| Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
So Cash
   |
Posted - 2010.12.24 09:52:00 -
[31]
 Originally by: Ganagati
Edited by: Ganagati on 24/12/2010 09:50:04
I would like to see the contract mechanic overhauled in general to actually be useful. When I first came into the game, one of the main things that attracted me was the idea of working for other players through things like Courier contracts. Instead it turned out contracts are mainly used for personal transfers, for avoiding CCP on RMTs, and for scams.
The idea of a new contract sounds amazing, especially one that specifically focuses on promoting non-blob pvp and player interaction. Fix courier contracts as well, and I'll be thrilled =D
As for the whole concord not letting anyone touch them: Instead, just keep it simple: Concord won't get involved if the two parties fight. Regular Concord rules apply to everyone else.
Courier contracts are there purely for scammers aren't they?
|
Hirana Yoshida
Behavioral Affront
|
Posted - 2010.12.24 09:54:00 -
[32]
Make kill-rights a commodity.
|
Cupio Mortem
|
Posted - 2010.12.24 10:00:00 -
[33]
Originally by: Hirana Yoshida
Make kill-rights a commodity.
Stop holding your breath so often, it's harming you.
|
Diana Stargazer
|
Posted - 2010.12.24 11:13:00 -
[34]
Edited by: Diana Stargazer on 24/12/2010 11:13:26
Back to the topic: I honestly like the idea.
Best contstruction could be with warpgate which can only be used by the two participants.
Maybe expand to also to 2 vs 2 of 4 vs 4
Then you can hold individual player championships.
There is also one for alliancess so why not ?
Alliance tournament is pretty popular so i can see this work also.
*ninja edit for grammar and spelling
|
MeBiatch
|
Posted - 2010.12.24 15:54:00 -
[35]
Originally by: Amberlamps
Timer, 15 minutes I continuously do the fight over and over. Or I arrange a fight with my alt who uses RR to actually repair me in this 1 vs 1 so when WTs engage again I am full Shield/Armour. This is so exploitable it is amazes me someone would actually consider this.
wow the way you make it sound like docking is an exploit
simple solution:
rr and rr drones are disabled in the arena... (there are spatial anomalies simular to the siege effect that make it so rr wont work)
|
Dorian Wylde
|
Posted - 2010.12.24 16:44:00 -
[36]
Originally by: Destination SkillQueue
I don't see it being a smart thing to do(stupid and convoluted way of basicly implement dueling/1on1 arena combat), I wouldn't use it and I think it is stupid how it affects people who have nothing to do with the contract, meaning the more restrictive rules of engagement. I don't have a problem when people voluntarily agree to harsher CONCORD punishement for their own actions, but they should never be allowed to affect how CONCORD engagement rules are applied to others who aren't a party to such a contract.
People who have nothing to do with the contract have nothing to do with the fight, and should be punished for interfering. You don't just randomly start shooting people in hi sec who are fighting do you? This would be exactly the same as a war dec, except between individuals instead of corporations.
|
Corporal Punishment08
NosWaffle
Nostradamus Effect
|
Posted - 2010.12.24 17:56:00 -
[37]
This is what Sisi is for?
|
Othran
Brutor tribe
|
Posted - 2010.12.24 18:08:00 -
[38]
Originally by: Corporal Punishment08
This is what Sisi is for?
Exactly.
Arenas belong in games where non-consensual PvP can't happen.
Find another game cos this isn't going to happen - arenas were considered and rejected.
|
MeBiatch
|
Posted - 2010.12.24 18:19:00 -
[39]
Originally by: Othran
Originally by: Corporal Punishment08
This is what Sisi is for?
Exactly.
Arenas belong in games where non-consensual PvP can't happen.
Find another game cos this isn't going to happen - arenas were considered and rejected.
1.
there is no risk in loosing a ship in sisi... (you can just buy a new one for 100 isk)
2.
if this were 2006 i would say there is no need for arena style combat... but face it its 2010 and solo pvp is dead... Arena combat will let people like me have some pvp to go along with our pve... (i just dont have 5 hours a day anymore to dedicate to gate camping and roaming gangs)
|
|
CCP Zymurgist
Gallente
C C P
|
Posted - 2010.12.24 18:50:00 -
[40]
Moved from General Discussion.
Zymurgist
Community Representative
CCP Hf, EVE Online
Contact Us |
|
s666ss666ss666
|
Posted - 2010.12.24 19:32:00 -
[41]
CCP Tried to implement this and the server itself rejected it. EVE is not kiddy-land park. people would use this to hid there Titan/SC/link alt boat with 6 links/pair of botting raven. solo is not dead, it is simply not easy (working as intended IMO). I hear the vindicator is good for it, and if your too poor for that the curse, and most T2 firgs are also good choices.
|
Le Meistars
|
Posted - 2010.12.24 20:40:00 -
[42]
Yep, I`m a carebear
I think it`s a great idea as well the bet thing. I would definitely use a 100mil cruiser if i knew it will be a fair 1vs1 fight  and i don`t care if i loose as long as there is an actual chance to kill the pirate  hell i`ll use 200mil just too see him pop
|
Hanius Valm
|
Posted - 2010.12.24 21:12:00 -
[43]
Something along these lines would be interesting.
I do a good amount of conventional PvP out in 0.0, and nothing will ever replace that. But if your logging on to PvP at the moment your online for the long haul in my experience.
You can log on and run a few missions, or rat for half an hour no problem.
But when it comes to finding targets in PvP its partly about luck, and who is on if you like flying in gangs, therefore you find yourself on for long periods of time, particularly if its a slow night. Nothing worse than logging off without a single fight. Or worse logging off after a dull two hours only to check killboard next day and find that a fleet was up half hour later.
Also it would be nice if you knew you've got an hour to kill and could log on certain of the fact that you could find a fight.
|
Shin Dahn
|
Posted - 2010.12.24 22:50:00 -
[44]
/ Signed û great idea.
OP and others that support this idea keep this thread alive. Also, is it possible to get a CSM rep to help endorse this or similar idea?
One of the reasons I still play EVE is the hopes they implement some kind of sanctioned pvp system or game mechanic that encourages solo or small gang pvp. You know, how it was just 3 years ago.
The OPÆs idea can be easily implemented. Players go to a designated system(s) and dock at a station. At the station they can add themselves to a pvp que. You can match up, solo, against a ship type (frigate, cruiser, advanced crusier, BS, whatever even CAPS if you want) but cannot choose the specific ship type. Meaning you might go up against a t2 ship even if youÆre in your t1. This adds some risk of the unknown into the mechanic.
The mechanic should include the following:
No insurance payout for ship loss.
Fight to the death û one player will lose a ship once they enter.
Betting û this can be part of the initial set up when players decide to fight. They bet using their own ISK.
Disable bookmarks û prevent players from creating hiding spots (though an interesting aspect could be probing). Allow fights any place in the system Allow players to be able to warp off. But not hide.
Timed û once a player chooses to pvp with another, they have x amount of minutes before they forfeit bets and the fight. If you back out once you agree to a fight, you take a sec hit.
CONCORD security û any player not involved in the fight but RRÆs or anything else gets killed by CONCORD.
Lose of implants û no podding as that would go against CONCROD (though I think podding should be allowed). But at the very least, you participate and lose, you lose implants as well.
Expandable mechanic û allow the system to grow to include small gang skirmishes.
Why Sanctioned pvp? û simple, build it and they will come. There is a desire in the player base for this type of system. At this point, finding solo or small group PVP is a project. And no FW does not fill this spot as FW is filled with blobs.
Why not ccp? Poll your players. Pvping in blobs comes down to the hopes of getting on a KM. Who cares? WhereÆs the skill?
To the naysayers û enjoy the game the way you want to. DonÆt tell others how they should play. ItÆs a sandbox, you donÆt have to participate. How is this idea kiddyland park? You still lose your SHIP! By that logic, The Alliance tournament (which has more restrictions on it) is carebear.
WhatÆs the difference between being in a sanctioned pvp system or null / low sec warfare? At least with this you have a chance. The skill in Alliance warfare is getting people to join the fleet and having bigger numbers.
A Sanctioned, non-instance, solo pvp mechanic is a great idea.
|
Dunkler Imperator
N.F.H.P.
Fatal Ascension
|
Posted - 2010.12.25 00:37:00 -
[45]
Originally by: Shin Dahn
STUFF
I don't think this is the way to go. It's too restrictive. First off have to be a contract not a station feature.
I don't want a que. I want a contract
|
Hanius Valm
|
Posted - 2010.12.25 01:06:00 -
[46]
I was actually posting a similiar idea to this when I came across this post. The one I suggested was went into alot of detail, hence why it has died very quickly. Alot of reading. I know thats not a great way to encourage anyone to read it, but if you have the time, and are interested in a feature of this type here it is:
http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1436930
It is good that at least some people have an interest in this as a possibility. And from what I have read elsewhere it seems unfortunate that arena style PvP has been thrown on the scrap heap, permanently, by CCP simply because they tried it once on test server, and a load of people kicked up a fuss. If it can be implemented without affecting those who arent interested in using it as a feature then I dont see the issue.
|
Paullus Lux
|
Posted - 2010.12.25 02:11:00 -
[47]
Im liking the idea. I thought about this, but inside stations. where people can watch the battles in the station, maybe even doing the battle in virtual reality in the station. Oh the possibilities.
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |