Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 4 post(s) |
Ratmuss
Children of Prophecy
2
|
Posted - 2013.02.14 14:13:00 -
[61] - 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.
|
Mag's
the united Negative Ten.
14054
|
Posted - 2013.02.14 14:14:00 -
[62] - Quote
Now I'm not even sure, you know what you're disagreeing with. Being as you're saying what I'm saying.
Vote Malcanis for CSM 8 |
Whitehound
805
|
Posted - 2013.02.14 14:22:00 -
[63] - Quote
Mag's wrote:Now I'm not even sure, you know what you're disagreeing with. Being as you're saying what I'm saying. I disagree with your statement:
"You shouldn't base game changes, on anecdotal evidence or assumptions."
It makes no sense, because you do look for evidence (anecdotal, hidden, odd, strange, funny or otherwise) and you do make assumptions.
Perhaps explain to me why one shouldn't do it. SCAM CAT - Titan Jump - I was there - Goon Dog |
Mag's
the united Negative Ten.
14054
|
Posted - 2013.02.14 14:26:00 -
[64] - Quote
The OP suggested a change that required us to jump through hoops, because he assumed that 3/4 of people had bounties.
That's why I said what I said. No dev in their right mind would say, "Oh look, 3/4 of people have bounties, let's change them."
What is it with you white? Good god man, you even said the same but in a different way ffs.
Vote Malcanis for CSM 8 |
Karak Terrel
As Far As The eYe can see Chained Reactions
184
|
Posted - 2013.02.14 14:27:00 -
[65] - Quote
Whitehound wrote: First of all is nobody here talking about the total average except for a couple of forum warriors who want to win a non-existing argument as they always do. No news here.
I'm pretty sure someone was talking about a total average of 3/4 of players with a bounty on their head. That's where my response was aimed at.
Whitehound wrote: Now for a player who lives in high-sec will the number of players with an active bounty be higher. Just stay long enough in Jita and players will give you a bounty if you do not have one already, because they only need to look at the icons.
And just stay long enough in Jita and players will shoot your ship into pieces and claim the bounty. I suggest you read one of the QEN about the distribution of ship kills or take a look at ship kills per hour on your star map to validate what i just said.
Whitehound wrote: The dev blog, when looking at the pie chart for the sec levels, then only shows the amount of total ISKs claimed per sec level. It is then important to understand that a bounty can disappear if enough of it is being claimed. So since the ISKs claimed in 0.0 is much higher than for high-sec will this mean that there are a lot more unclaimed bounties to be found in high-sec than in 0.0.
That doesn't follow at all. That's just your gut feelings, nothing more.
Whitehound wrote: Just because it is not written pink on black so you can get it, does not mean one cannot draw conclusion out of those numbers.
And yet you try to draw conclusions out of thin air and think that is somehow superior to an approximation based on related data.
Whitehound wrote:You get this now? No dad, I don't get you at all |
Whitehound
805
|
Posted - 2013.02.14 14:29:00 -
[66] - Quote
Mag's wrote:The OP suggested a change that required us to jump through hoops, because he assumed that 3/4 of people had bounties.
That's why I said what I said. No dev in their right mind would say, "Oh look, 3/4 of people have bounties, let's change them." Why not? You have based your assumption that no changes are needed on the average value of 3.4%, because you believe it is a low enough number, meaning it represents only a minority. Do you then know what an imbalance is and what an imbalance in bounties could look like? ...
@Karak Terrel: I won't reply to your comment as I do not want to run two conversations and you already seem to be happy with just picking the crumbs out of my comments. SCAM CAT - Titan Jump - I was there - Goon Dog |
Mag's
the united Negative Ten.
14058
|
Posted - 2013.02.14 14:30:00 -
[67] - Quote
Whitehound wrote:Mag's wrote:The OP suggested a change that required us to jump through hoops, because he assumed that 3/4 of people had bounties.
That's why I said what I said. No dev in their right mind would say, "Oh look, 3/4 of people have bounties, let's change them." Why not? You have based your assumption that no changes are needed on the average value of 3.4%, because you believe it is a low enough number, meaning it represents only a minority. Do you then know what an imbalance is and what an imbalance in bounties could look like? ... Mkay.
Vote Malcanis for CSM 8 |
Planetary Mnemonic
NightFall Division
1
|
Posted - 2013.02.14 14:31:00 -
[68] - Quote
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 |
Mag's
the united Negative Ten.
14058
|
Posted - 2013.02.14 14:33:00 -
[69] - Quote
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.
Vote Malcanis for CSM 8 |
Karak Terrel
As Far As The eYe can see Chained Reactions
185
|
Posted - 2013.02.14 14:38:00 -
[70] - Quote
Whitehound wrote: It makes no sense, because you do look for evidence (anecdotal, hidden, odd, strange, funny or otherwise) and you do make assumptions.
Perhaps explain to me why one shouldn't do it.
Because they are statistically irrelevant, which means they are completely worthless? Why do I even have to explain this.. oh wait this is a discussion on the internet.. right. |
|
Whitehound
806
|
Posted - 2013.02.14 14:39:00 -
[71] - Quote
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. SCAM CAT - Titan Jump - I was there - Goon Dog |
Skorpynekomimi
427
|
Posted - 2013.02.14 14:39:00 -
[72] - Quote
Planetary Mnemonic wrote:Interesting, I assume there is a way to look that up but I didn't know about it. When i say 3/4 of the people have bounties on them, I mean I actually right clicked a bunch of people in dodoxi local one day while bored, and that about 3 out of 4 active players in local had a bounty on them. Reality in dodoxi verses statistics game wide
That's because it's a trade hub. There's lowsec pvp nearby, mission runner and miners, the new order's moved in, and there's a bunch of scammers around. I've been getting mails in the last week for slapping a couple of mil on a scam-spammer in local.
Bounty system seems to work. |
Mag's
the united Negative Ten.
14060
|
Posted - 2013.02.14 14:43:00 -
[73] - Quote
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.
Vote Malcanis for CSM 8 |
Ratmuss
Children of Prophecy
3
|
Posted - 2013.02.14 14:47:00 -
[74] - 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. |
Mag's
the united Negative Ten.
14060
|
Posted - 2013.02.14 14:51:00 -
[75] - Quote
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.
Vote Malcanis for CSM 8 |
Whitehound
806
|
Posted - 2013.02.14 14:55:00 -
[76] - Quote
Karak Terrel wrote:Whitehound wrote: It makes no sense, because you do look for evidence (anecdotal, hidden, odd, strange, funny or otherwise) and you do make assumptions.
Perhaps explain to me why one shouldn't do it.
Because they are statistically irrelevant, which means they are completely worthless? Why do I even have to explain this.. oh wait this is a discussion on the internet.. right. All you are explaining to me is that you do not understand it. I'll help...
With an "imbalance in bounties" do I not mean the ratio of players with bounties versus players without bounties. In fact, I believe that it should be completely acceptable to have 100% at one point in time and as long as it is not a permanent state.
What I then mean by an "imbalance in bounties" is the distribution of bounties among those players who have one.
What if all those 3.4% could always only be found in 0.0? Or what if they were all in high-sec?
Such things need to be looked at, because you do not want to have every rookie in high-sec running around with a bounty while they are new to the game.
Does this make sense to you? (I doubt it ) SCAM CAT - Titan Jump - I was there - Goon Dog |
Ratmuss
Children of Prophecy
3
|
Posted - 2013.02.14 15:02:00 -
[77] - 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. |
Whitehound
806
|
Posted - 2013.02.14 15:04:00 -
[78] - 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. In real-life is placing a bounty often a criminal act (in some countries). He seems to suggest to make it one in New Eden as well. I think he is making a fair point. I just do not believe CCP will take the technical effort, which is behind this. Increasing the minimum is in my opinion a better and simpler way. If someone wants to place lots of bounties when the minimum is like 10m ISK then why not?! SCAM CAT - Titan Jump - I was there - Goon Dog |
Mag's
the united Negative Ten.
14060
|
Posted - 2013.02.14 15:05:00 -
[79] - Quote
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.
Vote Malcanis for CSM 8 |
Mag's
the united Negative Ten.
14060
|
Posted - 2013.02.14 15:09:00 -
[80] - Quote
Whitehound 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. In real-life is placing a bounty often a criminal act (in some countries). He seems to suggest to make it one in New Eden as well. I think he is making a fair point. I just do not believe CCP will take the technical effort, which is behind this. Increasing the minimum is in my opinion a better and simpler way. If someone wants to place lots of bounties when the minimum is like 10m ISK then why not?! This isn't real life and an NPC standing is meaningless to how someone feels about another. You don't need an NPC standing, to be an arse.
As far as raising the lower amount is concerned, I already said I can see the argument for it. We just need to be aware of new pilots, with any change.
Vote Malcanis for CSM 8 |
|
Whitehound
807
|
Posted - 2013.02.14 15:21:00 -
[81] - Quote
Mag's wrote:It's still an NPC standing and irrelevant to the player led standing bounty system. And why do you believe should CONCORD be looking away? So you can be a nice carebear with a 5.0 sec status??
Other than this do I not see your point. The fact that the sec status is an NPC standing is at best a meaningless coincidence. It sure is not a point when it could be implemented in such a way. CONCORD is already looking at fights in high-sec, decides over wars and takes money of alliances. I see no problem for them to get involved in bounties, too.
It may only not fit into CCP's long-term plans on what the role of CONCORD shall be. I think we all want less CONCORD, but it does not quite work without them. Maybe it never will... SCAM CAT - Titan Jump - I was there - Goon Dog |
Mag's
the united Negative Ten.
14061
|
Posted - 2013.02.14 15:29:00 -
[82] - Quote
Whitehound wrote:Mag's wrote:It's still an NPC standing and irrelevant to the player led standing bounty system. And why do you believe should CONCORD be looking away? So you can be a nice carebear with a 5.0 sec status?? Other than this do I not see your point. The fact that the sec status is an NPC standing is at best a meaningless coincidence. It sure is not a point when it could be implemented in such a way. CONCORD is already looking at fights in high-sec, decides over wars and takes money of alliances. I see no problem for them to get involved in bounties, too. It may only not fit into CCP's long-term plans on what the role of CONCORD shall be. I think we all want less CONCORD, but it does not quite work without them. Maybe it never will... Well Concord do look when it matters and then they punish those nasty pilots.
The main issue I have with linking it to an NPC standing, is it's limiting factor. If someone with a very high sec status is scamming or whatever, people shouldn't be punished for wanting them wanted.
Many want Concord removed. I personally think they are necessary and should stay, but they shouldn't be included in the bounty system.
Edit: Should = Shouldn't.
Vote Malcanis for CSM 8 |
Ratmuss
Children of Prophecy
3
|
Posted - 2013.02.14 15:42:00 -
[83] - 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. |
Whitehound
808
|
Posted - 2013.02.14 15:51:00 -
[84] - Quote
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. SCAM CAT - Titan Jump - I was there - Goon Dog |
Ratmuss
Children of Prophecy
3
|
Posted - 2013.02.14 15:56:00 -
[85] - 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. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
12887
|
Posted - 2013.02.14 15:56:00 -
[86] - Quote
I'm worth more than all alliances and all but three corps.
Of course it's a good idea!
/epeen Vote Malcanis for CSM8. |
Mag's
the united Negative Ten.
14061
|
Posted - 2013.02.14 15:59:00 -
[87] - Quote
Ratmuss wrote:
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.
Sec status is controlled and issued by Concord, thus making it an NPC mechanic. This doesn't mean people cannot use it, nor does it mean when they do, it becomes a player mechanic. It still remains an NPC mechanic.
Ratmuss wrote: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. To what end? What's the point in this change, when NPC standings are meaningless?
Also, Whitehound's post nailed it.
Vote Malcanis for CSM 8 |
Whitehound
809
|
Posted - 2013.02.14 16:00:00 -
[88] - Quote
Ratmuss wrote: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. A station might simply be unreachable for them. SCAM CAT - Titan Jump - I was there - Goon Dog |
Debora Tsung
The Investment Bankers Guild
51
|
Posted - 2013.02.14 16:06:00 -
[89] - Quote
Whitehound wrote:It has a few oddities in how it pays out the bounties as it can happen for dead players to receive a payout, too, even when they have lost in a fight. This is the case when CONCORD or another police force kills a player does it then simply pick the first next player involved in the fight. To me does this make little sense as I see bounties as a reward and dying in the process just does not fit in here.
I am also not sure how it is handled when two corporation members (of the same corporation) kill each other and their corporation has a bounty on it. From what I have read does it then pay out the corporation bounty to the corporation members, which again makes little sense to me.
Since the bounty payout is only 20% of the forcefully decomissioned ship, it does make sense. You (the despicable person that voluntarily stays in a corporation that most assuredly encourages antisocial behaviour) loose more than You earn when You kill Your corp mates.
EDIT: that is to say, the corp as a whole looses more than it earns. You however, despicable and antisocial as You are earn ISK in the process. I say kill them all, get rich and the leave the corp. There's nothing a million chinese guys can't do cheaper. |
Angelique Duchemin
Divine Intentions
4
|
Posted - 2013.02.14 16:20:00 -
[90] - Quote
The two issues that need to be addressed before we can even have a functional bounty system is that having a bounty should be a bad thing and placing one should not be something you can do lightly.
Placing a bounty on someone who deserves it is meaningless because you're just feeding their ego and placing a bounty can be done so lightly that it's become greatly abused.
One option could be to limit the amount of bounties a person can place. Perhaps related to a bounty skill that enables you to place 2 bounties per level.
Lets be hones, since the launch of eve, bounties have never had a single practical application other than ruining the mid sized portrait for regular players and feeding the ego of pirates. No one could say that they "need" to place a bounty at the moment. Making people train a skill to place a bounty would mean that only people who feel really strongly about placing a bounty on someone specific would be able to do so. At the same time, limiting the bounties to 10 per player means they won't be used as lightly as they are today. In order to place a new bounty after you reached your cap you would have to revoke an old one. Doing so would make you lose the credits offered on the bounty to keep people from using the bounty system as banks.
As for how we can make having a bounty a bad thing. I don't see any way to make that happen. Perhaps fixed bounty tiers were if you get poded or your ship destroyed by someone, you can place a bounty on them and at certain amounts of ISK the bounty would negatively effect their security status. Say 200 million ISK per tier with a max of 1 billion to insure the maximum amount of sec loss for that bounty. Revoking the bounty would restore the sec status to that person.
It would of course be combined with the bounty skill to limit the amount of bounties you can place.
Personally I would just throw away the entire bounty system until they can implement it in a way that it works. Having a broken system that can't even accomplish its own sole purpose makes no sense. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |