EVE Search - bounty hunters - allow players with a security status of +4 to hunt..

All Channels

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

bounty hunters - allow players with a security status of +4 to hunt..

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Mr Wales	Posted - 2005.02.18 00:24:00 - [1] bounty hunters - allow players with a security status of +4 to hunt any player that has a negative security rating in any system security level. If I see a player with a negative security rating, say of -0.3 in Rens I should be able to attack him. Concord should still take out the really bad guys, but allow the good citizens of empire to clean up the trash. any thoughts?
Zothike	Posted - 2005.02.18 00:55:00 - [2] Edited by: Zothike on 18/02/2005 00:55:12 i like the idea but would be more balanced with a formula with your security status, the security rating of the system you are in and the negative statut of the guy and eventually some skills
Raniy	Posted - 2005.02.18 01:19:00 - [3] I love this idea. This would be all the motivation I would need to get a high sec status ASAP. -- Raniy - Director of Indsutry - Empowerment, Inc. - Proud member of the Confederation Alliance
Lygos	Posted - 2005.02.18 03:59:00 - [4] I'd say revamp the idea to work with faction standing instead of concord standing and you'd be all set to work for your favorite locals. Heck, I don't think you'd even need to be a bounty hunter for it to work in this or that faction held space. To constrain the practice, you definitely have to revert to the old system of purchased war declarations to have people of the same factional persuasion combatting one another. The thing to remember is that there are far more than 4 factions in EVE currently. And zero sec space remains available for those who prefer not to be restricted to a scripted scenario for political contention or prefer to pursue a more unique one.
Mr Wales	Posted - 2005.02.18 05:16:00 - [5] Originally by: Zothike Edited by: Zothike on 18/02/2005 00:55:12 i like the idea but would be more balanced with a formula with your security status, the security rating of the system you are in and the negative statut of the guy and eventually some skills Thanks for the replies. I guess you could add some formulas to help balance the idea. The main idea is that if you get a negative rating no matter how small you have the potential to get locked and killed no matter where you are in the eve universe. We have risk of getting ganked in 0.0 by pirates, lets even it out and allow the good citizens of eve to gank pirates in safe space. Maybe the formula could be if you have a +5 rating you can hunt in any system. The lower your positive standing the fewer systems you can hunt in. I think this should be linked to your Concord standing and not your facton standing -this feature shouldn't be linked to agent runners nor should it be only linked to specific regions (faction areas) Concord is the faction that upholds the law in safe space and your standing with them should count.
Nero Scuro	Posted - 2005.02.18 10:36:00 - [6] Bad idea. You'd just get a bunch of pirates mincing rats to get high sec rating so they could go gank other pirates. Wait, brilliant idea! ---------------- Haha, stupid monkey! Now I'VE got the Oscar! Enjoy your worthless gun!
Tavernier	Posted - 2005.02.18 11:18:00 - [7] it would have to be limited to -1.0, not just negative... my hauler alt also doubles as a suicide interceptor pilot, and has at times went kamikazi in empire to kill a loot thief... Criminal, maybe, she's at -0.1, and doesn't have the skills to go kill 750k bs's... Also bounty hunting should be restricted to those players who actually have a bounty... then my cute little hauler alt will be safe
Hayzo	Posted - 2005.02.18 11:25:00 - [8] Edited by: OdCuK Hayzo on 18/02/2005 11:25:16 Quote: it would have to be limited to -1.0, not just negative... my hauler alt also doubles as a suicide interceptor pilot, and has at times went kamikazi in empire to kill a loot thief... Criminal, maybe, she's at -0.1, and doesn't have the skills to go kill 750k bs's... Also bounty hunting should be restricted to those players who actually have a bounty... then my cute little hauler alt will be safe That sounds about right. I mean, chacnes are that if tehy have a status of -0.1, theyve only made the one mistake, or theyve been working to get it back up. That gets difficult if your getting attacked at every possible oppurtunity for no other reason than "My sec stat is +4.0," That might be alright and good fun for the hunters, but this game is ment to be fun for everyone, is it not? ____________________ "Sanity Is Not Statistical"
Mr Wales	Posted - 2005.02.18 16:48:00 - [9] Originally by: Tavernier it would have to be limited to -1.0, not just negative... my hauler alt also doubles as a suicide interceptor pilot, and has at times went kamikazi in empire to kill a loot thief... Criminal, maybe, she's at -0.1, and doesn't have the skills to go kill 750k bs's... Also bounty hunting should be restricted to those players who actually have a bounty... then my cute little hauler alt will be safe well maybe anything under -0.1 is fair game then. I don't see why people should adjust their game play to accommidate an alt, bah! the thing is most ore thiefs have a negative standing so you wouldn't need to use an alt.
Mr Wales	Posted - 2005.02.18 17:00:00 - [10] Originally by: OdCuK Hayzo Edited by: OdCuK Hayzo on 18/02/2005 11:25:16 Quote: it would have to be limited to -1.0, not just negative... my hauler alt also doubles as a suicide interceptor pilot, and has at times went kamikazi in empire to kill a loot thief... Criminal, maybe, she's at -0.1, and doesn't have the skills to go kill 750k bs's... Also bounty hunting should be restricted to those players who actually have a bounty... then my cute little hauler alt will be safe That sounds about right. I mean, chacnes are that if tehy have a status of -0.1, theyve only made the one mistake, or theyve been working to get it back up. That gets difficult if your getting attacked at every possible oppurtunity for no other reason than "My sec stat is +4.0," That might be alright and good fun for the hunters, but this game is ment to be fun for everyone, is it not? no it's not. no fun at all.
Lorth	Posted - 2005.02.18 20:40:00 - [11] Not a bad idea, not sure exactly how much I aggree with it. Tough it would have to be adjusted somewhat. Simply because an acciedental mis click can earn you a negative sec rating in a hurry. I had a -0.5 when I was a newbie because of auto targeting, and me returning fire thinking it was an NPC. Had cruise loaded and killed his ship, then was killed my self. It also took a while hunting in empire to get it back to positive. Make it -1.0 or somthing and then we can talk.
Amicus	Posted - 2005.02.19 01:38:00 - [12] Originally by: Mr Wales the thing is most ore thiefs have a negative standing so you wouldn't need to use an alt. Wales, if you are trying to penalize ore thieves, you will need another method. Ore thieves do not get negative status because of stealing. They can easily avoid negative status and still steal your ore. Your proposed system is more likely to penalize those who attack ore thieves in Empire space. People who attack ore thieves do get negative status. The Dev's did promise a new system that would outlaw ore thieves, which system was supposed to come out with Exodus, but it has been delayed indefinitely. It is on the "soon (tm)" list.
Mr Wales	Posted - 2005.02.19 05:14:00 - [13] Originally by: Amicus Originally by: Mr Wales the thing is most ore thiefs have a negative standing so you wouldn't need to use an alt. Wales, if you are trying to penalize ore thieves, you will need another method. Ore thieves do not get negative status because of stealing. They can easily avoid negative status and still steal your ore. Your proposed system is more likely to penalize those who attack ore thieves in Empire space. People who attack ore thieves do get negative status. The Dev's did promise a new system that would outlaw ore thieves, which system was supposed to come out with Exodus, but it has been delayed indefinitely. It is on the "soon (tm)" list. Honestly I don't really care about loot/ore thieves. They have bothered me in the past, but nothing I can't handle. Appart from using an alt to post on the forums (I know, I know) I don't use alts ingame. If I'm going to kill someone part of the pleasure is them knowing who you are. All I'm trying to do is spice up empire that's all.
Hayzo	Posted - 2005.02.19 10:54:00 - [14] Edited by: OdCuK Hayzo on 19/02/2005 11:04:08 Quote: no its not fun, not fun at all you see, youve started a topic on the fourums, and anybody who disagrees with you just gets flamed... that really is quite sad. oh and Quote: Wales, if you are trying to penalize ore thieves, you will need another method. Ore thieves do not get negative status because of stealing. They can easily avoid negative status and still steal your ore. Your proposed system is more likely to penalize those who attack ore thieves in Empire space. People who attack ore thieves do get negative status. exactly. ____________________ "Sanity Is Not Statistical"
Mr Wales	Posted - 2005.02.19 12:24:00 - [15] Edited by: Mr Wales on 19/02/2005 12:25:34 Originally by: OdCuK Hayzo Edited by: OdCuK Hayzo on 19/02/2005 11:04:08 Quote: no its not fun, not fun at all you see, youve started a topic on the fourums, and anybody who disagrees with you just gets flamed... that really is quite sad. oh and Quote: Wales, if you are trying to penalize ore thieves, you will need another method. Ore thieves do not get negative status because of stealing. They can easily avoid negative status and still steal your ore. Your proposed system is more likely to penalize those who attack ore thieves in Empire space. People who attack ore thieves do get negative status. exactly. Nah, I wasn't flamming you, it was more like sarcazim. Your previous response was condecending and not appreciated, that was my response.
Mr Wales	Posted - 2005.02.20 08:07:00 - [16] I did a bit more research..so Concord enforcement and personal security status work like below; 1.0 systems allow -2.0 0.9 systems allow -2.5 0.8 systems allow -3.0 0.7 systems allow -3.5 0.6 systems allow -4.0 0.5 systems allow -4.5 Right now you can't attack any pirate in empire unless they are -5.0 which as you can see is a little silly as it's very doubtful you would run into a -5.0 pirate in empire. It has been mentioned that applying this to players with small negative standing would be harsh. We don't want to turn players off of eve so how about having a little bit of math pop into this. How about at +5.0 you get a maximum of -1.0 offset from Concord. Meaning in a 0.9 system you could attack players lower than -1.5 the lower your positive standing the smaller the offset. Anyway these numbers might not be ideal, but I think the idea could work with the right numbers/math etc. Additionally it would be nice if we could attack any player in empire that has a bounty.
Zothike	Posted - 2005.02.20 12:36:00 - [17] Edited by: Zothike on 20/02/2005 12:37:29 Yes that's quite good, but i still think that would be linked too with a skill, to make bounty hunter more rare, and like a specialisation, not a global opportunity for everybody. And as it's a new troubles for 'bad boys' the reverse of course should be allowed : if a bounty hunter can shoot u, u can shoot him, automatically, or after first shoot
Blind Fear	Posted - 2005.02.20 17:52:00 - [18] Ok idea, but if you can attack a pirate i think he should be able to attack you as well not just fight back. I think this would bring pirating back, for some people at least
Domalais	Posted - 2005.02.20 18:17:00 - [19] Originally by: Mr Wales Right now you can't attack any pirate in empire unless they are -5.0 which as you can see is a little silly as it's very doubtful you would run into a -5.0 pirate in empire. Except being able to attack -5 pirates gives pirate hunters the edge in .4 to .0, because they can attack without losing security, getting flagged, or being attacked by the sentry guns.
ArcticFox	Posted - 2005.02.20 18:41:00 - [20] Originally by: Blind Fear Ok idea, but if you can attack a pirate i think he should be able to attack you as well not just fight back. I think this would bring pirating back, for some people at least You mean pirates should be able to shoot at people with a positive security rating first and not have concord respond? If so I have to strongly disagree. It doesn't make any sense ingame, at all. That would basically be saying concord will penalize you for having a positive security rating as well as negative. If you want concord to not respond when the pirates fire back after the bounty hunters fire first, then I agree. But let's not start making arbitrary rules just because it seems "fair". Everytime someone asks to get rid of 0.1 to 0.4 ganking and/or complain they can't shoot first people tell them to stay in secure space if they don't want to deal with it, so I say the same for this idea. If you want to be a pirate and don't want to be hounded by bounty hunters who get to have the first shot, stay out of secure space. ---------------------------------- "There's no +6 Sword of WTFPWN in Eve." - Er... Some person on the forum...
Mr Wales	Posted - 2005.02.20 20:21:00 - [21] Originally by: Blind Fear Ok idea, but if you can attack a pirate i think he should be able to attack you as well not just fight back. I think this would bring pirating back, for some people at least Well the idea is exactly like ArticFox described. Pirates would only be allowed to fire back. This means that a pirate hunter needs to be careful of target he chooses.
Zothike	Posted - 2005.02.20 20:49:00 - [22] Edited by: Zothike on 20/02/2005 20:50:05 Articfox; i express myself badly , i mean if you adopt the bounty hunter statut (with skill(s) trained) then you are bounty hunter, then the pirate you are allowed to shot at can shoot you too, for ppl without bounty hunter skill(s) it stay the same
Mr Wales	Posted - 2005.02.20 22:26:00 - [23] Originally by: Zothike Edited by: Zothike on 20/02/2005 20:50:05 Articfox; i express myself badly , i mean if you adopt the bounty hunter statut (with skill(s) trained) then you are bounty hunter, then the pirate you are allowed to shot at can shoot you too, for ppl without bounty hunter skill(s) it stay the same That make sense Zothike. Maybe have the bounty hunter skill work with your security status giving you a greater offset. The pirate shouldn't be able to attack a pirate hunter first without bringing concord into play. After the pirate hunter fires the first shot it should be game on. As far as letting the pirates fire on bounty hunters, well that just doesn't make sense. Why would Concord grant a pirate immunity?
