These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
123Next pageLast page
 

Standing and sovereignty. Just remove it?
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
luZk
Fivrelde Corp
#1 - 2013-02-08 10:39:31 UTC
Why not remove sovereignty completely and also remove standings. ? (not NPC standings)

Would EVE not be much better if your overview could only sort wartargets, neutrals and corp/ally? Perhaps even no corp/ally tickers in overview.?

As goes for sovereignty. An alliance should still be able to anchor bridges and jammes as long as they had the only posses anchored in a system. But there would be no signs of what alliance owned a system making the borders harder to make out.
If an alliance wanted a sign/flag of them owning space they can anchor cans at the gates warning people off.

The result would be more chaos, "blues" shooting "blues", grudges beeing born and wars starting.

What do you think?

http://i.imgur.com/1dl4DM6.jpg
terzho
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#2 - 2013-02-08 10:45:06 UTC
No.
TigerXtrm
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
#3 - 2013-02-08 10:49:16 UTC
Sov and standing aren't the problem. The core of the problem is the structure grind and indirectly the weird distribution of resource moons.

My YouTube Channel - EVE Tutorials & other game related things!

My Website - Blogs, Livestreams & Forums
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#4 - 2013-02-08 11:04:19 UTC
luZk wrote:
Why not remove sovereignty completely and also remove standings. ? (not NPC standings)

Would EVE not be much better if your overview could only sort wartargets, neutrals and corp/ally? Perhaps even no corp/ally tickers in overview.?

As goes for sovereignty. An alliance should still be able to anchor bridges and jammes as long as they had the only posses anchored in a system. But there would be no signs of what alliance owned a system making the borders harder to make out.
If an alliance wanted a sign/flag of them owning space they can anchor cans at the gates warning people off.

The result would be more chaos, "blues" shooting "blues", grudges beeing born and wars starting.

What do you think?

I think a highsec wardec alliance member probably doesn't understand sov warfare enough to make an intelligent suggestion.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
Cpt Roghie
Chemical Invasion Co.
#5 - 2013-02-08 11:05:47 UTC
luZk wrote:
Why not remove sovereignty completely and also remove standings. ? (not NPC standings)

Would EVE not be much better if your overview could only sort wartargets, neutrals and corp/ally? Perhaps even no corp/ally tickers in overview.?

As goes for sovereignty. An alliance should still be able to anchor bridges and jammes as long as they had the only posses anchored in a system. But there would be no signs of what alliance owned a system making the borders harder to make out.
If an alliance wanted a sign/flag of them owning space they can anchor cans at the gates warning people off.

The result would be more chaos, "blues" shooting "blues", grudges beeing born and wars starting.

What do you think?


Go back to killing our freighters. You obviously have no clue what you're talking about.

This could be fun.
Ptraci
3 R Corporation
#6 - 2013-02-08 11:12:14 UTC
I think you should leave Jita undock once in a while. The radiation from all those ship engines must be making you sick.
Brooks Puuntai
Solar Nexus.
#7 - 2013-02-08 11:22:10 UTC
Pass.

CCP's Motto: If it isn't broken, break it. If it is broken, ignore it. Improving NPE / Dynamic New Eden
Xinivrae
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#8 - 2013-02-08 11:42:18 UTC
I smiled when you got to the part about anchoring cans.
Reiisha
#9 - 2013-02-08 12:52:11 UTC
For all the criticism the OP is taking, EVE did actually "work" completely for quite some time and it didnt stop alliances from having fun at the time. Even without moons.

If you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all...
Varius Xeral
Doomheim
#10 - 2013-02-08 13:59:17 UTC
Washed-up sov has-beens complaining about sov mechanics.

Dohohohohoho.

Official Representative of The Nullsec Zealot Cabal
Natsett Amuinn
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#11 - 2013-02-08 14:03:13 UTC
Reiisha wrote:
For all the criticism the OP is taking, EVE did actually "work" completely for quite some time and it didnt stop alliances from having fun at the time. Even without moons.

Now tell everyone just how many people were in null when it was "working" then.
Mara Pahrdi
The Order of Anoyia
#12 - 2013-02-08 14:05:39 UTC
luZk wrote:
What do you think?

I think, that it's not even weekend yet.

I also think I need a cookie.

