Nor only repair, but even maintaining standings can be a huge PITA. I’m not saying it should be easy. But the amount of faction kill missions handed out by some corps seems quite unbalanced.
I’ve noticed it particularly with minmatar. They seem to hand out a LOT of “kill amarr” and “kill caldari” missions. Which makes it quite difficult to raise standings with them and not tank those 2. I have never noticed this problem to quite the same extent with the other 3 factions.
Again, I’m not saying it should be easy to gain high standings with all 4 empires. But rather that the current distribution of faction kill missions seems unbalanced.
I also disagree with the idea of making it IMPOSSIBLE to have good standings with all 4 empires. It takes a considerable amount of work as it is, and with how ■■■■■■■■ the current standings repair mechanics are it would make ever relocating a huge PITA.
From a lore perspective, capsuleers may be from an empire, but we are not strictly beholden to them. We work for them by choice not force. So while an empire might not be happy about us working for their enemies, it would also make sense for them to not reject a capsuleer entirely if they have also done a lot of work for them as well.
What does it mean that all teams have to mind monetization?
More different things to buy in a PLEX store, that would not be available just by playing the game?
Or just that they have to be carefull not to break current monetization models?
How does it fit with removal of CQ, where you could see your clothes and SKIN on ship worth many PLEX?
Bear in mind that the ‘monetisation’ team’s main project was creating Alphas, the F2P model for EVE and controlling the PLEX/Aurum merger. Monetisation doesn’t just have to mean ‘how can i add microtransactions’, it’s just ‘how can we make more money’. Still, considering they’re actively changing a team dedicated to that into a balance focused team, I am fairly certain CCPs priorities are in the right place there.
“how can we make more money”, I heard virtual currencies are on the rise, maybe tech team could propose a virtual currency mining project, and develop algorithm tied to asteroid or moon mining. CCP could also share the wealth to incite more mining.
I have no idea what they want to accomplish by that? Locking players in one ( choosen) empire space? This doesn’t make standings more significant in gameplay just more of a not needed hassle.
There should be consequences for your actions and standings should have meaning and not just be another scoreboard. The game is a better one if there are trade-offs and choices to be made so I am not averse to such an idea.
I think it makes sense that you cannot be beloved by all the empires. If you are loved by the Amarr and their best agent for instance, how does it make sense the Minmatar can also love you and trust you with their important missions? Sometimes, you just have to pick a side. That said, I think you should be able to be relatively neutral to all the factions though, and bad standings should be easier to repair either by tags or some other clear system.
Currently system is flawed. Capsuleers are just hirelings, working for empires corporations. If they shoot pirates or rogue drones only why it should affect standings towards other factions? If I’m good at it, other empires should fight for my services not shoot at me. Same with faction warfare, when I’m leaving the army why I should get shoot by faction vessels? I’m not representing military force any more. I’m civilian. With your example should Minmatar even working for Amarr?
Freedom of travel is most important thing in EvE, apart for being “bad guys”, nobody will want to mess with standings towards other empires if standing will get lowered. Everybody will stay in caldari space instead because of Jita. Why bother to do missions with other factions?
I’d think you’d find any nation would be reluctant to trust a top agent of a rival nation with anything of importance even if they declare themselves a “civilian” or a “contractor”. Who you associate with has consequences.
I agree though, I think there should be freedom of movement for most people. I think such a mechanism only becomes interesting if those accessing the most lucrative content have to trade-off that access versus freedom of movement to the rival empire. Let’s say everyone can get to 5 standings with everyone which is “liked” or “trusted” or whatever and none of the other empires care. But perhaps beyond 5 you get access to new or better paying content with that specific empire - their important missions which pay more, but their rival starts to now distrust you (and your standing goes down with them) and as you further enter their inner circle approaching 10 standing you become aligned with that empire, and more distrusted by their opponent.
That paradigm presents choice, trade-off and consequences for your actions and represents real game play. Everyone getting everything consequence-free isn’t especially interesting or immersive, at least to me. I’m not sure CCP will every be able to make something like that happen, but I imagine that or something similar is something they’d like to steer towards to make standings have more impact on the universe.
