These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
#81 - 2013-02-14 15:29:03 UTC  |  Edited by: Mag's
Whitehound wrote:
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...
Well Concord do look when it matters and then they punish those nasty pilots.

The main issue I have with linking it to an NPC standing, is it's limiting factor. If someone with a very high sec status is scamming or whatever, people shouldn't be punished for wanting them wanted.

Many want Concord removed. I personally think they are necessary and should stay, but they shouldn't be included in the bounty system.

Edit: Should = Shouldn't. OopsLol

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
#82 - 2013-02-14 15:42:43 UTC  |  Edited by: Ratmuss
Mag's wrote:
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.


I disagree, good sir.

Sec status is modified by (and not exclusively to) Concord's monitoring of player actions against other players. Placing bounties in Hisec, is by definition, player action against other players and should fall under Concord Jurisdiction.

As an amendment to my previous suggestions:

- Bounties could only be placed while in stations, and only stations in NULL or Losec would be immune to Concord's influence on the issuer's standing.

Would that address your concerns?

Besides, the value of concord is altogether another topic. My posts are made working with the current Concordian systems in place.
Whitehound
#83 - 2013-02-14 15:51:59 UTC
Ratmuss wrote:
- Bounties could only be placed while in stations, and only stations in NULL or Losec would be immune to Concord's influence on the issuer's standing.

This makes no sense for W-space hooligans, 0.0 POS dwellers and AFK cloakers.

Loss is meaningful. Therefore is the loss of meaning likewise meaningful. It is the source of all trolling.
Ratmuss
Children of Prophecy
#84 - 2013-02-14 15:56:03 UTC
Whitehound wrote:
Ratmuss wrote:
- Bounties could only be placed while in stations, and only stations in NULL or Losec would be immune to Concord's influence on the issuer's standing.

This makes no sense for W-space hooligans, 0.0 POS dwellers and AFK cloakers.


Could you elaborate on what doesn't make sense? when i said Bounties could only be placed in stations, i meant:

The issuer must go to a station to place the bounty with a bounty NPC; the target can be in space - anywhere in the universe.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#85 - 2013-02-14 15:56:09 UTC
I'm worth more than all alliances and all but three corps.

Of course it's a good idea! Big smile

/epeen
Mag's
Azn Empire
#86 - 2013-02-14 15:59:59 UTC
Ratmuss wrote:


I disagree, good sir.

Sec status is modified by (and not exclusively to) Concord's monitoring of player actions against other players. Placing bounties in Hisec, is by definition, player action against other players and should fall under Concord Jurisdiction.
Sec status is controlled and issued by Concord, thus making it an NPC mechanic. This doesn't mean people cannot use it, nor does it mean when they do, it becomes a player mechanic. It still remains an NPC mechanic.

Ratmuss wrote:
As an amendment to my previous suggestions:

- Bounties could only be placed while in stations, and only stations in NULL or Losec would be immune to Concord's influence on the issuer's standing.

Would that address your concerns?

Besides, the value of concord is altogether another topic. My posts are made working with the current Concordian systems in place.
To what end? What's the point in this change, when NPC standings are meaningless?

Also, Whitehound's post nailed it.

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
Whitehound
#87 - 2013-02-14 16:00:27 UTC
Ratmuss wrote:
Whitehound wrote:
Ratmuss wrote:
- Bounties could only be placed while in stations, and only stations in NULL or Losec would be immune to Concord's influence on the issuer's standing.

This makes no sense for W-space hooligans, 0.0 POS dwellers and AFK cloakers.


Could you elaborate on what doesn't make sense? when i said Bounties could only be placed in stations, i meant:

The issuer must go to a station to place the bounty with a bounty NPC; the target can be in space - anywhere in the universe.

A station might simply be unreachable for them.

Loss is meaningful. Therefore is the loss of meaning likewise meaningful. It is the source of all trolling.
Debora Tsung
Perkone
Caldari State
#88 - 2013-02-14 16:06:48 UTC  |  Edited by: Debora Tsung
Whitehound wrote:
It has a few oddities in how it pays out the bounties as it can happen for dead players to receive a payout, too, even when they have lost in a fight. This is the case when CONCORD or another police force kills a player does it then simply pick the first next player involved in the fight. To me does this make little sense as I see bounties as a reward and dying in the process just does not fit in here.

I am also not sure how it is handled when two corporation members (of the same corporation) kill each other and their corporation has a bounty on it. From what I have read does it then pay out the corporation bounty to the corporation members, which again makes little sense to me.


Since the bounty payout is only 20% of the forcefully decomissioned ship, it does make sense. You (the despicable person that voluntarily stays in a corporation that most assuredly encourages antisocial behaviour) loose more than You earn when You kill Your corp mates.

EDIT: that is to say, the corp as a whole looses more than it earns. You however, despicable and antisocial as You are earn ISK in the process. I say kill them all, get rich and the leave the corp.

Stupidity should be a bannable offense.

Fighting back is more fun than not.

Sticky: AFK Cloaking Thread It's not pretty, but it's there.
Angelique Duchemin
Team Evil
#89 - 2013-02-14 16:20:02 UTC
The two issues that need to be addressed before we can even have a functional bounty system is that having a bounty should be a bad thing and placing one should not be something you can do lightly.

Placing a bounty on someone who deserves it is meaningless because you're just feeding their ego and placing a bounty can be done so lightly that it's become greatly abused.

One option could be to limit the amount of bounties a person can place. Perhaps related to a bounty skill that enables you to place 2 bounties per level.

Lets be hones, since the launch of eve, bounties have never had a single practical application other than ruining the mid sized portrait for regular players and feeding the ego of pirates. No one could say that they "need" to place a bounty at the moment. Making people train a skill to place a bounty would mean that only people who feel really strongly about placing a bounty on someone specific would be able to do so. At the same time, limiting the bounties to 10 per player means they won't be used as lightly as they are today. In order to place a new bounty after you reached your cap you would have to revoke an old one. Doing so would make you lose the credits offered on the bounty to keep people from using the bounty system as banks.


As for how we can make having a bounty a bad thing. I don't see any way to make that happen. Perhaps fixed bounty tiers were if you get poded or your ship destroyed by someone, you can place a bounty on them and at certain amounts of ISK the bounty would negatively effect their security status. Say 200 million ISK per tier with a max of 1 billion to insure the maximum amount of sec loss for that bounty. Revoking the bounty would restore the sec status to that person.

It would of course be combined with the bounty skill to limit the amount of bounties you can place.

Personally I would just throw away the entire bounty system until they can implement it in a way that it works. Having a broken system that can't even accomplish its own sole purpose makes no sense.

The very sun of heaven seemed distorted when viewed through the polarising miasma welling out from this sea-soaked perversion, and twisted menace and suspense lurked leeringly in those crazily elusive angles of carven rock where a second glance shewed concavity after the first shewed convexity.

Whitehound
#90 - 2013-02-14 16:21:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Whitehound
Debora Tsung wrote:
Since the bounty payout is only 20% of the forcefully decomissioned ship, it does make sense. You (the despicable person that voluntarily stays in a corporation that most assuredly encourages antisocial behaviour) loose more than You earn when You kill Your corp mates.

EDIT: that is to say, the corp as a whole looses more than it earns. You however, despicable and antisocial as You are earn ISK in the process. I say kill them all, get rich and the leave the corp.

If I took your point of view, then it must be allowed to self-destruct and claim 20% of one's own bounty... which is not allowed.

If I want corp members to kill each other over a bounty can I place individual bounties on the members. Here it makes sense, because these are individually placed bounties.

I want corporation bounties to be different from individual player-bound bounties so that corporation members cannot get any ISKs from it. Some corporations then hold little PvP matches, where they destroy their own assets purposely, but to train their pilots. I do not want a corporation bounty to serve here as a payment for such events.

Or imagine a high corporation bounty when a new player starts awoxing it. It would play right into the awoxer's hands.

Loss is meaningful. Therefore is the loss of meaning likewise meaningful. It is the source of all trolling.
Mag's
Azn Empire
#91 - 2013-02-14 16:25:19 UTC
Angelique Duchemin wrote:
Placing a bounty on someone who deserves it is meaningless because you're just feeding their ego and placing a bounty can be done so lightly that it's become greatly abused.
Greatly abused? In what way?

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
Feyd Rautha Harkonnen
Doomheim
#92 - 2013-02-14 16:26:39 UTC  |  Edited by: Feyd Rautha Harkonnen
The bounty system as-is merely gives you a bonus for killing someone you were already going to blap anyway. Meh.

For bounty hunting to be a *career*, there needs to be a way for bounty-hunters to a) invest serious time in a 'bounty hunting' skill tree which b) allows them to activate kill-rights on bountied players in hisec having a negative security status. Defense against 'abuse' being not having a negative sec status, or status of a certain level, etc...

Without those two key elements (training + shoot-anywhere), bounty-hunting is by no means a 'career' in EVE. Sadly so.

Would you like to know more?
Ratmuss
Children of Prophecy
#93 - 2013-02-14 16:31:25 UTC  |  Edited by: Ratmuss
Hows this then? (for issuing)

Minimum bounty 10 mill

Maximum number of bounties 3 per lvl of Criminal Connections

(once max is reached, one bounty must be revoked before issuing another)
Whitehound
#94 - 2013-02-14 16:37:26 UTC
Ratmuss wrote:
Maximum number of bounties 3 per lvl of Criminal Connections

Interesting.

I'd like to add another to this:

- Reduction of the payout from 20% to 5%
- A new skill Bounty Negotiations, which gives 5% extra payout per level with a maximum of 30% at level 5.

Loss is meaningful. Therefore is the loss of meaning likewise meaningful. It is the source of all trolling.
Mag's
Azn Empire
#95 - 2013-02-14 16:39:58 UTC
Ratmuss wrote:
Hows this then? (for issuing)

Minimum bounty 10 mill

Maximum number of bounties 3 per lvl of Criminal Connections

(once max is reached, one bounty must be revoked before issuing another)
Why?

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
Whitehound
#96 - 2013-02-14 16:44:59 UTC
Mag's wrote:
Ratmuss wrote:
Hows this then? (for issuing)

Minimum bounty 10 mill

Maximum number of bounties 3 per lvl of Criminal Connections

(once max is reached, one bounty must be revoked before issuing another)
Why?

Honestly, I can only think of two reasons... because training skills is fun and it should have been in there right from the start!! Lol

Loss is meaningful. Therefore is the loss of meaning likewise meaningful. It is the source of all trolling.
Ratmuss
Children of Prophecy
#97 - 2013-02-14 16:45:43 UTC
Whitehound wrote:
Ratmuss wrote:
Maximum number of bounties 3 per lvl of Criminal Connections

Interesting.

I'd like to add another to this:

- Reduction of the payout from 20% to 5%
- A new skill Bounty Negotiations, which gives 5% extra payout per level with a maximum of 30% at level 5.


that would work. people who want to play the role of BH can train for it and have more ability/reward. everyone could place a bounty if it tickles their fancy, but Bounty Hunters would have a real advantage.

I would add prereqs:

Social III
Negotiation III
Security Conenctions IV
Criminal Connections III
Mag's
Azn Empire
#98 - 2013-02-14 16:48:12 UTC  |  Edited by: Mag's
Whitehound wrote:
Mag's wrote:
Ratmuss wrote:
Hows this then? (for issuing)

Minimum bounty 10 mill

Maximum number of bounties 3 per lvl of Criminal Connections

(once max is reached, one bounty must be revoked before issuing another)
Why?

Honestly, I can only think of two reasons... because training skills is fun and it should have been in there right from the start!! Lol
I can see the logic to your idea. You're making it have meaning and giving it more of a focus towards bounty hunting.

His ideas so far, just look at limiting bounties. As the system has only just been delimited, it seems odd to go backwards.

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
Whitehound
#99 - 2013-02-14 16:52:52 UTC  |  Edited by: Whitehound
Mag's wrote:
His ideas so far, just look at limiting bounties. As the system has only just been delimited, it's odd to go backwards.

His idea is brilliant, because it is just funny. Twisted Run it through your head a few times... you need to train Criminal Connections in order to place bounties! I want to train it.

The value itself seems low and I would probably vote for like 10 bounties per level. It leaves plenty of room for casual bounties but stops the nutters, who place 50 bounties per day on random players. I am sure EVE has got such players...

Loss is meaningful. Therefore is the loss of meaning likewise meaningful. It is the source of all trolling.
Ratmuss
Children of Prophecy
#100 - 2013-02-14 16:54:11 UTC
Mag's wrote:
Whitehound wrote:
Mag's wrote:
Ratmuss wrote:
Hows this then? (for issuing)

Minimum bounty 10 mill

Maximum number of bounties 3 per lvl of Criminal Connections

(once max is reached, one bounty must be revoked before issuing another)
Why?

Honestly, I can only think of two reasons... because training skills is fun and it should have been in there right from the start!! Lol
I can see the logic to your idea. You're making it have meaning and giving it more of a focus towards bounty hunting.

His ideas so far, just look at limiting bounties. As the system has only just been delimited, it seems odd to go backwards.


the idea is to reduce rampant bounty spam.

not to limit, but to rationalize.