open All Channels
seplocked EVE Information Portal
blankseplocked New Dev Blog: Organizational tools, standings and other changes
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9

Author Topic

Sarina Berghil
New Zion Judge Advocate
Yulai Federation
Posted - 2010.02.26 06:44:00 - [91]

Nice blog with some food for thought. I'm personally looking forward to some of these improvements.

Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto

How about this: Have the same bar we have now, but below it stick those five coloured buttons, and have pressing them set people to the appropriate standing? It'd let people who don't care set people to +10/+5/0/-5/-10 with one click, but leave in the more powerful options for those who actually do care. Perhaps make the simplified system be what's used for standings set by individuals, if you want it to be more intuitive for them, but let corps and alliances have the detailed version as an option.

This sounds like an elegant solution to get the best of both worlds. Provided that the current standing system is not a big ressource hog.
In order to simplify the look of the UI, simply having an [Advanced...] button next to the coloured boxes could work. This button could pop up the slider or something.

Mecinia Lua
Galactic Express
Intrepid Crossing
Posted - 2010.02.26 06:50:00 - [92]

Some good stuff here.

Alliance standing redo is great, and the fact stations can use that, I know it is always a pain to get rights corp by corp and this will help a lot.

Overriding alliance>corp>personal that seems like a good change too.

The calender could be useful, oddly enough we just put a calender into GEPTs forums. It is still being worked on now I wonder if we'll need it with this ingame one coming.

Now previously we were mentioned treaties or such as being added later to the Dominion groundwork, would be nice to hear more about them.

Sleepless Heretic
Posted - 2010.02.26 06:58:00 - [93]

Do not simplify standings into 5 options.
Just for me, being a common corp member, not being involved in diplomacy and stuff, ATM I see ally reds, corp reds, and my private reds.
Looking at the standing I can guess which one it is and why is that person red e.g. 1.1 - I don`t like his bio, 1.8 - he is fun to kill, 1.3 - ninja-looter and so on, 3.7 - needs to be traced on common ships and whereabouts etc. etc. (I know about notes and use them as well.)
Should I remember all that folk by names? No thank you!
Does anybody like those colour squares that much? Fine! Why not add them to the existing system, just like a shortcuts to -10, -5, 0, +5, +10 positions?

IMHO diversity makes the EVE go round.
Eve is not a plain game to play, but heck, I think nobody wants it to be one!

Enheduanni Foundation
Posted - 2010.02.26 07:16:00 - [94]

Edited by: Pottsey on 26/02/2010 07:20:34
CCP said "support for standings to NPC entities will likely be dropped as they're essentially non-functional."
Have you never heard of role-players, role-play corps and alliance's? What about Faction Warfare players who use them?

Please do not take always standings. While you at it remove the experimental Gallente storyline missions which are unfair and most players who run Gallente missions hate.

This change seems to be a giant step back with zero advantages. CCP seem so out of touch with the players recently.

Miner Tech
Posted - 2010.02.26 07:41:00 - [95]

Public corp memberlist

No, no. No! Why don't you let everyone on Eve Gate choose to make corp membership visible or not on their own?

Privacy policy of Eve Gate

What is the privacy policy of Eve Gate? How much control do the players have over their own information? Can they choose to NOT release some info? Or will everything just be automatically available to everyone (which would be really bad)?
For example skill certificates and decorations in Eve can be hidden or visible to everyone and that is entirely in the hand of the player - where it belongs to.
The same minimum of control should be possible for Eve Gate, at least because it will be much easier to automatically collect data from the website than from Eve, so the control must be at least same as high, better higher!

New standing system

2 positive and 2 negative standings are not good enough. Make it 3 of each, that would be MUCH better and should be still fairly simple. The reason why only 2 standings are not enough comes from the complexity of Eve and the social interaction there.
Make it easier, but don't cut it down THAT much that a large part of the complex and interesting interaction is lost.

Posted - 2010.02.26 07:43:00 - [96]

Originally by: Hans Soloist

In response to "The question then is whether the corp member list should be globally viewable, or just viewable to corporate members." This is a no brainer, I think this should be corp only, this would provide way to much intel to enemies without having them work for it.

That! Globally viewable memberlist is a bad idea! It's part of the game play that you have to look at the killboards, scout, and share this intell with you allies.