Icarus Starkiller	Posted - 2005.02.21 07:00:00 - [24] A lot of confusion going back and forth here, from my reading. Bounty hunting (or just plain Pirate bashing) should be allowed by the sec rating of the system (as someone listed in a previous post). The higher the sec rating, the smaller your margin of negativity can be (-2 in a 1.0, for example). CONCORD should not take action unless the pilot is -5, regardless. But should shadow them if they show up in a pod. Currently a terribly low sec standing pirate can get into empire in a pod, past CONCORD, board a ship at a planet, and have fun in secure space... staying away from gates/stations. If CONCORD/Faction shadowed a -5 or lower pod with a frigate then that 'bending of the rules' would be eliminated. Board a ship and it's CONCORDoken time. Bounties, IMO, should be limited to 100k per listing per individual... so 1 person could place a 100k bounty on some guy's head 1 time. And not again until that previous bounty was collected (they recieve a mail stating the death of their bountied target). No limit on the number of folks who can do this, however. That will actually make those huge bounties mean something when you see them. Or some other reasonable ammount. Perhaps with each 100k conferring a -0.01 sec rating as well. Another thing that might cut down on peeps doing 'evil' things like getting bountied would be a progressively easier pod-locking time with successively higer bounties (this is sarcasm, folks).
Zothike	Posted - 2005.02.21 11:02:00 - [25] Edited by: Zothike on 21/02/2005 13:01:19 "The pirate shouldn't be able to attack a pirate hunter first without bringing concord into play. After the pirate hunter fires the first shot it should be game on. As far as letting the pirates fire on bounty hunters, well that just doesn't make sense. Why would Concord grant a pirate immunity?" The trouble is that the pirate have a too big disavantage then, if he can only shoot second Concord is already granting some pirate immunity if they travel threw the systems without shooting ppl, but pirate can shoot boot hunty, because bounty hunter have choosen to be such , then they admit the risk of it, hunter/hunted Concord business is to protect 'civilian' (aka ppl that are peacefull) It's like in empire wars; concord dont involve, it's not theyre business
Mr Wales	Posted - 2005.02.21 20:31:00 - [26] Originally by: Zothike The trouble is that the pirate have a too big disavantage then, if he can only shoot second Concord is already granting some pirate immunity if they travel threw the systems without shooting ppl, but pirate can shoot boot hunty, because bounty hunter have choosen to be such , then they admit the risk of it, hunter/hunted Concord business is to protect 'civilian' (aka ppl that are peacefull) It's like in empire wars; concord dont involve, it's not theyre business I disagree. You are kind of ruining the idea. This isn't a mutual war -like an empire war. It's good vs. bad. By having a negative standing you are saying 'I am not peaceful' therefore making your above statement moot. By being a 'Pirate Hunter' you have been given permission by Concord to hunt and kill pirates of certain standings in certain systems.
Zothike	Posted - 2005.02.21 21:03:00 - [27] Edited by: Zothike on 21/02/2005 21:09:19 ok but then if bounty hunter have to shoot first, as it is a disadvatage for hunted, then the whole idea is against "neg standing" , and except if ccp want to make life in 0.1 0.4 less dangerous, it will make ppl with neg standing unhappy, coz it's changing the rules afterward, with a retroactif kind of effect, would not be very fair for them. like creating a skill giving damage bonus to Caldari versus Gallente , and not the equivalent for Gallente versus Caldari
Fester Addams	Posted - 2005.02.22 14:06:00 - [28] Hmm... there are alot of players in empire that for silly reasons have fallen below the 0.0 line, this sugestion would allow 0.0 pirates to come into central empire space and go mideval on eve. I agree a version of the Idea could be worked out but not simply giving a licence to kill just cos you have been chaining BS's in 0.0. Today security status is not a measure of how nice you are but rather wether you have good access to good hunting grounds. People who are a tad older will remember the tweaking of security status that we had, back then we all got our sec rating halved, at that time I had almost pushed my status up to 4.0 the hard way but as there were glitches in the system allowing a number of people to raise their status to 9 or 10 in a very short time. After the cut I have killed a very large number of npc pirate ships, since then I have raised my standing from 1.9 to 2.1. I know that alot of 0.0 alliance people have in far shorter duration raised theirs from negative to 5.0 as they hunt BS in large numbers. The problem is that many of those are in effect pirates... some are even almost sad over their high sec rating. If you would give this group a lisence to kill anything yellow in sight they would and it would not be the deserving people that got killed off mainly, it would be the players who were suckered into attacking a spam griefer in 1.0 or decided to retaliate against an ore thief that would get killed in droves. Sadly we all know this is true.
Mr Wales	Posted - 2005.02.22 20:17:00 - [29] I'm going to put this idea to rest. Thanks for the input guys. I'm pretty sure we wont see anything like this in the near future. As many of you have pointed out there are way too many negative points to this for the sake of adding some flavour to Eve. Shame really.

Pages: [1] :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.