|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
1058
|
Posted - 2011.11.11 07:17:00 -
[1] - Quote
Now that CCP are ~doing stuff~, I'd like to see one of the longest-standing gameplay issues get a little attention.
So imagine that you put a 500M bounty on Malcanis, whom I'm sure we all agree richly deserves it. Under the current system, I will simply jump to an empty clone and pod himself with an alt, collecting your 500 mill, less the cost of a new clone. Malcanis: 480,000,000 You: 0. The current system is worthless to you.
Transferrable killrights tied to bounty contracts, with payouts based on hull and destroyed module value are the most obvious solution, with plenty of scope to make exploitation reasonably difficult. That stops me using a Joe Random alt to create the bounty, although it might enourage me to use bait alts (I am OK with people doing this).
For instance, we could design the contract system so that the person placing the bounty contract can restrict who can accept that bounty by taking a cue from the fleet finder; the bounty contract could be restricted to "People in my corp" "People in my alliance" "People I have set a positive standing" or even "anyone I haven't set a negative standing" or just "anyone". The looser the restrictions you set, the more people can accept it and show me their ammo, but the greater the chance that someone you don't want to accept it (ie: me or my friends) will be able to collect.
Likewise, bounty hunters could accept for themselves, for their corp or for their alliance. Bounty contracts accepted on behalf of corp/alliance are paid direct to corp/alliance when collected. This is to encourage the formation of bounty hunting corps/alliances, who would encourage aggrieved bounty-placers to set them blue, and who would thereby depend on their reputations. It allows groups of less powerful players to work together to collect a bounty, but it also allows for solo bounty hunters. Bounty hunting corps which carelessly allow Malcanis alts into their ranks to "steal" the bounty contracts will quickly lose their reputation and be excluded from further business.
And the payout per kill on the bounty should be limited to less than the irretrievable loss from that kill, allowing the bounty payout to cover multiple losses if it's high enough.
Under the system I envisage, I would have to have an alt who is in a corp or alliance you've set to +ve standings to even accept the bounty contract. That 500M bounty would then be paid out according to the losses that I suffer. For example, if my clone costs 20 mill, then the bounty paid for podding me would be 20M. If I was wearing a pair of +4 implants, which cost 12M +12k LP from the LP store, then a further 24M gets paid for podding me. Likewise, the bounty paid for destroying my ship would be 2/3 of the effective NPC value of the hull - which we could usefully define here as the cost of a platinum insurance premium. So if someone blows my Maelstrom up, they get ~35M or so (can't recall the exact value).
After the killrights expire, so does the bounty contract, with any remaining unpaid bounty being repaid. It might be worth extending killrights to 60 or 90 days, or possibly making them cumulative. But I am against making them last indefinitely.
This way even if I do manage to somehow get my alt in a position to accept the bounty, I will find it difficult and unprofitable to use that alt to collect it. Not impossible, but at least that way the bounty you place is very far from simply being a free gift as it is now. Malcanis' Law: Any proposal justified on the basis that "it will benefit new players" is invariably to the greater advantage of older, richer players.
Things to do in EVE:-áhttp://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/ |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
1069
|
Posted - 2011.11.11 09:55:00 -
[2] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:Actually, I just thought of something. What's to stop someone from essentially griefing someone by repeatedly putting up a bounty? A gentleman's agreement?
The bounty contract requires a killright.
Incidentally, in addition to the ability to restrict the contract offer to corp/alliance/standings, I'd like to add the ability to restrict the offer based on sec status. Malcanis' Law: Any proposal justified on the basis that "it will benefit new players" is invariably to the greater advantage of older, richer players.
Things to do in EVE:-áhttp://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/ |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
1074
|
Posted - 2011.11.11 11:34:00 -
[3] - Quote
Trebor Daehdoow wrote:A similar idea was proposed a few weeks ago. Working up a proposal is on my to-do list.
Excellent! A working bounty system will solve so many hi-sec issues, and create some really good gameplay possibilities.
The important thing is to plug as many of the exploitation holes as possible, and I like to think I've struck a good balance with my proposal.
(Coming up this weekend: Malc's thoughts on Wardecs) Malcanis' Law: Any proposal justified on the basis that "it will benefit new players" is invariably to the greater advantage of older, richer players.
Things to do in EVE:-áhttp://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/ |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
1074
|
Posted - 2011.11.11 11:54:00 -
[4] - Quote
Jagga Spikes wrote:Malcanis wrote:... And the payout per kill on the bounty should be limited to less than the irretrievable loss from that kill, allowing the bounty payout to cover multiple losses if it's high enough.
Under the system I envisage, I would have to have an alt who is in a corp or alliance you've set to +ve standings to even accept the bounty contract. That 500M bounty would then be paid out according to the losses that I suffer. For example, if my clone costs 20 mill, then the bounty paid for podding me would be 20M. If I was wearing a pair of +4 implants, which cost 12M +12k LP from the LP store, then a further 24M gets paid for podding me. Likewise, the bounty paid for destroying my ship would be 2/3 of the effective NPC value of the hull - which we could usefully define here as the cost of a platinum insurance premium. So if someone blows my Maelstrom up, they get ~35M or so (can't recall the exact value). ... value for value. this is the core of working bounty-hunting system. everything else is flavor.
Being able to restrict who can accept your contract is pretty important too. Malcanis' Law: Any proposal justified on the basis that "it will benefit new players" is invariably to the greater advantage of older, richer players.
Things to do in EVE:-áhttp://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/ |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
1074
|
Posted - 2011.11.11 14:33:00 -
[5] - Quote
HELIC0N ONE wrote:Something I thought of but haven't really worked through all the details of: what if the bounty hunter was paid out from a mixture of the bounty on the target's head and the criminal's normal insurance payout?
Nah I'm not in favour of that, because it penalises legitimate gameplay. The idea is to promote PvP, not discourage it. Malcanis' Law: Any proposal justified on the basis that "it will benefit new players" is invariably to the greater advantage of older, richer players.
Things to do in EVE:-áhttp://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/ |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
1081
|
Posted - 2011.11.12 07:37:00 -
[6] - Quote
Solo Player wrote:Trebor Daehdoow wrote:A similar idea was proposed a few weeks ago. Working up a proposal is on my to-do list. That one.Which I think is more elegant in its simplicity, even though it eschews the topic of kill-rights. Baby steps, you know? :)
Yeah his idea for how the bounty collection works is essentially the same as mine. In fact it's the same mechanism I've been promoting for the last 3 years or so. My proposal adds a mechanic for allowing those bounties to be collected in hi-sec - transferrable killrights - that I think is worth having, as well as refinements like being able to limit who collects that bounty which I think are essential to prevent exploitation. Malcanis' Law: Any proposal justified on the basis that "it will benefit new players" is invariably to the greater advantage of older, richer players.
Things to do in EVE:-áhttp://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/ |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
1081
|
Posted - 2011.11.12 07:50:00 -
[7] - Quote
Solo Player wrote:Fair enough.
Will you offer an amount of isk for people to come up with ways to exploit this in order to amend your proposal accordingly? ;)
Why don't you just post the exploit along with the fix to make me look dumb? Surely the pleasurable memory of doing that will warm your heart long after some petty sum of evanescent ISK would have been frittered away. Malcanis' Law: Any proposal justified on the basis that "it will benefit new players" is invariably to the greater advantage of older, richer players.
Things to do in EVE:-áhttp://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/ |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
1084
|
Posted - 2011.11.12 13:40:00 -
[8] - Quote
Jagga Spikes wrote:Malcanis wrote:...
Being able to restrict who can accept your contract is pretty important too. *shrug* as long as value paid is less than value destroyed. no matter what you try, you can never be sure who is actually accepting contract. imo, i don't think there needs to be contract. if someone has killrights and backs it with ISK, anyone can shoot the target and collect. tho, it might be interesting to limit who does collect. it could add flavor. or there could be both: public (market) and private (contract) bounties.
The important part of the contract is to transfer the killright, not the money. Malcanis' Law: Any proposal justified on the basis that "it will benefit new players" is invariably to the greater advantage of older, richer players.
Things to do in EVE:-áhttp://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/ |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
1084
|
Posted - 2011.11.12 13:43:00 -
[9] - Quote
Revolution Rising wrote:This idea has merit.
(See I don't hate you).
I'm OK with people hating me (or at any rate I'm used to it by now), but I prefer the criticism of my proposals to be based on facts, coherently expressed, and structured in a way that lets me actually understand what you are mad about. When people just copypasta rants from another thread entirely and shoot them at me as well, I don't feel as inclined to reply constructively. Malcanis' Law: Any proposal justified on the basis that "it will benefit new players" is invariably to the greater advantage of older, richer players.
Things to do in EVE:-áhttp://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/ |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
1085
|
Posted - 2011.11.12 16:59:00 -
[10] - Quote
Dro Nee wrote:Solo Player wrote:Trebor Daehdoow wrote:A similar idea was proposed a few weeks ago. Working up a proposal is on my to-do list. That one.Which I think is more elegant in its simplicity, even though it eschews the topic of kill-rights. Baby steps, you know? :) Plugging the "kill myself with an alt" hole is fine and good, but tying killrights to bounties is really what makes bounties work in the general sense. -- Allows for placing bounties on players who keep thier sec status up. -- Allows killing the bountied player in highsec or on gates/stations. -- No sec hit for attacking the bountied player. -- Prevents bounties from becoming a substitution for merc contracts.
Couldn't have put it better. Malcanis' Law: Any proposal justified on the basis that "it will benefit new players" is invariably to the greater advantage of older, richer players.
Things to do in EVE:-áhttp://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/ |
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
1429
|
Posted - 2011.12.15 20:22:00 -
[11] - Quote
Wolodymyr wrote:Malcanis wrote:So imagine that you put a 500M bounty on Malcanis, whom I'm sure we all agree richly deserves it. Under the current system, I will simply jump to an empty clone and pod himself with an alt, collecting your 500 mill, less the cost of a new clone. Malcanis: 480,000,000 You: 0. The current system is worthless to you. . Well for this just pay out the bounty a little bit at a time based on the value of the pod Lets say I have an 80 mil bounty on me. Someone pods me while I was in a 2 mil clone with 10 mil worth of implants. They get 12 mil and my bounty goes down to 68 mil. That way people would still get a reward for podding people with bounties, but I couldn't throw myself a "Pod party" to collect my own bounty because I'd only gain as much isk as I'd lose.
Well done for reading the rest of the proposal. Malcanis' Law: Any proposal justified on the basis that "it will benefit new players" is invariably to the greater advantage of older, richer players.
Things to do in EVE:-áhttp://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/ |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
1429
|
Posted - 2011.12.15 21:18:00 -
[12] - Quote
FloppieTheBanjoClown wrote:I don't like the idea of limiting bounties to kills, because there are more reasons for bounties than violence. Corp thieves, scammers, et cetera could all draw substantial bounties without firing a shot.
Agreed in principle, but how do you create a mechanic that allows corp thieves to have a bounty put on their head but that doesn't open any corp director who spends corp ISK to being killed for it?
FloppieTheBanjoClown wrote: Also, I'd love to see it used in times of war where an alliance could designate priority targets via internal bounty contracts, enabling them to put prices on the heads of certain enemies.
A bounty system that is based on killrights could conceivably mesh with the wardec system. Since the essence of a wardec is that it allows all of corp A and corp B to have mutual killrights, then members of corp A could put bounties on wartarget corp B that can only be collected by members of corp A. Malcanis' Law: Any proposal justified on the basis that "it will benefit new players" is invariably to the greater advantage of older, richer players.
Things to do in EVE:-áhttp://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/ |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
1432
|
Posted - 2011.12.16 00:04:00 -
[13] - Quote
Adoniah Carrefour wrote:Malcanis wrote:Solo Player wrote:Trebor Daehdoow wrote:A similar idea was proposed a few weeks ago. Working up a proposal is on my to-do list. That one.Which I think is more elegant in its simplicity, even though it eschews the topic of kill-rights. Baby steps, you know? :) Yeah his idea for how the bounty collection works is essentially the same as mine. In fact it's the same mechanism I've been promoting for the last 3 years or so. My proposal adds a mechanic for allowing those bounties to be collected in hi-sec - transferrable killrights - that I think is worth having, as well as refinements like being able to limit who collects that bounty which I think are essential to prevent exploitation. If you can't game the pay-out why limit who can collect? I do like that your mechanic allows Hunters to work in hi-sec.
You put a 500M bounty contract on me. I use an alt to accept the contract and do nothing with it.
30 days later the contract expires along with the killright, and you wasted your time, (plus whatever ISK I managed to shave off the bounty by having that alt kill an empty pod a few times)
If you make the payout available to anyone, then I can just burn off the bounty without even bothering to use an anonymous alt to sneak a contract. Malcanis' Law: Any proposal justified on the basis that "it will benefit new players" is invariably to the greater advantage of older, richer players.
Things to do in EVE:-áhttp://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/ |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
2566
|
Posted - 2012.01.09 14:58:00 -
[14] - Quote
Adoniah Carrefour wrote: OK .. I see that complication. What I meant was, isn't the easiest way around that to let anyone and everyone take the Bounties? Especially since the bounties themselves are going to be a percentage of the total bounty? Kill-rights for all until the Bounty has been paid out? That way even if you used an alt or friend to murder yourself (which still doesn't make sense because your loosing money on every kill) that would only be one of who knows how many people.
I think the Kill-Right angle might be a little much. Not because its not a good idea but because I think in practice, a working bounty system will used to grief. Justifiably maybe or in some cases not but if the amendments only affect payouts then at least a bountied criminal could hide in Sec-space. Kinda like going to prison, :P. If bounties worked, a huge number of players would go hunting. Huge. Its a thing. I'm new though so maybe I am missing something?
It's a good idea to examine any new proposal for exploitation potential, but my response to the "griefing" concern you have raised can be summed up in the old cliche:
"Don't do the crime if you can't do the time"
Re: your other query: If anyone or everyone can take the bounty, then it's too easy to burn it off with fullly insured T1 ships. Although the perp doesn't gain anything (actually he will take a small loss) he can make the person who placed the bounty lose his money without getting revenge. It would cost the perp maybe 5-10% of what the person who placed the bounty spent to nullify the effect. Being able to get rid of a 500M bounty by spending perhaps 25-50M isn't something that should be achievable without some clever gameplay. like infiltrating a bounty corp or corrupting one of their members. Malcanis' Law: Any proposal justified on the basis that "it will benefit new players" is invariably to the greater advantage of older, richer players.
Things to do in EVE:-áhttp://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/ |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
2575
|
Posted - 2012.01.10 11:42:00 -
[15] - Quote
Eperor wrote:FloppieTheBanjoClown wrote:I don't like the idea of limiting bounties to kills, because there are more reasons for bounties than violence. Corp thieves, scammers, et cetera could all draw substantial bounties without firing a shot.
Also, I'd love to see it used in times of war where an alliance could designate priority targets via internal bounty contracts, enabling them to put prices on the heads of certain enemies. Prpbably solution is crerate a online report system for tiefs. So to say CEO or corp Director reports thieves and puts bounty on his head. Any way Corp CEOs reporting them. So way not keep online data base of thos chars, and work with thos contracts wat was proposaled befor. This not include scamers.
Eperor is a thief. Malcanis' Law: Any proposal justified on the basis that "it will benefit new players" is invariably to the greater advantage of older, richer players.
Things to do in EVE:-áhttp://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/ |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
2589
|
Posted - 2012.01.12 15:43:00 -
[16] - Quote
Bienator II wrote:i like the idea of the contract system, however not necessarily as replacement for the current bounty mechanics.
as you pointed out current mechanics work like in the old wild west where death was obviously meaningfull, in eve it is not (why should you get the full bounty payout for killing someone in an empty clone? The bad guy does not care at all - he lost nothing). I would rather like to fix this first, make the bounty system eve-like. Contracts could be added on top of that - would be a really nice addition.
see my signature for a fixed, eve-like bounty system
Your idea for the bounty payout is essentially the same as mine, but it's open to the following simple exploit:
You put a 500M bounty on me I buy 12 drakes and platinum-insure them I kill me in those (unfitted) drakes with my alt or corpy, who consequently receives 60% of the value of each drake as reward I receive the full insurance value of each drake I make a moderate profit and remove the 500M bounty on my head in about 15 minutes. You have completely wasted your money, given me a small profit, and done no more than briefly inconvience me. (My killboard looks like ass now, but whatever.)
Being able to specify who can collect a bounty is absolutely essential to stop friends/alts of the criminal essentially negating the bounty in this way. Additionally, contracting a killright means that I can't "hide" in hi-sec and benefit from CONCORD protection. Malcanis' Law: Any proposal justified on the basis that "it will benefit new players" is invariably to the greater advantage of older, richer players.
Things to do in EVE:-áhttp://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/ |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
2589
|
Posted - 2012.01.12 16:51:00 -
[17] - Quote
Tsubutai wrote:Malcanis wrote:Being able to specify who can collect a bounty is absolutely essential to stop friends/alts of the criminal essentially negating the bounty in this way. Additionally, contracting a killright means that I can't "hide" in hi-sec and benefit from CONCORD protection. Alternatively, you cap the payout for a kill at 60% of the ship's nominal price less the platinum insurance value and leave it at that. Since when did 'wanted dead or alive' posters specify that only certain people were allowed to collect?
I'm reminded of the opening scenes of "The Good, The Bad And the Ugly" where Clint Eastwood and Eli Wallach are running a bounty scam... Malcanis' Law: Any proposal justified on the basis that "it will benefit new players" is invariably to the greater advantage of older, richer players.
Things to do in EVE:-áhttp://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/ |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
2589
|
Posted - 2012.01.12 17:40:00 -
[18] - Quote
Tsubutai wrote: Alternatively, you cap the payout for a kill at 60% of the ship's nominal price less the platinum insurance value and leave it at that.
This is actually a negative number for T1 ships.
This is the problem: if you make the bounty high enough to be worth collected, then it's worth collecting with an alt. For bounties to have any meaning, you have to close the alt/friend loophole and restrict who can receive them. Malcanis' Law: Any proposal justified on the basis that "it will benefit new players" is invariably to the greater advantage of older, richer players.
Things to do in EVE:-áhttp://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/ |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
2589
|
Posted - 2012.01.12 19:14:00 -
[19] - Quote
Bienator II wrote:Malcanis wrote: This is the problem: if you make the bounty high enough to be worth collected, then it's worth collecting with an alt. For bounties to have any meaning, you have to close the alt/friend loophole and restrict who can receive them.
no restrictions are needed. the single mandatory requirement is: damage done - insurance > payout
But that's simply incorrect. If I can "scrape off" a 500M bounty for the cost of only a few mill to myself, then why wouldn't I? That would be like sacrificing a Sabre to hero-tackle a Tech 3 cruiser, which any PvPer would do in a heartbeat.
I can cheaply and easily free myself from any real risk and I have the satisfaction of wasting a large sum of your money. Who would be stupid enough to bother putting a bounty on me on those terms?
Only those ignorant of how the bounty system works - just like now.
EDIT: I am strongly opposed to having bounty payments deducted from insurance. bounty payments should be a purely player transaction. Malcanis' Law: Any proposal justified on the basis that "it will benefit new players" is invariably to the greater advantage of older, richer players.
Things to do in EVE:-áhttp://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/ |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
2638
|
Posted - 2012.01.23 14:50:00 -
[20] - Quote
Xen Solarus wrote: I've got a whole list of people i'd have put a bounty on, if the system wasn't broken like it is currently.
I suspect I'm on quite a few of those lists. If this proposal were to be accepted I'd be motivated to fix my sec pretty quickly
Malcanis' Law: Any proposal justified on the basis that "it will benefit new players" is invariably to the greater advantage of older, richer players.
Things to do in EVE:-áhttp://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/ |
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
2973
|
Posted - 2012.02.17 08:27:00 -
[21] - Quote
K1RTH G3RS3N wrote:Malcanis wrote:Lord Zim wrote:Actually, I just thought of something. What's to stop someone from essentially griefing someone by repeatedly putting up a bounty? A gentleman's agreement? The bounty contract requires a killright. people dont get killrights when killed by wartargets.
People already have killrights on wartargets by definition. As mentioned earlier, in theory this could allow warring corps to place bounties on wartargets. Depending on how far we wanted to take this, that would give us two possibilities
(1) We could limit collection of those bounties to the issuing corp. Basically they would simply be a method for a corp member to incentivise and reward the members of his corp to prosecute the war
(2) As a further possibility, we could consider allowing "Letters Of Marque", where corps could offer open bounty contracts on wartargets. I like this concept because it would introduce a badly needed element of risk into declaring war, but I am also cautious of the possibility of abuse
Note that bounty contracts on war targets would expire when the war does. Malcanis' Law: Any proposal justified on the basis that "it will benefit new players" is invariably to the greater advantage of older, richer players.
Things to do in EVE:-áhttp://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/ |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
2984
|
Posted - 2012.02.17 08:33:00 -
[22] - Quote
Kimbeau Surveryor wrote:I had suggested that when you place a bounty you can specify which Alliances are allowed to collect, but I like the idea of tying it to the standings system better.
You do have to think out how to calculate payouts when multiple bounties are placed with differing rules, and you have a kill mail with players with different relationships to those rules, but an evening with a towel round our heads should be able to work out the right algorithm.
Supported.
I don't see why it shouldn't be possible to assign a bounty contract directly to a specific third party corp/alliance, but there may be a limitation in the contract code that prevents this. It should certainly be possible to limit collection of a bounty to one's own corp/alliance in a way analogous to any other corp or alliance contract we can make now.
Personally I find the idea of a mixed fleet of bounty hunters stalking their prey whilst discussing amongst them selves exactly who will have to kill whom in order to optimise bounty collection rather intricate & amusing Malcanis' Law: Any proposal justified on the basis that "it will benefit new players" is invariably to the greater advantage of older, richer players.
Things to do in EVE:-áhttp://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/ |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
2984
|
Posted - 2012.02.17 20:29:00 -
[23] - Quote
Imigo Montoya wrote:Firstly, supported. The player bounty system is terrible and needs iteration. This proposal is effectively a transferable killright in the form of a contract. I wonder whether instead of limiting who may accept a contract, the preferred method of providing that killright could be to make a private contract. That is, a person has legitimate grievance from being ganked, finds the forum post of a bounty hunter group, then discusses terms with them (or just makes the contract). This would be along side an open(ish) contract system as you propose. This way the injured party could find a reputable group and give them the rights to kill the bad guy. Reputation would be gained/lost in similar ways to 3rd party services are now. Also, the focus of your proposal is on highsec, so one addition I would like to suggest is the ability to add nullsec only (because everybody effectively has killrights on everybody else in nullsec) open "contracts" for aliance members/allies (based on standings) to collect. It would be useful in wartime to have a system where an alliance can put bounties on all members of an enemy corp/alliance to encourage their members/allies to engage those enemies. If it were paid out as a portion of ship insurance or pod value in the same way as has already been suggested with a player defined pool and cap per kill, it would allow a direct in-game method to take alliance level income and distribute it to members for their activity. Xen Solarus wrote:I find it laughable, and rather insulting, that ccp continue to market the idea of the "bounty hunter" when everyone in the game knows that the system is completely broken. I think in the case of marketing the bounty hunter "profession", they're meaning ratting (hunting NPC pirates for CONCORD bounties)
I'm kind of uncertain about bounties and 0.0. The whole point of bounty hunting is to avenge crimes, which are an oxymoron in 0.0 where the only law is lex talonis.
Still I can't think of any good reason to oppose the idea of Alliance A granting all its members an effective bonus for killing members of alliance B. Perhaps it would be best to require that A wardec B in order for a bounty contract to be created. Malcanis' Law: Any proposal justified on the basis that "it will benefit new players" is invariably to the greater advantage of older, richer players.
Things to do in EVE:-áhttp://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/ |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
2985
|
Posted - 2012.02.17 21:29:00 -
[24] - Quote
Elise Randolph wrote:I love the idea of the bounty-payer stipulating who can collect on the bounty, this is sound and cool in every way. The one concern I have is that there is still a loophole whenever you involve the player economy. Let's say there's a 500mil bounty on player X, open to everyone. Player X manipulates the market for small t2 sentry drone rigs (or any rarely used module that you like) up to 1 billion isk. Player X puts this 200k module on a 200k Imicus, has alt blow it up, and WHAM he gets the whole payout. If this devious mastermind Player X wants the bounty gone because it's just annoying, he can do the same thing and just fly around a hub in his "1 billion ISK Imicus" . Sure, someone will actually get the 500mil, but at negligible loss to Player X.
I agree this system is better than the current one, but the current one is a dated piece of trash.
Maybe the fix is simple - calculate payoffs based on mass of the ship and tech-level. That is to say, killing a bigger ship would entitle the players into bigger portion of the payout, and a t2 frigate is more valuable than a t1 cruiser, and a t3 cruiser is more valuable than a t1 BS, et cetera. When adding a bounty, perhaps allowing the bounty-payer the ability to stipulate how many times he wants the target killed (up to a certain cap) could be a cool tweak.
I see a lot of people saying "now that we have implants on pod mails, yada yada yada". The bounty system, ideally, would be a low-sec thing. This is low-sec, a competent low-sec pilot only gets podded going through Rancer (or your favorite smartbombing pipe system) or when he wants to. We shouldn't base a new system on the foundations of the broken one.
Small t2 sentry drone rigs don't have any NPC price that I'm aware of.
Malcanis' Law: Any proposal justified on the basis that "it will benefit new players" is invariably to the greater advantage of older, richer players.
Things to do in EVE:-áhttp://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/ |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
2988
|
Posted - 2012.02.18 11:06:00 -
[25] - Quote
Fair enough. It seems like a pretty marginal hole to me anyway - manipulating the market across the entire game in order to reduce the cost of clearing off a bounty seems like a hell of a lot of effort to me unless it's a truly massive bounty. If someone has the expertise and is prepared to go to all the trouble & expense of doing that, then maybe they're entitled to scrape off their bounty.
It occurrs to me that we could also further mitigate that hole by basing the bounty value of a ship or module on a 30-day rolling average sale price of the components of that module. That way controlling the small sentry rig market isn't enough; you need to control the Drone Transceiver, Tripped Power Circuit and Burned Logic Circuit market too. Much harder to do!
It would be more developmentally expensive than using the insurance price, but this method would also solve the issue of realistic bounty values for T3 and T2 ships.
It fails on assigning "proper" values for faction/officer mods & ships though, unless you wanted to count them as their own component and just take the rolling average price. Theoretically this allows for manipulation, but I think not in any practical way. Malcanis' Law: Any proposal justified on the basis that "it will benefit new players" is invariably to the greater advantage of older, richer players.
Things to do in EVE:-áhttp://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/ |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
3015
|
Posted - 2012.02.21 07:05:00 -
[26] - Quote
Remigius Varagine wrote:Just an idea, not sure if it's realy good. If we talk about contracts, how about the possibility to set a collateral like for a courier contract? If you accept the contract and you don't kill the guy you lose the collateral. Would add some incentive to actually do it.
Feel free to shoot the idea down.
That runs into the problem of the perp just not logging on. Malcanis' Law: Any proposal justified on the basis that "it will benefit new players" is invariably to the greater advantage of older, richer players.
Things to do in EVE:-áhttp://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/ |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
3062
|
Posted - 2012.02.27 07:27:00 -
[27] - Quote
Sephiroth CloneIIV wrote:I have idea to fix loopholes or exploits
have it be that the payout is based half of anything that is 'lost' and doesn't come back in insurance or drop.
So... you didn't read all the OP right? Malcanis' Law: Any proposal justified on the basis that "it will benefit new players" is invariably to the greater advantage of older, richer players.
Things to do in EVE:-áhttp://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/ |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
3093
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 14:22:00 -
[28] - Quote
Sephiroth CloneIIV wrote:Malcanis wrote:Sephiroth CloneIIV wrote:I have idea to fix loopholes or exploits
have it be that the payout is based half of anything that is 'lost' and doesn't come back in insurance or drop.
So... you didn't read all the OP right? I did, you suggested if a person has 20 million clone the killer gets 20 mill (so if a alt kills the bountyed target they lose nothing, and they take down the bounty). What I suggested is half of the value of isk lost (that does not come back through insurance) is given to the killer. Would make farming ones self with a bounty a money losing venture. One tweek to payouts removes a huge portion of exploits.
Oh, well spotted. I'll amend the OP. Malcanis' Law: Any proposal justified on the basis that "it will benefit new players" is invariably to the greater advantage of older, richer players.
Things to do in EVE:-áhttp://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/ |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
3095
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 17:25:00 -
[29] - Quote
Arduemont wrote:Hi there. I apologize in advanced if what I am about to say has already been said (I haven't got the time to read through the whole thread, especially given the length of the average post in here. Although I have skim read over most of it.) First, I would like to say that I support this suggestion. But I think if you are going to make "bounty contracts" they should be kept separate from the system that is already in place. I was in the process of writing up a very similar suggestion when I found this thread so for the sake of simplicity I am going to post what I was going to post anyway below for you guys to consider. Me wrote:Changes
I propose that bounties should be split into two types. The first type, GÇ£Public BountiesGÇ¥, loosely relates to the system that is in place now, with the bounty board and with bounties being visible on GÇ£Show InfoGÇ¥ on the players (except using a different payout method). The second type GÇ£Private Bounty ContractsGÇ¥, would be a whole new system, which I believe (with my limited knowledge of programming and software limitations) could easily be implemented into the current contract system (which by the way, could use some UI changes).
I believe GÇ£Public BountiesGÇ¥ should be given to the bounty targetGÇÖs killer as a percentage of the targetGÇÖs loss by their killer. Meissa, talked recently about this in the Lost in Eve audio log CSM7 debate, and I fully support this idea. So, for example, if a target has a 200m bounty on them and someone kills them, their killer will take a percentage of the bounty targets total loss. LetGÇÖs assume for the purposes of this post that the percentage would be 75%. So if they were killed in a ship worth 150m with fittings, and they received 10m ISK in insurance then their loss would be 140m ISK, and so the targetGÇÖs killer would receive 105m ISK (75% of the loss) and the target would have 95m ISK bounty left on them (200m GÇô 105m). If the target was then to lose their pod as well, the killer would gain another 75% of the loss of the pod (ie 75% of the price of his clone and any implants). This would make it so that killing yourself, or getting a friend to kill you to get the bounty will never be profitable. In all other ways GÇ£Public BountiesGÇ¥ would work in the same way as they do now.
GÇ£Private Bounty ContractsGÇ¥ would be a contract type creatable with customisable options, much like current contract types. Options would include contractee type (ie public, corporation, alliance, private), target (ie one person, multiple people), and payout conditions (on destruction of pod, or ship, perhaps even multiples of either), and obviously bounty price. For example I could say GÇ£I want members of Dark Shadow Industries, to kill Bee Vee Cee in three separate ships, and on completion of that task I will pay them 300m ISKGÇ¥. Splitting the bounties this way solves some problems you were discussing earlier. If you use contracts only for people who you trust, then you dont have to worry about people accepting the contract just to void the money (also, why not just have the money in escrow and have it returned if the contract expires or is cancelled). Public bounties would never run out, so you wouldn't have to worry about that. I would also like to say, that I don't think having kill rights on someone should be an essential part of making a bounty contract. If someone scams you, or war decs you repeatedly, or tricks a n00b into stealing from a can and blowing them up etc etc, it would be nice for them to be able to put a meaningful bounty on that person. It will help newer players feel empowered where at the moment they feel helpless. I also think that adding killrights into the equation over complicates matters. Also, having the bounty payout as a % of their total loss is important because otherwise players can use it like the old insurance scam, where people used to pay for platinum insurance and then kill themselves (because it saves selling the ships out in empty nullsec or whatever). I was also going to suggest that Locator Agents be added to the Agent Finder to make Bounty Hunting a more plausible profession. I am always surprised to find that even some older players have never used a Locator Agent, or some didn't even know they existed.
The problem with allowing anyone to put a bounty on anyone (assuming that the bounty system is itself worth a damb) is that it can then be abused to harass "innocent" players.
For instance: I say you are a corp thief. Yes you, you dirty thief. And I'm putting a bounty on you, so that random strangers are now incentivised to kill you, on my unsupported word. Good luck ever flying a small ship or a hauler again, buddy. Malcanis' Law: Any proposal justified on the basis that "it will benefit new players" is invariably to the greater advantage of older, richer players.
Things to do in EVE:-áhttp://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/ |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
3095
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 18:08:00 -
[30] - Quote
Arduemont wrote:Well this is true.
I would argue however that your in a similar situation already. Assuming you don't get your alt to claim the reward back, then you cant travel in your pod in high-sec for fear of suicide ganking...
"Assuming that people don't use the obvious and failsafe workaround to negate the bounty, the bounty could be a problem"
Yeah, no. As said above, it would be good in principle if there were a way to put bounties on characters for "crimes" that don't involve sec loss and kill rights, but it's just not really possible. As I asked on the previous page, how do you design a mechanism that allows a bounty on a corp thief but that disallows one on a corp director using corp funds legitimately? How do you have a mechanism that allows a bounty on an ore thief, but not a bona fide hauler?
So far as I'm concerned, you'll just have to do it the old-fashioned, under-the-table way, by paying mercs directly. On the plus side, assuming we get a working bounty system, there will be many more players who will specialise in bounty hunting who I am sure would be more than happy to use their experience and assets to undertake such... unofficial jobs.
Of course, that would mean that the bounty hunters would risk getting bounty contracts placed on themselves... oh the possibilities!
Malcanis' Law: Any proposal justified on the basis that "it will benefit new players" is invariably to the greater advantage of older, richer players.
Things to do in EVE:-áhttp://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/ |
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
3095
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 19:42:00 -
[31] - Quote
Arduemont wrote:The true purpose of the last post I made, (of which you took the meaning of one sentence and then assumed the rest was rubbish), is the following; (Not an actual quote) wrote:- There are easier and cheaper ways to grief people already, that aren't going to change much any time soon.
- Highsec without killrights will deter anyone who isn't a suicide ganker, and suicide gankers must lose less than 75% of the total of your ship for it to be profitable. Also, if they have to kill you multiple times to complete the contract, or to get the total bounty then they/their members will take large sec status hits (not good for people taking contracts in highsec). I just think the potential for griefing really isn't a problem. I do think however that adding killrights as an obligatory part of the bounties makes them just as useless as they are now and horribly complicates the matter. Having to mechanize when bounties can be used makes them practically useless. I don't want to put a bounty on some chap who killed me in lowsec. As far as Im concerned, I'm fair game to him. People want to be able to put bounties on people who are just *******s, or who scammed them, or suicide ganked them, repeatedly war dec'd them, etc.
You said it yourself - without killrights, bounties only matter to suicide gankers. Either the bounty system is effective enough to allow griefing when bounties are unrestricted or it isn't. Decide. Malcanis' Law: Any proposal justified on the basis that "it will benefit new players" is invariably to the greater advantage of older, richer players.
Things to do in EVE:-áhttp://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/ |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
3121
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 22:52:00 -
[32] - Quote
Shandir wrote:You would have to make a special exception for primarily CONCORD based kills, you don't want gankers shooting friends to scrape bounties when they die to suicide ganks.
What kind of exception? The whole point of a bounty system is to encourage other people to shoot at the guy who committed a crime against you. Suicide Gankers will be the most likely candidates. Malcanis' Law: Any proposal justified on the basis that "it will benefit new players" is invariably to the greater advantage of older, richer players.
Things to do in EVE:-áhttp://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/ |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
3225
|
Posted - 2012.03.26 19:32:00 -
[33] - Quote
Shandir wrote:Bump. For those who think this is a good idea, and that this specific version of this idea is the best - go EVEmail the CSM rep you voted for (assuming they got in) and make sure that they are aware this is how you would like bounty hunting to work, and that this is an important change for you.
Dawwww GÖÑ Malcanis' Law: Any proposal justified on the basis that "it will benefit new players" is invariably to the greater advantage of older, richer players.
Things to do in EVE:-áhttp://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/ |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
3320
|
Posted - 2012.04.13 14:04:00 -
[34] - Quote
Azrael Dinn wrote:Just a small idea to this.
Cause this is based on killrights so as some people know someone will want to add bounties to people with no killrights on them so how about if you could buy killright and add you bounty to it from concord.
Buying more killrights against the same player would be more costly like 2 times more every time. And yes this should be insane expensive to players like 500mil / killright (for the first one) plus bounty. This would be for those that you realy realy hate someone and want them to suffer for their deeds.
Just an idea.
The high and increased cost would limit griefing and so on.
But I still like the base idea anyways XD
500 mill isn't nearly enough - people will pay that in a heartbeat to be able to get killrights on a jump freighter pilot for instance. It's just too open to exploitation IMO. Malcanis' Law: Any proposal justified on the basis that "it will benefit new players" is invariably to the greater advantage of older, richer players.
Things to do in EVE:-áhttp://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/ |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
3338
|
Posted - 2012.04.15 08:26:00 -
[35] - Quote
Victor BlueStone wrote:I haven't read the whole thread. Responding to OP. I read your proposal and I find that you underestimate the ability of pilots to be stubborn. If I go by your system I will buy the contract and contact perp. We will split the profits as I pop him in his noob ship 1000x to collect the bounty. So I gotta grind a little to get all the cash! The system of tying what the hunted flies and has in his head goes down the drain.
Pretty much the whole proposal - and the following thread - is about trying to make your doing this as difficult as possible, and me defending the consequent complexity on this basis.
I don't think there's any way to make it completely impossible to do that, but I have tried to make it so that you'll need to put in some real effort to do so. You'd need to join (or get an alt into) the bounty corp that gets the contract, or else get +ve standings to the guy issuing the contract. That means that you or your alt would need some kind of working relationship with other players (either exactly the right bounty corp or you managed to infiltrate the guys you ganked) to achieve the result you're after. If you've been foresighted or socially skilled enough to achieve this then I think that you will have earned your right to spend your some of your time and ISK "scraping off" the bounty placed upon you. Malcanis' Law: Any proposal justified on the basis that "it will benefit new players" is invariably to the greater advantage of older, richer players.
Things to do in EVE:-áhttp://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/ |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
3338
|
Posted - 2012.04.15 08:52:00 -
[36] - Quote
killorbekilled TBE wrote:if this system has been broken or not 'working as intended' for years then why hasn't the past or present csm's or even ccp done anything about it
i agree with OP lets just put this to the front pile lets get this pushed through
If I recall correctly, every single CSM has asked CCP to rework the bounty system.
CCP's answer, when they troubled to give one, has been that the tangled and undocumented state of Crimewatch (EVE's standings and aggression management system) basically made it an impossible job. Per this year's fanfest presentation, CCP are finally reworking Crimewatch, which gives us an opportunity to get some kind of bounty hunting system introduced that isn't merely a cruel joke on the new and ignorant player. Malcanis' Law: Any proposal justified on the basis that "it will benefit new players" is invariably to the greater advantage of older, richer players.
Things to do in EVE:-áhttp://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/ |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
3338
|
Posted - 2012.04.15 09:17:00 -
[37] - Quote
So you're OK with me spending 50 mill ISK to negate a 500 mill bounty? I personally would be pretty reluctant to place a bounty on anyone on those terms. Malcanis' Law: Any proposal justified on the basis that "it will benefit new players" is invariably to the greater advantage of older, richer players.
Things to do in EVE:-áhttp://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/ |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
3352
|
Posted - 2012.04.16 17:40:00 -
[38] - Quote
Davon Mandra'thin wrote:Malcanis wrote:So you're OK with me spending 50 mill ISK to negate a 500 mill bounty? I personally would be pretty reluctant to place a bounty on anyone on those terms. Skill Reading and Comprehension to level 1. Once you have skilled that up, read the link I posted. This thread is a terrible idea. Killrights as a necessity would make bounties almost as useless as they are now. Seeing as you can't read properly, allow me to explain in moron terms. Percentage of damage done in ISK minus insurance, would be payed to the killer and deducted (not negating) from the person's total bounty. If your hypothetical person with with 500m bounty was killed and the killer received 50m ISK, their new bounty would be 450m. Give up on this ridiculous idea and start supporting the other bounty thread, the one that has been written and rewritten over and over and always gets lots and lots of support. Linked below (For emphasis). https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=80648&find=unread
I read it. I am utterly opposed to insurance payouts being stolen and used for bounty payments, for exactly the reason I said earlier: the idea is to promote in-space PvP, not station tanking. Additionally, without a killright, a bounty is almost meaningless: The perp can hide in hi-sec, and if you suicide to attack him, you don't get an insurance payment on your ship. Not very enticing.
Transferrable killrights are so obviously the correct answer that I hardly know how to explain something so clear and simple to someone who claims not to understand. It's not even that complex a concept. All that "complexity" is actually additional flexibility in how contracts can be assigned; using the contract system enables new modes of player interaction and creating a valid bounty hunting profession in EVE for the first time. Malcanis' Law: Any proposal justified on the basis that "it will benefit new players" is invariably to the greater advantage of older, richer players.
Things to do in EVE:-áhttp://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/ |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
3354
|
Posted - 2012.04.16 18:10:00 -
[39] - Quote
Just so we're clear: I deeply believe consequences for player actions should always and primarily come from other players. The point of a bounty system in my worldview isn't to STOP CRIME!!! but to promote gameplay. 3rd party punitive mechanics like taking ship insurance are regressive, short0sighted and wrong headed. It's not for CCP to say that this or that player lifestyle is "wrong" and should be "punished", it should purely be the perogative of players to do so; it is CCPs place merely to give them effective and balanced tools to do so. Malcanis' Law: Any proposal justified on the basis that "it will benefit new players" is invariably to the greater advantage of older, richer players.
Things to do in EVE:-áhttp://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/ |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
3356
|
Posted - 2012.04.17 06:48:00 -
[40] - Quote
GoatChops wrote:@Malcanis
I really like your OP, however I have two questions:
1. Would the hunted party be made aware of the fact that a bounty contract has been placed/accepted on them?
2. Would the hunted party be able to veiw who has accepted the contract on them?
I don't immediately see why the hunted party should be able to know either of those things. I'd be interested to hear the case for them to if you have one. Malcanis' Law: Any proposal justified on the basis that "it will benefit new players" is invariably to the greater advantage of older, richer players.
Things to do in EVE:-áhttp://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/ |
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
3357
|
Posted - 2012.04.17 07:01:00 -
[41] - Quote
Azrael Dinn wrote:Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote: Bounty hunting is a (utterly useless and broken) retaliation system, not another venue for free griefing (as if EVE needed any more of those!)
Lets say player X decided to invite an enemy fleet into the middle of your fleet consting you the loss of your whole fleet? Does that not require retaliation? Anyhow it was just an idea and make a point that there are deeds done in the game that need retaliation. Also the 500mil was just an example. And I would also like to know will the player whos head is on the plate recieve any information who can shoot at him. Or will it be more like "now you died and don't even know what hit you"
We covered this on page 2 of the thread I think: there will be player "crimes" that definitely merit retaliation that are not suitable for bounty hunting to deal with. I believe the example I used was "How do you create a mechanical system that allows for a bounty to be put on a corp thief's head that doesn't expose a corp director who legitimately expends corp funds?"
Basically the only way you could differentiate would be by GM intervention, with all the problems that entails. Malcanis' Law: Any proposal justified on the basis that "it will benefit new players" is invariably to the greater advantage of older, richer players.
Things to do in EVE:-áhttp://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/ |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
3376
|
Posted - 2012.04.17 20:47:00 -
[42] - Quote
"Station tanking" is a euphemism for "staying docked". Just so you know.
Stealing insurance ISk for bounty payouts is explicitly taking sides in a capsuleer vs capsuleer dispute. It's about on a par with giving the defenders a 25% resist bonus to armor and shields in their own sov space.
So: no. Malcanis' Law: Any proposal justified on the basis that "it will benefit new players" is invariably to the greater advantage of older, richer players.
Things to do in EVE:-áhttp://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/ |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
3376
|
Posted - 2012.04.17 21:00:00 -
[43] - Quote
As soon as I get +ve sec, I laugh at your bounty. What now? Malcanis' Law: Any proposal justified on the basis that "it will benefit new players" is invariably to the greater advantage of older, richer players.
Things to do in EVE:-áhttp://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/ |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
3390
|
Posted - 2012.04.18 13:47:00 -
[44] - Quote
Arduemont wrote:I want to hear what you guys think about the idea. Both this proposed system, and the simpler system (https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=80648) together would sort a lot of the problems we're squabbling about. What I'm going to do is write out the pros and cons that we've been arguing about with each system and I think you'll see something interesting when they're written out together. Quote:Contract System pros; - Can be use in highsec, and gains an advantage in lowsec. - Can specify how/who fulfills the contract. Contract System cons; - Restrictive. - Worthless in NPC, true null, or WH space.
Simpler System pros; - Useful in NPC, true null, or WH space - Unrestricted, sandbox style game-play. Simpler System cons; - Useless in highsec, and almost useless in lowsec. - Cant specify contractee. Obviously there's a lot more to it than that. But I just thought that demonstrated something. Alot of the problems caused by one system are the opposite or absent from the other system. If you give players the choice of whether the bounties are public, or contract only, you get rid of the vast majority of the problems with either system. It would also mean that CCP could make a start on this project without using much resources. By making a start on the simpler system first, it would be a simple issue of changing how bounties were payed out (I know its probably no where near "simple", but comparatively speaking, you know what I mean). Its practically perfect. I really want to hear your views on this. What do you think?
Dambit why can't I be smart like you? Malcanis' Law: Any proposal justified on the basis that "it will benefit new players" is invariably to the greater advantage of older, richer players.
Things to do in EVE:-áhttp://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/ |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
3418
|
Posted - 2012.04.20 19:21:00 -
[45] - Quote
Shandir wrote:Agreed, dual bounty system clears up all problems and creates a new hate-fuelled economy for PvP.
The only remaining problem is the ever present possibility CCP will implement the easy half then forget about it.
That was maybe the subconscious source of my objection
I should write up a more formal, less discursive amended post-discussion proposal. Malcanis' Law: Any proposal justified on the basis that "it will benefit new players" is invariably to the greater advantage of older, richer players.
Things to do in EVE:-áhttp://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/ |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
3948
|
Posted - 2012.05.25 09:30:00 -
[46] - Quote
Ginseng Jita wrote:Do you all know why the current bounty system in EVE doesn't work and is a joke? It is actually quite simple. There are no real *consequences* or *penalty* for being one( a pirate or having a bounty). Even if you do run up a -10. security rating you can hang in null sec and never worry about it. Even if some idiot post a 1bil bounty on you it can easily be exploited - just have a friend pop you in game and split the reward.
No, you want this system to work, you'll have to add a real threat of *consequences* and a real threat of *penalty* for choosing the life of an outlaw.
That means when you are killed(by anyone to collect the reward - even if it is a friend or your own alt) you are captured by Concorde. For the next 10 days you cannot do anything - nothing - you cannot log the toon in and you cannot train that toon. It is in stasis. Your character is in stasis(prison) awaiting trial. After 10 days, your character goes to trial. Depending on how low your security rating is and the crimes you have committed to get that rating will determine how much it will cost to set you free from prison. If you cannot pay immediately. You must stay in prison another day. Each day you spend in prison it cost you a % of the total amount due - raising your fee to get free higher and higher.
Cost to be set free from prison depends on your security rating at the time and crimes committed. This can all be worked out by people involved in actually setting up this system - but it cannot be something that doesn't sting. It should sting.
So unless your pirate buddies are willing to put forth the ISK to set you free or you yourself are willing to spend ISK to set you free, you'll sit in jail and incur more expenses costing you more ISK to be set free.
After 30 days of being in jail, if you cannot pay, you are automatically set free. However, you are released with no ISK and lose all items you once had in your possession no matter where they were. You start at 0 security rating and a starter ship.
If you continue to wish to be a pirate and incur the penalty of someone placing a bounty on you, again, each time you are caught the consequences get steeper and steeper. The game keeps track of each time you are placed in stasis. First time in prison it is ten days. Next is 12. Next time is 14. Next time is 16. Eventually you'll be spending more time in prison than playing.
And that is how you make a real bounty system in game work. This mamby pamby, no consequences for ones actions is why the current system and the one proposed will never work. It can be too easily manipulated and exploited. This way, even having a friend pop you will cost you dearly. In fact you'd want to avoid getting popped at all if you can help it.
Then, the only people who will truly be wanting to pop you are real bounty hunter type players. They will go out of their way to pop you. They'll want to collect the reward and watch your tears flow as your character becomes a prisoner of Concorde. In fact they'll want to pop you whenever there is a bounty placed on you - almost strictly for the tears.
Then the real pirates and their pirate gangs will become notorious outlaws that should be feared if they can escape being popped. Those are truly the pirates to fear.
With out real consequences and penalties - the bounty system in this game will always be a joke. Add consequences and real penalties and the bounty system will be something to fear - as it should be.
The gist of your post is something that I utterly and irrevocably oppose. It completely contradicts the entire point of having a working bounty system which is player consequences for player acts, and would in fact gut the whole system. If you want to argue that CCP should take sides in player disputes and punish people you don't like for being mean to you, then make your own terrible proposal thread and confine your terrible ideas to that thread instead of trying to contaminate mine with them. Malcanis' Law: Any proposal justified on the basis that "it will benefit new players" is invariably to the greater advantage of older, richer players.
Things to do in EVE:-áhttp://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/ |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
3948
|
Posted - 2012.05.25 09:32:00 -
[47] - Quote
In fact I'm going to pay the wardec fee for goons to dec you, just for making that post.
That's how bad it is. Malcanis' Law: Any proposal justified on the basis that "it will benefit new players" is invariably to the greater advantage of older, richer players.
Things to do in EVE:-áhttp://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/ |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
3954
|
Posted - 2012.05.25 17:42:00 -
[48] - Quote
Ginseng Jita wrote:Yes, lets totally ignore that no bounty system you come up with that is ran completely by players can be circumvented easily - and when I mean easily - your system is no better than CCP's current system because it doesn't stop anyone with a bounty on their head from being taken out by a friend in game.
Nothing can totally stop that; you can only make it as difficult and uneconomic as possible, which is what the large majority of the propsal is concerned with.
As it stands with my proposal, you have to somehow get an alt into the specific corp which gets the bounty contract or be an individual who can socially engineer the aggrieved party to somehow assign the bounty contract to your "bounty hunter" alt.
As I said back around page 2, if you're smart and lucky enough to pull this off, then you probably deserve to be able to remove the bounty at ~50% of the cost to yourself. Mark that - even in the best (or, from your point of view, worst) case, the perp will at best be able to lose no more 50% of the ISK. And bounty hunting corps will have a very strong incentive to root out alts insinuated into their ranks for this purpose, since their reputation will be their primary asset.
Malcanis' Law: Any proposal justified on the basis that "it will benefit new players" is invariably to the greater advantage of older, richer players.
Things to do in EVE:-áhttp://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/ |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
3954
|
Posted - 2012.05.25 17:43:00 -
[49] - Quote
BTW I'd be interested to see you post 2 of these "loopholes you can fly a titan through" (there must be at least 2 if you can speak of them in the plural)
Detail them for us, please. Malcanis' Law: Any proposal justified on the basis that "it will benefit new players" is invariably to the greater advantage of older, richer players.
Things to do in EVE:-áhttp://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/ |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
3955
|
Posted - 2012.05.25 20:05:00 -
[50] - Quote
In that case I retract my offer of a free wardec. Malcanis' Law: Any proposal justified on the basis that "it will benefit new players" is invariably to the greater advantage of older, richer players.
Things to do in EVE:-áhttp://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/ |
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
3961
|
Posted - 2012.05.26 19:46:00 -
[51] - Quote
I know I should but I have some other projects competing for my limited time, and also I'm no longer confident that posting in here is a good return on invested effort. Malcanis' Law: Any proposal justified on the basis that "it will benefit new players" is invariably to the greater advantage of older, richer players.
Things to do in EVE:-áhttp://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/ |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
3999
|
Posted - 2012.05.30 15:02:00 -
[52] - Quote
You were much nicer about that than I was going to be. Malcanis' Law: Any proposal justified on the basis that "it will benefit new players" is invariably to the greater advantage of older, richer players.
Things to do in EVE:-áhttp://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/ |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
4081
|
Posted - 2012.06.18 09:03:00 -
[53] - Quote
Incindir Mauser wrote:There's an easy fix to bounty hunting.
Keep the current bounty system. Simple. But instead of people being about to see the bounties on their head deny everyone access to that knowledge. Nobody gets to see the bounty placed on their head.
Add a skillbook to become a bounty hunter. Allows you access to bounty hunting mission agents. Agent gives you a mission to hunt down a random person in your region with a bounty. The bounty hunter is not told the sum total of bounties placed on the wanted person's head, just that they have a bounty and that they need to die. Say a time limit of a month or so to complete the bounty. You also get specific bounty hunter locator agents. Perhaps special scanner probes, modules, etc. As you become a better trained bounty hunter, you get access to a Wanted List that lets you pick your bounties from a randomly generated list of bounties in your area.
The bounty hunter gets paid a baseline fee, eg the collective bounty placed on that persons head, for destroying the ship of said target, and additional bonus ISK if you pod them. This will encourage both small scale solo bounty hunting, but group bounty hunting as well.
Then goons and other ne'er-do-wells completely wreck it by placing 1 ISK bounties on each other, drowning out the "real" bounties Malcanis' Law: Any proposal justified on the basis that "it will benefit new players" is invariably to the greater advantage of older, richer players.
Things to do in EVE:-áhttp://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/ |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
4081
|
Posted - 2012.06.18 09:10:00 -
[54] - Quote
Kaelie Onren wrote:Arduemont wrote:Kaelie Onren wrote:BUT, this good idea, like many others still needs to address the fundamental flaw with bounty hunting profession today, which is, how do you keep people from collecting on their own bounties.
Without a fix for this, no bounty hunting feature will work. You obviously havn't read any of the thread. Stopping people from collecting their own bounties has been adressed, over and over and over. Yeah, I have no time to read 9 pages of people ranting one way or another. Enlighten me, how? (or point out the page its on so as to spare me reading through pages of fluff) If you are referring to the 'simple' system, it said it only prevents BLUE or same alliance people from collecting bounty. Exactly how did it propose to prevents neut alts from collecting bounty on yourself? If it doesn't the system is useless. If I have a bounty on my head, I collect it myself with my alts until it is zero. My only loss is the insurance premium on the ship.
Almost the entire proposal and much of the subsequent discussion revolves around addressing this issue. I mean like from the first paragraph. Malcanis' Law: Any proposal justified on the basis that "it will benefit new players" is invariably to the greater advantage of older, richer players.
Things to do in EVE:-áhttp://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/ |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
4081
|
Posted - 2012.06.18 09:14:00 -
[55] - Quote
Anna Shoul wrote:+100500. This needs to have been done years ago. Corp thieves and other miscreants that do not produce kill rights will just need a completely different system, is all, but this one will already fix numerous problems.
Mind if I offer a tiny tweak though?
At the moment a bounty contract is created, and the kill rights are revoked from the aggrieved party, the kill right timer goes on hold until the contract is accepted by an eligible party. Should the contract be cancelled before acceptance, the kill rights revert to the original owner and the timer starts ticking again. This way, considerably more contracts will actually produce bounty hunting and there's no need to extend the kill rights timer too much to ensure the kill rights are used.
And a few questions:
1. So assume I went ratting and got lowsec ganked by a concerted action of corp X. Unfortunately the killing blow was laid by their new recruit, so I only got kill rights on him. Will I be able to address my grievance against the entire corp X, instead of the new recruit? Or, I'm wrong, and I get kill rights on the entire list of people who shot me? (and if I don't, why not?) Can I bulk multiple killrights into one contract under a total bounty, then? Are there any good reasons not to allow this that you can think of?
If you're looking to get people to shoot at an entire lo-sec corp than I think that is better addressed through the wardec system and mercenary contracts, not bounties.
Anna Shoul wrote: 2. Assume I'm a new player, mining in a cruiser while my support skills train and I'm doing my homework, (let's avoid discussion of how reckless this is, people just do it) until I abruptly get highsec ganked. Enraged, I go buy a PLEX and place a bounty on my killer. Only, I don't know which bounty hunter corps are reputable, and there's nobody nearby to tell me, and the killer has a conveniently advertised bounty hunter corp right in this station, which happily takes my contract and proceeds with laundering the money... So, how can this sort of thing be prevented?
By asking other players for advice, in the same way that a new player should before making any other similar sized purchase. This isn't and shouldn't be a game mechanics issue; it's a player interaction issue. Malcanis' Law: Any proposal justified on the basis that "it will benefit new players" is invariably to the greater advantage of older, richer players.
Things to do in EVE:-áhttp://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/ |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
4088
|
Posted - 2012.06.20 11:46:00 -
[56] - Quote
OK I think that refinement of this proposal has gone about as far as it needs to. At this stage I'm awaiting the CSM minutes, which Hans has kindly confirmed will include a discussion of the status of The Assembly Hall. When the correct venue for player proposals is clarified, I'll post a final version there.
Thanks everyone who contributed to this thread, it's great to see that worthwhile discussion can be had on the EVE-O forums. Malcanis' Law: Any proposal justified on the basis that "it will benefit new players" is invariably to the greater advantage of older, richer players.
Things to do in EVE:-áhttp://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/ |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
4616
|
Posted - 2012.09.15 09:12:00 -
[57] - Quote
Seleene has confirmed that the assembly hall is effectively useless now. I will rewrite this in F&I later. Malcanis' Law: Any proposal justified on the basis that "it will benefit new players" is invariably to the greater advantage of older, richer players.
Things to do in EVE:-áhttp://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/ |
|
|
|