Omega Wing
Snatch Victory
Posted - 2010.02.26 07:50:00 - [97]

While standings can be simplified to 4 colours, there needs to be a way for a CEO/leadership to let people know the value of a target/corp, which is not conveyed in the colour of red. One solution would be to have a additional tagging list that has no mechanics functionality beside that "list of colours = meaning", so in local, a guy appears with red standing (and another square thats say orange). The member will know that orange means "alts of the enemy corp" and treat him as expected.

Also, while simplifying standings, is there a possible chance that we can get a working addessbook (watch list) that actually reports logoffs, instead of people staying online forever, until you remove them, and readd them, to see that they've really been offline forever.

Also, corp address books, where a ceo/director/communications manager can create a corp/alliance global address book, and add current targets of interest, with a corp/alliance wide comment thats readable by people clicking (or hovering over?) them. This would go a long way to replace the standings system, as you could just look up the person or hover over him, and know why he is in the corp/alliance address book.

Fallen Pandas
Posted - 2010.02.26 07:56:00 - [98]

I love dev blogs! Nom Nom Nom ugh

I agree with previous posters that there will be to few settings regarding standings and would require a wider variant.

Posted - 2010.02.26 07:58:00 - [99]

Originally by: Chribba
It begins... Laughing


anyway unless its accesible outa game (best with RSS) it would be like WiS (nice on paper and promovideo, but meh)

Brutor Tribe
Posted - 2010.02.26 08:11:00 - [100]

Well, in the process of implementing the new standings system, it has been determined that it's easier to rewrite Alliance standings than make the old system play nice with the new Contacts system. As a convenient side-effect of this, Alliance standings will now be used whenever stations or starbases make a standings check.

Greyscale will you have my eve babies Embarassed

Aineko Macx
Posted - 2010.02.26 08:28:00 - [101]

Please give us the ability to set personal standings towards an alliance.

Aidan Patrick
Aldebaran Foundation
Tauri Federation
Posted - 2010.02.26 08:29:00 - [102]

Originally by: Sturmwolke

I'm not completely sold on the label idea tbh. Before going into it, first you have to establish whether you want it to replace the current standings system ... OR should it work as an extension of the current standings system ?

For the former, you'll be running into consistency issues when it comes to the NPC standings and anything to do with NPCs from missioning, research, refining, trade and POSes. It also increases the complexity (because you can set just about anything) and need for maintenance for these so called labels. I foresee that it'll be more tedious in the long run rather than beneficial.

For the latter, as an extension it has some interesting potential for person/corp/alliance management & politics. However, I'd like to highlight that the price you pay for this level of customization is again, more time spent on management and maintenance. It keeps escalating. Imo, this needs to be avoided without dumbing down the game. I prefer an approach to simplify (the parts that can be simplified) and automate (where applicable) and if need to, re-design it to fit those two.

First, I'm talking about using my labels in conjunction with the new system proposed and already worked on in this dev blog, not a completely seperate system. The two would work together (so you have color tag standings, and then labels to quickly denote certain attributes/categories they fall under, instead of decoding -5.1 means they like to wear tu-tu's while attacking us.

I love feedback! Maybe this will quell your concerns about it Sturmwolke?

The way I foresee the label system working for mechanics is lets say you have an alliance and a mix of some 150 corps/alliances/players with standings set. You want to label them, the way I invision it is you create the label, then instead of individually marking each corp to use that label, you highlight (ctrl click, shift click ect) everyone you want to go under a title and just drag and drop them into the "label", thus giving them that label.

All 3 entities could be in as many labels as necessary, allowing you to lookup information one of two ways. For example you want to know who is this Aidan Patrick loser, and why is he red? You pull up your standings and see "Oh, hes labeled as a tutu wearing freak. Good to know." or you can go a step further and just go into the standings and select the label "Tutu Wearing Freaks" and see everyone who likes to wear the tutus.

Now yes, initially this will take some work and re-organization for those who already have complex standing systems in place, but that is to be expected with any major change. I do however, have good faith that if my vision of labels for standings is properly implemented and enhanced by other ideas it could very well do a great deal to ease management, while adding in even more customization to what data is presented to each person on corp/alliance and personal levels.

See the great thing about the labels idea, is for people like me, it can be as complicated as I want it to be. But the great thing is, that small 5 man corp in a wormhole can leave it as simple as they want it too.

Now as far as adding in additional color tags, I have a feeling the reason that wasn't done was quite simply because CCP does not want to mess with the over-view yet. If they add new color tags for different standings and differentiation, they are going to be directly messing with the overview. Anyone who is a big-time eve player knows that your overview is god. If something goes wrong while making those changes they could open up all kinds of bugs that might plague gameplay more than lag. With that said, my proposed labels system would just be another way of checking why someone has their sec status. In other words, no more decoding -5.1 tutu wearing freaks. :)

On another note, it would be cool if normal show info on a players standings tab showed any labels set by corp/alliance/player in addition to the color standing tab. :)

Black Legion.
Posted - 2010.02.26 08:38:00 - [103]

Thanks CCP, is good news you are reviewing this, but after many years managing a corp and an big alliance I find some stuff that can be improved. Mainly some corp roles as "rent factory slot" and "rend research slot", as they are useless without the overpowered (can CANCEL jobs) "factory manager role" and the lack of a "diplomatic" role to change standings (ATM you need a director to do this).

Another thing that could be enhanced is a way to contract corp insured ships to members with a collateral. This would improve the corporative ship infrastructure.

The calendar and other stuff is cool, but I prefer if you improve the current stuff we have instead adding more content.

Posted - 2010.02.26 08:39:00 - [104]

Edited by: SyntaxPD on 26/02/2010 08:47:21
Do not cut 0.1 step and standing slider. That's the micro i like to play with

Mono Loco
Posted - 2010.02.26 08:41:00 - [105]

did he say programmers? damn you! it's software engineers! YARRRR!!

Switzerland EVE Corp.
Posted - 2010.02.26 08:44:00 - [106]

Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto
Edited by: Herschel Yamamoto on 25/02/2010 23:20:43
How about this: Have the same bar we have now, but below it stick those five coloured buttons, and have pressing them set people to the appropriate standing? It'd let people who don't care set people to +10/+5/0/-5/-10 with one click, but leave in the more powerful options for those who actually do care. Perhaps make the simplified system be what's used for standings set by individuals, if you want it to be more intuitive for them, but let corps and alliances have the detailed version as an option.


I really approve of the idea to set standings with one click (OCD, setting standings to exactely +5/-5 Very Happy) but I see there are lots of people who like to set up finer standing values like +2.5, +0.1, ...

Having a textbox to enter the value or being able to focus and move the slider with arrow keys would also speed up the process of setting an exact standings value like +2.5

Jacob Holland
Weyland-Vulcan Industries
Posted - 2010.02.26 08:57:00 - [107]

Five standing levels isn't sufficient from my perspective.

And IMHO standings towards NPC entities are not valueless.

I want to be able to tell, at a glance, from the corp window who I've set standings to for direct affronts to the corp, for affronts to allied entities (not entities in an alliance but entities who are more loosely allied), standings for potential friends, real friends, potential and actual friends of allied entities... And starter corps.

Why starter corps?
Well the first reason was that IAC's NRDS policy when I was a member placed NPC corps on the red side, which limited the effect of starter corp spying.
Today it's more a question of having a visual cue for the starter corps for the purposes of recruitment.

What I would suggest is 10 standing levels:

Red minus:
Allied KOS
Orange minus:
Allied Hostile
Grey Equals:
Something new?:
"Increased awareness" (used to highlight groups who are effectively neutral but whom you wish to be aware of in a given situation, perhaps a group you suspect of spying but don't want to mark out to be shot, perhaps a group who perform occasional services for your Alliance but whom you don't wish to have full access to your space, perhaps just new players you might want to recruit).
Light Blue Plus:
Allied NAP
Dark Blue Plus:
Mutual Defense Pact
Allied Mutual Defence Pact

Kazuo Ishiguro
House of Marbles
Posted - 2010.02.26 09:09:00 - [108]

What's happening to the way POS lab fees are calculated when a standings-based discount is applied for people in other corporations within your alliance doing ME/PE research at your labs? This seems like another loss of functionality.

Also, I agree with others here that 5 levels of standings will not be enough.

Meissa Anunthiel
Redshift Industrial
Rooks and Kings
Posted - 2010.02.26 09:20:00 - [109]

The standings granularity is insufficient.

For most, red or orange doesn't matter. It's people you shoot.

However the standings in the positive side are used to depict different levels of trust as well as people you're not going to shoot at.
As far as "shooting or not" is concerned, 1 level of blue/red would be sufficient, but as far as "control and access" is concerned, that's not sufficient at all...
In that case there's only 2 levels of blue, which are very very much insufficient. There's people you don't want to shoot but don't trust, there's people you trust enough to fly with, there's allies that you trust to a limited extent and a very precious few you trust with access to your sensitive stuff. It doesn't matter to the average grunt, but for diplomats and managers, it does. If you want to limit the available standings, there needs to be more levels of blue.

As far as the availability of corporate roster is concerned, it's a big issue with wardecs. Most corporations with industry characters prefer them to remain hidden in case of war, not necessarily because they can be killed, but because it may give information as to what systems/stations corporations use as production hubs. Right now getting a handle on those characters is practically impossible for an aggressor as they don't appear on killboards are are thus unlocatable. We've made the case in CSM 2 and 3 that wardecs are essentially (currently) used as a griefing tool more than anything else. With this extra information, it becomes even more of a problem especially for small industrial corporations.

The gains of a working social networking gate are not outweighed by the disadvantages in-game in this instance.
- Give an option to opt-out the display of corp/alliance membership in Eve Gate on a character basis.
Ignore that "opt out" in case the corporation is currently the aggressor in a war.

These 2 steps are insufficient in guaranteeing the same level of covertness as before, but they may be sufficient in removing the most glaring downside of having that information public.

Jackie Fisher
Syrkos Technologies
Joint Venture Conglomerate
Posted - 2010.02.26 09:28:00 - [110]

Calendar time zones as already suggested maybe display both Eve time and user set local time?

Standings granularity nice that settings are being simplified but could not this be in addition to the old pick your number system rather than as a replacement? If not could we have the ability to add labels to contacts like we can to our mail and then sort by label?

Standings hierarchy would it be possible to display an A, C or P (Alliance, Corps, Personal) in the background of the coloured standings squares instead of the +/- signs so its easy to tell where the standing came from?

Another thumbs down to public corp member lists.

Fallout Project
Posted - 2010.02.26 10:08:00 - [111]

Interesting. Few comments that pop into my mind tho.

(1) Only 5 levels might not be enough. Well ok few levels is enough on the negative side as those are the people you shoot, however on the positive side having only 2 is a bit low. I would suggest looking into option to make it at least 10 'ticks' long as compromise. That would mean in essence a 'step' of 2.5, 4 on the negative side, 1 neutral and 1 on the positive side. In the ideal world ofcource there would me more ticks in there, but 4 'positive' ticks should be sufficent to allow detailed enough differentiation. So for example you can make your neighbour light blue (+5) and their pet's barely blue (+2.5) so that your neighbours can dock with you, but their pet's can not. If you are willing to implement more 'ticks' please make each tick a bit different level. For example take a look at MATLAB 'jet' colormap, as thats what we basically have atm.

(2) To avoid spiders that climb thru your social network collecting corporation membership information please make corporation assosiation hidden by default. If people want to show it they are free to put a tick in the box to make it public (like iot is done currently in the forums), but every corporation has some characters in it that do not show up in the public information assets like killboards and stuff. Ofcource it's not the end of the world if you make it public as everyone with more than few braincells already has NPC corp hauling alt, but making this information public will cause heavy losses among the younger pilots in EVE who do not know game well enough to have NPC corp hauling or freighter alts.

Snorre Sturlasson
Posted - 2010.02.26 10:24:00 - [112]

Edited by: Snorre Sturlasson on 26/02/2010 10:25:37
Starbases und Standings

Please overhaul the starbases in such a way, that other than corpmates can use modules, against paying a fee like this:

Lab using per hour * standing * -1 = fee

Sometime I work together with other corps and it's not funny that those members of other corps can't use the fitting service of my starbase.

Jowen Datloran
Science and Trade Institute
Posted - 2010.02.26 10:28:00 - [113]

Why does there seems to be elements in this blog that goes directly against the idea of creating a sandbox game? A sandbox game thrives on complexity and details in its features, and improving functionality of these features should not mean a reduction of the complexity.

A statement like "support for standings to NPC entities will likely be dropped as they're essentially non-functional." is completely false, as this game mechanic are usable in situations where no other game mechanic can provide the same functionality. As example to quickly identify NPC corp members and to identify which corporation the NPC haulers, that are moving in an out of stations, belong to (I bet you had forgotten about those).

I can accept when you state, that you are removing game functionality just because you are the devs and are fully aware of the reduction in game feature diversity such a removal will cause. But using the argument that a feature has no functionality when it does, simply shows that you are messing with stuff and have no clue about its purpose and the consequence of its removal.

For the devs to come and remove the tools, because they do not understand themselves what purpose the tools have, is a simply contradiction of the whole sandbox idea. Because the beauty of the sandbox is exactly all the little tools and gimmicks that the players find their own purpose with, far beyond what the developers had imagined.

Posted - 2010.02.26 11:00:00 - [114]

Edited by: SyntaxPD on 26/02/2010 11:02:20
| agreed

Don't forget. EVE is sci-fi game.
What does it mean ?
It means, the players LOVE to have as much facilities as possible, love micro-management, love to tune up, tweak and go deeper and deeper.

Do not go this way.
Better give us as many customizations as you can.

Kata Amentis
Re-Awakened Technologies Inc
Posted - 2010.02.26 11:10:00 - [115]

I think the devs needs to take on board a very simple idea.

If you ever have a feature where you've got to decide which way around to do things, both ways are technically possible and you can see cases for each, give us an interface and let the player choose.

Should Corp info be public/private... well some corps might want member information to be public, whilst the more paranoid or combatant might want it private. Intel gathering reamins a deciding RL player skill in many cases. Give us an interface to decide. Public/Private check boxes next to the member information list entries would be a familiar interface similar to that already in other game areas. Just like certs and the other personal information. Let paranoid hermits be paranoid hermits Very Happy.

Should standings checks be alliance first, corp second, personal third... whilst that'll help in a lot of cases, what about if a corp in an alliance is working more independantly and for a short time, the enemy of my enemy is my friend, even though the alliance bigwigs reckon they're our enemy. Being able to reorder then standings to show Corp>Alliance>Personal would be needed.
What about the merc who's taken a contract to infiltrate a corp and kill a certain player, wouldn't he want his personal standings to override all others to highlight his target?
Give us an interface to decide, although the default should be whatever give the biggest performance boost/most commonly useful.

Unless the choices are mutally exclusive code wise, from a design point of view giving the players more choice so we can play our own style is great, and we need more of it! The coders might complain about having to implement all the choices and add in the interface in the same delivery period rather than just picking one, but isn't that part of the job of a designer, annoying coders?

On a side note: Eve Gate, please please please learn the lessons from the backlash against Buzz's launch and the constant hoohaa about facebook's privacy settings; social networking might be great and all, but we need total control about what others can see. Default everything to hidden, and let us decide what, when and to whom we show information!! We're not all trying to be friends in Eve, let the intreague and sneakiness continue!

PS. Calender, will the "days" be DT to DT? At least everyone can relate to that...

Max Teranous
Body Count Inc.
Against ALL Authorities
Posted - 2010.02.26 11:14:00 - [116]

Just call it Spacebook - you know you want to, and that's what your player base will call it regardless Laughing

Max Cool

The Legion of Spoon
Curatores Veritatis Alliance
Posted - 2010.02.26 11:50:00 - [117]

Edited by: SeerinDarkness on 26/02/2010 11:52:17
Edited by: SeerinDarkness on 26/02/2010 11:50:58
Some of this is really good ,However corp info should Not be public.
Alliance - personal settings needs to be implemented so hostile persons in npc/noob corps can be set..far as im aware standings twords NPC corps has never been allowed as a general except in the case of setting corp- FW corp settings possably.

outposts curently refinery base take rate is set at a base percentage that needs to be kept.

generalising the op's functionality is genneraly bad paticularly for people that let everyone but hostiles dock.

otherwise your just furthering the corperate store setup most alliances run which is also bad.

how are you going to calculate docking fees now or are u planning on taking away that alliance income for op owners now as well besides raiding everyone pocket book with the current sov costs.

Furthermore how is this all supposed to reduce LAG? Dominion[cough]failminion removed every gain made in the playability department in the last 4 years for fleet fights and the new sov methods only encourage bigger fleet fighting in order to win, yet i see Nothing but hooking in more server calls abusable lag generators with this addition...

so now everyone is going to be able to open spacebook/calander just as the fight starts to enshure the attackers win even though your teams are trying to reduce the problem....
the Forums and outside internet access and this spacebook thing all need to be phisicly seperated from the game itself other wise your inherently creating a greater problem thru complexifcation which is already a huge gameplay issue.Evil or Very Mad

Malum Exuro
Posted - 2010.02.26 11:51:00 - [118]

Originally by: Taking Chances
Originally by: Ebisou

I'm going to second this idea, need at least one more setting.

*thirded or sth. The proposed standings system needs one, even better 2 more settings

-10 arch nemesis kinda stuff (the organized ones)
-5 friends of archnemesis kinda stuff (the less organized ones)
-2.5 people I don't really care but are a nuisance
0 Everybody else
2.5 people who won't attack me
5 people who won't attack me and live close
10 people who will pro'lly get me killed for some higher goal.

the margin between 2.5 and 5 is IMHO very, very important for someone living out in 0.0

- and see: sites like newsgrounds etc. actually have a decent, complex rating system without being usability nightmares.

While I am all in favor of simplifying the system, reducing it to 5 options will be a PITA.


Also, as far as public membership lists, I'm gonna say, do it!

Estel Arador
Posted - 2010.02.26 11:53:00 - [119]

Edited by: Estel Arador on 26/02/2010 11:54:06
I liked most of the blog and I strongly agree with making corporation membership public, but the standings change needs more thought, or at least more explanation.

Originally by: CCP Greyscale
The long and short of it is that this system is intended to fill the role of a "friends" system for EVE Gate, and as such we want to have simple and intuitive, both mechanically and in terms of UI.

Have you considered using a seperate system for EVE Gate? You wouldn't have to mess with the current standings mechanics and can design an independent system which is perfect for a social network.

Or if you want to use the same system, why not do it like the overview does it? Any standing between x and y gets z colour.

Originally by: CCP Greyscale
For the majority of users there's no need for anything beyond the "five overview states", so we trimmed it down to reflect this mechanically.

For the majority of users there's no need of 0.0 space. I say get rid of it, I never go there anyway.

Originally by: CCP Greyscale
There are pros and cons to any decision; we've tried to be as forthright about the perceived downsides as possible, but (obviously) we feel that they're outweighed by the upsides.

Could you list the upsides? I didn't see any in the blog...

Abriana Overlord
IT Alliance
Posted - 2010.02.26 12:00:00 - [120]

Originally by: Taking Chances
Originally by: Ebisou

I'm going to second this idea, need at least one more setting.

*thirded or sth. The proposed standings system needs one, even better 2 more settings

-10 arch nemesis kinda stuff (the organized ones)
-5 friends of archnemesis kinda stuff (the less organized ones)
-2.5 people I don't really care but are a nuisance
0 Everybody else
2.5 people who won't attack me
5 people who won't attack me and live close
10 people who will pro'lly get me killed for some higher goal.

the margin between 2.5 and 5 is IMHO very, very important for someone living out in 0.0

- and see: sites like newsgrounds etc. actually have a decent, complex rating system without being usability nightmares.

While I am all in favor of simplifying the system, reducing it to 5 options will be a PITA.

My view is that people needlessly add complexity where it is not required. 0.0 is pretty simple really as the majority of politics is covered off in IRC.

Standings are just the in game mechanism mainly used for
-knowing who to shoot, or at least having a view of who will shoot you (in the case of NRDS).In the case of NBSI pretty self explanatory
-Identifying the priority people to shoot
-Stn mgmt (which comes down to costs of refines, builds, docking etc)
-POS Stuffs (shield access, gun shooty shooty, bridges etc)
-Finding that allied fleet in fleet finder

So in 0.0 either NBSI which is 2 standings, in the case of NRDS where things can be somewhat more complicated the 5 standing really should be adequate.

This then brings to the empire based politic once again really need more than 5?

Most peeps who fly in the game do not see if someone is +2 vs +3 or +1 they just look at the colour so unless you have 10 different colours representing standings then it just really is not workable

The rule KISS (keep it simple) rules out, It is surprising how complex and simple thing can be made

In respect to overview order, Alliance standings should always be taken first, most alliances are governed by those standing, then corp then personal so I just see this more as a formalisation. Seeing the secondary standing would be useful but could be presented as a selectable column on the overview (most peeps will not use it anyhow)

On the whole I support the changes and look forward to the more polished view of this new feature, It is overdue

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9

This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to

These forums are archived and read-only