Thorian Baalnorn
Caldari
Di-Tron Heavy Industries
BricK sQuAD.
   |
Posted - 2010.10.21 19:17:00 -
[1]
 Originally by: Ralara
Edited by: Ralara on 15/10/2010 14:37:30
Edited by: Ralara on 15/10/2010 14:36:10
Originally by: Dark Motoko
So at this stage, I'm unsure what CCP actually could do.
New fee:
1 million isk per month, per member of a corp, for positive standings. If it's an alliance, it's members in the alliance.
You want to have 15,000 blue pilots? Sure thing. 15,000,000,000 isk a month. Doesn't sound like a huge amount but each of those mega blocks will be paying that each - we're talking couple hundred billion a month just to maintain blue standings.
Splitting up in to smaller entities wont help (same number of pilots).
The small renting corps ... ok, that's a big bill. So they can't pay it.
No renters = the big alliances start having to pay sov bills for all that space they (don't) own.
Cascade effect is you simply can't hold 15 regions of space, be concentrated in 5 stations and charge people 100m month a system or whatever it is, because THEY can't afford it and YOU can't afford it.
v0v
tldr / that doesn't make sense;
Think of it like a somewhat inverted form of the war dec system - they more you have, the more it costs.
stupid role play rationale? Err, I dunno, the wages for the diplomats or something.
This would actually be more effective than one would think. It would cause a few problems and inconviences for large alliances. You could bypass this by adding alliance tickers to your overview. But that only rectifies some of the problem.
As someone that has been in fleet fights of hundreds per side with multiple alliances, i can make an educated guess at what havoc this may cause on the individual player. Many players take blues/fleet off overview to make it easier to find targets. However if an alliance chooses to limit the amount of blues because of isk cost than you have more players on overview that show as neut/red. The result is longer target acquisition resulting in a less effective fighting force. If i am hunting for targets on a list that is now 500 players as opposed to 250 players before. It makes target hunting more difficult. This also can be overcome.
A better way might would be to remove standings completely. Everyone is neutral. You would retain your alliance/corp/fleet/war dec icons. To counter any wardec abuse lengthen wardecs to 1 week and limit the amount of active wardecs to two. then redistribute the cost of the dec to (agressing alliance number of members + decced alliance number of members) x 500,000 isk. If it is a second dec for the deccing alliance then the cost is 150%. IE: ABC alliance with 1000 members decs XYZ allaince with 1500 members =wardec cost 1.25 bil isk week. Then MNO alliance (1000 members) decide to jump in and help XYZ. Their cost is 1 bil x 150% or 1.5 bil isk to dec ABC.
Personal standings could still be set but only against individual players.
Part of the problem is CCP makes it to easy to blob up. They almost encourage it. I know personally i like having that large chunk of 0.0 space to play in that is virtually "unused". This is a space game after all its not suppose to be like getting on the subway in new york at 5 pm.
That leads to another part of the problem. CCP is not expanding the space in this game to keep up with the amount of active players. When a start playing a few years ago peak players were about 30k and averaged around 25k ish. they have only added WH space since but increased the number of actives by about 33%. An increase of 750 highsec, 250 lowsec, 500 0.0 systems would help in many areas of gameplay including spreading people out further.
In a space game one should have to make an effort to find someone, anyone, in the less populated regions. As it is now even the unused systems are indeed used dozens if not hundreds of times a day. To find a system with less than 50 jumps a day is a rare thing.
|