These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
123Next pageLast page
 

ESBS - a new bounty system for eve

Author
Bienator II
madmen of the skies
#1 - 2011-11-14 03:22:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Bienator II
ESBS an eve-style bounty system

we all know that the wild west style of the bounty system doesn't work in the eve universe for several reasons
- everyone can have an alt, some have even real friends
- death is not as meaningful as in real life (in other words: the head of an empty clone means nothing in eve)
- podkills in low and highsec are almost impossible under normal conditions (aligntime < locktime, no bubbles)

goals
Arrow bounties should hurt (the bad guy)
Arrow and they should encourage bounty hunters to hunt people
Arrow telling your friend/alt to kill you to farm the bounty should be discouraged (loss > gain)
Arrow bounty system should stay 'democratic': N people can put bounties on the same pilot (-> not a kill contract)

fact1: pods and ships have (average ISK) values. Clone imps + the clone itself = pod value. Ship = hull + modules
fact2: if bounty > pod value = problem (current situation)

now the idea:
Arrow payout for shipkill: max 60% of its value*
Arrow payout for podkill: max 80% of its value*
Arrow if you kill the ship and the pod you'll get both
Arrow payout is subtracted from the bounty until there is no bounty left
Arrow killing somebody multiple times hurts and is eve style - not wild west style

So, as soon you have a non trivial amount of bounty on your head you will get killed sooner or later**, not once, multiple times until your bounty is back at 0 since the hunters don't get all the bounties at once (fact2 fixed). The new bounty sytem is situational, the hunter gets what he shoots. If the bad guy flies in a shuttle with an empty clone, shooting him will pay out almost nothing.

This hurts, creates the bounty hunter profession and is not exploitable (for the same reasons why ship insurance is not exploitable).

implementation details (some are optional)
- subtracted hull insurance https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=359105#post359105
- a hunter won't get any payout if he is in the same alliance or blue to the bad guy https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=414080#post414080

other ideas:
- if bounty = very high -> outlaw (probably a bad idea, would need better balancing or other restrictions)
- contracts to get the job done quicker
- bribe concord to temporary(!) get rid of the bounty in selected regions
- ... 100 other things, see bold text below

note1: this is only the core idea for a not exploitable system. The system can be improved/tweaked further but i wanted to keep it short and only highlight the fix to the problem

note2: payout basically works like the new LP payout mechanic of faction warefare (2012 summer expansion). Killreports, ship/pod value etc has been all implemented already..

discuss

* < 100 to compensate market fluctuations. values are chosen as example
** assuming you undock


examples
el alasar wrote:


say bounty is 1000mil.
insurance for platinum contract for raven (navy): net payout is 75.6 - 22.6 = 53mil , market price 85 (350)

case 1.
ship: raven, tech2-fit (~150mil). 30mil drop.
cargo: 1x +4 imps, 1x +3 imps (~27mil). the +4 drops = 18mil.
pod: 5x +4 imps (~90mil). nothing drops - currently...

worth destroyed:
1. ship 150-30=120
2. cargo 27-18=9
3. pod 90
==> 219 mil.

insurance valid? yes. paid to holder of bounty: 53mil (must not be paid to bounty hunter to prevent abuse)
base payout: 219 - 53 = 166. effective bounty payout (e.g. 90%) = 0.9*166 = 149.4 mil
bounty reduced to 850.6 mil.



case 2.
ship: raven NAVY, faction-fit (800mil). 200mil drop.
cargo: 1x +4 imps, 1x +3 imps (~27mil). the +4 drops = 18mil.
pod: 5x +4 imps (~90mil). nothing drops - currently...

worth destroyed:
1. ship 800-200=600
2. cargo 27-18=9
3. pod 90
==> 599 mil.

insurance valid? yes. paid to holder of bounty: 53mil (must not be paid to bounty hunter to prevent abuse)
base payout: 599 - 53 = 546. effective bounty payout (e.g. 90%) = 0.9*546= 491.4 mil
bounty reduced to 508.6 mil.

