These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Assembly Hall

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Bounty System

First post First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Svarii
Acclimatization
#21 - 2013-05-30 18:14:48 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
Svarii wrote:
mechtech wrote:
Svarii wrote:
mechtech wrote:
You are making assumption that bounties are only used to catch pirates who actively go out and kill non-war targets in high/low sec space.

Incorrect. I argue that a 'bounty hunter' is "One who pursues a criminal or fugitive for whom a reward is offered." Thus inferring that a 'bounty' should be limited to 'criminal or fugitives'


Well that's simply not the case according to CCP. CCP specifically removed the sec status limit with Retribution. It wasn't an oversight, it was mentioned in the dev blog announcing the feature. The is a feature for all of Eve to use as they see fit. If a criminal wants to place a bounty on their enemy's head, they have every right to do so.


Mentioning the security status was only a secondary suggestion, additionally, with the new statuses, CONCORD & Security status, that is coming; There must be a middle ground.

It is impossible for a single player to account for all possibilities. Hence this thread.
Would this be better? (Nothing to do with Sec status)

Simple Fix:
Player must have active Criminal and/or suspect flag to be bountied


So if I join your corp and loot your corp assets, and maybe awox your deadspace mission ship on the way out, you shouldn't be able to bounty me?


This has been answered in posts #6, #7, AND #8 ...

If you allow that to happen you have only yourself to blame, and once again; Why not use that massive pile of ISK on undocking a ship and doing something about it instead of cowering in a station? It makes it easier for people to not play the game, and we all know that could and should have serious potential consequences, (i.e. Autopilot)

Deny Pirates the Use of Implants
Svarii
Acclimatization
#22 - 2013-05-30 18:21:31 UTC
Mag's wrote:
Svarii wrote:
This allows players to camp out in NPC corp and help channels and place bounties on ANYONE for ANY or NO REASON at all.
Why is the 100K bounty on anyone, an issue?.


If you can not be bothered to read and comprehend the discussion, I won't waste my time responding to your concerns.
The system is currently being abused. Reasons are stated in the thread above.

Deny Pirates the Use of Implants
Svarii
Acclimatization
#23 - 2013-05-30 18:27:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Svarii
Mike Azariah wrote:
As far as I can see the Bounty system is working pretty well the way that it was intended. Yes there was the initial flurry of counties and some still give them as a joke (Malcanis, Flow Nelg grrr)

Earn them off? No

Decay? No

Get blown up and they slowly go away? Working as intended.

Never get blown up? Then it is just a label of no significance to you, ignore and move on

m


I agree that the new bounty system is by far superior to the former one. And I also agree with all that you posted here, except the last line.

What is the point of label that doesn't mean anything? You might as well not have it at all if it's being setup to be meaningless.

That said, to prevent the thread from trailing off topic, I must restate. The concern is about bounty placement. Not bounty removale.

Deny Pirates the Use of Implants
Mag's
Azn Empire
#24 - 2013-05-30 19:51:48 UTC
Svarii wrote:
Mag's wrote:
Svarii wrote:
This allows players to camp out in NPC corp and help channels and place bounties on ANYONE for ANY or NO REASON at all.
Why is the 100K bounty on anyone, an issue?.


If you can not be bothered to read and comprehend the discussion, I won't waste my time responding to your concerns.
The system is currently being abused. Reasons are stated in the thread above.
I'm asking directly how it's being abused. Reasons for placing a bounty that you don't agree with, do not constitute abuse. It merely means you don't agree with the reasons.

If you felt your argument was a solid one, you wouldn't have avoided the majority of my post with such a weak response.

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
Svarii
Acclimatization
#25 - 2013-05-30 20:19:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Svarii
Mag's wrote:
Svarii wrote:
Mag's wrote:
Svarii wrote:
This allows players to camp out in NPC corp and help channels and place bounties on ANYONE for ANY or NO REASON at all.
Why is the 100K bounty on anyone, an issue?.


If you can not be bothered to read and comprehend the discussion, I won't waste my time responding to your concerns.
The system is currently being abused. Reasons are stated in the thread above.
I'm asking directly how it's being abused. Reasons for placing a bounty that you don't agree with, do not constitute abuse. It merely means you don't agree with the reasons.

If you felt your argument was a solid one, you wouldn't have avoided the majority of my post with such a weak response.


How many times do I have to say the same thing....

