Assembly Hall

Mallak Azaria -Power blocks are the result of social engineering. Learn how to make & keep friends instead of whining to CCP about nerfing friend making.

I have tons of ex-corp mates in other alliances in the 6 years I have play'ed the game. I don't feel the need to follow them from corp to corp or alliance to alliance like a lost puppy, maybe you do?.

Lykouleon - Prior to the current system, Alliance and corp standings were much more limited. What did players do? They kept standings displayable on external applications. Have an IGB window open to it -> check for friendlies. Not too hard. Limiting or removing the standings system will have no effect on the ability for people to actually make friends and wheel-and-deal in nullsec unless you can somehow miraculously change the way human beings interact (good luck).[/quote]

I don't say coalitions would be or should be impossible. I said they become more difficult to maintain through the loss of shared in space assets like bridges, towers, outposts, and inability to automatically filter non-fleet coalition members. Sure you can still share space and not shoot each other. Player level NIPs would still happen.

Lykouleon - Limiting max-corporation or max-alliance size only means I make more corporations and alliances and then run them via external tools/community bundles. More names, same leadership. Again, nothing done that actually changes the dynamic in-game.[/quote]

Nothing stopping it. A 10k alliance can break up in to 10 - 1k alliances but they have to split their outposts, have individual SOV'ed systems to place their individual jump bridge networks, and have the ability to take a 1k ship fleet filled of pilots from those 10 alliances, break it up in to 4 fleets, and some how the target callers for those 4 fleets need to not call targets that belong to the other 9 friendly coalition alliances while still calling targets of the hostiles. Because the 10k man alliance is now broken up in to 10 entities, each hold 1/10th the sov, outposts, and it is now 10x more vulnerable when it comes to the ability for another alliance to target just one of these 10 alliances and take all the outposts they hold and that alliances ability to manage fleet and personal inventories. Cause they can't just go live in another alliance's outpost, that wouldn't work. They can't realistically live out of a POS because the assets in that POS would be removed easier then the SOV would be.



Lykouleon - Increased SOV bills mean I just spread the Sov over multiple entities while still maintaining alliance income and social structure. Big whoop, no change to dynamics.

Regardless how many systems you own. The cost per system doesn't change. If the cost is per system + upgrades then it doesn't matter how you attempt to manipulate the system, the cost of the SOV has to come from somewhere and someone must pay it or SOV drops.

Lykouleon - Towers are, inherently, Corporation-owned structures (even thought the names is "PLAYER Owned Starbase"). Changing alliance mechanics does nothing to the Corporation-level structure unless you rip out the current POS system and make it alliance-based. Good luck doing that.

Only thing I mentioned when it came to towers is removing passwords and standing based aspects of them. Towers can currently be set for corp and alliance use. Passwords are required to give access to non alliance pilots. Removing tower passwords remove the ability to set and use them and restricting non-alliance uses for them. Remove standings would break standing based access to bridges.

Lykouleon - Alliance and corp names are displayed on ships and characters in the overview and on the display. Removing standings only means your overview gets more crowded. If XX is fighting YY and ZZ comes along, and ZZ is friends with XX, XX's FC just needs to not call any ZZ ships as targets. Again, you're just making things more difficult for players to enjoy than actually changing anything meaningful.

It only becomes truly difficult when you have 10+ alliances in your coalition and you bring all of them to the field. Like... we have now.

Lykouleon - Lastly, CCP has stood by their stance that this game focuses on player-generated content with the developers tending to not intervene. That means the creation of coalitions and the preceding and subsequent social engineering is outside of the developers hands. Interfering with that would break down years of precedent by the company and would cause a large percentage of the player base to leave in disgust.

http://shitonkugu.blogspot.com/2013/03/****-on-kugu-26.html Tell me... Are we blaming CCP for something we could have easily avoided or is their a need for a change in mechanics to break up the coalitions.

Lykouleon - don't force the developers to sandwich us into a corner and limit how we play the game.[/quote]

We have done that really well ourselves. I already talked about how coalitions strip alliance identity and limit game play.

Prior to the current system, Alliance and corp standings were much more limited. What did players do? They kept standings displayable on external applications. Have an IGB window open to it -> check for friendlies. Not too hard. Limiting or removing the standings system will have no effect on the ability for people to actually make friends and wheel-and-deal in nullsec unless you can somehow miraculously change the way human beings interact (good luck).

Limiting max-corporation or max-alliance size only means I make more corporations and alliances and then run them via external tools/community bundles. More names, same leadership. Again, nothing done that actually changes the dynamic in-game.

Moon mining is not sole source of T2 production. Alchemy is a thing...not perfect, but still a thing.

Increased SOV bills mean I just spread the Sov over multiple entities while still maintaining alliance income and social structure. Big whoop, no change to dynamics.

Towers are, inherently, Corporation-owned structures (even thought the names is "PLAYER Owned Starbase"). Changing alliance mechanics does nothing to the Corporation-level structure unless you rip out the current POS system and make it alliance-based. Good luck doing that.

Alliance and corp names are displayed on ships and characters in the overview and on the display. Removing standings only means your overview gets more crowded. If XX is fighting YY and ZZ comes along, and ZZ is friends with XX, XX's FC just needs to not call any ZZ ships as targets. Again, you're just making things more difficult for players to enjoy than actually changing anything meaningful.

Lastly, CCP has stood by their stance that this game focuses on player-generated content with the developers tending to not intervene. That means the creation of coalitions and the preceding and subsequent social engineering is outside of the developers hands. Interfering with that would break down years of precedent by the company and would cause a large percentage of the player base to leave in disgust. Stop being a whiny babby and cause some emergent gameplay that changes the landscape by player-devised means; don't force the developers to sandwich us into a corner and limit how we play the game.

Reserved

Nice giant straw-man post (not ignoring the fact that most of your points on coalitions are, in fact, hilariously wrong).

I have them follow me because I'm a likeable guy. Superior social engineering.

Here's the problem, the people in the large coalitions are the average 0.0 player.

The funny thing is that 0.0 has been mostly divided between 4 or 5 coalitions pretty much permanently since 2003, but it's only today that this has become an EVE IS DYING BLOOBLOOBLOO problem.

No offense... but I think your solution will not fix the problem...

I too want to anonymize nullsec... but I think the best solution to do so is by changing the intel system...

I'd prefer to replace local with an intel system that doesn't immediately show you the name of every pilot in local... something where you have to fly in space to determine who that new ship is...