Thats what’s fundamentally wrong with the idea. Eve is a game that gives you the freedom to make deals with anyone in which ever way you like, including pulling scams or backstabbing for any reason you like. It’s a good reason to make relationships with powerful allies based on trust and loyalty. It’s freedom, socialisation and immersion.
What you want is magic hand holding mechanics that mean you don’t have to interact with or trust anyone. What you want is fundamentally not eve.
It doesn’t hurt you to have more contract types. Not everyone believes in rainbow and pony friendships.
You are talking about “freedom” but you are actually restricting a change.
A change that would still enable you to do what you want. And not restrict your freedom.
I want the freedom to make contracts the way I want to.
And you want to restrict my freedom above your own.
O’mercy.
We do have courier contracts, and while what he says is true and we could have done without courier contracts in theory, did it in fact create an entire profession with corporations who have used couriers to make themselves a name such as Red Frog and PushX.
Trust is only the beginning. Just like CCP trusts us, but then also gives us the EULA and forum rules for example. It’s not a black&white thing, but formal agreements help to build more trust.
For kill contracts to work would these need to have a penalty option next to a reward. A penalty payment would have to be optional, but will help in avoiding that somebody removes a kill contract on their person by simply using an alt to accept the contract and then just not execute it. A penalty payment would create pressure for the one accepting it, but when the involved parties are known and trusted, then kill contracts would enhance the gaming experience.
Besides, for a PvP game to have kill contracts would be an advertising feature I’m thinking.
This is pretty disingenuous. Freedom and change are not the same thing…
Disingenuous again. You already can make deals like the ones you want.
If there is a mechanic that forces parties to honour agreements, they won’t use any other medium.
Couriers are a pretty simple interaction, AND they are open to betrayal, from both sides. A contract for ‘escorting me through low sec’ is almost infinitely more complex. Pretty much everything the op is asking for is much more complex and would be better handled without a pre-coded template. Op wants people magically bonded to agreements.
There’s nothing wrong with that. It only needs a working idea. An escort can mean something as simple as for a fleet to travel from a starting system to an end system, within a time limit, and the condition for the escorted player not to lose his ship. How it is achieved doesn’t matter. Nor does it matter if one can use it for a scam. What matters is that two parties are willing to trust each other enough to use it in an agreement.
An escort contract could then be advertised and be available only within corps or alliances, to avoid unnecessary attention. It could contain a day time or a weekday as to when an escort is needed so one can find an escort in time and thus help in planning. Players who give escorts could see ahead of time when their help is needed again.
Contracts don’t have to cover every aspect of all the things that can go wrong or that one would want to include. They don’t have to tie you to impossible conditions. They only need to be useful.
It’s implied. Being “able” to change something implies a certain freedom. You could also restrict something in order to “protect” others freedom.
I can make as many deals as I want in the game. But no one has to go through with them. The same could be said with the proposed feature “mission setting”. It’s not a replacement for contracts, just a different type of contract. for example. courier, item exchange, auction, mission. I think being able to set missions would help, you do not.
I had to look up disingenuous. You are saying that I am not being candid or sincere. That I am pretending to have no knowledge and .
Often we know best, what is practiced, even if it’s against us. I say that you are the disingenuous one. You know that specialise contract could mean the end of disingenuous behavior. Why else would you be so against it?
They might and what would you loose. the right to scam people.
The basis of law is a binding contract. I am saying open the contracts up to wider events. Thanks, I won’t reply to you anymore. I have heard enough detraction and descent for one post.
Why do people leave eve.
The scamming.
The ganking
The grief
OP nonsense.
Back to EVE a game where i move pixels.
Actually you didn’t read past the first sentence. Also way to eventually bring up the oh noes poor ccp coders. Called it.
This is not correct. You might see people saying this a lot, but it’s often just words. People who say they are going to quit sometimes don’t, and people who don’t like these types of mechanics just complain louder than others.
‘We have tried and tried to validate the myth that griefing has a pronounced affect on new players - we have failed. The strongest indicators for a new player staying with EVE are associated with social activity: joining corps, using market and contract systems, pvping, etc. Isolating players away from the actual sandbox seems very contrary to what we would like to accomplish.’ - CCP Rise
I do know that what ever these contracts enable, will restrict players freedom to be The Villain. But that’s not the main reason I’m against it. Thats more the reason you want it to happen, rather than my reason to not. It would also restrict players freedoms to negotiate on their own terms.
There are millions of ways for two players to trade. Isk, materials, services. It’s the latter thats going to be the problem.
Couriers are pretty straight forward, the courier has control and accountability for the package, and even that is starting to go wrong with citadels because they don’t have control of access.
Escorting through low-sec is not nearly as simple. Are the escorts supposed to be responsible and accountable for a player under someone elses control? Can the escorted wait on the last gate until the timer expires, collect any collateral there might be, and then jump into hi-sec?
Taking down a structure is the same. I think if you tried to flesh out these contracts you’d see how many holes there are going to be. And that the variety in which players can exchange services is vast. Access lists, 3rd party in a fight, RR contract, mining boosts, scouting, spying or sabotage and millions more.
THAT’S the problem i have with this idea. Whatever template for a contract you come up with, it won’t even scratch the surface of what players can do with a conversation.
I’d already said it…coming back to that ‘dense’ thing.
This topic was automatically closed 90 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.