open All Channels
seplocked Assembly Hall
blankseplocked [Issue] Kill rights should be transferable
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4

Author Topic

Morfane
Quam Singulari
Session Changes
Posted - 2008.06.01 14:41:00 - [61]
 

I have been wondering about this topic for some time. Traditionally, bounty hunters are PAID to do their job. How will it be possible to have a bounty hunting system where the bounty hunter has to pay the victim for the right to shoot the criminal? If the bounty hunters only income is the criminals' bounties and gear, how will any self-respecting bounty hunter be able to support themselves? Most of the guys with bounties on them are already -5 or lower, and looting pvp gear does not support a pvp lifestyle.

I would be grateful if anyone could clear up my confusion.

Shnergin
Posted - 2008.06.01 23:01:00 - [62]
 

Anything that allows for more PvP is fine by me.

RoCkEt X
Hostile.
PURPLE HELMETED WARRIORS
Posted - 2008.06.02 11:26:00 - [63]
 

what was to happen, if you kill a guy who has been playing 2 months in his caracal, you yourself have been playing 6 months. then the 2 month old guy gives his killrights to a 3-4 year old player.

would you be happy? i think not.

i have a bounty on me, and it makes no difference to killrights. because KILLRIGHTS ALLOW YOU TO KILL THE SHIP... NOT THE POD.

so as reguards the ingame bounty system, transferable killrights make no difference. this appears yet again to be another thread that is biased, giving the carebear the option to have someone else do what he cant or wont do.

if you have / think you have the ability to avenge your own loss. then do it, or pay a merc corp to do it. the killrights system works fine as it is.

hopper2j2
Caldari
Caldari Provisions
Posted - 2008.06.02 13:42:00 - [64]
 

/signed

Tesseract d'Urberville
Tadakastu-Obata Corporation
The Honda Accord
Posted - 2008.06.02 14:54:00 - [65]
 

Originally by: RoCkEt X
what was to happen, if you kill a guy who has been playing 2 months in his caracal, you yourself have been playing 6 months. then the 2 month old guy gives his killrights to a 3-4 year old player.

would you be happy? i think not.

There's an easy solution to your problem: don't kill 2-month old players. If you want to fight carebears legitimately, declare war. Or become a bounty hunter yourself.

Originally by: RoCkEt X
...this appears yet again to be another thread that is biased, giving the carebear the option to have someone else do what he cant or wont do.

Just a reminder that the EVE economy works because of carebear miners, researchers, and manufacturers. They're the reason that ships and equipment are as cheap as they are. Imagine if you had to mine for and build all your ships and equipment from scratch. The way the skills break down, we can't all be combat specialists. But those who have chosen not to go into combat professions should be able to benefit from a market for specialized muscle, just as that muscle benefits from a market for specialized ships and equipment. Transferable killrights legitimizes mercenaries and makes the market for them more efficient.

Originally by: RoCkEt X
KILLRIGHTS ALLOW YOU TO KILL THE SHIP... NOT THE POD.

You make a good point. The loss of a ship is still a loss, though; I think it's fair. A bounty hunter should be able to charge much more to podkill, since he'll have to take a sec hit in empire to do it.

namelessclone01
Caldari
blackbox ops

Posted - 2008.06.02 16:16:00 - [66]
 

aye

Efa Morgan
Posted - 2008.06.02 16:34:00 - [67]
 


Sabrina Al'Kian
Posted - 2008.06.02 16:41:00 - [68]
 

Edited by: Sabrina Al''Kian on 02/06/2008 16:58:28
Not signed. I agree that the bounty system needs some looking into, but this is definitely not the way to go. I have seen some other alternatives (even detailed one myself) that would solve this issue far better than the ability to give others your kill rights. As stated before, the proposed system can be easily exploited and--honestly--doesn't make a lot of sense.

There are other options out there that would be far more feesible than this.

Sabrina Al'Kian
Posted - 2008.06.02 16:47:00 - [69]
 

The following link is to my proposed bounty system:

http://myeve.eve-online.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=765798

Tesseract d'Urberville
Tadakastu-Obata Corporation
The Honda Accord
Posted - 2008.06.02 17:38:00 - [70]
 

Edited by: Tesseract d''Urberville on 02/06/2008 18:02:58
Originally by: Sabrina Al'Kian
Edited by: Sabrina Al''Kian on 02/06/2008 16:58:28
Not signed. I agree that the bounty system needs some looking into, but this is definitely not the way to go. I have seen some other alternatives (even detailed one myself) that would solve this issue far better than the ability to give others your kill rights. As stated before, the proposed system can be easily exploited and--honestly--doesn't make a lot of sense.

Could you explain the difference between your proposed solution (as shown in the link you provided) and transferable killrights? It sounds to me like we're agreeing completely. The original victim is contracting the killright to a bounty hunter. I like your fleshed-out contract details; they make sense. As you say, bounty to be paid only if target is actually destroyed, but the person placing the bounty should be able to dictate the duration of the contract (maybe within a certain max and min) and the collateral themselves.

I agree, when killrights are transferred, the original aggressor should be notified who is hunting them. The hunted can already return fire (anyone can legally return fire when fired upon), so I don't think it's necessary for them to be able to legally shoot their hunter on sight.

Illicit bounties (where the person hiring the bounty hunter does not have a legal killright to the hunted) should still exist, and the framework of the contract should still work, but the bounty hunter assumes all security penalties they may incur. These will still exist under the table anyway; this can be a way of tracking them and keeping all involved parties honest.

Any of these systems, though, can be abused by an alt of the original aggressor acquiring the killrights and killing himself for the bounty, making sure to minimize his losses. Any ideas on how to prevent or minimize this?

makanesi
Minmatar
Solar Storm
The Forsaken.
Posted - 2008.06.02 18:27:00 - [71]
 

good idea.

Yuki Santara
Posted - 2008.06.02 19:03:00 - [72]
 

The most straight-forward way to fix bounty hunting that I could think of so far and which hopefully has no loopholes (not easy...) would be this:

- Transferable kill rights by simple contracts, public contracts would require a fee or otherwise the hunted will just snatch them up with an alt (he can do so anyway, but at least it will cost him).
- A new icon for the overview, pilots for which kill rights are available (just a detail).
- Context menu option for such pilots: Show kill rights
- Once kill rights are acquired, the hunted gets kill rights on the hunter immediately, the hunter gets kill rights after a delay of a minute or so (avoiding nasty backstabbing traps). Maybe no notification for the hunted, but it appears in his kill rights list. The kill right for the hunted expires as soon as the hunter loses the kill right, so acquired kill rights are always mutual.

- Bounty system as is, but with payouts based on guaranteed destroyed value (e.g. 60% of platinum insurance value for ships, 80% of clone value for pods).
- No insurance payouts for pilots with negative sec standings / bounties. This is probably too controversial, but sadly I don't see how else the hunted can be stopped from collecting his own bounty by blowing up well insured ships. This would also obsolete "no insurance payout for suicide attacks".

I did like the various ideas of combining bounty with contracts at first, but I have yet to see a concept that would not allow the hunted to collect his own bounty, or which would be otherwise complicated or involve PVE (I'm not saying that those solutions are bad, just offering an alternative).

Partial payout should also increase the motivation to actually put bounty on a pirates head, because it guarantees that it won't be used up before the target suffered actual financial damage.

I like the system described above because it would make it very simple and straight forward for bounty- and pirate hunters to find legal targets, and hopefully help create a better balance between "bad guys" and "good guys" in empire space (right now it's mostly "bad guys" vs. "carebears" AFAICT). Pirates would still get the advantage of a larger selection of targets and easy hauler kills, while legal hunters get the advantages of a positive sec status and the additional income from bounties (as well as the in-character moral high ground :)).

In any case I am glad that bounty hunting is in the spotlight and I am sure that the CSM will do a fine job at presenting the various ideas to CCP, who will hopefully come up with a solution that actually works. I am very much looking forward to what comes out of this.

Sabrina Al'Kian
Posted - 2008.06.02 20:53:00 - [73]
 

Originally by: Tesseract d'Urberville
Edited by: Tesseract d''Urberville on 02/06/2008 18:02:58
Originally by: Sabrina Al'Kian
Edited by: Sabrina Al''Kian on 02/06/2008 16:58:28
Not signed. I agree that the bounty system needs some looking into, but this is definitely not the way to go. I have seen some other alternatives (even detailed one myself) that would solve this issue far better than the ability to give others your kill rights. As stated before, the proposed system can be easily exploited and--honestly--doesn't make a lot of sense.

Could you explain the difference between your proposed solution (as shown in the link you provided) and transferable killrights? It sounds to me like we're agreeing completely. The original victim is contracting the killright to a bounty hunter. I like your fleshed-out contract details; they make sense. As you say, bounty to be paid only if target is actually destroyed, but the person placing the bounty should be able to dictate the duration of the contract (maybe within a certain max and min) and the collateral themselves.

I agree, when killrights are transferred, the original aggressor should be notified who is hunting them. The hunted can already return fire (anyone can legally return fire when fired upon), so I don't think it's necessary for them to be able to legally shoot their hunter on sight.

Illicit bounties (where the person hiring the bounty hunter does not have a legal killright to the hunted) should still exist, and the framework of the contract should still work, but the bounty hunter assumes all security penalties they may incur. These will still exist under the table anyway; this can be a way of tracking them and keeping all involved parties honest.

Any of these systems, though, can be abused by an alt of the original aggressor acquiring the killrights and killing himself for the bounty, making sure to minimize his losses. Any ideas on how to prevent or minimize this?


Via my system, multiple people can take out contracts. As long as you have a bounty on your head, someone can take out a contract on your life.

The main difference between my idea and a simple transferrence of kill rights is that in my system, you don't get to choose who hunts the person who you have kill rights against. It's open to the public. At the same time, YOU aren't recieving isk for your kill rights, the collaterals are an isk sink. And thirdly, you still maintain your kill rights even if you put up a bounty. So there ends up being more PvP all around while also making it a possibly lucrative profession.

And even if the hunted isn't notified of their hunter, the hunter should at least be KOS to the hunted. That way the hunted could, if nothing else, tell when an enemy just entered his area. After all, it's a CONCORD sanctified contract during which the hunter forfeits his rights to protection.

As far as alts go, this could happen, but then again it is even easier to exploit at the moment. So at least it's a mild deterrent. Besides, most pirates are fond of their bounties, and the higher your bounty, the more likely you can get PvP. So most would rather keep the bounty on them, I find (I would, at any rate).

Tesseract d'Urberville
Tadakastu-Obata Corporation
The Honda Accord
Posted - 2008.06.02 21:26:00 - [74]
 

Originally by: Sabrina Al'Kian
The main difference between my idea and a simple transferrence of kill rights is that in my system, you don't get to choose who hunts the person who you have kill rights against. It's open to the public.

So, a public contract, just like other public contracts. Sounds good.
Originally by: Sabrina Al'Kian
At the same time, YOU aren't recieving isk for your kill rights, the collaterals are an isk sink.

I think I'd rather see this float freely on the market. Is hiring someone to avenge your loss more valuable to the victim than getting to legally kill an aggressor is to the hunter? I honestly don't know and I'd be very curious to see which way that would swing.
Originally by: Sabrina Al'Kian
And thirdly, you still maintain your kill rights even if you put up a bounty.

I'm open to convincing, but I'm predisposed to say that if you hire someone else to do your dirty work, you forfeit the right to do that work yourself if you're suddenly given the opportunity.
Originally by: Sabrina Al'Kian
Even if the hunted isn't notified of their hunter, the hunter should at least be KOS to the hunted. That way the hunted could, if nothing else, tell when an enemy just entered his area. After all, it's a CONCORD sanctified contract during which the hunter forfeits his rights to protection.

Fair point. Maybe there should be an indicator in the local channel or on the overview of who has the right to kill you? We already have a white skull for someone with a bounty on their head, how about a red skull for someone with permission to kill you for a bounty?

I really like the ideas that have been brought up in this thread. If CSM presents this to CCP and CCP likes it, they've got a rich mine here for ways it could be implemented.

Tarun Thred
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
Posted - 2008.06.04 00:09:00 - [75]
 

This one simple change could make a huge difference in game, full support from me.

Satis Tyr
Minmatar
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
Posted - 2008.06.04 06:38:00 - [76]
 

Mindsupport

Viragarus
Posted - 2008.06.04 09:39:00 - [77]
 

yep

Toramii
Le Moulin Rouge
Posted - 2008.06.04 12:31:00 - [78]
 

Definate yes to support the 'bounty hunter' profession

Rakshasa Taisab
Caldari
Sane Industries Inc.

Posted - 2008.06.04 12:47:00 - [79]
 

Supported, on the condition that killrights from low-sec don't get included.

Wu Jian
Caldari
Caldari Frontiers
Posted - 2008.06.04 13:44:00 - [80]
 

I support this topic.

Sabrina Al'Kian
Posted - 2008.06.07 12:58:00 - [81]
 

Quote:

I think I'd rather see this float freely on the market. Is hiring someone to avenge your loss more valuable to the victim than getting to legally kill an aggressor is to the hunter? I honestly don't know and I'd be very curious to see which way that would swing.


But, see, you aren't actually hiring someone. You simply have the ability to place a bounty on their head; even though this enables people to hunt that person, YOU don't really have anything to do with it. You're the catalyst, nothing else.
Quote:

I'm open to convincing, but I'm predisposed to say that if you hire someone else to do your dirty work, you forfeit the right to do that work yourself if you're suddenly given the opportunity.


Again, you aren't hiring other people, they're taking advantage of the fact that someone wants that person dead. Besides, your kill rights eventually expire while their bounty won't (unless someone kills them). Also, kill rights are only against the ship, so if you want to pod kill said person (who doesn't?), you'll need to take out a contract against them, same as everyone else (unless you're in low sec).

Dani Leone
Gallente
Positively Idle

Posted - 2008.06.07 17:00:00 - [82]
 

/signed

Phantom Slave
Universal Pest Exterminators
Posted - 2008.06.07 18:18:00 - [83]
 

I agree that some type of Tranferrable Kill Rights need to be implemented. Whether it be a contract type system (placing a "hit" on somebody) or simply transferring the kill rights to your friend.

Val Strommer
Amarr
PIE Inc.

Posted - 2008.06.08 06:40:00 - [84]
 

I agree with this.

Draygo Korvan
Merch Industrial
GoonSwarm
Posted - 2008.06.08 06:57:00 - [85]
 


RedeyeAce
Caldari
Solar Revenue Service
Posted - 2008.06.11 15:21:00 - [86]
 

yep yep, would introduce more boba fett, types.... always amusing :)

RazorDreamz
Caldari
Chaotic dynamics
Posted - 2008.06.17 10:29:00 - [87]
 

Couldn't this be worked into a real bounty system? If you have kill rights you should be able to transfer them to someone in a contract like an item exchange. They get isk, a ship, whatever and you get revenge.

To make this work kill rights should last longer, a few days to a week would be my suggestion.

Agramen
Posted - 2008.06.17 11:12:00 - [88]
 

Originally by: RoCkEt X
what was to happen, if you kill a guy who has been playing 2 months in his caracal, you yourself have been playing 6 months. then the 2 month old guy gives his killrights to a 3-4 year old player.

would you be happy? i think not.



I don't think the 2 month old guy who got one shotted in his Caracal (since the only way to actually get kill rights is to not fight back) would be very happy either. More likely it'll be someone in an unarmed hauler handing off kill rights... YARRRR!!

Originally by: RoCkEt X

this appears yet again to be another thread that is biased, giving the carebear the option to have someone else do what he cant or wont do.



Translation (what I hear, at least): Wha-ah, I can no longer pop defenseless players with impunity. There are suddenly consequences for my actions. Crying or Very sad

Originally by: RoCkEt X

if you have / think you have the ability to avenge your own loss. then do it, or pay a merc corp to do it. the killrights system works fine as it is.


Umm, the offended would be hiring a single mercenary (as opposed to a whole corp) to do their dirty work. As a plus, this would let you hire mercs to even go after even people who hide in NPC corps. The "hard core PvPer's" should rejoice at that. And you'd have to be aggrieved to hire the merc, so you couldn't hire a bounty hunter for stupid OOG reasons.

Exploitable, sure. But what bounty system, proposed or currently in game, isn't? Laughing
It's at least worthy of discussion/refinement. The revision to the bounty system Sabrina proposed in the other thread has it's own issues as well.

redCube
Gallente
Singlebude
Posted - 2008.06.21 19:00:00 - [89]
 

I think its a good idea as it will create some additional role play aspects. Think of a player police that handles those killrights. Furthermore you can hire a bounty hunter that kills your opponent.

Stalkman
Posted - 2008.06.22 14:18:00 - [90]
 

I agree and/or support this idea.


Pages: 1 2 [3] 4

This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to https://forums.eveonline.com

These forums are archived and read-only