These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Dev blog: The Retribution of Team Super Friends

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#61 - 2012-10-11 15:48:13 UTC
Noriko Mai wrote:
With this, there will be a way to find out that a corp with 10 members has only two active pilots.
IIRC you tried to avoid exactly this (find out how many players are active in a corp) in the wardec price calculation.
I suppose the difference is that, with the wardec calculation, you would have gotten that information for free when you “tried” to dec them and there would be no way to get it wrong. With this system, you first have to find every member in the corp (which may or may not be possible) and then you have to poll each one of them. That's an awful lot of work for information that might not even be accurate.
Tiberious Thessalonia
True Slave Foundations
#62 - 2012-10-11 15:48:59 UTC
Bloodpetal wrote:
CCP Paradox wrote:
some dude wrote:


Yeah, this is a bad thing, and respectfully I would ask you to take a second look at it and its potential to be abused, especially since I can now place a bounty, anonymously, on anyone at all for any reason. The victim should at least know who did it, y'know?


We have been actively discussing this for a while. This is one of the key reasons for the dev blog, we are asking you guys for your thoughts.

And I see more and more people ask about this. So that is good to see.


I think with the opening of the bounty system to anyone and anywhere, this has nothing to do with "you have been bad". You will see people tagging everyone for bounties for s***s and giggles.

I like the anonymity, and I like the idea of knowing who put a bounty on my head.

Perhaps you can make it a fee. Pay 5m ISK to find out who put a bounty on my head. It's an ISK sink, and it puts a layer of "do I really want to know that much?".


I very much like this idea as a compromise. More Isk Sinks Is More Better
Tetsel
House Amamake
#63 - 2012-10-11 15:49:07 UTC
Salpad wrote:

No.

A bounty is about getting revenge. If I place a bounty of, say, 1 billion ISK on you, it's because I want you to experience an amount of suffering that's proportional to the size of the bounty. You cannot achieve that proportionality with a "take it all"-bounty system.


You perv ! Pirate It will not bring you more delicious tears Twisted


Karl Planck wrote:
hahahahhahahahahahaah, The new killrights functionality is SUPERB. God, this almost makes me want to raise my sec, ALMOST


Ho stop it you !! Raise you sec what a silly idea !

Loyal servent to Mother Amamake. @EVE_Tetsel

Another Bittervet Please Ignore
Salpad
Carebears with Attitude
#64 - 2012-10-11 15:49:28 UTC
CCP Paradox wrote:

We haven't nailed down exact percentages yet, but when we do we will let you guys know for feedback and discussion.


I think 20% is fine. When I thought about it half a week ago or so, that was my own conclusion: 20% of Total Induced Grief Value.

Or 15% or 25%, but I opted for 20%, which I think is good.
CCP Paradox
#65 - 2012-10-11 15:49:57 UTC
darius mclever wrote:
Bloodpetal wrote:
CCP Punkturis wrote:


we're going to make it so you can't place bounty on inactive characters

I like that you still hate him though after all this time Blink

(I just realized I only replied to the first question)



Do you think this can be abused to "Test" who is actually currently activated? THere is a degree of anonymity when it comes to those things, combined with other tools, a corp could easily suss out how many players in a corporation are actually "active" players?

I believe that when the new War Dec system was being initiated, this was one of the things they wanted to avoid, was the ability for a war deccing corp to figure out how many characters on an alliance were actually "not playing" when calculating dec costs (but trials didn't count).



could a dev comment on this?


read above comments.

CCP Paradox | EVE QA | Team Phenomenon

Space Magician
darius mclever
#66 - 2012-10-11 15:50:09 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Noriko Mai wrote:
With this, there will be a way to find out that a corp with 10 members has only two active pilots.
IIRC you tried to avoid exactly this (find out how many players are active in a corp) in the wardec price calculation.
I suppose the difference is that, with the wardec calculation, you would have gotten that information for free when you “tried” to dec them and there would be no way to get it wrong. With this system, you first have to find every member in the corp (which may or may not be possible) and then you have to poll each one of them. That's an awful lot of work for information that might not even be accurate.


in times of evewho. this isnt really that a big hurdle anymore.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#67 - 2012-10-11 15:51:22 UTC
darius mclever wrote:
in times of evewho. this isnt really that a big hurdle anymore.
EVEWho isn't exactly accurate, though…
Dirael Papier
Malevelon Roe Industries
Convocation of Empyreans
#68 - 2012-10-11 15:51:24 UTC
Bloodpetal wrote:
I like the anonymity, and I like the idea of knowing who put a bounty on my head.

Perhaps you can make it a fee. Pay 5m ISK to find out who put a bounty on my head. It's an ISK sink, and it puts a layer of "do I really want to know that much?".

Even better, make it a percentage of the bounty, and have a percentage of that paid to the person that placed the bounty.

So then the bounty issuer KNOWS you know who did done do'd it and can start sweating bullets that you'll seek out revenge against their sought out revenge.
CCP Punkturis
C C P
C C P Alliance
#69 - 2012-10-11 15:52:10 UTC
Salpun wrote:
Kill right icons will those also show in space, be in chat, and in the overview?


it'll be in the selected items window, show info window and we're thinking about making a new overview setting for it with some cool color (pink, I hope) and icon

♥ EVE Brogrammer ♥ Team Five 0 ♥ @CCP_Punkturis ♥
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
#70 - 2012-10-11 15:52:15 UTC
CCP RedDawn wrote:
This new feature should come with a brand new bounty hunter tinfoil hat that is free on the NeX.

