Player Features and Ideas Discussion

There is a debate over whether coalitions are damaging to nullsec gameplay or not, and in what capacity they are damaging. I am still on the fence about this issue, but I thought of a relatively easy solution to implement. I would call it a Coalition Tax.

Similar to war decs, this tax would require a weekly or monthly fee to maintain a blue relationship with another alliance. For small coalitions (3-4 alliances), this fee should be small enough to be negligible. It could also be somewhat dependent on the quantity of pilots within the coalition - this point I am not sure about. But as the number of alliances increases, the fee should become steeper - this would add to the complexity of politics within EVE, as the benefits of having blues will be offset by the drawbacks of having to pay a tax to maintain their solidarity.

It is true that this would promote large alliances individually - but these have their own scaling costs. The system would require a small change in how alliances can set blues, but nothing that should take too many hours of coding time.

-> Major point: This change will have no real effect unless being in a coalition gives inherent advantages within game. This is because CEOs and alliance leaders can inform their members to (tediously) blue new alliances that are added to the roster. Unless in-game advantages of some sort were given to alliances that have alliances (coalitions), there would be no real benefit to this system, and it would in fact detract from gameplay. An example of an existing advantage would be the ability to dock in stations owned by alliances that have blued you. I am uncertain whether this advantage is severe enough to make a difference, but it is just an example.

And again, I am not addressing whether large nullsec alliances are good or bad - that is for another topic. This is simply discussing a possible solution.

Ramifications, both minor and major:
Increasing the role of the alliance relative to the role of the coalition within nullsec politics will likely increase massive corporate theft opportunities.
This list will be updated as people weigh in with their own insights.

Coalitions force people to work together.

The larger a coalition becomes, the more entropy can take over, and drive the coalition apart from within. Also, every coalition (RL and EVE) has a unifying point. It may be a purpose, a goal, or something else. In an environment as dynamic as EVE, goals change, purposes change, etc. As soon as that unifying point is taken away, what is there to keep the coalition together? After a bit, the coalition will break apart in time, or occasionally, implode in a massive failcascade that is fantastic to watch from afar.

Your idea would be exceedingly difficult to run, can be easily avoided, and is also the equivalent of using a chainsaw to remove an inflamed appendix.

Moth to the flame paradox

None: let the sandbox be run by players and human nature, not by CCP.

The complexity is that CCP has many different factions of players to cater to. Some people don't like the coalitions, others do. Here CCP has to make the judgement call of "Where do we want to go with the game, while still keeping the players happy (so that they subscribe)?"

Uh... There are really 2 major coalitions out in Null right now... DRF (Drone Region Forces) and CFC (Clusterf--k Coalition). The two combined (the DCF - Drone Clusterf--k) hold roughly 70% of the space in EVE.

If they are "pretty small", I'd hate to see what big is.

I really hate it when people make an idea then claim ccp is on thier side.

Do not assume CCP is on your side.
You are trying to sell an idea to CCP.
And so far this idea isnt worth the effort of mentioning it.

Back to the drawing board and come back with a better mind set.

Either way reported thread to be moved to FnI so I can properly sink my teeth into it there. Hope you brought rabies vaccine and alot of bandaids.

This.

I have no problems with CCP setting guidelines and creating fair mechanisms that could serve both or even 3 sides of the same coin. But in the end, the players have to dictate their own style of gameplay.

I have no problem with a napfest tax.

I have no problem with napfests.

I do however have a problem with oppressive napfests that try to force others to join their cause or disrupt their gameplay.

As long as the player's freedoms don't impede on the rights of other players, throw caution to the wind and practice senseless acts of wtf.