| Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9 :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Topic |
Ashlee Darksky
    |
Posted - 2008.04.24 16:45:00 -
[61]
Just continuing with that for a moment;
People who come into an MMO or online community of any sort, especially a role playing one and then say "be nice to each other" really get my goat. I can understand you are a "nice" person, but EVE isn't a "nice" game.
If EVE was supposed to be non violent, it would be called "Trader Online" where we all sit in stations all day, buying and selling things. There would be no ships with weapons, there would be no combat, no death.
I spend time in Empire, Low sec and 0.0. I have been ganked, shot at, trapped, suicided - even had my brand new hulk blown up! But I accept this is part of EVE, part of the LIFE OF EVE and it's a risk I take.
I didn't *REALLY* hurt me in real life. Ok, I was ****ed for a few minutes but that was about it - then I moved on, because IT'S NOT REAL! I used another ship, mined, got another hulk.
To come in and say "criminals should face consequences" - they do, concord blows up their ship. Like they have blown up yours. It's a risk you take everytime you undock - like in RL when you drive a car, open your door, go shopping, cross the road - or maybe we should ban that too????
The thing is, in EVE no real harm is done and people HAVE A CHOICE to be here OR NOT!
Do not come here and try to change the world "for the better" because the road to hell is paved with good intentions and you will take us there!
EVE is ultra-capitalist, ultra-greedy and allows people to express the darker side of their character that they would not in RL. Some do not, some are helpful, kind and friendly.
Whatever choice a person makes as an individual is UP TO THEM! Let them choose, do not start nannying us all, and EVE through a "lets all be nice to each" other phase because life is not like that, EVE is not like that.
I had the crap blown out of me when I was new - but I got stronger from growing, learning and experience - not by some nanny EVE state holding my hand and protecting me at every twist and turn.
If you don't like the world of EVE, go to another world rather than trying to change it - you know what people who try to change the world have done in the past?
I will not be voting for you because I think you, your policies are ill thought out, badly proposed, totally biased and factually incorrect. I hope others can read your posts, and between the lines of them and see what a dangerous course you are attempting to take. I hope they will also see your bad policies, illogical approach and not vote for you.
Stop trying to turn EVE into a nanny world and hold everyone's hands, wrapping them in cotton wool! Do not force your will upon those who do not want it! You, whether you can admit it or not - are WRONG!
In short... "If you can't stand the heat - get out of the kitchen!".
---
COMRADE MINERS - FORWARD THE REVOLUTION!!!
Trit > 8. Pyerite > 12
--- |
Winterblink
Body Count Inc.
Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2008.04.24 16:51:00 -
[62]
The fact that CSMs are attempting to enforce their own will at all is actually pretty humorous, considering they're supposed to be representing the will of the people.
If I had a PVP-related concern, Ank would never be able to represent it properly because of a general anti-PVP stance. This of course would apply to CSMs who find themselves unable to properly deal with community issues around, say, industry related topics.
|
Max Torps
Gallente
eXceed Inc.
eXceed.
|
Posted - 2008.04.24 17:01:00 -
[63]
 Originally by: Winterblink
The fact that CSMs are attempting to enforce their own will at all is actually pretty humorous, considering they're supposed to be representing the will of the people.
Bang on. Well said.
EvE blogspace, free! Max Torps CSM Candidate |
Avon
Caldari
Black Nova Corp
Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2008.04.24 17:06:00 -
[64]
This is bad.
Very bad.
Of all the people to represent Eve..
/me shudders
Eve-Online: The Text Adventure |
Orion Eridanus
Dark Nova Crisis
Chain of Chaos
|
Posted - 2008.04.24 17:20:00 -
[65]
Originally by: Jenny Spitfire
Eve needs a voice like yours in the CSM. You have my vote.
Keep up the god work please. 
Uh Jenny your posting out of character, or did you sell yourself yet again?
Originally by: Paulo Damarr
That is a most Excellent Drake fitting, you are lucky to have survived.
|
Trathen
|
Posted - 2008.04.24 17:24:00 -
[66]
Originally by: Orion Eridanus
Uh Jenny your posting out of character, or did you sell yourself yet again?
