According to the news post, this is the problem statement:
It’s a problem because it means that these powerful groups can respond to activity in a space outside of their operations too quickly, effectively intervening in smaller-scale conflicts and making it nearly impossible for newer groups to get any meaningful foothold in areas of space like nullsec.
In the entirety of Eve Online, small groups struggle for life. Game mechanics favor major alliances. Either players join them or feed them ship kills. Except for Exordium, the security space does not matter. Large groups rule space through violence and fear. High-sec? Gate camps, ganking and war declarations. Low-sec? Gate camps and patrols. Null-sec? Gate camps, cynos, and roams. In the entirety of Eve space, the hunters have all the advantages. Defenders are either defenseless or members of major coalitions.
Yes. Force projection is a major issue. However, it is a symptom; not a root cause. The proposed game change places a cute cartoon bandage on a compound broken bone. Will not address the real problem. Will not be of any benefit. Will not even be appreciated by those receiving it. PVP in Eve Online is the root cause. Destructive players have all the advantages. Solo players and small groups are forced to play with their pants down at their ankles. How about giving them the ability to survive PVP engagements?
Speaking of force projection, ever spend time in C-J6MT, Insmother, Goonswarm Federation space in Sovereign Null? Great place to watch force projection in action. How many stargates does it take to enter that system from non-Goonswarm space? How much force projection do you expect Goonswarm Federation and Imperium Coalition to be projecting into their capital system? It is never enough. Hostile players constantly project force into that system. Hostile players routinely camp gates surrounding that system. GSF cannot project enough force to maintain the safety of friendly ships in their own sovereign trade hub. It’s just like Jita, except for the high-security protocols and Concord.
Why does the Imperium Coalition exist? To protect members from destructive players. How does it protect members? Response forces staged in C-J6MT. What will the proposed force projection changes do to the Imperium Coalition? I assume all Imperium members will join the Goonswarm Federation alliance and relocate critical assets within the response force circles. The Imperium will still control that entire block of null-security space. They will just shift operations to align assets with the new risk profile created by this major game change. Instead of making space for small groups, will only make the big ones bigger and more densely populated. That’s going to upset the Eve Online player base. How do I know? Just look at the monthly economy reports for the percentage of ore mined monthly within 1 freighter jump of C-J6MT. Killing those miners access to defensive forces will destroy the Eve economy. Good luck with that.
How about addressing the root cause of this issue: anti-social player behaviors. Within the current game mechanics, destructive players control Eve. The entire Imperium Coalition exists to shield a major player group from those people. Those small groups you want to support, how about shielding them from total annihilation? How many times do they rebuild after major destructive events? How many rage quit after the first major asset loss due to PVP hostiles?
Who controls high-security space? Major ganking alliances. Low-security space? Major PVP groups. NPC-Null-Security? Same player behaviors, different governing rules. What about Sovereign Null-Security space? Constructive, cooperative players manage to survive against the constant destruction brought by anti-social players.
May I suggest strengthen the factions, standings, and security status game mechanics. Make all players dependent on their standings towards the sovereignty holder. When players have standings 1.0 or greater with the host, they are welcome allies of the host. Having 5.0 or greater makes them a member of that faction. Grant players inclusion into the penalties for killing NPCs. Killing player members of the host faction reduces faction standing by 1.0 base per ship kill. Make every anti-social ship kill be costly. Reduced penalty for killing 1.0-4.99 players. What about Sovereign Null? Require all sovereignty holders select a player-group faction. Mandatory 4 player-faction minimum with 1 faction being “Independent”. Players either with or without sovereignty may select the “Independent” faction. Player faction standings operate the same as NPC factions. Insulate the small, independent groups from the major null sovereign factions.
Make player-owned corporations and alliances select their faction. Entities must maintain favorable standings with their faction. Offices must be located in stations or structures owned by the chosen faction. Headquarters and structures must be located within faction space. Only player groups with high faction-standings may place structures within faction space. Why? So anti-social players may not control structures in NPC-Sov space. Only constructive players may do so. If players would like to engage in criminal activities in Caldari space, they must select a different faction and base out of that faction’s space or stations.
Add player, corporation, and alliance standings into the NPC standings game mechanics. Have a “NPC standings” list and a “Player Standings” list. Show quantity of ship kills, ship losses, and joint-fleets. Would like cooperative structure activity shown as well. Give players better information on friendlies, hostiles, and traitors.
Make security status mean something. Gankers maintain good security status. What? How? Why? Strengthen this into something meaningful. Suspect activities and criminal activities must be maintained. It’s not Eve without criminals. Link this to player standings. When the host sees the target below 0.0, such acts of aggression are welcome support towards the host. 0.0 to 1.0 or so is questionable behavior. Target host standings 5.0 and above hold protected status. Such acts of aggression carry severe penalty (1.0 base security status loss per target). Clearly label this information in the Overview, local window, and selected item window so players may make informed decisions.
Please improve the current player group game mechanics. Players need more nuance within the player groups. Maintaining corp and alliance standings lists currently creates a managerial nightmare. Create more layers to the cooperation agreements. Creating player factions will help players declare loose affiliations. There needs to another layer between alliance and faction: coalition. In other words, give the Imperium Coalition the ability to declare this entity in-game. Coalitions may have member corporations and alliances. Grant coalitions democratic governing and immunity from war declarations. Each member entity maintains independence. The head of each entity assumes a governing committee position. Two member entities minimum required; the formation process assigns 1 committee member as chairman of the committee. Majority rule minimum for coalition matters; grant coalition committees the option of higher vote requirements up to unanimous. All member entities may end membership at any time with 24-hour transition period.
All members of coalitions must have independent war declarations. In the event that one member enters a war declaration, each of the independent members must have the option of freely joining that war at the member leader’s discretion. Grant all corporations within the coalition authority to extend the declaration to their corporation. No cost, minimal (1 hour or less) delay, full war authority. Please note “Corporations”, not “Alliances”. Requiring member alliances to include non-combat corporations into someone else’s defense is not appropriate. However, I am not opposed to alliances joining the war with unanimous member corporation CEO consent. If all of the member corporations have joined a war, just list the alliance as the coalition war partner instead of all the corporations under it.
Faction warfare lacks viability within the current game mechanics. Please leave that as a topic for another day.
However, I must complain about force projection at this time. Again, the hunters have all the advantages. Why are blue pilots lighting cynos for terrible standing pilots? Why tolerate force projection beyond boarder zones and into undefended territory with this tactic? At least force the hostile forces to use their own cyno pilot.
I agree that force projection shows issues with the current Eve Online game mechanics. Smaller independent groups need shielded from major player group aggression. However, the announced game changes to force projection will backfire and significantly harm the entire Eve Online player community. Please reconsider this path before implementing it. Regardless of your decision, please ensure future game updates are adequately tested before Tranquility server implementation.
