Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Ferrenc
TRIGGER FINGER - E.O.D Gryphon League
6
|
Posted - 2011.12.28 21:11:00 -
[1] - Quote
Here's my idea, feedback welcome:
we all know why its broken so ill try to keep this concise.
-Bounties should work like missions, there should be levels and people should have to work their way up to get access to better and better bounties. For example, lvl 1 gives you access to bounties from 1 isk to 15k isk, you need to do maybe one or two of those to move to lvl 2 (15k to 1mil) maybe 3 of those lvl 3 (1mil to 10mil) maybe need to do 5 of those, and have a few more levels along those lines.
-Big problem is self killing to collect the bounty for yourself. Solution to this problem is making bounties randomly assigned to those requesting a bounty contract within their lvl. I know it would still be possible to randomly pull up your alts bounty, but by making it one draw per day (or maybe one draw till completion/expiration) it would have to be a unlikely random event.
-Abuse/manipulation: in order to make it less vulnerable to abuse, in addition to the two aspects i mentioned above there would be a set amount of time to complete the contract, and a limited number of people who could contract an individual per day, (i.e. if i have a bounty on me, maybe a max of 3 people draw my contract at once, and each person is limited to a day or 3, maybe depending on bounty lvl). id also suggest a deposit to accept the contract (to avoid people freezing up bounties by accepting without any intention of completing) maybe 5% of the total bounty. i also think maybe this deposit should be added to the bounty in the event a bounty hunter doesnt complete. Failling to complete a bounty comes with a small loss of standing that can eventually bust you down a lvl
-Most importantly: anyone who has a contract on an individual can attack/pod them anywhere, anytime, with aggro for anyone who reps the bounty hunter, but no right of attack for corpmates of the bounty hunter if the target returns fire
thats pretty much it, im sure im forgetting something, but id like feedback and ill clarify any questions or gaps people have, i think this is a good way to make a secure bounty system though. |
Ines Tegator
Towels R Us
80
|
Posted - 2011.12.28 21:22:00 -
[2] - Quote
Better idea: take it out of the game mechanics and into the social mechanics, like contracts. The burden for preventing abuse would then be on the player, and not on some crappy programming. Search the features and suggestions forums for more discussion. |
Ferrenc
TRIGGER FINGER - E.O.D Gryphon League
6
|
Posted - 2011.12.28 21:23:00 -
[3] - Quote
idk, your way sounds more like a mixture of bad scams and the crappy loan contracts that failed so hard they took them out of the game. in fact you're just talking about making mercenary contracts, and those are what dont need crappy programming. if i want to hire a merc on someone thats a different story, im talking about making bounties work, as a game mechanic, to give people something to do individually. |
Kilrayn
Caldari Provisions
103
|
Posted - 2011.12.28 21:30:00 -
[4] - Quote
Overall sounds pretty good to me. I also see the player's ability to choose their target as a big (the biggest imho) problem in the current system and allows for the vast majority of abuse. I do like the idea of having npc's assign the target randomly, also the standings idea.
Also about the aggro mechanics, suppose hunters had to register with the bounty office before they can begin accepting contracts, similar to joining faction warfare. Then once registered, they would have a different set of aggro mechanics for their assigned target compared to normal pilots. Registration could also be a way to sink some isk with contracting/registration fees etc.
In the beginning, the Universe was created. This has angered numerous people for many different reasons and is widely considered as a 'bad move'. |
Ai Shun
State War Academy Caldari State
76
|
Posted - 2011.12.28 21:38:00 -
[5] - Quote
Ines Tegator wrote:Better idea: take it out of the game mechanics and into the social mechanics, like contracts. The burden for preventing abuse would then be on the player, and not on some crappy programming. Search the features and suggestions forums for more discussion.
I like that idea. You want to place a bounty on someone, you create a contract and allow for it to be accepted and fulfilled like normal. Because I'm lazy; do you have a link to the suggestion forum thread? |
Ferrenc
TRIGGER FINGER - E.O.D Gryphon League
9
|
Posted - 2011.12.28 21:40:00 -
[6] - Quote
good idea kilrayn, i like the idea of it being a solo profession, and with a secure system that offers the possibility of satisfaction i think a lot more people will put bounties on. By making it one on one (and maybe even providing limited intel to the hunter) it could be a great way for the clever to make some good and very fun isk (think executioner). also ofc the person who placed the bounty will get a mail with all the details of the kill.
to ai, what if someone accepts the contract and doesnt complete it, what if my alt accepts it and i pod myself (current problem) i dont see anyway to use the current contracts that doesnt have all the same problems of the current bounty system |
Jimi Crackcorn
Directed Evolution Corp
22
|
Posted - 2011.12.28 21:47:00 -
[7] - Quote
Honestly, just ban those who decide to exploit the system the way it is. That'd stop the issues real quick. Just make it clear that any account in the same corp, in your contacts, on the same IP address, in your alliance, trying to redeem a bounty on you is against the rules and a bannable offense, and you know, actually enforce it.
If people don't want to play the game the way it's meant to be played they shouldn't play it at all. The intended purpose of the bounty system is to blow up expensive goons ships, not to send them free isk. Using it for anything but it's intended purpose is an exploit and should be treated as such, with a ban.
Obviously this would require some investigation from CCP though(actual work) so not happening.
Also the ability to bounty a specific players ship would stop people from cashing in on the bounty just by jumping into a shuttle and killing themselves. I'm sure players would be more reluctant about blowing up their 30 mil BC in exchange for 10 mil isk. |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
620
|
Posted - 2011.12.28 21:55:00 -
[8] - Quote
One thing that might make abuse of the bounty system more difficult (however the new system works) would be to place automatic and permanent restrictions on interactions between the person collecting the bounty and the outlaw himself.
Things like:
No cash transfer will ever take place between them.
No trades will ever take place between them.
They can never be a member of the same corp.
They can never accept a contract of any type from the other.
No jettison can is ever accessible by the other.
If these parties involved are actually separate individuals these restrictions will be a non issue.
If these two parties are alts of the same character, this can very quickly become a pain in the butt. While it won't stop all instances of bounty abuse, you won't want to do it too many times or you end up with a gank alt (or whatever) that you can't support directly anymore... it adds a layer of hassle most would chose to avoid.
While I firmly believe that players should shoulder the responsibilities for most sanctions in game, the issue with alts collecting bounties would be one of the rare examples where game mechanics might be the necessary evil.
Even so, this would only be part of the solution... but an important part that will compliment any of the numerous suggestions already thrown out there. Revenge should not stop at the ship!
It's not so much a mission statement,-áit's more like a family motto. |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
630
|
Posted - 2011.12.28 22:00:00 -
[9] - Quote
Jimi Crackcorn wrote:Honestly, just ban those who decide to exploit the system the way it is. That'd stop the issues real quick. Just make it clear that any account in the same corp, in your contacts, on the same IP address, in your alliance, trying to redeem a bounty on you is against the rules and a bannable offense, and you know, actually enforce it.
If people don't want to play the game the way it's meant to be played they shouldn't play it at all. The intended purpose of the bounty system is to blow up expensive goons ships, not to send them free isk. Using it for anything but it's intended purpose is an exploit and should be treated as such, with a ban.
Obviously this would require some investigation from CCP though(actual work) so not happening.
Also the ability to bounty a specific players ship would stop people from cashing in on the bounty just by jumping into a shuttle and killing themselves. I'm sure players would be more reluctant about blowing up their 30 mil BC in exchange for 10 mil isk.
Interesting idea, but the bounty should be viable whenever they are piloting that ship type.
For example: The bounty would be on (insert name here) any time they are in a (Tornado). If you wish to extend the conditions to include Tempests you can do so for a modest fee. Or perhaps the number of ship types should be dependent on the amount of the bounty, with you choosing (hopefully wisely) X number of ship types to include in the bounty terms.
Of course, this would mean checking Kill Boards for the wise bounty placer. Revenge should not stop at the ship!
It's not so much a mission statement,-áit's more like a family motto. |
Morganta
Peripheral Madness The Midget Mafia
652
|
Posted - 2011.12.28 22:12:00 -
[10] - Quote
sounds pretty much like the SWG bounty system was
I dont know, but it could be piggy backed onto the war dec mechanic, sort of a personal dec system that was controlled by an agent mission mechanic
that would be fun, mission gets random target of certain skill level cap (doing it by bounty would suck as I'm sure there are lots of 04s out there with 5k bounties on em, and bounty baiting would ensue)
but does CCP have the steam to pull it off? doubtful The American public's reaction to the change was poor and the new cola was a major marketing failure. The subsequent reintroduction of Coke's original formula, re-branded as "Coca-Cola Classic", resulted in a significant gain in sales, leading to speculation that the introduction of the New Coke formula was just a marketing ploy |
|
Solhild
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
506
|
Posted - 2011.12.28 22:16:00 -
[11] - Quote
The bounty is the killmail, I'd happily see these stiffened up so you have to work harder for you info by scanning etc. |
Elessa Enaka
State War Academy Caldari State
5
|
Posted - 2011.12.28 23:42:00 -
[12] - Quote
I think it would be great to have an NPC assigned bounty hunting system for registered bounty hunters, I think this would be the best alternative I read so far.
It could even be run exactly like the militia system as far as having bounty hunters (who would be a member of a CONCORD NPC corp/Militia) and bounty hunter corps (who would basically be the CONCORD Militia Corps), make it so they have to have a .5 Sec Status or higher rather than the .5 Faction Standing for membership.
I also agree with Ranger1's idea of automatic and permanent restrictions between the hunters and the hunted, even going so far as to require that if any member of a bounty hunter corp (be it PC or NPC) falls below a .5 Sec Status (or maybe even if they get hit with Sec Status Loss at all) they get autobooted from the corp and hit with a bounty of their own. |
Cipher Jones
210
|
Posted - 2011.12.28 23:45:00 -
[13] - Quote
As long as there be alts, there can be no working bounty system. A true catch 22.
See what happens when fat neckbeards try to ride little ponies? The ponies die. |
Ferrenc
TRIGGER FINGER - E.O.D Gryphon League
10
|
Posted - 2011.12.29 01:29:00 -
[14] - Quote
npc agents giving out bounty contracts randomly solves that problem, thx for all the posts guys, i really hope to see something like this in the future |
Ris Dnalor
Fleet of Doom Ushra'Khan
133
|
Posted - 2011.12.29 01:44:00 -
[15] - Quote
I say tie it to kill - rights.
Here's an Example.
Tomas Bailey pods me and I gain Kill Rights on him.
When I gain kill-rights, I can right click on the kill-rights and choose [create bounty contract]
I then set an isk amount for the bounty, and the expiration date would be automatically the same as the kill right expiration. There would also be a collateral amount that the person accepting the bounty mission would have to pay in damages if they did not complete the mission.
So for this example, I will put a bounty of 100 million isk on Tomas Bailey's head, with a collateral of 10m isk, so that if the bounty hunter fails me, then I at least get some compensation for my dis-satisfaction.
Then, Tasha Bailey, the bounty-hunter, is perusing the bounty contracts and spies the one I placed on Tomas Bailey's head. Realizing that she has the perfect opportunity to collect the bounty on her signifcant other's head, she accepts the bounty mission happily.
Tasha promptly pod-kills Tomas, and collects the 100m isk bounty and gets back her 10m isk collateral as well.
( Had she failed to do so, I wold have received back my 100m isk, AND I would've received the 10m isk collateral Tasha put up as confidence money. )
If noone accepts the mission before the kill-right timer expires, then I get my bounty back, and Tomas skates by for free. I know next time I need to put a higher bounty on the scum's head so someone will accept ( or perhaps put a lower collateral, since everyone is afraid of Tomas )
That's how I think it should work, and I think it would work very well. AND the bounty hunters could hunt their prey anywhere, without fear of CONCORD intervention.
Also, a small contract fee could be used to fund the administration costs for concord to process the bounty missions ( isk-sink )
o7 Ris Dnalor |
Ines Tegator
Towels R Us
85
|
Posted - 2011.12.29 01:52:00 -
[16] - Quote
Ai Shun wrote:Ines Tegator wrote:Better idea: take it out of the game mechanics and into the social mechanics, like contracts. The burden for preventing abuse would then be on the player, and not on some crappy programming. Search the features and suggestions forums for more discussion. I like that idea. You want to place a bounty on someone, you create a contract and allow for it to be accepted and fulfilled like normal. Because I'm lazy; do you have a link to the suggestion forum thread?
Here tis. Comment and construct, I'm sure my original idea is not perfect and all that. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=460638#post460638 |
PhoenixShadow
Section 496 Pegasus Coalition
28
|
Posted - 2011.12.29 02:33:00 -
[17] - Quote
In order for someone to place a bounty on you, one must be classed as a criminal (see security status). This is as result of one's actions, and it's only fair that one should be accountable for one's actions.
So, you're a crook and someone wants you dead. We all know why the existing system is open to exploit. Here's what I would propose to remedy (albeit not perfectly) the situation.
- Bounties should be a punishment/restriction; you have chosen the path of criminal and you should quite rightly be held accountable for your actions.
- There should be a modular system to bounties (you can buy varying levels of a service)
- Bounties will run for a finite period of time.
- Bounty hunting could be a viable and rewarding career path
The modular bounty system:
So, someone ganked you in your hulk, or your freighter, and you're crying tears into space. You want revenge!
- Bounties would still apply to characters with a security status less than 'value X'.
- Bounties run for a finite period of time (let's say in weekly increments). If you want to to run for longer, you pay more for this.
- You want the 'target' to be legally pod killed in hi-sec, you pay more (there would be no penalty to the bounty hunters for podding a target).
- You really want to punish this person, you can pay more to 'punish' the target. They lose skill points if a bounty hunter successfully pods them, irrespective of clones.
- Additionally or alternatively, should the the target be caught, you can choose to place a short term restriction on their gameplay for a fixed period of time (for example, unable to use any mods requiring the Gunnery skill for 48hrs, hi-sec docking restrictions - regions or system sec status).
However, there should be a system where the target can redeem themselves to CONCORD, if they manage to do this with an active bounty attached to them, it null and voids any active bounties.
With regards to bounty hunting being a viable career option there would be a skill tree attached to this. Something along the lines of the higher your skills the higher the reward (access to higher bounties and/or a supplementary payment from CONCORD for punishing a criminal).
There could also be CONCORD LP points for professional bounty hunter players/corps. The frequency of bounty payments would be restricted, payments go out after D/T or once per week.
TL;DR Make being a criminal an actual punishment but crooks have a chance to redeem themselves.
I'm pretty tired and I've not thought this 100% through, I just wanted to get it out there. There will, of course, be ways to abuse this, but it's more of a deterrent than we currently have and (hopefully) more robust.
|
Ai Shun
State War Academy Caldari State
80
|
Posted - 2011.12.29 10:34:00 -
[18] - Quote
Thank you kindly; I like the general concept even more. Being able to choose a bounty hunter would certainly deal to the exploitation. |
Bienator II
madmen of the skies
408
|
Posted - 2011.12.29 10:40:00 -
[19] - Quote
you can fully fix exploitation without changing the core concept of the bounty system. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=359105
contracts/missions could be added on top of that - sure why not. a new bounty system for eve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=359105 You fail you fail you fail you fail you fail you fail you fail to jump because you are cloaked |
Bumblefck
Kerensky Initiatives
1942
|
Posted - 2011.12.29 10:49:00 -
[20] - Quote
What's the problem? I shoot red crosses, 15 minutes later the money gets put into my wallet. Working as intended, I think!!
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ GÇö Karath Piki |
|
Bienator II
madmen of the skies
410
|
Posted - 2011.12.29 10:58:00 -
[21] - Quote
Bumblefck wrote:What's the problem? I shoot red crosses, 15 minutes later the money gets put into my wallet. Working as intended, I think!! thats the singleplayer version of the bounty system - topic was multiplayer a new bounty system for eve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=359105 You fail you fail you fail you fail you fail you fail you fail to jump because you are cloaked |
ASadOldGit
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
61
|
Posted - 2011.12.29 11:40:00 -
[22] - Quote
Sorry if this is mentioned in any of the linked threads (haven't read them), but I see a couple of issues - any comments on how they could be resolved?
1. Your distance from the target - do you get to see how far away they are before accepting the bounty, i.e. can you choose bounties in your region? (I'm not talking about where they are - that's for the locator agent) It would suck to find out your target is 60 jumps away for a 15K bounty. Ris Dnalor's solution could partially solve this, as they'd have to be nearby for you to have kill-rights in the first place.
2. spamming of bounties on anyone you see - what if a bored large nullsec alliance decided to visit Jita and place bounties on everyone in local - would certainly liven up high-sec. (or everyone in an incursion - bwahahaha)
3. Don't know how the existing system works: - are you notified if you have a bounty placed on your head? - does it only apply to podding; should there be a difference between destroying their ship as opposed to pod-killing them? My container is NOT imploding! It's just a bit upset that it only sees cheap crap. |
Bumblefck
Kerensky Initiatives
1947
|
Posted - 2011.12.29 12:16:00 -
[23] - Quote
Bienator II wrote:Bumblefck wrote:What's the problem? I shoot red crosses, 15 minutes later the money gets put into my wallet. Working as intended, I think!! thats the singleplayer version of the bounty system - topic was multiplayer
Thank you, you poor sap, you must've missed the sarcasm.
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ GÇö Karath Piki |
Ferrenc
TRIGGER FINGER - E.O.D Gryphon League
12
|
Posted - 2011.12.29 17:08:00 -
[24] - Quote
ASadOldGit wrote:Sorry if this is mentioned in any of the linked threads (haven't read them), but I see a couple of issues - any comments on how they could be resolved? 1. Your distance from the target - do you get to see how far away they are before accepting the bounty, i.e. can you choose bounties in your region? (I'm not talking about where they are - that's for the locator agent) It would suck to find out your target is 60 jumps away for a 15K bounty. Ris Dnalor's solution could partially solve this, as they'd have to be nearby for you to have kill-rights in the first place. 2. spamming of bounties on anyone you see - what if a bored large nullsec alliance decided to visit Jita and place bounties on everyone in local - would certainly liven up high-sec. (or everyone in an incursion - bwahahaha ) 3. Don't know how the existing system works: - are you notified if you have a bounty placed on your head? - does it only apply to podding; should there be a difference between destroying their ship as opposed to pod-killing them?
good points, as to 1 there should definitely be a rough distance given before accepting the target, 2 is adressed by the fact that only people with neg sec status can have bounties placed. and due to the fact that this system would be much more likely to give results, maybe lower the sec status to -2 or -3 (i think its -1 now) 3 not sure if you get a notification, but you'll see it in your window, also a notification would be easy to do, and yes i think you should have to pod the target, i want him dead! not his ship |
Mechael
Team Pizza Viro Mors Non Est
30
|
Posted - 2011.12.29 21:39:00 -
[25] - Quote
Not bothering to read all of this, but here's my suggestion:
We having a standings system. We should be able to use it in regards to bounties. Place bounty - collectible by people of X standing or higher.
Bounties should also be placeable on only specific classes of ships (or even specific hulls.) For example, place bounty on player - bounty is for x, y, z types of ship - only those of x standings or greater may collect.
Done and done. As far as NPC bounties go ... who gives a ****? Rats < Players. I'd rather die in battle against a man who will lie to me, than for a man who will lie to me. |
Karthwritte
Darthrin Storm Enterprise Drunken Capsuleers
8
|
Posted - 2011.12.29 22:00:00 -
[26] - Quote
I think a solution would be if CONCORD doesn't give a **** if a +5.0 player pods a -5.0 player in a 1.0 sec system. Imagine it: A LOT OF FREE PODS TO KILL! |
|
|
|
Pages: [1] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |