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 |
|
Wolodymyr
Mando'a Navy Controlled Chaos
13
|
Posted - 2011.12.15 20:21:00 -
[31] - Quote
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. |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
1429
|
Posted - 2011.12.15 20:22:00 -
[32] - 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/ |
Wolodymyr
Mando'a Navy Controlled Chaos
13
|
Posted - 2011.12.15 20:36:00 -
[33] - Quote
Malcanis wrote: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. Allright you got me. |
FloppieTheBanjoClown
The Skunkworks Petition Blizzard
404
|
Posted - 2011.12.15 20:56:00 -
[34] - Quote
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. |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
1429
|
Posted - 2011.12.15 21:18:00 -
[35] - 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/ |
Adoniah Carrefour
the Whatley Brothers
0
|
Posted - 2011.12.16 00:00:00 -
[36] - Quote
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. |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
1432
|
Posted - 2011.12.16 00:04:00 -
[37] - 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/ |
Berendas
Clandestine Vector THE SPACE P0LICE
30
|
Posted - 2011.12.16 00:09:00 -
[38] - Quote
+1
If CCP is sincere in wanting to reinvigorate EVE and fix old mechanics then they ought to give thought out threads like this a read. The proposal is pretty sound, requiring little more than loophole search-and-destroy.
|
Adoniah Carrefour
the Whatley Brothers
0
|
Posted - 2011.12.16 00:14:00 -
[39] - Quote
Malcanis wrote: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 alt.
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?
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
2566
|
Posted - 2012.01.09 14:58:00 -
[40] - 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/ |
|
Eperor
Skyforger Tactical Narcotics Team
6
|
Posted - 2012.01.10 10:52:00 -
[41] - 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.
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. |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
2575
|
Posted - 2012.01.10 11:42:00 -
[42] - 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/ |
Atticus Fynch
313
|
Posted - 2012.01.12 08:09:00 -
[43] - Quote
/signed Please help with a university research project by taking this simple survey on color and emotion.
https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/UNIVERSITYSTUDYLS |
Bienator II
madmen of the skies
502
|
Posted - 2012.01.12 15:31:00 -
[44] - Quote
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 a new bounty system for eve 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 |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
2589
|
Posted - 2012.01.12 15:43:00 -
[45] - 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/ |
Tsubutai
The Tuskers
45
|
Posted - 2012.01.12 16:29:00 -
[46] - Quote
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? |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
2589
|
Posted - 2012.01.12 16:51:00 -
[47] - 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 -
[48] - 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/ |
Bienator II
madmen of the skies
503
|
Posted - 2012.01.12 18:37:00 -
[49] - Quote
Malcanis wrote: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: (insurance exploit) this is already covered in the details section ( https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=359105#post359105 ). The proposal covers only the basic idea, there are corner cases which can be fixed using different approaches. I think its good enough for us to discuss those things and come to the conclusion "it will almost certainly work - there are no obvious show stoppers", the details are left to the game designers if they finally decide to fix bounties. a new bounty system for eve 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 |
Bienator II
madmen of the skies
503
|
Posted - 2012.01.12 18:44:00 -
[50] - Quote
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 a new bounty system for eve 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 |
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
2589
|
Posted - 2012.01.12 19:14:00 -
[51] - 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/ |
Bienator II
madmen of the skies
503
|
Posted - 2012.01.13 00:22:00 -
[52] - Quote
well, again. you cant exploit it this way.
to exploit it you will use empty, platinum insured T1 ships. Since the insurance is subtracted from the payout you won't be able to reduce your bounty significantly. You will loose lots of money to get rid of the bounty. (if you do it its fine actually, it still hurts the bad guy at the end of the day... )
if you don't exploit (normal case), insurance subtraction does not matter at all since your ship fitting is in the calculation. It is so insignificant that it doesn't matter. And as soon you go expensive (those are the interesting scenarious for bounty hunters), platinium payouts decrease even more (faction ships, t2, t3).
Someone added samples to the discussion. Take a look at those. a new bounty system for eve 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 |
Xen Solarus
Inner 5phere
8
|
Posted - 2012.01.23 14:42:00 -
[53] - Quote
The idea of bounties like contracts gets a vote from me.
E.g. i want to put 500million bounty on someone, it becomes like a contract which i can assign to an individual or corporation (likely a person or group well equiped and experienced enough to pull it off). They manage to pod kill said individual, they get the payout.
Certainly beats a broad-spectrum bounty that anyone can claim. Definately considering that getting killed is pretty much guarenteed in the long run. This way, you'd have the satisfaction of knowing that your bounty has lead to the direct destruction and death of the person in question. 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.
Would also allow the bounty system to finally become an acceptable profession, with corps and individuals that demonstrate a continued ability in completing the bounties asigned to them getting more contracts from people looking for payback. |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
2638
|
Posted - 2012.01.23 14:50:00 -
[54] - 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/ |
Xen Solarus
Inner 5phere
11
|
Posted - 2012.02.07 18:33:00 -
[55] - Quote
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 liked the new website, apart from that aspect. Bounty hunting is probably the "coolist" profession, and certainly one that got me looking into eve so many years ago, and the fact they are still pushing that as an actual, feasible profession is borderline lying imo.
I'd say that perhaps the new website might actually lead to a fix to the bounty system, but the fact we've all been waiting for years makes this highly unlikely.
PLEASE SOMEONE FIX THE BOUNTY SYSTEM ! |
Lavayar
Russian SOBR SOLAR FLEET
4
|
Posted - 2012.02.16 09:48:00 -
[56] - Quote
Supported
Something must be done with bounty hunting. OP idea is not bad at all. |
Grumpy Owly
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
196
|
Posted - 2012.02.17 01:56:00 -
[57] - Quote
Suggestion to embelsih the current proposal is to extend the existing contract system we have to accomodate Bounty hunter contacts. As a result you could use a combination of private and public mediums even alliance contracts to afford a sensible selection. In this sense using the contracts mechanics for BH. The I guess when used with a forum for services or otherwise for people who have established reputations. Seems to give flexibility to contracts rather than restirciting to corps, alliances or public as a selection. The most important part is being able to optionally avoid the person who a kill right is about of an affiliate simply lifting the contract for personal motivations.
Also from a previous discussion regarding Transferable kill rights, Tippia had some interesting ideas also:
Tippia wrote:Grumpy Owly wrote:Well the only problem area I could envisage is that if not carefull you could contract or transfer a kill right to someone who is in league with or the very person the kill right is involved with. I suppose, but doesn't that kind of depend what kind of contract you offer? I mean, if it's the "sell" kind, the target has to pay to make himself safe, and the alternative is that a third party picks it up just to get a legal target to attack. (By "sell kind", I mean a standard sell contract: I put up kill rights to individual X for sale; someone with an interest in going after him buys it from me). That seems like a fair deal -- if my intended target is willing to buy his peace (and I'm more interested in getting money than seeing him dead, since I made a sell contract) then that's fine and dandy, after all. It's more the "buy" kind that is an issue, since I am (presumably) offering cash rewards for the death of the target. This leads to the same issue as with the current bounty system. Hell, it's even a worse issue, since whomever picks up the contract gets the money and don't even have to exercise the kill right to do so, so the target doesn't even have to suffer the loss of a clone to get the money the way they do now. So these contracts would need some additional accept/reject mechanics that the current contract system doesn't support. The two contracts would also have rather different audiences: the buy contracts would attract the classic bounty hunter -- someone who gets paid to kill -- whereas the sell contracts are for the big-game hunter who's willing to shell out a buck or two to get the chance to earn some trophies (kill mails). The question is to which extent these two markets really exist and what kind of volume they'd see. Griefers are lazy cowards with the current climate of broken player policing systems.
Stop EvE Apathy |
Kimbeau Surveryor
Stapeley House
1
|
Posted - 2012.02.17 02:55:00 -
[58] - Quote
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. |
K1RTH G3RS3N
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
96
|
Posted - 2012.02.17 05:41:00 -
[59] - Quote
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. |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
2973
|
Posted - 2012.02.17 08:27:00 -
[60] - 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 -
[61] - 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/ |
Imigo Montoya
Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation
33
|
Posted - 2012.02.17 19:51:00 -
[62] - Quote
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) |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
2984
|
Posted - 2012.02.17 20:29:00 -
[63] - 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/ |
Elise Randolph
Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion
471
|
Posted - 2012.02.17 20:57:00 -
[64] - Quote
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. |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
2985
|
Posted - 2012.02.17 21:29:00 -
[65] - 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/ |
Imigo Montoya
Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation
33
|
Posted - 2012.02.18 00:05:00 -
[66] - Quote
Malcanis wrote: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.
Not quite. The whole point of bounties is to avenge a grievance, whether that was from a crime or otherwise. Law only comes into the picture when it's a legal autority placing the bounty. Underworld crimelords put bounties on people's heads regardless of the legality of said bounty. Think Jabba's bounty on Han Solo.
Hence a wardec being a requirement would simply be a nuisance (outside of empire).
If there is a "rebel" group operating in NPC nullsec raiding sovereign space, then the sov holding alliance would benefit from having the ability to provide incentives (through an in-game mechanism that works) to their members or allies to hunt down said group. If a wardec is a requirement, then allies wishing to cash in on the bounty would also have to wardec the other alliance to claim payment, even though they're fighting in 0.0 anyway.
Again, tying it to a portion of the ship's value would avoid exploitation, although exploiting it in this case may require burning a spy too. |
Elise Randolph
Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion
472
|
Posted - 2012.02.18 08:51:00 -
[67] - Quote
Malcanis wrote: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.
True enough, I must have misread. From
Quote: with payouts based on hull and destroyed module value
I assumed you were gathering destroyed module value from somewhere. If you simply go by insurance payouts, how do you deal with T2/T3? Tengus, for instance, are a fairly common low-sec ship and have a 5 million premium for an 18 million payout. So in this proposed system a 600mil fit Tengu pays out 12 million. Maybe I active tank my Tengu and the price jumps up to 2 bil, does the bounty hunter still only get 12 mil?
Basically: do you make a distinction between fits? And at what point do you bring the player market into things, and how do you prevent abuse if you do? |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
2988
|
Posted - 2012.02.18 11:06:00 -
[68] - 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/ |
Mechael
Team Pizza Viro Mors Non Est
36
|
Posted - 2012.02.20 08:42:00 -
[69] - Quote
An easier fix is simply to make it so that you can set standings to the bounty. A setting, when placing the bounty, that says only people with a certain standing level or greater can collect. That way, any of your friends can collect, or you can find an actual bounty hunter and set him to positive standings so he can collect.
Using this system, you could even set it so that you could set bounties on entire corporations/alliances at once. I envision a "Bring me the heads of all (insert your most hated alliance here)!" scenario. Easy peasy, lemon squeezy.
+1 to the OP for a good suggestion that I support wholeheartedly. I'd rather die in battle against a man who will lie to me, than for a man who will lie to me. |
Simeon Whiteheaven
BALKAN EXPRESS
3
|
Posted - 2012.02.20 20:27:00 -
[70] - Quote
You have my support for this. |
|
Remigius Varagine
GONE RETARD BACK LATER Rise - Against
3
|
Posted - 2012.02.20 23:15:00 -
[71] - Quote
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.
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
3015
|
Posted - 2012.02.21 07:05:00 -
[72] - 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/ |
Shandir
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
7
|
Posted - 2012.02.21 23:08:00 -
[73] - Quote
Firstly, I support this idea, it's pretty much awesome.
===
Secondly, I think it should be based on market value using 30-90 day adjusted averages of the 'real' markets (using some clever economic stats to eliminate outliers is something CCP knows how to do) Anyone who can control an entire market for multiple months is putting enough effort in to permit them to game the system a little. Also, given the only way to manipulate the market like this is to throw *lots* of money at it, this would actually more likely cost the bounty target more than they could gain, and would also generate activity on these niche markets, making further attempts to game the system harder.
So, in effect, gaming the market-based bounty system would be very hard, expensive, and limited in how many people could pull it off.
===
I think you need to be able to put your bounty contract out to be visible to these kinds of people:
* Standing above X * Sec status above/below X * Whitelist of corps (So you can choose known good-rep bounty hunters) * My Corp/Alliance * Anyone * Private to specific person * Request/Acceptance of bounty hunting rights (So you can individually vet potential hunters, only useful for extremely high-value targets)
===
I think that an active kill right should be an option, not a requirement. It should be searchable though, so a bounty hunter can choose to only search for high-sec targets.
We should be looking to place bounties on as many of the pirates/players in low-sec as possible, to encourage low-sec PvP. People who get ganked slap a ransom on the person who killed them, and then other people go hunting for those players.
It may also be worthwhile to be able to place a (kill right-free) bounty on an entire corporation, for example - if someone wanted to harass The B***ards in Rancer, they could place bounties on clearing out the dirty pirates. In effect, PvP missions.
The more people in low-sec with bounties on their heads, the better and more fun low-sec will be.
I also think that the -1 sec status requirement might hinder more than help, although I could be convinced otherwise. |
Di Mulle
41
|
Posted - 2012.02.22 11:31:00 -
[74] - Quote
I like the idea pretty much. Some random thoughts.
Mitigating the impact of a bounty placed on me by manipulating the market - I see no problem. It is hard to next to impossible to do and will be not 100% effective anyway. If a hunted person wants and is able to do that - props for him. Harming a global mafia boss is a harder task than hitting back some street gang *******.
However, this highlights most serious problem in this idea, how to measure a value of a kill. There are no "official" price indices, accepted by CCP and permanently monitored. Or rather there are, but completely formal and unrealistic. The only more or less realistic system exists for T1 hulls (insurance), but they will be of a rather small importance.
