Fixing Eve: Assault Ships

Despite the buffs, I've yet to be really thrilled by any Assault Frigates fits that I've seen so far. As I've said in other posts, this is because I don't want to fly an Assault Frigate without an mwd because of the vulnerability to camps and gangs. Saturday evening alone I evaded five camps in ten minutes just roaming around Hev; I would not have been able to do that in an afterburner fit ship.

However, when fitting an mwd, you either need to go dual prop, or kiting fit (which my Interceptor already does). CCP could not give AFs an extra mid for dual prop, because that extra mid could be used for a great many more broken things instead. I completely understand why this would not have been possible.

My solution?


Assault Drives

Create an entirely new prop mod, only usable by Assault Frigates. This "assault drive" functions like an afterburner most of the time, but when you overheat it, it functions like an mwd. Hey presto, problem solved!

Now, most people I suggest this to say something along the lines of "that's horribly broken!", but I beg to differ.

First, it does not do anything that an AF cannot already do. Any AF can strap on two prop mods; it's just that with the limited midslots on frigates, they will probably be unable to include tackle/tank/web or whatever other midslot module the ship is based around. Nobody is screaming that those dual prop ships are overpowered; in fact, I don't think anyone is even bothering to fly them.

Second, this is a really easy way to balance AFs without impacting other ships. Because it's an AF only module, CCP can tweak the assault drive to do exactly what they want it to do. Feel that AFs should only have 60 seconds of mwd speed? Adjust the heat damage accordingly. Feel that full mwd is too slow/fast? Adjust the overheat bonus. And so on.

With an assault drive, AFs would have a decent chance of navigating gate camps and actually finally get into scram range. The initial mwd "charge" would make AFs much like EVEs cavalry, smashing into the enemy for a short, sharp engagement - the kind of fight you envisage from something with the word "assault" in the name, no?

It also prevents AFs from competing directly with Cruisers, giving each a distinct role. AFs might have comparable tank or damage output, but they would lack the longevity in manoeuvre heavy fights, as they would need to constantly break off to repair the heat damage to their assault drives.

Of course, nothing like this is going to happen, but I think that it would make a better fix than what we currently have, while actually giving Assault Frigates a unique role/feature, which they sorely lack right now.

Bounty Hunting: Competing Visions

What should bounty hunting look like?

One of the concerns people have repeatedly expressed about my proposed fix for the bounty system, best articulated by FNG, is that it does not allow for the kind of bounty hunters that we all grew up reading/watching in our scifi, typified quite neatly by Boba Fett from Star Wars.

Well, they're right. As I say in my initial post, I envisage bounty hunters more like Judge Dredd, a futuristic, wild-west style law man. Competing visions; it happens.

However, I think my vision has the edge here. Not because it's "cooler", but because it's more workable. Let's take a closer look at Star Wars.


Star Wars

Finding work: When Boba Fett gets up in the morning, he does not log into some galactic bounty network to find a target. Why? Because he's a bad guy, and what he's doing is illegal. This means that people who want him to do something tell him personally.

The client base: The only people who hire Boba Fett (Jaba the Hutt and Darth Vader) are also bad guys - they are telling him to kidnap or kill people, after all.

How he gets paid: Because of the shady nature of what they are doing, there is no escrow system, no contract, and no guarantees. His employers have to hope Boba Fett does not scam or double cross them, and Boba Fett has to hope that he gets paid at the end of the day. The only "security" they each have is their respective reputations and the knowledge that each party is a dangerous, dangerous individual.

You can conduct this kind of bounty hunting in Eve right now, and I know of some people who do. All it involves is someone promising to pay you some ISK for an API verified killmail or a corpse.

If it sounds risky, like you might not get paid or your bounty hunter might try to scam you, it's because it is. Welcome to the shady world of underground bounty hunting; I hope you enjoy risk, uncertainty, and forging personal relationships.


Marketing Star Wars

Ignoring the fact that the Star Wars model requires no implementation by CCP - this is the sandbox, right? - let's look at the difficulties that CCP would have trying to "sell" the idea to existing players.

Finding work: Unlike Boba Fett, who lives his life 24-7, most Eve players spend a limited amount of time online. A full-time bounty hunter would need to spend much of that time cultivating the contacts he needs to actually find work. This would be a bar to many would be bounty hunters, who would rather spend their time pew-pewing.

The client base: Dangerous men in New Eden don't need bounty hunters. There, I said it. The vast majority of combat pilots have the skills they need to settle their own scores, and many industrialists have sufficient in-corp muscle to do the same. The people who need bounty hunters are new players or socially isolated players. Exceptions will exist, to be sure, but I've never heard a Tusker complain that he can't find a reliable bounty hunter; if he wants something dead, he just advertises a fleet.

Getting paid: Eve is full of scams. Not many people, bounty hunters or potential employers, are going to trust someone they don't know when large sums of ISK are on the line.

In short, I don't see the Star Wars model taking off in actual game play. I'm cheating here, because I can already say it hasn't taken off - CCP does not need to implement a thing to duplicate the Star Wars model.


Marketing Judge Dredd

Finding work: My proposal would have bounty hunters and potential employers linked up by an automated system; bounty hunters fly around looking for fights, and when they kill someone with a bounty, they get paid. This model works; I know because it's based on piracy, which has many adherents.

The client base: Any victim can easily place a bounty, regardless of time in game or social connections.

Getting paid: By ensuring value for money, this is as risk free as it gets in New Eden.

Wow, that looks pretty easy to sell to people!

"But wait!", I hear you say. "Why not just use your system without the high security status requirements? This will allow us to play lowlife bounty hunting scum. Surely the best of both worlds!"

Sadly, I disagree. The first point of disagreement is on principle; if you want to play lowlife bounty hunting scum, then go ahead, nobody is stopping you. Just don't expect all the trappings and advantages of respectability to boot. That would be like me complaining that being -10 comes with disadvantages; it's part of the choices I've made.

However, I actually have a more important reason for disagreeing; I don't think it would work as well.


Perception is everything

My proposed model is very different, largely because I make it respectable. This isn't about vengeance, it's about justice.

Instead of paying some lowlife to kill some other lowlife, and hoping the new lowlife is a little better than the old lowlife, I'm now paying a Concord sanctioned law-man to deal justice to the asshat that ganked me.

This change in perception is, in my view, absolutely critical. The people who want to hire bounty hunters are not pirates like me and FNG. They are not hardened nullsec warriors.  They are carebearscarebears.

As awesome as Boba Fett is, there is very little market for his services. The Lone Ranger, though, is going to be in high demand. I'll bet a good 50%+ of anyone suffering from a suicide gank would happily place a bounty under my proposed system.

For the system to work, it needs to be used, and the people that will actually place bounties are, in my view, far more likely to do so in a system that they feel fits with their "moral code". Argue all you want about bringing real life values to New Eden, the fact is that many people do (including me, incidentally, and anyone following the Tusker Code).


Other comments on the proposed system

Looks good! Only problem I see is determing the values: A fitted rifter can cost anything from 500k to, well, anything, really. My regular Rifters set me back approx 10-15 mill. So who should determine value? And how?

There would need to be some kind of automated system that determines values. I'm not sure how this is done, but I know that most killboards have a program that does this, and CCP clearly has one that determines insurance payouts. Accuracy is not terribly important, only consistency. Undervaluing or overvaluing is fine, as long as everything is overvalued or undervalued in the same proportions.

I guess one question to consider is, are there any ways in which an experienced player could trick a new player into unintentionally giving them kill rights (and thus place a bounty on the newbie which is trivial to them, but is enough to effectively keep that player out of ships and ultimately drive them from the game)?

The noob would have to kill someone, without getting concorded, and without them fighting back or aggressing in any way. That's only going to happen in low sec, and only under some pretty strange circumstances. While possible, I think it unlikely. Perhaps something that could be dealt with via GM petition?

There is still no reason not to have a bounty, you lose a ship and someone else gets paid, doesn't affect me as long as I get my insurance payout.

You are right, having a bounty ought to be a bad thing. This is another reason to limit bounty hunters to high security status pilots. Lowsec dwellers fight each other all the time, and the bounty would be a bonus, not a cause. We want bounties to cause loss that would not have otherwise happened. As for insurance, it's been a very long time since I lost a ship where insurance came close to covering the true cost.

Make it so the bounty is on the clone used at the time of killing somehow? that way they cant change out of expensive clones.

This system does not revolve around killing clones, just quantifiable ship loss.

In terms of who can collect -> registered bounty hunters, the person who placed the bounty (who per the rules you stated must have kill rights), as well as a member of the corporation (at the time of the bounty) of the person who posted the bounty.

An interesting suggestion. However, a person or corp capable of avenging the loss in the first place probably won't place a bounty in any event; they'll just go out and kill the target. In the interests of keeping this simple to implement, I'd probably limit bounties to just the bounty hunter.

Cool idea. Making the sec status requirement high for bounty hunter qualification, means there would potentially be fewer bounty hunters. Too many hunters and not enough prey would really curtail PVP in Empire, unless that is the plan?

There is certainly a balance to be struck, and any qualifications for registration (including security status) would be designed to keep the number of bounty hunters down. The lawbringer model does not encourage casual or opportunistic bounty hunters. This would mean that dedicated bounty hunters should be far better able to support themselves.

Would bounties immediately become active or would they take 24 hours to become active after an evemail to notify the criminal (like an individual war dec)? IE, I could slap a bounty on someone while my alt sits in space right beside the criminal. As soon as I submit the bounty, my alt alphas the criminal before he even knows he has a bounty on him.

War decs are actions against a potentially unknown third party, and thus require notice. In order to receive a bounty, you must have killed someone, so you have already had effective notice of a possible bounty. I have no problem with "surprise" bounties, but in reality bounties would probably become active only after each downtime.

Farming bounties:
I take my alt and derp around where I think I will have a good chance of getting popped. I run, like, quad reppers on my boat or something, hoping to get as many dudes, to come help the criminal pop me, as possible. My ship is insured, and I put full bounties on all the people I have kill rights on. If all goes well, I take my main hunter, go pop them, collect the bounty, salvage/loot the wrecks, and funnel the money back to my main.

You could do that, sure. But at best, you recover the exact amount of money that you put in; ie, you recover the bounties that you placed. There is also a fair amount of risk, here, as you might end up losing the fight with your bounty hunter, or some other bounty hunter gets there first. I don't see this as an exploit. They still needed to decide to kill you, after all.

I like the idea of bounty hunting corps. Maybe integrate this with FW by creating a CONCORD militia, where people can register themselves or their corporations as bounty hunters.

Indeed, I could see this being very popular with pvpers that want to be "good" guys. The more people into pvp, the better for all pvpers. Perhaps registered bounty hunters would HAVE to be in registered bounty hunting corps; this would allow pirate corps to wardec the bounty hunters! Then they would know how it feels to be hunted!

Under your proposal, unless I missed something, a griefer could can flip someone and then lose knowing he'll now be able to post a bounty with no expiration. It also still seems to encourage vengeance-seeking, wealthy carebears who lose their pricey ships and then can unload a walletful of hurt on their aggressors. Please let me know if there is a solution.

My proposal revolves around killrights. These are not awarded if any aggressive action has been taken, so can flippers that get blasted can't then place a bounty.

I'm also a HUGE fan of asymmetric warfare. It's something that I will eventually post about, but in my view the problem with lowsec revolves is that it penalises carebears; they have to invest skillpoints into their industry AND combat skills, whereas the pirates only have to focus on combat skills. Allowing carebears to use their wealth to fight back is going to encourage them to actually venture into low sec. And that's a good thing.

Currently I think you only get killrights if you don't shoot back.

True, and I have no problem with this. You are either a combatant, or you are not.

I can see a way for a criminal to bypass your proposed bounty system. Lets' say a pirate has a $100m bounty placed on them, they can simply purchase a $100m ship, fly to a safe spot and have an alt char kill them. Bounty is paid and the pirate breaks even or close to it. Now there's no more bounty hunters chasing them through space. Does this sound right?

Assuming the alt is a registered bounty hunter, yes, you got it right. There is very, very little you can do to stop collusion between two people, or one person with multiple accounts. Another reason why potential clients need to have confidence in the bounty hunters as well as in the system.

Fixing Eve: Bounty Hunting

I'm generally pretty optimistic about Eve, and very much enjoy flying in New Eden. That said, I do recognise that certain things could work far better than they do now. I've largely kept my thoughts to myself because I don't have nearly the same level of play experience that many other pilots have, and my own focus is very narrow: small ship pvp in lowsec.

However, people like Jester, FNG, and some members of the CSM, have been very, very constructive, underscoring game flaws and coming up with ideas and fixes that seem (at least to me) to be workable and easy to implement. For what it's worth, I intend to throw my own ideas out there from time to time in the hope that I contribute something useful to New Eden.

This is my first foray into "fixing Eve", and the subject is Bounty Hunting.


The problem:

Bounty hunting (players, not rats) is broken, and everyone knows it. If someone puts a bounty on you, you reship to a noob ship/blank clone and get a buddy to blow you up. You split the proceeds. For this reason few people use the bounty system, and rightly so.

Any fix to the Bounty Hunting system needs to pass a few key tests, though.

1) Is the system secure? In other words, can the proposed target extract a benefit? This is a test the current system easily fails.

2) Does it actually offer the person placing the bounty value for money? Another test the current system fails. Even without collusion, the bounty does not guarantee a commensurate loss to the target.

3) Is the system safe from abuse?

4) Is it easy to implement?

With those questions in mind, I've tried to come up with a solution.


The proposed fix:

Suppose that instead of being able to put a bounty on anyone, you could only put a bounty on someone if you had kill rights for - in fact, placing a bounty would use up your kill rights! This would prevent the much stronger bounty system we are putting in place from being abused by wealthy characters.

When a kill right has been obtained, a bounty can be placed, but only up to the damage inflicted by the target. So if they blow up your Rifter you are going to be limited to a much smaller bounty that if they blew up your Dramiel. In the case of multiple attackers, though, you could place a full bounty on each of them! There is no safety in numbers.

Once the bounty is placed, it persists until it is collected, but it can only be collected by registered bounty hunters! These bounty hunters would need to meet certain requirements before they could become registered with Concord. The exact nature of these requirements would need some looking into, but it should include a fairly high security status, which would prevent pirates from also being bounty hunters.

Bounties can also only be collected in Empire space - high sec or low sec. Concord has no jurisdiction in null sec, and can't/won't pay out bounties for null sec kills. This prevents null sec corporations from abusing the system in the course of their wars for sovereignty.

Now, once the bounty hunter has found a target with a bounty (or more likely, roamed through low sec killing flashies on the assumption that many of them will have bounties), he receives a payout.

However, this payout is limited to the value of the ship the bounty hunter has destroyed. Any unused bounty remains on the target! This means that the target cannot easily escape the bounty by letting himself be destroyed in a cheap ship. Bounty hunters will pursue the target until they have cost him as much as he cost his initial victim!


Applying the test:


1) Is the system secure? In other words, can the proposed target extract a benefit? The system is secure, even if collusion occurs (which will be difficult) because the target must suffer a loss equal to the bounty before any payout occurs. At best, the target is put back into the same position that he was before the loss. As an extra measure, there could be a percentage modifier to the payout; ie, the bounty paid out is only 90% of the damage done.

2) Does it actually offer the person placing the bounty value for money? Absolutely. The payee can be sure that a 100 million bounty will cause at least 100 million in damage to the target, assuming the Bounty Hunters catch up to him - and there is no expiration date on the bounty!

3) Is the system safe from abuse? It seems secure, in that the bounties can only be collected by a group of niche pvpers who are required to confine their pvp to targets that do not affect their sec status. Equally, the conditions under which a bounty can be issued and paid are quite restrictive.

4) Is it easy to implement? I'm not a programmer, but the main programming change seems to be a series of if/then statements relating to a preexisting interface.

Have I missed anything?


Edit:

As originally proposed, the system worked against bounty hunters that wanted to track down targets with a non-outlaw sec status; these targets could only be attacked in low sec without triggering Concord, and they also gave the bounty hunter a sec hit!

Instead, in exchange for meeting the registration requirements, the bounty hunters would become agents of Concord and therefore able to engage ANY target with a bounty without triggering a Concord response (including a security status penalty) or gate aggression. Equally, no killright would be awarded to the target, meaning they could not then turn about and place a bounty on the bounty hunter.

This is why I feel that the registration requirements should be fairly strict, and should include a high sec status. Bounty hunters of the type envisaged are more like Judge Dredd than they are like Boba Fet; they are given the power to break some of New Eden's unbreakable rules, but are accordingly required to uphold the laws they enforce.

I would even go so far as to say that a bounty hunter should be unable to gain sec status while a bounty hunter, to prevent them just grinding their sec status back after a gank. However, having never had a high sec status, I can't know how easy or difficult it is to push your sec status to the upper levels. Hitting -10 certainly takes a fair amount of effort.