| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 4 post(s) |
Ratmuss
Children of Prophecy
2
   |
Posted - 2013.02.14 14:13:00 -
[1] - Quote
The bounty system should be open to all, but when a "Law-Abiding" citizen, AKA "carebear", places bounties, there should be some negative effects on their public standing.
Suggestions:
- Placing Bounties on players with positive sec status costs the issuer sec status.
- The higher the bounty's sec status, the greater the minimum cost. Substantial enough that putting a hit on an otherwise "upstanding citizen" too often can lead to "legal" problems in Hisec.
- Set a cap on number of active bounties per account. 10 is a good number. If people have issues with more than 10 people, they should be placing bounties on corps, or alliances.
|
Ratmuss
Children of Prophecy
3
|
Posted - 2013.02.14 14:47:00 -
[2] - Quote
Mag's wrote:Whitehound wrote:Mag's wrote:Planetary Mnemonic wrote:Ratmuss wrote:The bounty system should be open to all, but when a "Law-Abiding" citizen, AKA "carebear", places bounties, there should be some negative effects on their public standing.
Suggestions:
- Placing Bounties on players with positive sec status costs the issuer sec status.
- The higher the bounty's sec status, the greater the minimum cost. Substantial enough that putting a hit on an otherwise "upstanding citizen" too often can lead to "legal" problems in Hisec.
- Set a cap on number of active bounties per account. 10 is a good number. If people have issues with more than 10 people, they should be placing bounties on corps, or alliances.
Yes, this is a good way to vastly lessen the crap bounties you see everywhere, give a consequence to putting multiple bounties without damaging the rest of the bounty system. +1 lol Except that bounties are a player standings led mechanic, so NPC standings are irrelevant. He seems to be talking about the sec status and not NPC standings. He's talking about peoples sec status. Which is an NPC standing.
When sec status goes below a certain level, players can attack them with impunity, thus is is not exclusively an NPC standing. |
Ratmuss
Children of Prophecy
3
|
Posted - 2013.02.14 15:02:00 -
[3] - Quote
Mag's wrote:Ratmuss wrote:Mag's wrote:He's talking about peoples sec status. Which is an NPC standing. When sec status goes below a certain level, players can attack them with impunity, thus is is not exclusively an NPC standing. And? Just because people use it, doesn't make it not an NPC standing. It's given and taken away by Concord, who just so happens to be an NPC.
...And? If Concord can frown upon attacking innocent citizens, Concord can frown upon placing bounties on upstanding citizens.
...And? i didn't say it was not an NPC standing, i said it wasn't exclusively and NPC standing. |
Ratmuss
Children of Prophecy
3
|
Posted - 2013.02.14 15:42:00 -
[4] - Quote
Mag's wrote:Ratmuss wrote:Mag's wrote:Ratmuss wrote:Mag's wrote:He's talking about peoples sec status. Which is an NPC standing. When sec status goes below a certain level, players can attack them with impunity, thus is is not exclusively an NPC standing. And? Just because people use it, doesn't make it not an NPC standing. It's given and taken away by Concord, who just so happens to be an NPC. ...And? If Concord can frown upon attacking innocent citizens, Concord can frown upon placing bounties on upstanding citizens. ...And? i didn't say it was not an NPC standing, i said it wasn't exclusively and NPC standing. It's still an NPC standing and irrelevant to the player led standing bounty system. Thanks for posting.
I disagree, good sir.
Sec status is modified by (and not exclusively to) Concord's monitoring of player actions against other players. Placing bounties in Hisec, is by definition, player action against other players and should fall under Concord Jurisdiction.
As an amendment to my previous suggestions:
- Bounties could only be placed while in stations, and only stations in NULL or Losec would be immune to Concord's influence on the issuer's standing.
Would that address your concerns?
Besides, the value of concord is altogether another topic. My posts are made working with the current Concordian systems in place. |
Ratmuss
Children of Prophecy
3
|
Posted - 2013.02.14 15:56:00 -
[5] - Quote
Whitehound wrote:Ratmuss wrote:- Bounties could only be placed while in stations, and only stations in NULL or Losec would be immune to Concord's influence on the issuer's standing. This makes no sense for W-space hooligans, 0.0 POS dwellers and AFK cloakers.
Could you elaborate on what doesn't make sense? when i said Bounties could only be placed in stations, i meant:
The issuer must go to a station to place the bounty with a bounty NPC; the target can be in space - anywhere in the universe. |
Ratmuss
Children of Prophecy
3
|
Posted - 2013.02.14 16:31:00 -
[6] - Quote
Hows this then? (for issuing)
Minimum bounty 10 mill
Maximum number of bounties 3 per lvl of Criminal Connections
(once max is reached, one bounty must be revoked before issuing another) |
Ratmuss
Children of Prophecy
3
|
Posted - 2013.02.14 16:45:00 -
[7] - Quote
Whitehound wrote:Ratmuss wrote:Maximum number of bounties 3 per lvl of Criminal Connections Interesting. I'd like to add another to this: - Reduction of the payout from 20% to 5% - A new skill Bounty Negotiations, which gives 5% extra payout per level with a maximum of 30% at level 5.
that would work. people who want to play the role of BH can train for it and have more ability/reward. everyone could place a bounty if it tickles their fancy, but Bounty Hunters would have a real advantage.
I would add prereqs:
Social III
Negotiation III
Security Conenctions IV
Criminal Connections III
|
Ratmuss
Children of Prophecy
4
|
Posted - 2013.02.14 16:54:00 -
[8] - Quote
Mag's wrote:Whitehound wrote:Mag's wrote:Ratmuss wrote:Hows this then? (for issuing)
Minimum bounty 10 mill
Maximum number of bounties 3 per lvl of Criminal Connections
(once max is reached, one bounty must be revoked before issuing another) Why? Honestly, I can only think of two reasons... because training skills is fun and it should have been in there right from the start!!  I can see the logic to your idea. You're making it have meaning and giving it more of a focus towards bounty hunting. His ideas so far, just look at limiting bounties. As the system has only just been delimited, it seems odd to go backwards.
the idea is to reduce rampant bounty spam.
not to limit, but to rationalize. |
Ratmuss
Children of Prophecy
4
|
Posted - 2013.02.14 16:55:00 -
[9] - Quote
Whitehound wrote:Mag's wrote:His ideas so far, just look at limiting bounties. As the system has only just been delimited, it's odd to go backwards. His idea is brilliant, because it is just funny.  Run it through your head a few times... you need to train Criminal Connections in order to place bounties! I want to train. The value itself seems low and I would probably vote for like 10 bounties per level. It leaves plenty of room for casual bounties but stops the nutters, who place 50 bounties per day on random players. I am sure EVE has got such players...
as in real life, to be a successful bounty hunter, you should have connections with lowlifes :) |
Ratmuss
Children of Prophecy
4
|
Posted - 2013.02.14 17:00:00 -
[10] - Quote
Mag's wrote:Ratmuss wrote:
the idea is to reduce rampant bounty spam.
not to limit, but to rationalize.
What rampant bounty spam?
the posts of people claiming to sit on gates and put bounties on people as they enter systems
the posts from players saying WTF!!! bounty on me, but why??
but yeah you're right, rampant was perhaps too strong a word. |
Ratmuss
Children of Prophecy
4
|
Posted - 2013.02.14 17:11:00 -
[11] - Quote
Mag's wrote:Ratmuss wrote:Mag's wrote:Ratmuss wrote:
the idea is to reduce rampant bounty spam.
not to limit, but to rationalize.
What rampant bounty spam? the posts of people claiming to sit on gates and put bounties on people as they enter systems the posts from players saying WTF!!! bounty on me, but why?? but yeah you're right, rampant was perhaps too strong a word. They have every right to do that. It's not yours or my place, to dictate the reason people have for placing bounties. Anyway, CCP have already nailed the rampant suggestion. I'm simply surprised, people are still trying to flog that dead horse.
No one is dictating. We're having a discussion on idea's to improve game systems.
It is in everyone's interest to make suggestions. We have every right to make suggestions.
You, however, only seem to shoot ideas down with no constructive comments or contribution to the thread.
Thank YOU for posting.
|
| |
|