EVE Online | EVE Insider


Join the Community, Create an EVE-ONLINE account or log in.

All Channels

Jita Park Speakers Corner

Candidate question: Where do you stand on alliances being excluded

This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.

New Topic

Author	Topic
Jakke Logan Caldari F Off And Die	Posted - 2008.05.16 16:35:00 - [1] From faction warfare in the new expansion? I personally am against this decision and want the candidates on record.
Jade Constantine Gallente Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.05.16 16:37:00 - [2] I think its a nonsense to exclude alliances. CCP need to re-think this before FW release.
LaVista Vista Conservative Shenanigans Party	Posted - 2008.05.16 16:41:00 - [3] I understand why they did it. And I agree with the theory behind it. It's a shame people like PIE are formed around an alliance. But well
Jade Constantine Gallente Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.05.16 16:55:00 - [4] Originally by: LaVista Vista I understand why they did it. And I agree with the theory behind it. It's a shame people like PIE are formed around an alliance. But well But the problem is their theory doesn't hold water. If they did this to prevent newer players being "griefed" while established players "farm" the FW content - guess what? Thats exactly whats going to happen anyway. Eve isn't exactly short of numerically-powerful corporations and non RP alliances have absolutely nothing to lose by creating FW corps that established players and assets can join up with to do this thing. I'm actually a little astonished that an attempt to stop "big powers farming FW" would be so naive as to expect that limiting participation to corps only could actually work.
Jakke Logan Caldari F Off And Die	Posted - 2008.05.16 17:00:00 - [5] More to the point, that allowing alliances as a whole to join a faction will do more to prevent "griefing" than excluding them (and thus tempting them to grief for the hell of it). Think on this for a moment... Say "Alliance X" decides they want to participate in FW and join the Minmatar side. So they go into the FW areas and start having at it. This makes them allied to everyone else, including the new would be pvp'ers from empire, who join the same faction, since presumably, shooting down others declared with your same faction causes standings loss. Bridge to 0.0 pvp? What better for that than to have you out there ALREADY fighting alongside the alliances? The FW system as proposed will simply see the people who will participate in it shot down until they quit coming back, making the whole thing pointless.
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.05.16 17:15:00 - [6] Edited by: Goumindong on 17/05/2008 10:11:09 From the other thread: I can understand it from a position of "we don't want alliances coming in and dominating the game". But it also makes it harder to bridge the gap between empire and 0.0. Because the people you fight with in factional warfare can't just jump right into 0.0 and must stop fighting in factional warfare to attempt to claim sov in 0.0. I am also disappointed because i was hoping for a bunch more targets when I am in empire. I don't think excluding alliances will do much to stop them from participating if they want.
Arithron Gallente Gallente Trade Alliance	Posted - 2008.05.16 17:28:00 - [7] Quote: What it is, right now, is in its most basic form a gameplay bridge from high sec to null sec – from the safety of Empire to the wild lands of Alliance space. High sec and null sec have very differing communities of players with very divergent play styles, and while moving from one to the other is obviously possible, it's harder than it should be. Factional Warfare provides a halfway house for players from Empire to get into the sandbox at the shallow end. It serves other functions too, for other types of player, but this is its primary function. The core gameplay element of Factional Warfare is small-scale PvP combat. Factional Warfare is designed to make this kind of experience accessible, with low entry requirements and a target-rich environment. And what do points mean? Systems! As your faction racks up points in hostile systems, control will slowly swing into your favour, until eventually you're given the opportunity to occupy the system outright. Of course, the enemy's trying to do the same to your systems, so a good defence as well as well as a strong offense will be needed if you want your adopted faction to prevail and dominate!. Hmm, so small scale PvP, Systems changing control depending on outcomes, a bridge between Empire and 0.0…away from the dominance of large alliances…sounds like mana from heaven for Jade’s campaign! Except he wants the large, dominant alliances to be able to join…Alliance control of more systems outside of 0.0…really Jade, you can’t have your cake and eat it! And remember, you are playing for a faction, not a corp etc... Take care, Bruce Hansen (Arithron)
LaVista Vista Conservative Shenanigans Party	Posted - 2008.05.16 17:54:00 - [8] Originally by: Jade Constantine Originally by: LaVista Vista I understand why they did it. And I agree with the theory behind it. It's a shame people like PIE are formed around an alliance. But well But the problem is their theory doesn't hold water. If they did this to prevent newer players being "griefed" while established players "farm" the FW content - guess what? Thats exactly whats going to happen anyway. Eve isn't exactly short of numerically-powerful corporations and non RP alliances have absolutely nothing to lose by creating FW corps that established players and assets can join up with to do this thing. I'm actually a little astonished that an attempt to stop "big powers farming FW" would be so naive as to expect that limiting participation to corps only could actually work. According to the live dev-blog yesterday, that wasn't really the point. While it's a concern in my eyes(Wheter it holds water or not), I believe the issue was more of the fact that alliances themselves are "factions", or so. So it wouldn't make sense, from a RP point of view. I'm not bothered either way. I look forward to shooting at all of you guys
Inanna Zuni Minmatar The Causality	Posted - 2008.05.16 18:20:00 - [9] I find it more than a little disappointing* that the current RP-based non-0.0 alliances, who have been waiting patiently for this FW to come along, are the very groups who will be excluded from it in the form which has so far been announced. But there is time for this to be revised, and I shall hope that it is. IZ * I have used stronger words elsewhere ...
Darius JOHNSON GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.05.16 18:25:00 - [10] If the large alliances want to come in and "dominate the FW game" they will. An artificial barrier created by not allowing an alliance to compete will not prevent that if they are so inclined. That being said perhaps there's some other reason for it I'm not grasping and would love to be more enlightened on the topic.
LaVista Vista Conservative Shenanigans Party	Posted - 2008.05.16 18:38:00 - [11] Yeah, I can see why it's frustrating for alliances like EM and PIE. I'm very sure that majority of CSM would eventually bring this issue up for revision. At least I would like to discuss it with CCP.
Zeknichov Life. Universe. Everything.	Posted - 2008.05.16 21:20:00 - [12] Originally by: Darius JOHNSON If the large alliances want to come in and "dominate the FW game" they will. An artificial barrier created by not allowing an alliance to compete will not prevent that if they are so inclined. That being said perhaps there's some other reason for it I'm not grasping and would love to be more enlightened on the topic. It could be for RP reasons. An alliance is essentially its own sovereign entity and does not hold a faction. It's its own faction.
Dierdra Vaal Caldari Eve University Ivy League	Posted - 2008.05.16 21:32:00 - [13] Originally by: Jakke Logan From faction warfare in the new expansion? I personally am against this decision and want the candidates on record. I feel this is an easy, but very dirty (lazy?) solution to a real problem. I can understand that CCP wants to avoid the major 0.0 alliances dominating this part of the game as well, however, there should be a more flexible and elegant solution to this than simply excluding any alliance. Not all alliances live in 0.0.
Inanna Zuni Minmatar The Causality	Posted - 2008.05.16 21:34:00 - [14] Originally by: Zeknichov It could be for RP reasons. An alliance is essentially its own sovereign entity and does not hold a faction. It's its own faction. That could certainly apply to the Sov-holding alliances based in 0.0, but the majority of the current RP-based alliances don't do that, instead currently working / patrolling / fighting on behalf of their race / faction. I would expect to see this come up at the first CSM meeting as clearly there are a lot of pilots worried about this, and not only those currently in RP alliances. IZ
Ben Derindar Dirty Deeds Corp.	Posted - 2008.05.16 23:54:00 - [15] Originally by: Jade Constantine But the problem is their theory doesn't hold water. If they did this to prevent newer players being "griefed" while established players "farm" the FW content - guess what? Thats exactly whats going to happen anyway. Eve isn't exactly short of numerically-powerful corporations and non RP alliances have absolutely nothing to lose by creating FW corps that established players and assets can join up with to do this thing. I'm interested in FW, but not enough to make me want to leave my alliance over it; this proves that blocking alliances will at least work to a degree. It's not like the rest of us have had any problem to date finding PvP through other means anyway, right? Granted, FW in its current form means that belonging to an alliance is no longer the be-all-and-end-all of Eve. And I'm fine with that; if people want to take part in it badly enough they'll make the decision to leave their alliance, or if they don't, then they won't. How is added personal choice a bad thing? /Ben
zoolkhan Minmatar Mirkur Draug'Tyr Ushra'Khan	Posted - 2008.05.17 09:14:00 - [16] Originally by: Jakke Logan From faction warfare in the new expansion? I personally am against this decision and want the candidates on record. so am i. highfives jade
Leandro Salazar Quam Singulari	Posted - 2008.05.17 11:05:00 - [17] I find it downright silly to slap the real RPers in the face like that. If anything, they could at least have a manual screening process to make sure only established RP alliances make it in and no entities that just want to stir up trouble. Definitely an issue that needs to be discussed.
Hugh Ruka Exploratio et Industria Morispatia	Posted - 2008.05.17 11:38:00 - [18] While it sound silly, Alliances are kind of player run empires (or they have the options to become ones in 0.0). Now this would create a situation where your loyalties are with 2 empires (your alliance and f.e. Caldari state) -> conflict. So it is logical from that PoV.
Ma Zhiqiang Minmatar Huang Yinglong	Posted - 2008.05.17 14:28:00 - [19] As mentioned in the latest live dev blog, CCP is in contact with RP alliances working out idea... And my guess is they want to start FW softly and monitor how it turns out. To sign up your alliance for the militia forces may be available later.
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.05.17 16:36:00 - [20] Edited by: Goumindong on 17/05/2008 16:41:30 Edited by: Goumindong on 17/05/2008 16:38:51 Originally by: Hugh Ruka While it sound silly, Alliances are kind of player run empires (or they have the options to become ones in 0.0). Now this would create a situation where your loyalties are with 2 empires (your alliance and f.e. Caldari state) -> conflict. So it is logical from that PoV. Not really. Nations have always supported other nations in military engagements when it might benefit them. I would give examples but the list would probably break my 4000 character limit. ed: My biggest problem with it is that it offers no intermediary between a 0.0 sov holding alliance and a low-sec corp. And if you end up wanting to join 0.0 there is no go-between. Its separated and broken off and that just doesn't jive with Eves interconnectivity. I mean, what happens when low-sec corp X that founded around shooting Amarran pig-dogs wants to branch out into sov warfare? They have to give up shooting Amarran pig-dogs for fun and profit! No one said that goonswarm all had to drop their SA memberships once they tried to claim SOV. It doesn't seem right and proper that anyone else should have to drop their unified front to do so. Edit2: And it doesn't stop them from participating indirectly via area denial.
Piitaq Gallente 19th Star Logistics	Posted - 2008.05.18 05:27:00 - [21] Maybe it has nothing to do with CCP wanting to exclude alliances, maybe its just because it is easier to set it up this way, using existing structures. If alliances should be able to join they needed a layer higher than alliance, which they would need to program and implement.
Jack Gilligan THE MuPPeT FaCTOrY	Posted - 2008.05.18 05:51:00 - [22] Originally by: Darius JOHNSON If the large alliances want to come in and "dominate the FW game" they will. An artificial barrier created by not allowing an alliance to compete will not prevent that if they are so inclined. That being said perhaps there's some other reason for it I'm not grasping and would love to be more enlightened on the topic. This is correct. Unless CCP wants to put CONCORD into lowsec, or set up instanced zones, or else, not allow targeting of those who are in FW. As bad as the faction warfare system as currently proposed is, those ideas would be WORSE. They would be a huge fall down the slippery slope of turning EVE into WoW with spaceships.
Jack Gilligan THE MuPPeT FaCTOrY	Posted - 2008.05.18 05:56:00 - [23] Originally by: Piitaq Maybe it has nothing to do with CCP wanting to exclude alliances, maybe its just because it is easier to set it up this way, using existing structures. If alliances should be able to join they needed a layer higher than alliance, which they would need to program and implement. I think that what should happen is that alliances and factions are treated at the same level. Player alliances are factions, and factions are alliances. Just as player alliances are allowed to form meta alliances via naps and standings, why not allow player alliances to do the same with the NPC factions? The benefit to those in empire wanting to "get their feet wet" in pvp would be that joining their favored faction would give them standings with player alliances who support that faction.
Breha Organa	Posted - 2008.05.18 16:41:00 - [24] Originally by: Jakke Logan From faction warfare in the new expansion? I personally am against this decision and want the candidates on record. I agree that there needs to be more of an obvious "connection" between 0.0 space and Empire. 0.0 alliances do not operate in a vacuum. They have to do business in Empire same as everyone else. Hence, they may have a "stake" in FW. At the same time, however, Empire corps need to have their concerns addressed as well. The forums are a good place to start a discussion going in which we air out the views of the alliances wishing to participate and Empire-based corps. I believe it is possible to allow "limited participation" by alliances in FW. There is a lot of speculation and fear among players regarding the subtleties of FW and how the expansion will fit in with "the status quo". Just remember... this expansion was the result of overwhelming support for changing the status quo. Change is good. It has a way of leveling the playing field for everyone.
Ankhesentapemkah Gallente Ammatar Free Corps Curatores Veritatis Alliance	Posted - 2008.05.18 20:38:00 - [25] As said in the other thread, I think it is a bad thing to exclude alliance people. Faction warfare needs to be accessible to all types of players, and to discriminate on alliance membership goes against Eve's supposed freedom of playstyle and diversity.
Max Torps eXceed Inc.	Posted - 2008.05.18 20:45:00 - [26] I gave my opinion here earlier: Linkage My hope is that it's an oversight/development process. If the player base requests or supports a motion to have the CSM to bring this to CCP's table then I would take this forward if elected. Vote for me here Candidate thread here Website here
Kayscha	Posted - 2008.05.19 05:15:00 - [27] Do you think this could be solved by increasing the cost for Alliances to join, such as binding them to the chosen faction for good, never or only with extremely serious penalties allowing to leave it again?
Erotic Irony 0bsession	Posted - 2008.05.19 06:07:00 - [28] coming in prenerfed, will be enhanced, stop crying
Poreuomai Minmatar Mirkur Draug'Tyr Ushra'Khan	Posted - 2008.05.19 09:56:00 - [29] A lot of people seem to be equating "alliance" with "0.0", but there are plenty of empire based alliances which will also be excluded.
Peri Stark Gallente Blue Labs Pandemic Legion	Posted - 2008.05.19 13:27:00 - [30] CCP has been trying to push people into 0.0 space for years and they have not made a secret of it. By excluding alliances from factional warfare it seems as if they are now saying if you want to take part in eve orginized role play you have to come back to empire.

This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.

New Topic