What a horrible mess to read. the insane amount of unnecessary “then” makes me want to yell at my phone. reading through it constantly gives me the feeling that a lot of important stuff is missing… which it probably is. Yes, i know, i am not entitled to expect anything, but, like everyone else, i am making use of my priviledge to complain.
That trade off will literally cut you off content. Faction warfare should be like that not civilians services. I’m not being shoot in France just because I’m working for English company. Level of trust should not be move into hostile acts against me.
Edit: that why I never bothered with FW btw. Standings. Part of the content that is not fully used becasue immersive gameplay?
Agreed, but that freedom isn’t being affected. Even as -10 you can be in highsec space, for however long you desire. You just have to put effort into it.
You’re talking about the wrong freedom. You’re talking about the “freedom to do what i want, where i want it”, which is completely different to “freedom of travel”.
Oh, yes, my bad. -10 sec status, which puts the faction police on your rear end. They’re harder to deal with, than the faction navy, who come after you when you have bad faction standing.
So, actually, bad faction standing is only a nuissance and barely influences the freedom to travel. -10 criminals have it harder, but they too aren’t actually restricted to any kind of space whatsoever. Even 1.0 is possible, though demands quite some concentration.
You’re right that freedom of movement is important, but the argument you’re trying to use doesn’t work for the point you’re trying to make. Bad faction standings don’t prevent anyone from moving anywhere.
The last thing i’d want, is a team formerly responsible for monetization, to the be responsible for balancing! That’s just ■■■■■■ up! And when all teams have to be mindful of monetization, then that means that they have to have it in mind and make use of possibilities!
It’s not rocket science at all and the use of “mindfulness” is hilariously vague for many people, which tells me that there’s a reason why CCP uses it in the first place. Markettingspeak… some ■■■■■■■■.
The vagueness i was referring to, is the apparent lack of understanding of what it means, as can be seen in this thread. It really pisses me off, how ccp keeps fooling everyone, and how simple it is to fool people in the first place.
You messing two things here, Security Status with Faction Standings. I’m not sure what is your point here. I don’t know why I should get killed by factions other than I’m working with just because I’m shooting NPC pirates that interfere with their business. I can get the idea behind faction police shooting -5.0 security status players and not being as good as Concord, because that’s an outlaw and I hope there will be some better options to play that way.
So:
-5.0 security status - get shoot by faction police
-5.0 faction standing - get shoot by faction navy
There are already consequences to your actions, under the current system it takes MUCH longer and MUCH more work to gain high standings with all 4 empires.
Grinding up to the point of having access to lvl 4 missions across the board doesn’t just take 4 times as long. First off, you need to turn down any faction kill missions, which if you take them will absolutely tank your standings. you can only turn down those missions once every 4 hours, so if you end up with 2 of those in a row, you are effectively locked out of that agent for the remainder of your play session. this slows down your corporate standings increases to a crawl already. (especially since there are some corporations that only have 1 or 2 security agents)
Even doing that, your storyline missions will decrease faction standings with both opposing factions (although to a lesser extent than it raises your main one. and it does increase your friendly faction by a small amount which mitigates the losses slightly)
By the time that you have repaired the damage caused by gaining lvl 4 missions with one faction by bouncing over to the opposing factions for a little while, you will have lost access to those missions again, by the time that you get the opposing faction up to lvl 4’s you will probably be back down to lvl 2’s faction wide. (your corp standings mitigates this, which is the only saving grace)
it is possible to have positive standings with all empires, but it could take years of work to become “beloved” by all of them. and thats before even considering all of the “mini” factions (i’m not actually certain if it is possible to have high standings with thukkers and maintain all of the others, since I think only minmatar are positive to them)
Eve is a game about consequences yes, but it is also a game about freedom and being able to do what we want. if a player is willing to dedicate years of work towards attaining high standings across the board. why should we say that they can’t?
.
