|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd
3427
   |
Posted - 2015.02.07 01:22:25 -
[1] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:A.) even if you just do distribution missions and kill no one as your caldari goes up your amarr will also go up and you gal and minm will go down
B.) This is a core part of the game you make a choice and live with the consequences
A thing regarding A) that I would like to point out is that unless you are killing a faction's ships, your standings towards any particular empire will not go below -5 and thus you will not reach "kill on sight" standings. |
Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd
3433
|
Posted - 2015.02.08 14:00:33 -
[2] - Quote
Aven Valkyr wrote:my diplomacy is trained to 4. Look this is a simple matter that should meet little to no resistance. The point is, having to decline missions simply because they are against a majour faction really sucks. That 4 hour cooldown timer makes me stop playing the game. Does that sound reasonable to you? This is an issue and it needs to be addressed. Not everyone plays in faction warefare. Not everyone plays in lowsec. Laugh and scoff all you want but I play the game mainly in empire and I'm sick of my standings going up and down they way they do.
Train your Diplomacy to Lv5. This is a no-brainer that should have been done even before you made a thread on the forums. The point is, you're coming around here asking for changes to the game that will strip away the need to make decisions and the consequences of those decisions and then you're surprised when you don't get a resounding vote of agreement. At its very core, EVE is a game about choices and consequences. You're asking to alter the very thing that brings many of us here in the first place, to change the nature of the game on a fundamental level just because of missions. Does that sound reasonable to you? Nobody's forcing you to stop playing. Nobody's forcing you to only do missions. Nobody's forcing anything on you or taking away other options you can choose to spend your time on except you. You are the one who is choosing to only play in highsec, to only do missions and to only do those missions for one agent. The entire scenario you're saying needs to be changed is built on brick after brick of choices that you have made.
Quote:Also, if I am not mistaken, Sisters of Eve is to fix your concord status, not your faction standings. I have done everything I can possibly do and now I'm stuck running hundreds of L1 missions to get the menial storyline missions that increase my standings by .04 each time. It's a brutal grind to fix standings. If you guys really LOVE the system the way it is then cudo's to you. At the very *very* minimum CCP should at least allow the selling of tags to L2 data center agents at a standing of below +1. Those agents should be available to anyone with a status of -5 or better. If I can't fix my standings any other way than grinding the hell outta L1 agents then there should at least be a way for me to buy my way up to better standings. Also realize these agents can only be used once in a lifetime.
SoE missions do not "fix" CONCORD standings. They - and all other missions - slowly increase security status by virtue of shooting pirate NPCs. It's the same "fix" you would get by ratting in low/null asteroid belts. You can already give tags to datacenter agents for a substantial standings boost and they're already once-in-a-lifetime. You made your choices. Live with them. Don't ask CCP to fix your mess because you were too lazy/ignorant/shortsighted to not make that mess in the first place.
Quote:But the ideal fix would be to fix the way empire missions are granted to begin with. My idea of moving factional missions over to agents that are specific to faction warefare should be looked at. If you are in to faction warefare then great. This system I'm trying to get across here would be better for everyone. Less frequent mission declines for the carebears, the guys in FW win, and the data center agents are used for their correct purpose. To increase the hell out of already positive standings.
Why should it be looked at? What makes you so sure your idea deserves to be looked at more than someone else's? Or at all? Anti-faction missions are fine where they are; some people don't care about their standings and this would serve only to decrease the pool of missions they can draw from - something nobody wants or needs. Others who do care about them can easily decline the mission and most dedicated mission-runners have multiple agents in case they pull two bad missions in a row from one agent. Obviously you don't and feel you shouldn't have to have more than one agent, but other missioners have more than one agent.
The system is perfectly fine the way it is. The only things that particularly need changing are how god-awful boring and farmable missions are and how predictably self-entitled carebears are.
Are we done here? |
Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd
3437
|
Posted - 2015.02.08 18:58:18 -
[3] - Quote
Daichi Yamato wrote:Faction Standing Repair Plan However, the ability to decline faction missions without an agent standing loss would be nice. You can get a few of these buggers in a row.
Multiple agents. It's uncommon for two agents to give you a bad mission followed by another bad mission and even if it happens, you can still go run some PI or something. |
|
|
| |
|