| Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 .. 13 :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 7 post(s) |
|
CCP Wrangler
   |
Posted - 2008.05.19 14:33:00 -
[1]
The Dev Blogs on Empyrean Age are coming quicker and quicker. You have probably had a chance to read the last Dev Blog and if you're wondering why Alliances can't participate, this is the Dev Blog you want to read. Greyscale explains the different concerns we had with this feature and why Alliances aren't part of it, but we're also interested in hearing your opinion on the subject. Please check out the Empyrean Age and all that - the Alliance issue Dev Blog by Greyscale.
Wrangler
Community Manager
CCP Games, EVE Online
Email / Netfang
"It's not worth doing something unless you are doing something that someone, somewhere, would much rather you weren't doing." |
|
Treelox
Amarr
Market Jihadist Revolutionary Party
|
Posted - 2008.05.19 14:40:00 -
[2]
If you expected alt corps, and even give that as a alternative. Then why the hell not just let allainces in. Since it really seems they will just be working around the blockade your are imposing.
Otherwise we will just end up with a bunch of corps with silly names like;
FW-PIE
FW-CVA
FW-BOB
FW-IAC
At that point, what was the point?
--
|
Tairon Usaro
The X-Trading Company
Mostly Harmless
|
Posted - 2008.05.19 14:41:00 -
[3]
 Quote:
No Alliances!
Alliances are not allowed to enlist, and neither are corporations in an alliance (or with an outstanding alliance application). There are a number of reasons for this, technical and otherwise, the most important of which is that we just don't want the major power blocs to descend en masse and take over everything. It's obviously not a hard limit on the players involved, but it's designed to encourage the idea that if you're a major player on the nullsec political scene you're already doing something incredibly worthwhile and shouldn't let yourself be distracted by the petty machinations of the Empires.
reads like a full expansion developed completely leaving out your most loyal player base with absolutely nothing benefical for them ... unfortunately another contribution to the evidence that CCP has lost its contact to the spirit of this game and its player base 
whats the point of a FW-MH corp ?? It will happen as for all major other alliances.
________________________________________________
Some days i loose, some days the others win ... |
Treelox
Amarr
Market Jihadist Revolutionary Party
|
Posted - 2008.05.19 14:45:00 -
[4]
I also have to say that your logic for excluding Allainces really seems contrary to the whole "OPEN SANDBOX" concept that CCP has used to lable Eve, since the get go.
Ill also add before I get flamed, it doesnt really matter to me. This is my main, I have no alts, and dont see myself joining any allainces anytime in the near future. I also havent found anything so far that would entice me into particapating directly with any of the FW content.
--
|
Fakespace
|
Posted - 2008.05.19 14:49:00 -
[5]
Edited by: Fakespace on 19/05/2008 14:49:37
Alliances are not allowed to enlist
Corporations in an alliance are not allowed to enlist
Player in a corperation in an allicance are/are not allowed to enlist (Signing up as an individual) ?
|
Heartstone
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.05.19 14:50:00 -
[6]
The current direction of Factional Warfare looks interesting only to those who are newer to the game to be perfectly honest. I have for the longest time wanted to see this become a reality in Eve and was mostly impressed with the features designed to be implented. I was all ready to take part and then it turns out I cannot be part of it. In order to do so I'd have to leave what I have done behind me. I'd have to discard the people I have met along the way. Most of all I'd have to turn my back on the story I have created, along with others, around my character. In short I'd have to remove my character from who he is thereby throwing away any pretense of trying to roleplay in Eve.
I could go on and rant about betrayal and a move away from the sandbox but there is no point. With this it is clear nobody is listening to anything but the cash register.
---
|
manasi
Caldari
Ceptacemia
Fallout Project
|
Posted - 2008.05.19 15:00:00 -
[7]
Edited by: manasi on 19/05/2008 15:01:31
Originally by: Heartstone
The current direction of Factional Warfare looks interesting only to those who are newer to the game to be perfectly honest. I have for the longest time wanted to see this become a reality in Eve and was mostly impressed with the features designed to be implented. I was all ready to take part and then it turns out I cannot be part of it. In order to do so I'd have to leave what I have done behind me. I'd have to discard the people I have met along the way. Most of all I'd have to turn my back on the story I have created, along with others, around my character. In short I'd have to remove my character from who he is thereby throwing away any pretense of trying to roleplay in Eve.