Let me restate the core of the issue and rephrase it.

How is it cool for a person to troll a help channel for n00bs who don't even know how to play yet and get bountied when they post a question?

Deny Pirates the Use of Implants
Mag's
Azn Empire
#26 - 2013-05-30 20:25:31 UTC
Svarii wrote:


How many times do I have to say the same thing....

How is it cool for a person to troll a help channel for n00bs who don't even know how to play yet and get bountied when they post a question?
Like I said, you may not agree with the reason someone placed that bounty. But that doesn't constitute abuse, it's merely your take on what is and isn't a good reason for said placement. Blink

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
Svarii
Acclimatization
#27 - 2013-05-30 20:34:04 UTC
I have received a suggestion ingame regarding this issue (user wishes to remain anonymous) that may be a reasonable solution for everyone.

Contract Kills

I won't go into trying to specify details since I'd be sure to be reamed for it rather than starting a discussion about how it could done.

Thoughts?


Deny Pirates the Use of Implants
Svarii
Acclimatization
#28 - 2013-05-30 20:37:36 UTC
Mag's wrote:
Svarii wrote:


How many times do I have to say the same thing....

How is it cool for a person to troll a help channel for n00bs who don't even know how to play yet and get bountied when they post a question?
Like I said, you may not agree with the reason someone placed that bounty. But that doesn't constitute abuse, it's merely your take on what is and isn't a good reason for said placement. Blink


Point taken, however. Correct me if I'm wrong. Are there not a few additional rules for the newbie systems, such as being one of the only places where using legitimate game mechanics to grief players is not tolerated per CCP regulations?

How is it any different posting up a help channel to target them.?

Deny Pirates the Use of Implants
Mag's
Azn Empire
#29 - 2013-05-30 20:45:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Mag's
Svarii wrote:
Mag's wrote:
Svarii wrote:


How many times do I have to say the same thing....

How is it cool for a person to troll a help channel for n00bs who don't even know how to play yet and get bountied when they post a question?
Like I said, you may not agree with the reason someone placed that bounty. But that doesn't constitute abuse, it's merely your take on what is and isn't a good reason for said placement. Blink


Point taken, however. Correct me if I'm wrong. Are there not a few additional rules for the newbie systems, such as being one of the only places where using legitimate game mechanics to grief players is not tolerated per CCP regulations?

How is it any different posting up a help channel to target them.?
The difference is that a bounty placed, doesn't actually do much apart from add a wanted sign and figure. It doesn't mean they will DIAF any time soon. Where as can baiting and other such things, do result in loss and therefore are frowned upon in starter systems.

There was a warning from CCP when the bounty system was first introduced, that stated not to target new players. But that much like the rest of the early rush, has since calmed to a state where they deem it not to be a problem. Which tbh, it really isn't.

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
Svarii
Acclimatization
#30 - 2013-05-30 21:15:52 UTC
Mag's wrote:
Svarii wrote:
Mag's wrote:
Svarii wrote:


How many times do I have to say the same thing....

How is it cool for a person to troll a help channel for n00bs who don't even know how to play yet and get bountied when they post a question?
Like I said, you may not agree with the reason someone placed that bounty. But that doesn't constitute abuse, it's merely your take on what is and isn't a good reason for said placement. Blink


Point taken, however. Correct me if I'm wrong. Are there not a few additional rules for the newbie systems, such as being one of the only places where using legitimate game mechanics to grief players is not tolerated per CCP regulations?

How is it any different posting up a help channel to target them.?
The difference is that a bounty placed, doesn't actually do much apart from add a wanted sign and figure. It doesn't mean they will DIAF any time soon. Where as can baiting and other such things, do result in loss and therefore are frowned upon in starter systems.

There was a warning from CCP when the bounty system was first introduced, that stated not to target new players. But that much like the rest of the early rush, has since calmed to a state where they deem it not to be a problem. Which tbh, it really isn't.


For just a moment lets assume that I would agree that the current bounty system is just fine.
I would still argue that the WANTED label needs adjustment.

Such as the white to blood red color tag suggested. And minimum bounty before the 'player has a bounty' tag shows up on the overview.

(also, even if unrelated to this, I think contract killers for hire would be awesome)

Deny Pirates the Use of Implants
Mike Azariah
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#31 - 2013-05-30 21:42:45 UTC
The problem with the concept of 'only criminals can be bountied is the case malc presented. You can do dozens of nasty things in game that the game does NOT label you for.

You could be a scammer, an awoxer, a troll, or a CSM carebear.

All deserving of bounties but under your proposal not able to receive them until they did something blatant.

Bounties are for the sideline cases where Concord has not slapped a 'naughty' tag on your toe and it is left to the player population.

In my opinion, anyways.

m

Mike Azariah  ┬──┬ ¯|(ツ)/¯
Svarii
Acclimatization
#32 - 2013-05-30 22:36:01 UTC  |  Edited by: Svarii
Mike Azariah wrote:
The problem with the concept of 'only criminals can be bountied is the case malc presented. You can do dozens of nasty things in game that the game does NOT label you for.

You could be a scammer, an awoxer, a troll, or a CSM carebear.

All deserving of bounties but under your proposal not able to receive them until they did something blatant.

Bounties are for the sideline cases where Concord has not slapped a 'naughty' tag on your toe and it is left to the player population.

In my opinion, anyways.

m


And on the flip side, you can do nothing at all and be an be labeled , the label doesn't mean anything anymore. Hence the idea of contracting killers for hire, color coding for wanted tags, and min bounty before it shows on the overview.

Deny Pirates the Use of Implants
Mike Azariah
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#33 - 2013-05-31 00:31:30 UTC
Svarii wrote:


And on the flip side, you can do nothing at all and be an be labeled , the label doesn't mean anything anymore. Hence the idea of contracting killers for hire, color coding for wanted tags, and min bounty before it shows on the overview.


Now what you are talking about is not limits on the current bounty system but an additional form of it. Contract killing is different than bounty. Less public, more focused. Or do I misunderstand you?

m

Mike Azariah  ┬──┬ ¯|(ツ)/¯
Svarii
Acclimatization
#34 - 2013-05-31 03:55:14 UTC  |  Edited by: Svarii
Mike Azariah wrote:
Svarii wrote:


And on the flip side, you can do nothing at all and be an be labeled , the label doesn't mean anything anymore. Hence the idea of contracting killers for hire, color coding for wanted tags, and min bounty before it shows on the overview.


Now what you are talking about is not limits on the current bounty system but an additional form of it. Contract killing is different than bounty. Less public, more focused. Or do I misunderstand you?

m


You misunderstand the point of the post.
The thread was started regarding the bounty system and the issue pertaining to removing the -1 requirement allowing it to be used as a trolling tool.

I think we are now at the point of propsing ideas, cross examining them, and attempting to come to a solution. Are we not?

If at all possible, it would be nice to see this thread start discussing ideas regarding the issue at hand, rather than trying to defend the advantages of their side, or poke holes in my suggestions. Poking Holes is fine, but come on everyone, at least counter with a solution, please. I am doing my best to be objective and reasonable about this.

(Just got a new clone, new ship, new fit, and I will remain out of highsec(unless for purchase or travel when convient) for at least the next week or two, and do whatever I want, whenever I want, to whomever happens to be unlucky enough to cross my path. Why? Might as well try pirating it up and see if I can get a bounty that doesn't look so sad. And because I do care about the pirate side as well, so it's time to be one to better understand them. Been out of highsec since my last post. Pirate ...where is everyone...)

Everything below is merly an idea (not refined enough to be a suggestion at the moment)
Yes, Contract kills would be an addition, such an addition could allow a player to hire a merc through the contract system. If it is accepted, then the player is bountied and stamped with a WANTED label. Said contract could then be held by the purchaser, opened up to corp, alliance, or made public in a similar manner to kill rights for any player, allowing the previous -1 requirement to be reinstated OR the suggested bounties allowed while player is flagged. While I do realize that this COULD be abused the same way. It is much less likely being as there will be contract fees and extra steps before the bounty is actually placed on the player.

Deny Pirates the Use of Implants
ShahFluffers
Ice Fire Warriors
#35 - 2013-05-31 03:57:09 UTC  |  Edited by: ShahFluffers
Svarii wrote:
Mike Azariah wrote:
The problem with the concept of 'only criminals can be bountied is the case malc presented. You can do dozens of nasty things in game that the game does NOT label you for.

You could be a scammer, an awoxer, a troll, or a CSM carebear.

All deserving of bounties but under your proposal not able to receive them until they did something blatant.

Bounties are for the sideline cases where Concord has not slapped a 'naughty' tag on your toe and it is left to the player population.

In my opinion, anyways.

m


And on the flip side, you can do nothing at all and be an be labeled , the label doesn't mean anything anymore. Hence the idea of contracting killers for hire, color coding for wanted tags, and min bounty before it shows on the overview.

So... basically you want to know right away if the player that you are dealing with is a "bad person" and with the bounty system being changed such that crimes are relative to a person you can't do that anymore... and you don't like that.

Svarii wrote:
There are no 'legal crimes' (oxymoron) +90% of the time, any "legal crime" as you say, preformed against you is 100% of the time "Your Fault" for allowing it to happen. (Do I have to say Merc Corp again?)

AWOXing... scamming... margin trading... corp theft... ninja looting/ganking... etc.

Mechanically they are legal. Morally they aren't. Hence, "legal crime."

And even though those things I listed above may be [wholly or partly] facilitated by the victim's stupidity... that doesn't mean they should be denied the ability to put a price on someone's head just because the "victor" has a good security/faction standing.

Svarii wrote:
ShahFluffers wrote:
A good RL example:
Some time ago a Pakistani official placed a $100,000 bounty on a "filmmaker" (please... he was an amateur at best) over a tasteless/inflamatory/controversial film.
The filmmaker had done anything wrong from a legal standpoint... all he did was create something perceived as an incredible insult to many, many people the world over.

Good counterpoint. To simulate this real world example in game. Such a bounty should require being placed at CEO/Alliance Leader Level Using the funds of the entity, not the wallet of the character.

The real world example I described came out of the politician's personal wallet. Not the country's. And it was directed at an individual... not a company or state.
It was simply, "I will pay this amount of money for this man's head!"

Anyways... your restriction can just be worked around. Just have a throwaway alt create a corp and toss out bounties like before.


Lastly.... your cry of "what about the Mercs?"

Mercs still have their place. But to hire one is a more serious affair and, as others have explained, is more focused than simply "there is a general reward for anyone who destroys this guy's ship."

How did you Veterans start?
Svarii
Acclimatization
#36 - 2013-05-31 06:39:17 UTC
ShahFluffers wrote:

So... basically you want to know right away if the player that you are dealing with is a "bad person" and with the bounty system being changed such that crimes are relative to a person you can't do that anymore... and you don't like that.

Incorrect. We already have the red/yellow for sec status on the overview. I want to not see half the universe flying around with a bounty icon and wanted tag that used to be something to be earned.

ShahFluffers wrote:
that doesn't mean they should be denied the ability to put a price on someone's head just because the "victor" has a good security/faction standing.

Hence the idea of retribution via contract.

ShahFluffers wrote:
It was simply, "I will pay this amount of money for this man's head!"

Contract bounty requiring frozen corpse for full payment?

ShahFluffers wrote:
Anyways... your restriction can just be worked around. Just have a throwaway alt create a corp and toss out bounties like before.

Most things can be worked around if put enough effort into it. And that is the idea, to make it more tedious, more expensive, and thus more meaningful when it does happen.

ShahFluffers wrote:

Mercs still have their place. But to hire one is a more serious affair and, as others have explained, is more focused than simply "there is a general reward for anyone who destroys this guy's ship."

Should a bounty not be serious? I think it should.

Deny Pirates the Use of Implants
Mag's
Azn Empire
#37 - 2013-05-31 07:31:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Mag's
Svarii wrote:
Mag's wrote:
The difference is that a bounty placed, doesn't actually do much apart from add a wanted sign and figure. It doesn't mean they will DIAF any time soon. Where as can baiting and other such things, do result in loss and therefore are frowned upon in starter systems.

There was a warning from CCP when the bounty system was first introduced, that stated not to target new players. But that much like the rest of the early rush, has since calmed to a state where they deem it not to be a problem. Which tbh, it really isn't.


For just a moment lets assume that I would agree that the current bounty system is just fine.
I would still argue that the WANTED label needs adjustment.

Such as the white to blood red color tag suggested. And minimum bounty before the 'player has a bounty' tag shows up on the overview.

(also, even if unrelated to this, I think contract killers for hire would be awesome)
I agree to an extent.

Svarii wrote:
I want to not see half the universe flying around with a bounty icon and wanted tag that used to be something to be earned.
We are far from that situation. Even though those numbers are old, the trend is obvious.

Svarii wrote:
Hence the idea of retribution via contract.
You can already set up a contract kill, there are players and corps that do just that. You also have the kill rights system to use, if it applies to your situation. The problem with a system you envisage, is that you again rely upon an NPC standing in what would be a player driven mechanic. It's also a poor indicator of who is and isn't bad.

Svarii wrote:
Should a bounty not be serious? I think it should.
Again, this comes back to what you deem is a good reason and what isn't.

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
Svarii
Acclimatization
#38 - 2013-05-31 17:35:48 UTC  |  Edited by: Svarii
Mag's wrote:
Svarii wrote:
Hence the idea of retribution via contract.
You can already set up a contract kill, there are players and corps that do just that. You also have the kill rights system to use, if it applies to your situation.

Incorrect. You can NOT currently use the contract system for doing this. This is done by direct contact to a specific player, corp, or alliance.

Mag's wrote:
The problem with a system you envisage, is that you again rely upon an NPC standing in what would be a player driven mechanic. It's also a poor indicator of who is and isn't bad.

Please read the entire thread. Specifically, Post #11, #30, #34, and #36 again.

Mag's wrote:
Svarii wrote:
Should a bounty not be serious? I think it should.
Again, this comes back to what you deem is a good reason and what isn't.

Again, Incorrect. It should come down the definition of a bounty and what a bounty should be used for. (Not defedending it's use as a trolling tool.)

Deny Pirates the Use of Implants
Mag's
Azn Empire
#39 - 2013-05-31 22:41:36 UTC  |  Edited by: Mag's
Svarii wrote:
Mag's wrote:
You can already set up a contract kill, there are players and corps that do just that. You also have the kill rights system to use, if it applies to your situation.

Incorrect. You can NOT currently use the contract system for doing this. This is done by direct contact to a specific player, corp, or alliance.
Where did I say you needed to use the contract system for this? I merely said you can already set up a contract kill, which you can.

Svarii wrote:
Mag's wrote:
The problem with a system you envisage, is that you again rely upon an NPC standing in what would be a player driven mechanic. It's also a poor indicator of who is and isn't bad.

Please read the entire thread. Specifically, Post #11, #30, #34, and #36 again.
I've read the thread, the point still stands. NPC standings have no part in a player led mechanic, even a contract one as you suggest. Hence why they were removed from bounties.

But let me ask you this, would Concord intervene in this contract system of yours? Like you said, sounds like far worse issues could arise, than you think we have now.

Svarii wrote:
Again, Incorrect. It should come down the definition of a bounty and what a bounty should be used for. (Not defedending it's use as a trolling tool.)
But I am correct. Your definition of what is and what isn't a troll bounty, plays no part in the placement of that bounty. It's simply not your place or mine, to decide if it's serious enough.
The only one with the rights to decide any of that, is the person placing the bounty.

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
Svarii
Acclimatization
#40 - 2013-05-31 23:57:43 UTC  |  Edited by: Svarii
Is it really too much to ask that you follow the flow of discussion?

Mag's wrote:
Where did I say you needed to use the contract system for this? I merely said you can already set up a contract kill, which you can.

Where did I say that YOU said that...
And you obviously know that I know that... (and KNOW that is NOT what I'm talking about) or you're selectively reading my thread for trolling ammo:

Please refer to posts #6, #7, #8, #27, #30, #32, AND #34 to understand the flow of discussion.

Mag's wrote:
I've read the thread, the point still stands. NPC standings have no part in a player led mechanic, even a contract one as you suggest. Hence why they were removed from bounties.


Did you really read it? Please refer to post #30 AND #34
EDIT: Did it confuse you that I didn't specify that the contract system would be an addition to the regular bounty system and the -1 would not apply to the contracts? I'm not a CCP DEV, and I am only one person. Why not help us out with point/counterpoint, additions to / edits of /alternative ideas as oppose to trolling it up?

Mag's wrote:
But let me ask you this, would Concord intervene in this contract system of yours? Like you said, sounds like far worse issues could arise, than you think we have now.

Maybe you could answer this for us and actually participate in the flow of discussion.

Mag's wrote:
But I am correct. Your definition of what is and what isn't a troll bounty, plays no part in the placement of that bounty. It's simply not your place or mine, to decide if it's serious enough.
The only one with the rights to decide any of that, is the person placing the bounty.

Since when is 100K anywhere near 'serious', even for a n00b?

Deny Pirates the Use of Implants