EVE New Citizens Q&A

Here's the abbreviated version of the big derived standings chart:



________Amarr__Cald__Gall___Minnie
Amarr:___100%__70%__-20%__-50%
Calari:___50%___100%_-50%__-20%
Gallente:_-20%___-50%_100+___80%
Minmatar:-50%___-20%__80%__100%



Sisters of Eve (-6%, -1.5%, 48%, 15%) is essentially like working for Gallente with lower derived standings, scale gallente to 100% and you get (-13%, -3%, 100%, 31%) ish.


So if you work for everyone equally and don't do other things to drop your standings (e.g. taking anti-empire missions) you'll end up with:

Amarr (+150, -70), Caldari (+170, -70), Gallente (+180, -70), Minmatar (+180, -70)

If you skip Gallente and use twice the number of SOE missions as your "Gallente faction", you'll instead have:

Amarr (+150, -56), Caldari (+170, -21.5), Gallente (+180, -70), Minmatar (+131, -70)


I'm keeping the numbers separate because, of course, changes are weighted by how far from standing 0 you are. At standing 5.0, you'll need to multiply the gains by 1/2 and the losses by 1.5.

At 5.0 all, running all 4 factions: Amarr -30, Caldari -20, Gallente -15, Minmatar -15 ---> Not stable, no go
Running 3 factions + SOE: Amarr -9, Caldari +53, Gallente -15, Minmatar -40 ---> Still a no

So you can't maintain all four factions by this method normally.



So... how about with Connections 5? With Connections 5, "Standings 5" only requires standings 4.0 in reality, which means that gains will be 0.6 times normal and losses at only 1.4 times normal:

At 4.0 (prior to connections) running all 4: Amarr -8, Caldari +4, Gallente +10, Minmatar +10
Running 3 + SOE: Amarr +11.6, Caldari +72, Gallente +10, Minmatar -19.4

Conclusion: Even with connections 4, neither of these methods works to stabilize all four above the thresholds you want. Crap. Well, let's try abstracting it to a set of vectors, already weighted for 4.0 faction:

Amarr: [60, 42, -28, -70]
Caldari: [30, 60, -70, -28]
Gallente: [-28, -70, 60, 48]
Minmatar [-70, -28, 48, 60]
Sisters of Eve [-8.4, -2.1, 28.8, 9]

That's a big old linear algebra problem where matrix [derived] times vector [mission types] has to be true for a positive result. The problem _is_ solvable for an output of [0 0 0 0], meaning that there is in theory some combination of the four rep gains that is exactly stable, but you'll have to set up the solver in Matlab or something and come up with specific weightings yourself.

I will say that maintaining 4.0 with all for factions (aka 5.0 with connections) is in practical terms almost completely impossible, as all of the solutions I'm getting require management of gradations that are smaller than the variation in what story missions give. You'll have to be either very lucky or kind of waver back and forth across the line with various factions at various times. The actual point of stability where you can juggle all four fairly easily is more around the 3.0 point. This is probably intentional, e.g. CCP doesn't want all four epic arcs to be available to you at once.

... all this said, nothing is stopping you from having 5.0 or even significantly higher rep with specific corporations within all four empires. Individual corp faction overrides empire faction for the purposes of continuing to give you missions, etc (you could possibly use this to get around the 'all four epic arcs' thing, I forget how multi-corporation they get or if they care once the chain is started).

Anyhow, now your decision to continue this silliness or not is better informed. Have fun I guess.

EDIT: DMC essentially doesn't run the standard storyline missions specifically in order to maintain his faction, iirc. If you're wondering how he has those numbers despite all this.

It matches the chart on evewiki, so... correct it, if you think it's wrong?

Since every element of the chart I _used_ matches the wiki version perfectly, unless you're suggesting that Thukker is a good substitute faction to work for (which is unlikely since iirc they're still negative to the other three) you just kind of talking to yourself here, it has no actual relevance to the thread.

I'm not going to check every single other number on the chart to see if they match, because that'd take forever, but everything I used in the calculation is consistent between the two.