These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

SRP is killing Eve

First post
Author
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
#81 - 2014-07-24 16:27:47 UTC
RoAnnon wrote:
None of the opinions or anecdotes listed in the OP come close to proving the hypothesis stated in the thread subject, in fact don't even support it.

Demanding that CCP do something to eliminate SRP is as sensible as demanding CCP do something to eliminate players' use Teamspeak/Mumble/Jabber/Ventrilio and start using EVE Voice again, because "Eve is Dying".

There's no correlation.


Even if there was one, you would have to prevent corps/alliance from giving money to their members...
FT Diomedes
The Graduates
#82 - 2014-07-24 16:35:57 UTC
Frostys Virpio wrote:
RoAnnon wrote:
None of the opinions or anecdotes listed in the OP come close to proving the hypothesis stated in the thread subject, in fact don't even support it.

Demanding that CCP do something to eliminate SRP is as sensible as demanding CCP do something to eliminate players' use Teamspeak/Mumble/Jabber/Ventrilio and start using EVE Voice again, because "Eve is Dying".

There's no correlation.


Even if there was one, you would have to prevent corps/alliance from giving money to their members...


You don't have to stop corporations from giving ISK to members: you just have to make the ISK worth something. Worth is derived from the effort needed to get it. So long as passive income moon goo is out there, the effort required to keep the ISK flowing is the effort to log in with 18 hours notice and blob up at the POS (and all the massive logistics effort associated with fueling the POS's, collecting the goo, and moving it to market). Those efforts inherently benefit a large coalition with a Supercapital fleet more than a smaller entity.

CCP should add more NPC 0.0 space to open it up and liven things up: the Stepping Stones project.

Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
#83 - 2014-07-24 17:19:15 UTC
FT Diomedes wrote:
Frostys Virpio wrote:
RoAnnon wrote:
None of the opinions or anecdotes listed in the OP come close to proving the hypothesis stated in the thread subject, in fact don't even support it.

Demanding that CCP do something to eliminate SRP is as sensible as demanding CCP do something to eliminate players' use Teamspeak/Mumble/Jabber/Ventrilio and start using EVE Voice again, because "Eve is Dying".

There's no correlation.


Even if there was one, you would have to prevent corps/alliance from giving money to their members...


You don't have to stop corporations from giving ISK to members: you just have to make the ISK worth something. Worth is derived from the effort needed to get it. So long as passive income moon goo is out there, the effort required to keep the ISK flowing is the effort to log in with 18 hours notice and blob up at the POS (and all the massive logistics effort associated with fueling the POS's, collecting the goo, and moving it to market). Those efforts inherently benefit a large coalition with a Supercapital fleet more than a smaller entity.


Every kind of worth will be better gathered (for lack of a better word because I can't seem to find one) by the current large blocs because they are already used to dealing with things efficiently on a much larger scale than any other group in the game.
Adunh Slavy
#84 - 2014-07-24 19:04:00 UTC
Frostys Virpio wrote:

So you want to add a management level to the process and think the current SOV holder who already know how to deal with the management requirement won't be able to use the system better than others who don't?



It's a bit more subtle than that. Instead of one monolithic political entity with one administrative boundary, there will be a number of administrative boundaries for that political entity. This will allow differences to evolve that could not evolve other wise.

Now if one of these larger alliances wants to, they could certainly have one human have control of all the different characters and accounts required for a unified administrative policy. Best of luck to the sucker and tyrant who wants that job.

Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.  - William Pitt

Andski
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#85 - 2014-07-24 21:50:12 UTC
Adunh Slavy wrote:
Slight political and economic differences and goals would emerge over time, even amongst the Goons. They will deny it of course, as such a denial is and has always been the only defense to such proposals.


we deny it because there is no truth to that, not because of some wish to keep the status quo

there is nothing that prevents a large number of alliances from essentially operating as a single alliance and there is also no reason why Socialism In Space cannot extend across multiple alliances - this is already the case with both of the major blocs

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar

GodsWork
Realm of God
#86 - 2014-07-24 21:57:42 UTC
Frostys Virpio wrote:
FT Diomedes wrote:
Frostys Virpio wrote:
RoAnnon wrote:
None of the opinions or anecdotes listed in the OP come close to proving the hypothesis stated in the thread subject, in fact don't even support it.

Demanding that CCP do something to eliminate SRP is as sensible as demanding CCP do something to eliminate players' use Teamspeak/Mumble/Jabber/Ventrilio and start using EVE Voice again, because "Eve is Dying".

There's no correlation.


Even if there was one, you would have to prevent corps/alliance from giving money to their members...


You don't have to stop corporations from giving ISK to members: you just have to make the ISK worth something. Worth is derived from the effort needed to get it. So long as passive income moon goo is out there, the effort required to keep the ISK flowing is the effort to log in with 18 hours notice and blob up at the POS (and all the massive logistics effort associated with fueling the POS's, collecting the goo, and moving it to market). Those efforts inherently benefit a large coalition with a Supercapital fleet more than a smaller entity.


Every kind of worth will be better gathered (for lack of a better word because I can't seem to find one) by the current large blocs because they are already used to dealing with things efficiently on a much larger scale than any other group in the game.


Not True. The worth now is collected by one individual. A single r32-r64 moon can make billions of isk a month. and all they have to do is empty silos once every 2-5 weeks. the only time any significant effort is required is for defending the tower.

With proposed way you remove towers and easy collection. you have to have a much larger number of players involved to make the same isk. Also if Sov rules are changed and making it difficult for swaths of space to be rented that easy then the big blue doughnut will disapear......

My recommendation is remove moon minerals or remove rarity completely. the first you have to mine these minerals like old regular asteroids which is common now and that wealth is spread. the later makes these mats so abundant that you don't need to fight over them. oversupply will eventually regulate the market. my solution to sov is shown in This Sov Post
Adunh Slavy
#87 - 2014-07-25 00:58:11 UTC
Andski wrote:

Adunh Slavy wrote:
Slight political and economic differences and goals would emerge over time, even amongst the Goons. They will deny it of course, as such a denial is and has always been the only defense to such proposals.


we deny it because there is no truth to that, not because of some wish to keep the status quo


Pure speculation.

Andski wrote:

there is nothing that prevents a large number of alliances from essentially operating as a single alliance and there is also no reason why Socialism In Space cannot extend across multiple alliances - this is already the case with both of the major blocs



And from time to time thse major blocs break up, have disagrements, change. If there was one monolitic administrative boundry. such changes would be far less likely.

Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.  - William Pitt

Andski
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#88 - 2014-07-25 01:01:00 UTC  |  Edited by: Andski
Adunh Slavy wrote:
Pure speculation.


Saying "if alliances are forced to divide themselves, these things will happen" is also pure speculation FYI

Adunh Slavy wrote:
And from time to time thse major blocs break up, have disagrements, change. If there was one monolitic administrative boundry. such changes would be far less likely.


Yeah because people never leave their corporations and corporations never leave their alliances

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar

FT Diomedes
The Graduates
#89 - 2014-07-25 02:26:07 UTC
There is no doubt that T2 raw materials should be less common than T1 (no need to crash the T2 market), but they should be widely distributed and capable of being gathered in many different ways.

CCP should add more NPC 0.0 space to open it up and liven things up: the Stepping Stones project.

Adunh Slavy
#90 - 2014-07-25 03:12:20 UTC
Andski wrote:

Adunh Slavy wrote:

Pure speculation.

Saying "if alliances are forced to divide themselves, these things will happen" is also pure speculation FYI


Not correct. The coalitions shift, membership changes.

Andski wrote:

Adunh Slavy wrote:

And from time to time thse major blocs break up, have disagrements, change. If there was one monolitic administrative boundry. such changes would be far less likely.

Yeah because people never leave their corporations and corporations never leave their alliances


So in other words, you agree. Thanks.

Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.  - William Pitt

Sibyyl
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#91 - 2014-07-25 04:40:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Sibyyl
For a rookie in null, SRP is a godsend. SRP goes a long way in alleviating the despair that comes from being blown up.

The Roman Army rolled over the rest of the known world because they armed their soldiers and standardized their equipment, their fighting styles, the structure of their camps, and so on. Reimbursement is a key pillar of effectiveness in war.

Edit: What I'm trying to say is that when I was out in null, the rookies in my corp were very vocal and insistent on SRP because it helps them justify continuing to fight, instead of wasting 50% or more of their time trying to recover from destruction. SRP was instrumental in making rookies not lose hope and quit (or quit corp, get bored in hisec, then quit).

I doubt this phenomenon was unique to the corp I was in.

Joffy Aulx-Gao for CSM. Fix links and OGB. Ban stabs from plexes. Fulfill karmic justice.

Lady Rift
His Majesty's Privateers
#92 - 2014-07-25 05:25:00 UTC
I seam to do alright running a srp for an alt's corp with out any moons. you can support alot with 2 toons running FW missions once a week.
Andski
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#93 - 2014-07-25 12:25:03 UTC
Adunh Slavy wrote:
Not correct. The coalitions shift, membership changes.


Nope, there is nothing about your idea that implies any of that. Alliance A having to divide into Alliances B-Z doesn't mean that Alliances B-Z can't run just as well as a single alliance.

Adunh Slavy wrote:
So in other words, you agree. Thanks.


Are you literally a child?

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar

Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#94 - 2014-07-25 14:57:01 UTC
Regarding the Original Post:

Your objection appears to be formed around something that is entirely player driven. (SRP's in alliances)
As such, you would be asking players to voluntarily play a different way.

Have you considered that EVE is not about a specific play style, as I believe you imply?
We have players who simply have no time in real life, to devote to your praised method of grinding ISK for their own replacement ships.

Not if we expect them to also have time to participate in PvP.
They can do one, or they can do the other, but the time for both which you may have, they do not.

The whole point of SRP's are to draw in players like them, with less time available overall, so we can play with them as a group in PvP.
We KNOW they have no time to grind for ships, but we know if we help keep them supplied we can have them to play with.

Are you trying to cut them out of our game, or do you not consider this a valid point?
Adunh Slavy
#95 - 2014-07-25 15:30:14 UTC  |  Edited by: Adunh Slavy
Andski wrote:

Adunh Slavy wrote:
Not correct. The coalitions shift, membership changes.


Nope, there is nothing about your idea that implies any of that. Alliance A having to divide into Alliances B-Z doesn't mean that Alliances B-Z can't run just as well as a single alliance.



Moving the goal posts is a fallacy.


Andski wrote:


Adunh Slavy wrote:
So in other words, you agree. Thanks.


Are you literally a child?


You want me to give you a paragraph answer for your obscure one liner comment, and your retort is a personal insult?

Full of your self much?

Go back to your other character, it's much more convincing.

P.S. Thanks for proving my point about how goons argue against this. My regards.

Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.  - William Pitt

Notorious Fellon
#96 - 2014-07-25 15:30:31 UTC  |  Edited by: Notorious Fellon
OP:

Solid ideas in there. Solid. This would surely help fix a lot of core issues. Personally, I do not object to SRP; but I do object to the static and stale nature of nullsov and I object to passive income like moon goo.


Something I have always wanted:
If moongoo simply "moved" much like resources in SWG, it could help fix the static nature of sovereignty. In this game, it would need to move slowly over time, allowing for strategic planning and deployment.

Crime, it is not a "career", it is a lifestyle.

Andski
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#97 - 2014-07-25 16:25:38 UTC  |  Edited by: Andski
Adunh Slavy wrote:
words


You are suggesting a system of scaling sovereignty bills in order to force alliances to separate into what are basically small fiefdoms. Here's why it's bad:

First, holding a typical sized constellation of 6 systems will cost 6.3 billion ISK per month if the base monthly cost is 100m. A large constellation with 9 systems will cost 51.1 billion ISK per month to hold. Sev3rance, a small alliance in Providence, would pay 102.3 billion ISK per month in sov bills to hold their 10 systems.

Now, here's the thing. Goonswarm would have to create another 40 alliances to keep its sov bills at a manageable level under your proposed system, but those alliances wouldn't actually have to have any members beyond the executor corp and a few alt corps belonging to people who want to drop personal towers in systems held by that alliance. You'd still have the 10000 member monolith that is GSF, that is, the same CONDI tag as now, but the big yellow spot on the map would be considerably smaller. Everyone would still play within the same alliance and they'd continue playing just like they do now. This only changes things at the administrative level and not at the line member level.

So what does it accomplish? A bunch of nonexistent alliances on the Verite map and not much else.

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar

Kaerakh
Obscure Joke Implied
#98 - 2014-07-25 20:24:52 UTC
Andski wrote:
Adunh Slavy wrote:
words


You are suggesting a system of scaling sovereignty bills in order to force alliances to separate into what are basically small fiefdoms. Here's why it's bad:

First, holding a typical sized constellation of 6 systems will cost 6.3 billion ISK per month if the base monthly cost is 100m. A large constellation with 9 systems will cost 51.1 billion ISK per month to hold. Sev3rance, a small alliance in Providence, would pay 102.3 billion ISK per month in sov bills to hold their 10 systems.

Now, here's the thing. Goonswarm would have to create another 40 alliances to keep its sov bills at a manageable level under your proposed system, but those alliances wouldn't actually have to have any members beyond the executor corp and a few alt corps belonging to people who want to drop towers in systems held by that alliance. You'd still have the 10000 member monolith that is GSF, but the big yellow spot on the map would be considerably smaller. Everyone would still play within the same alliance and they'd continue playing just like they do now. This only changes things at the administrative level and not at the line member level.

So what does it accomplish? A bunch of nonexistent alliances on the Verite map and not much else.

Entirely valid and correct, I honestly don't understand why this topic even has a single page's worth of responses, let alone 5. Even if SRP was the problem, there is no way to prevent it without nerf batting all of EVE with really ****** artificial mechanics that would be orders of magnitude worse than any of the current or previous sov mechanics. I mean seriously the described system would create more meta in the form of mini coalitions for gaming the sov system. How is that even remotely a solution?! This thread has little if any point. Trying to regulate SRP is like trying to regulate voice client use. It just doesn't work.
FT Diomedes
The Graduates
#99 - 2014-07-25 23:33:52 UTC
That's why I suggested combining escalating costs with limitations on cyno and jumpbridge use for non-corp or alliance members.

CCP should add more NPC 0.0 space to open it up and liven things up: the Stepping Stones project.

Kaerakh
Obscure Joke Implied
#100 - 2014-07-26 01:57:32 UTC
FT Diomedes wrote:
That's why I suggested combining escalating costs with limitations on cyno and jumpbridge use for non-corp or alliance members.


And this post falls under sentence number 2 of my post.