Posted - 2009.04.05 22:47:00 - [3]

 

Originally by: Jin Labarre

---

Would this not mean that certain Alliances would have complete and utter control over that recovery option? If you control XY space, you practically control the XY epic recovery mission as well, since almost nobody would be able to run lots of high level missions on your turf without getting ganked over and over and over again. Even if the missions are spread out, you will still have to go to some specific agents, sooner or later.

---

You're right that this is a genuine concern, but I think it can be addressed. For one, the most popular of these missions will be the ones for the four empires, and those will be in lowsec which nobody exercises effective control over large swathes of - the only groups that even come close, the FW fleets, will presumably not object to people trying to improve their standing with their empire of choice.

For pirate factions, this is more of an issue, but remember that pirate-owned 0.0 regions, where these epic arcs would be taking place, are not player-owned, and thus don't tend to attract nearly as much fire from alliances. Also, that would be where you'd have to go in order to use those high standings - if you can't get into Curse to run the Angel epic arc, then where exactly are you going to run your Angel missions? If someone controls the region with all the agents, then they control the ability to use standings, controlling the ability to recover standings is minor by comparison.

People who don't like you controlling the space where the missions need to be run will be a problem, of course. I don't think it will be an unmanageable problem, but it will be difficult at times. That said, recovering standings is currently impossible - even if it is difficult after this change, that's still a lot easier than at present. I don't want it being too easy, I just want it to be a possibility, and this seems the right way of getting there.

Posted - 2009.04.06 01:37:00 - [5]

 

Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto

---

Originally by: Jin Labarre

---

Would this not mean that certain Alliances would have complete and utter control over that recovery option? If you control XY space, you practically control the XY epic recovery mission as well, since almost nobody would be able to run lots of high level missions on your turf without getting ganked over and over and over again. Even if the missions are spread out, you will still have to go to some specific agents, sooner or later.

---

For pirate factions, this is more of an issue, but remember that pirate-owned 0.0 regions, where these epic arcs would be taking place, are not player-owned, and thus don't tend to attract nearly as much fire from alliances.

---

their is only a very few stations which cannot be player owned in the different pirate area's and around them.

and effectively they are owned since if you got bad standing to whatever faction and need to improve it you will need a station to dock and the only stations you could dock with your standing, well they are now player owned ;)

Posted - 2009.04.06 10:09:00 - [7]

 

i think its a well thought out solution to the standings problem, and i support it.

Posted - 2009.04.14 04:08:00 - [9]

 

Originally by: CrestoftheStars

---

Edited by: CrestoftheStars on 06/04/2009 01:32:55
ehhh i would say NO.
if you ****ed a state off so much that ANY citazen of that state would beat you, **** you, **** on you, kill you and **** your dead body, then there is no way in hell you should be able to recover that standing, if you made that choice in the game you shouldn't change your mind.

edit:
and getting -10 to a state is actually a hell lot of work, so you can't say "i didn't know what i was doing i am just a noob".

---

Colorful post.
I suggest you just stick to no and spend more time thinking before you react.


Personally I agree... but this should only be in NPC areas where there is faction sovereignty... doesn't make much sense to have this take place in territorial areas.

Piracy is a concern for sure... but that's normal for eve.

Posted - 2009.04.15 22:27:00 - [11]

 

Put on the agenda for next weekend.

Posted - 2009.04.16 02:27:00 - [13]

 

something along these lines

Posted - 2009.05.15 20:27:00 - [15]

 

It should rather be that grinding down the opposing factions would just repair your standing (at a lower pace then it takes to destroy the other standing though).

So if you have -10 with the Gallente, go blow up Serpentis and Caldari Navy NPCs (non-mission related). It's weird that it doesn't seem to work this way already.

Having a whole epic arc sounds nice, but it seems like a fix that requires a lot more work and again, a one-time-shot. Still would be a nice thing to have though.

Posted - 2009.05.17 07:29:00 - [17]

 

Supported.

The only problem I see is that of the starting point for the arc.

If the starting agent is located in only 1 system, even if the follow up missions are in different, random systems, the starting system would simply become another of the constantly camped system.

This would require several entry agents for each faction and that they are placed away from the low sec mission hubs.

Posted - 2009.05.30 13:04:00 - [19]

 

Edited by: Sumnamna on 30/05/2009 13:07:27
I completely agree, as a new player, Only 4 months old who ran missions in Empire, My standings with certain pirate factions took a big hit. I am unable to get it back to -2 even with diplo so can't run missions alone even if I wanted to. I should be able to increase standings just like in empire, By tagging along on missions of others and getting a faction boost everytime we finish a mission, This would be another way to foster team play, would not require more agents to be seeded and would not increase gate camping

This needs to be addressed.

Posted - 2009.05.31 16:08:00 - [21]

 

Agreed withe idea but I think the mission arcs shouldn't be anything less than a chain of extremely challenging level 5 equivalents or similar in order that it takes effort and teamwork to get back from the place you find yourself in and isn't something people do every few days when they fancy a change. That way if you REALLY want to modify your standings in one direction you can but it comes at a heavy price in terms of risk and time.

Posted - 2009.05.31 16:18:00 - [23]

 

Edited by: RedSplat on 31/05/2009 16:18:37
I hate absolutes. Supported.

One caveat, this should be in Lowsec and not 0.0, and hence not as likely controlled by any one Alliance; or should havin multiple such agents but only being able to contact one.

Posted - 2009.05.31 16:26:00 - [25]

 

Edited by: Lunewraith on 31/05/2009 16:26:35
Well thought and crafted solution. There should be a way to recover faction standings and this proposal may have residual effect to (potentially) reinvigorate FW.

Posted - 2009.05.31 16:39:00 - [27]

 

Originally by: Abulurd Boniface

---

And who will be in this situation? Will it not be the pirate, the master of their own destiny, the very person who could not give a wet slap about their standing and reputation? And now they're crawling back? It's cold and lonely in the dark pits of exile they thrust themselves into? It is now just that tad too much of an inconvenience?

Tough cookies. You make your bed and now you get to lie in it. The cold mercy they so generously bestow on others should be shared with them.

---

Fine in a RP sense I suppose. In practical terms, negative faction standings choke players out from accessing various null sec regions of space and thereby make joining prospective corps and alliances very difficult (ie, negative standings with Minny can drastically limit access to Great Wildlands and points beyond).

Posted - 2009.06.01 02:30:00 - [29]

 

Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto

---

At present, it's possible to get to a point where your standings with a faction simply cannot be recovered. If you're -10 to the Caldari State and everyone who they like, and you've used some of the one-time-only tag offers already, you cannot ever recover under current game mechanics.

---

Minor nitpick.
While what you say is certainly true, it's next to practically impossible to get below -5.00 base with ALL factions which like the Caldari State. Sure, you could easily get below with the Amarr Empire and Mordu's Legion due to mission-running, but it would be extremely dificult to do the same with both the Ammatar Mandate and the Khanid Kingdom since as far as I know, there are no missions that spawn ships belonging to those factions. You probably could find ships belonging to those factions in other creative ways, but I am seriously doubting you can find even a SINGLE character in the entire game with under -5.00 base standings with both Ammatar and Khanid.

However, the argument is quite urgent for the "pirate" NPC factions.
It's downright trivial to even accidentally get below -5.00 base with all mutually-friendly pirate factions, especially the Guristas-Sansha-Blood trio, it's almost a given for most Caldari mission-runners. The Angels-Serpentis-Thukker-Syndicate combo is slightly more difficult to get locked out of.
___

Well, anyway, for now, SUPPORTED, but with a few extra observations...

First, the standing system itself needs a complete overhaul. I am not only talking about the derived standings matrix, but also about how percentage changes get applied to your standings - they're not symmetrical at all, and this enables a lot of... how should I call them... peculiarities, which are not exactly helpful gameplay-wise, and don't make THAT much sense from a RP perspective either (ok, granted, a somewhat coherent argument can be made in defense of it for standings losses when you're high up, but then what about gains when you're really low, those certainly make next to no sense).

Second, while this particular idea is nice and all that, and I do hope it is ALSO implemented alongside any other changes regarding standings, a much simpler solution would be to revisit a very, VERY old "exploit fix" that was from my viewpoint a very flawed one.
What I am talking about is the "gain standings with target factions even as a complete newbie by intentionally failing missions with their enemies" pseudo-exploit.
Sure, it made sense to plug that "creative use of a game mechanic", as it was unfair to people who actually worked hard to get those standings. HOWEVER, the particular way the exploit was "plugged" (namely, simply removing all derived standings GAINS with enemies on a failure without any discrimination) was very unfortunate.

Personally, I would prefer if that was "fixed better".
A way to "fix it better" would be to reinstate the derived standings gains with enemies on standings LOSSES, but ONLY when the base enemy faction standing is negative (or below a certain negative value, like, say, -2.00), and ONLY as long as the base standing towards the faction you just lost standings with (the one from which the derived enemy gains are calculated) is positive (or, say, above a certain positive value, like +1.00).
In other words, you would have the ability to lose standings intentionally with "friends" in order to recover some of the negative standing with "enemies", but only as long as the friends remain friendly enough, and the enemies don't become TOO friendly.
It would all but eliminate the need for the above-mentioned solution, as the issue would cease existing.

But still, epic standings recovery missions are a good idea, and I hope we see them regardless of other factors.