These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Bounty: 20% payout of hull; not enough.

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Natsett Amuinn
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#121 - 2012-12-11 13:14:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Natsett Amuinn
Andski wrote:
just add a skill called Bounty Hunting or whatever

I'd like to see this on top of the most wanted bounties paying a higher percentage.
Natsett Amuinn
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#122 - 2012-12-11 13:26:30 UTC
Matalino wrote:
Natsett Amuinn wrote:
You're assumign that 20% is the maximum percentage you can pay without someone being able to self gank for profit.

It is not.
20% is lower on that scale than some people think.

I'm pretty sure that CCP relased it with a low percentage, specifically so they would have room to increase it. It would be silly to make the fist iteration payout the most possible before you could exploit it, and if SoniClovers responce is any indication, they obviously understood this.
I did not make that assumption. Rather, I have the opinion that keeping bounties low is a good thing. If I place a bounty on a person, I want that person to suffer a loss when a bounty hunter collects that bounty, and I want that loss to be a lot more than 1 ISK for every ISK I pay. It is not good enough for self ganking to be marginally unprofitable, it should be as far from profitable as possible while still leaving some modivation to collect the bounty.

That's not a justifiable reason, nor even why it's set low to begin with.

The fact that SoniClover said they had already talked about higher payouts for the most wanted bounties, but didn't have time to impliment it before the 4tth, it can be safely assumed that the 20% was partially chosen so that they CAN increase the payout percentage with future iteration.

By your reasoning a 10% payout is fine as well, even a 5% payout. As long as it pays something it's an incentive, and as long as it's low you can't profit from a self gank.

On the flip side, if a 60% payout was possible with it being profitable for a self gank, your reasoning would applicable.

I pretty sure 20% wasn't decided on because it makes self ganks more than "marginally" unprofitable, but more because it ensures the bounty sticks around longer.

At a certian point a loss is a loss and the amount of the loss becomes no more meanigful if it's 5x the bounty amount or 3x the bounty amount. It only needs to prevent you from ganking for profit or being able to clear the bounty yourself with minimum impact.

5x more is a long, long ways from a 1 to 1 ratio.


BoBoZoBo
MGroup9
#123 - 2012-12-11 16:10:33 UTC  |  Edited by: BoBoZoBo
The payout is PERFECT as is.

For one, it prevents (by a FAR margin) any kind of exploits that broke the system before, as well as what made certain individuals rich from FW. They have learned the lesson from making payouts too close to assessed market value taking the volatility of the market and player intelligence/imagination into consideration.

One point for it working as is.

Second, it ensure the individual in question stay on his toes with a large enough bounty and it ensures more PVP opportunity. More PVP is good.

Two points for working as is.

Not to mention, this is in-line with many for-contract agreements in many scenarios.
It is a logical number.

Three points for working as is



MAYBE 25-30%, but certainly not 50%. Either way, what is making it bigger really going to get you?
Stop making it so complicated and just wait for them to get in a more expensive ship.
It is already showing great promise.

Primary Test Subject • SmackTalker Elite
Scrapyard Bob
EVE University
Ivy League
#124 - 2012-12-11 16:22:49 UTC
Zeko Rena wrote:
What about if your security status increases the payout, so if you are 0.0 you get 20%, but if you are 5.0 you get 25%, could also increase the security status to a max of 10.0 so you could get upto 30%.

That could also encourage mission runners to go out there and try some pvp.

Plus to avoid other people from having to blow up rats all day to increase there security staus you could make destroying a wanted player target also increase your security status?

EDIT: That would actually bring back a use for player security status, because now you can put a bounty on anyone, there is no point to player security status.


Security status is meaningless. Unless CCP reworks it (mostly by making sec status only increase/decrease in sectors where CONCORD or the empires have control of the systems).

What we need by summer is the promised PvP contracts where we can setup a PvP contract to a specific corporation, alliance, pilot, or anyone who wants to accept it. Then we could setup filters for how the payouts function, with a minimum payment per kill, a maximum payment per kill, and the percentage per kill.

Filters such as:
- only paying if a specific individual, list of individuals, corps, list of corps, alliance, or list of alliances is killed (or anyone)
- only paying out if those kills occur in a specific geographical area (system, constellation, region, everywhere)
- only paying out based on the security status of the space

Variable payments: different payout rates by ship class (T1, frigates, cruisers, BCs, BS, caps, scaps, structures). So you could set things so that T1 frigates always payout 1M ISK, but a larger ship might pay out 30%, and a super-cap might only pay out 10%.
Mag's
Azn Empire
#125 - 2012-12-11 16:45:08 UTC
Ronan Connor wrote:
Mag's wrote:
Ronan Connor wrote:
Couple the bounty payout to the standings as well.

Meaning standing of 5 gives you only 5%, standing of 0 = 20%, standing of -5 = 30%, below -5 = 40%.

I dont like placing bounties on positive with a sec status at all, but make a positive sec status at least count for something!
What relevance do NPC standings have, to a player driven standings bounty system?

Not much. If it would be Tekken or something of the sort.

For a roleplay game however, where you "helped" the concord police, it should benefit you, when you have a good standing.
I mean you would get into trouble if you put a bounty on a police officer, wouldnt you?
The bounty system is not related to Concord, so they care not about any bounty you collect.

Also if CCP created a mechanic, that allowed us to place bounties on certain NPC officers, then I'm sure people would. Not sure exactly what point you're trying to make tbh. What?

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
Beckie DeLey
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#126 - 2012-12-11 16:51:28 UTC
Andski wrote:
just add a skill called Bounty Hunting or whatever


Simple, elegant, perfect.

My siren's name is Brick and she is the prettiest.
Sheynan
Lighting the blight
#127 - 2012-12-11 17:07:28 UTC
Beckie DeLey wrote:
Andski wrote:
just add a skill called Bounty Hunting or whatever


Simple, elegant, perfect.


It fails to adress any of the concerns in this thread. It's just "someone said bounty payouts are too low, let's make a skill that raises them, what could possibly go wrong..."


Another thing to keep in mind is that FW also pays a kind of "bounty". If the bounty payout is increased too much, then you could enter the milita and kill yourself with a militia alt to profit from the bounty (Or even combine this with a previous trick and kill yourself in a hauler of overvalued goods).
Increasing the common pool bounty payout is risky and it should never be above 30%. How you get those 10% whether with skills or with topten-bonuses is not that important. It will most likely not be very noticable difference from the current version.
Borascus
#128 - 2012-12-11 18:14:24 UTC
This all seems to point to:

Bountied Scum wrote:
When someone puts paint on my avatar can my friend use the hose to get rid of it.



As a related side note are there any ways to exploit this bounty system already removed? YES/NO

Do CCP run analytics on bounties and destroyed ships to determine if anyone is exploiting the bounty system? YES/NO
Marlona Sky
State War Academy
Caldari State
#129 - 2012-12-11 18:23:07 UTC  |  Edited by: Il Feytid
No bounty payout if the kill mail is someone/something that belongs to your corp, alliance or is blue to you. Bounty payment percentage increased for the top ten is good idea. Adding yet another arbitrary skill we have to train is not. Other than that I think the bounty system is pretty solid.
Sofia Wolf
Ubuntu Inc.
The Fourth District
#130 - 2012-12-11 18:43:34 UTC
CCP simply eliminate insurance payouts in low sec and 0.0 space, and for outlaws and suspects in high-sec. This would allow bounty and FW LP payouts to go up to 80% of value destroyed in those regions and against those targets. It also makes more sense from in character perspective then current system as no sane for profit insurance agency would pay insurance to wanted criminals or for property damage incurred in lawless and war zones. In fact it would not hurt much if you eliminated insurance completely form the game.

Jessica Danikov > EVE is your real life. the rest is fantasy. caught in a corporation. no escape from banality. open up yours eyes, peer through pod good and seeeeeee. I'm just a poor pilot, I need no sympathy. because I'm easy scam, easy go, little isk, little know. anyway the solar wind blows...
Natsett Amuinn
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#131 - 2012-12-11 18:53:44 UTC
Sofia Wolf wrote:
CCP simply eliminate insurance payouts in low sec and 0.0 space, and for outlaws and suspects in high-sec. This would allow bounty and FW LP payouts to go up to 80% of value destroyed in those regions and against those targets. It also makes more sense from in character perspective then current system as no sane for profit insurance agency would pay insurance to wanted criminals or for property damage incurred in lawless and war zones. In fact it would not hurt much if you eliminated insurance completely form the game.


Why not just say "nerf null and low sec".

Because that's what your saying when you say to remove insurance in low and null.
insurance is intended to act as a way to ease the pains of losing ships. Removing insurance payout from areas of the game that see the most loss is just saying to nerf those areas and those people that choose to play there.


Bad idea isn't bad, it's horrific.
Rico Minali
Sons Of 0din
Commonwealth Vanguard
#132 - 2012-12-11 19:00:03 UTC
Maybe just go simple and have it so you the payout is 10% of the hull value you kill PLUS 20% of teh total value of the targets bounty.

That way hitting high value targets is obviously more lucrative but still makes it even better if you kill them in their machariel.

Trust me, I almost know what I'm doing.
Jake Rivers
New Planetary Order
#133 - 2012-12-11 19:08:00 UTC
CCP SoniClover wrote:
Natsett Amuinn wrote:
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=180051&find=unread

I started a thread the other day about the 20% thing making people with large bounties no more worth hunting down than someone will a smaller bounty.

I'm not so worried about the overal payout, as I am the fact that having many billions of isk on your head means only you can be shot a few more times than the guy with a few billion less.

The payout system has no incentive to actually go looking for the most wanted people in New Eden.
The bounty itself should be a modifier that adds small percentages to the total payout based on how high the bounty goes; to a limit.


I think this is a good idea. We had a similar story, but didn't have time to do anything with it for Retribution. I think there should be leverage to increase the payout up to around 30%, for kills on people with high bounty. Killing someone in the top 10 most wanted should definitely count for more.


Have a bonus payout based on overall bounty rank.

Senex Legio
Sofia Wolf
Ubuntu Inc.
The Fourth District
#134 - 2012-12-11 19:13:09 UTC  |  Edited by: Sofia Wolf
Natsett Amuinn wrote:
Sofia Wolf wrote:
CCP simply eliminate insurance payouts in low sec and 0.0 space, and for outlaws and suspects in high-sec. This would allow bounty and FW LP payouts to go up to 80% of value destroyed in those regions and against those targets. It also makes more sense from in character perspective then current system as no sane for profit insurance agency would pay insurance to wanted criminals or for property damage incurred in lawless and war zones. In fact it would not hurt much if you eliminated insurance completely form the game.


Why not just say "nerf null and low sec".

Because that's what your saying when you say to remove insurance in low and null.
insurance is intended to act as a way to ease the pains of losing ships. Removing insurance payout from areas of the game that see the most loss is just saying to nerf those areas and those people that choose to play there.


Bad idea isn't bad, it's horrific.


If you are afraid of losing ships I don't know what are you doing in <0.5 security space. Besides all of sov 0.0 blob alliances have some sort or another of SRP so there is little need for game provided reimbursements if players themselves have established mechanisms doing then same. It is redundant. Finely as far as I’m concerned CCP should remove insurance payout from highsec too, but as I suspect they would be reluctant to do that I suggested limited removal as an compromise they would more likely consider.

Jessica Danikov > EVE is your real life. the rest is fantasy. caught in a corporation. no escape from banality. open up yours eyes, peer through pod good and seeeeeee. I'm just a poor pilot, I need no sympathy. because I'm easy scam, easy go, little isk, little know. anyway the solar wind blows...
Natsett Amuinn
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#135 - 2012-12-11 19:20:06 UTC
Sofia Wolf wrote:


If you are afraid of losing ships I don't know what are you doing in <0.5 security space. Besides all of sov 0.0 blob alliances have some sort or another of SRP so there is little need for game provided reimbursements if players themselves have established mechanisms doing then same. It is redundant. Finely as far as I’m concerned CCP should remove insurance payout from highsec too, but as I suspect they would be reluctant to do that I suggested limited removal as an compromise they would more likely consider.

Basically you just wrote a bunch of stuff that's wrong, factual and opinion based both.
Andski
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#136 - 2012-12-11 19:50:28 UTC
Marlona Sky wrote:
No bounty payout if the kill mail is someone/something that belongs to your corp, alliance or is blue to you. Bounty payment percentage increased for the top ten is good idea. Adding yet another arbitrary skill we have to train is not. Other than that I think the bounty system is pretty solid.


No bounties for awoxing? Why not?

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar
Cat Troll
Incorruptibles
#137 - 2012-12-11 20:38:48 UTC
I think if they go with the idea of Dust mercenaries being able to operate pretty much anywhere then even forum alts with high bounties wouldn't be safe.
Imagine a group of them looking for someone with a high bounty inside a station.
That would be awesome.
Now what should the loss count for, since without any ship to loose it might become another broken bounty system.

Lolwut: "Yes, you kids don't know how lucky you have it. These days noobs get given free tackle ships for PvP but back in the old days the only tackle ships we were given were our pods. We had to use them to bump their rookie ships out of alignment to stop them warping off."
Oopsy Bear
Doomheim
#138 - 2012-12-11 21:07:21 UTC
Natsett Amuinn wrote:
Why not just say "nerf null and low sec".

Because that's what your saying when you say to remove insurance in low and null.
insurance is intended to act as a way to ease the pains of losing ships. Removing insurance payout from areas of the game that see the most loss is just saying to nerf those areas and those people that choose to play there.

Bad idea isn't bad, it's horrific.


I would be in favor of eliminating insurance if they reduced mineral requirements for ship hulls. Insurance always felt wrong, just make hulls cheaper and call it a day.

While we are on the topic of removing silly things they should nuke the increasing fees for clones based on skill points.
Marlona Sky
State War Academy
Caldari State
#139 - 2012-12-11 21:09:02 UTC
Andski wrote:
Marlona Sky wrote:
No bounty payout if the kill mail is someone/something that belongs to your corp, alliance or is blue to you. Bounty payment percentage increased for the top ten is good idea. Adding yet another arbitrary skill we have to train is not. Other than that I think the bounty system is pretty solid.


No bounties for awoxing? Why not?

Must everything you guys do involve being blue? Ugh
Andski
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#140 - 2012-12-11 22:17:27 UTC
Marlona Sky wrote:
Must everything you guys do involve being blue? Ugh


No, seriously, what will this accomplish?

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar