Step 1: Form blue donut
Step 2: Spend moon money on suicide ganking everything in highsec
Step 3: Start a rental program
Step 4: Some bears move to nullsec and become renter slaves
Step 5: Spend the renter slave money on ganking even more highsec
Step 6: Exponential renter slave money and ganking
Step 7: Noone lives in highsec, all the bears are enslaved.

As long as it comes with a back end fix.

You may have 5 out of alliance standings in any direction (neg, neutral positive), but only 5

Make for some great roams (PVP)

Lowsec, where you can't be locked out unless you're some FW nub
Lowsec, where you're more likely to get ~gud fites~ rather than bubble blobs
Lowsec, where you can still find moon goo
Lowsec, where you don't need 4 cyno alts for a logi chain
Lowsec, where you don't need to appease feudal asshats
Lowsec, where you have no Sov bills
Lowsec, where there is a plethora of NPC stations with Industry and research slots (reasonably priced I might add)
Lowsec, much of which is within easy jumping range of how much 0.0?

Why am I supposed to believe that 0.0 is better than low again? Oh, anoms? You mean those things I can do while daytripping in space I don't own and you pay for but only really own so you can try to rent it?

Sounds to me like low is better than 0.0 in nearly every regard.

Came to my thoughts one day.....

Step 1: Form blue donut
Step 2: Spend moon money on suicide ganking everything in highsec
Step 3: Start a rental program
Step 4: Some bears move to nullsec and become renter slaves
Step 5: Spend the renter slave money on ganking even more highsec
Step 6: Exponential renter slave money and ganking
Step 7: Noone lives in highsec, all the bears are enslaved.

You completely miss the point of his post, only reason he said *Nothing that's going to affect your lowsec alliance.* was to take a stab at TEST, not low sec itself.

Some artificial limit on alliances or coalitions wouldn't let all you hungry noobs in for a piece of the pie it'd just be a gigantic buff for super heavy alliances that'd roll around unopposed.

Came to my thoughts one day.....

What if these new changes to null are to make it much harder for alliances to get huge and bloated. To prevent alliances from owning vast areas of space. Allowing more smaller alliances and corporations to flock into null and claim their own space. Causing more PVP, but in smaller fleets. Less boring 3000 man fights, more 100 man fights. When there is more competition there can be more fun. If all the renters just went up in arms one day, the owners wouldn't be able to support their vast empire and would crumble.

Just my thoughts... curious if anybody else thought this....

that stops people how?

I've been in many a nullssec fight where there were neutrals fighting with us, you just don't shoot them.

'11 calling people noobs? You goons put on a bee t-shirt and all of a sudden you're imparting the wisdom of the ages.

Thank you for sharing with us. The topic would be bankrupt without your contribution.
Remember: every little ship..er.. post matters

You say it so matter-of-fact-ly, yet you didn't even play the game when so many of the mechanics and structures we have today didn't exist.

Elaborate.
How? Why?

I dont like idea of no alliances in EVE. But I would love to see some alliances to create something different. I have no problem that some alliances hold majority of the space, they worked for it they keep it, no problem. But I am supprised that to this day I have yet to see any alliance or any corp that has done something like opening doors for everyone and let trade flow overtake their section of space. I would love to trade with 0.0 corporations and haul goods to their space in their tradehubs though gates that their security forces guarding. If I go against their rules and pod some of their own, its permanent red flag for me. But as long as all is fine, I make ISK, Alliance make ISK and from trader to industrialist to carebear will flow to your alliance space bringing ISK for both.

You seriously pulling reg date elitism? My character is older than yours bro & I played well before Goonfleet even took it's first steps into Syndicate.

Also did you miss PL & N3 grinding a region with a fleet of supers in about 2 days? PL alone could probably fill a fleet of supers if they put their minds to it. Only counter to that which doesn't involve more supers is having a great big blob of people so if they deploy supers they'll likely lose them. Some smaller alliance that couldn't even fill a fleet wouldn't have a look in. They'd be in NPC space, renting or just waiting for the hammer to drop.

Man, if only there was some region in Null sec that allowed neutrals to dock up and mine/rat to their hearts content.

That would be awesome...

I congratulate you good sir for totally missing my point and posting generic sarcastic response. Have five internets.

So you want to penalise those with the ability to get thousands of people to work together under one alliance because you're unable to convince people to form under your banner?

Came to my thoughts one day.....

What if these new changes to null are to make it much harder for alliances to get huge and bloated. To prevent alliances from owning vast areas of space. Allowing more smaller alliances and corporations to flock into null and claim their own space. Causing more PVP, but in smaller fleets. Less boring 3000 man fights, more 100 man fights. When there is more competition there can be more fun. If all the renters just went up in arms one day, the owners wouldn't be able to support their vast empire and would crumble.

Just my thoughts... curious if anybody else thought this....

The OP is dumb.

If 10,000 people want to work together to do a thing putting in place limitations forcing them to be split into 20 groups of 500 isn't going to stop them, it's just going to be annoying and it'll be annoying for no other reason than to be annoying.

Making the game more annoying because you think it's not annoying enough for large groups of people to work together is some of the dumbest **** I've ever read.

Also a 100 man fight is just as boring to me as a 3000 man fight. So I'm not really sure how that's meant to be some kind of incentive.

it's just going to be annoying and it'll be annoying for no other reason than to be annoying.

The OP is dumb.

Making the game more annoying because you think it's not annoying enough for large groups of people to work together is some of the dumbest **** I've ever read.

Also a 100 man fight is just as boring to me as a 3000 man fight. So I'm not really sure how that's meant to be some kind of incentive.

If 10,000 people want to work together to do a thing putting in place limitations forcing them to be split into 20 groups of 500 isn't going to stop them, it's just going to be annoying and it'll be annoying for no other reason than to be annoying.

Well, the real issue is the rise of the mega coalitions, NIP & NAP agreements, which have been largely accomplished out of the game, but facilited via the standings system.

I do wonder how far you can hide behind the "get more friends" dogma before it becomes an obvious risk averse strategem?

CCP should ban people who post on out of game forums.

Alas, sometimes even pro, godly and legendary personalities