What if the player with the bounty on his head has a positive sec status...?

I have read a lot of posts about how the bounty system is not doing what it is supposed to do and a high level of frustration seems evident.

I would like to propose a new GÇ£bounty hunterGÇ¥ skill that would enable a player to shoot any character with a bounty on them of over 200,000,000 isk without Concord intervention in high sec.

The Bounty Hunter would have to have a positive sec status in order for his skill to be applicable.

This will expand the opportunities for non-consensual High sec PVP dramatically. I'm thinking alpha strike DPS here! A level 5 Bounty Hunter skill would lower the isk amount of target worthy bounties to 20,000,000 isk.

We can create a thriving profitable business model for high sec non-consensual PVP and solve many of the complaints I have read about the system not working.

I look forward to your comments/ improvements and nonsensical whines.

(The fact that Zim likes this without any repercussions or feedback is probably a bad thing in this instance. )

So... how would we circumvent that issue.

2 characters. One to place the bounty, one to shoot.

2 characters. One to get the bounty placed on him, one to pod and collect the bounty after the 72 hours have passed.

I don't see the point of this, honestly. The only thing you'll end up doing is basically have people give isk away.

The point is when someone puts a bounty on someone someone else can collect it without Concord getting in the way.

Someone else pointed out the smart idea of placing a bounty on a person just before you are going to gank them.

Someone 1 could be a alt on the same account (or more likely different for faster transaction) placing the bounty, someone 2 is the person ganking and collecting the isk. someone 3 is the person who is geting ganked and has a bounty put on his head for no crime.

So investing 200 mil (or even less) and being able to gank someone.

Of course.... the maneuver has to be fast to work, a chance exists that the person could see somehow they have bounty on head and escape (logoff) and latter get their own friend or alt to kill them.

Though,..... this brings up a idea to fix the bounty system and this, have it be so you can only place bounty after you get ganked on any gankers. Being that the police may not permit unfair useage of concord recognized bounites on honest law abiding pod pilots.

To circumvent an obvious exploit an Alliance member of or the the person placing the bounty can not collect the bounty or the Concord immunity. You can only collect bounties that are not otherwise connected to you. Certainly you can't place a bounty on someone and then collect from yourself, lol nice try however Zim.

So imagine that you put a 500M bounty on Lord Zim, whom I'm sure we all agree richly deserves it. Under the current system, he will simply jump to an empty clone and pod himself with an alt, collecting your 500 mill, less the cost of a new clone. Lord Zim: 490,000,000 You: 0. The current system is worthless to you.

Transferrable killrights tied to bounty contracts, with payouts based on hull and destroyed module value are the most obvious solution, with plenty of scope to make exploitation reasonably difficult. That stops gankers using a Joe Random alt to create the bounty, although it might enourage them to use bait alts (I am OK with people doing this).

For instance, we could design the contract system so that the person placing the bounty contract can restrict who can accept that bounty by taking a cue from the fleet finder; the bounty contract could be restricted to "People in my corp" "People in my alliance" "People I have set a positive standing" or even "anyone I haven't set a negative standing" or just "anyone". The looser the restrictions you set, the more people can accept it and show Zim their ammo, but the greater the chance that someone you don't want to accept it will be able to collect.

Likewise, bounty hunters could accept for themselves, for their corp or for their alliance. Bounty contracts accepted on behalf of corp/alliance are paid direct to corp/alliance when collected. This is to encourage the formation of bounty hunting corps/alliances, who would encourage aggrieved bounty-placers to set them blue, and who would thereby depend on their reputations. It allows groups of less powerful players to work together to collect a bounty, but it also allows for solo bounty hunters. Bounty hunting corps which carelessly allow Zim alts into their ranks to "steal" the bounty contracts will quickly lose their reputation and be excluded from further business.

And the payout per kill on the bounty should be limited to less than the irretrievable loss from that kill, allowing the bounty payout to cover multiple losses if it's high enough.

Under the system I envisage, Lord Zim would have to have an alt who is in a corp or alliance you've set to +ve standings to even accept the bounty contract. That 500M bounty would then be paid out according to the losses that Zim suffers. For example, if his clone costs 10 mill, then the bounty paid for podding him would be 10M. If he was wearing a pair of +4 implants, which cost 12M +12k LP from the LP store, then a further 24M gets paid for podding him. Likewise, the bounty paid for destroying his ship would be 2/3 of the effective NPC value of the hull, which we could usefully define here as the cost of a platinum insurance premium. So if someone blows his Maelstrom up, they get ~35M or so (can't recall the exact value).

This way even if Zim does manage to somehow get his alt to accept the bounty, he will find it difficult and unprofitable to use that alt to collect it. Not impossible, but at least that way the bounty you place is very far from simply being a free gift as it is now.

There's a few minor holes that I can see, but I'll keep that in the assembly hall thread (since that thread has a much better beginning than this one).

So imagine that you put a 500M bounty on Lord Zim, whom I'm sure we all agree richly deserves it.

Malcanis is so reasonable... its almost disgusting

What if the player with the bounty on his head has a positive sec status...?