Difference between revisions of "Talk:Mercenary Contracts"

Latest revision as of 05:21, 6 October 2009

Comments from a colleague

1) Did you talk to mercenary corps/players (Noir, ex-MC, etc) about what they feel should be changed/added to the game, and how they feel about this proposal? Trying to change 'their' part of the game without their input is a recipe for disaster. Plus, being able to show the support of major mercenary organisations gives the proposal more weight.

2) I submitted a similar idea in CSM, along with my bounty hunter idea (but the topics were discussed/voted on seperately). You may take a look at my document http://dl.eve-files.com/media/0808/Nil_mortifi_sine_lucre%5B2%5D.pdf

If you find a lot of similarities between the two ideas, you dont technically need to vote on this. You can just ask for it to be re-examined in iceland, since it was already passed in CSM1. If you choose to do this I would recommend trying to gain some addition info from mercenaries on what they want (see points 1 and 3).

3) Your idea has the same weakness that mercenaries pointed out in my idea: the conditions are too restrictive. You do not take into account (specific) POS destructions, sovereignity loss/gain, etc. I found that the biggest challenge was to provide enough conditions to fit (almost) all mercenary contracts. Input from real mercenaries may help a lot to solve this problem.

4) it is unclear if this is a contract between 2 players, or between 2 corps/alliances.

5) How do the mercenaries obtain kill rights. Is this up to them (conventional war dec system) or is that part of this system?

6) Rewards (medals?), are these actually desired by mercenaries (or is this a suggestion from a certain medal-happy ex-CSM member)? Good mercenary corps will establish their reputation through the existing diplomatic channels. Is this feature required?

7) Scam discussion - it doesnt sound like a real scam to me. It just sounds like another day in Eve. Yes it is a harsh world. "Caveat emptor", buyer beware - the mercenaries should be responsible for their own safety. So make sure that if you want implement certain guard features - are they really necessary in the cut-throat world of pew pew for hire?

Overall, perhaps due to the wording ("mission area", etc), it reads a lot like an attempt to steer a players gameplay/behaviour. I can guarantee you now that that is going to cause a lot of resistance as a lot of players will vehemently defend Eve's sandbox nature. Again, it could just be the wording. I would suggest avoding the term mission and using 'contract' instead.

This article does not belong to the CSM category

I intentionally did not add this article to the CSM category as it is a generic idea document, not any official CSM release. The wiki facilitates contribution on documents. But the outcome of the collaboration needs to be posted to the Assembly Hall. I kindly ask YARR colleagues not to add the category link again. ;) Erik Finnegan 10:08, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Not to the CSM but not in the 'pedia either

Erik, I understand this *should* not be under the CSM. But according to the CSM procedures, it should not be in the wiki either, but on the eve-o forums. So if you don't want it under the CSM category, it doesn't fit anywhere else either. Moving this to your contributor's talk page. --ISD Elumiel 11:21, 6 October 2009 (UTC)