Jenny's English to Dyslexia translator occasionally breaks, she did miss "good."
|
Stahlregen
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.04.24 17:56:00 -
[67]
Edited by: Stahlregen on 24/04/2008 17:59:00
As unfortunate as it is true, Ank's campaign of championing the powerless and insignificant is ultimately doomed to failure due to the simple fact that he himself, is also powerless and insignificant in the world of EVE and simply has no perspective on the issues that are genuinely important to the community as a whole. You want to change the game to reflect what gels best with your little multiplayer experience, Everyone can appreciate this but what you are trying to do is get yourself elected on an issue that has no substance to it.
CSM candidates require not only ideas but an extensive knowledge of the meta and macro aspects of eve gameplay. So how could you ever hope to promote yourself as an authority figure in the esoteric realm of good intentions and warm, fuzzy feelings.
I think your biggest problem is that you are so blinded by this ridiculous notion that all pvpers and indeed griefers are psychotic shut-ins and therefore simply cannot comprehend that these people have better, more progressive ideas and a greater understanding of the game and community than you do. |
Tarminic
Black Flame Industries
|
Posted - 2008.04.24 18:03:00 -
[68]
Originally by: Winterblink
The fact that CSMs are attempting to enforce their own will at all is actually pretty humorous, considering they're supposed to be representing the will of the people.
Ah hah, BUT!
Did those who elect you do so to make decisions based on their best judgment, or to make decisions based on your best judgment? I would argue that the latter is true, otherwise there would be no need for a representative democracy.
Quote:
If I had a PVP-related concern, Ank would never be able to represent it properly because of a general anti-PVP stance. This of course would apply to CSMs who find themselves unable to properly deal with community issues around, say, industry related topics.
I think that this would be an issue of Ank was the chairman of the CSM or...I dunno...Queen or something, but She's just one of 9 representatives, which is why I'd consider voting for her. As loathe as I am to say it, the opinion of the PvP-phobic is something to take into account to maintain the general health of EVE. It's not like she has veto power or anything (which would be terrifying). |
Winterblink
Body Count Inc.
Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2008.04.24 18:07:00 -
[69]
Originally by: Tarminic
Ah hah, BUT!
Did those who elect you do so to make decisions based on their best judgment, or to make decisions based on your best judgment? I would argue that the latter is true, otherwise there would be no need for a representative democracy.
This isn't representative democracy really. These people are meant to be strands which comprise a string between two cans. They are to facilitate and to some extent interpret, but they relay the noises, not generate them.
|
Ankhesentapemkah
Gallente
|
Posted - 2008.04.24 18:08:00 -
[70]
Originally by: Jade Constantine
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.
Tradable kill rights definately is one of the better ways to address this problem, especially because it creates more freedom to players allows them to actually earn something by providing security.
However, is this really going to harm suicide gankers and other scum in any way?
Now they just have to calculate that they will lose their budget outfitted, fully insured gank ship twice in the worst case scenario. These ships are meant to be lost, and insurance covers a large fraction of the expenses, both when they suicide it and when they get assassinated by the bounty hunter. After they have been killed once, they're once more free to go on their merry way. Is this enough of a consequence? I'm not too sure - but I still love this system because it gives lawful players something interesting to do.
As for your idea of a locator beacon, I see a lot of whining coming from this, but then again the same result can be accomplished by locator agents. I think a feature like this is a necessity to keep bounty hunting smooth and interesting.
Bounty based on ship class destroyed is a nice step to prevent the worst abuse of the system.
---
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 |
|
Talkuth Rel
Minmatar
Republic Military School
|
Posted - 2008.04.24 18:19:00 -
[71]
Originally by: Malcanis
Edited by: Malcanis on 24/04/2008 12:49:16
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.
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.
...
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? What if Corp A have a legitimate reason, but also enjoy the tears as well?
You cannot "police intent" as you put it, but you can create circumstances which discourage such behavior by making it unprofitable or unsustainable. One such example which has been frequently mentioned in these forums is the removal of insurance payouts for CONCORD kills. Before you roll your eyes and dismiss this as a "lame carebear" idea, consider it in this light:
Removing insurance for these kills raises the cost of performing suicide ganks. What does this actually mean for the varying groups of suicide gankers? Those who do it for profit would have to select their targets for the best profit margin, which they already do, and so would carry on in their tactics while only losing a small percentage of their previous profits.
Those who do it for tactical reasons, like Corp A in your example, will have to be sure that such tactics will truly benefit their corp. They still have the freedom to attempt to get their "monopoly on Pyerite," but there is a reasonable and legitimate cost to doing so. If in the end this action will serve their goal, they will still do it.
Those who frequently and consistently suicide gank "just for the lulz" and no other reason, who indiscriminately attack and kill just for the "pretty lights" or to grief specific players/groups of players, will find that after a time they will run short on funds to continue such behavior. They will either choose to stop because they can't continue to justify the loss to themselves, or they will continue until it bankrupts them and they are economically forced to stop, or they will adapt. To adapt, they will either have to rat/mission to fund their ganking activity, or they can turn themselves into those who suicide gank for profit. If they go the rat/mission route, they'll be spending more time in missions and therefor less time suicide ganking. If they gank for profit, they'll have to be more selective then they were in the past, hitting fewer targets, but targets with higher value. Either way, the behavior is limited instead of encouraged and rewarded.
You claim that the issue at hand is freedom. I am all for freedom of choice, but I also believe that every choice has it's consequence. Such consequence should be limited in the more lawless regions of space, but in the areas that are supposedly under heavy empire control, these consequences should be clear and effective. The idea of risk vs. reward is central to what EVE is. High sec space should be low risk, low reward for the law abiding characters, and high risk, high reward for criminal activity. As it stands now, suicide gankers in high sec face practically no risk, yet still receive reward. At the same time, the lawful citizens of empire still have low rewards, yet face high risk and chance of loss, some would say even more than they would in 0.0. How does this match up with the idea of risk vs. reward, which is supposed to be a fundmental idea behind the game itself? |
Una D
Ex Coelis
|
Posted - 2008.04.24 18:19:00 -
[72]
Originally by: Stahlregen
Edited by: Stahlregen on 24/04/2008 17:59:00
As unfortunate as it is true, Ank's campaign of championing the powerless and insignificant is ultimately doomed to failure due to the simple fact that he himself, is also powerless and insignificant in the world of EVE and simply has no perspective on the issues that are genuinely important to the community as a whole. You want to change the game to reflect what gels best with your little multiplayer experience, Everyone can appreciate this but what you are trying to do is get yourself elected on an issue that has no substance to it.
CSM candidates require not only ideas but an extensive knowledge of the meta and macro aspects of eve gameplay. So how could you ever hope to promote yourself as an authority figure in the esoteric realm of good intentions and warm, fuzzy feelings.
I think your biggest problem is that you are so blinded by this ridiculous notion that all pvpers and indeed griefers are psychotic shut-ins and therefore simply cannot comprehend that these people have better, more progressive ideas and a greater understanding of the game and community than you do.
Why do I have a feeling that this translates to knowledge of 0.0 and should only care about 0.0 issues and to hell with the rest? Also I can see why you goons disslike this so much. It would be making it possible for people to fight back suicide gankers and griefers and I'm sure it would ruin your fun. Not sure I care though :p |
Talkuth Rel
Minmatar
Republic Military School
|
Posted - 2008.04.24 18:24:00 -
[73]
Originally by: Ashlee Darksky
To come in and say "criminals should face consequences" - they do, concord blows up their ship. Like they have blown up yours.
And then another division of CONCORD turns around and hands them a check to reimburse them for the ship they just blew up. How exactly is that a consequence? |
Ankhesentapemkah
Gallente
|
Posted - 2008.04.24 18:24:00 -
[74]
Originally by: Winterblink
If I had a PVP-related concern, Ank would never be able to represent it properly because of a general anti-PVP stance.
I personally do not want anything to do with PVP at all, but here I am, discussing one bounty hunting and other PVP mechanics, seeing that they are interesting game mechanics that would possibly bring much joy to the players when implemented. Anti-PVP stance is a gross exaggeration. I would not PVP myself, but that does not mean that I do not see that PVP is an important and interesting part of Eve!
My perception on these matters is clarified in the Caldari Navy Ibis Interview, when asked if I could put my personal feelings aside:
Quote:
As a programmer and game designer myself, I would reduce the game mechanics to an equasion as best as I can, and would gather as much data and statistics as possible. When looking at the game in such a way, I'm very sure I can become quite unbiased.
If I find that what I want is bad for the game as a whole, then what I want is irrelevant. My responsibility as CSM and the good of this game come first, period. |
Ethaet
Gallente
Aliastra
|
Posted - 2008.04.24 18:26:00 -
[75]
Originally by: Una D
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.
Yet you aren't in an NPC corp. A lot of people are in NPC corps because they like solo playing, but also enjoy talking to people occasionally. In the newb NPC corps you can also help a lot of people as well as chat, even if this is offset by more idiots, they can be blocked easily. NPC corps are much better than a single member corp just for talking to other people. |
Una D
Ex Coelis
|
Posted - 2008.04.24 18:37:00 -
[76]
Originally by: Ethaet
Originally by: Una D
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.
Yet you aren't in an NPC corp. A lot of people are in NPC corps because they like solo playing, but also enjoy talking to people occasionally. In the newb NPC corps you can also help a lot of people as well as chat, even if this is offset by more idiots, they can be blocked easily. NPC corps are much better than a single member corp just for talking to other people.
This can be solved with chat channels. Thing is that they bring a lot more bad things than good things (IMHO of course). |
Ankhesentapemkah
Gallente
|
Posted - 2008.04.24 18:38:00 -
[77]
Edited by: Ankhesentapemkah on 24/04/2008 18:41:50
Originally by: Ethaet
Originally by: Una D
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.
Yet you aren't in an NPC corp. A lot of people are in NPC corps because they like solo playing, but also enjoy talking to people occasionally. In the newb NPC corps you can also help a lot of people as well as chat, even if this is offset by more idiots, they can be blocked easily. NPC corps are much better than a single member corp just for talking to other people.
Yep, and Aliastra has a surpisingly friendly and mature corp channel and I'd hate to go without that. 
NPC corp abuse is bad though, so I understand where people that wish to remove them are coming from. There are quite a few people in NPC corps that do not exactly mind their own business like us. This is one of the things that also needs to be looked into and researched as CSM (from a game designer viewpoint), even though I personally (from player viewpoint) do not want it to change.
I'm sure that if NPC corps would have to be removed in the future, that someone would create Aliastra II as player corp and a lot of people flock over to there as if nothing happened.  |
Nickaelhoop
Minmatar
AlphaGV Corp
|
Posted - 2008.04.24 18:44:00 -
[78]
Given my position as a candidate up for election I do not want to interfere with Ankhesentapemkah's points under any circumstances, as there is no point in stealing other peoples work for your own gain.
I myself have never stayed in 0.0 for any great length of time so I find myself slightly dissadvantaged from the older players whom are more knowledgable than myself but Ill stick by my word and hope for the best, hopefully my lack of knowledge will make me more approachable.
I have however been "ganked" on numerous occasions with great frustration and slight anger I as wasn't in anything worth destroying but it did leave me annoyed as I couldn't do anything to get payback. I endorse the idea of kill rights being able to be swapped as it will give new players a fighting chance (if they have friends who have been playing for a while and willing to help them). There will be flaws with this system though, as I cannot think of any ones off the bat I'll not discuss it.
It also shames me to see people ridiculing an idea, after all everything starts out as an idea and with a little application they can be accomplished succesfully and quite positively but great care must be taken as to ensure it's success.
I extend my congratulations to you, ankhesentapemkah, on being asked to participate in the production of Futuretopia and I wish it all goes well, albeit if you win a chair or not and I would like to wish you luck personally in the election campaign.
Nickaelhoop |
Ankhesentapemkah
Gallente
|
Posted - 2008.04.24 18:52:00 -
[79]
Edited by: Ankhesentapemkah on 24/04/2008 18:54:05
Originally by: Stahlregen
As unfortunate as it is true, Ank's campaign of championing the powerless and insignificant is ultimately doomed to failure due to the simple fact that he himself, is also powerless and insignificant in the world of EVE and simply has no perspective on the issues that are genuinely important to the community as a whole. You want to change the game to reflect what gels best with your little multiplayer experience, Everyone can appreciate this but what you are trying to do is get yourself elected on an issue that has no substance to it.
CSM candidates require not only ideas but an extensive knowledge of the meta and macro aspects of eve gameplay. So how could you ever hope to promote yourself as an authority figure in the esoteric realm of good intentions and warm, fuzzy feelings.
Ah I really see you Goons have become so desperate and have been thorougly researching my campaign issues, credentials and viewpoints and came up with this magnificently irrefutable post.
You researched me so well that you missed the fact that I'm a she, however, this could have been forgiven if only the rest of your post had some intelligent arguments. Unfortunately it does not.
Quote:
I think your biggest problem is that you are so blinded by this ridiculous notion that all pvpers and indeed griefers are psychotic shut-ins and therefore simply cannot comprehend that these people have better, more progressive ideas and a greater understanding of the game and community than you do.
I think you completely fail to understand the tasks of a CSM as well! We exist to relay ideas from the playerbase to CCP.
If there are people that have "better, more progressive ideas", well that's a GOOD thing, and it'd be my job as CSM to encourage them and package the idea to a format presentable to CCP.
I'm not some egocentred individual that is going to discount good ideas because they were "not invented here". We're supposed to be representatives for the community! |
Trathen
|
Posted - 2008.04.24 19:03:00 -
[80]
Originally by: Ankhesentapemkah
I'm not some egocentred individual that is going to discount good ideas because they were "not invented here".
Now, now. No one said that. The general consensus is you're an egocentric individual who asserts that anyone who blows up another's spaceship for fun must be a terrible person IRL.
|
|
Ankhesentapemkah
Gallente
|
Posted - 2008.04.24 19:18:00 -
[81]
Originally by: Trathen
Originally by: Ankhesentapemkah
I'm not some egocentred individual that is going to discount good ideas because they were "not invented here".
Now, now. No one said that. The general consensus is you're an egocentric individual who asserts that anyone who blows up another's spaceship for fun must be a terrible person IRL.
You obviously mean the consensus of Doonoo Boonoo, Esmenet, and several other few-months old troll alts in NPC corps.
---
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 |
Ethaet
Gallente
Aliastra
|
Posted - 2008.04.24 19:18:00 -
[82]
Originally by: Trathen
Originally by: Ankhesentapemkah
I'm not some egocentred individual that is going to discount good ideas because they were "not invented here".
Now, now. No one said that. The general consensus is you're an egocentric individual who asserts that anyone who blows up another's spaceship for fun must be a terrible person IRL.
There is a difference between griefing and blowing something up for fun. Griefing = killing newbs in starter systems, repeatedly attacking newbs, miners and people who can't do anything, while simply PvPing for fun, whether that involves 1 on 1, small gangs, sitting at a gate or fleet blobs, is not the same thing.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Seriously, we need some kind of separation between the post and signature.
There you go. Now that wasn't so hard |
Trathen
|
Posted - 2008.04.24 19:37:00 -
[83]
Edited by: Trathen on 24/04/2008 19:38:00
Originally by: Ethaet
There is a difference between griefing and blowing something up for fun. Griefing = killing newbs in starter systems, repeatedly attacking newbs, miners and people who can't do anything, while simply PvPing for fun, whether that involves 1 on 1, small gangs, sitting at a gate or fleet blobs, is not the same thing.
The line is blurry, at best. But I can rephrase: "The general consensus is you're an egocentric individual who asserts that anyone who blows up another's spaceship for fun must actually be doing it to make the other person feel bad, therefore be a terrible person IRL."
The point wasn't necessarily a personal attack. If Anksentasfkaofwi were to lay off the vehement meta-morality if only to prove me wrong, I'd be fine with that because carebears do need their representative. But as it stands, I have read the forums often since I subscribed and I have to say my impression - and I'm not speaking for myself here - is that your Ankeiuafsgs's deviant morality emphasizing extreme meta-game punitiveness is quite terrifying.
In other words, people want politicians, not pundits.
And I am no alt. Alts don't have 10.0 standing with level 1 and 2 agents. |
Esmenet
Gallente
|
Posted - 2008.04.24 19:42:00 -
[84]
Edited by: Esmenet on 24/04/2008 19:45:13
Edited by: Esmenet on 24/04/2008 19:43:34
Originally by: Ankhesentapemkah
Originally by: Trathen
Originally by: Ankhesentapemkah
I'm not some egocentred individual that is going to discount good ideas because they were "not invented here".
Now, now. No one said that. The general consensus is you're an egocentric individual who asserts that anyone who blows up another's spaceship for fun must be a terrible person IRL.
You obviously mean the consensus of Doonoo Boonoo, Esmenet, and several other few-months old troll alts in NPC corps.
Actually anyone that bothers to search the forums can find the same quotes from you that Doonoo Boonoo posted. You seem to be desperate to distance yourself from what you said before you went for the CSM, but the posts are still there.
You should consider a career in politics.
Originally by: Ankhesentapemkah
PvP is for evil psychopaths.
|
Luna Elise
|
Posted - 2008.04.24 19:49:00 -
[85]
Originally by: Ashlee Darksky
Wall of text
Don't worry Ashlee, no one is trying to ruin your game. All the opposite, people just want to have a better balance between action and reactions. The ideal thing in a real life simulation type system game like eve, is that as every action you make should have an equal reaction or consequence. I don't think anyone wants to hold hands here (I certainly don't), but instead they just want to enable more advanced pvp options to make the high sec criminals feel an equal reaction to their deeds.
I think a common mistake that I see some fellow players are doing is the fact that they think "appropriate measures" when related to PvP means destroying PvP. I don't think those people are looking at the big picture here. By enabling Organized and Voluntary Militias to help patrol and keep High Sec as the name implies "High Security Space", we are promoting more PvP, than by letting griefers just go about without having anyone fight back.
By promoting no insurance for gankers in High Sec. We are promoting common sense, not PvP destruction. Would your car insurance company pay for your car lose if you deliberately burn it? Think about it, the current system doesn't make sense. And for those rare cases of accidental aggression, simply keep your Criminal Action Notice enabled, if you don't have it enabled, then it's a risk you voluntarily accept. |
Malcanis
R.E.C.O.N.
Insurgency
|
Posted - 2008.04.24 20:01:00 -
[86]
Originally by: Ankhesentapemkah
Originally by: Jade Constantine
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.
Tradable kill rights definately is one of the better ways to address this problem, especially because it creates more freedom to players allows them to actually earn something by providing security.
However, is this really going to harm suicide gankers and other scum in any way?
Now they just have to calculate that they will lose their budget outfitted, fully insured gank ship twice in the worst case scenario. These ships are meant to be lost, and insurance covers a large fraction of the expenses, both when they suicide it and when they get assassinated by the bounty hunter. After they have been killed once, they're once more free to go on their merry way. Is this enough of a consequence? I'm not too sure - but I still love this system because it gives lawful players something interesting to do.
As for your idea of a locator beacon, I see a lot of whining coming from this, but then again the same result can be accomplished by locator agents. I think a feature like this is a necessity to keep bounty hunting smooth and interesting.
Bounty based on ship class destroyed is a nice step to prevent the worst abuse of the system.
You're assuming the suicide gankers are always only ever in the suicide gank ships. The point of tradeable kill rights is that it makes it unsafe for them to ever be in anything better while they're in empire.
Having tried my hand at lo-sec pirating, I can tell you from personal experience that it makes for a certain amount of uncertainty when trying to conduct "normal" business in hi-sec just because I know that there are a couple of dozen people who could gank me without warning or consequence.
If those people were all highly skilled and experienced bounty hunters, then I would be very, very careful about how I went through hi-sec.
CONCORD provide consequences, not safety; only you can do that. |
Ashlee Darksky
|
Posted - 2008.04.24 20:05:00 -
[87]
Originally by: Una D
Originally by: Stahlregen
Edited by: Stahlregen on 24/04/2008 17:59:00
As unfortunate as it is true, Ank's campaign of championing the powerless and insignificant is ultimately doomed to failure due to the simple fact that he himself, is also powerless and insignificant in the world of EVE and simply has no perspective on the issues that are genuinely important to the community as a whole. You want to change the game to reflect what gels best with your little multiplayer experience, Everyone can appreciate this but what you are trying to do is get yourself elected on an issue that has no substance to it.
CSM candidates require not only ideas but an extensive knowledge of the meta and macro aspects of eve gameplay. So how could you ever hope to promote yourself as an authority figure in the esoteric realm of good intentions and warm, fuzzy feelings.
I think your biggest problem is that you are so blinded by this ridiculous notion that all pvpers and indeed griefers are psychotic shut-ins and therefore simply cannot comprehend that these people have better, more progressive ideas and a greater understanding of the game and community than you do.
Why do I have a feeling that this translates to knowledge of 0.0 and should only care about 0.0 issues and to hell with the rest? Also I can see why you goons disslike this so much. It would be making it possible for people to fight back suicide gankers and griefers and I'm sure it would ruin your fun. Not sure I care though :p
Wrong!
I haven't been to 0.0 for a while, don't spend much time there, not my cup of tea really although I like to go sometimes and watch the big fleets. Most of my time is Empire and Low Sec.
So it's not all about 0.0 and to hell with the rest. The fact of the matter is, it's some of the CSM's (no names metioned ofc *cough* Ankhesentapemkah *cough*) not having a broad enough horizon and not being open minded about EVE as a whole.
My ship was blown up by goons, big deal. Insured, got another - what more do you want? People can fight back, it's called KILL RIGHTS or have you never opened your character sheet and looked at all the options?
Lastly I ask Ankhesentapemkah to respond to my previous post #63 @ 2008.04.24 16:45:00, which I noticed she has conveniently side-stepped, totally ignored and refused to comment on.
A true politician in the making.... 
|
Tai Paktu
Mortis Incarnatus
|
Posted - 2008.04.24 20:05:00 -
[88]
First of all Ankh, I'm glad you've cooled the rhetoric from some of the pre-CSM threads and I'm also glad thi thread is relatively flame-free.
I'll start by saying that by CCPs admission, EvE is primarily a PvP game that survives and grows from conflict and that I doubt the CSM can shift that direction. But I also don't think that's entirely what you want. I'll agree that mechanics like suicide ganking could use some fixes but as someone who frequents low sec and high sec, there are some mechanics that are fine.
I've engaged in all manner of low sec mischief, from scanning out mission runners to belt piracy and camping gates. I'd like to argue that low sec gate camping is "cowardly." Certainly, when a HIC, 2 Commands and 5 battleships kill an Iteron, it does come across as abit unfair, but there's also the chance that that gate activation is going to be a 30 man gang about to blow you to pieces. By the logic you're using, or at least that I can gather, lowering the risk of making ISK by camping a choke-point is cowardly, I can also conclude that not mining into a jetcan or missioning in high-sec is cowardly. Piracy is a profession to some, as is mining or missioning.
I've also recently engaged in the more contentious of PvP topics, high sec "piracy" or "griefing," as some might call it. I mined in my first few months and must admit to being able to fly a Hulk. I had my jetcan flipped many times. I lost ore sometimes and other times I ended up with a frigte or hauler killmail. Some of those times my success was a part of working with my corp and sometimes it was just me. These days I flip cans on occassion.
Why do I do it? Mostly because I want my opponent to steal it back, so I can kill his drones, take his Hulk to structure and ransom him. He pays me 80mil or so for his shiny barge and I go on my merry way. Does this mean I won't kill people who a) don't pay b) flip back in haulers or smaller ships? Nope. I'll kill them all the same. Is the outrage and smack received by them my main goal? No,though I have to admit it amuses me that some people put so much stock in internet spaceships. I have no malicious intentions (similar to you, I've been bullied and know how it feels). To this extent sometimes I don't even flip the can I'm planning on flipping. Just last night I foun a 4 day old Bantom can mining. As I approached the can, some rats appeared. Fearing they would make him leave, I popped them. The little miner thanked me in local and I just couldn't bring myself to flip his can, so I left.
