and if you think about it , like really think about it…
all you do is hurt the little guys, and even HS…
I mean really for a large group all you need is voice comms…technically all could blue as needed, and just roam around as NPC corp characters for 90% of the time…
Cause the large groups are operated by OUT OF GAME methods, and this is why you are stupid.
but im done here.
@ISD_Dorrim_Barstorlode can you review this thread and the flag i put on the OP and lock this thread before it degenerates further into a flame war.
Yes I believe I addressed that in my last post. While I wish I could just impose something to tax bluing people in general - that simply will be bypassed. All I am proposing is making structure sharing carry costs. That’s really it. Everything else including the alliance tax is just to counter the anticipated consolidation of the coalition into one alliance. The corporation tax is just me being a little salty about the doubling of the member limit for Brave Newbies. You can completely ignore that one if it causes so much turmoil.
Oh and yes please @ISD_Dorrim_Barstorlode - review my posting and see if I am making any faux pas. A proposal like this was bound to flare emotions from the entrenched but I feel I conducted myself overall well and continue to put substance in my posts. I am not offended at all by the others so if you must clean up any attacks please do so only to enforce the rules but not on my account. I know my last few posts are a little cheeky to some responses but I believe I didn’t cross the line. I don’t post much so I earnestly welcome your feedback if I crossed the line.
Having looked at your original post and the replies you seem to have no idea how Alliances work in the first place. There is more to running an Alliance than an ongoing cost each month and if a group of people want to work together that will just be factored in and if it works well will not be a hurdle to success. If you think that just because this is imposed it will be easier to recruit to your own Alliance that will not happen, that comes down to personality and the ability of the leadership, good leaders make good Alliances.
So if you plan to place any additional costs this will always be easily absorbed by the membership of any Large Alliance so why add needless taxes to complicate administration of a Corps/Alliances assets.
If you had suggested improving the ingame tools to administer Corp/Alliances and even Coalitions I might have had more positive to say about your post.
If you are correct than all this proposal does is created an isk sink targetted to very large groups. I think that is a small inconvenience for them to pay for just absorbing every pilot that pops in their sight.
That said, I think you are vastly overestimating your members’ commitment and something as simple as creating limits for structure sharing (assuming the alliance doesn’t just absorb the isk sink entirely anyway without any change in expectations of its members - in which case again that is a fine enough consequence) might introduce some level of conflict within your member base. I think it’s an excellent route to push. In fact I think it’s one of the only fair and sensible routes to take.
I think you will find that many (not all) Alliances if there were ongoing fees such as a fee for members, that would simply be the price a member pays each month to the Executor Corp. Generally the policy would be you don’t pay then you are no longer a member and usually you are made aware of this at the point of joining.
Your Station tax would then take a similar path, you pay x Isk per month to have access or you don’t.
This is just what I have seen in my experience with various Alliances, not just a theory or an idea the reality of how things work at the leadership level of an Alliance, you do as you are told or you are not getting access or services.
Which then amounts to splitting of members who don’t want to pay… exactly the outcome I would like to see. I wonder how many people would be in that situation?
Probably very few members, most people join an Alliance for a reason. Even if the fee was something high like 100mil a month for access to mine or NPC farm in Null Sec there are many people who would pay it, because that is what it costs and they will easily recoup it from their activities.
However, where there are people who can do that adding these additional costs to everything is also exclusionary and would block newer players from going out and experiencing new things. This would actually harm more than anything, there really is never any benefit to higher taxes, unless you really want to poor ISK into a black hole.
Yeah because the newbro experience is completely ruined if the walmart coalitions stop accepting them . Also while there will be those who accept the increased costs as the price for being with the big boys, that won’t sit right with a lot of people as well who realize they may be better off going into a smaller alliance. After all that’s another 100mil isk a month that they aren’t getting by being in your alliance.
I think more will split off than you think. And newbros will have plenty of opportunities with smaller alliances to fill the void (which become more relevant if the big boys start to fracture) if the walmarts don’t accept them. People have egos and not all will stay an F1 monkey if there is at least SOME incentive to look at smaller alliances.
I also don’t doubt many will stay. Guess we can really see if those leadership qualities actually live up to the hype or if it was always just a matter of “OK join big group - no reason not to”.
Not all ISK sinks are good. If they don’t sink that much ISK (this one won’t), or if they’re installed in undesirable places (this one makes no sense), or if they’re easily bypassed/grossly underutilized (as demonstrated over and over and over again), then they’re no good. Installing an arbitrary ISK sink for the sake of installing an any kind of ISK sink in any location is not good design.
People join “Walmart” Alliance because they are big and provide opportunities for content and ISK. Many will join simply to learn the game or just to go have fun destroying stuff, most I imagine are happy being an “F1 Monkey”.
Smaller Alliances are fun to join I will not deny that it is easier to have social interactions and get to know the members and leadership, but this plan does not help them as they grow they will have to start implementing Large Alliance policies just to stay operational, this will then keep the Largest Alliances at the top, not break them apart.
As to anyone who aspires to run their own Corp/Alliance/Coalition then this proposal would probably not help anyway, again better management tools is what this part of the game needs, not pointless taxes.
I still don’t think you have enough experience with the operations side of Alliances to have fully though this out.
This can sink lots of isk if we adapt the numbers to make it so. Don’t let the original numbers wig you out.
It makes plenty of sense. It’s meant to create some consequence for constantly absorbing everyone. It creates a stagnant environment. Any encouragement to break up the alliances would help.
This can only be bypassed by not structure sharing with your coalition allies. That may work, or you might find that this causes more strife in your ranks than you think. Otherwise you are dealing with an isk sink.
I agree that not all isk sinks are good. However this one targets a real problem and is a simple start to creating incentive against just gobbling and setting the world to blue.
People join Walmart because there is literally no reason NOT to. There is no consequence for absorbing everyone. Once you get big enough it almost becomes mandatory if you want to participate in null in any real form. I’m sure plenty are happy being an F1 monkey. I’m also sure that if there was at least some real cost associated with maintaining such a large organization that many will opt for smaller alliances. The largest alliances will be for the ‘power gamers’ at the end of the day.
You have to remember that the fees START at 5000 pilots and increases linearly from there. Sorry but any alliance that gets to 5000 pilots should be able to put their big boy pants on if they want to go further. Honestly I am not looking for more alliances to want to achieve the level the current blocs do. I want more factions at 5000 pilots or less involved.
Better management tools are a whole separate conversation. This proposal is a good step regardless if better tools are made available or not. It deals with a current imbalance that frankly, should have never been fostered. The null population is now incredibly entrenched in this and so pushing a proposal like this is like pulling teeth.
I know how the null environment looks and feels. It could be so much better. I know the current blocs are here due to massive investment into organizational infrastructure and the argument will constantly come from trying to show off how difficult trying to operate at that level is. However just because dedicated players created these out of game systems doesn’t justify the effect it has made on null sec as a whole. Constant TIDI fights with ridiculous numbers on both sides to the point that servers just crash. MORE important (structure taking or sov taking) fights with smaller numbers on each side is a much better environment. 3 or more way fights would be more likely. It would JUST BE BETTER.
You can stress all the hardship of keeping thousands of people herded like sheep all you want. For the environment it just makes null DULL.
Your first two suggestions are total non-starters. A fair bit of diplomacy within EvE happens outside of New Eden. Coalitions are nothing more than standings lists and if EvE were to suddenly impose limits to in-game organizations, players would simply use out-of-game methods to maintain the same organizational structures.
Your third suggestion is interesting, but flawed. By using pilots who have docking access and pilots who don’t in your calculation, you’re effectively taxing the structure owner for literally every pilot who isn’t in their organization, and also every pilot who is, so the fee would just be based on the number of players in the game at any given moment. I think we can all agree that this is absurd. I think a simpler approach would simply be to add a fee for each pilot on the “out-of-organization” access list, and if that fee isn’t paid their access is revoked until it is. But even then, I hardly see this as necessary, or even beneficial.
EvE is about building and maintaining power. The end result of that, given enough time and player craftiness, is the coalescence of power into a few large organizations, either through in-game mechanics or through out-of-game channels. People have literally poured a decade or more of their life into building some of these alliances; why shouldn’t they be rewarded for their hard effort?
-1. I’ll thought out, trying to “fix” something that isn’t a problem.
The first suggestion is something that can be removed as it isn’t at all crucial for the third suggestion (in fact I am going to cross it out because it isn’t the main meat of my proposal and serves nothing other than to cause additional confusion like an ominous bill). The second suggestion is very important because if it is NOT in place then all coalitions would do is merge into one alliance in order to bypass the third suggestion.
Let’s be clear about the third suggestion to assist on removing some confusion. The point of the fee is to tax the structure owner based on the amount of out-of-organization members on the access list (starting from the 5001th pilot who has access). If station access is set to public then this fee doesn’t apply. However, to prevent an abuse where all a station owner would do is set the station to public then manage a blocked list instead, I included # of blocked pilots in the sum of pilots to be taxed. Ultimately this creates a tax on structure sharing between alliances. And that is why the alliance level tax is important - to counter coalitions from just merging into one alliance.
If the structure owner wants to implement a fee on individual pilots that they must pay monthly for access or else it is denied, then I think such a mechanic would be a fine addition. However the consequences I propose for the structure owner not paying his structure fee is important.
Extremely large organizations still benefit from their size. However opportunity cost needs to be introduced after a certain size. Extremely large organizations just like how it is now creates an overall staler environment for the game. At the very least it needs to require actual in game maintenance. I am not proposing out-right limits here (I can’t even think of a way how to do so without tossing out public access stations which I don’t think is a good thing). It’s not just about ‘oh I hate that big alliances are rewarded for recruiting’ - it’s more about the fact that as long as they can just gobble anyone up without any opportunity cost, then the overall game becomes stale.
Opportunity costs introduce new levels of pressure that only very large coalitions or alliances experience. More will be demanded of its members than the average smaller alliance. More will be demanded from those who want to share structures with the large coalitions. Ultimately there will be a higher expectation of quality members for these large groups. In doing so, the ones who are just existing and don’t want to dedicate themselves to that level will likely be rooted out and they will be looking for homes in smaller alliances without those restrictions. The % of the existing coalition population that undergo this could be large or small - that depends on leadership.
Remember that I am talking about 5000 pilots before this even becomes a factor in any one group. That is NOT a small amount of pilots. Encouraging breaking up into these sizes max (and again the larger ones can still go beyond - ultimately that will be determined by the actual ISK amounts to be paid in fees) is not an unreasonable vision.
Functionally speaking this is never going to work, you can’t stop people from working together even if you can stop them from being in the same in-game organization.
More than that though it’s not in CCP’s best interests to artificially limit the size of communities within the game. Community is one of the things that keeps players playing, so saying to a large org “you need to kick out a ton of people” runs counter to that goal.
It’s adorable that you think that, but you haven’t even made a credible case that a problem exists, let alone that your shitty idea is the solution to the problem.
Your entire post relies on begging the question, where you simply assume that your (actually highly questionable) premise is “fact” and hope you can slide on by and nobody calls ■■■■■■■■ on it.
Think about this from an economic and CCP standpoint OP.
If CCP implements your solution, they’re going to get slammed with hate. People are going to unsubscribe because they can’t be with their friends and stay in a large alliance. One of the appeals of EVE is having some of the biggest player created groups in the MMO world. Groups that a new player can join from day one. You’re proposing to destroy this.
It’s a radical and potentially financially unsound change, there’s no f**king way CCP will ever implement this. Bottom line: they’re not willing to piss off nullbears, no matter how you feel about nullbears.
While it makes no sense to implement the idea proposed in this thread, I don’t agree with you there; CCP has shown they are capable and willing to make radical and potentially financially unsound changes that upset large groups of players. (And I think that’s a good thing for the game)
. Also while there will be those who accept the increased costs as the price for being with the big boys, that won’t sit right with a lot of people as well who realize they may be better off going into a smaller alliance. After all that’s another 100mil isk a month that they aren’t getting by being in your alliance.