Another thing to add here is that we're fully expecting to have to add a time period into the bounty lists. This is definitely needed for the bounty hunter list (so the default view only shows last 6 months activity or something like that), otherwise, the numbers in there are going to run into trillions at some point. The same could be the case for the Most Wanted list, where the default Most Wanted list only includes 'active' players. The tricky thing here of course is defining what 'active' means

Just note, we're still in the early stages of looking into further iteration on the bounty system, so I can't say for sure what will be done. So these are all just speculations at this point

I completely agree that we need a small increase in payout the higher the wanted bounty is, but no more than 40% since once you get to 50% it become profitable to self destruct.


also enforce a SP limit so alts cannot have bounties, and if you wish to make it a really awesome ISK sink?

"make the bounty isk disappear over time if no more bounties are added to someone. so if you have a 10 bill bounty but no one adds a bounty to your char in 2 weeks, reduce 1 bill from it." this one is just an idea and I m quite sure a flawed one...

I completely agree that we need a small increase in payout the higher the wanted bounty is, but no more than 40% since once you get to 50% it become profitable to self destruct.


also enforce a SP limit so alts cannot have bounties, and if you wish to make it a really awesome ISK sink?

"make the bounty isk disappear over time if no more bounties are added to someone. so if you have a 10 bill bounty but no one adds a bounty to your char in 2 weeks, reduce 1 bill from it." this one is just an idea and I m quite sure a flawed one...

I like that disappearing part.

Keep in mind though.

Just knowing that a high enough bounty will push the payout amount on someone up, would entice some level of organized bounty placement to ensure certian individuals move to the top.

The alts at the top would end up having to be people putting bounties on their own characters, and they'd have to compete with every person contibuting to the bounty system. It should result in a kind of competition, forcing the alt bounty to have to constantly dump more and more in.

At least that's what I speculate would happen with the bounty system.

My own speculation would be that the people with to much isk on their hands would be able to stay on the top.
Some people with a titan and super carrier, deciding the next cool thing to do is to be at the top of the bounty board just for fun.

By spending isk on their own alt-who-never-undocks the bounty never gets removed, and just keeps getting added, while people who actually undock with high bounty get hunted down and eventually lose some of that bounty.

And i do agree with the forum bounty system enticing more alt posters.
But, a lot of people have been asking for some sort of a negrep button, and a bounty system on the forums sounds unique and fits exactly in the theme of EVE Online and what it stands for.
Personally, i still think it's a very interesting idea, even though people will use alts to get around that.

Just note, we're still in the early stages of looking into further iteration on the bounty system, so I can't say for sure what will be done. So these are all just speculations at this point

I'm not a big fan of the idea of expiring bountes, however I do understand and see a lot of merit in it.

I'm also curious how come you guys decided to not allow us to withdraw a bounty, and put a transaction tax on placing and removing a bounty.

Another thing to add here is that we're fully expecting to have to add a time period into the bounty lists. This is definitely needed for the bounty hunter list (so the default view only shows last 6 months activity or something like that), otherwise, the numbers in there are going to run into trillions at some point. The same could be the case for the Most Wanted list, where the default Most Wanted list only includes 'active' players. The tricky thing here of course is defining what 'active' means

Just note, we're still in the early stages of looking into further iteration on the bounty system, so I can't say for sure what will be done. So these are all just speculations at this point

Well, while you're cogitating, throw this idea into the mix.

CCP wisely chose to limit the bounty payout to a maximum of 20% of the ship/pod loss in order to forestall exploiting of the bounties by the target using insurance. But as a consequence, the bounties are widely perceived as not being enough of an inducement for bounty hunters to go after the individual (with the notable exception that bounties *may* induce bounty hunters to declare war on the target's corp in order to take CONCORD out of the mix).

So, why not reduce the insurance payout? Insurance is supposed to cushion the blow, especially for newer players. So leave the current mechanics in place for T1 frigate deaths. But as the target's ship class moves up the scale (indicating that they are no longer "newbies"), reduce the insurance payout and increase the bounty percentage in lockstep. So, for example, a T1 cruiser/industrial hull can pay out a maximum of 25% of loss, a BC 30%, a T2 frigate/cruiser/BC/indy 35%, a T1 BS 40%, Marauder or Black Ops BS 45%, and anything bigger 50%. That keeps *some* insurance for the target, but also increases the payout for bounty hunters when hunting juicier targets WHICH ARE NOT NEWBS. Again, as the bounty percentage increases, the insurance payout reduces. That means being the target (and losing) stings just a little bit more.

MDD

Couple the bounty payout to the standings as well.

Meaning standing of 5 gives you only 5%, standing of 0 = 20%, standing of -5 = 30%, below -5 = 40%.

I dont like placing bounties on positive with a sec status at all, but make a positive sec status at least count for something!

It'd be fairly interesting to see 20% as the base and create new social skills that can increase that. Also...

Concord should be placing bounties on players from time to time.

There needs to be a way for bounty hunters to get intel on player location(last seen in X type of thing) and to have better overview controls for bounty targets.

There needs to be a way for bounty hunters to get intel on player location(last seen in X type of thing) and to have better overview controls for bounty targets.

There needs to be a way for bounty hunters to get intel on player location(last seen in X type of thing) and to have better overview controls for bounty targets.

I didn't mean that the bounty would be removed, just that the list would be culled/adjusted based on time. The bounty would still be there, but the Most Wanted list would have some rules making it as up-to-date and relevant as possible. This is similar to how the actual FBI top 10 most wanted list works, where people can be removed if there are no leads for some amount of time.

Withdrawing a bounty is actually something we're looking into whether we should add (note that if we do this it would always come at a cost, i.e. you can never get 100% returned). We decided to not have a transaction tax but increase the minimum bounty instead. While this is not a direct ISK sink, the bounty system is already acting as an indirect ISK sink as the valuables lost are always higher than the ISK changing hands (this isn't ISK sink per se, more of an economic lubricator, but it amounts to pretty much the same). The same reasoning applied to Kill Right selling.

You mean, like a locator agent?

They show up just fine on my overview....and their icon even flashes on Local.

There needs to be something that directs players to them.

Like a tab in the bounty window that will allow you to find locator agents like you can with mission agents. I'm willing to bet that most people don't even know that there is such a thing. It took a few years before I understood that's how people could find you. Even today I still have no idea how to locate a locator agent. If they're listed under a different name in the agent finder then maybe they need to be clearly listed as locator agents.

I always used this website to find locator agents. Higher level ones find people faster.

http://eve-agents.com

Bounties, as close as Logistics Pilots can get to a kill mail without pretending to be DPS.

I flew Logistics on a roam last night. We poked an obvious cyno trap in order to get a fight and got hot dropped (as expected) by a large Black Ops fleet. We lost 4 Hurricanes, but I managed to keep them up long enough to take out 2 Recon ships and three Stealth Bombers, so we won from an efficiency standpoint. Our 2 Scimitars and a Tangu got away because their Falcons had prevented us from taking hostile action for the last 60 seconds so once the Hurricanes went down we were able to jump out.

Now to bring this back on topic, the Bounty payouts I got are the only proof that I was actually there. It is hardly a substitute for a kill mail, but at least it shows that I was in fleet and in the same system when the kills happened.

Question: Are Bounty payouts given to members of the fleet that makes the kill who are a) on grid, or b) in system?

There needs to be something that directs players to them.

Like a tab in the bounty window that will allow you to find locator agents like you can with mission agents. I'm willing to bet that most people don't even know that there is such a thing. It took a few years before I understood that's how people could find you. Even today I still have no idea how to locate a locator agent. If they're listed under a different name in the agent finder then maybe they need to be clearly listed as locator agents.

Payouts should rise substantially with how high a person's bounty is. I would like to see 100% pay out for people on the top 10. This would make sure that they are actually hunted, and decent payout is given. Either that or put percentage points based on how high a bounty it is. Personally I like it going by rank. Top 10 = 100% payout, 11-20 = 90%, and on down the line. 20% of the hull just doesn't make it seem worth while.