I don’t know what you’re talking about. Sounds like you want to win the game, but I guess it means something else.
What’s this still got to do with OP’s suggestion?
How can anything to do with exploration cause standing loss?
Doesn’t make much sense… A new mission type, no loss of standings?
Sounds good to me. 
After all, space exploration helped to bring the cold war to an end.
1 Like
Yeah. This should definitely be a mission available from SoE. They have the ships and the equipment, too. But after checking back with SoE standings does one actually lose a little bit of standing with Caldari and Amarr when running for SoE. It would have to be with CONCORD or InterBus really to get no loss (at least no loss with the empire factions).
The current system of research agents with passive accumulation of RP is not good design and the so-called “missions” are a joke. I believe an active system where you earn RP by completing exploration missions would be a good idea.
Standings used to matter more and I believe they should matter a lot more - give the game some cultural topography. It shouldn’t be possible to be friends with everyone - neutral with everyone, maybe, but high standing with any faction should mean low standing with their enemies. Standings should also matter for things like anchoring structures, using markets, etc… CCP has not done us any favors by flattening empire space.
I disagree with you on the not being able to make friends with all empires as you can make friends IRL with a lot of people and organizations and governments who don’t all get along or out right hate one another.
Being more difficult to gain more positive standings with another empire that is enemy’s with one that you have higher standings in I would agree with to an extent, but still possible without standing losses.
Duel citizenship or tri citizenship, etc is a thing, especially for free traders which is a cultural cornerstone.
I agree with you on the passive accumulation of RP is no good and should be scrapped for a more active endeavor as it devalues the effort of those playing the game actively.
Agree with standings having an impact on where and what cost to anchor a structure as you would not want someone you don’t like building in your back yard or near your markets or prime relestate.
People with bad standings could be made to pay higher taxes in markets or not allowed in them at all.
The whole purpose of standings should be to create choices with consequences. If I run missions for Federation Navy, I should run the risk of being refused docking rights at Jita - but maybe I get a tax break in Dodixie so it doesn’t matter.
Traders who maintain neutral standings with all factions can travel freely but will pay higher taxes than those who achieve high standing.
Holding corporations may become more popular if standings are required to anchor structures - making it a bit more complicated for those who care to figure out who owns what.
These are small changes, at the margin, but they will influence behaviour and, I believe, make the game more interesting.
1 Like
Yep, it would be a very good idea™ to make datacores only drop from mission that would decrease the supply of them, so inventing stuff will cost more and you can make much more currency for inventing stuff.
I’m not sure if this will actually work out the way you think.
The moment a lot of players can no longer dock at Jita will traders only profit more from their neutrality. So the higher taxes won’t really hurt them, plus business will move further towards player structures, because there 0% tax rules it all. So it’s going to weaken the mechanic and not strengthen it.
New players will likely shy only away from the mechanic, because why would they want to pick a side so early in the game? So it’s likely going to drive more players towards neutrality than is desirable.
The more extreme one makes the choices the less people will actually want to make them.
Could be the entire standings mechanic is helping CCP to balance the amount of players over empire space. It’s such an old mechanic only CCP will know what effect it actually has (or why it was introduced in the first place).
Very possible as CCP has always sucked at creating proper balance in ships, take away all the barriers and you will have players flocking to empires with better hardware. (Like they do now) but more pronounced.
http://eveboard.com/global/statistics
Which indicates the present mechanic is not working out all that well.
If that was the intended goal.
That’s actually fairly false. Empire standings have no bearing on docking rights at structures. With the applicable skills, you dont even need to be docked in Jita to make buy orders in Jita. I think one of the few reasons people bother sitting around in Jita local still while screwing around on the market is to get around the Asset Delay.
As far as missions that dont reduce other Empire standings? Go do mining or distribution missions.
The tax rate is identical at player and NPC markets. Players only control the brokerage fee for placing a market order (buy or sell). Players can also arbitrarily revoke docking rights regardless of standing and the sometimes forget to buy fuel!
I think the NPC trade hubs are safe for a while. In a world where standings impact your ability to travel, I would expect the smaller hubs to grow and I would expect more interregional trade. Jita would continue to dominate and a Jita ALT with high Caldari standing would be essential for a trading career - but it already is! A freighter ALT in a NPC corp with neutral standing to all empire factions would be preferred for hauling - but it already is.
This topic was automatically closed 90 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.