If you don't like a harsher eve environment then maybe this game isn't for you?

Maybe what I should propose then is a kill contract that you can make where the money gets deposited upon death of the target... Actually that sounds like a fairly good idea. I honestly didn't expect to get something useful out of this thread but posted it anyway, and hey. got something useful.

I think regulating bounties (read: adding an un-exploitable in-game system for bounties in order to make them lucrative) will kill the current way in which people get hunted down or harassed in exchange for ISK or other services.


Right now, if you want someone dead you either do it yourself or hire somebody to do it. You can put a massive bounty on them using the in-game system, but that alone won't get somebody to bite.. and it shouldn't.

If you have a vendetta, find somebody or a group (there are plenty of them) who will go raise hell. There are no guarantees and you can get screwed over. This is how it should be.


What is wrong with the system as it is now? There is a large contingent of EVE players who make their pixel bucks as mercenaries.

While it would be a solution, I would much rather see a system that actually worked be implemented. Granted, I have no idea what that system would be, but I just dislike taking sand out of the sandbox whenever possible.

RubyPorto

If you don't like a harsher eve environment then maybe this game isn't for you?

That argument could literally be used for any proposed changed to the game and as such is really not a good point to make.

But how would you know the guy accepting the contracting isn't an alt, or somebody who will just split your ISK with the mark?

I think the difference here is that there is the possibility for two separate professions rather than just one. By removing, or rather not implementing one of them well, it isn't necessarily taking away from the remaining profession, just from the game as a whole.

While it would be a solution, I would much rather see a system that actually worked be implemented. Granted, I have no idea what that system would be, but I just dislike taking sand out of the sandbox whenever possible.

One of the issues with this "discussion" is that no improvement I propose will be free of EVERY possible drawback that ALREADY exist. You don't know that a merc corp will honor the contract either.

because it can be EASILY abused right now,

One of the issues with this "discussion" is that no improvement I propose will be free of EVERY possible drawback that ALREADY exist. You don't know that a merc corp will honor the contract either.

I think the technical difficulty is in the implementation.

The fundamental question is.. how would the game differentiate between a legitimate kill and an orchestrated one? This is the blocking issue for having an in-game bounty system which is actually used for bounty hunting.

You're right, that is the biggest problem I can see for it. The only thing that pops into my head is to model it after the mercenary profession, but with individual targets and an in-game implementation. By offering an open bounty on a player, not immediately payed out but rather an offer to pay out, set in escrow; then the player offering the bounty can approve whichever bounty hunters apply to be eligible for the final payout on any kills. I'm not sure about all of the details, but regardless I'd like to see CCP pursue the matter a bit further, if only to brainstorm for more possible ideas.

Azda Ja

actually I've answered it multiple times. Take your choice of answers. Because it's currently an aspect that CCP CHOSE to implement that is honestly very lack luster, because it can be EASILY abused right now, because it has no impact on the game, because it would add to the depth of the game, or any of the other myriad of choices. If you want something else worked on, go make a thread. They'll let you. I promise. Just say "Hey, can I make a thread." And they'll go yeah.

Would you mind making a new topic with your original idea a little more thought out? I don't wanna steal your thunder, but I'd enjoy trying to help work on it. This post is a bust. If you do, link it to me or mail it if I'm offline whenever it happens. Lol

Based on what ziggy and DM are saying.. a contract system made with similar motivations for creating the mechanic of courier contracts in EVE.


Maybe something like below. With items in [brackets] being parameters of the contract.

Pick one or more [Targets]. Multiple [Targets] would require an expiration between kills (so all would have to be killed within a certain time window).

Pick [Systems].. a whitelist of systems that the target can be killed in. Also could be regions.

Pick [Minimum destroyed ISK] for the kill

Pick [Ships] that the target can be killed in (can also be ship classes)

Contract can be accepted multiple times (so that a single party can't block a contract by accepting it and sitting on it). Supplemental payouts (2nd successful instant, etc.) could be specified.




But I'm with Azda. There are more pressing things in the game to fix.

But other than that, I like this. I don't imagine it would be terribly difficult for them to code this into the game either.

I don't pretend to have a solution to bounties, but I've often thought it would be good if there were a better system.

The current system doesn't provide much in the way of content for play and on that basis alone, I think it's worth looking at alternatives.

Aside from tweeks to the current system, the only thing I can think of that wouldn't be easily abused would be along the lines of Sibyyl's idea, combined with a form of the wardec mechanism.

Currently wardecs occur at Corp level, which is totally appropriate for a War. However, I don't see why it shouldn't be possible for individuals to pay Concord to declare a "vendetta" against another player and then be able to contract that vendetta out to a 3rd party.

The player would pay Concord, both the administration fee to establish the vendetta (eg. 50 million ISK) + a bounty amount. In return the player would receive a 30 day right, similar to a killright, but attached to the bounty.

The player would then be able to assign that right to someone else to carry out their vendetta. If the kill is achieved, the contracted killer/bounty hunter receives the full bounty payment from Concord, just as mission rewards are received now.

Some advantages:

- bounties/vendettas against low sec status characters would be meaningful as the bounty hunter has a known payout amount
- the player wanting another player killed has total control over who they assign that vendetta too. If they are stupid, they'll give it to an alt. The onus is on the contracting player to do their due diligence
- bounty hunting would be a meaningful profession

Some disadvantages:

- benefits rich players, with the ISK to place a vendetta on many individuals
- would allow something effectively the same as a killright against people you don't otherwise have a killright for
- could easily result in reprisal vendetta (I place one on you -> you place one back on me, tit for tat stuff)
- perma vendettas could be established against players, making it difficult for them to play

Abusable:

- not that I can immediately see. The fee to establish the right means that it will always cost more than the bounty is worth alone

I don't have any clue if that is a reasonable system or not (I'm no game designer by a long shot), but I'm not against seeing changes in the bounty system. The last of the disadvantages I listed with just some quick thought makes me thing the system is not reasonable (but then again, players need to manage their own level of risk, so that is just part of that too).

e: I see that in many respects, what I've proposed is more similar to some of the discussion already. Scipio Post Please Ignore (SPPI - I should make a Corp).

One way to keep it from being abusable is to make the isk charge per consecutive bounty/wardecc on the same target within a dedicated timeframe an exponential increase alongside an additive increase on bounties made on separate targets within the same timeframe.

ie, 100 mil for the first dec. 400 for the second. 1600 for the third. (resetting each month)

any multiple bounties on separate targets increases it by 200

100m for first dec on target 1
300 for first dec on target 2
500 for first dec on target 3
2b for second dec on target 1 2 or 3

The bounty hunter could even declare a wardecc himself to move things along if he wants (but it would be on the BH and not the contract issuer). For NPC corps, a previous suggestion from Kaarous could be useful.

Scip, I think that tying kill contracts to wardecc mechanics makes it too complicated.

Instead, to keep things simple.. the contract value alone can be the motivator for the kill (it's up to the person issuing the contract to make it worthwhile). The so-called bounty hunter would have to find their own way to circumvent the laws of the system they are in in order to achieve the kill.

The bounty hunter could even declare a wardecc himself to move things along if he wants (but it would be on the BH and not the contract issuer). For NPC corps, a previous suggestion from Kaarous could be useful.

Scip, I think that tying kill contracts to wardecc mechanics makes it too complicated.


Instead, to keep things simple.. the contract value alone can be the motivator for the kill (it's up to the person issuing the contract to make it worthwhile). The so-called bounty hunter would have to find their own way to circumvent the laws of the system they are in in order to achieve the kill.


The bounty hunter could even declare a wardecc himself to move things along if he wants (but it would be on the BH and not the contract issuer). For NPC corps, a previous suggestion from Kaarous could be useful.

Scip, I think that tying kill contracts to wardecc mechanics makes it too complicated.


Instead, to keep things simple.. the contract value alone can be the motivator for the kill (it's up to the person issuing the contract to make it worthwhile). The so-called bounty hunter would have to find their own way to circumvent the laws of the system they are in in order to achieve the kill.


The bounty hunter could even declare a wardecc himself to move things along if he wants (but it would be on the BH and not the contract issuer). For NPC corps, a previous suggestion from Kaarous could be useful.

Speaking of wardec trolling, you should be very glad that I have work this weekend, or I'd have dropped a dec already.