These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Large bounties, pointless.

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
LHA Tarawa
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#121 - 2012-12-10 17:01:26 UTC  |  Edited by: LHA Tarawa
Domi Naytrix wrote:
The mission giver gives you a target, and for say a month or so, you have free reign to attack this person whereever they are, until either you kill them or they kill you.


People put bounties on carebears. You get assigned a mission to kill said careber. Carebear goes boom. Carebears quit by the tens of thousands. CCP makes whatever change is necessary to stop carebears from leaving the game, so undo this mechanism in them getting blown up often through no action of their own.

The current system is designed to make it unprofitable to blowup most carebears, so that carbears don't go boom too often, so that carebears will keep making real world money for CCP. You can't mess with that!
Natsett Amuinn
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#122 - 2012-12-10 17:03:15 UTC
LHA Tarawa wrote:
Domi Naytrix wrote:
The mission giver gives you a target, and for say a month or so, you have free reign to attack this person whereever they are, until either you kill them or they kill you.


People put bounties on carebears. You get assigned a mission to kill said careber. Carebear goes boom. Carebears quit by the tens of thousands. CCP makes whatever change is necessary to stop carebears from leaving the game, so undo this mechanism by which they can gt blown up through no action of their own.

The idea was silly, obviously, but so was what you wrote.

Everyone can be blown up through no action of their own.
I'm sure you didn't really mean it that way, but it was a poor way to phrase it.
LHA Tarawa
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#123 - 2012-12-10 17:07:24 UTC
Natsett Amuinn wrote:
LHA Tarawa wrote:
Domi Naytrix wrote:
The mission giver gives you a target, and for say a month or so, you have free reign to attack this person whereever they are, until either you kill them or they kill you.


People put bounties on carebears. You get assigned a mission to kill said careber. Carebear goes boom. Carebears quit by the tens of thousands. CCP makes whatever change is necessary to stop carebears from leaving the game, so undo this mechanism by which they can gt blown up through no action of their own.

The idea was silly, obviously, but so was what you wrote.

Everyone can be blown up through no action of their own.
I'm sure you didn't really mean it that way, but it was a poor way to phrase it.


Yeah. I realized that and was already working on an edit when you posted this.

It is the probability and frequency with which carebears go boom that determines whether they keep playing or not.

The only time I've been suicide ganked was when I was noob and was hauling a CRUD ton of expensive salvage in a tier one industrial that was gankable by a single destroyer.

I'd say hauling a high priced cargo in an easily gankable ship was "an action of my own" that resulted in the suicide gank. I made it profitable for someone to suicide gank me..
La Volpe DaFlorence
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#124 - 2012-12-10 18:45:56 UTC
As it stands, the bounty system seems to have only one use. Annoying people, and getting a awesome subtitle on your portrait. And apparently some people dislike having a bounty so much that when I put a 100k bounty on someone, they put a 1 billion ISK bounty on me in return.
Natsett Amuinn
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#125 - 2012-12-10 18:47:45 UTC
La Volpe DaFlorence wrote:
As it stands, the bounty system seems to have only one use. Annoying people, and getting a awesome subtitle on your portrait. And apparently some people dislike having a bounty so much that when I put a 100k bounty on someone, they put a 1 billion ISK bounty on me in return.

Nice.

BTW, you fogot to put your face on this morning.
La Volpe DaFlorence
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#126 - 2012-12-10 18:49:38 UTC
Natsett Amuinn wrote:
La Volpe DaFlorence wrote:
As it stands, the bounty system seems to have only one use. Annoying people, and getting a awesome subtitle on your portrait. And apparently some people dislike having a bounty so much that when I put a 100k bounty on someone, they put a 1 billion ISK bounty on me in return.

Nice.

BTW, you fogot to put your face on this morning.


Well, I won a bet with my friend that someone would notice it. BaconFace, Scourge of the High Galaxy Seas, at your service.
Lady Katherine Devonshire
Royal Ammatar Engineering Corps
#127 - 2012-12-10 20:38:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Lady Katherine Devonshire
Luc Chastot wrote:
Most wanted targets should give better payouts, something like #10 +1%, #9 +2%, #8 +3% etc.


You may actually be on to something, albeit with a different angle.

Some have complained that the new bounty system makes no difference between placing a bounty on someone with a +5.0 security rating and a -10.0 standing. They would rather see CCP place restrictions on placing bounties based off of security status. Naturally, the anarchists object.

However... what if they did this instead:

Keep the current "free bounties" rules but place collection amounts based on standings? If a ship is destroyed in non-Empire space then the percentage of payout can then be directly modified by the target's CONCORD standing. Someone with a perfect +5.0 rating, for instance, would pay out only a bare minimum - a maximum of 10% of the bounty pool. Whereas someone with a -10.0 rating would pay out a larger block - a maximum of, say, 50% of the bounty pool.

Meanwhile, in Empire space, instead of CONCORD rating it would use the actual faction standing appropriate to where the kill took place. Meaning that let's say you have a target with a -3.0 CONCORD rating, but you catch them in lowsec Empire space and their reputation with that Empire is actually very good, say +4.5 or so. Because of this, local "bookies" are going to be more reluctant to pay out on someone whom the locals actually like, so the payout would be very low. In converse, if someone with a high +3.0 in CONCORD was traveling through a section of Empire space where they were not welcome (-2.5 local standing, for example) then the bounty hunter would collect a larger amount than their CONCORD rating would suggest because the local government was glad to see their ship removed from their space.

This, I believe, would be a balanced compromise between the desires of the anarchists and those whom wish to see actual casus belli rules brought back. You could still bounty someone to insane levels, but if they're a perfect +5.0 citizen who never leaves their own chunk of hisec then there will be little reward for attacking them. Hardened criminals and FW types who wander to the wrong side of the fence will be far more lucrative targets, as you would collect a greater portion of their bounty pool if you catch them at the right place and time.

The sound of the Amarrian heart
Natsett Amuinn
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#128 - 2012-12-10 20:48:20 UTC
Lady Katherine Devonshire wrote:
Luc Chastot wrote:
Most wanted targets should give better payouts, something like #10 +1%, #9 +2%, #8 +3% etc.


You may actually be on to something, albeit with a different angle.

Some have complained that the new bounty system makes no difference between placing a bounty on someone with a +5.0 security rating and a -10.0 standing. They would rather see CCP place restrictions on placing bounties based off of security status. Naturally, the anarchists object.

However... what if they did this instead:

Keep the current "free bounties" rules but place collection amounts based on standings? If a ship is destroyed in non-Empire space then the percentage of payout can then be directly modified by the target's CONCORD standing. Someone with a perfect +5.0 rating, for instance, would pay out only a bare minimum - a maximum of 10% of the bounty pool. Whereas someone with a -10.0 rating would pay out a larger block - a maximum of, say, 50% of the bounty pool.

Meanwhile, in Empire space, instead of CONCORD rating it would use the actual faction standing appropriate to where the kill took place. Meaning that let's say you have a target with a -3.0 CONCORD rating, but you catch them in lowsec Empire space and their reputation with that Empire is actually very good, say +4.5 or so. Because of this, local "bookies" are going to be more reluctant to pay out on someone whom the locals actually like, so the payout would be very low. In converse, if someone with a high +3.0 in CONCORD was traveling through a section of Empire space where they were not welcome (-2.5 local standing, for example) then the bounty hunter would collect a larger amount than their CONCORD rating would suggest because the local government was glad to see their ship removed from their space.

This, I believe, would be a balanced compromise between the desires of the anarchists and those whom wish to see actual casus belli rules brought back. So you could still bounty someone to the moon, but if they're a perfect +5.0 citizen who never leaves their own chunk of hisec then there will be little reward for attacking them. Hardened criminal however and FW types who wander to the wrong side of the fence will be more lucrative targets, as you will collect a greater portion of their bounty pool if you catch them at the right place and time.

Your sec status doesn't have anything to do with bounty, and therefore shouldn't have anything to do with the payout.

It certainly shouldn't be impacted in anyway based on where you get blown up.
You're not any less a target in high sec than low sec or null, there's simply consequence for blwoing someone up in high sec, and again that has nothing to do with standing.

If you fly in high sec, and you're the most wanted person in EVE, people should be willing to shoot you in high sec. High sec and it's associated mechanics shouldn't be there to protect you because you have a 10 billion isk bounty. Criminal or not, if you're one of the most wanted individuals in EVE, you should be enticing to shoot regardless of where you're at; high sec shouldn't matter at that point.

And yes, I do think that as the most wanted person in EVE you should be profitable to a bounty hunter in high sec, even if they have to suicide gank you.

If it's possible, the bounty system should work like freighter ganking in high sec. it's profitable for me to blow you up, but not to blow yourself up. At least where it concern the most wanted individuals. High sec should not be your sefety net if you are number 1 through 10.

Staying docked should be your only means of safety.
La Volpe DaFlorence
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#129 - 2012-12-10 20:56:51 UTC
Lady Katherine Devonshire wrote:
Luc Chastot wrote:
Most wanted targets should give better payouts, something like #10 +1%, #9 +2%, #8 +3% etc.


You may actually be on to something, albeit with a different angle.

Some have complained that the new bounty system makes no difference between placing a bounty on someone with a +5.0 security rating and a -10.0 standing. They would rather see CCP place restrictions on placing bounties based off of security status. Naturally, the anarchists object.

However... what if they did this instead:

Keep the current "free bounties" rules but place collection amounts based on standings? If a ship is destroyed in non-Empire space then the percentage of payout can then be directly modified by the target's CONCORD standing. Someone with a perfect +5.0 rating, for instance, would pay out only a bare minimum - a maximum of 10% of the bounty pool. Whereas someone with a -10.0 rating would pay out a larger block - a maximum of, say, 50% of the bounty pool.

Meanwhile, in Empire space, instead of CONCORD rating it would use the actual faction standing appropriate to where the kill took place. Meaning that let's say you have a target with a -3.0 CONCORD rating, but you catch them in lowsec Empire space and their reputation with that Empire is actually very good, say +4.5 or so. Because of this, local "bookies" are going to be more reluctant to pay out on someone whom the locals actually like, so the payout would be very low. In converse, if someone with a high +3.0 in CONCORD was traveling through a section of Empire space where they were not welcome (-2.5 local standing, for example) then the bounty hunter would collect a larger amount than their CONCORD rating would suggest because the local government was glad to see their ship removed from their space.

This, I believe, would be a balanced compromise between the desires of the anarchists and those whom wish to see actual casus belli rules brought back. You could still bounty someone to insane levels, but if they're a perfect +5.0 citizen who never leaves their own chunk of hisec then there will be little reward for attacking them. Hardened criminals and FW types who wander to the wrong side of the fence will be far more lucrative targets, as you would collect a greater portion of their bounty pool if you catch them at the right place and time.


That could definitely work, and work well.

I like it.
Frying Doom
#130 - 2012-12-11 07:26:03 UTC
I had a different idea of not tying it to what the person is flying al all

Maybe they need to change the way bounty payouts work completely.

For example any kill of ship or pod gives you 1/100th of the bounty, for each bounty.
Not payable to Alts, corp or alliance members or characters yourself, corp or alliance has set to blue.

so for example I put a 50 million bounty on you, someone kills you giving then 500k and 99kills left on that bounty.

then someone else chucks a 10 billion bounty on you.
The next time you are killed your first bounty drops another 500k, and the new bounty drops 100million and drops to 99 deaths left. While the ganker gets 100,500,000 isk for your death ect.. ect..

This would require a max number of bounties on a character so I would say 500(I am sure the database guys could give a better figure depending on current load) and increase the minimum bounty amount to prevent filling the slots with spam minimum amounts.

This way it would be worth killing players and it is hard to profit by for the person with the bounty. They can profit using a 3rd party but only 1/100th of the amount per kill, so would take a while to be worth the hassle while making bounties into an entire profession in EvE.

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!
La Volpe DaFlorence
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#131 - 2012-12-11 18:13:42 UTC
La Volpe DaFlorence wrote:
Lady Katherine Devonshire wrote:
Luc Chastot wrote:
Most wanted targets should give better payouts, something like #10 +1%, #9 +2%, #8 +3% etc.


You may actually be on to something, albeit with a different angle.

Some have complained that the new bounty system makes no difference between placing a bounty on someone with a +5.0 security rating and a -10.0 standing. They would rather see CCP place restrictions on placing bounties based off of security status. Naturally, the anarchists object.

However... what if they did this instead:

Keep the current "free bounties" rules but place collection amounts based on standings? If a ship is destroyed in non-Empire space then the percentage of payout can then be directly modified by the target's CONCORD standing. Someone with a perfect +5.0 rating, for instance, would pay out only a bare minimum - a maximum of 10% of the bounty pool. Whereas someone with a -10.0 rating would pay out a larger block - a maximum of, say, 50% of the bounty pool.

Meanwhile, in Empire space, instead of CONCORD rating it would use the actual faction standing appropriate to where the kill took place. Meaning that let's say you have a target with a -3.0 CONCORD rating, but you catch them in lowsec Empire space and their reputation with that Empire is actually very good, say +4.5 or so. Because of this, local "bookies" are going to be more reluctant to pay out on someone whom the locals actually like, so the payout would be very low. In converse, if someone with a high +3.0 in CONCORD was traveling through a section of Empire space where they were not welcome (-2.5 local standing, for example) then the bounty hunter would collect a larger amount than their CONCORD rating would suggest because the local government was glad to see their ship removed from their space.

This, I believe, would be a balanced compromise between the desires of the anarchists and those whom wish to see actual casus belli rules brought back. You could still bounty someone to insane levels, but if they're a perfect +5.0 citizen who never leaves their own chunk of hisec then there will be little reward for attacking them. Hardened criminals and FW types who wander to the wrong side of the fence will be far more lucrative targets, as you would collect a greater portion of their bounty pool if you catch them at the right place and time.


That could definitely work, and work well.

I like it.


JUST INTERRUPTING

THEY FIXED BACONFACE. Damnit.

And standings should DEFINITELY affect bounty payouts.
Natsett Amuinn
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#132 - 2012-12-11 18:21:29 UTC
Sec standing shouldn't have any impact on bounty payout.

Your sec status has nothing to do with a bounty, and a bounty has nothing to do with your sec standing. it was one of the issues CCP addressed with the system.

Bounties aren't related to law and order, even if they are used to catch a criminal. They're also used for people who are not criminals.

And I wasn't asking for an increase on payouts on everyone, just for the top bounties to pay more so that they're more enticing to actually hunt.

SoniClover already stated that they intend to do such a thing, they just didn't have the time to get it in before the 4th.
There's no need to modify payouts in any other regard.
BoBoZoBo
MGroup9
#133 - 2012-12-11 18:56:38 UTC
It does not matter until you blow him up in a 3 billion ISk faction Setup.

Primary Test Subject • SmackTalker Elite