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)
Dierdra Vaal	Posted - 2008.08.09 15:34:00 - [1] Bounty hunters and mercenaries - a vision The CSM has recently decided to try and work out a few big picture ideas. I chose to focus on the hired guns in Eve: bounty hunters and mercenaries. It is currently not really possible to be a bounty hunter in Eve, due to the flawed bounty system. Mercenaries are more common, but still have a lot of room for improvement. This plan aims to solve the issues around these two professions. Plan: Nil mortifi sine lucre, a 6 page PDF file detailing the plans. If you do not have a PDF reader I suggest installing Foxit Reader. For the tl;dr crowd I'll try to give a short explanation of the plans, however do not criticize this plan without reading the full version! Bounty hunter Bounties will change into bounty contracts Players with the bounty hunter skill can accept these contracts Contracts can only be issues on players you have a kill right on Bounty hunters who have accepted the contract gain a derived kill right on the target, allowing them to attack the target anywhere Bounty payouts will be proportionate to the approximate value of the damage inflicted on the target Mercenary Mercenary corporations can issue mercenary contracts with their fees Corporations involved in a concord sanctioned war can accept the merc contracts, but only if that corporation did not start the war Once accepted, the mercenary force enters the existing CONCORD war dec on the side of their employer Payment of the mercenaries is fully automated Training Director :: EVE University CSM Representative
Dierdra Vaal	Posted - 2008.08.09 15:35:00 - [2] Edited by: Dierdra Vaal on 09/08/2008 15:34:53 I would welcome any comments or suggestions on this plan :) Training Director :: EVE University CSM Representative
Alaki Kant Axiom Empire	Posted - 2008.08.09 15:58:00 - [3] Sounds interesting and definitely worth looking into.
Ysabelle nKataros Evolution Band of Brothers	Posted - 2008.08.09 16:03:00 - [4] I endorse this product and/or service. BoB: When we have fleet battles, our killboard crashes
Herschel Yamamoto Bloodmoney Incorporated	Posted - 2008.08.09 16:14:00 - [5] I see a couple problems. First, by making it impossible to accept contracts of over 2 million at first, you're essentially freezing out most veterans. Flying across half the galaxy, finding the guy, killing him, and podding him is worth a lot more than 2 million of my time. Anyone who is really gung-ho about the idea of being a bounty hunter will probably choose to endure it, but it's a roadblock. That's not necessarily bad, but it should be noted. Second, why shouldn't attackers be able to use mercs? I've done wardec-piracy before, and it's not unusual to attack a corp smaller than yourself and have them hire mercs rather than paying up. In that case, we should have the option of hiring our own mercs to keep the pressure on, rather than being effectively forced to fold because they hired a corp twice our size. Besides, if attackers can't hire mercs, you'll still have a business in forum-based merc services, but the results won't be tracked and all the fancy payment options will have to be human-administered. Also, another similar problem - payment for kills shouldn't care who was the aggressor. I care about kills, not who gets the drop on who. All that aside, however, this is one of the best proposals of substance I've read on this forum to date, and I'm happy to support it. ------------------ Fix the forums!
Kelsin Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.08.09 16:18:00 - [6] I agree with Herschel, and this is an excellent proposal.
Dierdra Vaal	Posted - 2008.08.09 16:26:00 - [7] Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto I see a couple problems. First, by making it impossible to accept contracts of over 2 million at first, you're essentially freezing out most veterans. Flying across half the galaxy, finding the guy, killing him, and podding him is worth a lot more than 2 million of my time. Anyone who is really gung-ho about the idea of being a bounty hunter will probably choose to endure it, but it's a roadblock. That's not necessarily bad, but it should be noted. This is a problem I also identified, and its a part of the plan that can still use polishing. At first my plan was to allow BH's to accept any contracts, but that greatly increases the risk of someone claiming their own bounty by killing themselves. And having that as a real possibility will be a reason for many people not to use bounties at all, since they dont want to end up PAYING the person they want to get revenge on. Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto Second, why shouldn't attackers be able to use mercs? I've done wardec-piracy before, and it's not unusual to attack a corp smaller than yourself and have them hire mercs rather than paying up. In that case, we should have the option of hiring our own mercs to keep the pressure on, rather than being effectively forced to fold because they hired a corp twice our size. Besides, if attackers can't hire mercs, you'll still have a business in forum-based merc services, but the results won't be tracked and all the fancy payment options will have to be human-administered. Also, another similar problem - payment for kills shouldn't care who was the aggressor. I care about kills, not who gets the drop on who. Another good point, and one we did consider. We chose to limit it to 'victims' of a war dec to avoid a mercenary arms race where each side hires more and more mercenaries. This also makes it easier for smaller corps or industrial corps to fight pvp corps by using their money. We also hope this restriction places a realisation of risk that currently does not existing in empire wars. The attacking corp would know they might get mercs on their ass without being able to counter that directly. As for the payment, the payment in its current form doesn't care who was the aggressor, as you point out correctly only the kill matters, not who fired the first shot. Did I phrase it unclear? Training Director :: EVE University CSM Representative
Fadu Varon Eve University Ivy League	Posted - 2008.08.09 16:37:00 - [8] I like the ideas.
Elgarath	Posted - 2008.08.09 16:39:00 - [9] Edited by: Elgarath on 09/08/2008 16:44:55 I realize this would need a lot of work, but what about an NPC Bounty Corp? Bounties would continue as they are, but anyone wanting to choose this as a career could join said corp and as long as there is a bounty, be immune from being Concorded.
Herschel Yamamoto Bloodmoney Incorporated	Posted - 2008.08.09 16:50:00 - [10] Originally by: Dierdra Vaal This is a problem I also identified, and its a part of the plan that can still use polishing. At first my plan was to allow BH's to accept any contracts, but that greatly increases the risk of someone claiming their own bounty by killing themselves. And having that as a real possibility will be a reason for many people not to use bounties at all, since they dont want to end up PAYING the person they want to get revenge on. Have a skill for it? That does seem to be the Eve default solution to problems, after all. Less grind, more train. And it's easy enough to have people not want to collect their own contracts - figure out a market value of the damage(after insurance!), and pay the BH half of that. You can collect your own contract, but it's at best a way to liquidate assets for half their value. Not many people will do that. Originally by: Dierdra Vaal Another good point, and one we did consider. We chose to limit it to 'victims' of a war dec to avoid a mercenary arms race where each side hires more and more mercenaries. This also makes it easier for smaller corps or industrial corps to fight pvp corps by using their money. We also hope this restriction places a realisation of risk that currently does not existing in empire wars. The attacking corp would know they might get mercs on their ass without being able to counter that directly. Thing is, if you're going to have a mercenary arms race, you're going to have a mercenary arms race - most people won't shy away from hiring mercs just because they have to go looking on the forums for them(or looking through open merc offers and EveMailing the CEOs involved, for that matter). This just seems like you're setting up the bewildered "Why haven't they fixed this yet?" threads of a year from now. If you're going to fix the interface, you might as well fix the interface for everybody. Originally by: Dierdra Vaal As for the payment, the payment in its current form doesn't care who was the aggressor, as you point out correctly only the kill matters, not who fired the first shot. Did I phrase it unclear? Here's how you phrased it: Originally by: Nil Mortifi Sine Lucre A ship kill that occurs where a mercenary pilot was involved as the aggressor, and their CONCORD sanctioned enemy was the victim, automatically withdraws a prearranged (in the contract) sum from the corporate wallet of the corporation that has hired the mercenaries It's the "as the aggressor" bit that I'm questioning. Use a phrasing like "Whenever a mercenary kills a CONCORD-sanctioned enemy, a prearranged (in the contract) sum will be withdrawn from the corporate wallet of the corporation that has hired the mercenaries". Also, as I read that, one other minor thing comes to mind - if multiple corps are on the kill, have the kill rewards be pro-rated by kill share(damage dealt or ships count, whichever). It's probably assumed, but it should be in the final version, since a lot of merc corps fly with their patrons, or with other mercs if multiple corps are hired. ------------------ Fix the forums!

Zashiki Warashi	Posted - 2008.08.09 16:51:00 - [11] Both are wonderful thoughts. I definitely agree that Mercs should be limited to the aggressed to prevent escalation. On tangential note, I think giving empire WarDecs some sort of meaningful(I'll leave what that constitutes to others) end state could help address that problem. Regardless of that, Merc contracts sound good. Bounties, OTOH, seem subject to the major issue which you point out; Targets claiming their own bounty, or having it claimed by someone with relations to the target. The issue of it being claimed through self destruct isn't a major one; simply make that a non-possibility similar to no insurance when you get CONCORDOKKEN! In order to prevent fradulent claims on the bounty, for lack of a better term, a bid system could work. Licensed Hunters may bid on contracts. The issuing party may then accept the contract. In the event of multiple bounties on an identical individual, some sort of corroboration system could be put in place where the Hunter with the majority of confidence from issuing parties receives the full contract. Something along these lines still leaves room for parties with ties to the contracted individual to gain the contract, but that could be resolved partially through leaving names out of the contract, noting only known ship types flown and other information on the target in the contract itself.
Ivena Amethyst	Posted - 2008.08.09 18:13:00 - [12] yes this
Kelsin Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.08.09 18:17:00 - [13] Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto And it's easy enough to have people not want to collect their own contracts - figure out a market value of the damage(after insurance!), and pay the BH half of that. You can collect your own contract, but it's at best a way to liquidate assets for half their value. Not many people will do that. That's exactly what I was thinking. If the payout is only a fraction of the damage inflicted, there's no incentive to cash in your own bounty.
Arithron Gallente Gallente Trade Alliance	Posted - 2008.08.09 19:43:00 - [14] 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
Akiba Penrose The Movement	Posted - 2008.08.09 19:45:00 - [15] /Signed Originally by: Dierdra Vaal We chose to limit it to 'victims' of a war dec to avoid a mercenary arms race where each side hires more and more mercenaries. I dont see why you need this limit,, a mercenary arms race sounds like a lot of fun to me. And as Herschel said, if you only give the defeners the option, you force attackers to use forums to hire merc. Which again will undermine the function you try to implement.
Arithron Gallente Trade Alliance	Posted - 2008.08.09 19:46:00 - [16] Oh, and good ideas
Aleus Stygian	Posted - 2008.08.09 19:54:00 - [17] Question though; Why particularly a skill, and not a 'corporate mission' or a taken profession or, to make things simple and less mechanic-inducing, just something you accept through a contract? I think these changes look great. It's just that I'm curious as to why it would be a skill and what skill levels would affect and what the requisites would be...
Arithron Gallente Gallente Trade Alliance	Posted - 2008.08.09 20:05:00 - [18] 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
St0mper	Posted - 2008.08.09 20:07:00 - [19] I endorse this development, and look forward to trying it out if it passes the bar so to speak.
St0mper	Posted - 2008.08.09 20:11:00 - [20]

Herschel Yamamoto Bloodmoney Incorporated	Posted - 2008.08.09 20:15:00 - [21] Originally by: Arithron A merc arms race benefits the aggressor more than the defender in many circumstances. It also places small corps at a distinct disadvantage when a large corp war decs them (and, as others have stated, do it for some war-dec pirating in empire). Wars should be serious business, and the act of declaring war should entail some substantial risks; currently, IMO, it doesn't, especially when a large corp decs a smaller corp. The idea was also to make merc hire valid (with concord ignoring interested parties etc) only by going through the IRD. Automated payments etc would be available through this department. Hiring mercs outside of the system would be possible, as currently they are- but the rub is that it's via the war dec system. Thus, the hired merc corp (outside of the IRD) declares war on defending corp....the defending corp can then hire mercs etc.... Take care, Arithron Well yeah, they'd have to launch their own wardec. But is that really a problem? You're describing the status quo. And sure, the defenders could bring in mercs through the IRD, but they already can do that - if the attacker is hiring mercs, then the corp defending the merc wardec is the same corp defending the original wardec, and can hire mercs accordingly. It's easier to just encompass an entire conflict, be it with however many corps, into a single wardec, because that's fundamentally what it is. Get rid of all the bureaucracy, not just half of it. And I'm not sure why you think wars don't entail risk. I've got a fair bit of experience with aggressive wars, and the vast majority of marks, in my experience, tell you to go pound sand - either they spend 5x your requested payoff on a merc force twice your size and average character age, or they hide in station and take a week off. People have a pathological aversion to just paying the guy with the gun pointed at them(cf, Verone's sig), and as such wardeccing for bounties is usually a waste of effort. It makes good sense if you're doing it as an attack on your opposing alliance's supply lines, or if you're settling a legitimate grudge, but the idea that it's a risk-free profit source is crazy. ------------------ Fix the forums!
Arithron Gallente Gallente Trade Alliance	Posted - 2008.08.09 20:46:00 - [22] 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
Herschel Yamamoto Bloodmoney Incorporated	Posted - 2008.08.09 23:41:00 - [23] Originally by: Arithron 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 Yeah, you can push around guys a fraction of your size, but you won't earn enough to be bothered with. They'll either bulk up to size with mercenaries, in which case they're not really smaller, huddle in station, in which case you get nothing, or pay you a ransom that's barely worth your time, effort, and risk. And besides, most PvPers like the action as much as the cash, and there's not much chance of that either. Risk is basically proportional to reward, especially in PvP-type activities. And besides, it's not like you're banning the attacker from using mercs, you're just making them fight with the old interface to do so. If you're going to do a UI upgrade(which is ultimately what this is, since there's basically no new functionality here), then do it for everybody, don't pick and choose. And I'm not saying that it's set in stone, or that it's bad. I just claim that it could be better, and thus I'm trying to fix what I consider to be a fairly obvious problem while I see it, rather than assuming the person after me will catch and fix it. I still like this idea quite a lot, I'm just a nitpicker at heart. ------------------ Fix the forums!
Eternal Error Exitus Acta Probant	Posted - 2008.08.10 00:23:00 - [24] I read the tl;dr version, and it sounds great, except that I agree with herschel-attackers should have the options to hire mercs as otherwise they will just go to the forums. If you're going to fix half the deal with mercs, fix the whole thing.
Elhina Novae Destruction Reborn CORPVS DELICTI	Posted - 2008.08.10 01:13:00 - [25] Edited by: Elhina Novae on 10/08/2008 01:12:40 I fully support this, exept the limitations, both sides should be able to have fun and recruit mercenaries and let it escalate ^^ ------------ When I became the sun, I shone life into the man¦s hearts.
Dierdra Vaal	Posted - 2008.08.10 02:06:00 - [26] Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto Well yeah, they'd have to launch their own wardec. But is that really a problem? You're describing the status quo. actually, it can be quite a problem: Corp A declares war on corp B Corp B hires mercenary corp C Now, A is fighting both B and C in the same war. If A wants to even the score by hiring mercs as well - corp D - the mercs will have to declare war on both corps B and C if they want to be able to shoot both parties shooting at their client. This can get costly, especially if you're dealing with alliances. I guess I still prefer limiting merc hiring to the aggressed because I see it as a way for a corp that cant fight their own wars to even the scales. An even balance means the success of the war will come down to player skill, rather than who can hire the most mercenaries. Training Director :: EVE University CSM Representative
Herschel Yamamoto Bloodmoney Incorporated	Posted - 2008.08.10 04:03:00 - [27] Originally by: Dierdra Vaal Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto Well yeah, they'd have to launch their own wardec. But is that really a problem? You're describing the status quo. actually, it can be quite a problem: Corp A declares war on corp B Corp B hires mercenary corp C Now, A is fighting both B and C in the same war. If A wants to even the score by hiring mercs as well - corp D - the mercs will have to declare war on both corps B and C if they want to be able to shoot both parties shooting at their client. This can get costly, especially if you're dealing with alliances. I guess I still prefer limiting merc hiring to the aggressed because I see it as a way for a corp that cant fight their own wars to even the scales. An even balance means the success of the war will come down to player skill, rather than who can hire the most mercenaries. As I said, you're describing the status quo. It's not a real limitation. For that matter, just have Corp D dec Corp B, and presume that they'll extend C's contract to cover D. As for wars coming down to who can hire the most mercenaries, you've got a solution hunting for a problem. Remember the old Clausewitzian dictum - war is the continuation of politics by other means. You don't fight wars for the sake of fighting wars, you fight them to achieve aims. So, for example, when Bloodmoney decced a small corp last fall and they hired a merc force with a significantly bigger active strength than we had, we didn't go out to one-up them, and we sure as hell didn't pool our assets and get MC on the line. We weren't fighting to win, we were fighting to make a profit. Hiring mercs to beat back theirs is viscerally satisfying, but it's lethal to the bottom line. If a war is really snowballing that badly, there's probably a reason for it, and your interface should not stand in the way. ------------------ Fix the forums!
Case Kovaks Suddenly Ninjas	Posted - 2008.08.10 10:08:00 - [28] Nice idea, too complex I think to be implimented but Good Luck!
Inertial The Python Cartel	Posted - 2008.08.10 10:30:00 - [29] 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. we are recruiting!
Strill	Posted - 2008.08.10 11:00:00 - [30] Originally by: Case Kovaks Nice idea, too complex I think to be implimented but Good Luck! What's complex about it? You hire a bounty hunter, they go out and kill the target and get payed based on how much of a loss they inflict. That's pretty much all there is to it. All the other stuff is just there to automate things and make sure that's what happens.

J'Mkarr Soban Proxenetae Invicti	Posted - 2008.08.10 11:13:00 - [31] Edited by: J''Mkarr Soban on 10/08/2008 11:13:42 This is what I've been waiting 5 years for, ever since the first day the servers went live when I signed up. Bring it. -- These are my personal views and in no way represent the views of Proxenetae Invicti, which maintains a neutral stance stemming from the strong ethics demanded of its work.
Strill	Posted - 2008.08.10 11:55:00 - [32] I see some obstacles to making the bounty-hunter payment completely automated. If your bounty hunter blows up the target's ship and destroys a bunch of faction/officer modules, how would the system appraise those? One opposition was that the proposed system discourages sandboxing, so to that effect I'd suggest more options The option to set a flat reward for each ship class destroyed The option to set a percentage reward for net losses inflicted to the target The option to set a cap on the possible rewards The option to contract a bounty hunter even if you don't have kill rights ***The contract info should show whether the target is expected to be in 0.0 sec, low-sec, or empire
Dierdra Vaal	Posted - 2008.08.10 14:26:00 - [33] Originally by: Strill I see some obstacles to making the bounty-hunter payment completely automated. If your bounty hunter blows up the target's ship and destroys a bunch of faction/officer modules, how would the system appraise those? One opposition was that the proposed system discourages sandboxing, so to that effect I'd suggest more options The option to set a flat reward for each ship class destroyed The option to set a percentage reward for net losses inflicted to the target The option to set a cap on the possible rewards The option to contract a bounty hunter even if you don't have kill rights ***The contract info should show whether the target is expected to be in 0.0 sec, low-sec, or empire estimating the approximate isk value of the damage sustained by the target is probably the most complex part of the bounty hunter idea. I'm sure CCP can think of a good way to do this though. As for setting a contract when you dont have kill rights, this could be a problem, UNLESS the contract then does not yield a derived kill right. This is necessary because we'd be creating kill rights out of thin air otherwise. A bounty contract without kill right will be a lot harder to fulfill by a bounty hunter though. Training Director :: EVE University CSM Representative
Toman Jerich Ars ex Discordia GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.08.10 15:01:00 - [34] I think it would be fun if you could issue 'non-sanctioned' or 'black market' bounty contracts that do not grant kill rights and that do not require kill rights to create. I'm talking about putting a hit out on somebody. The formula for deriving the payout received would include not only he approximate isk value of the damage sustained by the target, but also the approximate isk value of the damage sustained by the assassin in accomplishing the kill (where 'damage' includes some monetary value attached to sec status loss). This is basically a game mechanic for hiring people to perform suicide assassinations (or at least assassinations that will result in a large sec status loss) and guaranteeing their compensation if they succeed.
Arithron Gallente Gallente Trade Alliance	Posted - 2008.08.10 18:13:00 - [35] 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
Strill	Posted - 2008.08.10 22:46:00 - [36] Originally by: Dierdra Vaal As for setting a contract when you dont have kill rights, this could be a problem, UNLESS the contract then does not yield a derived kill right. Ya. That's the idea. You don't need kill rights for the bounty hunter to be able to do their job, especially if the target is in low-sec or 0.0 sec, but they'd need to see that on the contract. It's just a pro-sandboxing thing.
Esmenet	Posted - 2008.08.10 22:52:00 - [37] Cant be arsed to read the 6 page file as its not worth it to be that detailed. But its been pretty clear for a looong time that bounty hunting needs work and something similar to what you outlined has been suggested many times. Merc corps work pretty good as it is. Vote against the nano nerf!
Etil DeLaFuente Obsidian Inc. KIA Alliance	Posted - 2008.08.11 00:51:00 - [38]
Dierdra Vaal	Posted - 2008.08.11 19:22:00 - [39] Originally by: Strill Originally by: Dierdra Vaal As for setting a contract when you dont have kill rights, this could be a problem, UNLESS the contract then does not yield a derived kill right. Ya. That's the idea. You don't need kill rights for the bounty hunter to be able to do their job, especially if the target is in low-sec or 0.0 sec, but they'd need to see that on the contract. It's just a pro-sandboxing thing. an interesting idea, I'll see if I can work it into the final document :) Training Director :: EVE University CSM Representative
Becq Starforged Minmatar Ship Construction Services	Posted - 2008.08.11 22:40:00 - [40] Good idea. A couple of thoughts: Regarding bounties, there needs to be a way to prevent the hunted player from interfering or even benefit from the arrangement. For example, I'd want to make sure that the bounty payoff plus insurance was not enough to make it worthwhile for the hunted player to benefit by suiciding themselves to his own alt. Also, there needs to be a way to prevent a character from accepting a bounty for the express purpose of ensuring that nobody else does. You may have already considered these points, but to make sure, I'd stress that the contract can be accepted by any number of bounty hunters, and payments are first come first served until the bounty contract is completed. The bounty payment amount should be worth no more than about half of the full insurance value of the target, and the the maximum insurance payment for the destroyed ship should be reduced by the same amount. (In the case of T2 ships, this should probably be bumped to several times the insurance amount.) Note that modules need not be included in the ship valuation, since the hunter will get about half of the modules as loot. Some thought needs to be given to how large a bounty can be set, how many times the hunted player can be killed, etc. For example, if it is limited to one ship loss as it is now, there's incentive for the hunted to sacrifice a cheap ship to cancel the bounty; if there is no limit to the number of attacks that can be made against the target, then there is potential for griefing. Also, there should probably be some way of identifying those who have dispensation to kill you in high sec. Perhaps a star in a color other than those currently used for war targets or corp/alliance/militia members? Regarding the merc contracts, this is an interesting idea. There should probably be additional capability to incorporate per-kill 'bounties' in the contract, with amounts based on some measure of ship value. It might be worthwhile to simplify this idea to a contract type that automatically files for and funds the wardec and ensures the payment of contracted amounts. -- Becq Starforged Ushra'Khan The Flame of Freedom Burns On!

Grann Thefauto Running with Knives	Posted - 2008.08.11 23:22:00 - [41] Yes.
Strill	Posted - 2008.08.12 00:38:00 - [42] Originally by: Becq Starforged Some thought needs to be given to how large a bounty can be set. The current limit of one kill is too little, and there's incentive for the hunted to sacrifice a cheap ship to cancel the bounty. But if killing the hunted is more or less unlimited, as in your plan, then there is potential for griefing. Perhaps the limit should be a multiple of the value of the ship loss that created the kill right to begin with. The limit could just be the maximum bounty amount set in the contract. Once the bounty hunter kills the target enough times to claim the whole bounty, the contract is fulfilled and they lose their derived kill rights.
Reynolds Third Return Inc. Blue Sun Trust	Posted - 2008.08.12 00:45:00 - [43]
Dierdra Vaal	Posted - 2008.08.12 02:22:00 - [44] Originally by: Strill Originally by: Becq Starforged Some thought needs to be given to how large a bounty can be set. The current limit of one kill is too little, and there's incentive for the hunted to sacrifice a cheap ship to cancel the bounty. But if killing the hunted is more or less unlimited, as in your plan, then there is potential for griefing. Perhaps the limit should be a multiple of the value of the ship loss that created the kill right to begin with. The limit could just be the maximum bounty amount set in the contract. Once the bounty hunter kills the target enough times to claim the whole bounty, the contract is fulfilled and they lose their derived kill rights. that is the current idea :) Training Director :: EVE University CSM Representative
Kano Sekor Amarr The Movement	Posted - 2008.08.12 11:22:00 - [45] Agreed, if the bounty hunter is flashy red to the person with the bounty on his head. ----------------------------------------------------------------------
Arithron Gallente Gallente Trade Alliance	Posted - 2008.08.12 12:07:00 - [46] 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
Dierdra Vaal	Posted - 2008.08.13 21:07:00 - [47] I finally remembered the main reason we limited mercenaries from entering the war on the side of the agressor: Corp A declares war on corp B. Corp A is actually part of a group of griefer corps, issues merc contracts for this war with 0 fees. Allied griefer corps accept, and voila, free wars! It would open up a whole can of worms for corporations to gain free wars easily on targets of their choosing. Training Director :: EVE University CSM Representative
Herschel Yamamoto Bloodmoney Incorporated	Posted - 2008.08.13 21:42:00 - [48] Originally by: Dierdra Vaal I finally remembered the main reason we limited mercenaries from entering the war on the side of the agressor: Corp A declares war on corp B. Corp A is actually part of a group of griefer corps, issues merc contracts for this war with 0 fees. Allied griefer corps accept, and voila, free wars! It would open up a whole can of worms for corporations to gain free wars easily on targets of their choosing. Then make the joiners pay wardec fees. ------------------ Fix the forums!
Lucy'Lastic	Posted - 2008.08.14 00:08:00 - [49] Yes.
Elektrea SniggWaffe	Posted - 2008.08.14 02:27:00 - [50] ----------

Cpt Branko Surge. NIght's Dawn	Posted - 2008.08.14 03:57:00 - [51] Edited by: Cpt Branko on 14/08/2008 03:58:25 Originally by: Dierdra Vaal Mercenary Mercenary corporations can issue mercenary contracts with their fees Corporations involved in a concord sanctioned war can accept the merc contracts, but only if that corporation did not start the war Once accepted, the mercenary force enters the existing CONCORD war dec on the side of their employer Payment of the mercenaries is fully automated That's horrible. Why shouldn't I be able to recruit mercs to help me in a war I started? Why shouldn't I be able to just pay them to wardec someone's alt corp? Etc. Seriously now, what do you want with the changes? The mercenary profession is quite fine. Seriously, did any of you CSM people hear about the 'it's not broken, don't break in on purpose'? It's a simple concept to grasp. Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint
TimMc Genos Occidere	Posted - 2008.08.14 04:44:00 - [52]
Akarr Creitos	Posted - 2008.08.14 08:08:00 - [53] I like it.
Holy Lowlander Aurora Acclivitous Paxton Federation	Posted - 2008.08.14 08:48:00 - [54] Edited by: Holy Lowlander on 14/08/2008 08:48:44 This is a really good idea . It will actually make sense to put a bountey on someone after this . But there is a small thing I see as a problem. If you put a bountey on someone you expect him/her to get killed and you don't care if the person that is going to do it has a high or a low standing with IRD . You do however care if he does the job or not. IRD standing has very litle to do with that .... Someone with low pvp experience can get lots of IRD standing by just killing a ton of people via bountey contracts in jita . While a more expierenced pvper might go looking for that one big special badguy, fly trough potentially dangerous space . To gather intel on his target and eventually pin him down and kill him. Now who of these 2 people would you like to go after your 100 m bountey contract on the goonswarm CEO ^^ :P. edit : I forgot the thumbs up !!! Quote: woot I wants a toy arbitrator !!! :O
Doonoo Boonoo	Posted - 2008.08.14 11:31:00 - [55] Good stuff.
Maulos Caldari the united	Posted - 2008.08.14 12:30:00 - [56] /signed
Maximillian Bayonette White Lion Manufacture and Salvage	Posted - 2008.08.14 18:00:00 - [57] I think you're on the right track, in as much as the bounty system needing a rework, but this idea is just more rigid mechanics and "cans" and "can'ts" forced upon the game. Not supported, sadly.
Xeno Xandovar Nebula Rasa Holdings Nebula Rasa	Posted - 2008.08.14 18:06:00 - [58] +1.
Somealt Ofmine	Posted - 2008.08.14 18:17:00 - [59] 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. 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. Level 1: Up to 1,000,000 bounty Level 2: Up to 10,000,000 Level 3: Up to 100,000,000 Level 4: Up to 1,000,000,000 Level 5: Unlimited To achieve each level, you need a certain number of "confirmed kills" with a passible k/d ratio. Level 2: 50 kills 60% k/d Level 3: 250 kills, 70% k/d Level 4: 500 kills, 80% k/d Level 5: 1000 kills, 90% k/d 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. Bounty Hunting Locator Let bounty hunters communicate with locator agents from space. The higher you go in the profession the higher the level agent you can use. Higher level agents provide quicker answers. Sec Status Requirement You have to get a Concord license to go bounty hunting. You obviously have to have a positive sec status. Criminal activity of any kind, or associating with criminals (i.e. being in the same corp, trading with them or giving them money) can cost you your license. Net effect is that you have to choose pirating, or bounty hunting, but not both. Target Requirements Licensed bounty hunters can collect bounties anywhere in space for those who either: a) Have a sec. status under -2.0 b) Belong to a corp that has been the aggressor in an Empire war within the last 30 days. This keeps "civilians" from being targeted and griefed with bounties. Level Decay and Reset To maintain your bounty hunter level you must maintain the k/d ratio for that level, and 10% of the required kills for that level per month. Failure to do so will bump you down to the next lower level. Bounty hunter level resets to 1 upon character transfer. This keeps people (high level pirates, especially) from buying and warehousing bounty hunter alts to use to collect the bounties on themselves. It also requires that the player be a fairly dedicated bounty hunter to stay at the upper levels of the profession.
Hamfast	Posted - 2008.08.14 19:03:00 - [60] I read the PDF file and like the idea... Some points - Bounties are looked at as way to "Cost" the target... thus a Bounty Contract is issued (as described, by a person with kill rights) with several amounts... 1) Total Bounty to be paid out - this is the total ISK value that will be paid out for this contract. 2) Damage % - This is a value, between 20%(minimum) and 80% (maximum). A Bounty Hunter accepts a contract, finds and attacks the target of that bounty contract and destroys the ship the target is in... 100% of the insurance value of that ship is multiplied by the Damage % and paid to the Bounty Hunter from the Total Bounty. If the Target of the Contract is Podded, the total cost of the replacement Clone (Closest Clone that covers the targetÆs SP) and any implants (Average Market Value * Damage Mod for implants) is deducted from the total bounty and paid to the Bounty Hunter. Only the Clone Replacement cost is not modified by the Damage % in the pay out process. The Bounty Hunters are paid by their results... and podding a naked Clone Pod is not all that impressive. The other thing that I remember was it seems that there was a limitation on who could accept the contract placed by the contractor, and I disagree with that idea, the Bounty Contract system should be blind... Put the contract out there and let the chips fall where they may. Another change would be the targets of Bounties need to be visible û we currently can see a little Skull icon on a pilot with a bounty on their head, that icon should remain, the amount of the bounty should not show, just that that pilot has a Bounty Contract on their head. --------*****-------- "Just think how stupid the average person is, and then realize that half of them are even stupider!" --George Carlin

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]

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.