These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
Previous page123Next page
 

Contact standings displaying incorrectly on the overview - MAJOR concern!
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#21 - 2013-03-19 15:42:52 UTC
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:
Please stop.
No.

Again: what's the point of having a personal standings list if it doesn't override corp/alliance standings with your personal preferences? If it didn't do that before, I'd consider that horrible functionality.

Also, why did you set the guy to +5 to begin with, if you didn't want him to show up as +5?

Finally, why not just use the neutral standing if all you want is some people-tracking?
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#22 - 2013-03-19 15:47:52 UTC
I already answered all of those questions except for the last one: and that shouldn't need an answer. If you had actually tried setting people to neutral, you would quickly realize that it overrides standings just as much as setting them at any other level.

Bottom line: YOU MUST ERASE YOUR ENTIRE CONTACT HISTORY IN ORDER TO PREVENT IT FROM OVERRIDING YOUR ALLIANCE CONTACT STANDINGS.

FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."

Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."
Whitehound
#23 - 2013-03-19 15:53:07 UTC  |  Edited by: Whitehound
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:
Whitehound wrote:
Yes, or if you feel you need to overwrite your leadership's view. Maybe one of your alliance's many enemies happens to be a good friend and you want to spare him?
Please stop. This is a serious post. Its bad enough that so few people can grasp the simple concepts I'm presenting here, but you don't have to come on here just to troll me. You too Tippia.

Believe me when I say I do get your point. You want the leadership to dictate their view down on you with you not having to worry about anything, but you are pretty much alone on this. Hardly anyone in EVE thinks like this. It has always been the other way around and CCP will not change it now, because someone cannot accept the way CCP has dictated the mechanic down upon us (...to exaggerate a bit on the dictating part).

I'll stop replying now...

For what it is worth, you can select multiple contacts and delete them in one.

Loss is meaningful. Therefore is the loss of meaning likewise meaningful. It is the source of all trolling.
Jenn aSide
Worthless Carebears
The Initiative.
#24 - 2013-03-19 15:55:44 UTC
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:
Whitehound wrote:
Yes, or if you feel you need to overwrite your leadership's view. Maybe one of your alliance's many enemies happens to be a good friend and you want to spare him?
Please stop. This is a serious post. Its bad enough that so few people can grasp the simple concepts I'm presenting here, but you don't have to come on here just to troll me. You too Tippia.


I'm sorry, but their is nothing to grasp. There is no real problem, it's just you misusing the system in question.

The only contacts I have with settings different from what my corp/alliance has are my personal alts and a few friends from the past, and even then i go back and check to see if they end up in hostile alliances. Some frineds in my private channel are thus Red to me.

Like someone else said but you never answered, why in the blue donuty hells would you have Goons set to blue when your corp has them orange?
Xen Solarus
Furious Destruction and Salvage
#25 - 2013-03-19 15:57:09 UTC
I see his point here. What if you joined another Alliance, for example. You'd have to go through all your personal standings with people you consider to be friends just so that you don't get confused with your new alliances standings. And he makes a very valid point about changes to alliances standings occur without you really knowing about it.

Almost sounds to me like there's little point in having personal standings at all, if you're in an Alliance.

Post with your main, like a BOSS!

And no, i don't live in highsec.  As if that would make your opinion any less wrong.  
De'Veldrin
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#26 - 2013-03-19 15:57:34 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:


Like someone else said but you never answered, why in the blue donuty hells would you have Goons set to blue when your corp has them orange?


Because of :luffs:

De'Veldrin's Corollary (to Malcanis' Law): Any idea that seeks to limit the ability of a large nullsec bloc to do something in the name of allowing more small groups into sov null will inevitably make it that much harder for small groups to enter sov null.
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#27 - 2013-03-19 15:58:19 UTC
Whitehound wrote:
It has always been the other way around
Wrong, it has always been the way I'm saying it should be. The way it is now is new, and started with the release of Retribution.

FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."

Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."
March rabbit
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#28 - 2013-03-19 16:00:31 UTC
i see the problem. and yes, this is completely possible to get such situation if you are more than mindless drone of your alliance.

Maybe it would be good to have adding contacts without assigning of standings. Then everybody will be happy: mindless drones who only know leadership decisions will have proper alliance-approved standings list and people who actually have contacts in game will not mess with corp/alliance politics.

The Mittani: "the inappropriate drunked joke"
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#29 - 2013-03-19 16:01:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Reaver Glitterstim
Xen Solarus wrote:
Almost sounds to me like there's little point in having personal standings at all, if you're in an Alliance.
That seems to be the mentality of most people here. Apparently nobody except me uses the contacts list except people in highsec whose corps don't maintain standings, and so I'm apparently the only person aware of the change in Retribution. Several of you have already stated here that you think the current system is how it always was.

March rabbit wrote:
Maybe it would be good to have adding contacts without assigning of standings. Then everybody will be happy: mindless drones who only know leadership decisions will have proper alliance-approved standings list and people who actually have contacts in game will not mess with corp/alliance politics.
Or we should be given the option to set it like it had been for what, eight years now?

FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."

Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."
Jenn aSide
Worthless Carebears
The Initiative.
#30 - 2013-03-19 16:06:38 UTC
Xen Solarus wrote:
I see his point here. What if you joined another Alliance, for example. You'd have to go through all your personal standings with people you consider to be friends just so that you don't get confused with your new alliances standings. And he makes a very valid point about changes to alliances standings occur without you really knowing about it.

Almost sounds to me like there's little point in having personal standings at all, if you're in an Alliance.


Right click on name, select quit corp, click. Problem solved.
Jenn aSide
Worthless Carebears
The Initiative.
#31 - 2013-03-19 16:08:13 UTC
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:
Xen Solarus wrote:
Almost sounds to me like there's little point in having personal standings at all, if you're in an Alliance.
That seems to be the mentality of most people here. Apparently nobody except me uses the contacts list except people in highsec whose corps don't maintain standings, and so I'm apparently the only person aware of the change in Retribution. Several of you have already stated here that you think the current system is how it always was.

March rabbit wrote:
Maybe it would be good to have adding contacts without assigning of standings. Then everybody will be happy: mindless drones who only know leadership decisions will have proper alliance-approved standings list and people who actually have contacts in game will not mess with corp/alliance politics.
Or we should be given the option to set it like it had been for what, eight years now?


Nope, we know it changed. We don't care, we adapted to the changes and take the time to maintain our contacts reasonably.

I'd so love to live in that world you types in habit where everyone else is somehow wrong just because they don't care about the same BS you obsess over.
March rabbit
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#32 - 2013-03-19 16:11:34 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:

Nope, we know it changed. We don't care, we adapted to the changes and take the time to maintain our contacts reasonably.

I'd so love to live in that world you types in habit where everyone else is somehow wrong just because they don't care about the same BS you obsess over.

I have never been mindless drone. Care to tell me how it feels?

The Mittani: "the inappropriate drunked joke"
Whitehound
#33 - 2013-03-19 16:15:38 UTC
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:
Several of you have already stated here that you think the current system is how it always was.

I said I will stop replying, but if you take what I write the wrong way around then you are just trying to throw dirt after me...

I did not say the system was always this way. I am saying the way people think about it has not changed. Most do not like their personal standings to be overwritten.

Loss is meaningful. Therefore is the loss of meaning likewise meaningful. It is the source of all trolling.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#34 - 2013-03-19 16:21:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:
If you had actually tried setting people to neutral, you would quickly realize that it overrides standings just as much as setting them at any other level.
I just did. Guess what? It did not

Just picking a random guy in local:
Notice how he sits in my “neutral” (0 standing) contact list.
Notice how his corp is in my corp's “bad” (-5) standing list. Also, notice how being so makes that line highlighted.
Notice how, in spite of being in my contact list, the line show my standing towards him is not highlighted.
Notice how, in spite of having neutral standing to me, his portrait shows “bad” standing.
Notice how, in my personal contact list, my personal standing setting for him is shown as “neutral”.

For comparison, let's see what happens if I set him to +5 and what happens if I give him no standing.
Also, I just noticed an easy way to differentiate between no standing and 0 standing for corp/alliance contacts: the number of decimals — 0 means no standing; 0.00 means neutral standing. So yeah, in the picture in your OP, the simple fact is that you showing him as +5 was entirely correct regardless of evaluation order.

Quote:
Bottom line: YOU MUST ERASE YOUR ENTIRE CONTACT HISTORY IN ORDER TO PREVENT IT FROM OVERRIDING YOUR ALLIANCE CONTACT STANDINGS.
No. You just have to set it to neutral.
And again, why did you give them a standing to begin with?
Tah'ris Khlador
Space Ghosts.
Break-A-Wish Foundation
#35 - 2013-03-19 16:42:03 UTC
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:
Apparently nobody except me uses the contacts list except people in highsec whose corps don't maintain standings, and so I'm apparently the only person aware of the change in Retribution.


We use corp and alliance standings all the time. They rarely conflict with my personal standings, and when they do, I need mine to override anyhow. For instance, there are certain high sec groups that I hold in positive regard that my alliance gives no ***** about, or keeps with -5 standing so they can be aware if they're around to f*** with us.

I can see your point for it being an issue in null/low sec, but I still don't understand why hell you'd set someone you're supposed to be shooting as blue/light blue. Even if standings change on the alliance/corp level, you set that entity to that standing for a reason and if it was due to diplomatic issues, you'd think your alliance/corp would send out updates for standing changes related to that.

Member of the Pink Pony Killboard Padding Alliance
Jenn aSide
Worthless Carebears
The Initiative.
#36 - 2013-03-19 16:47:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Jenn aSide
March rabbit wrote:
Jenn aSide wrote:

Nope, we know it changed. We don't care, we adapted to the changes and take the time to maintain our contacts reasonably.

I'd so love to live in that world you types in habit where everyone else is somehow wrong just because they don't care about the same BS you obsess over.

I have never been mindless drone. Care to tell me how it feels?


I understand that some people need to feel all "independent" and "edgy" to feel good about themselves (in a video game). I think people like that are foolish, but to each his own. I prefer to go with the flow. What works for me need not work for you.
Archibald Thistlewaite III
The Royal Society for the Prevention of Miners
#37 - 2013-03-19 17:07:15 UTC  |  Edited by: Archibald Thistlewaite III
If you change the colour tags list in the overview so the -5/-10 tags are above the +5/+10 tags then any negative standings will be shown on the overview and local regardless of whether they are personal or corp/alliance.

Taking your example with standings towards Goons, with your corp setting them -5 and you setting them personally to +5.

In my overview settings this would show up as -5(orange) in local and on the overview with a -5 tag and a blue background (because I have blue backgrounds above rad backgrounds). Then when on a corp op. I use the overview tab that doesn't show blue backgrounds then they will show up as -5 without any conflicting backgrounds.

User of 'Bumblefck's Luscious & Luminous Mustachio Wax'
MailDeadDrop
Archon Industries
#38 - 2013-03-19 20:56:37 UTC
Archibald Thistlewaite III wrote:
If you change the colour tags list in the overview so the -5/-10 tags are above the +5/+10 tags then any negative standings will be shown on the overview and local regardless of whether they are personal or corp/alliance.

Taking your example with standings towards Goons, with your corp setting them -5 and you setting them personally to +5.

In my overview settings this would show up as -5(orange) in local and on the overview with a -5 tag and a blue background (because I have blue backgrounds above rad backgrounds). Then when on a corp op. I use the overview tab that doesn't show blue backgrounds then they will show up as -5 without any conflicting backgrounds.

Wait, what? That sounds like buggy behavior. I'd be leery of depending upon it, lest CCP's Team (insert name) went and fixed it. An entity has only one derived standing.

MDD
Archibald Thistlewaite III
The Royal Society for the Prevention of Miners
#39 - 2013-03-19 23:31:39 UTC
MailDeadDrop wrote:

Wait, what? That sounds like buggy behavior. I'd be leery of depending upon it, lest CCP's Team (insert name) went and fixed it. An entity has only one derived standing.

MDD


Its how the overview works.

The list of colour tags/ backgrounds are prioritised based on how high up the list they are. If you have corp standings of -5 and personel standings of +5 (why you have different standing towards the same entity doesn't matter), then put the -5 colour tag above the +5 tag, they will show up in local and on the overview as -5.

If you put the +5 background above the -5 background then they will show up on the overview with a +5 background.

Try it yourself.

User of 'Bumblefck's Luscious & Luminous Mustachio Wax'
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#40 - 2013-03-25 03:57:43 UTC
This is a suitable solution for me personally, as I am willing to set both my friends and my enemies to neutral or above. But it is still ignoring the problem which is leading to many avoidable blue-on-blue accidental shootings, as well as a lot of headaches with corp and alliance recruiters trying to get new people's overviews squared away when the contact system changed to a less reasonable setup than it had before.

I can understand giving people the option to make their personal standings override their corp/alliance standings, but it should default to being the other way. As many of you have asked me already, why would you want to go against your leadership? If you wish to preserve a small portion of your own individuality while serving your corporation and alliance, you should be in solid agreement with me. If you feel that the personal standings should come first, then either you are against leadership and just want the tax break, or you are an antisocial drone who doesn't even use your contacts list. And either way I don't want to be in the same corp as you.

FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."

Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."
Previous page123Next page