These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
12Next page
 

Charge for standings
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Amunari Talar
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#1 - 2015-08-01 10:58:27 UTC
Changing for standings will help break up coalitions. Make it more and more expensive, even more so then war decs (x3-5).
This will really help remove clustering and provide another sink.
Mag's
Azn Empire
#2 - 2015-08-01 12:07:42 UTC
No.
Eve is meant to be social and interactive. Nerfing such a large aspect of that in this game, is rather ridiculous.

Plus, the only reason you've given for this change is 'Just because'. Or to put it another way 'I want'.
If you want to break up large groups, make a plan and do it from the inside.

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
Lu Ziffer
Balanced Unity
Goonswarm Federation
#3 - 2015-08-01 12:22:42 UTC
Amunari Talar wrote:
Changing for standings will help break up coalitions. Make it more and more expensive, even more so then war decs (x3-5).
This will really help remove clustering and provide another sink.

Coalitions are meta game it has nothing todo with standings.
Amunari Talar
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#4 - 2015-08-01 12:51:02 UTC
It's not nerfing the social aspects.

Its nerfing the blobbing. It will increase the frequency, but reduce the size. This actually increases the social interaction, not reduces it.

Big alliances Like Goonswarm depend on larger groups, because they have no skill. Reducing the sizes down will make the game's pvp more frequent, more challenging and more rewarding.
Mag's
Azn Empire
#5 - 2015-08-01 12:56:16 UTC
Ahh, so this is really a Grrr Goons thread. Good to know.

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
Amunari Talar
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#6 - 2015-08-01 13:05:25 UTC
na, its a GRR blobb thread.
Lu Ziffer
Balanced Unity
Goonswarm Federation
#7 - 2015-08-01 13:36:47 UTC
Amunari Talar wrote:
na, its a GRR blobb thread.

I looked at your killboard, what blobb do you mean?

I see you are a new alliance is trying to move to 0.0 but you have only 140characters.
I remember when my corp tried for the first time we had 500 characters in the alliance and we had not enough to stay alive on our own, this was in 2007.
If you want to hold SOV hide until you have 500-1000 decent players and then you make your move.
Donnachadh
United Allegiance of Undesirables
#8 - 2015-08-01 13:47:35 UTC
Even IF standings had anything to do with holding SOV in nul your idea is exactly the wrong thing to do why?
Because the higher the cost the more likely that only the larger alliances can or would pay it.
Iain Cariaba
#9 - 2015-08-01 15:23:38 UTC
Beyond your whole "grrr goons" attitude, why should a highsec mining or missioning corp be required to pay for setting CODE. red just because you're butthurt over not being handed sov space?
Danika Princip
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#10 - 2015-08-01 23:52:18 UTC
GRR GONS HAT GONS

You do realise we'd be able to pay it easily, right?

And that the people you'd ACTUALLY be hurting with a change like this would be groups like CVA, or small groups trying to break off a chunk of nullsec no-one else wants?
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#11 - 2015-08-02 01:43:10 UTC
Danika Princip wrote:
GRR GONS HAT GONS

You do realise we'd be able to pay it easily, right?

And that the people you'd ACTUALLY be hurting with a change like this would be groups like CVA, or small groups trying to break off a chunk of nullsec no-one else wants?


But having legitimate good idea takes :effort:.
Nasar Vyron
S0utherN Comfort
#12 - 2015-08-02 06:30:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Nasar Vyron
...and suddenly we're back to the days where people/corps/alliances put their allies in their bio/description.

Solves nothing -1

Like others, I suggest you go get more friends before you go for Sov. Null is not going to play nice simply because you're a small alliance. In fact you're 100x more likely just to get farmed for easy kills causing your small alliance to fracture before you ever had a chance if you try to rush into it.
Amunari Talar
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#13 - 2015-08-02 13:42:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Amunari Talar
Putting your info in the bio will not resolve if the person in the overiew is neut or not, so that is not a legit arguement. The point of the matter is that you make it impossible for the coalitions to work together in a military based capacity in a blob like effect and then you change up the way and the purpose of them to exist. by breaking their blobbing power up(through making them possibly killing each other) you remove their (a coalitions) reason to exist.

To solve a problem you need to diagnose it correctly.
Strength in numbers should be a possibility, but not to the degree that it currently takes place in.
With a reduction in allies (because of say 30-40 billion isk fee's a month) you will remove a lot of this issue.
all ccp needs to do is nerf and prevent any work around to this and the problem will go away.

As long as the super-coalitions exist, the game will not return to thta natural cycle of spawn, live, die.
And its that cycle that makes eve healthy. In it's current state, Eve is suffering from wo cancer like sicknesses,
They are overly supportive systems to morally negative income gains (Crime that has no reprocussion) and Coalitions.
Danika Princip
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#14 - 2015-08-02 13:53:00 UTC
But we can easily afford 50 bil/month. Can your lot? or CVA?

And it's really not hard to have your blob fleet just shopot the targets your FC calls, not just free fire on everything, so your idea wouldn't actually stop anything.

Also, you are aware that coalitions have been a thing for about ten years, right?
Donnachadh
United Allegiance of Undesirables
#15 - 2015-08-02 14:08:40 UTC
Danika Princip wrote:
But we can easily afford 50 bil/month. Can your lot? or CVA?

Easily proves my point but it is futile since the OP has a case of "do not confuse me with facts, my mind is made up" disease.
Lu Ziffer
Balanced Unity
Goonswarm Federation
#16 - 2015-08-02 14:11:03 UTC
If you do not want to play with a lot other players go play COD Minecraft on your private server.
This is not WOW where you can solo to a lvl I do not care about EVE is a real MMO where thausands of players play together and as such make coalitions with 50000 characters and more.

If you do not like it leave or you can accept the challange and start learning the game and meta game.
We have fleet engagements of a 1000+ players since 2007 and server perfomance has made them better and more fun.
If you believe that you and your 3 friends from work will change EVE you are wrong.
The people who have build coalitions invest thausands of dollars and euros in hardware and software to run them.
They have staff who runs their departments like it is a company with 1000 employees.

So pls stop crying about something that existed for 8years and that works perfectly and start to adapt.

You look at this with 1year EVE experiance and there are professional theory crafters in EVE who will destroy any of your ideas in a few hours.

I really do not want to rant but at least try to inform yourself.
Lugburz
Warcrows
#17 - 2015-08-02 14:16:32 UTC
What do you mean by 'charge for standings'?
Lugburz
Warcrows
#18 - 2015-08-02 14:33:00 UTC
are you talking about charging for 'blue' standings?
Not sure that would work, i was under the impression that fozziesov and player interaction with said systems is designed to reduce the space which alliances can operate in, in order to help more alliances into nullsec and also get rid of the large areas of space that are effectively sov 'owned' but has near no one operating in them?
Nasar Vyron
S0utherN Comfort
#19 - 2015-08-02 17:48:15 UTC  |  Edited by: Nasar Vyron
Amunari Talar wrote:
Putting your info in the bio will not resolve if the person in the overiew is neut or not, so that is not a legit arguement. The point of the matter is that you make it impossible for the coalitions to work together in a military based capacity in a blob like effect and then you change up the way and the purpose of them to exist. by breaking their blobbing power up(through making them possibly killing each other) you remove their (a coalitions) reason to exist.

To solve a problem you need to diagnose it correctly.
Strength in numbers should be a possibility, but not to the degree that it currently takes place in.
With a reduction in allies (because of say 30-40 billion isk fee's a month) you will remove a lot of this issue.
all ccp needs to do is nerf and prevent any work around to this and the problem will go away.

As long as the super-coalitions exist, the game will not return to thta natural cycle of spawn, live, die.
And its that cycle that makes eve healthy. In it's current state, Eve is suffering from wo cancer like sicknesses,
They are overly supportive systems to morally negative income gains (Crime that has no reprocussion) and Coalitions.


Thank you for showing us all how little you know about how this game functions.

In a fleet I'm sure you've been told to "only shoot the targets called." This has a dual purpose. First, to not split damage. Second, to not shoot any friendly neutrals on field. I have fought a few times where BL or NC had their standing set to neutral. How did our target callers know not to shoot them you might ask? Well you see, the overview shows ALLIANCE and CORP tags. As long as you know who your friends are then standings are literally meaningless in battle.

The only people effected by even the complete removal of standings are the [new] line members who may not have their allies memorized. You cannot break up the meta game so easily as "charging" for standings. You only hurt the new guys just now joining the fight.

If you wanted to break up the meta game then you not only remove standings, but you remove corp/alliance tags from appearing in the overview at all. Only then will you even remotely start to change anything. But that change would simply be smaller corps being forced to merge with each other (6300 member corps), and those new super-corps forming into the main alliance. The need to worry about who your blues are won't really matter now that they've been forced to fly under a single banner now will it?

Now how does this help the little alliances again?
FT Diomedes
The Graduates
#20 - 2015-08-03 04:02:19 UTC
Nasar Vyron wrote:
Amunari Talar wrote:
Putting your info in the bio will not resolve if the person in the overiew is neut or not, so that is not a legit arguement. The point of the matter is that you make it impossible for the coalitions to work together in a military based capacity in a blob like effect and then you change up the way and the purpose of them to exist. by breaking their blobbing power up(through making them possibly killing each other) you remove their (a coalitions) reason to exist.

To solve a problem you need to diagnose it correctly.
Strength in numbers should be a possibility, but not to the degree that it currently takes place in.
With a reduction in allies (because of say 30-40 billion isk fee's a month) you will remove a lot of this issue.
all ccp needs to do is nerf and prevent any work around to this and the problem will go away.

As long as the super-coalitions exist, the game will not return to thta natural cycle of spawn, live, die.
And its that cycle that makes eve healthy. In it's current state, Eve is suffering from wo cancer like sicknesses,
They are overly supportive systems to morally negative income gains (Crime that has no reprocussion) and Coalitions.


Thank you for showing us all how little you know about how this game functions.

In a fleet I'm sure you've been told to "only shoot the targets called." This has a dual purpose. First, to not split damage. Second, to not shoot any friendly neutrals on field. I have fought a few times where BL or NC had their standing set to neutral. How did our target callers know not to shoot them you might ask? Well you see, the overview shows ALLIANCE and CORP tags. As long as you know who your friends are then standings are literally meaningless in battle.

The only people effected by even the complete removal of standings are the [new] line members who may not have their allies memorized. You cannot break up the meta game so easily as "charging" for standings. You only hurt the new guys just now joining the fight.

If you wanted to break up the meta game then you not only remove standings, but you remove corp/alliance tags from appearing in the overview at all. Only then will you even remotely start to change anything. But that change would simply be smaller corps being forced to merge with each other (6300 member corps), and those new super-corps forming into the main alliance. The need to worry about who your blues are won't really matter now that they've been forced to fly under a single banner now will it?

Now how does this help the little alliances again?


I'm not sure it was worth your time to write out such a good explanation, but I'll remember this response the next time someone brings up this idea. Good post, Nasar.

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

12Next page