Player Features and Ideas Discussion

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

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.

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

Pure speculation.




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.

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.

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.

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.



Are you literally a child?

Moving the goal posts is a fallacy.




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.

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.

That's why I suggested combining escalating costs with limitations on cyno and jumpbridge use for non-corp or alliance members.