Nullsec NPCs should scale up in strength and number to the size of the alliance and whether it is having PvP combat. The less PvP…the more NPCs. People should have to fight tooth and nail for sov territory…all the time. There should be no resting on laurels or renting out space.
Just look at the absurdity that was the TTT…supposedly enemy blocs working together to manipulate the markets. That sort of thing needs to be past history.
Now that’s actually a decent idea 
It doesn’t need to be counted “by group”, just “by affected characters”.
There already is a size-limit built into the game: Corp Member Numbers is limited by skills. We simply add a factor to this and a base-cost to set and maintain per member.
Example calculation (numbers free to balance later):
Base cost for setting standings: 1M ISK per char
Base cost for maintaining standings: 100k ISK per char and month
So, a very small group of 35 Characters wants to set their Altcorp with 54 Members blue, cost would be:
35+54=89 characters affected → Factor 1 (up to 101).
Cost to set Standings: 89 Mio. ISK, 8.9 Mio. ISK per month to maintain
A medium group of 145 Members wants to set another corp with 95 members blue.
240 characters affected → Factor 3 (up to 601).
720 Mio. ISK to set the standings, 72 Mio ISK per month to maintain.
A larger group of 530 Members wants to set a huge group of 3420 members blue.
3950 characters affected → Factor 8 (up to 12601).
31.6B ISK to set standings, 3.16B ISK per month to maintain
Two huge alliances want to form a megablock:
Goonswarm (71.000 characters) wants blue standings to Fraternity (53.000 characters)
124.000 characters affected → Factor 12
1.488T ISK to set standings, 148.8B ISK per month to maintain
As you can see, at the high end you reach amounts that even the largest groups wouldn’t want to ignore lightheartedly. Sure they can pay them, those groups do have that money. But they’d had a significant financial disadvantage from that point on. They’d have internal discussions (by member corps that have to make all that money somehow) if that is really worth it… It leads to internal stress, financial disadvantages, slower/harder future growth. Maybe split ups or even wars over such split ups if the leaving part wants to keep systems, the “mother group” wouldn’t let them.
As said: Numbers are up for tweaking, but the mechanic of punishing large blue trains (exponentially the larger those lists become!) needs to be in place. And having your own altcorp blue will cost pretty much nothing.
While I (as nullsec player in such a large coalition) am not against changes that attempt to break up these large cooperative structures or at least weaken them, we do need to keep in mind that such punishments for ‘numbers’ can have unintended consequences.
Right now EVE is, besides harsh and unforgiving, really welcoming to new players and many will happily take new players in their corps.
Every person is welcome and a new player flying a frigate is most of the time better for the fleet than if they weren’t there.
To tax groups heavily for having too many characters will have a negative effect on that.
Instead of every player being welcome, groups will feel a new financial pressure to push out the less useful characters. The alts, the players who don’t have enough time to take part in the mandatory X fleets a month, the lower SP new players who cannot pull their weight yet.
Suddenly not every person is welcome and a new player flying a frigate may not be better for the fleet than if they weren’t there if their added benefit doesn’t weigh up against the added costs.
Where in EVE any newbie in a T1 frigate is welcome to join fleets, I know of a very different dynamic in Albion online which is in many ways similar to EVE but has ‘disarray’ mechanics that punish their equivalent of fleets for being too big, which in my experience with that game resulted in much higher character skill requirements for players to join their group PvP than the very newbie-friendly situation we have in EVE.
I fear such a ‘high character number tax’ can have a similar negative consequences.
And I’m selfish too: with little time to play as dad of two young kids I’m happy as part of a rather large corp that has no activity requirements, and my EVE gameplay would be a lot less fun if I were kicked because they were made to implement high activity requirements to shink down to a core of highly active players that’s more affordable for these new proposed taxes.
Yes nothing says Welcoming more than whaling on a new player doing a mission for no other reason than “because we can” or “because they should be playing how we tell them to” and then inviting them to a channel where they are mocked and face discriminatory language.
Rest assured there are lots of small and medium groups with pretty much absolutely low level activity requirements. Most of them would gladly welcome a veteran that only shows up once a week or once every two weeks for some random stuff to do, but gives some valuable advice in discussions or anything and besides that lets the younger and more active members run the show.
People who are invited to that channel are not mocked or discriminated one bit. You are continuing to spread blatant lies just because your “friends” met some kind of stressful demise. Unless you have actual proof of these statements being made…cut it out.
The thing is that I like my current corp, I’ve been part of it for almost a decade, and wouldn’t like seeing activity requirements pressured upon it.
That’s not accurate.
That channel is rife with misogyny, disabled discriminatory remarks, outright griefing, and also Racism . CCP would do well to investigate its chat log.
The content and behaviour of such chats along with the Ganking contributes to players simply not wanting to bother with the game.
Thats fine. But irrelevant when making design decisions for the long term balance of the game. N+1 being the obvious solution for every problem, encouraging the blob on all fronts is a real problem EVE also faces for more than two decades now.
I’d like wormholes having three times the anomaly spawns because that would be nice for my personal wallet. I’d like to have special rolling ships that can close holes with a single jump back and forth which would make it much easier for me to find good trade hub connections… I can think if a dozen nice things I would like for my personal benefit, but I know they wouldn’t be good for the game as a whole.
If you don’t like having activity “pressure” in your corp, find an internal solution how to pay those fees. collect them with donations from the membership, do an alliance-ratting day once a month. cut investments elsewhere. Be creative. To be honest, speaking of a multi-thousand man alliance, fees costing a few billion ISK is peanuts. Discipline your leadership if they want to kick people over that.
I’m just saying that placing a nonzero cost at bringing new players along in your fleets results in the game becoming less new-player friendly.
And I think that this is something you want to avoid with your suggestions.
So if you can help it, try to come up with a different solution against large groups that doesn’t have this consequence.
We just don’t agree on the fact that it requires large groups somehow for the game to be new-player friendly.
For small groups, the fees are so neglectible, a single char CEO can pay them for a year without breaking asweat. It would make zero difference for him to recruit new member, especially when there are thresholds to pass (similar to the standings-fees). Means a group of 450 members scan still recruit 150 new ones to bolster up their fleets and train them and socialize with them and only when they are running into the next treshold they need to discuss internally “Do we want to make this step? What would be the costs, what would be the benefits? How could we cover the costs by running internal projects?” - exactly THAT is missing today. Because +1 is always free, you get some taxes from a new member and a bit of activity at best, but lose absolutely zero at worst if he is totally inactive. (unless you are an idiot and give him hangar rights so he walks away with billions after a few days)…
With the greatest of respects how does this for the context of the post ?
Topic of “link between players leaving the game and high sec ganking” let to people exploring other reasons of people leaving the game, such as blobbing and huge blocs.
This then led to the discussion of solutions to negate this negative effect on the game, so that hopefully fewer people leave the game.
While it’s not strictly the starting topic of high sec ganking that makes people leave the game but a different yet similar thing that makes people leave the game, it’s no wonder that 140 posts into an already repetitive topic of high sec ganking people tend to search for new related things to discuss, otherwise the thread probably would’ve died already.
Making things cost more ISK only concentrates power in the hands of the wealthy. The groups running nullsec and positions of power are already filthy rich—adding ISK costs only advantages them, as power is everything and ISK is just the bottom floor of success. We need to call out this anti-PvP group and their insidious lobbying instead of letting them push biased threats of doom. Carebears are Cancer.
Exactly!
Most gankers are just the alts of these guys as they have made Null boring , they got bored and decided to entertain themselves by griefing in High sec .
Truth is , high sec , low sec or Null , no one wants to play with them 
Are you saying gankers are forever alone? 
No .
I’m saying gankers are just basically the alts of Null sec corps like Goon who have made Null so boring they needed to find entertainment elsewhere.
Truth be told had they not made null so boring we wouldn’t have to put up with them .
You forget to mention it’s the ganked miners who are the source of that misogyny, the hurtful remarks against disabled people, and racism. I hang out there a lot, and the gankers themselves are all quite friendly.
That is just sheer nonsense. I’m in the channel all the time when I’m online…and no such thing happens from the gankers.