Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
J'Mkarr Soban
Proxenetae Invicti
|
Posted - 2008.08.10 11:13:00 -
[31]
Edited by: J''Mkarr Soban on 10/08/2008 11:13:42 This is what I've been waiting 5 years for, ever since the first day the servers went live when I signed up.
Bring it.
-- These are my personal views and in no way represent the views of Proxenetae Invicti, which maintains a neutral stance stemming from the strong ethics demanded of its work. |
Strill
|
Posted - 2008.08.10 11:55:00 -
[32]
I see some obstacles to making the bounty-hunter payment completely automated. If your bounty hunter blows up the target's ship and destroys a bunch of faction/officer modules, how would the system appraise those?
One opposition was that the proposed system discourages sandboxing, so to that effect I'd suggest more options
*The option to set a flat reward for each ship class destroyed *The option to set a percentage reward for net losses inflicted to the target *The option to set a cap on the possible rewards *The option to contract a bounty hunter even if you don't have kill rights ***The contract info should show whether the target is expected to be in 0.0 sec, low-sec, or empire
|
Dierdra Vaal
|
Posted - 2008.08.10 14:26:00 -
[33]
Originally by: Strill I see some obstacles to making the bounty-hunter payment completely automated. If your bounty hunter blows up the target's ship and destroys a bunch of faction/officer modules, how would the system appraise those?
One opposition was that the proposed system discourages sandboxing, so to that effect I'd suggest more options
*The option to set a flat reward for each ship class destroyed *The option to set a percentage reward for net losses inflicted to the target *The option to set a cap on the possible rewards *The option to contract a bounty hunter even if you don't have kill rights ***The contract info should show whether the target is expected to be in 0.0 sec, low-sec, or empire
estimating the approximate isk value of the damage sustained by the target is probably the most complex part of the bounty hunter idea. I'm sure CCP can think of a good way to do this though.
As for setting a contract when you dont have kill rights, this could be a problem, UNLESS the contract then does not yield a derived kill right. This is necessary because we'd be creating kill rights out of thin air otherwise. A bounty contract without kill right will be a lot harder to fulfill by a bounty hunter though.
Training Director :: EVE University
CSM Representative |
Toman Jerich
Ars ex Discordia GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.08.10 15:01:00 -
[34]
I think it would be fun if you could issue 'non-sanctioned' or 'black market' bounty contracts that do not grant kill rights and that do not require kill rights to create.
I'm talking about putting a hit out on somebody.
The formula for deriving the payout received would include not only he approximate isk value of the damage sustained by the target, but also the approximate isk value of the damage sustained by the assassin in accomplishing the kill (where 'damage' includes some monetary value attached to sec status loss).
This is basically a game mechanic for hiring people to perform suicide assassinations (or at least assassinations that will result in a large sec status loss) and guaranteeing their compensation if they succeed.
|
Arithron
Gallente Gallente Trade Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.08.10 18:13:00 -
[35]
Toman,
Watch out for the issue post re: Pirates, Hitpersons and other Illegal activities.
The purpose of this particular thread (BH and Mercs) is to add depth to LEGAL CONCORD-sanctioned activities.
Take care, Arithron
|
Strill
|
Posted - 2008.08.10 22:46:00 -
[36]
Originally by: Dierdra Vaal As for setting a contract when you dont have kill rights, this could be a problem, UNLESS the contract then does not yield a derived kill right.
Ya. That's the idea. You don't need kill rights for the bounty hunter to be able to do their job, especially if the target is in low-sec or 0.0 sec, but they'd need to see that on the contract. It's just a pro-sandboxing thing.
|
Esmenet
|
Posted - 2008.08.10 22:52:00 -
[37]
Cant be arsed to read the 6 page file as its not worth it to be that detailed. But its been pretty clear for a looong time that bounty hunting needs work and something similar to what you outlined has been suggested many times.
Merc corps work pretty good as it is. Vote against the nano nerf! |
Etil DeLaFuente
Obsidian Inc. KIA Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.08.11 00:51:00 -
[38]
|
Dierdra Vaal
|
Posted - 2008.08.11 19:22:00 -
[39]
Originally by: Strill
Originally by: Dierdra Vaal As for setting a contract when you dont have kill rights, this could be a problem, UNLESS the contract then does not yield a derived kill right.
