These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
Previous page123
 

Pilots must be in an *alliance* to entosis station, iHub or TCU

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Infinity Ziona
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#41 - 2015-07-14 06:15:21 UTC
Falken Falcon wrote:
Scipio Artelius wrote:
Vincent Athena wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Vincent Athena wrote:

If your goal does not include completing the capture process, why should you be required to be in an alliance?


If your goal does not include completing the capture process, why should you be allowed to do it in the first place?


Are you saying that if I am in an alliance, but I have no intention of completing the capture process, then I should not be allowed to knock a station into freeport? How will that rule be enforced?

Being in an alliance does not equal the intent to do anything.

The restriction is on starting a sovereignty capture event as starting a capture event is an Alliance action.

Corps not part of an alliance have no way to capture sov, so rightly so have no need to start a capture event that by definition they can't achieve anyway.

Kaarous's comment was just in line with that. If a Corp wants to start capture events, then join an Alliance. If you're in an Alliance, then troll all you like. We can't really expect the game to know your intent, only whether the mechanics even apply to you or not.
Their idea is that why can't a strong corp initiate the capture if they can do it. There are larger and stronger corporations than some alliances are. They wanna know why is the alliance a requirement.

And the answer to it is the reduced "sov trolling" that the alliance requirement brings. If you are strong enough to take and hold a sov, you should be able to create a simple alliance for your corp.

The term Alliance indicates two separate entities forming together. Requiring a corporation (one entity) to create an alliance is stupid.

Based on numbers would make more sense. An alliance of 1 person gaming the system entosising makes less sense than a corp or 500 doing the same.

CCP Fozzie “We can see how much money people are making in nullsec and it is, a gigantic amount, a shit-ton… in null sec anomalies. “*

Kaalrus pwned..... :)
Anselme
Doomheim
#42 - 2015-07-14 12:21:17 UTC
What's wrong with creating an alliance that's open to any corp that wants to turn revolutionary? An alliance doesn't need any leadership. It can function just fine as a loose affiliation in name only. it's just a game mechanic.
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#43 - 2015-07-14 13:15:36 UTC
Infinity Ziona wrote:

The term Alliance indicates two separate entities forming together. Requiring a corporation (one entity) to create an alliance is stupid.

Based on numbers would make more sense. An alliance of 1 person gaming the system entosising makes less sense than a corp or 500 doing the same.


The term alliance now also mean "can engage in SOV shenanigans".
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#44 - 2015-07-14 13:18:26 UTC
Barrogh Habalu wrote:
Vincent Athena wrote:
Are you saying that if I am in an alliance, but I have no intention of completing the capture process, then I should not be allowed to knock a station into freeport? How will that rule be enforced?

Being in an alliance does not equal the intent to do anything.

I suppose the idea is that if you want a freeport, then you must be able to capture the territory, hold it, then declare that it's a freeport (providing proper rights to everyone) and anyone who messes up with this status and your enforcement of it will be shot.

That said, arbitrary restriction that says you must wear your alliance tabard is all kinds of arbitrary and easily sidestepped with no gameplay involved, so I'm not sure what does it achieves.


How do you sidestep the tabard requirement if the module just won't run if you are not wearing it?
Saisin
Chao3's Rogue Operatives Corp
#45 - 2015-07-14 16:30:21 UTC
Anselme wrote:
What's wrong with creating an alliance that's open to any corp that wants to turn revolutionary? An alliance doesn't need any leadership. It can function just fine as a loose affiliation in name only. it's just a game mechanic.


Absolutely.
In our case, the Chao3's leadership is simply providing a vision and goals in game, and those that like the spirit of it participate without ever joining the alliance. The alliance is more like a figurehead in that case, and the leadership still has to play the game to earn their own isk, and not rely on members taxes or top-down incomes gained from the game time of their lemmings or renters.

Initially, when I brought my idea about the entosis for all to Chao3, I was proposing accepting any unaffiliated corp that wanted to start sov captures into the alliance. They reviewed the details and consequences of my idea with the current game mechanics, and decided for creating a corp instead and accepting individual pilots freely as the corp executor vote for the alliance could easily be used to do a hostile take-over.

Vote Borat Guereen for CSM XII

Check out the Minarchist Space Project
Saisin
Chao3's Rogue Operatives Corp
#46 - 2015-07-14 16:32:14 UTC
Frostys Virpio wrote:


How do you sidestep the tabard requirement if the module just won't run if you are not wearing it?


Simply have one of your pilot apply to my corp, and he/she will be able to start a capture on station, iHUB or TCU, no questions or requirements asked...
... or you can train the right skills and spend 1 billion ISK to start your own alliance.

Vote Borat Guereen for CSM XII

Check out the Minarchist Space Project
45thtiger 0109
Angry Miners Alliance.
#47 - 2015-07-14 23:20:01 UTC
Scipio Artelius wrote:
Sov is for Alliances, not Corporations.

Nothing is particularly changing.


+100000000000000000000 Correct and agreed IBTL PBig smile

**You Have to take the good with the bad and the bad with the good.

Welcome to EvE OnLiNe**
Previous page123