Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Please do an overhaul of alliance Skill Mechanics, Additionally Please Make some modifications to Standings.

[b]Overview / Synopsis[
One of the insights that i have been having in the new sov mechanics, is a massive reduction in alliance controlled space (alliances have less territory), alliances will generally have around 8-12 systems (possibly less or more) and They will use standings much more.

This Ultimately does not solve the problem with "blobbing" perse. The sov changes go in the direction of putting a dent on it, but it still will not resolve the problem ultimately. Thankfully i think there is a simply solution to this

Purpose Solution

May of us have played eve for a long time, and we can remember the days back in 2003-2004 when fleets were not hitting over 300 pilots.

However, now do to the establishments of the idea, and the mechanical operation of "coalitions" we have this number being inflated. So the real problem is not necessarily "sov mechanics", the real problem is "coalitions".

That being said, Sov itself needed a change because of the whole pos war nonsense, and while i think this system will fail (because it violates the KISS principle) i do think it will be partially successful at

- Diversifying the group types (specifically, we will see a lot small destroyer, frigate gangs in some situations, and massive battleships in others
- Creating Very easy capture location objectives, and very hard ones (basically pipe lines are going to be near impossible to take Or very difficult, because of intelligent people finding ways to weave current mechanics in, like gate camping for example).
- granting more alliances 0.0 access (the reduction of space allows new players)
- granting alliances more 0.0 sov claims (yea pretty much people will lose space more)
- more frequent PvP (due to closer proximity)


My Attempt / recommendation to fix the issue.
when ccp added the option to limit the amount of war decs to a raw 2 or 3 (which ever it was) I believed it was a solid move. This was an excellent addition to the game. Regardless of what "data" (or selective data) says, High sec has becoming an abusive, toxic, and poison filled cest-pool. I believe that ultimately, this is like smoking a cigeratte eventually it will kill you (or in this case eve).

When ccp negated on this position, and went back to allowing endless war decs at higher costs, they did not penalize it enough. We have to remember that some 82-85% of a game is carebears, They provide immense stability and options to the game, and high sec being littered with death is not doing much to help the games population, or help new players get a footing. This needs to be addressed, and i think a large amount of this is largely due to this mechanic change.

That being said, something similar will take place in 0.0.

We will start to see a situation where the opposite takes place in 0.0, Where 0.0 is filled with blue naps, and high sec is filled with red war decs. I want to try to advocate for some balance in this

So basically we have red space in high sec, and blue spam in 0.0, I mean does this seem #$@ backwards to anyone else?
Im kind of curious about it from a game development standpoint i think its one of those wonky things that has a possibility to work (by attracting people to 0.0) but i think that is dependent upon the 1) stability of safety 2) Risk vs reward (which needs a buff)

I think is some fun solutions to this.

Skill changes
First i advocate the following changes


Corporation:
25 Members Per a Level (for corp)
Social Level 5

Mega Corporation: 150 People Per a Level (for corp)
Corporation Level 5

(Alliance control is now a new "skill category")

Alliance Control:
Empire Control:
Creation of Alliances.
Max of 1500 People, and 2 Corporations per a level.
Requires Mega Corp Level 4, Corporation Level 5, Social Level 5.

Sovereignty:
Improved Max Population Of an alliance
+2 Corporations per a level

Foreign Negotiations
+ 1 To max amount of war declarations and standings allowed by an alliance.


The idea behind this is to

1) solve the massive training time to make an alliance, to encourage the growth and development of new alliances, and alliance concepts (like Redfrog transport etc)
2) Reduce the max population of corporations.
3) Reduce and limit the max population of alliances.


The Idea behind this is to

- Limit the amount of standings you can have
- Limit the amount of coalition numbers you can have


This will forcefully remove coalitions from the game, Limiting the size of fleet engagements and return the game back to that level of fun enjoyable non-evasive pvp.



- If you were to lazy to ready all this, the short version is

- Redo skills
- Make Corp Section and Alliance section for skill categories
- Reduce the max population of corps and alliances
- Stop blobbing, and bring about mid sized, and small gang pvp at a highly frequent rate (which means pvpers will have much more fun, more income, and easier to find pvp) making the game more about killing others, then nasty boring sov stuff.

Coalitions exist outside the mechanics of the game, only made easier by being able to set people blue. Removing the ability to set people blue won't break up the coalitions, merely change them from people listed blue to a list kept off the EvE servers.


Yes it will.


Limiting people to 5 blue alliances will massively inhibit the ability to produce large coalitions.

IF you engage in a large engagement, they will show neutral do you (if you dont have them set) which makes targeting and pvp extremely difficult, and will almost always respond to "blue on neut-blue fire".

Eventually people will get sick of it, and stop doing it (or find a way to go around that).

From here adding a mechanic like "player can only set player to player standings" (as opposed to player setting a corp to personal standings) Will remove any possible mechanical work around for this problem.

Even if they manage to find a setting out side of this, They would of had to worked massively with logistics, and timing to make it worth the time.

This is an excellent way to give balance to this, if nothing else it makes them have to work hard (to train, and coordinate) to be a coalition, as opposed to a simple 10 second "set you in standings we are good" sort of thing (out side of the actual engagements that is).

I dont know about you, but iv lead large fleet engagements (1300vs 900) and i can tel you the logistics in place are already a lot to manage, add this sort of stuff on there, and it overly complicates the situation even more. It just wont be worth the energy spent (if possible) to main tain a coalition out side of 5 people beyond that point, unless its coalition to coalition coordination, in which case its not localized (in other words, You might have delve coalition telling fountain coalition to kill people in outer ring, b ut you wont have delve and fountain coalition together in say, period bases helping each other in battle and even if you did it'd be a pain in the @#$)

Either that, or, "You have more friends than me, so I need to nerf your game so you can't have more friends than me!!!"

I think we had this before. There was a time in EVE without standings and a very resourceful entity (you know who) in the cluster back then found a way via a third party software to replace character avatars with standing pictures. It was so effective and only available to this one entity that CCP saw themselves coerced to implement a standings feature for the entire game.

Now, guess what is going to happen if CCP were to remove standings again.


Interestingly enough this venom gave you the opportunities you currently enjoy in the first place.

There were not back then and there won't be now. If I remember it correctly, the checksum for the avatar pictures was exactly the same so no client modification was detectable. And nowadays we have even better ways to manage that.

Oh, and with regards to your idea on skill changes. You can even set the skill requirements to 0 for founding a 10k people alliance. Without proper leadership, organization, logistics and people willing to follow the leadership, idea, organization, it is completely moot. Suitable people for these leadership positions, however, are barely more common in EVE than the resource Trust.

Goons has never done anything for us but provide someone to laugh at and point about and be disguised with.

Here's a workaround for you.

Set your allies yellow, only shoot reds and neuts.

Job Done.


As Guard is so fond of saying, the strongest ship in EVE is the friendship. Why do you want to nerf it?

Oh, well, if you literally cannot comprehend why anyone would ever want to have more than five hostiles, how about 'follow the targets your FC calls'? I know that might be a difficult concept to follow, really it's right up there with 'learn your allies alliance tickers', or 'don't roam friendly space', but EVE players do tend to have two braincells they can rub together.

Usually.

Now, can you explain why a MASSIVELY MULTIPLAYER game should not encourage players to, y'know, interact with one another in a positive manner?

Oh and lastly if you missed it the first time i said it

"the idea is to complicate the crap out of coalitions beyond a specific player point that it no longer is worth the enemy or time"

I dident say "not to make it impossible".

If you want to sort through neuts to find out who to kill, and have to set up logistics for support to not tackle allies your welcome to do that.

But like i said, I almost certainly promise blue deaths in a situation where blue is only blue by "relation" and not "mechanical standings".

positive interactions between it's players?

Positive for you, or the rest of the game.

because at this point coalitions like CFC do absolutely no good for this game.