EVE Search - Goodbye RP Alliances

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

Goodbye RP Alliances

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 16 post(s)

CCP Dionysus	Posted - 2008.05.17 14:47:00 - [1] Originally by: Jade Constantine Well ultimately here is my biggest issue with the Militia structure/concept: If no, does this mean effectively that all Militia member corps are immune to wardecs from non FW entities? Not a safe assumption - please come and try this out on Sisi when it is open to the public for testing.


CCP Dionysus	Posted - 2008.05.17 15:11:00 - [2] Originally by: Jade Constantine Quote: Not a safe assumption - please come and try this out on Sisi when it is open to the public for testing. Right-o, expect Star Fraction to war-dec some Militias off the bat: Again - dont make assumptions, I didn't say that. You asked about Militia member corps. Sisi will be open soon, try the various things there before playing "jump to conclusions" please


CCP Dionysus	Posted - 2008.05.17 15:32:00 - [3] Originally by: Rodj Blake Edited by: Rodj Blake on 17/05/2008 15:28:52 So it sounds as though alliances will be able to war-dec the militias. Interesting. Although that does raise the question of why alliances should be prevented from signing up for FW when they'll be able to cause as much mayhem simply by declaring war. Personal opinion - nothing to do with game design etc etc. The factions claim sov over systems, and are asking for people to help defend their own sov systems... Why on earth would they trust anyone else who is trying to gain sov over systems as well? Bing in an alliance is effectively declaring to concord that you (as an entity) want to start claiming systems as "yours". It makes a kind of sense that the Empires will not be asking their competitors to help them... Just my opinion - dont take this as anything from design...


CCP Dionysus	Posted - 2008.05.17 15:41:00 - [4] Originally by: Hardin And what about alliances that have been claiming territory ON BEHALF on their Empires - not in competition? Technically you have claimed the systems for CVA, and just happen to follow most of the same laws/customs. Sorta like the british and australians - both commonwealth, but different governments.


CCP Dionysus	Posted - 2008.05.17 16:02:00 - [5] Originally by: Jade Constantine Edited by: Jade Constantine on 17/05/2008 15:42:58 lol ninja'd by Hardin. But as I said in my post above, I think the CVA do have a strong claim that they've been doing the Sovereignty game "in the name of" the Amarrian empire. Its something that does need addressing. That said, I personally think the best short term solution would be to let alliances war-dec a single militia of their choice and suffer the appropriate standing loss per kill to allow them to effectively become involved in FW. But will look forward to testing on SiSi :) There is the whole thing - an "Alliance" and all the fees involved is supposedly for the legal paperwork fot CONCORD to recognised the alliance as a Sovereign Entity. If you dont want to be a sovereign entity, they why become an alliance? For example, the Star Fraction does declare itself Sovereign - you dont want to be under the power of any authority other than your own. As an alliance the SF shouldn't be able to sign up in the concord recognised war between the Empires. You still would be pirates effectively. "Sovereignty is the exclusive right to have control over an area of governance, people, or oneself" The CVA constituent corps(as an example) were doing a work around as they were not able to sign up to fight directly for the Amarr Empire and so formed the CVA alliance to fight for the same beliefs. Now the Amarr Empire is effectively sayign "thanks, but now we're accepting pod pilots, just sign on this dotted line...." The Empire Militia are a part of the Empires, and joining up for them (and getting a rank etc) means you are giving up the right to self-governance/sovereingty (can never spell that word). There is nothing stopping Imperial Dreams from saying "we wanted to fight for the Empire all along, so we now give up sovreignity and will fight for our Holder lords and masters". You have to decide -do you want to be your own master (and be in an alliance) or finally be able to officially work for the Empires and join in their wars. Personally I cant see how this breaks the "sandbox" either. You have a CHOICE. Like currently if you mission for the Caldari, the Gallente start to hate you until you get to a point that you can no longer access their agents or even enter the space as the navy shoots at you. This just takes it to the next level. You still have a CHOICE as to what you want to support or ignore. as before - all opinions are purely personal and do not represent yada yada yada... T


CCP Dionysus	Posted - 2008.05.17 16:06:00 - [6] Edited by: CCP Dionysus on 17/05/2008 16:06:20 Originally by: Upright Originally by: CCP Dionysus Sorta like the british and australians - both commonwealth, but different governments. But the Australian head of state is still the Queen of England. I keep forgetting that as I'm a Republican at heart.. Still galls me that we aussies voted to keep her as head of state in a national referendum


CCP Dionysus	Posted - 2008.05.17 16:25:00 - [7] Originally by: Spoon Thumb So if we all quit CVA and join the Empire, then all those systems CVA currently control will be claimed by the Empire? That is kinda the implication of what you're saying, which is what we'd have done in the first place if the mechanics had existed years ago Its like walking in a minefield... I'm not good at removing implications from what I say.... All I said was that you, as players, have choices to be your own masters in your alliances and claim your own stuff, or sign up as part of a faction. Implications are obviously beyond my control, but I dont mean any of them....


CCP Dionysus	Posted - 2008.05.17 16:33:00 - [8] Originally by: Spoon Thumb Sorry that just doesn't wash. CVA have claimed 0.0 in the name of the Empire for years Will there be a mechanic that will let human players claim 0.0 systems for NPC factions? everything I've been saying above is "personal opinion" of how I feel factional warfare should work from a RP perspective... I'm not saying anythign about how planned features will work in any way. so I cant answer your question. I'm only talking personal opinions. If you want to have facts you have to wait until sisi is opened with FW and test it yourself. sorry


CCP Dionysus	Posted - 2008.05.17 17:11:00 - [9] Originally by: Rodj Blake Lots of alliances regularly ask other alliances for help in defending their territory. Why should factions be any different? Lots of alliances then regularly backstab their former allies and take their systems. (Bob, mercenary coalition, etc etc...) From that past history would you trust any of them? making exceptions is always bad... if they let CVA fight for AMARR, what is to stop GoonSwarm, or BoB, signing up with a militia en-masse? You are both (from an ingame Rp perspective) exactly the same - a sovereign entity that is claiming space. Sure, the Amarr empire should have positive standings to you (similar to how they have positive standings to the Khanid, Ammatar and Caldari) but the Amarr dont let (f.ex) Ishukone Watch fight and defend Amarr system and personel as they have other loyalties... If you are loyal to the Amarr, sign up already. If you have more loyalty to the CVA as as entity, then just set the Minmatar and Gallente militia as red and shoot them on sight in low sec... <shrug> I'm really trying to see your point of view, but am struggling with the idea of having two masters. Choose one or do work arounds (like you did in the first place by making the alliance....)


CCP Dionysus	Posted - 2008.05.17 17:24:00 - [10] Originally by: Spoon Thumb We're trying to claim a region in the name of the Empire. Here, have it. But the Amarr Empire is controlled by CCP, you have to take it form us or let us give it to you You could if you really wanted think of CVA as a placeholder, until such time as the Empire can take Providence or we the players can give it to the Amarr Empire That would indeed be a very cool thing. But it is would be outside the scope of "factional warfare". You are asking for a mechanic for alliance politics/treaties. Maybe how an alliance can now hand over ownership of outposts... you want to do the same and give the outpost to the Amarr empire? correct?


CCP Dionysus	Posted - 2008.05.17 17:26:00 - [11] Originally by: Danton Marcellus It's semi-arena warfare is it not? Then just designate different corporations to defend or attack targets and match them up. Or they were just tossing this in to be some no-influental killinggrounds for those who cannot find themselves a regular war to be in? No. There are points of confict, but no "arenas". An arena implies "closed off". Nothing is closed off in eve. (unless you are in an NPC station)


CCP Dionysus	Posted - 2008.05.17 21:34:00 - [12] Originally by: Faife Originally by: Major Death I believe that the message from CCP is 'wait and see as nothing is written in stone'. Of course what worries people is the FW becomes the only RP show in town, and nothing else happens unless its tied to FW. This exactly. He's saying "We have a version finalized and see your point, but aren't sure if we can change it. For now assume it won't but there's always possibility of change" It's not like he can speak as his company and commit to something, right? No single dev has that power. Thank you :) As with everything in eve, it can be subject to change. This is why we've got the CSM voting etc. We put something together that we like and think that a large portion of the players will like, we put it out to see what you think of it. Once you have played it a while and have to to make informed arguments about good and bad points, and we can see how the server is reacting to it, we'll come up with a FactionalWarfarev1.2 to add more tools for you. I personally just think that many of you are selling yourselves short. The RP alliances did an awesome job at keeping "immersion" alive and prospering even though the game didn't provide the best of toolsets for RP (NPCs effectively not responding that much etc). Now we're giving you a new toolset to play with, why do you seem to think that a new tool will make things worse? I love the RP, and I cant wait to see this new release on TQ for my main to get involved... I'm going to bow out for the moment, and let Grey and the others make their dev blogs to give you more information.


CCP Dionysus	Posted - 2008.05.19 18:54:00 - [13] Edited by: CCP Dionysus on 19/05/2008 18:55:13 Originally by: Elaron Dionysus, with all due respect, why are you being so evasive on the war dec issue? To force us to try it on SiSi (which is closed for the next few days)? If you could give us a clear and concise answer to the following questions, we won't have to speculate (including assuming the worst due to incomplete responses) and can start to actually plan: 1) Will it be possible for entities (that is, corporations and alliances) who are not part of the formal Factional Warfare mechanic to declare war on the Militia corporations themselves? 2) Will it be possible for entities (that is, corporations and alliances) who are not part of the formal Factional Warfare mechanic to declare war on player corporations that are members of the Militias? 3) Will it be possible for player corporations who are signed up for the factional Militias to issue war declarations on other player entities, signed up or not? Also, please bear in mind before posting an obfuscated response that if we know how this is supposed to work, we'll be able to create proper bug reports if our tests on SiSi contradict the given answer. Hokeydokey. Simple clear responses. 1) No. They are NPC corps, and like any NPC corps you cannot declare war. 2) Yes. They are still normal player corps. They are not technically joining an alliance, and dont gain the "protection" that being in an alliance gives you. You will have to pay normal wardec costs etc though. 3) Similarly to above - yes. I was being "evasive" as I was giving opinions. /me puts on flame suit to prepare for the response from vocal players.


CCP Dionysus	Posted - 2008.05.19 20:47:00 - [14] Originally by: Ashar KorAzor A note to Dionysus - your personal explanation on the Its not an explanation - its my opinion and how I think of what the mechanics of the game mean in RP terms - its MY OWN opinion and has nothing to do with what the game designers were thinking. I said as much before.... Please stop considering my own opinions to be CCP prime directives or game design.


CCP Dionysus	Posted - 2008.05.20 08:53:00 - [15] Originally by: Rosa Rosette [ you opened your own private hell in this thread much appreciated that you show up and at least try to answer questions. Most welcome... The BBQ steaks are coming along quite well now


CCP Dionysus	Posted - 2008.05.20 14:51:00 - [16] Originally by: Jade Constantine Re Telemicus' idea above yours though. Maybe we could have a situation where if you actively blow up enough faction warfare corp ships through the formal wardec system/piratical opportunistic murder - the "victim" militia will issue some wardecs each month against its greatest player corp/alliance enemies. ... How does that sound? Way to easy to exploit :( Although I like where you are coming from.... Alt corp 1 signs up with amarr militia - UK kills all the alts repeatedly - bam free wardec.

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.