Just a thought.



FYP

There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... CCP Goliath wrote:

Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.
Noriko Mai
#71 - 2012-10-11 15:52:58 UTC
darius mclever wrote:
Tippia wrote:
Noriko Mai wrote:
With this, there will be a way to find out that a corp with 10 members has only two active pilots.
IIRC you tried to avoid exactly this (find out how many players are active in a corp) in the wardec price calculation.
I suppose the difference is that, with the wardec calculation, you would have gotten that information for free when you “tried” to dec them and there would be no way to get it wrong. With this system, you first have to find every member in the corp (which may or may not be possible) and then you have to poll each one of them. That's an awful lot of work for information that might not even be accurate.


in times of evewho. this isnt really that a big hurdle anymore.

And with 100k minimum it's nearly free. And this way you can exactly find out who is active and who's not.

"Meh.." - Albert Einstein
darius mclever
#72 - 2012-10-11 15:53:03 UTC
CCP Paradox wrote:
read above comments.


which exactly?
Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
#73 - 2012-10-11 15:53:29 UTC
I am confused.
I have read the dev blog twice.
I see the part in the blog where the -1 sec status requirement has been removed, so that makes me think anyone in the game, in any sec area, can have a bounty on them, and be a target if someone if some bounty hunter is willing to accept high sec consequences of Concord.

So what is to stop someone like goons from placing a 10 billion isk bounty on someone they dislike, which pays out with 50 billion ISK in ship and implant losses, then restarting the bounty again, until the person they have set the bounty on has had their assets completely wiped out?
Salpad
Carebears with Attitude
#74 - 2012-10-11 15:53:59 UTC
Tiberious Thessalonia wrote:

I very much like this idea as a compromise. More Isk Sinks Is More Better


It needs to be proportional to the size of the bounty. If I place a 2 billion ISK bounty on someone, he should have to pay NPC Bounty Office Guys a lot more than 5 million to find out it was me who did it.

Probably not 1:1 proprotional, but some kind of proportionality. If 100k is the minimum bounty, then a starting point for the Discover cost could be the square root of the bounty deposit. Square root, times 20? Just to throw a number on the table.
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
#75 - 2012-10-11 15:54:34 UTC
CCP Bro wrote:
I want one of those brofists! Also, this is pretty awesome stuff!



every dev needs to post in the like and get likes thread... i should never have more likes then any ccp dev... well maybe goliath but thats a different story.Blink

There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... CCP Goliath wrote:

Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.
Erik Finnegan
Polytechnique Gallenteenne
#76 - 2012-10-11 15:54:53 UTC
Nil mortifi sine lucre.
CCP Punkturis
C C P
C C P Alliance
#77 - 2012-10-11 15:55:34 UTC
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:
I am confused.
I have read the dev blog twice.
I see the part in the blog where the -1 sec status requirement has been removed, so that makes me think anyone in the game, in any sec area, can have a bounty on them, and be a target if someone if some bounty hunter is willing to accept high sec consequences of Concord.

So what is to stop someone like goons from placing a 10 billion isk bounty on someone they dislike, which pays out with 50 billion ISK in ship and implant losses, then restarting the bounty again, until the person they have set the bounty on has had their assets completely wiped out?


I don't see how that's different than just ganking him over and over without the bounty?

♥ EVE Brogrammer ♥ Team Five 0 ♥ @CCP_Punkturis ♥
Matt Grav
Wrath of the Pea
#78 - 2012-10-11 15:55:44 UTC
My first thoughts are:

* Should we be able to retract a bounty that we have placed ? Maybe at the loss of a % of the remaining bounty isk.

* Aren't players with a 30 day kill right for sale hanging over them just going undock in a very cheap or rookie ship to get a friend or alt to kill them ? I guess for this to work well you will need to find the right price point. Cheap enough for players to buy to allow kill rights but expensive enough for it not to be just a trivial cost to remove with an alt. At the moment it feels as if it is going to be too easy to avoid.
Tiberious Thessalonia
True Slave Foundations
#79 - 2012-10-11 15:55:58 UTC
Salpad wrote:
Tiberious Thessalonia wrote:

I very much like this idea as a compromise. More Isk Sinks Is More Better


It needs to be proportional to the size of the bounty. If I place a 2 billion ISK bounty on someone, he should have to pay NPC Bounty Office Guys a lot more than 5 million to find out it was me who did it.

Probably not 1:1 proprotional, but some kind of proportionality. If 100k is the minimum bounty, then a starting point for the Discover cost could be the square root of the bounty deposit. Square root, times 20? Just to throw a number on the table.


I disagree with this. Flat fees work great in this case, whereas making it proportional to the bounty size puts even more of the power in the hands of the issuer.
Ravcharas
Infinite Point
Pandemic Horde
#80 - 2012-10-11 15:56:00 UTC
Steve Ronuken wrote:
Ravcharas wrote:
Quote:
Kill Rights will now be created at the same time a Criminal flag is put on a player, but only for attacking in hi sec or podding in low sec.

Wait, what? Unless I'm mistaken, under the old system a kill right is granted when your ship gets destroyed. Is this being changed to granting a kill right for merely aggressing?



Yes.

I believe it was mentioned in passing on the crimewatch blog.

Flags and penalties being front-loaded was mentioned, yes. But the current system is 'a ship for a ship' - as it were. If aggrressing causes a kill right, that definitely changes the balance of crime and punishment.

I'm not saying I think it changes it for the worse, necessarily - but it is potentially a very significant change.