These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
Previous page12
 

Taxi service (PC and maybe even NPC)
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#21 - 2016-05-04 19:25:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Reaver Glitterstim
FoxFire Ayderan wrote:
To me it's not just about ability to have one's character moved between systems, but also the implementation of a new interesting and fun mechanic, that isn't so 'technical' as a courier contract. One that requires any of skills, fees, business licencing, specialty ships, etc...

Being 'technical' is what will save a transportee from a griefer. An unspecific system is an unregulated system.

My description of the contract stipulations was long but the person creating the contract does not need to read and understand them all in order for that contract to protect that individual. Those extra rules and specifications are for the designers who implement the contract type.


FoxFire Ayderan wrote:
Some ideas on how to handle a passenger's pod if the taxi is blown up.

* If the passnger is logged on they can manually fly it.

* If the passenger is not logged on, the pod remains in space, if left unmolested it logs off at the end of a timeout clock.

* The taxi service can outfit their taxi with increasingly expensive escape pods that automatically fly to the nearest station. From after a few seconds for the cheapest escape pod, to instantaneously for the most expensive escape pods.

In the event of the last idea. The taxi driver could then pick you up again in a new ship at that station and complete the journey.


This is too automated. The EVE community has been pretty vocal in opposition to any mechanic that lets the client or server fly your ships for you. A lot of folks don't even like fleet warp because it's a way of letting another player fly for you.

If you go AFK and your transporter drops you off, you'll just have to come back and find out. That's it, end of story. Your best bet for being able to safely go AFK is either use a friend or give the transporter an incentive to treat you right. The contract system can give an incentive, with a payout for your safe arrival but loss of collateral if you don't make it.

FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."

Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."
Arya Regnar
Darwins Right Hand
#22 - 2016-05-04 20:00:54 UTC
I'd be okay as long as it was a huge cargo had risks and wasn't overly safe mechanic.

EvE-Mail me if you need anything.
FoxFire Ayderan
#23 - 2016-05-04 20:47:58 UTC  |  Edited by: FoxFire Ayderan
Arya Regnar wrote:
I'd be okay as long as it was a huge cargo had risks and wasn't overly safe mechanic.


Well it would be safer than auto-piloting. Assuming you are in the hands of a trusted, reliable taxi driver who doesn't auto pilot himself.

It would simply be more costly.

I'm imagining this as a business. Not something just anyone can do. One that requires skills, perhaps specialized or outfitted ships. Licencing fees, taxes, union dues (maybe), docking fees for PoSes, perhaps insurance costs (for those who choose to carry it for added peace-of-mind for passengers).

Ultimately the service wouldn't necessarily come cheap, just due to built in costs to the taxi driver / company itself. Not to mention their time. However, competition should help keep prices from getting too out of hand.

I can see numerous reasons people would want to move their toons, who aren't necessarily in a big hurry, without having to do it themselves. I for one would use it.
FT Diomedes
The Graduates
#24 - 2016-05-05 00:35:18 UTC
Here are some thoughts about how I would implement this:

1. It would be similar to jump-cloning, but cheaper and take longer.
2. It would be dependent on another player to actually transport them.
3. The capsules would be at as much risk as the ship in which they were transported.
4. It would use the player's current, active pod. It would therefore be designed as something to be done while the player was offline.

So, to elaborate on these points:

There would be a "taxi mode" interface similar to the jump clone interface. Entering taxi mode would place the capsule in a special capsule shipping container. This would be a cargo container with a 1000m3 volume.

The container would cost 100,000 ISK for the base variant. Higher meta versions would cost more (up to 500,000 ISK), but would provide a greater degree of protection in the event the taxi exploded. As with other loot drops, if a taxi exploded, all capsule shipping containers would have a base drop rate of 50%. The highest meta level would have a drop rate of 75%.

The player would then begin to create something similar to courier contract.

In the process of creating the taxi contract, the player would place a minimum of 20 million ISK in an escrow fund. This fund would be used to pay the ransom in the event the capsule fell into enemy hands or was destroyed. If the contract was successfully completed, or destroyed, this money would be returned to the capsuleer. Thus, if I shoot a taxi and a capsule shipping container drops, I have the choice of either destroying the capsule shipping container, or taking it to a station and redeeming it for the ransom. The ransom amount would be clearly indicated on the shipping container. Note that if I was not the person accepting the contract, I could take it to any station or citadel and recover the ransom.

The player would also establish the reward for successful completion. There would be no minimum or maximum reward. The player could establish an additional bonus reward amount for completion within a certain time limit.

For a courier variant, the player would be able to set a collateral amount for the person accepting the contract. This collateral would be returned to the player if his courier contract failed. The creator would have to place the equivalent ISK amount into escrow as well, to ensure he did not terminate the contract early. It would be forfeited to the person accepting the contract if the creator terminated the contract early.

During the process of creating the taxi contract, the player would set the maximum duration for the taxi contract to be available for acceptance, and a minimum completion time. The lowest minimum completion time would be four hours. Thus, a player using this means of moving his pod would have a minimum four hour delay between creating the contract and accessing his pod again, once the contract was accepted.

