These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Is the bounty system a bad idea

First post First post
Author
Ratmuss
Children of Prophecy
#101 - 2013-02-14 16:55:37 UTC
Whitehound wrote:
Mag's wrote:
His ideas so far, just look at limiting bounties. As the system has only just been delimited, it's odd to go backwards.

His idea is brilliant, because it is just funny. Twisted Run it through your head a few times... you need to train Criminal Connections in order to place bounties! I want to train.

The value itself seems low and I would probably vote for like 10 bounties per level. It leaves plenty of room for casual bounties but stops the nutters, who place 50 bounties per day on random players. I am sure EVE has got such players...


as in real life, to be a successful bounty hunter, you should have connections with lowlifes :)
Mag's
Azn Empire
#102 - 2013-02-14 16:55:47 UTC
Ratmuss wrote:


the idea is to reduce rampant bounty spam.

not to limit, but to rationalize.
What rampant bounty spam?

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.

Ratmuss
Children of Prophecy
#103 - 2013-02-14 17:00:47 UTC
Mag's wrote:
Ratmuss wrote:


the idea is to reduce rampant bounty spam.

not to limit, but to rationalize.
What rampant bounty spam?


the posts of people claiming to sit on gates and put bounties on people as they enter systems

the posts from players saying WTF!!! bounty on me, but why??

but yeah you're right, rampant was perhaps too strong a word.
Mag's
Azn Empire
#104 - 2013-02-14 17:04:56 UTC
Ratmuss wrote:
Mag's wrote:
Ratmuss wrote:


the idea is to reduce rampant bounty spam.

not to limit, but to rationalize.
What rampant bounty spam?


the posts of people claiming to sit on gates and put bounties on people as they enter systems

the posts from players saying WTF!!! bounty on me, but why??

but yeah you're right, rampant was perhaps too strong a word.
They have every right to do that. It's not yours or my place, to dictate the reason people have for placing bounties.

Anyway, CCP have already nailed the rampant suggestion. I'm simply surprised, people are still trying to flog that dead horse.

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.

Ratmuss
Children of Prophecy
#105 - 2013-02-14 17:11:59 UTC
Mag's wrote:
Ratmuss wrote:
Mag's wrote:
Ratmuss wrote:


the idea is to reduce rampant bounty spam.

not to limit, but to rationalize.
What rampant bounty spam?


the posts of people claiming to sit on gates and put bounties on people as they enter systems

the posts from players saying WTF!!! bounty on me, but why??

but yeah you're right, rampant was perhaps too strong a word.
They have every right to do that. It's not yours or my place, to dictate the reason people have for placing bounties.

Anyway, CCP have already nailed the rampant suggestion. I'm simply surprised, people are still trying to flog that dead horse.




No one is dictating. We're having a discussion on idea's to improve game systems.

It is in everyone's interest to make suggestions. We have every right to make suggestions.

You, however, only seem to shoot ideas down with no constructive comments or contribution to the thread.

Thank YOU for posting.
Whitehound
#106 - 2013-02-14 17:12:00 UTC  |  Edited by: Whitehound
Mag's wrote:
Ratmuss wrote:


the idea is to reduce rampant bounty spam.

not to limit, but to rationalize.
What rampant bounty spam?

Imagine the guy who got banned for botting recently, who had 300b ISKs. If he had given out 300 times 1b ISKs bounties then this could have caused quite a nuisance and also a lot more work for CCP.

I can also see a positive side on such a limitation, because once one comes close to the limit or simply cannot place another one will some choose their bounties more wisely. This can (does not have to) lead to bounties of a higher value. The thought is that when one cannot place endless little bounties then some will place a few big bounties instead. This would play into the hands of bounty hunters.

Loss is meaningful. Therefore is the loss of meaning likewise meaningful. It is the source of all trolling.

Lei Gao
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#107 - 2013-02-14 17:15:04 UTC
Mag's wrote:
Ratmuss wrote:
Mag's wrote:
Ratmuss wrote:


the idea is to reduce rampant bounty spam.

not to limit, but to rationalize.
What rampant bounty spam?


the posts of people claiming to sit on gates and put bounties on people as they enter systems

the posts from players saying WTF!!! bounty on me, but why??

but yeah you're right, rampant was perhaps too strong a word.
They have every right to do that. It's not yours or my place, to dictate the reason people have for placing bounties.

Anyway, CCP have already nailed the rampant suggestion. I'm simply surprised, people are still trying to flog that dead horse.

Under the current system, sure they have every right, but why? Why would CONCORD let a capsuleer put out a hit on another capsuleer without repercussions? Dispensing justice is CONCORD's responsibility, not the capsuleer's.

So yeah, no, I'm not a big fan of the current system. It's not a bounty, because bounties are for criminals. In the real world we call that a hit and it's illegal. Placing a hit on someone should have consequences.
Mag's
Azn Empire
#108 - 2013-02-14 17:23:33 UTC
Ratmuss wrote:
Mag's wrote:
Ratmuss wrote:


the posts of people claiming to sit on gates and put bounties on people as they enter systems

the posts from players saying WTF!!! bounty on me, but why??

but yeah you're right, rampant was perhaps too strong a word.
They have every right to do that. It's not yours or my place, to dictate the reason people have for placing bounties.

Anyway, CCP have already nailed the rampant suggestion. I'm simply surprised, people are still trying to flog that dead horse.




No one is dictating. We're having a discussion on idea's to improve game systems.

It is in everyone's interest to make suggestions. We have every right to make suggestions.

You, however, only seem to shoot ideas down with no constructive comments or contribution to the thread.

Thank YOU for posting.
So what was the point in mentioning people sitting on gates and people saying WTF, if you didn't want to limit that?
Thanks indeed.

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.

Mag's
Azn Empire
#109 - 2013-02-14 17:28:19 UTC
Lei Gao wrote:

Under the current system, sure they have every right, but why? Why would CONCORD let a capsuleer put out a hit on another capsuleer without repercussions? Dispensing justice is CONCORD's responsibility, not the capsuleer's.

So yeah, no, I'm not a big fan of the current system. It's not a bounty, because bounties are for criminals. In the real world we call that a hit and it's illegal. Placing a hit on someone should have consequences.
Why? Because it's about player standings between each other. Concord have no place in that.

Also you're dead wrong. Dispensing justice is as much a players right, as it is Concords.

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.

Mag's
Azn Empire
#110 - 2013-02-14 17:30:28 UTC
Whitehound wrote:
I can also see a positive side on such a limitation, because once one comes close to the limit or simply cannot place another one will some choose their bounties more wisely. This can (does not have to) lead to bounties of a higher value. The thought is that when one cannot place endless little bounties then some will place a few big bounties instead. This would play into the hands of bounty hunters.
Choose more wisely? Why should we say what's is and isn't wise, about any bounty placed?

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.

Psychotic Monk
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#111 - 2013-02-14 17:31:47 UTC
For those of you who want bounties to be placable only on people with low sec statuses, I'd like to present a short list of things that I regularly do that people would want to place bounties on my for but don't effect my sec status:

-I join corps in order to kill members of that corp
-I go into peoples missions and steal their loot
-I sit around as a suspect and try to convince people to kill me
-I bump peoples ships so they cannot obtain their objectives
-If I see someone putting up or taking down a POS I'll land on it while something is unanchored in space and steal them
-I put up margin scams
-I offer services that I never deliver on, stealing someone's money in the process
-I wardec corps and alliances

All of these thing I can do without effecting my sec status at all. In fact, several of my fellow Skunks have positive sec statuses.

In your view, are these not valid reasons to put a bounty on me? Are they only valid if I've also done some suicide ganking in my time?

More importantly than that, why do you feel that you're a "good guy" because you've shot a couple plusses here and there? And why do you feel the game needs to favor "good guys"?
Mag's
Azn Empire
#112 - 2013-02-14 17:33:54 UTC
Psychotic Monk wrote:
For those of you who want bounties to be placable only on people with low sec statuses, I'd like to present a short list of things that I regularly do that people would want to place bounties on my for but don't effect my sec status:

-I join corps in order to kill members of that corp
-I go into peoples missions and steal their loot
-I sit around as a suspect and try to convince people to kill me
-I bump peoples ships so they cannot obtain their objectives
-If I see someone putting up or taking down a POS I'll land on it while something is unanchored in space and steal them
-I put up margin scams
-I offer services that I never deliver on, stealing someone's money in the process
-I wardec corps and alliances

All of these thing I can do without effecting my sec status at all. In fact, several of my fellow Skunks have positive sec statuses.

In your view, are these not valid reasons to put a bounty on me? Are they only valid if I've also done some suicide ganking in my time?

More importantly than that, why do you feel that you're a "good guy" because you've shot a couple plusses here and there? And why do you feel the game needs to favor "good guys"?
This.

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.

Lei Gao
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#113 - 2013-02-14 17:38:12 UTC
Mag's wrote:
Why? Because it's about player standings between each other. Concord have no place in that.

Yeah, and I don't like my neighbor, but so what? The local police don't care about my standing with my neighbor, but they do care if I put a hit on her. And CONCORD does have a place in player standings between each other or they wouldn't come by and crush the guy who just podded an afk miner in 0.9 space.

Quote:
Also you're dead wrong. Dispensing justice is as much a players right, as it is Concords.

Haven't we pretty clearly established that a bounty has nothing to do with justice? That's not what I'm talking about. Going after a guy with a suspect flag in high sec is fine. Going after a guy with a bounty and no suspect flag is not fine. Again, not justice.
Mag's
Azn Empire
#114 - 2013-02-14 17:44:11 UTC  |  Edited by: Mag's
Lei Gao wrote:
Mag's wrote:
Why? Because it's about player standings between each other. Concord have no place in that.

Yeah, and I don't like my neighbor, but so what? The local police don't care about my standing with my neighbor, but they do care if I put a hit on her. And CONCORD does have a place in player standings between each other or they wouldn't come by and crush the guy who just podded an afk miner in 0.9 space.

I wondered when we would get the first RL analogy. Well done, you win Eve today.

Lei Gao wrote:
Quote:
Also you're dead wrong. Dispensing justice is as much a players right, as it is Concords.

Haven't we pretty clearly established that a bounty has nothing to do with justice? That's not what I'm talking about. Going after a guy with a suspect flag in high sec is fine. Going after a guy with a bounty and no suspect flag is not fine. Again, not justice.


I didn't say they were, although there is a link. Shooting people is dispensing justice. Placing bounties, is hoping someone will dispense justice. Blink

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.

Lei Gao
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#115 - 2013-02-14 17:47:09 UTC
Mag's wrote:
Placing bounties, is hoping someone will dispense justice. Blink

Explain to me how placing a bounty on a noob in Rookie chat is justice.
Mag's
Azn Empire
#116 - 2013-02-14 17:47:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Mag's
Lei Gao wrote:
Mag's wrote:
Placing bounties, is hoping someone will dispense justice. Blink

Explain to me how placing a bounty on a noob in Rookie chat is justice.
OK edit.

Their idea of why someone should have a bounty, is down to them. Why should you start saying under what reason they can or cannot place one?

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.

Lei Gao
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#117 - 2013-02-14 17:50:38 UTC
Mag's wrote:
Lei Gao wrote:
Mag's wrote:
Placing bounties, is hoping someone will dispense justice. Blink

Explain to me how placing a bounty on a noob in Rookie chat is justice.
Can you read?

Well enough to know that answering a question with a question isn't an answer. And well enough to know that you misspelled "analogy" in your previous post.
Whitehound
#118 - 2013-02-14 17:52:00 UTC
Mag's wrote:
Whitehound wrote:
I can also see a positive side on such a limitation, because once one comes close to the limit or simply cannot place another one will some choose their bounties more wisely. This can (does not have to) lead to bounties of a higher value. The thought is that when one cannot place endless little bounties then some will place a few big bounties instead. This would play into the hands of bounty hunters.
Choose more wisely? Why should we say what's is and isn't wise, about any bounty placed?

No, this is not what I meant. Players want to place bounties for many reasons and the most common reason will perhaps be retaliation. What it should not be is to place them for the sake of placing them, which is currently the case and because bounties are new. Point is, players want to place bounties and when they are being restricted will they not just sulk and walk off, but they will try to find ways to work around the limitation. So some will use alts (no surprise here), but some will simply place higher bounties as for their retaliation instead of many little ones. Others will try to place corporation and alliance bounties more often than individual bounties. This is why I believe it will play into the hands of bounty hunters when players are being forced to place bounties more wisely.

Bounty hunting has to face the mass of little bounties, which are simply not worth going for. So these really have little meaning until the ISKs eventually pile up, which means it is going to take a while and then a retaliation may have lost its purpose and it is only a lot of notifications to the players.

Loss is meaningful. Therefore is the loss of meaning likewise meaningful. It is the source of all trolling.

Mag's
Azn Empire
#119 - 2013-02-14 17:53:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Mag's
Lei Gao wrote:
Mag's wrote:
Lei Gao wrote:
Mag's wrote:
Placing bounties, is hoping someone will dispense justice. Blink

Explain to me how placing a bounty on a noob in Rookie chat is justice.
Can you read?

Well enough to know that answering a question with a question isn't an answer. And well enough to know that you misspelled "analogy" in your previous post.
I edited that typo. I also edited that reply before yours. But sure, pointing out spelling and grammar is always a winner. Just like RL analogies. Amirite?

The reason I said can you read, is because I'd already stated placing a bounty wasn't justice. Your wording was incorrect.

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.

Mag's
Azn Empire
#120 - 2013-02-14 17:56:07 UTC
Whitehound wrote:
Mag's wrote:
Whitehound wrote:
I can also see a positive side on such a limitation, because once one comes close to the limit or simply cannot place another one will some choose their bounties more wisely. This can (does not have to) lead to bounties of a higher value. The thought is that when one cannot place endless little bounties then some will place a few big bounties instead. This would play into the hands of bounty hunters.
Choose more wisely? Why should we say what's is and isn't wise, about any bounty placed?

No, this is not what I meant. Players want to place bounties for many reasons and the most common reason will perhaps be retaliation. What it should not be is to place them for the sake of placing them, which is currently the case and because bounties are new. Point is, players want to place bounties and when they are being restricted will they not just sulk and walk off, but they will try to find ways to work around the limitation. So some will use alts (no surprise here), but some will simply place higher bounties as for their retaliation instead of many little ones. Others will try to place corporation and alliance bounties more often than individual bounties. This is why I believe it will play into the hands of bounty hunters when players are being forced to place bounties more wisely.

Bounty hunting has to face the mass of little bounties, which are simply not worth going for. So these really have little meaning until the ISKs eventually pile up, which means it is going to take a while and then a retaliation may have lost its purpose and it is only a lot of notifications to the players.
Well I see your point. But it still boils down to their reason for placing the bounty, is not what you would reason to be a good one.

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.