Assembly Hall

Hello.


Because of this, i will propose a new idea to have an option in the popup window (after you press the 'Declare War' button) where you have to search after corps or alliances to war dec and add an option to set -10 standing to everyone that we war dec. As we also want to have the standings back to what it was before the war started, CCP can also add another option that sets the standings back to the default ones when the wars is over.

By adding those 2 options there, it will make it available to those who want's to use that (like us who don't have the time to set each corp / alliances to -10 in standing each weeks), and it will still work like it should for others who doesn't want to change the standings.

This changes nothing for the corps or alliances that gets war dec'ed as they can still use the normal overview settings as normal. It will only change standings for those who uses those options. By doing this, we can just use check the 'Pilots have terrible standing' option in our war targets overview tab. Then we will only see the war targets there, witch is the thing we want to be able to do to sort out only the war targets in a seperate overview tab.

Those who have few war decs against someone can just set standings manually the normal way (like it is now) against those who war decs them (takes them some few minutes to change this for those who have few war decs going, so it's not an issue this way) without having to send out a war dec witch costs isks to be able to add a -10 standing in an easy way to be able to see only the war targets in the overview tab.

So this is more of an option to those who does houndreds of war decs every weeks that needs to set the war targets to -10 in standings in an easy way to be able to correctly see the war targets on the overview.

I'm sure the mercenaries who do war decs simply don't cares about the standings getting changed under a war against some corps or alliances as those who are getting war dec'ed are going to fight us anyways and will be blinky red no matter what.

What do you think about this idea. Will this works as a temporary solution or will this create other problems in the process?

First problem I see is that not everyone wants to set -10 to their war targets. A war target doesn't inherently mean your standing is terrible. You may have differing degrees of war targets, so you may want to set your serious war targets to -10, and your low threat war targets to -5. Groups like RvB for example may want to set their RvB war to -5.

The second issue I see is that it wouldn't just be changing the aggressors standings, you'd be allowing the aggressor to trigger standing changes on the defender. This may mess up other standings based mechanics they have set up when they didn't want them to, like the use of POCOs for example.

Most people have been happy with the current workaround of adding standings when a war is declared, leaving them complete control over their standings situation. I would suggest that the issue here isn't the workaround, but the number of wars a group is able to declare simultaneously for a trivial sum of isk. If the number of aggressive war declarations were limited or scaled in cost exponentially, it would prevent situations like this occurring in the first place, leaving no need for a further workarounds for the handful of corporations affected.

EDIT:
Fair warning to any CSM members planning on reading this: be warned that any time NightmareX was challenged in this thread, he reacted by screaming "you don't understand" and hurling personal attacks. Most of what you will read will be repetitions of itself, and all in all the idea isn't worth championing as it would cause more harm than good.

It's still a temporary fix that would negatively impact a lot of players just to make it easier for a handful of groups. Why should CCP push out a temporary fix for just a few people which would cause problems for others, when the existing workaround have been accepted by most for a long time? If you find that you have too many wardecs to use the existing mechanic, then reduce your number of wardecs.


EDIT:
Exactly. Most group don;t have 230+ wars (a rather ludicrous amount), so you want most people to accept a change which forces standings changes on them which they may not want and that may cause them problems, just to help a handful of groups who have declared too many wars. It seems to be unreasonably biased.

Some people use their standings, and would probably want to be able to set arrays of standings. some may hold POCOs and not want to automatically deny usage to anyone that became involved in a war dec with them, especially since being at war doesn't necessarily mean aggression. Wars can be transferred, so standings would transfer with them, even though they might not actually want to be at war with the group who it was transferred to.

"It won't matter" for you, but it may matter for other people. You have to look at a change from the perspective of others, and not just from the benefit it would provide you. I certainly wouldn't get behind an idea that removes choice from players just to help out a couple of groups.

Sorry, but I've already explained it. I don't know how I can explain more than some people do not want their standings set to -10 when someone decs them or when they dec someone else. Some people want the choice of setting their standings and holding their standings the way they set them, and it's not only the overview that would be affected.

Your idea would remove that choice purely to help a couple of groups manage their overview settings because they've declared too many wars and can't manage their standings anymore.

How can I explain it more? Some people don;t want to set the standing to -10. Some people want to filter their war targets. Take for example RvB. They might want to have their other alliance set to -5, so that if they get attacked by a real war target,they can all switch to see only that war target rather than seeing each other too.

Also, again, standings affect more than just the overview. People don't necessarily want to set -10 to all war targets automatically, especially if the war is the result of a transfer.

I understand that for you, it's a no-brainer, and would only be a positive change, but for other people it would have negative consequences and limit choice, so no, I do not support the change.

Even so, that would mean you can only wardec someone if you want to set -10, so again, how would groups like RvB with "fun wars" manage this?

Also, how would this work where wars are transferred, would it still not set to anyone but the initial aggressor?
Then further, this would then create an inconsistency, where a "war target" overview would suddenly not show all war targets if those war targets decced the defender instead. So people would now set up their overview, and they would show all their war targets fine, then suddenly someone that's not on their overview blows them out of the sky. This is would argue is even worse than it currently is.

And again, this is only a good change for a couple of groups who have too many wars. This isn't really a great benefit to the majority of the game. Why can't you just have less wars and manager your standings like everyone else?

Right, I do understand, so please don't be so rude. I understand that for your purposes a -10 standing with your war targets would only be a positive, and you wouldn't require any other standing settings, but that's just you. Other people would not want to have their standings set in every instance. I've already explained why RvB would not want it for 2 totally different reasons for example.

You have to look at it from other people's perspectives. Not everyone has a black and white approach to war targets like you do. The freedom to choose the standing is important to some people, and you want to strip away that choice because you don't need it.

I could do the same: Why don't we just take away wars instead, I don't use them so why would it matter if they didn't exist? See how that makes absolutely no sense because it's completely biased to my view and neglects the needs of others? Your suggestion has the same problem.

Indeed I can see that. I however don't just think the idea has low support, but am actively against the removal of standing choice and am making that clear. Other people can weigh in, but if I were you, I'd rethink the proposal altogether.

It doesn't matter to you. It matters to other people with war decs (example, RvB).

You would be able to see WTs in the overview like everyone else if you didn't have so many wars, or if you set standings yourself. So it seems like you could already resolve your issue though in-game means, by either spending the time sorting your standings (the bulk of which would only need to be done once) or by reducing your number of wars.