|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |

Arithron
Gallente Gallente Trade Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.08.09 19:43:00 -
[1]
A few good points raised!
In reply to mercs only being able to be hired by the defenders in a war: The defender is having to pay large costs to hire mercs in the first place, so by declaring war on a smaller corp and forcing them to hire mercs you are inflicting economic damage to them. By allowing one side to hire mercs, it makes wars between corps a little more interesting don't you think?
Bounty hunters and contracts: This is possibly the biggest hurdle to overcome in terms of self-collection (or should I say Alt-collection) of a bounty. A bounty system should not be a source of income for players that get themselves bountied (or their corp mates etc). By having bounty hunting as a viable career, and limiting contracts intitially to them (remember as they gain standing with the IRD they get access to better contracts) this stops players self-collecting. Another idea floating about might be to prevent the bounty amount showing on the bountied player (only Bounty-hunters see what X bounty is on X player).
No system is going to be completely foolproof- however, these proposals are frankly many times better than the current systems!
Take care, Arithron
|

Arithron
Gallente Trade Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.08.09 19:46:00 -
[2]
Oh, and good ideas 
|

Arithron
Gallente Gallente Trade Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.08.09 20:05:00 -
[3]
Edited by: Arithron on 09/08/2008 20:07:27 Are you referring to Bounty hunters or Mercs/defending corps?
The idea behind bounty hunters having the skill is that it can easily be referenced by code for access to bounty hunter contracts etc. Essentially, the IRD acts as an interface for contracts.
As for why mercs via the IRD: ease and simplicity for a war-decced corp to find and quickly acquire the services of a merc corp or two. Again, the IRD would be just an interface for contracts.
Hope this clears that up?
Take care, Arithron
|

Arithron
Gallente Gallente Trade Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.08.09 20:46:00 -
[4]
I agree that most wars entail risk, don't get me wrong. I did give the example of a large corp deccing a much smaller corp, especially in Empire. These sort of wars might not pose much risk for the large corp at all.
The ideas for Mercs are just those; ideas. Nothing is set in stone- indeed CCP, if this gets that far, will prolly adjust and change some of the proposals beyond recognition.
However, the current Merc system is ad hoc, and no easily reachable (and instantly available) system exists for many corps, who might have ZERO experience in PvP, let alone wars (especially in Empire).
A system that makes wars and allows for the easy hire of mercs (and a system that makes it easier for merc corps to make isk and act as true merc corps) can't be bad, can it?
Take care, Arithron
|

Arithron
Gallente Gallente Trade Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.08.10 18:13:00 -
[5]
Toman,
Watch out for the issue post re: Pirates, Hitpersons and other Illegal activities.
The purpose of this particular thread (BH and Mercs) is to add depth to LEGAL CONCORD-sanctioned activities.
Take care, Arithron
|

Arithron
Gallente Gallente Trade Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.08.12 12:07:00 -
[6]
That's the point of bounty hunters- you don't know who they are till they try and collect the bounty 
Once they start to try and collect, they'll start flashing red....
Arithron
|

Arithron
Gallente Gallente Trade Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.11.08 21:26:00 -
[7]
Originally by: Goumindong
You've introduced a new problem with kill rights. Derived and unlimited kill rights mean that anyone can take any number of bounty contracts. This means that anyone who lands a kill right on someone is likely to be swamped with hundreds of hostile players after him.
You've also introduced an isk sink with no reason for said sink.
You've failed to solve one aspect of the "second party bounty hunter" problem.[I.E. where the bountied target takes the contract and kills himself.] Which will occur if you fix the first people where bountied targets are at a severe disadvantage. In that, someone can take the contract and simply hold it until the kill right expires, thus protecting himself from retaliation.
A better system is this:
Reverse Auctions with collateral. When a player posts a bounty contract he posts it with a start value[high], and buyout value[low].
Bounty hunters then bid down the price of the contract, and when its finally accepted, pay some percentage of the price as collateral. If they fail to dispatch the hunted target[enough times to cover the bounty], then they lose the collateral to the contract issuer.
This solves the problem of people taking contracts to hold onto them, solves the problem of hundreds of bounty hunters going after the same target, and makes competition an integral part of the process.
For added slaking of vengeance you could automatically send killmails generated to a bounty hunter to the person who set the bounty.
Actually, if you had read carefully, you would have noticed that no one person can hold the killrights derived from a bounty. Its open to many players. Hence, a bountied player can't use an alt (or themselves) to effectively stop the bounty being collected.
Additionally, we envisaged Bounty hunting being a profession. Thus, there will be players looking to hunt players for Isk. This means that players that get killed by a player/s can set bounties on their killers. Other players can then attempt to earn this bounty for themselves by accessing the Bounty office and accepting the bounty contract. Many players can do so (that's the whole point). Access to bounties could be on an experience scale, but certainly the number of bounty contracts able to be accepted at any one time would be linked to standing (or some other mechanism) with the BH Branch of Concord.
Your idea, frankly, will lead to players making money out of selling killrights (which is what taking collateral and keeping if contract not fulfilled is). This isn't our intention for a Bounty Hunter system- we think that players should be able to make money by hunting bounties!
Of course a mail would be sent from the bounty office regarding fulfillment of a bounty contract, to the issuer! Bounty hunting is hardly a large ISK sink, what's your point?
You should note that this issue has already been through the CSM/CCP meeting and given HIGH priority for development by the CSM. Finer details are up to the Developers. If Bounty hunting as a profession is introduced, Eve will get just a little bit more interesting. PvP is good!
Take care, Arithron Vote Arithron for CSM! Check out my thread: http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=899358 |

Arithron
Gallente Gallente Trade Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.11.13 20:57:00 -
[8]
As this issue has been submitted to CCP, discussed in the CSM/CCP meeting and given high priority, you and I can just agree to disagree. Bounty contracts are open to bounty hunters, who access contracts based on experience (standing) with bounty office. However, this was just a possible way to implement it. Devs DO decide the finer details, and may consider good ideas posted on finer details.
Reverse auctions just add unneeded complexity to the system, and delay the start of the hunt. There is mention of a maximum number of characters that can accept a bounty, so no hordes chasing after one character. There's nothing stopping a player being hunted from returning fire...you make them sound like poor passive targets!
Arithron Vote Arithron for CSM! Check out my thread: http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=899358 |
|
|
|