Personally I utterly fail to see the need for a bounty system for having open PvP at all ... its an obviously stupid idea, and the OP already gave the reasons why it is stupid.

Originally posted by Adamantine

Personally I utterly fail to see the need for a bounty system for having open PvP at all ... its an obviously stupid idea, and the OP already gave the reasons why it is stupid.

...because of the exploitable bounty system, fix that and it will no longer be stupid, which it is right now: a stupid alternative-world simulation for sadists.

lets see what pitchblackgames can do with prime online : ) bounty system

Originally posted by Loke666

Originally posted by AzurePrower

It's easy. Just make the bounty worth slightly less than the penalty for that person dying.

That way if they get themselves killed and claim the bounty. They still lose out.

Uhm, thats... Brilliant. Really, too bad no one told Lord Brittish this in '97.

But it should still be enough to make it worth to take it so I guess it only works when you have a pretty tough death penalty.

Except someone will get their 2nd character, second account, or friend in game to kill them after they remove all of their armor/weapons, to remove the bounty.  I'm talking about an unexploitable bounty system.

Originally posted by ormstunga

Originally posted by Axehilt

Originally posted by kaiser3282

 

Open PVP systems allow very dull mechanics to matter, which is bad design.  Did you AFK-harvest more ore to kick off a mostly-non-interactive crafting system?  Did you join the biggest clan?  Did your clan spend time cultivating its territory to accumulate a permanent power advantage over your enemies?  Did your faction just happen to have more players online tonight?  Did you grind longer than your opponents?

Another side of the argument is that conflict makes things interesting.

Think of your favorite war/action movie.  It had tension.  The tension was created when the protagonist(s) were made to seem like they were going to lose at multiple points during the plotline.  You were interested specifically because the outcome wasn't predetermined.

In open PVP, the outcome is virtually always predetermined (and by much more than "oh they have more healers" in WAR.)  The overwhelming majority of world PVP fights are completely onesided so that if you froze things at the start of the fight you already know who's going to win.

It's like trying to find tension in a war movie about a modern army slaughtering sick civilians. There isn't any.  It's completely predetermined, and completely uninteresting.

Meanwhile skill has a larger sway in MMORPG instanced PVP, and a much larger sway in typical instanced PVP.  Consequently you frequently have tension -- in addition to all of the most interesting mechanics mattering (decisions made during combat.)

 I remember us having this very discussion a couple of months ago. And I see your opinions remain the same... as is custom ofc nobody ever changes their mind or is swayed on the internet =D

Mine is also still the same. The unknown and random factors of open world pvp is what makes it great fun for me. Dropping me in a 5v5 pre-set just doesnt give me that thrill. I'm not talking about stealthing around killing ppl questing ofc, but roaming in a warband (yes I played Warhammer) and not knowing what is out there, potentially a force many times bigger then yours is a kick. Win or lose doesnt really matter in the end. Also I find that open world pvp games bring a sort of meta game that I enjoy very much and that instanced games mostly lack.

Just opinions, like yours. I think we can safely say both arena type and open world have their respective crowd without generalizing too much about which one is "the best". I played for only a short period in what was considered one of EU-WARs best pvp guilds and you cannot seriously mean these ppl had less or no skill. I'm sure you didnt =)

 

edit: I'm just talking arena vs open world here. Not factors behind like would you get an unfair advantage afk-grinding and stuff like that. I liked WAR, I didnt like Darkfall.

I agree. What I don't understand though is why people who are so ardently in the pro Arena camp, would seek their pvp in mmorpgs.

MMO's offer the chance for players to get involved in large scale battles and all the tactics and diplomacy centered around such conflict. Outside of mmos this potential is not so readily seen. Few top level fps/moba/rts games allow 100's-1000's or people to scheme and war against each other in a persistant world. So it is obvious why those seeking large scale, flexible, open world conflict would look for it in massively multiplayer games.

On the flip side we have arenas, the advocates of which believe it is more about 'skill and ability'. Well if that is the case, why exactly are you playing them in mmos which are gear/character stat centric with worse server tech than you seen in dedicated, arena based skill games and shooters?

Leaving aside premades rolling over pugs. Facing the same few teams, with the same configurations, using the same tactics, in exactly the same environment over and over again is not something I personally consider to be the most interesting for of pvp one can encounter in games which are supposed to have  massive game worlds and endless variety. Especially when you consider random rolls and tab targetting is often the order of the day.

For me arenas/instances are good for mmos as and when there is little to no open world action and you are looking for a quick fix. Over and above that, if at the time I am up for an intense equal team battle, skill based, e-sport type game, I'll find that in a game specifically set up to cater for such a battle.

@OP. Just have xp loss on death. If the player still goes and gets his bounty cleared, so what, you have had a negative effect on him which is the whole point. Ofc, people are even less likely to play a game with xp loss than a simple open pvp one, but then I don't agree that borked BH systems are preventing people from open pvp games. Carebearism is whats stopping that most of the time methinks.

Originally posted by Nerf09

Originally posted by Loke666

Originally posted by AzurePrower

It's easy. Just make the bounty worth slightly less than the penalty for that person dying.

That way if they get themselves killed and claim the bounty. They still lose out.

Uhm, thats... Brilliant. Really, too bad no one told Lord Brittish this in '97.

But it should still be enough to make it worth to take it so I guess it only works when you have a pretty tough death penalty.

Except someone will get their 2nd character, second account, or friend in game to kill them after they remove all of their armor/weapons, to remove the bounty.  I'm talking about an unexploitable bounty system.

The closest thing to an unexploitable bounty system is one where the person issuing the bounty controls the conditions.  That produces Bounty Contract PvP; the target of a bounty is always trying to twist the bounty so that he can minimize the sting or actually profit from it while those issuing bounties will try to maximize the sting.  The ultimate point is that the bounty issuers would figure out what bounty has bite.  It may be generic to the game or specific to the character, but the goal is to have meaningful bounties.

As AzurePower points out, a good start is to say "I'll pay 50 cents on the dollar for any of Criminal Bob's assets that you destroy."  The assumption is that destroying assets costs far less than 50 cents on the dollar for a bounty hunter.

As I observed in my earlier post, being able to say "I'll pay 8 gold for the death of Criminal Bob's horse Trigger" is even better.  Trigger may be worth 100 gold, so if a bounty hunter wanted more money, he could steal the horse.  But stealing the horse could be done by Criminal Bob's alt, so that's too exploitable as a bounty.  The bounty issuer wants the horse dead because he knows that it's a signature part of Criminal Bob's character.

After the horse is dead, Criminal Bob shows up on an identical horse.  Or perhaps on a horse worth 7 gold named "Trigger".  The bounty issuer has to figure out a new bounty because he doesn't believe that he found the right one for Criminal Bob.

Why is the horse example better than the straight 50-cents-on-the-dollar deal?  Because Criminal Bob can destroy his own assets and get 50 cents on the dollar.  That includes everything that he has stolen and can't get to town to sell for  a good price.  Or anything that he can attach his name to but not transport.  So he 'steals' a house then burns it down and gets 50 cents on the dollar.

I think I also mentioned that bounties cannot stack.  When you do something in a game that has bounties associated with it, you get to pick the one you want to receive.  If bounties stacked, then the bounty issuer would no longer be in control of the bounty.  If bounty stacking was desireable, then the bounty system could allow for explicit stacking.  "I'll pay 8 gold for the death of Criminal Bob's horse Trigger on top of bounties A, B and C issued by other characters."

Originally posted by JB47394

Originally posted by Nerf09

Originally posted by Loke666

Originally posted by AzurePrower

It's easy. Just make the bounty worth slightly less than the penalty for that person dying.

That way if they get themselves killed and claim the bounty. They still lose out.

Uhm, thats... Brilliant. Really, too bad no one told Lord Brittish this in '97.

But it should still be enough to make it worth to take it so I guess it only works when you have a pretty tough death penalty.

Except someone will get their 2nd character, second account, or friend in game to kill them after they remove all of their armor/weapons, to remove the bounty.  I'm talking about an unexploitable bounty system.

The closest thing to an unexploitable bounty system is one where the person issuing the bounty controls the conditions.  That produces Bounty Contract PvP; the target of a bounty is always trying to twist the bounty so that he can minimize the sting or actually profit from it while those issuing bounties will try to maximize the sting.  The ultimate point is that the bounty issuers would figure out what bounty has bite.  It may be generic to the game or specific to the character, but the goal is to have meaningful bounties.

As AzurePower points out, a good start is to say "I'll pay 50 cents on the dollar for any of Criminal Bob's assets that you destroy."  The assumption is that destroying assets costs far less than 50 cents on the dollar for a bounty hunter.

As I observed in my earlier post, being able to say "I'll pay 8 gold for the death of Criminal Bob's horse Trigger" is even better.  Trigger may be worth 100 gold, so if a bounty hunter wanted more money, he could steal the horse.  But stealing the horse could be done by Criminal Bob's alt, so that's too exploitable as a bounty.  The bounty issuer wants the horse dead because he knows that it's a signature part of Criminal Bob's character.

After the horse is dead, Criminal Bob shows up on an identical horse.  Or perhaps on a horse worth 7 gold named "Trigger".  The bounty issuer has to figure out a new bounty because he doesn't believe that he found the right one for Criminal Bob.

Why is the horse example better than the straight 50-cents-on-the-dollar deal?  Because Criminal Bob can destroy his own assets and get 50 cents on the dollar.  That includes everything that he has stolen and can't get to town to sell for  a good price.  Or anything that he can attach his name to but not transport.  So he 'steals' a house then burns it down and gets 50 cents on the dollar.

I think I also mentioned that bounties cannot stack.  When you do something in a game that has bounties associated with it, you get to pick the one you want to receive.  If bounties stacked, then the bounty issuer would no longer be in control of the bounty.  If bounty stacking was desireable, then the bounty system could allow for explicit stacking.  "I'll pay 8 gold for the death of Criminal Bob's horse Trigger on top of bounties A, B and C issued by other characters."

If the bounty is not high enough it won't be worth anyone's time to hunt Criminal Bob down, or even PVP Criminal Bob if someone randomly runs into him. 

Players maximize their grinding time when playing, doing whatever gives them the most gold or exp divided by time, and that includes maximizing their gains when PVP'ing.  If the bounty is too low, nobody will even considering going after it, and PVP'ing is a bigger risk than NPC killing.

Unfortunately we can't rely on roleplayers or players policing themselves, too many games gave players a chance to do that, but the task was too large.

Originally posted by Nerf09

Except someone will get their 2nd character, second account, or friend in game to kill them after they remove all of their armor/weapons, to remove the bounty.  I'm talking about an unexploitable bounty system.

Well, I get what you're talking about - but what the heck is the point ?

You do PvP in a game, you lose, and then you can put a bounty on the attacker - what ? Why ??

Even if you cannot exploit it, its still a stupid idea.

If you dont want to lose PvP battles, you shouldnt play a PvP game.

Originally posted by Nerf09

If the bounty is not high enough it won't be worth anyone's time to hunt Criminal Bob down, or even PVP Criminal Bob if someone randomly runs into him.

Absolutely.  That's why bounty contract PvP must exist, so that if it is possible to place a bounty that bring misery to a criminal, profit to a bounty hunter and satisfaction to a bounty issuer, it will be found.

Originally posted by Nerf09

Players maximize their grinding time when playing, doing whatever gives them the most gold or exp divided by time, and that includes maximizing their gains when PVP'ing.  If the bounty is too low, nobody will even considering going after it, and PVP'ing is a bigger risk than NPC killing.

If we're restricting ourselves to level and loot grinders being played by min/maxers then there's no need to discuss a bounty system.  Nor an interesting crafting system.  Nor any system that doesn't return maximum levels and loot in the shortest time.

Originally posted by Nerf09

If the bounty is not high enough it won't be worth anyone's time to hunt Criminal Bob down, or even PVP Criminal Bob if someone randomly runs into him. 

Players maximize their grinding time when playing, doing whatever gives them the most gold or exp divided by time, and that includes maximizing their gains when PVP'ing.  If the bounty is too low, nobody will even considering going after it, and PVP'ing is a bigger risk than NPC killing.

Unfortunately we can't rely on roleplayers or players policing themselves, too many games gave players a chance to do that, but the task was too large.

That's the other side of the issue.  The bounty system has to have incentives for the bounty hunters to participate.  Bounty hunting in MMORPGs can be very frustrating since the target can simply log off and go watch TV and there is nothing you can do about it.   Few people will spend hours waiting for someone to log back on just for a simple bounty.   So unless the game makes it very easy to track people down, the bounty hunters have to be well compensated for the effort they expand.  Of course the bigger you make the rewards, the easier it becomes to exploit the system.

---

Originally posted by Nerf09

---

Originally posted by JB47394

---

Originally posted by Nerf09

---

Originally posted by Loke666

---

Originally posted by AzurePrower

It's easy. Just make the bounty worth slightly less than the penalty for that person dying.
That way if they get themselves killed and claim the bounty. They still lose out.

---

Uhm, thats... Brilliant. Really, too bad no one told Lord Brittish this in '97.
But it should still be enough to make it worth to take it so I guess it only works when you have a pretty tough death penalty.

---

Except someone will get their 2nd character, second account, or friend in game to kill them after they remove all of their armor/weapons, to remove the bounty.  I'm talking about an unexploitable bounty system.

---

The closest thing to an unexploitable bounty system is one where the person issuing the bounty controls the conditions.  That produces Bounty Contract PvP; the target of a bounty is always trying to twist the bounty so that he can minimize the sting or actually profit from it while those issuing bounties will try to maximize the sting.  The ultimate point is that the bounty issuers would figure out what bounty has bite.  It may be generic to the game or specific to the character, but the goal is to have meaningful bounties.
As AzurePower points out, a good start is to say "I'll pay 50 cents on the dollar for any of Criminal Bob's assets that you destroy."  The assumption is that destroying assets costs far less than 50 cents on the dollar for a bounty hunter.
As I observed in my earlier post, being able to say "I'll pay 8 gold for the death of Criminal Bob's horse Trigger" is even better.  Trigger may be worth 100 gold, so if a bounty hunter wanted more money, he could steal the horse.  But stealing the horse could be done by Criminal Bob's alt, so that's too exploitable as a bounty.  The bounty issuer wants the horse dead because he knows that it's a signature part of Criminal Bob's character.
After the horse is dead, Criminal Bob shows up on an identical horse.  Or perhaps on a horse worth 7 gold named "Trigger".  The bounty issuer has to figure out a new bounty because he doesn't believe that he found the right one for Criminal Bob.
Why is the horse example better than the straight 50-cents-on-the-dollar deal?  Because Criminal Bob can destroy his own assets and get 50 cents on the dollar.  That includes everything that he has stolen and can't get to town to sell for  a good price.  Or anything that he can attach his name to but not transport.  So he 'steals' a house then burns it down and gets 50 cents on the dollar.
I think I also mentioned that bounties cannot stack.  When you do something in a game that has bounties associated with it, you get to pick the one you want to receive.  If bounties stacked, then the bounty issuer would no longer be in control of the bounty.  If bounty stacking was desireable, then the bounty system could allow for explicit stacking.  "I'll pay 8 gold for the death of Criminal Bob's horse Trigger on top of bounties A, B and C issued by other characters."

---

If the bounty is not high enough it won't be worth anyone's time to hunt Criminal Bob down, or even PVP Criminal Bob if someone randomly runs into him. 
Players maximize their grinding time when playing, doing whatever gives them the most gold or exp divided by time, and that includes maximizing their gains when PVP'ing.  If the bounty is too low, nobody will even considering going after it, and PVP'ing is a bigger risk than NPC killing.
Unfortunately we can't rely on roleplayers or players policing themselves, too many games gave players a chance to do that, but the task was too large.

---

If there is a way for some one to exploit a bounty. Then it's a problem with the game mechanics of the game in question.

Let's give an example of how of how a correct bounty could be put in place.

Mr. Jones is level 5. The price for dying at level 5 costs a flat rate of 100 gold. This is excluding extra loses such as gear. If Mr. Jones was completely naked and dies, he would still lose 100 gold. A bounty to be placed on Mr. Jones would be capped at 90 gold.

Now we have Mr. Smith. He is level 50. The price for his death would cost him 1000 gold. A bounty for his death cannot exceed 900 gold.

Just an example for you to get the picture. If this system does not work which what ever game you may give as an example to where it would not work, again it's a problem with the game mechanics of the game in question itself.

You cannot tailor a bounty system for a game. You must tailor a game for the bounty system if you want it to be unexploitable.

Another thing. A bounty should be a reward for pursuing a marked person. Not a deterrent for PKing.

Another thing. A bounty should be a reward for pursuing a marked person. Not a deterrent for PKing.

IIRC the late Shadowbane implemented this particular approach near flawlessly? Via XP gains IINM.A worthwhile incentive for an open PvP fan/player if you ask me.Still...1 thing done right with the rest 9 wrong....

Part of the reason bounty systems are exploitable is that killing another player is a temporary situation unless you have a perma-death game. The rest of the reason bounty systems are exploitable is that players are the ones using them. Players will find a way to exploit bounty systems, almost no matter what you do.

So to make bounties harder to exploit you need to:
* Make it impossible for the person with the bounty on their head to profit from that bounty.
* Prevent players from placing bounties on other player's heads for no reason.

As to how to do that, I'm not sure. It might work something like this.
* Trigger the option for a bounty against another player when something happens. For instance, if a player kills you, you have the option of putting a bounty on them.

* The cost of the bounty will be relative to your "level", not the other players. It would be more expensive for an older or higher level player to put a bounty out than a younger or lower level player.

* The bounty hunter who collects the bounty gets paid in a currency that they can't transfer to someone else...like guild reputation or guild experience.

* Only bounty hunters not 'friendly' with the bounty can collect it. Whether this is friendly via a guild membership or a faction membership would be determined by the game itself and how important those two things are.

* The bounty reward would be relative to the level of the player being hunted at the time they are killed.

* This would not prevent money being exchanged between players in a private trade once the bounty is collected. It would not guarantee it either.

* The bounty could not have another bounty placed on their head by the same player, unless they did something to trigger the bounty option.

The bounty system above is limited, but harder to exploit. Not impossible...somebody would find a way to do it. It could be expanded to guild level bounties or faction level bounties and there's no reason that NPC's couldn't get in on the action. The only difference with NPC bounties is that NPC's would pay bounties in game money, not a non-transferable currency (maybe).

There has to be a stat loss/skill loss element.

For example, say you're playing EVE and there is this guy with a 20 billion bounty. When the player gets "captured", his assets also get confiscated by the bounty agency on a ratio proportional to the bounty (the higher the bounty, more assets would be lost), and if the killed player with a bounty would not have enough assets to pay the penalty, the remaining amount would be converted into a skill point loss.

Say, 20 billion ISK bounty and supposing a 2:3 ratio, the player would have to lose 30 billion in random assets when killed. Then, if he is unable to fully pay that debt, the remaining value gets converted into a 1:1000 skill point loss. Say, he only had 19 billions in assets, now he would have to lose 11 billion : 1000 = 11 million skill points, also randomly.  

The ratios could be tweaked but their point is to make it not attractive to kill yourself for a bounty, especially if it's your main character.

Furthermore, if the player directly traded his assets with others before getting killed and because of that was unable to pay the debt including skill points, these players who directly traded with a player with a bounty would be also punished, with a bounty being placed on them for the remaining value. The lore explanation for this is the known fact that trading with criminals would be sanctionable by law, and the criminal upon capture would have the information of previous trades extracted from him.

This is more like a "justice" system than a simple bounty system.

And no, being evil in a game should not be easy unless that is how everyone will play the game, though it's been proven over and over again that a completely lawless system does not bring good results.

I would make bounty rewards into bounty credits, wich are like emblems and non tradeable.

Wich can used for vendor items.

A bounty radar would be implemented, to track your bounty.

Once a bounty has been selected and made active, and the target is online then he/she cant log out his char for 60 min.

If he turns of the game/turns of the pc, the character inworld will still be present for those remaining 60 min.

A waterproof system is hard, im sure people will find exploits to abuse it.

I think the easy fix to this is to just make the expoit unprofitable.  You could do it like this...

Make the target of the bounty suffer stat/exp loss when they are killed and the bounty collected that is proportional, and more severe than the benefit of the bounty.

For example, say it takes about 10 hours of grinding to gain 5 points in a skill, and it takes 5 hours of grinding to gain 500 gold.

If victim A, puts a bounty of 500 on PK B, then PK B loses 5 points in a skill when he gets killed while the bounty exists.

Now say that PK-collborator C kills PK B, and they split the bounty.  The problem is that PK B, lost 5 points of a skill which is more valuable than the 500 gold they gained.  You can't move skills around, so there is no way to "hide" your assets when you try to exploit the bounty system.  This is not profitable, people would not exploit in this manner.

In order to prevent "malicious exploiting" of setting bounties, you could make it so a victim can only set a bounty after they have been PK'd.  This way the PK would basically be "asking for" the bounty and the risk of stat loss when they get it.

Originally posted by EricDanie

There has to be a stat loss/skill loss element.

For example, say you're playing EVE and there is this guy with a 20 billion bounty. When the player gets "captured", his assets also get confiscated by the bounty agency on a ratio proportional to the bounty (the higher the bounty, more assets would be lost), and if the killed player with a bounty would not have enough assets to pay the penalty, the remaining amount would be converted into a skill point loss.

Say, 20 billion ISK bounty and supposing a 2:3 ratio, the player would have to lose 30 billion in random assets when killed. Then, if he is unable to fully pay that debt, the remaining value gets converted into a 1:1000 skill point loss. Say, he only had 19 billions in assets, now he would have to lose 11 billion : 1000 = 11 million skill points, also randomly.  

The ratios could be tweaked but their point is to make it not attractive to kill yourself for a bounty, especially if it's your main character.

Furthermore, if the player directly traded his assets with others before getting killed and because of that was unable to pay the debt including skill points, these players who directly traded with a player with a bounty would be also punished, with a bounty being placed on them for the remaining value. The lore explanation for this is the known fact that trading with criminals would be sanctionable by law, and the criminal upon capture would have the information of previous trades extracted from him.

This is more like a "justice" system than a simple bounty system.

And no, being evil in a game should not be easy unless that is how everyone will play the game, though it's been proven over and over again that a completely lawless system does not bring good results.

Why not just keep the debt that the player has to pay back?  Itll take 75% of the players profits until its paid o.o  Simple and without skill point loss o.o 

As for the collecting the bounty thing...I think that there should be a balance. Maybe let the contract makers decide who gets to participate in the bounty hunt?   That will solve a LOT of problems and that will let bounty hunter guilds  become famous o.o

I like your idea as well that the one with the bounty will lose assets/money as he gets killed that way it becomes impossible to exploit because if his guildie kills him, he loses 20 billion and the guildie gets 20 billion o.o

IF anything, I think that it should just be money and the d00d gets put in debt o.o

Originally posted by Nerf09

Come up with an unexploitable bounty system, brainstorm.

Player A talks to player B and tells the player to kill player C for X amount of money. 

Or make a forum post regarding your willingness to pay for Player C's head.

Really....why does everyone need actually game mechenics these days to do anything. 

Lack of quality PvP games is due to 1 major "flaw" in gaming.  In the "real" world if someone kills you that is generally considered a bad thing.  You're dead!

In video games you just respawn. 

Another way to look at it...

If you go buy a gun and shoot some little kid you dislike... what happens?  Most likely thrown in jail for LONG time.

In a game if you shoot some little kid (noob) what happens?  Nothing.  As long as you don't do it next to guards.  What happens if that little kid and 10 of his buddies kill you?  Bad things as well!

What about if 10 friends group up (in the real world) and go kill 1 person on the street corner?  Hopefully bad things!

What about if you and ANY number of friends are at war, and kill people?  Bad things happen to THEM...  That is the problem, they need to control WHEN you're allowed to kill people.  If you allow open killing all the time, the checks and balances that the WORLD has developed over 1000's of years go out the window and will never work.

Originally posted by Painlezz

Lack of quality PvP games is due to 1 major "flaw" in gaming.  In the "real" world if someone kills you that is generally considered a bad thing.  You're dead!

In video games you just respawn. 

Another way to look at it...

If you go buy a gun and shoot some little kid you dislike... what happens?  Most likely thrown in jail for LONG time.

In a game if you shoot some little kid (noob) what happens?  Nothing.  As long as you don't do it next to guards.  What happens if that little kid and 10 of his buddies kill you?  Bad things as well!

What about if 10 friends group up (in the real world) and go kill 1 person on the street corner?  Hopefully bad things!

What about if you and ANY number of friends are at war, and kill people?  Bad things happen to THEM...  That is the problem, they need to control WHEN you're allowed to kill people.  If you allow open killing all the time, the checks and balances that the WORLD has developed over 1000's of years go out the window and will never work.

It's called RETRIBUTION, and fear of it, and it's how a bounty system is suppose to work.