| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Loki Yamaguchi
Level 42 Industries
9
   |
Posted - 2016.06.21 19:13:11 -
[1] - Quote
Make CONCORD "responsible" for issuing bounties, not player. If a ship is illegally destroyed, then CONCORD issues a bounty for the total value of the ship destroyed against the pilot that destroyed it.
So let's say a pilot sees a nice easy target to kill, maybe a Tayra. A quick scan shows that its carrying 6 frigates worth 3M so if destroyed, the total value might be around 5M. The attacker thinks this is acceptable and proceeds to destroy the Tayra. Let's just say his buddy is standing by with his own hauler to pick-up the loot.
So CONCORD sees the record of the destroyed ship and issues a bounty against the attacker for 5M. CONCORD no longer rushes to the aid of ships being illegally attacked and the money they save on manpower is what pays for the bounties (lore?).
Bounties are paid out when a pilot with a bounty has his ship destroyed. Only ship value is looked at, not cargo. So if the pilot with a 5M bounty on his head is destroyed while flying a ship worth 2M, his bounty is reduced to 3M and a 2M payout is made to the pilot(s) that destroyed the ship.
If multiple people are involved in an illegal attack then the bounty is divided amongst them. If multiple people are involved in destroying a pilot with a bounty, it's also divided amongst them.
Victims will have a short window where they have the options of adding to the bounty. So in the Tayra example, maybe the pilot was really pissed at getting hit and decides to double the bounty by adding 5M of his own ISK to the pot.
OPTIONAL
Above, anyone can attack a player with a bounty on him at anytime. An option would be to have players wishing to be "Bounty hunters" go to a CONCORD office to see the list of open bounties. If they wanted to go after somebody, they could put a deposit down (say 25% of the bounty) for a license to freely attack the target without free or retaliation from CONCORD's bounty system. The deposit would be refunded when the target's bounty is reduced to zero OR the bounty hunter returns the license.
Any how...I think this would greatly enhance the bounty system but maybe shift the meta too much.
Thoughts? |
Loki Yamaguchi
Level 42 Industries
9
|
Posted - 2016.06.21 20:15:36 -
[2] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote:This would turn CONCORD, bounties, and indirectly ganking into a massive ISK faucet, which would be bad for the economy.
Please explain why it would become a " a massive ISK faucet".
...the decision to look at just hull value and not cargo would be a poor one
I didn't say that...for the bountied ship, yes but not for the initial victim. The victim's total loot is looked at but not the bountied ship as you don't want people stuffing their cargo-holds full of loot or something they inflated the markets value on.
The suggestion to remove CONCORD response from High-Sec is just ridiculous.
Ok, but why?
While I'll admit this is one of the more creative ideas I've seen for creating a Bounty Hunting profession in the game it's also one of the worst in terms of killing off other playstyles or other (apparently unintended) consequences.
This is correct to a large degree as this would impact the META to a large degree and I fully admit not to totally see how. That's why I asked "how" twice...I'm not being defense, I just can't see it...
Danika Princip wrote:Cool, completely breaks the bounty system and turns it into nothing but an isk faucet instead of a mere redistribution service.
The bounty system is already 100% useless...I don't see the ISK faucet point so you'll have to fill that one in for me
Congratulations on posting a bounty idea that actually increases the profitability of ganking
Maybe you're right....have an example considering this is pretty ISK neutral?
Now, please explain why I should not be able to bounty...
Becasue that's pointless...it also doesn't reflect "reality" in any way...
I think the vast majority of people acknowledge that the current bounty system is pointless at best and generally openly mocked. But a large number of people, I'm guessing, would also like "bounty hunter" as a profession.
IMO, this also both adds pressure to HiSec but also makes HiSec more attractive to all players, not just the bears. Also, if the pressure increases a bit in HiSec, that actually might encourage more to explore the LowSec sooner. |
Loki Yamaguchi
Level 42 Industries
9
|
Posted - 2016.06.21 20:17:56 -
[3] - Quote
Sitting Bull Lakota wrote:Loki Yamaguchi wrote:maybe the pilot was really pissed at getting hit and decides to double the bounty by adding 5M of his own ISK to the pot. Well, maybe he wasn't that pissed.
Agreed. The point though would be that a victim could add to the bounty to make it more personal...there might have to be a limit to that though set at 100% of the initial bounty. |
Loki Yamaguchi
Level 42 Industries
9
|
Posted - 2016.06.21 20:29:02 -
[4] - Quote
Ralph King-Griffin wrote:Oh cool, so my gank alt now has a bounty i can farm, and the more i gank with it, the more its worth!
I like this, all kinds of broken but getting paid to shoot someone in the face because they shot someone in the face is cool.
I like both isk and shooting people in the face so theres no downside to this
... Aside from tanking the echonemy BUT WHO CARES , BOUNTY BUNTERS YEAAAAAAAAAAAY!
Yes..the 2M you paid for the ship to gank with will be paid to your alt if you kill him...total net sum gain? zero. (excluding added bounties by the victim)
Don't see your point. Please expand... |
Loki Yamaguchi
Level 42 Industries
9
|
Posted - 2016.06.21 20:45:49 -
[5] - Quote
Danika Princip wrote:Let's say I have a 100mil bounty on me because I'm such a wonderful person. Right now that gets handed out in dribs and drabs to the people who kill me, a nice little bonus for them gbut no way for me to extract the isk myself.
Under your system, I would simply build two hurricanes (105mil in minerals), insure them both (~33mil), undock and kill them with my alt.
I would then receive 110mil insurance money AND 100mil bounty money (current market price for two hurricanes hulls is 111mil according to the industry screen, 114mil according to my jita alt), for a total of 210mil. My outlay is ~138mil. That's a 72mil profit for zero effort..
So when you killed that ship to claim the bounty, you only get part of the bounty of what that ship was worth. So if you have a 100M bounty on your head, for anyone to collect that in one shot, you would need to be flying a 100M+ ship.
You would get your insurance back for the 2xHurri (breaking about even there) but you also paid for that ship you lost...which was 100M. You claimed the bounty which was 100M so....isn't that net sum of zero? Maybe I'm missing something...
Maybe there is a way to milk this for insurance fraud but that loophole could also be closed...
EDIT
Actually I think by your numbers, it would be 105+33+100 = 238 for costs and 110+100 for insurance/bounty...a loss of 28M |
Loki Yamaguchi
Level 42 Industries
9
|
Posted - 2016.06.21 21:01:09 -
[6] - Quote
Danika Princip wrote:...yes, that is why I used TWO hurricanes.
I spent 138 million isk to build and insure two hurricanes.
I receive 110 mil in insurance money, AND 100 million in bounty money for the death of those two hurricanes. That's 210 million isk
210 million isk minus the 138 million I spent in setup leaves me with 72 million isk in pure profit.
Simple...ships lost when a bounty is on your head do not receive insurance when collected by a bounty hunter with a license (see optional)....So you lost the insurance premium and don't get any payout. So you would get the bounty at 100M but it cost you 138M. If you sip the insurance then it would just be a net of zero or there about.
That fix that? |
Loki Yamaguchi
Level 42 Industries
9
|
Posted - 2016.06.21 21:06:12 -
[7] - Quote
Sonya Corvinus wrote:A net sum of zero, whereas now it's a net sum of negative 2 million. Take all the ISK lost by CONCORDED ships and inject that back into EVE, now that ganking is basically free. Yes, that's an isk faucet.
The bigger picture is what I'd be worried about at the actual bounty questions are fixable. How would this change ganking? Life for new players in HS? Life for bears in HS?
Initially, the carnage would be gross but very quickly people would be going after the gankers. What would the equilibrium look like? A more paranoid HS? |
Loki Yamaguchi
Level 42 Industries
9
|
Posted - 2016.06.21 21:26:48 -
[8] - Quote
Danika Princip wrote:No, because I'd just use a ship with a messed up market value and make my profit that way. Canes, for instance, have a system price of 55mil, and a market value of 57mil, yet build for ~53mil. Which value is used? Why am I being punished for PVPing with a bounty?
What happens if I am NOT killed by anyone with a license, but merely die in regular PVP? Is there now no payout at all?
Where is the incentive for anyone to bother with a license? Let's play a game to demonstrate how pointless a system that requires licenses and specific targets actually is.
I will pay you 100mil if you kill me (that is, the character Loki Yamaguchi lands the final blow on the character Danika Princip) in the next week. I'm already -9, so there's no need to worry about your sec status.
Yes market values and what rate to pay out is an issue but isn't it now also? I mean, there will always be an angle but the trick is to minimize it. CCP would have the math and data to actually figure out this...
The "licence" idea was an option. If it went that way, anyone could kill you but without a licence, they would actually be committing a crime and thus have a new bounty placed on them. They would get the initial bounty but end-up having to "pay-out" the same amount in lost ships...If there wasn't a licence system then anyone could collect a bounty...it would be a free-4-all...
I'd be happy to play that game but I suggest you actually do it like a bounty and tell everyone that the next person to kill you gets 100M. I'm just learning PVP so that's pointless to me...As anyone could buy a licence to go after a bounty, then in your example, why not have anyone able to go after you? |
Loki Yamaguchi
Level 42 Industries
9
|
Posted - 2016.06.21 21:37:44 -
[9] - Quote
Sonya Corvinus wrote:Loki Yamaguchi wrote:The bigger picture is what I'd be worried about at the actual bounty questions are fixable. How would this change ganking? Life for new players in HS? Life for bears in HS?
Initially, the carnage would be gross but very quickly people would be going after the gankers. What would the equilibrium look like? A more paranoid HS? No, the bigger picture is how badly this would tank the market given the trillions of ISK that it would inject.
I buy a 100M ship and insure it
I get ganked
I get 100M in insurance back
Net Zero (except modules)
Gankers (over time) buy 100M woth of ships
Gankers destroyed my ship and get loot...(make-up a number)
CONCORD puts 100M bounty on Gankers
Gankers lose 100M on ships
Net zero
Bounty hunter builds a good ship to kill Gankers...(make-up a number)
Bounty hunter slaughters Gankers...100M payday...
