These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Is the bounty system a bad idea

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Mag's
Azn Empire
#61 - 2013-02-14 14:14:57 UTC
Now I'm not even sure, you know what you're disagreeing with. Being as you're saying what I'm saying. What?

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
Whitehound
#62 - 2013-02-14 14:22:05 UTC
Mag's wrote:
Now I'm not even sure, you know what you're disagreeing with. Being as you're saying what I'm saying. What?

I disagree with your statement:

"You shouldn't base game changes, on anecdotal evidence or assumptions."

It makes no sense, because you do look for evidence (anecdotal, hidden, odd, strange, funny or otherwise) and you do make assumptions.

Perhaps explain to me why one shouldn't do it.

Loss is meaningful. Therefore is the loss of meaning likewise meaningful. It is the source of all trolling.
Mag's
Azn Empire
#63 - 2013-02-14 14:26:10 UTC
The OP suggested a change that required us to jump through hoops, because he assumed that 3/4 of people had bounties.

That's why I said what I said. No dev in their right mind would say, "Oh look, 3/4 of people have bounties, let's change them."

What is it with you white? Good god man, you even said the same but in a different way ffs. Roll

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
Karak Terrel
Foundation for CODE and THE NEW ORDER
#64 - 2013-02-14 14:27:00 UTC
Whitehound wrote:

First of all is nobody here talking about the total average except for a couple of forum warriors who want to win a non-existing argument as they always do. No news here.

I'm pretty sure someone was talking about a total average of 3/4 of players with a bounty on their head. That's where my response was aimed at.

Whitehound wrote:

Now for a player who lives in high-sec will the number of players with an active bounty be higher. Just stay long enough in Jita and players will give you a bounty if you do not have one already, because they only need to look at the icons.

And just stay long enough in Jita and players will shoot your ship into pieces and claim the bounty. I suggest you read one of the QEN about the distribution of ship kills or take a look at ship kills per hour on your star map to validate what i just said.

Whitehound wrote:

The dev blog, when looking at the pie chart for the sec levels, then only shows the amount of total ISKs claimed per sec level. It is then important to understand that a bounty can disappear if enough of it is being claimed. So since the ISKs claimed in 0.0 is much higher than for high-sec will this mean that there are a lot more unclaimed bounties to be found in high-sec than in 0.0.

That doesn't follow at all. That's just your gut feelings, nothing more.

Whitehound wrote:

Just because it is not written pink on black so you can get it, does not mean one cannot draw conclusion out of those numbers.

And yet you try to draw conclusions out of thin air and think that is somehow superior to an approximation based on related data.

Whitehound wrote:
You get this now?

No dad, I don't get you at all
Whitehound
#65 - 2013-02-14 14:29:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Whitehound
Mag's wrote:
The OP suggested a change that required us to jump through hoops, because he assumed that 3/4 of people had bounties.

That's why I said what I said. No dev in their right mind would say, "Oh look, 3/4 of people have bounties, let's change them."

Why not? You have based your assumption that no changes are needed on the average value of 3.4%, because you believe it is a low enough number, meaning it represents only a minority. Do you then know what an imbalance is and what an imbalance in bounties could look like? ...

@Karak Terrel: I won't reply to your comment as I do not want to run two conversations and you already seem to be happy with just picking the crumbs out of my comments.

Loss is meaningful. Therefore is the loss of meaning likewise meaningful. It is the source of all trolling.
Mag's
Azn Empire
#66 - 2013-02-14 14:30:59 UTC
Whitehound wrote:
Mag's wrote:
The OP suggested a change that required us to jump through hoops, because he assumed that 3/4 of people had bounties.

That's why I said what I said. No dev in their right mind would say, "Oh look, 3/4 of people have bounties, let's change them."

Why not? You have based your assumption that no changes are needed on the average value of 3.4%, because you believe it is a low enough number, meaning it represents only a minority. Do you then know what an imbalance is and what an imbalance in bounties could look like? ...
Mkay.

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
Planetary Mnemonic
NightFall Division
#67 - 2013-02-14 14:31:18 UTC
Ratmuss wrote:
The bounty system should be open to all, but when a "Law-Abiding" citizen, AKA "carebear", places bounties, there should be some negative effects on their public standing.

Suggestions:

- Placing Bounties on players with positive sec status costs the issuer sec status.

- The higher the bounty's sec status, the greater the minimum cost. Substantial enough that putting a hit on an otherwise "upstanding citizen" too often can lead to "legal" problems in Hisec.

- Set a cap on number of active bounties per account. 10 is a good number. If people have issues with more than 10 people, they should be placing bounties on corps, or alliances.


Yes, this is a good way to vastly lessen the crap bounties you see everywhere, give a consequence to putting multiple bounties without damaging the rest of the bounty system. +1 lol
Mag's
Azn Empire
#68 - 2013-02-14 14:33:22 UTC
Planetary Mnemonic wrote:
Ratmuss wrote:
The bounty system should be open to all, but when a "Law-Abiding" citizen, AKA "carebear", places bounties, there should be some negative effects on their public standing.

Suggestions:

- Placing Bounties on players with positive sec status costs the issuer sec status.

- The higher the bounty's sec status, the greater the minimum cost. Substantial enough that putting a hit on an otherwise "upstanding citizen" too often can lead to "legal" problems in Hisec.

- Set a cap on number of active bounties per account. 10 is a good number. If people have issues with more than 10 people, they should be placing bounties on corps, or alliances.


Yes, this is a good way to vastly lessen the crap bounties you see everywhere, give a consequence to putting multiple bounties without damaging the rest of the bounty system. +1 lol
Except that bounties are a player standings led mechanic, so NPC standings are irrelevant.

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
Karak Terrel
Foundation for CODE and THE NEW ORDER
#69 - 2013-02-14 14:38:13 UTC
Whitehound wrote:

It makes no sense, because you do look for evidence (anecdotal, hidden, odd, strange, funny or otherwise) and you do make assumptions.

Perhaps explain to me why one shouldn't do it.

Because they are statistically irrelevant, which means they are completely worthless? Why do I even have to explain this.. oh wait this is a discussion on the internet.. right.
Whitehound
#70 - 2013-02-14 14:39:43 UTC
Mag's wrote:
Planetary Mnemonic wrote:
Ratmuss wrote:
The bounty system should be open to all, but when a "Law-Abiding" citizen, AKA "carebear", places bounties, there should be some negative effects on their public standing.

Suggestions:

- Placing Bounties on players with positive sec status costs the issuer sec status.

- The higher the bounty's sec status, the greater the minimum cost. Substantial enough that putting a hit on an otherwise "upstanding citizen" too often can lead to "legal" problems in Hisec.

- Set a cap on number of active bounties per account. 10 is a good number. If people have issues with more than 10 people, they should be placing bounties on corps, or alliances.


Yes, this is a good way to vastly lessen the crap bounties you see everywhere, give a consequence to putting multiple bounties without damaging the rest of the bounty system. +1 lol
Except that bounties are a player standings led mechanic, so NPC standings are irrelevant.

He seems to be talking about the sec status and not NPC standings.

Loss is meaningful. Therefore is the loss of meaning likewise meaningful. It is the source of all trolling.
Skorpynekomimi
#71 - 2013-02-14 14:39:52 UTC
Planetary Mnemonic wrote:
Karak Terrel wrote:
Planetary Mnemonic wrote:
Personally I think seeing that over 3/4 of players have bounties on them nullifies the point of bounties.

Characters on active accounts with any bounty on them:
3.4%

Interesting, I assume there is a way to look that up but I didn't know about it.

When i say 3/4 of the people have bounties on them, I mean I actually right clicked a bunch of people in dodoxi local one day while bored, and that about 3 out of 4 active players in local had a bounty on them.

Reality in dodoxi verses statistics game wide



That's because it's a trade hub. There's lowsec pvp nearby, mission runner and miners, the new order's moved in, and there's a bunch of scammers around.
I've been getting mails in the last week for slapping a couple of mil on a scam-spammer in local.

Bounty system seems to work.

Economic PVP
Mag's
Azn Empire
#72 - 2013-02-14 14:43:20 UTC
Whitehound wrote:
Mag's wrote:
Planetary Mnemonic wrote:
Ratmuss wrote:
The bounty system should be open to all, but when a "Law-Abiding" citizen, AKA "carebear", places bounties, there should be some negative effects on their public standing.

Suggestions:

- Placing Bounties on players with positive sec status costs the issuer sec status.

- The higher the bounty's sec status, the greater the minimum cost. Substantial enough that putting a hit on an otherwise "upstanding citizen" too often can lead to "legal" problems in Hisec.

- Set a cap on number of active bounties per account. 10 is a good number. If people have issues with more than 10 people, they should be placing bounties on corps, or alliances.


Yes, this is a good way to vastly lessen the crap bounties you see everywhere, give a consequence to putting multiple bounties without damaging the rest of the bounty system. +1 lol
Except that bounties are a player standings led mechanic, so NPC standings are irrelevant.

He seems to be talking about the sec status and not NPC standings.
He's talking about peoples sec status. Which is an NPC standing.

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
Ratmuss
Children of Prophecy
#73 - 2013-02-14 14:47:36 UTC
Mag's wrote:
Whitehound wrote:
Mag's wrote:
Planetary Mnemonic wrote:
Ratmuss wrote:
The bounty system should be open to all, but when a "Law-Abiding" citizen, AKA "carebear", places bounties, there should be some negative effects on their public standing.

Suggestions:

- Placing Bounties on players with positive sec status costs the issuer sec status.

- The higher the bounty's sec status, the greater the minimum cost. Substantial enough that putting a hit on an otherwise "upstanding citizen" too often can lead to "legal" problems in Hisec.

- Set a cap on number of active bounties per account. 10 is a good number. If people have issues with more than 10 people, they should be placing bounties on corps, or alliances.


Yes, this is a good way to vastly lessen the crap bounties you see everywhere, give a consequence to putting multiple bounties without damaging the rest of the bounty system. +1 lol
Except that bounties are a player standings led mechanic, so NPC standings are irrelevant.

He seems to be talking about the sec status and not NPC standings.
He's talking about peoples sec status. Which is an NPC standing.


When sec status goes below a certain level, players can attack them with impunity, thus is is not exclusively an NPC standing.
Mag's
Azn Empire
#74 - 2013-02-14 14:51:57 UTC
Ratmuss wrote:
Mag's wrote:
He's talking about peoples sec status. Which is an NPC standing.


When sec status goes below a certain level, players can attack them with impunity, thus is is not exclusively an NPC standing.
And? Just because people use it, doesn't make it not an NPC standing. It's given and taken away by Concord, who just so happens to be an NPC.

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
Whitehound
#75 - 2013-02-14 14:55:24 UTC
Karak Terrel wrote:
Whitehound wrote:

It makes no sense, because you do look for evidence (anecdotal, hidden, odd, strange, funny or otherwise) and you do make assumptions.

Perhaps explain to me why one shouldn't do it.

Because they are statistically irrelevant, which means they are completely worthless? Why do I even have to explain this.. oh wait this is a discussion on the internet.. right.

All you are explaining to me is that you do not understand it. I'll help...

With an "imbalance in bounties" do I not mean the ratio of players with bounties versus players without bounties. In fact, I believe that it should be completely acceptable to have 100% at one point in time and as long as it is not a permanent state.

What I then mean by an "imbalance in bounties" is the distribution of bounties among those players who have one.

What if all those 3.4% could always only be found in 0.0? Or what if they were all in high-sec?

Such things need to be looked at, because you do not want to have every rookie in high-sec running around with a bounty while they are new to the game.

Does this make sense to you? (I doubt it Lol)

Loss is meaningful. Therefore is the loss of meaning likewise meaningful. It is the source of all trolling.
Ratmuss
Children of Prophecy
#76 - 2013-02-14 15:02:49 UTC
Mag's wrote:
Ratmuss wrote:
Mag's wrote:
He's talking about peoples sec status. Which is an NPC standing.


When sec status goes below a certain level, players can attack them with impunity, thus is is not exclusively an NPC standing.


And? Just because people use it, doesn't make it not an NPC standing. It's given and taken away by Concord, who just so happens to be an NPC.


...And? If Concord can frown upon attacking innocent citizens, Concord can frown upon placing bounties on upstanding citizens.

...And? i didn't say it was not an NPC standing, i said it wasn't exclusively and NPC standing.
Whitehound
#77 - 2013-02-14 15:04:02 UTC
Mag's wrote:
Ratmuss wrote:
Mag's wrote:
He's talking about peoples sec status. Which is an NPC standing.


When sec status goes below a certain level, players can attack them with impunity, thus is is not exclusively an NPC standing.
And? Just because people use it, doesn't make it not an NPC standing. It's given and taken away by Concord, who just so happens to be an NPC.

In real-life is placing a bounty often a criminal act (in some countries). He seems to suggest to make it one in New Eden as well. I think he is making a fair point. I just do not believe CCP will take the technical effort, which is behind this. Increasing the minimum is in my opinion a better and simpler way. If someone wants to place lots of bounties when the minimum is like 10m ISK then why not?!

Loss is meaningful. Therefore is the loss of meaning likewise meaningful. It is the source of all trolling.
Mag's
Azn Empire
#78 - 2013-02-14 15:05:29 UTC
Ratmuss wrote:
Mag's wrote:
Ratmuss wrote:
Mag's wrote:
He's talking about peoples sec status. Which is an NPC standing.


When sec status goes below a certain level, players can attack them with impunity, thus is is not exclusively an NPC standing.


And? Just because people use it, doesn't make it not an NPC standing. It's given and taken away by Concord, who just so happens to be an NPC.


...And? If Concord can frown upon attacking innocent citizens, Concord can frown upon placing bounties on upstanding citizens.

...And? i didn't say it was not an NPC standing, i said it wasn't exclusively and NPC standing.
It's still an NPC standing and irrelevant to the player led standing bounty system. Thanks for posting.

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
Mag's
Azn Empire
#79 - 2013-02-14 15:09:09 UTC
Whitehound wrote:
Mag's wrote:
Ratmuss wrote:
Mag's wrote:
He's talking about peoples sec status. Which is an NPC standing.


When sec status goes below a certain level, players can attack them with impunity, thus is is not exclusively an NPC standing.
And? Just because people use it, doesn't make it not an NPC standing. It's given and taken away by Concord, who just so happens to be an NPC.

In real-life is placing a bounty often a criminal act (in some countries). He seems to suggest to make it one in New Eden as well. I think he is making a fair point. I just do not believe CCP will take the technical effort, which is behind this. Increasing the minimum is in my opinion a better and simpler way. If someone wants to place lots of bounties when the minimum is like 10m ISK then why not?!
This isn't real life and an NPC standing is meaningless to how someone feels about another. You don't need an NPC standing, to be an arse.

As far as raising the lower amount is concerned, I already said I can see the argument for it. We just need to be aware of new pilots, with any change.

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
Whitehound
#80 - 2013-02-14 15:21:11 UTC  |  Edited by: Whitehound
Mag's wrote:
It's still an NPC standing and irrelevant to the player led standing bounty system.

And why do you believe should CONCORD be looking away? So you can be a nice carebear with a 5.0 sec status??

Other than this do I not see your point. The fact that the sec status is an NPC standing is at best a meaningless coincidence. It sure is not a point when it could be implemented in such a way. CONCORD is already looking at fights in high-sec, decides over wars and takes money of alliances. I see no problem for them to get involved in bounties, too.

It may only not fit into CCP's long-term plans on what the role of CONCORD shall be. I think we all want less CONCORD, but it does not quite work without them. Maybe it never will...

Edit: I have just checked and CONCORD is already involved in bounties. All the nice notifications come from CONCORD! Lol

Loss is meaningful. Therefore is the loss of meaning likewise meaningful. It is the source of all trolling.