| Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Mark Weston
Caldari
The Graduates
Interstellar Starbase Syndicate
   |
Posted - 2006.11.07 14:31:00 -
[121]
 Originally by: Nez Perces
A point I have tried and possibly failed to put across in this thread is that the motivations for enabling 'free space' are the determining factor in assessing the moral solvency of this particular ideal.
Now if the motivation is fun for the host alliance..i.e roleplaying concord or roleplaying the 'good guy'.. then yes its an acceptable motivation, a playstyle choice.
If the motivation is to setup a business venture where the users of free space are effectively clients paying for access, thats an acceptable motivation too.
but.. when the 'free space' idealists tell us that they are doing it because it is necessary for the good of EVE and the newbies.. thats when they become liars and lose moral solvency. What I hope this thread will do is cut out the altruistic argument from the 'free space' discussion, which I suspect will continue for as long as the EVE servers are live.
If this is your central argument, then it's just silly. Unless you're a telepath, you're not qualified to pronounce so definitely on other peoples' motivation.
Really, you've just been posting the standard two arguments seen in any ideological dispute.
1. My opponents are lying about their motives
2. Their idea will never work anyway.
These are so common because they allow you to make your opponent look bad and their ideas look stupid without you having to put any intellectual effort into the task of winning the argument on its merits. From your posts here and in other threads, it seems that you object in principle to open access to 0.0; but nowhere in this thread have you said why that's so, and why you think freespace as an ideal is ideologically unsound. From the very beginning - including the flamebait "morally bankrupt" thread title - you've simply gone for the easy option.
If you want a more interesting discussion where people more directly engage with your argument, you need to actually make an argument that isn't ultimately just about insulting the people you disagree with.
New to EVE? Join channel: "Eve University" or read here |
Nez Perces
Amarr
Black Spot.
|
Posted - 2006.11.07 14:39:00 -
[122]
Originally by: Mark Weston
If this is your central argument, then it's just silly. Unless you're a telepath, you're not qualified to pronounce so definitely on other peoples' motivation.
K... seems like you refuse to see or understand why I made this thread.
I'm going to ask you a very simple question.
The question assumes that you are a supporter of 'free space', which seems quite clear from your posting so far.
Here goes..
If you were to assist the enabling of 'free space'... what would your motivations be?
|
Dutarro
Kydance Radiant Industries
Interstellar Starbase Syndicate
|
Posted - 2006.11.07 14:42:00 -
[123]
Nez, you have questioned the motives of free space proponents. Now what about your motives in campaigning against free space? Your opposition to a free space zone in your own backyard can be explained by self-interest, not wanting spies and other unknowns wandering across the border into your space. What motivates your opposition to a free space zone on the other side of the galaxy?
*opinions stated are not necessarily those of my corporation or alliance |
Nez Perces
Amarr
Black Spot.
|
Posted - 2006.11.07 14:48:00 -
[124]
Originally by: Dutarro
Nez, you have questioned the motives of free space proponents. Now what about your motives in campaigning against free space? ...... What motivates your opposition to a free space zone on the other side of the galaxy?
I was wondering when someone would ask this question.... if you wouldn't mind I would like to hear Mark Weston's answer first, before giving mine.
I did ask first after all 
I will answer the question though.. I guarantee you that.
|
Mark Weston
Caldari
The Graduates
Interstellar Starbase Syndicate
|
Posted - 2006.11.07 15:23:00 -
[125]
Originally by: Nez Perces
K... seems like you refuse to see or understand why I made this thread.
I took it that you wanted to make an argument about an in-game ideology with which you strongly disagreed, and provoke discussion in the course of which you could demonstrate (to your own satisfaction at least) why that ideology is wrong. I was trying to point out that so far you've framed most your arguement as an attack on your opponents' motives. I think it would be more interesting and less insulting to explicity discuss the ideas themselves and what you dislike about them. Play the ball, not the man.
Quote:
If you were to assist the enabling of 'free space'... what would your motivations be?
This is quite easy to answer, as I'm pretty sure I'd still be a part of the The Big Blue had it survived.
The first motivation would be roleplay. I find it more interesting and challenging to fight for a "cause" and in pursuit of a long-term objective than simply to claim some space and blow stuff up.
The second would be that I got into EVE because the people who created BLUE and EVE Uni provided me with access to high-end player-generated game content at a time in my game career when I would have otherwise been boring myself to death (and out of EVE) running missions in Empire. I would have liked to pay back that - as far as I can tell - purely altruistic act by doing the same; helping enable others to benefit from what I was given.
