These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Changes to SOV , Power Projection & Nullsec Stagnation

First post First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Retar Aveymone
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#561 - 2014-07-09 17:35:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Retar Aveymone
Kagura Nikon wrote:

And I am just trying to proposed a dampener on the power projection, not a wall. Because even a dampener is better than nothing as long as it cannot be easily circunvented by larger groups but not by smaller groups.

you're not reading

what querns is telling you is that your plan fails your own test (though it is more "can be circumvented trivially by the rich but not the poor" which is more problematic)
Kagura Nikon
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#562 - 2014-07-09 17:41:28 UTC
Retar Aveymone wrote:
Kagura Nikon wrote:

And I am just trying to proposed a dampener on the power projection, not a wall. Because even a dampener is better than nothing as long as it cannot be easily circunvented by larger groups but not by smaller groups.

you're not reading

what querns is telling you is that your plan fails your own test (though it is more "can be circumvented trivially by the rich but not the poor" which is more problematic)



And yet.. that is the only possibility. Because we all agree what we have now is bad. And CCP will NEVER remove jumps because of low sec.

So the only way is finding a way so that any sort of timmers cannot be circunvented by being rich.

Simple example I posted about 20 pages ago.. attach jump timers to the PILOT. Make it the SAME timer as the jump clone timer.

You can trasverse gates... OK.. AND you can jump normally, but only if your jump clone timer allows and that restart the timmer...

"If brute force does not solve your problem....  then you are  surely not using enough!"
Vaju Enki
Secular Wisdom
#563 - 2014-07-09 17:42:52 UTC
After the industry iteration, SOV really need to be the next priority.

The Tears Must Flow
Kagura Nikon
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#564 - 2014-07-09 17:43:14 UTC
Querns wrote:
Kagura Nikon wrote:
But I still think major problem is the no drawback on having thousands of blues. If you cannto have thousands of blues then it does not matter how much projection you have.

The problem is that blues cannot be "restricted." Sure, you can put in game mechanics to limit the size of entities, or put in mechanics that restrict the in-game standings in some effective, non-specified way, but the fact of the matter is that blue relationships are increasingly forged out of game -- at barbecues, at Fanfest, in Vegas, in Jabber, on Mumble. Out of game software and organization can compensate for any attempted restriction of in-game blue lists.

Attempting to curtail organization and friendship is a non-starter. How do you propose to keep two disparate groups from working together?




No need to curtain friendship.. just to curtail automatic system that make cooperation easy. Make your allaince manteinace increase by the number of blues you have (simple and very rude example) and you can keep friend of someone. But you will not have them blue and therefore emergency operations with them are almost impossible.

"If brute force does not solve your problem....  then you are  surely not using enough!"
Querns
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#565 - 2014-07-09 17:49:42 UTC
Kagura Nikon wrote:
Querns wrote:
Kagura Nikon wrote:
But I still think major problem is the no drawback on having thousands of blues. If you cannto have thousands of blues then it does not matter how much projection you have.

The problem is that blues cannot be "restricted." Sure, you can put in game mechanics to limit the size of entities, or put in mechanics that restrict the in-game standings in some effective, non-specified way, but the fact of the matter is that blue relationships are increasingly forged out of game -- at barbecues, at Fanfest, in Vegas, in Jabber, on Mumble. Out of game software and organization can compensate for any attempted restriction of in-game blue lists.

Attempting to curtail organization and friendship is a non-starter. How do you propose to keep two disparate groups from working together?




No need to curtain friendship.. just to curtail automatic system that make cooperation easy. Make your allaince manteinace increase by the number of blues you have (simple and very rude example) and you can keep friend of someone. But you will not have them blue and therefore emergency operations with them are almost impossible.

If blue standings increased the alliance maintenance cost, we'd just keep our allies neutral most of the time, then blue them as needed for ops. Alternatively, we'd just eat the cost, since we have a lot of money.

This is Yet Another version of using costs to control empires. You can't do this. Cost is not a limiting factor in Eve: Online.

This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
Kagura Nikon
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#566 - 2014-07-09 17:59:50 UTC
Querns wrote:
Kagura Nikon wrote:
Querns wrote:
Kagura Nikon wrote:
But I still think major problem is the no drawback on having thousands of blues. If you cannto have thousands of blues then it does not matter how much projection you have.

The problem is that blues cannot be "restricted." Sure, you can put in game mechanics to limit the size of entities, or put in mechanics that restrict the in-game standings in some effective, non-specified way, but the fact of the matter is that blue relationships are increasingly forged out of game -- at barbecues, at Fanfest, in Vegas, in Jabber, on Mumble. Out of game software and organization can compensate for any attempted restriction of in-game blue lists.

Attempting to curtail organization and friendship is a non-starter. How do you propose to keep two disparate groups from working together?




No need to curtain friendship.. just to curtail automatic system that make cooperation easy. Make your allaince manteinace increase by the number of blues you have (simple and very rude example) and you can keep friend of someone. But you will not have them blue and therefore emergency operations with them are almost impossible.

If blue standings increased the alliance maintenance cost, we'd just keep our allies neutral most of the time, then blue them as needed for ops. Alternatively, we'd just eat the cost, since we have a lot of money.

This is Yet Another version of using costs to control empires. You can't do this. Cost is not a limiting factor in Eve: Online.



it is, because it grows directly in relation to the income capability. Cost is a limiting factors. Th problem is that fixed costs are never going to be a limiting factor. And what you described is exactly what i was thinking. Blue donuts would not be effective at a scalation fight but would be still powerful in planned battles? The result? Now we have a reason to make " hit and run "(for lack of a better term) strikes.

Couple that with a delay of a few hours to change standings...



You may propose whatever change you might dream, as long you ALLOW a blue list to have 10 K people, it will have 10 K people. That is human nature. If it is impossible to limit blue list then we are doomed and this thread is meaningless because if there is something impossible is to curtail human nature and to think that any approach that relies on psycological pressure will work (because that is the same fail as all the other attempts to use such factors, because it ignores the fact that people will usually not think the same way as the one that created the mechanism).

You may make travel as hard as you want, that will NOT solve the blue donut. It will make the stronger part of the blue group to kick the weaker part and pray on them. But the stronger parts that could fight each other in an interestign way will NOT depart. Why? because cowardice is deeply and strongly at the center of human mind.

"If brute force does not solve your problem....  then you are  surely not using enough!"
DragonOfTheArmory
#567 - 2014-07-09 18:02:21 UTC
I have been reading through a lot of the suggestions and it sounds great.

I haven't seen a suggestion about off loading some of the stuff that comes with being in null to low sec. It would give low sec more of a purpose. The balance on risk versus reward seems to be skewed based on how the power projection works at a given moment and who is in control of it.

If you limit particular ship class, for example supers and titans, from going into a system above a set value, you could use it to remove the ability to use low sec as a jump point for long range deployments, and it would keep them out of low sec. If you want to get to the other side of null sec to help out someone do whatever, then you might have to fight your way through another alliances space. This would also remove the full on titan and supers comedy drops onto a small fleet that could be handled with a few interceptors and cruiser level fire power. The balance of power would shift to dreads and carriers as the high end of the food chain in low sec conflicts without having to phone-a-friend with supers and titan bridges full of support. It would also introduce a medium to get the middle of the road players with the income that they could run dreads and carriers into low sec and start to populate it.

Make null sec stations fully destructible. This would remove the ping-pong game that comes with establishing sovereignty via station games. The closest place to stage ships would be the low sec stations. This would also cause certain bottle neck systems and regions to close up to protect their home systems in 0.0 and some alliances wouldn't be able to project out as far because they would be over extended given the nature of the time zone games that come with staging and mounting full of offensive and defensive actions. You want to put up a station, the resources are in 0.0, so fight to establish a presence there. Of course, the stuff would have to be held in low sec until you can put it all together to start the station construction.

Move some of the industry around so that if you want to make a capital you have to acquire the resources to do it in 0.0. This off loads a lot of the high sec industry onto 0.0 as far as capital production goes since everything you need is in high sec to do it already.

Most of this is just a passing thought on how to fix various things. Low sec seems to be a medium of just passing through to get to a location. More of a two
Querns
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#568 - 2014-07-09 18:04:40 UTC
Kagura Nikon wrote:
Querns wrote:
Kagura Nikon wrote:
Querns wrote:
Kagura Nikon wrote:
But I still think major problem is the no drawback on having thousands of blues. If you cannto have thousands of blues then it does not matter how much projection you have.

The problem is that blues cannot be "restricted." Sure, you can put in game mechanics to limit the size of entities, or put in mechanics that restrict the in-game standings in some effective, non-specified way, but the fact of the matter is that blue relationships are increasingly forged out of game -- at barbecues, at Fanfest, in Vegas, in Jabber, on Mumble. Out of game software and organization can compensate for any attempted restriction of in-game blue lists.

Attempting to curtail organization and friendship is a non-starter. How do you propose to keep two disparate groups from working together?




No need to curtain friendship.. just to curtail automatic system that make cooperation easy. Make your allaince manteinace increase by the number of blues you have (simple and very rude example) and you can keep friend of someone. But you will not have them blue and therefore emergency operations with them are almost impossible.

If blue standings increased the alliance maintenance cost, we'd just keep our allies neutral most of the time, then blue them as needed for ops. Alternatively, we'd just eat the cost, since we have a lot of money.

This is Yet Another version of using costs to control empires. You can't do this. Cost is not a limiting factor in Eve: Online.



it is, because it grows directly in relation to the income capability. Cost is a limiting factors. Th problem is that fixed costs are never going to be a limiting factor. And what you described is exactly what i was thinking. Blue donuts would not be effective at a scalation fight but would be still powerful in planned battles? The result? Now we have a reason to make " hit and run "(for lack of a better term) strikes.

Couple that with a delay of a few hours to change standings...



You may propose whatever change you might dream, as long you ALLOW a blue list to have 10 K people, it will have 10 K people. That is human nature. If it is impossible to limit blue list then we are doomed and this thread is meaningless because if there is something impossible is to curtail human nature and to think that any approach that relies on psycological pressure will work (because that is the same fail as all the other attempts to use such factors, because it ignores the fact that people will usually not think the same way as the one that created the mechanism).

You may make travel as hard as you want, that will NOT solve the blue donut. It will make the stronger part of the blue group to kick the weaker part and pray on them. But the stronger parts that could fight each other in an interestign way will NOT depart. Why? because cowardice is deeply and strongly at the center of human mind.

You're not understanding my point -- mechanically limiting the blue list does not actually do anything. Out of game software can easily compensate.

There's a similar example with CVA -- their NRDS policy led them to accumulate more people set to red standings than the game would mechanically allow them to have. (The list got too big.) CVA compensated by making a website that one could paste a name into and determine if the pilot in question was hostile or not. Sure, this is clunky as hell and the delay probably causes a few deaths here and there, but it adequately compensates for the mechanical limitation in game. Your proposal would only exist as a small speedbump until sufficient countermeasures were put into place.

You can't regulate friendship (or hatred, apparently!) with mechanical limitations. It just doesn't work. If you dilute the value of the standings mechanic, we'll just make a workaround. Meanwhile, people with fewer resources of either software or intellect will suffer disproportionately to those of us richer in these regards.

This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
Lady Rift
His Majesty's Privateers
#569 - 2014-07-09 18:06:25 UTC
Querns wrote:
Kagura Nikon wrote:
Querns wrote:
Kagura Nikon wrote:
But I still think major problem is the no drawback on having thousands of blues. If you cannto have thousands of blues then it does not matter how much projection you have.

The problem is that blues cannot be "restricted." Sure, you can put in game mechanics to limit the size of entities, or put in mechanics that restrict the in-game standings in some effective, non-specified way, but the fact of the matter is that blue relationships are increasingly forged out of game -- at barbecues, at Fanfest, in Vegas, in Jabber, on Mumble. Out of game software and organization can compensate for any attempted restriction of in-game blue lists.

Attempting to curtail organization and friendship is a non-starter. How do you propose to keep two disparate groups from working together?




No need to curtain friendship.. just to curtail automatic system that make cooperation easy. Make your allaince manteinace increase by the number of blues you have (simple and very rude example) and you can keep friend of someone. But you will not have them blue and therefore emergency operations with them are almost impossible.

If blue standings increased the alliance maintenance cost, we'd just keep our allies neutral most of the time, then blue them as needed for ops. Alternatively, we'd just eat the cost, since we have a lot of money.

This is Yet Another version of using costs to control empires. You can't do this. Cost is not a limiting factor in Eve: Online.




use orange as the new blue. and use chat channels to issue invites to people for emergency fleets or blue them for set fleets.
Kagura Nikon
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#570 - 2014-07-09 18:06:39 UTC
DragonOfTheArmory wrote:
I have been reading through a lot of the suggestions and it sounds great.

I haven't seen a suggestion about off loading some of the stuff that comes with being in null to low sec. It would give low sec more of a purpose. The balance on risk versus reward seems to be skewed based on how the power projection works at a given moment and who is in control of it.

If you limit particular ship class, for example supers and titans, from going into a system above a set value, you could use it to remove the ability to use low sec as a jump point for long range deployments, and it would keep them out of low sec. If you want to get to the other side of null sec to help out someone do whatever, then you might have to fight your way through another alliances space. This would also remove the full on titan and supers comedy drops onto a small fleet that could be handled with a few interceptors and cruiser level fire power. The balance of power would shift to dreads and carriers as the high end of the food chain in low sec conflicts without having to phone-a-friend with supers and titan bridges full of support. It would also introduce a medium to get the middle of the road players with the income that they could run dreads and carriers into low sec and start to populate it.

Make null sec stations fully destructible. This would remove the ping-pong game that comes with establishing sovereignty via station games. The closest place to stage ships would be the low sec stations. This would also cause certain bottle neck systems and regions to close up to protect their home systems in 0.0 and some alliances wouldn't be able to project out as far because they would be over extended given the nature of the time zone games that come with staging and mounting full of offensive and defensive actions. You want to put up a station, the resources are in 0.0, so fight to establish a presence there. Of course, the stuff would have to be held in low sec until you can put it all together to start the station construction.

Move some of the industry around so that if you want to make a capital you have to acquire the resources to do it in 0.0. This off loads a lot of the high sec industry onto 0.0 as far as capital production goes since everything you need is in high sec to do it already.

Most of this is just a passing thought on how to fix various things. Low sec seems to be a medium of just passing through to get to a location. More of a two



Again, the objective re great. But about the problems? Peopel with supers already in low sec and that are with accounts suspended. Are they stuck there when they return? Not saying there is no sulution, but we need one.

Same issue with destructable stations.

The direction is right, but the path si a bit more complex.

"If brute force does not solve your problem....  then you are  surely not using enough!"
Marlona Sky
State War Academy
Caldari State
#571 - 2014-07-09 18:20:08 UTC
It is hilarious to see those who want nothing to change run in this thread and start banging the fear mongering drum.
Kagura Nikon
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#572 - 2014-07-09 18:21:05 UTC
Lady Rift wrote:
Querns wrote:
Kagura Nikon wrote:
Querns wrote:
Kagura Nikon wrote:
But I still think major problem is the no drawback on having thousands of blues. If you cannto have thousands of blues then it does not matter how much projection you have.

The problem is that blues cannot be "restricted." Sure, you can put in game mechanics to limit the size of entities, or put in mechanics that restrict the in-game standings in some effective, non-specified way, but the fact of the matter is that blue relationships are increasingly forged out of game -- at barbecues, at Fanfest, in Vegas, in Jabber, on Mumble. Out of game software and organization can compensate for any attempted restriction of in-game blue lists.

Attempting to curtail organization and friendship is a non-starter. How do you propose to keep two disparate groups from working together?




No need to curtain friendship.. just to curtail automatic system that make cooperation easy. Make your allaince manteinace increase by the number of blues you have (simple and very rude example) and you can keep friend of someone. But you will not have them blue and therefore emergency operations with them are almost impossible.

If blue standings increased the alliance maintenance cost, we'd just keep our allies neutral most of the time, then blue them as needed for ops. Alternatively, we'd just eat the cost, since we have a lot of money.

This is Yet Another version of using costs to control empires. You can't do this. Cost is not a limiting factor in Eve: Online.




use orange as the new blue. and use chat channels to issue invites to people for emergency fleets or blue them for set fleets.




Do I need to write the obvious fixes? Or are you trying to just find anything to argue about? Make ANY standing set to cost you. Simple.

You need to try harder.

And yes I want them to use invites to fleets. That way at least scalations will have a limit.

"If brute force does not solve your problem....  then you are  surely not using enough!"
Kagura Nikon
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#573 - 2014-07-09 18:22:17 UTC
Marlona Sky wrote:
It is hilarious to see those who want nothing to change run in this thread and start banging the fear mongering drum.



Some of them at least come up with arguments. The problem is that some are trying to deadlock thing on the current status quo. They just prove my point hat fear and cowardice are central in human mind

"If brute force does not solve your problem....  then you are  surely not using enough!"
Lord Fudo
Doomheim
#574 - 2014-07-09 18:26:58 UTC
Kagura Nikon wrote:
DragonOfTheArmory wrote:
I have been reading through a lot of the suggestions and it sounds great.

I haven't seen a suggestion about off loading some of the stuff that comes with being in null to low sec. It would give low sec more of a purpose. The balance on risk versus reward seems to be skewed based on how the power projection works at a given moment and who is in control of it.

If you limit particular ship class, for example supers and titans, from going into a system above a set value, you could use it to remove the ability to use low sec as a jump point for long range deployments, and it would keep them out of low sec. If you want to get to the other side of null sec to help out someone do whatever, then you might have to fight your way through another alliances space. This would also remove the full on titan and supers comedy drops onto a small fleet that could be handled with a few interceptors and cruiser level fire power. The balance of power would shift to dreads and carriers as the high end of the food chain in low sec conflicts without having to phone-a-friend with supers and titan bridges full of support. It would also introduce a medium to get the middle of the road players with the income that they could run dreads and carriers into low sec and start to populate it.

Make null sec stations fully destructible. This would remove the ping-pong game that comes with establishing sovereignty via station games. The closest place to stage ships would be the low sec stations. This would also cause certain bottle neck systems and regions to close up to protect their home systems in 0.0 and some alliances wouldn't be able to project out as far because they would be over extended given the nature of the time zone games that come with staging and mounting full of offensive and defensive actions. You want to put up a station, the resources are in 0.0, so fight to establish a presence there. Of course, the stuff would have to be held in low sec until you can put it all together to start the station construction.

Move some of the industry around so that if you want to make a capital you have to acquire the resources to do it in 0.0. This off loads a lot of the high sec industry onto 0.0 as far as capital production goes since everything you need is in high sec to do it already.

Most of this is just a passing thought on how to fix various things. Low sec seems to be a medium of just passing through to get to a location. More of a two



Again, the objective re great. But about the problems? Peopel with supers already in low sec and that are with accounts suspended. Are they stuck there when they return? Not saying there is no sulution, but we need one.

Same issue with destructable stations.

The direction is right, but the path si a bit more complex.


What if they don't return? Should all of CCPs changes be determined on whether players are active or unsubbed?

All they'd have to do is have a one time option on that class ship to be able to make a current type jump to a cyno. If they jump to lowsec, then they would be stuck there, if they jump to null then they go on. If they can give us a bonus neural remap, they could give a one time long jump to everyone. That would give any caps in a lowsec island one opportunity to jump out of the island or stay there.


Retar Aveymone
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#575 - 2014-07-09 18:44:08 UTC
Kagura Nikon wrote:

And yet.. that is the only possibility. Because we all agree what we have now is bad. And CCP will NEVER remove jumps because of low sec.

it's not the only possibility, and your argument "this is bad, ergo we must do something" is wrong: you've given no evidence that something will be better (and are basically sticking your fingers in your ears when told that and leaving those points entirely unrebutted)
Retar Aveymone
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#576 - 2014-07-09 18:45:33 UTC
Marlona Sky wrote:
It is hilarious to see those who want nothing to change run in this thread and start banging the fear mongering drum.


everyone supposedly "fear mongering" is discussing the things in this thread intelligently and is generally proposing things against their self-interest

you, one presumes because you're unable to join in to a conversation at this level, are reduced to...well, the above
Querns
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#577 - 2014-07-09 18:50:03 UTC
Hell -- I have repeatedly stated that I, personally, on a level solely consisting of my self-interest, would enjoy and welcome per-ship cooldowns on jump drives. This is because I have the means to circumvent the restriction, and those with whom I compete do not. It would be a unilateral benefit to me.

Yet, I am cautioning against it. Repeatedly. Bloody stumps.

This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
Alternative Splicing
Captain Content and The Contenteers
#578 - 2014-07-09 19:01:12 UTC
Kagura Nikon wrote:


But I still think major problem is the no drawback on having thousands of blues. If you cannto have thousands of blues then it does not matter how much projection you have.



This is a chicken and the egg sort of problem.
If you cannot have thousands of ships projected then it does not matter how many blues you have.

All the arbitrary scaling ideas, such as sov being more expensive per system, or limiting the number of blues, seem to fail on the same grounds, and are surface solutions to much deeper problems. Creating and maintaining a larger empire should come with inherit risks of defending forces being spread too thin to defend it.
Manfred Sideous
H A V O C
Fraternity.
#579 - 2014-07-09 19:49:13 UTC
Andy Koraka wrote:
If this change goes live I propose we adopt Nidhoggurs as our predominant small-gang fleet concept (move aside Vultures).

http://i.imgur.com/KDXE4dD.png

Highlights:

  • With about 500m in implants our Nidhoggur warps 4.3 AU/sec with an align of 9.9 seconds (compare to the 14s align of the ever popular "foxcat" batleship)


  • Incredible rep potential, when refit full armor each Nidhoggur (2x reps) repairs the target for almost 6500 EHP/second, for our 15 Niddy gang that's 97,500 dps of rep power!


  • With 2 scripted Tracking Links and a Navigational computer, your Einherji will chew apart subcaps with a combined fleet DPS up to 25,000! If frigates get you down watch as your Warrior IIs rip those interceptors to shreds.


The ideal composition for this fleet in my estimation would be 10-15 Nidhoggurs with 3-5 heavy tackle (webbing lokis/tackle proteus), off grid Armor/Skirmish/info boosts and scout interceptors for a rough fleet size of 25.

And for the true Ballers out there, your Hel can come too!
http://i.imgur.com/XzkokUO.png


All joke-crafting aside, people would just put i-stabs/hyperspatial accelerators in their Carrier lowslots and convoy ships 1,000,000m3 at a time. In terms of fending off roaming gangs, no gatecamp ever is going to try and attack a 20 man carrier fleet, and with some basic scouting your convoy could dock long before a comparable hostile fleet can even get close. Personal logistics would take a hit, but for an alliance or even a large corp moving would be as safe as ever.

As far as how long it would actually take to travel in normal rigged caps: http://i.imgur.com/6XAloka.png
2.6 AU/s warp speed (with a 20m implant)
13.3s align, which if you can be assed to do the MWD trick really drops to 10s. That's faster than moving battleships gate to gate.


They will see you coming a mile away and have supers and titans at the ready. You wont be able to just cyno in your titans and supers as backup. Say goodbye to your ~Niddys and morale Hel.

@EveManny

https://twitter.com/EveManny
Manfred Sideous
H A V O C
Fraternity.
#580 - 2014-07-09 19:58:02 UTC
Kagura Nikon wrote:
Querns wrote:
Kagura Nikon wrote:
But I still think major problem is the no drawback on having thousands of blues. If you cannto have thousands of blues then it does not matter how much projection you have.

The problem is that blues cannot be "restricted." Sure, you can put in game mechanics to limit the size of entities, or put in mechanics that restrict the in-game standings in some effective, non-specified way, but the fact of the matter is that blue relationships are increasingly forged out of game -- at barbecues, at Fanfest, in Vegas, in Jabber, on Mumble. Out of game software and organization can compensate for any attempted restriction of in-game blue lists.

Attempting to curtail organization and friendship is a non-starter. How do you propose to keep two disparate groups from working together?




No need to curtain friendship.. just to curtail automatic system that make cooperation easy. Make your allaince manteinace increase by the number of blues you have (simple and very rude example) and you can keep friend of someone. But you will not have them blue and therefore emergency operations with them are almost impossible.



M8 then people go NRDS or they have alliance tags on overview and they dont shoot X alliance because they are friends. You cannot put arbitrary limits on social paradigms. It WILL be gamed and will end up accomplishing nothing.

@EveManny

https://twitter.com/EveManny