These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Bounty: 20% payout of hull; not enough.

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Sheynan
Lighting the blight
#81 - 2012-12-10 18:55:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Sheynan
Insurance is not included in the 20% value like it is not included in FW "bounty" payouts (LP payouts).

However even a general 75% loss value would be enough to break the system.
You don't need to look at insurance, you need to look at haulers !

The estimated prices in EVE struggle to be accurate, but fluctations occur regularly. And on lower frequented items, these can be immense. The person with the bounty would fill his hauler with a ton of goods where the estimated value is 25% lower than the "true" market value and then kill himself with an alt to get all his bounty neutralized plus all the bonus cash for items below said 25%.
The bounty system would be useless again, people would stop trusting it and no one would place bounties anymore.




Thus I personally think the possiblity for the bounty-placer to set the payout higher for specific trusted parties is a better way to go, as mentioned above.

EDIT:
Silk daShocka wrote:


I don't really understand what you mean here, but I"m assuming that what your saying is that a platinum insured ship will not give a bounty payout at all provided it has nothing fitted?

Every insurance costs a specific amount of ISK, so the return value is rarely 100% as sufficiently high market fluctuations rarely happen with T1-ships. But the bounty payout will be very small nevertheless.
Silk daShocka
Greasy Hair Club
#82 - 2012-12-10 19:02:18 UTC
Natsett Amuinn wrote:

That would make insurance even more pointless for guys in null sec or who actively engage in war with other corps. It just penalizes even further people who get blown up often because they actually take advantage of aspects of the game that other do not.

I think the insurance issues are issues unto themselves, and shouldn't have any real impact on the bounty system and vice versa.


It would only be pointless if you keep losing ships on a regular basis really. It does penalize people that get blown up often, but the simple solution to that is stop getting blown up often or deal with the loss. It would just further reinforce the risk and consequence mechanics that are in eve as well as diminish a huge isk faucet. The downside to this, is the bigger alliances that have alot of ISK to throw at SRP would probably be gaining an advantage since having a good SRP will mean even more.

But then again I was only making that suggestion as an alternative to the suggestion that was presented. I don't really think insurance needs to be changed.
Silk daShocka
Greasy Hair Club
#83 - 2012-12-10 19:02:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Silk daShocka
Natsett Amuinn wrote:

That would make insurance even more pointless for guys in null sec or who actively engage in war with other corps. It just penalizes even further people who get blown up often because they actually take advantage of aspects of the game that other do not.

I think the insurance issues are issues unto themselves, and shouldn't have any real impact on the bounty system and vice versa.


It would only be pointless if you keep losing ships on a regular basis really. It does penalize people that get blown up often, but the simple solution to that is stop getting blown up often or deal with the loss. It would just further reinforce the risk and consequence mechanics that are in eve as well as diminish a huge isk faucet. The downside to this, is the bigger alliances that have alot of ISK to throw at SRP would probably be gaining an advantage since having a good SRP will mean even more.

But then again I was only making that suggestion as an alternative to the suggestion that was presented. I don't really think insurance needs to be changed aside from perhaps the default payout.

Edit: to clarify since I didn't word out my thoughts that well, what I meant to say by "on a regular basis" is more along the lines of losing dozens of ships daily. A system like the one I suggested could be tuned so that people who lose a few ships a day could be looking at maybe 40% or so for platinum as opposed to the current 30%. I dont' see how it would be pointless if properly implemented, it would only add to the consequence that is losing a ship. But like I said I don't think insurance needs to be changed, I also think changing it would be alot of resources used by CCP that could be better used elsewhere.
Dave stark
#84 - 2012-12-10 19:08:50 UTC
i think the bounty should be 90% of the ship's value minus insurance. that way you'll never be able to profit from insuring and destroying your own ships, yet people who want to claim your bounty get a nice big slice of the cake.
Bienator II
madmen of the skies
#85 - 2012-12-10 19:15:01 UTC
Natsett Amuinn wrote:
Bienator II wrote:
i don't think that the dude who put a bounty on someone should be able to withdraw it. Its not a wallet. The victim (with the bounty) however should have a way to bribe the bounty away. Let him pay 5x the amount of the bounty and you have the same effect as a ship explosion... just as 6x isk sink.

edit: since devs are reading this thread.. it would be great if the bounty/killmail notification mails would contain a link to the killmail

The only person you should ever be able to bribe to remove a bounty, is the person that placed it.

the person who placed bounty on you wanted to cause damage and he did. you payed 5x the amount of isk to get rid of the bounty. The person who placed bounty on your head wants to see you explode. Using it for scams would be the only usecase for making a bounty pool to a wallet. It screams for exploit. People would place bounty on random people and hope for compensation to withdraw the bounty again. Having a feature which is exclusively used for scams is not a sandbox. Its like intentionally breaking the sandbox.

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
Natsett Amuinn
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#86 - 2012-12-10 19:22:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Natsett Amuinn
Bienator II wrote:

the person who placed bounty on you wanted to cause damage and he did. you payed 5x the amount of isk to get rid of the bounty. The person who placed bounty on your head wants to see you explode. Using it for scams would be the only usecase for making a bounty pool to a wallet. It screams for exploit. People would place bounty on random people and hope for compensation to withdraw the bounty again. Having a feature which is exclusively used for scams is not a sandbox. Its like intentionally breaking the sandbox.

You cant say that because someone will do something, everyone will do it.

Not everyone would use it to scam. No more than not everyone uses the margin trading skill to scam, or contracts to scam, or corp recruiting to scam.

If CCP were to do things based on whether or not other people will do something CCP endorses -scamming- they'd have to remove most of the game.

Nor does that justify being able to use a 3rd party mechanic to remove a bounty I placed on you. It's not all about you losing 5x the isk, it's about you being a target when you fly around. I want you to be a target, not pay an NPC to clear your bounty.

The only people that would want to pay to remove a bounty are people who are worried about being blown up. If you're worried about getting blown up you shouldn't be playing EVE.

So I say again, the only way you should ever be able to pay to have a bounty removed, is to pay the person that put it on you or for a bounty hunter to remove it for you.

Being able to scam, or deal dishonorably, with another person is irrelevant. There's a reason you can't change your name, or remove your corp history. What you DO contributes to how other people deal with you. if you scam, it gets around, and people don't deal with you. The bounty system shoudn't be an exception to the way the rest of the game works.
Natsett Amuinn
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#87 - 2012-12-10 19:26:14 UTC  |  Edited by: Natsett Amuinn
I'm going to use a stupid real world anaology.

I'm a mobster.

You're a judge.

I put a bounty on you.

In what world are you able to go to someone other than me to remove that bounty?

And why should it be any different in EVE. It's a bounty system, it should work like a bounty system.
LHA Tarawa
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#88 - 2012-12-10 19:33:02 UTC
Bane Necran wrote:
Why be timid about it. Make it 75% across the board.

Still waiting for a reason why lower is better.


Reason lower is better:
1) If payout is 20%, then the character with a bounty has to lose 5x value ships as the bounty. So, you anger me, I put a billion ISK bounty on you, now you have to lose 5 billion ISK to get rid of the bounty. That is an incentive for me to bounty you. I am hurting you 5x as I'm hurting myself.

75% payout, I spend 1 billion ISK so you have to lose 1.333B ISK worth of ships? I'm hurting you only 1.3x as much as I'm hurting myself. Heck, why bother putting a bounty on anyone.


2) At 20% payout, I blow up a 100M ISK T2, get 20M ISK and 40M ISK salvage. No reason to altf-kill myself to collect the bounty.

At 75%, I hop in a 100M ISK T2, alt-kill myself, collect 75M ISK bounty and 40 million salvage.



The reasons are there, even if you don't like them.
LHA Tarawa
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#89 - 2012-12-10 19:36:02 UTC
Silk daShocka wrote:
So does anyone know the actual math on how the payout is calculated? Most the payouts I've seen have been much closer to 10% than 20%.

If the bounty payout is dynamic and based on the insurance level of the blown up ship I think it can be increased for ships that are insured at lower levels, or insurance on ships that have a low insurance payout such as tech 2 ships.




As I understand it, the math is: 20% of ( market value of the destroyed ship + non-dropped modules (dropped do not count) - max insurance payout whether you had the ship insured or not) .
LHA Tarawa
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#90 - 2012-12-10 19:43:18 UTC
Silk daShocka wrote:


If insurance would be changed I think CCP should take the route that the cost to insure your ship will increase based on your insured losses, much like they would IRL. Meaning if you keep losing ships that are platinum insured, the cost to insure platinum will increase with every ship you lose in this way. They could make the cost to insure platinum go down as well with every downtime or w/e by a certain amount that is considered fair and balanced.


I think you miss the whole point of insurance.

The point of insurance is to encourage you to PVP. It hurts to lose a ship, but not "too much".

Change the insurance the way you suggest, the PVPers take bigger losses when they lose ships, they have to spend even more time grinding ISK to replace ships, they PVP less, or PVP in cheaper ships.

Bienator II
madmen of the skies
#91 - 2012-12-10 19:43:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Bienator II
real world analogies rarely work with eve. In fact the first bounty implementation worked like real world bounties work(ed). Evil guy dead, good guy has all the money. I am sure the devs had similar thoughts back than as you have right now - since the exploit is and was obvious. Sure you can get rid of the bounty via friends or alts... but not everybody would do that.. right?

Once its known, EVERYBODY will do it. If you can withdraw your bounty you placed on someone, why even think about it if you should place it or not? Just do it without consequences.

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
Zakarumit CZ
Zakarum Industries
Forgers United
#92 - 2012-12-10 19:49:35 UTC
I am totally for increase of the payout as high as reasonably possible ( reasonably possible=it still cant be abused). I think this line is set with ship insurance. Question is if ship insurance is something we really want and need. In its current condition I think its useless anyway.
Ocih
Space Mermaids
#93 - 2012-12-10 19:53:33 UTC
Ginger Barbarella wrote:
Eliminate bounties, unless it's the game NPCs (not CONCORD) who come after the player. Otherwise, it's (still) a joke mechanic.


That could actually be funny until you tried to rat with a bounty.

Because everyone and their dog is going to have a bounty in time, you could count on PvE rats harrassing you every time you undocked. They couldn't be good rats or people would just farm them. So crappy rats that have no bounties, drop nothing hounding you all the time. Making it impossible to gank anyone, making it impossible to do anything else either.
Natsett Amuinn
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#94 - 2012-12-10 20:05:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Natsett Amuinn
Bienator II wrote:
real world analogies rarely work with eve. In fact the first bounty implementation worked like real world bounties work(ed). Evil guy dead, good guy has all the money. I am sure the devs had similar thoughts back than as you have right now - since the exploit is and was obvious. Sure you can get rid of the bounty via friends or alts... but not everybody would do that.. right?

Once its known, EVERYBODY will do it. If you can withdraw your bounty you placed on someone, why even think about it if you should place it or not? Just do it without consequences.

Now if only I used a real world anology to say that they were the exact same thing, as apposed to making a single point.

Where as, every single person that complains about the 'wanted" tag is doing so from a real world perspective.


I know, it's hard to find a valid anology to make your point that you should be able to pay a 3rd party to remove a bounty; so you just come up with an excuse to try and invalidate mine, which happens to be entirely fitting to the point.


Edit: You want to be able to give people a fine. That is not the same thing as a bounty. A fine you remove by paying a 3rd party.
I'm not fining you, I'm putting a bounty on you, I want you to get blown up, not pay a fine.
Silk daShocka
Greasy Hair Club
#95 - 2012-12-10 20:24:28 UTC
LHA Tarawa wrote:
Silk daShocka wrote:


If insurance would be changed I think CCP should take the route that the cost to insure your ship will increase based on your insured losses, much like they would IRL. Meaning if you keep losing ships that are platinum insured, the cost to insure platinum will increase with every ship you lose in this way. They could make the cost to insure platinum go down as well with every downtime or w/e by a certain amount that is considered fair and balanced.


I think you miss the whole point of insurance.

The point of insurance is to encourage you to PVP. It hurts to lose a ship, but not "too much".

Change the insurance the way you suggest, the PVPers take bigger losses when they lose ships, they have to spend even more time grinding ISK to replace ships, they PVP less, or PVP in cheaper ships.



If the point of insurance was to encourage you to PVP I fail to see if being effective. I never once thought to myself, I think I will go shoot some spaceships today because my ship is insured. Neither have I had a freind say, Hey I got an insured ship I think it's time to PVP. All insurance does is reduce the consequences of losing your ship in my eyes. Also, in my eyes it does not hurt at all to lose a plat insured ship.
Sheynan
Lighting the blight
#96 - 2012-12-10 20:24:42 UTC  |  Edited by: Sheynan
I would still urge everyone not to raise the general threshold too much. I just made a quick market comparison.
Look at Oxygen Isotopes:
Estimated price: 583 isk
Jita sell: 489 isk
Prozentual difference: 19,4 %

And this was just one random item out of my hangar, I am sure you there are many items with better ratios that can easily be found.


But to bring this value into context: If the bounty payout was 90%, then someone with a bounty on him could gank his isotope-hauler with an alt, negate all the bounty and gain rougly 10% of it (!). Even though it is a crappy item with a high market saturation.



We need to be able to set the threshold variable for trusted persons.
Ogopogo Mu
O C C U P Y
#97 - 2012-12-10 20:45:00 UTC
LHA Tarawa
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#98 - 2012-12-10 20:55:08 UTC
Bienator II wrote:
real world analogies rarely work with eve. In fact the first bounty implementation worked like real world bounties work(ed). Evil guy dead, good guy has all the money.



Well, technically......

Real world bounty... you get arrested and charged. You post bail to get out of jail while waiting trial. The bail is to ensure you show up, or if you don't, an arrest warrant is issued and the bail is pay someone to find you and bring you in. The bounty is paid whether they bring you back to jail/court dead or alive, but that doesn't mean the bounty hunter is not still governed by the laws. They can't kill you unless in self-defense.

They can break into your house because that power is granted by the warrant. They can pull a gun on you, and you can't claim self-defense, because you broke the law first by not showing up for court. Committing a crime negates the self-defense mitigating factor.

Maybe you are thinking more of a hit contract. In that case, one person (good or bad) is dead and a bad guy has the money.


That is more like what EVE's "bounty" system is like.
LHA Tarawa
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#99 - 2012-12-10 20:57:35 UTC
Sheynan wrote:
I would still urge everyone not to raise the general threshold too much. I just made a quick market comparison.
Look at Oxygen Isotopes:
Estimated price: 583 isk
Jita sell: 489 isk
Prozentual difference: 19,4 %

And this was just one random item out of my hangar, I am sure you there are many items with better ratios that can easily be found.


But to bring this value into context: If the bounty payout was 90%, then someone with a bounty on him could gank his isotope-hauler with an alt, negate all the bounty and gain rougly 10% of it (!). Even though it is a crappy item with a high market saturation.



We need to be able to set the threshold variable for trusted persons.


Don't forget to add his salvage gain to his profit for self-ganking.
LHA Tarawa
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#100 - 2012-12-10 21:00:10 UTC
Silk daShocka wrote:

If the point of insurance was to encourage you to PVP I fail to see if being effective. I never once thought to myself, I think I will go shoot some spaceships today because my ship is insured. Neither have I had a freind say, Hey I got an insured ship I think it's time to PVP. All insurance does is reduce the consequences of losing your ship in my eyes. Also, in my eyes it does not hurt at all to lose a plat insured ship.


And yet, when I was deciding if I could afford to go PVP in the BS, or if I should take the frig because I was broke, I did use insurance payout in the calculation of potential replacement loss of potential loss.

And when the BS went boom, I only had to PVE for a half hour to make back the ISK, rather than having to PVE for 3 hours.