That’s hilariously ignorant. Safety. won’t search whole highsec and fly 30 jumps from Uedama to kill one Golem doing lvl 4 missions deep in Solitude. Why would they when they have better targets flying constantly into their bottleneck they camp? 1bil bounty that will be paid for such kills is nothing. The opportunity cost for ganking such player is ten times or even more times higher than the reward for them. Looks like you know nothing about gankers, so I would cease further comments on what would and wouldn’t do.
Not even wardeccers are doing this lately. They just camp trade hubs and wait for prey to come to them.
Yes gankers will enjoy return of the bounty system, in any form, because it is extra money being paid for the gank. But they are unlikely to hunt and search for them. I claimed few bils of bounty myself in past by killing miners, but I wasn’t targetting them specifically because they had bounty, it just happened that the victim I ganked had also a bounty and I get paid extra. That’s how it is.
Likewise, bounty system in this form will be much better tool against gankers than killrights. 1bil bounty on Aiko head given to Githany’s antiganging corp will surely motivate them to AG more don’t you think? Killrights are useless against -10 gankers since anyone can shoot them, but claiming bounty for killing them? That would definitely be a good incentive for many.
But that is his argument not mine I am stating that gankers won’t be actively hunting the target outside their jurisdiction. Whether anyone else will depends on target war eliglibility and whether he flies into ls/ns/wh/pochven or at least doing abyssals.
How? Aiko is docked all the time unless she finds a target. How is a bounty going to make it easier at all for AG to hunt her? Plus, you only get the 10M bounty for the Catalyst. That’s huge motivator, for sure. It only takes 100 Aiko kills to get the fictional 1B bounty. You know what this sounds like? A CCP idea for a grindy gameplay experience.
They will. They already operate in Derelik or Devoid or Khanid, which is even further away from their main bases in Uedama, Isanamo, Josameto, Balle, Odin and more systems. They don’t even have to search. All they have to do is check zkill or use locators to find the target within minutes. There is no tangible effort involved for them. Other groups, on the other hand, that have to setup everything from scratch and who don’t have any attack assets ready all over the cluster won’t look for targets in Solitude.
The opportunity cost for them to find and gank someone is much lower than for any other noname, wannabe group that wants to bounty hunt or gank. Reason for that? They have everything setup already. They have alts checking systems, scanning people and the alt swarms to gank what comes to them or what their alts find and looks juicy.
Other groups have not setup attack assets all over high sec. Gankers have.
You keep throwing that word “jurisdiction” around and I get the feeling that you don’t understand the meaning of the word. Safety.'s “jurisdiction” is all of high sec. They gank literally everywhere. There is no region where they do not gank.
Everything you stated so far is disproven easily by a quick look at zkill. Maybe you want to educate yourself first about what gankers do before you throw around big words like these.
Meh, it was just a thought…
But since you ask, I would have to say no it would not for 99% of gankers…
I myself have somewhere around 40 gank alts…
Safety has its Alliance Mining Wing, and i know several gankers that maintain various mains or alts that run Lv4’s, or do the looting after killing a Freighter…if you think gankers are broke then you would be dead wrong.
Anyway im not going to continue here, i posted my 10 second idea already.
This level of nonsense hurts to read. I gave you good advice and you just made bigger fool of yourself by not taking it…
Anyway, when I thought about this more last night, I came to conclusion that this is such a major buff to antigankers and antiganking itself that I have to retract the idea.
Nevermind guys. It is not like CCP cares and reads any of this anyway either… I knew that from the very start, I just have this urge to propose suggestions to improve any game I play if I cannot mod it myself. But I guess I start working on my own game (server) again instead of wasting time here.
This is the issue CCP themselves have. If you propose any changes to the sandbox it’s going to upset as many people as it will make happy and the upset people will usually shout louder than the happy people.
How is to going to help AG in any way? Stop throwing a tantrum and tell me how it’s going to help them. I don’t see it at all.
A bounty for ganking a T1 Scanner frigate is not going to encourage anyone to do that because you get less bounty out of it than your Thrasher or Catalyst costs.
Bounties on bumping Machariels? They can just switch to cheap bumping Stabbers that also cost much more to gank than they give back in bounties, and they bump just as good as Machariels.
Their suicide tacklers? They sit on the gate and can jump at any moment. They are also not in the alliances themselves, which menas you need to bounty every single one of them. And on top of that you need to buy security tags all the time to be able to operate in high sec and, for instance, be able to stay on gates to guard ships without FacPo hunting you down. That adds even more cost.
There’s only one thing that could potentially be impacted by your bounty idea – and those are Tornado gankers. But even for those you need to invest more cost to gank them than the bounties give back, and they also usually sit inside the gate so that they can jump the moment something bad arrives.
And as said: the gankers are docked or tethered all the time. They only leave the safety of their station or structure once they have a target lined up.
Again: How is this bounty system going to help AG?
This has little to do with upsetting people. It’s simply a bad idea badly thought out and justified. Why should someone sugar-coat the downsides and ridiculous justifications just so that the suggesting person feels better?
Plus, the people that are happy about CCP ideas usually do not have the slightest clue about what the suggestions mean for the game. They just blissfully ignore everything outside their happy bubble.
I have come up with enough ideas for other features that were not that useless or, like other bounty system suggestions, easily abusable.
Coming up with ideas is not as hard as you think. You can throw around all sorts of ludicrous things and tell people it’s an idea. The hard work is to come up with ideas that are good and feasible. The other hard part is to poke the necessary holes into these ideas to either reveal it as rubbish and dangerous to the game that should be deleted from the forums, or to make it better and turn it into a reasonable and feasible proposal.
This suggestion has, as I stated in the beginning, one good aspect: It does not have killrights for ISK (which is the abusable part in most other bounty rework suggestions). However, the rest is just completely infeasible. Requiring people to gank a bounty target is a ridiculous proposition. It is beyond me how anyone could think that this is a good idea. Granted, this is the only way to work around the ridiculous abuse potential of killrights for ISK on the one hand and the ridiculous uselessness of limiting bounty killrights to pirates, but it’s a useless system nonetheless.
Another suggestion that has been floated several times in the past would be to limit killrights as reactions to illegal actions against you. If someone ganked you or stole your loot (wrecks “belong” to you and if someone else takes from them, they go suspect, thus commit an illegal action) or does something else that is illegal from the gameplay mechanics point of view, you could issue a bounty killright.
This idea is not abusable (someone has to illegally engage you so that you can issue a bounty KR, you have agency over how, when and if at all you issue the KR and you cannot issue bounty killrights against characters that have not illegally interacted with you) and it is feasible to act on the bounties (you do not have to lose a ship or many ships to get the bounty).
However, especially the point about limitations on who you can place a bounty is problematic. The reason for that is that, when CCP reworked the bounty system the last time into the useless percentage based payout system, they stated that they want to allow people to put bounties on anyone for any reason. As long as they uphold this principle, an actually not abusable, actually feasible bounty system is impossible to achieve.
See? There are better ideas than this bad suggestion. But as long as people keep suggestion bad ideas, the game will get bad features.
The difficult part about creating is not just having the imagination to come up with a new idea. (Which isn’t a gift everyone has) but also the confidence to potentially put your credibility on the line by sharing that idea with everyone.
Bad ideas don’t automatically get shoved into the game in the absence of anything else. Also it’s perfectly possible to address flaws in an idea without being a tool about it.
This reads simular to the Killright system but in reverse which is good as many can agree that a bounty system is required. Taking in account your idea above and applying conditions where the something like this is adopted into Bounty Y125?
We know that though with the Faction War will there be rewards that are system wide set for those who roll over the system and that is one style of pvp gameplay so we know that is getting updated.
Docking in Concord stations great idea, it means pilot would also need to have good standing ie we can’t have a pirate pilot doing shady bounties. Capsuleers earn the right to gain access would be the correct implementation .
A repair system where a counter bounty should also be concidered where one receives the bountry then the same amount value could remove such bounty without ship loss making a isk sink.
Bounties have time limit and can drop off if not completed adding another isk sink.
In closing are you suggesting on being able to set a bounty for every Corp member if that would be possible?