EVE Information Portal

 
^ Back to top

Topic is locked indefinitely.

 

Dev Blog: Bounties, Kill Rights, New Modules and War in Retribution

Jump to first DEV post
Author
Loosely Affiliated Pirates Alliance
#261 Posted: 2012.11.26 21:08
CCP SoniClover wrote:
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
If I understand the kill rights mechanic, making your kill right available to everyone means everyone can buy the kill right at any time. As you pointed out, if the kill right is cheap then people are going to have alts or friends blow up their rookie ships to get rid of the kill right, and if the kill right is expensive there's no too high a chance of it being activated by most people.

However, think about what this does to the bounty hunting profession. Suppose you're looking around for people with kill rights for sale and you want to rack up kills for yourself. Since people with cheap kill rights aren't going to keep them for very long and are most likely to easily discard them, I'm left with kill rights I'll have to pay a fair amount of isk for. Let's say most kill rights that aren't easily discarded run in the 50-100 million isk range.

What incentive do I have to pay for a kill right that once activated, anybody in the vicinity can take advantage of? If I buy a killright I should be paying to have the chance to take someone down myself, not to make it so CONCORD completely ignores aggression from anyone and everyone at that time. This game mechanic makes absolutely no sense. Why should I pay for everyone else to shoot the same target I want to shoot at? Why can't I just pay for myself to shoot at the target?


EVEN IF this kill right was restricted to my corporation or just me, when I activate it that still gives everyone in the vicinity the opportunity to attack. The only thing this really changes is who is forced to pay to activate the kill right, and who gets to decide when and where the engagement is. There's absolutely no control whatsoever on who can get involved. This doesn't make any sense.

Still waiting for comment on this.



People have to be careful when activating a kill right about time and place. This is by design.

I would imagine that NOT allowing everyone in the area to attack the target (simply giving them a suspect flag, amiright?) would create a huge, tangled web of aggression dependencies, and that was a factor in the decision to do it this way.
cockandballs. Every. Time. EvE Spaceship Guide Works in game only and not updated often
#262 Posted: 2012.11.26 22:31
Gogela wrote:
CCP SoniClover wrote:
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
If I understand the kill rights mechanic, making your kill right available to everyone means everyone can buy the kill right at any time. As you pointed out, if the kill right is cheap then people are going to have alts or friends blow up their rookie ships to get rid of the kill right, and if the kill right is expensive there's no too high a chance of it being activated by most people.

However, think about what this does to the bounty hunting profession. Suppose you're looking around for people with kill rights for sale and you want to rack up kills for yourself. Since people with cheap kill rights aren't going to keep them for very long and are most likely to easily discard them, I'm left with kill rights I'll have to pay a fair amount of isk for. Let's say most kill rights that aren't easily discarded run in the 50-100 million isk range.

What incentive do I have to pay for a kill right that once activated, anybody in the vicinity can take advantage of? If I buy a killright I should be paying to have the chance to take someone down myself, not to make it so CONCORD completely ignores aggression from anyone and everyone at that time. This game mechanic makes absolutely no sense. Why should I pay for everyone else to shoot the same target I want to shoot at? Why can't I just pay for myself to shoot at the target?


EVEN IF this kill right was restricted to my corporation or just me, when I activate it that still gives everyone in the vicinity the opportunity to attack. The only thing this really changes is who is forced to pay to activate the kill right, and who gets to decide when and where the engagement is. There's absolutely no control whatsoever on who can get involved. This doesn't make any sense.

Still waiting for comment on this.



People have to be careful when activating a kill right about time and place. This is by design.

I would imagine that NOT allowing everyone in the area to attack the target (simply giving them a suspect flag, amiright?) would create a huge, tangled web of aggression dependencies, and that was a factor in the decision to do it this way.


Yeah, I'm pretty sure that this particular aspect of the system isn't going to end up being changed for that very reason.
To carve a successful niche for yourself in EVE you need to be able to out sell, out produce, out fight,  out run, or out wit your competitors.
If you can do none of the above, your only option is to complain on the forums that somehow you are at a disadvantage using the exact same tool set as the rest of the player base.
Outlaw Horizon.
#263 Posted: 2012.11.26 22:46
CCP Sonic Lover, thankyou.
#264 Posted: 2012.11.26 22:50
So if I get that right then CCP sees no problems in dual medium ASB frigates, at all. It's entirely on par and not at all overpowered when compared to, say, an armour tanked frigate.

Right.
Amat victoria curam. Excellence in everything.

Some guides that may be useful to you: http://www.youtube.com/user/OrdoArdish
Goonswarm Federation
#265 Posted: 2012.11.26 22:53
Ranger 1 wrote:
Gogela wrote:
I would imagine that NOT allowing everyone in the area to attack the target (simply giving them a suspect flag, amiright?) would create a huge, tangled web of aggression dependencies, and that was a factor in the decision to do it this way.


Yeah, I'm pretty sure that this particular aspect of the system isn't going to end up being changed for that very reason.

Pretty certain the only reason this would be changed in any way, shape or form, is if it proves to be not enough to stop freighters from being ganked.
Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home.

RIP Vile Rat
Goonswarm Federation
#266 Posted: 2012.11.27 00:24
Gogela wrote:
I would imagine that NOT allowing everyone in the area to attack the target (simply giving them a suspect flag, amiright?) would create a huge, tangled web of aggression dependencies, and that was a factor in the decision to do it this way.

That's a cop-out and you know it. Seems to me giving the person or corp who activated the killright a limited engagement flag wouldn't constitute a "huge, tangled web of dependencies".
"Pretty much all 14 of the CSM were in favor of a drone assign nerf for OBVIOUS gameplay reasons" - Sala Cameron
Intergalactic Brotherhood
#267 Posted: 2012.11.27 02:11
Aethlyn wrote:
Don't think this has been asked here so far: Are there any plans for adjusting access to implants in space? E.g. to avoid people ripping out implants when they know they can't get away to avoid them showing up on kill mails (and to reduce bounty payouts)?


While engaged in combat with the agression timer .. CCP could make a message like

"Adrenaline is preventing you from removing your implants.. chill awhile and try again".

That way we can still manage in space and you can get your high end kill mails.
Bitten.
#268 Posted: 2012.11.27 10:05
Quote:
For the Micro Jump Drive, we will start by just doing a large version of this module (Large Micro Jump Drive)


Large Micro... I see what you did there.
#269 Posted: 2012.11.27 15:52
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Gogela wrote:
I would imagine that NOT allowing everyone in the area to attack the target (simply giving them a suspect flag, amiright?) would create a huge, tangled web of aggression dependencies, and that was a factor in the decision to do it this way.

That's a cop-out and you know it. Seems to me giving the person or corp who activated the killright a limited engagement flag wouldn't constitute a "huge, tangled web of dependencies".

Not to be argumentative, but I'm pretty sure that is exactly what would occur, just as it does under the current system.
To carve a successful niche for yourself in EVE you need to be able to out sell, out produce, out fight,  out run, or out wit your competitors.
If you can do none of the above, your only option is to complain on the forums that somehow you are at a disadvantage using the exact same tool set as the rest of the player base.
Goonswarm Federation
#270 Posted: 2012.11.27 15:57
Ranger 1 wrote:
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Gogela wrote:
I would imagine that NOT allowing everyone in the area to attack the target (simply giving them a suspect flag, amiright?) would create a huge, tangled web of aggression dependencies, and that was a factor in the decision to do it this way.

That's a cop-out and you know it. Seems to me giving the person or corp who activated the killright a limited engagement flag wouldn't constitute a "huge, tangled web of dependencies".

Not to be argumentative, but I'm pretty sure that is exactly what would occur, just as it does under the current system.

Do you have any evidence for this statement, or is it just speculation since you're not a CCP developer and don't have any access to the underlying code?
"Pretty much all 14 of the CSM were in favor of a drone assign nerf for OBVIOUS gameplay reasons" - Sala Cameron
Amarr Empire
#271 Posted: 2012.11.27 18:26
Jack Miton wrote:
Quote:
Salvage drones never loot, they only salvage. Also, there is no difference in the quality of the loot received – salvage drones can salvage the same items as the salvage modules, the only difference being that because of lower chance they are much worse at salvaging difficult wrecks (and are incapable of salvaging the most difficult Sleeper wrecks).


Me: yay, awesome new item that will be extremely useful in WHs, thanks guys!
CCP: oh i'm sorry, it doesnt work in WHs.

great.


I am with ya Jack.
#272 Posted: 2012.11.27 21:26  |  Edited by: GeeShizzle MacCloud
Gogela wrote:
CCP SoniClover wrote:

People have to be careful when activating a kill right about time and place. This is by design.

I would imagine that NOT allowing everyone in the area to attack the target (simply giving them a suspect flag, amiright?) would create a huge, tangled web of aggression dependencies, and that was a factor in the decision to do it this way.



also if you're the one activating the kill right, you're the one with the advantage of surprise so you're more likely to get the kill / have more time to deal damage etc.... to get the bounty. plus it helps lone mercs/bounty hunters as passing players can get involved and add to the downfall of the target.

at least as far as i can understand the system anyway.
Goonswarm Federation
#273 Posted: 2012.11.27 21:37
GeeShizzle MacCloud wrote:
Gogela wrote:
CCP SoniClover wrote:

People have to be careful when activating a kill right about time and place. This is by design.

I would imagine that NOT allowing everyone in the area to attack the target (simply giving them a suspect flag, amiright?) would create a huge, tangled web of aggression dependencies, and that was a factor in the decision to do it this way.



also if you're the one activating the kill right, you're the one with the advantage of surprise so you're more likely to get the kill / have more time to deal damage etc.... to get the bounty. plus it helps lone mercs/bounty hunters as passing players can get involved and add to the downfall of the target.

at least as far as i can understand the system anyway.

It's still not a system which is "a boon for bountyhunters".

I mean, come on, it's a system where someone pays to let everyone else shoot at someone, and the only benefit to being the one to activate the killright is a few seconds headstart, with no guarantee of being the one imparting the killing blow, so no guarantee you'd get the bounty, and everyone can run off with the loot so you don't even know if you can get that. How can anyone even possibly try to fob this off as "a boon for bountyhunters"?

It's a joke compared to what it should've been to be "a boon to bountyhunters", is what it is.
Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home.

RIP Vile Rat
Goonswarm Federation
#274 Posted: 2012.11.27 22:39
"We're not going to bother explaining why we did it this way even though we've been asked multiple times by multiple people. We're just going to ask you to trust us even though we've often demonstrated in the past that we screw new features up in ways players predict prior to launch."
"Pretty much all 14 of the CSM were in favor of a drone assign nerf for OBVIOUS gameplay reasons" - Sala Cameron
Gallente Federation
#275 Posted: 2012.11.27 22:40  |  Edited by: Some Rando
Lord Zim wrote:
It's a joke compared to what it should've been to be "a boon to bountyhunters", is what it is.

Speaking of which, what the **** is up with "activating" a killright that you own (whether it was yours or assigned to yourself/organization)? I can understand having to activate public killrights, but it's downright ******** having to make an extra click and confirm for personal killrights. Treat them like a mini-wardec, or something else instead.
CCP has no sense of humour.
Goonswarm Federation
#276 Posted: 2012.11.27 22:45
Some Rando wrote:
Lord Zim wrote:
It's a joke compared to what it should've been to be "a boon to bountyhunters", is what it is.

Speaking of which, what the **** is up with "activating" a killright that you own (whether it was yours or assigned to yourself/organization)? I can understand having to activate public killrights, but it's downright ******** having to make an extra click and confirm for personal killrights. Treat them like a mini-wardec, or something else instead.

It's most likely so someone who has gotten shot at, webbed, pointed or had any other such killright-generating actions applied to them can stalk the guy and randomly activate the killright and hope all the other vigilantes on the gates will take the opportunity to kill him for you.

Remember the stereotypical little geek hiding behind the schoolyard bully, popping his head out from behind him, shaking his fist and going "yeah!"?

Yeah, the guy with the killright is going to end up being that guy.
Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home.

RIP Vile Rat
Caldari State
#277 Posted: 2012.11.27 23:16  |  Edited by: Nyla Skin
Mika Takahoshi wrote:
Cordo Draken wrote:
*Sigh* Wormholes that can intelligently choose not to let certain people through... Well, I see your point, but I would still argue that a Concord ship should be the result of being stopped (giving a slim chance of escaping) vs an impossible logic. This also applies to a Criminal just suddenly not being able to move or do anything as if his/her own ship caused a mutiny. Again, I'd rather see Concord doing this vs a "Magically Force" preventing any movement. I just prefer things to make sense, then get an answer of "Because we said so."

Repeat to yourself, "It's just a game; I should really just relax."

A good lore handwave is always nice, but a gameplay mechanic for gameplay reasons is always vastly more important, and if you argue against the mechanic for lore reasons, you've lost perspective. Repeat the mantra...


I would rather have concord ships enter the wormhole (without destabilizing it any) and blast the owner on the other side, then come back. That would make more sense than miraculously preventing the ship from entering the wormhole.

I know its too much hassle for the programmers but just saying.
In after the lock :P  
- CCP Falcon
www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies
#278 Posted: 2012.11.28 09:34  |  Edited by: Vilnius Zar
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
"We're not going to bother explaining why we did it this way even though we've been asked multiple times by multiple people. We're just going to ask you to trust us even though we've often demonstrated in the past that we screw new features up in ways players predict prior to launch."



CCP: new feature!
players: lol, that's gonna cause these and these problems, we'll bug report it
BH: working as intended!
players: CCP, honestly... that's just gonna go wrong because of A and B reasons
CCP: nah looks good, lets do it!


:launch:
:3 months later:
tiny dev blog: it looks as if this new feature has gone slightly wrong because of A and B reasons and completely messes up players/market/balance (pick two). We didn't realise this, sorry guys
players: NO ****
Amat victoria curam. Excellence in everything.

Some guides that may be useful to you: http://www.youtube.com/user/OrdoArdish
Caldari State
#279 Posted: 2012.11.28 11:04  |  Edited by: Alexander Renoir
It will not be possible to place bounties on NPC characters (like agents) or corporations [...], nor on CCP developers or ISD people.


Thats fair? You do not want to be harassed or griefed; but ALL your paying customers have to deal with it? WHY?
Never done wrong things but will soon have bounty? Evil
If you want bounties, you will get bounties. I will spend bounties on EVERY LESS THAN A DAY player in my corp channel!
Abandon this stupid idea that someone with positive sec state can have a bounty. Change it so that someone with a negative sec state is NOT ABLE to push them back into positive so fast!

I know that a bounty is not a kill right. But the bounty system is controlled by CONCORD! Why will CONCORD allow to place bounties on someone who never did criminal acts?
A bounty gives someone a touch of a criminal. I never done criminal things in EVE. And I do not wish that someone other think that I have done something like that!

Bad Idea in the beginning!
The Marmite Collective
#280 Posted: 2012.11.29 00:50  |  Edited by: Cordo Draken
Vilnius Zar wrote:
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
"We're not going to bother explaining why we did it this way even though we've been asked multiple times by multiple people. We're just going to ask you to trust us even though we've often demonstrated in the past that we screw new features up in ways players predict prior to launch."



CCP: new feature!
players: lol, that's gonna cause these and these problems, we'll bug report it
BH: working as intended!
players: CCP, honestly... that's just gonna go wrong because of A and B reasons
CCP: nah looks good, lets do it!


:launch:
:3 months later:
tiny dev blog: it looks as if this new feature has gone slightly wrong because of A and B reasons and completely messes up players/market/balance (pick two). We didn't realise this, sorry guys
players: NO ****


A certain Dev a while back gave me crap because I suggested editing their OP to link an important update they posted which was buried within a 60 page plus thread, because I didn't have the time to wade through to find that post. Yet it's funny how they pick and choose what they'll somewhat answer here, blatantly ignoring major issues that we, the paying community, bring up in advance. They only answer the simple question while sidestepping what we know to be a broken mechanic. Is it Pride? I truly don't understand the neglegence... Especially when a issue is known far in advance. Any non-snide honest detailed answer to the major issues slated in this thread Devs?
Whomever said, "You only get one shot to make a good impression," was utterly wrong. I've made plenty of great impressions with my Autocannons 
Forum Jump