EVE Search - Eve Online, CSM and Ankhesentapemkah to be featured in TV documentary

Search EVE-Online forums for:

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

Eve Online, CSM and Ankhesentapemkah to be featured in TV documentary

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

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

Author	Topic
Malcanis R.E.C.O.N. Insurgency	Posted - 2008.04.24 12:27:00 - [31] Edited by: Malcanis on 24/04/2008 12:29:16 Originally by: Ankhesentapemkah I see your point, but that does not change the importance of the intention behind the action. Heh. Well, what can I say but that Idealism is an endearing trait in the young, but merely irritating in those old enough to know better. What possible change could CCP make that would police intent? At heart, the issue here is about freedom. Freedom, by it's very nature, can and will be abused - that's the primary price you pay for it. Corp A ganks 3 hulks because they want a local monopoly on Pyerite supply to raise funds for their collective goals and NPC miners, immune to war-decs, are undermining their game project. Corp B ganks 3 hulks because they got drunk on a friday night and wanted to get some hilarious carebear tears and smack. How on earth can you change the rules so that corp A can pursue their legitimate in game goals while stopping corp B 'griefing'? Answer a questionaire and take a personality test before being allowed to F1-F8? Now people in Corp A, who well understand this dichotomy, see your posts and cannot help but to immediately draw the conclusion that you will advocate a reduction in their freedom within the game. Obviously this will not draw a positive response! THAT is the core reason behind most of the flames you draw. Most players don't care a bit that you want to spend your time mining or whatever; they care because you're implicitly advocating a significant reduction in their ability to purse their in-game goals. That is the concern that you will have to address if you want people like me - who have never suicide-ganked, never can-baited noobs, or scammed or spied, but who understand and desire the freedom to do so - to give the least consideration to voting for you. EDIT: I suggest you read "A Clockwork Orange" for a much more eloquent exposition of the ideas I am trying to put forward. Don't bother with the film though. CONCORD provide consequences, not safety; only you can do that.
Jade Constantine Gallente Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.04.24 12:49:00 - [32] Originally by: Malcanis I've repeatedly posted in favour of ideas like transferable/tradable kill-rights and so forth. By all means give the players more options to protect themselves. What I am utterly opposed to are the people who demand that CCP protect their internet pixels, eg with ridiculously draconian penalties, increasing the ISk cost by singling out one particular method of ship-loss for insurance ineligibility, or even just disabling non-consensual high-sec PvP altogether. I'm absolutely enthused by transferable kill-rights by the way. I love the idea and I think it can become the seed for a radically-enhanced bounty-hunting profession with players able to sell their kill rights via an escrow-auction style interface and bounty hunters able to buy these things for "hunt licenses". I'd go a step further and make the actual "kill rights" function as a location beacon as well to allow hunters to "home in" on the prey and reward the kill with a bounty payment per ship class destroyed + a security level boost. Homing function would work just until the kill is scored (similar to location agent but automatic update each 5 mins). Bounty award would be x fee based on av market price of ship taken out, sec level bonus based on ship class destroyed too. Target illegal would be informed when somebody has purchased a hunt license. Kill rights would only be purchasable by people with +sec ratings. I'd love to see a score table style readout of Best Hunters in Eve (based on weight of illegal shipping blown up in the course of formal hunt contracts). And taking it a step further one could easily have the concord agency function as a bounty hunting bureau and give out LPs based on tonnage of illegal ships killed and hunt mission completion. LP's buy special bounty hunting boosting modules and sexy assassination technology etc. This system does a couple of things: 1. Vengeance enters the player arena. 2. Encourages a bounty hunting profession. 3. Makes exciting small unit PVP opportunity. 4. Means illegals get to look over their shoulders more. 5. Lets people kill players for sec-level boosts rather than rats. As you say Malcanis - this sort of thing is much better than sweeping and draconian changes to rule out suicide ganks or wielding the economic cugel of mucking about with insurance payment. CSM Election Manifesto 2008
Una D Ex Coelis	Posted - 2008.04.24 12:50:00 - [33] Originally by: Malcanis Originally by: Una D Originally by: Malcanis Now the analogy is obvious, but I'll spell it out anyway. CCP make it very, very clear, they are absolutely explicit that whenever you undock, you are consenting to put yourself in a situation where you may legitimately be deprived of your ship. You don't have to do it, but the way the game is designed, intended and structured, it is frequently - even usually - an optimal course of action. EvE was created as a game of internet spaceships shooting each other; It is no more inappropriate or "incompetent" to shoot someone's ship in EvE than it is to tackle someone on a rugby pitch. This is true but what is also true is that there is no way to fight suicide ganks and noob griefers by way of PvP. Yes you can avoid it but you can not fight it. Thus current situation is actually removing PvP from the game as the only solution is to avoid combat not fight it. While she does seem to not like PvP and that quote (Foundation is a really good series BTW) doesn't really fit in EvE the main question is what they are going to work for as memebers of CSM. As an empire living peep I doubt that goon representative or BoB one for that matter will work hard to balance risk/reward for empire or solve the criminaly stupid bounty/killrights system that is nerfing PvP in the whole empire (both high sec and low sec). There is also the thing if you enable PvP in empire so that people have an option of fighting than they might not be so reluctant to try out low sec and 0.0 and isn't that what CCP and a lot of 0.0 (I guess that 0.0 peeps want more easy targets if I'm to be perfectly honest) want? I've repeatedly posted in favour of ideas like transferable/tradable kill-rights and so forth. By all means give the players more options to protect themselves. What I am utterly opposed to are the people who demand that CCP protect their internet pixels, eg with ridiculously draconian penalties, increasing the ISk cost by singling out one particular method of ship-loss for insurance ineligibility, or even just disabling non-consensual high-sec PvP altogether. And I think you'd be surprised at the level of interest that 0.0 alliances have in empire. If you consider the logistics and economics involved you should come to understand why 0.0 players are bitterly opposed to nerfing the possibility of ganking NPC corp freighter/hauler pilots, for instance. many of the bitterest tears cried over the old Privateers Alliance were shed by 0.0 alliances. I'm afraid I don't see how removal of insurance for concord kills would nerf PvP. With the bar being so low to gank freighters they are gimped if you are moving anything that is more valuable than trit and that is just stupid. Nerfing a whole class of ships should not be OK in EVE. I'm with you on the part of removing non consensual PvP in hihg sec. That would be terrible for everyone involved. That is why I want insurance removed (that will up the cost so that freighters can be used for what they are intended) and tradeable kill rights so that griefing new players can get you hunted by someone who is up to the task. Second thing is nerfing the noob corps. As you mentioned it's a giant hole in the whole risk/reward idea and 0.0 peeps hate it at least as much as those of us who live in empire. I think that these changes would change the face of PvP in empire and enable people to strike back at both griefers and those that now hide in noob corps. I'm fairly sure it would help 0.0 too since you would have a much easier task of hunting down logistic corporations of your oponents. Last part in the grand plan would be slowing down how fast you can jump corps (mostly to avoid the thing where you war decc them only to have everyone jump ship, errr, corp 5 seconds after the war decc goes in to effect).
LaVista Vista Conservative Shenanigans Party	Posted - 2008.04.24 12:54:00 - [34] Originally by: Jade Constantine Originally by: Malcanis I've repeatedly posted in favour of ideas like transferable/tradable kill-rights and so forth. By all means give the players more options to protect themselves. What I am utterly opposed to are the people who demand that CCP protect their internet pixels, eg with ridiculously draconian penalties, increasing the ISk cost by singling out one particular method of ship-loss for insurance ineligibility, or even just disabling non-consensual high-sec PvP altogether. I'm absolutely enthused by transferable kill-rights by the way. I love the idea and I think it can become the seed for a radically-enhanced bounty-hunting profession with players able to sell their kill rights via an escrow-auction style interface and bounty hunters able to buy these things for "hunt licenses". I'd go a step further and make the actual "kill rights" function as a location beacon as well to allow hunters to "home in" on the prey and reward the kill with a bounty payment per ship class destroyed + a security level boost. Homing function would work just until the kill is scored (similar to location agent but automatic update each 5 mins). Bounty award would be x fee based on av market price of ship taken out, sec level bonus based on ship class destroyed too. Target illegal would be informed when somebody has purchased a hunt license. Kill rights would only be purchasable by people with +sec ratings. I'd love to see a score table style readout of Best Hunters in Eve (based on weight of illegal shipping blown up in the course of formal hunt contracts). And taking it a step further one could easily have the concord agency function as a bounty hunting bureau and give out LPs based on tonnage of illegal ships killed and hunt mission completion. LP's buy special bounty hunting boosting modules and sexy assassination technology etc. This system does a couple of things: 1. Vengeance enters the player arena. 2. Encourages a bounty hunting profession. 3. Makes exciting small unit PVP opportunity. 4. Means illegals get to look over their shoulders more. 5. Lets people kill players for sec-level boosts rather than rats. As you say Malcanis - this sort of thing is much better than sweeping and draconian changes to rule out suicide ganks or wielding the economic cugel of mucking about with insurance payment. While I'm EXTREMELY excited by the idea, I have one concern. You say that bounty payment per ship class destroyed, should be made. Are you talking about an ISK payment, or, for instance, Loyallity points? Lets not increase the amount of isk introduced to the game more than needed. Loyallity points are a much better payment, imo.
Malcanis R.E.C.O.N. Insurgency	Posted - 2008.04.24 12:58:00 - [35] Well I think we're straying a little off the topic of ankhthingy's CSM candidacy now. I've tried to explain why I don't she'd shed make a suitable CSM member, so now it's up to her to convince me and those like me that she would I, think. On a tangential note, I wonder if we'll see any war-decs over this CSM thing? Have there been any already? CONCORD provide consequences, not safety; only you can do that.
Jade Constantine Gallente Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.04.24 13:08:00 - [36] Originally by: LaVista Vista While I'm EXTREMELY excited by the idea, I have one concern. You say that bounty payment per ship class destroyed, should be made. Are you talking about an ISK payment, or, for instance, Loyallity points? Lets not increase the amount of isk introduced to the game more than needed. Loyallity points are a much better payment, imo. Hmmm, I'm open for discussion and persuasion on that LaVista. I was thinking ISK payment + LP, on the grounds that these are player ships being blown up and its a bit zero sum to the general economic situation ... ie if you pay a bounty on a tier 2 battleship of 30m isk (for example) thats close to the minimum cost of loss for the target. Exact formula could even be linked to market prices and insurance payment to ensure that that the benefit to the killer cannot exceed the minimum loss to the victim. In that way no extra money actually comes into the game - it just transfers from target to hunter. I can see if you make it pure LP though it could still be top fun and function as an actual honest-to-goodness ISK sink. CSM Election Manifesto 2008
Malcanis R.E.C.O.N. Insurgency	Posted - 2008.04.24 13:23:00 - [37] I'd just like to note that this has been one of the most constructive threads I've seen in this forum for ages. CONCORD provide consequences, not safety; only you can do that.
Una D Ex Coelis	Posted - 2008.04.24 13:26:00 - [38] Originally by: Malcanis Well I think we're straying a little off the topic of ankhthingy's CSM candidacy now. I've tried to explain why I don't she'd shed make a suitable CSM member, so now it's up to her to convince me and those like me that she would I, think. On a tangential note, I wonder if we'll see any war-decs over this CSM thing? Have there been any already? I would agree here. New sources of ISK are not needed (even if price of GTC has never been lower). LP and perhaps some kind of standings would be great. It would be almost player based missions. PS: agree about this being one of few good posts.
Captain Narmio Minmatar Baptism oF Fire Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate	Posted - 2008.04.24 13:33:00 - [39] Edited by: Captain Narmio on 24/04/2008 13:34:36 Wait, I'm confused. Wouldn't the bounty part of the bounty hunting be paid in entirety by other players? Is that not the whole point? No isk faucets here! Also, voting Jade because (s)he's consistently mature, interesting and all about making EVE more dynamic rather than getting CCP to put up more roadblocks. Also, I like walls of text. Oh, and I can type her name without needing a coffee break. ---------- I have discovered that with a signature, my posts look less noobish and are probably more likely to get read.
Jin Gle Gallente The Topal Corporation	Posted - 2008.04.24 13:38:00 - [40] I think you're making a mistake by defining a distinction between "good" and "bad" PvP. Its not really for you to do. You say you want to be a CSM member but I think your own opinions arent even compatible with the majority of EVE's userbase. You have a wonderfull vision for a game, but that game just isnt EVE. ill watch you on VPRO though. good luck! Space Lion

Pooka Caldari United Space Aillance USA	Posted - 2008.04.24 13:54:00 - [41] Originally by: LaVista Vista Originally by: Ankhesentapemkah You seem to be very anti-pvp. Do you think that you will make a good member of the council, if you don't have perspective? I'm very much interested in the economics of eve, just like you seem to be. But a game without pvp(Which i enjoy doing) would TOTALLY ruin the game. So do you actually have pvp experience? [/quote Which is why she has a better chance of getting my corperation's votes then you. This is not JUST a PVP game. It is for everyone and no you can't have my stuff and I have never played WoW. PROMISES MADE PROMISES KEPT BRING THE BRIGHT STAR BACK!!!
Ankhesentapemkah Gallente	Posted - 2008.04.24 14:13:00 - [42] Originally by: Malcanis Well I think we're straying a little off the topic of ankhthingy's CSM candidacy now. (...) I'd just like to note that this has been one of the most constructive threads I've seen in this forum for ages. Agreed. If topic is derailed in such a manner, I certainly do not mind, as this is a good thing for the Eve Community. I'll consider changing the topic title, in the mean time let me write a reply to the new issues brought up. --- Consider voting for me in the CSM elections. I invite you to take a look at the campaign website for issues and further information. Visit our Campaign Website
LaVista Vista Conservative Shenanigans Party	Posted - 2008.04.24 14:28:00 - [43] Originally by: Pooka This is not JUST a PVP game. It is for everyone and no you can't have my stuff and I have never played WoW. I'm sorry, did you even read my campaign site, or hell, even tried and look at my signatures? They should give a clue too. You obviously don't know my background if you think I argue that EvE is just a PVP Game.
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.04.24 14:31:00 - [44] Originally by: LaVista Vista While I'm EXTREMELY excited by the idea, I have one concern. You say that bounty payment per ship class destroyed, should be made. Are you talking about an ISK payment, or, for instance, Loyallity points? Lets not increase the amount of isk introduced to the game more than needed. Loyallity points are a much better payment, imo. This is a fairly common request for bounties[I know ive requested it at least once] and the general gist of is is that when you kill an enemies ship you receive a portion of his bounty based on the value of the ship. Basing it on ship price would be fairly difficult, but you could fairly easily base it on the base price of the destroyed modules/rigs and not have much of a problem while still offering significant rewards to the players Vote Goumindong for CSM
LaVista Vista Conservative Shenanigans Party	Posted - 2008.04.24 14:36:00 - [45] Originally by: Goumindong Originally by: LaVista Vista While I'm EXTREMELY excited by the idea, I have one concern. You say that bounty payment per ship class destroyed, should be made. Are you talking about an ISK payment, or, for instance, Loyallity points? Lets not increase the amount of isk introduced to the game more than needed. Loyallity points are a much better payment, imo. This is a fairly common request for bounties[I know ive requested it at least once] and the general gist of is is that when you kill an enemies ship you receive a portion of his bounty based on the value of the ship. Basing it on ship price would be fairly difficult, but you could fairly easily base it on the base price of the destroyed modules/rigs and not have much of a problem while still offering significant rewards to the players Right, but i suppose something bounty-hunter like would come with factional warfare too.
Trathen	Posted - 2008.04.24 14:37:00 - [46] Originally by: Una D I would agree here. New sources of ISK are not needed (even if price of GTC has never been lower). LP and perhaps some kind of standings would be great. It would be almost player based missions. That brings a certain new perspective to a new ISK fountain, however. It is important to remember that more ISK fountains does not necessarily mean more ISK into the system. Players who want to generate ISK are ultimately limited by time - and its entirely possible bounty hunting would divert combat specialist's time from extreme ISK generation such as high level missions and ratting to moderate ISK generation (yet much more fun) such as bounty hunting.
Hana Lena Gallente Federal Navy Academy	Posted - 2008.04.24 15:02:00 - [47] What I got a problem with is the people that sit outside a noob system and invite them to a gang with there wardeckd alt and then kill the noob. When I say noob I'm talking about the guy that's 3 days old still on his trial and in his Atorn. I do a lot of talking to people like this most of the time there far to trusting but they are not given any reason not to trust other people it seams to me that there has been a sharp increase in the amount of new people being ganked like this is that what we want for EVE? Do we want it to be one of those games where the "high level" people sit outside of the noob "city's" and kill them over and over? Take for example a new person I've been helping for the past few days lets call him JohnSimely has just started playing this game and its been less than a week and hes been killed twice and poded once in high sek for no reason than the enjoyment of the killers. Now if there had been a piroft to be made or an alt of another corp I could understand it but this is just blatant kill for fun and totally pointless no skill was involved here the killing proves nothing. Heres some of the chat logs to show you what I'm talking about the only things I've changed are the noobs name that way he hopefully wont get killed more. Quote: [ 2008.04.18 03:30:47 ] JohnSimely > Absolutely. I've been hoping to make a friend that I can ask questions =) [ 2008.04.18 03:31:20 ] JohnSimely > Mind if I add you to my friends list? [ 2008.04.18 03:31:44 ] Hana Lena > Meh theres not as many frendly people inthe FNA as there once was but theres still some no not at all [ 2008.04.18 03:32:50 ] John Simely > Good to know.. its been really hard meeting people. one person offered to take me on a mission with them, to show me how to do them and somehow, don't ask em how, but even tho were were in the same gang he was able to kill me! I was shocked [ 2008.04.18 03:33:06 ] John Simely > So its nice to have someone to answer questions [ 2008.04.18 03:34:32 ] Hana Lena > Yep what happend was he made the fleet and invited you then he invited and "alt" of his that was under a wardeck and then you become a War target and thus dead. [ 2008.04.20 02:41:06 ] John Simely > Thanks gaain for bringing me along and showing your trust in me! [ 2008.04.20 02:41:14 ] Hana Lena > the one your in Dodixie [ 2008.04.20 02:41:24 ] John Simely > I had alot of fun being able to just sit back and chill on the phone and enjoy the fights [ 2008.04.20 02:42:33 ] Hana Lena > lol you showed trust in me (prehaps to mutch :)) by accepting the fleat invite in the first place you never know i couda had an alt that was war decks and i couda killed you. [ 2008.04.20 02:43:09 ] John Simely > it happened to me once already remember? hehe but if you did that my only friend would be gone and i probably would have just quit [ 2008.04.20 20:07:00 ] John Simely > Newver guess what happened [ 2008.04.20 20:07:17 ] Hana Lena > prolby not whay happened [ 2008.04.20 20:07:31 ] Hana Lena > what* [ 2008.04.20 20:07:45 ] John Simely > I was flying to buy some implants, and 4 battleships (I think they were battleships) locked on me in like 6 seconds before i could jump and they killed me, then they podded me [ 2008.04.20 20:08:08 ] Hana Lena > whas your clone up to date? [ 2008.04.20 20:08:23 ] John Simely > It was the basic clone [ 2008.04.20 20:08:48 ] John Simely > But i only had about 868k sp so i didnt lose any skills [ 2008.04.20 20:09:00 ] John Simely > im just mad about my ship and implants [ 2008.04.20 20:09:24 ] Hana Lena > What ship you lose your vex? [ 2008.04.20 20:09:28 ] John Simely > but my ship had basic insurance too so it wasent a total loss, not a big deal i guess but still i was totally taken by surprise [ 2008.04.20 20:09:44 ] Hana Lena > were you in low sek? [ 2008.04.20 20:09:52 ] John Simely > no it was .5 So if Ankhesentapemkah is going to stop this kind of thing then thats where my vote will be going. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ADHD + Dyslexia = BAD SPELLING Proud to be in the FNA (for over a year) and not be a alt!
LaVista Vista Conservative Shenanigans Party	Posted - 2008.04.24 15:07:00 - [48] Originally by: Hana Lena So if Ankhesentapemkah is going to stop this kind of thing then thats where my vote will be going. But as far as i understand, baiting noobs in starter systems, is a offense which you can petition, isn't it? I have never done it, so i cant tell. But i remember reading it somewhere.
Efdi Minmatar Brannigan's Law	Posted - 2008.04.24 15:13:00 - [49] Originally by: LaVista Vista Originally by: Hana Lena So if Ankhesentapemkah is going to stop this kind of thing then thats where my vote will be going. But as far as i understand, baiting noobs in starter systems, is a offense which you can petition, isn't it? I have never done it, so i cant tell. But i remember reading it somewhere. It is petitionable. Note that this applies to the starter systems only.
Ankhesentapemkah Gallente	Posted - 2008.04.24 15:19:00 - [50] Originally by: Danton Marcellus How would you deal with no-risk gankers if the issue landed on the table? Actual proposals not some blanket condemnation of their actions if you please. CSMs cannot directly 'deal' with issues and push their own 'fix' through, but has to rely on community input. Thus I'll list the currently proposed ideas over the various threads in the past, their pro's and con's. I'll work on my opinion on them later. Tradable kill rights + Puts bounty hunting back on the chart. + Allows for characters without a large corp backing them and non-combat characters to get their revenge more easily. + Some insecurity and unpredictability to highsec crime. + Mechanics that allow players to provide their own security are good by definition. - Suicide gankers and other criminals might just be recycled alts that never fly anything of value and thus are not hindered by losing their ship, as all of the booty will be laundered to different characters. Increased security status penalty for high-sec crime + More meaningful consequence for crime. + Criminals will have to pick their targets more thoroughly, as they cannot kill as much as they used to before they are forcibly removed from high-sec. + Punishment and inconvenience to criminal might deter some people from comitting criminal acts, especially if they are not profitable. + Longer removal of criminal individuals from high-sec. - Character might just be recycled. - Accidents might be punished too harshly. - Yet another mechanic to artificially discourage certain player behaviour. Exponential security standing penalty for high-sec crime (as in, the more criminal acts in a certain timeframe, the bigger the standing loss will be each time) As above with the following differences: + Accidents will no longer be punished as harshly. + Even longer removal of criminal individuals from high-sec. - Character recycling/use of alts while 'cooling down' will be even more likely. Known, repeated offenders eventually can (either temporarily or not) no longer raise their security status by ratting, etc + Hard consequences to criminal acts. + Longer removal of criminal individuals from high-sec. - Character recycling/use of alts while 'cooling down'. - Yet another mechanic to artificially discourage certain player behaviour. No insurance when involved in crime + Crime costs more for the criminal... ...likely to result in a drop in grief suicide ganking. ...criminal actually being punished and suffering meaningful consequences for his actions. ...haulers can carry some more cargo before being economically profitable to suicide gank. + Realistic, why should insurance pay for criminals that directly damage the insurance company, which has to pay for both the criminal and the victim? + Suicide ganking still being on the table as means to destroy and plunder dumb hauler ships. - Accidents punished harder - Yet another mechanic to artificially discourage certain player behaviour. Criminal pays victim's insurance costs (based on system security) + Happens in real life. + More consequences for crime. + Could stop some griefing, as the victim suffers less, and the criminal directly pays for it too. + Direct consequence, not avoided by alts (unless they allow their character to go into negative bank balance, I suppose). - Insurance does not cover the full loss of the victim. - Yet another mechanic to artificially discourage certain player behaviour. --- Consider voting for me in the CSM elections. I invite you to take a look at the campaign website for issues and further information. Visit our Campaign Website

Ankhesentapemkah Gallente	Posted - 2008.04.24 15:20:00 - [51] No insurance for people with negative standing, period (This has actually been requested by a few people) + Direct punishment for immoral behaviour, akin to Ultima Online's statloss. - Directly upsets the balance between pirates and vigilantees. - Nothing wrong with piracy in low-sec and 0.0, and this significantly harms the players that engage in these activities. - A mechanic to artificially discourage A LOT of player behaviour. Known, repeated offenders eventually becoming outlaws and attackable by everyone, even in high-sec + Players responsible for enacting justice. + Harsh consequences for repeated criminal acts. + Realistic, why would concord want to protect known criminals? - Very one-sided. - Alts, char recycling, etc. Players can side with Concord and attack any player with negative standing / criminal activity in past X days + Players responsible for enacting justice. + Pre-emptively remove known criminals camping a high-sec gate, known criminals no longer have their massive initiave advantage. + Consequences for criminal behaviour. + Idea: Pirate Factions can give rewards for killing these players too, so it won't work one way. - Alt recycling. - If there is a financial reward, it means even more ISK introduced out of no-where into the economy. Characters in NPC corps may not perform criminal acts (either just in high-sec, or in general) + Players can wardec the criminals and attack them pre-emptively. + Less anonymity for criminals. + Slightly discourages alt recycling. - Limits solo player activities. No criminal acts allowed for characters under 15 days old + Stops trial account and some alt recycling abuse. - Limits options to new players that want to try Eve. --- Consider voting for me in the CSM elections. I invite you to take a look at the campaign website for issues and further information. Visit our Campaign Website
Ankhesentapemkah Gallente	Posted - 2008.04.24 15:32:00 - [52] Originally by: Hana Lena What I got a problem with is the people that sit outside a noob system and invite them to a gang with there wardeckd alt and then kill the noob. (...) So if Ankhesentapemkah is going to stop this kind of thing then thats where my vote will be going. This is something truly disgusting, and I've been hearing similiar reports as well. Noobs being caught in the lofty scam, and noobs less than a week old being suicide ganked. The kind of people behind these acts are what I've been referring to as psychopaths in the past, and while harsh, I think most people will understand why I called these people such. I believe the lofty scam is something that has no place in any MMO game, not even in Eve. You'd have to know of this loophole, or else you can and probably eventually will get caught and lose your ship. There is no risk or consequence for these scammers (besides a possible wardec, I guess), and players caught in this trap often end up in a state of disbelief that the game rules has a loophole like this that allows these scams. The reason why I believe it has no place in any MMO is because social interaction is an important part of an MMO, and thus requires interaction with strangers. While this is of course always a risk within Eve, I believe it should be possible to group up with people you do not know that well, without putting your ship at such an extreme risk as is currently the case. --- Consider voting for me in the CSM elections. I invite you to take a look at the campaign website for issues and further information. Visit our Campaign Website
Danton Marcellus Nebula Rasa Holdings	Posted - 2008.04.24 15:41:00 - [53] Originally by: Jenny Spitfire Eve needs a voice like yours in the CSM. You have my vote. Keep up the god work please. WTH Verbal you forgot to limp! Should/would/could have, HAVE you chav! Also Known As
Efdi Minmatar Brannigan's Law	Posted - 2008.04.24 15:53:00 - [54] Originally by: Ankhesentapemkah :recyclealts: a.) Petitionable. If you think someone is recycling alts to get around the sec status loss, petition them. I can guarantee you this is an extreme minority of suicide gankers. b.) Not feasible. Most suicide gankers use the minimum amount of ship to get the job done and cut down on costs. Because of this, good skills in gunnery/missiles/drones are needed to maximize the DPS output before the ship is destroyed. Far and away the most common gank ship is the battlecruiser, which conveniently enough, can't be trained on trial accounts. Ganking mission runners are done with BS, which is yet another ship trial accounts can't train. tl;dr: Recycling alts honestly isn't a problem.
Ankhesentapemkah Gallente	Posted - 2008.04.24 16:00:00 - [55] Originally by: Efdi Originally by: Ankhesentapemkah :recyclealts: a.) Petitionable. If you think someone is recycling alts to get around the sec status loss, petition them. I can guarantee you this is an extreme minority of suicide gankers. b.) Not feasible. Most suicide gankers use the minimum amount of ship to get the job done and cut down on costs. Because of this, good skills in gunnery/missiles/drones are needed to maximize the DPS output before the ship is destroyed. Far and away the most common gank ship is the battlecruiser, which conveniently enough, can't be trained on trial accounts. Ganking mission runners are done with BS, which is yet another ship trial accounts can't train. tl;dr: Recycling alts honestly isn't a problem. Thank you for the contribution, Efdi. While I suppose this is true for the current situation, we have to look ahead to see what happens if any of these changes were implemented. If suicide ganking has too much of a penalty for a character, what will people resort to then? Would it become a problem? It's certainly a possibility, players adapt fast. Therefore I had to put it in the con's. As for petitionability, I don't think many people do much research on the background of their killer, and definately cannot come up with any solid evidence (although they could request an investigation if the character is relatively young, I suppose). --- Consider voting for me in the CSM elections. I invite you to take a look at the campaign website for issues and further information. Visit our Campaign Website
Jade Constantine Gallente Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.04.24 16:05:00 - [56] Originally by: Danton Marcellus Originally by: Jenny Spitfire Eve needs a voice like yours in the CSM. You have my vote. Keep up the god work please. WTH Verbal you forgot to limp! ...my name is Kobayashi. I work for Keyser Soze. (good catch danton [8)) CSM Election Manifesto 2008
Una D Ex Coelis	Posted - 2008.04.24 16:12:00 - [57] Originally by: Goumindong Originally by: LaVista Vista While I'm EXTREMELY excited by the idea, I have one concern. You say that bounty payment per ship class destroyed, should be made. Are you talking about an ISK payment, or, for instance, Loyallity points? Lets not increase the amount of isk introduced to the game more than needed. Loyallity points are a much better payment, imo. This is a fairly common request for bounties[I know ive requested it at least once] and the general gist of is is that when you kill an enemies ship you receive a portion of his bounty based on the value of the ship. Basing it on ship price would be fairly difficult, but you could fairly easily base it on the base price of the destroyed modules/rigs and not have much of a problem while still offering significant rewards to the players I really like this idea. It would solve the whole my buddy podded me for the bounty since the reward would be based on what is destroyed. I would go so far to put it at the basic insurance (so there is no way to milk it for money) but this would need to be tweaked for t2 ships.
Hamfast Gallente	Posted - 2008.04.24 16:22:00 - [58] Edited by: Hamfast on 24/04/2008 16:23:53 First off, good luck on the show, do us proud!! I note you are an advocate for harsher treatment of high sec criminals, I was curious to hear what you (and others) thought about basing security changes on the security level of the system... As it works now, in 0.0 space you can pop and pod another player at no cost to your security rating, I have no issue with this, perfectly fine. What I would like to see is any security level changes that will be attributed to a player be multiplied by the security level of the system... thus no actions in 0.0 space would have any affect on your security level where actions in 1.0 space would have full effect. <edit> wrong effect <\edit> --------*****-------- Learn and be informed, because a Politicians worst nightmare is an informed voter... So choose your CSM Candidates wisely
Una D Ex Coelis	Posted - 2008.04.24 16:26:00 - [59] Not sure that gimping the NPC corps in the way I suggested higher up in the thread would limit the solo play. It just means that you create your own corp. What it limits is hiding in NPC corp from the war deccs and PvP and that is not something that I would encourage even though I'm an empire dweller.
Ashlee Darksky	Posted - 2008.04.24 16:30:00 - [60] Originally by: Ankhesentapemkah Edited by: Ankhesentapemkah on 24/04/2008 11:24:43 Hello Malcanis, I must say that I think your attitude towards me has improved, and I honestly want to thank you for that. Your contribution to the topic is appreciated. Originally by: Malcanis Based on her equating non-consensual PvP with griefing, and her characterising anyone who engages in it as a sociopath (or bully, or emotional cripple, or a RL violent criminal.) In fact she's so tolerant of PvP that she's on record as saying that it's morally wrong to return fire if attacked. It is true that I said this, yes. I think that people that derrive their enjoyment from actively frustrating, upsetting and hurting people are lacking empathy. However, I'm not the only one that believes this, as I recently found this article, by Raph Koster, the designer of the non-consentual PVP system in Ultima Online: Quote: In the meantime, consider a quotation by a different author, Heinlein's longtime colleague in science-fiction, Isaac Asimov. It may as well apply to playerkillers, who are as we've discussed those who "don't get it," those who fail to see it as Real. "Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent." And who else are playerkillers but those who are socially incompetent in this new virtual community? source Originally by: Malcanis She's basically invulnerable to logic, refuses to acknowledge that making sweeping generalisations is foolish and incorrect and is simply unable to see that EvE's model of player freedom to engage in non-consensual combat is not an oversight or a programming error, but the whole point of the game in the first place. She's equally unwilling to accept that people are capable of doing nasty things in game and while being nice persons outside of it. She is in short someone who, by her own account, was bullied and abused as a child and now has an (understandable) distate for violence so extreme and undiscriminating that she opposes it even in a video game. Malcanis' comment about my childhood is true. However, I can appreciate a certain amount of violence in games. As long as it doesn't hurt a real person. You probably meant this, though, but I think it's important to mention the distinction anyway. I play violent games, I played Mortal Kombat as a little kid, I loved Alien vs. Predator, which scared me to no end, I loved it so much that I even kept playing that until I puked due to my 3d nausea which I get from playing most first-person games. I used to run an Ultima Online server, and guess what, it had PVP enabled. I just happened to jail and eventually ban leet/sms-speaking people to ensure a certain level of maturity, and PVP was done with player-run towns (Unlike the real UO, on my server there was only one NPC town, all other towns had to be built and managed by players) fighting against eachother for resources and storyline reasons. People had the freedom for griefing PVP, but just sifting out the immature people, solely based on their use/misuse of the English language, was enough to make it a rare occurance. Originally by: Malcanis I'd be the last person to condemn her for that; it's not the worst idee fixe someone can have, except that she lacks the humility to accept that she's utterly out of place in this game. She, and EvE, would both be well served if she quit trying to teach lions to live on tofu and devoted her undoubted talent and intelligence to helping out a charity or something. There still is an organisation like the Servant Sisters of Eve in Eve Online, so our kind isn't all dead and gone yet, and certainly has a place. Oh please! This isn't REAL LIFE, get over it! Take your left wing goody two shoes attitude and put it to use in REAL LIFE! Accept this is a game and that it can be cruel! It was SUPPOSED to be, and DANGEROUS to boot! If you don't want risk, play a solo game! Don't enforce your will on us --- COMRADE MINERS - FORWARD THE REVOLUTION!!! Trit > 8. Pyerite > 12 ---

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.