These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Bounties on structures (Citadels, mostly)
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
grgjegb gergerg
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#1 - 2017-06-08 08:39:23 UTC  |  Edited by: grgjegb gergerg
All these "revamp the bounty system" ideas (quality of them aside...) got me thinking.

Why is there no bounty number for structures? I was going to say just Citadels, but hell, put bounties on ANYTHING- depots, MTU, warp bubbles, anchored cans, whatever.

All bounties are mostly permanent. Amount is split evenly between everyone on the killmail (who is NOT in the corp/alliance of the owner). Yes, this pisses on logi, fit a gun.

Or, bounty random depots that everyone leaves lying around, let players give other players more reasons to kill them.

Bounties are removed without refund if the game removes the object from the game (temporary deployables, or 30-day timeouts). It's still dead, right? Yes, bounties on the more temporary toys are probably ISK wasted. But why not let people waste their ISK? If the bounty is claimed by only "friendly fire" the ISK is also lost.

Bounties are refunded if the object is scooped.
grgjegb gergerg
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#2 - 2017-06-08 08:49:50 UTC
And yeah, if the bounty gets high enough, you just reform the corp and kill it yourself. Considering how but a PITA that would be, I can't see it being THAT common. Moving assets, annoying people, etc. Possible in hisec for small corps, but probably wouldn't work in a lot of other situations.
grgjegb gergerg
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#3 - 2017-06-08 15:01:58 UTC
And since every deployable will need to remember who bountied it, and how much, make that information available (public?) for Citadels. And for other deployables, make that information available to the owner(s).
SurrenderMonkey
State Protectorate
Caldari State
#4 - 2017-06-08 15:16:34 UTC  |  Edited by: SurrenderMonkey
Wouldn't it make a lot more sense to just have corp-level bounties triggered by the destruction of assets-in-space under the current mechanics (fractional payout, included)?

And did we really need another crappy bounty thread?

"Help, I'm bored with missions!"

http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/
Old Pervert
Perkone
Caldari State
#5 - 2017-06-08 15:35:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Old Pervert
What would happen if they simply unanchor the citadel, then re-anchor it? I know you say bounties refunded, but it makes it very easy as the targeted corp to avoid the bounty.

Once it becomes packaged, all "details" about it go poof.
grgjegb gergerg
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#6 - 2017-06-08 18:50:46 UTC
SurrenderMonkey wrote:
Wouldn't it make a lot more sense to just have corp-level bounties triggered by the destruction of assets-in-space under the current mechanics (fractional payout, included)?

And did we really need another crappy bounty thread?

At least I didn't come up with another MORE broken system to replace the current probably-least-possible-broken system?

Old Pervert wrote:
What would happen if they simply unanchor the citadel, then re-anchor it? I know you say bounties refunded, but it makes it very easy as the targeted corp to avoid the bounty.

Once it becomes packaged, all "details" about it go poof.

Yeah, well, it's not going to get the Citadel instantly killed, just like any bounty. That's why I said refund the bounties in that case, so people can reapply them as often as people unanchor the Citadel.

You ARE forcing the Citadel to unanchor, repeatedly, so you're at least annoying people with the bounty, and triggering asset safety for everything inside, at the cost of maybe losing the ISK on destruction. That sounds pretty cheap to me, until they get an alt corp to destroy it (at which point you get on the killmail with a corvette...)
Tessa Sage
Long Pig Luncheon Meat
Sending Thots And Players
#7 - 2017-06-08 18:59:57 UTC
+1 for the increased probability of bounties exceeding upkeep and target starts unanchoring with market orders and industry jobs mid-swing. Upsetting the incumbent's customer base is such win as the competition moves in.
Asset Confiscation Officer
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#8 - 2017-06-09 20:27:51 UTC
If you want something blown up it is either:

1. Worth your time and effort and you do so (or pay someone else to do it).

2. It isnt worth your time so you dont.


This is one of the fundamental principles upon which EVE operates.
grgjegb gergerg
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#9 - 2017-06-09 21:19:39 UTC  |  Edited by: grgjegb gergerg
Asset Confiscation Officer wrote:
If you want something blown up it is either:

1. Worth your time and effort and you do so (or pay someone else to do it).

2. It isnt worth your time so you dont.


This is one of the fundamental principles upon which EVE operates.


Ok. So what's your point, exactly? Those points seem pretty obvious.

Any bounty is just players crowdfunding getting people killed.

And I think it would be interesting to do the same for any deployable. Especially Citadels, but depots to a lesser degree, and why not anything else, in the bargain? Hell, why not jetcans and anchored cans? I'm not saying that it would be worth much, but maybe you want to deploy YOUR can there?

Or, you're about to assault structure stuff, so the scout in the covops bounties the bubbles, or mobile cyno/scan inhibitors and gets reimbursed from corp or not. Then, your fleet jumps in and gets a shiny ISK reward for something they were going to do anyway. (Hence the lack of payout for people who own it. Also, encourages killing deployable of allies, for hilarity...)

Or you can just bounty a depot you find annoying.

Or you can try and force Citadels to undeploy, screwing up EVERYTHING inside- market, assets, whatever. For that good old market-PVP that people do from inside stations. Maybe you want to encourage people to use your Citadel instead? So you have to decide how much that's worth investing.

I think those sound like potentially interesting gameplay that people use to troll each other.