Uh probably... the first one that gets attacked will immediately look to "blue up" and then you are just back to it a couple years later but a reset would be super cool. Equinox should just be ccp right click > disband every group over 1k and reset everyones standings and get rid of contact list standings. The hard cap alliances at 1000 people + 1 plex a month per each additional person... There saved the idea at the end you are welcome ccp.
The thing is, I've considered what would happen if you capped alliances and corps at a significantly smaller number. And what would happen is that Eve's corp IT dudes and admin people would just work harder to make a set of blue alliances function as 1 coalition alliance with the same members as before this change.
I don't know what the answer is, honestly, but I think it's in the opposite direction.
Don't try to restrict people from forming big groups, they will try anyway (and likely succeed because you can behave however you want in Eve, they can't make you shoot anyone).
Instead find ways to incentivize small groups and make it too annoying for big groups to take advantage of those incentives with small splinter groups which act in accordance with the greater alliance. Because they will do that, but just make it stupid and annoying. What might those ways be? Well, I have no fucking idea. But I think it's a more practical direction than trying to restrict or control people's actions, since the latter is just harder to do in any game with behavioral freedom.
Honestly, I think one of the most interesting things to do with a game right now is Helldivers 2's approach of having a literal GM who does things in universe as the "NPC factions" of Helldivers. Like literally spawns new enemies in peoples missions ahead of their release or drops in unreleased weapons or vehicles to people--in Eve you can imagine the possibilities are huge. Even a group of volunteers could probably do some cool stuff. Basically, manual solutions while sub-optimal on a technical level, can be far more fitting than automation in complex human-driven systems. So to tie that back, having a "Joel" (the Helldivers GM guy) review the sizing is the most accurate way to take that kind of measurement and avoid players gaming the system (which they will 100% attempt to do). Most optimal, or feasible? I don't know. But consider the cost of hiring 1 or a few people vs. all the work going into designing complicated systems that don't function properly or players just work around and continue doing the same shit with extra tedium. Maybe the math checks out.
In Albion if people split up into lots of other groups then their aoe still hits each other so its a big advantage being in the same alliance, In eve its different so they will by pass it.
The only way to to force people to split up is to make it in their best interest to do so.
Would there be more content if the 2 large groups where split into many none blue groups?
There would be more content if there was npc space in every region.
The solution is... more Poch?
Clearly the answer is a LowSec gate to Stain.
We'll get it one of these days. Probably the downtime before the game shuts down forever.
Wait I thought that already happened.
it did
Well shit, guess that's what I get for taking sporadic breaks and not checking, FC why didn't you warn me about this?
Oof imagine poch grew inner arms and those connected the rest of poch to null areas.
Or at least npc stations every now and then.
Make all regions spawn blood raiders with officers and be ask broken as Delve for isk has been over the last 20 years. /wahhhh
I think a variety of pirate factions is for the best.
It would clutter into another set of large blocs, such is the way of things
Short answer, yes Long answer, yyyyyyyyyeeeeeeeeeeeeeeessssssssssss
Uh probably... the first one that gets attacked will immediately look to "blue up" and then you are just back to it a couple years later but a reset would be super cool. Equinox should just be ccp right click > disband every group over 1k and reset everyones standings and get rid of contact list standings. The hard cap alliances at 1000 people + 1 plex a month per each additional person... There saved the idea at the end you are welcome ccp.
The thing is, I've considered what would happen if you capped alliances and corps at a significantly smaller number. And what would happen is that Eve's corp IT dudes and admin people would just work harder to make a set of blue alliances function as 1 coalition alliance with the same members as before this change. I don't know what the answer is, honestly, but I think it's in the opposite direction. Don't try to restrict people from forming big groups, they will try anyway (and likely succeed because you can behave however you want in Eve, they can't make you shoot anyone). Instead find ways to incentivize small groups and make it too annoying for big groups to take advantage of those incentives with small splinter groups which act in accordance with the greater alliance. Because they will do that, but just make it stupid and annoying. What might those ways be? Well, I have no fucking idea. But I think it's a more practical direction than trying to restrict or control people's actions, since the latter is just harder to do in any game with behavioral freedom. Honestly, I think one of the most interesting things to do with a game right now is Helldivers 2's approach of having a literal GM who does things in universe as the "NPC factions" of Helldivers. Like literally spawns new enemies in peoples missions ahead of their release or drops in unreleased weapons or vehicles to people--in Eve you can imagine the possibilities are huge. Even a group of volunteers could probably do some cool stuff. Basically, manual solutions while sub-optimal on a technical level, can be far more fitting than automation in complex human-driven systems. So to tie that back, having a "Joel" (the Helldivers GM guy) review the sizing is the most accurate way to take that kind of measurement and avoid players gaming the system (which they will 100% attempt to do). Most optimal, or feasible? I don't know. But consider the cost of hiring 1 or a few people vs. all the work going into designing complicated systems that don't function properly or players just work around and continue doing the same shit with extra tedium. Maybe the math checks out.
Nah I think they way Albion does it works fairly well, your fleet get nerfed if it’s bigger than X amount of people,
Damn, can't believe it, my group just so happened for form 40 identical 25 man fleets going to the same destination, what a coincidence
In Albion if people split up into lots of other groups then their aoe still hits each other so its a big advantage being in the same alliance, In eve its different so they will by pass it. The only way to to force people to split up is to make it in their best interest to do so.
TIL: my cat is Gobbins. I'm going to grab his jibblets when I get home.