EVE Search - Attatch Bounties to ships instead of pods?

All Channels

Crime and Punishment

Attatch Bounties to ships instead of pods?

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
DrunkenOne	Posted - 2005.06.03 00:49:00 - [31] Originally by: MinThreat Originally by: DrunkenOne Edited by: DrunkenOne on 02/06/2005 15:14:47 Basically, there needs to be more people hunting pirates in low sec, cause then not only would it hopefully end some of the "omgwtfidiedyouebilpirate" whining, but also pirates would get more targets/combat than gate-ganking haulers and such (which gets boring after a while). So it seems like a win-win situation for everyone. Drunk come down to placid then. would be good to fight you again m8. Who are you?
FowlPlayChiken	Posted - 2005.06.03 02:25:00 - [32] I love you drunk. bawk:-p
Herko Kerghans	Posted - 2005.06.03 02:39:00 - [33] Hum... What if: -People with low sec status get reduced insurance pay out (the lower the sec status, the lower the insurance pay out) RP reason: c'mon... low sec = ship popper = baaad for insurance business... why the hell would they insure your ship for? -Concord automatically places a bounty on your ship depending on the "reduced insurance". RP reason: they do it to rats, don't they? Even the ones that are in deep 0.0 disturbing no one!! Example: Ship fully insured pays: 80M Sec status -2: -Fully insured ship pays: 60M -Bounty hunter gets: 20M Sec status -3: -Fully insured ship pays: 50M -Bounty hunter gets: 30M Sec status -5 -Fully insured ship pays: 20M -Bounty hunter gets: 60M And so on (numbers totally tweakable, of course) But if the pirate does not insure the ship?? The bounty hunter gets the exact same numbers as above, but of course the pirate gets no payout whatsoever. Duhhh! Not exploitable, no sir: -The isk flowing around is exactly the same... only instead of the full insurance going to the pirate pockets, part of it goes to the bounty hunter. As long as the bounty is below the ship cost, ain't exploitable (blow a pirate in a shuttle, you get paid 4.000 isk...) Flame on! --------- The Snow and the Dragon (Caldari children's Tale)
DrunkenOne	Posted - 2005.06.03 04:41:00 - [34] Originally by: Herko Kerghans But if the pirate does not insure the ship?? Terrible idea, sorry. This isn't about PENALIZING one set of players, its getting them to interact.
Sobeseki Pawi	Posted - 2005.06.03 04:56:00 - [35] Edited by: Sobeseki Pawi on 03/06/2005 05:02:15 Well, the best part of this suggestion is rarely are bounties worth more than the ship being flown by the bounty. So bountied players wouldnt be blowing up their ships much to get the bounty. EDIT: I think insurance should be removed entirely, so that didnt factor into the above. ~Sobe Captain Cutie, Razor's Kiss What is your Radical Dream?
Maxine Stirner	Posted - 2005.06.03 04:58:00 - [36] I agree that many such things such as bounties and security status changes should be attached to the value of the ship destroyed rather than the pod. I think empires or factions should place basic bounties on vessels, obviously for less than they are worth and less than the payout difference for insurance. Killing NPCs should only affect your faction standings and never your concord standings. Losing a shuttle or a frigate should move you about a hundredth or a thousandth of a point. Losing a battleship should move you a decent ways, maybe a tenth of a point. Concord should apply to ratings to players, whether they are toggled as yet to be recloned murderers, and the ordinary 20 point scale as your "danger to property" scale. If you are a murderer, you shouldn't be able to reenter civilized space unless you are cloned or pay a hefty bribe and sentries always shoot at you. The clone you bought is born innocent, or at least not-guilty of all heinous crimes. However, his standing as a security risk to property remains and operates in the manner with which we are all familiar by now. Concord doesn't pod you no matter how many ships you blow up. No amount of NPC murdering should improve your "threat to property" status. Only destroying the property of people with lower standing than yourself improves your standing (and theirs). Getting blown up by people with higher standing helps too, but the improvements are apportioned by the value of your ship, thus it can be expensive. There is also a per 15 minute cap to security increases, just as there is currently. Destroying the vessels of people with higher security rating than yourself lowers your security rating (and improves theirs). The rating changes are still governed by the value of the vessel destroyed. Tech2 ships count for more than tech1 ones due to insurance obviously, with HACs and faction ships offering the highest gains. Battleships and Assault ships are somewhat equal at about 12-25M isk losses each time. The amount of concord placed bounty on vessels is a base figure that is multiplied by the sec status of the player who's vessel is destroyed times the value of the insurance value of the vessel lost (always lower than the profitability margin of value) minus a base value multiplied by the victor's standing. This way no one can scam the system, even with alts or friends, and PvP becomes profitable. If rogue factions are going to place bounties on players with high security standing, then we'll have to calculate an absolute value [1-10] away from 0. I don't really think that is needed yet. If anything, that would be something based more on faction standing rather than simplistic good/bad.. Corollaries: 1)No security standing changes are needed for simply firing on a ship, only for destroying it. Flagging and Concord pwning you in empire still applies. 2)Changes to market dynamics - kill Yulai and other hubs with taxes so that empire and low sec markets are distributed and more balanced. This is more sensible than creating low sec market hubs and it allows people to live outside of empire full time. Then all we'll need alts for is spying or whatever.
Herko Kerghans	Posted - 2005.06.03 04:59:00 - [37] Originally by: DrunkenOne Originally by: Herko Kerghans But if the pirate does not insure the ship?? Terrible idea, sorry. This isn't about PENALIZING one set of players, its getting them to interact. Errmm... can't have it all mate... when you want to work out a bounty system, you ARE trying to penalize people in some way, as in making it more profitable to other people to go after them, right? The problem with the bounties on the ships, as others have pointed out, is that if the bounty plus insurance is bigger than the ship price then blowing your ship becomes a isk-printing machine. The exact same happens with bounties on the pod: if the bounty is bigger than the clone price + implants, better pod yourself. So, how do you go around it? Easy... increase the price of the ships, and make the bounty a fraction of the ship. But... if you do that, you penalize everybody flying ships (a big percentage of the playerbase, or so I hear). Solution: increase the price of the ships only for the "bountiable" fraction of the playerbase. Easier way to do it? Work on the insurance. And... mate... remember that if you do get a working bounty system, then all pirates have the "right" to ask CCP to throw them a bone in other areas. For example "Ok, now we have nerfed insurance and automatic bounties on our ships, then remove the sentry guns from below 0.4, remove the flagging, and remove the restrictions to fly in high-sec Empire! (but keeping the free-for-all for -5.0 and below)" --------- The Snow and the Dragon (Caldari children's Tale)
Sweetpain	Posted - 2005.06.03 10:18:00 - [38] Just take twice the bounty out of the pirates wallet and let it go to the drain CONCORD. I know most pirates would travel around broke to ensure they dont have to pay up, so just let them get in the reds. Sooner or later they want a new clone anyway. least it would stop the pirates from putting bounty on themselves. And yeah limit the number a single account can put bounty on a character for like once a week unless the target have been killed. and make it have a upper limit of like 5 million.
d'hofren	Posted - 2005.06.03 11:42:00 - [39] Originally by: DrunkenOne Edited by: DrunkenOne on 02/06/2005 15:47:55 Originally by: Regma It's a bit of an odd idea, but how about having a % of bounty paid out for the size of ship killed. So if you kill this guy in a shuttle, concord will only pay a very small percentage of the bounty, if you kill the guys battleship, then Concord will fork out an even higher amount. You could put timers in place to stop people abusing the system - maybe it'd revive the bounty system or maybe it's just a pants idea ;) Hmm I like it... but it just gave me another idea: How about this: the player assigned bounties stay on the pods, as it is now. HOWEVER, concord will pay you a bounty for killing a pirates ship with -3 sec (or whatever), according to the shiptype you killed. To prevent exploiting the bounty paid out by concord could simply be less than the cost of 100% insurance. So for example, tier 2 BS which are like what, 30mil for 100% insurance (not sure i dont really fly bs), would pay out like a 25 mil bounty. That way if someone got a friend to kill them, they would still be losing money on the deal. In this way you could still keep the current bounty system intact but add motivation for the lvl 4 guys. Instead of "omg lets go to 0.0 and kill the uber npcs!!!!111," it would be "guys lets get together a group and try to kill the pirates camping Aunenen." This strikes me as pretty smart. The total bounty on a pirates head could be used to fund the ship destruction payouts. There are a couple of side effects to this as well. As Bounty is a matter of pride a pirate may be tempted into a ship that gives a lower payout when popped. This might push people into flying lower risk ships such as cruisers, intys and AF's. Those ships can't really tank sentries and thus we might even get some good old fashioned belt piracy going again.
GoGo Yubari	Posted - 2005.06.03 12:50:00 - [40] Originally by: Corvus Dove I've got the logical ingame argument. Undock in a shuttle, have your buddy kill your shuttle, you keep the pod and all the implants, split the ISK with a buddy. Takes what we already do with bounties and makes them that much more profitable. Good argument against it, but ... You already do that with bounties? Majorly lame.
Bracius	Posted - 2005.06.03 13:14:00 - [41] well there needs something to be done about it... first good step would be complete removal of lvl4 agents from .5+ as gurista extravaganza is still 30mil of bountys, no matter if in 1.0.
Ainsy	Posted - 2005.06.03 13:15:00 - [42] Either that or have the ship kill as a percentage, of the total bounty on that pilot, perhaps up to a set ammount, or weighted, as you suggest by the shiptype. for example a pirate with a 100mil bounty flying a raven might pay 25mil on ship destruction but the same pilot in an interceptor might only pay 2mil. A 200mil bounty pirate in a raven would pay out 50mil etc... This money could also be deducted from any existing bounty to prevent them getting way too big and tempting the pirate to pod themselves for the isk. Podding the pirate would still pay out all the remaining bounty as per current rules.
Sweetpain	Posted - 2005.06.03 13:29:00 - [43] Originally by: Ainsy Either that or have the ship kill as a percentage, of the total bounty on that pilot, perhaps up to a set ammount, or weighted, as you suggest by the shiptype. for example a pirate with a 100mil bounty flying a raven might pay 25mil on ship destruction but the same pilot in an interceptor might only pay 2mil. A 200mil bounty pirate in a raven would pay out 50mil etc... This money could also be deducted from any existing bounty to prevent them getting way too big and tempting the pirate to pod themselves for the isk. Podding the pirate would still pay out all the remaining bounty as per current rules. Raven insurance 104.000.000 + 50 mill ship destruction + 150 mill rest of the bounty. bounty + insurance just dont work together, bounty payout should allways be subtracted from the insuarance payout. if someone collected a 200 mill bounty from blowing up your raven + your pod your out of luck, no insurance money left and insurance should allways be the max limit of a single bounty payout unless there is no insurance on the ship at all then the base price of the ship is used as limit. right now the combination insurance + bounty work the opposite of what it should be. Bounty is the only secure income they have as long the bounty goes beyond the cost of Clone+ shuttle your handing you isk directly to the pirate your trying to get killed.
GigaIndy	Posted - 2005.06.05 06:06:00 - [44] Could be abused to easily, someone with a 10million bounty for example, could have his bounty kill his shuttle, thus making an easy 10million. Though i do believe the bounty system needs some work.
Lifewire	Posted - 2005.06.05 07:47:00 - [45] I like it...the pirate hunters need some help. I would say: ships with bounty loose insurance so it cannot be exploited. And why should an insurance pay for an outlaw pirate???
arutha	Posted - 2005.06.07 11:50:00 - [46] personaley i have never liked eves pod kill thing . i pvp alot and rarely actually pop a pod . i only do it too people who i remember have done it too me . soo basicley anything that ends virtual murder gets my vote
Starbuck	Posted - 2005.06.07 16:34:00 - [47] How about this? Leave the bounty on the pod. If you blow up someones, who has a bounty's, ship you get the insurance payout instead of the hunted. Cap this payout to the bounty on the individual. For example. If a guy has a 5k bounty on his head youll only get 5k of the insurance payout form his ship., the rest would goto him. whereas a person with a large bounty on him will not be able to get his insurance payout. --------------------------------------------------- mom'n'pop hasn't made me a cool sig yet :)
SinBin	Posted - 2005.06.07 18:13:00 - [48] Originally by: Lifewire I like it...the pirate hunters need some help. I would say: ships with bounty loose insurance so it cannot be exploited. And why should an insurance pay for an outlaw pirate??? Yea this is cool & coming from a pirate is even better, even basic inshurancepays around 30-40 mil. Would it be done on anyone with low sec ?, cos if so that would also force non pirates not to slip into - sec. _______________________________________ Ill Shutup when CCP remove bookmarks Maybe end the election round will do it ? & could save hundred of Users & Mods pain.
Roshan longshot	Posted - 2005.06.07 18:23:00 - [49] Originally by: Regma Edited by: Regma on 03/06/2005 08:40:17 Originally by: Roshan longshot "Crimes against Humanity" Ring a bell anyone? The ship did not kill all those people the pilot did. Lets see, I chose to sue the Winchester estate for ol man Winchester makeing a repeating rifle that killed hundreds if not thousands of American Indians. kinda lame aint it, after all the rifle did not decide to kill them indians. But the cowboy holding the rifle did. And no, NPC'ers and PVE players chose to fight the game not another player. So trying another tactic to increase PVP is still another failed attempt no matter how much honey you place on it. There's been some good suggestions made in this thread, unfortunately this is not one of them. The bounty system doesn't work, if person A places a bounty on person B, person B gets his corp mate to pod him, and they share the bounty. OK? How many pirates have had their buddies pod kill them? alot. The only thing this will bring about is a hanger full of high value ships. "Hummm have 150 million bounty on this ship, time to park it and get another" The bounty is placed on the character not his ship which he will lose. The original post just gives a steady supply of isk to the "Bad" person. Free-form Professions, ensure no limetations on professions. Be a trader, fighter, industialist, researcher, hunter,pirate[/i] or mixture of them all. [i]As read from the original box and from this site.
Darkside101	Posted - 2005.06.07 18:31:00 - [50] i think bounties SHOULD be placed on ships wather than pilots, the cost of a bs up to 130 mil, the cost of a pod/clone 12 mil max, i understand that there is a prob with exploits, getting your m8 to pop your ship with a day to go on its insurance but, by altering the insurance ie, no claims bonus or higher rates for less carful -0.1 sec status pilots you could easly make it very unprofitable to pop your own ship, -5 pilots shouldnt even be alowed to insure there ships , who in there right mind would???? not my insurence company thats for sure DS101
duduk	Posted - 2005.06.09 01:26:00 - [51] Originally by: Nebba Kenezzer Edited by: Nebba Kenezzer on 05/06/2005 17:45:13 Originally by: Lifewire I like it...the pirate hunters need some help. I would say: ships with bounty loose insurance so it cannot be exploited. And why should an insurance pay for an outlaw pirate??? no...that's easily exploitable/griefable. say you are killing someone; you could get an alt or friend in a station to add a 5k bounty on him so he doesn't get insurance payout -Daakkon can't add a bounty unless the player has a negative sec status -these are the risks for doing a crime. I would also say that the bounty has to be a certain amount before this comes into play. 5k bounty is nothing compared to the income of the average player.
Danton Marcellus	Posted - 2005.06.09 05:55:00 - [52] Partial credit for taking out his horse would be welcome but if I place a bounty on someones head I usually want him dead. Convert Stations
Delacho	Posted - 2005.07.13 16:43:00 - [53] won't work pirates will fly in a shuttle and let their buddies kill their shuttle, so people actualy placing bounty on someone would be throwing bounty at the pirates. how hard i would like that people actualy go and get the pirates, this solution won't work.
Maxine Stirner	Posted - 2005.07.13 19:00:00 - [54] I agree with the main idea of recompense for the destruction of property. We need a way to commission regular damage to the property of a rival.. that is the only way one can really do damage to another corporation. Most people don't like the idea of losing clones, but those who do can easilly afford it with no implants risked. Clones just aren't important enough compared to ships. Especially for empire warfare. Locking Times & Evil Asteroids
Nyxus	Posted - 2005.07.13 19:26:00 - [55] Agreed - find some way to keep it from being exploited and give folks a reason to pop ships. Plus I stand to make a lot of isk this way. Nyxus
Dionysus Davinci	Posted - 2005.07.13 20:01:00 - [56] Large Named Thermal 4tw.
Tindajii	Posted - 2005.07.14 16:35:00 - [57] Edited by: Tindajii on 14/07/2005 16:38:04 I liked the ship bounty ideas so I thought I would try to take a stab at a system with hopefully no exploits. Ship bounties: Bounty changes: You can only set a bounty on another player if that player has unlawfully destroyed your ship recently. This means parties at war can not set bounties, and 0.0 deaths can not set bounties. Both 0.0 kills and parties at war can collect bounties however. When you get the death mail from ccp, at the bottom it asks if you would like to set a bounty on the player who laid the killing blow, or on involved parties (as long as they were unlawful). If you currently have a bounty, you will NOT be able to set a bounty on any other player until your bounty is used up (see below). Now for the payout: To stop the exploits, the payouts will be capped at half the maximum insurance cost of the ship the player is currently piloting. For example, a tier 2 bs will give you AT MOST a 15 mil payout (full coverage insurance on this ship costs the pilot around 30 mil). If the pilot has a 25 million bounty on him, and you blow up his tier 2 bs you will recieve 15 million, and he will then have a 10 million bounty left. Blow up another one of his tier2 bs's and his bounty is gone, and you recieve the 10 mil. Keep in mind, the payout is NOT dependant on what they actually insured their ship at. If they are in a shuttle, you no payout, and the bounty remains. If you have a bounty on you, and you lose a ship, the insurance paid back to you for your ship is subtracted by the amount you initially paid for the insurance (tier 2 bs is about 30+ mil) PLUS the amount paid to the bounty hunter. If you have no insurance, you simply lose the cost of the ship. Therefore, the best situation for the "pirate" who gets his friend to blow him up will be to lose the entire amount he paid for the insurance to begin with. The way I see it, there is no way to profit from this model. There is probably an exploit in there somehwere though.
Zaakary	Posted - 2005.09.01 22:52:00 - [58] i did not read the entire thread so i apoligize if this has been talked about. i havent done any pirating/bounty hunting yet but one thing strikes me everytime its talked about: sharing the bounty of a corp mate by shooting him down. imo, a corp mate poding a corp mate should not be getting the bounty and the bounty amount should stay intact. that would clear a few loop holes. _________________________
Zaakary	Posted - 2005.09.01 22:57:00 - [59] oops, 2 month old thread. doh! _________________________
sonofollo	Posted - 2005.09.02 11:53:00 - [60] contract killing allow players who have been attacked by pirates etc to take out a contract allowing bounty hunters to attack pirates perhaps in low sec without having the gates open fire (though the -5.0 sec rating and flashing red and allowing anyone and everyone to attack those nasty red pirates without getting attacked is probably the soultion) pod kills well leave em as is.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: 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.