EVE Search - [IDEA] Proper bounty hunter and mercenary implementation

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Assembly Hall

[IDEA] Proper bounty hunter and mercenary implementation

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 [3] :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Herschel Yamamoto Bloodmoney Incorporated	Posted - 2008.08.14 21:26:00 - [61] Originally by: Somealt Ofmine Your merc contracts thing sounds good on the surface, but you're going to have wise-guy merc corps out there who accept contracts and then split the fee with the deccing corp to get the war lifted without firing a shot or losing a ship. The net effect will be that the corp that got decced paid a ransom, even though that's what they were trying to avoid. Again, this is the status quo. You can do that as-is. I don't know many who do, though - the random merc corp the decced hire has to be willing to pay off their enemy to avoid the fight. Most of them would rather just keep their commission and fight than lose half their money off the top. Originally by: Somealt Ofmine Making bounties into open contracts that anyone can accept wouldn't solve the issue of them being too easy to exploit. Here is a suggestion that I made, C&Ped from the features ideas section for your convenience: Bounty Hunting Levels Works basically the same as levels in missions. As you progress in level you're allowed to go after progressively bigger targets. (snip) This does a couple of things. It makes bounty hunting into a "real" profession that has a progression and some prestige to it, and it makes it harder to exploit. By the time you get to the upper levels, you are a proven, dedicated bounty hunter, so someone who cheezes off a rich industrialist and gets a 1b bounty on his head won't be able to just have a random buddy of his pod him and split the bounty. This is why damage-based payouts are the correct way to do it. They're unexploitable. Originally by: Somealt Ofmine Bounty Hunting Locator We already have those. Bounty hunters don't need special locator agents, they have the normal ones. If you wanted to make a locator agent use range skill, I could go for that, but it should be for everybody. Originally by: Somealt Ofmine Sec Status Requirement So you want squeaky-clean bounty hunters, who aren't even allowed to be in corp with someone at negative sec? And if you've put in 1000 kills, with a 90% ratio, and you happen to buy ammo off someone at negative sec, you lose all your experience? That's not just stupid, it's completely insane. And besides, what's wrong with both? Bounty hunters are shady people, it's in the nature of the beast. Originally by: Somealt Ofmine Target Requirements Or you could use the present system, where they go on people with negative sec status. And what's wrong with griefing? Originally by: Somealt Ofmine Level Decay and Reset You focus far too much on preventing odd little corner cases, and not enough on making the profession functional. You require that someone who wants to be a top-end bounty hunter has to kill better than three people per day in order to be able to collect big bounties. That's nearly impossible - even if it wasn't for travel time and issues of when people are online, there aren't enough bounties in existence to maintain very many people at 5. And besides, why does the person who put up the bounty care who collects it? They want to cause pain, not ensure that their hired killers live in a state of grace. ------------------ Fix the forums!
PWaNHrai Federal Navy Academy	Posted - 2008.08.15 19:56:00 - [62] A good idea for setting up the bounty hunter profession. If nothing else, this will be a far better bounty system than what is implemented right now. As for agressor's not being able to accept merc contracs. Although I understand your reasons for setting it up this way, it just will not work. As has been mentioned before you can not stop the agressor in getting merc help outside the IRD approved system. So you might aswell let both parties have acces to the system.
Amarr Holymight Bat Country Vanguard.	Posted - 2008.08.26 23:10:00 - [63] I wrote a thread with some very similar ideas a good while back but it's seems to be deleted now hohum, anyway needless to say I'm all for anything that ill fix this part of the game.
RoCkEt X Caldari The Order of Chivalry Nex Eternus	Posted - 2008.08.31 15:39:00 - [64] Edited by: RoCkEt X on 31/08/2008 15:39:51 heres an idea - killmarks. a killmark would be an item that you get when you get final blow on your target. a bounty system would be created so that you can use the killmark as proof that YOU killed the target. points (how it would work): you dont get killmarks unless you have accepted a kill contract. Accepting the kill contract gives you like a passcard used in complexes that will be RED in colour. when you kill your target, the item changes colour to GREEN. then you can complete the contract and collect the reward. kill contracts would maybe 7 days after accepted? but if you fail to complete it, the killmark (like a pass card thingy like you need to open gates in complexes. examples = Zbikoki's hacker card / R.S. officer's passcard) disappears. multiple people can accept one contract. but only 1 person will be able to complete it. i.e. only 1 person gets the reward. you would only be able to accept say 2 kill contracts at a time. kill contracts can be accepted from anywhere and completed from anywhere (enables outlaws to try it also) the target can also shoot the bounty hunter. killmarks would not be jetisonable. a killmark would be present in your cargohold ALL THE TIME while the contract is accepted. the killmark cannot be moved from cargohold. but will automatically be present in any ship you fly, whether you eject and board a new one, or dock and change ship. the one you are currently flying keeps the killmark. --------------------- ofcourse, this could be done by the addition of a new tab in the character sheet, killmarks would then show up in that new tab rather than as an actual item in your cargo. FOR MERC CORPS, only director/CEO can accept a kill contract on a corporation/alliance. the person setting up the contract can specify a minimum number of kills or duration of the war. the fee for setting up the contract would cost the war bill for the specified duration and be paid automatically on acceptance of the contract. if insufficient kills are obtained, the corp wallet of the merc corp must pay the war fee, and charges to the issuer will be refunded. what you people think?
Macheriel State War Academy	Posted - 2008.09.06 17:59:00 - [65] Edited by: Macheriel on 06/09/2008 18:03:36 I read the PDF and I like it. Bounty Hunters system is really something that is long overdue and this idea is a nice start. Good luck!
Astria Tiphareth 24th Imperial Crusade	Posted - 2008.09.29 13:05:00 - [66] Edited by: Astria Tiphareth on 29/09/2008 13:06:27 Very very good read - various others have already pointed out potential difficulties but overall well worth implementing in the game vs what we currently have. Nicely done. Edit: If CCP find the merc stuff too problematic, as clearly that is the area of biggest debate, the bounty system proposed alone is extremely good. ___ My views may not represent those of my corporation, which is why I never get invited to those diplomatic parties... Environmental Effects
Blastil	Posted - 2008.09.30 07:12:00 - [67] I like this idea with one single exception: I don't like how the pay out is based on the kill its self. This is for several reasons: 1) Bad Price Checks; what do we base things like faction loot, and the loss of faction ships. Additionally, do they only receive compensation on things not dropped, and destroyed? there are many things to consider with this. 2) Rewards older players disproportionately; lets face it, the chances of a guy in a frigate killing a pirate in his fully fitted faction BS, or his T2 HAC is nil to none. Older players have a better chance. This makes players who've simply been here longer more sucessful bounty hunters. This shouldn't be the case. 3) Removal of the 'Personal Feel'; Lets face it, I'm a pirate, and that bounty on my head is a direct relation to my E-Peen. The bigger it gets, the better I feel about myself. Its an indication of job success. Good pirates aren't measured by the ship they fly, or the implants in their head, but their noteriety. A bounty hunter should get a good reward for killing FAMOUS pirates, not ones with expensive tastes in ships, and fine wines. Also, part of what makes bounties so fun is having them cost players to get revenge. Its not a system that 'just works' its a personal feeling, kind of like defeating them in a duel.
Astria Tiphareth Caldari 24th Imperial Crusade	Posted - 2008.09.30 11:53:00 - [68] Originally by: Blastil 2) Rewards older players disproportionately; lets face it, the chances of a guy in a frigate killing a pirate in his fully fitted faction BS, or his T2 HAC is nil to none. Older players have a better chance. This makes players who've simply been here longer more sucessful bounty hunters. This shouldn't be the case. No different to normal PvP. Not a real issue according to those who repeatedly say that ISK and SP aren't an issue and new players can do PvP just like everyone else. Originally by: Blastil 3) Removal of the 'Personal Feel'; Lets face it, I'm a pirate, and that bounty on my head is a direct relation to my E-Peen. The bigger it gets, the better I feel about myself. Its an indication of job success. Good pirates aren't measured by the ship they fly, or the implants in their head, but their noteriety. A bounty hunter should get a good reward for killing FAMOUS pirates, not ones with expensive tastes in ships, and fine wines. Also, part of what makes bounties so fun is having them cost players to get revenge. Its not a system that 'just works' its a personal feeling, kind of like defeating them in a duel. Being famous, reputation, bounty, these are all things that the pirate cares about - not the targets - indeed most targets don't know the pirate's reputation, whether they're (in)famous in the sector, or whether the bounty is due to success or put on by the pirate themselves to make themselves look more capable. There's nothing to stop you checking your own bounty hunter contracts. Indeed CCP could add a sum of those and keep the existing bounty notification.
Ris Dnalor Minmatar Ex Cruoris Libertas	Posted - 2008.11.07 06:05:00 - [69] Why not allow people to report the location of people with bounties, by right clicking on their ship in space on on the listing in the overview and choosing an option "report location". and then when people go to look at the list of people with bounties, it will also say their last known location, ( and the name of the person that did the reporting ) Even if you kept a delay, it could help. tralala
Digaph Concrete Developments	Posted - 2008.11.07 09:37:00 - [70] Originally by: Ris Dnalor Why not allow people to report the location of people with bounties, by right clicking on their ship in space on on the listing in the overview and choosing an option "report location". and then when people go to look at the list of people with bounties, it will also say their last known location, ( and the name of the person that did the reporting ) Even if you kept a delay, it could help. tralala This actually is an interesting addition to the great ideas already posted. What this would enable is for bounty hunters to work together in groups ( Player interaction ) Here is how it would work: - 2 or more bounty hunters work together. - 1 of the BH gets to a station to accept the bounty contract while his buddy is in pursuit of the target updating it's last known location on the fly. - When the contract is accepted he'll race back to his buddy to start the assault. - When the kill was successful the contract can be turned in and like it works with missions at the moment you should be able to share it with your fleet, making bounty hunting a group thing and reward payouts been shared among the participants. Either way, I really like the ideas you've posted and this entire plan, although I'm especially interested in the BH aspect of it, gets my full support. I really hope CCP is going to integrate a system like this making eve and empire space a more lively environment without hurting the new players or the carebears at all. Cheers, Digaph "I'm not a complete idiot... ...some parts are missing"

Alekseyev Karrde Noir. Wildly Inappropriate.	Posted - 2008.11.08 06:14:00 - [71] Mercs get hired for offensive actions as well. Any change should enhance and expand the profession, or at least formalize it, not limit it. --- Zombie Apocalypse Guitar-Wielding Superteam
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.11.08 09:26:00 - [72] Originally by: Dierdra Vaal Edited by: Dierdra Vaal on 09/08/2008 15:34:53 I would welcome any comments or suggestions on this plan :) 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.
Arithron Gallente Gallente Trade Alliance	Posted - 2008.11.08 21:26:00 - [73] 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
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.11.09 07:21:00 - [74] Edited by: Goumindong on 09/11/2008 07:23:29 Originally by: Arithron 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. And if you've read carefully, you would know that that means that the instant anyone puts up a bounty contract, pretty much everyone in the universe can have kill rights on that target. They just go and accept the contract. At which point bounty hunting is not a way to get revenge on someone who wronged you in high sec or low sec, but a unreasonable restriction on player activity. Quote: 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! I don't think you understand how a reverse auction works. You see. If you have the kill right and are setting out the bounty, you agree to pay some amount. The hunters then bid the price down. This means that when the contract is accepted and completed the person putting out the bounty pays the money out. The competition comes from hunters each looking to do the job for cheaper. Collateral is necessary so that there is incentive for the hunter to complete the contract. Otherwise players can take a contract and ignore it. Quote: 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? What is my point about what? You're making no sense. Quote: Finer details are up to the Developers. Who read these things and often make decisions based on it.
Mr Crepsley Gallente SkillzKillz United For 0rder	Posted - 2008.11.13 20:34:00 - [75] TBH a mercenary contract system as what would stop mercenary's bypassing the system and war decking corps anyway passing all the rules ---- Originally by: CCP Atropos I pod people because there's money to be made in selling tears.
Arithron Gallente Gallente Trade Alliance	Posted - 2008.11.13 20:57:00 - [76] 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
Anig Browl	Posted - 2008.11.14 01:20:00 - [77] Originally by: Kelsin If the payout is only a fraction of the damage inflicted, there's no incentive to cash in your own bounty. If payout is only a fraction of the damage inflicted, there's not much incentive to risk your own ship trying to collect the bounty either. Unless you are talking implants rather than ship damage. Like the contract idea, hate the skill idea. Why does every last thing have to have a skill associated with it? I start to wonder if ambulation will require a 'walking' skill. Tentative support.
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.11.14 04:24:00 - [78] Originally by: Arithron There's nothing stopping a player being hunted from returning fire...you make them sound like poor passive targets! Everyone is a passive target when enough people are shooting. Gaining advantage by bringing more people is fine, but enforcing that advantage is not. If a guy generates a lot of bounties(I.E. one per kill right generated by the pirate) and they are contracted then there may be a lot of hunters, but the other way around, where many hunters can get the same bounty is not reasonable, it enforces an imbalance with a single action. Remember, any system that we implement is going to be a brake on pirate activity. We have to be careful that it is not too much of a brake
Arikanaiz	Posted - 2008.11.14 04:41:00 - [79] signed
Axel Vindislaga	Posted - 2008.12.12 15:25:00 - [80] "Contracts can only be issued on players you have a kill right on" I was reading with great interest then struck this...WHAAATTT??? It is a kind of honour to have a bounty placed on you. I dont think that there needs to be a justification behind placing a bounty. Especially considering the ******ed wreck ownership rules. Killing anywhere I think is a bit much. I dont think that the maximum security areas are going to wan random shootings going on. make it 0.7 and below or something. But its great that progress is being made. I always wanted to be a bounty hunter in Eve.

Molock Saronen	Posted - 2008.12.12 23:18:00 - [81]
Maximum KILLDEATHRATIO 24th Imperial Crusade	Posted - 2008.12.12 23:44:00 - [82] ___________________ Yes I'm bitter. (the taste you can see!)
NeoVictus	Posted - 2008.12.20 10:20:00 - [83]
Cyprus Black Caldari School of Applied Knowledge	Posted - 2008.12.21 04:36:00 - [84] Edited by: Cyprus Black on 21/12/2008 04:46:22 Edited by: Cyprus Black on 21/12/2008 04:41:20 I've read the pdf file and reread it twice more. A few concerns come to mind. First is the profitability of bounty hunting. The risk vs reward vs time ratio comes creeping up. To me it just doesn't seem like the risk and time required is worth the reward. Especially if said bounty target is a drifter. Second is the anti griefing measures put forth in the pdf seem a bit sketchy and undefined. Habitual griefers, despite their reputation, are rather clever and I fear they will find a workaround to misuse the system. Newbie victims of can baiting come to mind. My third concern is the ability to "track" down bounty targets. Mainly for its alternative uses, specifically against enemy alliances. What an incredible advantage it would be if your alliance could track enemy alliance movements. I do like the idea though and believe it does have merit. I would like to see NPC bounty hunters for hire. ______________ Some men aren't looking for anything logical, like money. They can't be bought, bullied, reasoned or negotiated with. Some men just want to watch the world burn.
Taudia Sane Industries Inc. Ursa Stellar Initiative	Posted - 2008.12.21 11:07:00 - [85] Supported, although I object to the proposal solving the problems with the current system. Say a player with significant bounty and an insured battleship has a buddy in his alliance who is a bounty hunter. The fact that, in the proposed system, only a part of the bounty proportionate to the loss is payed, the possibility of abuse in this scenario isn't great but it is still present - given an appropriately high bounty, the possibility of that player indirectly claiming the bounty is still present. Anyway, I'm nitpicking.
Lucian Marcello	Posted - 2008.12.21 11:27:00 - [86] Edited by: Lucian Marcello on 21/12/2008 11:27:43 I was actually thinking about this the other day, the main thing I can think of is would it really be viable to the griever, say you just got killed you lose "x" amount of isk, you want to get back at the guy so you put "x" amount of isk. In my mind the bounty will probably not go over the price of their loss, at which point it isn't profitable to the bounty hunter...this may sound odd but what if you could instead give your kill rights to the CONCORD and so they could process the bounty based on how much the grievers ship was worth multiplied by a variable of the pirates -security status. We already see this on NPC pirates, so why couldn't they simple apply a Bounty System based on how many people turn in the kill rights to concord...say said pirate has 20 confirmed kills his bounty would be worth more. For storyline sake you could also say that the CONCORD is employing bounty hunters to help with the pirating problem in low sec so a certain reward is offered for their heads? I think that would fix the profit problem for bounty hunters and make it more worth their time. Though with the added attention and way to profit off pirates you'd need a method for pirates to make some kind of profit or maybe to prevent them from killing themselves with a friend/alt give them a perk for keeping their security status...and maybe if they get killed by a "bounty hunter" their security status goes up (as in from -5.00 to -4.50) and as it goes further away from low security they lose that perk. Being it that only hunters can claim the bounty with the plan you made, mixed with the fact that the pirates gets a perk for having low status means he probably won't want to kill himself to get the bounty if it means losing x amount of sec status.
Terra Mikael Private Nuisance	Posted - 2008.12.22 04:50:00 - [87] Originally by: Inertial These ideas are bad. EVE is supposed to be a sandbox game, but these ideas essentially say that "You can't build the sandcastle that high, as it violates sandcastle construction rule 35f". If we start making these rules and mechanics, eve will eventually turn into something else. Lets keep the sandbox a sandbox. Eve has a lot of rules that are just like the 35f rule. For example, you can only declare war on groups of people, but individuals in a certain type of corp can't be war dec'd. If it was a real sandbox, you could declare war on any individual, group, or groups or people that you wanted to kill. But i do see what your saying - the OP is suggesting redundant rules, like group A can do this but only group B can do that - which is stupid. whichever way it goes, both sides need to be able to wage war however they want. ________________________________ Originally by: Korovyov You WIN! And by win, I mean suck horse manure.


Pages: 1 2 [3] :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.