except that’s not how it works. it’s simply not how the English language is constructed.
would be “because i can (use the proper punctuation ⸮)”
It’s okay, you didn’t understand the context / what was implied by my reply. You seem all triggered by this now. I’ve answered your question. You try to protect a shattered ego or not even sure what you are up to. You simply misinterpreted what I mean, it happens. I recommend you take a deep breath or something, it might help. Good luck.
i understand the context entirely. you simply don’t understand sentence logic.
Alrite hopefully he calmed down by now so we can get back to topic. 
I recall a video (I think maybe a fanfest presentation though not sure) where a future planned system was described that lets corp leadership create missions for corp members, something familiar but less complex than The Agency tasks. It is not entirely what the OP asks for but could be an alternative of sorts… if ever gets implemented that is.
As for the trust argument if trust is such an integral part of EVE and people should rely on player interaction instead of game mechanics to achieve such things then why not remove courier contracts as well? 
i like the idea of having a more formal way to do this rather than using forums for example.
generally the only ones using forums are those newer to an aspect that have no contacts yet.
for example if its your first time needing a mercenary you may head to the forums to find a group but otherwise you are working with people you are already acquainted with indirectly if not directly
untrue
LOL. Forum PVP.
I’m just waiting to loot the wreck. 
1 Like
Welcome to eve. Unlike other games, trust is an integral part to eve. It’s why eve players will tell their bonds here are stronger than any other game they’ve played. Where else can players choose to betray you but don’t? THAT’S trust. What you want is a mechanic that forces people to keep their word. Thats not trust…
Beyond that, any contract system you come up with will be restricted by the imagination and coding of the writer. It will not be as open ended, immersive or interactive as it could be.
It would be the same as the surrender mechanic that hardly get used. Or a ransom mechanic that prevented you from shooting someone after they gave you a ransom. That’s not how eve works. Thats not players writing their own story.
God you guys arguing that it can already be done are dense … It’s called a feature hey you know what we could all just fly together instead of having a fleet window and keep track of eachother by name! It’s already possible right? What’s that? Warping fleet? Isn’t that just like the trust issue of the proposed termination contract? Anyways +1 to idea I like it even though it wouldn’t really affect me. Sounds neat. Inb4 muh ccp resources blah blah
1 Like
Also for you guys saying trust is a part of EVE there are plenty of contract rules already that force you to pay. Can’t just accept and boom I choose not to pay. Contracts should be just that, binding through the same npc broker that does the exchange as any other module in Jita or firesale in goddam WTF-OK. Broker sees contracted target destroyed? Broker pays what he was given to the party who took the responsibility. Could also be neat of there was time incentive options, pay extra to get it done NOW.
Look in the mirror.
Contracts provide more than just a trade numb nuts. They provide taxless transfers and transfers at a distance. They also allow exchanges for items not on the market. These can’t be done by just opening a chat window and transferring isk. Everything the op wants can. And not only that, but the op’s idea would be limited compared to what can be achieved with a convo and isk transfer.
Pfft. Dense…
the op clearly means something more than a simple contract… something more akin to ‘go here, kill these and grab the xxx for me’
But a set plan not simply a mail with a buy contract…
For example one can not set a contract to ‘guard a gate’ or ‘escort a freighter’
Also contracts taxless? it costs 10k to set a contract up… is that not a tax?
It is a contract fee not a tax. You pay for the services of the people who oversee the completion of your contract and that is a flat fee. Tax is clearly stated as such and is only added to public contracts. Well at least that is the official definition of the costs of creating a contract, you can still consider it a tax based on a subjective measure (personal taste) but officially it is not a tax.
As suggested it’s a flat fee. Taxes are usually a percentage or charged per item.
What you describe is exactly why this wont happen. Imagine the poor coder trying to imagine all the possible deals and exchanges that can happen between humans and then trying to write that into this feature. ‘Give me this and ill defend this gate’, ‘take down this structure and I’ll give you this’ ‘mine here and I’ll provide you ships’ ‘set up a refinery here and we’ll defend it’ and so on and so on.
Just open a god damn convo window…exchange items, monies via contract or isk transfer, but make the deal by opening a conversation and talking to someone.
It’s more open, more social and more immersive. You might actually become friends with someone (the horror).
We already have bounties and they don’t really work as well as one might think. A kill contract would suffer the same problems, only with a higher price tag to it. People will try to get i.e. CODE. and Goon members in high-sec killed, and they’ll be just laughing at it. Further will kill contracts eventually only lead to richer PvPers and poorer industrialists, because industrialists will run out of ISKs at some point while PvPers will be taking ISKs and corpses.
Escorts sounds great at first, but I doubt they’ll work but only lead to scams. Either you pay for an escort as much as your cargo is worth, or you risk getting robbed by your very escort when they see you have considerably more ISKs loaded than you’re paying them. So your escort idea is going to be rather costly and you might just chance it yourself, use a cloak or ask your corp mates for help.
Take out a thing in space … Well, I’d say this sounds simple enough and it might be doable with certain anchorable objects. I’d focus on this as an idea. Maybe flesh it out, list all the types of objects you’d think could work, and you’d have something.
Dude not everyone is as honest as you. I think those that like to scam others might not like this. Don’t you agree?
This is the start of a scam… Chime in if you know the any scams in EVE. I will give you three.
- I will /stop bumping/not kill/ you if you give me isk!
- I am leaving EVE firesale ONLY 1Bil. evepraisal says 500mil.
- A CEO says that you will need to give all your isk/possesion to him to join, because that is the way EVE works.
You have contradicted yourself.
Calling someone stupid doesn’t win an argument. I get that you disagree. I’m moving on.
Basically, you don’t know half of the scams that go on in EVE, or you are a very good scammer, and you are just saying you don’t like change.
The problem with this suggestion boils down to one concept: Trust (or lack thereof). EVE rewards every kind of deviant and slimy behavior and since there are effectively no drawbacks to being a total dick these kind of contracts would end up being massive gank magnets.
Yes, a bounty is essentially a kill contract. But I think it depends on the craft cost the person is flying.
I agree with everything you said as you are truly knowledgable on the subject. Ganking also drives up the price of ore, minerals, modules, ships and…
However I think you are also right that one change certainly impacts on EVE on a whole, and that by doing this would randomly change to every mechanic that would excuse someone from killing another player. I don’t want this.
But asides from griefng, I am arguing a broader topic of setting contracts on wider “EVENTS” than things being somewhere. A kill contract would pay out the amount on the contract.
A mission contract would get someone else to do the mission.
Also, it is impossible to avoid scammers, they always find a way to get through mosquito nets…
I just want a little more love on contracting, and to set better events for completion.