These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
Previous page12
 

800lb gorilla - issues that appear taboo

Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Grumpymunky
Monkey Steals The Peach
#21 - 2012-09-17 22:32:30 UTC
I am NOT 800lb.

Post with your monkey.

Thread locked due to lack of pants.
Petrus Blackshell
Rifterlings
#22 - 2012-09-17 22:34:39 UTC
Grumpymunky wrote:
I am NOT 800lb.

Silly monkey, gorillas are apes, not monkeys.

Accidentally The Whole Frigate - For-newbies blog (currently on pause)
Natsett Amuinn
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#23 - 2012-09-17 23:37:22 UTC
Astroniomix wrote:
I've noticed that people who post bad ideas also tend to be too dumb to find the right subforum.

Your idea fixes nothing.

I think you're on to something.
Smiknight
Smiknight Corporation
#24 - 2012-09-17 23:55:44 UTC
Came expecting large simians. Left disappointed. Sad
A reward devoid of risk is no reward at all, but is instead a handout.
Dirk Magnum
Spearhead Endeavors
#25 - 2012-09-18 00:21:23 UTC
I'll be your 800 lb gorilla.

(I will of course require appropriate ISK compensation for the necessary standings.)

                      "LIVE FAST DIE." - traditional Minmatar ethos [citation needed]
Mars Theran
Foreign Interloper
#26 - 2012-09-18 00:31:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Mars Theran
Havoc Zealot wrote:
This is one of the few ideas I ever commented on and I just wanted to let you know that this is a dumb one.

You don't need formal treaty systems to be friends with someone the whole thing is based off of trust the way it should be. If someone wants to stab someone in the back then so be it...trust broken.


Treaties are for agreements. Whether involving monetized transactions or trade of some kind, or diplomatic reduction of hostilities and even temporary peace between nations, they do not exist when it is nothing more than trust and no record of the event exists. Not longer than the persons making the agreement have the power to hold others to them anyway.
zubzubzubzubzubzubzubzub
Herping yourDerp
Tribal Liberation Force
Minmatar Republic
#27 - 2012-09-18 00:41:59 UTC
cant blue alliances? then blue corps...
cant blue corps? blue the individual members
can't do that? ok lets all join the same alliance.
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#28 - 2012-09-18 02:02:49 UTC
Herping yourDerp wrote:
cant blue alliances? then blue corps...
cant blue corps? blue the individual members
can't do that? ok lets all join the same alliance.

They will have to pair it with the old maximum-limit-on-members.

Triggered by: Wars of Sovless Agression, Bending the Knee, Twisting the Knife, Eating Sov Wheaties, Bombless Bombers, Fizzlesov, Interceptor Fleets, Running Away, GhostTime Vuln, Renters, Bombs, Bubbles ?
Alexzandvar Douglass
Motiveless Malignity
Deepwater Hooligans
#29 - 2012-09-18 02:21:58 UTC
Yes, lets make things more annoying for Null Sec Alliances not harder.

One extra button press and a few hundred mill will not break up any coalitions, or Alliances, or pact.
Snow Axe
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#30 - 2012-09-18 05:38:09 UTC
The game's login function causes untold damage to the landscape of the game thanks to the players that use it to log in and play internet spaceships. CCP please fix this ASAP.

"Look any reason why you need to talk like that? I have now reported you. I dont need to listen to your bad tone. If you cant have a grown up conversation then leave the thread["
Jack Miton
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#31 - 2012-09-18 06:10:34 UTC
really not seeing any issue with the standings system at all...

There is no Bob.

Stuck In Here With Me:  http://sihwm.blogspot.com.au/

Down the Pipe:  http://feeds.feedburner.com/CloakyScout
William Walker
Dark Venture Corporation
Kitchen Sinkhole
#32 - 2012-09-18 06:15:35 UTC
Standings is fine. It's all politics and that is just the way things go. Are you going to ask CCP to implement some kind of way for people to stop setting each other blue? They'll circumvent it somehow. They always do.

ヽ(⌒∇⌒)ﾉ へ(゜∇、°)へ (◕‿◕✿)
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#33 - 2012-09-18 06:18:23 UTC
Trillian Stargazer wrote:
CCP was going to introduce Treaties at one point and time. It never made it to the expansion. This was recently, ie. year or two ago.


It has been mentioned that they are going to take another stab at it when the overhaul the contracts system.

View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents: Virtual Realms.
Rico Minali
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#34 - 2012-09-18 06:59:42 UTC
Oh dear.

Trust me, I almost know what I'm doing.
Jacob Holland
Weyland-Vulcan Industries
#35 - 2012-09-18 07:33:40 UTC
Ranger 1 wrote:
Trillian Stargazer wrote:
CCP was going to introduce Treaties at one point and time. It never made it to the expansion. This was recently, ie. year or two ago.


It has been mentioned that they are going to take another stab at it when the overhaul the contracts system.

The expectation has been that such treaties would extend to such things as blue standings while within a particular constellation to allow for rental agreements and so forth. I would suggest that they would not interfere with ' normal' standings setting.
Cass Lie
State War Academy
Caldari State
#36 - 2012-09-18 07:48:04 UTC
Treaties would be great. Period.
They were already designed and on their way to implementation into Dominion, but didn't quite make it. Then they were scraped altogether and we got the glories of planetville instead. Our current CSM chair is still mad about it.

However, speaking of CSM and game design, there are indications that winter expansion could see an updated contract system, which would not only feature trading goods, but also possibly things like merc/bounty contracts (damage done to a single entity) and in the future even things like formalized system renting in sov 0.0 and some such.
ShahFluffers
Ice Fire Warriors
#37 - 2012-09-18 08:54:28 UTC  |  Edited by: ShahFluffers
I can already see how this can be exploited.

Example 1:
You're allied with another group... they've pissed you off. You don't need them either. But setting them red would require you to pay ISK.
Solution? Get everyone you like together in a fleet... tell them to reconfigure their overviews to show anything outside of fleet... go into the "disliked blue's" territory and massacre the unsuspecting lemmings. Rinse and repeat to make THEM pay to set you red.

Example 2:
Assuming that "treaties" have mechanics that null and void the whole agreement if blue on blue violence occurs...
Two major alliances have allied with each other. You're a spy for a third. You join one of the allied alliances and hunt down people from the other allied alliance. Watch as the ISK spent to make the treaty goes to waste and chaos ensues.


It's almost impossible to enforce agreements through mechanics alone... at least... not without also introducing more draconian mechanics to enforce player behavior... which is very "anti-sandbox."

How did you Veterans start?
Barrogh Habalu
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#38 - 2012-09-18 11:00:29 UTC
Vincent Athena wrote:
Also, checking to see if a particular person is on a list: Is not that the sort of busy work we got computers to do for us? That's all "setting standings" is. Making a list, and having the computer tells us if a particular pilot is on that list or not.

You would be surprized how many people claim that neccessity to do such things manually (and having as much PvInterface as possible in addition to that) "increases skill requirements of the game" and therefore is a good thing. And ofc it's not just EVE players, but that's irrelevant...

Future of T3 cruisers - multi-tool they aspired to be instead of sledgehammer they have become
Marcus Harikari
#39 - 2012-09-18 11:20:04 UTC
Treaties would be great, but I don't think standings need to be taken away.
Previous page12