| Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one page] |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Pezzle
Imperial Dreams
Curatores Veritatis Alliance
   |
Posted - 2008.06.05 16:36:00 -
[1]
Edited by: Pezzle on 05/06/2008 16:40:30
Now I know what a good number of you may be thinking. Stop napfesting!
In my case the lobby is in the other direction. We need more reds! Yes, this is a proposal that is of direct and immediate benefit to those of us who practice NRDS (Not Red Don't Shoot)
The game has grown substantially, the standing slots (which I believe stand at 300) are simply not adequate for the current population or the growth rate of the game. Hostiles who hide in npc corps all need separate standings. Corps and Alliances that drift in an out may require standings. The numbers add up. You may want to set someone + as well, heaven forbid.
I freely admit this proposal is a bit selfish, the CVA is NRDS. Imperial Dreams administrates many outposts. For those unaware, you use corp standings for docking rights pricing and other factors. More slots would enable more considerations, more use of standings other than -10, 0 or +10. There is no loser by supporting this change.
What does this cost NBSI groups or others who simply do not care? Nothing! At worst you ignore the extra slots. At best perhaps you embark on your own standings experiments. This proposal does empower those groups who like to play at the politics, or manage territory or enrich the game with years long grudges to exercise more control. There are thousands of pilots in EVE who stand to benefit from increased standing slots. I ask for your support at bringing this to CCP's attention. Double, triple (or more!) the standings for a corperation.
|
Pezzle
Imperial Dreams
Curatores Veritatis Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.06.05 16:36:00 -
[2]
Edited by: Pezzle on 05/06/2008 16:40:30
Now I know what a good number of you may be thinking. Stop napfesting!
In my case the lobby is in the other direction. We need more reds! Yes, this is a proposal that is of direct and immediate benefit to those of us who practice NRDS (Not Red Don't Shoot)
The game has grown substantially, the standing slots (which I believe stand at 300) are simply not adequate for the current population or the growth rate of the game. Hostiles who hide in npc corps all need separate standings. Corps and Alliances that drift in an out may require standings. The numbers add up. You may want to set someone + as well, heaven forbid.
I freely admit this proposal is a bit selfish, the CVA is NRDS. Imperial Dreams administrates many outposts. For those unaware, you use corp standings for docking rights pricing and other factors. More slots would enable more considerations, more use of standings other than -10, 0 or +10. There is no loser by supporting this change.
What does this cost NBSI groups or others who simply do not care? Nothing! At worst you ignore the extra slots. At best perhaps you embark on your own standings experiments. This proposal does empower those groups who like to play at the politics, or manage territory or enrich the game with years long grudges to exercise more control. There are thousands of pilots in EVE who stand to benefit from increased standing slots. I ask for your support at bringing this to CCP's attention. Double, triple (or more!) the standings for a corperation.
|
Rodj Blake
PIE Inc.
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
|
Posted - 2008.06.05 17:07:00 -
[3]
More slots are definitely needed.
In the past it's been possible to use alliance standings once you run out of corporation ones, but with the advent of faction warfare that's not going to be possible for a lot of us.
Dulce et decorum est pro imperium mori.
|
Mordecai Murska
|
Posted - 2008.06.05 17:07:00 -
[4]
yes i support more standing slots
|
Elsebeth Rhiannon
Gradient
Electus Matari
|
Posted - 2008.06.05 17:23:00 -
[5]
Yes gimme moar.
--
Help us defend the Republic; join Gradient today.
|
Inanna Zuni
The Causality
Electus Matari
|
Posted - 2008.06.05 18:27:00 -
[6]
 Originally by: Pezzle
There is no loser by supporting this change.
I'm guessing that there might be a 'need for speed' angle to this, in that each time someone enters local their corp/alliance needs to be checked against the standings table of your corp/alliance (and multiplied by the number of people in system) unless it is cached in some way to the 35,000 or so pilots in pod at any time. Either way, there might be an issue with implementing it.
Saying that though, I can see nothing 'special' about 300 (it isn't a power of 2, for example, and doesn't have any good hash qualities) so a higher number is almost certainly technically feasible (511 at least?) and I would support this proposal. The 'game' has moved on from when the initial number of slots was set ...
IZ
My principles
|
Pezzle
Imperial Dreams
Curatores Veritatis Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.06.05 19:07:00 -
[7]
You know, I had totally forgotten about the faction warfare aspects! If faction warfare is a success there will most certainly be a need for more slots.
I know this does not seem like a hotbutton issue but it does have the fortune of being fairly simple and quick to discuss, hence it would not take much council time (I would think. Anyway, please support!
|
Amira Silvermist
The Aegis Militia
Aegis Militia
|
Posted - 2008.06.05 19:49:00 -
[8]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
|
Takal Cylotar
Amarr Border Defense Consortium
Curatores Veritatis Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.06.06 10:55:00 -
[9]
signed |
Spoon Thumb
Paladin Imperium
Curatores Veritatis Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.06.06 17:02:00 -
[10]
Edited by: Spoon Thumb on 06/06/2008 17:02:11
/signed. Whoever said NRDS means you haven't got enough targets? :P
|
Randall Alba
Paxton Industries
Paxton Federation
|
Posted - 2008.06.06 17:57:00 -
[11]
More standings slots would be a definate benefit
|
Yuri Drocher
Imperial Dreams
Curatores Veritatis Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.06.06 18:43:00 -
[12]
This is indeed an issue as its really hard to keep track of friendlys and hostiles if you use standings to define those instead of NBSI, also if someone could find some way to get alliance standing to effect corp standing for things such as POS or outposts it would be really nice.
|
Rovern Hashu
Imperial Dreams
Curatores Veritatis Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.06.06 18:56:00 -
[13]
|
Allaria Kriss
Elipse Inc.
|
Posted - 2008.06.06 20:44:00 -
[14]
Needz moar slotz.
|
Vantras
Amarr Border Defense Consortium
Curatores Veritatis Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.06.06 20:45:00 -
[15]
|
Amandi Casimi
Celestial Janissaries
Curatores Veritatis Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.06.07 06:59:00 -
[16]
Yes.... standings slots are HORRID right now for corporations that run stations... More standing slots please... over 1000 would be wonderful, unlimited would be better.
Let neutrals be neutrals.
|
Amarr Holymight
Bat Country
Aegis Militia
|
Posted - 2008.06.07 08:44:00 -
[17]
signed
|
Nessaji
Rosa Alba
Curatores Veritatis Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.06.07 09:50:00 -
[18]
______________________________________
"Originally by: Tuxford
It was a dirty hack to be honest but we couldn't find anyway around it. I hope we never have to do it again."
|
El Torrent
Paxton Industries
Paxton Federation
|
Posted - 2008.06.07 14:36:00 -
[19]
Defenatly needed for the few entities trying to apply NRDS
--
|
Puffjelo
Paxton Industries
Paxton Federation
|
Posted - 2008.06.07 15:08:00 -
[20]
Signed. 
|
Balinn
Imperial Dreams
Curatores Veritatis Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.06.07 15:17:00 -
[21]
Signed!
|
RedLion
Polaris Project
Curatores Veritatis Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.06.07 15:36:00 -
[22]
Aye!
Also
Let alliance set standing to individual players,
Let alliances be able to share standings with other alliances.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The Gallenteans must be destroyed
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - |
Aes ZXV
|
Posted - 2008.06.07 15:38:00 -
[23]
signed
|
Trade This
|
Posted - 2008.06.07 15:38:00 -
[24]
I would prefer a standing list you can share with other alliances or corps.
For example the alliance put someone on their standing list, all corps just say: we will use this standing list.
Other corps could use this standing list or you can make a standing list for your space or region and all people that life there can use this list.
That would be save much time, for example a new corp have to set 400 or 500 standings.. that would take hours.
At least the import and export of a standing list(for example a csv file) should be possible.
|
Chris Vattic
Paxton Industries
Paxton Federation
|
Posted - 2008.06.07 15:51:00 -
[25]
Signed
--
|
Theodore Calvin
Paxton Industries
Paxton Federation
|
Posted - 2008.06.07 16:02:00 -
[26]
Signed
Victim: Theodore Calvin
Name: Ravn Silverclaw (laid the final blow) (99 things to do before you die: *Get fragged by a friendly corp member* - Check)
www.thearrow.co.uk |
Pezzle
Imperial Dreams
Curatores Veritatis Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.06.07 16:04:00 -
[27]
Originally by: Trade This
I would prefer a standing list you can share with other alliances or corps.
For example the alliance put someone on their standing list, all corps just say: we will use this standing list.
Other corps could use this standing list or you can make a standing list for your space or region and all people that life there can use this list.
That would be save much time, for example a new corp have to set 400 or 500 standings.. that would take hours.
At least the import and export of a standing list(for example a csv file) should be possible.
I agree that increased standing functions are important. There is still a problem with the 300 cap on corporation standings however. Sharing lists is a great idea, but not one that is practical for all those who would benefit from more corporation standing slots.
|
Dani Leone
A Dark Cloud
Unaffiliated
|
Posted - 2008.06.07 16:52:00 -
[28]
This is a partisan proposal that will only benefit a small number of individuals whilst affecting every organization in game. 
This is evidenced by the people who are supporting it are all from CVA or their allies. 
Even if it could be implemented it is an unimportant topic that is unneeded at this stage of the game and there are more important issues to be solved first, like sorting out lag. 
But seriously, why not.
Having more options here can only help rather than hurt, and 300 is a small number given the thousands of political entities in game (seem to recall it was enough for Leonidas though :P ).
Fully supported.
-----------------------------
|
Musaafir
|
Posted - 2008.06.07 16:56:00 -
[29]
/signed
|
Chadstick
GeoCorp.
Paxton Federation
|
Posted - 2008.06.07 17:10:00 -
[30]
/Sign |
Neddy Fox
Paxton Industries
|
Posted - 2008.06.07 18:28:00 -
[31]
I fully support this message!
|
Phantom Slave
Mozzaki United
|
Posted - 2008.06.07 18:43:00 -
[32]
____________________
Trinity is beautiful! I love you CCP!!! |
Baron Erique
Paxton Industries
Paxton Federation
|
Posted - 2008.06.07 18:48:00 -
[33]
/signed |
Riu Stuka
GeoCorp.
Paxton Federation
|
Posted - 2008.06.07 18:49:00 -
[34]
/signed
-----------------------------------------------
|
Hugh Hefner
Paxton Industries
Paxton Federation
|
Posted - 2008.06.07 20:10:00 -
[35]
Edited by: Hugh Hefner on 07/06/2008 20:17:21
This is vital.
|
Elmis
Paxton Industries
Paxton Federation
|
Posted - 2008.06.07 21:42:00 -
[36]
While obviously in the minority - this is a critical issue for those trying to operate under NRDS. (Hence why I am guessing many people posting support for it will be based in Providence...) |
Aralis
Imperial Dreams
Curatores Veritatis Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.06.07 22:11:00 -
[37]
|
MastaRob
Ascendant Strategies Inc.
Paxton Federation
|
Posted - 2008.06.07 22:47:00 -
[38]
More please CCP!!!
|
sh4rp ov3rvolt
Hikage Corporation
Paxton Federation
|
Posted - 2008.06.07 22:56:00 -
[39]
|
The Crushah
Paxton Industries
Paxton Federation
|
Posted - 2008.06.07 23:26:00 -
[40]
Signed
|
Akrezak
Paxton Industries
|
Posted - 2008.06.07 23:50:00 -
[41]
This signed is sponcered by PXF.
|
Puffjelo
Paxton Industries
Paxton Federation
|
Posted - 2008.06.08 00:27:00 -
[42]
Originally by: Puffjelo
Signed.
I'm stoopid. Forgot to check the "I support this" box.
|
KaiTech
Polaris Project
Curatores Veritatis Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.06.08 12:36:00 -
[43]
I Support this too !
What if it would be made so that the "Standings List" would be like an object that could be created by a Corp or Alliance and then be traded with the standings info in it.
This would enable to trade one of U'r corp/alliance made standing Lists to a new corp in an area and they would then have the possibility to "load up" that "Standings List" into their Corp network. They now would have adopted the standings of the loaded up "Standings list".
Would save alot of grind for corp directors needing to set standings ...
cya in game soon
Your signature exceeds the maximum allowed filesize of 24000 bytes -Kreul Intentions ([email protected]) |
Tokra Jolona
GeoCorp.
Paxton Federation
|
Posted - 2008.06.08 15:46:00 -
[44]
/signed
|
2CatsSlade
Ascendant Strategies Inc.
Paxton Federation
|
Posted - 2008.06.08 18:12:00 -
[45]
|
Aes ZXV
AngelCor
Paxton Federation
|
Posted - 2008.06.08 22:14:00 -
[46]
Totally agree with more slots.
|
Ravn Silverclaw
Paxton Industries
Paxton Federation
|
Posted - 2008.06.09 07:55:00 -
[47]
Signed
|
YPSer
|
Posted - 2008.06.09 15:42:00 -
[48]
|
Matrixcvd
Rionnag Alba
|
Posted - 2008.06.12 19:13:00 -
[49]
HOLY SWEET JESUS BATMAN.
This is absolutely ridiculous. CCP SHOULD REDUCE THE NUMBER OF STANDINGS SLOTS NOT INCREASE
I can't believe the nonsense and ridiculousness by RP NRDS people, of course CVA and paxton buddies are all for this to keep people from shooting them.
The problem with 0.0 in this game is the napfailtrain, 300-400 man super gangs of failure. Blues should be extremely restricted based on alliance size. If you can't get what you want done on your own or with a proportionate amount of "friends" you shouldnt be able to wither up and call on every failtard out there to serve your interests
the servers can't handle, the player base cant stand the lag, and if there were a simple overview change to limit NAPs from being removed, these nod crashing lamegangs wouldn't happen.
Good thing the CSM has no power other than to act like a internet beauracracy. |
Sokratesz
Rionnag Alba
|
Posted - 2008.06.12 20:26:00 -
[50]
I'm with matrix. Cut the ******* naptrains already, *LESS* standings slots. |
Hardin
|
Posted - 2008.06.13 09:17:00 -
[51]
Edited by: Hardin on 13/06/2008 09:18:03
To the Rionnag Alba guys above. If you know anything about CVA then you would know that it is not a lack of blue slots which is the problem - but the lack of red ones 
Our policy is that everyone in Providence is neutral - unless they have been set red for piracy or terroristic actions. We therefore DO NOT NEED blue slots.
The CVA is probably the most 'nap-less' alliance in 0.0. Apart from our Holders, Sylph and IAC we are pretty much red to the entire universe including BoB, -A-, TCF, Goons, Red Alliance and the majority of the Northern alliances.
This issue is not about 'napfests' it IS about giving alliance adminstrators proper ability and options to manage their diplomatic relations. The current system was appropriate when it was first implemented but since then the number of coorporations and alliances that need to be 'tracked' has mushroomed exponentially and it is time standing slots reflected this.
Do you really think that NRDS as a system should be ruled out as a genuine 'playstyle' and option for space holding alliances simply because they don't have the standings slots to properly managed their 'Reds'?
This change is a small tweak which requires little to no 'programming' effort on the part of CCP and provides alliance adminstrators around the galaxy with a lot more flexibility in managing how they interact with other corporations and alliances.
The current standing slot limit appears to be arbitrary and if CCP are reluctant to make what appears to be a commonsense change then I would certainly like to know their reasoning why.
It's possible that they have a very good reason which they just haven't told us yet
|
Faekurias
Black Legion Command
Red Dawn Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.06.13 11:24:00 -
[52]
Edited by: Faekurias on 13/06/2008 11:25:20
Edited by: Faekurias on 13/06/2008 11:24:01
Originally by: RedLion
Aye!
Also
Let alliance set standing to individual players,
Let alliances be able to share standings with other alliances.
This.
ALSO:
Maybe make it so that you can have more red slots, make red/blue slots separate.
Supreme Legion Commander of the Black Legion Fleet
We're recruiting.
Hitmeup ingame. |
Sokratesz
Rionnag Alba
|
Posted - 2008.06.13 11:29:00 -
[53]
@ Hardin:
Give alliances 5 blue slots to other alliance, 5 to separate corps and infinite reds or so then..
*numbers arbitrary, but should be low for blues. |
Hardin
|
Posted - 2008.06.13 12:23:00 -
[54]
Originally by: Sokratesz
@ Hardin:
Give alliances 5 blue slots to other alliance, 5 to separate corps and infinite reds or so then..
*numbers arbitrary, but should be low for blues.
Seems like a reasonable suggestion to me - but as I not someone responsible for managing standings slots - would be interested in getting some further input into this as I am not sure what consequences your proposal could have.
I have put this on the agenda for Sunday meeting and need to create an issue template by then - so happy if people want to feed more views into this...
-----
Alliance Creation/Corp Expansion Services
Advert |
Pezzle
Imperial Dreams
Curatores Veritatis Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.06.13 13:02:00 -
[55]
I am trying to keep this issue as simple as possible. My own belief is against hundreds of blues, but that is my game play. If some group wants hundreds of blues that is their business. We should not hard code against legitimate play styles (even if we personally disagree). You cannot force people to fight with each other.
This proposal advocates an increase in the hard limits placed on corporations. A larger standings pool means more possibilities. Possibilities are good! |
LaFond
Gradient
Electus Matari
|
Posted - 2008.06.14 16:34:00 -
[56]
|
Arkady Sadik
Gradient
Electus Matari
|
Posted - 2008.06.14 16:38:00 -
[57]
Standings in-game are a reflection of negotiations out of game. You can not restrict negotiations, and all in-game restrictions will do is make the life harder for everyone, but it won't prevent the dreaded "no one shoots each other" (whyever that is dreaded I have no idea).
Supporting more standing slots.
Not supporting arbitrary limit on blue slots vs. red slots or somesuch to enforce your play style in the sandbox that is EVE.
|
Isobel Mitar
Gradient
Electus Matari
|
Posted - 2008.06.14 16:59:00 -
[58]
/signed
However, please no limits on how the slots are used. |
Niding
Polaris Project
Curatores Veritatis Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.06.14 17:39:00 -
[59]
Idea supported. |
Marina Charnatie
Celestial Janissaries
Curatores Veritatis Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.06.16 13:45:00 -
[60]
Edited by: Marina Charnatie on 16/06/2008 13:52:21
As a part of this issue if CCP could help provide a system that allows better cleaning of standing slots. Many times corporations/alliances merge/break up. As it stands it is very difficult to track such information. A person spends hours "getting info" on each corp when house cleaning. We're pulling a great deal of unnecessary information. When it comes to standings we need active members and if a corp is member within an alliance. Other thoughts welcome.
|
Ndbele
The Legion of Spoon
Curatores Veritatis Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.06.16 20:38:00 -
[61]
|
Exodus Extenous
Paladin Imperium
Curatores Veritatis Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.06.17 05:08:00 -
[62]
Signed and agreed
|
Matrixcvd
Rionnag Alba
|
Posted - 2008.06.17 12:38:00 -
[63]
Originally by: Arkady Sadik
Standings in-game are a reflection of negotiations out of game. You can not restrict negotiations, and all in-game restrictions will do is make the life harder for everyone, but it won't prevent the dreaded "no one shoots each other" (whyever that is dreaded I have no idea).
Supporting more standing slots.
Not supporting arbitrary limit on blue slots vs. red slots or somesuch to enforce your play style in the sandbox that is EVE.
to the cva boys, point taken but any increase will just be used in the exact way its done now. You would like to identify more unsavory characters, its been stated, unlimited reds, sweet.
now to the guy quoted above, if the player negotiations lead to gangs which crash nodes, then we have a problem. And its not about people shooting each other, clearly you have missed the point of 0.0 alliance warfare as of 2008. The UI is linked to the blue list.
CCP should take a simple look and deciede, how many blues can an alliance of a certain size have. SO that way you can't get 3 4000 man alliances blueing themselves + smaller alliances to form 15000 pilot blocks which destroy the node. Thats what I am getting at.
If they lock the blues out of the Overview, then so much of what is bad about Eve that goes on in 0.0 will cease. THe naptrains will stop, people will have to think hard about who they befriend, and when somethin goes down, realize they can't phone 12000 of their closest friends to come help when they pick a fight
|
Valotaan
Black Templar Germany
Cold Steel Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.06.17 17:34:00 -
[64]
Edited by: Valotaan on 17/06/2008 17:34:20
signed |
Valkorsia
Celestial Janissaries
Curatores Veritatis Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.06.18 03:25:00 -
[65]
Pezzle has a wizard hat. It is perhaps what makes him the greatest thinker and most clearly spoken person in the Eve universe, and most certainly these forums.
If I were CCP, I would not only adopt this idea, but I would make Mr. Pezzle a consultant for future game changes regarding standings.
The hat comes with him, so you get both a wise man and a wizard hat of mystical, magical powers.
o/
|
Methdel
|
Posted - 2008.06.18 08:18:00 -
[66]
Good idea |
Ayserin
Celestial Janissaries
Curatores Veritatis Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.06.19 16:08:00 -
[67]
You know, I hit 300 just the other day -- for personal standings. This is above and beyond what my own alliance has set.
Simply put, we need more slots.
Support Pezzle's idea and want this done as soon as humanly possible.
|
Tmarte
Explora Empire
Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2008.06.19 16:17:00 -
[68]
|
Delawgic
Celestial Janissaries
Curatores Veritatis Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.06.21 14:17:00 -
[69]
|
Elementatia
Sev3rance
|
Posted - 2008.06.21 18:54:00 -
[70]
I Support this topic
|
Tar Ecthelion
The Legion of Spoon
Curatores Veritatis Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.06.22 11:22:00 -
[71]
....
|
Inanna Zuni
|
Posted - 2008.06.22 14:56:00 -
[72]
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
This topic was discussed yesterday in the
CSM-CCP meeting and an announcement will be
made in due course.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
IZ
My principles
|
Soratah
Amarr
The Aegis Militia
Aegis Militia
|
Posted - 2008.07.01 00:09:00 -
[73]
Signed..
I guess Requiem will be setting TCF to red now right? |
Foulque
|
Posted - 2008.07.01 10:29:00 -
[74]
more reds please
|
Valkorsia
Caldari
IONSTAR
Curatores Veritatis Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.07.14 08:58:00 -
[75]
Originally by: Inanna Zuni
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
This topic was discussed yesterday in the
CSM-CCP meeting and an announcement will be
made in due course.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
IZ
Curious, what happened?
|
Siebenthal
|
Posted - 2008.07.15 15:42:00 -
[76]
|
Yaar Podshipnik
Paxton Industries
Paxton Federation
|
Posted - 2008.07.24 14:07:00 -
[77]
As a citizen of Providence, I fully endorse this idea.
|
Pwett
QUANT Corp.
QUANT Hegemony
|
Posted - 2008.07.24 15:15:00 -
[78]
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one page] |