These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Ghostwarden
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#1061 - 2012-10-18 18:24:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Ghostwarden
Lord Zim wrote:
Quote:
With the upcoming bunch of mechanics, it's not a profession, and that's not the point of the upcoming mechanics, either. The point of the upcoming mechanics is to curb hisec griefing as much as possible without actually disallowing it outright, instead of fixing the actual root of the problem which is the fact that nullsec sucks to live in, which in turn meahs roaming gangs had nothing to do and have now increasingly begun looking to hisec for tears.


Bodega Cat wrote:
Quote:
At best (if it even works at all), this idea of bounty hunting will only be a quasi-successful "career" path for the most dedicated of players, and then much like many other fringe careers in EVE, is way less glamorous than it sounds.

But this is probably the intention. Bounty hunting by nature isn't something just about anybody should be able to do successfully. Criminals are always going to remain smart and savy. People that do shenanigans are non-environmental entities. They are not rats that can be farmed in a sector of space somewhere.


In fact, I think Criminals are going to get so smart,t heir not even going to bother doing things that generate kill rights at all on main operational type characters anyway. Thus as has been said before, mitigating this new system into almost complete obscurity.




Well then, that just begs the question. What EXACTLY are they trying to promote with this game feature?

There have been people wanting a Bounty Hunter Profession for a long time now. And just about everyone (including CCP) has stated on more than one occasion that the current Bounty system doesn't work, is easily scammed and only serves to bolster pirates epeen.

There have been a lot of arguments for and against this idea in this thread but I'm now I'm firmly of the opinion of why bother with it at all. Remove the old Bounty system all together and move on. What they have done with Crimewatch 2 should stir the pot enough I'd think without putting something in that adds nothing substantial to the game.

For one of the first times I find myself wanting to get an answer to this question from someone on the Dev GroupQuestion
Bodega Cat
BlackWatch Industrial Group
Northern Coalition.
#1062 - 2012-10-18 19:24:55 UTC
Well, for what its worth it should be a lot of fun the first 3-6 months until we boil it down and break it.

Thats kinda the way it goes in EVE in general, then we'll look forward to the next toy CCP develops for us.

Some will waste time begging them to fix the old/busted toy, but the inevitable would just happen again anyway, and CCP doesn't have the best track record for retroactively restoring delinquent feature sets (faction warfare).

Face it, the ideal we have about "bounty hunting" is just too romanticized anyway. We can never really have it the way we imagine it in our minds.

I think I said it before in the thread but, Boba Fet, never was supposed to matter. We mythesized him ourselves.
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
R I O T
#1063 - 2012-10-18 20:06:29 UTC
Bodega Cat wrote:
Well, for what its worth it should be a lot of fun the first 3-6 months until we boil it down and break it.

More like 3-6 days.

Bodega Cat wrote:
Face it, the ideal we have about "bounty hunting" is just too romanticized anyway. We can never really have it the way we imagine it in our minds.

I disagree. If they let me, or one of the other pvp guys here develop the system, we could make something nice and authentic, that would be liked by everyone. All they'd have to do is code it, and support it. I certainly know that the expert programmers working for CCP can do that. But the problem is they don't want a nice, enjoyable system. They want a system that falls in line with their agenda, which is to segregate the four space types in terms of player interaction offered, and make sure high-sec is safe enough to bring in the carebear bucks.

I wrote some true EVE stories! And no, they're not of the generic "my 0.0 alliance had lots of 0.0 fleets and took a lot of 0.0 space" sort. Check them out here:

https://truestories.eveonline.com/users/2074-destiny-corrupted

Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
#1064 - 2012-10-18 20:13:39 UTC
Destiny Corrupted wrote:
Bodega Cat wrote:
Well, for what its worth it should be a lot of fun the first 3-6 months until we boil it down and break it.

More like 3-6 days.

Bodega Cat wrote:
Face it, the ideal we have about "bounty hunting" is just too romanticized anyway. We can never really have it the way we imagine it in our minds.

I disagree. If they let me, or one of the other pvp guys here develop the system, we could make something nice and authentic, that would be liked by everyone. All they'd have to do is code it, and support it. I certainly know that the expert programmers working for CCP can do that. But the problem is they don't want a nice, enjoyable system. They want a system that falls in line with their agenda, which is to segregate the four space types in terms of player interaction offered, and make sure high-sec is safe enough to bring in the carebear bucks.


You and I may violently disagree on where CCP's allegiances lie, but I think we can agree that opening this up for testing for just 4 days is ridiculous, and the oh so many holes in these new game mechanics will be exposed very quickly on TQ.

By mid December, CCP, once again, will look arrogant and stupid, al la the UI debacle, the FW debacle, the Nex debacle, etc etc....
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#1065 - 2012-10-18 21:20:12 UTC
Ghostwarden wrote:
Well then, that just begs the question. What EXACTLY are they trying to promote with this game feature?

They're not really trying to promote anything, least of all bountyhunting, the point of both crimewatch 2.0 and the killrights transference is to suppress hisec ganking and griefing in all shapes and sizes without physically disallowing it.

Ghostwarden wrote:
For one of the first times I find myself wanting to get an answer to this question from someone on the Dev GroupQuestion

I'd postulate that you have been given the answer by the CCP devs, even if they haven't come out and said it specifically. They've been quick to correct me when I f.ex interpreted the way killrights were generated, but they haven't even touched the posts where I claim that the actual reason behind the changes were that CCP wanted to stamp out hisec ganking and griefing without actually physically disallowing it.

Draw your own conclusions.

Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home.

RIP Vile Rat

Grey Stormshadow
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#1066 - 2012-10-18 21:34:40 UTC
The team is clearly so deeply committed to FFA flag and current solution that their replies start to sound just like the ones in early Unified Inventory feedback threads. We all know where this is going now so let it go. Let them enjoy the fallout. It seems that some devs always have to go thru this before they grow as persons to the level where they learn what is important and start to deliver stuff what they can be proud and respected of.

If you want to know how to make feature research go talk to mr Optimal and Arrow now. Now days they are experts what comes to the inventory project and actually deliver what people want and need instead of just doing what they think is the best without knowing the variables. Ask what went wrong with their initial approach and more importantly: would they do something different if they could start entire inventory project from scratch again.

Xmas update will clear big chunk of their reputation and make many people much happier again. Wouldn't it be fun if team responsible about bounty hunting would belong to this same category instead of doing all the same mistakes all over again.

CCP SoniClover wrote:
Bubanni wrote:

...it makes of very annoyed that you guys seem so rock set on the target becoming suspect... so everyone can shoot him... there are so many better solutions, why won't you even listen to player suggestions about it...


The Suspect flag option is not set in stone, but at least right now the order of options is: limited engagement < corp engagement < suspect flag < fleet engagement. With the last one not being possible right now for technical reasons, we chose what we feel is the next best one (suspect flag).


This thread really shrinks down to this particular reply where one of your teams member practically says:

"Bounty hunting is broken. You've been asking fix for years. Now we give you new bounty hunting system which is still broken because of technical reasons.... but we still give it to you because it is new and shiny and you can live with new broken bounty system like before. To be completely honest it actually doesn't even make the bounty hunter happy, but surely causes more public ganking and grief outside gates and stations. Just like we were told. But hey! This almost works - it's the next best thing to bounty hunting."

There is no such thing as "next best"-solution if you are trying to fix something what is broken unless you want to create even more broken. Isn't that quite obvious already.

Get classic forum style - custom videos to captains quarters screen

Play with the best - die like the rest

Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
R I O T
#1067 - 2012-10-18 21:40:24 UTC
^ I agree with the above, except for one detail. Unlike the Unified Inventory, which was created with good intentions but executed badly, the kill right changes are being made to satisfy a specific agenda with "technical hurdles" just thrown around to make it easier for us to swallow.

The Unified Inventory didn't nerf pvp. It didn't nerf ganking, criminal activity, et cetera. It just made the interface less pleasant to use. The kill right changes, however, will do those things, all for the sake of making high-sec safer.

It's a goal they won't achieve anyway, as I said before, because we will simply use alts, and also increase our ganking efforts out of spite.

I wrote some true EVE stories! And no, they're not of the generic "my 0.0 alliance had lots of 0.0 fleets and took a lot of 0.0 space" sort. Check them out here:

https://truestories.eveonline.com/users/2074-destiny-corrupted

Grey Stormshadow
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#1068 - 2012-10-18 22:14:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Grey Stormshadow
Thing is... I've seen the bits they plan for iteration, but you can't really add anything to feature which is broken from the core. FFA flag is the primary core failure. Other aspects like how kill rights are handed and distributed can be fixed and tweaked rather easily in case they don't play out right. All in all they are not the mega failures which will stay unimplemented/unfixed forever or at least for extended periods of time.

FFA is the only fact which takes this project to same level with the inventory project. There was just one idea: one window. Everything was built on top of that and one way road to bad end product was set to stone. It was really hard to fix as the foundation was built to support only 1 window. Now these guys are building the foundation around FFA flag and that will be their stepping stone to this same road. It will be really hard to change later, all the iterations they plan will not fix it and at the point they realize this - tons of dev hours get flooded down to the drain before this mess is dealt with.

Get classic forum style - custom videos to captains quarters screen

Play with the best - die like the rest

Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#1069 - 2012-10-18 22:55:35 UTC
Grey Stormshadow wrote:
Thing is... I've seen the bits they plan for iteration

And we've seen the bits they planned for Dominion. That was 2009/2010, we're now rapidly stumbling towards 2013, and more than half of it is still missing, with absolutely no hint of any of it even being considered. We've seen what they've hyped incarna up to be, and we've seen what we got. We've seen how well they've taken input on ridiculously broken **** like FW was as well, i.e. they have to be actually shown how bad/dumb things are before they'll change it.

What they say, and what they do, aren't necessarily the same thing, and I for one have stopped assuming CCP will actually be doing any iteration on anything until they actually release an iteration.

Grey Stormshadow wrote:
FFA is the only fact which takes this project to same level with the inventory project. There was just one idea: one window. Everything was built on top of that and one way road to bad end product was set to stone. It was really hard to fix as the foundation was built to support only 1 window. Now these guys are building the foundation around FFA flag and that will be their stepping stone to this same road. It will be really hard to change later, all the iterations they plan will not fix it and at the point they realize this - tons of dev hours get flooded down to the drain before this mess is dealt with.

I think the people who are up in arms about the killright transference are up in arms about it because of the FFA aspect, and rightly so. The problem is, however, that they've been told, multiple times and in absolutely no uncertain terms in this very thread what the problem is, tons of ways of exploiting it etc, exactly like with FW, and they're still going full steam ahead with it. And the reason why, is because what we're complaining about are things they think of as intended features. They want every kind of bad action to trigger global vigilante retribution, because they're doing the age-old mistake of treating the symptoms instead of treating the cause.

If only they'd done what CSM6 told them to do, i.e. make nullsec actually worth living in, then maybe players who are actually paying for playing this game (and try to have fun while doing so) wouldn't feel incentivized to go gank miners or haulers or whatever else in hisec instead because nullsec's all but dried up in this aspect.

Nah, wait, I'm actually telling CCP to buff null here. **** that noise, that's just crazytalk. Buff null, hah. And pigs'll fly.

Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home.

RIP Vile Rat

Grey Stormshadow
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#1070 - 2012-10-18 23:15:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Grey Stormshadow
Lord Zim wrote:

If only they'd done what CSM6 told them to do, i.e. make nullsec actually worth living in, then maybe players who are actually paying for playing this game (and try to have fun while doing so) wouldn't feel incentivized to go gank miners or haulers or whatever else in hisec instead because nullsec's all but dried up in this aspect.

Nah, wait, I'm actually telling CCP to buff null here. **** that noise, that's just crazytalk. Buff null, hah. And pigs'll fly.


Yea as long null sov system is something where you can keep systems without actually actively living and constantly maintaining them, null will remain mostly empty forever. However that is whole different issue :) I'm just trying to keep my eyes on major flaws I see on the features they are working at the moment and discuss about general directions when there is place and time for that.

...and no I wasn't even supposed to get involved with this entire thread in 1st place. Been on rather good mood lately and these things usually tend to change that to worse. However the will to make sure that it is absolutely clear to the dev team what they are doing again just took over and I've been spending way too much time with this thread again. That has to stop now so I really leave you to it and hope that the end product will be something we can live with.

Get classic forum style - custom videos to captains quarters screen

Play with the best - die like the rest

Chribba
Otherworld Enterprises
Otherworld Empire
#1071 - 2012-10-19 10:11:12 UTC
It just struck me this is a giant ISK sink implementation. With the actual loss value 5x more than the bounties it's a master design by CCP to over time getting 5x more ISK lost than handed out (not thinking about salvage module drops etc).

That's a pretty smart design right there...

/c

★★★ Secure 3rd party service ★★★

Visit my in-game channel 'Holy Veldspar'

Twitter @ChribbaVeldspar

DeBingJos
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#1072 - 2012-10-19 10:13:56 UTC
Chribba wrote:
It just struck me this is a giant ISK sink implementation. With the actual loss value 5x more than the bounties it's a master design by CCP to over time getting 5x more ISK lost than handed out (not thinking about salvage module drops etc).

That's a pretty smart design right there...

/c


This is not an isk sink, it's a material sink. No isk gets destroyed, it just transfers from one character to another.

Ungi maðurinn þekkir reglurnar, en gamli maðurinn þekkir undantekningarnar. The young man knows the rules, but the old man knows the exceptions.

Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
R I O T
#1073 - 2012-10-19 10:24:40 UTC
Chribba wrote:
It just struck me this is a giant ISK sink implementation. With the actual loss value 5x more than the bounties it's a master design by CCP to over time getting 5x more ISK lost than handed out (not thinking about salvage module drops etc).

That's a pretty smart design right there...

/c

Are you trolling?

I wrote some true EVE stories! And no, they're not of the generic "my 0.0 alliance had lots of 0.0 fleets and took a lot of 0.0 space" sort. Check them out here:

https://truestories.eveonline.com/users/2074-destiny-corrupted

Bad Messenger
Rehabilitation Clinic
#1074 - 2012-10-19 12:27:53 UTC
Chribba wrote:
It just struck me this is a giant ISK sink implementation. With the actual loss value 5x more than the bounties it's a master design by CCP to over time getting 5x more ISK lost than handed out (not thinking about salvage module drops etc).

That's a pretty smart design right there...

/c


it could be isk sink, but it has option where bounty returns to player who put it when target quits EVE and has inactive account long enough.

I think this may be good system overall to get people focused to kill certain targets, example if you put enough bounty for GOONS, people start to farm those everywhere because there is profit from pvp and finally that isk has returned back to business.
CCP Tallest
C C P
C C P Alliance
#1075 - 2012-10-19 13:03:30 UTC
Destiny Corrupted wrote:
^ I agree with the above, except for one detail. Unlike the Unified Inventory, which was created with good intentions but executed badly, the kill right changes are being made to satisfy a specific agenda with "technical hurdles" just thrown around to make it easier for us to swallow.

The Unified Inventory didn't nerf pvp. It didn't nerf ganking, criminal activity, et cetera. It just made the interface less pleasant to use. The kill right changes, however, will do those things, all for the sake of making high-sec safer.

It's a goal they won't achieve anyway, as I said before, because we will simply use alts, and also increase our ganking efforts out of spite.

You are wrong. "Making high sec more secure" is not and has never been a goal of the new bounty system design. You may disagree with the design and you may have better ideas, but you are plain wrong with your assumptions about our goals and intentions.

[b]★ EVE Game Designer ★ ♥ Team Super Friends ♥[/b]

Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#1076 - 2012-10-19 13:22:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Lord Zim
CCP Tallest wrote:
You are wrong. "Making high sec more secure" is not and has never been a goal of the new bounty system design. You may disagree with the design and you may have better ideas, but you are plain wrong with your assumptions about our goals and intentions.

I've no idea why you're talking about the bounty system, since that's not the system he's talking about. We know the bounty system doesn't make hisec safer (in fact it can be argued that in some edge cases it'll make hisec less secure where a suicide gank is made profitable by the addition of a bounty), the systems we're pointing out as making hisec safer is

a) crimewatch 2.0 and its "any suspect can be shot by anyone" flag (and by inference, the criminal flag since it's suspect + killrights)
b) killrights and its abuse of the infinitely toggleable suspect flag

which are both a direct nerf to ganking and wreck/can scooping, and will affect lowsec pirates who point pods or do other things which cause them to directly trigger the criminal flag.

Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home.

RIP Vile Rat

Ghostwarden
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#1077 - 2012-10-19 13:38:23 UTC
Destiny Corrupted wrote:
^ It's a goal they won't achieve anyway, as I said before, because we will simply use alts, and also increase our ganking efforts out of spite.


I not sure that I like or agree with what is proposed but frankly that's a sorry attitude on your part.

CCP Tallest wrote:
You are wrong. "Making high sec more secure" is not and has never been a goal of the new bounty system design. You may disagree with the design and you may have better ideas, but you are plain wrong with your assumptions about our goals and intentions.


I'll take your word on that but I'd really be interested in where you THINK this is going to take the game.
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
#1078 - 2012-10-19 14:41:43 UTC
CCP Tallest wrote:
Destiny Corrupted wrote:
^ I agree with the above, except for one detail. Unlike the Unified Inventory, which was created with good intentions but executed badly, the kill right changes are being made to satisfy a specific agenda with "technical hurdles" just thrown around to make it easier for us to swallow.

The Unified Inventory didn't nerf pvp. It didn't nerf ganking, criminal activity, et cetera. It just made the interface less pleasant to use. The kill right changes, however, will do those things, all for the sake of making high-sec safer.

It's a goal they won't achieve anyway, as I said before, because we will simply use alts, and also increase our ganking efforts out of spite.

You are wrong. "Making high sec more secure" is not and has never been a goal of the new bounty system design. You may disagree with the design and you may have better ideas, but you are plain wrong with your assumptions about our goals and intentions.



yeah isnt it interesting that the people who are complaining that high sec will be safer are the ones who were taking advantage of broken game mechanics that made high sec safe for them?

all the crimewatch stuff will do is make high sec more dangerous for **** heads...
from what i understand now ifyou do something as$hole like you will be flagged and then its like 0.0 on your ass where anyone can kill you?

how is that safer?

all it will lead to is more fights and more death in high sec!??!?!? which if you ask me makes it more dangerous...

silly high sec pirates who take advantage of broken systems to prey on noobs might actually loose something for taking risk...

i got an idea... move out of high sec and into null... ffs i bet they would say that having no flags in null makes it safer...

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

Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.

Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#1079 - 2012-10-19 14:54:55 UTC
MeBiatch wrote:
yeah isnt it interesting that the people who are complaining that high sec will be safer are the ones who were taking advantage of broken game mechanics that made high sec safe for them?

I wasn't using "taking advantage of broken game mechanics" when I started commenting in this (and similar) threads, in fact I'm still waiting for my gank alt to be done skilling up.

MeBiatch wrote:
all the crimewatch stuff will do is make high sec more dangerous for **** heads...
from what i understand now ifyou do something as$hole like you will be flagged and then its like 0.0 on your ass where anyone can kill you?

how is that safer?

all it will lead to is more fights and more death in high sec!??!?!? which if you ask me makes it more dangerous...

I'm going to assume you made the fallacy intentionally, but we're not arguing it's making hisec safer for the pirates, but safer for the general hisec populace. If you're unable to see this line of thought, there's not much point in continuing a discussion with you.

MeBiatch wrote:
i got an idea... move out of high sec and into null... ffs i bet they would say that having no flags in null makes it safer...

I'm in hisec to make money, I shoot people in the face in large fleets in nullsec, and since nullsec outside of fleets is pretty much dead (because CCP hasn't fostered people actually living in nullsec, which means there's no-one to roam around and have fun with), I'm going to go to hisec to find people to roam around and have fun with.

If CCP fixed null so I could roam around in null and be reasonably sure I could find someone to gank in nullsec for tears, chances are we'd start moving back and start ganking them instead. Alas, I've been waiting since late 2009 for CCP to fix null properly.

Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home.

RIP Vile Rat

Scrapyard Bob
EVE University
Ivy League
#1080 - 2012-10-19 15:03:48 UTC
CCP Paradox wrote:

It isn't 20% of the bounty pool amount, it is 20% of the kill (base value).
So you would continue to receive 2 million payouts until the pool is empty.
Example: He has a 50 million bounty. His ship worth was 10 million, you receive 2 million of that. It will continue to payout until the pool is empty.

(Note that this is an arbitrary example, the % can differ)

Also, there is no reason that a WH system would protect someone. You will gain the bounty payout on the death of that character, whether he is in a ship or pod, High-Sec, Low-Sec, Null-Sec, or Wormhole space. Someone paid to have that character killed, and you delivered the service.


That seemingly goes against what we were told last week. It was described as 20% of the "destroyed" value (including cargo).

20% of the total kill value or even the hull value is going to be too easy to game. Having it as 20% of the value of the destroyed items is at least more resilient to being gamed.