These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Crime & Punishment

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Crimewatch should have < 50 Minimum on Corp and Alliance Bounties to facilitate Newbie Participat

Author
Tzel Mayon
Perkone
Caldari State
#1 - 2012-10-11 18:37:42 UTC  |  Edited by: Tzel Mayon
According to the blog, (http://community.eveonline.com/devblog.asp?a=blog&nbid=73446), CCP explicity desires participation by new players.

However, placing a 100k minimum bounty on a ganker, scammer, or spammer is pointless in high-sec, especially hubs, as the criminals are usually just throw away "alts" that the troublesome player deletes when their sec standing is too low, (unless there is a longer period to delete characters with Bounties on them).

Rather, corporations who encourage their members to scam, spam, and gank, (mature audiences only), should be vulnerable to bounties from new players as newer players don't always have the option to fight back, nor the incentive, (a 20% bounty reward for killing ganking destroyers targeting badgers doesn't really make a lot of sense to justify the risk).

Therefore, newer players, and other characters in hubs should be able to micro spam small bounties on offending corporations to get rid of a lot of rif-raf.

Oh, and wherever the bounty is executed, please impose a significant standing hit on the criminal for that region! (after all, getting caught is kinda embarrassing, right?).

But, criminals, surviving a bounty attempt should be rewarded as well, (in my opinion).

When players engage, and initiate an attack on a criminal, and that criminal survives with their ship intact, the criminal should be rewarded with opposite faction standing, (with no additional penalty). Honestly, I think all criminal activity should be rewarded with more faction standing for the opposiing faction, and a much bigger standing hit where they are committing their crimes. (Doing a crime in Jita should result in a small standing gain for Gallente, and a significant standing loss for Caldari, 4x-ish the gain. :D) This could help encourage more uber awesome epic faction warfare. :D

:D
Alex Carmel
Societas Imperialis Sceptri Coronaeque
Khimi Harar
#2 - 2012-10-11 18:58:51 UTC
Tzel Mayon wrote:
However, placing a 100k minimum bounty on a ganker, scammer, or spammer is pointless in high-sec, especially hubs, as the criminals are usually just throw away "alts" that the troublesome player deletes when their sec standing is too low.


This is petitionable, recycling alts to avoid sec status is an exploit.

As for your standing idea, wtf?
Tzel Mayon
Perkone
Caldari State
#3 - 2012-10-11 19:01:14 UTC  |  Edited by: Tzel Mayon
Alex Carmel wrote:

This is petitionable, recycling alts to avoid sec status is an exploit.


There is no reasonable way to do this, as it is very difficult to tell who is recycling alts--especially when those alts have different names.


Alex Carmel wrote:
As for your standing idea, wtf?


Why wouldn't standing be brought into this?

If anything, the first thing that should have been fixed with the bounty system should have been standing impact... It follows reasonably that one's standing would somehow be affected by criminal activity.
Ra Jackson
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#4 - 2012-10-11 20:10:47 UTC
Tzel Mayon wrote:

However, placing a 100k minimum bounty on a ganker, scammer, or spammer is pointless in high-sec, especially hubs, as the criminals are usually just throw away "alts" that the troublesome player deletes when their sec standing is too low.


That's why placing bounty on scammers or spammers is, and will be, pointless: They don't undock.
As to gankers: You will have killrights that you can give away for free, and someone can buy it and make them suspicious. Isn't that awesome?
Tzel Mayon
Perkone
Caldari State
#5 - 2012-10-12 04:18:50 UTC
Ra Jackson wrote:


That's why placing bounty on scammers or spammers is, and will be, pointless: They don't undock.
As to gankers: You will have killrights that you can give away for free, and someone can buy it and make them suspicious. Isn't that awesome?


As you said, placing bounties on scammers and spammers is pointless--it makes far more sense to place bounties on their corporations than the individuals--which a new player cannot do because they cannot afford the 50 million.

As for selling killrights on gankers ... this is almost as pointless as most highsec gankers use alts they delete when their security status is to low. Again, it is pointless to place bounties on them--instead it would be far more effective to place bounties on the corporation, or even the alliance to ensure there is some sort of accountability in place.

CCP's stated intent is to ensure that there are consequences for actions taken in the "Sandbox". With all of the loopholes that can be taken advantage of, (deleting characters, corporations, etc, and creating new ones, etc, etc), the problem still exists.

Granted, the bounty awards paid out over time, faction warfare style, is a huge improvement. But smaller, more tactical changes that make "good sense", would have helped more, like criminals taking standing hits for the faction space they were in, and at a certain point being auto-flagged as war targets for players already in the appropriate faction, in faction warfare.

In this way, both criminals and "bounty hunters" could profit by having more potential war targets, and loot. Granted, being a criminal is far riskier--which it should be, or else it wouldn't be that much fun to be a criminal. :)
Xiphos Volund
Amarrian Blueprint Company
#6 - 2012-10-12 11:57:34 UTC
Quote:
Oh, and wherever the bounty is executed, please impose a significant standing hit on the criminal for that region! (after all, getting caught is kinda embarrassing, right?).


Standings hit with who, exactly?

Simply put: No.

Also, If one cannot afford a minimum bounty of 100k for an individual, or 50mil for a corp, they probably have no real reason to be placing that bounty in the first place...




Inquisitor Kitchner
The Executives
Executive Outcomes
#7 - 2012-10-12 12:07:00 UTC
Tzel Mayon wrote:

As you said, placing bounties on scammers and spammers is pointless--it makes far more sense to place bounties on their corporations than the individuals--which a new player cannot do because they cannot afford the 50 million.


If I was a scammer I'd either be in Goons to recruitment scam you or an NPC corp alt.

If it's the former well to be honest I half suspect that Goonwaffe/Goonswarm Federation will probably have a big enough bounty that it makes no odds either way.

If it's the latter you can't bounty my corp anyway (though I wish that you could, that would be hilarious).

Quote:
As for selling killrights on gankers ... this is almost as pointless as most highsec gankers use alts they delete when their security status is to low. Again, it is pointless to place bounties on them--instead it would be far more effective to place bounties on the corporation, or even the alliance to ensure there is some sort of accountability in place.


GRRRR GOONS!

Well actually I can reveal that the Top Secret Goon Wiki articles telling people the best way to gank specifically include the advice that if you recycle your alts to avoid negative sec status you will be banned by CCP and the other Goons will laugh at you. They also have the Ministry of Love (because Goons love you) which is there to help people grind their sec status back up.

So yeah, I reckon this doesn't happen as often as you think.

Even if it did why the hell would i create an alt for my corp and then recycle him? I'd just make an NPC alt and then you can't bounty my corp at all.

CCP's stated intent is to ensure that there are consequences for actions taken in the "Sandbox". With all of the loopholes that can be taken advantage of, (deleting characters, corporations, etc, and creating new ones, etc, etc), the problem still exists.


So basically, your idea sucks.

"If an injury has to be done to a man it should be so severe that his vengeance need not be feared." - Niccolo Machiavelli

Aethlyn
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#8 - 2012-10-16 08:50:44 UTC
I think deleting characters is no issue here. Actually, the opposite might become true: They might extend the "don't delete to avoid consequences" to characters with bounties: It should be trivial to detect such incidents once you're able to look at sec status and bounties. The character might never undock, but the same time you keep the owner from deleting him without consequences (applied by CCP).

Looking for more thoughts? Follow me on Twitter.

Reppyk
The Black Shell
#9 - 2012-10-16 11:39:08 UTC
Bad, 0/10, booh, get back in the space kitchen.

Why would you get a gallente faction bonus for killing carebe---- innocent people in Perimeter ? It doesnt make sense.

I AM SPACE CAPTAIN REPPYK. BEWARE.

Proud co-admin of frugu.net, a French fansite about EVE !

Ristlin Wakefield
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#10 - 2012-10-16 13:39:49 UTC
I like how people dig through chat logs and blogs and find one sentence with broad meaning just to twist that into something very obtuse. Reminds me of rumor sites.

I have a lover, her name is EVE. I see her every night and all she asks in return is that I have a pilot's license.

CorInaXeraL
Order of the Silver Dragons
Silver Dragonz
#11 - 2012-10-16 13:48:26 UTC
Ristlin Wakefield wrote:
I like how people dig through rumor sites.


According to Ristlin's (convoluted) remarks about rumors, the Jove ships will be playable but only obtainable by having ALL skills in game at V.

This is not substantiated at all, but I will still raise a fuss about it because that's how EVE should be!
Tzel Mayon
Perkone
Caldari State
#12 - 2012-10-27 14:08:21 UTC
Aethlyn wrote:
I think deleting characters is no issue here. Actually, the opposite might become true: They might extend the "don't delete to avoid consequences" to characters with bounties: It should be trivial to detect such incidents once you're able to look at sec status and bounties. The character might never undock, but the same time you keep the owner from deleting him without consequences (applied by CCP).


This is awesome. :) Added it to my O.P. :)
Rutger Gist
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#13 - 2012-10-28 14:53:53 UTC
I find it disturbing at all of these new steps to rid high security of all criminal activity.

1. Suicide Ganking was one thing, and it was fixed by making barges essentially gank proof. Issue = Fixed

2. Ore Thieves have been put out of business with the new barges' (ore capacity). Only a truly stupid pilot jet cans anymore, and for all of my searching, I've not found any. Issue = Fixed

3. Now with the Criminal Flagging for looting / salvaging someone else's wrecks; the thief being open to attack by EVERYONE! I just don't see how this improves the game.

If I steal from corporation or individual "ABC" then by all means give them kill rights for me. But what business is that to pilot or corporation "DEF"?

Maybe if Crimewatch was only implemented in .9 or 1.0 space I'd be ok with that, but .5 or .6 should not have those rules.
Xolve
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#14 - 2012-10-29 07:04:35 UTC
Why recycle alts, when you can get a 51 day account, that can fly a t2 gank catalyst inside 10 days?
Firnas
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#15 - 2012-10-29 13:30:17 UTC
[quote=Tzel Mayon]

But, criminals, surviving a bounty attempt should be rewarded as well, (in my opinion).

When players engage, and initiate an attack on a criminal, and that criminal survives with their ship intact, the criminal should be rewarded with opposite faction standing, (with no additional penalty). /quote]


This idea is so stupid that it actually pulled me out of retirement.

Does the thought "easily exploitable concept" come to mind? Are you naive? Blind to the world around you? Have you been playing the same game as everyone else these years?

Are you the sort of guy who watches a girl in a miniskirt bend over to get a quarter and hopes she doesn't strain her back? The person who watches the news so he can catch the part at the end where the little kids on the playswing got to meet the baseball player, but you didn't notice the ten murders that started off the news?

This would be epic bad.

The most amusing thing about it, is the rebuttal forming in your head. "What would it hurt to have faction standing, not security standing?" This is of course, assuming you really meant faction standing, and weren't one of the thousands of noobs who constantly conflate the two. Well my laddo, let me tell you a little known secret of eve. There are things to be done with high faction standing, oh yes. Veerrry secret things, but they are good. Nom noms, it could be said.


TL;DR. OP is an idiot. Fail concept is fail.
Tzel Mayon
Perkone
Caldari State
#16 - 2012-11-09 16:58:21 UTC
Firnas wrote:
[quote=Tzel Mayon]

This would be epic bad.

The most amusing thing about it, is the rebuttal forming in your head. "What would it hurt to have faction standing, not security standing?" This is of course, assuming you really meant faction standing, and weren't one of the thousands of noobs who constantly conflate the two. Well my laddo, let me tell you a little known secret of eve. There are things to be done with high faction standing, oh yes. Veerrry secret things, but they are good. Nom noms, it could be said.


TL;DR. OP is an idiot. Fail concept is fail.



I think I would try to rebut this if I understood how girls grabbing quarters is a sufficient objection to my proposal. Why is having faction standing actually be meaningful in Eve such a bad idea? How could it be exploited? Faction standing losses would be greater than the faction standing gains, and so you would end up with a polarized Eve where a lot less criminals had good standings with /all/ empires. This would be awesome. :)