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) |
Kailyn
|
Posted - 2008.05.20 04:18:00 -
[121]
Ok lets also remember the design goal of PVP-lite.
How do you allow the big alliances into FW and keep it light?
I admit that the concept seems broken in that there is no obvious reason to graduate from FW to 0.0.
I also wonder about balance. If the big 0.0 alliances are weighted toward one faction, just how do the others make up?
I know Planetside had (and still has) issues with population balance and theirs is a much simpler system of factional PVP.
|
Alz Shado
Ever Flow
|
Posted - 2008.05.20 04:30:00 -
[122]
Edited by: Alz Shado on 20/05/2008 04:31:40
Originally by: Quelque Chose I'm a six month old industrialist working to help grow a new- ish high sec based mining/ manufacturing concern. Here's a list of stuff you'll not see me complaining about:
- Sovereignty - Moon mining - Cap ships (yes, including the Rorqual) - Smart Bombs - Interdictors/ Heavy Interdictors - Outposts - Officer Spawns
With all due respect, you *can* participate in all but two of those game mechanics.
-A non-allied, non-0.0 corporation CAN run it's own Moon Mining operation. -A non-allied, non-0.0 corporation CAN fly capitalships / supercapital ships / Rorquals. -A non-allied, non-0.0 corporation CAN use smartbombs / Interdictors / Heavy Interdictors (sans warp bubbles, but that's a different story) -A non-allied, non-0.0 corporation CAN scan out complexes and hunt officer/faction spawns.
The only things you're excluded from are Sovereignty and Outposts. I was really hoping that with Factional Warfare would come "Viceroys" which is basically a system for lowsec sovereignty, but that hasn't been mentioned outside the Drawingboard. As for Outposts -- I don't see why FW can't implement some sort of outpost management mechanics, such as "renting" or having temporary ownership bestowed as a reward by the NPC corporation.
Honestly, the POS warfare and alliance politics that makes up the "mechanics" of 0.0 space ownership is barely worth the trouble. It's primary function is to instigate conflict; FW doesn't need those artifices, it has it's own rational and causations. It's entirely externally driven conflict; FW participants don't instigate action, they merely ask where to go and whom to shoot.
//// ---------=== []= ---------=== \\\\ Rifter(RedBad)
"Kill a man one is a murderer; kill a million, a conqueror; kill them all, a God." -- Jean Rostand |
MotherMoon
Huang Yinglong FOUNDATI0N
|
Posted - 2008.05.20 04:30:00 -
[123]
woo that's what I like a good dissuccion that answers questions :)
only one thing
Quote: Players who don't want to be involved in alliance politics don't have to participate. However, they should respect and recognize those that do. That's all I would expect in return -- recognize the purpose for FW and respect those that want to participate without overpenalizing them.
I was more talking about when you join a gangf that has a war dec or has other players set red/blue it effects the whole gang.
suddenly players in FW will have to be at war with everyone one member of their gang may be part of. Unless they change current mechanics, alliances shouldn't be allowed to take out wars, or even if a gang has one alliance member in the FW, all FW members will suddenly be at war, and sucked in the alliance politics.
but please lets find CCP an answer to this.
|
Alz Shado
Ever Flow
|
Posted - 2008.05.20 04:39:00 -
[124]
Originally by: MotherMoon I was more talking about when you join a gangf that has a war dec or has other players set red/blue it effects the whole gang.
suddenly players in FW will have to be at war with everyone one member of their gang may be part of. Unless they change current mechanics, alliances shouldn't be allowed to take out wars, or even if a gang has one alliance member in the FW, all FW members will suddenly be at war, and sucked in the alliance politics.
but please lets find CCP an answer to this.
When I join a fleet, I see all my fleetmates as purple, regardless of alliance/corp/personal standings. That's the same kind of mechanic that should apply to FW -- militia mates show up as (for example) "Yellow", while enemy militias appear as (for example) "Brown". While engaged in the current operation, any external standings should only apply to neutral parties (non FW-participants) just as is expected from the existing fleet mechanics.
FW is targetting the WRONG MECHANIC. It should NOT apply as alliances, but rather it should be fleet mechanics which take effect. The metrics for Success/Failure should be applied first to the Faction, then trickle down to the corporation/individual from the faction. IE, failures to the faction first lower the faction's 'prestige', then as a result the participating corporation/individual's standings are adjusted accordingly.
//// ---------=== []= ---------=== \\\\ Rifter(RedBad)
"Kill a man one is a murderer; kill a million, a conqueror; kill them all, a God." -- Jean Rostand |
Quelque Chose
New Eden Roller Disco Supply
|
Posted - 2008.05.20 04:48:00 -
[125]
Edited by: Quelque Chose on 20/05/2008 04:49:43
Originally by: Alz Shado
With all due respect, you *can* participate in all but two of those game mechanics.
-A non-allied, non-0.0 corporation CAN run it's own Moon Mining operation. -A non-allied, non-0.0 corporation CAN fly capitalships / supercapital ships / Rorquals. -A non-allied, non-0.0 corporation CAN use smartbombs / Interdictors / Heavy Interdictors (sans warp bubbles, but that's a different story) -A non-allied, non-0.0 corporation CAN scan out complexes and hunt officer/faction spawns.
Firstly, no respect is due to me.
Secondly, I can't do any of that stuff in high sec, which is where I and my corp live (OK, I can use an interdictor as a glorified destroyer... you got me there I guess, but high sec explo complexes are pretty weenie from what I've seen so far). Now, all of that is a result of my (virtual) lifestyle choices, isn't it? I can have all that stuff if I'm willing to abandon my corp (who, trust me, won't go there -- yet) and my high sec base of operations.
Similarly, all of you 0.0 alliance people can have all the FW you want if you're willing to abandon your alliance and your nullsec base of operations.
Where are all the "harsh universe" people now? They're fine with potentially losing hundreds of millions in combat but suddenly curl up in the fetal position in some corner because they can't easily and conveniently have it both ways? Pfffft.
Eve is diverse. So much so in fact that CCP would probably be hard pressed to release a quality expansion that successfully catered to EVERYBODY. Luckily for us, they seem to release on average one expansion every eight months. So to reiterate my original point, the people yelling "what's in it for me?" about this expansion can go fly a kite. You've got yours before, you'll get yours again -- how about the rest of us have a little fun this time out? Is that too terrible to contemplate?
*edit* The RP crowd may be a special case in this one instance, but FWIW I don't completely agree with them either. ___________________________________________
|
Tiirae
The New Era HUZZAH FEDERATION
|
Posted - 2008.05.20 04:52:00 -
[126]
It seems that the biggest issue here is that the RP community has long fostered the idea that FW, when it arrives, will be all about them.
I think this goes back to things that were said a long time ago, by people who probably don't even work on Eve any more. They probably have a right to feel a bit ****ed-off but they really shouldn't be surprised.
Now that it's arrived, it turns out that FW isn't about RPers at all, it's about luring carebears into the world of PvP. This shouldn't be surprising given that CCP is a corporation and needs to turn a profit. These carebears make up 80% of their playerbase.
Perhaps the most vocal people, such as Mr Logan (with the oh-so-in-character corp name of "F Off And Die" ) need to realise that the hardcore RP community is a highly marginalised niche that will always suffer from being high-maintenance while generating comparatively small revenues.
To be honest, I wish CCP had never done any of the prime fiction and backstory to this universe, it kind of detracts from the very real history & drama in the activities of players.
|
MotherMoon
Huang Yinglong FOUNDATI0N
|
Posted - 2008.05.20 04:59:00 -
[127]
Originally by: Alz Shado
Originally by: MotherMoon I was more talking about when you join a gangf that has a war dec or has other players set red/blue it effects the whole gang.
suddenly players in FW will have to be at war with everyone one member of their gang may be part of. Unless they change current mechanics, alliances shouldn't be allowed to take out wars, or even if a gang has one alliance member in the FW, all FW members will suddenly be at war, and sucked in the alliance politics.
but please lets find CCP an answer to this.
When I join a fleet, I see all my fleetmates as purple, regardless of alliance/corp/personal standings. That's the same kind of mechanic that should apply to FW -- militia mates show up as (for example) "Yellow", while enemy militias appear as (for example) "Brown". While engaged in the current operation, any external standings should only apply to neutral parties (non FW-participants) just as is expected from the existing fleet mechanics.
FW is targetting the WRONG MECHANIC. It should NOT apply as alliances, but rather it should be fleet mechanics which take effect. The metrics for Success/Failure should be applied first to the Faction, then trickle down to the corporation/individual from the faction. IE, failures to the faction first lower the faction's 'prestige', then as a result the participating corporation/individual's standings are adjusted accordingly.
wait wait player A joins player B's gang.
Player A is at war with someone. player B now becomes a legal target for all war targets of player A.
Thus if you flying in FW everyone in your fleet is purple. everyone in the other side is red/brown.
However lets says in the 50 man fleet one member is in allaince A.
Allaince A is at war with allaince B which is not at war with the faction only the allaince in the faction.
Now the whole gang is at war with allaince B, as long as the allaince players is part of the gang.
This might lead to mililta trying to force out allainces unless CCP makes it so they can't declare war nor get decced...
maybe I'm misunderstanding you
|
MotherMoon
Huang Yinglong FOUNDATI0N
|
Posted - 2008.05.20 05:02:00 -
[128]
Originally by: Tiirae It seems that the biggest issue here is that the RP community has long fostered the idea that FW, when it arrives, will be all about them.
I think this goes back to things that were said a long time ago, by people who probably don't even work on Eve any more. They probably have a right to feel a bit ****ed-off but they really shouldn't be surprised.
Now that it's arrived, it turns out that FW isn't about RPers at all, it's about luring carebears into the world of PvP. This shouldn't be surprising given that CCP is a corporation and needs to turn a profit. These carebears make up 80% of their playerbase.
Perhaps the most vocal people, such as Mr Logan (with the oh-so-in-character corp name of "F Off And Die" ) need to realise that the hardcore RP community is a highly marginalised niche that will always suffer from being high-maintenance while generating comparatively small revenues.
To be honest, I wish CCP had never done any of the prime fiction and backstory to this universe, it kind of detracts from the very real history & drama in the activities of players.
it's about newer players into PvP because they aren't going to release an expansion that only effects 4 allainces.
that wouldn't make sense I and my corp woul;d suddenly not be able to take part in FW. we are super RP heavy. and that is what FW is about to us.
we live off the backstory. :)
|
Elsebeth Rhiannon
Minmatar Gradient Electus Matari
|
Posted - 2008.05.20 05:34:00 -
[129]
I wish people who complain about RPers complaining would read the answers I posted before repeating their arguments over and over...;)
-- Help us defend the Republic; join Gradient today.
|
Donald Truman
|
Posted - 2008.05.20 05:43:00 -
[130]
Originally by: Liara Dex Seeing lots of targets in lowsec will definitely get the attention of 0.0 alliances and has a good chance of instigating the same steamrolling CCP is trying to prevent.
Okay, but then while those alliances are busy steamrolling the relative newcomers, how do they go about preventing being steamrolled in turn by alliances that choose to focus on 0.0 play? How many systems are you going to be willing to sacrifice in the name of grief?
Originally by: Alz Shado FW is targetting the WRONG MECHANIC. It should NOT apply as alliances, but rather it should be fleet mechanics which take effect.
Points for outside the box thinking there, but how do you decide who gets to be in command of these "empire fleets"?
|
|
Lai Lowside
|
Posted - 2008.05.20 05:48:00 -
[131]
Edited by: Lai Lowside on 20/05/2008 05:53:23 Edited by: Lai Lowside on 20/05/2008 05:51:19 I would like one Alliance to say what it is they think there going to get from joining FW.
I can almost guarantee that the rewards will be so small as to just barely entice the lone carebare's out there into giving it a try. Everyone is acting like this is going to be the next big cash. It won't be. If anyone is going to make money in this it will be manufacture/industrial types.
I mean seriously, if you think there is going to be anything better then Storyline items coming out of this (and look how we all fight over those) then you have let your imagination (or greed) get away from you.
Low sec has been there all along for people to "control". There will be absolutely nothing of any importance there after FW. This isn't an expansion so much as it is a new mechanic to allow "new to pvp" players a quick way to see whats its like.
To all the individuals in corps or alliances that want to give it a try, I feel for you, but you have to see that letting in the individual is exactly the same as letting in the whole corp/alliance - simply one at a time.
Personally, I'd rather cut my teeth on much smaller scale PvP, then jump into lowsec and face a carrier for the first time (awe inspiring as it may be).
Edit for RP: I have no idea where you fit into this...
|
Esam Eroglik
|
Posted - 2008.05.20 05:56:00 -
[132]
What is this? End game? Middle game? WoW CCP, what are we talking about here? This was created as a true role-playing game remember... a sandbox.
Now you're giving us a cattle prod. Of course, you want to lure more players into low-sec, make it easier for newer players to PvP, and bring in more $players. But if those players did not join EVE because of the sanbox - did not join it because it simply had RPG stamped to the end of MMO - then this was never the game for them.
Yes, I'm aware that this expansion is not complete yet. Yes, I'm aware that I may not be affected, or may never bother with FW; but the way these devblogs have been constrcuted, with even a minute hint that another mechanic is being devised to manufacture a path for EVE, leaves a terrible taste in mouth.
I am visually, upset.
~Mason
|
Gnulpie
Minmatar Miner Tech
|
Posted - 2008.05.20 06:14:00 -
[133]
CCP really needs to think about these alliances again. It is a very bad move to split up the playerbase in such a horrible artificial way. What happened to the sandbox approach?
Up to now I can be everything I want in Eve at the same time. Researcher, industrialist, miner, pirate, 0.0 guy and and and.
Why can't I additionally support a faction if I wish to at the same time? Why do I have to abandon my alliance if I want to help my faction? Or why abandoning helping my faction if I want to help my alliance?
This split-up is really bad. It hurts a lot of players and leads no where. Either the alliances are hurt, or the FW stuff. Neither can be in the interest of CCP.
Allow alliances to have slots (based on skills and FW success) in the militia they chose to sign up. Then they can send in a limited about of their player. This way they won't 'steamroll' FW but still can participate to a certain degree!
|
Devon7785
Mutually Assured Destruction Vanguard.
|
Posted - 2008.05.20 06:25:00 -
[134]
don't you think its just going to pull corps from those 0.0 alliance cuz they want to get in on this fun also. so that will effect the 0.0 alliance endgame anyways. ôHe who defends everything defends nothing.ö
|
Carmine Morgan
Gallente The Chaotic Order Fallout Project
|
Posted - 2008.05.20 06:55:00 -
[135]
Boy FW seems more interesting now that big players(aka alliances) can't join it.
Though until FW offers some tangible goodies other ranks and numbers it ain't just worth the trouble. Sure it will be fun and nice way for corps and lone wolfs to enjoy PvP but thats about it. Currently there seems to be nothing tangible in it.
On the other hand what about POSes in the new region? Surely a corp participating in FW will soon have enough standing for setting up poses there.
The question here is can any corp(given enough corp standing) set up poses in new regions) or will it be limited to FW corps?
Having your corps poses moon mining in a system where your faction have gain controlled due to your corps efforts seems like something tangible. That again depends upon quality of moons and if the poses can be anchored. Chaotic Order
|
Gnulpie
Minmatar Miner Tech
|
Posted - 2008.05.20 07:00:00 -
[136]
Originally by: Devon7785 don't you think its just going to pull corps from those 0.0 alliance cuz they want to get in on this fun also. so that will effect the 0.0 alliance endgame anyways.
No, they won't. Alliances are much more than a common chat channel to hang out.
Look at Goonswarm for example. They claim to bring in lots of new people. They have great forums (it is said) which covers lots of stuff. They have tutorials for the noobs. They give free ships and so on. Other alliances are doing even more, much more. Compare that with FW. FW is looking really lame and stale compared to any serious alliance then - wether they are in 0.0 or not.
Militias are actually not meant to be an alliance. They were never designed as that. They are just a big bag where you put in people who want to pvp. But alliances are much more. They have a structure. Tasks for different corps. Industrial backbones and so on. FW just don't have that all. And forcing people to chose between either alliance or FW will leave always someone unsatisfied and unhappy.
So it is really bad to split up Eve into two. That you are EITHER in some alliance and get their full support (and give your help back to them) OR that you can do FW.
RP aspects
And the whole 'factions dont trust alliances' talk is nonsense as already pointed out. Before you offend alliances which have multiple titans, motherships and a war machine which can rival yours, you think twice if you cannot use their firepower to some degree. You don't need to trust them, you just need to use them.
Aren't pod pilots the elite of the elite? One of them easily capable of destroying a whole fleet of normal pilots (as it happens every day in l4 missions)? And if now, lets say an alliance of 500 pod pilots, would offer the help to fight for the cause then what? You would chase them away? Alianate them?
Sorry, that is really not believable.
|
Arshes Nei
Omega Fleet Enterprises Executive Outcomes
|
Posted - 2008.05.20 08:05:00 -
[137]
Originally by: Masu'di
Having always been more interested in immersion rather than roleplay, maybe i'm missing something. But what say is wrong, for example, with CVA sending off a "detachment" to fall under the command of the Amarrian generals, as a mark of their loyalty and prestige?
This is exactly the crux of the problem. This is a all or nothing war, your empire is fighting for its survival and its space(atleast RP wise id guess). If your even remotly loyal, how can you only send a detachment? No, if your truly loyal to your empire you will have to fully support them by sending all your pilots into the militia.
You cant say "oh we are supporting them, just dont want to join the militia" if your own empire says "we dont trust these guys, they get no support from our navys and we wont involve them in our missions". But it gets worse, because the hostile faction navys will ignore you aswell and give you full access to their space, you are infact neutral, and thus a traitor.
In other words, you can RP taking part in FW by attacking players of opposing factions, but the theme of this is set by how you interact with the npcs. If the amarr military rather entrusts its missions to FW-Goonslololol corp instead of the CVA, it basicly means CVA is dead as far as their being loayal to the empire RP is concerned. Really try to explain that one, some guys who barely have run a few lvl 2 missions for the amarr are suddenly more trustworthy than the CVA? Just because they are in a corp and not a alliance? But the the amarr has no problem with the members of CVA, oh no, each and every one of them is welcome aslong as they leave the CVA. So the amarr hate the CVA, yeah that makes total sense.
Especially as the control part is completly bogus aswell, the Empires will still have no control whatsoever about pod pilots no matter wether they are in a alliance or the FW npc corps. Thats the very reason why podpilots dont work together with the navys but instead get missions like "oh and see to it that you get this base destroyed in the next couple days" instead of "go and form up with our defense fleet at xy and patrol the borders for the next half year". To drive the point home, any pod pilot might refuse to open fire on another hostile podpilot without any consequences, i dare ccp to change that.
|
Kalintos Tyl
|
Posted - 2008.05.20 08:09:00 -
[138]
Edited by: Kalintos Tyl on 20/05/2008 08:11:35 Aliiance structore: - alliance holding corp alts <- there goes poses,refueling ,soverignity,..... - corp x - corp y . . - corp z
corp x set standings to holding corp,y,z . same goes for corp y,holding and z. They quit alliance.They are in alliance, but not in allaince mechanics in game. Will be funny to see allainces of 5 guys holding multiple systems.
Epic fail.
|
Kalintos Tyl
|
Posted - 2008.05.20 08:23:00 -
[139]
Faction piltos should get free ships with free locked fittings, unrefinable. This would encourage pvp a lot. But wont happen. Becosue you will need to grind 1 week for ship, and then fw die.
|
Sin Anger
|
Posted - 2008.05.20 08:33:00 -
[140]
I think most of the problems with alliances in FW would be solved by setting the required standings to +0.5 for individuals +2.5 for corps +4.0 for alliances (corps, alliances standings == avg over the crowds ofc)
|
|
Arshes Nei
Omega Fleet Enterprises Executive Outcomes
|
Posted - 2008.05.20 08:38:00 -
[141]
Originally by: Sin Anger
I think most of the problems with alliances in FW would be solved by setting the required standings to +0.5 for individuals +2.5 for corps +4.0 for alliances (corps, alliances standings == avg over the crowds ofc)
This is about as simple a solution as it gets. You really think your average 0.0 blob alliance will take the effort to grind a few k people to +4 just to mess up some 'bears?
|
Granmethedon III
The Wild Hunt Pure.
|
Posted - 2008.05.20 08:55:00 -
[142]
Originally by: Sin Anger
I think most of the problems with alliances in FW would be solved by setting the required standings to +0.5 for individuals +2.5 for corps +4.0 for alliances (corps, alliances standings == avg over the crowds ofc)
Alliances don't have npc standings.
Originally by: CCP Wrangler Your optimism is an inspiration to us all...
I think I just trolled against my own company though...
|
Borini
|
Posted - 2008.05.20 08:56:00 -
[143]
I think CCP tried to make it easy on themselfs by trying to fit factional warfare into the curently used system of: 1) single player 2) player in corp 3) player in corp and corp in alliance.
My personal view is that factional warfare should be outside these settings and should be on a caracter basis. To participate in FW a player shouldn't need to join up in a npc corp or a "npc" alliance. Everybody should be able to join into the faction they wan't to Fw for.
If this makes his corpmate/alliance mate a target in fw so be it. It wil be up to the players if they engage or not.
All in all i think ccp needs to go back to drawing board, instead of releasing as is. IMO it is doomed to fail.
|
Nasdram
Raptus Regaliter
|
Posted - 2008.05.20 09:08:00 -
[144]
Originally by: Granmethedon III
Originally by: Sin Anger
I think most of the problems with alliances in FW would be solved by setting the required standings to +0.5 for individuals +2.5 for corps +4.0 for alliances (corps, alliances standings == avg over the crowds ofc)
Alliances don't have npc standings.
Would it be soo hard to incorperate that? I mean alliances already have a standing ability to other corps/induviduals or alliances. Why not just add all NPC alliances.
For RP reasons, the required standing for alliances could be set high as in the example or even a bit higher. Alliances really need to prove they will be loyal, much more than an iduvidual since they will have a much greater impact in case they decide to betray the empire they are working for.
I also think that 0.0 alliance will be not able to join with such a barrier as their memberbase will have mixed standings, expect in cases of PIE, CVA, UK ect (sorry for those i forgot)
+1 for this idear.
|
Arshes Nei
Omega Fleet Enterprises Executive Outcomes
|
Posted - 2008.05.20 09:12:00 -
[145]
Originally by: Granmethedon III
Originally by: Sin Anger
I think most of the problems with alliances in FW would be solved by setting the required standings to +0.5 for individuals +2.5 for corps +4.0 for alliances (corps, alliances standings == avg over the crowds ofc)
Alliances don't have npc standings.
NPC standings are nothing more than a average of all standings the players in that group have, how fricking hard could that be to implement compared to adding a new region?
|
Gustav Seriya
|
Posted - 2008.05.20 09:17:00 -
[146]
Gotta agree that it's a very poor gateway to the "endgame" that completely precludes the endgame itself. If there's no link or cross-over between faction warfare and 0.0 alliances then there's going to be limited movement between the two, if someone really enjoys faction warfare for six months, why would they suddenly give that up forever to get into a 0.0 alliance and never be able to do any more faction warfare ever again?
|
Tissa
Minmatar Alice in Wonderland Derek Knows Us
|
Posted - 2008.05.20 09:25:00 -
[147]
Originally by: Kalintos Tyl Faction piltos should get free ships with free locked fittings, unrefinable. This would encourage pvp a lot. But wont happen. Becosue you will need to grind 1 week for ship, and then fw die.
1. You already get your fitted noob ship. 2. If you have to grind for one week for a frig then you are doing it wrong. 3. Troll or wow player, you decide
No wonder you're late. Why, this watch is exactly two days slow. www.evefront.com
|
Granmethedon III
The Wild Hunt Pure.
|
Posted - 2008.05.20 09:37:00 -
[148]
Originally by: Nasdram
Originally by: Granmethedon III
Originally by: Sin Anger
I think most of the problems with alliances in FW would be solved by setting the required standings to +0.5 for individuals +2.5 for corps +4.0 for alliances (corps, alliances standings == avg over the crowds ofc)
Alliances don't have npc standings.
Would it be soo hard to incorperate that? I mean alliances already have a standing ability to other corps/induviduals or alliances. Why not just add all NPC alliances.
For RP reasons, the required standing for alliances could be set high as in the example or even a bit higher. Alliances really need to prove they will be loyal, much more than an iduvidual since they will have a much greater impact in case they decide to betray the empire they are working for.
I also think that 0.0 alliance will be not able to join with such a barrier as their memberbase will have mixed standings, expect in cases of PIE, CVA, UK ect (sorry for those i forgot)
+1 for this idear.
In the blogs its listed under the "difficulties" of including alliances within Faciton Warfare; so maybe it is difficult to implement, for some odd reason that we can't see.
I can't personally see a reason why not myself, but it was raised.
Originally by: CCP Wrangler Your optimism is an inspiration to us all...
I think I just trolled against my own company though...
|
Hugh Ruka
Caldari Exploratio et Industria Morispatia
|
Posted - 2008.05.20 09:44:00 -
[149]
Nice blog. It details the things almost to the point I expected. The reasons (except the technical ones) for not allowing Alliances in FW are about what I expected them to be.
I think I can agree with CCPs position on this. For the established 0.0 alliances to complain, well you are already in the "end game" part, why should you participate in the earlier stages ? From what I see in the Dev Blog, playe progression is imagined to be empire hugger/newb -> FW/lowsec participant -> 0.0 Alliance warfare. From that point, it makes sense for the established 0.0 entities to create FW focuesd corporations to train there newbs for combat while they can still play relatively safe and in a more controlled environment and promote them into the main alliance after some time. I don't see this as a problem. From the discussion it looks like corporate identity is more important to most of the people than their alliance identity.
The RP empire alliances are screwed and I think this is a pity, but there seems to be nothing that can be done for them at least for now. --- SIG --- Goumindong for CSM. |
Granmethedon III
The Wild Hunt Pure.
|
Posted - 2008.05.20 10:01:00 -
[150]
Originally by: Hugh Ruka Nice blog. It details the things almost to the point I expected. The reasons (except the technical ones) for not allowing Alliances in FW are about what I expected them to be.
I think I can agree with CCPs position on this. For the established 0.0 alliances to complain, well you are already in the "end game" part, why should you participate in the earlier stages ? From what I see in the Dev Blog, playe progression is imagined to be empire hugger/newb -> FW/lowsec participant -> 0.0 Alliance warfare. From that point, it makes sense for the established 0.0 entities to create FW focuesd corporations to train there newbs for combat while they can still play relatively safe and in a more controlled environment and promote them into the main alliance after some time. I don't see this as a problem. From the discussion it looks like corporate identity is more important to most of the people than their alliance identity.
The RP empire alliances are screwed and I think this is a pity, but there seems to be nothing that can be done for them at least for now.
Because FW wasn't available when we would have made the natural progression.
Originally by: CCP Wrangler Your optimism is an inspiration to us all...
I think I just trolled against my own company though...
|
|
|
|
|
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 |