if it makes no sense, maybe I can clarify. What part is confusing?
the part where you want to introduce an unnecessary function
The part where you need new tools to do what other EvE players already manage just fine.
I see, this is where we disagree. I don’t believe it is unnecessary. I am making the suggestion as a QOL change to make it easier for groups to be managed. IMO, the current tools that we have in game are not efficient at managing a group such as the ones this is aimed towards.
The tools that I am trying to enhance:
MOTD for rules and fittings: at current, MOTD in some channels are so large they require links to other channels for organizations.
Standings: A new layer of standings I feel would be helpful in that you could make group standing temporary (only needing to remove and add one entity rather than X amount of players)
The point is not that we “need” new tools or that it is a “necessary function”, the point is that a tool like this would make it more efficient at what we do, you know Quality of Life. If you would not use it, that is fine. But others may. That being said, is there any specific part that would not make this more efficient or is your answer just “its garbage”?
How about CCP fix the multitudes of broken ■■■■ before adding new ■■■■.
Yes, there are some ideas that really are unnecessary until CCP fixes EvE.
I agree, there are more important things that need to be patched and updated. This suggestion would not be something that I would say is “we need this right now”. That doesn’t take away from any suggestion’s merit. It just changes the priority of which it would be developed. In the meantime, we can discuss so that when it comes time to make the change, the idea is solid.
its retarded
not only that it screws with your overview
if you know how to set your overview right you shouldnt need to set a dumb sub-corp statutus
it just confuses things for no reason
taking text out of context just proves that interacting with you is not going to be constructive. Fly Well, o7
for reference: i did not state in that quote that THIS IDEA was solid. It was a general statement about generic ideas, not specific to this one.
so what you just agree with any idea anyone has for the sake of it
Even though this probably wont go anywhere; No, you don’t just agree with an idea anyone has for the sake of it. In fact I have disagreed with people in the past. However, I try to make an attempt at making them understand the flaw(s) of the idea(s). I try to avoid just saying its a bad idea, i try to explain how it is a bad idea. And if a counter argument is provided, I try to look at it from where they are coming from and adjust my thought as needed.
I have been shown incorrect on suggestions in the past and I am willing to accept and admit that. For this suggestion however, that has not come to be. I am looking for constructive discussion. The statement I made of generic ideas inferred that just because a suggestion is not a high priority, does not mean it should not be discussed.
On a side note about it messing with your overview: A simple checkbox that says: Apply club standings to overview resolves this real quick and can be done individually per club.
This also seems a work around to get coalitions coded into the game. Simply make all your coalition members join your club.
So yeah, another reason to not implement it.
I don’t understand how that is another reason to not. Wouldn’t that be more use? Note: I have never been in a coalition (at least not knowingly), so I’m not exactly sure of how they are run. From my understanding, they are just groups of alliances.
Yeah, that whole big blue donut that makes null so boring is a problem.
Remove the coalitions and the donut shatters.
So, correct me if I am wrong, your opposition is that this would help coalitions, and you want coalitions destroyed so that blue donuts are broken up.
If that is the case not continuing with this suggestion isnt going to accomplish that. You need more conflict drivers. From my understanding, Null is stagnant as groups have gotten “cozy” in their areas and are not wanting to attack due to how Fozzie Sov works along with citadel combat. Wouldn’t more conflict be where that should be directed, not a QOL organizational change that they could use to make it easier to manage? Or am I missing something?
Your idea is a bit rough but seems okay, while at the same time being confusing as to how much of a mess this would make with corps and alliances but still not against the idea.
The problem i have is that you should not be free from wardec’s. If i have to deal with wardec spam so should your organization.
While we can debate the details, any feature that improves social interaction is probably a good idea. My question is whether this needs to be supported by game mechanics or can we employ external tools and use limited development resources for other things? Eve players have created coalitions, incursion communities, Eve NT and other social groups without any support from game mechanics - I believe we can let players take care of the meta game and let the developers focus on the sandbox and the tools they give us to play in it.
I remember ccp saying they were going to do something just like this. No idea what has happened since then but it feels like a good idea. I just worry about the complexity of having groups criss crossing with corps.
I would rather have the ability to not be in a Corp at all and it just say “freelance” or “unaffiliated” anywhere the corpname would normally be.
