| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 8 post(s) |
KatanTharkay
V I R I I
Ineluctable.
30
   |
Posted - 2014.09.30 08:46:00 -
[1] - Quote
I'm not in any way affiliated to TEST, but when they didn't wanted this type of gameplay (mega-coalitions) and tried to do something else, you crushed them, the "our way or the highway" style. Just saying. |
KatanTharkay
V I R I I
Ineluctable.
30
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 09:40:00 -
[2] - Quote
Enaris Kerle wrote:KatanTharkay wrote:I'm not in any way affiliated to TEST, but when they didn't wanted this type of gameplay (mega-coalitions) and tried to do something else, you crushed them, the "our way or the highway" style. Just saying. you'll have to explain to me how forming a mega-coalition from all of the people we threw out of their space over the years (Honeybadger Coalition) is TEST trying "something else" than mega-coalitions
Creating a 3-rd party, 4-th party, n-th party instead of 2 giant gravity wells to polarize null-sec. Sadly, EVE is too much of a game that promotes "big is better" and no matter what CCP will do, they won't be able to nerf friendship.
|
KatanTharkay
V I R I I
Ineluctable.
31
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 10:52:00 -
[3] - Quote
knobber Jobbler wrote:KatanTharkay wrote:Enaris Kerle wrote:KatanTharkay wrote:I'm not in any way affiliated to TEST, but when they didn't wanted this type of gameplay (mega-coalitions) and tried to do something else, you crushed them, the "our way or the highway" style. Just saying. you'll have to explain to me how forming a mega-coalition from all of the people we threw out of their space over the years (Honeybadger Coalition) is TEST trying "something else" than mega-coalitions Creating a 3-rd party, 4-th party, n-th party instead of 2 giant gravity wells to polarize null-sec. Sadly, EVE is too much of a game that promotes "big is better" and no matter what CCP will do, they won't be able to nerf friendship. TEST tried to form their own mega coalition and failed. To claim they did anything else is naive. What some of you simply do not get it is people will gravitate towards each other for mutual benefit. Unless CCP gets rid of standings entirely - which they simply will never do - you will always have coalitions. It's just human nature showing up in a sandbox game. The ideas suggested as the Null Deal will simply mean those coalitions contract leaving empty space to be taken by smaller entities (who will no doubt have alliances and agreements between them, it's the meta game which is in fact what makes EVE, EVE) and it will not serve the purpose of the large coalitions to gas them out of existence.
Well, you just said what I was saying, only using more words. And ad-hominems are not something desirable in a debate, they will just make people ignore your input. There are big issues with the Null Deal proposals (occupancy and NRDS comes first to my mind) and as long as those issues are not addressed those proposals won't get much support.
|
KatanTharkay
V I R I I
Ineluctable.
31
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 14:42:00 -
[4] - Quote
knobber Jobbler wrote:NRDS is the personal choice of a single Bloc. It's up to them if they want to use NRDS, NBSI or NPSI. These are all fairly minor concerns, if at all. It's part of the meta game.
Got it, my way or the highway. This is not helping you when stating that you care about the sandbox or small entities. And it's not OK to ask others to make sacrifices for you. We don't have CCP's directions on how they are going to change null-sec, so until then, this thread is pure speculation and rumor mongering.
|
KatanTharkay
V I R I I
Ineluctable.
32
|
Posted - 2014.10.01 10:35:00 -
[5] - Quote
Regatto wrote:If I may have one stupid question...
All of these great Sov leaders were able to sign this open letter to CCP. I wonder why, they didn't just help themselfs and fix the game they broke. Why they didn't sign simple deal that would bring pvp and diversity back to eve
Something like this would be sufficient:
1. No alliance signed below will create coalition consisting of more than 3 alliances. Nor will it maintain blue standings with more than these 2 alliances. This doesn't apply to alt corps/small groups up to 200members.
2. In case that another coalition larger than mentioned is forming, all the signed groups will create temporary alliance to take this group down.
This is ofcourse just hard sketch, numbers can different, it can be longer. This is just proof that CCP isn't only one who can save null sec. If these so called leaders would really want to save null, they could be able to do it. But this is something they would never sign for.
Hahahaha, well said! Add
3. None of the signatares will agree on non-aggression BOTLORD accords. We strongly believe that 0.0 should be a place of conflict not a safe heaven for ISK generation and supercap accumulation. If another coalition does it, see point 2. |
KatanTharkay
V I R I I
Ineluctable.
33
|
Posted - 2014.10.01 11:21:00 -
[6] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Regatto wrote:
All of these great Sov leaders were able to sign this open letter to CCP. I wonder why, they didn't just help themselfs and fix the game they broke. Why they didn't sign simple deal that would bring pvp and diversity back to eve
Because they didn't break the game, they simply did what the mechanics dictated. Nobody is going to shoot themselves in both feet.
Why not give it a try, discuss this among yourselves and see what can be done. You guys already have 2 agreements, BOTLORD and NullSec Manifesto. It has more chances to do something good for EVE rather than asking CCP to do it. It's a sandbox, it's up to the players to make the game fun or boring. |
KatanTharkay
V I R I I
Ineluctable.
33
|
Posted - 2014.10.01 11:42:00 -
[7] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:KatanTharkay wrote:baltec1 wrote:Regatto wrote:
All of these great Sov leaders were able to sign this open letter to CCP. I wonder why, they didn't just help themselfs and fix the game they broke. Why they didn't sign simple deal that would bring pvp and diversity back to eve
Because they didn't break the game, they simply did what the mechanics dictated. Nobody is going to shoot themselves in both feet. Why not give it a try, discuss this among yourselves and see what can be done. You guys already have 2 agreements, BOTLORD and NullSec Manifesto. It has more chances to do something good for EVE rather than asking CCP to do it. It's a sandbox, it's up to the players to make the game fun or boring. We would wind up defeated and you would be bitching at a new empire to do the same. You don't fix the game by asking people to not use all of the tools at their disposal.
So no matter what, you want to be safe. Sadly, safety made this game boring (hello BOTLRD accord). Well, I guess the only hope is that CCP will step in and make things unsafe for everybody, cause your proposal sure doesn't do that. |
KatanTharkay
V I R I I
Ineluctable.
34
|
Posted - 2014.10.01 11:56:00 -
[8] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:KatanTharkay wrote:
So no matter what, you want to be safe. Sadly, safety made this game boring. Well, I guess the only hope is that CCP will step in and make things unsafe for everybody, cause your proposal doesn't do that.
We are literally asking CCP to nerf our empires and our capabilities to wage war and you think we want to be safe...
this:
baltec1 wrote:We would wind up defeated ...
|
| |
|