|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.04.25 20:40:00 -
[1]
Originally by: Jade Constantine ItĘs actually a pretty simple suggestion:
Then why did it need 5 freaking posts? Especially when the idea has been around forever?
Also its flawed.
The bidding system needs to be very specific to make it work.
Basically players who are bidding make bids on a contract for a low-ball. I.E. The hunter to makes the LOWEST bid wins the contract and gains the kill rights. Then that amount of money is transfered to the hunter at the termination of the contract. There would be a buyout and a top price.
This ensures that players cannot as easily scam their own bounty and ensures that there is competition for hunting down players.
Additions to the idea:
The CONCORD Office of Bounty Hunting should be its own corporation with its own standings
The CONCORD office of bounty hunting should have agents and LP like any other corporation.
LPs are gained through successful completion of bounty contracts and are based on the sec status of the terminated individual and can be used to buy various faction equipment
Concord agents should be locater agents of various quality such that you do not need high standings in another mission running corp in order to easily track targets down
Concord agents should also probably have some sort of passive income type agents in the same vein as research agents
POSSIBLE IDEAS:
Bubbles in low-sec and Empire: Bounty hunters can purchase bubble launchers that can fit on any ship but they will only scramble the bounty hunters one active target at a time. This could protect from conspiracy between hunter and hunted since the hunter now has little reason to conspire with the hunted. It is also another great way for the coders at CCP to mess something up and give us bubbles in low-sec and empire that work on everyone, creating a massive spate of accidental concordings and massacre of countless players everywhere.
Maximum payout in any case is 2/3 the platinum insurance cost of the ship in question that was destroyed. Multiple engagements may be necessary to complete a high isk contract if the pirate flys smaller and cheaper ships.
A contract that is not fulfilled in the required time is scrapped.
Contracts could require collateral of 1/4 to 1/2 of the pay out. This would give incentive for bounty hunters to go and kill the target and makes high standing alts that "buy" contracts at low isk values with no intent of fulfilling them less likely to happen.[I.E. a guy buys a 5m isk contract against with his alt against his -10 pirate, and then lets it sit so that no one else can get the contract out on him until the kill right expires]
Vote Goumindong for CSM |
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.04.25 23:06:00 -
[2]
Not when the idea is simple.
E.G.
Short and to the point:
http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=756166
Long: But all relevant
http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=670196
Short and to the point:
http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=597162
|
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.04.26 02:20:00 -
[3]
Edited by: Goumindong on 26/04/2008 02:25:00
Originally by: Nemiron
Originally by: Goumindong Basically players who are bidding make bids on a contract for a low-ball. I.E. The hunter to makes the LOWEST bid wins the contract and gains the kill rights. Then that amount of money is transfered to the hunter at the termination of the contract. There would be a buyout and a top price.
I like the idea of "I'll get you your revenge for less than he does". But what what would keep the criminal from using an alt, bidding 1 isk, getting the contract and blowing himslef up in a pod without imps? Mark dies - killright is gone - problem solved.
Adding the possibility of giving the contract to hunters with high rep might help here. Who would give his killright to someone blowing up only the marks' pods over and over again without causing any losses?
As for why not having the contract last "untill ship loss uses up bounty" see my other post.
Three things:
First, a "buyout" Such a contractor can say "I am willing to pay 10m isk, and will pay a minmium of 2m isk, start bidding". If someone bids below 2m the amount is 2m.
Second, a "collateral". When buying a contract, the bounty hunter puts up money saying "ill go kill this guy" so if he fails, he loses that money to the guy who put the contract up. The collateral is equal to 1/4 or 1/2 the bounty amount to be payed.
This way if a pirate used an alt to buy a bounty with the intention of not fulfilling it and just clearing it off the market. He would end up paying money to the person he attacked.
Quote:
So, while I may not agree with Jade hijacking every EVE bandwagon that has rolled across the forums for the past five years to further his prospects in this election, some of them at least are worthy of further discussion and development by the CSM - and Jade's stories are always a nice read anyway
This quite irks me. Especially since these threads sit in general discussion and not features/ideas where they belong[and will die a slow death due to the fact that no one reads that forum]
Vote Goumindong for CSM |
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.04.26 02:28:00 -
[4]
Originally by: Cailais
Do the mechanics of Bounty Hunting / anti piracy need to be developed in order to nudge some players (by reward or otherwise) to this custom - or should CCP not interfere and see if it develops of its own accord?
C.
The mechanics of bounty hunting need to be changed because currently instead of an outlet for revenge its a way to give isk to pirates[they just clone jump to an implantless clone, then get podded by an alt or friend and collect the money]
Vote Goumindong for CSM |
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.04.26 02:38:00 -
[5]
Originally by: Cailais
Yes Im well aware of the faulty mechanics in this regard - what Im getting at is a more holistic approach whereby the game mechanics for War, BH, Kill Rights, crime (can theft for example), ship destruction, pod kills etc etc etc are brought under one unified umbrella.
That would be nice, but its a lot easier to say "hey lets do this" than it is to actually do it. Its very similar to the "we can just remove local and kinda integrate its functionality into the scanner" problem. You can't simply remove local and integrate its functionality into the scanner, you end up with various problems and material changes no matter what you do.
If you, or anyone can come up with a unified solution that is simple, easy, intuitive, and gets the job done then that would be great. But its a lot easier to make simple, easy, intuitive solutions for each problem individually than it is to make that solution for all of them in one package.
Originally by: Kilhu Emmek Text wall, wrecking shot.
I may have lost the ability to read entirely, now.
Can anyone sum up Jade's points in fewer than like ten lines? Is that a remote possibility?
TL;DR
Help me co-opt this long time bandwagon issue for my campaign!
Vote Goumindong for CSM |
|
|
|