Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
3357
|
Posted - 2012.04.17 07:01:00 -
[121] - 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/ |
Azrael Dinn
The 20th Legion Mildly Sober
0
|
Posted - 2012.04.17 07:28:00 -
[122] - Quote
Well splendid that I has been on table also then :) |
GoatChops
The Silhouette Group
0
|
Posted - 2012.04.17 09:29:00 -
[123] - Quote
Malcanis wrote: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.
It is not really case...more of an opinion.
GoatChops wrote:1. Would the hunted party be made aware of the fact that a bounty contract has been placed/accepted on them?
Id say maintain the wanted stamp from the current system but do not provide the current ISK figure. We dont want the "dirty scum suckers" to know now much you dropped on them....i.e. let them sweat how long they are going to have to be looking over their shoulder.
GoatChops wrote:2. Would the hunted party be able to veiw who has accepted the contract on them?
Id say no to this one.
If we assume my suggestion for question 1 is used the wanted party is already aware they may be hunted. Let them find out the hard way that someone was hunting them ...although eve is risk...so if the bounty hunters catch them the bounty hunters should receive the normal aggression flaging to the wanted party and the wanted party's corp. |
Arduemont
Malevolent Intentions Ineluctable.
41
|
Posted - 2012.04.17 20:45:00 -
[124] - Quote
Although I've had this debate with you before, I really feel I have to get you to see the sense in my argument. I really hate to end up bumping this thread but I have to say something.
The system you propose will be useless outside of highsec or lowsec. Because you never get killrights outside of either. I dont even remember the last time I had killrights on someone. Also, no one wardecs people in low-sec, so your idea about using it within wars is, well only useful in highsec. So basically, you'll turn it into a highsec feature.
Quote:I am utterly opposed to insurance payouts being stolen
Who said anything about stealing insurance? I hate to say it, but I think you may have misunderstood something.
All that is required to fix the bounty system is for bounties to be paid as a percentage of the person your hunting's over all ISK loss, with all things accounted for. And then that value needs to be subtracted from their overall bounty (leaving the rest to be claimed at a later time).
I know what your going to say. "But without killrights it will be used to grief people". Yes. Yes it will. But there are much much more ISK efficient ways to grief people. Suicide ganking, war deccing, scams, corp infiltration, pay mercs to wardec etc etc.
Then the bounty hunting system will be useful everywhere. And before you say "I dont get how you dont understand why killrights needs to be a requirement". There is nothing not to understand. I understand perfectly. Oh... except
Quote: the idea is to promote in-space PvP, not station tanking
Neither of these bounty ideas will effect whether you fight on a station, on a gate, etc etc. So I dont understand that statement.
Also,
Quote:Transferrable killrights are so obviously the correct answer that I hardly know how to explain something so clear
"my idea is better than yours", is not a valid argument, before you try that one again.
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
3376
|
Posted - 2012.04.17 20:47:00 -
[125] - 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/ |
Arduemont
Malevolent Intentions Ineluctable.
41
|
Posted - 2012.04.17 20:52:00 -
[126] - Quote
Oh, I forgot to mention that with the simpler system you wouldn't even require contracts. |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
3376
|
Posted - 2012.04.17 21:00:00 -
[127] - 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/ |
Arduemont
Malevolent Intentions Ineluctable.
41
|
Posted - 2012.04.17 21:08:00 -
[128] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:As soon as I get +ve sec, I laugh at your bounty. What now?
Doesn't make any difference what your sec status is in the simpler model as far as Im aware. Do explain. |
Psichotic
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
10
|
Posted - 2012.04.17 21:09:00 -
[129] - Quote
Arduemont wrote:The system you propose will be useless outside of highsec or lowsec. [...] So basically, you'll turn it into a highsec feature.
That's the goal we're trying to achieve. If you are low or null your are fair game and deserve no killrights. People can fight each other in low and null all they want already. Modifying the way people fight in low and null is a sticky matter and another discussion entirely. Besides, it is a solution in search of a problem. There is no need for killrights in low or null. |
Arduemont
Malevolent Intentions Ineluctable.
41
|
Posted - 2012.04.17 21:14:00 -
[130] - Quote
I think there is a way to solve everyone's issues.
Use the simpler solution, on the current bounty system. Then Introduce bounty contracts as a separate feature with optional killright transferal (One step at a time and all that). Best of both worlds.
Edit: Will post more tomorrow, need to sleep (DAMN THE NECESSITY TO SLEEP!). |
|
Arduemont
Malevolent Intentions Ineluctable.
43
|
Posted - 2012.04.18 13:41:00 -
[131] - Quote
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? |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
3390
|
Posted - 2012.04.18 13:47:00 -
[132] - 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/ |
Davon Mandra'thin
Solar Horizon Directive
14
|
Posted - 2012.04.19 21:25:00 -
[133] - Quote
Makes sence.
If both systems come into Eve at roughly the same time, then they both have my full support. If they were both included then most of my concerns are acounted for. |
Shandir
Ferocious Felines
116
|
Posted - 2012.04.20 19:10:00 -
[134] - Quote
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. |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
3418
|
Posted - 2012.04.20 19:21:00 -
[135] - 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/ |
Arduemont
Malevolent Intentions Ineluctable.
57
|
Posted - 2012.05.01 18:57:00 -
[136] - Quote
Malcanis wrote: I should write up a more formal, less discursive amended post-discussion proposal.
Looking forward to seeing the amended discussion. Keep us updated. |
Blastfizzle
Quondam Souls of the Universe corporation G00DFELLAS
59
|
Posted - 2012.05.02 09:03:00 -
[137] - Quote
I like that! |
Aerich e'Kieron
Snuff Box
0
|
Posted - 2012.05.02 14:37:00 -
[138] - Quote
I like this. Support, +1. |
Darius III
Interstellar eXodus BricK sQuAD.
1332
|
Posted - 2012.05.19 19:03:00 -
[139] - Quote
I am for this change 110%
Bounty hunting is a joke
*Edit I would like to add that this is one of the best suggestions I have ever seen in this forum and have supported similar proposals in the past. +1 for op CCP has rededicated themselves to improving Eve and are by and large doing a terrific job at it. My personal faith in them is largely restored. I think the coming changes will revitalize Eve and bring joy to the masses. |
Aron Croup
Incompatible Protocol Bittervet Mercenaries
99
|
Posted - 2012.05.19 20:03:00 -
[140] - Quote
Malcanis 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. 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?
Overall I like your idea of bounties, and you get a +1 from me.
I do think it's possible to make some kind of system that would allow corporations to respond to corp theft / scamming via bounty contracts. One way would be that, if you do not have current killrights, you could only call a bounty contract on someone who is currently in or has recently been in your corporation / alliance, and only through a corporate vote where the usual share-holders get a say.
This would allow you to respond to corp theft with a bounty. Of course there'd have to be a significant bribe to concord to facilitate the creation of kill rights, which means it's not something you do lightly. Maybe 25% of the bounty payout or something to that effect, meaning that even if nobody takes out the target you lose 25% of the ISK.
Another type of contract I would love to see is a "hitman" sort of contract, where you can be hired to kill and pod a pilot. It would be different from bounty contracts in that it pays out a set amount of ISK upon the termination of the pod, does not transfer any kill rights, would incur sec loss if completed in high-sec and is only assignable to an individual pilot.
In essence you'd create a contract with a spaceship hitman to kill your target and if he does this he gets the ISK. You could specify a minimum ISK value loss to your target for the payout to be triggered, so he can't just convo the target and agree to kill his ibis and implant free clone.
These "hitman" contracts could then cover all the criminal activities that aren't corp theft or provide killrights. Obviously these contracts are illegal, and so you can only set them up in low-sec and null-sec stations, and once the target is killed there could be a probability that the author of the contract is discovered by concord and given a sec-loss.
Also, such hitman contracts would only be visible to the author and the hitman, the target should not be notified that someone has been hired to kill them. |
|
Udonor
Native Freshfood Minmatar Republic
15
|
Posted - 2012.05.19 20:06:00 -
[141] - 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.
Naw then his buddies kill the offender to keep the bounty money in the corp/fleet/etc. So maybe they aren't making ISK hand over fist like now. But they are able to quickly neutralize inconvenient bounties before going out on nightly rampage as long as bounty paid is close to value destroyed.
I think the idea of being able to limiting the bounty collectors to a list of certain approval corps or people is essential to preserving most of the punch for your bounty ISK. Or failing that, make most people feel better about the effort. |
Udonor
Native Freshfood Minmatar Republic
15
|
Posted - 2012.05.19 21:58:00 -
[142] - Quote
Aron Croup wrote:[quote=Malcanis]
Another type of contract I would love to see is a "hitman" sort of contract, where you can be hired to kill and pod a pilot. It would be different from bounty contracts in that it pays out a set amount of ISK upon the termination of the pod, does not transfer any kill rights, would incur sec loss if completed in high-sec and is only assignable to an individual pilot.
IMHO Bounty Hunting branches off and modifies reactions to crimes for which CONCORD would already approve some sort of action.
LOL - I can even theoretically see "instant" bounty hunting off stealing and GCC (probably special system bulletin board and lots of player preset choices under a single UI button to post it in timely manner).
But Vengeance for other crimes (or simple competitive advantage) that are too complex for CONCORD to rubberstamp should be covered by MERCENARY CONTRACTS and maybe some sort of new wardec by corps against individuals.
Wardeccing individual toons to expedite Mercenary vengeance should be expensive (100M per week?) and grow rapidly more expensive after some initial period of time - say 3 weeks. Only corps should be able to do it. Repeat wardecs within 6 months against the same individual by the same corp should be counted as a single cumulative wardec for fee purposes. Because opening new corps is easy, the total non-overlapping wardec time against a given individual should gathered from corps in the past 6 months employment histories of the declaring CEO or directors. That said, its the individual problem if they manage to offend multiple corps in rapid succession.
Corp, fleet and and alliance mates may want a flashing signal (green?) alternating with normal status to quickly alert them that its an individual wardec matter. However since you wouldn't see individual corpmate as GCC nor mercs aggression flagged to corp, alliance, fleet -- things should work out automatically in a natural manner. That is you can RR your friendly and enter the fight or be stupid and shoot someone not GCC or wardec flagged to you and see CONCORD same as normal.
One option would draw wardec fees from the original fixed size bounty pool to mean merc vengeance contract cools down rapidly after certain point and has definite time limits based on total of original boutny pool. Or you could pay wardec fees a certain number of days in advance and refresh periodically. Method #1 mercenaries can count on longer periods of time to work though rewards drop with time. Method #2 preserves full reward fee for mercenaries but may leave them uncertain as to how much time is left -- especially if you tend to let paid wardec time almost run out before renewing. Of course you could pay max time fees at start to assure mercs of working time but then that can be major waste if someone collects on day #1.
Of course all the same victory/fractional reward conditions and calculation can apply to actual merc vengeance contract as to CONCORD backed bounty contracts.
|
Arduemont
Malevolent Intentions Ineluctable.
106
|
Posted - 2012.05.20 15:16:00 -
[143] - Quote
Aron Croup wrote: I do think it's possible to make some kind of system that would allow corporations to respond to corp theft / scamming via bounty contracts. One way would be that, if you do not have current killrights, you could only call a bounty contract on someone who is currently in or has recently been in your corporation / alliance, and only through a corporate vote where the usual share-holders get a say.
Technically if you had both the contracts and the normal system for bounties it wouldn't really be a problem anyway. Im glad this topic has been revitalised. It could really use as much attention as possible. |
Bienator II
madmen of the skies
722
|
Posted - 2012.05.20 18:44:00 -
[144] - Quote
CCP has already everything needed after inferno. Costs of the whole kill (pod and ship). In fact the FW LP payout mechanic already works analogous to my bounty proposal (link below).
Contracts could be added on top of that once core mechanics are fixed. Thats fine since contracts are controled by players, so if a player makes a mistake and contracts the wrong guy it can be "exploited". However the bounty system itself should be un-exploitable. The same way as insurances are not exploitable. (more details in the link below) a eve-style bounty system https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=359105 You fail you fail you fail you fail you fail you fail you fail to jump because you are cloaked |
Davon Mandra'thin
Solar Horizon Directive
35
|
Posted - 2012.05.22 12:02:00 -
[145] - Quote
Bienator II wrote:CCP has already everything needed after inferno. Costs of the whole kill (pod and ship). In fact the FW LP payout mechanic already works analogous to my bounty proposal (link below).
Contracts could be added on top of that once core mechanics are fixed. Thats fine since contracts are controled by players, so if a player makes a mistake and contracts the wrong guy it can be "exploited". However the bounty system itself should be un-exploitable. The same way as insurances are not exploitable. (more details in the link below)
This ^^.
All that needs to be said has been said. All the potential problems the a new bounty system like this could experience have been pretty much sorted. All it needs now is some Dev support. |
Ginseng Jita
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
271
|
Posted - 2012.05.25 00:51:00 -
[146] - Quote
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, 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 cosequences 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. |
Indahmawar Fazmarai
677
|
Posted - 2012.05.25 06:33:00 -
[147] - 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.
Your proposal is harsh enough to satisfy my wish to see all griefers rot in hell, but precisely because it would drive griefers out of the game, nobody is going to buy it, ever.
Having proposed it myself, i obviously think that the proposal that the bounty is only a fraction of the actual cost of whatever has been destoyed would "sting" enough to prevent abuse. Nobody is gonna blow 1 billion iSk to be paid back 500 million (or 400, or 300...) unless those billion ISK are somebody else's billion ISK.
Where my sistem becomes tough is in the target being actively tracked by every NPC sesion changing structure and the local chat, leaving breadcrumbs that anyone skilled enough can track until give the target an unpleasant surprise upon undocking/logging in to a safespot. EVE is Serious Business: You shall not feel entitled to being allowed to play EVE just because you are paying it. |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
3948
|
Posted - 2012.05.25 09:30:00 -
[148] - 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 -
[149] - 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/ |
Arduemont
Malevolent Intentions Ineluctable.
109
|
Posted - 2012.05.25 11:18:00 -
[150] - Quote
Ginseng Jita wrote:Lots of random crap that goes against game law, is gamebreaking, stupid and prone to people exploiting. General rambling about a terrible terrible idea..
Okay, first this goes against game law. You can't detain a capsuleer. They will just kill themselves and wake up in a new clone where ever they want. Secondly, bounties are put on capsuleers by other capsuleers and have nothing to do with CONCORD. Thirdly, this would be very very prone to exploiting. A new player fresh out of the tutorials could put a 1 ISK bounty on every member of Goonsawm and the next time any of them died they would end up not being able to do anything whilst they awaited "trial". You could cripple an entire alliance practically for free... Fourthly, its only broken because the method of payout and ability to choose who takes the bounty is broken. No other reasons. Fithly, nothing in a game should ever have consequences that harsh, because it might as well not be a game after that point. Nothing in Eve is that harsh, nothing. And Eve is the harshest game I can think of off the top of my head.
I could keep going. There are seemingly infinite problems with your suggestion. In future, dont bother posting unless you understand what your implicating. If you really do understand what your implicating, then you want CCP to lose all its customers andjust be a generally terrible game. In which case, you should find another game. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |