| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Solo Player
9
   |
Posted - 2011.10.22 23:30:00 -
[1] - Quote
Most elegant! +1 |
Solo Player
15
|
Posted - 2011.10.25 23:32:00 -
[2] - Quote
paritybit wrote:I'd like to see this tied to killrights so that miscreants can't simply place a bounty on people that smiled at them the wrong way (you can do that the unofficial way). So you could only place a bounty if you had killrights and placing a bounty would use your killrights. I'd also like to see killrights changed so that they are granted any time a pilot GCCs and successfully destroys the target. As they are now, you won't get killrights if you return fire which includes ECM, tracking disruptors and other "defensive" measures. This would make criminality more of a choice and people might start thinking before they shoot and before you know it people are flying into low-sec because it's not simply instant helldeath. Who am I kidding, it wouldn't change anything -- but there would be a plethora of bounties for pilots to collect. Some good ideas and discussion at this guy's blog and it's from a pirate perspective. I was against voiding insurance because I thought it would penalize criminals too much -- but some pirates convinced me they were okay with it. Seems like it's the best solution.
While it makes a lot of sense to tie the question of kill rights into this (much like the insurance dilemma), I fear this would overload this proposal and thus reduce its chances to get to CCP. Thing is, there are quite a few proposals on kill rights out there, and I'm not sure we'd get the uncontested best in this proposal, making it more likely that someone will shoot this bird down on its way to Iceland.
What's more, the suggested changes here would work in their own - making the kill harder for sure, often completly illegal, but still possibly worthwhile.
One small change I would suggest: let it not be CONCORD that keeps track of bounties but Pend Insurance. It's just silly if CONCORD pops you and then hands out the bounty for the kill it popped you for. :) |
Solo Player
17
|
Posted - 2011.10.26 23:37:00 -
[3] - Quote
One thing that just occurred to me: have you considered the ramification this poses for newer, relatively poor players that might get griefed with a huge bounty just for lulz? How badly might that impact on them and their prospects of going about their business or moving out to low or null sec eventually, and how could they rid their toon of the huge target sign they'd carry around that way? |
Solo Player
18
|
Posted - 2011.10.27 20:02:00 -
[4] - Quote
Qvar Dar'Zanar wrote:1. Who's going to pay for the bounty? Because if I want to put a bounty on X's head, I can't do it depending on if he's going to fly a shuttle or a titan when he decides to get killed.
And obviously CONCORD isn't going to pay it since are the players who decide who has a bounty on his head.
Bounties only apply up to the amount the vengeful player originally entered. As soon as that is covered, things continue as before the bounty was set. Bounty hunters will not get a higher bounty just because they destroyed stuff that was worth a lot more than the bounty.
Quote:2. Adding insurances to the bounty? Do you really think anyone is going to pay for an insurance that, if they get destroyed, they arent going to recive back?
Nobody is, unless they want to get rid of the bounty sooner. But that's part of the point, isn't it? |
Solo Player
18
|
Posted - 2011.10.27 20:11:00 -
[5] - Quote
Ogopogo Mu wrote:Currently I believe bountying a pilot requires that the pilot have -1.0 or lower security. If, in the scenario you describe, New Bee goes around pissing people off and winding up with -1.0 security simultaneously, I don't see a problem with someone shoving a huge bounty on him. If that's a problem for him, he can stay in hisec where it's less likely that he will be killed by bounty hunters, until he winds up at -5.0 security status, at which point he knows what he's getting into, unless he's a complete idiot. In either case, I don't see the problem. 
I can see how that makes sense for the case I specified. But I'm not sure I like it. There should be a way to place a bounty on anyone who crossed you. Maybe limit bounties to the net worth of the bountied (is that even a word?) player's assets? Or possibly, to not reveal actual net worth that way, to the average net worth of characters of the target toon's age. I'm sure the Good Doctor has a curve for just that lying about somewhere.
|
Solo Player
18
|
Posted - 2011.10.27 20:57:00 -
[6] - Quote
Ogopogo Mu wrote: I just want to propose a relatively simple mathematical solution to a long-broken system.
Regarding character age/assets: I unsubbed for a long time (twice), and so I don't have the SP or ISK/assets you might expect based merely on toon age. Some other characters are disproportionately rich/poor, for whatever reason, and you can always hide assets on a second account if you want.
That's why I suggested that limit - it's not perfect (heck, this toon is worth ~5000isk plus a noobship at a few years of age! ;) ), but it would restrict abuse of bounties to grief new players with a simple mechanic. I believe -1.0 sec is just too limiting and would reduce a bounty hunter's choice of targets significantly.
|
Solo Player
19
|
Posted - 2011.10.28 06:49:00 -
[7] - Quote
How about you let Pend take the stance that a bounty increases their risk and thus have them reduce the base ship value the insurance payout is calculated from by the part of the ships's value the bounty hunter is to receive? If we let Pend handle bounties, they'd be in a good position to do just that.
Also, I'm not sure the insurance should go to the bounty hunter. Too much impact on newish players that are frivolously bountied (in relation to those that aren't. I still think insurance should take into account insured player's sec status and ship loss history when calculating insurance premium and possibly refuse payout for CONCORD-involved kills.). |
Solo Player
20
|
Posted - 2011.10.28 15:56:00 -
[8] - Quote
Ogopogo Mu wrote:
If you mean that players get no insurance when CONCORD is on their killmail, I think that makes sense but it's out of scope for this proposal.
I did, and I agree about the scope. Best get this implemented as suggested for now and fix insurance later to make it even better.
...though it still grates badly that the bountied players will be able to get rid of the bounty at much lower cost than that of the guy who set up the bounty.  |
Solo Player
45
|
Posted - 2011.10.30 15:47:00 -
[9] - Quote
*bump*
@Trebor, Vile:
You posted your support for this - how are you planning to proceed?
Thing is, not much discussion is forthcoming since interested parties are mostly in agreement that this would be a good thing, and no discussion means the issue will be lost in oblivion (page 2 of the Hall) soon. |
Solo Player
53
|
Posted - 2011.11.01 14:41:00 -
[10] - Quote
Trebor Daehdoow wrote:I've already pointed people to the thread. If it gets a few more pages of discussion, I'll push harder.
One issue is that it's a "game design" proposal, ie: a specific change proposal as opposed to "fix bounties". Certain people inside CCP hate such direct "do this, dumbasses" proposals.
I feel a strong urge to loudly yell certain angry words at reading this.
Why the hell have an "ideas and suggestions" board and then a dedicated "assembly hall" board for pushing proposed changes further if you hate them??
If they just want to assess the relative frustrations of players regarding different areas of the game ("fix bounties" vs. "fix insurance" or the like), they could do this a lot easier for both us and themselves. This makes no sense!
|
Solo Player
60
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 21:41:00 -
[11] - Quote
I gather concordokened insurance payouts are rumored to be gone from Sisi. While I'm aware there may be ways around this (get killed before CONCORD arrives, for one), how - if at all - would this affect the proposed bounty system?
(Also *bump* - shouldn't let this one rot on page two anytime soon!) |
Solo Player
78
|
Posted - 2011.11.26 20:37:00 -
[12] - Quote
Indeed. We want to know which session exactly CSM members are planning to bring this up in. Broken systems? |
| |
|