New to EVE? Join channel: "Eve University" or read here |
Manas
The Graduates
Interstellar Starbase Syndicate
|
Posted - 2006.11.07 15:38:00 -
[126]
Preach on, Brother Weston. 
About TGRAD
|
Fred0
Cutting Edge Incorporated
RAZOR Alliance
|
Posted - 2006.11.07 15:59:00 -
[127]
Edited by: Fred0 on 07/11/2006 16:00:25
Originally by: Rod Blaine
Freespace is not morally corrupt, the ideal isn't a failure as no ideal can be a failure.
It's practical implementation within Eve is still a failure however, and always will be. The presence of a strongest entity that makes the rules is directly opposed to the noption of 'free' space. As long as the former is a neccesity the latter is impractical.
Well free space over limited time has worked numerous times in EVE when people have decided to try and fight the good fight just for the heck of it. (If you agree to that scenario actually being free space instead of like JF preaching that free space can not even be policed space since then it's all on their terms etc. etc.)
Eventually any free space success though will become their own downfall most likely because
a) it will become a an increasingly political web that gets harder and harder to sort out.
b) When free space flourishes so does the predators that feed on them.
CFS is proof of this actually working over limited time. Which is all you can expect really. Few things last eternal. They did it to a whole region. CVA are fairly succesfull right now and we did the same thing to western pure blind for half a year or so.
|
Nez Perces
Amarr
Black Spot.
|
Posted - 2006.11.07 16:12:00 -
[128]
Edited by: Nez Perces on 07/11/2006 16:28:05
Originally by: Mark Weston
I took it that you wanted to make an argument about an in-game ideology with which you strongly disagreed, and provoke discussion in the course of which you could demonstrate (to your own satisfaction at least) why that ideology is wrong. I was trying to point out that so far you've framed most your arguement as an attack on your opponents' motives. I think it would be more interesting and less insulting to explicity discuss the ideas themselves and what you dislike about them. Play the ball, not the man.
The motives for doing something are within the realms of ideology, as much as the ideology itself. Simply discussing the ideology alone without addressing the motivations has already been done ad nauseum by other posters over the last free years. This is a different type of thread.
Originally by: Nez Perces
If you were to assist the enabling of 'free space'... what would your motivations be?
Originally by: Mark Weston
This is quite easy to answer, as I'm pretty sure I'd still be a part of the The Big Blue had it survived.
The first motivation would be roleplay. I find it more interesting and challenging to fight for a "cause" and in pursuit of a long-term objective than simply to claim some space and blow stuff up.
K the roleplay motivation falls under playstyle choice and hence is out of self-interest, which is fine.. I can't imagine anybody having a problem with that. It is however worrying that your words imply that other types of playstyle e.g. NBSI territorial conquest is devoid of "cause" or long term objective besides blowing stuff up. Ofc you wouldn't know otherwise as you have had zero contact with the reality of 0.0. There is no greater cause than fighting side by side with your brothers in arms to conquer territory or defend it, in the name of your alliance..... a pilot living in 'free space', simply cannot imagine the emotions that stirs within the player.
Originally by: Mark Weston
The second would be that I got into EVE because the people who created BLUE and EVE Uni provided me with access to high-end player-generated game content at a time in my game career when I would have otherwise been boring myself to death (and out of EVE) running missions in Empire. I would have liked to pay back that - as far as I can tell - purely altruistic act by doing the same; helping enable others to benefit from what I was given.
Access to this high end content that you speak of needs to come at a price, and that price is to fight for it with blood sweat and tears.
By having 'free access' to it, it loses its meaning and then becomes just a bunch of pixels in a computer game. EVE is so much more than that... and by enabling 'free space' you are robbing the new player of that knowledge.
And he/she won't learn it till he has to actually physically fight for it, the effect is that 'free space' is not doing anybody any favours, except for the host who gets to RP being the good guy providing freebies.
I have to also point out ofc, that you were never actually a guest in 'free space', but rather part of the host alliance, so your altruistic argument doesn't work.. I mean you were part of TBB, nobody gave you anything for free.
And actually I think I pretty much answered Dutarro's question also.
[edit:typo]
|
Nez Perces
Amarr
Black Spot.
|
Posted - 2006.11.07 16:20:00 -
[129]
Edited by: Nez Perces on 07/11/2006 16:22:02
Originally by: Fred0
CFS is proof of this actually working over limited time. Which is all you can expect really.
well.. it is very difficult to prove wether something is working or simply existing because it is not under any stress...
It is quite possible for a house of cards to stand for a long period of time if it is not touched.. but as soon as somebody blows on it, it falls apart.
I think its not out of place to say, given the numerous historic examples available, that the 'free space' concept simply does not work on a large scale, for the reasons you mentioned.
|
Masochist
Shinra
|
Posted - 2006.11.07 16:23:00 -
[130]
The church is closed.
The chairs are sold.
 |
Manas
The Graduates
Interstellar Starbase Syndicate
|
Posted - 2006.11.07 16:35:00 -
[131]
Originally by: Nez Perces
K the roleplay motivation falls under playstyle choice and hence is out of self-interest, which is fine.. I can't imagine anybody having a problem with that. It is however worrying that your words imply that other types of playstyle e.g. NBSI territorial conquest is devoid of "cause" or long term objective besides blowing stuff up. Ofc you wouldn't know otherwise as you have had zero contact with the reality of 0.0. There is no greater cause than fighting side by side with your brothers in arms to conquest territory or defend it, in the name of your alliance..... a pilot living in 'free space', simply cannot imagine the emotions that stirs within the player.
To narrowly define altruism as self-interest in disguise is just sophistry.
Quite off-base in your other comment. Our corp lives in EC-P8R currently, which is about as "real" as 0.0 space gets. We try to help out neutrals there too, in our very limited way. (Perhaps you were refering to the neutrals there). Life in IPS during the BLUE days got pretty real too.
Originally by: Nez Perces
I have to also point out ofc, that you were never actually a guest in 'free space', but rather part of the host alliance, so your altruistic argument doesn't work.. I mean you were part of TBB, nobody gave you anything for free.
I thought Mark was clear.. he started in Eve University, got the benefits (giving little in return initially). Then he stayed on to help BLUE (Eve Uni's alliance at the time). This is the story of most the older players in that fine corporation: He got something for free, then gave something for free.
About TGRAD
|
Dutarro
Kydance Radiant Industries
Interstellar Starbase Syndicate
|
Posted - 2006.11.07 16:58:00 -
[132]
Edited by: Dutarro on 07/11/2006 16:58:52
EDIT: indentation
Originally by: Nez Perces
...Access to this high end content that you speak of needs to come at a price, and that price is to fight for it with blood sweat and tears...
Which of these (or neither, or both) do you mean?
1) Letting new players access high end content too easily ruins their game experience.
2) Letting new players access high end content too easily ruins your game experience.
*opinions stated are not necessarily those of my corporation or alliance |
Nez Perces
Amarr
Black Spot.
|
Posted - 2006.11.07 17:01:00 -
[133]
Edited by: Nez Perces on 07/11/2006 17:02:57
Originally by: Manas
To narrowly define altruism as self-interest in disguise is just sophistry.
.... but is it?... the moral highground is a very powerful position from which to promote ones ideas. With true, genuine altruism, the moral highground is secured... some may seek to masquarade their intentions as altruistic in order to gain access to such a lofty soap box.
Originally by: Manas
Quite off-base in your other comment. Our corp lives in EC-P8R currently, which is about as "real" as 0.0 space gets. We try to help out neutrals there too, in our very limited way. (Perhaps you were refering to the neutrals there). Life in IPS during the BLUE days got pretty real too.
well Mark said the following..
"I find it more interesting and challenging to fight for a "cause" and in pursuit of a long-term objective than simply to claim some space and blow stuff up"
If EC-P8R is as "real" as it gets.. how can he possibly utter such a remark, is ISS not claiming space and blowing stuff up also?.. EC-P8R is a rough old system if I remember correctly.... and yes I refer to the neutrals living there not having to actually fight for the priveledge of being in 0.0
Originally by: Nez Perces
I have to also point out ofc, that you were never actually a guest in 'free space', but rather part of the host alliance, so your altruistic argument doesn't work.. I mean you were part of TBB, nobody gave you anything for free.
Originally by: Manas
I thought Mark was clear.. he started in Eve University, got the benefits (giving little in return initially). Then he stayed on to help BLUE (Eve Uni's alliance at the time). This is the story of most the older players in that fine corporation: He got something for free, then gave something for free.
yes...but was EVE-university in TBB before or after brother Mark joined it?.. either way it does not matter, EVE-university gained access to 0.0 as part of TBB and hence was part of the host alliance and not a guest.
There is a difference.
|
Nez Perces
Amarr
Black Spot.
|
Posted - 2006.11.07 17:08:00 -
[134]
Originally by: Dutarro
1) Letting new players access high end content too easily ruins their game experience.
Theirs and everybody else's, you may possibly endup with a whole generation of players who believe that fighting for the priveledge of utilising 0.0 space is something other people do.
.. though admittedly overly lax recruiting by NBSI alliances has the same effect.
|
Dutarro
Kydance Radiant Industries
Interstellar Starbase Syndicate
|
Posted - 2006.11.07 17:31:00 -
[135]
Originally by: Nez Perces
...you may possibly endup with a whole generation of players who believe that fighting for the priveledge of utilising 0.0 space is something other people do.
Let's accept your position as correct for the moment, that a willingness to fight should be required for access to high end content.
The problem is distinguishing between willingness to fight and the ability to win fights. Older characters tend to win fights with newer characters, and players with better hand-eye coordination and fast thinking ability tend to win vs. less coordinated, slower thinking opponents.
Do you want character age and combat aptitude to determine what content a player can access, or do you want it decided by their willingness to fight? If the latter, then how do you propose distinguishing between a player unwilling to fight and a player less capable of winning a fight?
*opinions stated are not necessarily those of my corporation or alliance |
Nez Perces
Amarr
Black Spot.
|
Posted - 2006.11.07 17:39:00 -
[136]
Originally by: Dutarro
Do you want character age and combat aptitude to determine what content a player can access, or do you want it decided by their willingness to fight?
Willingness to fight is everything, more or less aptitude/skill is a bonus, which can be bolstered by the commanding officer.
A good FC can assess his pilots capabilities and make them work to his advantage against a more skilled oponent.
Obviously individual sp levels are important.... and there is a pecking order in the universe, pilots must find their niche.
|
Dutarro
Kydance Radiant Industries
Interstellar Starbase Syndicate
|
Posted - 2006.11.07 17:42:00 -
[137]
Originally by: Nez Perces
The will to fight is everything, more or less aptitude/skill is a bonus, which can be bolstered by the commanding officer.
...
Obviously individual sp levels are important.... and there is a pecking order in the universe, pilots must find their niche.
These two statements are contradictory. Which is it?
*opinions stated are not necessarily those of my corporation or alliance |
Ricco Lonestar
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2006.11.07 18:05:00 -
[138]
Was "The Fix blob" a result from this?
|
Nez Perces
Amarr
Black Spot.
|
Posted - 2006.11.07 18:05:00 -
[139]
Originally by: Dutarro
Originally by: Nez Perces
The will to fight is everything, more or less aptitude/skill is a bonus, which can be bolstered by the commanding officer.
...
Obviously individual sp levels are important.... and there is a pecking order in the universe, pilots must find their niche.
These two statements are contradictory. Which is it?
Not at all...
The will to fight is everything.. i.e its the most important thing.
SP/aptitude are important but not as important as the willingness to fight. As for the niche bit, willingness to fight will not open all doors at first but will do in the end.... and new players have to know their place, we are on a single shard, there is in an inbuilt hierarchy in the social interactions between players.
|
Nez Perces
Amarr
Black Spot.
|
Posted - 2006.11.07 18:07:00 -
[140]
Originally by: Ricco Lonestar
Was "The Fix blob" a result from this?
.. I think you are offtopic there bud...
but, in any case as a result of what?
|
Ricco Lonestar
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2006.11.07 18:09:00 -
[141]
the Free Space concept.
(thinking about CFS>QDF>FIX) <<<in short.
|
Nez Perces
Amarr
Black Spot.
|
Posted - 2006.11.07 18:31:00 -
[142]
Edited by: Nez Perces on 07/11/2006 18:37:49
Originally by: Ricco Lonestar
the Free Space concept.
(thinking about CFS>QDF>FIX) <<<in short.
Oh I see what you mean... or at least I think I do...
well.. before the QDF, there were an assortment of corps living in Querious under the CFS charter.
Querious was often raided by CA/Mo0/BE/Russians and other nice people 
There was no real infrastructure within Querious to fight these pretty powerful pvp entities off... what with neutrals floating around, and the general chaos inherent in the CFS regions in that period, it was no surprise.
QDF was put together to fight for Querious against such attacks.... so yes I suppose that the lack of order, discipline and willingness/ability to fight as a unit inherent in Querious under CFS rule was the catalyser for the QDF, which then became FIX, a full NBSI alliance.
If I may direct you to a thread covering that period of history you will find a much more comprehensive account of the PB/Delve and Querious regions at around this time in history.
History of Delve/PB/Querious
|
Ricco Lonestar
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2006.11.07 19:00:00 -
[143]
Looks like CFS was slaughtered by "thought/idea" sharers?
Or was FA control + taxes needed for longterm stability?
(times changed a lot if the stations have no proper backup nowadays you'll likely to loose them for a lot longer than just the station pingpong from than)
|
Dutarro
Kydance Radiant Industries
Interstellar Starbase Syndicate
|
Posted - 2006.11.07 19:21:00 -
[144]
Originally by: Nez Perces
...SP/aptitude are important but not as important as the willingness to fight. As for the niche bit, willingness to fight will not open all doors at first but will do in the end.... and new players have to know their place, we are on a single shard, there is in an inbuilt hierarchy in the social interactions between players...
You don't acknowledge a contradiction between two of your core values: that willingness to fight is good, and that a pecking order based on character age is good. In today's EVE the two are quite compatible, so I can't blame you.
Now consider a future EVE where the landscape is different, where a new character can become competitive with the most senior veteran character in a matter of months. You might find that your two values no longer fit together, in that a motivated group of new players has the means to evict a group of old players from their former 0.0 home. Will you congratulate them for their fighting spirit, or denounce them for turning the seniority-based pecking order upside down?
This scenario is not so unrealistic as you might think. All it would take is a narrowing of the tech 1 / tech 2 power gap, some new combat skills that existing vets don't already have, and some new, valuable resources that they don't already control. Guess what ... it's already on the test server and it's called Kali.
*opinions stated are not necessarily those of my corporation or alliance |
Nez Perces
Amarr
Black Spot.
|
Posted - 2006.11.07 19:33:00 -
[145]
Originally by: Dutarro
You don't acknowledge a contradiction between two of your core values: that willingness to fight is good, and that a pecking order based on character age is good. In today's EVE the two are quite compatible, so I can't blame you.
Actually I didn't say that the pecking order in EVE is good.. I said it was inherent, as in unavoidable given the current game mechanics and the single shard ..
Originally by: Dutarro
Now consider a future EVE where the landscape is different, where a new character can become competitive with the most senior veteran character in a matter of months. You might find that your two values no longer fit together, in that a motivated group of new players has the means to evict a group of old players from their former 0.0 home. Will you congratulate them for their fighting spirit, or denounce them for turning the seniority-based pecking order upside down?
Any entity that through sheer determination and willingness to fight, overthrows a more established entity deserves wholehearted congratulations, irrespective of the average age of that entity's playerbase. Infact it would be an absolute joy to watch a motivated younger player base overthrow a more established alliance/entity through sheer determination and willpower.
Originally by: Dutarro
This scenario is not so unrealistic as you might think. All it would take is a narrowing of the tech 1 / tech 2 power gap, some new combat skills that existing vets don't already have, and some new, valuable resources that they don't already control. Guess what ... it's already on the test server and it's called Kali.
If Kali brings about the changes you have outlined, I look forward to it with anticipation.. the narrowing down of the necessary skill gap between veterans and newer players will only strengthen this game even more.
I look forward to the time when the will to fight is even more important than it currently is.
|
Dutarro
Kydance Radiant Industries
Interstellar Starbase Syndicate
|
Posted - 2006.11.07 20:13:00 -
[146]
Originally by: Nez Perces
..Any entity that through sheer determination and willingness to fight, overthrows a more established entity deserves wholehearted congratulations, irrespective of the average age of that entity's playerbase. Infact it would be an absolute joy to watch a motivated younger player base overthrow a more established alliance/entity through sheer determination and willpower..
Then we are in agreement. I also look forward to a more dynamic landscape in 0.0, even though it will mean more risk for me personally. Sometimes risk -> fun, especially when one can dish out risk as well as receive it
Going back to the topic of free space, could it be that free space zones enhance the dynamism we both favor? I argue that the direct empire->NBSI route is more coddling to new players than the route through free space. Alliance recruits have powerful, organized mentors protecting them from harm in 0.0.
You may be correct that some players like free space for out-of-game philosophical reasons. So what? As long as free space's existence makes the game better overall, there's no reason to oppose it as a matter of principle.
*opinions stated are not necessarily those of my corporation or alliance |
Nez Perces
Amarr
Black Spot.
|
Posted - 2006.11.07 20:31:00 -
[147]
Edited by: Nez Perces on 07/11/2006 20:33:22
Originally by: Dutarro
Then we are in agreement. I also look forward to a more dynamic landscape in 0.0, even though it will mean more risk for me personally. Sometimes risk -> fun, especially when one can dish out risk as well as receive it
.. cool..
Originally by: Dutarro
Going back to the topic of free space, could it be that free space zones enhance the dynamism we both favor? I argue that the direct empire->NBSI route is more coddling to new players than the route through free space. Alliance recruits have powerful, organized mentors protecting them from harm in 0.0.
Well the sad thing is that you are right that some NBSI alliances are fat and lazy and have low recruitment criteria. Leading to pilots milking 0.0 without doing anything in return.. which is morally bankrupt too.. IMO.
Originally by: Dutarro
You may be correct that some players like free space for out-of-game philosophical reasons. So what? As long as free space's existence makes the game better overall, there's no reason to oppose it as a matter of principle.
I guess this is where we may have to agree to disagree.... I am not sure that free space makes the game better for anybody but the host alliance and even that I'm not sure of, beyond the obvious roleplay possiblities.
Perhaps my real beef is with the "I don't care bears"
, whom are attracted to free space and thrive there and also thrive in a fair share of poorly run NBSI alliances.
My worry is that free space actually breeds them or turns otherwise decent pilots into the bear with his hand in the honey pot.
|
MarketMouse
The Genesis Project
|
Posted - 2006.11.07 21:04:00 -
[148]
Edited by: MarketMouse on 07/11/2006 21:06:19
Interesting logic circle...
One could make the argument that there are various 0.0 areas within EVE where one can go to experience "free space" but there will always be a group of players who are bigger and more organized than you who will own you. So by definition that isn't really "free space" except in the sense that you are free to be killed.
And in areas like ISS space or the like, which also are variations in "free space", its really a semantic twist on alliance life, because ultimately a parent alliance is enforcing overall order on that area. So while a new player can go into ISS space and co-exist in somewhat peace, they are actually participating in an alliance zone passively.
What neither of these scenarios teach the new player is the real dynamics and functionality of alliance life, either in style or substance. There is a critical discrimination to be made between alliance life and 0.0 life as the 0.0 experience is really no different than empire when you think about it.
I do think that telling players that they are entering free space in 0.0 is somewhat disingenuous, as they are actually experiencing alliance life or free-fire empire.
|
Dutarro
Kydance Radiant Industries
Interstellar Starbase Syndicate
|
Posted - 2006.11.07 21:58:00 -
[149]
Originally by: Nez Perces
...Well the sad thing is that you are right that some NBSI alliances are fat and lazy and have low recruitment criteria. Leading to pilots milking 0.0 without doing anything in return.. which is morally bankrupt too.. IMO.
No, that's not what I was talking about. A new alliance recruit, brought in fresh from empire, might be diligent, attentive and self-sacrificing. He is certainly not lazy and his presence is valuable to the alliance. However, he has not really learned how to be dangerous of his own accord.
The missing element is initiative. In a big, well-organized alliance, the average member doesn't need initiative, just obedience and diligence. In a free space zone, the hosts aren't giving you direction, just a sandbox in which to figure things out for yourself.
*opinions stated are not necessarily those of my corporation or alliance |
Nez Perces
Amarr
Black Spot.
|
Posted - 2006.11.07 22:30:00 -
[150]
Edited by: Nez Perces on 07/11/2006 22:30:47
Originally by: Dutarro
The missing element is initiative. In a big, well-organized alliance, the average member doesn't need initiative, just obedience and diligence. In a free space zone, the hosts aren't giving you direction, just a sandbox in which to figure things out for yourself.
I think you are being very naive by saying this... it is a very poor alliance that does not promote initiative amongst its pilot base.
Yes there are times when big fleet engagements take place and the onus is on pilots to basically follow orders.. although initiative is not completely taken out of the equation as scouts and tacklers are needed.
There are many more times however where alliances engage in small gang activity whereby initiative and general awareness on the battlefield are imperative.
I think you are very much unawares of what happens on a day to day basis in the NBSI territorial alliances.
An alliance that does not promote initiative amongst its pilot base, is a soon to be dead alliance.
I guarantee you that in a properly run NBSI territorial alliance, your average pilot will learn more in a week than a pilot running around aimlessly in "free space" will learn in many months.
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |