EVE Search - [2nd CSM Candidate] Scagga Laebetrovo

All Channels

Jita Park Speakers Corner

[2nd CSM Candidate] Scagga Laebetrovo

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Babel Utopian Research I.E.L. The ENTITY.	Posted - 2008.10.31 14:33:00 - [31] Approving of such developments I am :) moar pirate-faction lurve please-thankyou ! ------- "Out of the good of evil born, Came Uriel's voice of cherub scorn"
Furb Killer Gallente The Scope	Posted - 2008.10.31 21:43:00 - [32] What is your opinion on pirate gatecamps? I am not saying it should be impossible. But you say life is becoming harder for pirates due to some random stuff, while gatecamping is only becoming easier for the pirates (more people = larger gangs = easier to tank guns, introduction of hics, etc). And while pirates seem to enjoy whining about being blobbed 25 vs 5, they dont have any issues ganking a noob 5 vs 1. Somewhere in GD it was asked how you can get more people into low sec. The answer many gave and what i also think: Decrease the number of gatecamps. Sure i know low sec isnt camped everywhere (am often enough in low sec), but if you run into a gatecamp you lose a ship without anything you can do about it. I would have no issues with making it easier for pirates to find people in belts when low sec rats get improved, but then it should be compensated by a nerf to their ability to gatecamp.
Heartstone Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.11.01 11:51:00 - [33] Ah nice to see someone of interest standing other than the expected. ---
Alica Wildfire Minmatar Federal Investigations Agency	Posted - 2008.11.01 17:18:00 - [34] Edited by: Alica Wildfire on 01/11/2008 17:19:10 I don't know much about 0.0 politics but I am quite active in faction warfare at the moment. The ideas of Scagga are quite a good start, but there should be more. At the moment we have a lot of fun with it but besides the fun there is no use neither for republic nor for us besides some victory points for plexing. So, I have some ideas that might be not be new (I don't know what is said before) but maybe there is something usable among them. First there must be consequences for the sovereign of a system. That might be a docking prohibition for pilots of the enemy militia, but this is to discuss. In a war everything is about money. So losing a system means for that faction that certain production is taken away and more important the taxes can't be collected. I think to balance the taxrates of the two involved factions around the status of systems. The more systems are under control the lower the taxrate for all players of that faction while doing bizz inside the Empire or the Republic (Amarr/Minmatar) and vice versa. Contesting a system should take away the income from the owner slowly for bizz is not going well under siege. To reconquer a system from the enemy could give reward to those who fight, for there should be a motivation to do this beyond victory points. I have no idea about that at the moment but will think that over. Maybe the victory points can give more than standing? Don't know at the moment. This might not be the best way to do it but it will work and is a more subtile way to balance the faction war. To deny docking of faction war pilots brings some problems, like the loss of material in warzone. This might be interesting for the supply chain breaks, but is of cause a drastic measure and can have sideeffects that scare too many pilots away from faction war. An other thing is contraband. I tried it a bit to smuggle small arms to Amarr and am not quite shure about, if it is working at all. With systems contesting there could be a quite funny way to open these markets for people who like to deal with forbidden fruit. Contested systems might be also a good way to take away all taxes and make them interesting. This as some first ideas but I'll think about it. I was very astonished when Scagga contacted me and asked me about my two cents about faction war. I think there is much to do. Going away from station-hugging and gatecamping and moving to a more dynamic scenario with plexing is very good. It leads to smaller encounters with much more fun and dynamic. But its also a good way to include other interest in this war than just the idealistic ones, that I follow. If this war is beginning to hurt wallets then it will be of a much higher interest for all. But there is of cause a balancing problem in this. The losing party will lose more and more systems and more and more money, weakening more and more. So what is needed is something to compensate the success. So the loser should have an easier part to contest systems than the winner. This might be done by thinning out the amount of defending vessels. This is quite logical in-world, cause the more systems have to be defended by the (npc) vessels, the thinner the fleet is stretched. Like in a normal war. The bigger the territory the weaker and thinner the defending fleets. I don't know if this works but the mechanism is quite straight forward. -- FREEDOM, PUNK & AUTOCANNONS