how to fix eve: 1) remove ECM 2) rename dampeners to ECM 3) add new anti-drone ewar for caldari 4) give offgrid boosters ongrid combat value

Pelador Rova
Paladin Noesis
#2 - 2011-11-14 07:10:15 UTC  |  Edited by: Pelador Rova
Bienator II wrote:
yep, you guessed it. thats yet another idea to fix bounties.

we all know that the wild west style of the bounty system doesn't work in the eve universe for several reasons
- everyone can have an alt, some have even real friends
- death is not that meaningful as in real life
- podkills in low and highsec are almost impossible under normal conditions (aligntime < locktime, no bubbles)

goals
- bounties should hurt (the bad guy)
- and they should encourage bounty hunters to hunt people
- telling your friend/alt to kill you to farm the bounty should not work

fact1: pods and ships have (average ISK) values. Clone imps + the clone itself = pod value. Ship = hull + modules
fact2: if bounty > pod value = problem (current situation)

now the idea:
payout for shipkill: max 60% of its value*
payout for podkill: max 80% of its value*

So as soon you have a non trivial amount of bounty on your head you will get killed sooner or later**, not once, multiple times until your bounty is payed off since the hunters don't get all the bounties at once (fact2 fixed). Starting with a high enough bounty you will be made automatically outlaw in highsec.

This hurts, creates a the bounty hunter profession and is not exploitable (for the same reasons why ship insurance is not exploitable).

discuss

* < 100 to compensate market fluctuations. values are chosen as example
** assuming you undock



So Older players can place cheap bounties on newer players and get bounty profits more easily as a result?

Or place cheap bounties on non PvP ships e.g. freighters/miners, who may have expensive ships and pod ratings and profit enourmously?

In fact place cheap bounties on anybody and potentially profit substantially?

Not sure how this really would help the policing process, imagine it would create a huge feast of griefing problems as a result.

Seems you could continually have a gank of bounties against one individual also and cause him to go broke as a result quite quickly also due to having to pay the deluge of fine(s)?

Or is this just a remedial way of trying to stop anyone going into suffiently negative security for a bounty status ever? Because if they are aware of the potential ramifications as stands, it would work I think. ;) And that's before the added feature of applying a bounty sufficient to make them an outlaw in the first place and all problems associated with it.
Schnoo
The Schnoo
#3 - 2011-11-14 10:21:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Schnoo
Pelador Rova wrote:

So Older players can place cheap bounties on newer players and get bounty profits more easily as a result?

Or place cheap bounties on non PvP ships e.g. freighters/miners, who may have expensive ships and pod ratings and profit enourmously?

In fact place cheap bounties on anybody and potentially profit substantially?

Not sure how this really would help the policing process, imagine it would create a huge feast of griefing problems as a result.

Seems you could continually have a gank of bounties against one individual also and cause him to go broke as a result quite quickly also due to having to pay the deluge of fine(s)?

Or is this just a remedial way of trying to stop anyone going into suffiently negative security for a bounty status ever? Because if they are aware of the potential ramifications as stands, it would work I think. ;) And that's before the added feature of applying a bounty sufficient to make them an outlaw in the first place and all problems associated with it.

I don't think you quite understood what he meant, but the payout would probably be min(bounty, alfa * ship_value), where alfa is somewhere in the interval [0.5, 0.8]. You would thus not be able to actually earn from the bounties, but only be limited as to how much you can earn depending on what ship the enemy is flying.

But honestly, I'd go further and that and allow bounties to be payed when ships are destroyed, as well as when pods are (two separate payouts, if ISK is left for the second). And also, include implant killmails (upcoming patch...) into your payment method.
Pelador Rova
Paladin Noesis
#4 - 2011-11-14 11:40:58 UTC
Well I dont see any explanation of the minimum of bounty or method above as you describe, would make more sense if so.

Beside, insta outlaw someone with a huge bounty, multiple opportunities to freely shoot their ships and pods till paid sounds like a nice profiteering exercise and hurt the other guys wallet to boot. Seems like a way to print Isk, potentially.

Even if outlaws were given the opportunity to bribe authorities to correct security standing as a balancer it would still mean they are out of pocket from the exercise. And possibly make pirating simply more attractive anyhow.

If they can't afford to pay do you plex your get out of jail card? And then have to do it again and again from multiple bounties one after another? Seriously?
Schnoo
The Schnoo
#5 - 2011-11-14 13:08:31 UTC
Pelador Rova wrote:
Well I dont see any explanation of the minimum of bounty or method above as you describe, would make more sense if so.

Beside, insta outlaw someone with a huge bounty, multiple opportunities to freely shoot their ships and pods till paid sounds like a nice profiteering exercise and hurt the other guys wallet to boot. Seems like a way to print Isk, potentially.

Even if outlaws were given the opportunity to bribe authorities to correct security standing as a balancer it would still mean they are out of pocket from the exercise. And possibly make pirating simply more attractive anyhow.

If they can't afford to pay do you plex your get out of jail card? And then have to do it again and again from multiple bounties one after another? Seriously?

Not sure I understand what you meant, but bounties aren't payed by the people who have them. The only effect bounties have on people is making them better, more profitable targets.

In general, in this system, there are 3 parties involved.
1) People who put bounties on a target by giving away ISK to the system
2) Target itself, which has a bounty
3) People who destroy targets resource, claiming a minimum of total bounty and 50-80% ship value, paid by the system. Once claimed, targets bounty gets reduced by the paid amount.

This in itself is a null based ISK system, sum of all bounties + sum of all bounties claimed = sum of all ISK ever put on bounties, thus this is in no way an ISK printing press of any sort. The reduced value of the ships or implants, by which the bounties are payed is put in effect in order to avoid people using alts or friends to clean bounties in case they were worried about it.

Also, while not necessarily a way to change the entire system, one can also considered only allowing bounty placement on people who appear as the attacking side on your loss mail, or adding a monthly percentage decrease in bounty value, by f.e 5%.
Reasoning for this is seeing many silly bounties, that feel more like adverts or balance display than actual bounties with intent to increase target attractiveness. As an example, take a look at all the EOH _NAME_ (a poker club or something?) that appear in the bounty list, a group of people who probably never undocked.
Bienator II
madmen of the skies
#6 - 2011-11-14 15:49:26 UTC
Pelador Rova wrote:

Or place cheap bounties on non PvP ships e.g. freighters/miners, who may have expensive ships and pod ratings and profit enourmously?

In fact place cheap bounties on anybody and potentially profit substantially?

no. nothing changes in this regards. You need a minimal sec status to be able to receive bounties. The outlaw thingy is only an optional detail to make it more interesting but in no way the main point of the bounty system

how to fix eve: 1) remove ECM 2) rename dampeners to ECM 3) add new anti-drone ewar for caldari 4) give offgrid boosters ongrid combat value

Pelador Rova
Paladin Noesis
#7 - 2011-11-14 15:51:09 UTC
Bienator II wrote:

So as soon you have a non trivial amount of bounty on your head you will get killed sooner or later**, not once, multiple times until your bounty is payed off since the hunters don't get all the bounties at once


Seems the OP's post is a very poor explanation of how the system works if it's one and the same as you describe.

The above post can be interpreted as a bounty fee you have to pay. And multiple events of the same bounty. As the all at once would previously refer to a podding event rather than the ongoing amounts of equal value.

To be honsest I'm now so confused as to what the system is, I give up with it. Needs clarification and proper explanation than the "back of a *** packet" attempt I think.
Bienator II
madmen of the skies
#8 - 2011-11-14 16:04:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Bienator II
ok i changed the wording a little bit but i really don't know how to explain that better, seems obvious to me. Maybe someone can point out whats unclear? And yes you will have to read the whole post to get the intention.

how to fix eve: 1) remove ECM 2) rename dampeners to ECM 3) add new anti-drone ewar for caldari 4) give offgrid boosters ongrid combat value

Bienator II
madmen of the skies
#9 - 2011-11-14 16:18:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Bienator II
Schnoo wrote:

But honestly, I'd go further and that and allow bounties to be payed when ships are destroyed, as well as when pods are (two separate payouts, if ISK is left for the second). And also, include implant killmails (upcoming patch...) into your payment method.

yeah thats already in the proposal. you get a separate payout for the ship and one for the pod as hunter. One of the reasons for that is that podkills in lowsec are almost impossible without bubbles and normal conditions (no server lag etc).

how to fix eve: 1) remove ECM 2) rename dampeners to ECM 3) add new anti-drone ewar for caldari 4) give offgrid boosters ongrid combat value

Bienator II
madmen of the skies
#10 - 2011-11-14 17:01:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Bienator II
Bienator II wrote:

implementation details
- subtracted hull insurance
...


there are still some corner cases to tackle.

the hull insurance payed back to the bad guy should be subtracted from the ship payback to the hunter. This fixes an exploit where killing yourself repeatedly in an empty insured T1 ship could bring the bounty back to 0 without big ISK impact for the bad guy.

This should make almost no difference in the usual case where the bad guy is flying a fully fitted ship, since the fitting is part of the ship payout formula.

short version: bad guy still gets his insurance but hunter gets a little bit less payout

how to fix eve: 1) remove ECM 2) rename dampeners to ECM 3) add new anti-drone ewar for caldari 4) give offgrid boosters ongrid combat value

Schnoo
The Schnoo
#11 - 2011-11-14 21:04:06 UTC
Bienator II wrote:
there are still some corner cases to tackle.

the hull insurance payed back to the bad guy should be subtracted from the ship payback to the hunter. This fixes an exploit where killing yourself repeatedly in an empty insured T1 ship could bring the bounty back to 0 without big ISK impact for the bad guy.

This should make almost no difference in the usual case where the bad guy is flying a fully fitted ship, since the fitting is part of the ship payout formula.

A way of fixing the problem of people killing themselves or using alts to do so should be done with modifiers on bounty payment. In fact, in order to avoid insurance + bounty fraud, a slightly more complex calculation may be used.

min(bounty, ship_value * alpha + module_value * beta + implant_value * gamma)
Usually you will have only alpha and beta, or gamma. Alpha, beta and gamma are real numbers in [0, 1] range, and a suggested value to avoid "friendly destruction" is to pick beta and gamma somewhere from [0.5, 0.8] range, and to pick alpha from [0.2, 0.5] range.
A small alpha should be taken to have: insurance_cost + ship_cost >> insurance_payment + bounty_payment, by greatly reducing the bounty_payment for empty ships (which in itself shouldn't be a problem as far as bounty payments are concerned, as people usually use modules which are at least as high as the ship itself).

TLDR:
suggested bounty formula:
min(bounty, ship_value * alpha + module_value * beta + implant_value * gamma)
alpha range: [0.2, 0.5]
beta, gamma ranges: [0.5, 0.8]
Bienator II
madmen of the skies
#12 - 2011-11-15 17:20:12 UTC  |  Edited by: Bienator II
i felt it would be easier to balance the formula while taking insurance payout into account if its subtracted directly.

the payback function would look like:

ship_payout = (ship_value * alpha - bad_guy_insurance_payout) + module_value * beta
pod_payout = implant_value * gamma + clone_value

if(ship_payout < 0) ship_payout = 0; // safety measure for very small alpha

bounty_payout = min(bounty_remaining, pod_payout + ship_payout)
bounty_remaining -= bounty_payout

how to fix eve: 1) remove ECM 2) rename dampeners to ECM 3) add new anti-drone ewar for caldari 4) give offgrid boosters ongrid combat value

Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#13 - 2011-11-22 00:58:21 UTC
Might be easier to not pay out insurance for any ship death when a bounty payout is involved... in conjunction with the rest of your system.

View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents: Virtual Realms.

Bienator II
madmen of the skies
#14 - 2011-11-22 01:12:53 UTC
yeah would be certainly easier to implement but i wasn't sure if this would be fair since the bad guy payed the insurance from his own pocket and its somewhat independent from the whole bounty thing...

But this are only little details which the experts at CCP should deal with ;)

how to fix eve: 1) remove ECM 2) rename dampeners to ECM 3) add new anti-drone ewar for caldari 4) give offgrid boosters ongrid combat value

Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#15 - 2011-11-22 01:24:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Ranger 1
True, true.

It would be interesting to figure out a modified version of this that would be appropriate for the other side... a contract killing or "hit" that could only be placed on someone with a positive security status, by someone with a negative security status.

Something balanced to be much, much more costly to the person placing the hit contract... but lets face it, they would likely not care as much about that aspect of it.

Of course, the storm of outrage it would generate would be of epic proportions... so no matter how "realistic" it would be it's probably never going to be an option..

I'll pipe down now, so as not to derail your thread.

View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents: Virtual Realms.

Alx Warlord
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#16 - 2011-11-22 02:05:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Alx Warlord
How about subtracting the wallet of the killed player, this would really hurt and mean a thing!!! Twisted

More people would inject ISK on the bounty system! And we will have a good ISK sink! And a real bounty hunter profession! New life for low sec! Pirate

The new mechanic would be something like this:

Quote:
-Bounty can only be applicable over players that have negative security status.

- For every 1 isk spent on bounty: The killer will gain 1 isk (bounty office reward) and the killed will lose 1 isk (bounty office fee).

- The maximum amount of drained isk is "X%" of player's current total ISK in his wallet. (Where X is function of the killed security status)

- If the amount drained is inferior to the Bounty value due to the % restriction, then just a part of the bounty is consumed / rewarded.

-The fee is calculated after the insurance refund, so the killed player will have at last a few ISK in the wallet.

This way no one will want to be WANTED, as it should be, and it will fix the old exploit: remove the bounty over your head being killed by a friend and splitting the money...

(Now the current system is worst then my proposal! if someone places a billion bounty on someones head, it actually gives this billion to this player and friends... it is totally stupid!!!)

(Also there are players that illegally sells isk using the current Bounty system, and it will end...)
Moonaura
The Dead Rabbit Society
#17 - 2011-11-24 23:42:51 UTC  |  Edited by: Moonaura
Always pro ideas to discuss making the system actually usable, so bravo Bienator.

Alas, because of the ways it could be exploited, it is extremely hard to make Bounty workable, even with your suggestions (I like the idea of the ship loss partially paying out as most decent low sec pilots are slippery when in their pod). Having non-blue or same alliance won't stop it being abused sadly, because it takes just seconds to create a neutral alt to cash in.

The only way I can possibly see it not being abused is for the actual person with the bounty on them, to be punished in a way, that is significant enough to absolutely not want that bounty to be collected on their character. Only then, will you have a bounty system in EvE that is workable, whatever the details are - it has to punish the person with the bounty on their heads, it is as simple as that.

In real life, bounties on your head were bad news, for example, in the wild west - being caught, often meant justice at the end of a rope. This is technically what we call 'An Incentive' to not be caught.

In a virtual game like EvE, that is not possible, unless you go hardcore like in WoD with Permadeath is toying with.

But then of course, by having a system that punishes the person with the bounty on them, it can also be abused. With people placing bounties to punish, perhaps, relatively innocent people, even new players.

My solution to that, would be, that the person placing the bounty has to have lost a ship or been podded, by the person they are placing the bounty on. They should also be limited to the amount of bounty, based on the total skill points the pilot has, so you can't whack a billion isk bounty on a new player, only a seven year old one.

The punishment could be financial - but then targets with bounty, would fly a ship around with a character with no ISK. So it has to be a game mechanic, that hurts them in a significant way, to not want bounty, but also not harsh enough to want them to Emo rage quit EvE. Pirates enjoying... Pirating, and all credit to them. Any system that kills their game completely, shouldn't be welcomed either.

And thus... we have a stalemate, unless we find a system that is fair, and also enhances their game play too.

"The game is mostly played by men - 97%. But 40% of them play as women... so thats fine."  - CCP t0rfifrans 

Bienator II
madmen of the skies
#18 - 2011-11-25 00:28:43 UTC  |  Edited by: Bienator II
Moonaura wrote:
Always pro ideas to discuss making the system actually usable, so bravo Bienator.

Alas, because of the ways it could be exploited, it is extremely hard to make Bounty workable, even with your suggestions (I like the idea of the ship loss partially paying out as most decent low sec pilots are slippery when in their pod). Having non-blue or same alliance won't stop it being abused sadly, because it takes just seconds to create a neutral alt to cash in.

yeah, but this does not help.

the payout is always less than the value of the destroyed item. You can not make money by selfkill (via blue, alt.. etc).

lets say you fly a navy apoc which costs with modules around 800mil, your bounty is 1000mil. Your alt kills you in it.

payout = 60% of 800mil = 480mil

this means you reduced your bounty by 480mil but lost 800mil in assets

-> 320mil lost

same applies for podkills

how to fix eve: 1) remove ECM 2) rename dampeners to ECM 3) add new anti-drone ewar for caldari 4) give offgrid boosters ongrid combat value

Moonaura
The Dead Rabbit Society
#19 - 2011-11-25 00:44:41 UTC  |  Edited by: Moonaura
Bienator II wrote:
Moonaura wrote:
Always pro ideas to discuss making the system actually usable, so bravo Bienator.

Alas, because of the ways it could be exploited, it is extremely hard to make Bounty workable, even with your suggestions (I like the idea of the ship loss partially paying out as most decent low sec pilots are slippery when in their pod). Having non-blue or same alliance won't stop it being abused sadly, because it takes just seconds to create a neutral alt to cash in.

yeah, but this does not help.

the payout is always less than the value of the destroyed item. You can not make money by selfkill (via blue, alt.. etc).

lets say you fly a navy apoc which costs with modules around 800mil, your bounty is 1000mil. Your alt kills you in it.

payout = 60% of 800mil = 480mil

this means you reduced your bounty by 480mil but lost 800mil in assets

-> 320mil lost

same applies for podkills


Well good sir, I guess this is why I got a D in maths. Apologies for my misunderstanding, because your idea could work.

If we were going to overhaul Bounty, I'd like the map to somehow highlight where the evil pirate scum exist, in fact I can imagine a whole meta gaming expansion for Bounty, where there are specific modules and ship rewards for bounty hunters, to make it a sort of profession in EvE. I'm sure CCP wouldn't be against encouraging an ISK sink :)

Personally, I'd like to be able to capture a naughty person with bounty on them, and if need be, make them walk the ole plank... or walk Keanu Reave's, both are pretty wooden, but either would do. This would amuse me. Yes... bring in the Keanu Reaves module please CCP, and when activated, you get to hear one of him say 'MY NAME IS NEO' or something apt. Maybe a hat for the pirates to wear, so they can look like Jack Sparrow. You get the idea ;)

And to be honest, anything that encourages people to come and hunt pirates, I think would actually be welcomed by pirates themselves, because they tend to be far better at PvP and can get bored sometimes by lack of activity, but you'd have to ask them how they feel, I know a couple, and they are lovely people unless you happen to wander into low sec, at which point they turn all darn nasty.

Anyway, onwards and upwards, lets keep the discussion going.

"The game is mostly played by men - 97%. But 40% of them play as women... so thats fine."  - CCP t0rfifrans 

Bienator II
madmen of the skies
#20 - 2011-11-25 01:15:41 UTC
Bienator II wrote:

implementation details
...
- a hunter won't get any payout if he is in the same alliance or blue to the bad guy

reasoning:
lets say lots of bad guys of an alliance have an event. Lets say they kill each other as target practice. In this case they would have an advantage if they would have bounty since they would get part of the losses back while reducing the bounty. Thats uncool.

This doesn't solve the issue entirely but it helps at least.

but again: you can't make profit anyway even without this restriction (!)

second possible restriction would be to accept only hunters if they have a "good enough" sec standing or at least: hunter standing > bad guy standing

how to fix eve: 1) remove ECM 2) rename dampeners to ECM 3) add new anti-drone ewar for caldari 4) give offgrid boosters ongrid combat value

123Next pageLast page