EVE Search - Are mega-alliances ruining EVE?

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

Are mega-alliances ruining EVE?

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
William Alex Viscosity space weaponry and trade	Posted - 2008.06.02 16:22:00 - [61] Originally by: Granmethedon III Originally by: William Alex By far the largest slice of the eve universe is controlled by a very small % of the entire eve population. (Can anyone provide numbers? maybe 1% of the player base control 50% of eve) Actually according to the last survey was closer to 20% liing in 0.0, and that wasn't accounting for those players' empire alts. And how much of that 20% are the holders of the 50% of the space?
Granmethedon III The Wild Hunt Pure.	Posted - 2008.06.02 16:41:00 - [62] Originally by: William Alex Originally by: Granmethedon III Originally by: William Alex By far the largest slice of the eve universe is controlled by a very small % of the entire eve population. (Can anyone provide numbers? maybe 1% of the player base control 50% of eve) Actually according to the last survey was closer to 20% liing in 0.0, and that wasn't accounting for those players' empire alts. And how much of that 20% are the holders of the 50% of the space? Well I have no idea relating to those stats, can't remember where I stored the article. But you make a fair point, that some will not be part of the alliances holding space. However on the flip side, there will also be the empire alts who are in the alliances who stay in empire and add to those statistic; trading accounts etc etc. What I did think of the for easy reference is to take the info from http://www.eve-maps.com/outpostalert/alliancerank.asp?Sov=OFF and add up the members of alliances with 1 or more systems; which comes to 66349 members and last time I read CCP were quoting approx 200k accounts in Eve. Of course, that could be susceptible to the two extra chars on each account being in the alliance also, but the upshot is that there are a large number of people in game who are in a space holding alliance. Originally by: CCP Wrangler Your optimism is an inspiration to us all... I think I just trolled against my own company though...
Alora Venoda GalTech Giant Space Amoeba	Posted - 2008.06.02 16:46:00 - [63] the main problem is that the alliance system is designed for big huge mega-alliances. but now days there are coalitions of many smaller alliances. politically and economically, having many smaller states is better for building an empire because you have many more "customers" and separate fleets etc. but current sov and political mechanics make this difficult. keeping everyone's standings in sync is only one of the challenges. basically an alliance is supposed to be like a sovereign nation. but many of the smaller alliances are more like states within such a nation. it would be beneficial if there was an official in-game means to form such a coalition and share sov with all members, but also recognize the territory of each member alliance. basically sov would have 2 levels, one for "nation" and one for "state", much like many nations in the real world. it would be very interesting if coalitions of alliances could form factions similar to the new FW system and coalition-level sov would be controlled similar to how contested systems will work in FW. ofc it would be slightly different since basically everyone would be participating as a member of their alliance. ~~~~ ~~~~ ~~~~ Take away the risk and it would make flying around in space utterly pointless. Take away the flying around part and you make EVE into a space themed spreadsheet application.
Patch86 Di-Tron Heavy Industries Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2008.06.02 16:50:00 - [64] Edited by: Patch86 on 02/06/2008 16:52:51 Originally by: William Alex Originally by: Granmethedon III Originally by: William Alex By far the largest slice of the eve universe is controlled by a very small % of the entire eve population. (Can anyone provide numbers? maybe 1% of the player base control 50% of eve) Actually according to the last survey was closer to 20% liing in 0.0, and that wasn't accounting for those players' empire alts. And how much of that 20% are the holders of the 50% of the space? OK, lets just do some maths. According to EVE Strategic Maps (courtesy of Serenity Steele, tyvm), the top 10 alliances in the game sorted by number of sovereign systems (i.e., amount of space held) contain collectively 20,576 members. According to the last announcement I can remember, EVE had 220,000 a few months ago. Thats 9.4% or so of the population. These 10 alliances own 749 systems collectively. There are 5000 systems in New Eden, so that means that 9.4% of the population own 29% of EVE's total space. That means that the very best and most talented space holding alliances in the whole game are only punching above their weight to the tune of 3 times as much space as members, proportionally. I don't think that sounds too bad. EDIT: Looking at that maths, it may not be quite right. Will come back and have a rethink after I've had some munch. ------ Originally by: Dark Shikari The problem with killing Jesus is he always just respawns 3 days later anyways.
Eternal Error Exitus Acta Probant	Posted - 2008.06.02 16:53:00 - [65] TL;DR But The first sentence told me that you're stupid. Big alliances are like, kind of the point of 0.0, which is about half the point of eve...
Eventy One Magellan Exploration and Survey Phoenix Rising Alliance	Posted - 2008.06.02 16:58:00 - [66] Originally by: El'Niaga OP is a dumb idea. I disagree. I think the OP has given this thought, and made a valid case. On a number of fronts, smaller alliances, even perhaps corps do need the chance to even the odds. Regardless though, a few large traditional alliances should not have the right to monopolize space. If they aren't present on a regular basis, to exert sovereignty they're sovereignty should weaken to the point of being lost. The OP, has, I think hit upon something here - that CCP wants people in 0.0 - yet I think he's correct in pointing out here is an obstacle. I think making the amount of space one hold's determine the cost of sustaining that space, also a fair and balanced solution. I'm not sure the idea of having NPC's take sovereignty is such as good idea, as I can see that as yet another source of lag - but its interesting nonetheless. I also like the idea of making POS's easier to kill and to create. That change wouldn't have to be drastic, but would make POS warfare more interesting, faster moving. So, I rather agree with the identified problem, even if I don't entirely agree with the posed solution.
Tarron Sarik	Posted - 2008.06.02 17:06:00 - [67] Originally by: Patch86 Edited by: Patch86 on 02/06/2008 16:57:07 Edited by: Patch86 on 02/06/2008 16:52:51 Originally by: William Alex Originally by: Granmethedon III Originally by: William Alex By far the largest slice of the eve universe is controlled by a very small % of the entire eve population. (Can anyone provide numbers? maybe 1% of the player base control 50% of eve) Actually according to the last survey was closer to 20% liing in 0.0, and that wasn't accounting for those players' empire alts. And how much of that 20% are the holders of the 50% of the space? OK, lets just do some maths. According to EVE Strategic Maps (courtesy of Serenity Steele, tyvm), the top 10 alliances in the game sorted by number of sovereign systems (i.e., amount of space held) contain collectively 20,576 members. According to the last announcement I can remember, EVE had 220,000 a few months ago. Thats 9.4% or so of the population. These 10 alliances own 749 systems collectively. There are 5000 systems in New Eden, so that means that 9.4% of the population own 6.6% of EVE's total space. That means that the very best and most talented space holding alliances in the whole game are only punching about at their own weight, proportionally. I don't think that sounds too bad. EDIT: Looking at that maths, it may not be quite right. Will come back and have a rethink after I've had some munch. Nope, the problem is that there aren't 5000 0.0 systems in the game. That is total in all of EVE. And the number of 0.0 systems that you can actually claim is much less (eliminating Faction 0.0). Sorry, I don't have numbers.
Tarron Sarik	Posted - 2008.06.02 17:08:00 - [68] Edited by: Tarron Sarik on 02/06/2008 17:09:22 Originally by: Eternal Error TL;DR But The first sentence told me that you're stupid. Big alliances are like, kind of the point of 0.0, which is about half the point of eve... According to you. But then, after reading your first sentence, I can see your a genius. It's your decision to flame, but to do it and admit that you didn't even READ the post is... LOL
Jacque Custeau Knights of the Minmatar Republic	Posted - 2008.06.02 17:20:00 - [69] Lets not forget there are several regions with NPC stations in 0.0 that anyone can use. It is true that the ones in Delve and Fountain are used by big alliances because it is intermingled with player-sov space. However, you still have Curse, Syndicate, Venal, Great Wildlands and Stain. All of these are splended regions for having fun for any alliance that does not want to be confronted by the blob every day. -------------------
Eventy One Magellan Exploration and Survey Phoenix Rising Alliance	Posted - 2008.06.02 17:28:00 - [70] Originally by: Jacque Custeau Lets not forget there are several regions with NPC stations in 0.0 that anyone can use. It is true that the ones in Delve and Fountain are used by big alliances because it is intermingled with player-sov space. However, you still have Curse, Syndicate, Venal, Great Wildlands and Stain. All of these are splended regions for having fun for any alliance that does not want to be confronted by the blob every day. Thats true, but does that justify virtual monopolies over the rest of 0.0 (if it's true that few large alliances control the majority of space)?