Remove standings and insurance.
Weaselior
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#13 - 2013-02-08 15:33:56 UTC
please eliminate the parts of the game i am too incompetent to do so i stop feeling so inferior thanks

Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division.
Mayhaw Morgan
State War Academy
Caldari State
#14 - 2013-02-08 15:46:09 UTC
0 security space . . . why shouldn't you be able to flip your ship transponder off? HTF do you know who I am? Why should you know, by what method, and at what cost? Also, the OPs suggestion needn't only be taken in the context null. It would REALLY help on the Jita undock.

Also, this information is part of the overhead that larger groups (blobs, if you wiill) SHOULD have to contend with but don't, which is why they have an artificial advantage (as opposed to their natural advantages).
Pewty McPew
EVE Corporation 2357451
#15 - 2013-02-08 15:46:49 UTC
How much chaos and havoc would ensue if SOV was eliminated and anyone was allowed to anchor or attack any structure in any system at any time?

An opposing alliance member makes it into your home system and anchors a cyno jammer or jump bridge or anchores a POS or station in your backyard.
Natsett Amuinn
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#16 - 2013-02-08 15:48:55 UTC
Pewty McPew wrote:
How much chaos and havoc would ensue if SOV was eliminated and anyone was allowed to anchor or attack any structure in any system at any time?

An opposing alliance member makes it into your home system and anchors a cyno jammer or jump bridge or anchores a POS or station in your backyard.


It doesn't work in other games, why do you people think it would work in EVE.

Mallak Azaria
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#17 - 2013-02-08 15:55:11 UTC
TigerXtrm wrote:
Sov and standing aren't the problem. The core of the problem is the structure grind and indirectly the weird distribution of resource moons.


The weird distribution of moons wouldn't be so much of an issue if CCP didn't insist on 'fixing the issue' by making a moon mineral that only spawns in certain places the new bottle neck & ignoring the players that tell them this will be a problem. They could keep the moon distribution the same, yet balance things out by not having singular bottle neck resources.

This post was lovingly crafted by a member of the Goonwaffe Posting Cabal, proud member of the popular gay hookup site somethingawful.com, Spelling Bee, Grammar Gestapo & #1 Official Gevlon Goblin Fanclub member.
Benny Ohu
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#18 - 2013-02-08 16:00:54 UTC
luZk wrote:
Would EVE not be much better if your overview could only sort wartargets, neutrals and corp/ally? Perhaps even no corp/ally tickers in overview.?

People would keep long lists in Excel/Google Docs of friendly pilots/corps, updated daily, which you have to check each time you see someone in local

sounds fun
Mallak Azaria
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#19 - 2013-02-08 16:09:42 UTC
luZk wrote:
Why not remove sovereignty completely and also remove standings. ? (not NPC standings)

Would EVE not be much better if your overview could only sort wartargets, neutrals and corp/ally? Perhaps even no corp/ally tickers in overview.?

As goes for sovereignty. An alliance should still be able to anchor bridges and jammes as long as they had the only posses anchored in a system. But there would be no signs of what alliance owned a system making the borders harder to make out.
If an alliance wanted a sign/flag of them owning space they can anchor cans at the gates warning people off.

The result would be more chaos, "blues" shooting "blues", grudges beeing born and wars starting.

What do you think?


So you basically want to dumb EVE down because it's too hard for you?

This post was lovingly crafted by a member of the Goonwaffe Posting Cabal, proud member of the popular gay hookup site somethingawful.com, Spelling Bee, Grammar Gestapo & #1 Official Gevlon Goblin Fanclub member.
Vincent Athena
Photosynth
#20 - 2013-02-08 16:40:09 UTC
luZk wrote:
Why not remove sovereignty completely and also remove standings. ? (not NPC standings)

Would EVE not be much better if your overview could only sort wartargets, neutrals and corp/ally? Perhaps even no corp/ally tickers in overview.?

As goes for sovereignty. An alliance should still be able to anchor bridges and jammes as long as they had the only posses anchored in a system. But there would be no signs of what alliance owned a system making the borders harder to make out.
If an alliance wanted a sign/flag of them owning space they can anchor cans at the gates warning people off.

The result would be more chaos, "blues" shooting "blues", grudges beeing born and wars starting.

What do you think?

People would still "set standings", but it would be by sending an eve-mail to all the alliance members saying "This alliance is an ally. Don't shoot them". You would have to keep a list of all allies with you as you flew about and check each ship you come across to see if its on the ally list. Your mistake would not result in wars, they would result in you getting booted.

Sov determined my POSes is the way it use to be. The result was a sov battle became efforts to anchor and shoot POSes.

Know a Frozen fan? Check this out

Frozen fanfiction
123Next pageLast page