EVE Search - New Diplomatic System (Will remove Blobbing)

All Channels

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

New Diplomatic System (Will remove Blobbing)

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Amunari Talar Banananah PhaseShift 0	Posted - 2015.07.31 13:36:45 - [1] - Quote Hello. Iv been watching the blobbing aspects and while i feel fozzie sov has helpped a little it needs some revisions, however i dont think that fozzie has dont a lot for removing the problem at hand. I would like to purpose a new diplomatic system. Mechanical Operaiton The Current Options for (-10,-5,0.+5,+5) Will be changed to "Neutral" "Hostile" "Friendly". Progression/digression Neutral Bodies will neither degrade or process in relations. Hostile bodies have a harder time returning to positive standings. Positive Standings have a harder time returning to Neutral. Setting an alliance to Positive will build standings over time. Setting an alliance to negative will reduce standings over time. Additional conditions will propagate standings in a direction. For every x Positive-Players in your space, you will improve relationships by 0.1 point per a day. For every x Negative-Players in your space, you will improve relationships by 0.2 point per a day. For every Non-Alignment Based Players in your space, you will reduce standings by 1 Per a day (not equal type) Docking at a station will grant 0.01 Point per a dock per a person per a day. Standings will be two way, You toward them, and them toward you. The Average value between the two will grant the over all relationship. Basically it works like this. Lets take Alliance A (which we will call A) and Alliance B (Which we will call b). If Alliance A has B set to neutral, no standing change will happen under any condition. If Alliance A has B set to Hostile, then the following conditions apply B killing the ships of A will reduce rating by 0.05 Per a kill B killing the stations, anchored, etc of A will reduce rating by 0.5 per an aggression B Contesting sov with A will reduce standings by 1. If A Has B set to hostile, then the following conditions apply B Docks at A's Stations, the relationship will improve 0.001 Point per a toon, per a day B Kills A ship that is neutral to A in the territory of A's Space, 0.05 Point per a day, per a toon B Kills A ship hostile to A, in the territory of A's Space, 0.05 Point per a day, per a toon Additional Mechanic. For every Positive standing after 3, the growth rate (Time required to hit +10) is increased by 200% (up to a year before +10). Standings Color changes Color changes will now sort for additional effects -10 Sworn Enemy -7.5 Hated Enemy -5 Rival -2.5 Disliked 0 Neutral +2.5 Friendly +5 Allies +7.5 Brotherly +10 Life-Pact Time to change standings For the 1st Positive ally it should take 1 months from 0 to +10 For the 2nd Positive allies it should take 2 months from 0 to +10 For the 3rd Positive allies it should take 3 months from 0 to +10 For the 4th Positive allies it should take 6 months from 0 to +10 For the 5th Positive allies it should take 12 months from 0 to +10 For the 6th (or more) Positive allies it should take 12 months from 0 to +10 +2.5 Standings are granted every 25% Of the time duration. So 1st would gain "blue status" after 8 days So 2nd would gain "blue status" after 16 days So 3rd would gain "blue status" after 23 days And so on. A full standing reset would be granted instantly on the patch. After the patch, all standings in 0.0 would get a full reset. Lastly, The pictures of characters, corporations etc, would be changed (in operation) no local manipulation could take place (like the old school +/- Picture swap outs we use to have)
Lu Ziffer Jelly Baby Corporation Fidelas Constans 33	Posted - 2015.07.31 14:14:57 - [2] - Quote wtf did I just read? This has so little todo with SOV I am impressed We could abuse your system in ways you can not imagine
ShahFluffers Ice Fire Warriors Snuffed Out 8436	Posted - 2015.07.31 14:39:23 - [3] - Quote Oooookaaaaay. But why do these standings actually DO? I think you are under the assumption that players care about standings at all in null-sec. Or rather, that they care about any standings beyond what their director/CEO/diplomat sets. How did you Veterans start? The Skillpoint System and You
Tappits North Eastern Swat Pandemic Legion 118	Posted - 2015.07.31 14:41:42 - [4] - Quote I don't know what these changes do at all? What is this fixing?
Zimmer Jones Aliastra Gallente Federation 265	Posted - 2015.07.31 14:44:27 - [5] - Quote I really can't even express how bad the intelligible portions of these ideas are, except for these quotes attributed to Wolfgang Pauli: "It is not only not right, it is not even wrong" "What you said was so confused that one could not tell whether it was nonsense or not" You are content to be content. This is not a jedi mind trick, you're just the game
Nyalnara AdAstra. Beach Club 89	Posted - 2015.07.31 15:00:56 - [6] - Quote There is nothing wrong with the way standings are right now. The wrong thing is not that you can set as much blues as you want. The wrong thing is that there is no reasons not to get as much mutual bluing as possible, because NullSec is about farming ISKs, not fighting. Make sure that some places are way more valuable than other, and you'll have fighting there. At the moment, the only valuable resources are big moons, and contesting moons require a supercap fleet, because the current owner has a supercap fleet on standby. And risking a super fleet is not worth a moon for current blocks. Wait for the structure reworking, wait for how the new alternative to POS will work, and fights will happen. In case of ponies, keep calm and start running. French half-noob. Founder of [DEUPP]Dark Evil Undead Ponies Productions.
FireFrenzy SUPREME MATHEMATICS A Band Apart. 546	Posted - 2015.08.01 07:20:56 - [7] - Quote it doesnt matter what you call things a red is still a red even if its called a "sworn enemy" which is really an odd thing to have in a video game (unless you're in one of the russian coaltions or in that "my legion is best legion" spat)
Amunari Talar Banananah PhaseShift 1	Posted - 2015.08.01 10:56:17 - [8] - Quote A few things First, The concept of the idea is designed in a way so that - It grows over time (Positive or negative relationships - Neutrality becomes highly desirable (because you dont go red or blue) - Fleet logistics with neutrality becomes more difficult to manage (because of the lack of blue/red) Because the relationship grows or drops over time, you cannot abuse it. The values can always be changed to prevent such things. The daily caps prevent abuse. What comes from this is that - Alliances need to pick and choose their enemies and friends - Swaping from positive or negative standings (to the opposite) Becomes difficult and a long period of progress/degress - Helps break up the coalitions into smaller groups - because of the removal of larger coalitions under this system, it will help reboot the birth and death cycle that was once in eve (in its early years).
Konrad Kane 136	Posted - 2015.08.01 11:25:04 - [9] - Quote Diplomancy is an out of client aspect of the game, this makes no sense.
Amunari Talar Banananah PhaseShift 1	Posted - 2015.08.01 12:56:11 - [10] - Quote Standings are in an in-game mechanic that allow coalitions to have easy when playing sov-war games. removing that ease creates an immense amount of stress upon fleet commanders. Iv for example had to micro-manage 2 enemy fleets and 3 friendly fleets (of 200-300 each). These sorts of aspects of management would become extremely difficult if standings were not so easy to set making all 5 of those fleets a big neutral fest and really slowing down the calling speed of fc's. Eventually people would get sick of it and stop blobbing (a month or so after the release).
Donnachadh United Allegiance of Undesirables 406	Posted - 2015.08.01 13:50:18 - [11] - Quote And we are on a rill here. This is the 3rd really bad idea I have read of your in the last few minutes. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=437529&find=unread https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=437512&find=unread
TheExtruder Red Federation RvB - RED Federation 57	Posted - 2015.08.01 14:23:09 - [12] - Quote -1 please no more sov or nullsec buffs this year, highsec carebears need love too
Nyalnara AdAstra. Beach Club 90	Posted - 2015.08.01 15:41:04 - [13] - Quote Amunari Talar wrote: A few things First, The concept of the idea is designed in a way so that - It grows over time (Positive or negative relationships - Neutrality becomes highly desirable (because you dont go red or blue) - Fleet logistics with neutrality becomes more difficult to manage (because of the lack of blue/red) Because the relationship grows or drops over time, you cannot abuse it. The values can always be changed to prevent such things. The daily caps prevent abuse. What comes from this is that - Alliances need to pick and choose their enemies and friends - Swaping from positive or negative standings (to the opposite) Becomes difficult and a long period of progress/degress - Helps break up the coalitions into smaller groups - because of the removal of larger coalitions under this system, it will help reboot the birth and death cycle that was once in eve (in its early years). "Yeay, i cannot set my own standings, because a stupid game mechanic will do it for me." What will happen? I'm just going to use an OOG tool for standings, which will let me do what i want, and not give a damn f*** about what the game is going to display. Stupidity solved. Now, go back playing Wow, if you want mechanic-managed standings. In case of ponies, keep calm and start running. French half-noob. Founder of [DEUPP]Dark Evil Undead Ponies Productions.
Tappits North Eastern Swat Pandemic Legion 149	Posted - 2015.08.03 10:26:41 - [14] - Quote Amunari Talar wrote: Standings are in an in-game mechanic that allow coalitions to have easy when playing sov-war games. removing that ease creates an immense amount of stress upon fleet commanders. Iv for example had to micro-manage 2 enemy fleets and 3 friendly fleets (of 200-300 each). These sorts of aspects of management would become extremely difficult if standings were not so easy to set making all 5 of those fleets a big neutral fest and really slowing down the calling speed of fc's. Eventually people would get sick of it and stop blobbing (a month or so after the release). You must be new.... There was alliances and coalitions in EVE before you could set standings and even now fights go on and standings set out of game without making some one blue in game. This does nothing and changes nothing and is a pointless wast of dev time.
Arla Sarain 575	Posted - 2015.08.03 10:44:15 - [15] - Quote It's just a label. It does nothing to incentivise alliances and blobs to dismantle and start fighting each other. Unless you assume that someone is going to forget the red'd someone a while back and they become -10 and just get shot by some random uninformed corp newbie.
Lan Wang V I R I I Ineluctable. 1322	Posted - 2015.08.03 11:01:35 - [16] - Quote why do we need to fix blobbing? massive battles is what makes eve EVEALON Creative - Logo Design & Branding \| Digital Design
Samillian Angry Mustellid The Periphery 906	Posted - 2015.08.03 12:26:10 - [17] - Quote OP personally I think one of the main problems with your proposal is the belief that the in-game standings set between player entities are of any real importance. The standings systems real utility is as a labelling and identification convenience rather than a true reflection of the politics between those entities. NBSI shall be the whole of the Law
Amunari Talar Banananah PhaseShift 1	Posted - 2015.08.03 12:29:35 - [18] - Quote You guys obviously do not read. no one is aruging that politics are or may be set out of game. What is being argued is that by removing the ability to instantly set standings at red, blue or other wise will encourage longer relationships of both positive nature. Additionally, it is not those standings that provide just "ease" in local, But specifically in battle. Imagine if your in a massive fleet, and all you see is names, no tickers, no colors (saver blue/purple's with in limits). what would happen to the combat then? It would mean crap if you were "allied out side of game" because in side of game you'd be killing people. This would make logistics of fleet command insanely difficult, and eventually people would just go about setting 2-3 allies and screwing off the rest. Effectively destroying Massive blobs (even more so if other suggestions i made was put in place, like 2k limits on alliances).
Danika Princip GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 3685	Posted - 2015.08.03 14:55:12 - [19] - Quote You don't balance a game by making it a ballache to play. That is not how it works. You break up blobs by giving them a reason to break up, not by making the game really annoying to play.
Samillian Angry Mustellid The Periphery 907	Posted - 2015.08.03 15:10:24 - [20] - Quote Oh we read we just don't agree with you. Adding hoops to jump through and creating unnecessary in-game complexity for a process 99% of which occurs out of game via back channels is pointless. If people want to work with people they will find a way, always have and always will. As Danika said above the carrot works far better than the stick. NBSI shall be the whole of the Law
Kitty Bear Disturbed Friends Of Diazepam Disturbed Acquaintance 1506	Posted - 2015.08.03 15:52:50 - [21] - Quote No. blobbing is a by-product of risk avoidance and risk avoidance is a basic human trait .. it's also known as the survival instinct the only way you'll remove blobbing from eve is by making it a single player game
Agondray Avenger Mercenaries VOID Intergalactic Forces 309	Posted - 2015.08.03 17:44:59 - [22] - Quote Never underestimate the Human Potential ~Sora even if you make diminishing returns via the standings, nothing keeps you from having an unofficial list of allies out of game, you just have to make your people aware of who is blue. even alliance that have blues still have friendly fire problems because people don't know how to "set" overviews, theres nothing you can do to stop blobbing except for simply not undocking. Ganking groups blob in empire and those are just usually the same corp/alliance, so standings have little play in who to shoot and not to shoot in that aspect. "Sarcasm is the Recourse of a weak mind." -Dr. Smith
Lloyd Roses Artificial Memories 1231	Posted - 2015.08.03 18:00:36 - [23] - Quote Wish there was a shoot blues everyday song dubbed over smoke weed everyday.
Alavaria Fera GoonWaffe 6737	Posted - 2015.08.03 20:32:32 - [24] - Quote People just never get fed up of fixing the 'blue list' problem by just messing with/removing standings. Talk about treating the symptoms with a sledgehammer ^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears. Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
Amunari Talar Banananah PhaseShift 1	Posted - 2015.08.03 21:32:28 - [25] - Quote Yea, It needs a Sledgehammer, Batnerf, and them some because people like you abuse the **** out of it. No one is advocating "removing blobbing" the advocation is to "Reduce it/Control it". Notice how i mentioned 3 allies before things got heavy? Because it is reasonable to blobb a little, but not thousands of players worth. The game just cannot support that anymore, and to be honest it's just not as fun as smaller gangs.
Nyalnara AdAstra. Beach Club 97	Posted - 2015.08.03 23:14:18 - [26] - Quote Amunari Talar wrote: Yea, It needs a Sledgehammer, Batnerf, and them some because people like you abuse the ** out of it. No one is advocating "removing blobbing" the advocation is to "Reduce it/Control it". Notice how i mentioned 3 allies before things got heavy? Because it is reasonable to blobb a little, but not thousands of players worth. The game just cannot support that anymore, and to be honest it's just not as fun as smaller gangs. The only people which will be impacted by your idea are FCs, which will need a few more seconds to check corp/alliance before broadcasting target. Blobbing will not be solved by removing standings. If you want a stupid sledgehammer nerf to blobbing, reduce fleet-size to 25 persons, and limit grid to 2 fleets on grid. Active grid is randomly picked, if you're lucky, you may eventually fight. Or maybe not. Anyway, it's going to be crap, because what most nullsec residents wants is big battles. (I'm actually more of a small-gang guy, and i don't give a f* about whatever you come up with.) In case of ponies, keep calm and start running. French half-noob. Founder of [DEUPP]Dark Evil Undead Ponies Productions.
Amunari Talar Banananah PhaseShift 1	Posted - 2015.08.03 23:20:20 - [27] - Quote The only people which will be impacted by your idea are FCs, which will need a few more seconds to check corp/alliance before broadcasting target. Blobbing will not be solved by removing standings. ^ Exactly What i said, however you did not read through the part when i said "Remove alliance/corp tickers from overview". Now what happens to blobbing?
Danika Princip GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 3685	Posted - 2015.08.03 23:46:38 - [28] - Quote Amunari Talar wrote: The only people which will be impacted by your idea are FCs, which will need a few more seconds to check corp/alliance before broadcasting target. Blobbing will not be solved by removing standings. ^ Exactly What i said, however you did not read through the part when i said "Remove alliance/corp tickers from overview". Now what happens to blobbing? You do not balance a game by making it a ballache to play. Why is that hard to understand?
Nyalnara AdAstra. Beach Club 97	Posted - 2015.08.04 00:26:34 - [29] - Quote Amunari Talar wrote: Nyalnara wrote: The only people which will be impacted by your idea are FCs, which will need a few more seconds to check corp/alliance before broadcasting target. Blobbing will not be solved by removing standings. ^ Exactly What i said, however you did not read through the part when i said "Remove alliance/corp tickers from overview". Now what happens to blobbing? Click on the ship on the overview, right-click pilot portrait in the "align/orbit/keepatrange" window, read corp/alliance name. Take 3 seconds, not sure if there is a keyboard bind for "show info", if there is it will be shorter. Depending on fleets size, assuming your overview do not show you alliance mates, nor you fleet mates, 3/4 of everything shown is not an ally. Which means you'll need at max 2 try to find an enemy, based on overview only, and absolutely no other hints. Usually, enemy fleets keep at range of each other, making it easy to also distinguish friends from foes by distance. Whatever happens, however you choose a guy to shoot at, il will take at max 10 seconds (if your FC is particularly slow), and it will not remove blobbing, as FCs are (probably) the less stupid guys of the fleet, because they are trained for situation awareness in fleet battles. All other guys are drones and do not require any thinking. You proposition will NOT remove blobbing. It will make it more tedious for the FCs, and not even that much. In case of ponies, keep calm and start running. French half-noob. Founder of [DEUPP]Dark Evil Undead Ponies Productions.
Alavaria Fera GoonWaffe 6737	Posted - 2015.08.04 03:55:15 - [30] - Quote Amunari Talar wrote: Yea, It needs a Sledgehammer, Batnerf, and them some because people like you abuse the ** out of it. Because people like you are bitter the ** out of it ^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears. Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.

Pages: [1] 2 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.