Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Grey Stormshadow
Starwreck Industries
|
Posted - 2011.05.31 14:36:00 -
[31]
Had couple missused contractor words in that one... corrected in original post. ------------------------------------------------- Play with the best - die like the rest starwreck.com - support the cause :) |
Atticus Fynch
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2011.05.31 15:02:00 -
[32]
Originally by: CCP Spitfire Hello,
There are indeed plans to revamp the bounty system in the future (see this post by CCP Greyscale for more details.
Thanks Spitfire for the feedback. As this thread shows there are plenty of ways of fixing the bounty system and as one poster stated, what good is a space game if you cant be Han Solo or Greedo or Jabba the Hutt for that matter.
Bounties is what first attracted me to EvE. It wasn't until I joined and played for awhile that I realized it was a broken system.
So looking forward to the changes.
|
oniplE
MeMento.
|
Posted - 2011.05.31 17:54:00 -
[33]
Like was suggested earlier in the thread: Just link the bounty reward to destroyed ISK per kill, meaning you get paid for destroying ships, modules, pods, implants and (soon) vanity items. That's it. It works, it makes sense and it's simple. The only challenge is to correctly determine the market value of destroyed items, i'm sure CCP can come up with something smart. __________________________________________ Signature starts here |
Black Dranzer
Caldari
|
Posted - 2011.05.31 17:57:00 -
[34]
Originally by: oniplE Like was suggested earlier in the thread: Just link the bounty reward to destroyed ISK per kill, meaning you get paid for destroying ships, modules, pods, implants and (soon) vanity items. That's it. It works, it makes sense and it's simple. The only challenge is to correctly determine the market value of destroyed items, i'm sure CCP can come up with something smart.
Come to think of it, doesn't CCP already calculates such numbers for ship insurance?
|
Grey Stormshadow
Starwreck Industries
|
Posted - 2011.05.31 17:57:00 -
[35]
Perhaps someday you can buy pair of UZIs from AUR shop and pop couple vanity headshots @ your local station. Now that would be some serious bountyhunting. ------------------------------------------------- Play with the best - die like the rest starwreck.com - support the cause :) |
Kharamete
Amarr
|
Posted - 2011.05.31 18:05:00 -
[36]
Just make bounty hunting agented.
* Concord gets a new division for bounty agents * You can only kill a player for bounty if you have permission from Concord. That prevents the one with the bounty from podding himself. * You need concord standing to get the agents, and you can't sit and decline missions all the time just to get yourself. * Permission from Concord makes it possible to attack a player anywhere without Concord interference: high sec, low sec, and nullsec. * Plus sundry considerations to scale the fight if necessary. ---
|
Yulith Luss'Ferus
|
Posted - 2011.05.31 18:13:00 -
[37]
Ultima Online did it right (for awhile at least). It wasn't bounty based but instead kill based. Nevertheless, once you were flagged a murderer, dying had serious penalties to stats/skills.
In the respect to EVE, perhaps the higher the bounty and in regards to sec status (or other relevant variables related to bounty and security status, that can be reset or lowered after the person is killed), the more loss the player takes if they're killed.
SP loss is probably one of the more undesirable things that can happen to someone, and probably the best way to make pirates have to cover their backs just a little more. I'm not trying to encourage carebearing (even though I am somewhat of one on EVE) - I did have massive amounts of kill counts on UO way back, and I did die, and it did suck, but it provided a form of balance and risk vs reward.
|
oniplE
MeMento.
|
Posted - 2011.05.31 18:32:00 -
[38]
Edited by: oniplE on 31/05/2011 18:33:37
Originally by: Black Dranzer
Originally by: oniplE Like was suggested earlier in the thread: Just link the bounty reward to destroyed ISK per kill, meaning you get paid for destroying ships, modules, pods, implants and (soon) vanity items. That's it. It works, it makes sense and it's simple. The only challenge is to correctly determine the market value of destroyed items, i'm sure CCP can come up with something smart.
Come to think of it, doesn't CCP already calculates such numbers for ship insurance?
Exactly. In theory a bounty system based on ship insurance costs can be deployed by CCP right now, they just need to want to do it.
As a matter of fact, it's perfectly possible for a 3rd party to develop a working webbased bounty system just by using the current API in combination with marketprice info from Eve-Central. The only downside is that bounty payout cannot be automated, so the payouts would become very time consuming and therefor not worth the effort. (And obviously the bounties wouldn't show up ingame) __________________________________________ Signature starts here |
Jonathan Malcom
Gallente Test Alliance Please Ignore
|
Posted - 2011.05.31 18:43:00 -
[39]
Originally by: Kharamete Just make bounty hunting agented.
* Concord gets a new division for bounty agents * You can only kill a player for bounty if you have permission from Concord. That prevents the one with the bounty from podding himself. * You need concord standing to get the agents, and you can't sit and decline missions all the time just to get yourself. * Permission from Concord makes it possible to attack a player anywhere without Concord interference: high sec, low sec, and nullsec. * Plus sundry considerations to scale the fight if necessary.
This is the correct way to do it.
Have bounty missions assigned by an NPC agent. The price of the bounty is relative to the level of the agent offering the mission. The target is randomly selected from a pool of prospects within a certain bounty price range.
Anyone see any problems with this? |
Elanor Gaiser
|
Posted - 2011.05.31 18:46:00 -
[40]
Originally by: Jonathan Malcom
Originally by: Kharamete Just make bounty hunting agented.
* Concord gets a new division for bounty agents * You can only kill a player for bounty if you have permission from Concord. That prevents the one with the bounty from podding himself. * You need concord standing to get the agents, and you can't sit and decline missions all the time just to get yourself. * Permission from Concord makes it possible to attack a player anywhere without Concord interference: high sec, low sec, and nullsec. * Plus sundry considerations to scale the fight if necessary.
This is the correct way to do it.
Have bounty missions assigned by an NPC agent. The price of the bounty is relative to the level of the agent offering the mission. The target is randomly selected from a pool of prospects within a certain bounty price range.
Anyone see any problems with this?
Yes the bounty system should have nothing to do with Concord IMO, Bounty Hunters were never particularly honourable, why would Concord endorse Vigilante Justice? Also I think it's better to keep as far away from NPC as you can if pos will make the game better in the end.
The Bounty value being equal to ship & eq cost damage sounds far more feasible and exciting a concept. |
|
Grey Stormshadow
Starwreck Industries
|
Posted - 2011.05.31 18:49:00 -
[41]
Plenty... player could be stationed anywhere, player could be offline, player could be clearly too hard target for contractor.
Bounty hunter has to be able to select his own targets. |
Holy One
|
Posted - 2011.05.31 18:49:00 -
[42]
Originally by: Elanor Gaiser
Originally by: Jonathan Malcom
Originally by: Kharamete Just make bounty hunting agented.
* Concord gets a new division for bounty agents * You can only kill a player for bounty if you have permission from Concord. That prevents the one with the bounty from podding himself. * You need concord standing to get the agents, and you can't sit and decline missions all the time just to get yourself. * Permission from Concord makes it possible to attack a player anywhere without Concord interference: high sec, low sec, and nullsec. * Plus sundry considerations to scale the fight if necessary.
This is the correct way to do it.
Have bounty missions assigned by an NPC agent. The price of the bounty is relative to the level of the agent offering the mission. The target is randomly selected from a pool of prospects within a certain bounty price range.
Anyone see any problems with this?
Yes the bounty system should have nothing to do with Concord IMO, Bounty Hunters were never particularly honourable, why would Concord endorse Vigilante Justice? Also I think it's better to keep as far away from NPC as you can if pos will make the game better in the end.
The Bounty value being equal to ship & eq cost damage sounds far more feasible and exciting a concept.
exploiters will just flood the system with alts to get steady isk/lp's. that would need to be considered.
also, player availability: eve isn't real. most people are not online most of the time. wouldn't stop people using throw away alts for example.
also ccp would not want to introduce a game mechanic that could potentially cost them subs - people with 'screwed' characters who are 'hounded' by other players will quit more often than not.
not that the proposal isn't a good one, it would need far more work than ccp have ever done on anything except making cash from vanity items. |
Jonathan Malcom
Gallente Test Alliance Please Ignore
|
Posted - 2011.05.31 18:51:00 -
[43]
Originally by: Grey Stormshadow Plenty... player could be stationed anywhere, player could be offline, player could be clearly too hard target for contractor.
Bounty hunter has to be able to select his own targets.
That actually is a reasonable problem. Inactive players with bounties. Hm. |
Mithfindel
Zenko Incorporated
|
Posted - 2011.05.31 18:59:00 -
[44]
There is some discussion in this thread: http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1501473.
The main points: - What is the function of a bounty? (Assumed: Way for someone to pay for having other players damage another player.) - How can exploiting the system be prevented? (The loss for the player with the bounty must always be larger than the bounty payout.)
As such, any bounty system must provide incentive to get someone killed and limit the payout so that self-podding via alt, friend, etc. will not be beneficial. This may mean that large bounties are paid out only on repeated poddings, though, or that a person has a cap on the highest possible bounty dependent on the amount of his SP or clone level. |
Kharamete
Amarr
|
Posted - 2011.05.31 19:01:00 -
[45]
I think the agented method is the easiest to implement. It would use a lot of asset that's already ingame, without coding an entirely new system.
There are considerations, of course. But afaik they can be guarded against. Someone is inactive? If there's an active contract, have the agent send a mail saying the scumbag has gone to ground, and the bounty hunter is released. The player is removed from he pool until s/he logs in again. And one problem I see is 1000 people getting a contract for one guy. That could be countered by allowing only one contract to be active at a time.
Anyway, on a superficial level (haven't spent that much time thinking about it) the agent method seems the most convenient path to take.
As regards Concord... they're not an honourable institution to begin with, so I see no problem with them giving out hit contracts. I mean, they already take bribes that allow you to kill whole corps. |
8agpuss
|
Posted - 2011.05.31 19:11:00 -
[46]
Oh gawd, please don't let CCP Greyscale at it. |
Grey Stormshadow
Starwreck Industries
|
Posted - 2011.05.31 19:12:00 -
[47]
Even with online check it still wouldn't work. Target can be some 23,5/7 jita trading alt which never undocks. |
Mystical Might
Amarr The Imperial Fedaykin
|
Posted - 2011.05.31 19:23:00 -
[48]
As Someone with a 21mil bounty and rising:
DO NOT WANT.
|
Malcanis
Caldari Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
|
Posted - 2011.05.31 19:38:00 -
[49]
Originally by: Yulith Luss'Ferus Ultima Online did it right (for awhile at least). It wasn't bounty based but instead kill based. Nevertheless, once you were flagged a murderer, dying had serious penalties to stats/skills.
In the respect to EVE, perhaps the higher the bounty and in regards to sec status (or other relevant variables related to bounty and security status, that can be reset or lowered after the person is killed), the more loss the player takes if they're killed.
SP loss is probably one of the more undesirable things that can happen to someone, and probably the best way to make pirates have to cover their backs just a little more. I'm not trying to encourage carebearing (even though I am somewhat of one on EVE) - I did have massive amounts of kill counts on UO way back, and I did die, and it did suck, but it provided a form of balance and risk vs reward.
The point of the bounty system isn't for CCP to penalise players for engaging in activities that reduce sec status - remember that these are legitimate and supported gameplay styles. It's to allow non-combat focused players a method of retaliation.
Your proposal (and the clone restriction above) is bad because it is an artificial penalty arbitrarily exacted on one group of players.
An improved bounty system that actually works is good because it places consequences in the hand of the players themselves, and because it encourages player interaction.
Malcanis' Law: Whenever a mechanics change is proposed on behalf of "new players", that change is always to the overwhelming advantage of richer, older players. |
Bklyn 1
|
Posted - 2011.05.31 19:40:00 -
[50]
Many good ideas have been proposed here and elsewhere.
Simplist - just limit the amount collected to the cost of the outlaw's clone. If you want, up it to the clone plus the cost of whatever implants were in his head at the time.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |