So Older players can place cheap bounties on newer players and get bounty profits more easily as a result?

Or place cheap bounties on non PvP ships e.g. freighters/miners, who may have expensive ships and pod ratings and profit enourmously?

In fact place cheap bounties on anybody and potentially profit substantially?

Not sure how this really would help the policing process, imagine it would create a huge feast of griefing problems as a result.

Seems you could continually have a gank of bounties against one individual also and cause him to go broke as a result quite quickly also due to having to pay the deluge of fine(s)?

Or is this just a remedial way of trying to stop anyone going into suffiently negative security for a bounty status ever? Because if they are aware of the potential ramifications as stands, it would work I think. ;) And that's before the added feature of applying a bounty sufficient to make them an outlaw in the first place and all problems associated with it.

Well I dont see any explanation of the minimum of bounty or method above as you describe, would make more sense if so.

Beside, insta outlaw someone with a huge bounty, multiple opportunities to freely shoot their ships and pods till paid sounds like a nice profiteering exercise and hurt the other guys wallet to boot. Seems like a way to print Isk, potentially.

Even if outlaws were given the opportunity to bribe authorities to correct security standing as a balancer it would still mean they are out of pocket from the exercise. And possibly make pirating simply more attractive anyhow.

If they can't afford to pay do you plex your get out of jail card? And then have to do it again and again from multiple bounties one after another? Seriously?

Or place cheap bounties on non PvP ships e.g. freighters/miners, who may have expensive ships and pod ratings and profit enourmously?

In fact place cheap bounties on anybody and potentially profit substantially?

So as soon you have a non trivial amount of bounty on your head you will get killed sooner or later**, not once, multiple times until your bounty is payed off since the hunters don't get all the bounties at once

[quote=Pelador Rova]
But honestly, I'd go further and that and allow bounties to be payed when ships are destroyed, as well as when pods are (two separate payouts, if ISK is left for the second). And also, include implant killmails (upcoming patch...) into your payment method.

there are still some corner cases to tackle.

the hull insurance payed back to the bad guy should be subtracted from the ship payback to the hunter. This fixes an exploit where killing yourself repeatedly in an empty insured T1 ship could bring the bounty back to 0 without big ISK impact for the bad guy.

This should make almost no difference in the usual case where the bad guy is flying a fully fitted ship, since the fitting is part of the ship payout formula.

-Bounty can only be applicable over players that have negative security status.

- For every 1 isk spent on bounty: The killer will gain 1 isk (bounty office reward) and the killed will lose 1 isk (bounty office fee).

- The maximum amount of drained isk is "X%" of player's current total ISK in his wallet. (Where X is function of the killed security status)

- If the amount drained is inferior to the Bounty value due to the % restriction, then just a part of the bounty is consumed / rewarded.

-The fee is calculated after the insurance refund, so the killed player will have at last a few ISK in the wallet.

Always pro ideas to discuss making the system actually usable, so bravo Bienator.

Alas, because of the ways it could be exploited, it is extremely hard to make Bounty workable, even with your suggestions (I like the idea of the ship loss partially paying out as most decent low sec pilots are slippery when in their pod). Having non-blue or same alliance won't stop it being abused sadly, because it takes just seconds to create a neutral alt to cash in.

yeah, but this does not help.

the payout is always less than the value of the destroyed item. You can not make money by selfkill (via blue, alt.. etc).

lets say you fly a navy apoc which costs with modules around 800mil, your bounty is 1000mil. Your alt kills you in it.

payout = 60% of 800mil = 480mil

this means you reduced your bounty by 480mil but lost 800mil in assets

-> 320mil lost

same applies for podkills

implementation details
...
- a hunter won't get any payout if he is in the same alliance or blue to the bad guy

i say make a new bounty agent

that gives out random bounty's to random people with a set amount of time to complete it in say 3 days

Correct me if I am wrong, but wouldn't the no insurace payout thing mean that you can "steal" insurance? Place bounty, kill or suicide gank him so they get no insurance. You won't get it too, but this would be horror for miners in HighSec.

If a bounty is collected, the pirate does not get an insurance payout on their ship (thats where it hurts the pirate). And if the pirate is under GCC, that insurance is paid directly into the bounty.

I know there is a way to abuse this, please find it as I cannot taint my own ideas...

we discussed this a bit on the first page. Problem here is that insurance is somewhat independent from bounties. IMO it wouldn't be fair to remove the mechanics of insurance form people with bounty on the head. Why would the bad guy ever insure the ship with this in place?

But hey we could have an compromise. Like 50% insurance payout, rest goes to the bounty payout.

regarding the positive sec status: Riddick would say sometimes you need evil to kill evil :)
I don't think we really need this restriction so far.


but once again those are only little details to smooth the corners - gamedesign experts should work on them ;)

keep up the discussion!

i say make a new bounty agent

that gives out random bounty's to random people with a set amount of time to complete it in say 3 days

you cant get a bounty on a guy thats in your corp/alliance

and if you decline a bounty you get a X hours cool down time before you can request a new one

and a min bounty of 20mill to keep the system from being flooded with 1 isk bountys

a bounty of 500mill + gives the bounty hunter kill rights on the guys pod/ship in highsec

a bounty of 2 bill + gives kill rights to the hunter in high sec and reduces 1 skill as picked by the bounty placer by 50,000 skill points

Bienator II you say its a artificial well all rules in the sandbox are but if the bounty system is to ever work it must be made so that people cant collect on their own bounties. if you have an idea that would stop people from being able to collect their own bounties im more than willing to hear it

lets say you fly a navy apoc which costs with modules around 800mil, your bounty is 1000mil. Your alt kills you in it.
payout = 60% of 800mil = 480mil
this means you reduced your bounty by 480mil but lost 800mil in assets
-> 320mil lost
same applies for podkills

- make payout reflect what effectively was destroyed and what dropped, if the ship was insured and so on

- apply some factor to the resulting base payout value (i suggest 90%, maybe have skills to influence that - the long lost DED connections? change to % increase *hehe*)

- once you have a bounty - even the slightest - you should be eligible to people trying to collect it everywhere, regardless of your current sec status.

- once you have commited a crime you should be eligible to having bounty placed on your head (by the victim)

- give holders of bounties a chance to redeem themselves and get rid of the bounty - e.g. paying back five times the bounty to the victim(s), or ten times the bounty to concord.

hmm i gues this coud be a beter idea...

I think Blenator's idea works. Interesting how it mimics npc pirate bounties.

Any thoughts about making the bounty system part of the contract system?

Someone will make a gambling establishment and a char with its name and put 500M bounty on it.
Someone will make alt for scamming in Jita and bounty will be placed on his head.

its like forbidding highsec wardecs since you can grief people

Highsec wardecs are a two way street. While the deccer usually has an advantage, the target can effectively fight back if they so choose, or just evade the dec. Its not really part of this thread, but I have no problem with a bounty hunter model, where bounties and bounty hunters can freely shoot each other. I do object to proposals that allow a bounty to be shot without any way for the bounty to proactively defend themselves.

@Bienator

I'm more in favor of contract kill system. It's actually possible now, but without actual contract system, so you must rely on the other party honoring the agreement.

Simply I issue contract for killing someone. I may also put into contract that I will reimburse up to 200M or other amount of damages to mercenaries due to Concord if they're successful. I would be able to demand damage of certain ISK amount, or podding etc.

The contracts wouldn't advertise in CQ anymore, as they aren't bounties.

the guy who did set the contract up can decide who signs the contract (e.g he has to sign after that). As i said its his responsibility to check the hunter if he is valid. e.g not an alt. Its more player controlled this way. The normal eve-style system will still work of course. This is only an *optional* add-on to that.

This allows to have payouts which are larger as the ship/pod value to add additional rewards to encourage specific hunters to get the job done faster. edit: If you put put too much on his head... you increase the risk that the victim will put a lot of effort to set up a alt hunter - but that would be a typical eve scam, thats something else as bounty system exploit ;)

current contract system won't be sufficient since it does not support this bi-directional contract signing (like a handshake). It is to anonymous for that task.

Not really crazy about this idea.

Fundamentally, you don't have to undock to play the game, and the current bounties on people are basically to be at the top of the most wanted list (Eve Online Hold Em) puts a ton of their characters with 500m+ bounties to just advertise their service.

How do you plan to stop the most wanted list from being an advertisement board as well?

Not really crazy about this idea.

Fundamentally, you don't have to undock to play the game, and the current bounties on people are basically to be at the top of the most wanted list (Eve Online Hold Em) puts a ton of their characters with 500m+ bounties to just advertise their service.

How do you plan to stop the most wanted list from being an advertisement board as well?

Currently, private bounties work by delivering the corpse to the issuer as proof of completion. The same thing should basically happen imho.

Issuer creates a "contract" for the corpse of a specific person. Collect corpse, deliver to player, and a contract is completed.

Uses the already existing contract system, requires collection of a corpse (which is hard enough) and then upon delivery contract is completed.

EvE is not about PvP. EvE is about the SANDBOX! - CCP! Open the door!!!

once you have a bounty high enough you should be a legal target to anyone, regardless of sec status. there is a reason you got the bounty first place.

once you have a bounty high enough you should be a legal target to anyone, regardless of sec status. there is a reason you got the bounty first place.

bounty payout needs to be based on and equal or less of what got destroyed. only way to fix the system being exploitable.

Read the first post and most of the first page, Like the idea as a whole with few tweaks here n there.
would just like to add that you shouldn't be able to claim a bounty you place yourself.

Read the first post and most of the first page, Like the idea as a whole with few tweaks here n there.
would just like to add that you shouldn't be able to claim a bounty you place yourself.

ESBS an eve-style bounty system


other ideas:
- if bounty = very high -> outlaw
- contracts to get the job done quicker
- bribe concord to temporary(!) get rid of the bounty in selected regions
- ... 100 other things, see bold text below

note: this is only the core idea for a not exploitable system. The system can be improved/tweaked further but i wanted to keep it short and only highlight the fix to the problem