I could go on and rant about betrayal and a move away from the sandbox but there is no point. With this it is clear nobody is listening to anything but the cash register.
This gentleman sums up my feelings quite nicely. Those that PvP currently are driving towards alliances etc, by driving I mean working towards, or are in smaller alliances. SO the desire to leave these folks is VERY low if nonexistent.
I was really going to look forward to this mechanic coming in, but , I'm unwilling to leave my corp or my alliance to play.
Will there be other changes/ additions or fixes that might allow those of us in 0.0 and in Alliances/ Corps to look forward to the expansion? If so what might they be? ( I heard about the 6th frigate for Amarr, which is good, any other potential items?)
I understand the need/ desire to show new players that PvP that FW brings is a good thing. I am just wondering if some items that the older players might enjoy ...
-Manasi
|
|
CCP Ginger
|
Posted - 2008.05.19 15:08:00 -
[8]
Originally by: Fakespace
Player in a corperation in an allicance are/are not allowed to enlist (Signing up as an individual) ?
To sign up as an individual, you cannot be in a corporation, and therefore, not an alliance.
|
|
Midnighter
The Causality
Electus Matari
|
Posted - 2008.05.19 15:29:00 -
[9]
Edited by: Midnighter on 19/05/2008 15:31:41
For almost 3 years now, our alliance has played an important part in the continued Minmatar roleplay and the Minmatar/Amarrian conflicts.
The politics of EVE and the interactions of the Empires have always been important to us, like they have been to many we interact with and enjoy playing this game with.
We have contributed to and worked within the background wherever we could, and ultimately us and our friends have worked our hardest to be a part of EVE and have waited eagrely for such advancements like Factional Warfare.
I understand CCP has genuine reasons for the decision, but I still find it hard to agree with the final resolution.
We have now got a choice of whether we stay true to our origins and maintain our Alliance, which has been a wonderfull place to be and has so many great people working together, or whether we follow Factional Warfare at the expense of people leaving our alliance and ultimately it potentially ceasing to exist.
We have played and worked and roleplayed hard for years and now we have a patch designed to benefit factional roleplayers, but the price is we give up the Alliance that got us here and made it work for us?
Why are we being incentivized to abandon everything we have worked towards?
That is a poor set of choices to be offered and a bitter pill to swallow.
I'm not going to kick and scream and cry about this and demand change, but I wish to raise my own dissatisfaction at what has been offered and the dissatisfaction of many I work and play with.
Please consider that some of the most verbal supporters of factional warfare and progressing plot are once more being alienated.
With respect,
-M-
***
|
Damion Zyne
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.05.19 15:30:00 -
[10]
With the 2 RP reasons for not allowing alliances, how can the possibility you mentioned, of allowing people to be in a alliance and in a militia in another stage of FW not be another carrot dangling infront of the RP alliances ???
I will not comment on the overhelming irony of only punishing RP alliances with your no-alliances rule. Other people have expressed what needs to be said better than I will be able to and you still choose to ignore them. Excluding RP alliances with RP reasons is actually cruel.
|
|
|
Elsebeth Rhiannon
Minmatar
Gradient
Electus Matari
|
Posted - 2008.05.19 15:31:00 -
[11]
Edited by: Elsebeth Rhiannon on 19/05/2008 15:44:21
Quote:
That said, for those who want to join up in part or in whole there are a range of options including parking the Alliance, alt corps and so on and so forth
Would you guys mention a couple of the so ons and forhts?
And frankly, suggesting that existing RP alliances stay out of it and instead make an alt corp and join with that is missing the whole point of RP. The strength of EVE RP, the reason why we RPers in EVE rant to our friends about how this game ROCKS and is vastly SUPERIOR to every other game in the UNIVERSE (I am not exaggerating) is the continuity and the shared history and the sandbox nature of the world. We do not want alts to RP the war. We want these characters and corporations and yes, alliances, that we have developed, to fight it. Because that continuity is what makes EVE cool.
Quote:
from what we can see you would lose the name, the image, the extra wardecs, the mailing list and the ability to claim sovereignty. There's no requirement to break up social structures and so on
This also seems to miss the point. The social structures depend partly on the name, the image, the identity of the entity. RP alliances are not, as you seem to think, only chat clubs for likeminded people. They are entities that it has taken years to build. People are proud of those identities and names, and trivializing them as something not really that much to lose is quite... I do not know what the correct word is, but it makes me feel very bad.
Quote:
The "loyalist" Alliances are appreciated and encouraged and supported but they cannot be trusted because they cannot be controlled.
I do not buy this. If you cannot control a capsuleer alliance, how can you control a capsuleer corporation any better?
Quote:
Requiring corporations to leave their Alliance structures before signing up establishes a clear military chain of command and forces the capsuleers in question to demonstrate that their loyalty to their chosen Empire is greater than their loyalty to their Alliance.
And, of course, if you use this IC, you will force corporations such as Gradient to leave alliances such as Electus Matari. When you have kept up RP about being loyal to your Empire for five years, if something like that is said out loud by your Empire, you have exactly two choices: fold up your alliance or stop your RP. You cannot just say "oh ok, we are not loyal after all, screw you" and keep on playing. That kind of change in an RP alliance can happen, but it would take time, and it would definitely not happen at the hour of their Empire's sorest need.
And it's not just us, it holds on the Other Side Of The Border too -- how can say CVA as an alliance continue their line about being loyal to the Empire if the Empire explicitly says "to demonstrate your loyalty you have to join this other alliance"? Forcing people to choose between their alliance and their RP... neat. Not.
Guys, seriously, you need to invent better mumbojumbo, or just stop justifying this decision with design principles.
I would be personally quite cool with you saying "it is a technical limitation, we are working on it" -- I am not cool with these explanations that trivialize our alliances and our years of gameplay.
Other than this issue, looks good.
--
Help us defend the Republic; join Gradient today.
|
ArmyOfMe
hirr
Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2008.05.19 15:40:00 -
[12]
im sorry, but none of the points you have come up with are actually good enough reasons to not allow alliances into faction warfare.
|
Granmethedon III
The Wild Hunt
Pure.
|
Posted - 2008.05.19 15:42:00 -
[13]
If Factional Warfare is designed to bridge the gap between hi-sec and null-sec, why does it have a major barrier in encouraging this in that you cannot participate anymore once you're involved in 0.0 alliances?
I doubt many players will spend time getting involved in factional warfare and building up ranks and standings to dotch them to join a 0.0 alliance; much as the current players in 0.0 won't wish to leave their game there to sign up for factional warfare, even if the idea is appealing to them in some respects?
As such, all I see factional warfare doing, as it stands with the current proposals, is creating another segregation of players; we'll now have empire, nullsec and factional warfare players.
Originally by: CCP Wrangler
Your optimism is an inspiration to us all... 
I think I just trolled against my own company though... 
|
Dracorimus
Caldari
Deep Core Mining Inc.
|
Posted - 2008.05.19 15:51:00 -
[14]
Edited by: Dracorimus on 19/05/2008 15:51:59
I'm glad my accounts are expiring soon 
What a waste....
<--- 4 years playing this game, its going down the pan faster and faster.....
-
Die faster damnit! |
Arkady Sadik
Gradient
Electus Matari
|
Posted - 2008.05.19 16:08:00 -
[15]
Hm. I don't buy the design goals. If the goal is to keep out the "big powerhouses", then do that. Make them choose: Do you want to restrict yourself a lot to play FW? Give them incentives not to. For example, if the alliance joins up, you can't visit half of Empire space at all. Yay! Not. Would Goons join up with the Minmatar faction if that means that from now on, they - all of them - can't go to Jita anymore? Oops? For the bonus of doing some pew pew in Empire space? I doubt it. Or at least it would not give more problems than say, Triumvirate. folding and Illuminati, Doom. and a few others going on a roadtrip against the Federation, which is quite possible with the design as is.
I do think the issue you describe exists, but I do not think that excluding alliances solves it any useful way.
Quote:
By moving all corps into a Militia and creating a shared chat channel, from what we can see you would lose the name, the image, the extra wardecs, the mailing list and the ability to claim sovereignty.
You lose the ability to set combined standings - Electus Matari currently has standings to a bit over 400 entities out there, and three diplomats spending greater parts of their game time working on those relations, so no, that is not easily replicated - as well as the abaility to easily use each other's POSes, the open fleets for alliances, the combined war decs (not necessarily the amount, but the ability to say "we" now dec "you"), and last but not least, the in-game recognized name: Oh look, he's of CVA. He's of U'K. He's of VV. He's of EM. As described elsewhere, these names and the history attached to them are rather important, and form a very central part of what makes this game so great.
But you asked for solutions that basically do not force you to allow alliances into the militias. I posted this here, but I'll repost it:
From the FW discussion so far, I doubt that the complexes will tell you "sorry, you're not in the right faction, stay out." Do they? If they don't, alliances can easily participate, albeit they need some faction member - some "representative of the Federation" or whatever - to actually take a complex or system. But they only need one or a few of them, the alliance can still be active. That is, the alliance can work with the respective faction in these wars.
The only problem now is that the targets are not nice and flashy, so participating alliance members will quickly end up as outlaws. To get around this, we can easily re-use an existing game mechanic: War dec. Allow alliances to dec the faction alliances, just as war decs are handled now. With the exponential dec cost, this is likely not going to be abused. Few of the "big alliances" dec the smaller empire alliances just for fun. So the likelyhood of this being abused in any measure is low. Also, make navies shoot members of alliances at war with their militias. This lowers the abuse risk even further.
Now, for the RP alliances, this allows participation, but at a cost. The current solution in the "RP camp" is to have all the wars mutual. PIE and VV have what, eight or so wars active right now, all mutual. It's a beautiful game mechanic. Applying this to FW, the factions should make wars mutual at some point when "enough is enough" - OOCly, basically saying "ok, you're in now", ICly saying "you are gonna die" or so. When this happens can be dependent on a few factors:
- Automatic (you dec, you get mutual - easy to abuse)
- Standing-based (there are no alliance standings, though, so difficult)
- Time-based ("if you keep the dec up for n consecutive weeks...")
- Efficiency-based ("if your alliance kills more than n ships/points worth/etc.")
Or similar factors. It's the way for RP alliances to "prove their worth" to their faction, and go for it. SF can do this with all the factions and just go marauding around everywhere.
|
Arkady Sadik
Gradient
Electus Matari
|
Posted - 2008.05.19 16:09:00 -
[16]
On the other hand, this should be a real problem for the average "wanna pew pew" alliance not interested in FW at all, and just needs cheap ganks for a month. Hence, getting out of the mutual war needs to be difficult. For example, the executor of the attacking group needs to move to the home world of the attacked faction, and talk with the faction head secretary agent there, paying something in the scale of 250m-1b ISK to get the mutual dec to end.
Major drawback is that alliances can't shoot each other, but they can solve that okish by deccing "major" hostile alliances if needed, maybe even getting mutual to keep shooting.
|
Jade Constantine
Gallente
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.05.19 16:10:00 -
[17]
Edited by: Jade Constantine on 19/05/2008 16:12:17
Originally by: CCP Greyscale
That said, if there are things that we can do to make things easier which don't clash with the above, then we're very interested to hear what they are. This isn't something we can necessarily figure out ourselves as it's the people on the ground who really knows what impact this is going to have. To that end, we would be very interested in having representatives from each affected Alliance go back to their Alliance, discuss what actual real impact this is going to have on them once all the shouting has died down, and then come back here and explain exactly how this is likely to play out for them, highlighting areas where additional support or tools would be useful.
Chaps, lets take Greyscale at his word and go and have a serious talk in our own alliances and come back with some positive discussion and proposals for working with CCP to get round the worst problems for the RP community. I know we certainly have our set of issues and expectations for Faction Warfare in Star Fraction for example, and it'll be very useful to outline those in one easy-to-find-and-digest post we can draw developer attention too. Lets not let a sense of disappointment and outrage occlude useful discussion - I'm sure nothing is absolutely set in stone, lets work on improving a bad situation and getting us all something to play with in the next expansion.
CSM Manifesto 2008 | Destroy Outposts! |
Elsebeth Rhiannon
Minmatar
Gradient
Electus Matari
|
Posted - 2008.05.19 16:21:00 -
[18]
Edited by: Elsebeth Rhiannon on 19/05/2008 16:23:25
Originally by: CCP Greyscale
That said, if there are things that we can do to make things easier which don't clash with the above, then we're very interested to hear what they are.
What Arkady says (and to Jade: we have actually discussed this in EM at length already, so he is not talking just for himself  ).
In addition, as I was not probably clear in my rant above, let me rephrase a bit:
One easy way to make it at least somewhat easier for RP alliances would be to make sure to write the backstory so that it will leave us the choice IC, without either choice compromising our RP shows of loyalty. This should be easy to do and does not require coding, "only" writing, to make sure that when the call goes out, it includes the option for established loyal alliances to continue their work without signing up.
It needs to be taken care that it is really an OPTION, not an ORDER, though, or a different set of people (those who would rather leave their alliances and sign up -- a minority, but they do exist) will be screwed.
--
Help us defend the Republic; join Gradient today.
|
Rainhailer
Gallente
Einherjar Rising
Cry Havoc.
|
Posted - 2008.05.19 16:22:00 -
[19]
The part which ruins it for me most is that even if you aren't in an alliance, but are in a corp, you can't join individually. There are going to be a lot of corps where the members will be split on which faction they want. This expansion is looking to be an "All or Nothing" one, and it seems like for most of Eve it'll be nothing.
|
Tiirae
The New Era
HUZZAH FEDERATION
|
Posted - 2008.05.19 16:22:00 -
[20]
Originally by: Heartstone
I'd have to discard the people I have met along the way. Most of all I'd have to turn my back on the story I have created, along with others, around my character. In short I'd have to remove my character from who he is thereby throwing away any pretense of trying to roleplay in Eve.
What on earth are you raving about? How difficult is it to invent some RP storyline that recognises that you want to support your faction but also recognises why the faction won't let the alliance join? The devs have already given you some obvious reasons to do with command and loyalty.
If you seriously think that creating an alt corp for you and your friends, moving to it, having your original alliance set standings to it, and then you returning when/if you've had enough of FW...is not possible, If you really believe that, and you really think this will totally destroy the character you've created...then you are a ****-poor excuse for a roleplay enthusiast.
Jesus, just GROW UP. All of you.
|
|
|
Takal Cylotar
Amarr Border Defense Consortium
Curatores Veritatis Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.05.19 16:23:00 -
[21]
Question: Will alliances be able to wardec Militias?
____________________
Faith is my armor and Conviction is my sword. |
Jade Constantine
Gallente
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.05.19 16:25:00 -
[22]
Originally by: Elsebeth Rhiannon
What Arkady says (and to Jade: we have actually discussed this in EM at length already, so he is not talking just for himself ).
No problems Elsebeth, I was mainly talking to our chaps actually
CSM Manifesto 2008 | Destroy Outposts! |
Hober Hardin
|
Posted - 2008.05.19 16:25:00 -
[23]
Quote:
Chaps, lets take Greyscale at his word and go and have a serious talk in our own alliances and come back with some positive discussion and proposals for working with CCP to get round the worst problems for the RP community. I know we certainly have our set of issues and expectations for Faction Warfare in Star Fraction for example, and it'll be very useful to outline those in one easy-to-find-and-digest post we can draw developer attention too. Lets not let a sense of disappointment and outrage occlude useful discussion - I'm sure nothing is absolutely set in stone, lets work on improving a bad situation and getting us all something to play with in the next expansion.
This.. ..stop whining about nothing and come back with something useful 
|
Goumindong
Amarr
Merch Industrial
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.05.19 16:26:00 -
[24]
If the "end game" of Eve is 0.0 sov based warfare, why lock all the people who get into PvP via factional warfare out of 0.0 Sov based warfare? Doesn't it make sense that they would want to move into sov warfare with the corp were flying with? And that that corp would want to maintain the force that held it together when venturing out into new areas[not to mention their revenue].
On the game balance front regarding steamrolling: Since this will be taking place largely in low-sec. There is nothing preventing alliances from coming in and dominating anyway
As well: There is nothing preventing alliances from forming a militia and steamrolling.
All it does is: Cause people headaches if they want to participate in FW and 0.0 alliance warfare. And/or strip them of their identity as a player.
On an RP Front: It makes zero sense for factions to not allow large swaths of elite pilots who are willing to supply their own ships to fight their sworn enemies to do so.
Vote Goumindong for CSM |
Nuyan Zahedi
Amarr
PIE Inc.
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
|
Posted - 2008.05.19 16:26:00 -
[25]
Edited by: Nuyan Zahedi on 19/05/2008 16:26:42
I pretty much agree with Elsebeth, Arkady and some others.
In my opinion the only valid argument for not allowing alliances is that it is currently rather hard to technical to implement.
I think this whole corporation / alliance sign-up thing will be one of the biggest reasons that a lot of players will skip Factional Warfare. It's all rather restrictive.
I'm still looking forward to it though.
--
My blog
|
The PitBoss
Caldari
Interstellar Brotherhood of Gravediggers
Privateer Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.05.19 16:30:00 -
[26]
Edited by: The PitBoss on 19/05/2008 16:31:05
Originally by: grayscale
If you want to get involved in Factional Warfare, you'll be looking to sign up for your chosen faction. Each of the four main Empires û Amarr, Caldari, Gallente and Minmatar û will be operating and sponsoring its own paramilitary/ privateer/vigilante/insurgent type operation, which are called Militias.
DUDE .. we're in 
BTW: if you leave the roleplayers out of this one ... you REALLY turned your back on the true spirit of the game ...
Thanks,
PB
Siggys and Banners by: Kalen Vox |
Kudon Astraisx
Minmatar
17th Minmatar Tactical Wing
Electus Matari
|
Posted - 2008.05.19 16:31:00 -
[27]
The comments criticizing roleplayers for not being imaginative enough to find a solution are as unhelpful as they are rude.
I can state with some confidence that, on the part of EM and friends (including IC enemies like PIE and VV), there has been a lot of time and energy spent in trying to plan for possible ways to make this work, by some damn fine roleplayers.
Simply insulting someone because they have a different situation than you and you don't fully understand the complexities and nuances of theirs doesn't really do anything to help the situation. What does help the situation is taking a close look at the multitude of ideas being thrown around to keep CCP's design goals and not destroy the identities of the existing RP alliances.
--
|
Tiirae
The New Era
HUZZAH FEDERATION
|
Posted - 2008.05.19 16:47:00 -
[28]
Originally by: Kudon Astraisx
...a lot of time and energy spent in trying to plan for possible ways to make this work, by some damn fine roleplayers...
...not destroy the identities of the existing RP alliances.
I apologise if you are offended, but the forum whining from the RP factions in the last week has done my head in, and left me with precious little in the way of charitable feelings.
I have yet to see any reasonable explanation as to why this will 'destroy the identities' of existing RP alliances. Famous corps move between alliances and maintain their identity. Famous players move between corps and retain their identity.
If SirMolle left Evol to join Goonfleet, would everybody suddenly forget who he is and what he's achieved? If Evol left BoB and joined AAA, would their reputation suddenly evaporate? Of course not. Why would they? And why would you be any different?
If you were able to explain yourselves a bit better instead of coming up with astounding nonsense such as 'it will force me to abandon all the friends I've made' (I mean, seriously, what?), then perhaps you might get some sympathy.
Aside from that, I just don't like 'glass half empty' people. CCP are never going to change their minds about this right now, they've already said they will do it if it can be made workable in the future. What on earth is the point of this forum emo rage?
|
Elsebeth Rhiannon
Minmatar
Gradient
Electus Matari
|
Posted - 2008.05.19 16:50:00 -
[29]
Three fallacies at play here:
- alliance = big, corporation = small
- alliance = 0.0, corporation = above 0
- alliance = isolationist, corporation = open to interaction with others
The third is a new one, thanks.
None of those are very true, though.
I agree with the issue being real -- how to stop big established entities from just grabbing this part of gameplay? -- but the leaving alliances out while allowing corporations in is unfortunately not the solution.
--
Help us defend the Republic; join Gradient today.
|
Arkady Sadik
Gradient
Electus Matari
|
Posted - 2008.05.19 16:52:00 -
[30]
As I was just informed by alliance friends, I need to update the list I posted above:
Quote:
By moving all corps into a Militia and creating a shared chat channel, from what we can see you would lose the name, the image, the extra wardecs, the mailing list and the ability to claim sovereignty.
- Replicating standings from the alliance to another entity (400+ in EM right now)
- Exponential amount of mutual positive standings from another entity to the alliance (100+ in EM)
- Alliance contracts (currently over 30 up in EM)
- POS access that is both easier than and not as abusable as the password feature
- War decs (not necessarily the number, but the logistics and the reduced cost)
- Open fleet invitations
- In-game recognition by name
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 .. 13 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |