Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'player standings'.

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


  • Forum Rules & Announcements
    • Forum Rules & Guidelines
    • Announcements
    • Patch Notes
  • New Player Landing Zone
    • New Player Help
    • FAQ & Information Desk
    • Gameplay Tutorials
    • Player Introductions
  • General (EN)
    • General Discussions
    • Lua Forum
    • Builder Forum
    • Industry Forum
    • PvP Forum
    • Public Test Server Feedback
    • The Gameplay Mechanics Assembly
    • Idea Box
    • Off Topic Discussions
  • General (DE)
    • Allgemeine Diskussionen
  • General (FR)
    • Discussions générales
  • Social Corner
    • Org Updates & Announcements
    • Roleplay & Lore
    • Fan Art

Find results in...

Find results that contain...

Date Created

  • Start


Last Updated

  • Start


Filter by number of...


  • Start





Website URL









Found 1 result

  1. Abstract/TLDR Version: The purpose of this proposal is to give a general simple system that will empower player organizations/provide a little security, but without the use of some structure like Eve empire npc space + npc police. I recommend utilizing a standing system and a security status based off of player actions. With the security status being independent and completely regulated by the game. I also understand that there were previous threads related to this, but in my perception it seemed overly complicated and sometimes, I wasn't sure if they were trying to create npc mission mechanics. Both of these are standings with one being automated by the game and the other players or player run organizations labels and their perceptions. Part One: Security Status I completely understand a lot of concerns when it comes to pk’ing and griefing. Turning the lands into a Mad Max world, of players brutalizing other players for no other reason than just for the “lolz”. To combat this I recommend putting in a security status that starts at 0.0, which effectively means you are neutral. All players entering into the game will start here and they won’t be flagged and are effectively considered non criminals. Now, what happens when players go below 0.0? Well this is where they are flagged as a criminal for their actions (I will put numbers only for examples and allow others dev & community to decide). So players that might engage another player by firing on them might drop the security status by .5, which now puts the individual at -.5. Killing a player results in a -1.0 and this will also include looting (might as well loot them if you kill them). After a certain point like -5.0, these players are considered a pariah. So basically it becomes a shoot to kill and anyone can engage, whether you are a pirate or a law abiding citizen. So now we know the penalties of engaging in pirating, how do you raise your security status? Here this might be controversial, but this is because of the detrimental flawed system that Eve currently has. I recommend that it is time based and the reason being that the actions to consequences has to be significant. This is also a good way to rehabilitate players in regards to committing anti social behavior. Length of time is up to the developers/community on the gains and since we are doing time based skills, well in my view it only makes sense that your reputation should be the same. This doesn’t prevent people from living an outlaw life style, and only requires commitment. Now, what is the benefit of implementing this system? Well for one, it encourages players to build large cities once the developers add certain modules (Automated turrets). This creates an environment of security and encourages the devotion of said resources. To prevent the possibility of players being duped or brain dead the studio can implement a tutorial that explains the system. We can also go as far as a safety system that Eve has ,akin to a safety on a gun. Where a new player entering will automatically have it set to green on their U.I and a notice will pop up if they decide to shoot someone or etc. They can click on said said button that allows them to do w/e they want as acknowledgment that they understand the consequences for their actions. Each entity can decide what the bar is for access to their territories. It can be draconian and that anyone not a neutral will be killed on sight by modules or players. Or tolerance for the criminal elements and anyone from neutrals to hardcore criminals being allowed. I recommend player enforcement over modules use and modules only has a yes or no of security status enforcement. Purpose is to make cities taking the support anyone route serious devotion and a page out of history that pariahs being forced to live out in the wilderness. I would only implement this automated mechanic on a planet that has an ark ship or a player controlled territory. Being in space and planets with no safe zones, I would consider to be the equivalent of null and so it should go wholly off player/organizations standings. *additional info= only applies to something like a small moon and once off planet it becomes lawless or w/e. Point is to give a significant area for "carebears" to live on. Podcast #4 RDMS Part two: Player Standings aka labels Now for the standing system. The purpose of this is to allow player organizations to set standings on a scale of -10 to +10. This can easily be expanded on by allowing people to edit and gain certain privileges set by certain roles instead of typing each individuals name. As we all know that some player organizations might hold grudges from a previous incident or rivalries. The purpose of including said system is to utilize the same modules (automated turrets), a player run organization has more control over their territory. They can determine what other player run organizations are friendly and in their eyes trustworthy so the said modules doesn’t open fire on them. The process can be as simple as someone with the authority like a diplomat can set individuals or an entire organization as red hostile or blue. Doors and other amenities provided by the entity setting the standings can also be denied. This also can be applied to setting preferential rates/discounts for allies utilizing services like a refinery, a factory, real estate taxes, and etc. This also allows player territories that are unable to utilize modules to have some enforcement of unsavory characters that live the outlaw lifestyle. Here we can probably throw in a bounty system where the Tortugaisque city to deal with players that can’t follow said rules. Example, a player run organization (A) that preys on new players for the “lulz”. Another entity named (B) doesn't condone such activities and flags the entire organization red at -10. So this effectively flags them from access inside structures and kill on sight if they decide to enter said organizations territory. Even if a player leaves said organization the negative standings of the other entity will not change. This will require a player to contact the diplomat and request to have their name taken off the list. This is to prevent dodging being flagged by bailing out of said organizations and as a way of corp history, which at this time I am unsure if it will be implemented. I will state that this is a label that only impacts the player in the player organizations territory when it comes to shoot on sight or utilizing their services. In Space it is irrelevant other then maybe war declaration mechanic or if you want to kill them just because. I have read other proposals and in my perception, they are overly complicated. Eve kept it simple, your standings with a player or organization start out as neutral. Now if you decide to join an organization that has set you -10, that is their prerogative and it is nothing more then a label outside of their territory, whether it is from an individual or organization. The standings should only come into play when accessing that organizations territory for services or not to be shot on sight. You can change it as an individual at any time so you know that person has done something wrong to you and you can choose to add a reason or not. Player run organization can also change it at anytime, but it is not mandatory for it to be reciprocated and so your members might be confused when the other organization that is marked friendly is killing your members. This will make handing out a diplomat position a position of serious trust. Conclusion: I see both systems as being crucial because it gives the players the tools to run everything themselves outside of the starting zone of no pvp. I also believe that these features can be expanded on and is a simple system that isn’t overly complicated. Now, there are assumptions that abuse would be minimized or creative solutions can deter such activities. Example I.e a neutral player is already in the city and a diplomat sets the standing negative to pk the individual. So make standings take a downtime or certain length of time to be enforced and the player notified of the negative standing being set on them. Without the said system I fail to see what the incentive is to avoid tribal instincts i.e shooting anybody not apart of your player organization and allies. These systems will automate a lot of the interactions, with in my view minimal intervention of the leadership in a player run organization. This may also be the first time where a system can be setup that encourages a completely player run system, just using these tools to exclude certain unsavory characters and encourage lone wolves not to be killed on sight and partake in trade, social engagement, and etc. So any lone wolf that doesn’t want to be apart of any player run organization can still visit a city of entity X to trade or w/e. I will attempt to answer any concerns and would very much like to hear any criticism over this idea. This can help us as a community to either refine this idea or scrap it for a better system to manage large swathes of players. I am also reserving the second post as this discussion might actually produce things that I never thought of or other input that is much more creative and so I would like to post changes here for people to see as they go through the discussion (of course citing the individual responsible for credit).
  • Create New...