These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Better Formula for the Bounty-System
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Mars Theran
Foreign Interloper
#21 - 2013-01-07 07:36:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Mars Theran
fukier wrote:
Destriouth Hollow wrote:
whats a tldr?

This system cannot be exploited!
You can never get as much as the lost assets are worth.
You would ALWAYS fair better if you just sold it (:
(if CCP takes the correct-item-prices that is)

EDIT:
Ill fix it so its easier to understand with reading just the essentials.



tldr means Too Long, Didn't Read

as in give me a synopsis...

like the responce was a good tldr...


I actually go with Too long; direct response = required or provided. ..you're right of course; that just happened to be my interpretation of it. Smile


Personally, it didn't look to me like the formula solved any sort of exploit system with high bounty payouts. Insure the ship for 1/4 the insurance payout, add the ship kill bounty of 67% mentioned and you're making ISK for killing your ship with an alt. A little more trouble than collecting the whole bounty for a podkill maybe, but still an available exploit.
zubzubzubzubzubzubzubzub
Karak Terrel
Foundation for CODE and THE NEW ORDER
#22 - 2013-01-07 07:52:32 UTC
Destriouth Hollow wrote:

2. Curentlly the bounty is a fix value. The killer gets 20% no matter how high the bounty on the targets head is. This discourages placing high bounties on people. People wih higher bounties are actually NOT more wanted.


While i in general agree with your points i think this is at least in part an invalid argument. A lower percentage also means there will be more ISK wise damage inflicted because of my bounty until the money runs out. So at the moment the guy that sets the bounty inflicts 5 times the ISK damage on the target. If you rise that percentage, the more you have to pay for revenge and the more unattractive it will get.

So there is a trade off there that has to be accounted for
Destriouth Hollow
Star-Destroying-Warlords
#23 - 2013-01-07 12:18:46 UTC
Lord LazyGhost wrote:
I think being able to filter the amount of the bounty. I ie only show pilots with X amount on overview so as to get ride of all the 100kwwasters out there so say I choose show only pilots with over 10m and only a hers with that or larger bounty will have icon.. I whT ya think?

Totally supported
I'll add that to my entry-post

Katran Luftschreck wrote:
Bounty Time Limits

Just like when you place a recruitment ad for you corp, make people select a time frame for their bounty and tack on a service charge based on that.

1 day: 5%
7 days: 10%
30 days: 15%
90 days: 20%

If the bounty isn't collected by the time it expires then the money is refunded. Service fees are non-refundable. That should clear up about 95% of the pointless hi-sec bounties out there by the end of April.

This wouldnt change the abuse-matter at all. It would only make it more convinient for them and open up for further exploits.
Also I think, if you place a bounty on someone u need to be fully commited!
Id only refund the bounty when the alliance or corp disbands.

Bienator II wrote:
the idea is great but the problem are the corner cases. In eve it is very difficult to say what something costs. Having a payout of 20% is simply a safety measure to make market manipulation difficult. If this problem would be solved, you could rise the payout to 70% by default without the scaling.

The scaling would still exclude the "alt kill" problem under IDEAL conditions (no open market) but would make market manipulation exploits easier.

We need better prices. They need to be low-end, because thats what u can buy it for in highsec anyways. I posted a solution for that above.

Mars Theran wrote:

Personally, it didn't look to me like the formula solved any sort of exploit system with high bounty payouts. Insure the ship for 1/4 the insurance payout, add the ship kill bounty of 67% mentioned and you're making ISK for killing your ship with an alt. A little more trouble than collecting the whole bounty for a podkill maybe, but still an available exploit.


The formula solves this problem without any issues. insurance payout is subtracted from the bounty-viable amount. And from the rest you only get below 70%. And with the formula in the notes you would need to have a bounty of a above 10bil to even come close to these 70%.
Destriouth Hollow
Star-Destroying-Warlords
#24 - 2013-01-07 12:18:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Destriouth Hollow
Karak Terrel wrote:
Destriouth Hollow wrote:

2. Curentlly the bounty is a fix value. The killer gets 20% no matter how high the bounty on the targets head is. This discourages placing high bounties on people. People wih higher bounties are actually NOT more wanted.


