Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Adjodlo
|
Posted - 2006.03.07 07:04:00 -
[31]
FINALLY! A bounty reform idea that makes sense!
CCP I beg you, please make this happen. The current bounty system is an embarassment.
|
Audri Fisher
|
Posted - 2006.03.07 22:32:00 -
[32]
I like it. It seems to solve a lot of the current problems, and is basicaly fraud proof.
|
Valcali
|
Posted - 2006.03.11 13:58:00 -
[33]
I like this system as well. It makes a lot of sense and has a safe guard against a pirates collecting their own bounty.
|
DeckardIRL
|
Posted - 2006.03.11 14:15:00 -
[34]
Edited by: DeckardIRL on 11/03/2006 14:25:55 <html> <a href =http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=297395>Linkage</a> </html>
OK someone please tell me how to put a link in... as you can see my html is ****e....
Deckard ______________________________________________
Watchin' the Game.... Havin' a Bud....
I shoot better on Bud..... |
Amicus
Gold Diggers Inc.
|
Posted - 2007.01.11 04:49:00 -
[35]
Hmmm, have not seen bounty reform mentioned in a while.
|
Tarron Sarek
Gallente Solid Industries Inc.
|
Posted - 2007.01.11 06:20:00 -
[36]
Last time I mentioned an idea, strangely enough exactly along the lines of this thread, it got shot down. I don't like wasting my time, so I didn't do it again.
But of course I totally agree. It would be a good system. Payout should be considerably less than destroyed property, just to make sure it really hurts.
________________________ - Posting on forums can be more arduous than mowing your lawn with nail scissors - |
Amicus
Gold Diggers Inc.
|
Posted - 2007.04.06 01:49:00 -
[37]
Edited by: Amicus on 06/04/2007 01:49:51 Ah finally! Reform of the bounty system is on the dev Drawing Board:
Quote: ôBounty System Long-awaited upgrades to the ôbounty hunterö profession, rewarding those who want to fight the good fight without just making it more profitable for pirates to claim their own bounties.
Hooray!
|
Jart
|
Posted - 2007.04.06 21:02:00 -
[38]
I think bounties should not depend on the ship and equipment that the target is flying. If I placed a bounty on someone, I would like to think it would offer an incentive to others to kill them no matter what they were flying. Also, it is tricky enough to track and kill someone, but then have that dependant on what they are flying as well would I think make it too difficult to make bounty hunting a serious proposition.
I have another idea in another thread but I don't want to link it and hijack this one.
|
Amicus
Gold Diggers Inc.
|
Posted - 2007.04.07 01:15:00 -
[39]
Hi Jart.
Thanks for the input. No problem with posting a link to your thread here. I take it you are talking about your thread Bounty Hunting.
Blind Bounties: I see your idea very briefly is to keep the bounty target a secret from the hunter until the last moment when the target shows up in Overview, as a method of preventing fraud. However, what if the hunter once he sees the target on Overview sends a message (or has a buddy send a message) to the target suggesting that they split the bounty in exchange for the target letting the hunter shoot his pod?
Whatever the bounty system, you always have to assume that the target will get the money somehow. There is no way to avoid that, because isk can be traded for anything inside and outside the game. The trick is to make the kill in some way still worth it to the bounty payer, even if the target collects the bounty.
|
Jart
|
Posted - 2007.04.07 10:01:00 -
[40]
Edited by: Jart on 07/04/2007 10:05:31 Edited by: Jart on 07/04/2007 10:05:06 Edited by: Jart on 07/04/2007 10:02:03 Yes you are right my idea is not completely foolproof, but as you cannot pick who the target is, the chances that they are someone that you actually know are random. Splitting the bounty with the target could also be a problem, but would be better than we have now. It really depends on the calibre of the hunter I guess. Also, as the bounty is not visible to the hunted, he has no way of determining if the attacker is telling the truth about what his "50%" of the bounty actually is Also with anonymous targets people will be more inclined to add bounties and some could get much larger then the current ones and bounty hunting would be much more viable. There might need to be further changes needed for balance though. I think your system would make bounty hunting less prone to fraud, but will people really go after some of the most dangerous people in the galaxy only to find them in a ship worth very little? Or even if you do find them in an resonably priced ship, if you don't kill them first time they might just go switch to something worth nothing, until you give up. I think your idea supports people checking others out as they pass to see if they are worth engaging, but not the idea of specifically trying to find targets with high bounties.
|
|
Braseur
|
Posted - 2007.06.28 14:19:00 -
[41]
I've not managed to get in-game since RevII so I'm not aware of any changes to the bounty system other than there was/is supposed to be some?
I think the ideas above are great, particularly being paid 90% of ship/mod/clone/sp value, or any percentage of. The amount paid out removed from the pirates bounty value, if there is bounty remaining so be it, if not the pirate is bountiless till he gets on the wrong side of someone rich again...
In addition to that, someone made a comment about people with deep pockets making it impossible for a pirate to escape his/her bounty, so perhaps implmenting a similar system to the above... pirate blows Mr Afk's ship up, Mr Afk has x minutes to get himself to a bounty office where he can place a (or add to existing) bounty based on 90% of what was lost? This way Mr IskieszMan can't indefinately bounty a pirate. Just an idea.
Oh, I also bump the idea of pirates being able to 'freeze' bounty's on themselves by increasing security status, but it should return as and when they return to there naughty ways...
Last but not least. Someone else mentioned that if the above was implemented then the pirates will just fly round in cheap ships so that the Bounty Hunter can't make money? Well if pirates are only seen in shuttles or cheapo ships then they won't be able to harrass as well as they might do in t2 fitted mega or suchlike? (I'm aware there are some cheap ships+fittings that can be quite a nuisance...)
So, conclusion, I agree with all that has been said on the forum, but be fair to the pirates and cap the bounties being placed based on loss imo.
Regards.
|
Lord Zugzwang
|
Posted - 2007.07.03 06:15:00 -
[42]
I would like to make a suggestion. First, I would like to say that is more highly prized to be a pirate than a normal Joe. Bad guys get all the perks, and get protected by CONCORD to boot. There is no equivalent for good guys. People call good guys care bears, but they may be people who are not into griefing. Our young players should have some good guys to idolize. The kids look up to the pirates as the only elites and disrespect the rest. The pirates get a cool color than everyone else, and a little skull representing their badness to galaxy.
Here is my suggestion:
1. Create CONCORD Marshals Create a new training (rank 8 or 10) to become a CONCORD Marshal (level 4 or 5) and require Fast talk 4 or 5 as a prerequisite. Also, require that the member have and maintain a +5.0 standing with CONCORD. This is not easily done and takes a bit of time.
The +5.0 standing players that I know are well respected and have high ability. A CONCORD Marshall should have a different color depicting their status. This is the same status achieved by pirates. Players within the system would know who to call on for help, or may even be able to assist the Marshall.
2. CONCORD Marshalls may deputize (gang) Any members of the MarshallÆs gang are temporarily deputized while they are ganged. This would require a different icon than the actual Marshall.
3. Bounties may only be placed on players with a negative CONCORD standing only.
4. Stealing gives a negative standing
5. Only Marshall's or their deputies may collect bounties
6. Remove standing penalties for Marshall's/deputies in highsec or lowsec for carrying out their mission
7. Include average market price of items stolen in bounty
8. Destroying his ship is enough to collect the bounty
Option: Split the bounty into number of ships/items he has stolen for a max of 4. The payout for the first collection is 40%, the second 30%, the third 20% and the fourth 10%.
Last, it seems odd that CONCORD does little for protection of the common citizen in their space. A griefer can steal from a can, and a miner is powerless to stop them. He has to stop his mining operation and then try and form a group to go after the griefer in 15 minutes. This seems a little unrealistic. This suggestion is basically from the old west, where the ranchers after being beaten by someone specialized in fighting would call the sheriff or marshal. The sheriff would then organize a posse and go after the bad guys. The current system is broke, and if the griefer needs to he can remove the bounty easily enough. If not he can hide in highsec and be protected by CONCORD until the wind has blown over, or he has found a way a way to remove the bounty (assuming he cares).
Possible issues: * How to gain CONCORD standing faster Should we worry about it??
* The pirate in a gang with non-bounty players Should we worry about it??
* How many players even have a +5 standing? Is it enough?
|
Dhaikin Lharoud
Caldari Darkness Inc.
|
Posted - 2007.07.25 17:03:00 -
[43]
Bounties are a great concept in the game, too bad they are broken. This is my proposal to get them fixed......
You can place a bounty on someone that has a negative security status, and you have aggro on them (the 15 min timer), or kill rights.
That keeps people from abusing bounties to get free kills.
People with bounties on their heads are KOS everywhere, pods too.
The payoff for killing the person is not the cash, but a security increase. Make it .... say 1.0 per 100M, diminishing as the isk goes up, so that someone cant realistically buy better security status, without a lot of time and isk invested. You can also add a bounty delay period, like the 24 hours for a jump clone, so that you can place a bounty once every timeframe, be it 24 hours, or a week.
It takes 24 hrs to put a bounty on someones head (this will be needed, to stop bounty traps)
If you have a bounty on your head, you don't have the right to place a bounty on anyone.
This will make people with bounties on them rare birds indeed. We wont have punks running around with 5K self-placed bounties, cause they think the skull looks neat.
We also have a new way for people to increase their sec staus, as long as the sec status increases are small, it wont be abused ..... say .00001 for a 5K bounty or something like that.
with this plan .....
You can't just place a bounty on some random negative status person, as you dont have aggro on them.
Security status below 0.0 will mean something, as you can end up being KOS in empire.
There is a way to increase your security status, but if you are negative you need to be careful about who you upset.
DL
|
largewhereitcounts
|
Posted - 2007.07.30 22:04:00 -
[44]
___Bounty hunting other players can never work in any game, Bounty hunting NPC's is the only option.
|
Torothanax
|
Posted - 2007.07.30 22:30:00 -
[45]
Originally by: Amicus
Originally by: Derron Bel The basic gist of the idea is that bounties would be paid for destroyed property.
Derron has it right. Some players object that payouts should only be for "kills" rather than property distruction. However, in the Eve universe clone technology has done away with death as a punishment. Merchants will not pay high bounties on a pirate for what often amounts to only a minor inconvenience caused by a pod-kill. They will pay, however, to remove the pirate as a threat, which requires destroying the pirate's ship, weapons, implants, skill points, etc.
I agree. Podding in eve is more of a minor bother then anything else, unless you lose implants. It's like spitting on someone after you knock them out. Do they care at that point? Probably not.
I think this would go a long way in preventing fraud. 75% or so of the damage you inflict is taken off thier bounty and added to your wallet. No more alt pod kills for free cash. No implants in the pod? Then the only pay out is percentage of the clone cost.
The only punishment in eve is loss of isk. If you don't inflict any punisment, why should you get paid?
T
|
Torothanax
|
Posted - 2007.07.30 22:36:00 -
[46]
On a side note: the losses and gains for sec status would have to be fixed first. Sec status should mean somthing before it's used for validation of a bounty.
|
tikinish
|
Posted - 2007.08.09 01:58:00 -
[47]
i really like the capping idea although i have one thing to add that would really let people that have a bounty on theyre head not killing themself.
okey no insurence if you got a bounty on your head. the cap as you describe it will be there at 70% of base price for the items (if market price you will get exploiting out of it sooooo fast). but the insurence money's is not payid to the owner because of the bounty (which is pritty realistic).
this means that taking a bs, with a base insurence prise of 80mill down, and base mod price of 5mill and a clone to 5mill, and implant at a base of 10mill(can now be calculated thanks to lp store), would bring the hunter around 70mill into his pocket.
but even here the problem is that it wouldn't be worth for the hunters to hunt him down if this was all you got from it..
so as an add on you should "steal" the same amount of bounty from his wallet, directly, making it a harsh punishment to get a bounty on his head and making it worthwhile to hunt him
this means that killing some one in his bs t2 fitted with implants would bring you a max of 140mill (in this exsample as above), of cause you should only be able to get a max of what his wallet got in it as this exstra bonus. and would be a penalty or loss of around 160mill for the target, which would have costed the bounty payers 70mills to set.
anyway this wouldn't be too harsh and it would make it worth while to hunt him. topic worth reading http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=569893&page=1sp idea[/ |
Kell Braugh
|
Posted - 2007.08.10 01:11:00 -
[48]
Edited by: Kell Braugh on 10/08/2007 01:13:29 *edit*: I was a dork and didn't read the second page, including the last point, but my point still remains, the ony diff being that i saw you restrict insurance based on sec since, IIRC you have to be -5.0 or lower to HAVE a bounty on your head.
I've never understood why an outlaw (-5.0 or worse), with a bounty on their head (aka someone has kill rights on them [after the outlaw KILLED them]) are able to use the insurance system.) My point is that in *real* life, if you are a murderer on the lamb, you don't get a settlement from your insurance (life, car, etc.) when something bad happens to you or your possessions.
If the getaway car gets wrecked robbing a bank, your car insurance company ain't given you a dime.
This change would make the system more realistic, although it wouldn't kill bounty fraud as you would still have issues with the "high bounty in a cheap ship situation"
|
Ellaine TashMurkon
MetaForge Ekliptika
|
Posted - 2007.08.10 09:14:00 -
[49]
Logical, but there is also game balance and customer satisfaction :)
With no insurance for low security people and for ganks, people would just say "CCP killed piracy as profession!", whine and leave.
County payout should be caped to destroyed modules, implants and clone base price only. No ships. Maybe ship base price if it is a T2 ship.
Mineral market works so T1 ship prices go very near to 70% base price, because its 30% base to buy premium insurance and get 100% base price upon destruction. So people can still exploit this to get money for bounty on them because they can get ships cheaper.
|
Torothanax
|
Posted - 2007.08.10 16:08:00 -
[50]
I still think this is the best fix i've heard
|
|
Neuromandis
|
Posted - 2007.08.10 17:59:00 -
[51]
While I have not thinked it through a lot, at first read your idea sounds spectacularly good. Elegantly simple, and seems to work. Good job. --- If someone else from my Corporation or Alliance agrees with me, he will say so. Assume nobody does :) --- WTB: Scorpion wing (left)
|
Leez0r
|
Posted - 2007.10.15 20:35:00 -
[52]
Edited by: Leez0r on 15/10/2007 20:37:55 I have spent a lot of time researching the whole bounty profession problem since I first started the game 2 years ago :P And I love this idea, it sounds pretty solid. Only thing I am still wondering about, because it seems to be a big flaw still, is the whole tracking idea. I mean if I am a a bounty hunter how can I use this bounty hunter list (that won't show all the bountys anyways, if you notice you can't scroll past like the top 20 in a station..) to find my target. I do know that you can gain status with an agent and ask him to search for someone for you, but for that to even work the bounty hunter list has to work too, so I guess my question is, is there any proposed solution for that? I don't claim to have one, just simply asking. Thanks all
EDIT: giving it some thought, I do remember there was one idea of people using the contract system to give away kill rights of a sort, so people can put up in the contracts hey this person killed me, I'll pay whoever 1 mill isk to kill him, or something of that sort. The idea of being able to sell off your kill right seemed pretty solid too, but I could be wrong :D haha thanks guys
|
mallina
Caldari Sybrite Inc.
|
Posted - 2007.10.15 21:52:00 -
[53]
Hmm
could use a few tweaks here and there (how does it calculate item value? what if someone is using faction items, etc?) but otherwise, a great suggestion
/signed ---
|
Sarin Kahsra
|
Posted - 2007.11.19 21:59:00 -
[54]
OK so it's not a complete plan and might be too harsh. It definitely needs work...
CONTROL COLLAR IMPLANT
-5% per control collar to turret/missle/drone damage. Up to 5 collars per criminal(-25%). To place a bounty collars cost: 5mil for #1 collar 10mil for #2 20mil for #3 40mil for #4 80mil for #5 total for 5 bounty implants 155mil(plus any additional money to further encourage bounty hunters).
After the criminal has been pod killed the new clone has the control collar/s automatically installed. The criminal can only choose the same clone. Jump cloning is not allowed until all collars are removed. Implant slots 1-5 are as normal so if the criminal wants to they can install attribute implants.
Removal of implants could be accomplished by using a Probation Officer(Do missions for Concord, use loyalty points to remove collar/s). Or pod kill the person who placed the bounty. Placing a bounty on another player is like a person to person wardec. The individual who places the bounty is now able to be attacked by the criminal anywhere, even high sec.
|
Amarr Holymight
Amarr deii feram Aegis Militia
|
Posted - 2007.11.28 04:01:00 -
[55]
Edited by: Amarr Holymight on 28/11/2007 04:02:33 I dont think this will work too complicated(the original post). There has to be a simpler way to do this. How about an NPC corp you can run missions for and you basically have to raise your standing with them to get the better bounties available to you. So if your standing is under 1.00 you have a 0-5 mil bounties available. When you take down a bounty and return the corpse your standing increases by the level of the killmail eg if you killed him in a command ship you get huge standing etc. Then as your standing increases you can go after the games bigger bounties.
