Player Features and Ideas 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

common, thats so artificial. I would accept this in a singleplayer game (lets say X3 or something like that) but not in an mmo. If we can have both sides player driven why should we change that?

Use the already established security standings system.

< -2.0 bounties can be placed on the pilot.
-0.01 to -1.99 Pilots can pay off bounties 1:1
0.0+ Able to collect on bounties

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.

The rest seems to be fine with the deminished returns and such.

I can see having a positive security standing alts shoot all the pirates to collect on bounties should they be destroyed to deminish losses in a fleet. But the loss will be minimal since it usually takes a fleet to kill a fleet, and many people will be paid out on the killmail.

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

+1. Yeah, everyone is encouraged to try to abuse the system ;)

I like it!

have you read the proposal? Because if you have you should know that thats the main point about it. Otherwise please point me to the part which was unclear to you.

+1. nice summary, we had several threads like this i think...

please add some example to the top post to clarify for new readers and fast and easy understanding. not my example neccessarily if you disagree with my math/formulas, but maybe it serves as template for further discussion ;) below are 2 examples explaining my suggestion how to do the math
- 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 80%, maybe have skills to influence that - the long lost DED connections? change to +3% increase per skill level? *hehe*)
- eve 10-day-running-average market price (over all trades in eve) for items are used as base values for prices. could be calculated once before/after downtime.
- insurance
a) should be paid, should be taken as absolute value in account. needs to be deducted from head hunt payout.
b) you could argue that once a player has a bount he has forfeit his insurance. it changes to pending state. if his ship gets dstroyed the insurance fee initially paid gets reimbursed, but no insurance paid. this would help bounty hunting!
- give holders of bounties a chance to redeem themselves, get rid of the bounty by paying it back a multiple of the bounty to the victim(s), or even more times the bounty to concord.

maybe add an "options" section to your top post. i vote
1. kill rights to be extended to allow podding. implants are a noteable factor for success in pvp and as such should be also on the table.
2. allowance to attack players with bounty anytime everywhere, there is a reason they got bounty first place. concord should look away.
3. placing bounty should be always possible once a criminal act towards you has been committed, not only when the criminal has below -1 sec status. (*)
4. you should also be given kill rights on outlaws (< -5), because within your 30 days they might restore their sec status.

---

say bounty is 1000mil.
insurance for platinum contract for raven (navy): net payout is 75.6 - 22.6 = 53mil , market price 85 (350)

case 1.
ship: raven, tech2-fit (~150mil). 30mil drop.
cargo: 1x +4 imps, 1x +3 imps (~27mil). the +4 drops = 18mil.
pod: 5x +4 imps (~90mil). nothing drops - currently...

worth destroyed:
1. ship 150-30=120
2. cargo 27-18=9
3. pod 90
==> 219 mil.

insurance valid? yes. paid to holder of bounty: 53mil (must not be paid to bounty hunter to prevent abuse)
base payout: 219 - 53 = 166. effective bounty payout (e.g. 90%) = 0.9*166 = 149.4 mil
bounty reduced to 850.6 mil.

---

case 2.
ship: raven NAVY, faction-fit (800mil). 200mil drop.
cargo: 1x +4 imps, 1x +3 imps (~27mil). the +4 drops = 18mil.
pod: 5x +4 imps (~90mil). nothing drops - currently...

worth destroyed:
1. ship 800-200=600
2. cargo 27-18=9
3. pod 90
==> 599 mil.

insurance valid? yes. paid to holder of bounty: 53mil (must not be paid to bounty hunter to prevent abuse)
base payout: 599 - 53 = 546. effective bounty payout (e.g. 90%) = 0.9*546= 491.4 mil
bounty reduced to 508.6 mil.

no time to fix my post #33 right now, there is an error in thinking:

1. voluntary redemption payback factors need to correspond to the effective bounty payout percentage, (like 1.0<->100%, 2.0<->50%, 5.0<->20%, ... ), otherwise it would never be an option considered paying back bounty. instead, the preferable method would be to use an alt to work off the bounty by destroying stuff yourself and getting paid back more compared to using voluntary payback method.

if the effective bounty payout percentage is xxx, using an alt to clean your slate you would...
- 100%: loose/gain nothing. you get paid exactly, what you destroy. bad.
- 50%: you get paid back half of what you destroy.
...

next idea for later : make bounty hunting in some circumstances an alternative path to ratting. later...

hmm i gues this coud be a beter idea

bounty limit

0-100m isk (normal)
100m- 500m ( can be shoot in hs)
500m-1b (cannot dock and can be shoot in hs)
1b- more ( cannot dock cannot clone jump, canot gate jump so hes locked in the sistem so hunters come and claim the bounty, can be shooted in hs)

benefits : bounty people get kileed, more pvp , moreaction , more choices to go hunt for a bounty.

a few comments to the comments ;)

skills influencing payout... yeah why not but thats just "tweaking" I only intended to highlight the core idea - FIX of the issue. improvements are always possible, in fact the proposal is even more flexible as the current (broken) system IMO.

same for potential sec specific rules, e.g. certain amount of bounty makes your gcc and so forth.
all nice things which COULD be considered but are not the FIX to the problem, they are "nice to haves"

other idea was:
ignore sec status on crime -> enables you to place bounty to someone which has GCC
... nice to have, gamedesigners should decide


where is the advantage/FIX?