Very Large Null Alliances Balancing Proposal

EVE Technology and Research Center Player Features & Ideas
1

Good evening fellow capsuleers!

Let me say that I have been following the conversations surrounding the Trig invasion and am a huge supporter over the recent changes and shake up. I can’t say with as much confidence as to what’s to come due to these events but I can say it is refreshing to see.

Now that said, I do have a scratch to itch regarding null sec alliances – very large groups need a nerf. Right now there is absolutely no consequence of going as big as you can. This combined with the extremely generous 12600 member limit for individual corporations results in way too much advantage of just absorbing everyone and everything without consideration. Add in alliances and further, coalitions, and the so-called dangerous null sec just becomes a massively stagnant environment. It’s one thing to support the large battles we put on the news, it’s another thing when the groups are so large those battles don’t even matter.

If you look at null sec on a macro scale, you can feel a lot of similarities to Stellaris. Though a 4X game, Stellaris along with any other game of that type, introduces some kind of balancing measures in place for empires that just focus purely on expansion - both in population count and system count. I know EVE isn’t a 4X game, but I think many of the reasons such balancing measures are in place apply in this game too. I also think that CCP in the beginning never intended for groups to organize at the size they became today - after all they put in member limits in corporations in the first place. I think the loosening of those restrictions was done with the best of intentions towards those corporations it affects (Brave Newbies for example at the time of doubling the membership limits). However I think in the long run limits - or at least consequences for going above certain thresholds - will ultimately improve the level of conflict.

Right now the conflict is smoke and mirrors (of the 3 big blocks, routinely they impose NIP with each other so that fighting consists of inconsequential skirmishes). The space they absorb isn’t valued by them (i.e. Goons losing Fountain - they don’t care). Players are centralized in key areas leaving most of null sec really empty. My proposal aims to encourage splitting up these coalitions by softly introducing mechanics that can cause conflict between members. A very unified coalition may not stagger due to these changes - in which all this would do is introduce a much needed isk sink targeted at these coalitions. However I believe these coalitions are softer than they let on and these changes can bring forth a lot more internal conflict and ultimately break them up a little bit at a time.

After quite a bit of thought, I am proposing the following:

1. The monthly fee for alliances changes from 20 million isk per alliance to 500k isk per member pilot (of the combined alliance members) a month.

  • This fee applies if the total amount of alliance pilot members exceeds 5000. There will no longer be an alliance monthly fee if the number of alliance members is lower than 5000.

  • The consequences of ignoring this fee is the same as today - alliance becomes disbanded.

2. Upwell structures now incur a monthly cost based on number of pilots who are NOT alliance members of the owning corporation that are allowed to access PLUS number of pilots who are specifically blocked from access. This cost is now 10k isk per pilot per month.

  • Public docking is the exception – if a group that allows docking privileges is set to public, this fee doesn’t apply. It is because of this exception that I added specifically blocked pilots to the fee structure.

  • If the fee is not paid then the structure will consume all it’s fuel and enter the abandoned state.

  • The fee is calculated through the following formula:

  • R = (# blocked pilots) + (# non-alliance pilots /w docking access) + (# alliance members) – 5000

  • IF R > 5000, then Fee = [(# blocked pilots) + (# non-alliance pilots /w docking access) – 5000] x 10,000 isk.

  • The fee is calculated at the beginning of the month and doesn’t change regardless of adjustments to the access list until the next month rolls over.

  • Essentially if your structure allows more than 5000 people to be docked in it in total (including your alliance members) then each additional docking pilot who isn’t an alliance member (or a blocked pilot) will cost you.

  • You can be a large alliance and not incur any costs if you don’t allow anyone else in it or ban someone specifically.

  • You can be in a small corp or alliance and allow lots of people in up to 5000 total before you have to pay.

  • Members of alliances who are at war with the owning corporation automatically get blocked from docking in the station and for the duration of the war does not count towards the blocked access number of pilots.

  • This applies to navigational structures as well. Change docking to access.

Overall I think this gives some consequence to having these overly bloated groups. In effect:

  • Very large corporations and alliances are getting a nerf with a hefty fee.

  • Coalitions get a smaller but effective nerf to sharing structures. They can have them fully public to bypass this but then they will have to deal with their enemy being able to dock up.

It’s heavy-handed to very large null alliances I know, but honestly I think this is the kind of shake up we also need introduced into the game.

Fly safe!

EDIT: Removed corporation tax recommendation as it isn’t at all relevant to the overall proposal’s intent.

2

Lmao, all of these are terrible.

So instead of one big alliance, we just have multiple smaller ones that have set each other blue and avoid the fees. Wow.

6 Likes
3

Coalitions (i.e. setting to blue) has a bit of a nerf too though. In this case they incur costs of sharing structures across member alliances. It isn’t as heavy a nerf as the alliance and corporation suggestions but I think it’s a start. They of course can just rely only on the benefits of not shooting each other, but I suspect that not sharing structures in order to save costs will cost more inconvenience than at first glance.

If that isn’t much of a deterrent then I can’t say too much on further changes. Imposing a fee for setting people to blue is worthless IMO as eventually these alliances will simply have some kind of extension or program created to give their pilots the UI they need without paying for the official blue action in EVE.

4

You do understand that these big alliances are in nullsec, right? The place where anyone can be attacked at any time with no CONCORD or sec status penalties?

2 Likes
5

Can I ask exactly how you came up with all of these numbers?

Like, in another way, why do you feel like these specific values would actually achieve what you claim they will?

6

So why don’t you go big?

1 Like
7

“You do understand that these big alliances are in nullsec, right? The place where anyone can be attacked at any time with no CONCORD or sec status penalties?”

Yes that is true, however they don’t all uniformly stay only in null sec. They also do go through low and high sec for trading. There are issues of consequence for those key members. Besides - if you are right then this is a small nerf, not a big one. It only strengthens the acceptance of it even among the big boys.

8

They really don’t. We use high sec alt accounts to buy things from Jita, and use out-of-corporation / out-of-alliance shipping groups for our logistics. This is why you don’t see a steady stream of nullsec players constantly transitting between high-low-null.

On top of that, almost all nullsec alliances are permanently wardec’d by active hunters already, so it’s not like this would actually change our behavior.

This is just a hunch, but it seems like you don’t actually know what you’re talking about…

1 Like
9

"Can I ask exactly how you came up with all of these numbers?

Like, in another way, why do you feel like these specific values would actually achieve what you claim they will?"

Napkin math - for a corporation of let’s say 10000 members, they would incur a 5B isk per month fee. Feel free to argue if that’s too high or not. I am more interested in the mechanic.

10

Easily done by alts that are not in the main alliance. In fact, many/most nullsec residents already use alts because of highsec wars.

Besides - if you are right then this is a small nerf, not a big one.

If it’s such a small nerf then why is it necessary? Your proposal is a solution in need of a problem.

11

Since going big is so over-powered and easy to do, why not just do it yourself?

12

I’m not really, because the entire idea is hilarious dumb.

But I just wanna say that I have like 20B in my wallet, just on my own right now. So 5B a month for a corp/alliance is nothing. And for reference, the Tranquility Trading Tower in Perimeter, whose profits are shared between the 3 largest nullsec blocs makes about 2.2 Trillion isk per month.

So yeah… given your numbers, I’m getting the feeling that you don’t actually understand enough about the scope of this… and just picked isk values relative to your own personal wealth and thought “ha! that’ll hurt 'em!”

13

“So why don’t you go big?”

I feel the game would be a more fun and conflict enhanced environment if there was a stronger push for smaller groups. My proposal only effects the extremely large coalitions, corporations, and alliances. And as some are trying to protest - this may not be a very heavy handed nerf. Personally I think that despite Scoots insistence that only alts not in the alliance go into high sec for resupply - he is likely more off on that than he thinks.

Null sec is quite stagnant with either complete safety or massively overwhelming odds of doing anything for anyone but between the big guys. I am talking grossly large groups - I think 5000 members is quite fair for any organization that won’t get any of these fees. And those bigger guys are not completely banned from organizing their way - they just have some inconveniences associated with it.

14

“If it’s such a small nerf then why is it necessary? Your proposal is a solution in need of a problem.”

Smaller nerf than I may have figured - and this is assuming that Scoots and you are right that members won’t bother with anywhere else but null uniformly (except for the aforementioned alts). I suspect you both aren’t quite as right as you claim.

15

What makes you think anything would change?

It’d be the same group of people in the same comms with the same alliance structure. Just their in-game name would be “Alliance A” and “Alliance B” instead of all of them being in the same alliance.

So you’re complaining about how organized they are, but you think just separating them into different in-game corp/alliance names (Corp 1, Corp 2, Corp 3) would suddenly destroy all that organization and they’d start fighting within each other?

2 Likes
16

If you still have this suspicion despite being handed explicit evidence that you are wrong I have to ask some serious questions about your mental abilities.

1 Like
17

And when they get killed in Hi Sec, alone, they get laughed at.
It is truly an awesome sight seeing a fleet from null sec using hi sec gates… or fighting over Perimeter way back in the past before The Agreement.

18

“So you’re complaining about how organized they are, but you think just separating them into different in-game corp/alliance names (Corp 1, Corp 2, Corp 3) would suddenly destroy all that organization and they’d start fighting within each other?”

I think the costs associated with sharing structure access will have an effect on that communication. The costs surrounding corporations and alliances are just to counter corporations and alliances consolidating to bypass the structure sharing fee I proposed.

19

If large groups are so over-powered and easy to create, why don’t you do it?

You can create Doug’s Dummies today and seize half of nullsec tomorrow… why not?

20

Again, the costs are insignificant. Even if they weren’t, the alliance leaders would simply order every corporation to raise taxes (my own corporation’s taxes are set at like 21% or something like that), and then use the increased revenue from taxes to pay off the fees. Nothing changes.

My hunch that you don’t know what you’re talking about is growing stronger…

1 Like