Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Trainer Sbakor
|
Posted - 2010.08.31 18:59:00 -
[1]
K so, i propose this to reduce big napfests, and in the process, possibly even some lag.
I think if say, Alliance A wants to blue Alliance B, their should be a monthly fee of 1m ISK per member between the two. Say Alliance A has 1000 members, and Alliance B has 500. Each alliance should have to pay 1.5b to Concord or w/e every month to keep the standings blue,
This will make Alliances think twice about who they blue, and reduce blobbing, and massive coalitions, although the NC/SC can probably afford this easily, it might get expensive for the pets, which will also be reduced, pet alliances will have to pay the fee to keep blue to their overlords, and further reduce blobs.
Discuss
|
Marcus Gideon
Gallente Federal Defense Operations
|
Posted - 2010.08.31 19:04:00 -
[2]
Umm... what?
You do realize that "Blue" means they're on each others Friends List, basically.
So you want us to pay a fee for having friends?
Is that what you're saying?
How about we charge people for making new threads on the forums? The first 10 people to reply, get to decide whether it was a good post or bad. If it's good, you get a discount. If it's bad, you get charged extra. ---
|
Trainer Sbakor
|
Posted - 2010.08.31 19:08:00 -
[3]
Edited by: Trainer Sbakor on 31/08/2010 19:08:25
Originally by: Marcus Gideon Umm... what?
You do realize that "Blue" means they're on each others Friends List, basically.
So you want us to pay a fee for having friends?
Is that what you're saying?
How about we charge people for making new threads on the forums? The first 10 people to reply, get to decide whether it was a good post or bad. If it's good, you get a discount. If it's bad, you get charged extra.
Yes, a fee for having friends outside your corp/alliance
its the same thing as the monthly alliance fee, just more expensive.
Think of all the major alliances with 2000+ members, they bring 500 man fleets because of all their pets / allies. make their pets / allies pay 2bil + however many members they have every month, it gets expensive.
reduce blobbing and massive 1000 man battles the server cant support anyhow.
|
Destination SkillQueue
Are We There Yet
|
Posted - 2010.08.31 19:22:00 -
[4]
Edited by: Destination SkillQueue on 31/08/2010 19:22:56
Your idea is generally horrible and as an icing on the cake it doesn't even solve the percieved problem of NAP fests. This is a multiplayer sandbox game, so you want to encourage people to work in groups and don't want to put artificial limits on their actions, if you can avoid it. There is also the issue, that if you force this kind of a mechanism against the players, people will just use out of game methods to achieve the same thing.
Basicly your idea would just make a huge number of players ****ed at CCP for reducing the sandbox and intentionally making the game worse at a time when the game has dozens of real problems that could use some dev love. You also force alliances to handle relations primarily out of game for no benefit for anyone.
|
Stick Cult
|
Posted - 2010.08.31 21:40:00 -
[5]
While NAPs need to be dealt with, this isn't it.
Originally by: CCP Tuxford my bad. Rest assured I'm being ridiculed by my co-workers.
|
EdFromHumanResources
Caldari GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
|
Posted - 2010.08.31 22:24:00 -
[6]
Oh no don't charge alliances that make 80b + per month an extra 200m! This will surely break naps!
Actually this will just make no one want to blue new names in 0.0 because they wont be worth it.
|
Mr SmartGuy
|
Posted - 2010.08.31 23:52:00 -
[7]
Musical Fist? Is that you?
|
Voogru
Gallente Massive Damage
|
Posted - 2010.09.01 02:33:00 -
[8]
Quote: How about we charge people for making new threads on the forums? The first 10 people to reply, get to decide whether it was a good post or bad. If it's good, you get a discount. If it's bad, you get charged extra.
I like this idea better.
This thread should cost you 50m.
Hate Farmers? Click Here |
Marconus Orion
D00M. Northern Coalition.
|
Posted - 2010.09.01 03:02:00 -
[9]
The solution for the NAP Train issue will have to come from CCP. No matter how good an idea (and in no way am I saying this is a good one, sorry) to change how it NAP works, the current players that are involved in NAPS will do everything in their power to make sure it does not change.
I mean think about it. If your in the huge NAP Train making ISK hand over fist, would you want that to change and your income to drop? Would you want to have to work at actually making ISK? Of course not.
The only ones that have a problem with the NAP Train are those who prefer PvP and the 'good' fights. Everyone else wants it to stay the same.
Only thing we can do is wait for CCP to save the game from itself before the entire game is 95% blue with each other.
I of course expect everyone part of the NAP Train to smack me with npc alts claiming there is nothing wrong with the current situation.
Anyone that is part of the NAP Train that actually speaks out openly about wanting less blues is immediatly silenced by being kicked or threatened.
Now it is getting to the point where I don't blame alliances for signing up on the NAP Train list to have a chance in 0.0 The idea of an alliance/corp trying to carve out a piece of 0.0 without blueing up a bunch of other alliances is simply not possible.
There are nothing in the game that discourages this. Having dozens upon dozens of blues is simply, safer.
But like I said above, if you want in 0.0 then you have no choice in the matter.
|
Trainer Sbakor
|
Posted - 2010.09.01 03:35:00 -
[10]
Originally by: EdFromHumanResources Oh no don't charge alliances that make 80b + per month an extra 200m! This will surely break naps!
Actually this will just make no one want to blue new names in 0.0 because they wont be worth it.
With my idea,
and using your aliance as an example, i believe you have 3000 members in ur alliance
Say you want to blue Corp A (70 members) Alliance A (700 members) and Alliance B (1500 Members)
You will be paying approx 13b per month, Corp A will be paying 3.07b a month, Alliance A will pay 3.7b a month, and alliance B will pay 4.5b a month.
That is costly, and would definetley fix the nap trains, and we wouldnt have NOrth vrs South, wed have more like tribal wars in a way, Maybe 2 alliances controls Region A, and 2 Alliances controls Region B, and we get smaller, more server capable fights.
|
|
Goose99
|
Posted - 2010.09.01 04:47:00 -
[11]
What makes you think it needs fixing? Ppl blue other ppl because they want to. Maybe they don't want to fight just because you want them to. You're always free to fight everyone else. Stop trying to force other ppl do what you want. They'll just find another way and it won't work in the end.
|
Venkul Mul
Gallente
|
Posted - 2010.09.01 05:32:00 -
[12]
Let's check your thought process:
NAP train are bad for 0.0 -> we should change them -> add a blue charge
You are missing a piece.
high sec and low sec allinces, corporations and individuals have people set to blue, so your idea will not change much for 0.0 alliances that will keep the blue to lue standing up and still make plenty of isk from 0.0 resources, but will screw up low sec/high sec alliances and corp and that are making way less.
So instead of "curing" 0.0 you infect low sec and high sec.
Smart.
|
Darkwolf
Caldari TOG Empire DRACONIAN COVENANT
|
Posted - 2010.09.01 05:50:00 -
[13]
Unsupported.
You can't put a fee on people agreeing not to shoot each other. All that will happen with your proposal is people will go back to the old days of keeping a written-down list of friendly corps, and they'll consult that before deciding to fire.
It improves nothing.
|
John'eh
Asteroid Belt Protection Services
|
Posted - 2010.09.01 10:14:00 -
[14]
This would make things worse, I do NOT support this. - John'eh
Your Critics Are Your Best Friends, because they help you find your faults and help you improve to be better. Don't take my criticisms personally, I care about Eve just as much as you |
SqualZell Madman
Caldari Dead Void
|
Posted - 2010.09.01 14:04:00 -
[15]
Originally by: Trainer Sbakor
Originally by: EdFromHumanResources Oh no don't charge alliances that make 80b + per month an extra 200m! This will surely break naps!
Actually this will just make no one want to blue new names in 0.0 because they wont be worth it.
With my idea,
and using your aliance as an example, i believe you have 3000 members in ur alliance
Say you want to blue Corp A (70 members) Alliance A (700 members) and Alliance B (1500 Members)
You will be paying approx 13b per month, Corp A will be paying 3.07b a month, Alliance A will pay 3.7b a month, and alliance B will pay 4.5b a month.
That is costly, and would definetley fix the nap trains, and we wouldnt have NOrth vrs South, wed have more like tribal wars in a way, Maybe 2 alliances controls Region A, and 2 Alliances controls Region B, and we get smaller, more server capable fights.
or they can ignore that mechanism and use other means, say forums, voice chats, IRC, hell even xfire. to make those NAPs happen without having to pay and the only people that got affected are the high sec corp/alliances who have real life friends in other corps/alliances that have nothing to do with blab warfare.
you can't stop human nature
and i personnaly don't think that it will ever get to all 0.0 blue. again its human nature, what happens when a power becomes to powerfull and too big? (think of what hapened to the roman empire)
--
|
De'Veldrin
Minmatar CareBears on Fire The Obsidian Legion
|
Posted - 2010.09.01 16:56:00 -
[16]
Um. No. --Vel
|
SurrenderMonkey
|
Posted - 2010.09.01 17:06:00 -
[17]
This idea has no redeeming qualities. --------------- Faction-Militia:Player-Alliance::Newbie-corp:Player-corp |
Trainer Sbakor
|
Posted - 2010.09.01 17:19:00 -
[18]
Edited by: Trainer Sbakor on 01/09/2010 17:20:18
Originally by: Venkul Mul Let's check your thought process:
NAP train are bad for 0.0 -> we should change them -> add a blue charge
You are missing a piece.
high sec and low sec allinces, corporations and individuals have people set to blue, so your idea will not change much for 0.0 alliances that will keep the blue to lue standing up and still make plenty of isk from 0.0 resources, but will screw up low sec/high sec alliances and corp and that are making way less.
So instead of "curing" 0.0 you infect low sec and high sec.
Smart.
Maybe, but low/hi sec alliances and corps are much smaller, and would require a much smaller fee.
Maybe make this fee for Sov Holding Alliances only then?
Originally by: Darkwolf Unsupported.
You can't put a fee on people agreeing not to shoot each other. All that will happen with your proposal is people will go back to the old days of keeping a written-down list of friendly corps, and they'll consult that before deciding to fire.
It improves nothing.
THey could do that yes, but now they dont have access to each others Jump bridges, docking rights etc
|
Marcus Gideon
Gallente Federal Defense Operations
|
Posted - 2010.09.01 17:30:00 -
[19]
Edited by: Marcus Gideon on 01/09/2010 17:29:57 What if Corp A in this big bad Sov holding 0.0 alliance, wants to set a particular high sec care bear indy hauling corp as Blue, so they can haul their stuff up to Jita for them?
Does Corp A have to pay billions of ISK to set [Care Bears Anon] (wonder if that's really a corp out there?) to Blue? |
Trainer Sbakor
|
Posted - 2010.09.01 17:33:00 -
[20]
Edited by: Trainer Sbakor on 01/09/2010 17:33:59
Originally by: Marcus Gideon Edited by: Marcus Gideon on 01/09/2010 17:29:57 What if Corp A in this big bad Sov holding 0.0 alliance, wants to set a particular high sec care bear indy hauling corp as Blue, so they can haul their stuff up to Jita for them?
Does Corp A have to pay billions of ISK to set [Care Bears Anon] (wonder if that's really a corp out there?) to Blue?
No because you dont need standings to do a courier contract, and if your referring to a carebear hauling corp that goes to Sov holding alliance A's outpost and hauls to jita, im pretty sure that sort of corp doesnt exist. but if they do want standings, then yes they would have to pay, not like you need standings in hi sec anyway.
|
|
Marcus Gideon
Gallente Federal Defense Operations
|
Posted - 2010.09.01 17:37:00 -
[21]
Originally by: Trainer Sbakor Edited by: Trainer Sbakor on 01/09/2010 17:33:59
Originally by: Marcus Gideon Edited by: Marcus Gideon on 01/09/2010 17:29:57 What if Corp A in this big bad Sov holding 0.0 alliance, wants to set a particular high sec care bear indy hauling corp as Blue, so they can haul their stuff up to Jita for them?
Does Corp A have to pay billions of ISK to set [Care Bears Anon] (wonder if that's really a corp out there?) to Blue?
No because you dont need standings to do a courier contract, and if your referring to a carebear hauling corp that goes to Sov holding alliance A's outpost and hauls to jita, im pretty sure that sort of corp doesnt exist. but if they do want standings, then yes they would have to pay, not like you need standings in hi sec anyway.
Yes, I mean if [Care Bears Anon] flew through gates camped by Corp A. They'd set them Blue, so they wouldn't get toasted.
So you're saying they would have to pay? |
Trainer Sbakor
|
Posted - 2010.09.01 17:40:00 -
[22]
Edited by: Trainer Sbakor on 01/09/2010 17:42:30
Originally by: Marcus Gideon
Originally by: Trainer Sbakor Edited by: Trainer Sbakor on 01/09/2010 17:33:59
Originally by: Marcus Gideon Edited by: Marcus Gideon on 01/09/2010 17:29:57 What if Corp A in this big bad Sov holding 0.0 alliance, wants to set a particular high sec care bear indy hauling corp as Blue, so they can haul their stuff up to Jita for them?
Does Corp A have to pay billions of ISK to set [Care Bears Anon] (wonder if that's really a corp out there?) to Blue?
No because you dont need standings to do a courier contract, and if your referring to a carebear hauling corp that goes to Sov holding alliance A's outpost and hauls to jita, im pretty sure that sort of corp doesnt exist. but if they do want standings, then yes they would have to pay, not like you need standings in hi sec anyway.
Yes, I mean if [Care Bears Anon] flew through gates camped by Corp A. They'd set them Blue, so they wouldn't get toasted.
So you're saying they would have to pay?
Yes, but that doesnt mean much, because this is an unlikely scenario, most big bad sov holding alliances have their own Jump freighters / t2 hauler alts. the ones that dont would be small enuff to afford the standings. or maybe neutral carebear corp could join the alliance.
However if Carebear corp anon wants to blue hisec pvp corp anon, they would not have to pay, because neither hold any sov.
|
Larg Kellein
Caldari Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
|
Posted - 2010.09.01 17:51:00 -
[23]
We have one other smallish alliance set blue, and I still think your idea has no redeeming qualities whatsoever. Eve is a sandbox, stop imposing artificial limits on emergent gameplay.
What needs fixing isn't really how many people are blue, it's that the actual fights are too biased by sheer numbers.
|
Commander Predator
|
Posted - 2010.09.01 17:55:00 -
[24]
Edited by: Commander Predator on 01/09/2010 17:58:54
not supported, but i do agree that the napfests are ghey Hello, My Name is.... |
Dzil
Caldari Caldari Independent Navy Reserve OWN Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.09.01 21:33:00 -
[25]
ITT
"We should tax people for having friends"
Retired from corp sales. Time to spend some of this on pretty explosions :) |
Cyberman Mastermind
|
Posted - 2010.09.02 04:55:00 -
[26]
So, er, this means - Red is the new Blue? Good way to get rid of NBSI. It'll be NRSI then.
|
Baaad Idea
|
Posted - 2010.09.06 13:45:00 -
[27]
Utterly fails to address the issue causing the proposers angst? Check
Needlessly complicated? Check
No thought about what the unintended consequences might be? Check
I'm throwing my weight behind it.
|
Drake Draconis
Minmatar Shadow Cadre Shadow Confederation
|
Posted - 2010.09.06 18:18:00 -
[28]
Originally by: De'Veldrin Um. No.
========================= CEO of Shadow Cadre http://www.shadowcadre.com ========================= |
Abdiel Kavash
Caldari Paladin Order Fidelas Constans
|
Posted - 2010.09.07 02:39:00 -
[29]
If there ever was a reason to have an "unsupported" checkbox, this thread is it. ___________ EVE is dying! Now for real! |
|
|
|
Pages: [1] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |