These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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 and sovereignty. Just remove it?

Author
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#101 - 2013-02-11 18:54:23 UTC
Mayhaw Morgan wrote:
RubyPorto wrote:
1) You don't have to create another character to successfully AWOX anyone.
2) You act like AWOXing is the only way to kill people in 0.0
3. Yes, to kill someone under a false flag or using a spy, you need to have inserted a spy or generated a believable false flag. My god. It's almost like it could make sense.


1) You don't have to create another character to successfully AWOX anyone . . . once.
2) You act like killing people in 0.0 is the only thing to do in EVE Online.
3. You have to implant the reasonable suspicion that your action was taken by a member of another organization. There are a multitude of ways to do that in real life, whether by wearing the other organization's shirt and pants (and hat), by doing something that is incredibly beneficial to that other organization, or even just by doing an action that demonstrates knowledge only that other organization should know (like their ATM PIN number). There are fewer ways to do that in EVE.

RubyPorto wrote:
I do not know, nor should I need to know, every individual (and their Alts) names . . . Again, why should everyone have to perform an enormous amount of scut work in order to live in their space just so you can get the occasional gank?


You're begging the question. And, you shouldn't necessarily need to know everyone on a first name basis, but why shouldn't you need to have a general idea of who was where and what they were doing there? And, why shouldn't you have to carry some sort of identification? You want to a space empire, right? Well, that's a hell of a lot of bureaucracy. Should EVE do all that paperwork for you? Why?


RubyPorto wrote:
That's why we have uniforms.


We don't have uniforms. We have "standings", which are essentially an outside-of-game mechanic. There is no way for me to kill you and take your uniform, in game.

RubyPorto wrote:
How does setting someone blue maintain anything, let alone hegemony? PL (and many other groups) do(es) joint ops with Overview-Neutral parties all the time. Overview standings have no effect on Fleet ops, which are how groups maintain control over their territory, so there goes that argument.


Firstly, you are basically saying that the little blue symbol isn't how groups maintain hegemony, no it's the little purple one.
Secondly, that little blue symbol is a standing order not to fire on the target. Who does that order come from, and why does EVE do the very considerate act of passing that order along instantaneously and invariably? **** . . . maybe, we should study how this is done, because it would sure help in the fight against al-Qaeda.

P.S. Why would a group like Pandemic Legion argue to make the game easier for others? Doesn't making it harder give you an ever-increasing advantage over less capable and resourceful players?



Uh, just to interject.. but if you have your overview to show alliance, the little blue square doesn't matter since some people can be blue but show as a pirate still. Standings have 0 impact at that point, but that alliance ticker (which IS an ingame mechanic!) shows they are friendly.

This post has been signed by Murk Paradox and no other accounts, alternate or otherwise. Any other post claiming to be this holder's is subject to being banned at the discretion of the GM Team as it would violate the TOS in regards to impersonation. Signed, Murk Paradox. In triplicate.

Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#102 - 2013-02-11 19:07:47 UTC
Not to mention certain squads like Bombers Bar can function without standings. Even some of the members are part of opposing "sides".

This post has been signed by Murk Paradox and no other accounts, alternate or otherwise. Any other post claiming to be this holder's is subject to being banned at the discretion of the GM Team as it would violate the TOS in regards to impersonation. Signed, Murk Paradox. In triplicate.

Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#103 - 2013-02-11 21:10:15 UTC
Rico Minali wrote:
A well thought out and truly innovative idea.

No.

Hope for New Eden.

Change we can rely on.

Triggered by: Wars of Sovless Agression, Bending the Knee, Twisting the Knife, Eating Sov Wheaties, Bombless Bombers, Fizzlesov, Interceptor Fleets, Running Away, GhostTime Vuln, Renters, Bombs, Bubbles ?

RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#104 - 2013-02-12 03:26:55 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:
Uh, just to interject.. but if you have your overview to show alliance, the little blue square doesn't matter since some people can be blue but show as a pirate still. Standings have 0 impact at that point, but that alliance ticker (which IS an ingame mechanic!) shows they are friendly.


Ah... your overview settings are terrible. My alliance-mates Always show as blue (or green or purple). Similarly, I have good standings set higher on the list than Outlaw, so people with good standings never show up as outlaw.

You might want to give this guide a looksee
http://wiki.eveuniversity.org/Overview_Guide

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon

RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#105 - 2013-02-12 03:32:43 UTC
Mayhaw Morgan wrote:
RubyPorto wrote:
Mayhaw Morgan wrote:
ethics
I'm sorry, what?


We can always "win" any game by stepping outside the prescribed boundaries. If I kick a soccer ball out of bounds, run it up the field, and then put it back into play right at the opponent's goal, that is clearly against the rules. If I score a goal after time has been called and no one else is on the field, it obviously doesn't count. There are many more rules and . . . they are important for determining what the game is.


And there's where you're off track.

Using alts is equivalent to hitting the Soccer ball with your face: i.e. Perfectly legal play and fitting perfectly within the bounds of the game.

You are constructing your own set of rules that have no relation to the rules of the game you are actually playing and complaining when other people disregard them and insist on only playing by the actual rules of the game you are actually playing. i.e. They keep hitting the ball with their face when you've said you don't like that.

Give this a read:
http://www.sirlin.net/articles/playing-to-win-part-1.html

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon

Mayhaw Morgan
State War Academy
Caldari State
#106 - 2013-02-12 09:22:56 UTC
RubyPorto wrote:
And there's where you're off track . . .

Give this a read:
http://www.sirlin.net/articles/playing-to-win-part-1.html


That was an interesting piece. Maybe I should post a link to this in the next "NERF NPC CORPS" thread I see for the scrubs to learn about how "experts" play. I especially liked the section entitled "Boundaries of Playing to Win".

I guess we just disagree on where those boundaries are. I happen to look at alting as more akin to using one's hands or maybe having extra players on the field. And, by nerfing standings and other auto-identifying functions in the game, the strategies that revolve around the practice of alting would hopefully become less attractive, since there would be an alternative way to avoid unwanted interaction with other players than simply logging onto a different character.
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#107 - 2013-02-12 10:09:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Nicolo da'Vicenza
Mayhaw Morgan wrote:
Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:
Which you choose to place upon yourself. The game isn't the problem because you choose to fail at your goals.


I don't think you understand. I don't care if YOU paint a bullseye on my forehead. I care that EVE paints it on my forehead. See the difference? And, wouldn't you have to know what my goals were before declaring that I have failed at them?
I understand. You opted to play a game where teams are allowed, chose to play solo, got stomped and are now complaining that it's a 5 on 1 fight and that uniforms should go away. And? Do professional sports make allowances for the 'solo hockey player' and need to make special anti-team rules after they lose 0 to 100?
Mayhaw Morgan wrote:
Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:
1-man in T1 condors outscore not only him but SWA as a whole (1.14M members)


^ The killboard tells him SWA has 1.14 million members, so he believes that. Imagine if the game didn't tell him who to shoot. He'd probably have ganked his own CEO by now. If I could actually steal his corp's uniform, I bet I could get him to pod HIMSELF.
If there's one lesson we can take from this debate: Standings didn't stop solo pilots, in one-man corps and T1 ships, from outdoing Mayhaw Morgan and his 1.14M member NPC corp combined. That's the difference between those who can and those who can't, nothing to do with the client.
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#108 - 2013-02-12 10:18:54 UTC
Mayhaw Morgan wrote:
RubyPorto wrote:
And there's where you're off track . . .

Give this a read:
http://www.sirlin.net/articles/playing-to-win-part-1.html


That was an interesting piece. Maybe I should post a link to this in the next "NERF NPC CORPS" thread I see for the scrubs to learn about how "experts" play. I especially liked the section entitled "Boundaries of Playing to Win".

I guess we just disagree on where those boundaries are. I happen to look at alting as more akin to using one's hands or maybe having extra players on the field. And, by nerfing standings and other auto-identifying functions in the game, the strategies that revolve around the practice of alting would hopefully become less attractive, since there would be an alternative way to avoid unwanted interaction with other players than simply logging onto a different character.

Alliances existed before the alliance mechanic was introduced. Guaranteed wardec immunity did not. Ban NPC corps.
If you want to reduce alting, remove wardec immunity, not introduce new methods to "avoid unwanted interaction" in an MMO, jesus effin christ.
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#109 - 2013-02-12 19:56:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Murk Paradox
RubyPorto wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
Uh, just to interject.. but if you have your overview to show alliance, the little blue square doesn't matter since some people can be blue but show as a pirate still. Standings have 0 impact at that point, but that alliance ticker (which IS an ingame mechanic!) shows they are friendly.


Ah... your overview settings are terrible. My alliance-mates Always show as blue (or green or purple). Similarly, I have good standings set higher on the list than Outlaw, so people with good standings never show up as outlaw.

You might want to give this guide a looksee
http://wiki.eveuniversity.org/Overview_Guide



I'm saying the ability to change them, not what they currently are. Meaning "YOU DONT NEED COLORS TO TELL WHO IS FRIEND OR FOE". This is also for people who do not customize their overview or use multiple tabs (which I do). If this doesn't apply to you, kindly stay out of it. The point of me interjecting was based on HAVING to use specific things to recognize. Since you like to tell people to read, please do so. Not everyone needs only 1 alliance to function =)

As to MY settings, I use both, helps for things that do not require me to only fly with 1 alliance =P.

Thanks for the wiki, it's an old page but good for others to read.

This post has been signed by Murk Paradox and no other accounts, alternate or otherwise. Any other post claiming to be this holder's is subject to being banned at the discretion of the GM Team as it would violate the TOS in regards to impersonation. Signed, Murk Paradox. In triplicate.

RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#110 - 2013-02-13 00:03:32 UTC
Mayhaw Morgan wrote:
RubyPorto wrote:
And there's where you're off track . . .

Give this a read:
http://www.sirlin.net/articles/playing-to-win-part-1.html


That was an interesting piece. Maybe I should post a link to this in the next "NERF NPC CORPS" thread I see for the scrubs to learn about how "experts" play. I especially liked the section entitled "Boundaries of Playing to Win".

I guess we just disagree on where those boundaries are. I happen to look at alting as more akin to using one's hands or maybe having extra players on the field. And, by nerfing standings and other auto-identifying functions in the game, the strategies that revolve around the practice of alting would hopefully become less attractive, since there would be an alternative way to avoid unwanted interaction with other players than simply logging onto a different character.


Using one's hands is against the rules of soccer. Having extra players is against the rules of soccer.

Where in the rules of EVE (EULA, TOS, and Game Mechanics) is using alts prohibited?

Calling for a change in the rules (suggesting an NPC nerf) is very different from trying to dismiss an argument based on rules-that-you-made-up (saying "I shouldn't have to use alts"). You're free to suggest a rule change to ban the use of alts, but you cannot assume that rule is in force in a discussion until it is actually in force.

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon

RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#111 - 2013-02-13 00:04:26 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:
RubyPorto wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
Uh, just to interject.. but if you have your overview to show alliance, the little blue square doesn't matter since some people can be blue but show as a pirate still. Standings have 0 impact at that point, but that alliance ticker (which IS an ingame mechanic!) shows they are friendly.


Ah... your overview settings are terrible. My alliance-mates Always show as blue (or green or purple). Similarly, I have good standings set higher on the list than Outlaw, so people with good standings never show up as outlaw.

You might want to give this guide a looksee
http://wiki.eveuniversity.org/Overview_Guide



I'm saying the ability to change them, not what they currently are. Meaning "YOU DONT NEED COLORS TO TELL WHO IS FRIEND OR FOE". This is also for people who do not customize their overview or use multiple tabs (which I do). If this doesn't apply to you, kindly stay out of it. The point of me interjecting was based on HAVING to use specific things to recognize. Since you like to tell people to read, please do so. Not everyone needs only 1 alliance to function =)

As to MY settings, I use both, helps for things that do not require me to only fly with 1 alliance =P.

Thanks for the wiki, it's an old page but good for others to read.


Sorry, I misread your post and missed where you switch from talking colors to talking tickers.

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon

Sae Eto
Free Ships Jita
#112 - 2013-02-13 00:32:57 UTC
Cpt Roghie wrote:
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.


A member of Goonswarm whining about someone killing their freighters. Classic.
RichtPaul
Shadow Industries I
#113 - 2013-02-13 02:11:30 UTC
I think the way that sovereignty gets declared needs a good hard look by CCP.