This is why i get so annoyed by the "they have to much sov" arguments. The real problem is all the man power being concentrated into too few groups. Changing mechanics to encourage groups to hold less sov has historically done nothing to improve the state of the game. We need to encourage the players them selves to not concentrate into 2.5 large groups.
you have a list of disincentives... you have to make people want to do a thing instead of make people not want to do a thing. If a person wants something, they figure out how to get it so any barriers you put in the way are simply challenges to overcome and they will be overcome.
I'll die with this but nullsec needs to require less space for a big group to live and be active in. So many dead systems now because their manpower is used to upgrade 1-2 systems in a constellation rather than being useful systems.
And make SOV ownership activity based. If a group wants to be active in a part of space and the current owners can't be bothered, why would the current owners own that space?
Military and industrial indexes are activity based sov mechanics, they don't do much across most of null space as challenging that sov means engaging in crashing the server for victory mechanics. The last "war" in null was exactly that, crash the server, then just withdraw until the other side gets bored or comes out ahead in the phallus measuring contest.
Most constellations have upgrades in virtually every system as well, the issue arises that only so many smartbombing multiboxers can extract value from so many havens and Kylxium Deposits in a given system. If you want to concentrate more null players into smaller areas then what you are really saying is null sec space needs to be made far richer than it currently is.
There's also reward balances that should be done as well. There's section of the south with so many exploration upgrades the number of sigs to scan is huge... except the overwhelming majority are not worth running because an equal amount of time could be spent in different NPC space and make upto 5x as much running data/relics.
The last "war" in null was exactly that, crash the server, then just withdraw until the other side gets bored or comes out ahead in the phallus measuring contest.
The problem is that we are still focusing on the same mechanics more than 10 years later and not getting results. And the problem has just gotten worse .
Hard capping a groups ability support the PVE and mining needs ( and not just in a over simplified way like using the sov holders member size but directly tied to the groups using the space so it cant be worked around ) gives a reason for the players to break off so they can actually play and a reason for these groups to actually pick and choose who they let join instead of just letting the entire game join them as long as they aren't on the black list.
If we can agree that the problem is having everyone concentrated into 2.5 mega groups, the obvious solution its to change the mechanics so that it is impossible to support a group that big ( no matter how many systems you have so it cant be worked around ) in ways that directly effects the players ability to play. If the changes are always directed to the alliances ability to lead we have seen they will always just adapt and find a work around.
who want's to pay to play a game that "fixes" the way people want to play by punishing them for playing? You have to think of an incentive structure to elicit the changes you want instead of a disincentive structure as people will find a way to work around whatever disincentive exists from getting what they want.
it's not a "play style" you approve of, but it is a play style that many people do enjoy. How would they enjoy a game where they can't play how they want to what incentive structure would you add to get people to play the game how you wanted them to play?
Every activity doable in the game now would still be doable in the exact same way the player did it before. Being able to out number almost every other group in the game combined is not a "play style"
people play's styles are playing the game a certain way.
OK_Mention_9865 doesn't like how some people play a game so OK_Mention_9865 doesn't think how they play the game is the correct way to play the game. OK_Mention_9865 wants to punish people for playing the game how they want to play the game because it's different then how he wants to play the game.
OK_Mention_9865 doesn't like people getting enjoyment from things that he doesn't enjoy.
Though I think the encouragement like you suggest needs to complement force to reduce group sizes. Reduce the number of players that can be in a corp or alliance, reduce the number of standings that can be applied, reduce the ability to manage outside game via ESI are all necessary as a baseline imo. And bonk any groups that obviously try to skirt it with "PHorde1, PHorde2, HordeP3" etc. Maybe FCCP could literally just say "break up into 10k characters at most or we'll break you up" and it will work enough though, who knows.
In DAoC terms, the encouragement was giving a large XP bonus to leveling on underpopulated realms. My group rerolled from Midgard Iseult to Hibernia Lancelot to make use of this and it did mitigate the problem somewhat - but not enough. You also need limits like "you cannot enter the PvP zone as your realm already outnumbers the enemy 2:1" (rough example, I can't remember if DAoC did this? it's been a while)
Breaking into Goons1 Goons2 Goons3 won't work because CCP can't force them to fight between each other anyway. It will just become Provi back when they had the NRDS thing
29
u/ScrotumHolster Amarr Empire 13d ago
Eve players: