These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Assembly Hall

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Bounty hunting - let's get this sorted

First post
Author
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#121 - 2012-04-17 07:01:27 UTC
Azrael Dinn wrote:
Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:

Bounty hunting is a (utterly useless and broken) retaliation system, not another venue for free griefing (as if EVE needed any more of those!)


Lets say player X decided to invite an enemy fleet into the middle of your fleet consting you the loss of your whole fleet? Does that not require retaliation?

Anyhow it was just an idea and make a point that there are deeds done in the game that need retaliation. Also the 500mil was just an example.

And I would also like to know will the player whos head is on the plate recieve any information who can shoot at him. Or will it be more like "now you died and don't even know what hit you"


We covered this on page 2 of the thread I think: there will be player "crimes" that definitely merit retaliation that are not suitable for bounty hunting to deal with. I believe the example I used was "How do you create a mechanical system that allows for a bounty to be put on a corp thief's head that doesn't expose a corp director who legitimately expends corp funds?"

Basically the only way you could differentiate would be by GM intervention, with all the problems that entails.

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016

Azrael Dinn
Nano Rhinos
PURPLE HELMETED WARRIORS
#122 - 2012-04-17 07:28:17 UTC
Well splendid that I has been on table also then :)

After centuries of debating and justifying... Break Cloaks tm

GoatChops
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#123 - 2012-04-17 09:29:58 UTC  |  Edited by: GoatChops
Malcanis wrote:
I don't immediately see why the hunted party should be able to know either of those things. I'd be interested to hear the case for them to if you have one.


It is not really case...more of an opinion.

GoatChops wrote:
1. Would the hunted party be made aware of the fact that a bounty contract has been placed/accepted on them?


Id say maintain the wanted stamp from the current system but do not provide the current ISK figure. We dont want the "dirty scum suckers" to know now much you dropped on them....i.e. let them sweat how long they are going to have to be looking over their shoulder.


GoatChops wrote:
2. Would the hunted party be able to veiw who has accepted the contract on them?


Id say no to this one.

If we assume my suggestion for question 1 is used the wanted party is already aware they may be hunted. Let them find out the hard way that someone was hunting them Twisted ...although eve is risk...so if the bounty hunters catch them the bounty hunters should receive the normal aggression flaging to the wanted party and the wanted party's corp.
Arduemont
The State of War.
#124 - 2012-04-17 20:45:11 UTC
Although I've had this debate with you before, I really feel I have to get you to see the sense in my argument. I really hate to end up bumping this thread but I have to say something.

The system you propose will be useless outside of highsec or lowsec. Because you never get killrights outside of either. I dont even remember the last time I had killrights on someone. Also, no one wardecs people in low-sec, so your idea about using it within wars is, well only useful in highsec. So basically, you'll turn it into a highsec feature.

Quote:
I am utterly opposed to insurance payouts being stolen


Who said anything about stealing insurance? I hate to say it, but I think you may have misunderstood something.

Quote:
Quote:
Bienator II wrote:

no restrictions are needed.

the single mandatory requirement is:
damage done - insurance > payout



This ^^

Anything else is unnecessarily restrictive. The proposal linked below is better and simpler.

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=80648&find=unread


All that is required to fix the bounty system is for bounties to be paid as a percentage of the person your hunting's over all ISK loss, with all things accounted for. And then that value needs to be subtracted from their overall bounty (leaving the rest to be claimed at a later time).

I know what your going to say. "But without killrights it will be used to grief people". Yes. Yes it will. But there are much much more ISK efficient ways to grief people. Suicide ganking, war deccing, scams, corp infiltration, pay mercs to wardec etc etc.

Then the bounty hunting system will be useful everywhere. And before you say "I dont get how you dont understand why killrights needs to be a requirement". There is nothing not to understand. I understand perfectly. Oh... except
Quote:

the idea is to promote in-space PvP, not station tanking


Neither of these bounty ideas will effect whether you fight on a station, on a gate, etc etc. So I dont understand that statement.

Also,

Quote:
Transferrable killrights are so obviously the correct answer that I hardly know how to explain something so clear


"my idea is better than yours", is not a valid argument, before you try that one again.

"In the age of information, ignorance is a choice." www.stateofwar.co.nf

Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#125 - 2012-04-17 20:47:17 UTC
"Station tanking" is a euphemism for "staying docked". Just so you know.

Stealing insurance ISk for bounty payouts is explicitly taking sides in a capsuleer vs capsuleer dispute. It's about on a par with giving the defenders a 25% resist bonus to armor and shields in their own sov space.

So: no.

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016

Arduemont
The State of War.
#126 - 2012-04-17 20:52:08 UTC
Oh, I forgot to mention that with the simpler system you wouldn't even require contracts.

"In the age of information, ignorance is a choice." www.stateofwar.co.nf

Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#127 - 2012-04-17 21:00:57 UTC
As soon as I get +ve sec, I laugh at your bounty. What now?

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016

Arduemont
The State of War.
#128 - 2012-04-17 21:08:33 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
As soon as I get +ve sec, I laugh at your bounty. What now?


Doesn't make any difference what your sec status is in the simpler model as far as Im aware. Do explain.

"In the age of information, ignorance is a choice." www.stateofwar.co.nf

Psichotic
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#129 - 2012-04-17 21:09:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Psichotic
Arduemont wrote:
The system you propose will be useless outside of highsec or lowsec. [...] So basically, you'll turn it into a highsec feature.


That's the goal we're trying to achieve. If you are low or null your are fair game and deserve no killrights. People can fight each other in low and null all they want already. Modifying the way people fight in low and null is a sticky matter and another discussion entirely. Besides, it is a solution in search of a problem. There is no need for killrights in low or null.
Arduemont
The State of War.
#130 - 2012-04-17 21:14:12 UTC  |  Edited by: Arduemont
I think there is a way to solve everyone's issues.

Use the simpler solution, on the current bounty system. Then Introduce bounty contracts as a separate feature with optional killright transferal (One step at a time and all that). Best of both worlds.

Edit: Will post more tomorrow, need to sleep (DAMN THE NECESSITY TO SLEEP!).

"In the age of information, ignorance is a choice." www.stateofwar.co.nf

Arduemont
The State of War.
#131 - 2012-04-18 13:41:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Arduemont
I want to hear what you guys think about the idea.

Both this proposed system, and the simpler system (https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=80648) together would sort a lot of the problems we're squabbling about. What I'm going to do is write out the pros and cons that we've been arguing about with each system and I think you'll see something interesting when they're written out together.

Quote:
Contract System pros;
- Can be use in highsec, and gains an advantage in lowsec.
- Can specify how/who fulfills the contract.
Contract System cons;
- Restrictive.
- Worthless in NPC, true null, or WH space.

Simpler System pros;
- Useful in NPC, true null, or WH space
- Unrestricted, sandbox style game-play.
Simpler System cons;
- Useless in highsec, and almost useless in lowsec.
- Cant specify contractee.


Obviously there's a lot more to it than that. But I just thought that demonstrated something. Alot of the problems caused by one system are the opposite or absent from the other system. If you give players the choice of whether the bounties are public, or contract only, you get rid of the vast majority of the problems with either system. It would also mean that CCP could make a start on this project without using much resources. By making a start on the simpler system first, it would be a simple issue of changing how bounties were payed out (I know its probably no where near "simple", but comparatively speaking, you know what I mean). Its practically perfect.

I really want to hear your views on this. What do you think?

"In the age of information, ignorance is a choice." www.stateofwar.co.nf

Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#132 - 2012-04-18 13:47:38 UTC
Arduemont wrote:
I want to hear what you guys think about the idea.

Both this proposed system, and the simpler system (https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=80648) together would sort a lot of the problems we're squabbling about. What I'm going to do is write out the pros and cons that we've been arguing about with each system and I think you'll see something interesting when they're written out together.

Quote:
Contract System pros;
- Can be use in highsec, and gains an advantage in lowsec.
- Can specify how/who fulfills the contract.
Contract System cons;
- Restrictive.
- Worthless in NPC, true null, or WH space.

Simpler System pros;
- Useful in NPC, true null, or WH space
- Unrestricted, sandbox style game-play.
Simpler System cons;
- Useless in highsec, and almost useless in lowsec.
- Cant specify contractee.


Obviously there's a lot more to it than that. But I just thought that demonstrated something. Alot of the problems caused by one system are the opposite or absent from the other system. If you give players the choice of whether the bounties are public, or contract only, you get rid of the vast majority of the problems with either system. It would also mean that CCP could make a start on this project without using much resources. By making a start on the simpler system first, it would be a simple issue of changing how bounties were payed out (I know its probably no where near "simple", but comparatively speaking, you know what I mean). Its practically perfect.

I really want to hear your views on this. What do you think?



Dambit why can't I be smart like you? Sad

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016

Davon Mandra'thin
Consultech Intermediary Services
#133 - 2012-04-19 21:25:27 UTC
Makes sence.

If both systems come into Eve at roughly the same time, then they both have my full support.
If they were both included then most of my concerns are acounted for.
Shandir
Indigo Archive
#134 - 2012-04-20 19:10:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Shandir
Agreed, dual bounty system clears up all problems and creates a new hate-fuelled economy for PvP.

The only remaining problem is the ever present possibility CCP will implement the easy half then forget about it.
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#135 - 2012-04-20 19:21:55 UTC
Shandir wrote:
Agreed, dual bounty system clears up all problems and creates a new hate-fuelled economy for PvP.

The only remaining problem is the ever present possibility CCP will implement the easy half then forget about it.


That was maybe the subconscious source of my objection Blink

I should write up a more formal, less discursive amended post-discussion proposal.

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016

Arduemont
The State of War.
#136 - 2012-05-01 18:57:58 UTC
Malcanis wrote:

I should write up a more formal, less discursive amended post-discussion proposal.


Looking forward to seeing the amended discussion. Keep us updated.

"In the age of information, ignorance is a choice." www.stateofwar.co.nf

Blastfizzle
The Chosen 0nes
#137 - 2012-05-02 09:03:34 UTC
I like that!
Aerich e'Kieron
Peace.Keepers
#138 - 2012-05-02 14:37:49 UTC
I like this. Support, +1.
Darius III
Interstellar eXodus
Against ALL Authorities.
#139 - 2012-05-19 19:03:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Darius III
I am for this change 110%

Bounty hunting is a joke

*Edit I would like to add that this is one of the best suggestions I have ever seen in this forum and have supported similar proposals in the past. +1 for op

Hmmm

Aron Croup
Incompatible Protocol
#140 - 2012-05-19 20:03:51 UTC  |  Edited by: Aron Croup
Malcanis wrote:
FloppieTheBanjoClown wrote:
I don't like the idea of limiting bounties to kills, because there are more reasons for bounties than violence. Corp thieves, scammers, et cetera could all draw substantial bounties without firing a shot.


Agreed in principle, but how do you create a mechanic that allows corp thieves to have a bounty put on their head but that doesn't open any corp director who spends corp ISK to being killed for it?


Overall I like your idea of bounties, and you get a +1 from me.

I do think it's possible to make some kind of system that would allow corporations to respond to corp theft / scamming via bounty contracts. One way would be that, if you do not have current killrights, you could only call a bounty contract on someone who is currently in or has recently been in your corporation / alliance, and only through a corporate vote where the usual share-holders get a say.

This would allow you to respond to corp theft with a bounty. Of course there'd have to be a significant bribe to concord to facilitate the creation of kill rights, which means it's not something you do lightly. Maybe 25% of the bounty payout or something to that effect, meaning that even if nobody takes out the target you lose 25% of the ISK.

Another type of contract I would love to see is a "hitman" sort of contract, where you can be hired to kill and pod a pilot. It would be different from bounty contracts in that it pays out a set amount of ISK upon the termination of the pod, does not transfer any kill rights, would incur sec loss if completed in high-sec and is only assignable to an individual pilot.

In essence you'd create a contract with a spaceship hitman to kill your target and if he does this he gets the ISK. You could specify a minimum ISK value loss to your target for the payout to be triggered, so he can't just convo the target and agree to kill his ibis and implant free clone.

These "hitman" contracts could then cover all the criminal activities that aren't corp theft or provide killrights. Obviously these contracts are illegal, and so you can only set them up in low-sec and null-sec stations, and once the target is killed there could be a probability that the author of the contract is discovered by concord and given a sec-loss.

Also, such hitman contracts would only be visible to the author and the hitman, the target should not be notified that someone has been hired to kill them.