These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Colourfull Standings

Author
Pelador Rova
No Luck Corp
#1 - 2012-05-08 17:57:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Pelador Rova
To improve organisational control of targets and to help to manage alternative levels of relations in alliances and corps I'm suggesting it would be nice to have additional custom standings that can be applied by them.

A simple example would be to have a yellow and purple standing indicated as a negative sign (like other standing settings), not stars or skulls as per existing recognitions for other status. But other than having fixed static values the levels of standing could be fine tuned by the player organisation. To keep the familiarity accross EvE in some way consistant however the yellow standing would have to be some negative value and the purple standing positive. At least this way an understanding of their use is still common.

Then depending on how they are set, the applied mechanics are applied off of them by the thresholds that currently exist.

E.G: alliance thread set purple standings at 7.0, since this goes above the existing standing of +5.0 but below +10.0, they would be treated as +5 within the game mechanics. Ideally then standing priorities can be ordered based on standing thresholds where applicable for use. Alternatively a fixed 5 and 10 could be applied still but the organisation can control which mechanic is applied to it. So for purpule valid options could be 0, 5, 10 and for yellow 0. -5, -10.

This I hope would help to keep things slightly in keeping with CCPs mechancs designs without removing things too far from the KISS engineering mentality and also retain some consistant understanding accross EvE organisations but open up extra optional levels of identifying different kinds of targets as per the organisation's defined use.
mxzf
Shovel Bros
#2 - 2012-05-08 18:15:13 UTC
We had standings going from -10 to 10 in 0.1 increments. It was complicated and a pain, so CCP switched it to the current system.
Pelador Rova
No Luck Corp
#3 - 2012-05-08 18:17:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Pelador Rova
mxzf wrote:
We had standings going from -10 to 10 in 0.1 increments. It was complicated and a pain, so CCP switched it to the current system.


Well in this particular case I'm only requesting the use of an optional extra 2 definitions and not 200.

But yes certainly the idea of managing 200 status options would seem like a headache and a senseless mini-game in itself.