| Pages: 1 2 [3] :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
jason hill
   |
Posted - 2004.09.10 09:21:00 -
[61]
gets a thumbs up from me !!! *****ing idea meowcat 
"THE HUMAN SHIELD" |
jason hill
|
Posted - 2004.09.10 09:21:00 -
[62]
gets a thumbs up from me !!! *****ing idea meowcat
"THE HUMAN SHIELD" |
Etoile Chercheur
|
Posted - 2004.09.10 10:02:00 -
[63]
i like the general idea. i've long been an advocate of being able to shoot ore-thieves, and this idea might be the closest we get to that.
if i were to create this feature i'd make it:
- restricted to one-on-one (can only declare one vendetta and can only have one vendetta declared against you; cannot declare one while one is declared against you; cannot have one declared against you while you have one declared against someone else.)
- time restricted via exponentially increasing cost in isk similar to how wars will work in Shiva
- so that once a vendetta has ended in either a podding or a lapse of payment to Concord, a set time must pass before another can be declared by the declarer, a month or perhaps three weeks; however, one could be declared against him before that time.
- follows the current aggression rules of war: your target can attack first if he or she chooses.
i'm probably leaving something out i'd include, but i'm too sleepy to think right now.
a note to those irked by escrow scammers: you will never pod them. they never leave the station. they are alts expressly for the purpose of ripping people off. always carefully check your items before claiming them!
Midshipman Etoile Chercheur - Logistics Division (M&T) | Hadean Drive Yards
|
Etoile Chercheur
|
Posted - 2004.09.10 10:02:00 -
[64]
i like the general idea. i've long been an advocate of being able to shoot ore-thieves, and this idea might be the closest we get to that.
if i were to create this feature i'd make it:
- restricted to one-on-one (can only declare one vendetta and can only have one vendetta declared against you; cannot declare one while one is declared against you; cannot have one declared against you while you have one declared against someone else.)
- time restricted via exponentially increasing cost in isk similar to how wars will work in Shiva
- so that once a vendetta has ended in either a podding or a lapse of payment to Concord, a set time must pass before another can be declared by the declarer, a month or perhaps three weeks; however, one could be declared against him before that time.
- follows the current aggression rules of war: your target can attack first if he or she chooses.
i'm probably leaving something out i'd include, but i'm too sleepy to think right now.
a note to those irked by escrow scammers: you will never pod them. they never leave the station. they are alts expressly for the purpose of ripping people off. always carefully check your items before claiming them!
Midshipman Etoile Chercheur - Logistics Division (M&T) | Hadean Drive Yards
|
Latex Mistress
|
Posted - 2004.09.10 11:19:00 -
[65]
 Originally by: Raeff
just got 3 comments:
A) YES
B) YES!!!
C) OH GOD YES!!!
..whew, i need a smoke now 
I'm w/ Raeff - this is a very good idea. Not too hard to polish and implement and most worthy! (*cough* DEVS!! *cough*)
If ECM is an act of aggression, why am I not on kill mails?
|
Latex Mistress
|
Posted - 2004.09.10 11:19:00 -
[66]
Originally by: Raeff
just got 3 comments:
A) YES
B) YES!!!
C) OH GOD YES!!!
..whew, i need a smoke now
I'm w/ Raeff - this is a very good idea. Not too hard to polish and implement and most worthy! (*cough* DEVS!! *cough*)
If ECM is an act of aggression, why am I not on kill mails?
|
G4ce
|
Posted - 2004.09.10 12:36:00 -
[67]
*****in idea as I've said before when its been mentioned.
Needs some tidying up and a little extra thought but hell aint that why we pay every month?
Why not start a poll Meo and see what sort of results you get.
I'm all for it!!
|
G4ce
|
Posted - 2004.09.10 12:36:00 -
[68]
*****in idea as I've said before when its been mentioned.
Needs some tidying up and a little extra thought but hell aint that why we pay every month?
Why not start a poll Meo and see what sort of results you get.
I'm all for it!!
|
meowcat
|
Posted - 2004.09.10 17:33:00 -
[69]
urgh, relegated to the Idea Lab... where all the good ideas are lost forever
not sure how to start a poll or whatever, think i'll just sit back and hope the devs notice (rather than become one of those "OMG make the game the way I want it FFS!!!!11oneone" characters)
meow
ps: i reserve the right to come back periodically and shamelessly bump the thread... after all i dont have good ideas that often |
meowcat
|
Posted - 2004.09.10 17:33:00 -
[70]
urgh, relegated to the Idea Lab... where all the good ideas are lost forever
not sure how to start a poll or whatever, think i'll just sit back and hope the devs notice (rather than become one of those "OMG make the game the way I want it FFS!!!!11oneone" characters)
meow
ps: i reserve the right to come back periodically and shamelessly bump the thread... after all i dont have good ideas that often |
MiloMorai
|
Posted - 2004.09.10 19:11:00 -
[71]
I like it!!!
/SIGNED !!!
I collect ships. Can I have yours? |
MiloMorai
|
Posted - 2004.09.10 19:11:00 -
[72]
I like it!!!
/SIGNED !!!
I collect ships. Can I have yours? |
Amicus
|
Posted - 2004.09.10 20:38:00 -
[73]
OK, there is a problem, but I believe the proposed solution is too subject to abuse. What is to prevent a pvpÆer with a battleship from every week choosing a different carebear trader to go after in hopes of extorting 100 million isk?
PROBLEM:
The problem is how to deal with criminal offenses that do not result in a security penalty under û5 (ôoutlawö) and allow open season for ganking the offender.
 JURY OF PEERS:
One solution I believe would be to allow a playerÆs security status to be affected by their personal standings with a large number of other players.
Example:
Lord X is a corporate embezzler, escrow swindler, ore thief, extortionist, and noob scammer. He is member of NPC Inc., and he manages to maintain his security status at 3.0+. If say 1000 players decide to set their personal standing toward Lord X at û10, then Lord X could have his security status lowered to -5 for a month. At the end of the month period, Lord XÆs former security standing would be returned and all û10 standings toward lord X automatically adjusted to û9, requiring a new vote to put him again at û5.
Checks & Balances:
Requiring a large number of players to ôvoteö a player into outlaw status would provide a check against abuse of the system to grief a player unjustly. Those players who set their standings toward Lord X at û10 could also be ruled to have made personal declarations of war against him and be subject to Lord X attacking them without interference from Concord.
Players could lobby on the Crime & Punishment Forum and chat channels to get offenders declared ôoutlaws.ö
Setting the bar for the ôoutlawö penalty at 1000 player votes might be too high or too low; some experimentation may be required on that number. It would probably be better to err on the side of too high at first and lower the requirement after some experience with actual use of the system. The number required should be higher than the largest number of players in any one alliance, to prevent abuse of the system by alliances to attack enemies rather than to punish criminals.
BOUNTY REFORM:
As for eliminating bounty fraud, see  Bounty Reform Chapt. 3: Solutions.
|
Amicus
|
Posted - 2004.09.10 20:38:00 -
[74]
OK, there is a problem, but I believe the proposed solution is too subject to abuse. What is to prevent a pvpÆer with a battleship from every week choosing a different carebear trader to go after in hopes of extorting 100 million isk?
PROBLEM:
The problem is how to deal with criminal offenses that do not result in a security penalty under û5 (ôoutlawö) and allow open season for ganking the offender.
JURY OF PEERS:
One solution I believe would be to allow a playerÆs security status to be affected by their personal standings with a large number of other players.
Example:
Lord X is a corporate embezzler, escrow swindler, ore thief, extortionist, and noob scammer. He is member of NPC Inc., and he manages to maintain his security status at 3.0+. If say 1000 players decide to set their personal standing toward Lord X at û10, then Lord X could have his security status lowered to -5 for a month. At the end of the month period, Lord XÆs former security standing would be returned and all û10 standings toward lord X automatically adjusted to û9, requiring a new vote to put him again at û5.
Checks & Balances:
Requiring a large number of players to ôvoteö a player into outlaw status would provide a check against abuse of the system to grief a player unjustly. Those players who set their standings toward Lord X at û10 could also be ruled to have made personal declarations of war against him and be subject to Lord X attacking them without interference from Concord.
Players could lobby on the Crime & Punishment Forum and chat channels to get offenders declared ôoutlaws.ö
Setting the bar for the ôoutlawö penalty at 1000 player votes might be too high or too low; some experimentation may be required on that number. It would probably be better to err on the side of too high at first and lower the requirement after some experience with actual use of the system. The number required should be higher than the largest number of players in any one alliance, to prevent abuse of the system by alliances to attack enemies rather than to punish criminals.
BOUNTY REFORM:
As for eliminating bounty fraud, see Bounty Reform Chapt. 3: Solutions.
|
Noriath
|
Posted - 2004.09.10 21:26:00 -
[75]
Wow, great, another idea that does nothing but allow PK to pod people in imperial space without any consequences...
|
Noriath
|
Posted - 2004.09.10 21:26:00 -
[76]
Wow, great, another idea that does nothing but allow PK to pod people in imperial space without any consequences...
|
Turyleon Caddarn
|
Posted - 2004.09.10 23:53:00 -
[77]
sounds like a great idea... though i do think the flaws need to be ironed out to prevent possible exploiting/griefing.
but very good basis for a good feature none-the-less
"I know this game, it's called Cat and Mouse. There's only one way to win......... Don't be the mouse." |
Turyleon Caddarn
|
Posted - 2004.09.10 23:53:00 -
[78]
sounds like a great idea... though i do think the flaws need to be ironed out to prevent possible exploiting/griefing.
but very good basis for a good feature none-the-less
"I know this game, it's called Cat and Mouse. There's only one way to win......... Don't be the mouse." |
Qutsemnie
|
Posted - 2004.09.11 00:03:00 -
[79]
We call this the definition of griefing...
Specifically singleing out a player to stalk and or harass them.
You just changed the name and tried to slip in rules to make it even worse. But i dont see how you can distinguish between stalking and personal vendetta~
I think im going to wake up everyday this week and follow qutsemnie around all day. <stalking/harrasment>
I think im going to wake up everyday this week and follow qutsemnie around all day and blow him up. <personal vendetta>
Which concerns a carebear more? If carebear money is no good in iceland no problem. Ill be able to tell if a rule like this was ever implemented~
|
Qutsemnie
|
Posted - 2004.09.11 00:03:00 -
[80]
We call this the definition of griefing...
Specifically singleing out a player to stalk and or harass them.
You just changed the name and tried to slip in rules to make it even worse. But i dont see how you can distinguish between stalking and personal vendetta~
I think im going to wake up everyday this week and follow qutsemnie around all day. <stalking/harrasment>
I think im going to wake up everyday this week and follow qutsemnie around all day and blow him up. <personal vendetta>
Which concerns a carebear more? If carebear money is no good in iceland no problem. Ill be able to tell if a rule like this was ever implemented~
|
Mortania
|
Posted - 2004.09.11 00:12:00 -
[81]
It's not a bad idea, but the potential for abuse is high. Protection = make an alt and declare vendetta against yourself, rinse repeat. Or the opposite, cycle vendetta against someone.
|
Mortania
|
Posted - 2004.09.11 00:12:00 -
[82]
It's not a bad idea, but the potential for abuse is high. Protection = make an alt and declare vendetta against yourself, rinse repeat. Or the opposite, cycle vendetta against someone.
|
Qutsemnie
|
Posted - 2004.09.11 01:06:00 -
[83]
You could make a "vendettas are only usuable on those that choose to use them" rule but "going red" while easy to implement doesnt usually work in games. Generally speaking nobody but the pure pvp lovers "go red" which historically isnt very many people~
|
Qutsemnie
|
Posted - 2004.09.11 01:06:00 -
[84]
You could make a "vendettas are only usuable on those that choose to use them" rule but "going red" while easy to implement doesnt usually work in games. Generally speaking nobody but the pure pvp lovers "go red" which historically isnt very many people~
|
DoctorDanny
|
Posted - 2004.09.11 10:07:00 -
[85]
Great Idea, I allready know of at least three peeps that I'd like to declare Vendetta upon.
|
DoctorDanny
|
Posted - 2004.09.11 10:07:00 -
[86]
Great Idea, I allready know of at least three peeps that I'd like to declare Vendetta upon.
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 [3] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |