|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 5 post(s) |
Sheynan
Lighting the blight
154
   |
Posted - 2012.12.10 18:44:00 -
[1] - Quote
I don't think a plain increase of the "safe" 20% value is a good idea.
What I'd rather see and It should have the same net result is the possibility for the bounty-placing-person to set higher payout values.
These could be set after the usual corp/alliance/standings, but also for specific players/corps/alliances.
For example I trust my friends not to make shady deals with my target and thus set their payout value to 100% of loss value.
Or I contact a specific bounty-hunter corporation, that I trust to be corruption-free and set their payout value up.
P.S: Something that people should be aware of btw is that insurance return is not a part of 20% loss value, so even with 100% loss value a target would not be able to gain money, if all module/ship prices were 100% accurate. Fluctuations in item prices and manipulation of these are what makes "alt-killing" worthwhile with a higher payout ratio. |
Sheynan
Lighting the blight
154
|
Posted - 2012.12.10 18:55:00 -
[2] - Quote
Insurance is not included in the 20% value like it is not included in FW "bounty" payouts (LP payouts).
However even a general 75% loss value would be enough to break the system.
You don't need to look at insurance, you need to look at haulers !
The estimated prices in EVE struggle to be accurate, but fluctations occur regularly. And on lower frequented items, these can be immense. The person with the bounty would fill his hauler with a ton of goods where the estimated value is 25% lower than the "true" market value and then kill himself with an alt to get all his bounty neutralized plus all the bonus cash for items below said 25%.
The bounty system would be useless again, people would stop trusting it and no one would place bounties anymore.
Thus I personally think the possiblity for the bounty-placer to set the payout higher for specific trusted parties is a better way to go, as mentioned above.
EDIT: Silk daShocka wrote:
I don't really understand what you mean here, but I"m assuming that what your saying is that a platinum insured ship will not give a bounty payout at all provided it has nothing fitted?
Every insurance costs a specific amount of ISK, so the return value is rarely 100% as sufficiently high market fluctuations rarely happen with T1-ships. But the bounty payout will be very small nevertheless. |
Sheynan
Lighting the blight
154
|
Posted - 2012.12.10 20:24:00 -
[3] - Quote
I would still urge everyone not to raise the general threshold too much. I just made a quick market comparison.
Look at Oxygen Isotopes:
Estimated price: 583 isk
Jita sell: 489 isk
Prozentual difference: 19,4 %
And this was just one random item out of my hangar, I am sure you there are many items with better ratios that can easily be found.
But to bring this value into context: If the bounty payout was 90%, then someone with a bounty on him could gank his isotope-hauler with an alt, negate all the bounty and gain rougly 10% of it (!). Even though it is a crappy item with a high market saturation.
We need to be able to set the threshold variable for trusted persons. |
Sheynan
Lighting the blight
154
|
Posted - 2012.12.11 10:14:00 -
[4] - Quote
CCP SoniClover wrote:Vincent Athena wrote:
How about letting the person setting the bounty also set the payout percentage?
If we implement allowing people to limit who can use their bounty (like corp mates only), then giving people some control over the payout percentage might be possible, as this would act as a separate bounty pool. Different percentages cannot function for the common bounty pool, as it would either make it a) insanely complicated to calculate payout or b) completely broken.
I doubt this will be overcomplicated, the key is not telling the player more than they need to know. When they look at the bounty pool and see the total sum as well as their personal payout percentage, that's all they need.
Example:
Say a player has a bounty of 20mio in common pool (so 20%), but also another bounty of 40mio that is set to pay 100% to the corp mates of the issuer and 80% to a trusted merc corporation, 20% for common pool still applies.
A neutral person would see: BOUNTY: 60mio, 20%
A Corpie would see: BOUNTY: 60mio, 73%
Someone from the Merc corp would see: BOUNTY: 60mio, 60%
Now that guy is killed. The appropriate bounty is paid out and drawn equal from all bounty pools.
|
Sheynan
Lighting the blight
154
|
Posted - 2012.12.11 17:07:00 -
[5] - Quote
Beckie DeLey wrote:Andski wrote:just add a skill called Bounty Hunting or whatever Simple, elegant, perfect.
It fails to adress any of the concerns in this thread. It's just "someone said bounty payouts are too low, let's make a skill that raises them, what could possibly go wrong..."
Another thing to keep in mind is that FW also pays a kind of "bounty". If the bounty payout is increased too much, then you could enter the milita and kill yourself with a militia alt to profit from the bounty (Or even combine this with a previous trick and kill yourself in a hauler of overvalued goods).
Increasing the common pool bounty payout is risky and it should never be above 30%. How you get those 10% whether with skills or with topten-bonuses is not that important. It will most likely not be very noticable difference from the current version. |
Sheynan
Lighting the blight
160
|
Posted - 2012.12.13 17:37:00 -
[6] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:Eternal Error wrote:+1. I understand you're trying to make sure that the bounty stays there for a while and that people can't abuse it to gain money by shooting themselves, but I feel it should be closer to 30-35%. It doesn't make sense that having a REALLY high bounty makes someone no more desirable a target than another person, and that this situation can currently happen at a pretty low level.
Also, someone correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the insurance received for ship destruction subtracted from the total used to calculate the bounty? The only way to square this circle is to literally have the collector of the bounty audited to make sure that he's not connected to the person the bounty was placed on. That's obviously impractical.
It's not if the player issuing the bounty himself is doing the audit and is able to decide who is eligible for higher payouts. |
|
|
| |
|