Alica Wildfire Minmatar Federal Investigations Agency	Posted - 2008.11.02 08:59:00 - [35] By the way, about money for militia. That's really a problem. While all people in Eve get more or less rich by doing more or less useful things, the militia gets nothing in return. There should be some revard for the FW is nothing than a hole for money at this time. Of cause you can be a battlefield jackal and steal the things from those who lost everything. But thats low to be true and I think it's not a good thing to force the warriors into this. I only fly frigs and to pay my losses stops me from doing or gaining anything, but somehow I survive. Those with bigger ships bear great losses, billions of isk for nothing. And there is no way to gain money. I suggest this: contesting and decontesting systems should get a reward in pay (militia pilots that do nothing should get nothing), killing off enemy ships should get pay (not as much as rats of cause) but I don't think downing an militia ships should give reward. Loot is enough. Where shall the money come from? Simple. Make taxes like I suggested in my last posting and give the income of those taxes to the militia who is really doing the job. So: don't insert isk into the factionwar that was not there before. Control it over a dynamic tax. While the winning faction warriors get less and less the losing will get more and more money for their work. Another quite logical step, I think which represents the normal dynamic in society. -- FREEDOM, PUNK & AUTOCANNONS
Darius Shakor Minmatar Mirkur Draug'Tyr Ushra'Khan	Posted - 2008.11.02 23:53:00 - [36] Just registering my support for the evil Ammatar, Scagga. Pretty much all you have gone over so far is what I would like to see including the small scale pvp prospects and the possibilities for more tactical 0.0 environments. What are your thoughts on alliances and consolidaion of 0.0 space? Like the further from a core hub the weaker the defences might become? I have felt for a while this would encourage some more tactical aspects and a different approach to taking over someone's space. Also, the idea of the pillage of an outpost sounds good but maybe it could be applied to a smaller scale like inflicting actual cost damage to outposts and POS external structures. I personally would like to be able to conduct raids into the fringes of an alliance's space (if weaker through range from the core as stated above) and disrupt POS operations while inflicting a cost on repairs to external structures without needing to bring a 150+ blob to do so. Light damage but over time an annoyance to the space owners or their tennants. Good for those like me that have long lost interest in the resource and time drain of claiming space but have no means of doing meaningful damage to such an entity without having to resort to sov warfare mechanics. Thoughts? ------ Mirkur Draug'Tyr :: Recruitment
Scagga Laebetrovo Evil Bastards	Posted - 2008.11.03 01:17:00 - [37] Thanks for the kind words! Re: Furb Killer, Alica Wildfire, Darius Shakor's questions: I'll get down to writing answers to your pertinent questions as soon as I can! Scagga is running for the CSM, see his campaign thread to know of his standpoints!
Camperific Es and Whizz Hedonistic Imperative	Posted - 2008.11.03 11:53:00 - [38] Some great idea's here. /signed
Julius Rigel House Rigel	Posted - 2008.11.03 15:57:00 - [39] Did I miss the section on sandbox gaming? Oop, no wait, there it is, under "Things to stick my phallus in until they die". Scared of the events forum?
Laerise Amarr PIE Inc.	Posted - 2008.11.03 16:32:00 - [40] Edited by: Laerise on 03/11/2008 16:38:45 Hey, more stuff for pirates is always good, means it's more fun to fight them in turn as well Edit: Also, if you get the fc changes through ( as in the remote commanding a'la WW II aircommanders ) there'll be quite a few beers ( or gin tonics ) for you next time I make it to London.
Scagga Laebetrovo Evil Bastards	Posted - 2008.11.03 17:11:00 - [41] Originally by: Furb Killer What is your opinion on pirate gatecamps? I am not saying it should be impossible. But you say life is becoming harder for pirates due to some random stuff, while gatecamping is only becoming easier for the pirates (more people = larger gangs = easier to tank guns, introduction of hics, etc). And while pirates seem to enjoy whining about being blobbed 25 vs 5, they dont have any issues ganking a noob 5 vs 1. Could I please take a moment to clarify what you claim I have said: I have not said that life is becoming 'harder for pirates', rather that a pirate's life is becoming 'harder to enjoy'. I ask you to ponder upon this, as there is a clear distinction in the meaning. To address your question about my opinions on gatecamps, I'm sure we'd both accept that gatecamps are definitely not a new practice. I accept that they are an established tactic, that some enjoy and others find boring. However, I think it is important to appreciate that it is an over-simplification to say that gatecamping is becoming easier or more difficult over a period of time - without considering that many changes have affected it in different ways. I do not profess to be a leading expert on the topic of gatecamping, but I'll do my best to analyse the problem. Let's look at the problem longitudinally: Examples of factors that MIGHT have made gatecamps easier: - Superior tanking ability - Heavy interdictors - (0.0. only) Interdictors and warp disruption fields - Gallente recons (?) - Overheating (?) - An increased Eve population (?) Examples of factors that MIGHT have made gatecamps less rewarding: - Warp to 0 - Carriers, jump bridges and jump freighters (?) - (Low sec) Factional warfare (?) - Jump clones (?) - Invention (?) The list is by no means exhaustive, but it gives me an impression that the problem is not an issue of single aetiology. However, I'd rather not write a thesis on the topic here and now :D Now, let's bring ourselves to the crux of the issue. I will, for our purposes, make an assumption that the current system is problematic and that both pirates and their prey are unhappy with the status quo. I repeat, this is an assumption - I would rather gather more information to allow for a more fact-substantiated opinion. Ok, so how would I deal with it? Let me explain my principles in dealing with this issue, if it were proven to be a problem: - I don't want to support handing out whimsical nerfs - I would rather support creating new and improving existing things for people to do If you refer to my earlier posts in this thread you will notice that I have supported discussing the following notions: - Increasing the number of stargate connections: Where these would be sited is a discussion in itself. The principle behind this is that the Eve population has grown considerably since the last introduction of new connections to bypass chokepoints, and that they should stay proportional - Support an improvement in the variety and appeal of other options available for pirates: If you refer to my main post about improving piracy, as well as to the answers I gave Mr Slarti on the previous page, you will get the main gist of what I my ideas are in this area Scagga is running for the CSM, see his campaign thread to know of his standpoints!
Scagga Laebetrovo Evil Bastards	Posted - 2008.11.03 17:18:00 - [42] Originally by: Furb Killer Somewhere in GD it was asked how you can get more people into low sec. The answer many gave and what i also think: Decrease the number of gatecamps. Sure i know low sec isnt camped everywhere (am often enough in low sec), but if you run into a gatecamp you lose a ship without anything you can do about it. I would have no issues with making it easier for pirates to find people in belts when low sec rats get improved, but then it should be compensated by a nerf to their ability to gatecamp. Indeed, I remember that thread. In fact, I replied to it - yet it may have been hard for you to locate it, given how long that thread turned out to be. I shall repost the answer I gave there in the following reply. Scagga is running for the CSM, see his campaign thread to know of his standpoints!
Scagga Laebetrovo Evil Bastards	Posted - 2008.11.03 17:19:00 - [43] Originally by: Scagga Laebetrovo I will suggest a few things, but first I must make the assumption mentioned below: First assumption: 0.0. and Low sec should become more populated because this is a 'good' thing. (I don't necessarily agree or disagree with the assumption) Defining with the problem Let's start with the basics: the problem with manufacturing and populations in low sec are intertwined. They feed off each other when equilibrium sets in, but usually there first needs to be a reason to create demand for supply to increase. I would call these incentives, particularly ones that can outweigh the risks encountered, while also exceeding the abilities to achieve the same goal in high sec space. Proposed approaches to the problem 1. Agents - A low sec specific suggestion: Tie the quality of a level 4 agent to the frequency that they are used: Low sec agents will become significantly better over time due to reduced use in comparison to those in high sec. This would mean that running l4 low sec missions would be even more profitable than l4 high sec missions as it stands now. Note: Some people have suggested moving all level 4 agents to low sec/0.0. I am not convinced that taking that action is a wholly good idea at this moment in time. 2. Work on existing attractions: Factional Warfare - Factional warfare (I've got ideas for this in my campaign thread) could use tweaks to its mechanics and incentives to make it worth doing without having to take breaks to earn cash through other means as often - Tying in with Factional warfare would be modifications to fleet warfare to make it easier to command small gangs in various locations simultaneously, reducing blob warfare and increasing the spread of targets - Add pirate factions to Factional warfare (see next proposal) 3. Piracy While this might sound counter-intuitive, I think that piracy in low sec needs to be looked at and enhanced. I would love to see pirate faction agents supplied in low sec, sending pilots to kill high ranking members of empire militias, or even against rival pirate factions! More pvp'ers in low sec will create increased demand, particularly if they are working for pirate agents based in low sec. (Note: These agents would not be operating in the same way as current agents, I envision them as a bridge between FW, PVE and PVP) - Please see my campaign thread for specifics, including the answers I gave to Mr Slarti's questions on improving the pirate's everyday activities 4. Trading mechanics - Enhancements to the trade interface could make it easier for traders to assess where there is demand by being able to see WHERE buying/selling is taking place. This would help them know where to set up new low sec trading hubs. For specifics, please see my campaign thread e.g. embargoes, player-run shops 5. Inter-corporate and alliance Treaty formalisation - Right now it is not as easy as it could be to arrange formal relations between corporations, e.g. trade embargoes, supply contracts etc. I have proposed that contracts be worked on to include 'treaties', which allow a corporation to perform a service for another, while having that treaty active automatically gives them the standings and orders to fill. This streamlines diplomacy and allows the creation of more complex, mutually beneficial relationships to be much more straightforward Scagga is running for the CSM, see his campaign thread to know of his standpoints!
Lyn Farel Brutor tribe	Posted - 2008.11.03 21:01:00 - [44] Greetings Scagga, I do not know if you remember me but i'm really surprised and glad to see you campaigning for the 2nd CSM election. I have read all your ideas and well... i'm really impressed by your creative potential. Ideas and concepts you simply add here are just answering to questions / issues in a really "universe-realistic feeling" way (flatlining, outpost pillaging, and many other ones for example). As you seem to be interested by the pirate scale/gameplay/side, i'm wondering if you are thinking of new ideas as well for the bounty hunter system ? Originally by: Slarti 1 û How will you make access to 0.0 space more `friendlyÆ to casual tourist types. I donÆt mind getting ganked once there but I would like to have a reasonable chance of making it to somewhere deep within 0.0 without having to use an interceptor to out run all the banks of warp disrupters. It is right you actually need some NRDS 0.0 alliance to tolerate neutrals and "empire-like" activities in those remote areas, but well... Scagga will correct me if i'm wrong but from what i understood in his program i saw big new opportunities to see alliances - if they want to become empires - to consider their territories for inhabitants and population, followers, market side effects, settlements/colonization, etc etc, and not only for ressources and isk-basic rewards only (farming, farming, farming...). [cf alliance treaties, alliances like empires]
Smagd Encina Technologies Namtz' aar K'in	Posted - 2008.11.03 21:26:00 - [45] A mate buys me beer if I come here (Zaq, I hope you heard that) so here's my promise: Free Pax Amarria plus vote for you if you can promise to talk to the council about sorting by more than three attributes. Missing for me are: "Sort by meta level" "Sort by volume" "Sort by base price" and ditch the reverse if it takes that for making space. And "Sort by Quantity" places the assembled items with no quantity at the very HIGH end of the list, where it should be close to the 1-quantity unassembled stacks. Beer. Beer made me post this.
MirrorGod Heretic Army Heretic Nation	Posted - 2008.11.03 23:23:00 - [46] My support to Scagga, props for takign the time to chat Save Small Gang Warfare
MirrorGod Heretic Army Heretic Nation	Posted - 2008.11.03 23:23:00 - [47] My support to Scagga, props for takign the time to chat Save Small Gang Warfare
Red Katherine Ammatar Free Corps	Posted - 2008.11.04 17:05:00 - [48] I wholeheartedly endorse this candidate. His vision, organizational skills, and his dedication to making EVE an enjoyable experience for everyone speak volumes. Vote Scagga - early and often.
Judge Ment Zero Gravity Inc Vanguard.	Posted - 2008.11.07 19:04:00 - [49] Hello I sure hope that CCP takes the time to listen to your ideas Scagga Leabetrovo> Looking a the history of CSM (ATM they been ignored) and some foolish statements on the forums between them and CCP. Without going into to detail! Or pointing fingers " I hope your not just waisting your time " Your the guy for the job! You have our vote Judge Ment ------------------------------------- We judge others by actions We judge ourselves by intentions.
Scagga Laebetrovo Evil Bastards	Posted - 2008.11.07 23:09:00 - [50] Sorry for the delay in replying to these questions, this week I've been spending longer hours attached to Obs & Gynae as part of my studies. Originally by: Alica Wildfire First there must be consequences for the sovereign of a system. Indeed, I agree that occupancy should have tangible consequences - and as you have indicated, their exact nature is a matter for discussion. Factional warfare can require a prohibitive amount of time investment to achieve goals that seem to only 'exist on paper' at present. From information that I have gathered, the current status quo regarding consequences is reported to be a sub-optimal as a motivating factor for many of those involved. Originally by: Alica Wildfire Another thing is contraband. I tried it a bit to smuggle small arms to Amarr and am not quite shure about, if it is working at all. With systems contesting there could be a quite funny way to open these markets for people who like to deal with forbidden fruit. I particularly like this idea, giving non-combat means of supporting the war. Perhaps this [smuggling] could be introduced as a prelude to spreading the scope of factional warfare - i.e. making new zones contestable? This may also beg the question - is it time for less common professions such as smuggling to receive de novo attention, and possibly find them a role in factional warfare? Originally by: Alica Wildfire Going away from station-hugging and gatecamping and moving to a more dynamic scenario with plexing is very good. It leads to smaller encounters with much more fun and dynamic. Yes. With regards to station-hugging and gatecamping, while they are for usually tactics borne of battlefield conditions rather than truly 'cowardly' pilots, I support finding better alternative activities - rather than supporting 'nerfing' these combat styles. Re: what you mentioned about tax and how it should be paid out etc. - this is a novel idea to me. While I currently don't understand it - I'd be interested in getting a better understanding of this in a more formal discussion setting. Scagga is running for the CSM, see his campaign thread to know of his standpoints!
Termopan	Posted - 2008.11.08 18:08:00 - [51] well i was in delictum also to bad at that time i was a noob and couldnt do to much in this game yet scagga helped me and proved to be a good ceo he know's what he's doing so personally you got my vote ^^
Starbud Paul Amarr DEADLY RENEGADE ELITE ASSASSIN MERC SQUAD Pupule 'Ohana	Posted - 2008.11.08 19:54:00 - [52] A lot of good idea's their scagga u got my backing think ur ideas are whats needed to try and change the frame of the game On the 0.0 stuff i would like to see some kind of sov holding cap for the bigger aliances introduced; somthing like a max amout of regions that they would be able to hold at 1 time to alow the smaller alliances to stake a claim and even out the game power block play. where would u stand on that idea ? as to the rest of ur post it is spot on m8 and i suport that im throwing open the door on the sov grab and many will say its not a feisible optian but their has to be some limate to what goons and bob can take! give me some veiws on that and u got my vote their yarrrrr
Celestra Doxaila MinTek Heavy Industries	Posted - 2008.11.09 04:50:00 - [53] Originally by: Nexus Kinnon scagga is a cool dude you should vote for him I think Scagga is a pretty cool guy, he runs for CSM and doesn't afraid of anything. :) You have my vote old friend.
Scagga Laebetrovo Evil Bastards	Posted - 2008.11.09 12:35:00 - [54] Edited by: Scagga Laebetrovo on 09/11/2008 12:34:50 Originally by: Darius Shakor Just registering my support for the evil Ammatar, Scagga. Pretty much all you have gone over so far is what I would like to see including the small scale pvp prospects and the possibilities for more tactical 0.0 environments. What are your thoughts on alliances and consolidaion of 0.0 space? Like the further from a core hub the weaker the defences might become? I have felt for a while this would encourage some more tactical aspects and a different approach to taking over someone's space. Also, the idea of the pillage of an outpost sounds good but maybe it could be applied to a smaller scale like inflicting actual cost damage to outposts and POS external structures. I personally would like to be able to conduct raids into the fringes of an alliance's space (if weaker through range from the core as stated above) and disrupt POS operations while inflicting a cost on repairs to external structures without needing to bring a 150+ blob to do so. Light damage but over time an annoyance to the space owners or their tennants. Good for those like me that have long lost interest in the resource and time drain of claiming space but have no means of doing meaningful damage to such an entity without having to resort to sov warfare mechanics. Thoughts? Thanks Darius Re: Consolidation of 0.0. space This is a concept I am interested to explore. At present, the degree of 'control' over alliance-held 0.0. space can vary, with some systems behaving like the 'hubs' you describe, and others being mostly barren save for a sovereignty pos and a few npc'ers. In response to this question, you may have read the earlier posts in this thread about supporting 'infiltration' of 'soft' forces into poorly protected/patrolled enemy space? While I haven't at present proposed a game-mechanic difference between the heavily populated vs sparsely populated claimed space, I do support the idea of infiltrating poorly defended enemy space. So, if a territorial entity is unable to keep eyes on farflung possessions, I think that hostile settlement by guerrilla forces is a logical sequela - using the aforementioned proposed mobile bases/infrastructure. This does not necessarily compromise sovereignty. I would also like to hear more about what you would suggest the practical changes would be as 'influence' diminishes, and approaching the idea in the future would require wider discussion. Re: Inflicting tangible damage on a smaller scale This is also a good question. I've said before that 0.0. warfare needs to be spread over a wider area - thus giving smaller scale objectives may be an important part of encouraging this. Of course one must not promote an idea to which there is no counter - ideas that I would want to discuss in the future would include station sabotage, placing mines or moving moon-mining apparatus outside of pos shields, suicide ships and assessing the feasibility of mobile siege weaponry. Of course, this not exhaustive - and as said at the panel yesterday - most good ideas start as bad ideas, so I won't stop brainstorming on that one :P Scagga is running for the CSM, see his campaign thread to know of his standpoints!
Onnen Mentar Murientor Tribe	Posted - 2008.11.09 14:38:00 - [55] What CSM members need to do is help guide CCP to commit to a clear vision of what EVE should be like. The vision of EVE Scagga is presenting I can agree with the most, so he is receiving my vote. I'm sure he will encourage a productive dialog rather than waste the CSM's and CCP's time on minor details, which the devs ought to sort out themselves without CSM interference but in the spirit of CCP's and the CSM's "EVE vision". Support a man with a clear vision, people
Elizabelle Gallente MinTek Heavy Industries	Posted - 2008.11.09 14:54:00 - [56] /voted Still have your AYD corp for ya if you want it back.
Seong'an Kim Gallente Apathy In Death	Posted - 2008.11.09 14:56:00 - [57] Originally by: Elizabelle Still have your AYD corp for ya if you want it back. And here it is
Scagga Laebetrovo Evil Bastards	Posted - 2008.11.09 14:57:00 - [58] Originally by: Seong'an Kim Originally by: Elizabelle Still have your AYD corp for ya if you want it back. And here it is Oh my God... Scagga is running for the CSM, see his campaign thread to know of his standpoints!
Scagga Laebetrovo Evil Bastards	Posted - 2008.11.09 18:46:00 - [59] Originally by: Lyn Farel Greetings Scagga, I do not know if you remember me but i'm really surprised and glad to see you campaigning for the 2nd CSM election. I have read all your ideas and well... i'm really impressed by your creative potential. Ideas and concepts you simply add here are just answering to questions / issues in a really "universe-realistic feeling" way (flatlining, outpost pillaging, and many other ones for example). As you seem to be interested by the pirate scale/gameplay/side, i'm wondering if you are thinking of new ideas as well for the bounty hunter system ? Originally by: Slarti 1 û How will you make access to 0.0 space more `friendlyÆ to casual tourist types. I donÆt mind getting ganked once there but I would like to have a reasonable chance of making it to somewhere deep within 0.0 without having to use an interceptor to out run all the banks of warp disrupters. It is right you actually need some NRDS 0.0 alliance to tolerate neutrals and "empire-like" activities in those remote areas, but well... Scagga will correct me if i'm wrong but from what i understood in his program i saw big new opportunities to see alliances - if they want to become empires - to consider their territories for inhabitants and population, followers, market side effects, settlements/colonization, etc etc, and not only for ressources and isk-basic rewards only (farming, farming, farming...). [cf alliance treaties, alliances like empires] Lyn - it was a while ago, but do I remember good memories of fighting alongside you in the fights against the Murientor Tribe in northern derelik! Thanks for your kind words! As you have understood, different styles of alliance government need to be supported. If sovereignty holding alliances are to be regarded as emerging nations in their own right, Eve ought to support their decisions instead of limiting them to flimsy word-of-mouth agreements. Now for your question: Re: The bounty hunter system As a standalone issue, I'm open to hear about ways bounty-hunting per se can be supported. I have previously suggested roles for level 5 agents in 'advanced disclosure' of a target's position - including commercial transactions tracing for find alts. It's also matter that I've thought of having a role in different game facets: 1. Factional Warfare perspective I've mentioned that it would be interesting to see a bridging of PVP and PVE through agent missions - issuing missions akin to bounty hunting. I.E. Go kill high ranking enemy militiamen and collect your reward, while lowering the enemy's rank. In summary: Your rank in Factional Warfare needs to mean something more than just complex running. Let PVP ability factor more. 2. 0.0 perspective I have spoken as of late with 0.0. alliance members on the concept of agents migrating to 0.0., floating the idea of 0.0. agents being the alliance members themselves. Hypothetically this could lead to player 'agents' creating unique missions for their fellow alliance members, or residents. This could take the form of bounty-hunter-like 'hits', industrial jobs or difficult logistics strikes. It could also be a boon to mercenary-alliance relations (supporting smaller scale jobs for determined specialists). Scagga is running for the CSM, see his campaign thread to know of his standpoints!
Scagga Laebetrovo Evil Bastards	Posted - 2008.11.09 19:13:00 - [60] Originally by: Smagd A mate buys me beer if I come here (Zaq, I hope you heard that) so here's my promise: Free Pax Amarria plus vote for you if you can promise to talk to the council about sorting by more than three attributes. Missing for me are: "Sort by meta level" "Sort by volume" "Sort by base price" and ditch the reverse if it takes that for making space. And "Sort by Quantity" places the assembled items with no quantity at the very HIGH end of the list, where it should be close to the 1-quantity unassembled stacks. Beer. Beer made me post this. I gave your suggestion thought in between cups of good coffee, Mr Smagd (you might have seen me meddling in teonusude, actually :P). My conclusions regarding your proposals: 1. Sort by meta level - I strongly agree, will be added 2. Sort by volume - By this I think you mean physical volume in m^3, rather than quantity. Worth adding 3. Sort by base price* - I agree, but I want to take this further (see below) 4. Sort by quantity - I need to get in touch with you and clarify this point This is a very interesting idea, which I want to see become a useful tool for producer and traders: Add a feature to the ingame calculator for calculating module/hull costs/profitability. Set your own mineral base prices and ME/PE criteria, then calculate the cost of production. Since we're on the subject of making our hangars easier to handle, a conversation I had with Mirrorgod lead me to take interest in a suggestion of his - allowing one to create 'folders' for organising personal hangars. I'd add this to the list of hangar improvements.* I'd also like to resurrect a well-supported idea I proposed a few months back, which the last CSM didn't seem to take interest in - autofitting. Scagga is running for the CSM, see his campaign thread to know of his standpoints!

Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

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