Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Shaalira]

The story will go where feature development demands that it goes.

And CCP will continue to develop lore and news articles that gives all four empires cause to distrust / dislike one another, while foiling attempts at long-term reconciliation.  This is because war, mistrust, and ethnocentrism all create conflict-driven content.

Speculation on what is in the true interest of each nation state is all well and good.  But in the end, this is an MMO.  And resolving either the Empyrean War or Sansha's Incursions will result in a removed or heavily modified game feature.  Consider the likelihood of the Alliance and Horde resolving their differences peacefully.  Their animosity isn't just story - it's game design.

Also, Dust 514.

The faction abstracts in that link basically sum up a development plan involving four distinct factions locked in 2v2 war.

[JinOtsi]

Also, Dust 514.

The faction abstracts in that link basically sum up a development plan involving four distinct factions locked in 2v2 war.

We all know none of these things will actually happen. That's not the point. We're discussing what could happen without the artificial limitations and restraints of game mechanics and balancing. Which is what the characters we play would base their viewpoints, plans and choices on. None of them know that we need balanced Militias for game-mechanics' sake. None of them know there's a massive pillock named TonyG that is running their beloved nations through the "for the lulz" grinder.

Simply put, this is about what characters can roleplay. Whether or not they succeed is irrelevant. The RP in itself is the goal.

[Shaalira]

L'art pour l'art, then.  Very Gallente.

Certainly you can RP against the development trend - that can be fun.  Characters can and do espouse peace, even knowing OOC that such a development is highly unlikely.

At the same time, it's useful to have a reminder about the limits to such an angle.  All too often, I hear players asking if their PCs have roleplayed themselves into a cul-de-sac or a dead end.  For those who prefer to unify their actions-in-space with their RP, the direction the game mechanics go is a very real consideration in laying out our long-term plans.

If that's not a big concern for a player, though, they're certainly free to pursue storylines that grow increasingly divorced from the gameworld around them.  The only issue then is whether the result will be too jarring for other roleplayers who haven't been playing along to participate at all.

[Nicoletta Mithra]

There are, really several misconceptions about the Amarr Empire going around, I think, the most important being:

First, historically speaking there is no deep rooted conflict between the Empire and the Federation. They used to get along, though wearily. The Federation's true opponent is and always was the State and vice versa. That the Empire and the Federation can work together if they want to shows the example of Heideran and Aidonis Elabon.

Second, the Amarr Empire is going around trying to 'Reclaim' everyone by force. That's just not true, the Empire showed actually a quite rational approach: Those you can easily subdue militarily, you do subdue militarily. Those you can't you deal with diplomatically. Even when the Empire discovered the Mimatar it was due to the natural disaster happening to the Matari homeworld that the Empire choose to invade. When they made first contact with the Federation they quickly realized they had someone on an equal footing there and opted for diplomatic solutions. The same with how contact with the State was made. And they only attacked the Jove exactly because they thought they were an easy target.

As such, third, the idea that the Amarr would get into a war with the Republic and the Federation if the State declared neutrality is thus unrealistic: The Empire might very well push for a non-agression pact with the Federation and concentrate on the Republic while the Federation could then enact retributive strikes on the State without fearing that the Empire would intervene. Or some other such thing.

I think there is factually a lot to loose for the State if it abandons it's alliance with the Empire and little to gain. One has to do a cost/benefit calculation there: And as there are sure benefits, the costs prevail in sum. IOt's all nice and good if one only lists the benefits, but forgets about the costs. If one calculates the costs as well, then one will come to the conclusion that the best option for State and Empire is to kept that alliance up and to support one another against their enemies.

Does that mean that the State and the Empire are best friends? No, of course not. It means the two are bound to one another exactly because they serve their own interests. That this doesn't entirely preclude the  State from doing some business with the Republic comes with no surprise: Even the Empire itself is conducting business within the Republic's borders.

P.S.: Shaalira's argument is quite important. One would expect that if CCP puts those limitations of a 2v2 scenario on the game it will also show in the background. Indeed, I think, CCP worked on the background of the 4 factions to put them in sucha situation that the 2v2 situation arises. Now one could say that this is 'just due to game design constraints', but I don't think our chars would say: "Oh no, that historical event that bound State and Empire together was purely out of game design reasons, it doesn't count!"

[orange]

Of import in this entire conversation is a simple truth.

The Republic/State began as a rebellious faction against the Empire/Federation; their cultures irrecoverable changed by the time spent as part of the larger entity.

The Empire & Federation are horribly opposed ideologically and represent a peer adversary on the grand scale.

[Nicoletta Mithra]

The Empire & Federation are horribly opposed ideologically and represent a peer adversary on the grand scale.

I highly doubt that. It pretty much depends on how you frame the picture. Or rather, on what you declare to be frame and what to be picture.

[orange]

You do not think the Empire's and Federation's core tenants are in direct opposition?  Or you do not think they are near-peer adversaries?

[Lyn Farel]

Honestly this almost sounds like an IC debate.

You do not think the Empire's and Federation's core tenants are in direct opposition?  Or you do not think they are near-peer adversaries?

It depends. Black and white has never been part of that universe, or maybe with some TonyG scenarios.

Grey scales tell me that their ways of life and ethics are fundamentally opposed, but they also tell me that their behaviors and political ideals are very similar. They both are imperialistic. They both want to control. They both want to bring their ideologies to everyone. It can obviously put them against each other, but it can also gather.

That's what made them lead the assault together against Sansha (the Gallente in space, the Amarr on ground).

That's incidentaly what brought Aidonis and Heideran together like the best buddies in the world, the same way that some Caldari/Minmatar parallels can at times bring them together, even if it has yet to happen in the PF (and unlikely will since thanks to EA we now are not in a cold war anymore, but a declared war).

[Nicoletta Mithra]

I doubt both propositions to be unqualifiedly true:

I think stating it with as broadly a brush as you're employing there, it is oversimplifying the background CCP provides. Empire and Federation are quite opposed in their ideologies in some respects (e.g. 'secular' vs 'religious', 'liberal' vs 'authoritarian') and quite aligned in other respects (e.g. 'existence of universal values', 'missionary drive'). Likewise, they act as adversaries in some respects (Empire allied with the State, Federation with the Republic) and in others not (Aidonis and Heideran working together on forming CONCORD).

So if one does look from one perspective, they do generally agree and fit quite well together: All humans have to be brought under one set of universal values. They just don't agree on the 'specifics', but that doesn't prevent them from working together (as seen by Aidonis and Heideran).

From the other point of view, they disagree profoundly in their ideology, one embracing slavery and the other liberty, nonewithstanding that both embrace the notion of universal values. They work as adversaries against one another as can be easily seen by the Empire's support for the Caldari and the Federations for the Matari rebellion.

So, it really depends on what you decide to pick as picture here and how to frame it. Probably it would be better to allow for a more complex relationship, though. One that is accounting for the possibility to be framed both ways.

[Publius Valerius]

Publius, going to put my moderator hat on here for a moment: I understand for some people on the board English isn't their first language, but spell checking and proper punctuation might help. I frankly can't tell what you are saying in virtually any of your posts, and I think that is probably hurting your ability to participate in the debate. If I (and others) can't tell what you are trying to say, we can't really respond to or discuss the points you are trying to raise.

#Sorry for any misspellings, Im not a native speaker.


I have to try to re-word it (see here). If you have still any question about one of the questions just ask. It would be great if you could give me an answer  . Not just to get the discussion forward, it will help me to get your points (as I see it: You and JinOtsi are the last guys which say: "neutrality is quite simply the most beneficial stance for both"). And I cant agree on that, if I dont understand your points, so answering the questions would help me to understand you, and it will help to judge if your are RIGHT and Im WRONG.

[Seriphyn]

First, historically speaking there is no deep rooted conflict between the Empire and the Federation. They used to get along, though wearily. The Federation's true opponent is and always was the State and vice versa. That the Empire and the Federation can work together if they want to shows the example of Heideran and Aidonis Elabon.

I thought it was always obvious it was the Empire and Federation who were the true polar rivals of New Eden. They are two massive expansionist empires. Of the total population of New Eden, the Fed is 20% and the Amarr Empire is 25%. The Caldari have cooperated on more occasions with the Fed than the Fed and Empire. Just because the Fed and Amarr pursue detente doesn't mean they are fundamentally enemies. The US and USSR signed START and all that.

Both the Fed and Amarr have two end goals that involve all of human civilization being under their banner. They have two completely opposing methods to do that. That's why they are inherent enemies. The Caldari are reconcilable with the Federation. It's already http://community.eveonline.com/background/potw/default.asp?cid=10-03-06 here anyway.

Besides, are we really going for the Minmatar Republic as the archnemesis of the Amarr Empire? In Dark End of Space, the Minmatar military command acknowledge that if it wasn't for CONCORD and their regulated war, they would be curbstomped because the two are completely mismatched. They're not archrivals, because the Minmatar are not trying to make everyone Minmatar.

[Nicoletta Mithra]

Who says that the four nations of EVE need to be the arch-nemesis' of each other? If I had to pick an arch-nemesis for the Empire it'd be the Sani-Sabik cults, if it weren't for their lack of organization, or maybe better Sansha. After all is said and done, the four nations aren't that different, really, if you compare them with the factions that didn't sign the CONCORD charter.

I think it's one of the big ailments of the EVE community that they have to think, apparently, that within the four nations there must be the 'big struggle' and that this is oftentimes thought of as a struggle of 'good versus evil'.

Nations don't need arch-rivals to whom they are opposed eternally and locked with into a struggle that is about all or nothing, save for their propaganda. That's why a senator will say such a thing. It's not because the Empire is really the Federations arch-nemesis: It's to keep his voters in line. Fear is a strong ally in the struggle to get re-elected.

So, as I said, the tendency to paint any two factions as polar opposites that by necessity need to exterminate another eventually is just oversimplification of the situation, imho. It's even more simplistic than the picture CCP is already painting.

[Silver Night]

I'm not sure how prevalent the tendency toward polar opposites is (and I'm not sure how much of it is 'real' and how much is politicking or propaganda). I do think that, for me personally, when I see it done by CCP for example, it makes Eve as a setting less interesting. Complicated and messy is, in my opinion, more fun. Not only that, but I think there is plenty of room for that in Eve.

[Nicoletta Mithra]

I agree, I like to maximize the 'complicated-messy-ness' in my interpretations of PF and to minimize 'polar opposite' scenarios, because I think a more complex, less clear-cut situation offers more fun.

[Arnulf Ogunkoya]

How is this for "complicated & messy"?

Republic Fleet have sent me on missions to destroy structures that I am told are inhabited by Federal spies in Republic space, and are defended by Gallente Navy ships. And yet I have taken no faction or, I think, Fed Nav standings hits for these actions. They never happened as far as our allies are concerned. I am even able to cheerfully mission for the FIO and build decent standings with them.

Are there equivalent missions given out by Imperial or Caldari agents?