Hey Kontan,
Thank you for your reply and some time to get coffee and RL work.
The header image was created by a friend of mine Gyn Steel - i think its rad too.
- I believe that bills around standings are a phenomenal opportunity for an isk sink for larger coalitions.
Can you elaborate on how you see this working, the potential issues that would need to be worked out, and whether or not you feel like this would lead to perverse incentives?
Absolutely, firstly to preamble believe that the role of a CSM member is to work with and dialogue with CCP in achieving CCP’s goals for what their road map is. However I believe it is CCP’s role to present solutions alongside members of the CSM and have a great collective decorum on these sorts of things. I may not be right and my solution may not be entirely all mine but I am passionate about speaking on these sorts of topics with others looking to bring solutions and ideas to the table.
To get into it I believe that a concise evaluation around the mechanics of standings and diplomacy in the game will likely lead to discoveries on how to better balance the large BLOC expansion we see in the game.
I could see a system where friendly standings are established with a monthly “Diplomatic Upkeep Cost” this cost could be scaled based on member count of the alliances being blued on a monthly recurring schedule charged at the time of establishing positive standings. Traditionally coalitions and blocs send out a “standings sheet” for entities to blue - that effortless diplomatic establishment is currently all benefit and no repercussion or cost. So why should anyone NOT go bluing as many alliances as possible? (rhetorical) This would mean that all alliances in this bloc model would share a cost burden of having a large blue list. However DWH mercing around and setting their target alliances red would not be charged for this standings change. -in theory-
Now to attend to the final part of that question - do I see perverse incentives to this?
Absolutely, and this is where CCP and fellow CSM members as well as our community play a large part in its success.
I have a few adverse outcomes that come to mind, namely:
- This could incentivized blocs to just merge into large mega alliances.
- This could (if enacted in a weird cost model) promote more alt alliances for various toons.
- This could adversely effect the natural formation of small alliances in the form of people building up into one alliance in order to counteract another larger alliance.
- This could adversely effect the smallest of inter alliance relationships regionally, making small pocket coalitions which often form to fight an existential threat harder to do.
However, I believe this change is perhaps one facet of a multi facetted solution across alliance standings, upkeep costs and alliance management as a whole.