They should have an award for having a string of bad ideas in one post.
2 Likes
The burden of proof lies with you. You are obligated to prove a problem exists (it does not), you are obligated to prove your solution largely addresses the problem (it does not), and you are obligated to prove that your solution doesn’t pose new problems OR that the new problems arising from the solution are worth having (numerous workarounds have been presented to bypass the measures and supposed benefits from those measures implemented by your changes).
Also: the evidence is ample and has been presented to you repeatedly (by highly knowledgeable and experienced players, I might add), but you refuse to acknowledge it as much 
There doesn’t need to be a burden of proof to propose a change. It’s an idea I put out and I intend to defend the mechanics of it as best as I can. CCP ultimately will choose whether its even worth reading or not, much less doing their assessment and calculations to determine if this is something worth pursuing.
So far the hangups you guys have presented have been:
- The cost is insignificant - well fine make it higher. Coming to the right numbers is better assessed by CCP.
- With regards to the consequences of the corporations ignoring the fee: people will just use only alts to go to high sec. While that is a workaround, I really think you guys are overestimating your entire membership base. I suspect a lot of your base are people who wouldn’t like access restricted or more dangerous than it already is. Nor are all of them willing to create dedicated high sec characters. You are implying your base has a higher commitment level to the game than is reality. Just like high sec carebears aren’t going to be very happy about the changes to high sec that involves them to either adjust with workarounds or haul over 45 jumps, nullbear members won’t be happy to stay in a corp that ultimately increases their risk of movement in security space.
Orders of magnitude higher. But then you have the problem that the biggest alliances may be able to afford the fee, but any mid-size alliance will be crippled by it. They’ll have to pay a fee set to be appropriate for the biggest alliances but without the financial resources those alliances have access to. Rather than fix the problem this just makes it even more one-sided in favor of the current winners.
Nonsense. The burden of proof is always on the person requesting a change. The default is that things remain as they are, unless a compelling enough idea is presented that CCP is willing to invest the time and effort to make it happen.
Nor are all of them willing to create dedicated high sec characters.
As has already been pointed out to you multiple times all of the major nullsec powers are under permanent war decs. It’s already effectively suicide to go into major highsec systems without an alt, your proposal changes nothing.
Also, you do know that the biggest alliances have dedicated logistics support, right? That you don’t personally haul your own ships from Jita?
Null sec guys ready this post.
1 Like
It 100% absolutely and totally does. Everyone on the forums is subject to this, and no exception will be made for you.
Cost is not the issue. The SYSTEM you are proposing as a whole is the issue. It is defective by design. It’s like trying to design a bucket with a hole in it and saying “well, if we need it to hold water then we’ll just make a bigger bucket” but it doesn’t change the fact that it doesn’t hold water because the design is flawed.
The participants in this thread span experiences with mega corps and tiny corps, veteran PVPer nullblocs and HS PVE carebear newbie treehouses, Indy and non-Indy corps, corps with altaholics and hardcore multiboxers and those where players can only afford one Omega or just plain Alpha, etc. None of what you say applies to ANY of their respective bases or any other player base in the game. You simply do not grasp the economic and sociological impacts (and lackthereof) of your proposal with respect to the reality of EVE. You are making assumptions of the game and its player base (and of the participants in this thread) that have no basis in reality, and these false premises are leading you to make farfetched conclusions that are completely devoid of reality.
CCP doesn’t have to calibrate values because if the design is defective, no amount of calibration is going to change the outcome. The idea simply has no merit. Changing the numbers isn’t going to make the idea as a whole any better. Stop being prideful and stop taking this personally: these are not intended to be insults or personal attacks.
Uh…no.
2 Likes
These fees only apply to groupings of larger than 5k pilots and it only ramps up starting from that point. I wouldn’t consider any 5000 pilot organization to be small, nor do I think that the cost would be completely prohibitive to any size organization (after all, I didn’t yet propose an exponential curve on the fee - a linear curve is simple and can be effective enough if the numbers are adjusted accordingly).
The key here is CCP being invested in the idea. I doubt that this is the first time CCP has considered there to be an issue of extremely large organizations causing stagnation and they may have even tried to think of their own ideas to deal with it. The premise of my idea (and I intend to refine it as I receive critique) is what’s important. If it perks their interest enough then they will likely go through some of the math on their own to flesh it out further. So I don’t need to have the numbers quite right in any regard, nor do I even have to fully have the mechanics fleshed out. This is no different than any other project - it starts with an idea and the engineering surrounding it is fleshed out as the project builds more merit.
Having permanent war decs is not the same as being suspect for ANYONE to shoot you in high sec at their leisure (with the reverse of null sec guys being able to coordinate attacks against them not being the case as a war would entail). And though you are right in that the alliances have dedicated logistics, that doesn’t mean your memberbase is uniform in being OK with only letting logistics deal with high sec.
And let’s be clear here - the corporation fee is not the real meat of the idea. It is mostly a soft suggestion to half-revert the changes CCP made when they doubled the corporation member capacity. I think 5-6000 members was more than enough. However the REAL meat in this whole thing relies on point #3 regarding structures with point #2 being an essential requirement to prevent coalitions from simply merging into one alliance to bypass #3. THAT is the real nerf I am focusing on - the changes to corporation membership is simply me wanting my cake and eating it too. The consequence imposed is one I think would be more fun and not as debilitating as just disbanding the corporation. The consequences for not paying the alliance fee as described in point #2 is the same as currently - the alliance disbands.
So far I’ve been presented with some workarounds and strategies that you might employ should a change like this goes through. That is fine - I have no issue with an extremely well organized massive organization trying to adapt. In fact adapting around new challenges is part of EVE and has always been expected of any group.
Beyond that there isn’t much meat in your counter arguments. There’s some quibble about the math (and as explained above CCP can do a better job than me on that front if they like the overall idea). You focused a lot on the consequences of not paying the corp fee (which isn’t the real meat of this). Then polished it off with saying that because of your experiences that you are also somehow an arbiter of predicting the overall macro consequences and player behaviour from the change. I don’t think you are qualified on that final point.
As for assuming my prideful emotions - I am simply having fun bringing up an idea I think has merit and I intend to continue to refine it and defend it. Simple as that. You can be as rough with your criticism as you want - I knew there would be strong resistance regardless of the idea’s merit and I am old enough to have a thick skin.
Regarding refinement I realize I need to expand the structures fee to also include navigation structures - specifically the jump bridge and cyno beacon. Those too (as they have access lists) will also have that fee applied to them. I will update the top post as I give myself the time to refine it.
Cheers!
fun???
as in not being serious…
Ok then, Im a hiseccr, and i say this total idea is unworkable and stupid.
you are missing the bast part of your proposal…
Why is this proposal here?
What is is it meant to fix?
you mentioned balancing?
Balancing what? exactly?
In a single sentence can you even tell us what problem this trying to fix?
You know…I read through this entire thread…
And I still have no idea why this idea was even proposed.
Are large nullsec alliances overpowered? Are they really? Why are we even nerfing player created alliances?
You’re essentially telling the hundreds, hell thousands of players who spent years building up their empires, suffering unimaginable losses and gains, that their effort is s*** and the crown jewel they’ve created should be nerfed, because…why?
Very large null alliances are unbalanced without some means of consequences for size. My proposal attempts to temper that softly.
Yes they are overpowered. Right now once you get to a certain size there is little rhyme or reason to consider NOT joining a large bloc if you want to participate in null sov. They have no consequences for simply absorbing everyone they can. The conflict remaining is contrived and the systems held have little value individually. This proposal seeks to at least give them an isk sink and it may improve conflict within these massive organizations enough to encourage splitting.
This shouldn’t be surprising - it is common in other games and real life for large organizations to be split up. Monopolies are split up all the time through anti-competitive acts in real life. As explained earlier, 4X games also have consequences for sprawl both in population and system occupancy. I think similar mechanics should be employed in EVE in order to encourage smaller organizations to fight for smaller amounts of space rather than the 3 big blobs we have today (that most of time sign themselves under things like NIP agreements in order to provide their members with some content that isn’t even worth anything).
I guess we haven’t had a good “Guy who’s been here five minutes submits stupid idea and defends it to the death even when people who normally couldn’t agree that water is wet all come together to tell him his ■■■■ was idiotic,” post in a while.
Least I can defend my proposal with substance. So far what’s been thrown back has been summed up as " You’re essentially telling the hundreds, hell thousands of players who spent years building up their empires, suffering unimaginable losses and gains, that their effort is s*** and the crown jewel they’ve created should be nerfed, because…why?".
And here I thought it was just the highsec carebears that needed to HTFU 
.
Dog, they should only be able to park one titan in each of their keepstars… Oh, that’s it! Limit how many people can dock at any structure - that should solve the problem! That will be the end of these game-wrecking alliances 
You can keep all the taxes and wardec stuff, too. We are making progress.
How are they unbalanced?
like seriously what stupidness is percolating in your tin can brain?
edit: also be careful how you word things and really think how trollish your OP is cause im about to flag it, if you can not provide a legitimate reason for this proposal, cause all i hear is right now is some SJW garbage about how you want to balance (ie abuse,assault, [insert any else similiar here] people, specifically groups of people(players).
How are they not? There is absolutely no consequence for completely bluing everything right now. In such a PVP oriented game it floors me that you think that this level of organization shouldn’t at least have a level of cost associated with it. CCP originally saw that to some degree by creating member limits in corps - but then doubled it. Then if alliances weren’t enough, coalitions became the norm.
In any other game or even real life, there would be some kind of realistic limits imposed. Especially in a pvp-centric game like this.
As for your flagging - lol 
. Ridiculous. The proposal does target large groups but that is not offensive. Nor have any of my responses been in any way. But by all means carry out your threat hahaha. This is as ridiculous a reaction as a ganker who threatens to flag carebears who want more stringent high sec - or the reverse when carebears threaten to flag pvpers who want high sec restrictions loosened or removed entirely.
Are you an alt of Ukyo? 
ok i shall, and that is becuase i said groups, not large groups…
and you want to talk of RL…
RL groups are not balanced, they are kept in check(if at all) by environmental conditions, not politics.
your a fail, and stupid…and have no understanding of MMO’s let alone EvE
I hate it that some people have lots of friends. Those people need to be nerfed.
Played MMOs and this game longer than you ever had my friend - I am quite familiar with the concept. That includes anticipating this angry team of responses from those who now are mad when THEY have something to lose that will overall improve the game.
As to what ‘groups’ you are referring to I dunno what you are talking about that is specifically offensive - unless you are just that mad at the proposal idea itself (little sensitive in that case - guess that’s why I rarely get substance in response).
The proposal of course doesn’t completely balance everything. It is not meant to be a full limiter such as the overreaction of buddy there who said let’s only allow 1 titan to undock. No - in actual combat I am not looking for some convoluted measure in place that nerfs numbers in a fight. I only want SOME discouragement in the form of an isk sink against coalitions.
And ultimately all I am doing to accomplish that is trying to make sharing structures expensive beyond a limit to people outside the alliance. You are free to set the world blue as ever before without any penalties (aside from alliance going above 5k members but that is just a counter-measure to alliances consolidating to bypass the structure fee).
By doing these changes you start to introduce the following:
-
Increase expectations of members to be more valuable in order to be worth the extra opportunity cost. That means these extremely large corps will instill more pressure than ever to members. This might turn off members and they may opt for smaller alliances without that level of pressure. OR the bloc will simply absorb the costs and carry on - just a good isk sink then.
-
Increase costs for renter corps who want to use structures. They may be fine without using the structures and just being blue. Or maybe they won’t feel it’s worth it if they can’t use the structure. In that case maybe they would prefer to focus on smaller alliances who only control a few systems. Or maybe other deals will be made.
-
Same is true to other alliances who joined to fight. They might be fine without structure access or only increased costs for jump bridge access. Or maybe they won’t feel like they are valued quite as much anymore because they don’t have access to what the owner alliance members have. Or maybe they will all still have access but now the alliance who is paying will demand more from them. Or maybe they will just eat the isk sink and not worry about it.
That’s just the tip of the iceberg. All this does is create an isk sink for large blocs and potentially causes new conflict factors within its member-base. A well unified bloc will just deal with an isk sink. A more fractured one may start bleed members for smaller alliances. It’s a shakeup that can be a minor inconvenient isk sink to a null bloc OR it can cause more turmoil than you think.
Believe me I would have wanted to propose something simpler such as simply doing the alliance level tax plus just taxing every person set to blue at the alliance/corp level. However with all the tools a lot of your smarter members make, I don’t doubt some kind of UI system would be made to bypass needing the blue system. I am not interested in creating something that involves people wanting to not use a sufficiently good ingame feature.