These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
Previous page12
 

@ CCP, Time to Distribute population more

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Tappits
Sniggerdly
Pandemic Legion
#21 - 2015-07-02 22:32:44 UTC
This has got to be the dumbest idea i have seen all day.

Remove all standings no one can have any.... will not change anything corps/alliance/coalitions were part of the game long before you could set people blue. and not been able to set people blue in game will not stop arranging out of game standings and agreements.
Nyalnara
Marauder Initiative
#22 - 2015-07-02 22:47:50 UTC
Aminari Talar wrote:
Limiting people to 5 blue alliances will massively inhibit the ability to produce large coalitions.

IF you engage in a large engagement, they will show neutral do you (if you dont have them set) which makes targeting and pvp extremely difficult, and will almost always respond to "blue on neut-blue fire".


All standings will be set on all corps, just moving standing issues to corp diplomats.

What you proposed this whole thread would just make the game a really big pain in the ass for everybody involved in Eve politics, AKA absolutely everyone except carebears. And that would most likely not make anybody happy, nor would it limit big groups effectiveness.

Basically your idea, and anything that reduces the number of available options to players is bad, unless said options are clearly wrong. Coalitions are not wrong. What is wrong is the way coalitions agreed to not hurt each others. And that will maybe change with FozzieSov, with the lowered entry barrier to sov contesting. Or maybe not. Wait and see.

French half-noob.

Non, je ne suis pas gentil.
Aminari Talar
Brave Empire Inc.
Brave United
#23 - 2015-07-02 23:00:42 UTC
Nyalnara wrote:
Aminari Talar wrote:
Limiting people to 5 blue alliances will massively inhibit the ability to produce large coalitions.

IF you engage in a large engagement, they will show neutral do you (if you dont have them set) which makes targeting and pvp extremely difficult, and will almost always respond to "blue on neut-blue fire".


All standings will be set on all corps, just moving standing issues to corp diplomats.

What you proposed this whole thread would just make the game a really big pain in the ass for everybody involved in Eve politics, AKA absolutely everyone except carebears. And that would most likely not make anybody happy, nor would it limit big groups effectiveness.

Basically your idea, and anything that reduces the number of available options to players is bad, unless said options are clearly wrong. Coalitions are not wrong. What is wrong is the way coalitions agreed to not hurt each others. And that will maybe change with FozzieSov, with the lowered entry barrier to sov contesting. Or maybe not. Wait and see.


as i stated, in the start of the post.

Standings will be set by group,

Player to player
corp to corp
alliance to alliance

and standings cannot be set from player to corp, corp to alliance, or other other combination then the above.
Danika Princip
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#24 - 2015-07-02 23:18:56 UTC
Aminari Talar wrote:


as i stated, in the start of the post.

Standings will be set by group,

Player to player
corp to corp
alliance to alliance

and standings cannot be set from player to corp, corp to alliance, or other other combination then the above.



You still haven't said a word about how any of this is in any way good for the game.

Hell, what's wrong with my wanting to set a corporation known for camping a certain gate red, for whenever I want to know how clear said gate is, or if I can pick an interesting fight?

Or, what is wrong with NRDS as a concept?

You want to impose a colossal change on the game, and you refuse to explain how it would be in any way good.
Nyalnara
Marauder Initiative
#25 - 2015-07-02 23:33:03 UTC
Aminari Talar wrote:
Nyalnara wrote:
All standings will be set on all corps, just moving standing issues to corp diplomats.


as i stated, in the start of the post.

Standings will be set by group,

Player to player
corp to corp
alliance to alliance

and standings cannot be set from player to corp, corp to alliance, or other other combination then the above.


Yes, that's what i said. Instead of alliance #1 having alliance #2 as blue, all corps from alliance #1 will have all corps from alliance #2 as blue. Problem moved to corp level, no change in situation except that corps will need more diplomats. Bad idea. Maybe think it through next time?

French half-noob.

Non, je ne suis pas gentil.
Daichi Yamato
Jabbersnarks and Wonderglass
#26 - 2015-07-02 23:47:38 UTC
Play in WHs. Or even better, the SiSi server.

EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided"

Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs
Aminari Talar
Brave Empire Inc.
Brave United
#27 - 2015-07-03 00:06:14 UTC
Nyalnara wrote:
Aminari Talar wrote:
Nyalnara wrote:
All standings will be set on all corps, just moving standing issues to corp diplomats.


as i stated, in the start of the post.

Standings will be set by group,

Player to player
corp to corp
alliance to alliance

and standings cannot be set from player to corp, corp to alliance, or other other combination then the above.


Yes, that's what i said. Instead of alliance #1 having alliance #2 as blue, all corps from alliance #1 will have all corps from alliance #2 as blue. Problem moved to corp level, no change in situation except that corps will need more diplomats. Bad idea. Maybe think it through next time?



or you can use your head and consider a condition like

"if corp is in alliance, cannot set corp standings".
Nyalnara
Marauder Initiative
#28 - 2015-07-03 00:11:12 UTC
Aminari Talar wrote:
or you can use your head and consider a condition like

"if corp is in alliance, cannot set corp standings".


Maybe you should have said that right at the start then? How are us supposed to guess what's happening in that head of yours?

French half-noob.

Non, je ne suis pas gentil.
Aminari Talar
Brave Empire Inc.
Brave United
#29 - 2015-07-03 00:23:11 UTC
Nyalnara wrote:
Aminari Talar wrote:
or you can use your head and consider a condition like

"if corp is in alliance, cannot set corp standings".


Maybe you should have said that right at the start then? How are us supposed to guess what's happening in that head of yours?



Maybe you guys should not poke at it and take it face value rather then being stooges and trying to poke holes it in, just to keep a fail coalition alive.
James Baboli
Warp to Pharmacy
#30 - 2015-07-03 00:51:28 UTC
Aminari Talar wrote:
Nyalnara wrote:
Aminari Talar wrote:
or you can use your head and consider a condition like

"if corp is in alliance, cannot set corp standings".


Maybe you should have said that right at the start then? How are us supposed to guess what's happening in that head of yours?



Maybe you guys should not poke at it and take it face value rather then being stooges and trying to poke holes it in, just to keep a fail coalition alive.

Not a goon. Don't particularly like goons or CFC. Fly with some of their carebear alts though, and some of the pilots are awesome people. Credentials as an affected third party established;

This is the STUPIDEST thing possible.

There are literally thousands of people on my standings list, and just shy of every alliance with sov space or significant inter-regional effect in highsec has some standing set by me. I need the standing system to manage my life as an FC in public communities which form fleets out of a chat channel and nothing else. I need to know, without corp bonds, who will dip out before a fight we might lose, or who sucks as a logi or any number of things. These standings, and the ability to set them, make my life immeasurably easier, and much of my game play would not be possible without standings that I can set at will, for myself.

Talking more,

Flying crazier,

And drinking more

Making battleships worth the warp
Nyalnara
Marauder Initiative
#31 - 2015-07-03 00:52:29 UTC  |  Edited by: Nyalnara
Aminari Talar wrote:
Maybe you guys should not poke at it and take it face value rather then being stooges and trying to poke holes it in, just to keep a fail coalition alive.


They seems to do really fine. While i don't like what they do, that is definitely not "failing". We are not "keeping it alive", but you're definitely trying to kill it.

Reporting this thread as trolling/ranting.

French half-noob.

Non, je ne suis pas gentil.
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#32 - 2015-07-03 01:08:43 UTC
Nyalnara wrote:
Aminari Talar wrote:
Maybe you guys should not poke at it and take it face value rather then being stooges and trying to poke holes it in, just to keep a fail coalition alive.


They seems to do really fine. While i don't like what they do, that is definitely not "failing". We are not "keeping it alive", but you're definitely trying to kill it.

Reporting this thread as trolling/ranting.


Well we are definately about to failcascade because of MoA...
ISD Dorrim Barstorlode
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
ISD Alliance
#33 - 2015-07-03 03:24:44 UTC
Quote:

Forum rules

5. Trolling is prohibited.

Trolling is a defined as a post that is deliberately designed for the purpose of angering and insulting other players in an attempt to incite retaliation or an emotional response. Posts of this nature are disruptive, often abusive, and do not contribute to the sense of community that CCP promote.


Closed.

ISD Dorrim Barstorlode

Senior Lead

Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)

Interstellar Services Department
Previous page12