What about “coalitions” banding together for a sole purpose of defending all of their space from an incoming alliance bigger that any of them separately? Those may very well be happy to shot one another later on, just not now, because of a common threat.
3 Likes
Just use a bridge/conduit…
Ansiblexes are fairly hard to place and often require multiple systems to have enough workforce amongst other upgrades.
To have two parallel ansi networks just to be able to move two alliances along a route is a large sacrifice and not easily done.
I do like that they’re thinking of force projection and ansiblex nerfs, but I think this new ACL will have an unintended and opposite result of pushing smaller groups all into the largest alliances, thereby strengthening those large groups instead of the stated intention of weakening them and their projection.
2 Likes
Most of that I think it a fairly good idea the one BIG exception is the ACL changes, you say you don’t want to bring fatigue in because fleets would have a hard time moving around because different people would have different fatigue levels but with the proposed levels the exact same thing happens except that instead of not being about to use the Ansi’s because of fatigue the other blues just couldn’t use the Ansi’s at all.
Now what do you guys think is gonna happen? Big alliances accept they can’t use their blue’s Ansi’s? Or do you not think they’ll just absorb their blues space and keep the networks? All this is gonna do is make the big alliances hold even more space then they already do. The blues they have will either have to join them or accept life with a vastly reduced or no Ansi network and no real ability to join in coalition fleets.
I’m hoping CCP “cough” Fenris realise before they implement this in September what a horrible idea the ACL change is, as I said the rest of it sounded pretty good.
3 Likes
CCP is constantly hiring “devs” from elitepvp crowd. And they have been crying about lack of free kills (force projection) since day one of eve. Imagine people hiding in NPC stations crying about risk…
1 Like
Intelligent ones as they know that this change will be bad for the game. We will get even stronger and more integrated and people crying about “force projection” will still hide in NPC stations and cry about not getting free kills in our space.
2 Likes
Lodemai,
You’re right that coalitions aren’t a formal game entity and that Ansiblex ownership and ACLs sit at the alliance level. That part isn’t in dispute.
Where I disagree is with the implication that this change has no meaningful downside. If ACL access is restricted to alliance-only, then a coalition partner literally cannot be granted use of an Ansiblex owned by the main alliance. That forces one of two outcomes (I’m assuming you know about sov structures/sov upgrades regarding navigation structures):
- The supported alliance has to hold sov near the coalition main staging system themselves or,
- The main alliance has to drop duplicate Ansiblex routes in the partner’s space so they can actually use them.
Either way, it increases the logistical overhead for coalitions. Right now many smaller and medium alliances benefit from shared infrastructure without needing to maintain fully parallel networks. Removing that option doesn’t create more opportunity for independent groups — it just raises the cost of operating as part of a coalition.
If you think I’m factually wrong on how this would play out in practice, feel free to explain where. I’m looking at it from the perspective of how coalitions actually function today, not just the scopes of alliances versus coalitions but if I’m missing something, call it out.
1 Like
Why does someone hiding in NPC stations have an opinion on 0.0? The most risk averse group in 0.0 is still risking far more than NPC station crew, who are the only ones crying about force projection.
- They join the main alliance as that is by far the best “solution” to the problem.
It is utterly amazing how CCP always manages to listen to elitepvpers and then through pure incompetence makes us stronger every time. Isn’t it kinda sad that null blocks (now alliances) have to fight tooth and nail against idiotic changes that destabilise the game and make them stronger…
I would have hoped that CCP had learned from the past times they listened to NPC station dweller (remember the infamous blackout that was championed by the likes of snuff, only to cry about only combat fleets in space 3 weeks later and the user count to drop by over 30%).
I completely agree with you, I was answering to some other guy but forgot to quote.
The ACL change is bad for small entities imho, those that the dev blog says should be helped
I think people throw around “nerf coalitions” without recognizing that coalition doesn’t necessarily equate to “huge”. Everyone says "we need to make room for the ‘small guys’ by nerfing the power projection of the ‘big guys’ " without ever defining what is small and big?
The reality is that the goal is to reduce the power of Imperium and WinterCo. Fine, I get it, and I agree. But, answer me this: Is a 3000 member alliance too big? 2000? how big is big? The 10th largest alliance is smaller by 1-3 order of magnitude than the top 3.
On paper if one were to construct a coalition of the 11th-50th alliances ranked by size they would still be dwarfed by GSF and smaller than FRT.
Let’s say these 50 alliances theoretically joined forces to form a coalition to take on “the big guys”. With these ACL changes they have no ability to access each other’s ANSIs at all and yet would face a foe with full access to their space - even if somewhat limited due to geographic distance penalties.
So please explain to me, how does implementing this ACL “fix” provide a foundational step to solving the problem? With this change, there is literally no way someone could ever take on GSF, FRT, or even INIT without all joining together under a single Alliance. The only thing that has changed is that the smaller alliances have to deal with a single 35-70K member alliance instead of a a 90-120K member coalitions.
So I’m really struggling here with the “how does this help the smaller groups” question!
3 Likes
And here we see someone trying to gatekeep opinions. Maybe I have a desire to be a small group in null and want to be able to get a foot in the door. Any fix for force projection is going to hurt Imperium and Winter Coalition and so I am not surprised that there are people trying to stop the change from happening.
We have done more by keeping drone lands free of big blocks than CCP has ever done for small alliances in 0.0
You would know this if you had any interest of living there. But it’s easier to hide in NPC stations and cry about not getting free kills in 0.0 because we actually defend our space (hint: these changes will not prevent that, you will still not get free kills and you will still cry to CCP).
1 Like
I get my PVP in FW…(mostly with me dying) I’m not one actually crying about not getting kills in null. Please don’t put words in my mouth. I mostly just want Null sec to get out of FW and actually defend their space more.
1 Like
You are completely missing the propopsed change in the dev blog. The proposal explicitly removes standings from the ACL equation and locks access to alliance-only, which directly breaks the current workaround where you add blues to the ACL so coalition partners can use your Ansiblexes. When you have a coalition, large or small, that takes on a new partner, a big logistics question is then presented: How to support that new alliance. The perspective of a large nulbloc like Imperium is one view, likely not too terrible in terms of additional infrastructure but when you do that you increase navigational infrastructure at the expense of other sov upgrades which reduces the number of systems with upgrades relevant to other activities (industry, ratting, exploration etc)
The workaround is dual ansiblex networks requiring sov or some variation thereof. So, you can continue debating differences between alliances and coalitions if you’d like but you’re pointing out things that are irrelevant to the proposed changes. Understand how actual coalitions work, with shared infrastructure via ACLs, and what the dev blog actually says.
1 Like
Precisely!
1 Like
These changes will not change 0.0 (I assume FRT) players from taking part in FW. This will just make us stronger and more integrated. So you will have even less chance. Every complication that CCP adds always impacts smaller groups much more as we are large enough to spread the effort over many people while smaller groups burn out.
Of course the people most crying about “force projection” will still hide in NPC stations and continue crying while we get stronger and stronger.
2 Likes
Most of these groups can just use a capital to bridge/conduit for fleets and don’t need huge networks to go from one side to another.
There are not enough resources for parallel networks. Remember that CCP had to lower resource use by JBs as it was nearly impossible to place them anywhere. The solution will be to merge into the same alliance. Because that is the only solution that makes even remote sense.
Which is terrible because todays coalition members are tomorrows hostile block (see init and imperium). Should also be noted that CCP killed of PH by hiring gobbins so once again the biggest damage to the game was done by CCP itself…
2 Likes
And that’s another reason why these ACLs will only make big alliances bigger and more powerful
1 Like