Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 :: one page |
|
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/ |
Peter Harkonnen
Hedion University Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2011.11.11 07:57:00 -
[2] - Quote
sounds much better then the current implementation, where ppl use it to look cool in overview
that will effect all suicide gankers...so at least the goons will not support it sadly |
Destination SkillQueue
Are We There Yet
79
|
Posted - 2011.11.11 08:37:00 -
[3] - Quote
Looks like a sound plan from a quick glance and certainly a huge improvement over the current totally useless bounty system.
Peter Harkonnen wrote:sounds much better then the current implementation, where ppl use it to look cool in overview
that will effect all suicide gankers...so at least the goons will not support it sadly
Try to obsess about goons a little less. The topic has nothing to do with them and from personal experience they are generally supportive of ideas, that improve the overall gameplay in EVE. |
Lord Zim
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
124
|
Posted - 2011.11.11 09:12:00 -
[4] - Quote
Peter Harkonnen wrote:sounds much better then the current implementation, where ppl use it to look cool in overview
that will effect all suicide gankers...so at least the goons will not support it sadly That's funny, because I do, actually. I know it's a ~shocking thought~, but there has to be lots of people in the game for us to be able to scam and grief effectively. The better this game is in general, the better our game gets, even if it means that we ruin the game for some people who are too gullible by scamming them.
As to malcanis' suggestion, I know I said in the other thread that I saw some holes, but I re-read the proposal a second and third time, and the holes I thought were there isn't actually there, or if they're there, they'll need someone with more time to spare than I have. It seems a fairly solid suggestion, and it would certainly make the act of actually putting a bounty on someone worthwhile, instead of just being the free gift it is now. |
Lord Zim
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
124
|
Posted - 2011.11.11 09:13:00 -
[5] - Quote
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? |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
1069
|
Posted - 2011.11.11 09:55:00 -
[6] - 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/ |
Samillian
Trojan Trolls Controlled Chaos
25
|
Posted - 2011.11.11 11:03:00 -
[7] - Quote
The bounty system has needed fixing as long as I can remember, supported. |
Trebor Daehdoow
Dirt Nap Squad Dirt Nap Squad.
1063
|
Posted - 2011.11.11 11:27:00 -
[8] - Quote
A similar idea was proposed a few weeks ago. Working up a proposal is on my to-do list. CSM - because I have not yet plumbed the depths of my inherent masochism! CSM 6 Activities Summary | My CSM blog |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
1074
|
Posted - 2011.11.11 11:34:00 -
[9] - 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/ |
Smiling Menace
Star Nebulae Holdings Inc.
31
|
Posted - 2011.11.11 11:36:00 -
[10] - Quote
Supported. |
|
Jagga Spikes
Spikes Chop Shop
42
|
Posted - 2011.11.11 11:39:00 -
[11] - Quote
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. |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
1074
|
Posted - 2011.11.11 11:54:00 -
[12] - 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/ |
HELIC0N ONE
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
29
|
Posted - 2011.11.11 14:13:00 -
[13] - Quote
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? |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
1074
|
Posted - 2011.11.11 14:33:00 -
[14] - 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/ |
Lord Zim
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
133
|
Posted - 2011.11.11 14:42:00 -
[15] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:The bounty contract requires a killright. Yep, missed that one.
Malcanis wrote:EDIT I just realised that the bounty contract doesn't require a killright if the bounty is placed on someone with -5.00 or lower sec status. Anyone could put a bounty on a red flashy criminal and "grief" them with bounties forever. I am fine with this. If people actually start doing this, it will be a fine boost for lo-sec. If any criminals get sick of being bounty-hunted, they're free to rat their sec up, at which point the "killright" on them due to sec status effectively expires and the bounty contracts on them become invalid. Agreed. |
Sephiroth CloneIIV
Vitriol Ventures BLACK-MARK
18
|
Posted - 2011.11.11 20:19:00 -
[16] - 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?
have it be that you can only put up a bounty after a concord recognized act of unprovoked aggression against you (low or highsec) that causes a ship loss (and or pod loss) within the same time frame you have killrights. When in station in the bounty thingy people with kill rights can apply bounty to any ones they have kill rights for.
But yea any sort of loophole/exploit should be fixed or we could have a worse problem then a unused feature. |
Solo Player
63
|
Posted - 2011.11.11 22:26:00 -
[17] - Quote
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? :)
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
1081
|
Posted - 2011.11.12 07:37:00 -
[18] - 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/ |
Solo Player
65
|
Posted - 2011.11.12 07:45:00 -
[19] - Quote
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? ;) |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
1081
|
Posted - 2011.11.12 07:50:00 -
[20] - 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/ |
|
Solo Player
65
|
Posted - 2011.11.12 08:22:00 -
[21] - Quote
Malcanis wrote: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.
:)
'fraid I don't know any. But I'm sure others will come up with one, especially comforted by the double warmth of being right AND soft, tender ISK to grace their company.
One thing to get this back on track, though. You seem to propose that bounties can only be gained by first accepting a contract. Would that contract be exclusive to a single taker? Or could the contract remain up for as many people as willing to accept under the conditions given, until either the cash or the timeframe is used up? If it is the former, I imagine the bountied player might just block the contract by accepting it herself through some intermediate. If it is the latter, this could be made easier by only displaying (and thus, paying out) the bounty to players that fall within the conditions determined by the bounty giver.
Also, I wonder if there isn't a way for the bountied player to rid himself of the bounty at favourable conditions in a quick bout of insured pvp, thus escaping prolonged consequence as a bounty target. |
Jagga Spikes
Spikes Chop Shop
45
|
Posted - 2011.11.12 12:31:00 -
[22] - Quote
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. |
Revolution Rising
Native Freshfood Minmatar Republic
22
|
Posted - 2011.11.12 13:13:00 -
[23] - Quote
This idea has merit.
(See I don't hate you).
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
1084
|
Posted - 2011.11.12 13:40:00 -
[24] - 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 -
[25] - 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/ |
Revolution Rising
Native Freshfood Minmatar Republic
22
|
Posted - 2011.11.12 13:50:00 -
[26] - Quote
It's your perogative to reply however you like, I merely stated that you had no idea what you were talking about - which you yourself said was so.
All my comment required as reply was a or other short message.
If you like we can continue here and **** this thread up too ?
|
Solo Player
66
|
Posted - 2011.11.12 14:14:00 -
[27] - Quote
It's certainly not my job to be doing this, but seriously, this is getting extremely tedious. You're at it in every second thread on two different subforums! The two of you, just pack your egos back into your trousers, will you?! I've seen some very good ideas here and there, but these threads won't be going anywhere if you keep this up! |
Dro Nee
3
|
Posted - 2011.11.12 16:55:00 -
[28] - 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? :)
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.
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
1085
|
Posted - 2011.11.12 16:59:00 -
[29] - 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/ |
Manique
Ominous Corp
1
|
Posted - 2011.12.15 13:55:00 -
[30] - Quote
Needs a bump! *BUMP!*
+1 |
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |