| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Spoon Thumb
Paladin Imperium
Curatores Veritatis Alliance
   |
Posted - 2008.11.25 01:12:00 -
[1]
Edited by: Spoon Thumb on 25/11/2008 01:16:14
The standings system is on the face of it a quick and easy way to tell friend from foe and mark other players in space
However it is too simple for the complexities of Eve politics and has a number of major shortcomings that can range from inconveniencing and wasting players' time to major friendly fire incidents and serious loss of ships and equipment
I would ask anyone who wishes CCP to seriously re-examine the system with a view to solving a range of problems to support this thread
Below are the three main areas of play where standings are a serious problem
_______
People like that don't have friends just temporary common interests.
|
Spoon Thumb
Paladin Imperium
Curatores Veritatis Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.11.25 01:12:00 -
[2]
Edited by: Spoon Thumb on 25/11/2008 01:14:56
edit:formatting
OR Removal Overview
The "States" filer in overview has a series of check boxes which you use to indicate who you want to appear on overview with regard to standings.
Unfortunately, these check boxes work on the basis that every ship and wreck is on the overview by default. When you unckeck a box, any ship that fulfills that property is taken off overview, even if it fulfills other checkboxes that are checked.
So for example, say I set a corp that I don't like to -10. That corp then declares war on my corp. That corp has a pilot with -ve sec status and a bounty on him, and he warps to the gate I am at.
If I have no states bar the "Pilot is at war with your corp/alliance" checked, then I will not see the enemy pilot on overview. As far as overview is concerned, I haven't checked to see "Pilots with -ve sec status" and this pilot has -ve sec status.
So despite setting overview to what I would logically assume to be correct to see war targets only, I in fact will not see my war target until I add pilots with -ve sec status, horrible standings and bounties.
This means I effectively have to turn on every state, check every box except what I don't want to see any of. That usually boils down to only having "Pilot is in my fleet/corp/alliace/has good standings" turned off
The side effect is that pilots who I'm not at war with, but who still have -ve sec status OR have bounties OR have horrible standings show up. Or if I turn them off I run the risk of having war targets that don't show up on overview
This somewhat defeats the point of the overview filters, especially if I'm in high sec at war and start seeing other corps who I have -ve standings with but am not at war with on my overview
The reason for doing it in this manner is that it is efficient. The client as soon as it gets a false against any one of the checks for that ship against your overview settings can say that ship will definitely not appear on overview and forget about it.
However, it shouldn't be too much to ask that all ships be default to off overview and put on the overview when they satisfy just one of the check boxes
_______
People like that don't have friends just temporary common interests.
|
Spoon Thumb
Paladin Imperium
Curatores Veritatis Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.11.25 01:13:00 -
[3]
Edited by: Spoon Thumb on 25/11/2008 01:15:19
Non-Inheritance of Alliance Standings to Corp Structures
The problem is that in overviews and in local, corps inherit their alliance's standings, whilst corp structures, things like outposts and POS, don't.
For example, say we have person A, who has +ve standings with an alliance B, but not with a corp C, where corp C is in alliance B. Now say that a POS owned by corp C is set to shoot everything that doesn't have +ve standings (Not Blue Shoot It, NBSI for short).
Person A will now be shot at by the POS belonging to corp C. Despite the fact that corp C members see person A as blue, their POS doesn't.
This is a bigger problem for alliances managing their outposts. To prevent enemies from having safe haven in an alliance's outposts, they may set outposts so to deny docking to anyone with standings below a certain value (or more commonly, only let allies and those with +ve standings dock).
However, since corp structures, such as outposts don't inherit alliance standings, it means that every corp that owns an outpost has to maunally set their standings rather than just use alliance standings. If an alliance has a lot of standings, this represents duplicate work for corporations to each make their own standings list match that of the alliance, and can take a very long time. Not to mention that the separate standings lists can mean inconsistencies occur over time as allies are dropped or new ones made and enemies come and go.
Some alliances get round this by having a single corp that manages all the outposts. However this in itself has lots of problems. Aside from increasing the potential for spies to cause damage across all outposts an alliance owns, rather than just a few, by getting into the outpost holding corp, it means that there is no pride or sense of achievement to individual corps who may have worked hard to build or conquer said outpost, disadvantaging alliances who opt for corp level management of outposts rather than alliance wide ownership / operation schemes
The whole thing can be rather embarrasing when allies who've been brought in to fight for your side can't dock or access fittings and repair shop because there are no directors of the corp owning the outpost online, and the outposts don't inherit alliance standings
_______
People like that don't have friends just temporary common interests.
|
Spoon Thumb
Paladin Imperium
Curatores Veritatis Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.11.25 01:14:00 -
[4]
Edited by: Spoon Thumb on 25/11/2008 01:15:42
Standings Slot Limit
Currently there is a limit of 300 standings slots for each alliance. Whilst no problem for most combatitive alliances who operate the afforementioned NBSI system, where most enemies will be neutral and not require a standings slot, it can be a problem for those who run the alternative "Not Red Don't Shoot" (NRDS) system.
The nature of the NRDS system means that every enemy has to be set red, and usually fast, to avoid people not realising someone is hostile or an enemy until they are being attacked (as the natural assumption is that a neutral is not hostile until proven otherwise).
Over the 5+ years eve has been live, many alliances running NRDS have found that the number of reds they have aquired has more than exceeded the 300 standings slot limit.
This causes problems as it means a lot of time has to be spent deciding which hostile corps are old and have disbanded or moved onto other areas and can have their standings slot freed up for some more immediate threat, even though they are still hostiles / enemies
Of course this is a problem if said enemies who have been some other part of the eve universe come back, at which point it will not be immediately obvious. That is to say the standings system then can't be relied on and so becomes less and less useful.
My own alliance have actually implemented a database of all hostiles (over 800) and have to use a combination of alliance standings and an in-game front end UI to ascertain if others are friend or foe
The issue is compounded by enemies who persistantly "corp hop" or who reside in NPC corps and really require a personal red standing
And the whole thing isn't helped by the fact that for the system to work, everyone who is part of the system has to follow the same list of reds, have the same standings. That means duplicate standings changing for lots of corps and alliances, not to mention the problems with outposts as detailed earlier
The point is 300 is no longer an arbitrarily high enough number that no one will ever reach it, and players are already having to find work arounds to make their chosen legal/standings system work
_______
People like that don't have friends just temporary common interests.
|
Spoon Thumb
Paladin Imperium
Curatores Veritatis Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.11.25 01:18:00 -
[5]
Incidentally, this topic was raised at the last CSM, and I belive got a positive response from both forums and CCP.
Now we have a new CSM council, thought it a good idea to raise it again, since it hasn't been actioned
_______
People like that don't have friends just temporary common interests.
|
Amandi Casimi
Celestial Janissaries
Curatores Veritatis Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.11.25 01:32:00 -
[6]
/me signs the third part of it whole heartedly.
-------------------------
Let neutrals be neutrals.
|
Efferil
|
Posted - 2008.11.25 02:08:00 -
[7]
/me signs all 3 ideas
|
Lonewolfnight
Celestial Janissaries
Curatores Veritatis Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.11.25 03:08:00 -
[8]
I agree with this post and hope this issue will be addressed during this council term.
CEO |
Randall Alba
Paxton Industries
Paxton Federation
|
Posted - 2008.11.25 06:14:00 -
[9]
Agreed
|
Arra Lith
HUSARIA
Curatores Veritatis Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.11.25 08:59:00 -
[10]
agreed
|
lord cyrez
Licentia Pro Totus
|
Posted - 2008.11.25 09:55:00 -
[11]
supported, especially on point 1 of 3.
|
CrestoftheStars
Recreation Of The World
|
Posted - 2008.11.25 11:08:00 -
[12]
signed
___________________________________________
Whoever appeals to the law against his fellow man is either a fool or a coward. Whoever cannot take care of himself without that law is both. For a wounded |
Trade This
|
Posted - 2008.11.25 11:20:00 -
[13]
signed
|
Takal Cylotar
Amarr Border Defense Consortium
Curatores Veritatis Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.11.25 14:44:00 -
[14]
absolutely signed
____________________
Faith is my armor and Conviction is my sword. |
Maximum KILLDEATHRATIO
24th Imperial Crusade
|
Posted - 2008.11.25 15:02:00 -
[15]
|
Rajere
No Trademark
|
Posted - 2008.11.25 15:45:00 -
[16]
give us more colors for the -10.0 through +10.0 standings spectrum. Allow corps to check a box "use alliance standings" for pos/stations/etc (sometimes you don't want to use alliance standings), and while i personally feel nrds is fail and they're the only ones who have issues with the 300 limit, go ahead and increase it why not.
--------------------------
NOTR
How to Fail at Eve
|
An Zeth
Auctoritan Syndicate
Curatores Veritatis Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.11.26 23:59:00 -
[17]
I agree with these ideas.
|
Angarad
IronPig
Sev3rance
|
Posted - 2008.11.27 17:28:00 -
[18]
Agreed!
|
Bunyip
|
Posted - 2008.11.28 05:05:00 -
[19]
Edited by: Bunyip on 28/11/2008 05:06:44
Agreed. The topic about POSes is also very relevant, and they should have a status inheritance from the controlling corporation.
While increasing the number of hostile corps might be a strain on the database, we could have an option for people who hop corps to have it "amber: this pilot used to be part of a corp that you are hostile to." Another way to make this easier is to allow whole alliances to be set to negative standings instead of just the individual corps.
-Bunyip
"May all your hits be crits." - Knights of the Dinner Table. |
Herschel Yamamoto
Bloodmoney Incorporated
|
Posted - 2008.12.01 20:48:00 -
[20]
A good analysis of some shortfalls that still exist at present. WHoleheartedly supported.
----------
Thanks to all those who voted for me. |
Mister Xerox
|
Posted - 2008.12.01 22:57:00 -
[21]
Edited by: Mister Xerox on 01/12/2008 22:57:44
Agreed.
And as a solo pilot, or one in an NPC corp, I would want full standings options... i.e. I want to set an entire alliance to -10 after they gank me in lowsec.
Currently I can't set alliance standings, only corp (or per corp in a greater alliance).
|
Jason Edwards
|
Posted - 2008.12.02 04:11:00 -
[22]
Edited by: Jason Edwards on 02/12/2008 04:11:36
afaik currently there's an issue with internal alliance corp vs corp standings.
If your alliance becomes blue to corp X on monday... one of your corps in the alliance might not have got on top of things and that corp X isnt appearing blue. So the pos in 0.0 which shoots neutrals... then aggros that CORP X.
Now there's a whole nap system and such.
but honestly... corps should be pulled out of the equation and have alliance standings override completely.
I dont think it should be as complex for the single corps or individuals.
With that... they could get coding and give a nice new UI and functionality to the standings system. That'd be great.
------------------------
To make a megathron from scratch, you must first invent the eve universe.
------------------------
Life sucks and then you get podded. |
| |
|
| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |