| Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one page] |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
meowcat
   |
Posted - 2004.09.09 13:40:00 -
[1]
Moved from General Discussions - Lomithrandra
It strikes me that Eve is lacking in one particular area - individual accountability.
Thus i have cobbled together a few thoughts, to form a rough idea that may serve to resolve this problem:
I suggest that CCP create a new kind of "Empire War", called a "Personal Vendetta". This would function like empire wars between corporations but would be applied only between individual characters.
 It would allow 2 players to fight in empire space over a personal grievance without involving the entire corp.
Vendettas could be declared on individuals, even if they are a member of a newbie corp
You cannot declare a vendetta against a character < 1 month old (or other suitable limit to protect genuine new players)
The vendetta would remain active for a limited duration (1 week?)
The vendetta cannot be repeated against the same character for 1 month (or other suitable time period to prevent griefing)
Feel free to flame/troll or even add constructive comments |
meowcat
|
Posted - 2004.09.09 13:40:00 -
[2]
Moved from General Discussions - Lomithrandra
It strikes me that Eve is lacking in one particular area - individual accountability.
Thus i have cobbled together a few thoughts, to form a rough idea that may serve to resolve this problem:
I suggest that CCP create a new kind of "Empire War", called a "Personal Vendetta". This would function like empire wars between corporations but would be applied only between individual characters.
It would allow 2 players to fight in empire space over a personal grievance without involving the entire corp.
Vendettas could be declared on individuals, even if they are a member of a newbie corp
You cannot declare a vendetta against a character < 1 month old (or other suitable limit to protect genuine new players)
The vendetta would remain active for a limited duration (1 week?)
The vendetta cannot be repeated against the same character for 1 month (or other suitable time period to prevent griefing)
Feel free to flame/troll or even add constructive comments |
flummox
|
Posted - 2004.09.09 13:42:00 -
[3]
works for me. would be really nice to have this...
there is a fine, but dissasterous line between a fart and a shart. i suggest you make sure which side you want to be on... |
flummox
|
Posted - 2004.09.09 13:42:00 -
[4]
works for me. would be really nice to have this...
there is a fine, but dissasterous line between a fart and a shart. i suggest you make sure which side you want to be on... |
Vex Seraphim
|
Posted - 2004.09.09 13:45:00 -
[5]
you mean lynching? that is.. ganking? in empire?
-------------------
:: finite horizon :: killboard ::
:: bio :: blog ::
|
Vex Seraphim
|
Posted - 2004.09.09 13:45:00 -
[6]
you mean lynching? that is.. ganking? in empire?
-------------------
:: finite horizon :: killboard ::
:: bio :: blog ::
|
Nerhtal Al'Thali
|
Posted - 2004.09.09 13:47:00 -
[7]
cool, quite like the concept. Like a war between two people only and it has a limited duration and you cannot re-war as soon as the duration is up.
Well, would sort out ore thieves i suppose :)
"Game Experience And Dev Opinions May Change With The Time Of Day During Online Play"
Oveur
"First in, last out"
Bridgeburner Motto |
Nerhtal Al'Thali
|
Posted - 2004.09.09 13:47:00 -
[8]
cool, quite like the concept. Like a war between two people only and it has a limited duration and you cannot re-war as soon as the duration is up.
Well, would sort out ore thieves i suppose :)
"Game Experience And Dev Opinions May Change With The Time Of Day During Online Play"
Oveur
"First in, last out"
Bridgeburner Motto |
Randuin MaraL
|
Posted - 2004.09.09 13:47:00 -
[9]
Should be made sure that you do not exploit a vendetta, coming in with a gang on that poor 2 months old cruiser pilot you declared vendetta upon. Beside of that - I like it.
____________________________________________________
Never be in the company of anyone with whom you would not want to die.
MEDUSA veteran, Khumaak Award winner |
Randuin MaraL
|
Posted - 2004.09.09 13:47:00 -
[10]
Should be made sure that you do not exploit a vendetta, coming in with a gang on that poor 2 months old cruiser pilot you declared vendetta upon. Beside of that - I like it.
____________________________________________________
Never be in the company of anyone with whom you would not want to die.
MEDUSA veteran, Khumaak Award winner |
meowcat
|
Posted - 2004.09.09 14:04:00 -
[11]
i dont believe this would be lynching/ganking, as limited numbers of vendettas would be available to each player, and each declaration would expire, and could not be immediately redeclared
accountability is missing from the game
experienced players are hiding behind game mechanisms designed to protect new players (concord, newbie corps, etc) and it shouldn't be allowed to continue
this is the best idea i've had since i discovered Chocolate Brandy Milkshake
|
meowcat
|
Posted - 2004.09.09 14:04:00 -
[12]
i dont believe this would be lynching/ganking, as limited numbers of vendettas would be available to each player, and each declaration would expire, and could not be immediately redeclared
accountability is missing from the game
experienced players are hiding behind game mechanisms designed to protect new players (concord, newbie corps, etc) and it shouldn't be allowed to continue
this is the best idea i've had since i discovered Chocolate Brandy Milkshake
|
Wylaf Umberg
|
Posted - 2004.09.09 14:09:00 -
[13]
Would be difficult to avoid corp members declaring
vendetta after each other on the same player = either
lynching or part-corp war, take your choice.
|
Wylaf Umberg
|
Posted - 2004.09.09 14:09:00 -
[14]
Would be difficult to avoid corp members declaring
vendetta after each other on the same player = either
lynching or part-corp war, take your choice.
|
meowcat
|
Posted - 2004.09.09 14:11:00 -
[15]
 Originally by: Wylaf Umberg
Would be difficult to avoid corp members declaring
vendetta after each other on the same player = either
lynching or part-corp war, take your choice.
if that heppends, the targets corp would just declare war against them |
meowcat
|
Posted - 2004.09.09 14:11:00 -
[16]
Originally by: Wylaf Umberg
Would be difficult to avoid corp members declaring
vendetta after each other on the same player = either
lynching or part-corp war, take your choice.
if that heppends, the targets corp would just declare war against them |
petergriffen
|
Posted - 2004.09.09 14:29:00 -
[17]
Pretty good idea...
Maybe a limit to the number of active personal vendettas... maybe one at a time?
While this would keep a number of players from declaring a vendetta against a single player, it wouldn't prevent a corp from declaring war on the enemy's corp... Though it makes sense to work that way.
|
petergriffen
|
Posted - 2004.09.09 14:29:00 -
[18]
Pretty good idea...
Maybe a limit to the number of active personal vendettas... maybe one at a time?
While this would keep a number of players from declaring a vendetta against a single player, it wouldn't prevent a corp from declaring war on the enemy's corp... Though it makes sense to work that way.
|
Lizaa
|
Posted - 2004.09.09 14:38:00 -
[19]
mmmmm.... empire pwnage .... mmmmmmmm that would rock i could track and own all by myself then........... sweet
Lizaa - Dark Cartel - Director of Grief TacticsÖ
Death is coming!!!!!
Ph34r teh Retribution. |
Lizaa
|
Posted - 2004.09.09 14:38:00 -
[20]
mmmmm.... empire pwnage .... mmmmmmmm that would rock i could track and own all by myself then........... sweet
Lizaa - Dark Cartel - Director of Grief TacticsÖ
Death is coming!!!!!
Ph34r teh Retribution. |
Xanshiva
|
Posted - 2004.09.09 14:38:00 -
[21]
As you know from my other thread, "Letters of Marque", I am a BIG fan of individual responsibility -- this is a good idea. Almost like a Code Duello, or a formalized, licensed duelists code.
I can see several places where this would be appropriate. Good idea
|
Xanshiva
|
Posted - 2004.09.09 14:38:00 -
[22]
As you know from my other thread, "Letters of Marque", I am a BIG fan of individual responsibility -- this is a good idea. Almost like a Code Duello, or a formalized, licensed duelists code.
I can see several places where this would be appropriate. Good idea
|
Crowley
|
Posted - 2004.09.09 14:41:00 -
[23]
Yup us pirates would love that :D
I say yay to it with 30 second wait til it goes into effect
YAAAAR
|
Crowley
|
Posted - 2004.09.09 14:41:00 -
[24]
Yup us pirates would love that :D
I say yay to it with 30 second wait til it goes into effect
YAAAAR
|
Harry Voyager
|
Posted - 2004.09.09 14:50:00 -
[25]
Sounds reasonable to me. I would also suggest, in addition to the number of active vendettas on a person, a limitation that noone can declare a vendetta on a person in the same PC corp, or (possibly) alliance, as they already have right of fire on them. Otherwise it would be possible to protect someone by having their corpmates all declare "vendettas" on them, and filling up the list.
Harry Voyager
|
Harry Voyager
|
Posted - 2004.09.09 14:50:00 -
[26]
Sounds reasonable to me. I would also suggest, in addition to the number of active vendettas on a person, a limitation that noone can declare a vendetta on a person in the same PC corp, or (possibly) alliance, as they already have right of fire on them. Otherwise it would be possible to protect someone by having their corpmates all declare "vendettas" on them, and filling up the list.
Harry Voyager
|
WTHECK NOLABS
|
Posted - 2004.09.09 14:55:00 -
[27]
M0o Pirates ever fight by themselves on purpose?
What yall been sniffin?
|
WTHECK NOLABS
|
Posted - 2004.09.09 14:55:00 -
[28]
M0o Pirates ever fight by themselves on purpose?
What yall been sniffin?
|
Zzazzt
|
Posted - 2004.09.09 15:02:00 -
[29]
This would make bounty hunting in empire feasable - you "vendetta" your target and can then chase him anywhere - damn fine idea in principle
____________________________________________
MLM: Gentlemen at Play |
Zzazzt
|
Posted - 2004.09.09 15:02:00 -
[30]
This would make bounty hunting in empire feasable - you "vendetta" your target and can then chase him anywhere - damn fine idea in principle
____________________________________________
MLM: Gentlemen at Play |
Jungle Jim
|
Posted - 2004.09.09 15:13:00 -
[31]
I like it,
You would only really be annoyed with one person at a time so 1 vendettat slot? (Unless ur easily annoyed)
The < 1 month old char thing would not stop dedicated ore thieves, they would just start over...
JJ
*** Proud First Time Winner of the MLM Muppet Award *** |
Jungle Jim
|
Posted - 2004.09.09 15:13:00 -
[32]
I like it,
You would only really be annoyed with one person at a time so 1 vendettat slot? (Unless ur easily annoyed)
The < 1 month old char thing would not stop dedicated ore thieves, they would just start over...
JJ
*** Proud First Time Winner of the MLM Muppet Award *** |
Sparhawk
|
Posted - 2004.09.09 15:21:00 -
[33]
Point of View:
Personal vendettas are all fine and dandy, but what is to stop pirates from picking innocent pilots as an excuse to enter 0.5 -1.0 and pod.
Suggestion:
(1) Pilots who are not in a player corporation cannot set bountys, or vendettas. This will stop experienced players from hiding behind NPC Corps like cowards. If they would like to go after a player while in an NPC then they can hire a Merc corp.
(2) Player corporations are limited to the total number of bountys that can be placed on pilots per month.
(3) Security Officers within player corporations are the only players who can place a bounty on a player.
(4) Players who have bountys placed on them can be tracked using the Map Feature. Perhaps there can be a skill called Bounty Hunter which allows those trained to track the bounty they have elected to pursue. Once a player collects a bounty it is listed in their profile.
|
Sparhawk
|
Posted - 2004.09.09 15:21:00 -
[34]
Point of View:
Personal vendettas are all fine and dandy, but what is to stop pirates from picking innocent pilots as an excuse to enter 0.5 -1.0 and pod.
Suggestion:
(1) Pilots who are not in a player corporation cannot set bountys, or vendettas. This will stop experienced players from hiding behind NPC Corps like cowards. If they would like to go after a player while in an NPC then they can hire a Merc corp.
(2) Player corporations are limited to the total number of bountys that can be placed on pilots per month.
(3) Security Officers within player corporations are the only players who can place a bounty on a player.
(4) Players who have bountys placed on them can be tracked using the Map Feature. Perhaps there can be a skill called Bounty Hunter which allows those trained to track the bounty they have elected to pursue. Once a player collects a bounty it is listed in their profile.
|
Shiakarma
|
Posted - 2004.09.09 15:28:00 -
[35]
Wow I've never seen so many people all agree with meowcat  (j/k  )
I'm all for this idea, sounds pretty good. If the number of vendettas was limited against a person it would protect the noobs (who could manage to avoid just a few people) and make it a little more difficult to bounty hunt anyone of any decent value in empire (otherwise pirates would all have 100's of personal vendettas and they'd only whine on the boards ).
Computer games don't affect children. If PacMan had affected us as kids then we'd all be running around in dark rooms, munching pills and listening to repetitive music. |
Shiakarma
|
Posted - 2004.09.09 15:28:00 -
[36]
Wow I've never seen so many people all agree with meowcat (j/k )
I'm all for this idea, sounds pretty good. If the number of vendettas was limited against a person it would protect the noobs (who could manage to avoid just a few people) and make it a little more difficult to bounty hunt anyone of any decent value in empire (otherwise pirates would all have 100's of personal vendettas and they'd only whine on the boards ).
Computer games don't affect children. If PacMan had affected us as kids then we'd all be running around in dark rooms, munching pills and listening to repetitive music. |
meowcat
|
Posted - 2004.09.09 15:30:00 -
[37]
Originally by: Sparhawk
Point of View:
Personal vendettas are all fine and dandy, but what is to stop pirates from picking innocent pilots as an excuse to enter 0.5 -1.0 and pod.
Suggestion:
(1) Pilots who are not in a player corporation cannot set bountys, or vendettas. This will stop experienced players from hiding behind NPC Corps like cowards. If they would like to go after a player while in an NPC then they can hire a Merc corp.
(2) Player corporations are limited to the total number of bountys that can be placed on pilots per month.
(3) Security Officers within player corporations are the only players who can place a bounty on a player.
(4) Players who have bountys placed on them can be tracked using the Map Feature. Perhaps there can be a skill called Bounty Hunter which allows those trained to track the bounty they have elected to pursue. Once a player collects a bounty it is listed in their profile.
i dont think this should effect the existing restrictions on personal sec status and system sec status (ie: if you're -10 you still wont be able to enter 1.0) same as a corp war really
(1) i think anyone should be able to declare a vendetta. obviously the person you are declaring against can shoot back, regardless of what corp you/they are in
(2) good idea... limits of various kinds are needed to reduce exploits
(3) seems reasonable
(4) this might make it too easy. agents can track people for you.
Although this idea does help with the bounty hunting career, it shouldnt be viewed as such exclusively. Personal vendettas could be declared for all sorts of reasons: "you stole my ore", "you scammed me", "your face offends me" etc |
meowcat
|
Posted - 2004.09.09 15:30:00 -
[38]
Originally by: Sparhawk
Point of View:
Personal vendettas are all fine and dandy, but what is to stop pirates from picking innocent pilots as an excuse to enter 0.5 -1.0 and pod.
Suggestion:
(1) Pilots who are not in a player corporation cannot set bountys, or vendettas. This will stop experienced players from hiding behind NPC Corps like cowards. If they would like to go after a player while in an NPC then they can hire a Merc corp.
(2) Player corporations are limited to the total number of bountys that can be placed on pilots per month.
(3) Security Officers within player corporations are the only players who can place a bounty on a player.
(4) Players who have bountys placed on them can be tracked using the Map Feature. Perhaps there can be a skill called Bounty Hunter which allows those trained to track the bounty they have elected to pursue. Once a player collects a bounty it is listed in their profile.
i dont think this should effect the existing restrictions on personal sec status and system sec status (ie: if you're -10 you still wont be able to enter 1.0) same as a corp war really
(1) i think anyone should be able to declare a vendetta. obviously the person you are declaring against can shoot back, regardless of what corp you/they are in
(2) good idea... limits of various kinds are needed to reduce exploits
(3) seems reasonable
(4) this might make it too easy. agents can track people for you.
Although this idea does help with the bounty hunting career, it shouldnt be viewed as such exclusively. Personal vendettas could be declared for all sorts of reasons: "you stole my ore", "you scammed me", "your face offends me" etc |
War Games
|
Posted - 2004.09.09 15:47:00 -
[39]
***Breaking News***
Due to meowcat's suggestion involving some sort of logic... CCP mainframe has aquired a new bug. Please don't post things that involve logic or would make the game fun against such things as ore pests / n00b corp pirates.... this will only make matters worse....
CCP computers were reported in the usual computer voices of mumbling...
"Logic... does not compute.... see irrational dev for help in logical manners... does not compute... must bug market.... must bug lag.... logic.... server node crash....."
HEHE... btw... on topic... this is a good idea in my opinion...
What Eve Dev's really think of you! |
War Games
|
Posted - 2004.09.09 15:47:00 -
[40]
***Breaking News***
Due to meowcat's suggestion involving some sort of logic... CCP mainframe has aquired a new bug. Please don't post things that involve logic or would make the game fun against such things as ore pests / n00b corp pirates.... this will only make matters worse....
CCP computers were reported in the usual computer voices of mumbling...
"Logic... does not compute.... see irrational dev for help in logical manners... does not compute... must bug market.... must bug lag.... logic.... server node crash....."
HEHE... btw... on topic... this is a good idea in my opinion...
What Eve Dev's really think of you! |
Vex Seraphim
|
Posted - 2004.09.09 16:01:00 -
[41]
Rethought the idea, sounds ok if:
vendettas should be ONLY allowed on people who either have a bounty, a -sec status or both.
-------------------
:: finite horizon :: killboard ::
:: bio :: blog ::
|
Vex Seraphim
|
Posted - 2004.09.09 16:01:00 -
[42]
Rethought the idea, sounds ok if:
vendettas should be ONLY allowed on people who either have a bounty, a -sec status or both.
-------------------
:: finite horizon :: killboard ::
:: bio :: blog ::
|
Scorpyn
|
Posted - 2004.09.09 16:04:00 -
[43]
1. Select a target in a corp
2. Everybody goes to different corps, and then declares a personal vendetta against that person
This will make it possible to declare war on a person by multiple ppl without being able to get the corp mates to defend the person, as there is no single corp to declare war on and they will be too many to declare a personal vendetta on every single person.
The only valid reason I see for this is to be able to get ppl hiding in npc corps, but then it should only be possible against ppl in npc corps.
|
Scorpyn
|
Posted - 2004.09.09 16:04:00 -
[44]
1. Select a target in a corp
2. Everybody goes to different corps, and then declares a personal vendetta against that person
This will make it possible to declare war on a person by multiple ppl without being able to get the corp mates to defend the person, as there is no single corp to declare war on and they will be too many to declare a personal vendetta on every single person.
The only valid reason I see for this is to be able to get ppl hiding in npc corps, but then it should only be possible against ppl in npc corps.
|
meowcat
|
Posted - 2004.09.09 16:13:00 -
[45]
Edited by: meowcat on 09/09/2004 16:16:51
Originally by: Scorpyn
1. Select a target in a corp
2. Everybody goes to different corps, and then declares a personal vendetta against that person
This will make it possible to declare war on a person by multiple ppl without being able to get the corp mates to defend the person, as there is no single corp to declare war on and they will be too many to declare a personal vendetta on every single person.
The only valid reason I see for this is to be able to get ppl hiding in npc corps, but then it should only be possible against ppl in npc corps.
that would be a waste for 'vendetta' slots
there are lots of good reasons for this idea, some of which have been spelt out quite clearly in this thread
- it makes bounty hunting viable
- it stops ppl hiding in noob corps
- it allows junior corp members to act against their enemies without having to persuade the directors to use up a war slot
- it allows other personal gripes to be resolved without dragging the whole corp into a personal issue
- duelling!!!
- it creates ACCOUNTABILITY
yes, it's a raw idea, and it needs detailed work to make sure it isn't expoitable... but it's based on the existing corp war system.
edit: the problems you identify could easily be countered by (a) limiting the number of declarations each person can issue and recieve at any given time, (b) charging ISK for each declaration.... also several other constraints already mentioned. |
meowcat
|
Posted - 2004.09.09 16:13:00 -
[46]
Edited by: meowcat on 09/09/2004 16:16:51
Originally by: Scorpyn
1. Select a target in a corp
2. Everybody goes to different corps, and then declares a personal vendetta against that person
This will make it possible to declare war on a person by multiple ppl without being able to get the corp mates to defend the person, as there is no single corp to declare war on and they will be too many to declare a personal vendetta on every single person.
The only valid reason I see for this is to be able to get ppl hiding in npc corps, but then it should only be possible against ppl in npc corps.
that would be a waste for 'vendetta' slots
there are lots of good reasons for this idea, some of which have been spelt out quite clearly in this thread
- it makes bounty hunting viable
- it stops ppl hiding in noob corps
- it allows junior corp members to act against their enemies without having to persuade the directors to use up a war slot
- it allows other personal gripes to be resolved without dragging the whole corp into a personal issue
- duelling!!!
- it creates ACCOUNTABILITY
yes, it's a raw idea, and it needs detailed work to make sure it isn't expoitable... but it's based on the existing corp war system.
edit: the problems you identify could easily be countered by (a) limiting the number of declarations each person can issue and recieve at any given time, (b) charging ISK for each declaration.... also several other constraints already mentioned. |
Thraxll
|
Posted - 2004.09.09 16:19:00 -
[47]
Originally by: Vex Seraphim
Rethought the idea, sounds ok if:
vendettas should be ONLY allowed on people who either have a bounty, a -sec status or both.
I like the overall idea, but not the above suggestions. An ore thief (which I believe is primarily what this is about) isn't generally likely to have a -sec status.
As for bounties, I don't get why more people don't understand that placing a bounty on an "enemy" is the same thing as giving them money. If I had a bounty on my head I'd have my other account pod myself and collect the free money. If I didn't have another account I'd ask a friend or corp mate to create an alt and have them pod me (and perhaps give them a slight commission payment from the free money I just earned.)
Any idea that involves the "bounty" system is a no-go IMO.
"The long and short of it is that this game, or any game, is either going to be a kindergarten where it's safe and cuddly and secure and you can play with plush tigers, or it will be a harsh place, harsh but interesting and interesting because harsh, where you must take risks to succeed and so must everyone, since victory is tasteless without danger." - Raivn Akhama
|
Thraxll
|
Posted - 2004.09.09 16:19:00 -
[48]
Originally by: Vex Seraphim
Rethought the idea, sounds ok if:
vendettas should be ONLY allowed on people who either have a bounty, a -sec status or both.
I like the overall idea, but not the above suggestions. An ore thief (which I believe is primarily what this is about) isn't generally likely to have a -sec status.
As for bounties, I don't get why more people don't understand that placing a bounty on an "enemy" is the same thing as giving them money. If I had a bounty on my head I'd have my other account pod myself and collect the free money. If I didn't have another account I'd ask a friend or corp mate to create an alt and have them pod me (and perhaps give them a slight commission payment from the free money I just earned.)
Any idea that involves the "bounty" system is a no-go IMO.
"The long and short of it is that this game, or any game, is either going to be a kindergarten where it's safe and cuddly and secure and you can play with plush tigers, or it will be a harsh place, harsh but interesting and interesting because harsh, where you must take risks to succeed and so must everyone, since victory is tasteless without danger." - Raivn Akhama
|
Sparhawk
|
Posted - 2004.09.09 16:45:00 -
[49]
i dont think this should effect the existing restrictions on personal sec status and system sec status (ie: if you're -10 you still wont be able to enter 1.0) same as a corp war really
(1) i think anyone should be able to declare a vendetta. obviously the person you are declaring against can shoot back, regardless of what corp you/they are in
(2) good idea... limits of various kinds are needed to reduce exploits
(3) seems reasonable
(4) this might make it too easy. agents can track people for you.
 Perhaps we could limit the view to the pilot who agreed to take the bounty contract.
Although this idea does help with the bounty hunting career, it shouldnt be viewed as such exclusively. Personal vendettas could be declared for all sorts of reasons: "you stole my ore", "you scammed me", "your face offends me" etc
I stand corrected. I would agree that my post is dealing with two different issues.
|
Sparhawk
|
Posted - 2004.09.09 16:45:00 -
[50]
i dont think this should effect the existing restrictions on personal sec status and system sec status (ie: if you're -10 you still wont be able to enter 1.0) same as a corp war really
(1) i think anyone should be able to declare a vendetta. obviously the person you are declaring against can shoot back, regardless of what corp you/they are in
(2) good idea... limits of various kinds are needed to reduce exploits
(3) seems reasonable
(4) this might make it too easy. agents can track people for you.
Perhaps we could limit the view to the pilot who agreed to take the bounty contract.
Although this idea does help with the bounty hunting career, it shouldnt be viewed as such exclusively. Personal vendettas could be declared for all sorts of reasons: "you stole my ore", "you scammed me", "your face offends me" etc
I stand corrected. I would agree that my post is dealing with two different issues.
|
Cadman Weyland
|
Posted - 2004.09.09 16:46:00 -
[51]
I like. Spells death to Zeepo, Tech 2 Shoppe and their ilk. Ore thives and escrow scammers are dead if this comes in.
Pity the $*&% that ripped me off for 65 mil never ever undocks from a station.
Director of Empire Ops and Chief Carebear |
Cadman Weyland
|
Posted - 2004.09.09 16:46:00 -
[52]
I like. Spells death to Zeepo, Tech 2 Shoppe and their ilk. Ore thives and escrow scammers are dead if this comes in.
Pity the $*&% that ripped me off for 65 mil never ever undocks from a station.
Director of Empire Ops and Chief Carebear |
Raeff
|
Posted - 2004.09.09 17:59:00 -
[53]
just got 3 comments:
A) YES
B) YES!!!
C) OH GOD YES!!!
..whew, i need a smoke now
|
Raeff
|
Posted - 2004.09.09 17:59:00 -
[54]
just got 3 comments:
A) YES
B) YES!!!
C) OH GOD YES!!!
..whew, i need a smoke now
|
stinky fecker
|
Posted - 2004.09.09 20:42:00 -
[55]
bloody good idea |
stinky fecker
|
Posted - 2004.09.09 20:42:00 -
[56]
bloody good idea |
Kaillam
|
Posted - 2004.09.09 21:37:00 -
[57]
Originally by: Thraxll
As for bounties, I don't get why more people don't understand that placing a bounty on an "enemy" is the same thing as giving them money. If I had a bounty on my head I'd have my other account pod myself and collect the free money. If I didn't have another account I'd ask a friend or corp mate to create an alt and have them pod me (and perhaps give them a slight commission payment from the free money I just earned.)
Any idea that involves the "bounty" system is a no-go IMO.
...not if they have implants...
|
Kaillam
|
Posted - 2004.09.09 21:37:00 -
[58]
Originally by: Thraxll
As for bounties, I don't get why more people don't understand that placing a bounty on an "enemy" is the same thing as giving them money. If I had a bounty on my head I'd have my other account pod myself and collect the free money. If I didn't have another account I'd ask a friend or corp mate to create an alt and have them pod me (and perhaps give them a slight commission payment from the free money I just earned.)
Any idea that involves the "bounty" system is a no-go IMO.
...not if they have implants...
|
Thraxll
|
Posted - 2004.09.09 21:42:00 -
[59]
Originally by: Kaillam
Originally by: Thraxll
As for bounties, I don't get why more people don't understand that placing a bounty on an "enemy" is the same thing as giving them money. If I had a bounty on my head I'd have my other account pod myself and collect the free money. If I didn't have another account I'd ask a friend or corp mate to create an alt and have them pod me (and perhaps give them a slight commission payment from the free money I just earned.)
Any idea that involves the "bounty" system is a no-go IMO.
...not if they have implants...
Yeah, yeah, they lose their implants (if they even have any.)
Just looking at the billboards I see some bounties that'd more than cover a decent (not top of the line, sure) set of implants. They STILL come out ahead. Not to mention the fact that there's no way to know if your target has implants, anyway.
And besides, I'm sure that most hardcore PVP players (such as pirates that tend to get bounties on their heads) are running around without implants (or with only the cheap ones) as they tend to run a high risk of being podded on a regular basis.
The bounty system is a joke, IMO. 
"The long and short of it is that this game, or any game, is either going to be a kindergarten where it's safe and cuddly and secure and you can play with plush tigers, or it will be a harsh place, harsh but interesting and interesting because harsh, where you must take risks to succeed and so must everyone, since victory is tasteless without danger." - Raivn Akhama
|
Thraxll
|
Posted - 2004.09.09 21:42:00 -
[60]
Originally by: Kaillam
Originally by: Thraxll
As for bounties, I don't get why more people don't understand that placing a bounty on an "enemy" is the same thing as giving them money. If I had a bounty on my head I'd have my other account pod myself and collect the free money. If I didn't have another account I'd ask a friend or corp mate to create an alt and have them pod me (and perhaps give them a slight commission payment from the free money I just earned.)
Any idea that involves the "bounty" system is a no-go IMO.
...not if they have implants...
Yeah, yeah, they lose their implants (if they even have any.)
Just looking at the billboards I see some bounties that'd more than cover a decent (not top of the line, sure) set of implants. They STILL come out ahead. Not to mention the fact that there's no way to know if your target has implants, anyway.
And besides, I'm sure that most hardcore PVP players (such as pirates that tend to get bounties on their heads) are running around without implants (or with only the cheap ones) as they tend to run a high risk of being podded on a regular basis.
The bounty system is a joke, IMO.
"The long and short of it is that this game, or any game, is either going to be a kindergarten where it's safe and cuddly and secure and you can play with plush tigers, or it will be a harsh place, harsh but interesting and interesting because harsh, where you must take risks to succeed and so must everyone, since victory is tasteless without danger." - Raivn Akhama
|
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] |