Mega-alliances: pro and con

[Jayce]

Copied from the War thread because I wanted to do a poorer job of what Yoru would do eventually..

I don't see either what's wrong with mega-alliances or how we could ever conceivably get rid of them.  Any unsafe condition encourages people to band together for safety.  So either add safety to Eve (no one would like that) or deal with banding-together behavior.

I guess a third option would be to change human nature.

It removes a large part of the game that is interesting. FIX and IAC had, for the longest time, this wonderful stable condition where there were almost daily fights but without any worries of a territorial invasion.. which might be the key phrase here. Now, even *when* you could have interesting fights between two entities a fair amount of bored larger alliances get involved pretty much right away (see the Solar Fleet kb link above for an example). Minor Threat were interesting because they always added this little bit of uncertainty to fights when they were in the area.. now it's yet another red-vs-blue entity.

[Jayce]

I definitely agree.  Small-gang warfare, both offense and defense, operating out of 0.0 that you own is the best part of Eve.

However that really argues in favor of more stable (or stagnant, depending on who you ask) territorial warfare.  The current direction, and the drift of a lot of the outcry right now, is to make territorial warfare more fluid, exciting and dynamic.

Also, if they shift mechanics further in favor of the defender, you'd see a lot more of the model that you must enlist in one of the existing big clubs to get into 0.0 at all.  Is that really what we want?  (Personally, I think it is, but I suspect I'm in the minority)

[Amarr HM]

Well large alliances never suffer when peoples interest wanes there's always something to do. Smaller groups suffer badly in that situation, in order to keep gameplay ticking over you either need a small hardcore bunch of no lifers or a large alliance.

[Endie]

I'm going to say it again: make it very hard to remove an alliance from their space.  Make it very profitable to hold a little 0.0 space.  Make it logistically simple to hold small amounts of 0.0. Make it very hard to hold large areas (more than three or four constellations or so).  Sit back and watch a Balkanised patchwork develop with constant warfare.

[setar]

I think my main irritation with the current system is that it is almost impossible for a new alliance to get established. PL might have been the exception because BOB, for whatever idiot reason, allowed them to settle in Fountain, but unless the territory is *completely* unappealing, has no R64s, and is logistically independent any new entity will have to stick to NPC regions or effectively sign up with some of the power blocks. There are some small, roaming exceptions (Cry Havoc, TRI) but I'm not sure they are in a position to influence the general story line.

I'm thinking of BOB vs ASCN here, were -- for all kinds of reasons -- most entities did not get involved in. And meta-gaming aside, it provided a fascinating storyline for months where at least in the beginning there was real doubt what the outcome might be. But given all the value (and investments) that are now an important part of 0.0 space I don't see that happening again, and wouldn't know how to make a change that doesn't cause all kinds of other trouble either.

[Goumindong]

I think my main irritation with the current system is that it is almost impossible for a new alliance to get established. PL might have been the exception because BOB, for whatever idiot reason, allowed them to settle in Fountain, but unless the territory is *completely* unappealing, has no R64s, and is logistically independent any new entity will have to stick to NPC regions or effectively sign up with some of the power blocks. There are some small, roaming exceptions (Cry Havoc, TRI) but I'm not sure they are in a position to influence the general story line.

I'm thinking of BOB vs ASCN here, were -- for all kinds of reasons -- most entities did not get involved in. And meta-gaming aside, it provided a fascinating storyline for months where at least in the beginning there was real doubt what the outcome might be. But given all the value (and investments) that are now an important part of 0.0 space I don't see that happening again, and wouldn't know how to make a change that doesn't cause all kinds of other trouble either.

This is more an issue with low-sec/NPC 0.0 and the current tool set that starting alliances have available to themselves tough. If you give alliances places to play where grouping and organization is encouraged but the rewards aren't valuable enough to bring in already large alliances then you've got something that you can work with.

The new COSMOS thing should help on the organization front, but until you have some sort of competitive personal production that is actually worthwhile in low-sec/NPC 0.0 nothing is going to form.

E.G. lets say we do a couple of things

1. We add excludable missions to all 0.0 and NPC space. They are just like normal missions except have much higher payouts. These payouts are flat and even regardless of sec status in question*. In sov space, the ability to run the missions is dependent on whether or not you hold sov. In low-sec and NPC 0.0 its dependent on whether you hold viceroy status.

2. Viceroy status only grants you the ability to do these missions, and is dependent on player activity in the region based on kills/losses/total production(adjusted to account for increased production from viceroy available missions) or whatever esoteric formula you want to come up with. For instance you could base it off of POS production income accounting for all costs, including tower deaths.

*You would need a way to make the missions more secure in lower-security space. I would recommend locked gates(alliance members/war targets only) in low-sec and a warning on gates in NPC 0.0. That way, the higher populations likely to be present in areas where you cannot discriminate around who docks in the stations will weigh against the value of the missions. How exactly to do this, i am not sure, but the goal is to keep production values the same in each area, and the lower the security the more secure your mission running is going to be so long as you can attack ships in space without concord reprisal.

_____

A system like this could introduce alliances to POS warfare on a smaller and more manageable scale as larger POS are less efficient in terms of production and so less likely to be around when you need to maximize cost efficiency of your assets.

Keep larger alliances out of the game since spending time in NPC space/low-sec is pretty pointless in order to gain missions for your general population that you already have via SOV

Provide incentives for smaller organizations to get going and the income they need to start to challenge SOV of the larger organizations without disrupting the general method of production for the variety of players. I.E. when in low-sec you manage production POS and your general population runs missions/scanned complexes. When you're in NPC 0.0 you run production POS and your general population runs missions/scanned complexes. When you're in sov space you run high end production POS and your general population runs missions/scanned complexes.

[edit] Make personal production in Sov space dense enough to not necessitate large sprawling empires[though there will still be moon income pressure to expand]
_______________

Then all you have to do is get around to making sure that POS mechanics are done right/balanced/not grindy.  If someone wouldn't mind posting it on Eve-O and/or bringing it to the goon CSM reps, i would not mind writing up a full proposal.

[eldaec]

 Make it logistically simple to hold small amounts of 0.0. Make it very hard to hold large areas (more than three or four constellations or so).

But how do you do that?

If you have 100 members (therefore 3 people willing to do logistics) and can hold one constellation, how do you make so that 200 members (6 people willing to do logistics) can't hold two constallations equally easily.

[Phred]

 Make it logistically simple to hold small amounts of 0.0. Make it very hard to hold large areas (more than three or four constellations or so).

But how do you do that?

If you have 100 members (therefore 3 people willing to do logistics) and can hold one constellation, how do you make so that 200 members (6 people willing to do logistics) can't hold two constallations equally easily.

Maybe by having the constellation capital give a non-stacking bonus to fuel consumed or something, so the first constellation is reasonable to keep 3 logistics ppl busy but adding another one would up the requirements to 12 or so logistic people. Make the bonus kick in at Sov 3 or so so you don't burn out your logistics ppl before it cuts down to 3 required.

[tazelbain]

Definitely an interesting design challenge.  Yet again CCP is on the forefront of MMOG development.  Or more accurately, they are the forefront since no one else is even trying.

[Endie]

There are plenty of ways to do it. Make the choice of capital matter. As in civ, make distance from the capital increase fuel use dramatically (up to a certain limit, to allow for taking sov in conflict).

[Slayerik]

Definitely an interesting design challenge.  Yet again CCP is on the forefront of MMOG development.  Or more accurately, they are the forefront since no one else is even trying.

Nice :)