open All Channels
seplocked Features and Ideas Discussion
blankseplocked Trading Contracts for Null
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Author Topic

Miraqu
Caldari
Posted - 2011.08.19 11:19:00 - [1]
 

Since skimming the nullsec threads and being really astounded about the imagined trading ventures of more players than I really thought I have to propose one small solution for that:


the Trade contract


Starting position for the traders:

Most traders run alone or in small corps. They do not want to be involved in politics, in conquest or PvP. They would like to dock somewhere, haul goods around and make money and have fun with it.


Starting position of the Nullsec alliances:

Strict avoidance any security risk, even if minor only.
The effort in maintaining standings lists.

The real idea:


Alliances in Nullsec space can issue a trading contract. There should be Trade Offices in some Stations troughout EvE. Only alliances with Sov lvl 3, owning an outpost and registering a trade office will be able to issue these contracts.

They should specify:

The allowed shiptypes.
eg: The Trader could be restricted to haulers, freighters and his pod.

The allowed modules.
eg: No cyno generators, no covert cloaking devices. This means simply, that the acceptee cannot use these modules. Not that he has to refit his ship everytime.

The target Outposts.

The allowed station services.

The amount of isk, this contract will cost

The time while the contract is valid.


The Trader gets:

Automatic standings with the alliance

The trader should get a "$" symbol on blue/green background and be considered friendly by drones / gate guns / whatsoever ccp implements. He should see his tradepartners likewise as "$" with blue background.

Automatic docking rights on the target outpost

No docking fees on the target outpost.


The alliance/corporation gets:

Someone to stock the market.
No additional effort required in dealing with the traders.
No burdensome standings list to maintain.
Money from the trading contracts.



Breach of contract:

On the traders side:

I am not sure about if it should be possible for the trader to void his contract while in his "trading space" since this would entirely strip away the security element and would probably cause the trading contracts to be considered another security risk. Therefore these contracts would not be used at all.

However it should be possible to step back from your contract from any station that has a trade office. If the trader steps back, he loses his rights and the alliance keeps the fee.

on the alliance side:

The contract should be void if the traders ship gets killed by friendly forces and the alliance will have to pay back the fee and the ship with all modules and cargo minus the insurance. This should be taken from the issuing alliance wallet, event to the point of getting into the negative. Possibly half of it should be payed by the offender. This should keep the trader reasonably safe.


Flame away! But constructive critic would be more welcome.

Dex Nederland
Caldari
Lai Dai Infinity Systems
Posted - 2011.08.19 13:35:00 - [2]
 

My initial reaction is: it removes opportunities for player-to-player interaction.

Your idea is to introduce a Contracts option in order to address player behavior, not a game mechanics issue. As you show throughout your idea, an alliance & hauler (corp) could set each other blue and the alliance can provide routine contracts to the hauler.

I like the idea of having "$" trader-standing. I think this would have application outside of haulers. Non-combat "locals" who focus on mining, exploration, or manufacturing could probably benefit from this if they support the local economy.

The inability to use cyno generators or covert cloaking devices immediately inhibit who the small logistics corps might support.

If a small corp of 5 people are providing logistics to a near-Empire space alliance, they likely have to pass through low-sec (and low-sec gate camps) - Covert Cloaking Devices are very useful for running logistics through low-sec.

Cyno generators are critical to providing Jump Freighter services. A logistics corp supplying "deep null-sec" alliances (like 32 jumps from hi-sec) with services will likely want to operate a feew cyno ships (and a small defense team) along the route instead of relying upon the alliance to provide those cynos & security. $5+B ISK for a Jump Freighter is a big investment and just as the the null-sec alliance has security concerns, so does the logistics corp.

Traveling that distance, through hostile territory and being barred from utilizing Cynos & Covert Cloaks seems like a good way to lose the ship & cargo and quickly cause this contract mechanism to not get used.


Miraqu
Caldari
Posted - 2011.08.19 15:56:00 - [3]
 

It's mainly meant as balance between the security concerns of the holders and the interests of other players.

Not sure about the cloaks, if you restrict the ships beforehand. A cloaked hauler could not do much damage, would best be annoying.

A cyno field is something else, it could be abused to bridge a whole fleet into the rear area, CCPs idea seems to be stronger industry in Nullsec, that would make this rear area really vulnerable.

This would pose a security risk and make the whole contracts arrangement pointless.

Miraqu
Caldari
Posted - 2011.08.19 16:16:00 - [4]
 

Originally by: Dex Nederland


Your idea is to introduce a Contracts option in order to address player behavior, not a game mechanics issue. As you show throughout your idea, an alliance & hauler (corp) could set each other blue and the alliance can provide routine contracts to the hauler.




This is a game, there are no courts. The game mechanic has to fill the gap. Doing something contrary to the arrangement needs to have consequences. Thats why the freeform contracts did not work. You cannot enforce them, which is especially true for a 5 man corp who just lost its only JF to a "lolz, I accidently shot him" supposedly blue player. If his alliance decides that they just get another hauling corp then what? Five accounts unsubscribed?

Also its really burdensome currently. You need to set someone blue, make sure its blue for everyone, set the docking rights at the right stations and do everything backwards at every change.

Setting blue is for players who fight with you or help you. Hauling is business. Could work without any standings. Its not politics, just mutually helpful.
This should be clearly seen by the "$" Standing (or whatever symbol). Its business you deal with them, therefore you should not shoot them or worry about them.

Instead you could set up a Trade Office, flesh out how your contracts should work and the game cares about all the mechanics that would be usually involved. No need to have the leaders check every agreement or revocation.

An alliance wants stuff delivered to null, they set up a hauling contract. It involves docking rights, "$"-blue standing and after the contract is finished, no need to recheck everything again because someone who shouldn't have could have the wrong docking rights.

Plyn
Posted - 2011.08.19 16:35:00 - [5]
 

This wouldn't work as there are lots of coalitions made up of more than just one alliance. You use this system to dock at one of ATLAS.'s stations and one of ATLAS.'s friends shoot you on accident, no payout or breach of contract because you had it with ATLAS. not their friendly local blues. The whole thing just doesn't work.

The more realistic option, which is actually already in use, is that alliances include a logistics corp as part of the alliance. These people get dock rights, blued up and everything, because hey, they're actually part of the alliance. Don't have to worry about security, because it's their backyard too!

People will say "I don't want to have to join the alliance!" and the short answer is you don't have to. You're deciding to take an increased risk, and perhaps more hassle to not join, but it's your call.

For the people who want to trade in multiple people's space, potentially between groups who are enemies of each other... most of these alliances would probably revoke your rights if they discovered you were doing that anyways. Tends to be an us or them kinda thing, there is no "playing the fence".

Miraqu
Caldari
Posted - 2011.08.19 17:30:00 - [6]
 

This is about how it should be and could be. Not how it currently is, where most alliances would not even consider taking a corp which does not help them shoot.

Technically, it shouldn't be too big a problem to pull the standings of the issuing alliance and their allies and include them in the contract.

Thur Barbek
Posted - 2011.08.19 17:36:00 - [7]
 

Edited by: Thur Barbek on 19/08/2011 17:39:17
1. alliance creates a contract
2. enemy of alliance accepts
3.1. enemy gets free intel while in systems.
3.2. enemy uses spy alt in alliance to shoot himself. thus effectivly stealing isk from the alliance. (they shot the blue trader)
4. repeat until no-one uses the system because people only use it to steal money

Or.
1. alliance creates a contract
2. trader accepts contract
3. someone highup in alliance creates an alt and sets him blue, (but doesnt put him in alliance)
4. wait for trader
5. ????
6. profit

stuff involving standings is easy to exploit.

edit: also who judges the value of the trader's ship? jita price? local price? ammar price? mineral build price? same for moduels

Miraqu
Caldari
Posted - 2011.08.19 17:51:00 - [8]
 

Nice Feedback :)

Free intel is my least concern. Thats not different from the spy-alts.
Killing the ship with the spy alt would cost massive isk from the alt too and the alliance would lose the spy. If its really some higher up then they will probably not jeopardize their intel.

But this could be mitigated by a contract setting no red alliances.


The second point is valid. This would mean changes to the standings system by needing to mutually confirm blue settings.

And yes, simply median price from Jita.

Dex Nederland
Caldari
Lai Dai Infinity Systems
Posted - 2011.08.20 01:13:00 - [9]
 

Originally by: Miraqu
This is about how it should be and could be. Not how it currently is, where most alliances would not even consider taking a corp which does not help them shoot.

Originally by: Plyn
The more realistic option, which is actually already in use, is that alliances include a logistics corp as part of the alliance. These people get dock rights, blued up and everything, because hey, they're actually part of the alliance. Don't have to worry about security, because it's their backyard too!

Plyn's post disagrees with your assertion that only grunts & sergeants are desired by an alliance. Logisticians and truck drivers are needed for any army that has aspirations of success.

Originally by: Miraqu
It's mainly meant as balance between the security concerns of the holders and the interests of other players.

...

A cyno field is something else, it could be abused to bridge a whole fleet into the rear area, CCPs idea seems to be stronger industry in Nullsec, that would make this rear area really vulnerable.

This would pose a security risk and make the whole contracts arrangement pointless.

The security risk and potential for failure to delivery utilizing anything other than a Covert Ops equipped Blockade Runner or a Jump Freighter makes it unlikely your idea would be used. The owner of a Jumper Freighter will want a measure of control over where the cynos are dropped, the route taken, and want ships equipped with cynos in waypoint systems. Your proposal inhibits this security for the potential service provider.

A few Blockade Runners is unlikely to provide a useful service to an alliance with routine large-scale logistics needs. Plyn's statement applies.


 

This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to https://forums.eveonline.com

These forums are archived and read-only