For the alt problem, one half-solution is to not allow alts to collect bounties for killing themselves. But that doesn’t stop players with multiple accounts from collecting on their own bounties.
Also, players can get friends to kill them and collect on the bounties that way.
If you can find a way to stop those things from happening, bounty hunters will start popping up.
Perhaps CCP can check the MAC or IP of the client. If two users with the same MAC/IP are detected, then bounties can’t be collected on those accounts for killing each other.
It may be a combination of things that have to check out, in order for bounty to be made… or assured that is is not from the same actual player yea. You are all smart mother fuckers here, I dont doubt that for one moment. there is a solution, we will find it if we choose to.
Id love to see bounty hunting work in this game. I wanted to do that from teh get go. I love the hunt. I have skills from irl that directly apply that give me a huge advantage over most.
As for detecting friends. It’s not a foolproof plan by any means, but maybe check if the user trying to collect a bounty is:
Good point.
So the solution needs to be less of a “collect posted bounty” mechanic, and more of a “license to harass/kill/destroy stuff” mechanic, issued by CONCORD but perhaps paid for by the bounty-poster. The hunter gets paid not out of the bounty but by the wanton devastation he inflicts on his target.
This seems like a reasonable approach. +1.
I know Im slow I forgot what I was supposed to be pondering again…
Step 1: Make kill rights searchable at the bounty office.
Step 2: unfuck intel
Step 3: pew pew pew
Step 4: ???
Step 5: profit
Edit : fyi I’ve spent years hunting players for isk, that’s all you really need to do to make it viable.
The isk from the bounty serves as a receipt,
a nominal in game payment to facilitate the informal arrangement between players.
The bounty system is rotten to the core and should be replaced completely. Trying to fix it is an exercise in futlity.
exactly… if its broken beyond repair, just recreate it.
You’re dangerously close to being deliberately obtuse. I’m trying to give you every benefit of the doubt in this discussion. But if this is a subject you care about, than any point I make (or has already been made in this very thread) should be obvious to you. And you haven’t addressed any one of them. In the name of good faith discussions, however, I’ll simply outline the biggest obstacles there are with changing the bounty system. By no means is this meant as a complete or thorough list, just a few of the biggest problems you’ll have.
1: There is no realistic way to prevent abuse of alts.
2: There is no realistic way to prevent abuse of friends.
3: There is no realistic way to get around Concord intervention, that won’t in itself be abused all to hell and back.
4: If #3 isn’t an issue to begin with, just shoot someone FFS.
It doesn’t matter what gameplay ideas you have, because you have to find a way to address those four things first and foremost before you even dive into mechanics about what bounty hunting would actually entail. And I wish you the best of luck with that, since thousands of players and dozens of devs have poured over the system for years to no avail.
Man, I would never want to see something like this. I would hate to have a bounty. I would not be able to mine in peace.
Why would I be deliberately obtuse? I’m giving you the benefit of the doubt too - even now. But all you are doing is making what in logic are called ‘bare assertions.’ Hey, look, for all I know everything you are saying is true, and X (for all the X’s you list) is impossible to fix. But none of it is impossible to fix just because you state it is.
I’m not saying you are wrong. I’m absolutely willing to listen to anything you have to say. Maybe you’ve already thought about these things, and the issues you state are obvious to you.
But others haven’t thought about it as long or as carefully as you have, so we need to be brought up to speed. Bare assertions aren’t the way to do that.
Okay, let’s get back to basics then.
Whatever revamps to the bounty hunting system need to not be exploitable by alts and/or friends (and there’s no realistic way to exclude them, insofar as I can see or has been raised in any thread related to this topic). It can’t be used to grief people at random or for extended periods of time. And it can’t interfere with the general protections of Concord (outside of highsec, such a system is largely moot anyway).
So with that in mind, how do you get game mechanics to define social constructs that largely exist outside the game (i.e. friends)? How do you have such a system bring anything meaningful to the table without it being a griefing tool? How does such a system operate within the confines of Concord?
Here you are thinking in a top down approach. Nothing wrong with that, and I do it often myself. But with this topic, none of the things you state are intuitively obvious to me (THEY MAY BE CORRECT, they simply aren’t intuitively obvious to me). For instance you state “there is no realistic way to do blah-blah…” but again that is stating a bare assertion.
Here my approach is bottom up, not top down. I propose solutions X, Y, and Z. Someone (perhaps yourself) states why they are inadequate, or won’t work (solution X is exploitable in this way, solution Y is exploitable in that way). I say “ahhh, yes, well then we need to modify the approaches like so… [INSERT MODIFICATIONS].” Someone else states the problems with the modifications. Rinse, repeat.
Okay this is going to be a problem. Bare assertions here are things we’ve already established, through innumerable hours of discussion on this and dozens of other topics, as things that are real and true and need to be considered. Water is wet, world is round, evolution is real, and the game can’t realistically track who your friends are so there’s no way to prevent people from wholesale claiming bounties from themselves for themselves.
You can point it out as a “top-down approach”, but you insinuate it’s our job to re-prove the bare-bones facts, which is insulting to us, disrespectful to the time reasonable people already spent debating the merits and coming to these established facts, and a wholesale waste of time. We already know these problems exist, why not start with a fix for them? Any idea you have is immediately invalid unless it includes a reasonable proposal that fixes or largely mitigates the problems. What in the world is the point in bringing forth an idea you already know can’t work just because you want us to take the time to stop and type out, “No, won’t work”?
This topic was automatically closed 90 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.