empire-only, nullsec-only, and split between the two, the same should exist for FW. Existing members of the militia could either remain independant, join a friendly alliance, or create their own FW-only alliance. If this seems like too many people in too small a spere of conflict, then expand FW to the remaining regions of lowsec. Quote: What I would support is a FW variant for alliances that would allow them to ally with a major faction and get LP for killing alliances loyal to the opponent alliances or something along those lines, but not get automatic access to FW in its current form. I can't support an idea that would allow 0.0 alliance of highly skilled players to go on a killing spree in FW and get LP's for that, without some practical barriers. LPs, LPs, LPs. Who gives a flip about LPs? I'm a freedom fighter. I want to kill slavers and free my people. The bottom line is this: the 24th Imperial Crusade is attacking my brethren, and I'm sick of being prevented from fighting back. I'd do it for free if I was allowed to. -- Becq Starforged The Flame of Freedom Burns On!
Serenity Steele Dynamic Data Distribution	Posted - 2009.11.14 00:01:00 - [25] Originally by: Becq Starforged What is this "FW is a stepping stone into 0.0" nonsense? By keeping a rigid wall between FW and the rest of Eve, you are creating the opposite effect, divorcing the two sandboxes completely... I can't support an idea that would allow 0.0 alliance of highly skilled players to go on a killing spree in FW and get LP's for that, without some practical barriers. It is important to remember that the only functions that alliance mechanic provides are: - Easy management of standings - Consolidated war-decs and later - The ability claim sovereignty - Access to jump bridges Prior to the implementation of the alliance mechanic, there were many functional alliances within EVE. Stain Alliance & BoB to name a few. Almost all alliances went further to create holding corps to manage alliance finances as there is no supported game mechanic for alliance wallet. Take all this together with the introduction of treaties Soon(tm), and we have a mechanic for dealing with this, without allowing alliances into FW; Setup an alliance holding corporation which is the alliance, provide treaties to all the FW corporations and manual management of inter-FW corp standings. Looking at this whole description, it's a work-around, so the question becomes; what could be done to make it easy? eg. By providing a supporting feature "Mirror standings of corporation X" (ie the holding corporation) you would have alliances in FW. If a lot of alliances are structured in this way, it would show it's important to EVE Players, and therefor get support for game mechanics to make it easier. So; 2 options - the CSM (as I would) can support mechanic solutions now and there is a way to achieve it today to show support from a player perspective. ≡v≡ Strategic Maps in Eve-Online Store. CSM 4 Candidate - Vote for Serenity Steele
Mkah Mvet	Posted - 2009.11.15 09:48:00 - [26] Technically wouldn't a faction RP alliance be a splinter faction, as far as game organizations are concerned? From an RP perspective, why should CONCORD support an independent faction, to take part in a wardec sanctioned between two other factions? From an RP perspective, shouldn't the opposing NPC faction send their NPC capital fleets to shoot at your POSes, and disrupt your sov and infrastructure? RP as an argument for an added game mechanic can be taken to any extreme the imagination wants. How about game mechanics that are good for the game? CCP has said very explicitly they want FW to be casual PVP. Suddenly doubling (or more) the size of a faction would not only invalidate everything the FW guys have put in, but the influx of capital fleets supported by sov holders point income sources would render the current FWers obsolete. If I was in FW I'd probably be pretty upset if my faction strategy got completely taken over by people I don't even know, and who haven't contributed to the strategic goals. As a new player wanting to join FW having large sov holding alliances dominating FW would probably put me off from wanting to join. My votes for CSM have been based on the principle of the candidates creating opportunities for either new people or people looking to experience new playstyles. FW is broken, no doubt about it. Letting alliances in at all would probably hurt more than help, until FW can be fixed. BTW to the OP and your alliance-mates, you seem to be looking for a completely selfish, nearsighted agenda, not realizing that following through on it would seriously damage the entire EVE community without regard to anyone else. I don't care about your politics, but I'm disturbed you all seem be so willing and eager to sacrifice the entire EVE universe on the altar of your political agendas.
Thorvik Minmatar Ship Construction Services Ushra'Khan	Posted - 2009.11.17 18:49:00 - [27] I think I see TeaDaze's point of view (while I don't agree with it). In one of his posts above (ref: Privateer post) he cuts to the heart of the matter. He notes that FW may be Quote: "....cheaper war decs for some RP reason? Wink" I think I understand. If not allow us into FW, how about allowing us to War Dec the 24th Imperial Crusade then. While I don't at all speak for my leaders, I think they would welcome the ability to grease the wheels of justice for the privilege of fighting slavers in Empire space without CONCORD interference.
Ankhesentapemkah Gallente Ammatar Free Corps Curatores Veritatis Alliance	Posted - 2009.11.17 18:50:00 - [28] Edited by: Ankhesentapemkah on 17/11/2009 18:57:38 Originally by: Thorvik I think I see TeaDaze's point of view (while I don't agree with it). In one of his posts above (ref: Privateer post) he cuts to the heart of the matter. He notes that FW may be Quote: "....cheaper war decs for some RP reason? Wink" I think I understand. If not allow us into FW, how about allowing us to War Dec the 24th Imperial Crusade then. While I don't at all speak for my leaders, I think they would welcome the ability to grease the wheels of justice for the privilege of fighting slavers in Empire space without CONCORD interference. Larkonis mentioned something along these lines but CCP won't let that happen. Edit: Quote: 6.4. Factional warfare - allied forces http://wiki.eveonline.com/wiki/Faction_warfare_-_allied_forces The answer to that request is ônoö. The justification is that war declarations already exist and CCP doesn't want big alliances to move into the ônewbie PvP zoneö that is Factional Warfare. 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. I still think Roleplaying should be able to fully participate and be able to capture complexes as well, with the hefty standing requirements to prevent lolster alliances from ruining it. Then again we have established already that CCP is totally clueless about FW matters and just dabble around, throwing darts at a chart and tweaking random things, which surprisingly don't work. --- Click banner for info!


Pages: [1] :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.