These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Assembly Hall

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
123Next pageLast page
 

Bounty hunting - let's get this sorted

First post
Author
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#1 - 2011-11-11 07:17:07 UTC  |  Edited by: Malcanis
Now that CCP are ~doing stuff~, I'd like to see one of the longest-standing gameplay issues get a little attention.

So imagine that you put a 500M bounty on Malcanis, whom I'm sure we all agree richly deserves it. Under the current system, I will simply jump to an empty clone and pod himself with an alt, collecting your 500 mill, less the cost of a new clone. Malcanis: 480,000,000 You: 0. The current system is worthless to you.

Transferrable killrights tied to bounty contracts, with payouts based on hull and destroyed module value are the most obvious solution, with plenty of scope to make exploitation reasonably difficult. That stops me using a Joe Random alt to create the bounty, although it might enourage me to use bait alts (I am OK with people doing this).

For instance, we could design the contract system so that the person placing the bounty contract can restrict who can accept that bounty by taking a cue from the fleet finder; the bounty contract could be restricted to "People in my corp" "People in my alliance" "People I have set a positive standing" or even "anyone I haven't set a negative standing" or just "anyone". The looser the restrictions you set, the more people can accept it and show me their ammo, but the greater the chance that someone you don't want to accept it (ie: me or my friends) will be able to collect.

Likewise, bounty hunters could accept for themselves, for their corp or for their alliance. Bounty contracts accepted on behalf of corp/alliance are paid direct to corp/alliance when collected. This is to encourage the formation of bounty hunting corps/alliances, who would encourage aggrieved bounty-placers to set them blue, and who would thereby depend on their reputations. It allows groups of less powerful players to work together to collect a bounty, but it also allows for solo bounty hunters. Bounty hunting corps which carelessly allow Malcanis alts into their ranks to "steal" the bounty contracts will quickly lose their reputation and be excluded from further business.

And the payout per kill on the bounty should be limited to less than the irretrievable loss from that kill, allowing the bounty payout to cover multiple losses if it's high enough.

Under the system I envisage, I would have to have an alt who is in a corp or alliance you've set to +ve standings to even accept the bounty contract. That 500M bounty would then be paid out according to the losses that I suffer. For example, if my clone costs 20 mill, then the bounty paid for podding me would be 10M. If I was wearing a pair of +4 implants, which cost 12M +12k LP from the LP store, then a further 24M gets paid for podding me. Likewise, the bounty paid for destroying my ship would be 2/3 of the effective NPC value of the hull - which we could usefully define here as the cost of a platinum insurance premium. So if someone blows my Maelstrom up, they get ~35M or so (can't recall the exact value).

After the killrights expire, so does the bounty contract, with any remaining unpaid bounty being repaid. It might be worth extending killrights to 60 or 90 days, or possibly making them cumulative. But I am against making them last indefinitely.

This way even if I do manage to somehow get my alt in a position to accept the bounty, I will find it difficult and unprofitable to use that alt to collect it. Not impossible, but at least that way the bounty you place is very far from simply being a free gift as it is now.

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016

Peter Harkonnen
House Harkonnen.
#2 - 2011-11-11 07:57:55 UTC
sounds much better then the current implementation, where ppl use it to look cool in overview

that will effect all suicide gankers...so at least the goons will not support it sadly
Destination SkillQueue
Doomheim
#3 - 2011-11-11 08:37:23 UTC
Looks like a sound plan from a quick glance and certainly a huge improvement over the current totally useless bounty system.


Peter Harkonnen wrote:
sounds much better then the current implementation, where ppl use it to look cool in overview

that will effect all suicide gankers...so at least the goons will not support it sadly


Try to obsess about goons a little less. The topic has nothing to do with them and from personal experience they are generally supportive of ideas, that improve the overall gameplay in EVE.
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#4 - 2011-11-11 09:12:22 UTC
Peter Harkonnen wrote:
sounds much better then the current implementation, where ppl use it to look cool in overview

that will effect all suicide gankers...so at least the goons will not support it sadly

That's funny, because I do, actually. I know it's a ~shocking thought~, but there has to be lots of people in the game for us to be able to scam and grief effectively. The better this game is in general, the better our game gets, even if it means that we ruin the game for some people who are too gullible by scamming them.

