These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
Previous page123
 

The problems with 0.0 Sov, Alliance life and how to fix it

Author
Elessa Enaka
Doomheim
#41 - 2012-01-26 21:29:15 UTC
Manssell wrote:
Mors Sanctitatis wrote:



Sovereignty, holding space and making money: Currently, alliances don't have any truly direct revenue stream. Sure, there's moon goo and tithes that are paid by member corps and renters etc., but those are all "unofficial". That is, there's no concrete in-game framework that allows any of this to happen in an automated fashion.



I want to come at this from a slightly different angle just to explore the idea.

What if this is that this is a good thing and needs to be made even harder. One of the biggiest complaints I hear about 0.0 is that it's "stagnate". Not that nobody moves, just that the powerblocks are set and only really seem to fall from internal pressures. Well why do things that help decrease those pressures? Many of the 0.0 pilots I talk to identify with their alliance more than their corps now, it seems the more tools we give to alliance management, the more alliances become the new corps. There just isn't much internal alliance drama outside of personal epeen grudges.

But what if you removed the executor corp (if you could?) and replaced it with a treaty system instead? Make the alliances more "loose" in their membership. That way the assets the mega alliances have now would still exist, but they would be even more in the hands of the corps that actually controlled them, and they would have to be given to the alliance voluntarily. Couple this with some way of needing to actual occupy a system to have SOV over it, and give that SOV to the corp not the alliance, and the mega alliances would start to have huge internal pressures on them if they grew to big. Why would X corp now fly 30 jumps to protect Y corps moons, if Y is getting most of the income (or suspected to be hold some back from the alliance, see more political drama). Sure they might still, but they also might think twice out it. Or if the treaty that set up the alliance permitted it, X corp, could even attack Y corp to fight over assets within the alliance. If Z corp has most of the suppers, why should they risk them over M corps anoms? Would they abandon allies in a fight? And would the rest of the alliance care if they are dependent on Z corps suppers? Perhaps, or perhaps not, but the possibilities would all be there, possibilities that don't seem to happen much now.

It just seems that the more tools we give for helping alliances to manage themselves the less reasons people seem to have to fight one another outside of the personal grudges of a few alliance leaders.javascript:if%20(typeof%20posting=='undefined'||posting!=true)%20{posting=true;__doPostBack('forum$ctl00$PostReply','');}


If something like this could be implemented without being terribly clunky, I think it would be awesome. Actually having a "written" agreement between each of the involved corps. I think this could be a very interesting development and also might serve to break up some of the bluefests as well (could also potentially go the exact opposite direction and just cause them to grow and solidify).

Devour to survive, so it is, so it's always been Eve is a great game if you can get past all of the asshats....

met worst
Doomheim
#42 - 2012-01-26 22:12:11 UTC
Love the idea of fuel for cap ownership. Combined with intercepts on logistics would start a "I better fly this titan/scap for a reason" - not "'cos I can".

IMO, the proliferation of caps is also undoubtably tied to ridiculous levels of wealth and this comes from a static, passive, easy to earn income. I've always felt that making moongoo dynamic and depreciable would go a long way to breaking the deadlock. Being able to make billions simply by setting up a POS and protecting it by lots o' numbers is a no-brainer.

Alliances HAVE to be big simply to protect a static resource and yet the wealth from a Tech moon (for example) is tied to the corp, not the alliance. Corp A finds moon, puts up POS, makes friends with more corps, creates alliance to protect Corp A's moon.

Perhaps moongoo could be an alliance asset (by fact, not by perception) where funds from sale is distributed by a share system? Dunno. But income needs to be actively sought and/or not linear and constantly randomizing resources would shift the balance of power dynamically.

And I don't like handing more coin to the alliance at the expense of the corp. In fact I think the reverse is probably better. Alliances are supposed to be a collective of corps with common strategic interests not just a "supercorp" which is all they really are. (as stated above) - Alliance A is quite often just Corp A with friends.

The alliance as a huge financial holding entity is plain wrong. (Hello Bell, Microsoft etc.....)

And yes, putting limits/caps on anything in a sandbox breaks a fundamental principle but should we be protecting "principles" at the cost of innovation.

If we had done that for the last 1000 years we'd still be fighting nomadic tribes for space just to to put up a tent where we can call it home.

Oh wait, that's all Eve 0.0 is right now.
Mors Sanctitatis
Death of Virtue
#43 - 2012-02-04 05:10:13 UTC
met worst wrote:
Love the idea of fuel for cap ownership. Combined with intercepts on logistics would start a "I better fly this titan/scap for a reason" - not "'cos I can".

IMO, the proliferation of caps is also undoubtably tied to ridiculous levels of wealth and this comes from a static, passive, easy to earn income. I've always felt that making moongoo dynamic and depreciable would go a long way to breaking the deadlock. Being able to make billions simply by setting up a POS and protecting it by lots o' numbers is a no-brainer.

Alliances HAVE to be big simply to protect a static resource and yet the wealth from a Tech moon (for example) is tied to the corp, not the alliance. Corp A finds moon, puts up POS, makes friends with more corps, creates alliance to protect Corp A's moon.

Perhaps moongoo could be an alliance asset (by fact, not by perception) where funds from sale is distributed by a share system? Dunno. But income needs to be actively sought and/or not linear and constantly randomizing resources would shift the balance of power dynamically.

And I don't like handing more coin to the alliance at the expense of the corp. In fact I think the reverse is probably better. Alliances are supposed to be a collective of corps with common strategic interests not just a "supercorp" which is all they really are. (as stated above) - Alliance A is quite often just Corp A with friends.

The alliance as a huge financial holding entity is plain wrong. (Hello Bell, Microsoft etc.....)

And yes, putting limits/caps on anything in a sandbox breaks a fundamental principle but should we be protecting "principles" at the cost of innovation.

If we had done that for the last 1000 years we'd still be fighting nomadic tribes for space just to to put up a tent where we can call it home.

Oh wait, that's all Eve 0.0 is right now.


I think that another key element you've hit on is economy of scale and the problem Eve has with knock on effects allowing groups to become ever more powerful the larger they grow. CCP needs to take away all residual income from 0.0 that can be produced passively. Basically, delete moon goo, or turn it into something where players need to be actively engaged in order to produce it.

If players have to be actively engaged in an activity to produce moon goo then that means other players can actively participate to disrupt those activities- instant PVP. CCP needs to build in more time and effort to generate ISK in 0.0, not less.
Degren
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#44 - 2012-02-04 06:03:02 UTC
Mors, are you military? Just curious.

Anyways, I thoroughly enjoy your posts. Your ideas are well fleshed out and I can clearly imagine the potential impact. I especially liked the taxation idea. Alliances invite people to their space instead of shutting them out. Security becomes...interesting. Pirates have more targets to pick out in null.

Mmmm. Yessss.

Hello, hello again.

Previous page123