EVE General Discussion

I dunno, it always seemed to work well for gangs to rep their blue red or specific tat. You don't need to know them by name to recognize them as an ally.

Yeah, cause air forces don't have IFF.

IFF

It's stupidly expensive, often bulky, easily disrupted, easily fooled, and not widely distributed to the rank-and-file members. And, yet, they still invest in it because it is THAT [expletive deleted] IMPORTANT.



If the game paints a big, red bullseye (cross, whatever) on my forehead, that's a problem for me.



More intelligent player-base, they says . . .

Which you choose to place upon yourself. The game isn't the problem because you choose to fail at your goals.


Correct. Let's see, we've had a guy who hides in an NPC corp for wardec immunity complaining about others having an 'unfair advantage, repeatedly proven wrong again and again about his preconceptions of what the game is and how it works. In the biggest corp in the game, but complains about other people for having teammates and friends. Cries when you point out 1-man in T1 condors outscore not only him but SWA as a whole (1.14M members) and how he needs special scrubsidies to not be garbage.

1. Wrong
2. Since we're talking about a proposal to remove standings specifically in order to "reduce hegemony over 0.0" um....
3. You mean besides joining a corp, making friends with them and then taking them for all they're worth? Another good one. Set up a POS in the target system of a major move op (pref. NPC space), set up a fleet using an alt who has the target alliance set blue, and light cynos for people trying to make the move. Now you've got POS guns, and some good tackle availible to kill a solo carrier.
You're really just demonstrating your complete lack of knowledge of how the game works here.



So, I shouldn't need to know everyone on a first name basis, but I should have to click on everyone who pops up into local to know if they're supposed to be friendly. That about the size of your argument? Because if so, it's pretty terrible.

We do carry identification. It's called a corp tag and possibly an alliance tag.



Instead, you can create an alt (using your 2 extra character slots) and get yourself a uniform without killing anyone. In the real world, you can't create a new identity, new face, new gender, etc with which to gain a new uniform with a push of a button.



Nope. Plenty of Grey fleets work together to fight other greys with no unintentional friendly fire incidents (when PL came on field to help us when I was in Red Legion, it was inevitable that they would DD someone if they got bored, but that's not a standings issue).

Secondly, It's quite certainly not any such standing order. Or at least not one with any force behind it. It is simply an identifying mark.

Again, you're arguing for a change. It is your job to provide a case for that change improving the game. So far you've simply suggested that we revert Local to an earlier version that CCP changed because it was bad.

Kind of like the doubt that AWOXing and the traditional lack of recruiting standards among renters provide.

Once again your Account comes with 3 character slots. Demonstrating your unwillingness to use normal game mechanics does not actually make your argument stronger.



Sure we do. And it's checked at every entrance to known space. Then every pilot's computer compares that information to a list. Want to avoid dealing with showing up hostile in Local? WH space is for you.

But, as we know, you simply want to get the occasional gank at the cost of making nullsec virtually unlivable for anyone not currently engaged in a fleet fight.


Nope. The Chat server process is handled on a different thread than the spaceship part of the game. Good try, though.


Find me an example of identity theft where the thief assumed "a new identity, new face, new gender, etc with which to gain a new uniform with a push of a button." Please.



If I feel that shooting blues is more beneficial to me on the overall balance of things than not shooting blues, why not? Again, AWOXing is fun.

I never said standings don't matter. They simply do not matter to "preserving hegemony" as you put it. The easy cooperation of grey fleets is proof positive of that.

I'm sorry, what?



See, I read devblogs and notice things like "Hey, local doesn't slow down under Ti-Di, which affects the speed at which Destiny (the spaceship part) handles the simulation."

Local is not part of the Destiny process, and while I'm sure there's communication between the processes, there is absolutely no reason why that communication would be any more effort than adding 1 new client (because either destiny announces a change in local to everyone (all players+the local process) or just to the Local process).



So, the new face and gender at the push of a button is...



Standings make 0.0 space liveable for its inhabitants. Like I've said a number of times previously. Why should the people who want to live in 0.0 have to click on every single person who appears in local to see if they are allied just so that you can get some effort free ganks?

If you don't want effort free ganks, why do you want standings removed (considering I've already shown you how they don't affect the ability of groups to cooperatively hold space*)?

*Grey-Grey fleets and the fact that people were able to hold space before Sov was even possible, and (judging from the Feature posts from about 2006), the fact that people were able to hold space before standings appeared in Local.

Those aren't the problem, the problem is the player mindset.
Also isn't it funny how in a video game we're getting annoyed at what looks to "universal peace" yet in RL we can't stop complaining about how we can't achieve world peace.

We can always "win" any game by stepping outside the prescribed boundaries. If I kick a soccer ball out of bounds, run it up the field, and then put it back into play right at the opponent's goal, that is clearly against the rules. If I score a goal after time has been called and no one else is on the field, it obviously doesn't count. There are many more rules and . . . they are important for determining what the game is.

One important rule (in sports games) is a limit on players. You can only have so many on the field at one time, and you can only bring a limited number of replacements, which prevents you from flooding the field with superior numbers and from having players intentionally break rules to gain advantage. There are no prohibitions against doing those things in EVE, and in such a scenario where those tactics are allowed, the game becomes a race to field more players and to break more rules to benefit your team (blobbing and AWOXing).

This ARTIFICIAL scenario is exacerbated when another rule of the game is in effect, the rule of having to identify yourself to the opposing team. Most sports leagues actually enforce a rule that you MUST wear a uniform, but that rule is in the context of the other two rules limiting players and in the context of many other rules (time limts, for example).

Now, I'm tempted to say that a lack of player limit rules in the context of a player identification rule makes the game of EVE "broken" because of my own preconceptions about fairness, but it would be more accurate to say that having no player limit rules while enforcing a player identification rule makes the game-balance skewed in favor of players and groups who "have more friends".

On a funny side note: We might actually say there is a "no-blobbing" rule in actual war. That rule is the one against using mercenaries (but that's not the only condition that affects blobbing in real wars). There is also a player identification rule. You have to wear uniforms. And most nations will straight-up murder you for AWOXing (treason, espionage) and even talking about AWOXing (sedition). We may be tempted to think of ourselves as playing a super-advanced game, because it's done via computers and internetworks and in e-space, but a good many of the same principles apply to this game as to . . . shooting marbles in the dirt on a playground.

A game basically IS the set of rules by which players must abide while achieving some objective. If the rules are too narrow, then the game just becomes a comparison of traits (fleet size, skillpoints, ISK, ePeen, etc.). This comparison might be fun for the person with the bigger ePeen, but ultimately, we would probably acknowledge that automatically awarding victory to the group with the largest fleet is just as silly as automatically awarding victory to the group with the most . . . midgets.

Nerfing standings would widen the rules, so that the midgets don't win all the time, because how would you know which team which midgets were even playing for? Plus, we could kill some of the enemy midgets before they got counted.

tl,dr: Let us use disguises and camouflage so we don't get shot. EVE Online, quit telling people to shoot us!