| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 .. 14 :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Zyrla Bladestorm
   |
Posted - 2004.11.28 20:05:00 -
[151]
 Quote:
hey, but what obliges you to create an alliance?
In general, AGAIN, asking corps to pay money for numbers of corps in the attacked alliance is non sense. Cause it would be easily exploitable by the alliances.
you have 3000 members... don't tell me you can't defend your miners in space.
I dont pretend to know if that is the right solution - nor did I say so in my post.
The game mechanics allow 3100 people to form a single corp and declare a war against us for 1 million isk .. does that sound right ?
what obliges you not to ?
for us to declare back would cost aproximately 50 million isk per week, even if it was 3100 people in one corp our 2800 wanted to declare on - about 150 million for a second war I believe ? yet empire corps can declare for piddling little sums, even though there is nothing stopping them having just as many members.
.
-----
Apologys for any rambling that may have just occurred.
|
Zyrla Bladestorm
|
Posted - 2004.11.28 20:05:00 -
[152]
Quote:
hey, but what obliges you to create an alliance?
In general, AGAIN, asking corps to pay money for numbers of corps in the attacked alliance is non sense. Cause it would be easily exploitable by the alliances.
you have 3000 members... don't tell me you can't defend your miners in space.
I dont pretend to know if that is the right solution - nor did I say so in my post.
The game mechanics allow 3100 people to form a single corp and declare a war against us for 1 million isk .. does that sound right ?
what obliges you not to ?
for us to declare back would cost aproximately 50 million isk per week, even if it was 3100 people in one corp our 2800 wanted to declare on - about 150 million for a second war I believe ? yet empire corps can declare for piddling little sums, even though there is nothing stopping them having just as many members.
.
-----
Apologys for any rambling that may have just occurred.
|
Jasmine Constantine
|
Posted - 2004.11.28 20:21:00 -
[153]
Thing is Zyla, the alliances should have combat wings that can patrol their interests wherever. Lots of players get bored and want to fight. If some lone corp declares war against your empire corps then you should be able to go and have a fight with them and eventually teach them to leave you alone. If you can't do that as an alliance then you probably have to accept that your alliance isn't capable enough to be worthy of the category and shouldn't be one.
The fact that lots of pvp corps and going "huzzah!" and drooling at the mouths at the prospect of war declaring vs alliances does actually look a bit like the Emperor's new clothes (ie everyone is realising that the alliances are actually a bit weak).
Like I said earlier I think your best bet is to actually have some decent diplomacy and rules in play. If you open up Xetic and let people come and trade and shoot NPC's there then nobody really has a reason to "close" empire against your corps by staging wardecs.
If on the other hand an alliance still wants to act like bully-boys in deepspace then its the right of empire corps to "close" space against them in formal wars.
Preventing the 1m war dec vs a whole alliance would actually be nothing more than turning Eve into a divided environment of pvp and non-pvp zones like other mmorgs.
If the simple answer to being wardecced was to join an alliance and be immune to any agression from independent corps then eve would become very boring very quickly.
Alliances my have tens of thousands of players but independent corps have tens of thousands too. And making Eve safe for alliance carebears would be a terrible blow to the open pvp credentials of eve online imo.
Star Fraction
|
Jasmine Constantine
|
Posted - 2004.11.28 20:21:00 -
[154]
Thing is Zyla, the alliances should have combat wings that can patrol their interests wherever. Lots of players get bored and want to fight. If some lone corp declares war against your empire corps then you should be able to go and have a fight with them and eventually teach them to leave you alone. If you can't do that as an alliance then you probably have to accept that your alliance isn't capable enough to be worthy of the category and shouldn't be one.
The fact that lots of pvp corps and going "huzzah!" and drooling at the mouths at the prospect of war declaring vs alliances does actually look a bit like the Emperor's new clothes (ie everyone is realising that the alliances are actually a bit weak).
Like I said earlier I think your best bet is to actually have some decent diplomacy and rules in play. If you open up Xetic and let people come and trade and shoot NPC's there then nobody really has a reason to "close" empire against your corps by staging wardecs.
If on the other hand an alliance still wants to act like bully-boys in deepspace then its the right of empire corps to "close" space against them in formal wars.
Preventing the 1m war dec vs a whole alliance would actually be nothing more than turning Eve into a divided environment of pvp and non-pvp zones like other mmorgs.
If the simple answer to being wardecced was to join an alliance and be immune to any agression from independent corps then eve would become very boring very quickly.
Alliances my have tens of thousands of players but independent corps have tens of thousands too. And making Eve safe for alliance carebears would be a terrible blow to the open pvp credentials of eve online imo.
Star Fraction
|
Arkanis
|
Posted - 2004.11.28 20:32:00 -
[155]
I think that both options leave room for abuse of game mechanics and need to be looked into more to resolve it. I doubt they'll leave it the way it is.
However, I think that it is true they want to force alliances to move out of 'safe' space and make the only safe space, their claimed lands. But I think this might be hard for the likes of Xetic whom as its been mentioned have little in the way of station resources compared to CA/FA/SA who have NPC stations, but I guess its always going to be like that.
I don't see a reason to form an official alliance at the moment, other than getting yourself a cool logo.
|
Arkanis
|
Posted - 2004.11.28 20:32:00 -
[156]
I think that both options leave room for abuse of game mechanics and need to be looked into more to resolve it. I doubt they'll leave it the way it is.
However, I think that it is true they want to force alliances to move out of 'safe' space and make the only safe space, their claimed lands. But I think this might be hard for the likes of Xetic whom as its been mentioned have little in the way of station resources compared to CA/FA/SA who have NPC stations, but I guess its always going to be like that.
I don't see a reason to form an official alliance at the moment, other than getting yourself a cool logo.
|
Jasmine Constantine
|
Posted - 2004.11.28 20:40:00 -
[157]
You are missing the fun aspect of shared empire wars. Early in the GNW Jericho often combined our wardecs with allies against single PA corps and it was a lot of fun to hunt the victim corps with allies from different friendly outfits.
If the PA as a whole was at formal war with Jericho then all their pilots could cooporate and hunt us in groups without being divided by the empire laws.
I actually think thats quite a good thing. And if there was a single Alliance in eve that didn't suck the territorialist agenda I'd actually be pro joining, just to be able to work with the other allied corps against hostiles in that way.
Star Fraction
|
Jasmine Constantine
|
Posted - 2004.11.28 20:40:00 -
[158]
You are missing the fun aspect of shared empire wars. Early in the GNW Jericho often combined our wardecs with allies against single PA corps and it was a lot of fun to hunt the victim corps with allies from different friendly outfits.
If the PA as a whole was at formal war with Jericho then all their pilots could cooporate and hunt us in groups without being divided by the empire laws.
I actually think thats quite a good thing. And if there was a single Alliance in eve that didn't suck the territorialist agenda I'd actually be pro joining, just to be able to work with the other allied corps against hostiles in that way.
Star Fraction
|
Zyrla Bladestorm
|
Posted - 2004.11.28 20:50:00 -
[159]
Edited by: Zyrla Bladestorm on 28/11/2004 20:55:09
You both write well and make good points, though jasmine I might accuse you of going slightly off topic because while I would love to agree, the intelectual mechanics and game mechanics often differ - particularly that all the diplomacy in the world wont stop some people doing something just because they can (and the term needle in a haystack comes to mind as to a few out of all those in empire)
Case in point : we were just declared on by a 0.0 PvP corp that is declaring on every alliance just because they can and it gives a few more targets to shoot at when they are occasionally in empire.
they may only attack one of our ships once a month, but its still a loss we will have suffered just because we formed a formal alliance and for no other reason than they could.(to my knowledge there has never been so much as a skirmish vs them in our space)
Empire becoming less safe as a balance to a better ability to live off our own little patch of space is a reasonable idea, the problem is that with the current implementation even if all of the starbase structures planned were in we would still be missing crucial parts.
As it stands though the Ice fields we have been given are not suitable to running starbases from without a massive extra amount of effort, even if the ice wasn't awfull we would still have to depend on purchasing the trade goods to go with it from all over empire (not to mention skills, probes, starbase modules and other such items that are only available to buy - not produce)
In the end the benefits of actually having a formal alliance are looking pretty much non-existant at the moment, while the disadvantages are a large set of extra difficultys .
.
-----
Apologys for any rambling that may have just occurred.
|
Zyrla Bladestorm
|
Posted - 2004.11.28 20:50:00 -
[160]
Edited by: Zyrla Bladestorm on 28/11/2004 20:55:09
You both write well and make good points, though jasmine I might accuse you of going slightly off topic because while I would love to agree, the intelectual mechanics and game mechanics often differ - particularly that all the diplomacy in the world wont stop some people doing something just because they can (and the term needle in a haystack comes to mind as to a few out of all those in empire)
Case in point : we were just declared on by a 0.0 PvP corp that is declaring on every alliance just because they can and it gives a few more targets to shoot at when they are occasionally in empire.
they may only attack one of our ships once a month, but its still a loss we will have suffered just because we formed a formal alliance and for no other reason than they could.(to my knowledge there has never been so much as a skirmish vs them in our space)
Empire becoming less safe as a balance to a better ability to live off our own little patch of space is a reasonable idea, the problem is that with the current implementation even if all of the starbase structures planned were in we would still be missing crucial parts.
As it stands though the Ice fields we have been given are not suitable to running starbases from without a massive extra amount of effort, even if the ice wasn't awfull we would still have to depend on purchasing the trade goods to go with it from all over empire (not to mention skills, probes, starbase modules and other such items that are only available to buy - not produce)
In the end the benefits of actually having a formal alliance are looking pretty much non-existant at the moment, while the disadvantages are a large set of extra difficultys .
.
-----
Apologys for any rambling that may have just occurred.
|
|
|
Kaiser
|
Posted - 2004.11.28 20:52:00 -
[161]
Originally by: Baun
Edited by: Baun on 28/11/2004 19:50:18
Originally by: Cowboy
Folks quit the whining. The system is fine the way it is. Your big bad alliances with hundreds of members should be able to protect it's own if not then leave the alliance.
You know I would agree 100% but there is a small problem. THERE IS NO BENEFIT TO BEING IN AN OFFICIAL IN GAME ALLIANCE. If this were about trading empire space for something else you might have a viable point.
So here is what should happen; Suspend Alliance wars until the Alliance system has been completed. Entities graciously serving as guinea pigs for an unimplimented Alliance system (i.e one where only the surface is there and no features) should not have to pay 1billion isk AND forfeit empire space. After the alliance system is fixed and there are tangible benefits to alliances they should reinstate Alliance level wars. Until then the corps in alliances should go back to having individual wars.
well, if there are no advantages to make an alliance, why did you make one?
you can wait till the alliance thing is finished as you say.
We should talk about add things alliances can do, like claiming space and stuff. this would be something all would agree upon.
but not coming here asking to be immune by wars by making corps paying 300M/month to attack you.
|
Kaiser
|
Posted - 2004.11.28 20:52:00 -
[162]
Originally by: Baun
Edited by: Baun on 28/11/2004 19:50:18
Originally by: Cowboy
Folks quit the whining. The system is fine the way it is. Your big bad alliances with hundreds of members should be able to protect it's own if not then leave the alliance.
You know I would agree 100% but there is a small problem. THERE IS NO BENEFIT TO BEING IN AN OFFICIAL IN GAME ALLIANCE. If this were about trading empire space for something else you might have a viable point.
So here is what should happen; Suspend Alliance wars until the Alliance system has been completed. Entities graciously serving as guinea pigs for an unimplimented Alliance system (i.e one where only the surface is there and no features) should not have to pay 1billion isk AND forfeit empire space. After the alliance system is fixed and there are tangible benefits to alliances they should reinstate Alliance level wars. Until then the corps in alliances should go back to having individual wars.
well, if there are no advantages to make an alliance, why did you make one?
you can wait till the alliance thing is finished as you say.
We should talk about add things alliances can do, like claiming space and stuff. this would be something all would agree upon.
but not coming here asking to be immune by wars by making corps paying 300M/month to attack you.
|
Baun
|
Posted - 2004.11.28 21:01:00 -
[163]
Edited by: Baun on 28/11/2004 21:05:04
Originally by: Kaiser
Originally by: Baun
Edited by: Baun on 28/11/2004 19:50:18
Originally by: Cowboy
Folks quit the whining. The system is fine the way it is. Your big bad alliances with hundreds of members should be able to protect it's own if not then leave the alliance.
You know I would agree 100% but there is a small problem. THERE IS NO BENEFIT TO BEING IN AN OFFICIAL IN GAME ALLIANCE. If this were about trading empire space for something else you might have a viable point.
So here is what should happen; Suspend Alliance wars until the Alliance system has been completed. Entities graciously serving as guinea pigs for an unimplimented Alliance system (i.e one where only the surface is there and no features) should not have to pay 1billion isk AND forfeit empire space. After the alliance system is fixed and there are tangible benefits to alliances they should reinstate Alliance level wars. Until then the corps in alliances should go back to having individual wars.
well, if there are no advantages to make an alliance, why did you make one?
you can wait till the alliance thing is finished as you say.
We should talk about add things alliances can do, like claiming space and stuff. this would be something all would agree upon.
but not coming here asking to be immune by wars by making corps paying 300M/month to attack you.
Because we would like to play ball with CCP. We would like to show them that we are willing to help them and use their system as they impliment it. If they are too slow in fixing the problems or do not institute stop-gap measures to allow us to use the system as they impliment it I have little doubt every Alliance will simply have their corps leave it and institute a name holding corp until the situation is resolved.
More or less you are asking us to pay the price for being an official alliance by accepting these wars as legitimate and fair. The question to you is exactly what you think we are paying a price for?
The Enemy's Gate is Down
|
Baun
|
Posted - 2004.11.28 21:01:00 -
[164]
Edited by: Baun on 28/11/2004 21:05:04
Originally by: Kaiser
Originally by: Baun
Edited by: Baun on 28/11/2004 19:50:18
Originally by: Cowboy
Folks quit the whining. The system is fine the way it is. Your big bad alliances with hundreds of members should be able to protect it's own if not then leave the alliance.
You know I would agree 100% but there is a small problem. THERE IS NO BENEFIT TO BEING IN AN OFFICIAL IN GAME ALLIANCE. If this were about trading empire space for something else you might have a viable point.
So here is what should happen; Suspend Alliance wars until the Alliance system has been completed. Entities graciously serving as guinea pigs for an unimplimented Alliance system (i.e one where only the surface is there and no features) should not have to pay 1billion isk AND forfeit empire space. After the alliance system is fixed and there are tangible benefits to alliances they should reinstate Alliance level wars. Until then the corps in alliances should go back to having individual wars.
well, if there are no advantages to make an alliance, why did you make one?
you can wait till the alliance thing is finished as you say.
We should talk about add things alliances can do, like claiming space and stuff. this would be something all would agree upon.
but not coming here asking to be immune by wars by making corps paying 300M/month to attack you.
Because we would like to play ball with CCP. We would like to show them that we are willing to help them and use their system as they impliment it. If they are too slow in fixing the problems or do not institute stop-gap measures to allow us to use the system as they impliment it I have little doubt every Alliance will simply have their corps leave it and institute a name holding corp until the situation is resolved.
More or less you are asking us to pay the price for being an official alliance by accepting these wars as legitimate and fair. The question to you is exactly what you think we are paying a price for?
The Enemy's Gate is Down
|
Clipped Wings
|
Posted - 2004.11.28 21:10:00 -
[165]
Jasmine, although your points are well put on paper, you are overlooking a thing:
Pirates.
Not all who war-dec on aliances do so out of ideological reasons, not all rebel at the powerplayers for their assumed abundandtly rich life in 0.0...Some do it to get free targets, nothing else. And now they can get way more targets for literally no cost.
...So not every war-dec is born out of ideological differences...Some are done simply for shooting at more people.
Which, tbh, is a cheap shot. *Shrugs*
-Clipped Wings of LFC
"I believe in the theoretical benevolence, and practical malignity of man."
~William Hazlitt
|
Clipped Wings
|
Posted - 2004.11.28 21:10:00 -
[166]
Jasmine, although your points are well put on paper, you are overlooking a thing:
Pirates.
Not all who war-dec on aliances do so out of ideological reasons, not all rebel at the powerplayers for their assumed abundandtly rich life in 0.0...Some do it to get free targets, nothing else. And now they can get way more targets for literally no cost.
...So not every war-dec is born out of ideological differences...Some are done simply for shooting at more people.
Which, tbh, is a cheap shot. *Shrugs*
-Clipped Wings of LFC
"I believe in the theoretical benevolence, and practical malignity of man."
~William Hazlitt
|
Vayin Lianocen
|
Posted - 2004.11.28 21:48:00 -
[167]
Problem isn't corps going to war with an alliance, but alts going to war with an alliance...
The new 'high' costs where supposed to stop these alt wars.
But if you can pay concord to war on somebody, shouldnt there be an option to pay concord to stop a war?
|
Vayin Lianocen
|
Posted - 2004.11.28 21:48:00 -
[168]
Problem isn't corps going to war with an alliance, but alts going to war with an alliance...
The new 'high' costs where supposed to stop these alt wars.
But if you can pay concord to war on somebody, shouldnt there be an option to pay concord to stop a war?
|
OffBeaT
|
Posted - 2004.11.28 23:15:00 -
[169]
i can still rember a time when i was after a pirate click who ganked my raven while i was webed fighting a lord in fd. i was crossing into norad space or Fa when i was making insta jumps too properly move my raven safly too get at them. i lost no more then 4 frigs too you guys and your ali's. just becouse i wonted too get at some pirates. even when you guys decided too tell me too get out and i agreed heading too the gate you shot at me.
now, you had no problems getting in the way of my game then, so.... why should i care if you get ganked comming into empire. ill be the first too shot at you.
just me myself and i. just like it was when you guys all shot at me. payback is a ***** so live with it.
what is being said is true, if you guys cant defend yourselfs comming into empire from a bunch of carebare corps too scard too goto 00 space, then your not much of a alliance and should not be called one.
eve has given us the ability too form proper convoys and play the game proper, if you dont wont to play it that way, stay out of the alliances. its that simple.
so much for being tuff guys ah!
|
OffBeaT
|
Posted - 2004.11.28 23:15:00 -
[170]
i can still rember a time when i was after a pirate click who ganked my raven while i was webed fighting a lord in fd. i was crossing into norad space or Fa when i was making insta jumps too properly move my raven safly too get at them. i lost no more then 4 frigs too you guys and your ali's. just becouse i wonted too get at some pirates. even when you guys decided too tell me too get out and i agreed heading too the gate you shot at me.
now, you had no problems getting in the way of my game then, so.... why should i care if you get ganked comming into empire. ill be the first too shot at you.
just me myself and i. just like it was when you guys all shot at me. payback is a ***** so live with it.
what is being said is true, if you guys cant defend yourselfs comming into empire from a bunch of carebare corps too scard too goto 00 space, then your not much of a alliance and should not be called one.
eve has given us the ability too form proper convoys and play the game proper, if you dont wont to play it that way, stay out of the alliances. its that simple.
so much for being tuff guys ah!
|
|
|
Jasmine Constantine
|
Posted - 2004.11.29 00:46:00 -
[171]
Yeah I admit that some pirate corps will just war dec alliances for easy kills. But then that has always happened in some ways, a big fat industrial corp in an otherwise tasty alliance always draws predation and has done for the whole of eve so far in my memory. Now at least the big fat industial corp is not going to be alone, it will have the ability to fight alongside friends and allies from the same alliance and will have the chance to actually run defended convoys and protected routes in a way that just wasn't possible before.
I cede your point that it will be used as a free attack vs alliance underbellies from pirates but I am not convinced its any worse that what could happen originally. And also, the odd pirate loss should be the kind of thing that alliances can soak indefinately ... JF still loses laden ships to pirates and we are a medium-sized trading corp really.
I think the real thing that is frightening alliances is the prospect of seriously organised pvp opposition via the wardec system, and that kind of thing is more likely to be prone to ideological interpretation and negotiation imo.
Anyhow, my 2 cents (or a little bit more) ... and I meant what I said: if there was an alliance in Eve that wasn't the ideological opposite to my character's philosophical principles and interests then I'd be encouraging JF to consider joining it because its bound to have a lot of action and interest and I would have a whale of a time hunting the hunters that wardecs our allies.
Star Fraction
|
Jasmine Constantine
|
Posted - 2004.11.29 00:46:00 -
[172]
Yeah I admit that some pirate corps will just war dec alliances for easy kills. But then that has always happened in some ways, a big fat industrial corp in an otherwise tasty alliance always draws predation and has done for the whole of eve so far in my memory. Now at least the big fat industial corp is not going to be alone, it will have the ability to fight alongside friends and allies from the same alliance and will have the chance to actually run defended convoys and protected routes in a way that just wasn't possible before.
I cede your point that it will be used as a free attack vs alliance underbellies from pirates but I am not convinced its any worse that what could happen originally. And also, the odd pirate loss should be the kind of thing that alliances can soak indefinately ... JF still loses laden ships to pirates and we are a medium-sized trading corp really.
I think the real thing that is frightening alliances is the prospect of seriously organised pvp opposition via the wardec system, and that kind of thing is more likely to be prone to ideological interpretation and negotiation imo.
Anyhow, my 2 cents (or a little bit more) ... and I meant what I said: if there was an alliance in Eve that wasn't the ideological opposite to my character's philosophical principles and interests then I'd be encouraging JF to consider joining it because its bound to have a lot of action and interest and I would have a whale of a time hunting the hunters that wardecs our allies.
Star Fraction
|
OffBeaT
|
Posted - 2004.11.29 01:07:00 -
[173]
Edited by: OffBeaT on 29/11/2004 01:10:22
did you know Constantine is a romanian name. 
|
OffBeaT
|
Posted - 2004.11.29 01:07:00 -
[174]
Edited by: OffBeaT on 29/11/2004 01:10:22
did you know Constantine is a romanian name.
|
Aerick Dawn
|
Posted - 2004.11.29 04:55:00 -
[175]
well revol has very legitimate beefs with FA, and I'm making my point heard with guns, like it should be.
______________________
What Aerick has been up to lately.. |
Aerick Dawn
|
Posted - 2004.11.29 04:55:00 -
[176]
well revol has very legitimate beefs with FA, and I'm making my point heard with guns, like it should be.
______________________
What Aerick has been up to lately.. |
Torvus Jay
|
Posted - 2004.11.29 07:20:00 -
[177]
I dont even understand what this discussion is about.
It is not like the gate guns instagank you the moment an alliance member steps into empire. Some of you people will die yes, but it will never be that it is fuly unsafe as people in your nations territories would be subjected to.
You want to be a nation fine, act like one. Nations dont need protection from small bands of maurauders. If you need allied protection from what is your most minimal threat then there is somthing very wrong. You do not have to declare yourself a nation. If you can not handle the consequence than simply stop being a nation and go back to being an unrecognized entity.
You keep saying that no benefits exist, thats fine if you think that. If so you should have no problem disbanding. Such would be a good message to ccp that they need to add some advantages to make people make themselves official.
If you want to close off a part of the game world and have your name on the map to validate that claim than you will have to deal with being in some danger somewhere.
______________
Aim careful, and look the devil in the eye. |
Torvus Jay
|
Posted - 2004.11.29 07:20:00 -
[178]
I dont even understand what this discussion is about.
It is not like the gate guns instagank you the moment an alliance member steps into empire. Some of you people will die yes, but it will never be that it is fuly unsafe as people in your nations territories would be subjected to.
You want to be a nation fine, act like one. Nations dont need protection from small bands of maurauders. If you need allied protection from what is your most minimal threat then there is somthing very wrong. You do not have to declare yourself a nation. If you can not handle the consequence than simply stop being a nation and go back to being an unrecognized entity.
You keep saying that no benefits exist, thats fine if you think that. If so you should have no problem disbanding. Such would be a good message to ccp that they need to add some advantages to make people make themselves official.
If you want to close off a part of the game world and have your name on the map to validate that claim than you will have to deal with being in some danger somewhere.
______________
Aim careful, and look the devil in the eye. |
theRaptor
|
Posted - 2004.11.29 08:19:00 -
[179]
Originally by: Torvus Jay
I dont even understand what this discussion is about.
It is not like the gate guns instagank you the moment an alliance member steps into empire. Some of you people will die yes, but it will never be that it is fuly unsafe as people in your nations territories would be subjected to.
You want to be a nation fine, act like one. Nations dont need protection from small bands of maurauders. If you need allied protection from what is your most minimal threat then there is somthing very wrong. You do not have to declare yourself a nation. If you can not handle the consequence than simply stop being a nation and go back to being an unrecognized entity.
You keep saying that no benefits exist, thats fine if you think that. If so you should have no problem disbanding. Such would be a good message to ccp that they need to add some advantages to make people make themselves official.
If you want to close off a part of the game world and have your name on the map to validate that claim than you will have to deal with being in some danger somewhere.
I couldnt have said it better. I think the real reason you see the carebear alliances *****ing is because they can't blob empire like they can 0.0 (there being few chokes in empire).
--------------------------------------------------
|
theRaptor
|
Posted - 2004.11.29 08:19:00 -
[180]
Originally by: Torvus Jay
I dont even understand what this discussion is about.
It is not like the gate guns instagank you the moment an alliance member steps into empire. Some of you people will die yes, but it will never be that it is fuly unsafe as people in your nations territories would be subjected to.
You want to be a nation fine, act like one. Nations dont need protection from small bands of maurauders. If you need allied protection from what is your most minimal threat then there is somthing very wrong. You do not have to declare yourself a nation. If you can not handle the consequence than simply stop being a nation and go back to being an unrecognized entity.
You keep saying that no benefits exist, thats fine if you think that. If so you should have no problem disbanding. Such would be a good message to ccp that they need to add some advantages to make people make themselves official.
If you want to close off a part of the game world and have your name on the map to validate that claim than you will have to deal with being in some danger somewhere.
I couldnt have said it better. I think the real reason you see the carebear alliances *****ing is because they can't blob empire like they can 0.0 (there being few chokes in empire).
--------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 .. 14 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |