These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Shrinking Null Blocs - acknowledge coalitions.
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd
#41 - 2015-02-04 13:09:31 UTC
Coalitions must never be recognized. They nothing but a symptom of an insidious disease that Phoebe has hopefully helped to purge. Time will tell, of course.

Pilot -> Corporation -> Alliance. Nothing larger. Ever.
Jenshae Chiroptera
#42 - 2015-02-04 13:22:54 UTC
Alvatore DiMarco wrote:
Coalitions must never be recognized. They nothing but a symptom of an insidious disease that Phoebe has hopefully helped to purge. Time will tell, of course.

Pilot -> Corporation -> Alliance. Nothing larger. Ever.
... or because there is no easy solution to enforce that, make it possible for them to shrink into smaller areas of space?

CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids

Not even once

EVE is becoming shallow and puerile; it will satisfy neither the veteran nor the "WoW" type crowd in the transition.
Xavier Thorm
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#43 - 2015-02-04 14:43:31 UTC
Alvatore DiMarco wrote:
Coalitions must never be recognized. They nothing but a symptom of an insidious disease that Phoebe has hopefully helped to purge. Time will tell, of course.


What disease?

Alvatore DiMarco wrote:
Pilot -> Corporation -> Alliance. Nothing larger. Ever.


Why? No seriously, why? Alliances didn't always exist mechanically, so how did you come to the conclusion that they are the correct place for mechanically supported power structures to end?
Elenahina
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#44 - 2015-02-04 15:58:13 UTC
Xavier Thorm wrote:
Alvatore DiMarco wrote:
Coalitions must never be recognized. They nothing but a symptom of an insidious disease that Phoebe has hopefully helped to purge. Time will tell, of course.


What disease?



The disease of human nature. Unfortunately, there's no cure.

Alliances and coalitions exist for the simple reason that it makes sense for them exist. Alliances because you need one to hold space and coalitions because it's the only reliable way to protect & keep vast swaths of space once you have it.

The problem, as baltec right points out, is that we should never have needed to hold vast swaths of space to keep alliance members interested in the first place. Having to hold these large areas of space means people have to fly farther for fights, and having to blue up large numbers of people to protect your holdings only compounds the problem.

There are two ways to fix this issue:
1) Ask people to play in a suboptimal manner. (LOL, cause that will happen).
2) Fix the mechanics so that large alliances can hold vastly smaller amounts of space and still have enough income opportunities for their members.

I'll give you a for instance.

If you packed all of Goonswarm (not the CFC, just the Goons ~12k pilots) into Deklein, they wouldn't need a coalition to hold the space. They'd have enough pilots to defend it without help, especially with the reduced jump ranges limiting your capital entry points. But their members would starve for content and money making opportunities. If you collapsed the member count to the point where they could all reasonably live in Deklein, the couldn't hold the space. This is the catch 22 that the large blocs have found themselves in for years.

Occupancy sov is the right answer - as long as CCP gets the details right.

Eve is like an addiction; you can't quit it until it quits you. Also, iderno
Xavier Thorm
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#45 - 2015-02-04 16:14:18 UTC
Elenahina wrote:
Xavier Thorm wrote:
Alvatore DiMarco wrote:
Coalitions must never be recognized. They nothing but a symptom of an insidious disease that Phoebe has hopefully helped to purge. Time will tell, of course.


What disease?



The disease of human nature. Unfortunately, there's no cure.



I think you missed the part where my post was comprised entirely of rhetorical questions in an attempt to encourage Alvatore to defend his dramatic assertions, but I appreciate your insightful comments anyway.

I hope CCP can find some way to make individual systems support more players which is more elegant than simply adding more PVE content of the same kind we have now. I don't really want to see the value of ISK, minerals, and meta modules all be decreased simultaneously.
Jenshae Chiroptera
#46 - 2015-02-04 16:53:20 UTC
Elenahina wrote:
2) Fix the mechanics so that large alliances can hold vastly smaller amounts of space and still have enough income opportunities for their members. .
Jump bridges and station controls. Not all alliances trust each other completely and not being able to build strategic stations in the same system as each other ...

Some systems are held only for strategic jump bridges ... so one per alliance on those also per system?

CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids

Not even once

EVE is becoming shallow and puerile; it will satisfy neither the veteran nor the "WoW" type crowd in the transition.
Anhenka
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#47 - 2015-02-04 17:23:48 UTC  |  Edited by: Anhenka
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:
Elenahina wrote:
2) Fix the mechanics so that large alliances can hold vastly smaller amounts of space and still have enough income opportunities for their members. .
Jump bridges and station controls. Not all alliances trust each other completely and not being able to build strategic stations in the same system as each other ...

Some systems are held only for strategic jump bridges ... so one per alliance on those also per system?

If you don't trust someone to dock in your station or use your JB, you are sure as hell not living in the same system in the same coalition.

You have this idea which was overly complex and didn't honestly solve much to start, and then each time someone points out a flaw, you add more restrictions or layers of complexity to the idea in an effort to patch it up.

The result is a horrific Frankenstein's monster of a system that can easily be manipulated by shell alliances, but still doesn't address many of the fundamental issues with extremely compact sov.

What for example prevents me from making a dozen shell alliances and then placing JB's in all directions from a singel system. It could be one alliance living there, plus 12 shell alliances with one corp and one person in that corp, and they could still have all those JB's in one system.
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#48 - 2015-02-04 19:23:46 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Repeat it all you want, you are still wrong. Anyone who has done any kind of research into this subject can see that you cannot support 80 people in one system. The number is 10 per system


10 guys running solo and taking their sweet time.


Wrong again.

We finish them so fast we have to wait for them to respawn. We have been over this time after time for years now with bears such as yourself who have no idea what they are talking about.


It's probably a bad idea but just for the sake of your opinion, what if there were some anomaly with no "end"? Just trigger after trigger after trigger. I know it would print too much ISK but could a system similar to that prevent people from feeling they are stepping on each other's feets or do they really need to each have their own pocket in space while "workign"?
Zimmer Jones
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#49 - 2015-02-04 19:42:20 UTC
Anhenka wrote:

You have this idea which was overly complex and didn't honestly solve much to start, and then each time someone points out a flaw, you add more restrictions or layers of complexity to the idea in an effort to patch it up.

The result is a horrific Frankenstein's monster of a system that can easily be manipulated by shell alliances, but still doesn't address many of the fundamental issues with extremely compact sov.

What for example prevents me from making a dozen shell alliances and then placing JB's in all directions from a singel system. It could be one alliance living there, plus 12 shell alliances with one corp and one person in that corp, and they could still have all those JB's in one system.


What will prevent you is another edit to the OP, coming up soon, to save the phenomena.
I post a lot of bad ideas, and if I have to amend the original idea more than 3 times, or go back on the original intent, the idea has not been thoroughly thought through and deserves to sink into obscurity. A system works best if there are few and very simple rules governing behaviors.

For example the complex movement of a group, "flocking" can be simply modeled using 3 rules:

avoid crowding neighbors
steer towards average heading of neighbors
steer towards average position of neighbors

Very simple rules that result in what appears to be complex movement. Saving the phenomenon(greater complexity) in eve is unwise. There are enough space lawyers as it is, and the more complex a system is, the more likely it is to be gamed.

Also, I can just imagine the bad old days of pos-sov- grind come again, but less fun. Outposts take ages to drop, and they don't provide KB padding for the whores, making the grind even tougher to scrape up a fleet for.

Use the force without consent and the court wont acquit you even if you are a card carryin', robe wearin' Jedi.
Jenshae Chiroptera
#50 - 2015-02-04 20:01:52 UTC
Anhenka wrote:
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:
Elenahina wrote:
2) Fix the mechanics so that large alliances can hold vastly smaller amounts of space and still have enough income opportunities for their members. .
Jump bridges and station controls. Not all alliances trust each other completely and not being able to build strategic stations in the same system as each other ...

Some systems are held only for strategic jump bridges ... so one per alliance on those also per system?

If you don't trust someone to dock in your station or use your JB, you are sure as hell not living in the same system in the same coalition.

You have this idea which was overly complex and didn't honestly solve much to start, and then each time someone points out a flaw, you add more restrictions or layers of complexity to the idea in an effort to patch it up.

The result is a horrific Frankenstein's monster of a system that can easily be manipulated by shell alliances, but still doesn't address many of the fundamental issues with extremely compact sov.

What for example prevents me from making a dozen shell alliances and then placing JB's in all directions from a singel system. It could be one alliance living there, plus 12 shell alliances with one corp and one person in that corp, and they could still have all those JB's in one system.


Blow me away.

Come up with the perfect solution.

CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids

Not even once

EVE is becoming shallow and puerile; it will satisfy neither the veteran nor the "WoW" type crowd in the transition.
M1k3y Koontz
House of Musashi
Stay Feral
#51 - 2015-02-05 01:12:37 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Wow, no.

First, how about we make it so that alliances actually exist? You know, instead of being a slapdash hotfix that has held for years and years?

Alliance bookmarks first and foremost, obviously, but nonetheless, you don't just build bad on top of bad.

Yeesh.


They talked about making alliances actually functional in the summit that just passed.

How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp.
M1k3y Koontz
House of Musashi
Stay Feral
#52 - 2015-02-05 01:14:54 UTC
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
No, Im talking about people using the best ratting ships in the game. 10 people is the max you can host in the very best truesec system. It is impossible to support 80 people let alone the thirty thousand in our empire on a single system.


I repeat.

I know it can support 80
I do not expect thousands confined to one system.



I have no problem with 30,000 guys being unable to fly under the same banner. Because to hell with 2000 man fights, I'm tired of tidi.

That said, 80 people really cannot be supported in one system (without lots of mining). Mining is no way to live. I'm 99.9% sure the Geneva Convention banned the practice of forcing people to mine for a living.

How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp.
Barbara Nichole
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#53 - 2015-02-05 03:56:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Barbara Nichole
Announce that in 6 months freighters and haulers will lose their fatigue bonus. Bad idea. they have that bonus because fatigue wasn't a really good idea in the first place.

access to things not yours in an outpost after 6 months? You should never have access to anything in a player hanger without permission. ever.

coalitions? perhaps the better move would be to outlaw them and to make it harder for unofficial organizations to work together. Don't really care much for coalitions, sorry.

  - remove the cloaked from local; free intel is the real problem, not  "afk" cloaking -

[IMG]http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a208/DawnFrostbringer/consultsig.jpg[/IMG]
Hairpins Blueprint
The Northerners
Pandemic Horde
#54 - 2015-02-05 15:09:34 UTC
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:
TL;DR



  • Add additional ratting sites that require teams to complete them.







i would like to see that ... : ( there is nothing like that in null sec right now. Let's hope new sleepers will bring it.
M1k3y Koontz
House of Musashi
Stay Feral
#55 - 2015-02-05 21:18:58 UTC
Barbara Nichole wrote:
Announce that in 6 months freighters and haulers will lose their fatigue bonus. Bad idea. they have that bonus because fatigue wasn't a really good idea in the first place.

access to things not yours in an outpost after 6 months? You should never have access to anything in a player hanger without permission. ever.

coalitions? perhaps the better move would be to outlaw them and to make it harder for unofficial organizations to work together. Don't really care much for coalitions, sorry.


Fatigue was a great idea, it just makes JFs difficult, and since nullsec isn't currently capable of supporting itself industrially CCP relented.

How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp.
Jenshae Chiroptera
#56 - 2015-02-05 23:54:41 UTC
M1k3y Koontz wrote:
Barbara Nichole wrote:
Announce that in 6 months freighters and haulers will lose their fatigue bonus. Bad idea. they have that bonus because fatigue wasn't a really good idea in the first place.
access to things not yours in an outpost after 6 months? You should never have access to anything in a player hanger without permission. ever.
coalitions? perhaps the better move would be to outlaw them and to make it harder for unofficial organizations to work together. Don't really care much for coalitions, sorry.
Fatigue was a great idea, it just makes JFs difficult, and since nullsec isn't currently capable of supporting itself industrially CCP relented.
Impression I got , at one point, was that it was a temporary reprieve and we should prepare our null sec trade hubs. (I cheered this on).

As to alliance bookmarks there was something about them flooding your machine / connection when you keep jumping systems if they are alliance wide.

CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids

Not even once

EVE is becoming shallow and puerile; it will satisfy neither the veteran nor the "WoW" type crowd in the transition.
Cutter John
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#57 - 2015-02-14 20:29:56 UTC
I hate fatigue... I rarely even log in because of it... It hampers what I can do as an individual. I prefer to be self reliant, with fatigue, I can't Jump my own **** without having to sit ad and wait in a station... It sucks...
Syn Shi
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#58 - 2015-02-14 21:35:04 UTC
Elenahina wrote:
Xavier Thorm wrote:
Alvatore DiMarco wrote:
Coalitions must never be recognized. They nothing but a symptom of an insidious disease that Phoebe has hopefully helped to purge. Time will tell, of course.


What disease?



The disease of human nature. Unfortunately, there's no cure.

Alliances and coalitions exist for the simple reason that it makes sense for them exist. Alliances because you need one to hold space and coalitions because it's the only reliable way to protect & keep vast swaths of space once you have it.

The problem, as baltec right points out, is that we should never have needed to hold vast swaths of space to keep alliance members interested in the first place. Having to hold these large areas of space means people have to fly farther for fights, and having to blue up large numbers of people to protect your holdings only compounds the problem.

There are two ways to fix this issue:
1) Ask people to play in a suboptimal manner. (LOL, cause that will happen).
2) Fix the mechanics so that large alliances can hold vastly smaller amounts of space and still have enough income opportunities for their members.

I'll give you a for instance.

If you packed all of Goonswarm (not the CFC, just the Goons ~12k pilots) into Deklein, they wouldn't need a coalition to hold the space. They'd have enough pilots to defend it without help, especially with the reduced jump ranges limiting your capital entry points. But their members would starve for content and money making opportunities. If you collapsed the member count to the point where they could all reasonably live in Deklein, the couldn't hold the space. This is the catch 22 that the large blocs have found themselves in for years.

Occupancy sov is the right answer - as long as CCP gets the details right.



Why would their members starve? They can go anywhere and risk getting shot like everyone else.

Risk/reward.............
Cutter John
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#59 - 2015-02-14 21:41:11 UTC
Jump fatigue is horribly flawed... Horribly, What makes you think I want to sit and wait 15 minutes in between each and every 10LY jump with my freighter... It wrecks the ability of an individual to be self reliant. I will be selling my characters at wholesale and leaving EVE. I used to like this game for the freedom it allowed and now it is horribly broken.
Jenshae Chiroptera
#60 - 2015-02-15 05:49:44 UTC
Cutter John wrote:
Jump fatigue is horribly flawed... Horribly, What makes you think I want to sit and wait 15 minutes in between each and every 10LY jump with my freighter... It wrecks the ability of an individual to be self reliant. I will be selling my characters at wholesale and leaving EVE. I used to like this game for the freedom it allowed and now it is horribly broken.
It is just absolutely, terrible that a multiplayer game would require more tactics, planning and team work. Sad

CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids

Not even once

EVE is becoming shallow and puerile; it will satisfy neither the veteran nor the "WoW" type crowd in the transition.