Maybe it is a time to officialy embrace the fact that Jita price is a best benchmark. But then again, what with deadspace or officer modules, etc. Or imagine, I kill my bounty target in a supercap. There is no Jita price for it
Second, multiple copies of a bounty contracts. I should be able to hire a few independent mercs to kill the same person. Thus defensive strategy like accepting a contract with an alt of a hunted, or his friend, will not work. It will also create competition amongst hunters. It should induce additional costs however.
Theorising further, a hunted may have an ability to get some info about status of his hunt - are the bounty contracts accepted or something. Something in the line of using locator agents. Sure, some standings and payments must be involved.
Third, further granularity of a bounties. Kill right gives you an ability to declare a bounty on anyone, but you also are able to declare bounty without it - but only if hunted has negative status. If it is small, you need to bribe a Concord (like a small criminal deserves only a warning, not a capital punishment, but a bribe may change the attitude). If it is -5, or something, you are bounty hunted at will - law enforcement system should encourage a personal initiative. Numbers are arbitrary of course. CCP is unable to implement simpliest things. Like settting to hide signatures. So they sweep it under a rug . Children do that in their pre-shool years, CCP does it being adults. Probably because it is fearless enough. |
Ironlenny
Providential Holdings
0
|
Posted - 2012.02.26 21:33:00 -
[75] - Quote
Bounties should affect the player, and not just the character. Towards that end I'd like the introduction of associates.
Associates are characters that have had financial dealings with the bountied character. Giving and receiving money, contracts, and window trades.
Using a player defined filter, a locator agent will display all the matching characters, who can then have bounties placed on their heads. |
Sephiroth CloneIIV
Vitriol Ventures BLACK-MARK
56
|
Posted - 2012.02.26 22:39:00 -
[76] - Quote
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.
For example fully insuring a ship and losing it will cause you to lose some money. The payout will be half of the amount that would be lost regardless if a person fully insures the ship or not. . If they have a alt kill themselves they still need to spend twice as much isk to remove the bounty through bounty hunting fraud, and will not gain more then they lose.
Another thing that can contribute to the payout for a kill is the cost of a clone, half off the cost of a clone. So even if they kill themselves and pod, they would still be out on half the money needed for a new clone. (being something that frowned on in empire, doing so might flag you with a bounty, which gives incentive to do dirty work elsewhere or pay the price of being a outlaw hunter who themselves is a outlaw).
Same with implants. maybe even mods and rigs can be added into the system too, half the value of the mods destroyed (drop not counting).
by paying half of the value that is burned will make fraud unfeasible and unprofitable, compared with paying 100%.
Also with a new bounty system, tied to kill rights makes greifing others (non-pirates) with bounties unlikely. They should also allow people with bounties on head to be shot at anywhere without penalty untill the bounty is gone. No highsec hiding for outlaws.
Player sec status can still play a role, in that if it is at all negative that ANYONE can place bounties on them at anytime. How deep they are in the negative will determine how chronically they are stuck in it for grinding out of it.
Big reforms in bounty hunting will not only make it be a real profession but encourage those who are outlaws to stay out of highsec (save clandestine incursions). Bounty hunters looking for the targets will venture into dangerous space themselves. |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
3062
|
Posted - 2012.02.27 07:27:00 -
[77] - 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/ |
Sephiroth CloneIIV
Vitriol Ventures BLACK-MARK
56
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 05:49:00 -
[78] - Quote
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. |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
3093
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 14:22:00 -
[79] - 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/ |
Arduemont
Malevolent Intentions Ineluctable.
1
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 15:59:00 -
[80] - Quote
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).
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.
Quote: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¥.
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. |
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
3095
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 17:25:00 -
[81] - 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/ |
Arduemont
Malevolent Intentions Ineluctable.
1
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 17:45:00 -
[82] - Quote
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. Without transferable kill-rights, it is only suicide gankers you have to be careful of there. And then you only have to be careful of them if they can kill you in something where their loss is less than 75% of yours.
You are right, this is a potential griefing mechanism. But its in no way worse than the current war dec mechanics, or suicide ganking, or scamming, etc etc. I would argue that if I were a corp theif (which I might be >.>) it would be cheaper for you to pay a merc corp, or get your corp/alliance to declare war than it would to put a bounty big enough to hinder my progress in high-sec. Or probably the cheapest option is for you to suicide gank them yourself. You would have to be really really lazy and really really rich to do it that way. Even then, your better of paying merc corps for a war dec. Moar tears that way aswell.
Just something to think about. I personally think your better off doing it this way, than to introduce kill-rights into the equation or make all bounties by contract only. |
Shandir
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
27
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 17:58:00 -
[83] - Quote
Kill rights must be part of the equation, but I am not sure they need to be the only part. With transferable kill-rights, the kill-rights system gains some value it does not currently have.
I do see Malcanis' point about bounties being used to grief, and there is certainly an issue with that I am not sure how to resolve.
It would be great if there was a way to place a bounty on a corp-thief, but there is no in-game method to discern them from honest corp members with access to a wallet. Any suggestions I have that would address this problem bring what I think is excess complexity to this issue (bounties could be tied to ISK taken from a wallet, but that doesn't cover ships/items stolen; you could be able to select certain corp-wallet withdrawals and secure container log entries and label them theft, and that covers almost everything, but that's ~really~ complex and hard work for CCP)
For now, I think limiting it to active kill-rights, -1 secstatus, and possibly wardec participants (internal corp wardec bounties!) would cover all the reasonable options. With the idea that it could be improved if there's a better way to cover the less obvious bad-types. |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
3095
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 18:08:00 -
[84] - 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/ |
Arduemont
Malevolent Intentions Ineluctable.
1
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 18:29:00 -
[85] - Quote
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. |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
3095
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 19:42:00 -
[86] - 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/ |
Shandir
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
27
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 19:56:00 -
[87] - Quote
In highsec - bounties would change the equation for suicide gankers drastically.
You would know that the target was worth X amount. It wouldn't be subject to random drop chance. It would be in addition to any other loot dropped. It would apply to all ships from the lowliest pods to the most expensive officer modded ships.
In effect, applying a no-killright bounty to a player in highsec means they would have to recalculate their own value as a suicide gank target to compensate, and as the bounty would likely stick around for a long time - they would either be repeatedly suicide ganked, or they would have to fly around in much cheaper or tougher ships all the time. It would be a major hindrance to play. It would also affect poorer pilots adversely much, as they couldn't afford to try to clear the bounty an older character could afford to place.
Pilot A (2-3 years in game, bored) places a relatively trivial 1bil bounty on newbie Pilot B (1-12 months in game) Pilot B now is in danger of being ganked constantly since he is worth extra as a suicide gank target. Pilot B has this problem for the time it takes them to reasonably amass, and then lose, over 1 bil in assets.
PS: This system does, with killrights, allow you to place bounties on people who suicide ganked you. You currently get kill-rights for that. |
Arduemont
Malevolent Intentions Ineluctable.
1
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 20:27:00 -
[88] - Quote
You paint it in a rather black or white way (which it isn't really). You sir, are manipulating my words. I said in highsec, yes. Which means that the bounty payout must be sufficiently high for anyone to want to try and kill someone in highsec. Or, high enough to warrent the bounty hunter's corp (Or bounty hunting corp) taking out a war dec, in order to complete the contract. You said it could be used to seriously grief people, I didn't say it couldn't. I said it wouldn't very often and isn't as bad as other methods of griefing. Not that it wouldn't happen. I just said that it "Isn't a problem".
It would make it difficult for people to collect bounties in highsec, but shouldn't it be difficult to kill people in highsec anyway? With your system it will be nearly impossible to hurt people who plague you in nullsec (because people with 90+ ISK efficiencies out there often have high positive standings, and never give kill rights).
Difficult is not impossible. If you build killrights into the mechanics, it will be impossible (rather than difficult) to put a bounty on some people. CCP like open ended gameplay, and so do I.
|
Arduemont
Malevolent Intentions Ineluctable.
1
|
Posted - 2012.03.01 20:31:00 -
[89] - Quote
Shandir wrote:In highsec - bounties would change the equation for suicide gankers drastically.
You would know that the target was worth X amount. It wouldn't be subject to random drop chance. It would be in addition to any other loot dropped. It would apply to all ships from the lowliest pods to the most expensive officer modded ships.
.....
PS: This system does, with killrights, allow you to place bounties on people who suicide ganked you. You currently get kill-rights for that.
Not with the system talked about so far. If your getting paid a percentage of their loss, putting 1 bill on a n00b would mean you never got that money. No matter how many times you ganked them. They wouldn't be a worthwhile target.
PS: Touch+¬. |
Shandir
Ferocious Felines
44
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 22:49:00 -
[90] - Quote
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. |
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
3121
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 22:52:00 -
[91] - 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/ |
Shandir
Ferocious Felines
44
|
Posted - 2012.03.06 22:56:00 -
[92] - Quote
I mean - normally when CONCORD gets a kill, any player who so attacked the victim (of CONCORD's attack) gets kill credit. They should not get bounty for this kill (since CONCORD did all the work), as it would be easy for a friendly to use an agressive mod to ensure they got bounty prize on the kill, helping offset the cost of their own ganks with bounty prizes. |
Arduemont
Malevolent Intentions Ineluctable.
8
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 17:26:00 -
[93] - Quote
That would be easy enough to reconcile I'm sure. Besides, I've never go the kill credit for killing a player whilst they're getting ganked by concord and I've definitely shot at people getting concorded before. |
Asuri Kinnes
Adhocracy Incorporated Adhocracy
303
|
Posted - 2012.03.15 13:55:00 -
[94] - Quote
Arduemont wrote:I just think the potential for griefing really isn't a problem. People would game the system the instant it went live - building in limits is the *only* way to prevent that - transferable kill rights /tied to status set by whoever sets the contract is a specific fix to the major problem with bounties now.
They are worthless.
Wormholes: The *NEW* end game of Eve - Online: No Local. No Lag. No Blues (No Intell Channesl). No Blobs.
NEW FEATURE: NO INCARNA! |
Baaldor
Sin Factory Anarchy Unlimited
64
|
Posted - 2012.03.15 18:45:00 -
[95] - Quote
Malcanis wrote: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. If this proposal were to be accepted I'd be motivated to fix my sec pretty quickly
Then you would miss out on a part of the game that would actually be somewhat fun......
I guess you could always do something else like rat, grind roids, hump pos, shot pos, bot missions and incursions or any other heart pounding internet spaceship activity.. |
Mike712
BattleClinic
81
|
Posted - 2012.03.21 12:02:00 -
[96] - Quote
My thoughts on the matter.
- Firstly bounty payouts must be payed when a ship is destroyed not just a pod, I think that is something most people agree needs changing.
- Secondly the payout needs to be in line with the ship loss up to a maximum of the bounty set and insurance payouts reduced by the value of the bounty so it is not ever profitable to collect your own bounty with an alt or friendly 3rd party.
Those 2 things have to happen before any other changes to fix the most broken part of the system.
I agree that you should be able to set a bounty when you acquire kill rights from an unlawful kill regardless of the players sec status.
Accepting a bounty should transfer kill rights, to do so should cost a small % of the targets bounty and give you kill rights for 7 days.
Bounties should be acceptable for yourself, your corp or an allinace.
If someone else collects the bounty within those 7 days you lose the kill rights and your bounty acceptance fee is refunded.
Pretty simple but really all that needs to be done. Regards, Mike712 The BattleClinic Team
|
Magnus Orin
Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation
70
|
Posted - 2012.03.21 16:05:00 -
[97] - Quote
Supported.
Good idea to solve a long standing problem. If CCP wants to advertise Bounty Hunting as a legitimate career path in Eve, they best make it one. These changes would be a good move in that direction.
|
Ines Tegator
Towels R Us
159
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 19:31:00 -
[98] - Quote
Bump and +1
I've long supported the idea of a contract system for bounty hunters, putting the burden of preventing exploitation on the player just like the market and trade contracts do. Good to see it supported by CSM and combined with the "asset destruction" suggestion as well, the two ideas work well together. |
Indahmawar Fazmarai
The I and F Taxation Trust
369
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 20:05:00 -
[99] - Quote
Shamelessly putting here my previously ignored proposal... My take on bounty hunting, with a cool name for it:
EVE: Retaliation
Proposal 1: "transferable kill rights". Sbdy shot you down, you can transfer the kill rights to sbdy else to take care of the agressor, for a price.
The kill rights can be transfered to as many undertakers as you want -but bounty hunters taking them can't transfer them again. Why unlimited transfers? To prevent the agressors from stealing the rights from the victim with a bounty hunter alt.
Proposal 2: "The price of destruction". Bounties are claimed by destroying the agressor's stuff, not necessarily killing him
Up to twice the inflicted loss, the reward is half the cost of the destroyed stuff. Practical case: they blow your hulk, you lose 300 million, so you pay 300 million for sbdy to destroy 600 million worth of agressor's stuff. Payment is due upon the destruction of stuff, no kill, no gain.
Proposal 3: "it sucks to be friends". Hirers can extend kill rights to any other target being hunted and who belongs to the target's corporation.
Practical case: Captain Scum got a bounty on his head and is in the same corporation as Vicious Ganker, who also got a bounty on his head. By getting a kill right on Captain Scum, Miner Malone can also ask the bounty hunters to target Vicious Ganker even if Vicious Ganker never did anything to Miner Malone. The kill rights stand even if Vicious Ganker leaves the corporation.
Proposal 4: "you will never be alone". Bounty hunters on duty can track their targets via two new skills.
Skill one: network interaction. Allows access to the records of gates and stations, so whenever a target jumps or docks, the bounty hunter can read a track record about it. The distance and time span of track records varies with skill, up to a whole Faction's space and the last 5 days.
Practical case: with Network Interaction V, a bounty hunter can read the records of every jump and dock carried out by Captain Scum in (say) Minmatarr space for the last 5 days.
The access would have a CONCORD fee, so any hirer should pay some expenses to the bounty hunter.
Skill two: Navsat interaction. Allows access to the local satellite network so whenever the prey shows in a local chat, if even for 0.5 seconds while leaving a station, the bounty hunter knows his exact location. In order to do so the bounty hunter must deploy combat probes, which will interact wiht navsats and tell where exactly was seen the target.
Practical case: Captain Scum is in a safe spot in a lowsec sytem. Accidentally trips off his cloak and then recloaks. Five days later, a bounty hunter interacts with the navsats and learns of the last known location of Captain Scum... bounty hunter jumps in and he's AFK cloaked. G-bye Captain Scum!
This skill is so powerful that it must be expensive, say, 30 days to level 5. Of course, bounty hunters only can track targets upon which they got a kill right from a hirer.
Summary:
- unlimitedly transferable kill rights; if a hirer is fillthy rich and can throw 20 hunters on the agressor, let the agressor have it (picking filthy rich traders/industrialists sucks) - pay for destroying the target's stuff, not merely kill him once. No longer self-killing for the bounty unless you're up to losing twice the reward. - any other target in the target's corporation can be punished too. If you gang together against bounty hunters, bounty hunters can gang together against you. - bounty hunters can track the last moves of the target via stargates and stations. It sucks to be hunted. - bounty hunters can pinpoint the last moves of the target via the target's appearences in local chat. It sucks a lot to be hunted. EVE residents: 5% WH; 8% Lowsec; 20% Nullsec; 67% Highsec. CSM 7: 1 highsec resident out of 14.-á
CSM demographics vs EVE demographics, nothing to worry about... |
Shandir
Ferocious Felines
57
|
Posted - 2012.03.26 16:16:00 -
[100] - Quote
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. |
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
3225
|
Posted - 2012.03.26 19:32:00 -
[101] - 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/ |
Psichotic
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
2
|
Posted - 2012.04.03 14:57:00 -
[102] - Quote
Well thought out. Works for me. Bump.
|
Azrael Dinn
The 20th Legion Mildly Sober
0
|
Posted - 2012.04.13 13:19:00 -
[103] - Quote
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 |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
3320
|
Posted - 2012.04.13 14:04:00 -
[104] - 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/ |
Psichotic
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
8
|
Posted - 2012.04.13 21:52:00 -
[105] - Quote
Azrael Dinn wrote:
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.
I agree. Don't make it more complex than it has to be. Just make killrights transferable via contracts that don't payout more than the cost of the kill.
|
Indahmawar Fazmarai
The I and F Taxation Trust
468
|
Posted - 2012.04.13 22:02:00 -
[106] - 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
Completely no. Killrights are issued on a chracter and granted to another. They may be granted/transferred to different characters, but under no circumstance they could be issued to people who didn't calle don themsevles with their unlawful actions.
Bounty hunting is a (utterly useless and broken) retaliation system, not another venue for free griefing (as if EVE needed any more of those!) EVE residents: 5% WH; 8% Lowsec; 15% Nullsec; 72% Highsec. CSM 7: 1 highsec resident out of 14.-á
CSM demographics vs EVE demographics, nothing to worry about... |
Tehg Rhind
Atlantic Innovations
5
|
Posted - 2012.04.14 09:37:00 -
[107] - Quote
I (and some others) have mentioned how a hull-cost based payout could work really well. I wrote an autistically long post about this a couple years ago The TLDR (because it really is too long) is that low-sec is actually a failed ecosystem, and on it's own increasing rewards will never work without introducing another predator species. And the way to do that is to include this kind of a bounty system.
It's been a while since I've thought about this, and I doubt I agree with everything I wrote in that post. I know one issue I've thought of since then is that (with this system) there is very little impetus to add a bounty to someone if they already have one that is substantially high enough. But I don't know if there is a way around that, or if it's even a problem.
There's also a part of me that wonders if the bounties couldn't be placed on the corporation as a whole, instead of just on the pilots. |
Victor BlueStone
State War Academy Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2012.04.15 04:46:00 -
[108] - Quote
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. |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
3338
|
Posted - 2012.04.15 08:26:00 -
[109] - 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/ |
killorbekilled TBE
Dare Bears
39
|
Posted - 2012.04.15 08:46:00 -
[110] - Quote
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 huh? |
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
3338
|
Posted - 2012.04.15 08:52:00 -
[111] - 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/ |
Davon Mandra'thin
Solar Horizon Directive
4
|
Posted - 2012.04.15 09:16:00 -
[112] - Quote
Bienator II wrote: no restrictions are needed.
the single mandatory requirement is: damage done - insurance > payout
This ^^
Anything else is unnecessarily restrictive. The proposal linked below is better and simpler.
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=80648&find=unread |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
3338
|
Posted - 2012.04.15 09:17:00 -
[113] - 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/ |
Davon Mandra'thin
Solar Horizon Directive
4
|
Posted - 2012.04.15 09:39:00 -
[114] - Quote
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. Bounties as a necessity would make them 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 |
Asuri Kinnes
Adhocracy Incorporated Adhocracy
338
|
Posted - 2012.04.16 17:13:00 -
[115] - 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 Your insulting post does *exactly* what he says. If you think that *simple* idea will actually encourage bounty hunting, you're delusional.
Malcanis' idea works within the existing structure of bounties and killrights to craft a reasonable "bounty" system in Eve. Why don't you inject "Reading and Comprehension"...
let alone train it.....
Wormholes: The *NEW* end game of Eve - Online: No Local. No Lag. No Blues (No Intell Channesl). No Blobs.
NEW FEATURE: NO INCARNA! |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
3352
|
Posted - 2012.04.16 17:40:00 -
[116] - 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 -
[117] - 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/ |
GoatChops
The Silhouette Group
0
|
Posted - 2012.04.17 02:07:00 -
[118] - Quote
@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? |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
3356
|
Posted - 2012.04.17 06:48:00 -
[119] - 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/ |
Azrael Dinn
The 20th Legion Mildly Sober
0
|
Posted - 2012.04.17 06:55:00 -
[120] - Quote
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"
Should the bountyhunters at least be "flagged" with a icon like a green skull or something so that you know who they are when you see them on the gate. |
|
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. |
|
Shandir
Indigo Archive
149
|
Posted - 2012.05.25 15:25:00 -
[151] - Quote
Let's stop crapping up the thread with further discussion of the worst idea in EVE history (no overstatement), and get back to the awesome ideas of giving bounty hunters a reason to exist.
Edit: In fact, I think we've mostly discussed the idea out - so perhaps the OP could be edited down to the summary of the concepts - broken down to the two parts we've compartmentalised it into ( 1st step - Bounties = % of loss, 2nd step - Detailed bounty contracts ) - for easy reading - followed by the existing detailed description of the reasons behind it. |
Ginseng Jita
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
281
|
Posted - 2012.05.25 17:15:00 -
[152] - Quote
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.
Also, this was merely a proposal, a proposal to actually add a layer by which players could not circumvent. I didn't work out the fine details and make a mega post about how all it would work and how much it might cost a player in the end if they pursued being a pirate. BTW who said it would cost a billion ISK to get of or staisis? Oh and about a noob placing a 1ISK bounty on a Goon. Rules - the bounty system would have, you know...rules about how it would work. A good bounty system would have rules so that people couldn't use it as a means of griefing. It would actually require a player to break one of games tenants in game before someone can just slap a bounty on you willy nilly, and also require a certain level of security rating. Rules regarding the bounty system would need written up.
Also, you people are always saying how *hardcore* and harsh this game is, but when someone actually submits an ideal that has a harsh undertone to it you toss it aside and scream - that's too mean.
For a bounty system to work - there has to be consequences and penalties - otherwise you're just pissing in the wind.
Malcanis I am sorry you think someone discussing the bounty system in a thread about the bounty system is a bad thing(even if you created it - when you posted in this forum - it opens it up to all for discussion. I was pointing out, and you said it yourself that even your system can be exploited, so that people can circumvent anyone other than someone close to you collecting the bounty and splitting it. I think it is silly to sit and type up a huge thing about reworking the bounty system, then say...oh yeah there is still loopholes that you can fly a Titan through...but hey, at least we have a new system - even if it is no better than the previous one. Come up with a serious bounty system and stop coddling players. |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
3954
|
Posted - 2012.05.25 17:42:00 -
[153] - 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 -
[154] - 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/ |
Ginseng Jita
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
281
|
Posted - 2012.05.25 19:29:00 -
[155] - Quote
I think I know what kind of system you are describing now. You want an in game system of bounty contracts. You wish to be able to write up a bounty contract between yourself and a player or a corp to take someone out. In essence you just want to be able to pay someone of your choice to make a hit someone - you being able to transfer kill rights to that induvidual and or corp.
You're right....there is not much wiggle room with your system.
It's just a matter of putting the mechanics in place to trasnfer kill rights to a particular player or corp of players. This is the basis for your system - right?
Sorry, I was thinking of a built in game system that allowed anyone to pop a wanted person. My bad. A friend had to set me straight - she smacked me upside the head. :(
My bad...had this big ******* tree in front of my face. |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
3955
|
Posted - 2012.05.25 20:05:00 -
[156] - 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/ |
Shandir
Indigo Archive
149
|
Posted - 2012.05.25 20:59:00 -
[157] - Quote
Plus - the idea of making it so anyone can pop them is not a bad idea as an in-game alternative.
If you put a 1B bounty on your target and they destroy 1B of their own stuff, and get a 500m (bounty + insurance) back - they still lost 500m ISK. That is not a cheap option. The fact that they blew it up with an alt is funny, and will look bad on a killboard.
Fact is, simply adjusting the payment ratio would change the likelyhood this would happen regularly.
If the ratio was 75% - 95% of the (real) loss value, then yes - this might be a good idea. But if it's at 50% of the (real) loss value, then it becomes quite harsh. Lower still, 33% would be stupid to self-destruct away - but would still be a valuable boon to a genuine enemy.
This is why I think that *both* options should be available. If you want to hurt someone and don't care too much how it happens, then an open bounty is just great.
(Perhaps the payout ratio could be adjustable, so that players themselves could police it - but then it gets complicated and the chance that CCP doesn't bother or screws it up increase) |
Arduemont
Malevolent Intentions Ineluctable.
114
|
Posted - 2012.05.26 12:15:00 -
[158] - Quote
Mal, would you be able to update the OP to include that you think the Bounty payout system needs fixing first and keeping seperate from the contract system? It would be much easier to rally support if thats clear in the OP.
Lets face it, this thread is huge now. No one is going to read it from start to finnish just to get an idea of what we're talking about.
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
3961
|
Posted - 2012.05.26 19:46:00 -
[159] - 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/ |
Eiladies Teritrium
Survival Research Laboratories
0
|
Posted - 2012.05.30 08:18:00 -
[160] - Quote
I can tell you the thoughts/ suggestions I have:
Firstly though, a caveat.
You have to read this with a thought to how this would work in the 'real world' in-game story line of EVE. To our characters, the world of EVE is not a computer game with mechanics, it is their real lives where they mine, sleep, eat, make love, fight, flee, work and steal. Concord and the Empire Navies are there to make sure that those that break the law would be punished, which would likely mean something more severe than losing your ship.
You can't read this thinking 'Oh, I don't like this simply because it would make things HARDER for my Pirate character." Too bad. In EVE, just as in the real world, a life of crime would have consequences. These would be conceived by the governments, Police, Navies, and other law enforcement agencies of the in game, in character, story line world of EVE in terms other than game mechanics such as GCC gate, negative sec status, etc.
Firstly,
1. Yes, Transferrable Kill rights are a very good idea.
That's the way bounties work in real life.The fact that there is a bounty on someone's head means they are too dangerous for the average person to handle, so the authorities need to place a cash reward for a kill or capture.
The way I would do it is this.
Let's say Blackbeard the two year old Pirate ganks Marty the Miner, a newer player. Marty now has kill rights, but not the skillpoints to take care of that pirate himself, so the 'kill rights' are useless to him.
Now, instead of paying a bounty on the pirate (which the Pirate will collect) Marty now has the option to file a complaint with the NPC DED corporation, (i.e. the Poiice) for a small fee. (like a war dec is bribing Concord). When DED collects enough of these killrights along with the filing fees, they start reassigning them through their agents to a registered bounty hunter player pilot.
-DED is the already existing in game NPC corporation that is -supposed- to be focusing their energy and efforts on the 'worst of the worst' pirates. In game of course they really do nothing except hand out missions.
-For aspiring DED 'bounty hunter agents' could be included in every station that has that bounty hunter button, with each tranferrable kill right being assigned through a DED agent. It won't be a random, assignment, there would probably be a way to match skill point levels of target and bounty, or levels of danger/ risk displayed.
-To become a bounty hunter, you would have to grind your standings with DED to a high enough point that you would be 'registered', or get a license. This would involve hunting down some NPC pirates in deadspace missions 1 through 5, before the DED agent would start assigning you kill rights. Those people who are truly dedicated to being bounty hunters would be willing to do this, but a Pirate would be unlikely to do with with an alt just to collect their own bounty.
-The bounty amount would be an amount fixed by DED, most likely something tied to skillpoints. You would also get LP points (and stores) for both bounty hunter missions and player kills.
-The target bounty would have NO way of knowing how much the bounty on them was, neither would anyone else. Only the 'Wanted' sign would appear on their profile. It might be possible that a registered/ licensed bounty hunter could still see the bounty amount, to allow for opportunistic kills.
I would also suggest that if a Pirate with a bounty gets podded, they lose their rights to use the 'legal' cloning vats.
Yes I know Pirates won't like this 'restriction', but it makes 'in game' sense.
If you are a criminal wanted dead or alive by the Police, you are shot dead in space, and if they know where all your clones are, don't you think those inanimate, stationary clones would either be arrested or destroyed before the Pirate got podded? If we discovered the exact location where clones of a condemned criminal were being grown, don't you think the Police would realistically seek out and destroy those clones?
There are of course, already illegal clone vats in the game. Pirates with a bounty on them would be restricted to using this handful of illegal, untraced cloning facilities, or possibly one in a cap ship. These illegal cloning facilities could all be placed in low sec, or null sec, or somewhere else slightly inconvenient.
I would even suggest their clones could reanimate 'already arrested' in a 'prison system', or penal colony.
The world of EVE is a 'real place', remember? DED and concord aren't computer controlled 'rats', they are actual thinking human people who would formulate a rational, logical plan to kill or capture those with a bounty.
I'm imagining something like an NPC station that has factories and a refining centre with BPCs for mining ships and modules so the pirates would have to mine, refine and build their own ships. Kind of like building your own 'shiv' in prison. Pirates could raise their sec status by killing each other. It would also be possible to do stuff like make drugs, meet other pirates and so on.
This limited access, 'dead-end' system would have it's jump-gate entrance guarded by powerful but destructible rats (like Navy) for things like jailbreaks and so on. Pirates could use their alts to haul things in and out of the system. It should be a challenge but not impossible to escape from the prison system.
What I am also thinking though is that the Pirates would have their own version of the bounty system, the 'Marked' system. While you can place a bounty on a low standings player through DED, you can place a 'Hit contract' on another player though an NPC Pirate corp. Grind standings with a pirate corp to become registered as a hitman or assassin. Then, you will be able to access assassination contracts against other players.
Same deal as with the bounty hunters, just on the other side of the law. |
|
Arduemont
Malevolent Intentions Ineluctable.
152
|
Posted - 2012.05.30 14:45:00 -
[161] - Quote
Eiladies Teritrium wrote:Stuff
Well, its a well thought out idea, I give you that. But, like I have said before in other threads, I hate getting NPCs involved in new features. Why make an NPC do something a player can do? There are some issues aswell.
The restriction of the cloning vats for pirates is daft though. Eve isn't like the real world where the police get a degree of respect from official establishments. In Eve, the corporations rule. If a corporation wants to let a pirate have a clone bay somewhere, they arn't going to stop doing it just because the DED say so. The corporations regularly go behind each others back, their sovereigns back, CONCORDs back, DED's backs... So from your lore perspective that doesn't make sense. Also, in the game lore DED dont concern themselves with pod pilot affairs unless they absolutely have to, and if they do, they are encroaching on CONCORD's territory.
From a computer game perspective (probably more important than a lore perspective in most instances I would say) its unrealistically restrictive, especially with the whol prison system (which is even more restrictive and isn't fun for anyone). There is also the issue that you want to make people who want to be bounty hunters, run missions, to be able to do it... So the people who dont want to PvP (carebears) are going to be the only people with access to the system. And the people who will want to do it (PvPers) will be forces to run missions, which they probably don't want to do. |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
3999
|
Posted - 2012.05.30 15:02:00 -
[162] - 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/ |
Amun Khonsu
3-Prong Operational Resources The Fendahlian Collective
41
|
Posted - 2012.05.30 15:26:00 -
[163] - Quote
+1 for the OP Fight them until turmoil is no more and strike terror into their hearts. |
Anna Shoul
5
|
Posted - 2012.06.01 06:04:00 -
[164] - Quote
+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?
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? |
Arduemont
Malevolent Intentions Ineluctable.
162
|
Posted - 2012.06.01 13:59:00 -
[165] - 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.
If you keep this contract system separate from the bounty system as it is now (except with changes to how the ISK is payed out to prevent alts collecting bounties), then that problem is already solves.
Anna Shoul wrote: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?
I dont see any reason why not. It would create more consequences for shooting at people illegally. I always like that.
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?
Nothing it stopping them. I don't think it should be stopped. If someone is resourceful enough to pull something like this off they deserve to reap the benefits. |
Anna Shoul
5
|
Posted - 2012.06.01 15:09:00 -
[166] - Quote
Arduemont wrote:Anna Shoul wrote: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? I dont see any reason why not. It would create more consequences for shooting at people illegally. I always like that.
Actually, upon reflection, I do see a potential problem. Consider this scenario:
Character X is a corp spy. He joins a corp, gains trust, then steals everything not nailed down, and before he's kicked, to add insult to injury, he suicide ganks everyone he can get his hands on in hopes of gaining bounties on his head. Assuming that one can invariably place the bounty on the entire (player) corporation the criminal is a member of, this would more often than not be the default way of handling things. Once X is kicked from the corp the next day, everyone ends up with bounties they did nothing to deserve, in addition to the theft losses, and they can do pretty much nothing to prevent that particular problem, no matter how well they secure their assets or vet members. It's more problematic than awoxing.
I believe that the current corp landscape is plenty paranoid enough already, so the only solution that seems reasonable to me is to produce kill rights on everyone who shot the aggrieved party at all (and their logi!) and make it possible to bulk package them in a single bounty contract.
|
Arduemont
Malevolent Intentions Ineluctable.
162
|
Posted - 2012.06.02 21:27:00 -
[167] - Quote
Anna Shoul wrote: I believe that the current corp landscape is plenty paranoid enough already, so the only solution that seems reasonable to me is to produce kill rights on everyone who shot the aggrieved party at all (and their logi!) and make it possible to bulk package them in a single bounty contract.
When I said I dont see why not, I meant for this. Rather than killrights against an entire corp, which is silly. |
Xen Solarus
Inner 5phere
121
|
Posted - 2012.06.06 09:41:00 -
[168] - Quote
STILL WAITING FOR A FIX TO MAKE BOUNTY HUNTERS A VALID CAREER! |
Reaver Glitterstim
Dromedaworks inc
130
|
Posted - 2012.06.07 05:43:00 -
[169] - Quote
This is a very well though out post and it is exactly how I have envisioned the bounty system should work. I support this fully. -á"The Mittani: Hated By Badposters i'm strangely comfortable with it" -Mittens |
Mocam
EVE University Ivy League
141
|
Posted - 2012.06.10 13:13:00 -
[170] - Quote
I'd been thinking on this a bit too but I had a slightly more... brutal and cruel approach in mind, which you may find possible to incorporate in yours.
The idea was to scatter bounties - if you have low standings with a faction/SOV holder, a bounty could be executed on your head.
As such, my almost 5.0 sec status would not prevent someone from being able to put a bounty on my head with a faction I was negative with - but only in that faction's SOV would I be a "no concord" fair target, though still "bountied" if killed in other space (gank style - but concord = sec status loss ...)
Also it would allow SOV groups to use the bounty system directly to place bounties on enemies heads - kind of a "contract fulfillment" gig where the funds are held "NPC" style until someone collects on it or it expires.
As such, you could be "wanted dead in all of highsec" via sec status or just "bountied in Amarr, Caldari (jita)" etc.. based upon your standings with a faction. As such, any bounty hunter could legally shoot you in that space - no concord, no GCC, etc. A "legal retaliation".
You could have various bounties in different sectors of space - "wanted" where someone could only collect the ones they had access to.
(wild west style - bounties in different states, cross the state line and the bounty is invalid but you could kill and go collect but you'd be violating another "sovereign state's territory" with all the potential repercussions of that.)
Build a skill tree for how many bounties you can go after, tie the sizes of them to faction standings and allow bounty hunting in a factions space to actually raise your standings with that faction. A "registered bounty hunters" style sub-profession.
Lots of potential for various uses and abuses. A bit less ... "kind" in its applications and it potentially takes "building/rebuilding standings" from "go ratting/mission running" to "go kill other players".
I never really fleshed it out all the way but that's the general gist of it - allow bounties and bounty hunters to be setup very broadly and make it much more "EVE" like - not a two-edged sword but more a morningstar with lots of jagged spikes sticking out. |
|
Kaelie Onren
Nyan Cat Logistics PNG Associates
22
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 06:34:00 -
[171] - Quote
Mocam wrote:I'd been thinking on this a bit too but I had a slightly more... brutal and cruel approach in mind, which you may find possible to incorporate in yours.
The idea was to scatter bounties - if you have low standings with a faction/SOV holder, a bounty could be executed on your head.
As such, my almost 5.0 sec status would not prevent someone from being able to put a bounty on my head with a faction I was negative with - but only in that faction's SOV would I be a "no concord" fair target, though still "bountied" if killed in other space (gank style - but concord = sec status loss ...)
Also it would allow SOV groups to use the bounty system directly to place bounties on enemies heads - kind of a "contract fulfillment" gig where the funds are held "NPC" style until someone collects on it or it expires.
As such, you could be "wanted dead in all of highsec" via sec status or just "bountied in Amarr, Caldari (jita)" etc.. based upon your standings with a faction. As such, any bounty hunter could legally shoot you in that space - no concord, no GCC, etc. A "legal retaliation".
You could have various bounties in different sectors of space - "wanted" where someone could only collect the ones they had access to.
(wild west style - bounties in different states, cross the state line and the bounty is invalid but you could kill and go collect but you'd be violating another "sovereign state's territory" with all the potential repercussions of that.)
Build a skill tree for how many bounties you can go after, tie the sizes of them to faction standings and allow bounty hunting in a factions space to actually raise your standings with that faction. A "registered bounty hunters" style sub-profession.
Lots of potential for various uses and abuses. A bit less ... "kind" in its applications and it potentially takes "building/rebuilding standings" from "go ratting/mission running" to "go kill other players".
I never really fleshed it out all the way but that's the general gist of it - allow bounties and bounty hunters to be setup very broadly and make it much more "EVE" like - not a two-edged sword but more a morningstar with lots of jagged spikes sticking out.
I like this approach. Add to that things like if you shoot too many NPCs of a faction (pirate or empire) or make it standing based, they (NPC factions) can put bounties on your head too, which makes your open game for Player bounty hunters in their space. (not much diff in low/null though) and killing a player with a NPC bounty gives you standing boost with that faction too. Very interesting.
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. |
Arduemont
Malevolent Intentions Ineluctable.
208
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 13:56:00 -
[172] - Quote
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. |
Mr Twinkie
Third Watch Security Group
2
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 01:50:00 -
[173] - Quote
How has CCP not responded, remove bounties or fix them. the end |
Kaelie Onren
Nyan Cat Logistics PNG Associates
24
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 03:29:00 -
[174] - Quote
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) |
Arduemont
Malevolent Intentions Ineluctable.
210
|
Posted - 2012.06.17 21:37:00 -
[175] - 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.
Its in the OP. |
Incindir Mauser
EVE University Ivy League
0
|
Posted - 2012.06.18 06:14:00 -
[176] - Quote
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. |
Kaelie Onren
Nyan Cat Logistics PNG Associates
30
|
Posted - 2012.06.18 08:50:00 -
[177] - 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.
I was about to say something along the lines of "if it was really that easy to fix then don't you think somebody else would have fixed it by now? But this actually isn't bad.
Make the bounties scale up with the skill level trained, ie you get bigger bounties given to you if you are high trained in the skill. Only problem I see is local area is hard to define. People jump clone around a lot. Would taking a bounty on somebody who leaves the area make you sort of stuck? |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
4081
|
Posted - 2012.06.18 09:03:00 -
[178] - 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 -
[179] - 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 -
[180] - 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/ |
|
Incindir Mauser
EVE University Ivy League
0
|
Posted - 2012.06.18 13:47:00 -
[181] - Quote
Kaelie Onren wrote: I was about to say something along the lines of "if it was really that easy to fix then don't you think somebody else would have fixed it by now? But this actually isn't bad.
Make the bounties scale up with the skill level trained, ie you get bigger bounties given to you if you are high trained in the skill. Only problem I see is local area is hard to define. People jump clone around a lot. Would taking a bounty on somebody who leaves the area make you sort of stuck?
Once you have a bounty on someone the locator agents would track them no matter where they went. Much as it works now.
The skillbook or skillbooks would have long train times and even if you did want to potentially game the system it'd take some effort. But the only way you could collect the bounty would be to somehow magically get your main or alt with the bounty to pop up randomly and then gank yourself.
The real reason why the bounty system is broken right now is because people know how big the bounties are on thier heads and then manipulate the system to kill themselves with an alt and collect the bounties themselves. |
Incindir Mauser
EVE University Ivy League
0
|
Posted - 2012.06.18 13:51:00 -
[182] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:
Then goons and other ne'er-do-wells completely wreck it by placing 1 ISK bounties on each other, drowning out the "real" bounties
I didn't mention it but I would would assume that the higher price bounties would be lumped at the top of the randomized list to be doled out to bounty hunters. That would prevent low pay bounties from "poisoning the well" as it were and making people chase after bounties only worth a few thousand or hundred ISK.
More than one person could get the same bounty on the same person so there would be competition to collect heads.
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
4088
|
Posted - 2012.06.20 11:46:00 -
[183] - 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/ |
sirgath
Open University of Celestial Hardship Art of War Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2012.06.27 17:12:00 -
[184] - Quote
This sounds reasonable. Supported. |
Riedle
Paradox Collective Choke Point
168
|
Posted - 2012.09.14 14:46:00 -
[185] - Quote
Supported |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
4616
|
Posted - 2012.09.15 09:12:00 -
[186] - 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/ |
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 :: [one page] |