| Pages: 1 :: [one page] |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Mos7Wan7ed
Vanguard Frontiers
Black Legion.
20
   |
Posted - 2013.03.22 17:47:00 -
[1] - Quote
The large power blocks do not benefit the average player in 0.0. They reduce all those emergent types of game play that people go to 0.0 for. If you say it doesn't then you are just another mindless drone, or a empire noob that has no idea what 0.0 used to be like.
Now a days you have 10+ alliances per coalition. You have no alliance identity what so ever while inside of the coalition other then how many pilots you can field in what time zones you can fight for the coalition and the hand full of key leadership you have to convey your alliance's abilities and intent to the coalition. If your PvP pilots fall short on participation, requested ships, or if one of those key leadership makes a mistake or an enemy then your entire alliance is at jeopardy.
The alliance's identity is further stripped by the fact you will almost always fly under only one or two FCs and most often are both apart of only one of the ten or so alliance in the coalition. The fits for these fights are limited and pilots are required to train for those ships and fits to even be involved in PvP at all. These fleet fits can change drastically and leave you forced to change skill queues that can be as long as 60 days to start another.
If someone does directly challenge your alliance by camping your station, attacking a moon mining control tower, placing an SBU in your system, or attacking any of your in space assets... then it's far safer to dock up and wait until a coalition FC comes on and get in a 500 man fleet then to risk forming a fleet inside your alliance with an alliance FC then losing the fight and looking bad to the coalition.
It is stale, old, it is exactly what the average pilot doesn't want, and it needs to change. If the leadership of these alliances are not willing to break up the power blocks then it is our fault and not CCP's. If we really want CCP to prevent the ability for power blocks to form then the options are very limited.
THE FIX
Remove the ability to assign standings for anything other then war target, faction war target, fleet, pilot to pilot, corp, and alliance. Limiting the corporation skill benefits to limit maximum corp and alliance sizes. Remove moon mining as the only\main source of T2 production income. An increased cost of SOV management.
The outcome?
Alliances lose the trillions ISK income they get from moons so they must rely more on the abilities of their pilots to maintain a fleet of PvP ships. But, the income that moons brought to an alliance wallet in the past now ends up in the individual's wallet instead.
Alliance size and wallet shrinks then the ability to hold large sum of systems are made more difficult. Making way for other entities that can in turn add to the emergent game play we all look for.
Alliances lose the ability to share assets like jump bridges and outposts. This makes NIPs more important and difficult to get. Also splits a coalition's assets and pilots. Creating more traffic between more systems and making it more difficult to defend. This adds more to the emergent game play as it allows for those systems and gates to be camped to stop traffic.
Towers become alliance only entities with no password options available to allow friendlies. More towers are needed to support bigger coalitions. Towers can become locations where fights happen as fleets breakup after leaving the field to safe up.
You could still have NIPs and alliances can still work together but without the ability to filter friendlies from the overview on the battlefield it becomes more difficult the more friends you have. Anything beyond a full fleet of friendlies on the field becomes a problem unless you can tightly control positioning on the field and keep fleets of friendlies separated.
Less likely to have those 2k battles with 20+ alliances on the field and the sole crushing tidi. Fewer instances of tidi means fewer chances to advantage of it to reship or phone for more help from friends. More fights are started and finish without major escalation and blobbing then their is now. Forcing alliances to be able to stand on their own two feet. and rely on friends that live closer by.
I would personally prefer we as players take it upon ourselves to break up the power blocks but if the leadership of these blocks wanna blame CCP then this is the only realistic way it can be done.
|
Mos7Wan7ed
Vanguard Frontiers
Black Legion.
20
|
Posted - 2013.03.22 17:48:00 -
[2] - Quote
Placeholder for responces |
Mallak Azaria
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
2724
|
Posted - 2013.03.22 18:55:00 -
[3] - Quote
Power blocks are the result of social engineering. Learn how to make & keep friends instead of whining to CCP about nerfing friend making.
