Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Casiella]

API checks and perhaps feeder corps should make this less of an issue.

Especially with the finer-grained API that's coming this summer-ish.

[Saede Riordan]

thats a bit annoying, especially since I worked hard for my angel standings >_<

although, maybe there will be a way to claim loyalty to a faction and have it display that...I doubt it though

Medals!

MEDALSSSS

Because CCP don't use them often enough.

Yes Yes! Medals! And Certificates! Those are clearly the superior way to show loyalty! *muahahahahahahah*

[Ammentio Oinkelmar]

Another possibility is giving them prospect employment for a week and then checking the corp standings with various people you care about. Assuming that you can still see the make up of corp standings, it will show you all the pilots in your corp who have standings to that NPC corp and what those standings are.

In my view, role-players are the most important asset a role-playing corporation can have. I understand that standings are kind of easy to check and so on, but I don't see them leading to any kind of interesting RP. Aren't they more like an indication that the applicant, or the corporation, likes monotonous grinding and minmaxing?

Wouldn't it make more sense to evaluate whether the applicant is devoted, makes good initiatives, follows his internal logic, is willing to do research, can deal with differing opinions and so on? If a mission running corporation uses grinding rewards as a recruitment condition, that makes sense, but I just don't see the RP point of adhering to this flawed mechanic even after DM's have ditched it.

[Ulphus]

In my view, role-players are the most important asset a role-playing corporation can have. I understand that standings are kind of easy to check and so on, but I don't see them leading to any kind of interesting RP. Aren't they more like an indication that the applicant, or the corporation, likes monotonous grinding and minmaxing?

Wouldn't it make more sense to evaluate whether the applicant is devoted, makes good initiatives, follows his internal logic, is willing to do research, can deal with differing opinions and so on? If a mission running corporation uses grinding rewards as a recruitment condition, that makes sense, but I just don't see the RP point of adhering to this flawed mechanic even after DM's have ditched it.

Yes and no.

Yes, RP is really important. But there are some Rpers out there who will happily kill a corp/alliance using Corp theft and betrayal, and yes, that can kill a corp or alliance; or people who can fake being an RPer for a while and then do it. Many of the indications of this include things that are also true for normal new players, and long term inactive Alts can present as other than what they are.

One point of this mechanic is to spot people who RP competently but who are lying in some way. Building a legitimate history can be hard. The more they can obscure or hide the deficiencies in their character history, the harder it is to detect them.

No, it doesn't catch everyone. It's not necessary or sufficient evidence of a potential infiltrator, but it does flag warnings for some of them.

There is a significant OOC component here because you are protecting your corp and your players OOC as well as IC. The ties that you can build up with people you play with OOC over time are valuable to me and I think to other people, and I've seen situations where this was damaged by infiltrators. I can decide if I want to do /sip RP in the Last Gate, but I don't get to decide if I want to play in a corp with infiltrators or not.

It would be nice to be able to trust all the other RPers in Eve not to screw over your corp if you let the "PC glow" gloss over inconsistencies in their stories, but you can't. Such is Eve.

[Casiella]

So Ulphus, are you suggesting that requiring standings reduces the chance that a roleplayer will infiltrate your corp to damage it, or choose to do so once already a member?

[Ulphus]

So Ulphus, are you suggesting that requiring standings reduces the chance that a roleplayer will infiltrate your corp to damage it, or choose to do so once already a member?

Not at all, I'm completely avoiding that discussion.

I'm saying it's a somewhat limited tool for verifying character stories and that removing the ability to see what the standings of a character are to the various agents, corporations and factions makes it harder to spot people who are claiming things about their actual in game behaviour which are not true.

A two year old character claiming to have made a living missioning who has no significant standings with mission agents for instance, or showing knowledge of level 4 mission agents when they don't have standings towards any of them.

I have some sympathy for the argument that standings are a pretty piss-poor tool for evaluating RP loyalties, but they are, for better or worse, a record of some of what the character has actually done in Eve.

And if I catch someone lying about one thing, then I'm less likely to believe everything else.

Like I admitted, a lot of this is using the standings as an OOC tool to evaluate the veracity of claims about the character's history, but that evaluation can also be IC.

[Casiella]

Players might be inclined to trust eveboard with their API key more than a potential corp, and that allows finer-grained control over what someone can see.

As a potential tool / workaround, it's not bad.

[Saede Riordan]

I really just wish CCP included a way to Opt in and show faction/corp loyalties in the show info, so those of us with good standings to our factions can flaunt it.

[Mizhara]

It's a seriously annoying loss of an intel tool.

Old system:

"I have a target docked at an RF Logistics station. Now, what might he be doing there? Hmm, there's two agents there, one high quality L3 and one low quality L2. Let's check standings. Ah, the standings do indeed fit someone who's working RF L3s to get to L4s. Thus I can expect a BC carebear ship to be undocking.

Woops. I DC'd and he fucked off since he saw me coming. No nearby locators and he knows this mission hub is spotted. Let's check standings again. Ah, he can run Brutor Tribe L4s. Let's check the nearby high traffic L4 system. There he is, and he'll be in a battleship. He undocks from the kickout station, gets bumped and dies."

New system:

"... I have no fucking idea where he is, and there's no nearby locators. Fuck." or "I know where he is, but for all I know he fucks about with Shuttles in this area. I couldn't tell you if he's ever done a mission in his life."

And that's just one tiny little thing out of many that we're losing here. This means those who mission for pirate factions will never have to deal with uncomfortable standings questions if they don't choose to share their API. No one gets to show off the standings they've worked hard for. In short, this change is utterly pointless and have no positive effects that I can see.

[BloodBird]

I'll have to agree with Miz here. As a RP stance I'd sure not like working with or helping anyone that had done extensive work for, say, the angels. But if it's not set public, I will not be able to see that perfect cartel standing the guy has, or how much the Fed hates his ass. This might be resolved if I asked for api before a join, for instance, but if not I suddely have a pirate-friendly guy in corp who nukes our standings because everyone else's has +2 ore 5 or what, he has -10.

Unless I'm missing something, I really don't see the use in this besides making the life of RP'ers who care about this alot worse, among other issues, one of them mentioned by Miz as well.

[Kaleigh Doyle]

I dunno, I kinda like it. I think too much importance was placed on standings with factions, as if it weren't high enough the pilot may not be loyal enough to their cause. As some have pointed out, it's mostly a tool for tracking down people through their agents and roleplayer e-peen waving.

[Victoria Stecker]

Well, it sorta helps people who are just getting into RP and who's standings in no way reflect their RP stance - like the former Amarr carebear who decides he wants to RP a blooder but his standings are at -10. He's either gotta deal with the abysmally long process of fixing this in hostile nullsec, or he's gotta deal with the handful of people who care potentially pointing it out and questioning his loyalty to the blooders. Perhaps an even better comparison would be someone who decided to play a serp, since missioning for them is pretty nearly impossible if you're not part of the alliance that controls that space - it's smaller and usually harder to get to than delve, stain, or curse ( I don't know where the guristas are or what it's like there, I wouldn't expect it to be any easier).

[Inara Subaka]

Victoria, you can get Serp standings in Curse rather easily. Work for the Cartel and the Serps at the same time since they have agents in the same systems, get straight Serp standings plus derived standings from the Cartel.

I have to say that I'm not sure what benefit this will provide for anyone, but I'm not going to throw CCP under a bus over the matter. It's a massive loss of intel, both for target searching and RP. We'll see what happens, maybe they'll change their minds.

[Casiella]

Confirmed that the change is intended partly to simplify the UI and partly as an intel nerf. Soundwave mentioned to me on Twitter that they might bring it back with gameplay tied to it, but obviously that's backlog stuff. (I refrained from explicit :18months: jokes.)

[Saede Riordan]

I really wish there was a way to opt in on this. I rather enjoy having a shiny standing to show off.