While i in general agree with your points i think this is at least in part an invalid argument. A lower percentage also means there will be more ISK wise damage inflicted because of my bounty until the money runs out. So at the moment the guy that sets the bounty inflicts 5 times the ISK damage on the target. If you rise that percentage, the more you have to pay for revenge and the more unattractive it will get.

So there is a trade off there that has to be accounted for


The problem is that currently there is NO isk-wise damage inflicted AT ALL. 20% bounty is just not high enough to risk your ship while hunting him. It's only a nice bonus for someone you wanted to kill anyway. Currently you dont encourage people to hunt ppl with bounties, but you just pay those that shoot at them anyway.
And as soon as the bounty covers the next couple kills whats the meaning of putting a higher bounty on him? Nobody will care. You might as well just wait and bounty him when the current bounty ran out. Having the highest bounty in Eve just doesnt matter currently.
Bienator II
madmen of the skies
#25 - 2013-01-07 20:21:03 UTC  |  Edited by: Bienator II
Destriouth Hollow wrote:

Bienator II wrote:
the idea is great but the problem are the corner cases. In eve it is very difficult to say what something costs. Having a payout of 20% is simply a safety measure to make market manipulation difficult. If this problem would be solved, you could rise the payout to 70% by default without the scaling.

The scaling would still exclude the "alt kill" problem under IDEAL conditions (no open market) but would make market manipulation exploits easier.

We need better prices. They need to be low-end, because thats what u can buy it for in highsec anyways. I posted a solution for that above.

there is no solution for that. what does an abbadon cost? what does a b-type mwd cost?

the workaround is to have very conservative payouts

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
Destriouth Hollow
Star-Destroying-Warlords
#26 - 2013-01-07 21:13:48 UTC
For everything below officer-stuff it should be easy.
and for the rest it should be fairly easy to design a save low border thats worth less than the module.
Well hell:
If you are so worried about it the price of a t2-module can be taken for the ones that arent obvious.

This is nowhere a problem that cant be solved.

And it doesn't matter for the fact that my formula would be better than the current static one, even if u take just the hulls.
Bienator II
madmen of the skies
#27 - 2013-01-07 21:33:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Bienator II
so tell me how you want to solve it? you think you can't buy all abbadons in the area as an alliance and make it to a big bounty payout event once a month? Or with much easier to manipulate items. It has been done already with FW LP which uses the same system.

the only defense are low payouts. Otherwise you will just kill yourself to get rid of the bounty or make even profit from it if you do it right.

IF it would be sovleable you would not need your formula. Just set the payout to 70%... done

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
Karrl Tian
Doomheim
#28 - 2013-01-07 21:52:29 UTC
Here's a better formula.

Player #1 "I want X player/shiptype/corpmember killed."

Player #2 "Give me money and I'll do it."

Player #1 "Okay."

Player #2 kills Player #3, gets paid by Player #1, then kills him and gets paid by Player #3.

WTF is so hard about that? Big smile
Marlona Sky
State War Academy
Caldari State
#29 - 2013-01-07 22:57:10 UTC
Karrl Tian wrote:
Here's a better formula.

Player #1 "I want X player/shiptype/corpmember killed."

Player #2 "Give me money and I'll do it."

Player #1 "Okay."

Player #2 kills Player #3, gets paid by Player #1, then kills him and gets paid by Player #3.

WTF is so hard about that? Big smile

Something that struggles to find a place in this game - trust.
Rellik B00n
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#30 - 2013-01-07 23:24:38 UTC
Karrl Tian wrote:
Here's a better formula.

Player #1 "I want X player/shiptype/corpmember killed."

Player #2 "Give me money and I'll do it."

Player #1 "Okay."

Player #2 kills Player #3, gets paid by Player #1, then kills him and gets paid by Player #3.

WTF is so hard about that? Big smile



hehe.

You get a like for the twist Smile
[Of a request for change ask: Who Benefits?](https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&find=unread&t=199765)
Lord Leftfield
Doomheim
#31 - 2013-01-08 00:25:42 UTC
There should be a automatic bounty placement system for posting on GD!

1 mill per post
100k per number used in a post
250k per letter used in a quote

:)

Life is just a 420 all the way home :) Please give me more of that chocolate brew!!
Destriouth Hollow
Star-Destroying-Warlords
#32 - 2013-01-08 11:58:50 UTC
Bienator II wrote:
so tell me how you want to solve it? you think you can't buy all abbadons in the area as an alliance and make it to a big bounty payout event once a month? Or with much easier to manipulate items. It has been done already with FW LP which uses the same system.

the only defense are low payouts. Otherwise you will just kill yourself to get rid of the bounty or make even profit from it if you do it right.

IF it would be sovleable you would not need your formula. Just set the payout to 70%... done


There is no problem in getting a save low value.
If the current save value isnt enough, take the lowest save value in the last 6 months.
That would be pretty impossible to manipulate, as you would need to buy all items of one type for 6 months to make this happen.
And when u take the cheapest of the prices those items were sold for you lost all meaning of manipulating anything.
It would still be billions for officer modules though.
It's not a matter of beeing possible or not, it's just a matter of the right formula and savety messures.
Buhhdust Princess
Mind Games.
#33 - 2013-01-08 12:12:14 UTC
Being an actually Interesting and intelligent post, I read all of it.

This idea is what I imagined when CCP introduced the new bounty system, and I was actuallly excited. to find out that the bounty system was just a base 20% really disappointed me.

+1 Signed etc etc,
Make it happen CCP.
It will be ace! :D
Doctor Ungabungas
Doomheim
#34 - 2013-01-08 14:28:13 UTC
What this bounty program incentivises is 'not dying'.

If you are stalking a large alliance with a large bounty, 10 kills and no deaths is laughing all the way to the bank.
If you are stalking one dude with a 5 million isk bounty and you die 5 times before you gank him while he is afk, you're going to have a bad time.

I don't see any compelling reason to change the system to favour your style of play over the other.
Othran
Route One
#35 - 2013-01-08 14:33:59 UTC
Bounties are somewhat underwhelming at present - for example I got 8 bounty payouts at the weekend and they didn't even cover the cost of (small hybrid) ammo used on the roam Lol

While its nice to get some iskies its still not enough to create a functional bounty system.

Something needs to change.
Riedle
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#36 - 2013-01-08 14:40:39 UTC
Ranger 1 wrote:
CCP has already said they are willing to look at modifications to the payout numbers. They started at a pretty modest point to let it run for awhile and make sure they hadn't overlooked ways to game the system... so your proposal isn't out of line.

Although, no matter how you look at it, you are still going to run into the hard cap of loss value that cannot be exceeded. Under the current system people with higher bounties really aren't "More Wanted" (unless they fly very expensive ships, in which case that higher bounty does make them worth more than someone with a low bounty), it is more the fact that they remain wanted for a much longer period of time than people with low bounties.


Not necessarily. What about a % value lower than the ship price and a lotto like calculation on a 'bonus' for characters with high bounty amounts?

Would not be worth to try and exploit for the individual with the bounty but would, at the same time, make it more lucrative for the bounty hunter professional.

Riedle
Othran
Route One
#37 - 2013-01-08 15:30:07 UTC  |  Edited by: Othran
While its not going to happen due to the number of people with trivial bounties on their heads I think it'd simplify matters a lot if you simply couldn't insure yourself when you had a bounty.

Hindsight is a fine thing but the decision to allow placing bounties on anyone for no reason has seriously restricted what "tweaks" CCP can make.

Might have been better to restrict bounty placement to global criminals (-5 to -10) and on people who have killed your ship/pod.

Having insurance in the mix means less bounty per kill to ensure no exploiting can take place.

Too late now anyway.
Destriouth Hollow
Star-Destroying-Warlords
#38 - 2013-01-12 22:37:10 UTC
Buhhdust Princess wrote:
Being an actually Interesting and intelligent post, I read all of it.

This idea is what I imagined when CCP introduced the new bounty system, and I was actuallly excited. to find out that the bounty system was just a base 20% really disappointed me.

+1 Signed etc etc,
Make it happen CCP.
It will be ace! :D

Thanks for the support (:

Doctor Ungabungas wrote:
What this bounty program incentivises is 'not dying'.

If you are stalking a large alliance with a large bounty, 10 kills and no deaths is laughing all the way to the bank.
If you are stalking one dude with a 5 million isk bounty and you die 5 times before you gank him while he is afk, you're going to have a bad time.

I don't see any compelling reason to change the system to favour your style of play over the other.



I don't have a certain "style".
All I'm saying is that the current bounty system affects pvp in exactly 0 ways.
The same amount of ppl and actually excactly the same ppl would die without the current bounty system.
It just doesn't matter.

Othran wrote:
Bounties are somewhat underwhelming at present - for example I got 8 bounty payouts at the weekend and they didn't even cover the cost of (small hybrid) ammo used on the roam Lol

While its nice to get some iskies its still not enough to create a functional bounty system.

Something needs to change.

I'll count this as support (:

Riedle wrote:
Not necessarily. What about a % value lower than the ship price and a lotto like calculation on a 'bonus' for characters with high bounty amounts?

Would not be worth to try and exploit for the individual with the bounty but would, at the same time, make it more lucrative for the bounty hunter professional.

Riedle

If you know the percentages and exploit it with a ton of small stuff instead of one big one it won't change anything. Anything that was exploitable before still is and anything that wasn't is still good.

Othran wrote:
While its not going to happen due to the number of people with trivial bounties on their heads I think it'd simplify matters a lot if you simply couldn't insure yourself when you had a bounty.

Hindsight is a fine thing but the decision to allow placing bounties on anyone for no reason has seriously restricted what "tweaks" CCP can make.

Might have been better to restrict bounty placement to global criminals (-5 to -10) and on people who have killed your ship/pod.

Having insurance in the mix means less bounty per kill to ensure no exploiting can take place.

Too late now anyway.

This would have changed everything indeed.
But I think i like the current system more.
If someone robbs my corp-hangar or pisses me off in local and want to be able to pay ppl to hunt him down.
You could still do this the old fashioned way but by recruting well known hunters for this task, but I like the idea of putting a global bounty.
After all in reality that's just the way it works. If you want someone dead and are willing to pay for it no matter who does it's just that. You don't care who does it, as long as it happens.
Arronicus
State War Academy
Caldari State
#39 - 2013-01-12 23:25:56 UTC
I don't like this system. While you are attempting to make bounty hunting a viable profession, which I agree could be nice, I don't think this is the appropriate way to do it. 20% was selected as a happy medium between paying out a nice sum of isk, and making it nowhere near worthwhile for people to blow up their ships with an insurance payment. In some cases, with ships that dont fluctuate much in price, insurance will cover something like 60-70% of the value of the ship hull.

Under your proposed system, you could quite easily remove bounties off your head with very little loss, by getting in a battleship, completely unfitted, insuring it, then killing yourself. The small 20% payout prevents that.

Also, M or Mil for Million. Not Mio, or KK. Both of the latter make you look like a dirty russian.
Rakshasa Taisab
Sane Industries Inc.
#40 - 2013-01-12 23:44:15 UTC
Destriouth Hollow wrote:
What does the insurance-system have to do with anything?

That's the only thing people need to know about your great suggestion for reforming the bounty system.

Nyan