Player Features and Ideas Discussion

(revised and expanded)
CORE PREMISE: Make CONCORD responsible for issuing bounties, not players.

Details of the system
If a ship is illegally destroyed, then CONCORD issues a bounty for the total value of the ship destroyed + modules against the pilot that destroyed it.
To collect a bounty, you must purchase a license against a specific pilot.
Bounties are paid out when a pilot with a bounty has his ship destroyed. Only ship value is looked at, not cargo. So if the pilot with a 5M bounty on his head is destroyed while flying a ship worth 2M, his bounty is reduced to 3M and a 2M payout is made to the pilot(s) that destroyed the ship.
If multiple people are involved in an illegal attack then the bounty is divided amongst them. If multiple people are involved in destroying a pilot with a bounty, it's also divided amongst them.
CONCORD only reacts slowly (like the navies in FWs) to illegal combat actions


Existing system
Let's say the Victim was flying a 10M ship with 5M in modules and 5M in cargo. The ganker is flying a 2.5M ship with 2.5M in modules and has 2M in cargo onboard. The victim paid 3M in full coverage insurance and the ganker paid 750K for full coverage.
In the current system(as I understand it), the victim would lose the 20M total but be reimbursed 10M from the insurance company.

The ganker would lose 7M but have 2.5M paid in insurance.

I don't know how to calculate recovered loot so I will just guess as say that 25% of the net value of a ship is dropped (please correct me if I am wrong). So assuming the ganker had an alt or buddy waiting to scoop-up the remains, that should yield approximately ((20M+7M)*0.25)=7M to the ganker.

So the short version of this is that the victim is out 10M and the ganker would be sitting at about (2.5M+7M) 9.5M up. After buying a new ship (same) for 5M, the ganker is has profited about 4.5M

Any bounty levied on the ganker at this point is strictly at the cost of the victim and for the most part, pointless.

ISK Summery
Initial ship/modules/cargo: (10+5+5)+(2.5+2.5+2) = 27M
Bought Insurance: 3+0.75 = 3.75M
Total ISK spent: 31.75M

Destroyed Ships/modules: 27M

Insurance paid: 10+2.5 = 12.5M
Sold Loot: 7M
Total ISK returned/recovered: 19.5M
Lost ISK to the system: 12.25M


Suggested system
Using the same numbers of course.
The victim would still get 10M in insurance.
The loot recovery would be the same.
The ganker would then essentially be liable for 20M in ship/modules as that's what the bounty would be. Ie, over time, he would lose 20M in ships/modules and not be compensated for that through insurance.

ISK Summery
Initial ship/modules/cargo: (10+5+5)+(2.5+2.5+2) = 27M
Bought Insurance: 3+0.75 = 3.75M
Total ISK spent: 31.75M

Destroyed Ship/modules: 20 + 20 = 40M

Insurance paid: 10M
Sold Loot: 7M
Bounty paid: 20M
Total ISK returned/recovered: 37M
Lost ISK to the system: 3M

To purchase a license to go after a specific bounty, I'd guess the cost would be 10% of the total bounty. So the actual "Lost ISK to the system" number would be 5M.

Cool, completely breaks the bounty system and turns it into nothing but an isk faucet instead of a mere redistribution service.


Congratulations on posting a bounty idea that actually increases the profitability of ganking, since, you know, you're handing the bountied player the isk they have on their head if they care enough to retrieve it.


Now, please explain why I should not be able to bounty someone for bumping, mining my rocks, stealing my kills, badposting, goodposting, being the FC, or any of the dozens of other reasons people receive bounties for.

Please explain why it would become a " a massive ISK faucet".


...the decision to look at just hull value and not cargo would be a poor one
I didn't say that...for the bountied ship, yes but not for the initial victim. The victim's total loot is looked at but not the bountied ship as you don't want people stuffing their cargo-holds full of loot or something they inflated the markets value on.


The suggestion to remove CONCORD response from High-Sec is just ridiculous.
Ok, but why?


While I'll admit this is one of the more creative ideas I've seen for creating a Bounty Hunting profession in the game it's also one of the worst in terms of killing off other playstyles or other (apparently unintended) consequences.
This is correct to a large degree as this would impact the META to a large degree and I fully admit not to totally see how. That's why I asked "how" twice...I'm not being defense, I just can't see it...



The bounty system is already 100% useless...I don't see the ISK faucet point so you'll have to fill that one in for me


Congratulations on posting a bounty idea that actually increases the profitability of ganking
Maybe you're right....have an example considering this is pretty ISK neutral?


Now, please explain why I should not be able to bounty...
Becasue that's pointless...it also doesn't reflect "reality" in any way...




I think the vast majority of people acknowledge that the current bounty system is pointless at best and generally openly mocked. But a large number of people, I'm guessing, would also like "bounty hunter" as a profession.

IMO, this also both adds pressure to HiSec but also makes HiSec more attractive to all players, not just the bears. Also, if the pressure increases a bit in HiSec, that actually might encourage more to explore the LowSec sooner.

Oh cool, so my gank alt now has a bounty i can farm, and the more i gank with it, the more its worth!

I like this, all kinds of broken but getting paid to shoot someone in the face because they shot someone in the face is cool.
I like both isk and shooting people in the face so theres no downside to this
... Aside from tanking the echonemy BUT WHO CARES , BOUNTY BUNTERS YEAAAAAAAAAAAY!

Let's say I have a 100mil bounty on me because I'm such a wonderful person. Right now that gets handed out in dribs and drabs to the people who kill me, a nice little bonus for them gbut no way for me to extract the isk myself.

Under your system, I would simply build two hurricanes (105mil in minerals), insure them both (~33mil), undock and kill them with my alt.

I would then receive 110mil insurance money AND 100mil bounty money (current market price for two hurricanes hulls is 111mil according to the industry screen, 114mil according to my jita alt), for a total of 210mil. My outlay is ~138mil. That's a 72mil profit for zero effort.

Please explain how this is not a massive isk faucet.

...yes, that is why I used TWO hurricanes.

I spent 138 million isk to build and insure two hurricanes.

I receive 110 mil in insurance money, AND 100 million in bounty money for the death of those two hurricanes. That's 210 million isk

210 million isk minus the 138 million I spent in setup leaves me with 72 million isk in pure profit.

Simple...ships lost when a bounty is on your head do not receive insurance when collected by a bounty hunter with a license (see optional)....So you lost the insurance premium and don't get any payout. So you would get the bounty at 100M but it cost you 138M. If you skip the insurance then it would just be a net of zero or there about.

That fix that?

No, because I'd just use a ship with a messed up market value and make my profit that way. Canes, for instance, have a system price of 55mil, and a market value of 57mil, yet build for ~53mil. Which value is used? Why am I being punished for PVPing with a bounty?

What happens if I am NOT killed by anyone with a license, but merely die in regular PVP? Is there now no payout at all?

Where is the incentive for anyone to bother with a license? Let's play a game to demonstrate how pointless a system that requires licenses and specific targets actually is.


I will pay you 100mil if you kill me (that is, the character Loki Yamaguchi lands the final blow on the character Danika Princip) in the next week. I'm already -9, so there's no need to worry about your sec status.

Yes market values and what rate to pay out is an issue but isn't it now also? I mean, there will always be an angle but the trick is to minimize it. CCP would have the math and data to actually figure out this...


The "licence" idea was an option. If it went that way, anyone could kill you but without a licence, they would actually be committing a crime and thus have a new bounty placed on them. They would get the initial bounty but end-up having to "pay-out" the same amount in lost ships...If there wasn't a licence system then anyone could collect a bounty...it would be a free-4-all...

I'd be happy to play that game but I suggest you actually do it like a bounty and tell everyone that the next person to kill you gets 100M. I'm just learning PVP so that's pointless to me...As anyone could buy a licence to go after a bounty, then in your example, why not have anyone able to go after you?

...Because that doesn't prove the whole licenses and specific targets thing wrong in any way, and I am absolutely guaranteed to die to some random in low/null who has never read this thread?

Now, please explain why I should be pnushed by having my insurance removed just for having a bounty. Do you really want to discourage people from PVPing?