Originally by: Ivoryman

---

Originally by: Suitonia

---

Originally by: Ivoryman

---

Originally by: Metal Dude

---

FFS. you ******s along with CCP keep missing the fkn point. IT DON'T MATTER WHAT SHIP YOU BRING, WHOMEVER HAS MORE OF THOSE SHIPS WILL WIN!!! If it's not Titans, than it's SCs, than it's Dreads, Carriers, BS, BC, Frigs... The problem is fkn NAPs/Blobs, not the ships.

---

This. The problem started when alliances were implemented, and the number of standings an alliance could have were near unlimited. Limit the number of standings an alliance/corporation can have. If your overview fills up with neutrals you will not spend the time to check each before firing. Break up the napfest, make warfare more localized to your space and not a napfest blob that can roam the universe and do what a few players desire influence-wise.

Do not change any ship at all tbh.

---

There is nothing more hilarious than Metal Dude whining about blobs and napfests while being in the alliance with the current biggest napfest and blob in the game.

I don't think adding Arbitrary limits to how many alliances or corporations you can have blue will make any difference to the size of coalitions. And personally, I feel like adding in things like this which make the game harder, but only from a UI Perspective is a bad idea. There were big alliances/coalitions from before alliances were implemented into the game anyway. (FA / VA etc.). There are too many ways to get around it too, unless you feel like adding in tons of small stupid limiting rules, and in my opinion it will be just as annoying for smaller groups who have several smaller groups blue than it will be for massive mega-alliances to have each-other blue.

---

I could expand on what I said a lot. Not going to be bothered really. Someone else may take it and run with it, so to speak. Just think about what I propose for a bit. Really. Yes there are ways to work around anything. Make it more of a hassle to do that (omg I cant just click and be friends *or similar laziness*) and huge power blocks will diminish eventually and the sand box will be more fun for everyone.

With that in mind (if players use their minds tbh), I would think sitting around thinking about how to 'balance' ships would be more time consuming/code intensive than a few simple changes to standings limits... which when you re-read the thread, the issue with most people seems to be the ability for one 'blue list' to field a stupid amount of the games highest-end ships in a conflict, thus declaring said ships 'OP' and in need of 'balancing'.

Just my opinion, and adding a different twist to a great discussion thread. Example: give an alliance 2-3 blue slots for alliance, 5-7 for blue non-alliance corps, get rid of red, orange (keep something for war for empire?) and forget 'balancing' ships so much ..think more neutral and

---