Ya. That's the idea. You don't need kill rights for the bounty hunter to be able to do their job, especially if the target is in low-sec or 0.0 sec, but they'd need to see that on the contract. It's just a pro-sandboxing thing.
an interesting idea, I'll see if I can work it into the final document :)
Training Director :: EVE University
CSM Representative |
Becq Starforged
Minmatar Ship Construction Services
|
Posted - 2008.08.11 22:40:00 -
[40]
Good idea. A couple of thoughts:
Regarding bounties, there needs to be a way to prevent the hunted player from interfering or even benefit from the arrangement. For example, I'd want to make sure that the bounty payoff plus insurance was not enough to make it worthwhile for the hunted player to benefit by suiciding themselves to his own alt. Also, there needs to be a way to prevent a character from accepting a bounty for the express purpose of ensuring that nobody else does.
You may have already considered these points, but to make sure, I'd stress that the contract can be accepted by any number of bounty hunters, and payments are first come first served until the bounty contract is completed. The bounty payment amount should be worth no more than about half of the full insurance value of the target, and the the maximum insurance payment for the destroyed ship should be reduced by the same amount. (In the case of T2 ships, this should probably be bumped to several times the insurance amount.) Note that modules need not be included in the ship valuation, since the hunter will get about half of the modules as loot.
Some thought needs to be given to how large a bounty can be set, how many times the hunted player can be killed, etc. For example, if it is limited to one ship loss as it is now, there's incentive for the hunted to sacrifice a cheap ship to cancel the bounty; if there is no limit to the number of attacks that can be made against the target, then there is potential for griefing.
Also, there should probably be some way of identifying those who have dispensation to kill you in high sec. Perhaps a star in a color other than those currently used for war targets or corp/alliance/militia members?
Regarding the merc contracts, this is an interesting idea. There should probably be additional capability to incorporate per-kill 'bounties' in the contract, with amounts based on some measure of ship value. It might be worthwhile to simplify this idea to a contract type that automatically files for and funds the wardec and ensures the payment of contracted amounts.
-- Becq Starforged Ushra'Khan
The Flame of Freedom Burns On! |
|
Grann Thefauto
Running with Knives
|
Posted - 2008.08.11 23:22:00 -
[41]
Yes.
|
Strill
|
Posted - 2008.08.12 00:38:00 -
[42]
Originally by: Becq Starforged Some thought needs to be given to how large a bounty can be set. The current limit of one kill is too little, and there's incentive for the hunted to sacrifice a cheap ship to cancel the bounty. But if killing the hunted is more or less unlimited, as in your plan, then there is potential for griefing. Perhaps the limit should be a multiple of the value of the ship loss that created the kill right to begin with.
The limit could just be the maximum bounty amount set in the contract. Once the bounty hunter kills the target enough times to claim the whole bounty, the contract is fulfilled and they lose their derived kill rights.
|
Reynolds
Third Return Inc. Blue Sun Trust
|
Posted - 2008.08.12 00:45:00 -
[43]
|
Dierdra Vaal
|
Posted - 2008.08.12 02:22:00 -
[44]
Originally by: Strill
Originally by: Becq Starforged Some thought needs to be given to how large a bounty can be set. The current limit of one kill is too little, and there's incentive for the hunted to sacrifice a cheap ship to cancel the bounty. But if killing the hunted is more or less unlimited, as in your plan, then there is potential for griefing. Perhaps the limit should be a multiple of the value of the ship loss that created the kill right to begin with.
The limit could just be the maximum bounty amount set in the contract. Once the bounty hunter kills the target enough times to claim the whole bounty, the contract is fulfilled and they lose their derived kill rights.
that is the current idea :)
Training Director :: EVE University
CSM Representative |
Kano Sekor
Amarr The Movement
|
Posted - 2008.08.12 11:22:00 -
[45]
Agreed, if the bounty hunter is flashy red to the person with the bounty on his head.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
|
Arithron
Gallente Gallente Trade Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.08.12 12:07:00 -
[46]
That's the point of bounty hunters- you don't know who they are till they try and collect the bounty
Once they start to try and collect, they'll start flashing red....
Arithron
|
Dierdra Vaal
|
Posted - 2008.08.13 21:07:00 -
[47]
I finally remembered the main reason we limited mercenaries from entering the war on the side of the agressor:
Corp A declares war on corp B.
Corp A is actually part of a group of griefer corps, issues merc contracts for this war with 0 fees. Allied griefer corps accept, and voila, free wars!
It would open up a whole can of worms for corporations to gain free wars easily on targets of their choosing.
Training Director :: EVE University
CSM Representative |
Herschel Yamamoto
Bloodmoney Incorporated
|
Posted - 2008.08.13 21:42:00 -
[48]
Originally by: Dierdra Vaal I finally remembered the main reason we limited mercenaries from entering the war on the side of the agressor:
Corp A declares war on corp B.
Corp A is actually part of a group of griefer corps, issues merc contracts for this war with 0 fees. Allied griefer corps accept, and voila, free wars!
It would open up a whole can of worms for corporations to gain free wars easily on targets of their choosing.
Then make the joiners pay wardec fees. ------------------ Fix the forums! |
Lucy'Lastic
|
Posted - 2008.08.14 00:08:00 -
[49]
Yes.
|
Elektrea
SniggWaffe
|
Posted - 2008.08.14 02:27:00 -
[50]
----------
|
|
Cpt Branko
Surge. NIght's Dawn
|
Posted - 2008.08.14 03:57:00 -
[51]
Edited by: Cpt Branko on 14/08/2008 03:58:25
Originally by: Dierdra Vaal
Mercenary
- Mercenary corporations can issue mercenary contracts with their fees
- Corporations involved in a concord sanctioned war can accept the merc contracts, but only if that corporation did not start the war
- Once accepted, the mercenary force enters the existing CONCORD war dec on the side of their employer
- Payment of the mercenaries is fully automated
That's horrible.
Why shouldn't I be able to recruit mercs to help me in a war I started? Why shouldn't I be able to just pay them to wardec someone's alt corp? Etc.
Seriously now, what do you want with the changes? The mercenary profession is quite fine.
Seriously, did any of you CSM people hear about the 'it's not broken, don't break in on purpose'? It's a simple concept to grasp.
Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint |
TimMc
Genos Occidere
|
Posted - 2008.08.14 04:44:00 -
[52]
|
Akarr Creitos
|
Posted - 2008.08.14 08:08:00 -
[53]
I like it.
|
Holy Lowlander
Aurora Acclivitous Paxton Federation
|
Posted - 2008.08.14 08:48:00 -
[54]
Edited by: Holy Lowlander on 14/08/2008 08:48:44 This is a really good idea .
It will actually make sense to put a bountey on someone after this .
But there is a small thing I see as a problem. If you put a bountey on someone you expect him/her to get killed and you don't care if the person that is going to do it has a high or a low standing with IRD . You do however care if he does the job or not.
IRD standing has very litle to do with that .... Someone with low pvp experience can get lots of IRD standing by just killing a ton of people via bountey contracts in jita . While a more expierenced pvper might go looking for that one big special badguy, fly trough potentially dangerous space . To gather intel on his target and eventually pin him down and kill him.
Now who of these 2 people would you like to go after your 100 m bountey contract on the goonswarm CEO ^^ :P.
edit : I forgot the thumbs up !!!
Quote: woot I wants a toy arbitrator !!! :O
|
Doonoo Boonoo
|
Posted - 2008.08.14 11:31:00 -
[55]
Good stuff.
|
Maulos
Caldari the united
|
Posted - 2008.08.14 12:30:00 -
[56]
/signed
|
Maximillian Bayonette
White Lion Manufacture and Salvage
|
Posted - 2008.08.14 18:00:00 -
[57]
I think you're on the right track, in as much as the bounty system needing a rework, but this idea is just more rigid mechanics and "cans" and "can'ts" forced upon the game. Not supported, sadly.
|
Xeno Xandovar
Nebula Rasa Holdings Nebula Rasa
|
Posted - 2008.08.14 18:06:00 -
[58]
+1.
|
Somealt Ofmine
|
Posted - 2008.08.14 18:17:00 -
[59]
Your merc contracts thing sounds good on the surface, but you're going to have wise-guy merc corps out there who accept contracts and then split the fee with the deccing corp to get the war lifted without firing a shot or losing a ship.
The net effect will be that the corp that got decced paid a ransom, even though that's what they were trying to avoid.
Making bounties into open contracts that anyone can accept wouldn't solve the issue of them being too easy to exploit. Here is a suggestion that I made, C&Ped from the features ideas section for your convenience:
Bounty Hunting Levels
Works basically the same as levels in missions. As you progress in level you're allowed to go after progressively bigger targets.
Level 1: Up to 1,000,000 bounty Level 2: Up to 10,000,000 Level 3: Up to 100,000,000 Level 4: Up to 1,000,000,000 Level 5: Unlimited
To achieve each level, you need a certain number of "confirmed kills" with a passible k/d ratio.
Level 2: 50 kills 60% k/d Level 3: 250 kills, 70% k/d Level 4: 500 kills, 80% k/d Level 5: 1000 kills, 90% k/d
This does a couple of things. It makes bounty hunting into a "real" profession that has a progression and some prestige to it, and it makes it harder to exploit. By the time you get to the upper levels, you are a proven, dedicated bounty hunter, so someone who cheezes off a rich industrialist and gets a 1b bounty on his head won't be able to just have a random buddy of his pod him and split the bounty.
Bounty Hunting Locator
Let bounty hunters communicate with locator agents from space. The higher you go in the profession the higher the level agent you can use. Higher level agents provide quicker answers.
Sec Status Requirement
You have to get a Concord license to go bounty hunting. You obviously have to have a positive sec status. Criminal activity of any kind, or associating with criminals (i.e. being in the same corp, trading with them or giving them money) can cost you your license. Net effect is that you have to choose pirating, or bounty hunting, but not both.
Target Requirements
Licensed bounty hunters can collect bounties anywhere in space for those who either:
a) Have a sec. status under -2.0 b) Belong to a corp that has been the aggressor in an Empire war within the last 30 days.
This keeps "civilians" from being targeted and griefed with bounties.
Level Decay and Reset
To maintain your bounty hunter level you must maintain the k/d ratio for that level, and 10% of the required kills for that level per month. Failure to do so will bump you down to the next lower level. Bounty hunter level resets to 1 upon character transfer.
This keeps people (high level pirates, especially) from buying and warehousing bounty hunter alts to use to collect the bounties on themselves. It also requires that the player be a fairly dedicated bounty hunter to stay at the upper levels of the profession.
|
Hamfast
|
Posted - 2008.08.14 19:03:00 -
[60]
I read the PDF file and like the idea...
Some points - Bounties are looked at as way to "Cost" the target... thus a Bounty Contract is issued (as described, by a person with kill rights) with several amounts...
1) Total Bounty to be paid out - this is the total ISK value that will be paid out for this contract. 2) Damage % - This is a value, between 20%(minimum) and 80% (maximum).
A Bounty Hunter accepts a contract, finds and attacks the target of that bounty contract and destroys the ship the target is in... 100% of the insurance value of that ship is multiplied by the Damage % and paid to the Bounty Hunter from the Total Bounty. If the Target of the Contract is Podded, the total cost of the replacement Clone (Closest Clone that covers the targetĘs SP) and any implants (Average Market Value * Damage Mod for implants) is deducted from the total bounty and paid to the Bounty Hunter. Only the Clone Replacement cost is not modified by the Damage % in the pay out process. The Bounty Hunters are paid by their results... and podding a naked Clone Pod is not all that impressive.
The other thing that I remember was it seems that there was a limitation on who could accept the contract placed by the contractor, and I disagree with that idea, the Bounty Contract system should be blind... Put the contract out there and let the chips fall where they may.
Another change would be the targets of Bounties need to be visible ū we currently can see a little Skull icon on a pilot with a bounty on their head, that icon should remain, the amount of the bounty should not show, just that that pilot has a Bounty Contract on their head.
--------*****--------
"Just think how stupid the average person is, and then realize that half of them are even stupider!" --George Carlin |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |