Forums » Suggestions
Base line limitations on who can claim bounties on certain players and low credit limits so it's not a very profitable profession but you can make a living.
I like the earlier suggestion, You simply pay the marshal but he does not add any credits. He might even tax, as said before. This eliminates exploit, as there are no credits generated.
As a side note on faction, maybe the person you are putting the bounty on has to <200 with the faction of the marshal.
As a side note on faction, maybe the person you are putting the bounty on has to <200 with the faction of the marshal.
How about allowing to limit the payout to specific players, guilds or nations when posting a bounty?
This could result in the formation of a trusted bounty hunter guild.. joining it would be the equivalent of signing up as a bounty hunter. This should be self regulating.. cause if they abuse the system they might lose that trust.
A fee for posting a bounty sounds like a good idea too.
This could result in the formation of a trusted bounty hunter guild.. joining it would be the equivalent of signing up as a bounty hunter. This should be self regulating.. cause if they abuse the system they might lose that trust.
A fee for posting a bounty sounds like a good idea too.
Yeah Incarnate, you had to register with the marshal to be a bounty hunter. I think it's an interesting idea of tracking money rewarded with bounties, which also leads open the way for money laundering as a sort of...side profession.
I don't think tracking that money should be so fine detailed as to permit no cashflow between hunter and pirate, but instead be used in conjuction with the faction system to provide a sort of black market side job for players.
Figure that player A killed player B for their bounty. Player A is rewarded silly_amount credits, which has been marked as bounty money gleaned from player B's corpse. If player A directly transfers this to player B, player A loses their bounty hunting license and such and such faction standing, depending on the amount of money transferred.
Consider that player C were to get involved, and act as a middle-man between player A and player B in this transfer. However, this is way too obvious, so players A and C both suffer standing loss. A may also lose their hunting license.
Consider that C has some trusted associates who will help him out for a cut of the profit. In order to launder the money, say silly_amount needs to pass through the hands of 10 unique players before it can be sent to player B. So now we have where in order to exploit the system, the money will have to travel like so:
A -> C -> D -> E -> F -> G -> H -> I -> J -> K -> L -> B
If it passes through any less, all will receive faction standing losses. In addition, none of the players between A or B can be in A's or B's guilds and possibly buddy lists. Player A will received the most, and as it travels down the chain the punishment will become less severe in order to account for players not being entirely sure they're assisting with money laundering. The punishment should only be assessed once the marked money has reached player B, by the way. Because of that, there can be a minimum threshold in place in order to give player A some protection against loss caused by player B.
If player A goes and trucks some aquean ore after gaining the bounty and player B mercilessly seeks revenge and destroys player A and sells his ore, player A should not suffer punishment if, say, the ore in its entirety was not worth more than 10,000cr or 10% of the bounty fee, whichever is greatest.
Cargo is harder to track, so marked cargo should require less changes of hands to lost the mark. After some timeframe, marks should expire if, and only if, the cargo is not in the possession of player B or player B's guild mates or buddies.
Though, that all might be too complex to implement, not sure. However, it should be highly discouraged, but for implementation's and realism's sake, there should be ways to circumvent the system preventing players from transferring bounties from the rewarded player to the victim.
I don't think tracking that money should be so fine detailed as to permit no cashflow between hunter and pirate, but instead be used in conjuction with the faction system to provide a sort of black market side job for players.
Figure that player A killed player B for their bounty. Player A is rewarded silly_amount credits, which has been marked as bounty money gleaned from player B's corpse. If player A directly transfers this to player B, player A loses their bounty hunting license and such and such faction standing, depending on the amount of money transferred.
Consider that player C were to get involved, and act as a middle-man between player A and player B in this transfer. However, this is way too obvious, so players A and C both suffer standing loss. A may also lose their hunting license.
Consider that C has some trusted associates who will help him out for a cut of the profit. In order to launder the money, say silly_amount needs to pass through the hands of 10 unique players before it can be sent to player B. So now we have where in order to exploit the system, the money will have to travel like so:
A -> C -> D -> E -> F -> G -> H -> I -> J -> K -> L -> B
If it passes through any less, all will receive faction standing losses. In addition, none of the players between A or B can be in A's or B's guilds and possibly buddy lists. Player A will received the most, and as it travels down the chain the punishment will become less severe in order to account for players not being entirely sure they're assisting with money laundering. The punishment should only be assessed once the marked money has reached player B, by the way. Because of that, there can be a minimum threshold in place in order to give player A some protection against loss caused by player B.
If player A goes and trucks some aquean ore after gaining the bounty and player B mercilessly seeks revenge and destroys player A and sells his ore, player A should not suffer punishment if, say, the ore in its entirety was not worth more than 10,000cr or 10% of the bounty fee, whichever is greatest.
Cargo is harder to track, so marked cargo should require less changes of hands to lost the mark. After some timeframe, marks should expire if, and only if, the cargo is not in the possession of player B or player B's guild mates or buddies.
Though, that all might be too complex to implement, not sure. However, it should be highly discouraged, but for implementation's and realism's sake, there should be ways to circumvent the system preventing players from transferring bounties from the rewarded player to the victim.
how about anytime you give money to someone who is both not in good standing with and had a prior bounty before with the nation you are a bounty hunter with.
i like this idea i say bring bounties back
Credits are not a big deal in VO. I like this. More focus on fighting and less on farming for credits. In that light, I say keep it simple and don't worry about money laundering. View the bounty system as a way to encourage player interaction.
I said it before, and will say it again: Surbius hit it on the head.
Scuba, (and incarnate by association) I fear that trying to control the money situation too much will lead to this feature not being re-implemented.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Eg. "Honest version"
With player X being hated by UIT, player Y takes it upon themselves to post 250K on X. Player Z sees this and is intrigued.
/in the background
The only reason player Z even saw this notice is because he has dissimilar faction standings compared to X (Z is POS and X is KOS with UIT). Y was only able to post the bounty because he has more than good UIT standing (+850/+900).
/
Z grabs a hog and some swarms (this bounty is known to be dangerous) and goes a-hunting. Z successfully sneaks up on X and blows him away. The bounty is paid immediately (all 250K). Y notices on his bounty tab that a bounty he posted has been fulfilled *smiles to self*. (it does not indicate who completed the bounty)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Eg. "Attempted Exploit"
1) X knows there is a bounty on his head, he saw it in his bounty tab. He knows that anyone who shows up as having opposite faction standings (home faction in this case) could be a non-scrupulous bounty hunter. He does not know the price of the bounty; bounty values are only visible to those that can accept said bounty. He also cannot see the poster. (It should be noted that the option of posting anonymously may be for all bounties) He is unable to convince Z to share the spoils with him as Z is none-too-fond of X and wants the money for himself.
2) Z cannot convince Y to post the bounty for X because Z doesn't have required standing, and Y is not about to give his money away without reason. Z might as well just ask Y for 250K.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
None of these examples preclude the possibility of multiple hunters getting together and splitting the profit of the kill. With no credits being generated, I don't see anything wrong with this kind of credit transfer.
If anyone can illustrate a way to exploit surbius' idea, please put it forth.
PS.- some of this is reliant on the faction system being reworked so that it is impossible to have POS with all 3 major factions, and the minor ones for that matter...
-R IBA 3.14rat
Scuba, (and incarnate by association) I fear that trying to control the money situation too much will lead to this feature not being re-implemented.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Eg. "Honest version"
With player X being hated by UIT, player Y takes it upon themselves to post 250K on X. Player Z sees this and is intrigued.
/in the background
The only reason player Z even saw this notice is because he has dissimilar faction standings compared to X (Z is POS and X is KOS with UIT). Y was only able to post the bounty because he has more than good UIT standing (+850/+900).
/
Z grabs a hog and some swarms (this bounty is known to be dangerous) and goes a-hunting. Z successfully sneaks up on X and blows him away. The bounty is paid immediately (all 250K). Y notices on his bounty tab that a bounty he posted has been fulfilled *smiles to self*. (it does not indicate who completed the bounty)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Eg. "Attempted Exploit"
1) X knows there is a bounty on his head, he saw it in his bounty tab. He knows that anyone who shows up as having opposite faction standings (home faction in this case) could be a non-scrupulous bounty hunter. He does not know the price of the bounty; bounty values are only visible to those that can accept said bounty. He also cannot see the poster. (It should be noted that the option of posting anonymously may be for all bounties) He is unable to convince Z to share the spoils with him as Z is none-too-fond of X and wants the money for himself.
2) Z cannot convince Y to post the bounty for X because Z doesn't have required standing, and Y is not about to give his money away without reason. Z might as well just ask Y for 250K.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
None of these examples preclude the possibility of multiple hunters getting together and splitting the profit of the kill. With no credits being generated, I don't see anything wrong with this kind of credit transfer.
If anyone can illustrate a way to exploit surbius' idea, please put it forth.
PS.- some of this is reliant on the faction system being reworked so that it is impossible to have POS with all 3 major factions, and the minor ones for that matter...
-R IBA 3.14rat
bump...
I suppose if the bounty was only viewable to people who were allied with the poster, we just solved the entire problem.
How many people are going to have a best friend with opposite faction standing to have check their bounty every ten minutes?
As long as you can't see your own bounty, and only your 'enemies' can see it, there should be no issues.
How many people are going to have a best friend with opposite faction standing to have check their bounty every ten minutes?
As long as you can't see your own bounty, and only your 'enemies' can see it, there should be no issues.
Um, I'm sure there are a lot of people with friends who have opposite faction standing. Hell, grey-space is full of them. If you're friends with both a pirate and a trader, you might well have the whole gamut of faction covered. I'm not saying it's not a good idea (I like the idea, actually), but it doesn't mean there won't be issues.
OK how about...
All of the money comes from the bounty poster and the target's XP resets to the start of the previous level in each category if killed. A bounty can only be claimed once per 24h on any given person.
There should maybe be a minimum bounty...
All of the money comes from the bounty poster and the target's XP resets to the start of the previous level in each category if killed. A bounty can only be claimed once per 24h on any given person.
There should maybe be a minimum bounty...
That would certainly help give death meaning... Imagine if your license XP went down to the bottom of your license level EVERY time you died... Or maybe a 5% decrease in license XP towards the bottom of your current license levels, but you wouldn't be able to actually ever go down a level.
OK, I'll be honest: Pointsman, you just scared the hell out of me with that post... I like the drop of XP, but all of a level is insane. At level 11 you need over 176,000xp to get to 12. I propose you lose a percentage of the level (5/10/20%). It should be noted that for death to mean something on this level, you would need to regress to level X from level (X+1) at some point.
I also like the idea of a minimum bounty. Say 50K? The general asking price of a pirate. And cap it around 1mil? For those with cash to burn and desire to see others level down...
/me is liking the way this thread is developing... Someone call incarnate!
-R IBA 3.14rat
I also like the idea of a minimum bounty. Say 50K? The general asking price of a pirate. And cap it around 1mil? For those with cash to burn and desire to see others level down...
/me is liking the way this thread is developing... Someone call incarnate!
-R IBA 3.14rat
Actually, I was thinking the minimum should be around 50 mil with 50% being taxed out of the system.
Also, bounty hunters should be well marked.
Also, bounty hunters should be well marked.
Wow.. bounty targets losing XP when they die. Yeah, THAT totally invalidates the use of bounties as a cash source for the targets.
With this in place, we could even return to a system where the govt's match the posted amount to some extent. THEN the issue becomes, make sure that the target is hated by the faction paying the bounty. The Itani wouldn't pay crap for iry's head, for instance, because he is one of theirs.
The XP loss is simple. For every hundred credits on your head when you die, you lose 1 XP. A one million credit bounty would thus be a reasonable 10,000 point xp penalty. The XP loss should be subtracted from the hunted's combat level.
I see no reason for a minimum bounty. Supposing I put ten grand on Mystic, and then the next guy posts 100k. They should stack, for a total of 110k.
With this in place, we could even return to a system where the govt's match the posted amount to some extent. THEN the issue becomes, make sure that the target is hated by the faction paying the bounty. The Itani wouldn't pay crap for iry's head, for instance, because he is one of theirs.
The XP loss is simple. For every hundred credits on your head when you die, you lose 1 XP. A one million credit bounty would thus be a reasonable 10,000 point xp penalty. The XP loss should be subtracted from the hunted's combat level.
I see no reason for a minimum bounty. Supposing I put ten grand on Mystic, and then the next guy posts 100k. They should stack, for a total of 110k.
Yep , dropping an entire combat level would be a bit much . Well, over 2 million combat xp in my case....
Why don't we just go for a simple approach based on combat xp, not cash . .Player A puts up a combat bounty of 1 k xp on player B. Player C Kills player B . Player A and B see their combat go down by 1 K , Player C goes up by 2 K .
Since the biggest single xp gain in VO from a single NPC kill is + 7200 xp , put a cap of 5 k on the initial bounty .
Simple to implement and understand , fun , hard to exploit .
Why don't we just go for a simple approach based on combat xp, not cash . .Player A puts up a combat bounty of 1 k xp on player B. Player C Kills player B . Player A and B see their combat go down by 1 K , Player C goes up by 2 K .
Since the biggest single xp gain in VO from a single NPC kill is + 7200 xp , put a cap of 5 k on the initial bounty .
Simple to implement and understand , fun , hard to exploit .
It is important that the bounty hunter is the only person who doesn't lose materially. Otherwise it becomes an asshattery fest. 'Free' credits still break the system.
To make the system more tidy, bounty hunters could be required to have universal KOS. And to up the ante, bounty hunters could lose XP if killed by their chosen target.
[EDIT]
Minimum is so that we don't have roving XP tanking monsters.
To make the system more tidy, bounty hunters could be required to have universal KOS. And to up the ante, bounty hunters could lose XP if killed by their chosen target.
[EDIT]
Minimum is so that we don't have roving XP tanking monsters.
It is unfair to place XP downers on a bounty for two reasons:
1) I am not giving my XP for you to get it, or to see someone else's divvied up.
2) A few rich players could gang up and post many millions on someone's head and then collectively kill them. This would lead to a XP loss on par with total license annihilation.
Pointsman, the idea of universal KOS breaks the idea that players will be killing players that they don't care for. And 50mil!?! I only have 10 and have been playing for several months. It should be accessible at combat level 6/7 so that ppl feel they can participate.
We should not create credits, that has been agreed. But if we are taxing the bounties, then I suggest no more than a 10% tax. At that point, a million credit bounty (posted) is paid at 900,000c. Then again, it's not even necessary to tax it at all. The player who posts the bounty is already paying the full amount of the bounty. No need to penalize the bounty hunter...
______/\
_____/__\
______||
______||
______||
Just some ideas
1) I am not giving my XP for you to get it, or to see someone else's divvied up.
2) A few rich players could gang up and post many millions on someone's head and then collectively kill them. This would lead to a XP loss on par with total license annihilation.
Pointsman, the idea of universal KOS breaks the idea that players will be killing players that they don't care for. And 50mil!?! I only have 10 and have been playing for several months. It should be accessible at combat level 6/7 so that ppl feel they can participate.
We should not create credits, that has been agreed. But if we are taxing the bounties, then I suggest no more than a 10% tax. At that point, a million credit bounty (posted) is paid at 900,000c. Then again, it's not even necessary to tax it at all. The player who posts the bounty is already paying the full amount of the bounty. No need to penalize the bounty hunter...
______/\
_____/__\
______||
______||
______||
Just some ideas
So, are we done with this thread?