(Nullsec) Blobs And How To Solve Them

[Aphrodite_Sexy]

Blobs are here because eve’s gameplay encourages it. A bigger alliance which owns more space can have people every timezone to protect that space, more taxes for more power, and different ships to provide different roles in fleet composition (like a lot of different EWAR etc) (also, more ships do so much better than less ships).

But then, this economies of scale seems to expand forever. The only point when there is an equilibrium and people stop trying to merge is the situation right now, where further merging simply denies people content (which still doesn’t impact the krabs, but the diplomats don’t want to ruin the game). This just causes the stagnancy of eve today, where the only thing that really happens is the two powers clashing, the only content is roaming into these big powers and killing some ignorant idiots who don’t dock when seeing neutrals, then fighting the absolutely humongous response fleets of krabs who think they’re doing PVP but just whoring on kills, and then die because the fleets are huge. (yes I know there are many other kinds of PVP, but this seems to be the main main main one for fleets)

This should change. The problems are as following:

1. Bigger is almost always better. There is no reason to be 2 different corps working to the same goal compared to being just 1 corp.
2. Nothing can damage the big 3 because they’re just too big. They are getting bigger because it is the rational choice to join them.
3. Because they can’t be damaged, the cool stuff about sov, owning space, fighting others for literal systems, all the cool stuff, we can’t really do.
4. All the content comes from them and part of their incompetent-ness. All of them can just dock up when a neutral comes in local and be invulnerable, and wait for their response fleet, which people can’t even kill. If all content in a game comes from fighting something you don’t make a dent to and don’t progress in, it’s kinda boring.

How it should change:

We should introduce diseconomies of scale into these so we have corps of about 100 to 200 people and not coalitions of 20000. This is the general direction. The new mechanisms are geographical and they only (arguably) cause coalitions to expand into other systems, but stay coalitions. I propose something along the lines of directly reducing income for large coalitions.

A better idea is player originated. Big corporations usually use ESI to identify spies and awox alts, so if ESI is more difficult to use or less comprehensive, more awox alts would get into these coalitions and bring high amounts of destruction as well as content, also decreasing the size of coalitions to a more manageable size where everybody knows everybody else and more like a society than an army.

Decreasing wealth of the big 3 is a good place to begin with. I have no idea how to do this though.

We should change sov mechanics to rely more on coordination and strength rather than how big the coalition is. We can do this (perhaps) by locking down the contested system to a wormhole sorts of engagement, and the contest to be more like an eviction. Wormhole space is cleverly designed for not supporting high numbers of engagement, and we should use that kind of mechanic.

Nullsec, being the lawless space it is designed to be, should be a bit more lawless. Ironically, most forced engagements I’ve heard of are in highsec where ganking is popular, and while bubbles exist in null, people who live or go there are prepared for them with intel and stuff. We should have more ways of forcing an engagement that is not “bubble every gate and station”. For example, we can do a one time automatic asset safety (with a NO button for active people), then disable nullsec asset safety and allow stations to be destroyed by a well equipped fleet, as well as being able to be defended. For this, we can allow a module like the entosis module, except to destroy the station (depending on its size and time deployed), which also creates a few clones which defenders of the same alliance/corp could jump to to defend the station. This module would take a lot of resources (100 mil or something), so it wouldn’t be worth it for a clone jump (as well as possibly an interesting cloning tactic to use).

[Xeux]

This is not an Eve feature - this is a feature of human society. The trend toward larger empires has been implacable throughout history. A few things impede it, like rising capital maintenance costs and cultural dissipation, but empire growth creep is not something you can remove by tweaking a few game mechanics.

[safira_jomita]

@Aphrodite_Sexy

We should have more ways of forcing an engagement

There’s where y lost it. Force people to do stuff and they will just quit or do something else. Content must be encouraged not forced.

[Solstice_Projekt]

You should spend more time actually thinking of details …
… and far more time thinking about the things you might be missing.

[Scoots_Choco]

@Aphrodite_Sexy

We should introduce diseconomies of scale into these so we have corps of about 100 to 200 people and not coalitions of 20000. This is the general direction.

Terrible idea. Already suggested hundreds of times in the forums. Please use the search function before posting things like this.

@Aphrodite_Sexy

if ESI is more difficult to use or less comprehensive, more awox alts would get into these coalitions and bring high amounts of destruction

No. Organized alliances and corporations would resorts to different out-of-game tools that they require their members to use. It doesn’t guarantee “high amounts of destruction” either, because a majority of control is kept within a small tightly knit group of people where ESI doesn’t even matter.

@Aphrodite_Sexy

We should change sov mechanics to rely more on coordination and strength rather than how big the coalition is.

You can’t do this in-game. There’s no way to read the minds of the players and determine how “coordinated” or “strong” someone is. Any attempt to do so with in-game stats can be gamed.

@Aphrodite_Sexy

We can do this (perhaps) by locking down the contested system to a wormhole sorts of engagement, and the contest to be more like an eviction.

lmao what does this even mean

@Aphrodite_Sexy

Nullsec, being the lawless space it is designed to be, should be a bit more lawless.

It is lawless. Players invest the time, effort, energy, and manpower to creating their own laws from scratch and enforce it. You’re not asking for “nullsec” to be more lawless, you’re asking for CCP to change the game to completely upend an alliance’s efforts to maintain their own presence in a region.

BUT AGAIN ALL OF THIS GARBAGE HAS BEEN SUGGESTED TIME AND TIME AGAIN.

[Solstice_Projekt]

@Scoots_Choco

lmao what does this even mean

He seems to be having mass limits in mind, to prevent too many people from entering.

… who wants these nasty world records anyway, I guess.

[Nujenif_Talvanen]

This is what the new dynamic bounty/system bank or whatever is for. It forces those supercarriers to spread out, effectively balkanizing nullsec (after P.A.P.I. is done making history, ofc). I think this is a good system, and will make covert ops in nullsec so much fun.

[Ravid_Bheskagor]

@safira_jomita

There’s where y lost it. Force people to do stuff and they will just quit or do something else. Content must be encouraged not forced.

Null security space is for player vs player ship battle.

[Shipwreck_Jones]

@Aphrodite_Sexy

We should introduce diseconomies of scale into these so we have corps of about 100 to 200 people and not coalitions of 20000. This is the general direction. The new mechanisms are geographical and they only (arguably) cause coalitions to expand into other systems, but stay coalitions. I propose something along the lines of directly reducing income for large coalitions.

Well, to add to some of the other good points people made

I’ve seen stuff like this proposed before. Unfortunately, it would be easily circumvented by organizing into a larger number of smaller corps and alliances, and would likely only result in increased burnout and turnover of those who have to work even harder to keep it all running. I mean, think about it. There is no formal mechanics concerning coalitions in game, yet they still exist. And they even predate things like access lists, which have made life easier. Yeah, you can do things to make their financial, logistic, and administrative needs harder to accomplish, but it won’t force major null blocs to disband. It will just piss people off and hurt veteran retention.

[tutucox_Khamsi]

There is no in game solution for the problem solo vs blob
Like other people said its a normal human behavior to group for protection, cooperation and socialization .
The solution lies inside
If someone blobs you 1000 vs 1 think about what a pathetic bunch of virgin losers they are vs the massive chad you are

[Xeux]

The old doomsday was a nice solution. You could roll up in your solo titan and blow away the entire blob.

[Aphrodite_Sexy]

@Xeux

This is not an Eve feature - this is a feature of human society.

Yeah… I recognize that. But still, changing game features might help that a little bit, to just solve blobs a little. We can’t just say: “It’s a life thing so we don’t change it”.

@Xeux

A few things impede it, like rising capital maintenance costs and cultural dissipation

Nah, there’s a lot more in a fictional world. For example, we can delete the standings system and the corp system and the alliance system (don’t do it CCP, just a stupid example because actually good ones aren’t easy to think of).

@safira_jomita

There’s where y lost it. Force people to do stuff and they will just quit or do something else. Content must be encouraged not forced.

True, but we’re only allowing people to force other people in nullsec. If we have forced PVP in nullsec people who are not prepared to actually defend their lands and have fun encounters would move to less forced places like highsec. Hopefully people don’t just quit but be smart and move to places where there are less forced encounters, or just try to PVP a little like they should.

@Solstice_Projekt

You should spend more time actually thinking of details …
… and far more time thinking about the things you might be missing.

Details usually derail the conversation here. I’d just like feedback on like the general direction and provide some small examples.

@Scoots_Choco

Terrible idea. Already suggested hundreds of times in the forums. Please use the search function before posting things like this.

Already did. Why terrible idea? Maybe link those threads?

@Scoots_Choco

No. Organized alliances and corporations would resorts to different out-of-game tools that they require their members to use.

More difficult to use and less accurate, easier to fake, etc. Also, these may be bothersome to use and people might not want to join these corps anymore because they have to fill out like big sheets every trade they make or something.

@Scoots_Choco

It doesn’t guarantee “high amounts of destruction” either, because a majority of control is kept within a small tightly knit group of people where ESI doesn’t even matter.

Also, I mean like people sending awox alts out to like goonswarm or something and then awoxing their blingy rattlesnakes in their ratting hub, not like spais and what happened to BOB.

@Scoots_Choco

You can’t do this in-game. There’s no way to read the minds of the players and determine how “coordinated” or “strong” someone is. Any attempt to do so with in-game stats can be gamed.

Well, an example of these new sov mechanics would be like plexing in FW, or contests in Trig Quadrant 3 with the O-Logi. Because there are a limited amount of sites you cannot push too hard, and by spreading your forces (like some people to hinder enemies, and one group to attack), it is easier to fight against numerical odds. Smart mechanics around the sites could also be implemented so it is more impromptu and more difficult for a blob who just press F1 and anchor (example being traps, minefields, bubblefields, buffs to booshers, etc).

I’m not saying to have a number that enhances DPS in a corp based on how coordinated they are.

@Scoots_Choco

@Aphrodite_Sexy

We can do this (perhaps) by locking down the contested system to a wormhole sorts of engagement, and the contest to be more like an eviction.

lmao what does this even mean

That was the example I put on there. The system in contest’s stargates are shut down and wormholes to it begin appearing around that system. There are like structure inside that system which could be shot and bring favor to either side.

@Scoots_Choco

It is lawless. Players invest the time, effort, energy, and manpower to creating their own laws from scratch and enforce it. You’re not asking for “nullsec” to be more lawless, you’re asking for CCP to change the game to completely upend an alliance’s efforts to maintain their own presence in a region.

Yep. But don’t you think their presence is too much? The time and effort that have been spent by players before shouldn’t stabilize their presence forever, they should sometimes encounter some kind of challenge and risk their skins. Also, their efforts have already earned them a couple years of krabbing, now we’re equal. If their time and effort would last them forever them as the problem would never be solved, the overproduction you hate would never be solved, and the content you desire would never come.

@Solstice_Projekt

He seems to be having mass limits in mind, to prevent too many people from entering.

… who wants these nasty world records anyway, I guess.

^that too. We can always give them a bigger arena to fight, but just not for sov. Maybe just to divert forces (FCs) from the sov arena?

@Nujenif_Talvanen

This is what the new dynamic bounty/system bank or whatever is for. It forces those supercarriers to spread out, effectively balkanizing nullsec (after P.A.P.I. is done making history, ofc). I think this is a good system, and will make covert ops in nullsec so much fun.

Personally I’m not sure what it actually does. Pretty sure the nullseccers would just tank the new system or spread out but just make those spaces safe too. It is a good direction to step too.

@Shipwreck_Jones

Well, to add to some of the other good points people made

I’ve seen stuff like this proposed before. Unfortunately, it would be easily circumvented by organizing into a larger number of smaller corps and alliances, and would likely only result in increased burnout and turnover of those who have to work even harder to keep it all running. I mean, think about it. There is no formal mechanics concerning coalitions in game, yet they still exist. And they even predate things like access lists, which have made life easier. Yeah, you can do things to make their financial, logistic, and administrative needs harder to accomplish, but it won’t force major null blocs to disband. It will just piss people off and hurt veteran retention.

Yeah. I see. Maybe one of the other ones like buffing spying and awoxing to make larger coalitions less safe? Or looking at kill mails or other statistics rather than actual ingame stuff?

@tutucox_Khamsi

There is no in game solution for the problem solo vs blob
Like other people said its a normal human behavior to group for protection, cooperation and socialization .
The solution lies inside
If someone blobs you 1000 vs 1 think about what a pathetic bunch of virgin losers they are vs the massive chad you are

Nope. Not saying solo vs blob, but blob vs bigger blob shouldn’t be too deterministic. Thinking more of coalitions than blobs when I wrote this.

@Xeux

The old doomsday was a nice solution. You could roll up in your solo titan and blow away the entire blob.

Apparently CCP thought larger shouldn’t be able to kill smaller in 1 shot…

[Gergoran_Moussou]

@Aphrodite_Sexy

A better idea is player originated. Big corporations usually use ESI to identify spies and awox alts, so if ESI is more difficult to use or less comprehensive, more awox alts would get into these coalitions and bring high amounts of destruction as well as content, also decreasing the size of coalitions to a more manageable size where everybody knows everybody else and more like a society than an army.

This would be of most benefit to large alliances which have other tools for tracking spies.

You’ve missed a lot of important details, but that one in particular would have the exact opposite of your intended effect.

[March_rabbit]

@Aphrodite_Sexy

Well, an example of these new sov mechanics would be like plexing in FW, or contests in Trig Quadrant 3 with the O-Logi.

You are telling about lawless nullsec and then propose new rules and restrictions.

… and then:

@Aphrodite_Sexy

Yep. But don’t you think their presence is too much? The time and effort that have been spent by players before shouldn’t stabilize their presence forever, they should sometimes encounter some kind of challenge and risk their skins. Also, their efforts have already earned them a couple years of krabbing, now we’re equal. If their time and effort would last them forever them as the problem would never be solved, the overproduction you hate would never be solved, and the content you desire would never come.

So, basically: it’s lawless space and you can do whatever you want to succeed. But you cannot succeed too much because others will feel left behind. So this lawless space will have some artificial restrictions and mechanics to help little guy who does not even want to build anything of importance but wants to be meaningfull.

Did I get Your memo right?

[Aphrodite_Sexy]

@Gergoran_Moussou

This would be of most benefit to large alliances which have other tools for tracking spies.

You’ve missed a lot of important details, but that one in particular would have the exact opposite of your intended effect.

Can you please mention the other important details please? Also, I wonder what would be these other tools to track spies? Like as far as I know the only ways to track spais are ESI and corp history (character age).

@March_rabbit

So, basically: it’s lawless space and you can do whatever you want to succeed. But you cannot succeed too much because others will feel left behind. So this lawless space will have some artificial restrictions and mechanics to help little guy who does not even want to build anything of importance but wants to be meaningfull.

Did I get Your memo right?

No. It’s lawless space so you can’t succeed. I understand that’s not really entirely lawless, but it is more intuitive than “very dangerous”. Nullsec is supposed to be high risk and high reward, and when you succeed you just don’t have any risk and that’s bad.

[Gaius_Mileghere]

…OP: and yet, small groups of untrained locals managed to fight a nuclear-armed nation to a stalemate on their own soil using nothing more than some ancient French bolt action rifles, sharpened sticks, and shovels.

1. Bigger isn’t always better. Ask anyone who regularly flies in a Stuka Fleet, or anyone who’s ever flown in an interceptor fleet. Or, for that matter, anyone who’s ever taken a filament with the sole intention of engaging any and all they come across until their own ship goes pop or they run out of ammo.
2. Home field advantage (local knowledge) is more often than not more important than force of numbers. Ask anyone who’s ever been on either end of a pipebomb or gotten stuck inside a hostile structure after going after a cyno in system not realising that it’s parked next to a drag bubble (oh yeah, that is fun as hell to set up and execute).
3. Supply lines can be stretched to the point where they’re ineffective, and more easily disrupted with a few well placed ambushes. Ask any hauler who makes regular trips in and out of Highsec.

[Solstice_Projekt]

@Gaius_Mileghere

…OP: and yet, small groups of untrained locals managed to fight a nuclear-armed nation to a stalemate on their own soil using nothing more than some ancient French bolt action rifles, sharpened sticks, and shovels.

Space is not Vietnam, mate. You can’t dig holes to jump out of and stab your enemy in the back.

This would be roughly equivalent to decloaking next to your target without decloaking penalty …
… in wormhole space …
… but you can’t see what’s behind your ship.

These two are not comparable.

Your whole post actually demands this question:

Where’s all the historical evidence of big nullsec groups being destroyed “the little guy” ?
Or is that too much of a stretch to ask?

[Gaius_Mileghere]

how quickly we forget that it took ONE PERSON and ONE keypress to cost GSF 2 trillion ISK a mere two weeks ago.

ONE person did that to a coalition of several tens of THOUSANDS.

Don’t be so proud of the technological terror you’ve constructed. The ability to destroy a planet is insignificant compared with the will for freedom.

(Nope, this has absolutely nothing to do with Star Wars, whatsoever. Honest, Guv!).

[Solstice_Projekt]

@Gaius_Mileghere

ONE person did that to a coalition of several tens of THOUSANDS.

Yeah, sure, but that’s meaningless unless it made an actual difference in reality.

Was there any observable, verifyable difference this made caused?

…

Is it “made” or “created”? I know usually it’s “it makes no difference” …
… but in this case it feels wrong.

…

Nevermind. it’s “caused”.
Sorry.

[Gaius_Mileghere]

I dunno, let’s ask Reddit. 530 comments on the breaking thread there. It’s still going.

I would not call 2 trillion worth of manufacturing raw materials being lost to a keypress insignificant. I don’t care who you are or how deep your pockets are. That is a big chunk of change.

For comparison, that’s fully a month’s worth of TTT market revenue according to

[Source: Reddit]