Tarron Sarik	Posted - 2008.06.02 17:35:00 - [71] Originally by: Eventy One Originally by: Jacque Custeau Lets not forget there are several regions with NPC stations in 0.0 that anyone can use. It is true that the ones in Delve and Fountain are used by big alliances because it is intermingled with player-sov space. However, you still have Curse, Syndicate, Venal, Great Wildlands and Stain. All of these are splended regions for having fun for any alliance that does not want to be confronted by the blob every day. Thats true, but does that justify virtual monopolies over the rest of 0.0 (if it's true that few large alliances control the majority of space)? Just look at the Power Bloc Map - http://dl1.eve-files.com/media/corp/CRII/Latest.jpg The stuff in the middle is Empire or Faction controlled space - you cannot own those.
Gabriel Karade Nulli-Secundus	Posted - 2008.06.02 18:02:00 - [72] Well, space just isn't really that big these days thanks to WTZ and such. If decreasing territorial holdings is the aim, reducing the warp speed between 0.0 gates might achieve that. The sovereignty system itself is a bit freaky and immersion breaking, but I guess thatÆs what weÆre stuck with. -------------- Video - 'War-Machine'
Beltantis Torrence	Posted - 2008.06.02 19:42:00 - [73] In terms of lag, I tend to think the issue is one of technical design. The gameplay is designed to lend itself towards massive fleet fights but the limitations either server-side or client-side cannot keep up with that. I haven't looked into whether the lag is caused by the server resources being oversaturated and having slow processing time or the bandwidth of client-side updates being too high (obviously the former is a much easier problem to solve). If every 1500 ms you're getting the coords of all ships/missiles/drones then its easy to see that the payload is going to get tough to swallow when there are 400 ships, another 2000 drones and who cares to count how many missiles and other objects. I think they're two separate issues and hopefully FW will create a PVP alternative that isn't badly lagged while CCP figures out how to solve the issues with massive fleet fights. I don't really have any issues with alliance dominance of 0.0. If people want to wake up in the middle of the night to defend their systems to hold onto what they have then all the more power to them - there are sufficient alternatives to accomplish most goals that don't involve multi-system dominance. Ultimately though getting back to the performance problems, bottlenecks on processing massive amounts of data client-side are the reason why you see systems that are more oriented to small number of artifact skirmishes (FW for instance) over massive warfare. Even if your cluster can pre-calc all the physics stuff you still need to be able to send out your payloads and have them get processed within a turnaround of a second or so. Once you approach the limit where machines start having problems clearing their queues before the next interval then the system breaks down.
Gosh Krux Clown Punchers. Clown Punchers Syndicate	Posted - 2008.06.02 20:29:00 - [74] Originally by: Tarron Sarik What is wrong with EVE? Answer: 80% of the player base lives in empire. Think about that for a second. Just how "mega" are the mega alliances considering they mostly come from the 8% of the player base that lives in 0.0. Sig removed, lacks Eve-related content. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint
Eventy One Magellan Exploration and Survey Phoenix Rising Alliance	Posted - 2008.06.02 20:35:00 - [75] Originally by: Gosh Krux Originally by: Tarron Sarik What is wrong with EVE? Answer: 80% of the player base lives in empire. I think the OP already addressed this. If the 'mega-corporations' are controlled by only a few hundred but control move the space in 0.0, and the bulk of people are living in empire as you suggest, your point actually kind of verifies what the OPS has said in the first place. Clearly the OPS view that mega-corporations are helping to keep people from moving into 0.0. Yes it is a problem that people choose to stick to empire. Its also apparently a problem that mega-corporations control so much space. The two are not exclusive.
Popperr GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.06.02 20:35:00 - [76] The big alliances are just well organised. It's the tower system that causes all the problems.
000Hunter000 Missiles 'R' Us	Posted - 2008.06.02 20:36:00 - [77] there is no more undiscovered country, and the new region ccp will be introducing will soon be crawling of more wannabee pirates... Such a shame... _______________________________________________________ CCP, let us pay the online shop with Direct Debit!!!
cal nereus Koshaku Brutally Clever Empire	Posted - 2008.06.02 20:40:00 - [78] Edited by: cal nereus on 02/06/2008 20:46:40 Originally by: Furb Killer NPCs fighting back would just be farmed. And the other things just result in large alliances being split into smaller alliances who have each other on blue and do everything together. This just about sums up the results of the OP's suggestions. If a large alliance was forced to break up due to mechanics, they would just create a group of smaller alliances allied together at all times and in all things. It wouldn't change the Eve's 0.0 politics. Although, it would make alliance chat a little more boring. If you must ask the reason why mega-alliances exist (as in, tens of thousands of players being all friendly out of necessity rather than desire), the answer is ease of logistics (I know a lot of POS fuel managers would yell at me for this), and ease of long-existing alliances to defend borders. As long as individual alliances can exert an influence over the rest of the galaxy, other seemingly unrelated and far-distant alliances have to make some diplomatic decisions with those alliances. Neutrality isn't really an option right now, and the cost of hostility is brutal. --- Skills
Midday Toker	Posted - 2008.06.02 20:40:00 - [79] Something tells me the OP was/is in bruce. As far as im concerned theres nothing wrong with the alliance system. If u want their space go fight for it, but combat just doesn't sound like your thing, so why not rent some this uber super usefull 0.0 (read: useless) space, from one of those absentee landlord
Fofalus Baptism oF Fire	Posted - 2008.06.02 20:58:00 - [80] Originally by: Tarron Sarik Originally by: Furb Killer NPCs fighting back would just be farmed. And the other things just result in large alliances being split into smaller alliances who have each other on blue and do everything together. This is a possibility, but it still breaks them up. Even with cooperating alliances, you see differences, and over time, these might lead to their own identity being formed. 'You don't get goons' Ok silly meme out of the way this is exactly how goons works. The corporation itself is split up into smaller squads that work independently of each other. So your idea would fail and goons would still be goons. Originally by: Tarron Sarik Originally by: Zaerlorth Maelkor Most of these empty constellations and systems deep in alliance territory are empty for a reason. There is ALOT of useless systems out there. IAC has a lot of systems. There are corps and alliances who have none. Any 0.0 is still better than no 0.0 - but good luck trying to get a piece of it unless you pimp yourself out to a mega-alliance. No some 0.0 is not better than no 0.0. Some 0.0 has such bad rats your better off ratting in lowsec. The ore prices make mining in highsec more profitable than only the most exclusive ores (Arkanor Bristot Crokite) which are only available in some systems not all systems. Go look for any system with a true sec below -.3 Those are not worth having at all and the only reason mega alliances claim them is because they are useful for POS Networks or security. Originally by: Tarron Sarik Originally by: Hannobaal Because they've earned it with successful game play. It's not your place to question how they use their space as long as they are good enough and organized enough to defend it. Sorry. Disagree. That is EXACTLY what I am saying. I think CCP has made a series of mistakes to allow a FEW players to control MOST of 0.0. Even if they never see it. Successful gameplay? THAT is the problem. Change the nature of the gameplay. Make gameplay about something other than conquest and absentee landholds. Few players. Lets say goonswarm controls 10 regions. That means 500 players per region. I don't really think that is a few players controlling large ammounts of territory.
Torze Legion Of The Void	Posted - 2008.06.02 21:03:00 - [81] While the OP brings up some interesting points to think about there are a few flaws in his logic. The history of corporations and alliances in Eve proves that. Just look at 2003 when you had 'alliances' like the Curse Alliance or Fountain Alliance. Even though there was no game mechanics for alliances they were formed anyway. Simple fact of eve is it is a MMORPG..and the key to those letters is MASSIVELY MULTIPLAYER. I however, do sympathize with your frustrations. Truth of the matter is....alot of people complain about the so called Mega alliances because, they say the smaller alliances can't compete. Which is completely untrue. The reality is, these smaller alliances that say they can't compete..have no clue HOW to compete. Every alliance holding space in 0.0 has earned their stripes or will earn their stripes. Running a 0.0 alliance is a hell of alot more than just putting up POS's and moon mining. There has to be alot of organization from it's leadership. You need your diplomats and your FA's. Besides, taxing alliances due to size would be rather unfair since alliances cannot tax their members. At least not through game mechanics. I guess they could require corps to send x amount of isk. Anyway, I do agree changes need to be made in how claiming territory works..but, not because of alliance sizes...because, it's just not FUN!! and that is the most important part of any game. Personally, I'd like to see something done with planets. Say some planets are colonized and you have to make sure the inhabitants are happy, well fed, access to medicines and so forth. Having territory should be like being a country. Course, I also think CCP should add player factions (alliances of alliances)
Drizit	Posted - 2008.06.02 21:30:00 - [82] Breaking up the large alliances is not going to prevent lag or blobbing at all. In fact it will probably promote it. Imagine corp A has a small fleet battle with corp B and corp C and maybe corp D as well are waiting to take advantage and wipe out the winner once their numbers have been slimmed down. Now you will have three or more fleets in the same area. So, instead of having so many titans blobbing in a fleet battle, you will have everything up to that size and probably more of them to improve firepower. Instead of having 10 titans and 40 smaller, you'll have 75 smaller. This makes the blobs even larger. The only real advantage of the OPs idea is making SOV much harder to obtain so Titans would be much more rare. I have always said that these ships represent the pinnacle of a corporations achievement so they should be very rare and not the next logical step for every carrier pilot in the corp. Having SOV gives you the ability to build only 1 per constellation you have SOV in. If you want two titans, you have twice the work to gain SOV in two systems. Make gaining SOV much harder as teh OP suggests and it limits the number of Titans being flown into fleet engagements. It begins to look less like Capitals Online and more like the game it should be. I heard a while ago that CCP is trying to incorporate a system that requires capitals to have support ships to survive in battle. This gives a role to less skilled pilots in the corp and brings the smaller ships into play. It also gives incentive for alliances to take on lesser skilled pilots. -- Freighters need a tank
punnani	Posted - 2008.06.02 22:03:00 - [83] i agree, break up the huge alliances, monopoly on resources is never a good idea for the economy. Soo much unused space and only the big boyz are able to compete.
Shadowsword COLSUP Tau Ceti Federation	Posted - 2008.06.02 22:19:00 - [84] The big alliances often have a renting strategy to populate the supposedly empty space. If you can't fight possession of 0.0 systems, rent them. If you don't want to pay for them, fight for them. If you're unwilling to do either, you can stay in empire. ------------------------------------------
Cire XIII Ever Flow	Posted - 2008.06.02 22:24:00 - [85] Edited by: Cire XIII on 02/06/2008 22:29:13 I haven't read the whole thread so this might have already been said. Look at the history of our world: In times of conflict the small rarely prevail, and 0.0 is in a state of near constant conflict in which superpowers hold the greatest influence. You must resort to insurgency, and guerrilla style combat to be, at best, a thorn. Ethics is one of the few reasons Imperialism phased out. It became unpopular to capture territory. That ethical epiphany has not occurred in Eve. Therefore, it would not be realistic if every alliance succeeded. If you can't beat 'em, join 'em.
Eshud Uktar Uktar Raiders	Posted - 2008.06.02 22:33:00 - [86] Back when Cod War came out it was announced that the expansion would bring more gates into 0.0. I thought that was a superb idea. Unfortunately they settled for some 7 gates (more? less? I don't remember). I think that with many more stargates both into and within 0.0 regions would allow for more tactical strikes where big blobs might not be the favorable choise of warfare, simply because they can't counter small strike teams on, as suggested, weaker POS's. The result could very well be that it is more desirable to gather the forces to some few central key systems and those areas of less importance simply go back to "unclaimed" space. Even if this wouldn't be the case i still think it would be nice to have more options when it comes to traveling and thus make it easier for the smaller fish to dodge the big ones. ------------------------------------------- Easy Riders might think they're free but they still have to follow the f**king highway.
Alora Venoda GalTech Giant Space Amoeba	Posted - 2008.06.02 22:38:00 - [87] Originally by: Cire XIII Edited by: Cire XIII on 02/06/2008 22:29:13 I haven't read the whole thread so this might have already been said. Look at the history of our world: In times of conflict the small rarely prevail, and 0.0 is in a state of near constant conflict in which superpowers hold the greatest influence. You must resort to insurgency, and guerrilla style combat to be, at best, a thorn. Ethics is one of the few reasons Imperialism phased out. It became unpopular to capture territory. That ethical epiphany has not occurred in Eve. Therefore, it would not be realistic if every alliance succeeded. If you can't beat 'em, join 'em. well as we can see happening in europe and asia, the smaller nations are forming coalitions with the larger ones (UN, EU, etc). and i think the same thing is happening in EVE as well, but the current sov mechanics makes it difficult to work it out efficiently and make optimal use of resources. and there is also the fact that just because a system has no actual sov level, does not mean it's not "claimed" by some alliance. ~~~~ ~~~~ ~~~~ Take away the risk and it would make flying around in space utterly pointless. Take away the flying around part and you make EVE into a space themed spreadsheet application.
Tarron Sarik	Posted - 2008.06.03 03:49:00 - [88] Originally by: Midday Toker Something tells me the OP was/is in bruce. As far as im concerned theres nothing wrong with the alliance system. If u want their space go fight for it, but combat just doesn't sound like your thing, so why not rent some this uber super usefull 0.0 (read: useless) space, from one of those absentee landlord LOL, nope. I am not in Bruce. ?? So, the answer to my statement that mega-alliances are ruining the game is.... go pay some mega-alliance for the use of systems they don't want/don't use...? You completely missed the point. As to the suggestion that people will just form coalitions of alliances and it will be business as usual... again, I think that will not be as common as you might believe. The bottom line for 0.0 empires today is conquest of systems. Take away the most tangible reward for mega-empires to exist and I think you will find the smaller alliances begin to look out for their own interests, and not get involved in costly wars that do not directly benefit them. I may be wrong, but that is what I think is more likely to happen. Groups will devolve into smaller, more simple and like-minded groups of players.
Rollio Polleaous 20th Legion	Posted - 2008.06.03 04:23:00 - [89] Edited by: Rollio Polleaous on 03/06/2008 04:24:57 If it were made such that space was larger(slower warp speed) or that pos towers were even more difficult to maintain the tears on these forums would fill a lake but nobody would consider reducing the amount of work they're doing. They'll do it and moan about it but in the end of the day all you'll achieve is a new wave of threads about what's wrong with eve. The only way to alter anything and actually make an impact would be to hit it so hard with the nerf bat the the bulk of 0.0 infrastructure crumbles. Now I'm not much of a gambler but I'd wager that there would be no way of wording that in the patch notes that wouldn't light a fire that would burn for years. Like carrier nerf times 20.
Fallorn GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.06.03 06:23:00 - [90] Blah Blah Blah splitting alliances blah. As a corp goonfleet had been up to three corporations because of size restrictions before the sovereignty skill. GoonWaffe, and GoonPlatoon. We just used a channel and not corp chat. Heck we do the same thing now we don't use corp or alliance chat we use other channels and our forums which put CCP's to shame. People will not just stop they adapt. Sig removed. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] with a link to your signature. - Elmo Pug

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.