Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Elvarien
Caldari Nullefied
|
Posted - 2010.02.02 04:47:00 -
[1]
Edited by: Elvarien on 02/02/2010 04:48:23 Edited by: Elvarien on 02/02/2010 04:47:48 TL;DR on bottom.
There have been a few discussions around the bounty system wich has been flawed since inception. Here`s a very simple take on the deal.
Person A is a pirate and kills person B who happens to have 50 mil lying around. Person b places a bounty on person A.
The next time person A loses a ship 50 mil is subtracted from the total insurance payout he would receive on death. If he would normaly receive 20 mil he now gets nothing and still has a 30 mil insurance debt as his bounty.
This achieves the following. 1 - placing a bounty actualy hurts 2 - the damage to both sides are perfectly equal, they are both out of 50 mil 3 - isk sink 50 mil not paid insurance and 50 mil bounty cost. 4 - you cant turn this into profit and is not exploitable.
reasons this plan sucks if you have 1 zilion isk on your bank account you can screw someone over for the rest of his eve life and its got moral issues as this makes pirate life harder though in return there is a fully working bounty system after this
Discuss
tl;dr bounty placed is not a cash reward but is removed from the offenders next insurance payout. If you die with a 5 mil bounty and you have a 20 mil insurance you get 15 and the bounty is cleared. If you have a 2 mil insurance you get 0 and still have 3 mil left. >--- No comments. |
Clb
|
Posted - 2010.02.02 04:59:00 -
[2]
The key word here is "bounty". If the bounty hunter doesn't get profit from the kill why would they participate in the system? They can get nothing but fun by blowing up any random sap.
|
Zaerlorth Maelkor
The Maverick Navy IT Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.02.02 05:24:00 -
[3]
The major problem with this idea is that it doesn't really make any sense. What does the insurance company have to do with the bounty system? The bounty system needs a major overhaul, everyone agrees on this, but it can't be just a "fix". It needs to be thought through properly to make a system that works and makes sense. However, you might want to consider a few things, first of all; I now have one of those annoying sigs. second; you should probably move on to some more interesting things than reading this sig.
|
Kestrix
|
Posted - 2010.02.02 06:00:00 -
[4]
My idea on this topic is Player A kills Player B. Player B decides to place a 50 mill isk bounty on A. When A gets podded 50 mill isk is removed from thier wallet and gets paid to the bounty hunter. This hurts the pirate, pays the bounty hunter and makes the victim feel a little better whilst stopping the pirate from podding themselves to claim the bounty. I've mentioned this before but people didn't seem to like the idea (perhaps they were all pirates?)
Kestrix
|
Bellum Eternus
Gallente Death of Virtue MeatSausage EXPRESS
|
Posted - 2010.02.02 06:16:00 -
[5]
Originally by: Kestrix My idea on this topic is Player A kills Player B. Player B decides to place a 50 mill isk bounty on A. When A gets podded 50 mill isk is removed from thier wallet and gets paid to the bounty hunter. This hurts the pirate, pays the bounty hunter and makes the victim feel a little better whilst stopping the pirate from podding themselves to claim the bounty. I've mentioned this before but people didn't seem to like the idea (perhaps they were all pirates?)
Kestrix
If this were to go live, the FIRST thing I would do is put a bounty of a few billion on your head and wait around with an alt in a smartbomb BS and pod you. -- Bellum Eternus Inveniam viam aut faciam.
Tier 5 Battleships
|
Kestrix
|
Posted - 2010.02.02 06:32:00 -
[6]
Originally by: Bellum Eternus
Originally by: Kestrix My idea on this topic is Player A kills Player B. Player B decides to place a 50 mill isk bounty on A. When A gets podded 50 mill isk is removed from thier wallet and gets paid to the bounty hunter. This hurts the pirate, pays the bounty hunter and makes the victim feel a little better whilst stopping the pirate from podding themselves to claim the bounty. I've mentioned this before but people didn't seem to like the idea (perhaps they were all pirates?)
Kestrix
If this were to go live, the FIRST thing I would do is put a bounty of a few billion on your head and wait around with an alt in a smartbomb BS and pod you.
lol good luck with that I have a security rating of +5 And as I understand the bounty system you need a negative security rating to have a bounty placed on you... or am I wrong?
|
Mika Cavillo
Minmatar Ranni Bar and Grill
|
Posted - 2010.02.02 06:42:00 -
[7]
The system is fine as is for two reasons.
Use a private bounty. "Hey show me a killmail of you F-- this guy's expensive ship up, and his pod, and i'll pay you 200 mill" on a forums ect
Or, I put a personal bounty on myself about 30-100 mill along with my -7.0 or -9.0 status as an incentive to kill me, and yes people have killed me and collected it lol
leave the insurance alone please
|
Destination SkillQueue
Are We There Yet
|
Posted - 2010.02.02 07:01:00 -
[8]
Originally by: Kestrix My idea on this topic is Player A kills Player B. Player B decides to place a 50 mill isk bounty on A. When A gets podded 50 mill isk is removed from thier wallet and gets paid to the bounty hunter. This hurts the pirate, pays the bounty hunter and makes the victim feel a little better whilst stopping the pirate from podding themselves to claim the bounty. I've mentioned this before but people didn't seem to like the idea (perhaps they were all pirates?)
Kestrix
People propably don't like it, since it is a system that steals from the pocket of players instead of a bounty system. If that is the best alternative people can come up with, it is better to keep the current broken system.
|
alHaytham FTW
|
Posted - 2010.02.02 07:56:00 -
[9]
I'd probably change it too:
Person A is a pirate and kills person B who happens to have 50M lying around. Person B places a bounty on person A.
The next time person A loses a ship 50M is subtracted from the total insurance payout he would receive on death. If he would normally receive 20M he now gets nothing and still has a 30M insurance debt as his bounty. Bounty hunter C receives 20M for the kill.
This achieves the following. 1 - placing a bounty actually hurts 2 - the damage to both sides are perfectly equal, they are both out of 50 mil 3 - ISK sink 50 mil not paid insurance and 50 mil bounty cost. 4 - you cant turn this into profit and is not exploitable. 5 - if C is an Alt of A then he will still be out of pocket or at best break even, it will no longer be the income that it once was.
|
Taipan Leviathan
Shadows Of The Requiem Black Star Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.02.02 08:26:00 -
[10]
Edited by: Taipan Leviathan on 02/02/2010 08:26:41 I see goonswarm placing massive bounty's on every negative eve player already.
Evrybody is going to be broke! --------------------------------------------------- THE BIG BANG: First there was nothing, Then it exploded. |
|
Qui Shon
|
Posted - 2010.02.02 09:00:00 -
[11]
Originally by: alHaytham FTW I'd probably change it too:
Person A is a pirate and kills person B who happens to have 50M lying around. Person B places a bounty on person A.
The next time person A loses a ship 50M is subtracted from the total insurance payout he would receive on death. If he would normally receive 20M he now gets nothing and still has a 30M insurance debt as his bounty. Bounty hunter C receives 20M for the kill.
This achieves the following. 1 - placing a bounty actually hurts 2 - the damage to both sides are perfectly equal, they are both out of 50 mil 3 - ISK sink 50 mil not paid insurance and 50 mil bounty cost. 4 - you cant turn this into profit and is not exploitable. 5 - if C is an Alt of A then he will still be out of pocket or at best break even, it will no longer be the income that it once was.
I like this system. You can't just go removing isk from peoples wallets, but this system has merit. Suicide gankers will of course cry, but that ridiculous mechanic allowing free of charge "suicide" ganks is badly in need of adjustment. This would go at least some ways toward that as well.
Still, there is some potential for noob griefing here as well.
I commend you on proposing a bounty system that could actually work, and is proportional to the ship flown, which can be taken to reflect the pilots financial means to some extent. This also adds some value, where today there is none, to having a positive seceurity status.
To features and ideas with you!
|
Resender
|
Posted - 2010.02.02 09:06:00 -
[12]
bad idea + problem
There is a bigger flaw with the bounty system that is unfortunately unresolvable Person 1 is a pirate, kills person 2, 3, 4,... Gets bounty placed upon him/her Person 1 logs in alt A on other account, kills person 1 get bounty. Person 1 gets deleted since he's a throwaway char.
Personally i would love insurance to be tied in into local sec status & act of aggression, so that suicide ganking would become less profitable.
|
Agent 42
|
Posted - 2010.02.02 10:00:00 -
[13]
I think the best solution would be to integrate the bounty system into contracts. For the bounty hunter once he has accepted, it almost looks like an npc mission. The main difference being that it won't tell you where the target is. This is what it could look like:
Type of contract, Bounty
Target [Insert scumbag]
Podding Y/N If yes, Payout:
Payment for Property destroyed Y/N If yes, ratio: Max: or Min isk damaged: Payout:
Contract given to [Insert Bounty Hunter]
Contract end date
How this works.
There's the option of having one lump sum once a set number of damage to target is reached or giving payment based on a ratio of isk destroyed, with a max specified. So if you make it a 1/5 ratio and the BH does 100 mil in damage to the target he would get 20 mil (assuming 20 mil is under the max). This is paid to the BH when the contract end date is reached.
Limitations: -In order to place a contract on someone both the issuer and Bounty Hunter must have a positive sec rating, while the indidividual being targeted must have a negative sec rating. If an individual with a bounty on their head raises their sec rating above zero, the contract is not broken. -You may only issue and/or accept a fixed number of bounty contracts at once. Maybe start with one and extras acquired with a new trade skill or something. -Normal system sec laws still apply. -Individuals do see when they have a bounty on their head, however they do not see the terms of the bounty or even who placed it and who accepted it. They do however receive a copy of the contract once the end date is reached, regardless of the outcome.
So the trick is to have a built in system that allows the user to specify who accepts the bounty. Being able to have multiple payment options makes it more interesting.
|
Bellum Eternus
Gallente Death of Virtue MeatSausage EXPRESS
|
Posted - 2010.02.02 10:11:00 -
[14]
Originally by: Kestrix
Originally by: Bellum Eternus
Originally by: Kestrix My idea on this topic is Player A kills Player B. Player B decides to place a 50 mill isk bounty on A. When A gets podded 50 mill isk is removed from thier wallet and gets paid to the bounty hunter. This hurts the pirate, pays the bounty hunter and makes the victim feel a little better whilst stopping the pirate from podding themselves to claim the bounty. I've mentioned this before but people didn't seem to like the idea (perhaps they were all pirates?)
Kestrix
If this were to go live, the FIRST thing I would do is put a bounty of a few billion on your head and wait around with an alt in a smartbomb BS and pod you.
lol good luck with that I have a security rating of +5 And as I understand the bounty system you need a negative security rating to have a bounty placed on you... or am I wrong?
Aha! I knew I could suss out the carebear.
And no, you can't place a bounty on someone unless they're -2.0 lol. -- Bellum Eternus Inveniam viam aut faciam.
Tier 5 Battleships
|
Kestrix
|
Posted - 2010.02.02 10:13:00 -
[15]
OK fair enough taking isk from a players wallet is a little to cruel even for Eve. Then make an industry out of bounty hunting using the current system with a few small tweeks.
1) Creat a bounty hunters license, issued by CONCORD. 2) Bountys are only paid out to holders of the above license. 3) The license allows the holder to attack another player with a bounty on thier head anywhere in Empire without having CONCORD on their backs. 4) Bountys can only be placed on a player with negative standings by the person who has kill rights against them eg the person who's just been attacked.
Kestrix |
BBQfire
|
Posted - 2010.02.02 10:15:00 -
[16]
Originally by: Agent 42 I think the best solution would be to integrate the bounty system into contracts. For the bounty hunter once he has accepted, it almost looks like an npc mission. The main difference being that it won't tell you where the target is. This is what it could look like:
Type of contract, Bounty
Target [Insert scumbag]
Podding Y/N If yes, Payout:
Payment for Property destroyed Y/N If yes, ratio: Max: or Min isk damaged: Payout:
Contract given to [Insert Bounty Hunter]
Contract end date
How this works.
There's the option of having one lump sum once a set number of damage to target is reached or giving payment based on a ratio of isk destroyed, with a max specified. So if you make it a 1/5 ratio and the BH does 100 mil in damage to the target he would get 20 mil (assuming 20 mil is under the max). This is paid to the BH when the contract end date is reached.
Limitations: -In order to place a contract on someone both the issuer and Bounty Hunter must have a positive sec rating, while the indidividual being targeted must have a negative sec rating. If an individual with a bounty on their head raises their sec rating above zero, the contract is not broken. -You may only issue and/or accept a fixed number of bounty contracts at once. Maybe start with one and extras acquired with a new trade skill or something. -Normal system sec laws still apply. -Individuals do see when they have a bounty on their head, however they do not see the terms of the bounty or even who placed it and who accepted it. They do however receive a copy of the contract once the end date is reached, regardless of the outcome.
So the trick is to have a built in system that allows the user to specify who accepts the bounty. Being able to have multiple payment options makes it more interesting.
Thumbs up - really nice idea.
|
Bonny Lee
Caldari The Guardian Agency Systematic-Chaos
|
Posted - 2010.02.02 10:50:00 -
[17]
Originally by: alHaytham FTW I'd probably change it too:
Person A is a pirate and kills person B who happens to have 50M lying around. Person B places a bounty on person A.
The next time person A loses a ship 50M is subtracted from the total insurance payout he would receive on death. If he would normally receive 20M he now gets nothing and still has a 30M insurance debt as his bounty. Bounty hunter C receives 20M for the kill.
This achieves the following. 1 - placing a bounty actually hurts 2 - the damage to both sides are perfectly equal, they are both out of 50 mil 3 - ISK sink 50 mil not paid insurance and 50 mil bounty cost. 4 - you cant turn this into profit and is not exploitable. 5 - if C is an Alt of A then he will still be out of pocket or at best break even, it will no longer be the income that it once was.
This one works. Very Very good idea. Will be far better then the current system.
|
destinationunreachable
Hello Kitty Fanclub
|
Posted - 2010.02.02 11:24:00 -
[18]
Edited by: destinationunreachable on 02/02/2010 11:26:17
Originally by: Bonny Lee
Originally by: alHaytham FTW I'd probably change it too:
Person A is a pirate and kills person B who happens to have 50M lying around. Person B places a bounty on person A.
The next time person A loses a ship 50M is subtracted from the total insurance payout he would receive on death. If he would normally receive 20M he now gets nothing and still has a 30M insurance debt as his bounty. Bounty hunter C receives 20M for the kill.
This achieves the following. 1 - placing a bounty actually hurts 2 - the damage to both sides are perfectly equal, they are both out of 50 mil 3 - ISK sink 50 mil not paid insurance and 50 mil bounty cost. 4 - you cant turn this into profit and is not exploitable. 5 - if C is an Alt of A then he will still be out of pocket or at best break even, it will no longer be the income that it once was.
This one works. Very Very good idea. Will be far better then the current system.
I like the idea as well. Needs some fine-tuning to encourage people to go for bounties (such as the hunter gets 50% pay-out and the other 50% are subtracted from the insurance) or similar. edit: as long as the payout is smaller than the invested isk, it is hardly exploitable. For RP reasons one could argue, that the person the bounty is put on is held viable for it's crime and concords only possibility to hurt him is to ask the insurance company to withhold the payment or such...
|
Elvarien
Caldari Nullefied
|
Posted - 2010.02.02 11:28:00 -
[19]
Originally by: alHaytham FTW I'd probably change it too:
Person A is a pirate and kills person B who happens to have 50M lying around. Person B places a bounty on person A.
The next time person A loses a ship 50M is subtracted from the total insurance payout he would receive on death. If he would normally receive 20M he now gets nothing and still has a 30M insurance debt as his bounty. Bounty hunter C receives 20M for the kill.
This achieves the following. 1 - placing a bounty actually hurts 2 - the damage to both sides are perfectly equal, they are both out of 50 mil 3 - ISK sink 50 mil not paid insurance and 50 mil bounty cost. 4 - you cant turn this into profit and is not exploitable. 5 - if C is an Alt of A then he will still be out of pocket or at best break even, it will no longer be the income that it once was.
Oh NICE ! There we go with those adjustments this looks a lot better. Indeed that would be a better more functioning bounty system. Now if only CCP notices. >--- No comments. |
elenasa
|
Posted - 2010.02.02 15:51:00 -
[20]
Edited by: elenasa on 02/02/2010 15:51:20
Originally by: Resender
Personally i would love insurance to be tied in into local sec status & act of aggression, so that suicide ganking would become less profitable.
Totally agree. In RL insurance becomes null and void in cases where laws have been broken such as drink driving, driving over the speed limit etc. A proper insurance company would never pay out if an insured item has been used in a criminal act. An ammendmant to insurance in eve along this line would have some understandable sense to it.
|
|
Barakkus
Caelestis Iudicium
|
Posted - 2010.02.02 16:58:00 -
[21]
You should just have it deduct the money from their wallet when killed.
Can you imaginge the tears from thousands of people negative billions of isk?
Originally by: CCP Dropbear
rofl
edit: ah crap, dev account. Oh well, official rofl at you sir.
|
Mr Epeen
|
Posted - 2010.02.02 16:58:00 -
[22]
What's all this bounty blather.
The only people who put bounties are wannabee badasses that put a little bounty on themselves to get the cool red wanted on their picture.
Just remove the whole laughable bounty system and be done with it. Waste of resources and unworkable in the extreme.
Mr Epeen
|
Amanda Mor
Gallente
|
Posted - 2010.02.02 16:59:00 -
[23]
I just want to be clear on what's being proposed here, b/c what I think you're proposing is just about the stupidest thing I've ever read.
The "pirate", in your new scheme, would have ISK taken from him (either directly from his wallet or thru a reduced insurance payout) if he has a bounty placed on his head, right?
'cause if you're going to use real-life examples about insurance not paying out for suicide gankings etc (), then when in real life are bounties paid out by the criminal? This makes absolutely no sense whatsoever, and is so open to abuse and exploits that it doesn't even bear thinking about.
I don't see how this is any better than the current system - you put up the 50M bounty, and it's paid out to the next person who pods the pirate. This is simple and straightforward.
Of course, maybe I'm just interpreting your idea wrong...
---------------------------------------------- I'm not an alt. Oh wait, yes I am. |
Dire Radiant
|
Posted - 2010.02.02 17:33:00 -
[24]
Originally by: Bellum Eternus You can't place a bounty on someone unless they're -2.0 lol.
-1.0........
|
destinationunreachable
Hello Kitty Fanclub
|
Posted - 2010.02.02 17:43:00 -
[25]
Originally by: Amanda Mor I just want to be clear on what's being proposed here, b/c what I think you're proposing is just about the stupidest thing I've ever read.
The "pirate", in your new scheme, would have ISK taken from him (either directly from his wallet or thru a reduced insurance payout) if he has a bounty placed on his head, right?
'cause if you're going to use real-life examples about insurance not paying out for suicide gankings etc (), then when in real life are bounties paid out by the criminal? This makes absolutely no sense whatsoever, and is so open to abuse and exploits that it doesn't even bear thinking about.
I don't see how this is any better than the current system - you put up the 50M bounty, and it's paid out to the next person who pods the pirate. This is simple and straightforward.
Of course, maybe I'm just interpreting your idea wrong...
Taking the money from the wallet of the hunted is definitely wrong as you can make someone bankrupt by this. that should not be the aim. The current bounty system is a joke as it is - as the guy above said - just a epeen and is usually paid out to the pirate himself. So placing a bounty on someones head is just a different mean on giving him the money directly. the aim at a bounty system is to a) make it worthwhile for a bounty hunter to hunt the target b) have an effect on the hunted and not "cool, someone placed 100m on my, lol..."., a bounty on someones head should hurt
->a) doesn't work, because someone with a decent bounty takes nowadays it himself. If the payout is smaller than the damage from being podded it gives other players the chance to hunt people people ->b) we can argue if the sum deducted from the insurance payment is 100% of the bounty sum or less and how much the bounty hunter gets, but it has an effect
Possible exploits: * hunted pods himself to get money - he can still deny the bounty to a hunter, but he still has the damage * people place a really high bounty (1b or more) on a person. Well, he must have done something to upset the person and therefore live without insurance payment for the next 10-20 battleships. Alternatively you can say, that the bounty goes down with the time (to zero after 3-6 months or so), but the hunted can still play normal, just ship expenses go up a bit
|
Pohbis
Neo T.E.C.H.
|
Posted - 2010.02.02 17:45:00 -
[26]
Originally by: Clb The key word here is "bounty". If the bounty hunter doesn't get profit from the kill why would they participate in the system? They can get nothing but fun by blowing up any random sap.
|
B1FF
|
Posted - 2010.02.02 18:06:00 -
[27]
Originally by: Zaerlorth Maelkor The major problem with this idea is that it doesn't really make any sense. What does the insurance company have to do with the bounty system?
Who cares? The list of things that doesn't make sense in EvE is crazy. Ships having a top speed in space makes no sense. Do you want to remove that? Faster than light communication doesn't make sense. Do you want to reamove that? You make games based on design and goals not sense.
The game design of this idea seems solid, other than the I'm leaving the game **** you that was mentioned.
OP: Remember there are limits on who you can bounty. That mitigates your downside. Secondly just cap it to further mitigate.
|
Avalon Champion
Gallente Defence Evaluation Research Agency
|
Posted - 2010.02.02 18:08:00 -
[28]
The bounty system can be imprived and make bounty hunting a real profession.
Just about every station has a bounty office, where you can go and look up targets.
Now, the system is simple, you take a contract from the bounty office (like a mission), any number of people can take the same contract so there competition.
The contract valid for a set period, in order to give you time to located, and stalk your target, say 14 days to complete before you need to reactivate it.
Should a contract be 'fulfilled' by another player you are informed that the contract is dead.
In order for a contract to be 'fulfilled' the pod must be destroyed and the corpse handed in to a bounty office. On completion of the contract you get the bounty that was offered.
In order to permit high sec bounty hunting the contract acts as a free pass, and prevents concord engaging you and the target, but only when engaging the target on the contract.
This works within the current game mechanics with a couple of minor tweaks.
|
Droog 1
Black Rise Inbreds
|
Posted - 2010.02.02 18:17:00 -
[29]
No. This is one of the stupidest ideas I've ever heard.
|
Avalon Champion
Gallente Defence Evaluation Research Agency
|
Posted - 2010.02.02 18:41:00 -
[30]
Originally by: Droog 1 No. This is one of the stupidest ideas I've ever heard.
Nice reasoned and logical counter argument you have there.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |