| Pages: 1 2 [3] :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Lansfear
   |
Posted - 2005.09.16 14:52:00 -
[61]
The above post has potential.
|
MinThreat
|
Posted - 2005.09.16 17:36:00 -
[62]
 Originally by: Lansfear
Yes!
But we'd have to change the positive protections to 5.0-1.0 as getting above a 5.0 atm is insane. Perhaps sentries only protect players with a 1.0 in .4 space, 2.0 in .3 space and soone. This, I can see alts as free targets in .4 and lower space now, as it should be  .
This looks workable as it will close the serious gap between the -.5 to 0.0 gap there is now.
I like this idea alot. Friggin alts!!
Symposium INC |
Malthros Zenobia
|
Posted - 2005.09.19 15:21:00 -
[63]
Originally by: The Hanz
You suck. Take the hit, it is very negligable unless you pod kill.......and why are you pod killing if you are so noble? Plus a good pirate always keeps the initiative.
So tell me slick, how are you going to collect a bounty on somone if you don't pod them?
|
Elgwapo
|
Posted - 2005.09.20 05:48:00 -
[64]
Why not just make people who have been agressive in empire space flagged as pirates and attackable without security hit for a periods of time in relation to their security status?
-.1 to -1.0 1 hour
-1.1 to -2.0 1 day
-2.1 -3.0 2 days
etc
Play with the numbers however you want. Anyone who pirates in empire space would be flagged and the anti pirate/bounty hunter people could go after them
|
Amicus
|
Posted - 2005.09.20 07:26:00 -
[65]
As long as we are talking bounty reform, I will put in a plug for tying the amount of the bounty payout to value of the targetĘs destroyed property (i.e., ship, clone, modules, skill points, etc.). see  BOUNTY REFORM: Payout Cap at Value of Destroyed Property.
|
Karash Amerius
|
Posted - 2005.09.20 20:39:00 -
[66]
Originally by: Lansfear
Originally by: The Hanz
You suck. Take the hit, it is very negligable unless you pod kill.......and why are you pod killing if you are so noble? Plus a good pirate always keeps the initiative.
Pod killing is exacuting the bad person, just as a pirate would murder a victim. PC rats get a nice low sec rating showing that they kill, alot, and us pirate hunters get penalized for tracking them down and seeking justice in low sec space. But there are a ton of pc rats that avoid the sec hits, for instance pirating in o.o and being scott free in empire.
War decing only goes sofar, I know, we've done it alot.
Keep the ideas flowing, perhaps we'll find a method that works.
Well...the issue with legalities and lawbreakers that operate in 0.0 space doesnt make any sense. Anything that happens in 0.0 space is outside any laws, thus outside any security hit. Your opinion of what is right and wrong may not apply in 0.0. Always remember that.
|
Karash Amerius
|
Posted - 2005.09.20 20:42:00 -
[67]
Additionally, there needs to be a different way that someone can verify that you 'killed' a player. Eve Killmails can be one way as long as they were somehow verified as authentic. Therefor, you could bounty someone and say the target has to be in a cruiser or above ship for the bounty to apply without pod killing.
Or the whole pod killing system has to be reworked...either way, its a job :)
|
Kalyster
|
Posted - 2005.09.21 00:19:00 -
[68]
I suggest a security status modification directly depending on the security status difference between the attacker and the victim.
For example: player A with 0.4 of SS kills player B with -0.2, he will then gain [0.4-(-0.2)]*Value=0.6*Value (Value may depends on system security level). This way, you can't use the alts trick since the difference between their SS would be near 0.0, and the more "evil" player you kill, the more you get rewarded.
Opinions ?
|
Genghis Bob
|
Posted - 2005.09.21 14:53:00 -
[69]
How about if you could declare war on negative security ratings. You could pick what rating you want to declare war on. picking -3.0 would mean you show up as at war with anyone with a -3.0 rating or worse. You can therefore attack each other with no security loss.
|
Malka Badi'a
|
Posted - 2005.09.21 14:57:00 -
[70]
So, in reality you want to be able to kill another player without CONCORD intervention and without the penalty of breaking CONCORD law.
No, it simply won't happen. You are still killing someone in a manner that breaks CONCORD laws because you took the "law into your own hands" so to speak.
--------------
|
Caeden Nicomachean
|
Posted - 2005.09.21 15:16:00 -
[71]
Originally by: Malka Badi'a
So, in reality you want to be able to kill another player without CONCORD intervention and without the penalty of breaking CONCORD law.
No, it simply won't happen. You are still killing someone in a manner that breaks CONCORD laws because you took the "law into your own hands" so to speak.
No, read some of the messages in the middle.
The general idea is that bounty hunters should have some game mechanics for mitigating security loss.
A license to kill sort of a deal would be great, if the pirate got part of the proceeds of the license purchase if they are able to avoid destruction.
Clearly war decs are not a complete solution because of noob corps as others have stated. Plus the issue of multi-decced pirate corps, causing the dec itself to outweigh the payout of the bounty.
Pirates chill in .4-.1 because they know they are safe from most people, and avoid 0.0 because they are not.
It makes perfect sense for there to be a method to enforce the law in the absence of CONCORD intervention. It is after all supposed to be a player run environment...it is absurd to assume this counts for cretins and not for enforcers.
|
Malka Badi'a
|
Posted - 2005.09.21 15:21:00 -
[72]
Quote:
The general idea is that bounty hunters should have some game mechanics for mitigating security loss.
CONCORD does not approve nor allow bounty hunters to get away with the breaking of the law, and never has. It still comes down to "I want the law to not apply to me so I can kill someone", regardless of the plans discussed here. There is a reason why bounty hunters get a negative status, it's because being a bounty hunter is a dirty job and they are the ones who accept it.
--------------
|
Caeden Nicomachean
|
Posted - 2005.09.21 15:29:00 -
[73]
Originally by: Malka Badi'a
Quote:
The general idea is that bounty hunters should have some game mechanics for mitigating security loss.
CONCORD does not approve nor allow bounty hunters to get away with the breaking of the law, and never has. It still comes down to "I want the law to not apply to me so I can kill someone", regardless of the plans discussed here. There is a reason why bounty hunters get a negative status, it's because being a bounty hunter is a dirty job and they are the ones who accept it.
And bounty hunters are agitating to change that. You are a pirate. Of course you don't want people able to chase after you more easily.
You basically said "its always been like this". That is hardly a reason to not implement some of the ideas posted here.
Clearly there should be hoops for the bounty hunter to jump through. Just as clearly the role of bounty hunter is almost nil in this game, and needs a boost.
|
Malka Badi'a
|
Posted - 2005.09.21 15:32:00 -
[74]
Quote:
You basically said "its always been like this".
It would be wise to not replace the words I've said with words you think I've said. Discussing this with you is pointless as you feel illegality under a different name deserves shelter regardless.
--------------
|
Caeden Nicomachean
|
Posted - 2005.09.21 15:40:00 -
[75]
Originally by: Malka Badi'a
Quote:
You basically said "its always been like this".
It would be wise to not replace the words I've said with words you think I've said.
Well, I would invite a different interpretation than I made to your statement:
Quote:
CONCORD does not approve nor allow bounty hunters to get away with the breaking of the law, and never has.
It sounds a lot like "its always been like this" to me, I'll bet it does to others too.
Quote:
Discussing this with you is pointless as you feel illegality under a different name deserves shelter regardless.
The act of legislation is what modifies, creates, or nullifies laws. There is little on the books for player enacted criminal justice. Defending the lack of it by moral reasons is humorous, so if thats the line you are at then I can see why you would abandon the debate 
|
Cyborg 0627
|
Posted - 2005.09.21 20:19:00 -
[76]
Edited by: Cyborg 0627 on 21/09/2005 20:21:39
.
...you guys with all of your silly calculations.
It's simple.
A bounty hunter should be able to right click on the portrait of ANY player with a bounty and have an option in the dropdown to "hunt". Therefore declaring a 1v1 war with that player so to speak. The bounty hunter would have to pay CONCORD a percentage of the potential bounty to "hunt dec" the player and for CONCORD to look the other way.
simple
edit: I didn't read throught the previous pages because all the number crunching is silly IMHO. So, if this idea or similar is in the previous pages, then I agree with original poster.
|
Lansfear
|
Posted - 2005.09.22 13:44:00 -
[77]
Originally by: Malka Badi'a
Quote:
The general idea is that bounty hunters should have some game mechanics for mitigating security loss.
CONCORD does not approve nor allow bounty hunters to get away with the breaking of the law, and never has. It still comes down to "I want the law to not apply to me so I can kill someone", regardless of the plans discussed here. There is a reason why bounty hunters get a negative status, it's because being a bounty hunter is a dirty job and they are the ones who accept it.
If CONCORD doesn't approve of Bounty hunters hunting OUTLAWS with BOUNTIES on their heads, then whats the point of putting bounties on an OUTLAWS head to begin with?
Please note: An outlaw is someone viewed as a threar to civilized society, a criminal, someone wanted by law enforcments for crimes commited.
I'm pretty sure CONCORD can be defined as a Law Enforcement entity........
|
Lansfear
|
Posted - 2005.09.22 13:49:00 -
[78]
Originally by: Cyborg 0627
Edited by: Cyborg 0627 on 21/09/2005 20:21:39
.
...you guys with all of your silly calculations.
It's simple.
A bounty hunter should be able to right click on the portrait of ANY player with a bounty and have an option in the dropdown to "hunt". Therefore declaring a 1v1 war with that player so to speak. The bounty hunter would have to pay CONCORD a percentage of the potential bounty to "hunt dec" the player and for CONCORD to look the other way.
If I'm not mistaken, Concord would not need to look the other way since when someone has a bounty placed on them that bounty was given to concord be a victim in the first place to set that criminal as wanted.
Concord shouldn't be a factor in any of this since concord is the one documenting these people as criminals to begin with.
God I hope a Dev has seen any of this. And if a moderator could be so very kind as to show off this thread to the appropriate people? We'd love you forever... 
|
Cyborg 0627
|
Posted - 2005.09.22 15:44:00 -
[79]
Lansfear,
Bounty Hunters are not vigilantes. There is a difference between a calculated hunt and just running around willy nilly shooting at wanted players.
There has to be a structure for Bounty Hunters.
|
DaReaper
|
Posted - 2005.09.23 03:11:00 -
[80]
well they could just add a bounty hunter skill. that each level allows you to hunt down rats over say -2 in each sec space. so either, lvl 1 means you can hunt in .1 with no sec hit, to lvl 5 which allows you to hunt in .5 with no sec hit. This keeps the higher regions where most bountyed/low sec rats can;t go open.
|
X3X3X
|
Posted - 2005.09.23 04:41:00 -
[81]
I am inclined to agree with Dhai. Why over complicate it? His suggestion seems easy enough.
-
My posts on this forum do not represent the views of Eye of God or Ascendent Frontier. They are my words.
|
Berak FalCheran
|
Posted - 2005.09.23 05:15:00 -
[82]
Originally by: Cyborg 0627
Bounty Hunters are not vigilantes.
uhh... yeah, they are.
Quote:
every other rediculous post here about how some 'good guys' should be able to go fight 'bad guys' without taking security hits, or whatever (turning into 'bad guys', i guess)
no. <-- end of story.
concord already has plenty of rules that are fair enough. you love it.
|
Lansfear
|
Posted - 2005.09.23 16:54:00 -
[83]
Need more info from pc rats on how they'd want to be hunted. Pc rats get all the fun. 
|
Caeden Nicomachean
|
Posted - 2005.09.23 17:16:00 -
[84]
People like the above -10 pirate are just going to slam bounty hunting mechanics wholesale until the devs make it clear it will happen and start adding stuff in. It is going to make more people hunt them, so they'll act imperious about it - but that means doodley squat.
The main thing is the security hit. Hunting pirate filth doesn't need to be profitable, but empire space access should be the bennie of spending your time stomping on goobers. You just give up your concord protection for it, simple.
War decs for pirate hunting doesn't cut it.
|
Bruchpilot
|
Posted - 2005.09.23 17:27:00 -
[85]
All the Loot guys should stay away from this topic, realy. You camp gates at 170km which gives you safety. Well, it's CCPs fault but don't flame the people who actually give you a competition in this game.
I hate NPCing but sometimes I have to do it cause I have to fix my sec rating and need money for new ships. I earn no money with this. EVE doesn't reward roleplayers. CCP, fix it please!
|
Agricola Augusta
|
Posted - 2005.09.24 12:36:00 -
[86]
How about this for an idea?
After you kill the pirate you have to return his body to a concord agent. Upon recieving and identifying the corpse you get the bounty paid and any sec hit incurred for destroying the pirate's ship/pod (sec status for 1 ship destruction and 1 podding no more) is erased.
Also anyone may turn in the corpse for the reward, but only the player that podded the pirate can claim the sec status too. Once the pirate is podded he/she loses the bounty and the bounty is transfered to the corpse.
And if you say "but if I don't get the corpse/destroy his/her ship I lose sec status!" my advice is go after a -5 pirate and stop whinging like a big girl's blouse!
|
Caeden Nicomachean
|
Posted - 2005.09.24 14:18:00 -
[87]
Originally by: Agricola Augusta
How about this for an idea?
After you kill the pirate you have to return his body to a concord agent. Upon recieving and identifying the corpse you get the bounty paid and any sec hit incurred for destroying the pirate's ship/pod (sec status for 1 ship destruction and 1 podding no more) is erased.
Also anyone may turn in the corpse for the reward, but only the player that podded the pirate can claim the sec status too. Once the pirate is podded he/she loses the bounty and the bounty is transfered to the corpse.
And if you say "but if I don't get the corpse/destroy his/her ship I lose sec status!" my advice is go after a -5 pirate and stop whinging like a big girl's blouse!
I'd be down for that. Small ammount of hauling exchanged for long hours of npcing.
Really anything that lessens the NPC drudgery. I'd give up gate protection everywhere in the game for it. And I lean in this direction - up the ante for the folks who want to hunt, make their lives more dangerous as the price. I'd give up safety, but not ability to work the markets to hunt bad people.
|
Murphy
|
Posted - 2005.09.24 16:10:00 -
[88]
Right now the lower your security status the more limited you are on going into higher sec systems due to concord blowing you up. Just change it to where concord doesn't do anything, but players can.
for example a player with -2.0 can't go into a 1.0 system without concord blowing him up. So you change it to where when the player with -2.0 goes into a 1.0 system players can blow up his ship and pod without concord response or a security penalty. Of course the player with the negative security status can defend himself once he's shot.
-------------------
|
Lansfear
|
Posted - 2005.09.24 16:20:00 -
[89]
This would bring into play player police forces being a viable role. I love it. Also pc rats wouldnt need to worry about concord instakilling them unless they commit a crime in secure space, and hunters can still go after them.
Would make things in Empire extremely interesting.
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 [3] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |