I can see how that makes sense for the case I specified. But I'm not sure I like it. There should be a way to place a bounty on anyone who crossed you. Maybe limit bounties to the net worth of the bountied (is that even a word?) player's assets? Or possibly, to not reveal actual net worth that way, to the average net worth of characters of the target toon's age. I'm sure the Good Doctor has a curve for just that lying about somewhere.

I just want to propose a relatively simple mathematical solution to a long-broken system.

Regarding character age/assets: I unsubbed for a long time (twice), and so I don't have the SP or ISK/assets you might expect based merely on toon age. Some other characters are disproportionately rich/poor, for whatever reason, and you can always hide assets on a second account if you want.

Dead ship: Everyone on the killmail splits 25% of the base value of the destroyed ship and destroyed fittings (not dropped), up to the amount in escrow. The killers also split the insurance payout, if for some reason the wanted pilot had insurance.

Dead pod: Everyone on the killmail splits 75% of the base value of the implants plus 75% of the cost of the clone*, up to the amount in escrow.

Vile rat buys a hurricane from a buy order in Verge Vendor for 20mil
Vile platinum insures that hurricane for 23mil at a cost of 7mil

The current Jita/ Index price used in determining bounty payout on a Hurricane is 25mil

How about you let Pend take the stance that a bounty increases their risk and thus have them reduce the base ship value the insurance payout is calculated from by the part of the ships's value the bounty hunter is to receive? If we let Pend handle bounties, they'd be in a good position to do just that.

Also, I'm not sure the insurance should go to the bounty hunter. Too much impact on newish players that are frivolously bountied (in relation to those that aren't. I still think insurance should take into account insured player's sec status and ship loss history when calculating insurance premium and possibly refuse payout for CONCORD-involved kills.).

I agree that insurance is really the big problem in the system. However, I still want Trebor's money.

If you mean that players get no insurance when CONCORD is on their killmail, I think that makes sense but it's out of scope for this proposal.

I'll start by saying I'm a big fan of the general idea, but when I read the original post I was a little unhappy with assigning arbitrary value to implants and using them as part of the bounty (then again, I wasn't happy when dropped mods and implants appeared on killmails). On second read I'm really uncomfortable with the whole assigning arbitrary value to player produced items, especially things like faction mods.

And the insurance thing is just a ****** attempt to squeeze a controversial idea in on the back of a popular one.

Player's don't produce faction mods. All the base values are indexed by typeID in the system, based on mineral value for t1 stuff (and probably for t2 stuff as badly as they insure). I'm not sure about how the base value of implants is indexed; I abstracted values based on ISK/LP cost in corp LP stores.

Deleted the note about insurance in the original post since I missed it before. Which insurance idea do you hate? I think insurance in general is crappy all around, but it's not within the scope of a bounty fix.

Yeah, I'm a bit rusty on the exact mechanics but I know this. I'm just very wary of anything which tries to apply a monetary value to a kill because it tends to result in people losing concern for any other value the kill might have (see, almost all killboards ever). Not to mention the cost of a ship is only tenuously related to its combat ability. I guess I'd be happier with a system that paid out based on clone and hull baseprice only because we already have absolute values for those things in game already.

As an afterthought, if I'm paid out based on the market cost of the mods on my ship, whats to stop me buying all of something rare but cheap (say T2 micro smartbombs), relisting at outrageous prices then having an alt kill me with a full rack on my ship?

My language was probably a bit confrontational but my point was basically the same as yours. Bounties are a tiny part of the game and almost universally considered broken. Insurance spans almost all of it. People in this forum have a habit of trying to shoehorn their pet terrible idea into an otherwise good one by invoking the spectre of the current bogeyman (be it bots or goons or whatever) and it makes me really irationally angry. This idea stands on its own merit without needing to make extra concessions because a bunch of people have had their mining barges exploded recently.

Three points:

1. In the event of a pod kill, the reward should include the cost of lost clothing, etc. (i.e., anything lost in the pod kill). I for one would pay a lot more for a pod kill that included a monocle. Also, I'd LOVE to have a collection of monocle clad corpses.
2. The actual cost of the clone involved in the pod kill should be used to calculate the reward. Since the isk was spent already there is no way to game it and players regularly 'over clone'.
3. Podding yourself via self destruct (for instance, to escape WH space) should not result in any reward payment.

For ships kills, why not just the ship values and not worry about all the ins and outs of the modules and cargo? The values are calculated quarterly already for insurance purposes. Modules ... meh, does it really matter? The killer is going to scoop them and the victim will loose them.

For Pods, base it off the cost of the clone's SP retention level, that value is known too, why make t any more complex than that.

stuff

One issue is that it's a "game design" proposal, ie: a specific change proposal as opposed to "fix bounties". Certain people inside CCP hate such direct "do this, dumbasses" proposals.

I've already pointed people to the thread. If it gets a few more pages of discussion, I'll push harder.

One issue is that it's a "game design" proposal, ie: a specific change proposal as opposed to "fix bounties". Certain people inside CCP hate such direct "do this, dumbasses" proposals.

Hey, I never said I agreed with the philosophy, and it is by no means held by everyone in CCP. So these discussions have a purpose.

I've already pointed people to the thread. If it gets a few more pages of discussion, I'll push harder.

I haven't run into anyone who thinks the bounty system as-is actually works.