As to malcanis' suggestion, I know I said in the other thread that I saw some holes, but I re-read the proposal a second and third time, and the holes I thought were there isn't actually there, or if they're there, they'll need someone with more time to spare than I have. It seems a fairly solid suggestion, and it would certainly make the act of actually putting a bounty on someone worthwhile, instead of just being the free gift it is now.

Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home.

RIP Vile Rat

Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#5 - 2011-11-11 09:13:23 UTC
Actually, I just thought of something. What's to stop someone from essentially griefing someone by repeatedly putting up a bounty? A gentleman's agreement?

Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home.

RIP Vile Rat

Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#6 - 2011-11-11 09:55:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Malcanis
Lord Zim wrote:
Actually, I just thought of something. What's to stop someone from essentially griefing someone by repeatedly putting up a bounty? A gentleman's agreement?


The bounty contract requires a killright.

Incidentally, in addition to the ability to restrict the contract offer to corp/alliance/standings, I'd like to add the ability to restrict the offer based on sec status.

EDIT I just realised that the bounty contract doesn't require a killright if the bounty is placed on someone with -5.00 or lower sec status. Anyone could put a bounty on a red flashy criminal and "grief" them with bounties forever. I am fine with this. If people actually start doing this, it will be a fine boost for lo-sec. If any criminals get sick of being bounty-hunted, they're free to rat their sec up, at which point the "killright" on them due to sec status effectively expires and the bounty contracts on them become invalid.

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016

Samillian
Angry Mustellid
Lost Obsession
#7 - 2011-11-11 11:03:45 UTC
The bounty system has needed fixing as long as I can remember, supported.

NBSI shall be the whole of the Law

Trebor Daehdoow
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#8 - 2011-11-11 11:27:57 UTC
A similar idea was proposed a few weeks ago. Working up a proposal is on my to-do list.

Private Citizen • CSM in recovery

Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#9 - 2011-11-11 11:34:19 UTC
Trebor Daehdoow wrote:
A similar idea was proposed a few weeks ago. Working up a proposal is on my to-do list.


Excellent! A working bounty system will solve so many hi-sec issues, and create some really good gameplay possibilities.

The important thing is to plug as many of the exploitation holes as possible, and I like to think I've struck a good balance with my proposal.


(Coming up this weekend: Malc's thoughts on Wardecs)

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016

Smiling Menace
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#10 - 2011-11-11 11:36:21 UTC
Supported.
Jagga Spikes
Spikes Chop Shop
#11 - 2011-11-11 11:39:25 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
...
And the payout per kill on the bounty should be limited to less than the irretrievable loss from that kill, allowing the bounty payout to cover multiple losses if it's high enough.

Under the system I envisage, I would have to have an alt who is in a corp or alliance you've set to +ve standings to even accept the bounty contract. That 500M bounty would then be paid out according to the losses that I suffer. For example, if my clone costs 20 mill, then the bounty paid for podding me would be 20M. If I was wearing a pair of +4 implants, which cost 12M +12k LP from the LP store, then a further 24M gets paid for podding me. Likewise, the bounty paid for destroying my ship would be 2/3 of the effective NPC value of the hull - which we could usefully define here as the cost of a platinum insurance premium. So if someone blows my Maelstrom up, they get ~35M or so (can't recall the exact value).
...


value for value. this is the core of working bounty-hunting system. everything else is flavor.
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#12 - 2011-11-11 11:54:46 UTC
Jagga Spikes wrote:
Malcanis wrote:
...
And the payout per kill on the bounty should be limited to less than the irretrievable loss from that kill, allowing the bounty payout to cover multiple losses if it's high enough.

Under the system I envisage, I would have to have an alt who is in a corp or alliance you've set to +ve standings to even accept the bounty contract. That 500M bounty would then be paid out according to the losses that I suffer. For example, if my clone costs 20 mill, then the bounty paid for podding me would be 20M. If I was wearing a pair of +4 implants, which cost 12M +12k LP from the LP store, then a further 24M gets paid for podding me. Likewise, the bounty paid for destroying my ship would be 2/3 of the effective NPC value of the hull - which we could usefully define here as the cost of a platinum insurance premium. So if someone blows my Maelstrom up, they get ~35M or so (can't recall the exact value).
...


value for value. this is the core of working bounty-hunting system. everything else is flavor.


Being able to restrict who can accept your contract is pretty important too.

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016

HELIC0N ONE
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#13 - 2011-11-11 14:13:47 UTC
Something I thought of but haven't really worked through all the details of: what if the bounty hunter was paid out from a mixture of the bounty on the target's head and the criminal's normal insurance payout?
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#14 - 2011-11-11 14:33:21 UTC
HELIC0N ONE wrote:
Something I thought of but haven't really worked through all the details of: what if the bounty hunter was paid out from a mixture of the bounty on the target's head and the criminal's normal insurance payout?


Nah I'm not in favour of that, because it penalises legitimate gameplay. The idea is to promote PvP, not discourage it.

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016

Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#15 - 2011-11-11 14:42:16 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
The bounty contract requires a killright.

Yep, missed that one.

Malcanis wrote:
EDIT I just realised that the bounty contract doesn't require a killright if the bounty is placed on someone with -5.00 or lower sec status. Anyone could put a bounty on a red flashy criminal and "grief" them with bounties forever. I am fine with this. If people actually start doing this, it will be a fine boost for lo-sec. If any criminals get sick of being bounty-hunted, they're free to rat their sec up, at which point the "killright" on them due to sec status effectively expires and the bounty contracts on them become invalid.

Agreed.

Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home.

RIP Vile Rat

Sephiroth Clone VII
Imperial Dreams
Curatores Veritatis Alliance
#16 - 2011-11-11 20:19:44 UTC
Lord Zim wrote:
Actually, I just thought of something. What's to stop someone from essentially griefing someone by repeatedly putting up a bounty? A gentleman's agreement?


have it be that you can only put up a bounty after a concord recognized act of unprovoked aggression against you (low or highsec) that causes a ship loss (and or pod loss) within the same time frame you have killrights. When in station in the bounty thingy people with kill rights can apply bounty to any ones they have kill rights for.

But yea any sort of loophole/exploit should be fixed or we could have a worse problem then a unused feature.
Solo Player
#17 - 2011-11-11 22:26:07 UTC
Trebor Daehdoow wrote:
A similar idea was proposed a few weeks ago. Working up a proposal is on my to-do list.


That one.

Which I think is more elegant in its simplicity, even though it eschews the topic of kill-rights.
Baby steps, you know? :)


Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#18 - 2011-11-12 07:37:43 UTC
Solo Player wrote:
Trebor Daehdoow wrote:
A similar idea was proposed a few weeks ago. Working up a proposal is on my to-do list.


That one.

Which I think is more elegant in its simplicity, even though it eschews the topic of kill-rights.
Baby steps, you know? :)





Yeah his idea for how the bounty collection works is essentially the same as mine. In fact it's the same mechanism I've been promoting for the last 3 years or so. My proposal adds a mechanic for allowing those bounties to be collected in hi-sec - transferrable killrights - that I think is worth having, as well as refinements like being able to limit who collects that bounty which I think are essential to prevent exploitation.

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016

Solo Player
#19 - 2011-11-12 07:45:15 UTC
Fair enough.

Will you offer an amount of isk for people to come up with ways to exploit this in order to amend your proposal accordingly? ;)
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#20 - 2011-11-12 07:50:49 UTC
Solo Player wrote:
Fair enough.

Will you offer an amount of isk for people to come up with ways to exploit this in order to amend your proposal accordingly? ;)



Why don't you just post the exploit along with the fix to make me look dumb? Surely the pleasurable memory of doing that will warm your heart long after some petty sum of evanescent ISK would have been frittered away.

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016

123Next pageLast page