These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Standing Loss - Player Pod Killing
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Sean Parisi
Blackrise Vanguard
#21 - 2015-02-24 16:09:50 UTC
Destiny Corrupted wrote:
Tipa Riot wrote:
Destiny Corrupted wrote:
Tipa Riot wrote:
Agreed, podding NPC corpies screws your standing with the player's corp. Outside FW this is of little impact, as you can choose to mission with other corps. It does not screw faction standing, so you still can join FW or a FW player corp. Fleet up running a couple of lvl4/lvl3 missions and your corp standing should be fixed soon (I assume the mechanic is the same as standing share in non-FW missions ...). As I said faction standing is not the problem, which would be rather painful to fix.

Except that those player-run FW corps will flat-out reject you because your standing will bring down the corporation's standing, which is a requirement for being in FW.

Corporate standing is irrelevant for joining and staying in FW, you need to have a positive or zero faction standing, which is not in jeopardy here.

If that's the case (and I really don't remember since it's been years since I was active in FW), then this can still prevent you from joining the NPC FW corporations if you pvp the "wrong" targets. That's not a good thing. But tbh, I remember something about screwing up my standings and being unwanted by FW corporations from one of the sides in the conflict, so it would be nice if someone posts here to confirm whether it's just the corporate standing, or the faction standing as well.


It is faction standing. Essentially if the standing is below 0.1+ (Around that) then the individual or corp is unable to join the Militia in question. Corporate standing in regards to FW is more so to run missions / not get aggroed by rats and for promotions (As your corporate standing with the Militia Corporate Faction goes up you will receive promotions which then provide you with faction standing bonuses.

However, I still stand by the fact that losing standing for engaging another player in PvP is a ridiculous mechanic. Especially when it is never mentioned and only matters if said player is within an "NPC Corporation"
March rabbit
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#22 - 2015-02-24 16:56:33 UTC
Sean Parisi wrote:
Tipa Riot wrote:
What's the point? Don't mission for NPC corps which can host player chars, and you should be fine.


Because it provides an advantage to NPC based corporate players. For example - FW Corporate missions are quite lucrative, something I would like to run should I return to FW. However, having my Standing slaughtered by FW NPC Corp members who engage me seems somewhat stupid?

Technically it is not 'FW NPC Corp members who engage me' but your decision to pod them AFTER you already won the engagement.

That's your only decision so you have decided it for yourself to lose standings.

The Mittani: "the inappropriate drunked joke"
Sniper Smith
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#23 - 2015-02-24 17:44:50 UTC
I had this issue happen a while ago.. I petitioned and the standing loss was reversed (due to the pod being GCC).. Doubt they would do that for suspects or in FW though.
Sean Parisi
Blackrise Vanguard
#24 - 2015-02-24 19:06:54 UTC
March rabbit wrote:
Sean Parisi wrote:
Tipa Riot wrote:
What's the point? Don't mission for NPC corps which can host player chars, and you should be fine.


Because it provides an advantage to NPC based corporate players. For example - FW Corporate missions are quite lucrative, something I would like to run should I return to FW. However, having my Standing slaughtered by FW NPC Corp members who engage me seems somewhat stupid?

Technically it is not 'FW NPC Corp members who engage me' but your decision to pod them AFTER you already won the engagement.

That's your only decision so you have decided it for yourself to lose standings.


Taking this logic though - Why do FW corps under the same banner not push forward the same consequences when they are podded? Why is it that a GCC player vs player engagement effects PVE standings for an arbitrary reason?

I already take consequences for doing such an action - but for many these Standing consequences are not clearly explain by CCP and quite frankly as many others have also said in this thread - it is a poor mechanic. It has no merit, the only people I see supporting it primarily come from NPC corps themselves.
Eugene Kerner
TunDraGon
Goonswarm Federation
#25 - 2015-02-24 19:09:21 UTC
" I want to pod people but I would like them to love me".

TunDraGon is recruiting! "Also, your boobs [:o] "   CCP Eterne, 2012 "When in doubt...make a diȼk joke." Robin Williams - RIP
Remiel Pollard
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#26 - 2015-02-24 19:46:42 UTC
Eugene Kerner wrote:
" I want to pod people but I would like them to love me".


This.

You seriously mean to tell us you've been playing since 2010 and didn't realise there were standings hits for podding players in NPC corporations? This has always been a consequence, even when the pod kill is 'legal' it's still considered 'below the belt' and NPC corporations don't like it when you pod their members. This isn't an advantage for NPC players, it's not like they get a standings boost, and it's certainly not a protection for them given that it in no way stopped you from podding them. It's just a penalty from that one corp they're in - it's that corp saying "hey, that **** ain't cool bro, and we like you less now because of it." There's nothing unusual about that at all. I can name any number of player corporations that will also give you bad standings if you pod their pilots. Hell, any number of them will set you instantly to -10 just for one pod kill. Compared to that, NPCs are pretty generous to be perfectly honest. At the very least, they're consistent, so you always know what to expect.

Don't like the consequences? Don't pod them. Really not that hard to figure out, mate, and it's been this way for a very long time, and you've been around long enough that you have no excuses really.

“Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'. Jam those ones first, and kill them last.” - Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104
Sean Parisi
Blackrise Vanguard
#27 - 2015-02-24 19:58:16 UTC
Its not something new to me - it is something I have known about for a while now. The question here is why it apply to only players under an NPC corporation as opposed to players within a player corporation.

If we look at podding players currently - if they are not legal you will lose security status. This is a rule that then applies to everyone. If they are legal then there are no penalties - unless of course they are in an NPC faction, ergo you gain a penalty at random. Said player could Pod me but would incur no penalty, except possibly to security status.

The penalty does not just apply to podding but also to regular engagements. Essentially it adds nothing to the game except a minor headache. Other then the fact that it is slightly irritating if I ever chose to do anything with those corporations, it literally has no game play merit on its own. If the standing system was fleshed out more to be more dynamic I would understand - but this seems like pointless legacy code.
Remiel Pollard
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#28 - 2015-02-24 20:12:43 UTC
Sean Parisi wrote:
Its not something new to me - it is something I have known about for a while now. The question here is why it apply to only players under an NPC corporation as opposed to players within a player corporation.

If we look at podding players currently - if they are not legal you will lose security status. This is a rule that then applies to everyone. If they are legal then there are no penalties - unless of course they are in an NPC faction, ergo you gain a penalty at random. Said player could Pod me but would incur no penalty, except possibly to security status.

The penalty does not just apply to podding but also to regular engagements. Essentially it adds nothing to the game except a minor headache. Other then the fact that it is slightly irritating if I ever chose to do anything with those corporations, it literally has no game play merit on its own. If the standing system was fleshed out more to be more dynamic I would understand - but this seems like pointless legacy code.


If you are in a player corporation, there are no penalties if the players in that corporation decide there are no penalties. I've already gone over this, try paying attention.

As for 'no gameplay merit', based on your argument you could apply that to everything to do with NPC corporations from the ground up. The standings hit you get isn't the real issue, it's the ease with which players can retreat to NPC corporations when the going gets too tough for them, or use them as holding corporations for alts.

“Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'. Jam those ones first, and kill them last.” - Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local
Break-A-Wish Foundation
#29 - 2015-02-24 21:18:36 UTC
I'm not really sure why people are trying to defend this totally nonsensical mechanic. It's not reasonable and serves no functional purpose.
Orlacc
#30 - 2015-02-24 22:35:56 UTC
Vimsy Vortis wrote:
I'm not really sure why people are trying to defend this totally nonsensical mechanic. It's not reasonable and serves no functional purpose.


I agree.

"Measure Twice, Cut Once."
Charlie Jacobson
#31 - 2015-02-24 23:19:07 UTC
Wendrika Hydreiga wrote:
The whole standings system is a sordid afair, with no signs of ever being fixed (or make logical sense). Specially when you throw diplomacy into the deal.

A real pity though.


Yeah, it's one of the many ancient systems in EVE that could really use a serious revamp. Maybe they'll get to it eventually.

I support James 315 and the New Order of Highsec
Glathull
Warlock Assassins
#32 - 2015-02-25 06:52:58 UTC
Vimsy Vortis wrote:
I'm not really sure why people are trying to defend this totally nonsensical mechanic. It's not reasonable and serves no functional purpose.



It gets people whining on the forums here. I think that counts as a reasonable purpose.

I honestly feel like I just read fifty shades of dumb. --CCP Falcon
Gliese Casserres
Confused Bunnies Inc
#33 - 2015-02-25 07:32:36 UTC
Shouldn't PVP be encouraged? This discourages PVP and thus is bad mechanic. Anyone defending this mechanic, and at the same time rambling about HS themepark, moar pvp, etc, is a hypocrite.
Steppa Musana
Doomheim
#34 - 2015-02-25 07:45:45 UTC  |  Edited by: Steppa Musana
Remiel Pollard wrote:
Sean Parisi wrote:
Its not something new to me - it is something I have known about for a while now. The question here is why it apply to only players under an NPC corporation as opposed to players within a player corporation.

If we look at podding players currently - if they are not legal you will lose security status. This is a rule that then applies to everyone. If they are legal then there are no penalties - unless of course they are in an NPC faction, ergo you gain a penalty at random. Said player could Pod me but would incur no penalty, except possibly to security status.

The penalty does not just apply to podding but also to regular engagements. Essentially it adds nothing to the game except a minor headache. Other then the fact that it is slightly irritating if I ever chose to do anything with those corporations, it literally has no game play merit on its own. If the standing system was fleshed out more to be more dynamic I would understand - but this seems like pointless legacy code.


If you are in a player corporation, there are no penalties if the players in that corporation decide there are no penalties. I've already gone over this, try paying attention.

As for 'no gameplay merit', based on your argument you could apply that to everything to do with NPC corporations from the ground up. The standings hit you get isn't the real issue, it's the ease with which players can retreat to NPC corporations when the going gets too tough for them, or use them as holding corporations for alts.

It's a stupid mechanic, stop defending it. These players in NPC corps havent done anything to deserve that kind of loyalty. They dont even pick the NPC corp, and many would pick a different corp given the chance. There is no reason for NPC corps to give a crap what happens to the squatters under their name. If they want to do standings loss for killing NPC players, those NPC players need to have done something for the NPC corp. So if you run enough missions for the corp, they are then loyal to you and if you defend plexes for the military ones, they are also loyal to you. If not, they shouldnt give a flying **** what happens.
Dungheap
DHCOx
#35 - 2015-02-25 07:57:20 UTC
Vimsy Vortis wrote:
I'm not really sure why people are trying to defend this totally nonsensical mechanic. It's not reasonable and serves no functional purpose.

it was a surprise to me , moving back to empire from null-sec , noticing i'd lost standing to some of the starter / school npc corps. flying nbsi you always shoot neutrals , and many corps use npc alts as scouts . even in sov space you get the standings hit .

so , it has nothing to do with the legality of the fight . you're losing standings to a corp , as a consequence of shooting members of that corp . player corps can do it manually , the npc corp do it automatically . it only affects you if you want to refine in one of their stations , or run missions . the refine hardly matters anymore , and you could grind up to a lvl 4 agent in a day . and the station guns will never shoot you just because of low standings ..

just another quirky eve mechanic that's been around forever .. doesn't hurt anything leave it alone :D
Jori McKie
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#36 - 2015-02-25 08:27:37 UTC
I just checked my standings, seems i killed a lot of FW guys.

[img]http://abload.de/thumb/standingstspb4.jpg[/img]

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." - Abrazzar
Tipa Riot
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#37 - 2015-02-25 08:49:49 UTC
Gliese Casserres wrote:
Shouldn't PVP be encouraged? This discourages PVP and thus is bad mechanic. Anyone defending this mechanic, and at the same time rambling about HS themepark, moar pvp, etc, is a hypocrite.

You totally overstate the matter. NPC corp standing losses are not a valid excuse for holding fire.

I'm my own NPC alt.
Ma'Baker McCandless
The McCandless Clan
#38 - 2015-02-25 09:36:06 UTC
Remiel Pollard wrote:
it's the ease with which players can retreat to NPC corporations when the going gets too tough for them, or use them as holding corporations for alts.


Then the going needs to get tougher on them and they need to learn that no matter where they go, or whose face they wear, there's Void S out there with their name on it a-comin' for 'em.
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
Senpai's Afterschool Anime and Gaming Club
#39 - 2015-02-25 09:59:30 UTC
All it is is CCP's attempt at fostering "gentle pvp" for the masses. It's archaic, and nonsensical. Podding isn't some "mean griefer sociopath" making some poor old rookie feel terrible; it's a tactical decision that eliminates an enemy from the battlefield. If you're defending this mechanic, then you're saying that it's perfectly alright for someone else to aggress me, and upon beating that person in a fight, I have to choose between taking a standing penalty, or having that player potentially getting into another ship right away. There's no counter, and no element of choice. There isn't even a proportional positive standing gain from the pod loser's enemy faction. If your argument is that I'm getting punished by an entity who doesn't like seeing its members get podded, shouldn't I also be getting rewarded by an entity that likes to see members of its enemy faction getting podded?

I wrote some true EVE stories! And no, they're not of the generic "my 0.0 alliance had lots of 0.0 fleets and took a lot of 0.0 space" sort. Check them out here:

https://truestories.eveonline.com/users/2074-destiny-corrupted
Ma'Baker McCandless
The McCandless Clan
#40 - 2015-02-25 10:04:24 UTC
Its funny that people are using attempts at logical arguments to suggest that actually murdering a virtual citizen should be virtually legal in the eyes of the virtual police.