Arbitrary rules are bad game mechanics mmkay!

You seem to fail to understand that coalitions exist outside the game mechanics. All your suggestion would do is increase the number of alt owned alliances in the game. Infinite isk doesn't just mean infinitd ships, it also means infinite plexes.

+1
This is fundamentally true.

Large empires should have a risk of crumbling under the weight of corruption, and corruption is always about having intermediaries to controlling the ISK or taxes income.

The current income and tax control for alliance is "too perfect" in the game right now., which is fundamentally what causes the current issues.

No, the internal pressure will remain the same because the number of actual persons involved will remain the same. Remember that the rank and file of these coalitions don't care about this moon or that moon. All they know is that SRPs are funded, so they go out to fight. The systems with the big moons will still go to the coalition coffers, whether those moons are controlled by one or one hundred alts. Since not every system has one of these big moons, there will still be plenty of space for those not mining a big moon.

Oh, and by your suggestion, no one would be able to pay rent on a moon they don't have sov on, so rental contracts will switch to who is allowed sov in a system. Flesh out your idea more and try to spend a bit more time on where the loopholes will be. If I can find loopholes big enough to fly a carrier through, guaranteed someone more experienced than I will find the others.

Okay, so find me one single CFC member who holds no sov.

Okay, so find me one single CFC member who holds no sov.

Which is not what I asked. You are stating that coalition members hold no sov. I am asking you to prove it.

Li3 disbanded, they're part of the bastion now. Same with Gents.

You do not understand how coalitions work, yet you think you can somehow break them up. Apparently by forcing people to work closer together.

How does forcing an alliance, which lives in one system, to work with it's neighbours in order to get access to three of the four outposts, logistical routes, ice belts and enough space to actually rat in NOT force them to work closer together?

There would also NOT be any of the other things you seem to think would happen, since the same people would lean multiple holding alliances...

How does forcing an alliance, which lives in one system, to work with it's neighbours in order to get access to three of the four outposts, logistical routes, ice belts and enough space to actually rat in NOT force them to work closer together?

There would also NOT be any of the other things you seem to think would happen, since the same people would lean multiple holding alliances...

How would this stop pl/goons from just creating an alliance called goons/pl holding with 10 alts in it all in different corps to hold 10 systems with good moons. rinse and repeat till all systems with good moons are controlled by the same people.


All this would do is have all the bad space that is currently under someone's sov but unoccupied not be owned by anyone. Then you will see how bad most of null is for stuff.

Too many alts is certainly a part of the problem, as it allows a large control while minimizing the risk of sedition and personal interests.

What the OP is suggesting to do is to spread this action to actual players and not multiple drones of the same will.

One of the solution to the current issues is to make using alts for alliance control more difficult, and to spread large scale logistics , and especially ISK income and tax flux, to more players.

But it doesn't do that, it just means alts have to be in different places.

I understand the intent. But in practice all this is going to do is force more alts onto people who already have lots of alts doing this. The number of people as in humans doing the logistics isn't really going to change. Do you really thing a whole lot of people have access to this stuff now?

You still don't get it. This idea you have will just make the problem worse. Welcome to Goonswarm 1, Goonswarm 2, Gonswarm n... all run by alts of The Mittani. Everything will happen in off site forums, teamspeak, jabber, mumble, ventrillo...ect. The problem is the more you force players to organise to get things done, the more organised players force out the less organised entities. This has led to the current state of affairs where 2-3 coalitions have carved up all of null (CFC, PL, N2), and only a few regions that aren't worth much are farmed like some hunting preserve for "content" (Providence).

I see this all the time on F&I, someone comes up with some "briliant" idea that will utterly smash the coalitions, and the coalitions laugh and point out how they would trivially circumvent the "briliant plan" by using the tools outside Eve they already have, with the game mechanics already in Eve.

They won't. They would lose access to everything they had in and out of game, some sort of superiority complex would not make up for that.

ESPECIALLY when you consider that, as you have been told by four people now, the leaders would all be the same people. Goonswarm 1-500 would all have the mittani as thier CEO. They would all have the same directors. There is NO multiplication of leadership. there is NO division of responsibility.

Why is that hard for you to understand? All you are doing is forcing people to make more alts and work even closer than ever before with their neighbours.

Your idea does not work.

10 = arbitrary number.



Gotcha

There should be incentives not to blob and it should be difficult (logistically) to maintain a blob.

There shouldn't be actual game mechanics preventing blobbing.

Confirming we need to free nullsec of Supper Coalitions, we have too many damn nullbears eating their evening meal together.

If you try to fix the game by making it really annoying for people to play the way they want to, they'll keep doing it and complain loudly about how annoying it is to do things. The hardcore players will stay, while the rest quit the game completely.

You don't fix the game by making it really annoying to play, you fix it by fixing it.

Edit: Also, you DO know they're mocking you, right? Supper is a meal, you mean super...

Dammit I thought this was a thread about tasty evening snacks...

>Implying goon renters are run/managed by a separate entity from goons.


Mynnna would just need a lot more accounts. Each new account would be able to lead 3 alliances. Lets say that you went with the 10 systems limit per alliance. PRBLD currently holds 134 systems with sov, so that's 14 alliances, requiring a total of 5 accounts, maximum. 5 accounts, 14 characters, and goons can continue running their rental alliance prettymuch just like they are now.

As for the value of the space, I don't think you quite realize that the valuable space is in pockets, and a large part of its value is the isk that the renters pay to rent it. Sometimes upwards of 11 billion isk for a system, per month. It's all very much worth something, that's why Goons rent it out in the first place.

Hell, logistics guys would love it. Only ten systems moons to manage with one alt, an hour or two tops and they are done with him for two weeks, doesn't sound to bad.