No structure, no alliance. If your structures are taken down you have 24 hours to set up new ones or your alliance is automatically dissolved.
This would force people to actually maintain and sustain the alliance past a single click of a button. The structure needs to be online and active, or else, everything shuts down including your alliance chats.
To go to the extreme, limit the number of players in an alliance based on number of structures.
This would shake up everything from null to high-sec, even WH space.
Dumb take, more like. An alliance or corp without a structure is a chat channel and shared standings. I donât see why people who donât put up structures for whatever reason deserve an additional logistical headache.
Should be limited to big alliances. There is no reason why an alliance with 30k members should exist wardec immune. Even 5k members shouldnât exist without being subject to the dangers of war.
A fresh forum joiner - he joined to post the OP - for the next grand idea to curtail freedom in the sandbox. In the wrong forum sectionâŚ
Itâs up to an alliance to do as they please. Having a structure is not a requirement to have an alliance. Alliances have no structures, corporations do. As to shutting down alliance channels, it shows your knowledge of game mechanics.
lmao
P.S. tell us the story about how you came to this idea.
Fine with me. This causes annoyance among members that makes some look for better pastures than staying in these humongous corpses.
I also donât believe that groups like
and similar âsocial groupsâ would split up into dozens of smaller alliances if you limited the war-dec immunity to 1k members for a corp/alliance. Theyâd just dissolve, and the actually active and productive members would look for better places to stay.
This would also work against these dumb feeder corps/alliances for big null blocks. Some of them are already gigantic by any standard (FRTU for instance). With a 1k member limit to stay war-dec immune, these feeder corps would actually have to move the members into the main alliances at a much faster pace, and remove inactives. This would help newbs as well because they would get training and guidance quicker and could use this acquired knowledge where it actually matters: in the null blobs.
I mentioned this a while ago in a post about helping/saving newbies. These large groups are traps and the risk of a newbie just quitting out of disillusion after joining one of those groups is real. We used to be able to deal with such newbie traps through war decs, this needs to come back imo.
I have no opinion on the trap part, but I agree fully with you that there are better places to learn, experience and enjoy the game than these humongous, practically dead organizations that give nothing but a worthless name in your employment history.
Smaller social groups that potentially actually work for and with their members should probably still have a place in EVE (thatâs just how modern players work), but beyond a certain number of members and in a game with a setting such as EVE, you should be expected to be able to take care of yourself without additional gameplay protections.
If youâre looking to finish - and some do deserve that - some of the big âtrapâ alliances for some strange righteous reasons, there are better and less intrusive ways to do that e.g., build a group with a reputation for fun and action, for welcoming new players who need training. You donât do that by punishing other small alliances and creating tons of collateral damage. Of course, that requires effort from you, not CCP.
âpvp is intrusiveâ. Lets just delete the whole game then.
Theses groups started and grew to the size they are by spamming invites. Newbies get some cool long mail with a lot of lies and âcome join us itâll be funâ (and a referral link of course as that was the goal to begin with), they will join those as they have no idea and anything is better than nothing, in their eyes.
The only way to compete with such tactics is to do the same. Not good.
But in general I agree that neither corporations or alliances should be able to build up vast wealth or number of players without fear of attackâŚfor that is precisely what turns the game into a ludicrous grind-fest without any combat content. Given that combat is the very apex of the game, the entire reason why mining and hauling, etc, etc, is even done in the first place, the current state of affairs undermines the very raison dâetre of the game !
Not often we disagree, but I totally do on that one. The only way to get PvP experience is to do PvP, and you only get experience of PvP war fleets by having themâŚwhich means attacking some other group. That is the âfun and actionâ. Itâs what Iâve spent a large part of my Eve doing. Of course this inevitably means âintrudingâ and raining on someone elseâs parade. Welcome to Eve !
Youâre not a stranger to hyperbole, it seems. Youâre better than that, usually, after you get the gist of the post youâre replying to.
And quite a few posts called for ccp to put a stop to spamming invites, like there are quite a few to stop the spamming of skillpoint links.
If new players donât see the differences between their experiences in these big nonsense alliances and those of players in content providing alliances, whose fault is that ? They can quit their corp at any time and look for better groups. Itâs not for nothing that âhow to find the correct corporation for youâ is one of the most often asked questions in EvE. And perhaps some of them donât even care enough to leave. In essence it means itâs up to the individual to carve his or her own path in New Eden. Thatâs the essence of the game. Ignorance is oneâs personal enemy here, and once that is understood, the road to progress is wide open.
That was obvious from the OP, doing the old cui bono test. Enforcing a rule for structure ownership, and throwing them into the wardec mechanics part of the game would be âfunâ for some and misery for - more often than not - newer players who are still trying to find their place and build up their knowledge. Hisec exists, rules exist, and avoiding wardecs is a fair choice. If they miss out on what others call âfunâ, thatâs their CHOICE, however one may judge these large nonsense alliances that spam invites without providing more content that being safe from a wardec. Choice matters, so does time to learn the game in oneâs own way.
So yes, @Altara_Zemara , we disagree on this one (which is good too :D). Let everyoneâs choices come with its consequences. That is the soul of our little universe here.
In EVE thereâs even a bigger group structure above the alliance of corporations, there also are coalitions of alliances.
The funny thing is that âcoalitionsâ do not have any in-game references or structure. The game doesnât support this structure, yet it exists. Itâs just a cooperation between alliances who diplomatically decide who are enemies and who are allies that can help them against the enemies.
If you were to include arbitrary rules for when an alliance can be an alliance, for example by requiring structures, what stops people from simply being an alliance anyway even though the game doesnât support it?
Good point!
But it would make it harder for alliances to coordinate and would add more burden on them by having to put up structures in order to be an alliance.
Isnât that what EvE tries to do, make it harder on players to accomplish anything?
