| Pages: 1 :: [one page] |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Drakoulia
Caldari
The Night Corporation
   |
Posted - 2009.01.19 09:51:00 -
[1]
Have it be somewhat like missions: where you have an agent, they randomly assign bounties, and you would have the pod rights to the person(s) you were assigned to.
It would make locator agents a lot more useful, fix the current issue of corp mates collecting it, and let us have fun hunting someone we don't know down.
Also, you should be able to increase the number of bounties you can hunt with a social skill, and there should be a certain amount of time before you can request new bounties.
---
"There is no way it can end badly." - Nooblet on joining goonfleet. |
baumjoe
|
Posted - 2009.01.19 10:02:00 -
[2]
Edited by: baumjoe on 19/01/2009 10:04:05
I have to say that's probably the best bounty system idea Ive read in a long time. Its simple and cuts to the chase.
oops sorry I missed the part about making the bounty random. I think that's a little to vague and would make it more of a lets just talk to this agent so we can kill people. The system should keep the players involved in setting the bounties but the minimum needs to be raised.
|
Drakoulia
Caldari
The Night Corporation
|
Posted - 2009.01.19 10:10:00 -
[3]
 Originally by: baumjoe
Edited by: baumjoe on 19/01/2009 10:04:05
oops sorry I missed the part about making the bounty random. I think that's a little to vague and would make it more of a lets just talk to this agent so we can kill people. The system should keep the players involved in setting the bounties but the minimum needs to be raised.
That's the big problem with the way bounties work now. Currently corpmates just decide to pop their own and collect.
I'm not thinking that random is the best either, but we need a way to stop friends from collecting and random is the only thing that comes to mind.
---
"There is no way it can end badly." - Nooblet on joining goonfleet. |
Camilo Cienfuegos
Earned In Blood
|
Posted - 2009.01.19 10:38:00 -
[4]
Quote:
we need a way to stop friends from collecting and random is the only thing that comes to mind.
Do we really though? If there's one thing we nefarious types are famous for (unduly, but still) it's being treacherous. Shouldn't we be able then to turn on one another if the money's right?
Just my two cents. Bounties are a joke and need completely revamped, but excluding the ability to turn on your own excludes a massive part of what makes this game great. |
Drakoulia
Caldari
The Night Corporation
|
Posted - 2009.01.19 10:52:00 -
[5]
Lol, but killing your friend just to share the profits with him is the current problem. I have no intention of stopping backstabbers.
I should of made that clear earlier, and apologize for not.
---
"There is no way it can end badly." - Nooblet on joining goonfleet. |
Karii Ildarian
Caldari
M. Corp
Mostly Harmless
|
Posted - 2009.01.19 11:22:00 -
[6]
Why not add skill loss to the bounty system.
Make the skill loss equivalent, in points, one to one with the bounty value in ISK.
Bounties should be generated solely for performing illegal actions, per the game mechanics.
Bounties can be worked off, like negative sec status.
No player created bounties, that's what war-decs are for.
No more exploiting, I would imagine...  |
Drakoulia
Caldari
The Night Corporation
|
Posted - 2009.01.20 01:27:00 -
[7]
Originally by: Karii Ildarian
Why not add skill loss to the bounty system.
Make the skill loss equivalent, in points, one to one with the bounty value in ISK.
Bounties should be generated solely for performing illegal actions, per the game mechanics.
Bounties can be worked off, like negative sec status.
No player created bounties, that's what war-decs are for.
No more exploiting, I would imagine...
Lol, just lol.
It'd be horrible. Pirates(even carebears feeling a little yarrish) would go back to being a noob after just a single podding, even with an updated clone. It's already too easy to have sp loss by forgetting to update your clone.
It'd also be impossible to get a bounty by 0.0 actions with your option, as players couldn't submit the bounties and nothing in 0.0 is illegal. The thing I like about the bounty system is that it is player driven, not NPC.
---
"There is no way it can end badly." - Nooblet on joining goonfleet. |
Eliza Farcaster
|
Posted - 2009.01.20 02:05:00 -
[8]
I think when you set a bounty on someone, you should be able to limit who may collect it. For example, only your alliance, or only alliances who have war dec'd the target.
But yeah, the bounty system is messed up and seriously needs fixing. |
Karii Ildarian
Caldari
M. Corp
Mostly Harmless
|
Posted - 2009.01.20 09:14:00 -
[9]
Originally by: Drakoulia
Originally by: Karii Ildarian
Why not add skill loss to the bounty system.
Make the skill loss equivalent, in points, one to one with the bounty value in ISK.
Bounties should be generated solely for performing illegal actions, per the game mechanics.
Bounties can be worked off, like negative sec status.
No player created bounties, that's what war-decs are for.
No more exploiting, I would imagine...
Lol, just lol.
It'd be horrible. Pirates(even carebears feeling a little yarrish) would go back to being a noob after just a single podding, even with an updated clone. It's already too easy to have sp loss by forgetting to update your clone.
It'd also be impossible to get a bounty by 0.0 actions with your option, as players couldn't submit the bounties and nothing in 0.0 is illegal. The thing I like about the bounty system is that it is player driven, not NPC.
But it would definitely fix the bounty system, now wouldn't it...
In 0.0 you can kill anyone,so a bounty system there is kinda irrelevant. If you want to personally pay someone to off another player, nothing in the mechanics would prevent that anyway. You just couldn't abuse the bounty system, in the process.
|
Drakoulia
Caldari
The Night Corporation
|
Posted - 2009.01.20 17:01:00 -
[10]
Originally by: Eliza Farcaster
I think when you set a bounty on someone, you should be able to limit who may collect it. For example, only your alliance, or only alliances who have war dec'd the target.
But yeah, the bounty system is messed up and seriously needs fixing.
That's an interesting idea, but would probably be a bit too limiting. One fun thing about bounties is that it's an incentive for an unrelated third(fourth, fifth, etc.) party to try and kill the target.
Originally by: Karii Ildarian
Quote:
etc ... etc
But it would definitely fix the bounty system, now wouldn't it...
...
No, it wouldn't fix bounties. The system you're supporting would break, at the least: clone grades, pilot sec status, low sec piracy, and bounties.
1. Clones would be made useless for the fact that a majority of the people who would normally need them would lose enough sp to make the clone grade moot.
2. Negative pilot sec status would directly correlate to how little sp targets would have left after a single podding(negative in many cases).
3. Low sec piracy would be destroyed; many low-sec pirates would quickly gain enough of a 'bounty' to nullify all sp(20mil isk isn't that much).
4. The bounty system would be broken because of "No player created bounties." The thing about a bounty is that the issuer can't kill the target, so they put money out to whoever does kill the target. It's a risk free way to get back at someone, even long after you both forget each other.
I don't want to sound like I'm just ripping apart other people's options. I'm trying to find out where things can go wrong, and would actually appreciate it if my plan were logically ripped to shreds by someone.
---
"There is no way it can end badly." - Nooblet on joining goonfleet. |
H Lecter
Gallente
The Black Rabbits
The Gurlstas Associates
|
Posted - 2009.01.20 17:22:00 -
[11]
What about this:
Bounties are put on your head by other players as they are now. BUT - the payout depends on the destroyed ship and fitting (note: survived modules are not considered as you can scoop them anyway after the fight) so that you can never gain from destroying your own property. The payout would then be deducted from the exisiting bounty, eventually leaving some ISK for the next one to shoot that ebil piwate. Bad luck if the bounty left was lower than the ship value.
Same could be done for pods, calculating their implant value.
Am I a bloody genius or is there some catch that I missed?
My opinion is purely personal and not related to my alliance |
Tom Peeping
|
Posted - 2009.01.20 19:44:00 -
[12]
Just a point....
everything in 0.0 is still just as illegal... it's just that there's no eyes to see you or stop you. |
Alyln
|
Posted - 2009.01.21 18:40:00 -
[13]
Originally by: H Lecter
Id like this mixed with the agent assigning the bountied players to kill, you could still get the bounty from someone you happen to come upon, but the agent giving help in hunting them would be nice. |
Anselm's MajorDomo
|
Posted - 2009.01.23 18:31:00 -
[14]
The problem is that players with bounties on their heads *know* they have bounties. They can see when the price is high enough that it would be profitable to have their buddies pop them and then split the money. What I would propose is that players do not have their bounties visibly marked for all in the system to see. Instead, the total bounty only becomes visible to players who have (a) ranks in a skill called "bounty hunter," and (b) this only appears randomly as info to players who accept the bounty at the local bounty office. It goes something like this:
Player with bounty hunter skill checks in with local militia office. A bounty agent at the office informs him that within X jumps are Y players with bounties on their heads (X and Y increase with more ranks in bounty hunting). The menu of targets lists each one's security rating and the number of previous failed attempts by earlier bounty hunters to kill that target--but it keeps the player's name anonymous initially and the total price undetermined. All the bounty hunter knows is this is a target with a price on his/her head, and a rough idea of about how hard that target is to kill from previous attempts. It's potluck on how much money the target is worth.
If the bounty-hunter player agrees to a contract, i.e., accepts the bounty mission from the agent, then a one-hour timer kicks in during which the bounty hunter can try to kill the target--who doesn't know he or she is being hunted. The bounty-hunter player also gets the information necessary to locate and kill the target--say current system location and a special blinking icon on the ship when in system--but not necessarily the actual target's name. If the bounty hunter cannot kill the target within the alloted time, the menu gets updated to show that the target survived one attempt. Note however that that the expiration of the timer does NOT mean the bounty prize goes away--the bounty hunter can still try to kill the target or give up and request a different contract on a different target. Perhaps the bounty hunter can have Z active targets to hunt, with Z dependent on skills in the profession bounty hunting.
If some random pilot kills a bounty target who lacks the bounty-hunting skill, that someone gets the bounty-prize, but it will be a surprise to him since he couldn't know the target was worth money in advance.
Advantages: (1) Encourages new professional specialization as "bounty hunter"--officially recognizing an economic niche in the EVE universe, (2) new place to sink skillpoints, (3) the old "let my buddy pop me and we split the bounty prize" is harder to make worth if you don't know the bounty prize in advance. Sucks to let your buddy pop you and discover the bounty was only $5,000 ISK.
Disadvantages: Fewer people will be aware of the bounty as an incentive since only bounty hunters will know in advance that the target has a bounty.
What do people think? |
Lantern Shark
Black Serpent Technologies
|
Posted - 2009.01.23 20:50:00 -
[15]
Anselm's really like that idea would make bounty hunning a hoot
|
Kitsumi
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2009.01.24 12:58:00 -
[16]
Or another minor limit. Make it so you have to head to a bounty office within 30 days to collect the bounty. Those bounty offices are located in 1.0 sec space. Your security status is -4? Awww, too bad, no bounty for you!
Will it stop people from popping a friend and sharing it? Nope. But it sure would curtail it when said friend has to rat to raise his security standing over -2 just to get into a 1.0 sector to get at the bounty.
Another fun thing would be to set absolute caps on the bounty. IE, x isk = an effective negative x standing. IE, say pirate A has 30mil bounty and wants pirate B to pop him and share the isk. Ok, pirate B pops him but needs to raise his sec to less negative -2. But wait, he has 10mil isk bounty on his head. So sure, he can fly into 1.0 sec space but his effective security would be -3. This effective standing means he can be attacked with no repercussion in any security which his effective standing would not allow him to go if it were his actual standing. So while at -1.5 he could get to that bounty in 0.9 and 1.0 sectors he would be fair game to all comers.
It wouldn't be impossible to do. But it would be impractical to do. And it would be impractical in a sensible way. |
| |
|
| Pages: 1 :: [one page] |