EVE Search - Alliances and Factional Warfare, the third Empyrean Age Dev Blog

Check My IP Information

All Channels

EVE Information Portal

Alliances and Factional Warfare, the third Empyrean Age Dev Blog

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 7 post(s)
Darahk J'olonar Gallente Shiva Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2008.05.20 18:06:00 - [1] I think the exclusion of Alliances, corps in alliances and players in alliances is a great idea. Simply because it now offers an alternate end game for players rather than just 0.0 space holding alliances. You get the benefits of targets universe wide, blues/reds/neuts, small gang warfare and possible some capital engagements. Holding and taking space, not like 0.0, but a similar mechanic/idea. Plus as an individual or a faction aligned corp you can still war dec for the extra pew pew, etc... It's just an other avenue for people to explore.
Darahk J'olonar Gallente Shiva Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2008.05.20 19:20:00 - [2] Edited by: Darahk J''olonar on 20/05/2008 19:24:06 Originally by: Chan Su What am I missing here? If a non-sov holding rp alliance wants to play in FW, why not just merge your constituent corps into a new corp with the alliance name...problem solved. Real corporations do it all the time, for a wide variety of legal and operations reasons. Why cant you people structure yourselves to fit the game (or, in this case, the mini-game), rather than screaming bloody murder when the structure you built doesnt fit the game's mechanics. Sure it may be a PITA to move assets around and reorganize into divisions (if the individual corps have any functionality other than giving someone a title), but shouldn't you be willing to do a little work towards new content? Or is screaming at the devs the best you can do? Stop presenting viable options! j/k That is an excellent solution for non-sov holding alliances. The other is for sov holding RP alliances like CVA to form a FW corp separate from it w/ a reciprocate +10 standing. That way those that want to partake it the FW can under the Amarrian flag, in CVA's case, yet still be free to go about their business in CVA space. Elsebeth Rhiannon - The above solution would then work for you as a non-sov holding empire RP corp. It would require nothing more than a new corp. w/ reciprocate +10 standings to your existing alliance.
Darahk J'olonar Gallente Shiva Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2008.05.20 19:49:00 - [3] Originally by: Gridwalker Originally by: Arlenna Molatov --YOU ARE NOT ENTITLED TO ANYTHING IN EVE!-- If you want it, then you will have to do what you need to do to get it. Perhaps that has been lost amongst some of you over the last 5 years. I really don't see this as a matter of entitlement. I see it more a matter of bafflement at a design decision which favors further fragmentation of the player base. FW offers core storyline elements--even a book is being written on it--yet it basically excludes the role playing organizations. FW offers more PvP opportunities--yet it basically excludes the PvP organizations. FW offers to bring PvP to the empire, and promises to help empire carebears get involved in PvP--yet it basically excludes the empure carebear organizations. This is a paradigm shift, and a baffling one. EVE has always been about one big sandbox, but FW appears to be creating a new sandbox and we all need to choose whether we're going to play with the rest of EVE, or play with the FW people. So instead of using FW as a way to bring 0.0 alliances, lowsec dwellers, and empire carebears closer together, it appears it is being used an entirely separate and distinct sandbox and is designed to create yet another class of EVE players. No, this isn't about entitlement. This is about bafflement at CCP's choice to force a fragmentation of existing social structures, and a further dilution of the interaction between the various "virtual shards" of the EVE society. -Grid I disagree where this is yet another social structure or a separate sandbox. It is an addition to a game that allows something new. This something new has a few rules to live by as does any game. Players of all kinds can still be introduced to one another whether they be 0.0, low sec or empre dwellers with this system. Alt corps as have been mentioned can be created so that alliances can have their members participate in the FW expansion and yet still be part of their original alliance based on standings. This isn't very hard to do and because of the fact that if you chose to leave the alt corp you can and after DT be able to join right back to your original corp/alliance if you choose to no longer participate in FW. I don't see the dilemna here other than people whining and not wanting to work a little but expect to be spoon fed a solution because they think they are "entitled" to it.
Darahk J'olonar Gallente Shiva Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2008.05.20 20:09:00 - [4] Originally by: Granmethedon III And effectively negates any point in denying alliances access to faction warfare in the first place. Agreed but it is a viable option and will allow alliances, albeit not under the alliance flag, to participate. Either way it is a solution to the problem and if an alliances chooses to they can implement it easily. It is still somewhat a barrier though to alliances entering in that ENTIRE alliances won't/can't join an alt corp but a portion can. Whether they have a dedicated bunch or rotate members in and out is up to the individual alliance.
Darahk J'olonar Gallente Shiva Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2008.05.20 21:25:00 - [5] Originally by: Gridwalker Originally by: Darahk J'olonar I disagree where this is yet another social structure or a separate sandbox. It is an addition to a game that allows something new. This something new has a few rules to live by as does any game. Players of all kinds can still be introduced to one another whether they be 0.0, low sec or empre dwellers with this system. Alt corps as have been mentioned can be created so that alliances can have their members participate in the FW expansion and yet still be part of their original alliance based on standings. This isn't very hard to do and because of the fact that if you chose to leave the alt corp you can and after DT be able to join right back to your original corp/alliance if you choose to no longer participate in FW. I don't see the dilemna here other than people whining and not wanting to work a little but expect to be spoon fed a solution because they think they are "entitled" to it. I see a bit of contradiction in your arguments, to be honest. You claim that you don't see it as a separate social structure or sandbox, yet you the claim that the solution is to create alts and put them in alt corps. This doesn't exactly seem like creating a homogeneous social structure to me! Doesn't being forced to leave your corporation and/or alliance, and joining an NPC corporation and/or alliance seem like breaking up social structures and creating new sandboxes? Especially when the alternative is... creating an alt. And while I am not an RP'er, I can certainly understand their consternation! CCP just kicked over their sand castle and told them all that if they want to participate in the core role play, they need to move to a new sandbox. How can the group of players who find social interaction the single most important aspect of EVE possibly find dismantling their alliances and joining NPC organizations in the slightest bit palatable? These organizations and structures were years in the making, and CCP just told them that if they want to participate in role playing in EVE, they must dismantle everything they've built over the years and start fresh? Really, stop trying to defend poor design with allegations that the people who find the whole thing distasteful are exhibiting "entitlement" behavior. It's disgust, confusion, and betrayal. Not "entitlement". As for myself, I'm merely disappointed. The cost of entry into FW is too great. I'm not going to abandon my corp and alliance, and I have no interest in rolling yet another alt. My choice, therefore, is to ignore FW and let CCP know why. -Grid I never said to start play an alt. But to create a alt/holding corp of sorts that has a +10 standings reciprocation to your alliance/corp. You would then have your main if thats what you want joing said corp and participate in FW. You can still do whatever it is you do in your alliance and corp and still play the new FW content. Again CCP is giving the player a choice as to how they want to play, no more no less. Besides even though the game is a sandbox every sandbox resides within some confines, this happens to be one of them.
Darahk J'olonar Shiva Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2008.05.21 13:15:00 - [6] Originally by: Elsebeth Rhiannon Edited by: Elsebeth Rhiannon on 21/05/2008 13:12:21 Originally by: Midas Man I am a solo player in an NPC Corp (for example) Why can i not claim soverenty in 0.0? Ok, this is slightly the same thing, as not every individual can claim sovereignty. That is, I guess, the downside for the protection from wardecs that staying in an NPC corporation gives you -- something I am personally not at all a fan of, by the way, exactly because I think everyone should have the same rules, regardless of corporation/alliance status. Quote: I'm in a Battleship but this Frigate only complex wont let me in? This, however, is a bad analogy. Any player can change into a frigate who can fly a battleship, so no one is excluded based on corporation/alliance status. Actually it is a very good analogy. The PLAYER must CHOOSE to get out of his battleship and fly a frigate. Just like a PLAYER must CHOOSE to stay in alliance or participate in the FW.
Darahk J'olonar Shiva Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2008.05.21 13:58:00 - [7] Originally by: Elsebeth Rhiannon Edited by: Elsebeth Rhiannon on 21/05/2008 13:27:17 Originally by: Darahk J'olonar Actually it is a very good analogy. The PLAYER must CHOOSE to get out of his battleship and fly a frigate. Just like a PLAYER must CHOOSE to stay in alliance or participate in the FW. No, actually it is a very bad analogy. The problem is not having to choose; the problem is with people with different corp/alliance status (the NPC-driven militia vs. player driven alliances, or, people in real alliances vs. people in only corporations) having a different set of choices. I repeat what I said earlier: an alliance having to choose between sovereignty and FW I could maybe accept as being a "game balancing factor". And alliance having to disband to be part of FW I do not. I admit that NPC corporations currently have the same problem. They cannot choose to wardec people, they cannot be wardecced, they cannot form an alliance to claim sovereignty. I do not consider that as proof that the FW limitation is good, though -- I consider it as another problem. Regardless of what you accept and whether or not the choices are the same the fact is that it is a choice. The choice is to be made by the individual, no more, no less. With every choice there is a pro and a con. You chose to be in a player alliance and now because of that choice you cannot participate in FW. You can choose to leave said alliance and participate in the FW. Neither is a good or bad choice but a choice that ultimately must be made. Again it all comes down to choice and not catering to anyone specific group of people. You want in? CCP has given you the information and restrictions for entry. You don't like them? Don't do it. That simple. I will say it again. It all boils down to choice, no more, no less.
Darahk J'olonar Shiva Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2008.05.21 14:32:00 - [8] Originally by: Elsebeth Rhiannon Edited by: Elsebeth Rhiannon on 21/05/2008 14:27:24 Originally by: Sapphrine I think we can safely say that Elsbeth has explained their side in detail and that nothing that people are saying is changing this opinion. Lets leave it at that for now till we've had a bit more time to see how this develops rather than dragging out another 7 pages of analogy? If people were saying something new, it might change -- it is just that most people who think alliances should not / need not be let in are repeating the same three misunderstandings over and over (identifying the three left as exercise). You are right though, I probably should not bother replying by repeating the counter-arguments. Here is the thing. You consider it a misunderstanding while those, like myself, accept the FW at face value for what it is and allows and doesn't allow. This is what ya get and that's that. To want CCP to change the mechanics of it to pacify alliances is ridiculous. It never was from its' inception to allow alliances in and I applaud CCP for their decision. Alliances have their game to play and now others will have FW to play with. It's that simple. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Life doesn't work that way and neither does this game.
Darahk J'olonar Shiva Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2008.05.21 15:05:00 - [9] Originally by: Elsebeth Rhiannon Originally by: Darahk J'olonar Originally by: Elsebeth Rhiannon the same three misunderstandings over and over (identifying the three left as exercise). Alliances have their game to play and now others will have FW to play with. One down, two to go. Ok, ok, I will stop now. I like how you quote that one part and only that part. Fact that you cannot accept that an alliance or the individual entities that form said alliance cannot participate doesn't matter. This is how it is now learn to either deal with it or metagame around it. We can go round and round for days and it still doesn't change the fact that there is a choice to be made like it or not.
Darahk J'olonar Shiva Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2008.05.21 15:08:00 - [10] Originally by: Gridwalker Originally by: CCP Dionysus Originally by: Qlanth Excluding thousands of your player base from your next expansion is not a very ood idea. And how do you explain Titans and Motherships. How many players have one of those, let alone even seen one? Don't patronize us. We're not that stupid. You know full well this isn't about titans and motherships. It is about an entire expansion. Core fiction. This was an intentional and calculated decision, clearly designed to separate the rest of us "unwashed masses" from your new players. EVE is obviously moving from a sandbox to strictly regulated 'zones' of content designed to hand hold players through an EVE experience. It's a disgusting, disappointing, and insulting decision you made. -Grid /sarcasm ON Ooh right and most if not all of the 0.0 alliances are all about the core fiction. /sarcasm OFF

Darahk J'olonar Shiva Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2008.05.21 16:15:00 - [11] Originally by: Gridwalker Originally by: Darahk J'olonar /sarcasm ON Ooh right and most if not all of the 0.0 alliances are all about the core fiction. /sarcasm OFF You completely twisted the context of that statement and you know it. -Grid No I didn't. What was said is what was meant. If it looks like a duck a sounds like a duck it's a duck. Get it?
Darahk J'olonar Shiva Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2008.05.21 17:09:00 - [12] Non-sov holding alliances may be a solution for some and I could actually swallow that to an extent. But that still doesn't address the issue of sov holding alliances such as PIE or CVA. I won't even try to come up with an idea to fix that one. The flip side of that is... if CCP does somehow address the alliance issue what will prevent the large 0.0 alliances from spilling into this? By spilling in I mean brining their internal conflicts, etc.. into an arena which it really shouldn't exist? How do you separate the BoB vs. Goons issue in FW if they are allowed in AND happen to fight for the same faction? Which takes precedence? For that matter if infighting within a faction militia were to occur because of this how would that be addressed? I still maintain that CCP has made a correct decision in excluding alliances, even if only for the initial release.
Darahk J'olonar Shiva Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2008.05.21 18:07:00 - [13] QUACK QUACK! Sounds good!
Darahk J'olonar Shiva Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2008.05.21 18:45:00 - [14] Originally by: Elsebeth Rhiannon Originally by: Merdaneth The 'alliances are a threat to the faction' line is suddenly retrofitted due to demands of FW. This breaks immersion, it defies RP logic, it just doesn't make sense. Loyalist alliances were send constant in-character messages that their factions considered them a boon, and appreciated being able to call upon them when in need. Now it turns out they suddenly lied all this time? Merdaneth, read CCP Greyscale earlier in this thread. He said that was a botched phrasing and that there will be no RP conflict between not signing up officially and remaining loyal. Originally by: Darahk J'olonar sov holding alliances such as PIE or CVA PIE does not hold sovereignty. (Point about CVA still being screwed if sov holding and FW be made exclusive of course holds.) (Sorry for quoting only parts of messages again. But I promised some nice guys I would stop the repetition, so I only replied to new points.) Well then how can you include one without excluding the other? If there is no exclusion it opens the floodgates for all alliances. If there is an exclusion to sov holding alliances we are now back to square one. No matter how you try to rationalize this or that or whatever CCP does or doesn't do now or in the future with FW these discussions and problems will always exist. We as a community of players either accept it as it is or bicker endlessly to no avail.
Darahk J'olonar Shiva Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2008.05.21 19:14:00 - [15] Originally by: Arshes Nei Edited by: Arshes Nei on 21/05/2008 18:51:10 Originally by: Darahk J'olonar Well then how can you include one without excluding the other? By standing. Require something like a +4 or even +5 standing and holding that standing to remain in FW. Really, tell me how should any 0.0 entity that is not into heavy RP have a combined standing of all players beyond +4? You dont even need to create a alliance standing, simply require every corp in the alliance to have that standing or the alliance cant join. P.S. Not saying that this is a good idea, just answering your question. You know I would go for that. I really really would. I would think that a 5.0 - 6.0 should be made mandatory as the entry point rather than 5.0 - 6.0. Now see I like that idea.
Darahk J'olonar Shiva Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2008.05.23 12:51:00 - [16] To anyone who has tried or is in the know. My understanding is that the individual player needs a 0.5 standing with a particular faction to join. Now is this a HARD 0.5 or does the Connections skill count toward this standing. Reason being is quite simply that I have NEVER run missions and the faction I wish to fly with is only high enough due to connections.
Darahk J'olonar Shiva Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2008.05.23 13:02:00 - [17] Ugh... that means I have to actually run missions, yay? Well I knew sooner or later I would have to do it.

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.