These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Bounty hunting - let's get this sorted

First post
Author
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#61 - 2012-02-17 08:33:19 UTC
Kimbeau Surveryor wrote:
I had suggested that when you place a bounty you can specify which Alliances are allowed to collect, but I like the idea of tying it to the standings system better.

You do have to think out how to calculate payouts when multiple bounties are placed with differing rules, and you have a kill mail with players with different relationships to those rules, but an evening with a towel round our heads should be able to work out the right algorithm.

Supported.


I don't see why it shouldn't be possible to assign a bounty contract directly to a specific third party corp/alliance, but there may be a limitation in the contract code that prevents this. It should certainly be possible to limit collection of a bounty to one's own corp/alliance in a way analogous to any other corp or alliance contract we can make now.

Personally I find the idea of a mixed fleet of bounty hunters stalking their prey whilst discussing amongst them selves exactly who will have to kill whom in order to optimise bounty collection rather intricate & amusing

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016

Imigo Montoya
BreadFleet
Interstellar Triglavian Collective
#62 - 2012-02-17 19:51:37 UTC
Firstly, supported. The player bounty system is terrible and needs iteration.

This proposal is effectively a transferable killright in the form of a contract. I wonder whether instead of limiting who may accept a contract, the preferred method of providing that killright could be to make a private contract. That is, a person has legitimate grievance from being ganked, finds the forum post of a bounty hunter group, then discusses terms with them (or just makes the contract). This would be along side an open(ish) contract system as you propose.

This way the injured party could find a reputable group and give them the rights to kill the bad guy. Reputation would be gained/lost in similar ways to 3rd party services are now.

Also, the focus of your proposal is on highsec, so one addition I would like to suggest is the ability to add nullsec only (because everybody effectively has killrights on everybody else in nullsec) open "contracts" for aliance members/allies (based on standings) to collect. It would be useful in wartime to have a system where an alliance can put bounties on all members of an enemy corp/alliance to encourage their members/allies to engage those enemies. If it were paid out as a portion of ship insurance or pod value in the same way as has already been suggested with a player defined pool and cap per kill, it would allow a direct in-game method to take alliance level income and distribute it to members for their activity.

Xen Solarus wrote:
I find it laughable, and rather insulting, that ccp continue to market the idea of the "bounty hunter" when everyone in the game knows that the system is completely broken.


I think in the case of marketing the bounty hunter "profession", they're meaning ratting (hunting NPC pirates for CONCORD bounties)
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#63 - 2012-02-17 20:29:35 UTC
Imigo Montoya wrote:
Firstly, supported. The player bounty system is terrible and needs iteration.

This proposal is effectively a transferable killright in the form of a contract. I wonder whether instead of limiting who may accept a contract, the preferred method of providing that killright could be to make a private contract. That is, a person has legitimate grievance from being ganked, finds the forum post of a bounty hunter group, then discusses terms with them (or just makes the contract). This would be along side an open(ish) contract system as you propose.

This way the injured party could find a reputable group and give them the rights to kill the bad guy. Reputation would be gained/lost in similar ways to 3rd party services are now.

Also, the focus of your proposal is on highsec, so one addition I would like to suggest is the ability to add nullsec only (because everybody effectively has killrights on everybody else in nullsec) open "contracts" for aliance members/allies (based on standings) to collect. It would be useful in wartime to have a system where an alliance can put bounties on all members of an enemy corp/alliance to encourage their members/allies to engage those enemies. If it were paid out as a portion of ship insurance or pod value in the same way as has already been suggested with a player defined pool and cap per kill, it would allow a direct in-game method to take alliance level income and distribute it to members for their activity.

Xen Solarus wrote:
I find it laughable, and rather insulting, that ccp continue to market the idea of the "bounty hunter" when everyone in the game knows that the system is completely broken.


I think in the case of marketing the bounty hunter "profession", they're meaning ratting (hunting NPC pirates for CONCORD bounties)



I'm kind of uncertain about bounties and 0.0. The whole point of bounty hunting is to avenge crimes, which are an oxymoron in 0.0 where the only law is lex talonis.

Still I can't think of any good reason to oppose the idea of Alliance A granting all its members an effective bonus for killing members of alliance B. Perhaps it would be best to require that A wardec B in order for a bounty contract to be created.

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016

Elise Randolph
Habitual Euthanasia
Pandemic Legion
#64 - 2012-02-17 20:57:59 UTC  |  Edited by: Elise Randolph
I love the idea of the bounty-payer stipulating who can collect on the bounty, this is sound and cool in every way. The one concern I have is that there is still a loophole whenever you involve the player economy. Let's say there's a 500mil bounty on player X, open to everyone. Player X manipulates the market for small t2 sentry drone rigs (or any rarely used module that you like) up to 1 billion isk. Player X puts this 200k module on a 200k Imicus, has alt blow it up, and WHAM he gets the whole payout. If this devious mastermind Player X wants the bounty gone because it's just annoying, he can do the same thing and just fly around a hub in his "1 billion ISK Imicus" . Sure, someone will actually get the 500mil, but at negligible loss to Player X.

I agree this system is better than the current one, but the current one is a dated piece of trash.

Maybe the fix is simple - calculate payoffs based on mass of the ship and tech-level. That is to say, killing a bigger ship would entitle the players into bigger portion of the payout, and a t2 frigate is more valuable than a t1 cruiser, and a t3 cruiser is more valuable than a t1 BS, et cetera. When adding a bounty, perhaps allowing the bounty-payer the ability to stipulate how many times he wants the target killed (up to a certain cap) could be a cool tweak.

I see a lot of people saying "now that we have implants on pod mails, yada yada yada". The bounty system, ideally, would be a low-sec thing. This is low-sec, a competent low-sec pilot only gets podded going through Rancer (or your favorite smartbombing pipe system) or when he wants to. We shouldn't base a new system on the foundations of the broken one.

~

Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#65 - 2012-02-17 21:29:00 UTC
Elise Randolph wrote:
I love the idea of the bounty-payer stipulating who can collect on the bounty, this is sound and cool in every way. The one concern I have is that there is still a loophole whenever you involve the player economy. Let's say there's a 500mil bounty on player X, open to everyone. Player X manipulates the market for small t2 sentry drone rigs (or any rarely used module that you like) up to 1 billion isk. Player X puts this 200k module on a 200k Imicus, has alt blow it up, and WHAM he gets the whole payout. If this devious mastermind Player X wants the bounty gone because it's just annoying, he can do the same thing and just fly around a hub in his "1 billion ISK Imicus" . Sure, someone will actually get the 500mil, but at negligible loss to Player X.

I agree this system is better than the current one, but the current one is a dated piece of trash.

Maybe the fix is simple - calculate payoffs based on mass of the ship and tech-level. That is to say, killing a bigger ship would entitle the players into bigger portion of the payout, and a t2 frigate is more valuable than a t1 cruiser, and a t3 cruiser is more valuable than a t1 BS, et cetera. When adding a bounty, perhaps allowing the bounty-payer the ability to stipulate how many times he wants the target killed (up to a certain cap) could be a cool tweak.

I see a lot of people saying "now that we have implants on pod mails, yada yada yada". The bounty system, ideally, would be a low-sec thing. This is low-sec, a competent low-sec pilot only gets podded going through Rancer (or your favorite smartbombing pipe system) or when he wants to. We shouldn't base a new system on the foundations of the broken one.


Small t2 sentry drone rigs don't have any NPC price that I'm aware of.

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016

Imigo Montoya
BreadFleet
Interstellar Triglavian Collective
#66 - 2012-02-18 00:05:36 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
I'm kind of uncertain about bounties and 0.0. The whole point of bounty hunting is to avenge crimes, which are an oxymoron in 0.0 where the only law is lex talonis.

Still I can't think of any good reason to oppose the idea of Alliance A granting all its members an effective bonus for killing members of alliance B. Perhaps it would be best to require that A wardec B in order for a bounty contract to be created.


Not quite. The whole point of bounties is to avenge a grievance, whether that was from a crime or otherwise. Law only comes into the picture when it's a legal autority placing the bounty. Underworld crimelords put bounties on people's heads regardless of the legality of said bounty. Think Jabba's bounty on Han Solo.

Hence a wardec being a requirement would simply be a nuisance (outside of empire).

If there is a "rebel" group operating in NPC nullsec raiding sovereign space, then the sov holding alliance would benefit from having the ability to provide incentives (through an in-game mechanism that works) to their members or allies to hunt down said group. If a wardec is a requirement, then allies wishing to cash in on the bounty would also have to wardec the other alliance to claim payment, even though they're fighting in 0.0 anyway.

Again, tying it to a portion of the ship's value would avoid exploitation, although exploiting it in this case may require burning a spy too.
Elise Randolph
Habitual Euthanasia
Pandemic Legion
#67 - 2012-02-18 08:51:43 UTC  |  Edited by: Elise Randolph
Malcanis wrote:
Elise Randolph wrote:
I love the idea of the bounty-payer stipulating who can collect on the bounty, this is sound and cool in every way. The one concern I have is that there is still a loophole whenever you involve the player economy. Let's say there's a 500mil bounty on player X, open to everyone. Player X manipulates the market for small t2 sentry drone rigs (or any rarely used module that you like) up to 1 billion isk. Player X puts this 200k module on a 200k Imicus, has alt blow it up, and WHAM he gets the whole payout. If this devious mastermind Player X wants the bounty gone because it's just annoying, he can do the same thing and just fly around a hub in his "1 billion ISK Imicus" . Sure, someone will actually get the 500mil, but at negligible loss to Player X.

I agree this system is better than the current one, but the current one is a dated piece of trash.

Maybe the fix is simple - calculate payoffs based on mass of the ship and tech-level. That is to say, killing a bigger ship would entitle the players into bigger portion of the payout, and a t2 frigate is more valuable than a t1 cruiser, and a t3 cruiser is more valuable than a t1 BS, et cetera. When adding a bounty, perhaps allowing the bounty-payer the ability to stipulate how many times he wants the target killed (up to a certain cap) could be a cool tweak.

I see a lot of people saying "now that we have implants on pod mails, yada yada yada". The bounty system, ideally, would be a low-sec thing. This is low-sec, a competent low-sec pilot only gets podded going through Rancer (or your favorite smartbombing pipe system) or when he wants to. We shouldn't base a new system on the foundations of the broken one.


Small t2 sentry drone rigs don't have any NPC price that I'm aware of.


True enough, I must have misread. From
Quote:

with payouts based on hull and destroyed module value

I assumed you were gathering destroyed module value from somewhere. If you simply go by insurance payouts, how do you deal with T2/T3? Tengus, for instance, are a fairly common low-sec ship and have a 5 million premium for an 18 million payout. So in this proposed system a 600mil fit Tengu pays out 12 million. Maybe I active tank my Tengu and the price jumps up to 2 bil, does the bounty hunter still only get 12 mil?

Basically: do you make a distinction between fits? And at what point do you bring the player market into things, and how do you prevent abuse if you do?

~

Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#68 - 2012-02-18 11:06:16 UTC  |  Edited by: Malcanis
Fair enough. It seems like a pretty marginal hole to me anyway - manipulating the market across the entire game in order to reduce the cost of clearing off a bounty seems like a hell of a lot of effort to me unless it's a truly massive bounty. If someone has the expertise and is prepared to go to all the trouble & expense of doing that, then maybe they're entitled to scrape off their bounty.

It occurrs to me that we could also further mitigate that hole by basing the bounty value of a ship or module on a 30-day rolling average sale price of the components of that module. That way controlling the small sentry rig market isn't enough; you need to control the Drone Transceiver, Tripped Power Circuit and Burned Logic Circuit market too. Much harder to do!

It would be more developmentally expensive than using the insurance price, but this method would also solve the issue of realistic bounty values for T3 and T2 ships.

It fails on assigning "proper" values for faction/officer mods & ships though, unless you wanted to count them as their own component and just take the rolling average price. Theoretically this allows for manipulation, but I think not in any practical way.

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016

Mechael
Tribal Liberation Distribution and Retail
#69 - 2012-02-20 08:42:13 UTC
An easier fix is simply to make it so that you can set standings to the bounty. A setting, when placing the bounty, that says only people with a certain standing level or greater can collect. That way, any of your friends can collect, or you can find an actual bounty hunter and set him to positive standings so he can collect.

Using this system, you could even set it so that you could set bounties on entire corporations/alliances at once. I envision a "Bring me the heads of all (insert your most hated alliance here)!" scenario. Easy peasy, lemon squeezy.

+1 to the OP for a good suggestion that I support wholeheartedly.

Whether or not you win the game matters not.  It's if you bought it.

Simeon Whiteheaven
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#70 - 2012-02-20 20:27:07 UTC
You have my support for this.
Remigius Varagine
Hibernating
#71 - 2012-02-20 23:15:58 UTC
Just an idea, not sure if it's realy good.
If we talk about contracts, how about the possibility to set a collateral like for a courier contract?
If you accept the contract and you don't kill the guy you lose the collateral. Would add some incentive to actually do it.

Feel free to shoot the idea down.
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#72 - 2012-02-21 07:05:48 UTC
Remigius Varagine wrote:
Just an idea, not sure if it's realy good.
If we talk about contracts, how about the possibility to set a collateral like for a courier contract?
If you accept the contract and you don't kill the guy you lose the collateral. Would add some incentive to actually do it.

Feel free to shoot the idea down.


That runs into the problem of the perp just not logging on.

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016

Shandir
Indigo Archive
#73 - 2012-02-21 23:08:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Shandir
Firstly, I support this idea, it's pretty much awesome.

===

Secondly, I think it should be based on market value using 30-90 day adjusted averages of the 'real' markets (using some clever economic stats to eliminate outliers is something CCP knows how to do)
Anyone who can control an entire market for multiple months is putting enough effort in to permit them to game the system a little.
Also, given the only way to manipulate the market like this is to throw *lots* of money at it, this would actually more likely cost the bounty target more than they could gain, and would also generate activity on these niche markets, making further attempts to game the system harder.

So, in effect, gaming the market-based bounty system would be very hard, expensive, and limited in how many people could pull it off.

===

I think you need to be able to put your bounty contract out to be visible to these kinds of people:

* Standing above X
* Sec status above/below X
* Whitelist of corps (So you can choose known good-rep bounty hunters)
* My Corp/Alliance
* Anyone
* Private to specific person
* Request/Acceptance of bounty hunting rights (So you can individually vet potential hunters, only useful for extremely high-value targets)

===

I think that an active kill right should be an option, not a requirement. It should be searchable though, so a bounty hunter can choose to only search for high-sec targets.

We should be looking to place bounties on as many of the pirates/players in low-sec as possible, to encourage low-sec PvP. People who get ganked slap a ransom on the person who killed them, and then other people go hunting for those players.

It may also be worthwhile to be able to place a (kill right-free) bounty on an entire corporation, for example - if someone wanted to harass The B***ards in Rancer, they could place bounties on clearing out the dirty pirates. In effect, PvP missions.

The more people in low-sec with bounties on their heads, the better and more fun low-sec will be.

I also think that the -1 sec status requirement might hinder more than help, although I could be convinced otherwise.
Di Mulle
#74 - 2012-02-22 11:31:56 UTC
I like the idea pretty much. Some random thoughts.

Mitigating the impact of a bounty placed on me by manipulating the market - I see no problem. It is hard to next to impossible to do and will be not 100% effective anyway. If a hunted person wants and is able to do that - props for him. Harming a global mafia boss is a harder task than hitting back some street gang schmuck.

However, this highlights most serious problem in this idea, how to measure a value of a kill. There are no "official" price indices, accepted by CCP and permanently monitored. Or rather there are, but completely formal and unrealistic. The only more or less realistic system exists for T1 hulls (insurance), but they will be of a rather small importance.

Maybe it is a time to officialy embrace the fact that Jita price is a best benchmark. But then again, what with deadspace or officer modules, etc. Or imagine, I kill my bounty target in a supercap. There is no Jita price for it Smile

Second, multiple copies of a bounty contracts. I should be able to hire a few independent mercs to kill the same person. Thus defensive strategy like accepting a contract with an alt of a hunted, or his friend, will not work. It will also create competition amongst hunters. It should induce additional costs however.

Theorising further, a hunted may have an ability to get some info about status of his hunt - are the bounty contracts accepted or something. Something in the line of using locator agents. Sure, some standings and payments must be involved.

Third, further granularity of a bounties. Kill right gives you an ability to declare a bounty on anyone, but you also are able to declare bounty without it - but only if hunted has negative status. If it is small, you need to bribe a Concord (like a small criminal deserves only a warning, not a capital punishment, but a bribe may change the attitude). If it is -5, or something, you are bounty hunted at will - law enforcement system should encourage a personal initiative. Numbers are arbitrary of course.
<<Insert some waste of screen space here>>
Ironlenny
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#75 - 2012-02-26 21:33:39 UTC  |  Edited by: Ironlenny
Bounties should affect the player, and not just the character. Towards that end I'd like the introduction of associates.

Associates are characters that have had financial dealings with the bountied character. Giving and receiving money, contracts, and window trades.

Using a player defined filter, a locator agent will display all the matching characters, who can then have bounties placed on their heads.
Sephiroth Clone VII
Imperial Dreams
#76 - 2012-02-26 22:39:52 UTC  |  Edited by: Sephiroth Clone VII
I have idea to fix loopholes or exploits

have it be that the payout is based half of anything that is 'lost' and doesn't come back in insurance or drop.

For example fully insuring a ship and losing it will cause you to lose some money. The payout will be half of the amount that would be lost regardless if a person fully insures the ship or not. . If they have a alt kill themselves they still need to spend twice as much isk to remove the bounty through bounty hunting fraud, and will not gain more then they lose.

Another thing that can contribute to the payout for a kill is the cost of a clone, half off the cost of a clone. So even if they kill themselves and pod, they would still be out on half the money needed for a new clone. (being something that frowned on in empire, doing so might flag you with a bounty, which gives incentive to do dirty work elsewhere or pay the price of being a outlaw hunter who themselves is a outlaw).

Same with implants. maybe even mods and rigs can be added into the system too, half the value of the mods destroyed (drop not counting).


by paying half of the value that is burned will make fraud unfeasible and unprofitable, compared with paying 100%.


Also with a new bounty system, tied to kill rights makes greifing others (non-pirates) with bounties unlikely. Unlike killrights in current form, bounties should last forever until paid out. Only the person who lost a ship or pod may place a bounty on a target with positive sec status in a week window frame, and its a one time deal (no forever additions unless the are negative sec status).

They should also allow people with bounties on head to be shot at anywhere without penalty untill the bounty is gone. No highsec hiding for outlaws.

Player sec status can still play a role, in that if it is at all negative that ANYONE can place bounties on them at anytime. How deep they are in the negative will determine how chronically they are stuck in it for grinding out of it. Having a high sec status does not excuse a person for past crimes, and the still may be hunted by players without penalty (killrights or concord), until it goes away.

Big reforms in bounty hunting will not only make it be a real profession but encourage those who are outlaws to stay out of highsec (save clandestine incursions). Bounty hunters looking for the targets will venture into dangerous space themselves.
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#77 - 2012-02-27 07:27:25 UTC
Sephiroth CloneIIV wrote:
I have idea to fix loopholes or exploits

have it be that the payout is based half of anything that is 'lost' and doesn't come back in insurance or drop.


So... you didn't read all the OP right?

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016

Sephiroth Clone VII
Imperial Dreams
#78 - 2012-03-01 05:49:46 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
Sephiroth CloneIIV wrote:
I have idea to fix loopholes or exploits

have it be that the payout is based half of anything that is 'lost' and doesn't come back in insurance or drop.


So... you didn't read all the OP right?


I did, you suggested if a person has 20 million clone the killer gets 20 mill (so if a alt kills the bountyed target they lose nothing, and they take down the bounty). What I suggested is half of the value of isk lost (that does not come back through insurance) is given to the killer. Would make farming ones self with a bounty a money losing venture.

One tweek to payouts removes a huge portion of exploits.
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#79 - 2012-03-01 14:22:43 UTC
Sephiroth CloneIIV wrote:
Malcanis wrote:
Sephiroth CloneIIV wrote:
I have idea to fix loopholes or exploits

have it be that the payout is based half of anything that is 'lost' and doesn't come back in insurance or drop.


So... you didn't read all the OP right?


I did, you suggested if a person has 20 million clone the killer gets 20 mill (so if a alt kills the bountyed target they lose nothing, and they take down the bounty). What I suggested is half of the value of isk lost (that does not come back through insurance) is given to the killer. Would make farming ones self with a bounty a money losing venture.

One tweek to payouts removes a huge portion of exploits.


Oh, well spotted. I'll amend the OP.

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016

Arduemont
The State of War.
#80 - 2012-03-01 15:59:07 UTC  |  Edited by: Arduemont
Hi there. I apologize in advanced if what I am about to say has already been said (I haven't got the time to read through the whole thread, especially given the length of the average post in here. Although I have skim read over most of it.)

First, I would like to say that I support this suggestion. But I think if you are going to make "bounty contracts" they should be kept separate from the system that is already in place. I was in the process of writing up a very similar suggestion when I found this thread so for the sake of simplicity I am going to post what I was going to post anyway below for you guys to consider.

Me wrote:
Changes

I propose that bounties should be split into two types. The first type, “Public Bounties”, loosely relates to the system that is in place now, with the bounty board and with bounties being visible on “Show Info” on the players (except using a different payout method). The second type “Private Bounty Contracts”, would be a whole new system, which I believe (with my limited knowledge of programming and software limitations) could easily be implemented into the current contract system (which by the way, could use some UI changes).

I believe “Public Bounties” should be given to the bounty target’s killer as a percentage of the target’s loss by their killer. Meissa, talked recently about this in the Lost in Eve audio log CSM7 debate, and I fully support this idea. So, for example, if a target has a 200m bounty on them and someone kills them, their killer will take a percentage of the bounty targets total loss. Let’s assume for the purposes of this post that the percentage would be 75%. So if they were killed in a ship worth 150m with fittings, and they received 10m ISK in insurance then their loss would be 140m ISK, and so the target’s killer would receive 105m ISK (75% of the loss) and the target would have 95m ISK bounty left on them (200m – 105m). If the target was then to lose their pod as well, the killer would gain another 75% of the loss of the pod (ie 75% of the price of his clone and any implants). This would make it so that killing yourself, or getting a friend to kill you to get the bounty will never be profitable. In all other ways “Public Bounties” would work in the same way as they do now.

“Private Bounty Contracts” would be a contract type creatable with customisable options, much like current contract types. Options would include contractee type (ie public, corporation, alliance, private), target (ie one person, multiple people), and payout conditions (on destruction of pod, or ship, perhaps even multiples of either), and obviously bounty price. For example I could say “I want members of Dark Shadow Industries, to kill Bee Vee Cee in three separate ships, and on completion of that task I will pay them 300m ISK”.


Splitting the bounties this way solves some problems you were discussing earlier. If you use contracts only for people who you trust, then you dont have to worry about people accepting the contract just to void the money (also, why not just have the money in escrow and have it returned if the contract expires or is cancelled). Public bounties would never run out, so you wouldn't have to worry about that.

I would also like to say, that I don't think having kill rights on someone should be an essential part of making a bounty contract. If someone scams you, or war decs you repeatedly, or tricks a n00b into stealing from a can and blowing them up etc etc, it would be nice for them to be able to put a meaningful bounty on that person. It will help newer players feel empowered where at the moment they feel helpless. I also think that adding killrights into the equation over complicates matters. Also, having the bounty payout as a % of their total loss is important because otherwise players can use it like the old insurance scam, where people used to pay for platinum insurance and then kill themselves (because it saves selling the ships out in empty nullsec or whatever).

I was also going to suggest that Locator Agents be added to the Agent Finder to make Bounty Hunting a more plausible profession. I am always surprised to find that even some older players have never used a Locator Agent, or some didn't even know they existed.

"In the age of information, ignorance is a choice." www.stateofwar.co.nf