I also engage in high security war decs. My corp has grown in the last week to about 20 people. We range in SPs from about 8 or 9 mil up to 35m. Do we dec 10 man corps? Nope. We are currently fighting about 200 people across 3 corps, 1 "carebear" corp and 2 merc corps. We enjoy the challenge, the hunt, the fight and the kill and we take the losses in stride. I, personally, do not smack. Witty banter with the targets? Yes. Can that sometimes be construed as smack. Yes. "Smack" can also be used as a weapon in EvE. Pysch warfare has a part to play, nothing malicious like hurting feelings and making someone quit, but annoying them to the end that they make a mistake? Oh, yes.
I would also be fully in favour of transferable kill rights. I do what I do because I love the fights. When I have to kill a hauler instead of a cruiser in my frigate, it makes me a sad little pie. I would relish in the knowledge that a high ranking and infamous bounty hunter had bought my killrights and could, even know, be stalking me as I moved from system to system. Hunter becoming the hunted and all would give me an insane rush.
I've been on both sides of PvP and it is inherent and critical for EvE to continue. I love it and I love this game. I think you've got some good intentions and I applaud you for trying to represent the players who are often mocked and ignored. But keep in mind that for some of us PvP is EvE and that PvP has many faces.
______
http://eve-files.com/sig/TaiPaktu/sig3.PNG |
Ethaet
Gallente
Aliastra
|
Posted - 2008.04.24 20:06:00 -
[89]
Originally by: Malcanis
Originally by: Ankhesentapemkah
Originally by: Jade Constantine
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.
Tradable kill rights definately is one of the better ways to address this problem, especially because it creates more freedom to players allows them to actually earn something by providing security.
However, is this really going to harm suicide gankers and other scum in any way?
Now they just have to calculate that they will lose their budget outfitted, fully insured gank ship twice in the worst case scenario. These ships are meant to be lost, and insurance covers a large fraction of the expenses, both when they suicide it and when they get assassinated by the bounty hunter. After they have been killed once, they're once more free to go on their merry way. Is this enough of a consequence? I'm not too sure - but I still love this system because it gives lawful players something interesting to do.
As for your idea of a locator beacon, I see a lot of whining coming from this, but then again the same result can be accomplished by locator agents. I think a feature like this is a necessity to keep bounty hunting smooth and interesting.
Bounty based on ship class destroyed is a nice step to prevent the worst abuse of the system.
You're assuming the suicide gankers are always only ever in the suicide gank ships. The point of tradeable kill rights is that it makes it unsafe for them to ever be in anything better while they're in empire.
Having tried my hand at lo-sec pirating, I can tell you from personal experience that it makes for a certain amount of uncertainty when trying to conduct "normal" business in hi-sec just because I know that there are a couple of dozen people who could gank me without warning or consequence.
If those people were all highly skilled and experienced bounty hunters, then I would be very, very careful about how I went through hi-sec.
This doesn't work with suiciders as most of them are alts, who never fly anything else, and get biomassed when their sec gets too low (which is also an exploit incidentally)
---------------------------------------------------------------
Seriously, we need some kind of separation between the post and signature.
[yellow]There you go. Now that wasn't so hard [/yellow |
Ankhesentapemkah
Gallente
|
Posted - 2008.04.24 20:08:00 -
[90]
Edited by: Ankhesentapemkah on 24/04/2008 20:12:34
Originally by: Esmenet
Actually anyone that bothers to search the forums can find the same quotes from you that Doonoo Boonoo posted. You seem to be desperate to distance yourself from what you said before you went for the CSM, but the posts are still there.
You should consider a career in politics.
Not at all. My posting history is one of the reasons why people choose to vote for me, so why on earth would I want to distance myself from it? Yes, I might have become less extreme than I used to be, people change and get wiser.
The only think I seek to distance myself from a happy troll alt family that derails every single thread I post in with false accusations, personal attacks, and slander. You even sport one of my quotes, conveniently ripped out of context, in your signature, so what more evidence do we need to prove that you exist solely to perform character assassination on me?
If we look at Your posting history everyone can see that you're a troll alt that purposefully harrasses me.
Want something more extreme and obvious? Then look at Doonoo Boonoo's history.
This is your final warning to keep this thread on topic. Cease and dissist, or moderators will be called to ensure this thread remains clean and free of personal attacks.
---
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 |
|
| Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |