These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

[Proposal] Bounty system reform

First post
Author
Solo Player
#41 - 2011-10-28 15:56:02 UTC
Ogopogo Mu wrote:

If you mean that players get no insurance when CONCORD is on their killmail, I think that makes sense but it's out of scope for this proposal.


I did, and I agree about the scope. Best get this implemented as suggested for now and fix insurance later to make it even better.

...though it still grates badly that the bountied players will be able to get rid of the bounty at much lower cost than that of the guy who set up the bounty. Ugh
Ogopogo Mu
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#42 - 2011-10-28 15:57:23 UTC  |  Edited by: Ogopogo Mu
Yeep wrote:
I'll start by saying I'm a big fan of the general idea, but when I read the original post I was a little unhappy with assigning arbitrary value to implants and using them as part of the bounty (then again, I wasn't happy when dropped mods and implants appeared on killmails). On second read I'm really uncomfortable with the whole assigning arbitrary value to player produced items, especially things like faction mods.

And the insurance thing is just a ****** attempt to squeeze a controversial idea in on the back of a popular one.


Player's don't produce faction mods. All the base values are indexed by typeID in the system, based on mineral value for t1 stuff (and probably for t2 stuff as badly as they insure). I'm not sure about how the base value of implants is indexed; I abstracted values based on ISK/LP cost in corp LP stores.

Deleted the note about insurance in the original post since I missed it before. Which insurance idea do you hate? I think insurance in general is crappy all around, but it's not within the scope of a bounty fix.
Yeep
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#43 - 2011-10-28 17:38:39 UTC
Ogopogo Mu wrote:
Player's don't produce faction mods. All the base values are indexed by typeID in the system, based on mineral value for t1 stuff (and probably for t2 stuff as badly as they insure). I'm not sure about how the base value of implants is indexed; I abstracted values based on ISK/LP cost in corp LP stores.


Yeah, I'm a bit rusty on the exact mechanics but I know this. I'm just very wary of anything which tries to apply a monetary value to a kill because it tends to result in people losing concern for any other value the kill might have (see, almost all killboards ever). Not to mention the cost of a ship is only tenuously related to its combat ability. I guess I'd be happier with a system that paid out based on clone and hull baseprice only because we already have absolute values for those things in game already.

As an afterthought, if I'm paid out based on the market cost of the mods on my ship, whats to stop me buying all of something rare but cheap (say T2 micro smartbombs), relisting at outrageous prices then having an alt kill me with a full rack on my ship?

Ogopogo Mu wrote:
Deleted the note about insurance in the original post since I missed it before. Which insurance idea do you hate? I think insurance in general is crappy all around, but it's not within the scope of a bounty fix.


My language was probably a bit confrontational but my point was basically the same as yours. Bounties are a tiny part of the game and almost universally considered broken. Insurance spans almost all of it. People in this forum have a habit of trying to shoehorn their pet terrible idea into an otherwise good one by invoking the spectre of the current bogeyman (be it bots or goons or whatever) and it makes me really irationally angry. This idea stands on its own merit without needing to make extra concessions because a bunch of people have had their mining barges exploded recently.
Ogopogo Mu
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#44 - 2011-10-28 19:33:25 UTC  |  Edited by: Ogopogo Mu
Yeep wrote:
Yeah, I'm a bit rusty on the exact mechanics but I know this. I'm just very wary of anything which tries to apply a monetary value to a kill because it tends to result in people losing concern for any other value the kill might have (see, almost all killboards ever). Not to mention the cost of a ship is only tenuously related to its combat ability. I guess I'd be happier with a system that paid out based on clone and hull baseprice only because we already have absolute values for those things in game already.


Killboard whoring is definitely annoying. BTW killboards do have the ability to periodically poll eve-central to get market averages for their kills, making a dead Dramiel's whoring value closer to what you'd pay for it than the crappy basevalue. AFAIK modules do have a basevalue, and it's usually way under market. I want to include some factor of the destroyed modules since they're usually worth more than the hull, unless it's a suicide boat or somesuch.

Yeep wrote:
As an afterthought, if I'm paid out based on the market cost of the mods on my ship, whats to stop me buying all of something rare but cheap (say T2 micro smartbombs), relisting at outrageous prices then having an alt kill me with a full rack on my ship?


I don't want the market value to enter into it since that can be easily manipulated. If you get exploded and a bunch of oxytopes go up with you, the oxytope bounty contribution is base value, not panic-market price. You would only profit if you bought a bunch of ships below cost as per Zircon's post. (I might check tutorial systems for this, as I know I dumped a bunch of free ships just to get rid of them after fixing my standings.) I think most things in Eve have a base value; if they don't, easy enough to fix, or just ignore them in the calculation.

Yeep wrote:
My language was probably a bit confrontational but my point was basically the same as yours. Bounties are a tiny part of the game and almost universally considered broken. Insurance spans almost all of it. People in this forum have a habit of trying to shoehorn their pet terrible idea into an otherwise good one by invoking the spectre of the current bogeyman (be it bots or goons or whatever) and it makes me really irationally angry. This idea stands on its own merit without needing to make extra concessions because a bunch of people have had their mining barges exploded recently.


Bounties are fairly tiny, but IMO they were set up sort of slapdash (a copy of the UO bounty system) and never fixed. Enough people seem to want to be bounty hunters that it makes sense to address it. I'd like to see it be a reasonable pursuit.

Insurance is fundamentally broken, though people don't seem to agree on what it's there for: (1) to help you get on your feet when you explode, or (2) to encourage explosions by softening the loss. For a cheap T1 gankboat the percentage-based payout is higher than a typical rifter, and much higher than a T2-fitted paper Mackinaw, so I can see a valid concern over the mechanics. But as soon as someone says GOON/ICE/THE MITTANI/IH8UCSM the argument trails into trololol.

OT:

Alternately, maybe a curved insurance value for ships can be introduced so that the value of it decreases as ship value increases. Newbies, roaming pirate rifters, and tacklers get the best value as they're more likely to die a lot (and need the ISK more), while BC's and BS's get less since you should probably be better at risk management by the time you jump into one. Yeah dictors and T2 logi/EW die a lot too, but they should be getting ship reimbursement and free exotic dancers from their corps for the roles they play in fleet.

That's probably a different thread though.

Long poasting, no sreeping.
Ogopogo Mu
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#45 - 2011-10-28 19:35:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Ogopogo Mu
Gah double post.
Ethilia
Freelance Excavation and Resistance
Apocalypse Now.
#46 - 2011-10-29 00:01:07 UTC
Three points:

1. In the event of a pod kill, the reward should include the cost of lost clothing, etc. (i.e., anything lost in the pod kill). I for one would pay a lot more for a pod kill that included a monocle. Also, I'd LOVE to have a collection of monocle clad corpses.
2. The actual cost of the clone involved in the pod kill should be used to calculate the reward. Since the isk was spent already there is no way to game it and players regularly 'over clone'.
3. Podding yourself via self destruct (for instance, to escape WH space) should not result in any reward payment.
Adunh Slavy
#47 - 2011-10-29 00:20:19 UTC
For ships kills, why not just the ship values and not worry about all the ins and outs of the modules and cargo? The values are calculated quarterly already for insurance purposes. Modules ... meh, does it really matter? The killer is going to scoop them and the victim will loose them.

For Pods, base it off the cost of the clone's SP retention level, that value is known too, why make t any more complex than that.

Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.  - William Pitt

Ogopogo Mu
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#48 - 2011-10-29 02:35:37 UTC
Ethilia wrote:
Three points:

1. In the event of a pod kill, the reward should include the cost of lost clothing, etc. (i.e., anything lost in the pod kill). I for one would pay a lot more for a pod kill that included a monocle. Also, I'd LOVE to have a collection of monocle clad corpses.
2. The actual cost of the clone involved in the pod kill should be used to calculate the reward. Since the isk was spent already there is no way to game it and players regularly 'over clone'.
3. Podding yourself via self destruct (for instance, to escape WH space) should not result in any reward payment.


I don't think monocles, etc. are actually destroyed unless it's in your cargo, although I do think a monocled corpse would be awesome. Clone cost could be derived from the actual clone used, but that's an extra bit of data to keep track of; and if for some reason someone did not buy a med clone it would result in no ISK to the killer. (I could only see this happening in the case of player stupidity or as an alternative to biomassing a grief alt, for instance.) I didn't think about self-podding to travel, but that's an interesting consideration.

Adunh Slavy wrote:
For ships kills, why not just the ship values and not worry about all the ins and outs of the modules and cargo? The values are calculated quarterly already for insurance purposes. Modules ... meh, does it really matter? The killer is going to scoop them and the victim will loose them.

For Pods, base it off the cost of the clone's SP retention level, that value is known too, why make t any more complex than that.


Well, I was going on the base value of destroyed modules/cargo only (dropped stuff is scoopable and wouldn't count) to make it worth blowing up someone in a Rifter, as the base values would result in almost nothing for the killers, reducing the incentive to hunt.

Pods as stated I would just base on the retention threshold of the minimum clone used to cover SP. The implant value is in there as incentive to kill people with a head full of Snakes.

If destroyed module/implant/cargo value is removed from the equation, then the payouts become relatively tiny, disincentivizing bounty hunting to the point of not making it worthwhile, and keeping a 1B bounty on the character forever. It's a balance between overpaying (thus resulting in profit for an alt-suicide) and giving a bounty hunter the equivalent of a waiter's gratuity for his trouble.
Adunh Slavy
#49 - 2011-10-29 21:31:38 UTC
Ogopogo Mu wrote:

stuff


Good points

Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.  - William Pitt

Solo Player
#50 - 2011-10-30 15:47:36 UTC
*bump*

@Trebor, Vile:
You posted your support for this - how are you planning to proceed?
Thing is, not much discussion is forthcoming since interested parties are mostly in agreement that this would be a good thing, and no discussion means the issue will be lost in oblivion (page 2 of the Hall) soon.
Trebor Daehdoow
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#51 - 2011-10-30 23:51:12 UTC
I've already pointed people to the thread. If it gets a few more pages of discussion, I'll push harder.

One issue is that it's a "game design" proposal, ie: a specific change proposal as opposed to "fix bounties". Certain people inside CCP hate such direct "do this, dumbasses" proposals.

Private Citizen • CSM in recovery

Ogopogo Mu
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#52 - 2011-10-31 04:53:17 UTC
Trebor Daehdoow wrote:
One issue is that it's a "game design" proposal, ie: a specific change proposal as opposed to "fix bounties". Certain people inside CCP hate such direct "do this, dumbasses" proposals.


... srsly? "Fix bounties" gets more attention than a specific mathematical system?

So much for the module value database query I was tossing together... Ugh
Juwi Kotch
KOTCH Construction and Anchoring
#53 - 2011-10-31 14:14:37 UTC
Great idea! I like it. Seems to be easy in both, working in game and designing it for the game.

I too would prefer something that factors in killrights (and probably skills, to make a true profession out of it) but with regard to simplicity I very much accept this proposal.

"Our lives are not our own. We are bound to others, past and present. And by each crime, and every kindness, we birth our future." Sonmi-451

Sepheir Sepheron
Perkone
Caldari State
#54 - 2011-10-31 14:20:18 UTC
I can see locator agents becoming more and more popular already.
Solo Player
#55 - 2011-11-01 14:41:17 UTC  |  Edited by: Solo Player
Trebor Daehdoow wrote:
I've already pointed people to the thread. If it gets a few more pages of discussion, I'll push harder.

One issue is that it's a "game design" proposal, ie: a specific change proposal as opposed to "fix bounties". Certain people inside CCP hate such direct "do this, dumbasses" proposals.


I feel a strong urge to loudly yell certain angry words at reading this.

EDIT: Not at you, Trebor! I can tell the messenger from the source! ;)

Why the hell have an "ideas and suggestions" board and then a dedicated "assembly hall" board for pushing proposed changes further if you hate them??
If they just want to assess the relative frustrations of players regarding different areas of the game ("fix bounties" vs. "fix insurance" or the like), they could do this a lot easier for both us and themselves. This makes no sense!
Trebor Daehdoow
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#56 - 2011-11-01 15:01:49 UTC
Hey, I never said I agreed with the philosophy, and it is by no means held by everyone in CCP. So these discussions have a purpose.

Private Citizen • CSM in recovery

Ogopogo Mu
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#57 - 2011-11-04 05:18:47 UTC
Trebor Daehdoow wrote:
Hey, I never said I agreed with the philosophy, and it is by no means held by everyone in CCP. So these discussions have a purpose.


I've run into this before; it can stem from reasonable causes (takes too many resources/interferes with other stuff in the pipe) and not-so-reasonable causes (NotMyIdea=Value(0)). Not going to speculate which it might be, but it doesn't matter as long as someone can take a look at it.

I don't think the system as proposed would eat that many clock resources; the only thing that might be a pain is calculating the mineral index values of all the exploded stuff, but that can be done effectively offline (like recalcs for insurance values, I didn't know about that until recently). Hell, you could do it in an excel sheet and import a comma delimited file into the DB once a quarter.

Likewise, there's no need to hammer the server with a payout calc request every time someone goes boom. It can always be delayed like rat bounties.

Trebor Daehdoow wrote:
I've already pointed people to the thread. If it gets a few more pages of discussion, I'll push harder.


Not sure how many more pages could come out of this. There's not a lot of disagreement here, just some concerns over the mechanics involved (details). I haven't run into anyone who thinks the bounty system as-is actually works.
Juwi Kotch
KOTCH Construction and Anchoring
#58 - 2011-11-04 15:13:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Juwi Kotch
Ogopogo Mu wrote:
I haven't run into anyone who thinks the bounty system as-is actually works.

That's the point and the problem. Obviously, those who are in power are not very interested in a working bounty system, nearly everything has a higher priority. The question is, why is this so, who profits from that game mechanic being broken and useless?

As I mentioned before, your proposal has charme, because it is simple and seems to be able to do what it is meant to do. It would not be that much investment to design it and to implement it. With this a whole new profession would be introduced to the game, and finally there would be a means to pay back the rampant high-sec killers and the low-sec highwaymen.

So, why is there no working bounty system, what is the reason that this is systematically ignored since EVE's inception?

"Our lives are not our own. We are bound to others, past and present. And by each crime, and every kindness, we birth our future." Sonmi-451

Dil'e Mahn
FFFFFFFUUUUUUUUUUUU
#59 - 2011-11-05 14:15:45 UTC
I'm a pirate. I might be on the receiving end of bounties, and I still approve. As it stands now, the guys that most often collect bounties from pirates are other pirates (or alts if it's a nice & juicy bounty). That's just not how it should work. It'd be awesome if there were groups of players who specialised in bounty hunting; that could result in plenty of gudfites.

I heartily approve of anything that unbreaks the bounty system, even if it might be just partly. There may not be a perfect solution, but this one sure is a LOT more perfect-ish than what we currently have.

+1

Shooting people in the face for fun and profit. Well, for fun, mostly.

Ogopogo Mu
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#60 - 2011-11-05 20:27:18 UTC
Dil'e Mahn wrote:
I'm a pirate. I might be on the receiving end of bounties, and I still approve.


Much appreciated. I'm looking for pirate feedback on the proposal since they're the most affected by bounties. Part of the proposal's idea is to encourage more reasons to go into low.