These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

EVE - Without Large Alliances

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Theodoric Darkwind
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#61 - 2013-09-02 08:16:57 UTC
Menian Galvon wrote:
Came to my thoughts one day.....

What if these new changes to null are to make it much harder for alliances to get huge and bloated. To prevent alliances from owning vast areas of space. Allowing more smaller alliances and corporations to flock into null and claim their own space. Causing more PVP, but in smaller fleets. Less boring 3000 man fights, more 100 man fights. When there is more competition there can be more fun. If all the renters just went up in arms one day, the owners wouldn't be able to support their vast empire and would crumble.

Just my thoughts... curious if anybody else thought this....


There isn't any way you can change the sov system or alliance mechanics that Mittani wont find some way to run into the ground.
Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#62 - 2013-09-02 09:08:24 UTC
Menian Galvon wrote:
Came to my thoughts one day.....

What if these new changes to null are to make it much harder for alliances to get huge and bloated. To prevent alliances from owning vast areas of space. Allowing more smaller alliances and corporations to flock into null and claim their own space. Causing more PVP, but in smaller fleets. Less boring 3000 man fights, more 100 man fights. When there is more competition there can be more fun. If all the renters just went up in arms one day, the owners wouldn't be able to support their vast empire and would crumble.

Just my thoughts... curious if anybody else thought this....



Everything you would do to buff small groups will end by giving exponential power to larger groups except one thing: economics

Fighting over something requires effort, read isk, then meat canon (players all TZ).
When you start loosing fleets of 500 dudes you want them cheapo and effective so you can run as many as possible, you don't want to loose entire fleets of expensive T3s.
If something imho T3's are not powerful/expensive enough, yes alliances could always field several fleets of those but once they start getting killed/loosing several regular fleets price in a single T3 one, they'll either blue ball the fight or bring something else.
Ho wait...

removed inappropriate ASCII art signature - CCP Eterne
embrel
BamBam Inc.
#63 - 2013-09-02 09:24:34 UTC
Sergeant Acht Scultz wrote:


Everything you would do to buff small groups will end by giving exponential power to larger groups except one thing: economics



it's not that I knew a thing about Sov mechanics, so maybe it's like that already. Just make sov more expensive the more systems you control? or in fleets, less boost the larger the fleet?

wouldn't this be the easiest ways to implement something that buffs the small, but doesn't nerf "friends" too much?

It's not that I propose this. it's just the first thing that came to mind.
Yeep
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#64 - 2013-09-02 12:33:46 UTC
Dragon Outlaw wrote:
Despite what some people are saying, I think OP has valid a point. When I looked at when I started 3-4 years ago, It did felt like they were more "independent" blocs in Null sec then it does today. Was it more fun? Yes, I think it was!!


It doesn't matter what it "felt like" to you. The fact is every entity that has held space since almost the beginning of time has had diplomatic agreements with its neighbors. Even the much vaunted ISS was kept "neutral" by staying under the wing of the MC who were allied with BoB.
Skydell
Bad Girl Posse
#65 - 2013-09-02 12:44:51 UTC
Minor point to be be made:

What do all entities destroyed by CFC have in common?

They were blue to CFC a year before they fell.
Yeep
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#66 - 2013-09-02 13:12:00 UTC
Skydell wrote:
Minor point to be be made:

What do all entities destroyed by CFC have in common?

They were blue to CFC a year before they fell.


[Citation needed]
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#67 - 2013-09-02 13:53:17 UTC
Yeep wrote:
Skydell wrote:
Minor point to be be made:

What do all entities destroyed by CFC have in common?

They were blue to CFC a year before they fell.


[Citation needed]

Were we blue to -A-?

Triggered by: Wars of Sovless Agression, Bending the Knee, Twisting the Knife, Eating Sov Wheaties, Bombless Bombers, Fizzlesov, Interceptor Fleets, Running Away, GhostTime Vuln, Renters, Bombs, Bubbles ?
Infinity Ziona
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#68 - 2013-09-02 14:00:28 UTC
Nerf the WoW portals and we'll see how long these big alliances last... not long.

CCP Fozzie “We can see how much money people are making in nullsec and it is, a gigantic amount, a shit-ton… in null sec anomalies. “*

Kaalrus pwned..... :)
KuroVolt
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#69 - 2013-09-02 14:20:23 UTC
Alavaria Fera wrote:
Yeep wrote:
Skydell wrote:
Minor point to be be made:

What do all entities destroyed by CFC have in common?

They were blue to CFC a year before they fell.


[Citation needed]

Were we blue to -A-?


You werent really that involved with -A- collapsing though, that was more PL and N3.

BoBwins Law: As a discussion/war between two large nullsec entities grows longer, the probability of one comparing the other to BoB aproaches near certainty.
Rhes
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#70 - 2013-09-02 17:03:22 UTC
KuroVolt wrote:
Alavaria Fera wrote:
Yeep wrote:
Skydell wrote:
Minor point to be be made:

What do all entities destroyed by CFC have in common?

They were blue to CFC a year before they fell.


[Citation needed]

Were we blue to -A-?


You werent really that involved with -A- collapsing though, that was more PL and N3.


We must be in charge of PL and N3. I read on these very forums that we own all of nullsec and all other alliances are our pets.

EVE is a game about spaceships and there's an enormous amount of work to do on the in-space gameplay before players (or developers) are ready to sacrifice it for a totally new type of gameplay - CCP Rise
Mocam
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#71 - 2013-09-02 19:27:01 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Menian Galvon wrote:
Came to my thoughts one day.....

What if these new changes to null are to make it much harder for alliances to get huge and bloated. To prevent alliances from owning vast areas of space. Allowing more smaller alliances and corporations to flock into null and claim their own space. Causing more PVP, but in smaller fleets. Less boring 3000 man fights, more 100 man fights. When there is more competition there can be more fun. If all the renters just went up in arms one day, the owners wouldn't be able to support their vast empire and would crumble.

Just my thoughts... curious if anybody else thought this....

Even if you could only have a maximum of 50 people in a sov holding alliance, we'd simply form up as a coalition of 200 alliances working together. The blue donut cannot be stopped.


Not so simple in reality.

1 person makes decisions that are followed. Up to 10 can force an "agreement"/consensus that appears as full agreement.

Now try that with 70 opinions being expressed and debated. Pushin it to 200? It will be rare that this or that group doesn't "break away" with fair frequency and join/form other groups - *IF* it's possible to do so.

What prevents this now is the architecture that puts a select few in actual power vs one that encourages broad diversity. Simply look at the "blue doughnut " and how many corporations join/leave each/any of the alliances across any given week.

With 200 holders, yes you'd have groupings and clusters but they would be far less stable, broader and require more actual cooperation vs capitulation to threats.

It's like saying parliament / congress can decide and act just as readily as a dictatorship / monarchy -- it hath the wefting odor of bovine excrement.
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#72 - 2013-09-02 19:40:46 UTC
Mocam wrote:
What prevents this now is the architecture that puts a select few in actual power vs one that encourages broad diversity. Simply look at the "blue doughnut " and how many corporations join/leave each/any of the alliances across any given week.

TEST Alliance, safe in the blue donut, is a picture of stability and low risk.

Triggered by: Wars of Sovless Agression, Bending the Knee, Twisting the Knife, Eating Sov Wheaties, Bombless Bombers, Fizzlesov, Interceptor Fleets, Running Away, GhostTime Vuln, Renters, Bombs, Bubbles ?
Mocam
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#73 - 2013-09-04 02:48:20 UTC
Alavaria Fera wrote:
Mocam wrote:
What prevents this now is the architecture that puts a select few in actual power vs one that encourages broad diversity. Simply look at the "blue doughnut " and how many corporations join/leave each/any of the alliances across any given week.

TEST Alliance, safe in the blue donut, is a picture of stability and low risk.


"who's turn in the barrel" comes to mind with it taken personally by some.

As for "stability and low risk" - in a discussion on "AFK cloakers" - I still recall one fellow talking about how gutless others were on the topic - while his "solution" was to have a friend set him up a POS in another system where he went and ratted instead.

In other words, his statements on "nullbear's" gutlessness was due to their inability or unwillingness to tuck tail and run to a different place safer to operate - avoiding "risks" by running away from them.

SOSDD from that part of the game.
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#74 - 2013-09-04 04:24:22 UTC
AFK cloaking is the best

Triggered by: Wars of Sovless Agression, Bending the Knee, Twisting the Knife, Eating Sov Wheaties, Bombless Bombers, Fizzlesov, Interceptor Fleets, Running Away, GhostTime Vuln, Renters, Bombs, Bubbles ?