Also to eliminate people exploiting this by getting up the standing so they can pod themselves (not that I would see this happening but in any case) you could only have a percentage of the actual bounties available or an amount like 10-20 etc. You would in a sense be given a list of bounties this could be created by checking to see if the subscribers are active also eliminating the chance of being given non co-coperative kills.
|
Polito
|
Posted - 2008.01.25 21:09:00 -
[56]
While it's obvious that something has to be done to prevent bounty fraud, my biggest problem with the current system is that a pilot in empire has no way of striking back at known criminals with bounties without themselves getting a criminal ranking.
Think about it for a second. Say you're standing on a street corner, on the wall is a poster with the picture of a known serial killer. Looking at the guy across the road... oh my god it's him, and he's about to kill another innocent victim! You take out your gun and shoot him twice in the head.
In real life you get to go on national TV as the defender of the weak. In EVE you immediately get ganked by 12 concord ships and now you're tagged as a criminal too.
It just doesn't make sense. If concord wants this guy dead then they should let people hunt him.
|
Mic Grarob
|
Posted - 2008.01.29 17:05:00 -
[57]
Its late here and this will be a bit rough around the edges so I hope you'll forgive anything I have overlooked, just be sure to point out anything you find. The following is only concerned with 'Kill Rights' and the ability to transfer them, with the possibility of adding a bounty that pirate alts will find hard to collect.
Anyways...
There seems to be some confusion here about what a player placed bounty is, so I'll start by telling you what it is not. A player placed bounty is not supported by law (CONCORD) which is why a bounty hunter can expect to float home in a pod if they try and collect in Empire. The exception here is if the target has reduced their security status to the point where they are no longer protected by Concord in Empire. Okay so I'm simplifying the game mechanics some what but I still stand by the point that collecting a bounty is a criminal act. In real life terms, assigning a bounty EVE is akin to putting up an open paid invitation to murder someone.
What I would like to see is a section in the bounty window for players who have received kill rights to place a 'lawful' bounty. In this window the player may assign kill rights to either a player, a corporation or an alliance. They may only choose one. There is a flat rate charge based on the targets security status payable to CONCORD.
The issuing player may also assign isk to the bounty but this is optional. Any isk assigned to a bounty is immediately held by CONCORD once a party accepts the contract. If the kill rights expire before the bounty is collected then any isk assigned is lost (CONCORD thanks you for you kind donation).
If contracting to a corporation or an alliance then the receiving organisation head must assign the kill rights to a specific player (who has the right to refuse) within the organisation in their acceptance of the bounty contract.
Once a contract is accepted, the issuing party transfers the kill rights. ie. the issuer no longer has kill rights. Again this is only if the contract is accepted.
On fulfilling a contract the assigned hunter will recieve any bounty payable less tax from the organisation who accepeted the contract. This tax is assigned at the time of accepting the contract and before an organisation assigns a bounty hunter. The bounty is free of an organisations normal taxation.
The bounty target and bounty hunter will see each other as if at war in the overview. CONCORD will not interveen, regardless of who shoots first.
---------- The next bit im not so sure about, it could be abused to start 'war decs' on the cheap. ----------
A contracted bounty hunter may form a gank fleet. Only members in the same squadron as the bounty hunter will receive kill rights while part of the fleet. Squadron members will appear to bounty target as if at war in the overview. CONCORD will not intervene, regardless of who shoots first. All isk received from a bounty is distributed evenly between members of the squadron. Isk received may be taxed by the organisation who accepted the contract.
If the bounty target is in a fleet only the bounty target may be attacked. If any members of the bounty targets fleet choose to assist the target then all members within that squadron will appear to the bounty hunter and bounty hunters squadron as if at war in the overiew. CONCORD will not intervene as long as the bounty targets fleet fired first.
---------- Aw hell that went on a lot longer than i intended. Sorry. |
Sturmwolke
|
Posted - 2008.03.11 07:40:00 -
[58]
Another open idea Link For the record
|
Daraasi
Amarr PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
|
Posted - 2008.03.11 07:55:00 -
[59]
Darn it, i came up with this very idea myself, perhaps we could go back in time so that i could be first. The way i see it alloting bounty by the value of the ship+modules destroyed is the only way to prevent the bounty returning to the pirate.
Jovia Delenda Est. |
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |