| Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
dudley
   |
Posted - 2009.11.25 11:27:00 -
[1]
I no this question is probably somewhere in the forums but i cannot find it my question is do you have to be part of an alliance to claim sov as i tried to put up a claim unit on the test server on it would not allow me it said i needed to be part of an alliance if this is so then corps that do not wish to be part of an alliance we not be allowed sov
dudley
|
Alex Raptos
Caldari
Phoenix Rising.
|
Posted - 2009.11.25 11:32:00 -
[2]
And why the hell do you think corporations not part of an alliance should have the capabilities to hold a solar system and be sovereign within it? No you will not be able to. No you will never be able to. Sovereignty is Alliance business, join one and join in or stay out and...stay out.
 Originally by: Dirk Magnum
I've become gay for Mark Harmon despite my initial reservations about the show NCIS but nobody will ever know
|
dudley
|
Posted - 2009.11.25 11:33:00 -
[3]
that was a bit uncalled for i was just asking a question
|
Taurus Millenium
|
Posted - 2009.11.25 11:38:00 -
[4]
Yes, you need to be part of an alliance, sorry.
|
dudley
|
Posted - 2009.11.25 11:40:00 -
[5]
and why should sov just be for alliances it should be for all and not just the greedy alliances
|
Alex Raptos
Caldari
Phoenix Rising.
|
Posted - 2009.11.25 11:41:00 -
[6]
Edited by: Alex Raptos on 25/11/2009 11:42:40
Originally by: dudley
that was a bit uncalled for i was just asking a question
Well logic dictates that if you try something and it does not work, its not going to work. You were quite clearly told by an error that you needed to join an alliance. Ontop of the fact nobody, nowhere has even mentioned corporations holding sovereignty in anything but a passing musing and certainly no developers have motioned towards it in the slightest. Where you would get the idea that Corporations should be capable of claiming Sovereignty is beyond my imagining.
Edit: Sovereignty should be for "the greedy alliances" because that is the entire direction of it. Greedy alliances drive 0.0 because everything else fails to survive, in short, Greed is a necessity to survive out there in the big bad world of nullsec
Originally by: Dirk Magnum
I've become gay for Mark Harmon despite my initial reservations about the show NCIS but nobody will ever know
|
Eben Rochelle
Gallente
RPS holdings
|
Posted - 2009.11.25 11:53:00 -
[7]
Originally by: Alex Raptos
Edited by: Alex Raptos on 25/11/2009 11:42:40
Originally by: dudley
that was a bit uncalled for i was just asking a question
Well logic dictates that if you try something and it does not work, its not going to work. You were quite clearly told by an error that you needed to join an alliance. Ontop of the fact nobody, nowhere has even mentioned corporations holding sovereignty in anything but a passing musing and certainly no developers have motioned towards it in the slightest. Where you would get the idea that Corporations should be capable of claiming Sovereignty is beyond my imagining.
Edit: Sovereignty should be for "the greedy alliances" because that is the entire direction of it. Greedy alliances drive 0.0 because everything else fails to survive, in short, Greed is a necessity to survive out there in the big bad world of nullsec
Dude... W.T.F? sand in your vag?
Why exactly shouldnt corps be able to claim Sov? Surely the difference between a corp and a corp using an alt corp to create an alliance is arbitrary mechanics. Seriously mate i dont know what the heck (O_o) your problem is either way kindly take it somewhere else you whiney little biatch
|
dudley
|
Posted - 2009.11.25 11:56:00 -
[8]
I was not whining as you so called put it i was led to believe that all was able to have a bit of there own space in 0.0 are the big alliances afraid of smaller corps
|
tradealt4tw
|
Posted - 2009.11.25 12:01:00 -
[9]
Edited by: tradealt4tw on 25/11/2009 12:00:58
 LRN2READ Dudley then re-read my post. Its clearly aimed at mr "angry about your question" not you...
*edit* woops this is Eben
|
dudley
|
Posted - 2009.11.25 12:04:00 -
[10]
sorry for misunderstanding
|
|
|
KPPA
|
Posted - 2009.11.25 12:10:00 -
[11]
I think corps should be able to hold sov. for one, they are a sovereign entity when not part of a alliance and should be given the same rights as any other sovereign entity. and two, what happens to sov when an alliance goes belly up? shouldn't the sov just go to the crops so that all the hard work isn't lost?
p.s. you say "greedy" like its a bad thing. don't you remember that money is the root of all good?
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
|
Posted - 2009.11.25 12:32:00 -
[12]
Originally by: dudley
and why should sov just be for alliances it should be for all and not just the greedy alliances
You know that you can create your own, non-greedy alliance, right? You dont even have to let any other corps in (they might be greedy)
|
dudley
|
Posted - 2009.11.25 12:42:00 -
[13]
i no i can create my own alliance but if i am still only one corp in that alliance then surely it would make sense for ccp to allow single corps to take sov
|
Di Mulle
|
Posted - 2009.11.25 12:48:00 -
[14]
Edited by: Di Mulle on 25/11/2009 12:53:06
Originally by: dudley
and why should sov just be for alliances it should be for all and not just the greedy alliances
Internet is ruled by memes, hehe.
What exactly make alliances "greedy" - and, even more intriguing, what exactly makes your corp, or you personally "not greedy" ?
You gonna make charity fund, or something ?
|
dudley
|
Posted - 2009.11.25 12:54:00 -
[15]
if myself or my corp was greedy we would have a lot move isk in wallet i am in the game to have fun
|
KPPA
|
Posted - 2009.11.25 13:03:00 -
[16]
sigh. i don't understand why ppl think wanting money is evil or money its self is evil. read about what money is...
|
Di Mulle
|
Posted - 2009.11.25 13:05:00 -
[17]
Originally by: dudley
if myself or my corp was greedy we would have a lot move isk in wallet i am in the game to have fun
That is nice, games are for fun after all.
However, why you think you are so exceptional? Maybe your imaginary "greedy alliances" also have fun, exactly the way they do ?
|
dudley
|
Posted - 2009.11.25 15:05:00 -
[18]
i think you all are missing the point to have to be in an alliance to obtain a system for your own is open to abuse by alliances just suppose that you are in an alliance and they say there you go have these systems so your corp pays and puts up the required structures to build up the system and you start to get the system running well and all of a sudden the you have a falling out will alliance and you get kicked out or the alliance folds for what every reason then you have lost time and isk spent in to building up that system
|
Lexx Khadar
|
Posted - 2009.11.25 15:24:00 -
[19]
Edited by: Lexx Khadar on 25/11/2009 15:25:30
Originally by: dudley
i think you all are missing the point to have to be in an alliance to obtain a system for your own is open to abuse by alliances just suppose that you are in an alliance and they say there you go have these systems so your corp pays and puts up the required structures to build up the system and you start to get the system running well and all of a sudden the you have a falling out will alliance and you get kicked out or the alliance folds for what every reason then you have lost time and isk spent in to building up that system
Well if an alliance is that fragile to falling apart then it clearly isn't in any way capable of maintaining its own space. So shouldn't even bother.
|
Mashie Saldana
BFG Tech
|
Posted - 2009.11.25 15:32:00 -
[20]
Originally by: dudley
i think you all are missing the point to have to be in an alliance to obtain a system for your own is open to abuse by alliances just suppose that you are in an alliance and they say there you go have these systems so your corp pays and puts up the required structures to build up the system and you start to get the system running well and all of a sudden the you have a falling out will alliance and you get kicked out or the alliance folds for what every reason then you have lost time and isk spent in to building up that system
Nothing stop you from creating an alliance for your 1-man corp tbh (ok you might need to train a skill or two).
|
|
|
dudley
|
Posted - 2009.11.25 15:36:00 -
[21]
your still missing the point you can still get kicked from an alliance but if individual corps could hold sov then alliances we be less incinded to kick you out
|
SlapNuts
Gallente
Lost Wacko's
|
Posted - 2009.11.25 15:36:00 -
[22]
Really if a corp is big enough and has the means to claim sov, then why not. There are lots of systems in 0.0, more then enough to go around.
The fact you have to be an allaince to claim sov seems flawed to me.
Dudley, u fight the fight cause you might have a lot more ppl that agree with you then you think. 
..........................
|
Grall Sek
Caldari
Eve Defence Force
Systematic-Chaos
|
Posted - 2009.11.25 15:39:00 -
[23]
create an alliance and then claim sov
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
|
Posted - 2009.11.25 15:41:00 -
[24]
Originally by: dudley
if myself or my corp was greedy we would have a lot move isk in wallet i am in the game to have fun
In that case, 0.0 alliances are "greedy" in exactly the same way that your corp is "lazy".
|
Tia Langs
|
Posted - 2009.11.25 15:42:00 -
[25]
Quote:
Nothing stop you from creating an alliance for your 1-man corp tbh (ok you might need to train a skill or two).
but there is no reason for why it should be that way , that is game mechanic that dont need to be there.
|
dudley
|
Posted - 2009.11.25 15:50:00 -
[26]
I also believe that ccp said that sov space was for all and was getting away from major alliances claiming all od 0.0 space haw can this be when individual corps are unable to have there own space is eve not big enough for this or is it just another plow of ccp to please the major alliances
|
Oriens Pars
|
Posted - 2009.11.25 16:09:00 -
[27]
Hmmm...I kind of agree that corps should be able to hold sov, as long as CCP doesn't make it any easier for those corps to hold that sov. In other words, if a corp wants to have a system, then it should be able to......under the current (or soon to be released) mechanics. No changing things just to make it easier for them.
Also, I think it might lead to more whining later if corps start complaining that CCP needs to change this or that because "we can't hold it without CCP changing something!" Tough ****....you can't hold it, move along.
|
Di Mulle
|
Posted - 2009.11.25 17:26:00 -
[28]
Originally by: Oriens Pars
Hmmm...I kind of agree that corps should be able to hold sov, as long as CCP doesn't make it any easier for those corps to hold that sov. In other words, if a corp wants to have a system, then it should be able to......under the current (or soon to be released) mechanics. No changing things just to make it easier for them.
Also, I think it might lead to more whining later if corps start complaining that CCP needs to change this or that because "we can't hold it without CCP changing something!" Tough ****....you can't hold it, move along.
I would agree with this. Though, it will probably make alliance mechanics even more complicated than it is now.
However, seeing how op is stuck with his stupid conspiracy memes, I think it is clear indication, that whining you speak about would be imminent. "I want it all, right now, for free" syndrome.
|
Hegbard
|
Posted - 2009.11.25 17:28:00 -
[29]
Since it's possible to create one man corps, it should be possible to claim personal sov.
|
Oriens Pars
|
Posted - 2009.11.25 17:42:00 -
[30]
Originally by: Hegbard
Since it's possible to create one man corps, it should be possible to claim personal sov.
True, but how long would one realistically be able to hold onto it?
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |