These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Assembly Hall

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
5 Pages123Next pageLast page
 

[Proposal] Bounty system reform

First post
Author
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#1 - 2011-10-22 22:38:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Ogopogo Mu
EDIT: Lowered ship explosion value to 25% due to insurance shenanigans; see post 14. Changed values are in bold.

Pulled from Vile Rat's thread on highsec, since it affects players everywhere:

Flat death bounties have never worked in any game. Too easy to exploit. Only way to make them not profitable is to set up a bounty escrow with CONCORD that pays out for less than the value of the destroyed items like so:

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. (Deleted the insurance thingy since I forgot to do it before, doh; Yeep reminded me about it.)

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.

(Base value determined by typeID, not by market value. I need to look up implant base values to see if they need adjustment. <-- clarification)

This makes it unprofitable to get podded by your own alt, makes the pod potentially more valuable to kill, and a high-bounty target can be hunted for a very long time. If the target flies small ships instead of supercaps, it lowers the value of an individual kill, but keeps the escrow running longer.

Example:

Vile rat gets bountied by annoyed highseccers after he trolled them in Assembly Hall, for 100M ISK total (cheap bastards). This goes into the CONCORD escrow.

He gets his cruiser blown up by 5 attackers. The loss in hull and destroyed modules is 50M ISK. (Dropped stuff is up for grabs.) Each of the 5 attackers gets a 2.5M bounty payout [(50M*25%)/5]. The escrow goes down to 87.5M still on Vile rat's head.

They manage to nab his pod and all 5 get on the killmail. Vile rat had implants, and their base value + the cost of his clone are 500M. 500M*75% is more than what's left in the escrow, so each attacker gets (87.5M/5)=17.5M for the podkill instead of [(500M*75%)/5]=75M.

Now if the bounty was significant, like 10B ISK, not only does Vile rat's pod become a potentially juicier target, but the escrow stays high enough that he can be hunted again and again. He can hide in a station or go out without implants, but the clone value still makes it worthwhile, and not having implants only makes the escrow last longer.

Adding a bounty to the destroyed ship is just a thought, as it gives a solo roamer a reason to go after a wanted pilot even if he might not be able to nab the pod. If that gets too complicated, just forget it and keep the 75% bounty on the implants and clone price.

*Clone cost: Since clone cost is in flux and not necessarily directly related to SP, use the cost of a clone that would cover the wanted player's SP. Over- or under- cloning doesn't count, and just results in expense or SP loss as normal.
#2 - 2011-10-22 23:30:48 UTC
Most elegant! +1
#3 - 2011-10-23 03:41:20 UTC
I like the idea of the bounty not being fully paid each turn.
Amarr Empire
#4 - 2011-10-23 03:53:06 UTC
Great idea. +1
Gallente Federation
#5 - 2011-10-23 11:29:05 UTC
+1

But I hereby offer a 100m bounty to the first person who can figure out a way it can be gamed so the guy with the price on his head makes a profit. Twisted

Private Citizen • CSM in recovery

WE FORM V0LTA
#6 - 2011-10-23 11:54:36 UTC
Trebor =>

In my humble opinion there is no way to be gamed.

The bounty is based on 75% of how much did the hunted guy loose. If he ask a friend or if he destroy himself with an alt, he will still loose 25% of his ship+non-dropped items value.

However, the hunted guy can repeatedly kill himself so he can basically consume the bounty that was put on his head. But it will cost him the bounty + 25%.

This means, whatever you do, if you're in any way related to the hunted guy, you don't make a profit. A third party won't care about the hunted guy's loss, so it's all good.
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#7 - 2011-10-23 12:04:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Ogopogo Mu
Trebor Daehdoow wrote:
+1

But I hereby offer a 100m bounty to the first person who can figure out a way it can be gamed so the guy with the price on his head makes a profit. Twisted


Wanted man gets podded once, then doesn't pay for a medical clone upgrade, and lets his alt kill him repeatedly, losing skillpoints.

Please send ISK.

Edit: You didn't say it had to be a sane way. P
Goonswarm Federation
#8 - 2011-10-23 18:19:46 UTC
HI PLEASE PAY ATTENTION TO THIS POST IF YOU CARE ABOUT THIS AT ALL

I love caps.

I like this idea a lot. I think it can get some traction. A possible part of this mechanism has been suggested that I'd love for you guys to smell test.


"maybe if you get below -5, insurance payouts go onto your bounty instead of your wallet or something"

Thoughts? I personally like it. Rip this idea apart if you can.


Test Alliance Please Ignore
#9 - 2011-10-23 19:08:58 UTC
Vile rat wrote:
HI PLEASE PAY ATTENTION TO THIS POST IF YOU CARE ABOUT THIS AT ALL

I love caps.

I like this idea a lot. I think it can get some traction. A possible part of this mechanism has been suggested that I'd love for you guys to smell test.


"maybe if you get below -5, insurance payouts go onto your bounty instead of your wallet or something"

Thoughts? I personally like it. Rip this idea apart if you can.




Insurance is its own bucket of worms. The problem with insurance going to paying down a bounty is that insurance pays more than the investment, so then you create ISK out of nothing, if that's the mechanism suggested. Plus, you get to profit as the wanted man (get an empty hull and plat-insure, then destroy it a lot).

I think I originally posted that the killers get the insurance in addition to the bounty escrow portion, without affecting the bounty at all, but that gets messy and math-heavy. Would it make more sense to say that wanted people are uninsurable (due to the increaed risk of shiploss when everyone is paid to blow up your ship) and existing policies just don't pay out?

Of course, I'm not sure what happens when you are at sec -1.0, you get a bounty, and then rat your way back to 0. I'd recommend staying uninsurable for as long as you have a bounty on you, regardless of security status.
Gallente Federation
#10 - 2011-10-23 20:34:03 UTC
Could a person be allowed to simply "buy out" whatever bounty remains on his head btw??
Gallente Federation
#11 - 2011-10-24 01:57:19 UTC
Ogopogo Mu wrote:
Trebor Daehdoow wrote:
+1

But I hereby offer a 100m bounty to the first person who can figure out a way it can be gamed so the guy with the price on his head makes a profit. Twisted


Wanted man gets podded once, then doesn't pay for a medical clone upgrade, and lets his alt kill him repeatedly, losing skillpoints.

Please send ISK.

Edit: You didn't say it had to be a sane way. P

If this would work, I may have to pay out. But I must insist you provide a personal demonstration. Twisted

Private Citizen • CSM in recovery

#12 - 2011-10-24 02:04:03 UTC
+1 to this idea.

Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.  - William Pitt

Gallente Federation
#13 - 2011-10-24 02:36:16 UTC
It's about time that the bounty part of eve was actually playable. I support this one.
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#14 - 2011-10-25 17:31:08 UTC
WALL OF MATH INSURANCE FRAUD AHEAD

Ogopogo Mu wrote:
Vile rat wrote:
...
"maybe if you get below -5, insurance payouts go onto your bounty instead of your wallet or something"...


...Insurance is its own bucket of worms. The problem with insurance going to paying down a bounty is that insurance pays more than the investment, so then you create ISK out of nothing, if that's the mechanism suggested. Plus, you get to profit as the wanted man (get an empty hull and plat-insure, then destroy it a lot).

I think I originally posted that the killers get the insurance in addition to the bounty escrow portion, without affecting the bounty at all, but that gets messy and math-heavy. Would it make more sense to say that wanted people are uninsurable (due to the increaed risk of shiploss when everyone is paid to blow up your ship) and existing policies just don't pay out?...


Bah. I may need to clarify based on some chats I've had on the matter of insurance and the bounty proposal. The way I understand it, VR's -5.0 sec idea means that when you are below -5.0 security your insurance goes to paying off your bounty cost (correct me if I'm wrong, not sure how else it would work). In this case, the hunted man can gain equity by simply plat insuring, or insuring at any level, even the default, as the amount of bounty goes down every time he gets a ship destroyed, with no corresponding payout to current or future killer(s). They way it would be exploited is as follows (based on Pend rates for a T1 ship):

1) Hunted (100M bounty) buys 100% insurance on a 10M ship (policy cost 3M).
2) Alt blows up his ship and gets 5M. The hunted 's bounty now goes down to 85M instead of 95M, and he gets his insurance back. Loss = cost of policy (3M). Hunted man/alt profits by 2M, and 10M extra potential disappears from bounty hunters. He can do this until the escrow runs out for (if he calculates his ship cost carefully) a profit of 12.67M ISK, and a loss to the bounty payers of 100M, since it's their money in the escrow.

If the hunted man can buy insurance but it doesn't pay off the bounty, he actually profits more, as the escrow runs longer:

1) Hunted man plat insures a 10M ship for 3M.
2) Alt kills his ship and gets 5M. Hunted man loses 3M as before.
3) He can now do this 20 times, earn 40M ISK, and still cost the bounty payers 100M ISK.

Even if the hunted man doesn't buy insurance, he still gets 40% of his ship value back, so he can pay down his bounty at a 10% loss in ship values.

The only ways to get around this are (1) decrease the ship value payout of the bounty to 25% (instead of 50%), or (2) simply void all insurance, even basic, while bountied. Since it requires less math, I'm in favor of decreasing the ship payout, at least until such a time as the insurance mess is fixed.
#15 - 2011-10-25 17:45:27 UTC  |  Edited by: paritybit
I'd like to see this tied to killrights so that miscreants can't simply place a bounty on people that smiled at them the wrong way (you can do that the unofficial way). So you could only place a bounty if you had killrights and placing a bounty would use your killrights.

I'd also like to see killrights changed so that they are granted any time a pilot GCCs and successfully destroys the target. As they are now, you won't get killrights if you return fire which includes ECM, tracking disruptors and other "defensive" measures.

This would make criminality more of a choice and people might start thinking before they shoot and before you know it people are flying into low-sec because it's not simply instant helldeath. Who am I kidding, it wouldn't change anything -- but there would be a plethora of bounties for pilots to collect.

Some good ideas and discussion at this guy's blog and it's from a pirate perspective.

I was against voiding insurance because I thought it would penalize criminals too much -- but some pirates convinced me they were okay with it. Seems like it's the best solution.
Minmatar Republic
#16 - 2011-10-25 18:25:17 UTC
Supported! +1
#17 - 2011-10-25 19:04:37 UTC
-5 sec status should void insurance policies on all your ships. It's supports the risk vs reward myth that is the weak link/ lynchpin of EVE that is constantly tossed about in discussions. If you are willing to risk having no ships insured at any time you can have the rewards that having earned a -5 sec status gives.Pirate

The Best Ship In EVE Online Is "Friendship", Power To The Players!

#18 - 2011-10-25 23:32:52 UTC
paritybit wrote:
I'd like to see this tied to killrights so that miscreants can't simply place a bounty on people that smiled at them the wrong way (you can do that the unofficial way). So you could only place a bounty if you had killrights and placing a bounty would use your killrights.

I'd also like to see killrights changed so that they are granted any time a pilot GCCs and successfully destroys the target. As they are now, you won't get killrights if you return fire which includes ECM, tracking disruptors and other "defensive" measures.

This would make criminality more of a choice and people might start thinking before they shoot and before you know it people are flying into low-sec because it's not simply instant helldeath. Who am I kidding, it wouldn't change anything -- but there would be a plethora of bounties for pilots to collect.

Some good ideas and discussion at this guy's blog and it's from a pirate perspective.

I was against voiding insurance because I thought it would penalize criminals too much -- but some pirates convinced me they were okay with it. Seems like it's the best solution.


While it makes a lot of sense to tie the question of kill rights into this (much like the insurance dilemma), I fear this would overload this proposal and thus reduce its chances to get to CCP. Thing is, there are quite a few proposals on kill rights out there, and I'm not sure we'd get the uncontested best in this proposal, making it more likely that someone will shoot this bird down on its way to Iceland.
What's more, the suggested changes here would work in their own - making the kill harder for sure, often completly illegal, but still possibly worthwhile.

One small change I would suggest: let it not be CONCORD that keeps track of bounties but Pend Insurance. It's just silly if CONCORD pops you and then hands out the bounty for the kill it popped you for. :)
#19 - 2011-10-26 22:28:49 UTC
I like this payout system! My question to the new system is who can hunt? Of course we don't have a specific class, "Bounty Hunter," but shouldn't there be a qualification, i.e. Faction Standing or Sec Status to be able to freely engage a bounty that is in high sec? I've been partial to the idea of establishing a "Kill" contract, like a mini war if you will for a limited time. You fail to eliminate the target within a specific time it goes back up to a bounty pool that only qualified Bounty hunters can obtain. Of course this is all theory crafting but something along these lines would help establish a much wanted proffession.

Whomever said, "You only get one shot to make a good impression," was utterly wrong. I've made plenty of great impressions with my Autocannons 

Test Alliance Please Ignore
#20 - 2011-10-26 22:44:08 UTC
Temba Ronin wrote:
-5 sec status should void insurance policies on all your ships. It's supports the risk vs reward myth that is the weak link/ lynchpin of EVE that is constantly tossed about in discussions. If you are willing to risk having no ships insured at any time you can have the rewards that having earned a -5 sec status gives.Pirate


What rewards? :P I can't think of a single advantage a -5 pilot has over a +5 pilot, except the cool flashy name and a higher likelihood of having an interesting space-life.

paritybit wrote:
I was against voiding insurance because I thought it would penalize criminals too much -- but some pirates convinced me they were okay with it. Seems like it's the best solution.


I missed the insurance loophole when I first posted my idea, because honestly I was ignorant of the retardedly high levels that Pend pays out. I remembered insurance being less worthwhile, and I didn't remember default insurance; I seem to remember losing a ship and Pend saying, "Here's a free Ibis and a trit, HTFU." That was probably in 2004 or so; I just never paid attention after that.

But if the purpose of insurance is to encourage hilarious explosions, I can't see why the mechanic shouldn't apply to Wensley (if he's still poor) in his little rifters as well as New Bee who loses his first-ever 75mm-fitted Bantam to Guristas Arrogators.

Takara Mora wrote:
Could a person be allowed to simply "buy out" whatever bounty remains on his head btw??


I can maybe see a system to allow for direct negotiation between the target and the bounty funder for the bounty to be removed (at a service charge), but to keep it simple and interesting, I would say that this is a matter of negotiation between the pilots. As in, "Can you take this bounty off my head?" "Sure, if you give me double the bounty amount in ISK right now." "Uh, okay." Whether or not the bounty is lifted is purely up to the bounty funder, opening exciting new scamming opportunities. I would not ever propose that bounties be removed in any other way except through target killing, thus encouraging pewpew.

Trebor Daehdoow wrote:
If this would work, I may have to pay out. But I must insist you provide a personal demonstration. Twisted


Okay. But how many times would I have to pod you to win the bet? Twisted

paritybit and Cordo Draken wrote:
killrights, etc...


I'm not advocating for any other changes to things like hisec kill rights, etc. If you want to go after a bounty, declare war, suicide gank, or catch the target in low/null. I'd rather keep the bounty proposal here as simple as possible so that it can be feasibly implemented with a minimum of goofy side-effects to exploit. Once that's done, and if bounty hunting becomes popular as an activity, maybe further refinements can be proposed.
5 Pages123Next pageLast page
Forum Jump