Assembly Hall

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
5 PagesPrevious page1234Next pageLast page
 

[Proposal] Bounty system reform

First post
Author
#21 - 2011-10-26 23:37:47 UTC
One thing that just occurred to me: have you considered the ramification this poses for newer, relatively poor players that might get griefed with a huge bounty just for lulz? How badly might that impact on them and their prospects of going about their business or moving out to low or null sec eventually, and how could they rid their toon of the huge target sign they'd carry around that way?
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#22 - 2011-10-26 23:44:32 UTC
Solo Player wrote:
One thing that just occurred to me: have you considered the ramification this poses for newer, relatively poor players that might get griefed with a huge bounty just for lulz? How badly might that impact on them and their prospects of going about their business or moving out to low or null sec eventually, and how could they rid their toon of the huge target sign they'd carry around that way?


Currently I believe bountying a pilot requires that the pilot have -1.0 or lower security. If, in the scenario you describe, New Bee goes around pissing people off and winding up with -1.0 security simultaneously, I don't see a problem with someone shoving a huge bounty on him. If that's a problem for him, he can stay in hisec where it's less likely that he will be killed by bounty hunters, until he winds up at -5.0 security status, at which point he knows what he's getting into, unless he's a complete idiot. In either case, I don't see the problem. P
#23 - 2011-10-26 23:45:30 UTC  |  Edited by: paritybit
Solo Player wrote:
One thing that just occurred to me: have you considered the ramification this poses for newer, relatively poor players that might get griefed with a huge bounty just for lulz? How badly might that impact on them and their prospects of going about their business or moving out to low or null sec eventually, and how could they rid their toon of the huge target sign they'd carry around that way?


And this is one of the many reasons you would want to tie this to killrights or at least criminality somehow. And then maybe you could limit the bounty to some isk amount based on the hull lost in the criminal action (limit it to 3x the hull cost or something reasonable).

Ogopogo Mu wrote:

I'm not advocating for any other changes to things like hisec kill rights, etc. If you want to go after a bounty, declare war, suicide gank, or catch the target in low/null. I'd rather keep the bounty proposal here as simple as possible so that it can be feasibly implemented with a minimum of goofy side-effects to exploit. Once that's done, and if bounty hunting becomes popular as an activity, maybe further refinements can be proposed.


I wasn't proposing that the bounty hunters be allowed to pursue targets in high-sec, though I think that's a logical step. Rather, I was suggesting a mechanic to prevent abuse.
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#24 - 2011-10-26 23:54:46 UTC
paritybit wrote:
Solo Player wrote:
One thing that just occurred to me: have you considered the ramification this poses for newer, relatively poor players that might get griefed with a huge bounty just for lulz? How badly might that impact on them and their prospects of going about their business or moving out to low or null sec eventually, and how could they rid their toon of the huge target sign they'd carry around that way?


And this is one of the many reasons you would want to tie this to killrights or at least criminality somehow. And then maybe you could limit the bounty to some isk amount based on the hull lost in the criminal action (limit it to 3x the hull cost or something reasonable).


Under such a limitation how would someone's rich friend bounty someone for him?

How would you bounty someone for corp theft, scams, POS destruction or other indirect asshattery?
#25 - 2011-10-27 00:06:05 UTC
Ogopogo Mu wrote:
Under such a limitation how would someone's rich friend bounty someone for him?


Give him the money.

Ogopogo Mu wrote:
How would you bounty someone for corp theft, scams, POS destruction or other indirect asshattery?


Contract with a mercenary group.

If there is a security status limitation you already have this problem. What if the corp thief, scammer or POS killer doesn't have a negative security status? Just because you don't like the pilot doesn't mean CONCORD has anything against the pilot.
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#26 - 2011-10-27 00:17:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Ogopogo Mu
Perhaps, but you can merc-contract anyway for any reason. Merc contract is very different from bountying as proposed here:

1) Hiring mercs is outside the economic purview of an average person in most cases; contributing something to a bounty escrow is not
2) Hiring mercs is usually time-limited (though this can vary with the contract, but wardecs cost money even if the target is logged off or staying in a station); a bounty stays until things explode
3) Hiring mercs can be a scam in itself; possible, but harder, to scam an NPC escrow
4) Hiring mercs is more effective as a measure against a corporation, not a single pilot
4) A bounty is a kick me sign that everyone can see, not just a deccing merc corporation

As far as security status, yes. The bounty system isn't a universal "I don't like you" system. However, there are many circumstances where limiting the ISK placed into a bounty is, well, limiting. If a flashy blows up my shuttle and I'm mad enough to drop 1B into an escrow, I think that's okay, even if it's probably stupid for me to do so. If a few flashies catch some cheap Ospreys and as a result a POS doesn't get repaired and goes down, I don't see why the corp should be prevented from placing an apparently ridiculous bounty on the guys who unknowingly intercepted their logistics. Hell, if a rich person places giant bounties on every -5.0 and lower in lowsec and starts a feeding frenzy, that's perfectly legitimate as well, and may get people into lowsec for once. All are legitimate pursuits, I think.

But this is derailing a bit. Small steps.
#27 - 2011-10-27 00:53:04 UTC  |  Edited by: paritybit
I agree that this is a problem. But there are a few fundamental decisions you have to make about your kick-me sign.

How do you want to restrict application of the kick-me sign?

I think in general you want to restrict the kick-me sign to players that have done a bad thing. But you have to define bad thing. If you define bad thing in terms of actions that can't be measured by the software then you can't restrict with the software anymore. At this point, the only bad thing we can detect with software is exploding someone's spaceship. You can see that this is how bounties are restricted now to people with negative security status; but the set of people who do bad things aren't restricted to that set.

Do you want to restrict the size of the kick-me sign and the stickiness of the tape that binds it, and if so, how do you want to do it?

I posit that you do want to restrict the duration/size because we are making the kick-me sign have actual meaning. This has got to be tied to the size/duration of the bad thing. Because the only bad thing we can detect is exploding someone's spaceship, logically it's the only thing we can measure. Since the kick-me sign is supposed to be incentive to take away the spaceship of the person that did a bad thing I don't see a reason not to link them directly. The current system is so restrictive that if a positive security status player pods you out of your high-grade snakes you wouldn't be able to place a bounty on him.

I think this is especially true if it's going to impose any other kind of penalty (aside from the kick-me sign) such as reducing or removing insurance payouts.

Which is worse, allowing a bounty for any reason but only on a negative security status player or allowing a bounty only for known criminal actions regardless of security status?

I like the way Taurean Eltanin discusses this issue by making a distinction between bounty hunters in Star Wars who are generally bad people working for other bad people versus bounty hunters who are good guys (he uses Judge Dredd as an example, but I know nothing of him). The model for Star Wars is all about mercenaries -- you hire somebody you know will take care of business for you and you pay them when you are satisfied. There's no law involved and you don't find jobs by sitting down at your computer and scanning the galactic bounty hunter network.

At the end of the day, I'm okay with a small-ish change here -- something that would make bounties worthwhile without the bells and whistles I'm suggesting -- and your original proposal fits that bill. But I think we should at least discuss the additional ideas, rules and issues because in my optimistic world I believe CCP (or their representative) will take the kernel of this idea and make it their own by pulling in interesting bits rather than plugging in exactly what any of us said individually.

I think bounty hunting has the potential to be great even if it's not exactly what I want it to be.

I write too much.
Ivy League
#28 - 2011-10-27 13:01:57 UTC
1. Who's going to pay for the bounty? Because if I want to put a bounty on X's head, I can't do it depending on if he's going to fly a shuttle or a titan when he decides to get killed.
And obviously CONCORD isn't going to pay it since are the players who decide who has a bounty on his head.

2. Adding insurances to the bounty? Do you really think anyone is going to pay for an insurance that, if they get destroyed, they arent going to recive back?

For me the only posibility is a randomized bounty mission system where you recive a target base on a similar Sp range (maybe region too), and you can only reject a mission once per week. You also cant be assigned targets within your own alliance. That should solve it.
#29 - 2011-10-27 20:02:26 UTC
Qvar Dar'Zanar wrote:
1. Who's going to pay for the bounty? Because if I want to put a bounty on X's head, I can't do it depending on if he's going to fly a shuttle or a titan when he decides to get killed.
And obviously CONCORD isn't going to pay it since are the players who decide who has a bounty on his head.


Bounties only apply up to the amount the vengeful player originally entered. As soon as that is covered, things continue as before the bounty was set. Bounty hunters will not get a higher bounty just because they destroyed stuff that was worth a lot more than the bounty.

Quote:
2. Adding insurances to the bounty? Do you really think anyone is going to pay for an insurance that, if they get destroyed, they arent going to recive back?


Nobody is, unless they want to get rid of the bounty sooner. But that's part of the point, isn't it?
#30 - 2011-10-27 20:11:07 UTC
Ogopogo Mu wrote:

Currently I believe bountying a pilot requires that the pilot have -1.0 or lower security. If, in the scenario you describe, New Bee goes around pissing people off and winding up with -1.0 security simultaneously, I don't see a problem with someone shoving a huge bounty on him. If that's a problem for him, he can stay in hisec where it's less likely that he will be killed by bounty hunters, until he winds up at -5.0 security status, at which point he knows what he's getting into, unless he's a complete idiot. In either case, I don't see the problem. P


I can see how that makes sense for the case I specified. But I'm not sure I like it. There should be a way to place a bounty on anyone who crossed you. Maybe limit bounties to the net worth of the bountied (is that even a word?) player's assets? Or possibly, to not reveal actual net worth that way, to the average net worth of characters of the target toon's age. I'm sure the Good Doctor has a curve for just that lying about somewhere.
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#31 - 2011-10-27 20:31:29 UTC
Solo Player wrote:
Ogopogo Mu wrote:

Currently I believe bountying a pilot requires that the pilot have -1.0 or lower security. If, in the scenario you describe, New Bee goes around pissing people off and winding up with -1.0 security simultaneously, I don't see a problem with someone shoving a huge bounty on him. If that's a problem for him, he can stay in hisec where it's less likely that he will be killed by bounty hunters, until he winds up at -5.0 security status, at which point he knows what he's getting into, unless he's a complete idiot. In either case, I don't see the problem. P


I can see how that makes sense for the case I specified. But I'm not sure I like it. There should be a way to place a bounty on anyone who crossed you. Maybe limit bounties to the net worth of the bountied (is that even a word?) player's assets? Or possibly, to not reveal actual net worth that way, to the average net worth of characters of the target toon's age. I'm sure the Good Doctor has a curve for just that lying about somewhere.


As paritybit pointed out, there's currently no heuristic for software to track many activities that **** people off, including scamming/being a jerk in local/corp theft. I think for the more abstract cases, counter-pissing-off or mercs are still viable, as is just ignoring the person. I'm not really looking at bounties as a catch-all for all behavioral problems in the game; I just want to propose a relatively simple mathematical solution to a long-broken system.

Regarding character age/assets: I unsubbed for a long time (twice), and so I don't have the SP or ISK/assets you might expect based merely on toon age. Some other characters are disproportionately rich/poor, for whatever reason, and you can always hide assets on a second account if you want.
#32 - 2011-10-27 20:57:24 UTC
Ogopogo Mu wrote:
I just want to propose a relatively simple mathematical solution to a long-broken system.

Regarding character age/assets: I unsubbed for a long time (twice), and so I don't have the SP or ISK/assets you might expect based merely on toon age. Some other characters are disproportionately rich/poor, for whatever reason, and you can always hide assets on a second account if you want.


That's why I suggested that limit - it's not perfect (heck, this toon is worth ~5000isk plus a noobship at a few years of age! ;) ), but it would restrict abuse of bounties to grief new players with a simple mechanic. I believe -1.0 sec is just too limiting and would reduce a bounty hunter's choice of targets significantly.
#33 - 2011-10-28 00:10:38 UTC
Nice one op.

I like this idea of bounties being payed out by concord based on the value of the ship.

I'm not sure how well the bounty system itself would cope if this was introduced. By this I mean quite a few bounties will be placed on hi-sec griefers so the only real way to collect is to sucide gank them or (shudders) try and war dec them.
But I guess you could leave that problem for the future and concentrate on solving the current one.



TL;DR
A very good idea. I want to see more discussion and debate.
#34 - 2011-10-28 05:05:29 UTC
Ogopogo Mu wrote:
Dead ship: Everyone on the killmail splits 25% of the base value of the destroyed ship and destroyed fittings (not dropped), up to the amount in escrow. The killers also split the insurance payout, if for some reason the wanted pilot had insurance.

Dead pod: Everyone on the killmail splits 75% of the base value of the implants plus 75% of the cost of the clone*, up to the amount in escrow.




Someone places a 6.25mil bounty on Vile Rat

Vile rat buys a hurricane from a buy order in Verge Vendor for 20mil
Vile platinum insures that hurricane for 23mil at a cost of 7mil
Vile has now spent 27mil

Vile undocks and shoots himself with his alt The Mittani Lol
The current Jita/ Index price used in determining bounty payout on a Hurricane is 25mil

Mittens recieves the 6.25mil for the bounty (25mil *25%)
Mittens recieves the insurance payout of 23mil Vile placed on the ship
Mittens has now recieved 29.25mil

29.25mil
-27.0mil
= 2.25mil in profit for Vile


The problem with things that try and "price" ships and modules is that they rely on homogenized prices or are location-centric. As we all know there can be wild price differences region to region.... especially when you can buy things from evac'ing corps.

Such a system also relys upon relative stagnation in prices. You might be able to mitigate this to an extent on hum-drum items, but contract items like deadspace and faction. If you bought a gistii-b SSB 2 years ago it is now valued at 2-3x the amount you paid for it. Moving it (in my case) isnt worth the time trasporting it to a hub. But if it meant I could collect a profit from a bounty by merely jump cloning... you see where I am going

Is the amount that can be gained significant? probably not. Is there still profit? Yes.

Can I haz 100M now?

Nerfing High-sec is never the answer. It is the question. The answer is 'YES'.

Test Alliance Please Ignore
#35 - 2011-10-28 05:40:04 UTC  |  Edited by: Ogopogo Mu
Zircon Dasher wrote:
Vile rat buys a hurricane from a buy order in Verge Vendor for 20mil
Vile platinum insures that hurricane for 23mil at a cost of 7mil


Not sure what the insurance value of a hurricane is (I don't have one handy), but in this case the profit was realized when rat bought a 23m base value ship for 20m. He effectively profited 3m on the purchase.

Zircon Dasher wrote:
The current Jita/ Index price used in determining bounty payout on a Hurricane is 25mil


I believe insurance values are derived from the base value of the typeID, not the market. I also intended for bounties to be paid on this same value, sorry that wasn't clear. The bounty value on the ship in question is (23m*25%)=5.75m.

Plat insurance costs 30% of the base value of the ship, so the policy costs 6.9m.

At base price, the profit (loss) for Vile rat/The Mittani is [-(BasePrice=23m)+(InsurancePayout=23m)-(PolicyCost=6.9m)+(Bounty=5.75m)]=(1.15m), minus the opportunity costs of setting himself and his alt up to do it.

If he got the hurricane at a discount, then he nets 1.85m on the scheme, minus the additional opportunity cost of shipping the thing in from Verge Vendor, but the profit is still predicated on someone selling below base value, not the alt-killing. Even then, he might have just flipped/refined it right way and realized a greater profit.

I agree that insurance is really the big problem in the system. However, I still want Trebor's money. P
#36 - 2011-10-28 06:49:15 UTC
How about you let Pend take the stance that a bounty increases their risk and thus have them reduce the base ship value the insurance payout is calculated from by the part of the ships's value the bounty hunter is to receive? If we let Pend handle bounties, they'd be in a good position to do just that.

Also, I'm not sure the insurance should go to the bounty hunter. Too much impact on newish players that are frivolously bountied (in relation to those that aren't. I still think insurance should take into account insured player's sec status and ship loss history when calculating insurance premium and possibly refuse payout for CONCORD-involved kills.).
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#37 - 2011-10-28 08:44:51 UTC
Solo Player wrote:
How about you let Pend take the stance that a bounty increases their risk and thus have them reduce the base ship value the insurance payout is calculated from by the part of the ships's value the bounty hunter is to receive? If we let Pend handle bounties, they'd be in a good position to do just that.

Also, I'm not sure the insurance should go to the bounty hunter. Too much impact on newish players that are frivolously bountied (in relation to those that aren't. I still think insurance should take into account insured player's sec status and ship loss history when calculating insurance premium and possibly refuse payout for CONCORD-involved kills.).


Insurance is a whole other ball of fish guts. Previously I thought it would make sense to give ship insurance to the hunters, but that does nothing to players killing themselves with alts in order to void the bounty, so there's no reason to do that. I'm not quite willing to jump into the horror of the insurance system yet, but at 25% of ship value an alt-kill loses a little, instead of losing a lot. Voiding all insurance on a wanted player unfairly penalizes poorer players. Applying insurance to the remaining bounty (as I think was what VR had put forth) takes more money out of the game, but it trivializes the intent of the players who placed the bounty.

Rather than try and fix two incredibly broken systems at once, I'm in favor of using a 25% ship-blower-upper value to mitigate insurance exploits, and pray that someone looks at the insurance system as a whole. If that's not sufficient, then you can always lower the ship-blower-upper percentage, or even do away with it, but I'd like to keep some sort of incentive to go after a ship even if the pod is likely to get away.

As for CONCORD, they don't get a share of the bounty. Consider these situations:

1) A player jumps into Jan and two bountied pilots jump him in battleships, triggering the gate guns as expected. The target is in a plated baitship and scrams the attackers instead of trying to slowboat out, and his friends warp in and take down the wanted pilots. They should get their share of the bounties even though the gate guns aggressed the attackers.

2) A hulk pilot with his drones out gets targeted by bountied gankers. He loses his ship, but his drones attack the gankships before CONCORD destroys them. He should get the bounties, piddly as they might be. (I can imagine a bunch of frigs trolling around trying to slap on a sensor damp to leech some of the money, leading to more hilarious escalations...)

If you mean that players get no insurance when CONCORD is on their killmail, I think that makes sense but it's out of scope for this proposal. A complex set of calculations to determine insurance rates, ehh... maybe it makes sense, but it also discourages explosions, which is one of the benefits of insurance. Personally I'd like to see all insurance pay out less for everyone no matter what, but again, out of scope.
Gallente Federation
#38 - 2011-10-28 11:54:37 UTC
Ogopogo Mu wrote:
I agree that insurance is really the big problem in the system. However, I still want Trebor's money. P


***** moan, ***** moan. Okay, I've paid you off. Of course, if something like this system does get implemented, I will put a price on your head.

Private Citizen • CSM in recovery

Test Alliance Please Ignore
#39 - 2011-10-28 12:36:23 UTC  |  Edited by: Ogopogo Mu
If that dinosaur of a system ever gets improved, I'll gladly be bountied.

OT: Best wallet comment evar.
Gallente Federation
#40 - 2011-10-28 15:50:42 UTC
I'll start by saying I'm a big fan of the general idea, but when I read the original post I was a little unhappy with assigning arbitrary value to implants and using them as part of the bounty (then again, I wasn't happy when dropped mods and implants appeared on killmails). On second read I'm really uncomfortable with the whole assigning arbitrary value to player produced items, especially things like faction mods.

And the insurance thing is just a ****** attempt to squeeze a controversial idea in on the back of a popular one.
5 PagesPrevious page1234Next pageLast page
Forum Jump