Apparently booking your flight & accomodation to Iceland BEFORE you buy the tickets for the convention which is pretty much the only reason you wanted to go there in the first place is popular. |
Lykouleon
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
660
|
Posted - 2013.03.22 19:40:00 -
[4] - Quote
Prior to the current system, Alliance and corp standings were much more limited. What did players do? They kept standings displayable on external applications. Have an IGB window open to it -> check for friendlies. Not too hard. Limiting or removing the standings system will have no effect on the ability for people to actually make friends and wheel-and-deal in nullsec unless you can somehow miraculously change the way human beings interact (good luck).
Limiting max-corporation or max-alliance size only means I make more corporations and alliances and then run them via external tools/community bundles. More names, same leadership. Again, nothing done that actually changes the dynamic in-game.
Moon mining is not sole source of T2 production. Alchemy is a thing...not perfect, but still a thing.
Increased SOV bills mean I just spread the Sov over multiple entities while still maintaining alliance income and social structure. Big whoop, no change to dynamics.
Towers are, inherently, Corporation-owned structures (even thought the names is "PLAYER Owned Starbase"). Changing alliance mechanics does nothing to the Corporation-level structure unless you rip out the current POS system and make it alliance-based. Good luck doing that.
Alliance and corp names are displayed on ships and characters in the overview and on the display. Removing standings only means your overview gets more crowded. If XX is fighting YY and ZZ comes along, and ZZ is friends with XX, XX's FC just needs to not call any ZZ ships as targets. Again, you're just making things more difficult for players to enjoy than actually changing anything meaningful.
Lastly, CCP has stood by their stance that this game focuses on player-generated content with the developers tending to not intervene. That means the creation of coalitions and the preceding and subsequent social engineering is outside of the developers hands. Interfering with that would break down years of precedent by the company and would cause a large percentage of the player base to leave in disgust. Stop being a whiny babby and cause some emergent gameplay that changes the landscape by player-devised means; don't force the developers to sandwich us into a corner and limit how we play the game.
Lykouleon > CYNO ME CLOSER SO I CAN HIT THEM WITH MY SWORD
Also, your boobs :o --áCCP Eterne, 2012.11.05 14:50 |
Mos7Wan7ed
Vanguard Frontiers
Black Legion.
20
|
Posted - 2013.03.23 08:30:00 -
[5] - Quote
I seem to remember back in the day Goons hated blue lists. They have done more global resets then any other alliance in the game. Now they suddenly are afraid what would happen if standings were gone?
All this talk about SOV warfare being such a chore. It is a chore because of how big the coalitions have gotten. The bigger coalitions get the more difficult SOV warfare gets. It's not rocket science. Their is no way that CCP can make SOV warfare on the coalition level when it involves coalitions made up of tens of thousands of pilots any easier then it already is.
Coalitions strip so much away from an alliance's individuality they are basically just big alliances now.
10 alliances have 2-3 FCs between them
a coalition wide unified set of fleet concepts
share coms for fleet engagments
share access to outposts
share intel channels
share fleet access
shared jump bridge network
shared number of moons who's output has a shared agreed upon sale price
ISK made being used in SRP's that buy the same materials from the same place and use the same route to get the materials to the same outpost for pilots to reship with for the next day of 0.0 warfare.
How do you tell them apart? |
Mos7Wan7ed
Vanguard Frontiers
Black Legion.
20
|
Posted - 2013.03.23 08:36:00 -
[6] - Quote
Reserved |
Scatim Helicon
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
1737
|
Posted - 2013.03.23 09:59:00 -
[7] - Quote
sorry about all your dead Lokis
Titans were never meant to be "cost effective", its a huge ****.-á- CCP Oveur, 2006
~If you want a picture of the future of WiS, imagine a spaceship, stamping on an avatar's face. Forever. |
Lykouleon
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
662
|
Posted - 2013.03.23 18:42:00 -
[8] - Quote
Mos7Wan7ed wrote:I seem to remember back in the day Goons hated blue lists. They have done more global resets then any other alliance in the game. Now they suddenly are afraid what would happen if standings were gone?
All this talk about SOV warfare being such a chore. It is a chore because of how big the coalitions have gotten. The bigger coalitions get the more difficult SOV warfare gets. It's not rocket science. Their is no way that CCP can make SOV warfare on the coalition level when it involves coalitions made up of tens of thousands of pilots any easier then it already is.
Coalitions strip so much away from an alliance's individuality they are basically just big alliances now.
coalitions have 2-3 FCs between them
a coalition wide unified set of fleet concepts
share coms for fleet engagements
share access to outposts
share intel channels
share fleet access
shared jump bridge network
shared number of moons who's output has a shared agreed upon sale price
ISK made being used in SRP's that buy the same materials from the same place and use the same route to get the materials to the same outpost for pilots to reship with for the next day of 0.0 warfare.
How do you tell them apart?
Sov I guess, and some coalitions even share that.
Nice giant straw-man post (not ignoring the fact that most of your points on coalitions are, in fact, hilariously wrong).
Lykouleon > CYNO ME CLOSER SO I CAN HIT THEM WITH MY SWORD
Also, your boobs :o --áCCP Eterne, 2012.11.05 14:50 |
sabre906
Old Spice Syndicate
Sailors of the Sacred Spice
890
|
Posted - 2013.03.24 00:18:00 -
[9] - Quote
Please! Power blocks are about risk aversion.
Standings Improvement Service
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=19454 |
Mallak Azaria
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
2756
|
Posted - 2013.03.24 02:26:00 -
[10] - Quote
Mos7Wan7ed wrote:Mallak Azaria -Power blocks are the result of social engineering. Learn how to make & keep friends instead of whining to CCP about nerfing friend making.
I have tons of ex-corp mates in other alliances in the 6 years I have play'ed the game. I don't feel the need to follow them from corp to corp or alliance to alliance like a lost puppy, maybe you do?.
I have them follow me because I'm a likeable guy. Superior social engineering.
Apparently booking your flight & accomodation to Iceland BEFORE you buy the tickets for the convention which is pretty much the only reason you wanted to go there in the first place is popular. |
Blastil
Black Thorne Corporation
Black Thorne Alliance
56
|
Posted - 2013.03.25 01:46:00 -
[11] - Quote
The op is frankly laughable. You won't abolish coalitions by banning standings any better than you could ban war by making it illegal. Alliances existed in the game long before CCP formalized them. Coalitions came to being almost instantly after alliances did, and that was back when mechanics for alliances were cumbersome and difficult (they still are, but we know how to use them now). the war against ASCN? Early coalition warfare. People talk about the "dawn of coalitions" as if its a new thing. Its popular right now because its next to impossible for an alliance to hold by its self the vast amount of space required to support it. Truth be told, alliances like goonswarm are clamoring for the 0.0 mechanics to be fixed so they don't have to hold hundreds of star systems to afford their titans and slowcat fleets.
Coalitions naturally limit their size by the fact that you can't get the egos of 10 alliance CEOS to fit into the same chat channel. If you 'shrunk' 0.0 so a single solar system could be as profitable as a constellation is now, and scaled the sov cost accordingly, many of these larger entities would shrink down to a more reasonable size, and there would be plenty of space for newer players to fight over the newly vacated systems. The coalitions aren't the problem, nor are they even a symptom of the problem. They're just fine. |
knobber Jobbler
Bat Country
Goonswarm Federation
223
|
Posted - 2013.03.25 12:26:00 -
[12] - Quote
Mos7Wan7ed wrote:The large coalitions do not benefit the average player in 0.0.
Here's the problem, the people in the large coalitions are the average 0.0 player. |
L Salander
All Web Investigations
28
|
Posted - 2013.03.25 13:58:00 -
[13] - Quote
The latest big war that didn't happen, and the talk about "wargames", etc just makes me think that - for whatever reason - null is falling into stagnation. The big boys and their coalitions often scream about the "burn out" they'd suffer if a real war happened, but I see that as a good thing, why should the current top few dominating personalities or groups remain at the top forever? If they start to "burn out" then it gives fresh faces and groups a chance to shine. Current null is all about maintaining the status quo, and they'll use whatever excuse they can to hide the fact that they want everything to stay exactly the same, and they don't want real conflict because it's a ~risk~ |
Scatim Helicon
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
1750
|
Posted - 2013.03.26 07:16:00 -
[14] - Quote
The funny thing is that 0.0 has been mostly divided between 4 or 5 coalitions pretty much permanently since 2003, but it's only today that this has become an EVE IS DYING BLOOBLOOBLOO problem.
Titans were never meant to be "cost effective", its a huge ****.-á- CCP Oveur, 2006
~If you want a picture of the future of WiS, imagine a spaceship, stamping on an avatar's face. Forever. |
Amyclas Amatin
Enlightened Academy
93
|
Posted - 2013.03.26 07:35:00 -
[15] - Quote
Blastil wrote:The op is frankly laughable. You won't abolish coalitions by banning standings any better than you could ban war by making it illegal. Alliances existed in the game long before CCP formalized them. Coalitions came to being almost instantly after alliances did, and that was back when mechanics for alliances were cumbersome and difficult (they still are, but we know how to use them now). the war against ASCN? Early coalition warfare. People talk about the "dawn of coalitions" as if its a new thing. Its popular right now because its next to impossible for an alliance to hold by its self the vast amount of space required to support it. Truth be told, alliances like goonswarm are clamoring for the 0.0 mechanics to be fixed so they don't have to hold hundreds of star systems to afford their titans and slowcat fleets.
Coalitions naturally limit their size by the fact that you can't get the egos of 10 alliance CEOS to fit into the same chat channel. If you 'shrunk' 0.0 so a single solar system could be as profitable as a constellation is now, and scaled the sov cost accordingly, many of these larger entities would shrink down to a more reasonable size, and there would be plenty of space for newer players to fight over the newly vacated systems. The coalitions aren't the problem, nor are they even a symptom of the problem. They're just fine.
Maybe an alternative to shrinking systems would be enlarging the map!
Then everyone would have to fight for new land again... and it'll take 500 jumps to get to that coalition fight instead of 50! Making geography somehow more relevant in coalition politics! Spam new systems until the time it takes to get from one power bloc to the other can be measured in days!
Also, add more low-sec to sever the 4 empires from each other. Sever the carebear daisy chain of easy freight. Give war a chance.
The post that got me banned from Eve-Uni:
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=210049&find=unread |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
1951
|
Posted - 2013.03.26 16:27:00 -
[16] - Quote
No offense... but I think your solution will not fix the problem...
I too want to anonymize nullsec... but I think the best solution to do so is by changing the intel system...
I'd prefer to replace local with an intel system that doesn't immediately show you the name of every pilot in local... something where you have to fly in space to determine who that new ship is... |
Blastil
Black Thorne Corporation
Black Thorne Alliance
58
|
Posted - 2013.03.26 21:26:00 -
[17] - Quote
Amyclas Amatin wrote:
Maybe an alternative to shrinking systems would be enlarging the map!
Then everyone would have to fight for new land again... and it'll take 500 jumps to get to that coalition fight instead of 50! Making geography somehow more relevant in coalition politics! Spam new systems until the time it takes to get from one power bloc to the other can be measured in days!
Also, add more low-sec to sever the 4 empires from each other. Sever the carebear daisy chain of easy freight. Give war a chance.
Have you ever actually gone on a roam? Making nullsec bigger won't help fix the problems. a lot of FC's (myself included) don't have the time or desire to go the 40-60 jumps required to even make contact with an opposing gang, let alone find a fight. Miniaturizing 0.0 is a much more viable and entertaining solution.
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 :: [one page] |