Payday...
So while 100M of ships and modules have been bought and sold, really just 100M of new ISK is being created. Isn't that what missions do? Or FW? Or ratting?
So while some "new" ISK is being injected, how is that different that the many other countless ways to do that already? |
Loki Yamaguchi
Level 42 Industries
9
|
Posted - 2016.06.21 21:58:07 -
[10] - Quote
Danika Princip wrote:...Because that doesn't prove the whole licenses and specific targets thing wrong in any way, and I am absolutely guaranteed to die to some random in low/null who has never read this thread?
Now, please explain why I should be pnushed by having my insurance removed just for having a bounty. Do you really want to discourage people from PVPing?
Well challenging me to come after you also proves nothing so...guess we're even on that point.
You raised a good point about insurance fraud and my answer was to remove insurance from those who have bounties on them. Now to clarify and expand, how about IF the licence system is used and you are killed by a bounty hunter you don't get insurance but if killed by a non-bounty hunter then you would get insurance (ie in normal PvP). There would need to be a balance for both your points: insurance fraud and still encouraging PvP.
I'm guessing that a licencing system would more than likely have to be used then as it seem to solve more issues and not having one.
The reward for ganking is loot...the risk is that people will be coming after you looking to collect. This shouldn't interfere with normal PvP. |
Loki Yamaguchi
Level 42 Industries
9
|
Posted - 2016.06.21 22:17:42 -
[11] - Quote
Sonya Corvinus wrote:/sigh. Because before the gankers had a net sum of -100M from lost ships, that's now zero. That's 100 million injected into the economy that isn't there now.
Less ISK being destroyed is the same as more being created.
Why would there be less being destroyed? |
Loki Yamaguchi
Level 42 Industries
9
|
Posted - 2016.06.21 23:06:19 -
[12] - Quote
Adding this to the mix:
CONCORD's role would not to immediately respond with devastating and overwhelming force like they do now in the higher security systems but rather a slower and more measured response more along the lines of how the Navies respond to an enemy capsuleer who is in their sector. This would allow an attacker plenty of time to destroy a ship but not unlimited time to grief (ie disrupt a ship for an hour).
Just spit-balling but the fist responder would maybe arrive 1 minute after the first hostile action and be one class higher than the average attacking ships and same number of ships. After another minute then you would get a second wave two classes higher...or whatever. Point being that a ganker couldn't stay indefinitely (as in FW HiSec). |
Loki Yamaguchi
Level 42 Industries
9
|
Posted - 2016.06.22 02:09:08 -
[13] - Quote
Sonya Corvinus wrote:Loki Yamaguchi wrote:Why would there be less being destroyed? You literally set up a system where people can gank and get the ISK back every single time. I'm not explaining it again. A massive -1 for your idea. Move on.
You haven't explained it properly in the first place...you've just tossed out little lines like "ISK faucet" and "inject trillions" without actually going into the mechanism as to how that would happen...you, know, with an example maybe.
If you don't like the idea, great. Point taken...But nobody is forcing you to read this so how about you move on. |
Loki Yamaguchi
Level 42 Industries
9
|
Posted - 2016.06.22 14:48:42 -
[14] - Quote
Sonya Corvinus wrote:That's adding every isk that is lost for good in destroyed ganking ships back into the game.
Under what conditions does insurance not payout to either the victim or the ganker? |
Loki Yamaguchi
Level 42 Industries
9
|
Posted - 2016.06.22 15:37:00 -
[15] - Quote
Sonya Corvinus wrote:I pop a BR
Sorry but what does that mean? |
Loki Yamaguchi
Level 42 Industries
9
|
Posted - 2016.06.22 15:45:56 -
[16] - Quote
OP revised and clarified with a focus to illustrate the core issue people seem to be having. That being the "ISK fountain" effect being perceived.
While this system does not drain the ISK as fast as the current system, I think I showed through my example that there still is a drain on the system and nothing added. I fully admit that I might be wrong by no clear example with values has been put forth yet.
Also, if the ISK-drain is too with this system (5M vs 12.5M) then that needs to be stated and I will work on that.
Hope the new OP and examples help... |
Loki Yamaguchi
Level 42 Industries
9
|
Posted - 2016.06.22 17:29:01 -
[17] - Quote
Just thinking that if too much ISK was been "injected" then just turn down the bounty to 75% or 50% of the net value of the ship that was destroyed rather than my initial suggestion of 100%. Or only look at the base cost of the ship (as per insurance). Lots of ways to make this work.
The real issue, again, isn't how the bounties are paid but how the meta is effected.
After the initial change to the rules:
- Will ganking increase or decrease?
- Will new pilots find it harder or easier to survive in HS?
- How with this effect transport?
- How does this influence the progression from HS to LS?
- Is this change enough to make bounty hunting a viable trade?
- What tertiary issues are raised?
Numbers are repetitively easily manipulated to make it work but how this change effect the big picture is much harder to see, forecast and the negatives mitigated. |
| |
|