These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
12Next page
 

Would this solve many of the 0.0 and Large alliance issues?

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Toyota County
We Have All the Fun
#1 - 2011-10-20 17:47:46 UTC
I have been reading this and that and the other about how to limit super-cap blobs, limit LARGE alliances insta-killing any smaller alliance that tries to get into 0.0, and fears that the lack of COMBAT in 0.0 because of large alliances becoming settled and comfortable may even cripple the EVE economy...

So I had a question or two for all of you.

What about simply limiting the size of corporations and/or alliances?

If alliances were capped to x # of members and X # of corps would this shake things up?

Likewise what about limiting a corp size?

Would downsizing/splitting major alliances stir things up? Sure, they will remain friends but we are speaking as to game mechanics, no "authorized" super alliance would exist.

Would having more smaller alliances (who formerly were one giant super alliance) create more opportunities for political fallout, and pvp fights, and thus sov changes?

Would the above possibly allow even more smaller alliances to gain some ground and actually grow in 0.0?

Much of this admittedly assumes that have 5-10 SUPER alliances is NOT good for the game of EVE. And that assumption may be incorrect. It just seems to me reading through board complaints and ideas for change that much of that can be started by limiting the BLOB mentality whether that be 5to1 odds in ship blobs, membership blobs, or owned system and resource blobs.

Ok let me have it...... Big smile
Alara IonStorm
#2 - 2011-10-20 17:55:42 UTC
Toyota County wrote:

So I had a question or two for all of you.

What about simply limiting the size of corporations and/or alliances?

If alliances were capped to x # of members and X # of corps would this shake things up?

Likewise what about limiting a corp size?

Big smile

DRF is made up of 8 or so Super Alliances all this would do is make it 30 or so Alliances.

Blues all use the same voice chat to manage Blobs.

So no.
Slade Trillgon
Brutor Force Federated
#3 - 2011-10-20 18:02:31 UTC
One of the things that has come up in the past is to allow corporations to hold sov.

I am not sure if that would help or if you would end up having hyperinflated corps or small corps would still get flushed out if they do not have the experience in their numbers.


Slade
Kengutsi Akira
Doomheim
#4 - 2011-10-20 18:04:33 UTC
unless you limit the number of ppl you can blue and then limit the number of ppl you can convo with on comms or make comms bannable (all lols) then youll never "fix" this "issue"

"Is it fair that CCP can get away with..." :: checks ownership on the box ::

Yes
Elise DarkStar
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#5 - 2011-10-20 18:10:04 UTC
The solution is to diffuse wealth creation far beyond the current 400 moons, and have the vast majority of null (low and hi too actually but that's a different topic) wealth creation require regular, coordinated, involved, and fun activities. Fun team-oriented wealth creation gets people logged on and into space, wealth creators in space leads to people trying to disrupt or otherwise harm them, disruptions lead to a higher order of defensive organization. The more coordination you can manage, the more wealth you can create, but also the more vulnerable and tempting you are to disruption.
Lord Ryan
True Xero
#6 - 2011-10-20 18:14:10 UTC
Simple solution:

Make one mobile indestructible space station. Make it round, kind of like a small moon. Plug any exhaust vents. Maybe throw on a superlaser or 2. Hand it off to me! There you go, no more NIP-NAPS.

Do not assume anything above this line was typed by me. Nerf the Truth, it's inconvenient.
Toyota County
We Have All the Fun
#7 - 2011-10-20 18:26:50 UTC
Kengutsi Akira wrote:
unless you limit the number of ppl you can blue and then limit the number of ppl you can convo with on comms or make comms bannable (all lols) then youll never "fix" this "issue"



You may be on to something. I am aware that people talk IRL (in real life) and there will never nor should there be a way for CCP to stop that.

I think Keng could be onto something though. Perhaps as a part of the "Great Breakup" you would allow alliances to ONLY set alliance members to blue. Any other friendly corp can be set to something between neutral and blue. This would not stop the "only turn the 4 corp super alliance into a 30 corp super alliance" but it may create some opportunities for those alliances to dissolve more frequently, more voices more disagreements? More Corps, more corp leaders, more game mechanics adjusted/created to reward the CORP not the alliance, specifically profit potentials as another poster mentioned.

Updated ideas:

1. Alliances limited to x(20?) corps. Corps limited to X (300?) members

2. Alliances can only set alliance members to BLUE

3. Alliances mechanics changed so each corp has an equal share in alliance roles and profits

4. NEW IDEA. All items that require sov only allow access to BLUE (alliance)pilots, outposts, pos, now customs offices, etc. This would limit but not restrict alliance to alliance commerce, they can still dock and exchange goods in NEUTRAL stations, etc. Would this force those transactions to take place in empire and low-sec systems thus creating that flow of traffic DEVS have talked about between high and null?

Just tossing out ideas everyone. Thnx for all the replies
Igualmentedos
Perkone
Caldari State
#8 - 2011-10-20 18:41:00 UTC
Toyota County wrote:
I have been reading this and that and the other about how to limit super-cap blobs, limit LARGE alliances insta-killing any smaller alliance that tries to get into 0.0, and fears that the lack of COMBAT in 0.0 because of large alliances becoming settled and comfortable may even cripple the EVE economy...

So I had a question or two for all of you.

What about simply limiting the size of corporations and/or alliances?

If alliances were capped to x # of members and X # of corps would this shake things up?

Likewise what about limiting a corp size?

Would downsizing/splitting major alliances stir things up? Sure, they will remain friends but we are speaking as to game mechanics, no "authorized" super alliance would exist.

Would having more smaller alliances (who formerly were one giant super alliance) create more opportunities for political fallout, and pvp fights, and thus sov changes?

Would the above possibly allow even more smaller alliances to gain some ground and actually grow in 0.0?

Much of this admittedly assumes that have 5-10 SUPER alliances is NOT good for the game of EVE. And that assumption may be incorrect. It just seems to me reading through board complaints and ideas for change that much of that can be started by limiting the BLOB mentality whether that be 5to1 odds in ship blobs, membership blobs, or owned system and resource blobs.

Ok let me have it...... Big smile


How about making it difficult and costly to hold vast amounts of space? Currently alliances have a lot of space and they don't even inhabit a large portion of it.
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local
Break-A-Wish Foundation
#9 - 2011-10-20 18:41:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Vimsy Vortis
So what you are saying is that people should be punished for having alot of friends, strong recruitment practices, unifying external factors or good leadership abilities and that it should be made arbitrarily difficult for people to identify and interact with other groups of people with whom they share common goals and interests?

What the bloody hell is wrong with you? None of these idiotic ideas would actually prevent people from doing anything they are currently, they'd just make the game more tedious to play. Jesus christ.
Trusty Jutspezic
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#10 - 2011-10-20 18:48:41 UTC
You're trying to fix consequences of the metagame with arbitrary limitations to corporation management. Stop that.
David Grogan
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#11 - 2011-10-20 19:22:06 UTC
limiting the size of alliances wouldn't work
Take goonswarm for example reducing alliance sizes would result in more small alliances all working together

all you'd get would be something like this

Goonswarm Royal Family - leadership section alliance coalition
Goonswarm Slaves - industrial section of the alliance coalition
Goonswarm Meatshield - pvp section of the alliance coalition
Goonswarm Nosy Parkers - Intel section of the alliance coalition
Goonswarm Scum - Scammers, Theives, and Crack Suicide Squad section of the alliance
there would still be 6000+ members just spilt up into multiple divisions

Legion of xdeath would do something like this

Legion of xdeath - For supers deployment & tech moon mining
Shadow of xdeath - for rent collection
Shadow of xdeath1 - Botting alliance 1
Shadow of xdeath2 - Botting alliance 2
Shadow of xdeath3 - Botting alliance 3
Shadow of xdeath4 - Botting alliance 4
Shadow of xdeath5 - Botting alliance 5

Everytime you buy something that says "made in china" you are helping the rising unemployment in your own country unless you are from china, Buy locally produced goods and help create more jobs.
Feligast
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#12 - 2011-10-20 19:24:48 UTC
Toyota County wrote:

Updated ideas:

1. Alliances limited to x(20?) corps. Corps limited to X (300?) members

2. Alliances can only set alliance members to BLUE

3. Alliances mechanics changed so each corp has an equal share in alliance roles and profits

4. NEW IDEA. All items that require sov only allow access to BLUE (alliance)pilots, outposts, pos, now customs offices, etc. This would limit but not restrict alliance to alliance commerce, they can still dock and exchange goods in NEUTRAL stations, etc. Would this force those transactions to take place in empire and low-sec systems thus creating that flow of traffic DEVS have talked about between high and null?

Just tossing out ideas everyone. Thnx for all the replies


1. K. 6000 members per alliance, fine. You're going to reimburse all those alts that have extremely high corp management skills trained, right? So you just created another free SP goldrush.

2. Fine. We'll set our friends to red and only shoot neutrals. (and blues, obv)

3. Spy much?

4. I was under the strong impression CCP was trying to make null as independent as possible of hi and low sec.. now you're making every sov holding alliance completely isolated from others. Cute.

If you're not getting it from my reply.. these are all not only unnecessary, but poorly thought through. Trying to punish large alliance for being successful is just petty and childish.
Abdiel Kavash
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#13 - 2011-10-20 19:25:05 UTC
Vimsy Vortis wrote:
So what you are saying is that people should be punished for having alot of friends, strong recruitment practices, unifying external factors or good leadership abilities and that it should be made arbitrarily difficult for people to identify and interact with other groups of people with whom they share common goals and interests?

What the bloody hell is wrong with you? None of these idiotic ideas would actually prevent people from doing anything they are currently, they'd just make the game more tedious to play. Jesus christ.

QFT. Teamwork is an intended game mechanic. If you don't want to play with others, go play a singleplayer game.
Toyota County
We Have All the Fun
#14 - 2011-10-20 19:57:59 UTC
I thank most all of you for your replies.

I think you have all offered other alternatives or perspectives that i had not thought of. This is the entire point for discussion and ideas to be out in the open. Not one of us can possibly think of ever angle of perspective or repercussion of one game change or dynamic.

"childish" seems a bit extreme but what can you expect from some people that do not know how to have a meaningful and open discussion, they always resort to personal attacks. Such is the ploy of those to ignorant to add to society, even EVE society.

I think EVE DEV has actually said they want null, low, and empire to offer DIFFERENT but not entirely isolated play styles. They do not want a progression from high sec n00b to null warrior. They want character growth in the entire EVE universe, meaning you will forever feel compelled to roam, travel, and interact in all areas of EVE and profit (isk or play experiences) from all of it.

A gigantic role for sure.

Also, by limiting corp/alliance member size you are NOT punishing large successful alliances at all. Friends will always be friends, whether that is in EVE, Everquest, WoW, or any game (as I have many in EVE from various other games over the years, actually amazing we still find eachother game to game). In fact, I argue that by creating more corp and alliances ( thru downsizing) you would actually create more interaction if it did not remain exactly the same.

Again I thank all of those who replied with constructive comments and ideas
Steelshine
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#15 - 2011-10-20 20:03:50 UTC
Toyota County wrote:
I have been reading this and that and the other about how to limit super-cap blobs, limit LARGE alliances insta-killing any smaller alliance that tries to get into 0.0, and fears that the lack of COMBAT in 0.0 because of large alliances becoming settled and comfortable may even cripple the EVE economy...

So I had a question or two for all of you.

What about simply limiting the size of corporations and/or alliances?

If alliances were capped to x # of members and X # of corps would this shake things up?

Likewise what about limiting a corp size?

Would downsizing/splitting major alliances stir things up? Sure, they will remain friends but we are speaking as to game mechanics, no "authorized" super alliance would exist.

Would having more smaller alliances (who formerly were one giant super alliance) create more opportunities for political fallout, and pvp fights, and thus sov changes?

Would the above possibly allow even more smaller alliances to gain some ground and actually grow in 0.0?

Much of this admittedly assumes that have 5-10 SUPER alliances is NOT good for the game of EVE. And that assumption may be incorrect. It just seems to me reading through board complaints and ideas for change that much of that can be started by limiting the BLOB mentality whether that be 5to1 odds in ship blobs, membership blobs, or owned system and resource blobs.

Ok let me have it...... Big smile


Nullsec is pretty fun, you should actually go there sometime.
Kengutsi Akira
Doomheim
#16 - 2011-10-20 20:11:09 UTC
Trusty Jutspezic wrote:
You're trying to fix consequences of the metagame with arbitrary limitations to corporation management. Stop that.


Metagame in this game IS THE GAME

"Is it fair that CCP can get away with..." :: checks ownership on the box ::

Yes
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local
Break-A-Wish Foundation
#17 - 2011-10-20 20:29:16 UTC
Toyota County wrote:
Also, by limiting corp/alliance member size you are NOT punishing large successful alliances at all. Friends will always be friends, whether that is in EVE, Everquest, WoW, or any game (as I have many in EVE from various other games over the years, actually amazing we still find eachother game to game). In fact, I argue that by creating more corp and alliances ( thru downsizing) you would actually create more interaction if it did not remain exactly the same.


Apparently you've never actually played EVE before.
Renan Ruivo
Forcas armadas
Brave Collective
#18 - 2011-10-20 20:33:41 UTC
You are talking about artificial limitations to player interaction.

No, no no nonono no... no no..


No and no, no no and no and a big NO.


You can't punish people for banding together and wanting to work for a common goal however noble it might or might not be. If you want to talk, talk discouragements to forming big napfests. Not limitations.

The world is a community of idiots doing a series of things until it explodes and we all die.
Di Mulle
#19 - 2011-10-20 20:33:56 UTC
Excellent demonstration of a variation of Malcanis Law.

Say your new small corporation wants to venture into 0,., maybe join the newborn alliance made by the similar neophytes. But the leaders of the latter have already studied that mechanics of yours and respond

"sorry, we can have 5 corps only, and yours is what, 20 members ?? We would like to, but we need corps with the max limit size. Dissolve into one of those or GTFO. We are sorry again".
<<Insert some waste of screen space here>>
Di Mulle
#20 - 2011-10-20 20:34:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Di Mulle
Deleted, double post. Thanks to awesome web team again.
<<Insert some waste of screen space here>>
12Next page