These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Pay Per Kill

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Lallante
Blue Republic
RvB - BLUE Republic
#61 - 2012-09-27 12:10:06 UTC
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
For those that think this just creates giant pools of unlimited isk, keep in mind thats not what we have now with insurance. As long as the payout value is less than the true value of the loss, it won't generate profit from thin air.

The problem, as we just recently saw when Goonswarm's thinktank cracked the FW formula, is that any slight error or misjudgement in the math behind this, and we've got a colossal nightmare of a situation on our hands.

For this reason alone, I'm extremely dubious about CCP's ability to create a completely exploit-free system. We (the CSM) warned them last time an exploit was likely, they assured us it wasn't, and it happened anyways. When all was said and done Goon math > my math > CCP's math. Something broke down in the game design process and I'm nervous about taking such a risk again.

All that to say though, there's nothing inherently wrong with Rixx's suggestion. I do think that PvPers deserve more way to earn an income via pew, I'd be fine if a FW-like system was applied elsewhere, we shouldn't have ALL the fun - but I'm just extremely nervous about another formula error at this point. Perhaps it would be better to discuss bounties and killright exchange instead if what we're really looking for is paid pew for independent capsuleers.....Cool



Hans you are missing the point.

Under the current system if you take more or less any t1 ship, insure it fully, then have a friend blow it up, you can recover 95%+ of its value (including the insurance cost) in the insurance payout plus the (average) salvage results. This varies in accordance with the payout value calculation (and its manipulation) and the market value of the salvage.

It is a general principle of shipdeath that if the aggregate value returned by a ship dying exceeds the cost of acquring the ship then it is exploitable and will be farmed on alts to death. This used to be a problem with insurance fraud BSs during the mineral crash.

What this means for the idea in the OP is that the potential envelope for financial rewards for killing a ship is VERY small and would need to dynamically change to ensure that

Insurance + average Salvage market value + KILL PAYOUT < ship cost + insurance cost,

at all times.

The potential payouts are probably therefore negligable. Someone else can do some testing with examples and work out the maximum possible.
Zenver
Ethereal Morality
The Initiative.
#62 - 2012-09-27 14:20:58 UTC
I don't feel like the value of modules should be taken into account in this calculation. Modules already have the chance to drop, so they are already generating a payout (one which you must take an additional risk to obtain).

Because of this, it makes sense for the 'bounty' payout to only consider the value of the ships hull. And perhaps the rig value.
Esker Sheep
Solos Nexus
Pandemic Horde
#63 - 2012-09-27 14:50:38 UTC
Hrothgar Nilsson wrote:

  1. No insurance for negative sec status pilots with bounties on their head.
    2. ----Bounty placement would cancel existing insurance policies.
    ----For example, RL insurance companies have the discretion to decline clients that are too risky to insure.
    ----This would also help insure that that payout of ISK for bounties + insurance does not exceed actual losses.


You could make this more like RL insurance companies by adjusting the premium based on sec status? There's the potential to game it by taking out insurance when at a higher sec status, but I can't see how you could easily exploit it to make ISK quick.
Alx Warlord
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#64 - 2012-09-27 15:23:28 UTC
Lady Ayeipsia wrote:
If my sec status is positive, there is no point in killing me. This means pirates who may need this the most make no isk when combating not pirates. In other words, the group most in need of such a reward benefits the least, so poor idea.

Adding another isk faucet does not lead to economic well being. People have more isk to spend. With the excess, they shop more locally leading to higher local Costs. If local prices rise, so do regional and trade hub prices. The end result is no net gain in isk value. You may make more isk, but prices rise leading to no change.

Also, how do you prevent exploitation? I pod some junk clones of my alt. The alt goes to -10 sec. Rookie ships are on the market and have value now. I keep killing my pirate alt, free isk.

Sorry, but there needs to be a better option as this one has no value.


Yeah, true, but with the actual value of the rookie ship you would have a better income x time killing NPCs in hi-sec...

Please read these!

New POS system New SOV system
Hans Jagerblitzen
Ice Fire Warriors
#65 - 2012-09-27 15:35:42 UTC
Lallante wrote:
Hans you are missing the point.

Under the current system if you take more or less any t1 ship, insure it fully, then have a friend blow it up, you can recover 95%+ of its value (including the insurance cost) in the insurance payout plus the (average) salvage results. This varies in accordance with the payout value calculation (and its manipulation) and the market value of the salvage.

It is a general principle of shipdeath that if the aggregate value returned by a ship dying exceeds the cost of acquring the ship then it is exploitable and will be farmed on alts to death. This used to be a problem with insurance fraud BSs during the mineral crash.

What this means for the idea in the OP is that the potential envelope for financial rewards for killing a ship is VERY small and would need to dynamically change to ensure that

Insurance + average Salvage market value + KILL PAYOUT < ship cost + insurance cost,

at all times.

The potential payouts are probably therefore negligable. Someone else can do some testing with examples and work out the maximum possible.


No testing needed, I understand exactly what you are saying. We have discussed this thoroughly within FW, as many wish that the plexing and mission payouts were nerfed in favor of buffing PvP payouts. The problem is that we are up against that threshold where even though individually the payouts seem rather small once divided amongst fleet members (and not very sustainable if that's your only income) but if buffed any further would exceed the original value of the ship and lead to fraud.

My point was only that using market price is supposedly a safer tool these days for calculating these payouts. I agree with you completely, even at maximum value without being exploitable the payouts wont seem very substantial if you do any kind of group PvP.

So while Rixx's system could work, a player-funded bounty system based on transferable kill rights makes a lot more sense in the long run.

CPM0 Chairman / CSM7 Vice Secretary
Hrothgar Nilsson
#66 - 2012-09-27 16:56:22 UTC
Esker Sheep wrote:
Hrothgar Nilsson wrote:

  1. No insurance for negative sec status pilots with bounties on their head.
    2. ----Bounty placement would cancel existing insurance policies.
    ----For example, RL insurance companies have the discretion to decline clients that are too risky to insure.
    ----This would also help insure that that payout of ISK for bounties + insurance does not exceed actual losses.


You could make this more like RL insurance companies by adjusting the premium based on sec status? There's the potential to game it by taking out insurance when at a higher sec status, but I can't see how you could easily exploit it to make ISK quick.

Well, if somebody with a bounty on their head lost a Drake, let's say worth 60mil and their killer got a 60mil payout, and the person got 20mil in insurance money for losing their Drake, it'd be endlessly exploited.

I've... seen things you people wouldn't believe...

Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion...
Lallante
Blue Republic
RvB - BLUE Republic
#67 - 2012-09-27 17:37:42 UTC
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
Lallante wrote:
Hans you are missing the point.

Under the current system if you take more or less any t1 ship, insure it fully, then have a friend blow it up, you can recover 95%+ of its value (including the insurance cost) in the insurance payout plus the (average) salvage results. This varies in accordance with the payout value calculation (and its manipulation) and the market value of the salvage.

It is a general principle of shipdeath that if the aggregate value returned by a ship dying exceeds the cost of acquring the ship then it is exploitable and will be farmed on alts to death. This used to be a problem with insurance fraud BSs during the mineral crash.

What this means for the idea in the OP is that the potential envelope for financial rewards for killing a ship is VERY small and would need to dynamically change to ensure that

Insurance + average Salvage market value + KILL PAYOUT < ship cost + insurance cost,

at all times.

The potential payouts are probably therefore negligable. Someone else can do some testing with examples and work out the maximum possible.


No testing needed, I understand exactly what you are saying. We have discussed this thoroughly within FW, as many wish that the plexing and mission payouts were nerfed in favor of buffing PvP payouts. The problem is that we are up against that threshold where even though individually the payouts seem rather small once divided amongst fleet members (and not very sustainable if that's your only income) but if buffed any further would exceed the original value of the ship and lead to fraud.

My point was only that using market price is supposedly a safer tool these days for calculating these payouts. I agree with you completely, even at maximum value without being exploitable the payouts wont seem very substantial if you do any kind of group PvP.

So while Rixx's system could work, a player-funded bounty system based on transferable kill rights makes a lot more sense in the long run.


I suppose if the equation I mentioned took rigs and fittings (not dropped as loot) into account it could work actually, but it would give odd, counterintuitive results where killing a t1 and meta fitted BS was worth way less than a t2 fitted frigate.
Lallante
Blue Republic
RvB - BLUE Republic
#68 - 2012-09-27 17:39:40 UTC
Penalising players financially for having negative sec status is unacceptable as a game design principle. By all means disallow certain gameplay from such players (entry to high sec as now, or perhaps, docking and undocking at certain stations in a ship (but fine in a pod)?), but financially penalising them is just no fun.