Hot take - Alliances should require structures

Basically what the title says,

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.

Now, tell me why this is a bad idea.


What is your aim here? Even if the alliance closes, the name still can’t be taken.

So you could effectively kill an alliance thrn - permanently?

Dumb take, more like. An alliance or corp without a structure is a chat channel and shared standings. I don’t see why people who don’t 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 shouldn’t exist without being subject to the dangers of war.


It makes all kinds of sense.

Very reasonable and logical.
Imagine the Federation of Planets without spaceports to dock all those ships. Makes for poor sci-fi.


No. It’s a great idea!


1 Like

True and every alliance should set their setting to accept structures for each corporation under their wing.

1 Like

They would split into smaller alliances to counter it. Alliances and corporations are just a decorative thing.


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 section…

It’s 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.


P.S. tell us the story about how you came to this idea.

I like it.
Got to have skin in the game.


Fine with me. This causes annoyance among members that makes some look for better pastures than staying in these humongous corpses.

I also don’t believe that groups like

and similar “social groups” would split up into dozens of smaller alliances if you limited the war-dec immunity to 1k members for a corp/alliance. They’d 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.

1 Like

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.


How rare that we have aligning opinions. :slight_smile:

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 (that’s 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 you’re looking to finish - and some do deserve that - some of the big “trap” 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 don’t do that by punishing other small alliances and creating tons of collateral damage. Of course, that requires effort from you, not CCP.

“pvp is intrusive”. 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 “come join us it’ll be fun” (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.


It doesn’t go far enough, actually.

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 attack…for 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 d’etre of the game !

You’d think that would be obvious to CCP.

1 Like

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 them…which means attacking some other group. That is the ‘fun and action’. It’s what I’ve spent a large part of my Eve doing. Of course this inevitably means ‘intruding’ and raining on someone else’s parade. Welcome to Eve !

You’re not a stranger to hyperbole, it seems. You’re better than that, usually, after you get the gist of the post you’re 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 don’t 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. It’s not for nothing that “how to find the correct corporation for you” is one of the most often asked questions in EvE. And perhaps some of them don’t even care enough to leave. In essence it means it’s up to the individual to carve his or her own path in New Eden. That’s the essence of the game. Ignorance is one’s 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 “fun” 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 “fun”, that’s 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 one’s own way.

So yes, @Altara_Zemara , we disagree on this one (which is good too :D). Let everyone’s choices come with its consequences. That is the soul of our little universe here.

Why should alliances require structures?

In EVE there’s even a bigger group structure above the alliance of corporations, there also are coalitions of alliances.

The funny thing is that ‘coalitions’ do not have any in-game references or structure. The game doesn’t support this structure, yet it exists. It’s 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 doesn’t 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.
Isn’t that what EvE tries to do, make it harder on players to accomplish anything?