These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Bounty Awards for CONCORD kills? ("Exploit" that subsizides my ganking ops)

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Mag's
Azn Empire
#61 - 2013-02-02 18:49:58 UTC
Whitehound wrote:
Mag's wrote:
Insurance is a NPC led mechanic, bounties are a player led mechanic.

So why are bounties paid out when NPCs did the kill?
Because they are not players?

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
Whitehound
#62 - 2013-02-02 18:52:24 UTC
Mag's wrote:
Whitehound wrote:
Mag's wrote:
Insurance is a NPC led mechanic, bounties are a player led mechanic.

So why are bounties paid out when NPCs did the kill?
Because they are not players?

Meaning what?

Loss is meaningful. Therefore is the loss of meaning likewise meaningful. It is the source of all trolling.
Mag's
Azn Empire
#63 - 2013-02-02 18:54:53 UTC
Whitehound wrote:
Mag's wrote:
Whitehound wrote:
Mag's wrote:
Insurance is a NPC led mechanic, bounties are a player led mechanic.

So why are bounties paid out when NPCs did the kill?
Because they are not players?

Meaning what?
Why should concord involvement, have any relevance to a player led mechanic? Why should the payout not go to the player, also involved?

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
Whitehound
#64 - 2013-02-02 18:57:21 UTC
Mag's wrote:
Whitehound wrote:
Mag's wrote:
Whitehound wrote:
Mag's wrote:
Insurance is a NPC led mechanic, bounties are a player led mechanic.

So why are bounties paid out when NPCs did the kill?
Because they are not players?

Meaning what?
Why should concord involvement, have any relevance to a player led mechanic? Why should the payout not go to the player, also involved?

Because the kill was not done by a player!

Loss is meaningful. Therefore is the loss of meaning likewise meaningful. It is the source of all trolling.
Mag's
Azn Empire
#65 - 2013-02-02 19:00:54 UTC
Whitehound wrote:
Mag's wrote:
Why should concord involvement, have any relevance to a player led mechanic? Why should the payout not go to the player, also involved?

Because the kill was not done by a player!
But he was involved and it's a player led mechanic. NPC involvement in regards to a bounty payout, is irrelevant.

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
Whitehound
#66 - 2013-02-02 19:10:58 UTC
Mag's wrote:
Whitehound wrote:
Mag's wrote:
Why should concord involvement, have any relevance to a player led mechanic? Why should the payout not go to the player, also involved?

Because the kill was not done by a player!
But he was involved and it's a player led mechanic. NPC involvement in regards to a bounty payout, is irrelevant.

No. He was present and so was the victim and possibly others, but he did not do the kill. CONCORD did.

Bounties are meant as a reward for players who kill another player.

Your problem is that you have no understanding of bounties, that you do not know why someone puts a bounty on another player and what it is someone else should get the ISKs for.

What you do is to repeatedly state the is-state of the game and based on this do you give us interpretations of what it could mean.

Frankly, we do not care for it. We are discussing what it means for us players and not what it may have meant for the dev who implemented it.

Do you understand this?

Loss is meaningful. Therefore is the loss of meaning likewise meaningful. It is the source of all trolling.
Natsett Amuinn
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#67 - 2013-02-02 19:14:30 UTC
Mag's wrote:
Natsett Amuinn wrote:
So remove concord and flag the guy FFA under the current rules.

If you're ganked your ganked, and now that gankers bounty has a real meaning.
Are you asking to break the whole system, over a few mil?

No sir, you made the comment that this is the only way that some gankers will ever pay out on their bounties. I only pointed out a means of addressing YOUR issue.


Why should the only recourse to collect on a high sec miners bounty be to suicide gank them be ok, but not for anyone else?
It makes no sense to address that as a "problem" with people not being able to collect a bounty when CONCORD is involved.

You do not deserve to be rewarded anymore then the ganker does. It's rediculous for anyone to say that one group should have to be ganked to loase a bounty, but that same group being ganked should be able to collect a bounty for NOT DOING ANYTHING.

Just because it's a small amount of isk is irrelevent.
Some of you have use the low payout as the arguement that it "doesn't matter".

Obviously it does matter, because you guys are also saying it shouldn't be removed, If it didn't matter it shouldn't matter if CCP stopped payouts on it.

It's incredibly hypocritical of you guys to say that the payout is small enough that it's irrelevent, but CCP shoudln't remove because you should be able to aquire that isk.



How is the bounty payout handled on rats if one guy hits it once with a drone, but someone else destroys it?
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#68 - 2013-02-02 19:17:12 UTC
Took this long for people to work out how to exploit the system. (Or at least for someone to post it on the Forums).
Well done CCP, thats a robust system.
Now fix this exploit please that removes any kind of consequence. Since in this situation the 'cost' of the ship is being removed from the equation, since it is being used for a suicide gank so being lost either way. So the gankers are able to farm any bounties on them and make a 'profit' effectively.

Simple fix. If concord on mail, don't pay out bounty. Does it mean that that miner who got drones onto you doesn't get a bounty also. Sure. I'll live with that as a part time miner. Surviving the gank is the main profit for the miner, any bounty on a gank destroyer is negligible anyway compared to the loss of a barge/exhumer. And the ganker can make profit every single time he ganks since he knows it's coming.
Herr Wilkus
Aggressive Salvage Services LLC
#69 - 2013-02-02 19:23:46 UTC

No Mags, I just wasn't sure if I was missing something due to the fact that I'm not a low-sec pirate. Not saying you can't argue just to argue. You are maintaining that a change like this would "break" the whole system.

The bounty system as a whole is significantly improved, of course. Before, it was just an 'idiot tax' and a pod-based savings account for when you 'break the piggy bank' and pod yourself.

But the current system fails when Concord is involved in the kill - due to a quirk of Concord KM generation.
Concord makes the kill, its essentially an NPC kill - yet opportunistic 'players' on the KM get full participatory credit.

In most cases, it could be a random bystander - or even the victim.....(and awarding a bounty doesn't make sense in those cases either because they didn't really DO anything....ship was doomed by game rules from the start.)

....but in reality, suicide gankers simply make sure that THEY are the random bystander. (Like I said, cloaky Cheetah with a Target Painter - piece of cake as the scout is already onsite at the 'scene of the crime'.

The only thing I can see being a problem is the 'self-Concorddokken' to avoid a bounty payout.
But
A) Concord death has an additional price - security status hit, and it forecloses any chance of surviving the fight....
B) I don't think the bountied CNR is REALLY that concerned about the bounty payout. Its not their ISK. They are going to lose their ship and shinies anyway - and that is the 'real' penalty. The bounty just got you onto their tail.

And the only way a highsec CNR pilot can even get kill rights is by ganking in highsec. As I said earlier - ganking is rapidly becoming the province of dedicated -10 alts. I can't imagine the average suicide ganker is going to be jetting around mission running with the newest iteration of Kill rights....
Whitehound
#70 - 2013-02-02 19:40:49 UTC
Herr Wilkus wrote:
The only thing I can see being a problem is the 'self-Concorddokken' to avoid a bounty payout.

I don't see it as a problem. One will not get the bounty, but so does nobody else and the ISKs will still be there and one can try another time. The kill itself will still count and loot will drop, and the cheater will still run around with a bounty on the head.

If this is somehow a problem for CCP and they fear that bounties could stay on a player for too long can they increase the percentage to 22% or 25%. Bounty hunters will get more ISKs and for doing a clean kill, which is not bad either.

Loss is meaningful. Therefore is the loss of meaning likewise meaningful. It is the source of all trolling.
Herr Wilkus
Aggressive Salvage Services LLC
#71 - 2013-02-02 19:41:49 UTC
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
Took this long for people to work out how to exploit the system. (Or at least for someone to post it on the Forums).
Well done CCP, thats a robust system.
Now fix this exploit please that removes any kind of consequence. Since in this situation the 'cost' of the ship is being removed from the equation, since it is being used for a suicide gank so being lost either way. So the gankers are able to farm any bounties on them and make a 'profit' effectively.

Simple fix. If concord on mail, don't pay out bounty. Does it mean that that miner who got drones onto you doesn't get a bounty also. Sure. I'll live with that as a part time miner. Surviving the gank is the main profit for the miner, any bounty on a gank destroyer is negligible anyway compared to the loss of a barge/exhumer. And the ganker can make profit every single time he ganks since he knows it's coming.


And I agree with this assessment. And I'm a ganker.
And Whitehound - if I remember correctly from last year - was more or less rabidly against anything ganking/griefing related, while thats all I really do. Yet we agree on this.

Not because I don't like free ISK, but because it doesn't really make much sense.

Doesn't make sense for a ganker to collect a bounty on himself - doesn't make sense for a random bystander to a GCC/Concord event to collect a bounty when they didn't really do anything.

With this change, it improves the bounty system.

And I do, in a way, benefit from the change: My high-score 'bounty' badge of honor is shinier, even if I can no longer easily exploit it.
Whitehound
#72 - 2013-02-02 19:46:21 UTC
Herr Wilkus wrote:
And Whitehound - if I remember correctly from last year - was more or less rabidly against anything ganking/griefing related, while thats all I really do. Yet we agree on this.

Oh, I still am. Do not think I am your friend when it now has bounties! I just want them to work for when I need them...

Loss is meaningful. Therefore is the loss of meaning likewise meaningful. It is the source of all trolling.
Karl Hobb
Imperial Margarine
#73 - 2013-02-02 19:47:21 UTC
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
Simple fix. If concord on mail, don't pay out bounty.

As stated earlier, this will be exploitable by normal bounty targets because they can simply go criminal if someone is about to collect a bounty on them. It simply shifts the "exploitability" to another edge-case.

This is really a non-issue.

A professional astro-bastard was not available so they sent me.
Skippy Usenet
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#74 - 2013-02-02 19:47:46 UTC
Whitehound wrote:
I agree, while for now it is new and still somewhat experimental, as well as funny, are there a few things that leave questions open. Bounties should not be paid when CONCORD was involved, possibly when faction Navy NPCs and customs office NPCs are involved either, to avoid any kind of exploits from either side. Do a clean kill or don't get paid. When you don't get paid will the ISKs still be there, and you will at least get the kill and loot.

Just my opinion.

I was wondering, are corporation and alliance bounties being paid out when their members shoot each other?



If no bounties are going to be paid if concord is involved, you bet that when I am fighting in high sec and I may loose, I am gonna shoot an innocent by-standard and get concorded to keep the bounty away from the foe trying to pop me
Whitehound
#75 - 2013-02-02 19:51:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Whitehound
Skippy Usenet wrote:
If no bounties are going to be paid if concord is involved, you bet that when I am fighting in high sec and I may loose, I am gonna shoot an innocent by-standard and get concorded to keep the bounty away from the foe trying to pop me

Please, do this. You still have the bounty on you and you die faster than I could probably ever kill you, because, you know, you just zap yourself with the help of CONCORD. Nothing kills faster and less effort for me. If that's what it then means can the bounty stay and you can always get yourself CONCORDed.

Loss is meaningful. Therefore is the loss of meaning likewise meaningful. It is the source of all trolling.
Herr Wilkus
Aggressive Salvage Services LLC
#76 - 2013-02-02 19:58:55 UTC
Skippy Usenet wrote:
Whitehound wrote:
I agree, while for now it is new and still somewhat experimental, as well as funny, are there a few things that leave questions open. Bounties should not be paid when CONCORD was involved, possibly when faction Navy NPCs and customs office NPCs are involved either, to avoid any kind of exploits from either side. Do a clean kill or don't get paid. When you don't get paid will the ISKs still be there, and you will at least get the kill and loot.

Just my opinion.

I was wondering, are corporation and alliance bounties being paid out when their members shoot each other?



If no bounties are going to be paid if concord is involved, you bet that when I am fighting in high sec and I may loose, I am gonna shoot an innocent by-standard and get concorded to keep the bounty away from the foe trying to pop me


I would make two counter arguments:

Not everyone is going to do that, because that bounty ISK isn't even yours to begin with. (Well, unless you are a suicide ganker collecting it on each Exhumer kill). And like I said, you take a significant sec hit and foreclose any chance of escape to deny someone else 20-50 Million ISK out of a 3rd parties wallet? YOU might, but I don't think that makes you a majority, or even a significantly large minority.

Second, you would have to do it early enough in the conflict - because there is a time-lag between GCC and Concord getting on the KM. 15 seconds is a long time in a fight - especially if you were 'jumped' by a fleet.

Trying to weight a bounty payment by damage dealt as a half-way measure would seem to cut out ECM support and make things needlessly complicated.
Mallak Azaria
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#77 - 2013-02-02 20:02:06 UTC
This was in the patch notes if you had bothered to read them. Working as intended.

This post was lovingly crafted by a member of the Goonwaffe Posting Cabal, proud member of the popular gay hookup site somethingawful.com, Spelling Bee, Grammar Gestapo & #1 Official Gevlon Goblin Fanclub member.
Herr Wilkus
Aggressive Salvage Services LLC
#78 - 2013-02-02 20:05:11 UTC
Whitehound wrote:
Skippy Usenet wrote:
If no bounties are going to be paid if concord is involved, you bet that when I am fighting in high sec and I may loose, I am gonna shoot an innocent by-standard and get concorded to keep the bounty away from the foe trying to pop me

Please, do this. You still have the bounty on you and you die faster than I could probably ever kill you, because, you know, you just zap yourself with the help of CONCORD. Nothing kills faster and less effort for me. If that's what it then means can the bounty stay and you can always get yourself CONCORDed.


Wait, Whitehound, you said that you placed a 1 Billion ISK bounty on CODE????

Guess where my suicide alt is going now...!!!

I need to get me some of those free Whitehound bux!!!!!
Booyah.
Thanks for the donation, you'll be subsidizing my ganking ops for weeks, buddy. P
Ildryn
IDLE INTENTIONS
#79 - 2013-02-02 20:10:42 UTC
Mag's wrote:
Whitehound wrote:
Mag's wrote:
Why should concord involvement, have any relevance to a player led mechanic? Why should the payout not go to the player, also involved?

Because the kill was not done by a player!
But he was involved and it's a player led mechanic. NPC involvement in regards to a bounty payout, is irrelevant.


So players should not get paid insurance when i suicide gank their ship. Because NPC involvement has nothing to do with me ganking the victim.

Insurance payout for victims is now relevant.
Whitehound
#80 - 2013-02-02 20:19:24 UTC
Herr Wilkus wrote:
Wait, Whitehound, you said that you placed a 1 Billion ISK bounty on CODE????

Guess where my suicide alt is going now...!!!

I need to get me some of those free Whitehound bux!!!!!
Booyah.
Thanks for the donation, you'll be subsidizing my ganking ops for weeks, buddy. P

It is not my biggest concern when gankers shoot each other during a gank and put on a show like the Three Stooges. I just find it not right when my ISKs do not get paid to bounty hunters, who I want my ISKs to be paid out to and to support them of course, but my ISKs end up all over the place.

Loss is meaningful. Therefore is the loss of meaning likewise meaningful. It is the source of all trolling.