EVE General Discussion

Because they're owned by CONCORD, not the empires.

Also, because they're not meant to be rare and because it's not a particularly good idea to further reward mindless mass mission-grinding.

Quotin' this gem. I spent time grinding standings once. The nice lady at the suicide hotline told me to stop. Saved my life.

But my verisimilitude!
*hauls exotic dancers around the galaxy to get starship blueprints*

…and this has nothing to do with either of those.


It's as stupid as CONCORD or restrictions on putting down POSes or outposts or using AoE weapons or cynos — stupidity is not a valid or useful argument for introducing bad gameplay.

if you been bad, and get shot at by faction police, ie that empires forces for flying through a empire space, they wont cuddle you couse you place a poco, its about being consistant

and nothing bad game play about it, actions have consequences, should be the same for pocos... or we can just scrap empires, laws, rules, npcs, concord, and have all of eve just a big shoot em up place, wich will most likely in the end result in one big blob that rules it all, that will be without me, and probably anouther 50% of the player base, that actually like the devirsity between high, low and null

but yes concord could probably be implemented better, but then again alot can

…which again doesn't hold a candle to gameplay.

Yes it is. They want them to be common; they want them to be available to everyone; they don't want to promote grinding; they want to create more reasons for conflict. All of those decisions make for better gameplay than slapping on pointless restrictions.

…you mean all of those things that are equally stupid, inconsistent, and illogical, but which are kept around because it creates good gameplay? And again, this has nothing even remotely to do with making the game a big shoot'em-up, so you can drop that nonsense. It's about creating more variety and choice, and not restricting the same for no adequate reason.

Yes it is. Anything more than -10 is a grind because it means forcing people to do things they have no interest in doing.

Tippia, if the game handles a certain game play in one way regarding standing, its not bad if things are atleast similair when it comes to other, thats good game play mechanic, then if your personal choise is that you dont like it, that has nothing to do with wether a game play is consistant, but i guess that is in a sense my notion of what good game play is,

Then again, the idea i suggested, isent a big grind nor very dificult to get, so it will be open to almost everyone

Not really, no.
It's actually a bad mechanic either way, but at least in one case, there's some motivation for it being there in that it reduces the availability and creates tiering for what you can do in different parts of space. Since that restriction is not meant to exist in the case of POCOs it's a bad mechanism without even that redeeming feature.


“Not a big grind” is infinitely larger than “not a grind”, and as a result, there's no reason to have it to begin with.

Which makes sense for POCOs too if you think about it (gameplay, lore and consistency wise). The question is why POCOs should behave differently in Empire HIghsec. Either all player owned structures should fall into the same limitations, or the limitation at hand should be removed in the first place.

I prefer the latter.

true and untrue, if i were to make a corp, what would my corp values standing towards for example Amarr be ?, its a derived value based on the sum of all members in the corp, isent it ?