Finalizing the contract offer would put the character into a stasis period in which he could not undock, or clone jump, without canceling the contract offer.

As soon as someone accepted the contract, it would give a one minute warning, then log the player out of that character. If the player then attempted to log that character in again prior to the contract completion, he would receive a pop-up warning him that this action would cancel the contract. Canceling the contract prior to the minimum completion time would cost him the collateral amount placed in escrow (to the person attempting to complete the contract). It would also cost him the ransom amount (to the person holding the contract).

If the creator canceled the contract while in a station or citadel, he would appear in that station or citadel in his capsule. If he did it while in space, he would be ejected from the taxi and appear in space in his capsule. If the taxi was in warp or jumping at the moment he logged in, he would be ejected from the taxi as soon as it left the warp tunnel.

It was not my idea to begin with, but this is how I would implement it. I know I have not considered every possible loophole or exploit, but I am curious what you all think.

CCP should add more NPC 0.0 space to open it up and liven things up: the Stepping Stones project.

FoxFire Ayderan
#25 - 2016-05-05 16:20:35 UTC

Interesting thoughts on how to implement this using existing in-game facilities.

However, I find using the contract system a bit boring, and I'd really like this to be something that brings something original to the game.

Something that entails specified taxi companies being set up (single pilot or multiple pilot), who can compete with each other for price, speed, safety, what terriory and routes they cover, etc...

I don't like the idea of having so much control being taken away from the passenger. So while payments could be made up front, held in escrow until the delivery is made, the passenger can remain logged in do other activities, like market transactions, and even chat with his taxi driver in a specialized interface, and decide to leave the taxi at any time, only forfeiting his payment. Of course the passenger could also be logged out, so that when he logs back in the next day he's already at his destination (hopefully).

Also the passenger would be able to specify which company transports him, or perhaps a list of criteria if he leaves it open for any taxi driver (like safety record).

It would obviously take longer than using a jump clone, but it might not necessarily be cheaper (depends on a lot of factors). The advantages are you can use your main clone and go to places where you may not have jump clones installed. Plus there is no cool down period afterwards.

The ransom idea is an interesting twist. However, I could see that being easily exploited.



Zimmer Jones
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#26 - 2016-05-06 10:08:57 UTC  |  Edited by: Zimmer Jones
Already exists, and is really cheap! A shuttle and autopilot. You also get the chance of being held ransom, being blown up, doing market transactions, playing other games, and ending up not where you were planning to go, like your home station. All while AFK.

You have not addressed why there is a need for this feature in the game, it is yet another "wouldn't it be nice" post meant to let other people play the game for you, reduce risk and bypass in game mechanics specifically made to kill the unwary flying through space.

Your idea lets people get to places they have never been, unlike jumpclones. This also seems to let you bypass wardec gatecamps. If they have to scan a third party just to find a wartarget, and then take a security hit because they have to blow up said third party to kill their target, and it is just a pod, thats rather passing the buck. are their clauses in your taxi contract for that?

Handicab unsupported

Use the force without consent and the court wont acquit you even if you are a card carryin', robe wearin' Jedi.
FoxFire Ayderan
#27 - 2016-05-06 12:53:47 UTC
You're as helpful as ever Zimmer Jones.

Good thing CCP doesn't think this game is just for you, or 95% of the additions and improvements they've put in over the years wouldn't exist. They clearly don't give a damn what Zimmer Jones doesn't support.

And that must really stick in your craw. Lol
Serendipity Lost
Repo Industries
#28 - 2016-05-06 14:00:59 UTC
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
Only if players can only move one other pod at a time and what ever ship used to do so can not take any form of bridge



I'll agree on the no bridges no way no how part, but disagree on the 'there can be only one' part. If I'm going to gank a POD hauler - I'd prefer to gank a whole bag of jelly beans, not just a single one.

The hauling new pod hauling ship would have to be exempt from entering ship based sma (NO orca, carrier and so on)

Make the hauler reasonable to gank. The more pods in cargo - the more juicy the target.... or the more delicious the treachery!

No insurance - if this is a player run service, then the insurance is paid by the hauling player via successful services rendered. There is no need for CCP to back up the player service.

It would be cool if the hauler pilot could see the value of the pods he's carrying. You get to see the value of all other cargo in eve, so either a listing of imlants or an isk value should be provided. It just makes Eve Sense that the hauling pilot knows what he's carrying.

No High slots on the hauler. You can translate this to 'no cloak / mwd / warp' shenanigans.

If you log in while your pod is in the transport ship cargo - POP (no loss mail - treat as a trashed item)


I'll be blunt in my opinion - if the game provides a means for an offline player to move his pod - there needs to be significant risk to preclude abuse. I want that offline player to be genuinely curious as to the success of the transport operation as he logs in.
FoxFire Ayderan
#29 - 2016-05-06 15:20:27 UTC
Well I don't know about bridges, however I can see those being restricted.

The taxis I'm thinking would be similar to shuttles. Perhaps something a little beefier, that can be outfitted with some defensive capability that would largely revolve around escape rather than fighting back or surviving an extended assault.

The insuance would be an option that a paricular taxi service could provide for some added peace-of-mind to the customers, presumably passing off the expense to the customers. It would not work like the current insurance, but would be a weekly fee they pay to remain insured (pooled by all taxi pilots), a fee that would become more expensive the more often the insurance company has to pay out, to the point of a taxi pilot or company becoming uninsurable. Some customers may choose to avoid such companies. The insurance would be a flat payout, depending on coverage purchased, that would only cover any implant losses up to the max payout, which might be significantly less than what someone has installed.

As this isn't like a normal hauling contract I don't see any reason for the taxi driver to see the details about what if any implants his passengers have.

The idea here isn't to make this a griefer and ganker's paradise. I realize F&I is where gank lovers hang out to reject features and ideas that would impeed their lifestyles and advocate for those that would help them gank more, but the primary focus here is on those players who wish to run such a service and those who would like to utilize the service.

I can't imagine what the F&I gank defenders would have to say about a proposal to add jump-clones to the game (if they didn't already exit).

At any rate, sure there will be a bit more risk involved in using a taxi service, but it already comes with some downsides. For instance it takes longer to get places (either from not jumping clones, or having to wait for a taxi rather than just self-piloting, and it's more costly.
Zimmer Jones
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#30 - 2016-05-06 16:35:38 UTC  |  Edited by: Zimmer Jones
FoxFire Ayderan wrote:
You're as helpful as ever Zimmer Jones.

Good thing CCP doesn't think this game is just for you, or 95% of the additions and improvements they've put in over the years wouldn't exist. They clearly don't give a damn what Zimmer Jones doesn't support.

And that must really stick in your craw. Lol



I am Clearly as helpful as ever, FoxFire Ayderan, I tether people from having their heads in the clouds from overinflated egos. CCP doesn't have to care what I support, such statements are made for you, and other dreamers like you, to address the reasons why people don't support your ideas. Many people in this forums have had their ideas used, and those ideas were tempered by the people poking holes in the soft spots where exploits could and would have been used.

It is amazing how you know CCP's thinking and that they clearly don't consider the drawbacks brought up by critical thinkers. Its amazing how CCP hangs on your every idea, FoxFire Ayderan, since (pulling a number out of a hat) greather than 95% of your past ideas have not been used.

I'm sure that must be a continuing source of disappointment to you, FoxFire Ayderan.

You have, as expected, sidestepped the wardec concern, while emphasising the business model. Yet in order to start this business it would have to be in a Non-npc corp. Why bring this up? It is an extension of my previous concern regarding wardecs. I asked if a clause would be included in the customers side of the personal delivery contract in regards to being wardec'd, would there be a similar flag shown on the taxi company when it has been wardec'd?

FoxFire Ayderan wrote:


I'm imagining this as a business. Not something just anyone can do. One that requires skills, perhaps specialized or outfitted ships. Licencing fees, taxes, union dues (maybe), docking fees for PoSes, perhaps insurance costs (for those who choose to carry it for added peace-of-mind for passengers).

Ultimately the service wouldn't necessarily come cheap, just due to built in costs to the taxi driver / company itself. Not to mention their time. However, competition should help keep prices from getting too out of hand.


All of this would be abandoned as soon as the taxi company has been wardec'd, and would have to be set up again under a different name. I can think of one or two groups that might successfully run a taxi service, but they are usually having too much fun blowing up miners and ganking freighters.

Use the force without consent and the court wont acquit you even if you are a card carryin', robe wearin' Jedi.
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#31 - 2016-05-06 17:43:45 UTC
If the transportee is in an empire war, the transporter should know about it and their ship should be flagged as a legal target as long as the transportee is aboard. No timer--should the transporter eject their "cargo" into space when the war targets show up, the transporter's ship is immediately off the kill list.

FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."

Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."
FoxFire Ayderan
#32 - 2016-05-07 04:15:09 UTC
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:
If the transportee is in an empire war, the transporter should know about it and their ship should be flagged as a legal target as long as the transportee is aboard. No timer--should the transporter eject their "cargo" into space when the war targets show up, the transporter's ship is immediately off the kill list.


There ya go. Simple solution.

By-the-way, Han Solo would be proud of that taxi driver. Lol

Greedo: Jabba's through with you! He has no use for smugglers who drop their shipments at the first sign of an Imperial cruiser.
Han Solo: Even I get boarded sometimes. Do you think I had a choice?
Greedo: You can tell that to Jabba. At best, he may only take your ship.
Han Solo: Over my dead body!
Greedo: That's the idea... I've been looking forward to this for a long time.
Han Solo: Yeah, I'll bet you have.
[Han blasts Greedo, then heads out, tossing the bartender a coin]
Han Solo: Sorry about the mess.
Previous page12