These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
Previous page12
 

An idea for wealth redistribution, and control blobbing in Eve

Author
Cade Windstalker
#21 - 2017-07-26 03:24:03 UTC
Mercur Fighter wrote:
It is not punishing a group of players who is not a part of the problem. If you are an alliance administrator it is your choice how many industrial pilots to recruit, how many industrial alliances to set blue, etc.

Also in your scenario: "if a 250 man corp is going up against a 100 man corp and they each have say a 40% participation rate, you'll have 100 guys going up against 40 guys"

Then that is their problem if they are outnumbered in this situation.

Like I said you still retain most of the freedom as you did before. So I'm not sure if you are intentionally trying to twist around what I said in my OP. The solution I talked about is to have at least some degree of control over the Eve landscape - and to encourage smaller alliances or power blocs (whatever you want to call it), instead of massive alliances and blue donuts. The decision of who to set blue will be much more strategic, instead of bluing everyone in sight.


You keep using this word choice a lot like it magically makes your idea better.

In reality the sort of choice this pushes on people is one between playing with friends, people they enjoy playing with, ect and balancing a really stupid mechanic with about a thousand loopholes in it.

For example the SP tax creates the sort of situation where you're effectively punishing people for having high SP and corps for recruiting them. If someone flies primarily Logi, for example, but they have about 100m SP not dedicated to flying Logi, then all of that SP is wasted and just contributes towards taxes for the group.

As another example you could have one person who could fly everything in the game, or about fifty people who can all fly T2 Frigates really well, or about 20 people who can fly T2 Cruisers really well.

Imposing a penalty and then saying "well you're free to be penalized" is missing the point of the penalty you're trying to impose here. What is being pointed out to you is that there would be plenty of negative effects on positive behavior from your proposed change. That makes this a bad change, especially with the number of potential negative effects on otherwise positive situations massively outweighs the potential benefits.

To lay it out for you:

Potential benefits:

* Maybe some big and blobby corps get smaller. Maybe.

Potential downsides:

* Lots of corps that aren't big and blobby get unnecessarily punished.
* Playing together and having a large social network is disincentivized since it's expensive.
* Playing with people outside of your corp or your corp's network of allies is all but impossible and significantly hindered.

Oh and as an added bonus any scaling or setup large enough to impact any corp or alliance of any significant size would significantly impact Eve University. An organization focused on new players which has a direct correlation with player retention.

Oh and lastly your goal of forcing people to be more selective about who they blue is unrealistic. It's basically impossible in Eve to have direct neighbors you aren't on at least passably friendly terms with. That's why Null blocks have buffer zones and tacit agreements even when they're not directly blue because having the space you use to live right next to someone who wants you dead causes burnout. Adjacent null entities either establish a buffer or learn to work together, or one drives the other out.

This whole thing seems like you trying to blow the legs off of group play in Eve because you or your group stubbed a toe on a blob somewhere.
Mercur Fighter
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#22 - 2017-07-26 14:11:23 UTC  |  Edited by: Mercur Fighter
Cade Windstalker wrote:

To lay it out for you:

Potential benefits:

* Maybe some big and blobby corps get smaller. Maybe.

Potential downsides:

* Lots of corps that aren't big and blobby get unnecessarily punished.
* Playing together and having a large social network is disincentivized since it's expensive.
* Playing with people outside of your corp or your corp's network of allies is all but impossible and significantly hindered.



It is exactly intended to remove the huge power blocs, and replace them with many and much smaller power blocs.

To address your downsides:

* Lots of corps that aren't big and blobby get unnecessarily punished - The exponential tax starts after a certain amount of Aggregate SP determined by CCP, whatever it may be (lets just use 1 trillion as an example). So a majority of the alliances will not be punished.

* Playing together and having a large social network is disincentivized since it's expensive. - The exponential tax starts after a certain amount of Aggregate SP determined by CCP, whatever it may be (lets just use 1 trillion as an example). So a majority of the alliances will not be punished. 1 Trillion SP is equivalent to 1,500 characters each with 67 million SP - you must be extremely popular with a lot of friends if you think that's not big enough of a network. Now I know everyone has a varying amount of SP so the number of characters will vary, so lets not start on that.

* Playing with people outside of your corp or your corp's network of allies is all but impossible and significantly hindered. - Yes the change in logistics is the key to make this work, that is the goal. If you've already maxed out your blues, and try to get another organization to fight for you - they will have to do so on a mercenary capacity. because none of your Logis will work on each other.

Cade Windstalker wrote:
This whole thing seems like you trying to blow the legs off of group play in Eve because you or your group stubbed a toe on a blob somewhere.


No, I am just tired of the blue donut that is Eve. Also, it is advertised as a game with massive epic fleet fights. But most of the time when the fight really gets "epic", tidi sets in, and you get lag. The server technology does not match the game concept (this alone did not influence my OP, but a combination of everything did). And I know this will not fix the lag / tidi issue - because it's not meant to address the lag / tidi issue. But it will have some effect because it encourage combat among smaller groups.

And I am not making this entire post for selfish reasons, actually on the contrary, I would like to see a more healthy Eve Online because I have invested a lot of work and time into this game as well. But nothing can be healthy without balance.

Just look at what's happening - PLEX keeps climing because there are "Not Enough Sellers", however you want to interpret that, it's all the same. Too many Buyers = Not Enough Sellers. At the same time, the population is stagnating.

Alpha Clone did not achieve its goal of retaining a massive amount of new players, the activity pretty much went back down to pre-alpha levels, which is kinda bad.

I know you might not think this way - but one of CCP's major intention with the release of Valkyrie was to piggy-back the hype from the Facebook Oculus to get more interest into Eve, that did not happen.
Zimmer Jones
Lightspeed Enterprises
Goonswarm Federation
#23 - 2017-07-26 17:19:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Zimmer Jones
You do realize that setting an arbitrary limit is pointless to those that know how to use apis? The availability of such tools out of game is amazing, and to avoid the whole issue of color tax orange would become the new blue. -5 would be for friends, -10 would be enemies, and neurals would stay just that.

Large groups can always be made into sub groups with a simple corp/alliance name change. Anything you can possibly suggest will be circumvented. All effort will be wasted. The thing is that complex systems are best controlled by very simple rules and that is the point of the sandbox.

As for blobing, eve is the only game that can take it to the level that it has, and it really doesn't happen as often as people think. The smaller skirmishes involving a few hundred people on a side happen in other games regularly as well. Poorly. This is the one game where a well organized team of people can be advised by another group acting in tandem to bring thousands of people together in a chatotic but organized mess.

As for plex, they're merely a goal and another tool. A carrot for the stubborn to yearn for and always have been. I'll leave the market magic to people with the deeper knowledge.

Your "blue donut" shows just how much you know. This isn't like the old days, the bets are off and the gentlemens agreements are done. Things don't change much because fozzie and his focus group lackeys made a system more tooth grindingly dull and monotonous that to expend effort for such small gains is very rarely worth the time spent not crabbing.

Fozziesov rants aside, OP your idea is bad, you should feel bad.

Unsupported.

Use the force without consent and the court wont acquit you even if you are a card carryin', robe wearin' Jedi.

Teckos Pech
Patriotic Tendencies
Goonswarm Federation
#24 - 2017-07-26 17:58:14 UTC
Mercur Fighter wrote:

Also in your scenario: "if a 250 man corp is going up against a 100 man corp and they each have say a 40% participation rate, you'll have 100 guys going up against 40 guys"

Then that is their problem if they are outnumbered in this situation.


Wut? Shocked

Seriously, your anti-blobbing idea does not work and the implication in your reply is to blob back....

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online

Cade Windstalker
#25 - 2017-07-26 19:03:00 UTC
Mercur Fighter wrote:
It is exactly intended to remove the huge power blocs, and replace them with many and much smaller power blocs.


Yes, I'm telling you it might not actually work. Kind of a moot point because CCP is never going to restrict corp and Alliance size like this, but you're not going to accept that so we'll keep picking nits.

Mercur Fighter wrote:
* Lots of corps that aren't big and blobby get unnecessarily punished - The exponential tax starts after a certain amount of Aggregate SP determined by CCP, whatever it may be (lets just use 1 trillion as an example). So a majority of the alliances will not be punished.

* Playing together and having a large social network is disincentivized since it's expensive. - The exponential tax starts after a certain amount of Aggregate SP determined by CCP, whatever it may be (lets just use 1 trillion as an example). So a majority of the alliances will not be punished. 1 Trillion SP is equivalent to 1,500 characters each with 67 million SP - you must be extremely popular with a lot of friends if you think that's not big enough of a network. Now I know everyone has a varying amount of SP so the number of characters will vary, so lets not start on that.


The assumption here being that there is a point in either numbers, SP, or both that won't have significant negative impact while still having the benefits you're looking for.

I'm telling you that point doesn't exist, because groups like Eve University that are generally not a problem and whose effects and impact are very desirable exist past the threshold where a well organized group that is determined to blob can do so quite easily.

Also SP is a generally terrible metric to use for something like this. Someone can have tens of millions of SP in Research and Industrial skills and have next to no impact on a corp's combat potential, they're just there for the social aspect, but under your system they're forced into an NPC or one-man corp because otherwise they're a drain on resources for no direct benefit.

This is the sort of problem that crops up when you try to tie social features to gameplay mechanics. I've rarely seen it done well and Eve isn't setup in such a way that it's going to ever work well.

Mercur Fighter wrote:
* Playing with people outside of your corp or your corp's network of allies is all but impossible and significantly hindered. - Yes the change in logistics is the key to make this work, that is the goal. If you've already maxed out your blues, and try to get another organization to fight for you - they will have to do so on a mercenary capacity. because none of your Logis will work on each other.


Yes, and you're missing all the cases where bluing and un-bluing the people you're flying with isn't practical but Logi are required. Incursions, Spectre Fleet, Bomber's Bar, and player run tournaments would all be impacted by something like this.

Since those are all quite large content creators, and CCP's stated goal is to get people to group up and play with others more not less, I don't see them implementing something that runs directly counter to that.

Mercur Fighter wrote:
No, I am just tired of the blue donut that is Eve. Also, it is advertised as a game with massive epic fleet fights. But most of the time when the fight really gets "epic", tidi sets in, and you get lag. The server technology does not match the game concept (this alone did not influence my OP, but a combination of everything did). And I know this will not fix the lag / tidi issue - because it's not meant to address the lag / tidi issue. But it will have some effect because it encourage combat among smaller groups.

And I am not making this entire post for selfish reasons, actually on the contrary, I would like to see a more healthy Eve Online because I have invested a lot of work and time into this game as well. But nothing can be healthy without balance.


So, first off, I don't really care why you made this post. I'm rating the idea based on the idea itself and the effects I see stemming from it, not intent or wishful thinking, and the idea I'm seeing has way more negative effects than it does positives, and that's without getting into the half a dozen loopholes I've thought up in your proposed system that would need to be closed, which probably means there's about three dozen more out there, and at that point you've got something with too many arbitrary restrictions to be workable as a system.

Systems like what you're going for here rarely if ever work, and I can't think of any off the top of my head that exist in a modern and successful game, let alone an MMO.

End of the day CCP aren't going to cut off grouping the way you want. MMOs that try to disincentivize grouping up and playing together die, because the majority of people play MMOs for the social aspects. Otherwise they'd go off and play a single player game.
Cade Windstalker
#26 - 2017-07-26 19:06:15 UTC
Mercur Fighter wrote:
Just look at what's happening - PLEX keeps climing because there are "Not Enough Sellers", however you want to interpret that, it's all the same. Too many Buyers = Not Enough Sellers. At the same time, the population is stagnating.

Alpha Clone did not achieve its goal of retaining a massive amount of new players, the activity pretty much went back down to pre-alpha levels, which is kinda bad.

I know you might not think this way - but one of CCP's major intention with the release of Valkyrie was to piggy-back the hype from the Facebook Oculus to get more interest into Eve, that did not happen.


To address these, because you seem to have a few misconceptions and a bit of misinformation here.

PLEX has a supply and demand problem combined with too much liquid ISK in the economy. The volume sold hasn't really changed, it's the demand that's going up, and that's very likely tied to the massive influx of ISK from Carrier ratting.

The goal of Alpha Clones was never to retain a massive number of new players, it was to make the game more accessible. Beyond that CCP flat out said they didn't know what sort of impact it would have on the game and they didn't have any special expectations for it. From a general MMO perspective the sort of drop-off we've seen especially for a game as niche in appeal as Eve, is to be expected and isn't 'bad', it just is.

There's basically zero evidence that CCP was trying to use Valkyrie to get more people into Eve. There hasn't been any sort of real cross promotion or "play our other game to get stuff over here" and there's no real reason to expect there to be. Valkyrie was a tech demo that took off and CCP invested into it because they're looking to diversify their income, which is a smart thing to do. If Eve actually runs into serious problem (as opposed to the normal "OMG game's dying" idiocy then having money from other games gives them a buffer to course correct and fix problems, it also allows them to spend their money more efficiently.
Teckos Pech
Patriotic Tendencies
Goonswarm Federation
#27 - 2017-07-26 19:44:29 UTC
Cade Windstalker wrote:


[snip]

In reality the sort of choice this pushes on people is one between playing with friends, people they enjoy playing with, ect and balancing a really stupid mechanic with about a thousand loopholes in it.

[snip]


This is the crux of the problem, a mechanic that is punitive towards positive in game behavior is already off to a bad start. It is going to have to have a pretty solid chance of delivering some really stellar benefits, and there are already 2 ways suggested to provide at least some degree of a work around using existing in-game mechanics.

Nobody likes TIDI and nobody likes blobs unless they are the one's doing the blobbing. However, the first provides at least some improvement given the fact that bringing a friend to the fight is almost always going to provide a reasonably significant advantage. Blobbing is the result of human nature.

Ever since the days when Og and Zog decided they needed to deal with Bog and Nog and having Gog on their side…”blobbing” has been a Thing™. And people behave socially much like organisms do in terms of evolution. They’ll look for loopholes, ways around, over, under or through barriers and constraints. It is one of the reasons why things get better over time. And EVE players are no exception…and who knows might even be a bit better at it than the average Schmoe.

Given this I am skeptical your suggestion will actually deliver the claimed benefits, and given the costs it is just not a good idea. And your defense has been entirely unpersuasive. This mechanic is designed to punish. You want less of something in a modern economy…tax it. Want more of it, use a negative tax—i.e. a subsidy. Taxes are there to restrain market activities and even behaviors. We put a tax on cigarettes in the US to punish and dissuade smokers. And you clearly intend this to be punitive…hence the exponential nature of the tax. To claim that it is not to punish is simply errant nonsense.

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online

Teckos Pech
Patriotic Tendencies
Goonswarm Federation
#28 - 2017-07-26 20:01:56 UTC
Mercur Fighter wrote:


It is exactly intended to remove the huge power blocs, and replace them with many and much smaller power blocs.

To address your downsides:

* Lots of corps that aren't big and blobby get unnecessarily punished - The exponential tax starts after a certain amount of Aggregate SP determined by CCP, whatever it may be (lets just use 1 trillion as an example). So a majority of the alliances will not be punished.


To use some extreme numbers, how many 100 million SP characters does it take to get to 1 trillion? 10,000. How is this going to address blobbing? If you make the number so large so as to not punish groups that are not "too big" then you do not address blobbing.

And let’s break this down a bit more. So, 10,000 pilots. Assume 5 alts per player on average so 2,000 actual players. Suppose they all single box in fleets and that they have a 20% participation rate…that is 400 guys showing up to fight. If the other side brings 400 guys…will we have TIDI? Yes. Problem of TIDI solved? No. Suppose one side brings in an ally that they have set to orange so that they can avoid the ally tax…and now we have 800 vs. 400. One side is being blobbed. And one could argue that 400 v. 400 is itself one blob vs. another blob. If we take a smaller average number of SP/pilot we can end up with an alliance with 20,000 pilots in it.

Just not seeing the improvement here.

Quote:
* Playing together and having a large social network is disincentivized since it's expensive. - The exponential tax starts after a certain amount of Aggregate SP determined by CCP, whatever it may be (lets just use 1 trillion as an example). So a majority of the alliances will not be punished. 1 Trillion SP is equivalent to 1,500 characters each with 67 million SP - you must be extremely popular with a lot of friends if you think that's not big enough of a network. Now I know everyone has a varying amount of SP so the number of characters will vary, so lets not start on that.


First off, 1,500 * 67 million is 100.5 billion. You missed a decimal place. This is 15,000 person alliance (14,925 to be more precsie). As for being friends, you don’t have to be friends with all of them. Suppose I have 10 buddies in game who in a corp. And I want to join…well because 10 buddies. And that corp has a bunch of other dudes. Depending on how this tax progresses yes, it is punishing friends playing together. I might be rejected from joining my 10 buddies because of this.

Quote:
Also, it is advertised as a game with massive epic fleet fights.


Also known as blobs.

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online

Beta Maoye
#29 - 2017-07-27 07:33:40 UTC
I don't agree to tax organizations that have high aggrepated skill points. It hurts one of the distinctive successful rule of the game that your character is still advancing and getting stronger when you are offline. Players will be discouraged to invest in their characters if they get punishment for higher skill points.

Plex price rising is the symptom of reduction of active players. I think the game needs to make the sovereignty gameplay fun again and bring back more players. The number of active players tell us that players don't like the aegis sovereignty. The game needs a rework badly. Keep it simple, stupid. Put everyone back into one system in structure bashing. Give distinctive roles to players in the attacking fleet and defending fleet. Roles like fighter, bomber, healer, enhancer, hacker are interactively working together in the structure bashing process. Remove jump fatigue, entosis link and reduce the number of structure timers. Establishing specialized structures for the purpose of defending and capturing of a system. Segment the universe for different size of fleet fight, like 10-men, 100-men, 1000-men fleet regions.

Don't try to achieve too many goals in sovereignty gameplay. Sometimes goals like reducing server load and making players happy are contradict to each other. The game needs to understand what the average sovereignty players want. Don't think that all players are the most hardcore and elite players.
Previous page12