Player Features and Ideas Discussion

...You even admit yourself that this would just mean they split up into multiple small groups...

What would be the point in spending dev time on an idea even the one suggesting it (for the fiftieth time, incidentally) admits will achieve absolutely nothing?

Why is it that the dumbest ideas always come from people crying about nullsec blocs?

Is "Grr Goons!" classifiable as a mental illness, or what?

The heads will be the exact same people. The Mittanni will be CEO of Goonswarm 1-99 or however many it takes.

The costs will be as minimal as possible, since they'll all be split up.

Nothing changes, with the possible exception of a few unused systems going sovless, but anyone setting up in them will have fifty titans on them before the TCUs online.

This would also make it harder to form a new big blue donut out of the wreckage of the old.

You posted your thread about an hour after I posted mine: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=359534&find=unread

In my thread I address many of the issues people have with your post. Limiting the number of sovereign systems has to come with some limit on strategic mobility. In my thread I suggest limiting jump bridges to allow only corporation members to use them. One could impose similar controls on use of cynosural fields or Titan bridges.

Edit - or you could come up with some other force that makes people not simply split into numerous little holding corporations. I am not particularly wedded to either of my suggestions, but I think they could be part of the solution.

I believe they currently entertain themselves by ganking in highsec so that's not an answer either.

See the problem as mittani astutely assessed is that at this point in the game the barrier to entry for sov null is so high that noone gets in without paying curtsy to the existing oligarchs. The only way this can change is by as you said internal forcea breaking apart but as we saw with the collapse of GENTS it doesn't really change much. Lowsec seems to be getting made more attractive lately and I wonder if it's being designed by ccp as a pressure release for null blocs to relieve themselves of bored dissidents without having them awox and **** on the way out.

Next up? What else can possibly be done to null? Player made gates? Is that really the answer? Changing jump fuel costs to be affected by ship size is prudent first. Amongst a great many other suggestions as well.

Not really. The blobs are well versed in attaching crews without setting up what I will call "true blue" status. All they have to do find a way to make sure they don't get friendly fire action.

If/when they hire mercs they do no bring in them into the fold. When temp alliances are made, alliance in the sense 2 crews with a common enemy say lets not be NBSI till our deal is done and join forces, neither party gives true blue status. Example: when BL and SB worked on the trap to pop the space turd for that night I am sure diplo's on both sides made sure BL was not shooting SB and vice versa. In such a way SB was not in BL (or vice versa) was put in place I am sure (someone correct if wrong, ofc).


How does this work?

One Hint: it takes someone with rights to assign a pretty color to an organization. A pretty color that means do not shoot these peeps.

There are many shades of blue. Example: we were wiping up space after old residents failscaded. One of the corps got with our alliance diplo's and a deal was struck. For 1 week they were not shootable but not allies/bff's/etc. How did this magical trick work.....diplo's assigned a very fain shade of blue based on standing. Not true blue...more like a baby blue. End result...our alliance made some isk, said crew had a week to evac not getting shot at (by us anyway).




All this idea is removing easy mailing, in eve anyway. Decent crew should have own forums up and bulk mailing can run off that if needed. Comms not an issue also. Voice or chat....most crews I ran in had 3rd party for this. Server admin not an idiot and getting a mixed crew in comms not that hard.

Okay..I will give you one more. You removed fleet by standing and such. I have been on merc assisted ops. Just means FC has to invite by hand to keep fleet security. Few minutes more of work and voila...goons (since it can't be a blob thread without saying their name) still has a massive cap fleet up like before.


Tl;DR....lots of coding worked around easily to be right back at SSDD when done.

If you used multiple variables instead of one you could probably pull off what you are trying to do.

Let X = Number of accounts in 'Big Alliance'

Let Y = increase the cost of holding more SOV space based on the number of SOV spaces already held by 'Big Alliance'.

Let Z = some other aspect of holding SOV space, etc. etc.....


Do calculus looking for the relationship that hopefully can do as many of the following as possible:

1. Always encourages an alliance to gain more accounts.

2. Introduce a growth tax that increases at a decreasing rate with respect to the number of accounts in 'Big Alliance'.

3. Still encourages gobbling up your neighbors real estate.

4. Encourages the holding alliance to actually use the real estate they have in a productive fashion.

5. etc, etc, etc....

I have no idea how many variables you could successfully introduce or even if this mathematical modelling would produce any result that was deemed valuable but it is probably one of your best bets for finding a solution as close to the one you are asking for as possible.

1. Some mathematically inclined person will surely make a spreadsheet online to do the mathematics for the CEO whether that math is your solution or mine. If we get CCP to make relevant variables available to 3rd party applications the CEO would get easy answers to growth decisions.

2. I was unclear when I said you only used one variable, what I meant to imply was that your variables all push to limit the growth of single large alliances but without other countermanding variables the net result is the CEO making a bunch of smaller cooperating alliances that still function as a singular entity; therefore, your variables can be thought of as just the single variable "X".

3. multivariable calculus or vector analysis can be used to search for a mathematical model that:

a. Always encourages alliances to gain more members.
b. Discourages the taking of new SOV space when the current number of SOV spaces held surpasses some point.
c. Any other variables that CCP and the player base feel are important goals for CEOs to strive for to maximize their alliances success, while at the same time encouraging a more engaging nullsec.

Again, I will make it clear that I don't know if any such model can be found but it would be the answer to what you want to achieve if such a model could be created.