These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at

Jita Park Speakers Corner

  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
Previous page123Next page

VOTE: Bounty Hunting for CSM 7

First post
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#21 - 2012-02-16 01:32:28 UTC
Payouts on bounties should be linked to the isk value that was lost when the target is destroyed

transferable kill rights would also go a long way to making this a fun profession, as well as the delayed introduction of 'player-policing' of contraband that was promised last year.



Mike Azariah
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#22 - 2012-02-16 01:44:15 UTC
If you are looking for my opinion on Malcanis's vision of Bounty hunting I think it is an excellent one. Anything would be better than the junk in place right now.

I especially like the idea that a corp could form about bounty hunting as their core purpose.

There are some niggling things like what if the target is in a ship more expensive than the contractee could afford to bounty out?

All in all it is an excellent start, though and would revive a dead end portion of the game that has been ignore for too long.


Mike Azariah  ┬──┬ ¯|(ツ)

Grumpy Owly
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#23 - 2012-02-16 02:20:13 UTC
Kelduum Revaan wrote:
Oddly enough, we've been discussing something fairly similar to this in the Uni mumble off and on for the last few months.

Clearly the current bounty system is very much broken (by placing a bounty on someone may as well be just giving them the ISK) and it needs fixing. I can see a couple of possible sticking points however which may make implementation difficult, specifically the stuff related to standings (this could be difficult to calculate quickly) and ship/pod value (which is all 'it depends' based on location).

In general though, something along the lines detailed in that thread are pretty good, and with some refinement I can see that could become something implementable.
Grumpy Owly
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#24 - 2012-02-16 02:25:49 UTC
Skye Aurorae wrote:
Of course, I can largely support this proposal, however I believe that this is merely a first step in creating a better 'anti-pirate' experience.

I have long argued that the existing bounty system is functionally useless, and during my previous campaign I supported the notion that kill rights should be transferrable to entities more capable of delivering vengeance. And furthermore, I have suggested on many occasions that bounty payouts should be entirely pegged to a verifiable loss. This of course leads to a minor conflict with another popular request to reduce clone costs for advanced players, which would reduce the potential payout for a podding.

During the CSM 5 election cycle I'd also argued in favour of buffing low-sec by making it the source of 'Black Codes' - hacking modules and codes with functionality that could be exploited by both pirates and law enforcement. One of the features that these codes would deliver would be a replacement for the existing locator agent system, taking the existing system probing experience and scaling it up to galactic scale, moving your software probes around the networks to trace your targets with more finesse. But of course these grand ideas need to be tempered by the acknowledgment that CCP only has a limited amount of developer resources.

Right now the opposite of a pirate is a carebear, I believe that the game can be improved through adding a legitimate player driven law enforcement element. Fixing the bounty system is one small step in this direction, but it should not be the last.

Also, ponies are pretty. (says Skye)
Grumpy Owly
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#25 - 2012-02-16 02:32:42 UTC  |  Edited by: Grumpy Owly
Mu'ad Diib wrote:
Thanks for your question.

I think the post that you linked to in your post, the one by Malcanis on the same subject is very interesting.

I think my view would be that this seems like a positive change that has a degree of player support and on this basis, it should be something that players get to vote on as a suggested change for the game. Ultimately democracy should be the deciding factor in terms of whether it becomes part of a future expansion.

I hope this clarifies my position on the change. Let me know if you'd like me to expand further.

I think the suggested system of putting up bounties that's discussed in the post, (specifically the fact that the bounty contract requires a killright) is very well thought out and reasonable. The kill right expiry situation that's mentioned also seems pretty logical to me.

I really like the idea of designing the system so that the bounty contracts can be restricted to groups of players based on specific criteria as well. I think the idea that this kind of situation might lead onto the formation of bounty hunting corps/alliances is a really exciting idea. And I particularly like the fact that this might empower groups of less powerful players to work together to collect a bounty.
Siberian Squads
#26 - 2012-02-16 02:43:33 UTC  |  Edited by: joelinux
Well, first, my plug for my CSM Candidacy "like" needing forum post:

Clicky Clicky here for shameless plug!

In my opinion, there needs to be a mechanic to separate legitimate targets from those that have a price on their head as a gag. You can't be expected to be able to space someone because someone else put a 100 isk bounty on their head.

You can't go by numbers of bounties, because that just means that everyone in a corp puts a 100 isk bounty on their head, and tada! You have money and numbers.

Perhaps link it to a kill mail? After you've been killed, you have 15 minutes to put up a bounty equal to or greater to the amount of skillpoints the character has.

People/Corporations should have the ability to purchase bounty hunter licenses. These would enable them to go after people with bounties on their heads, in highsec or otherwise. It would be a two week license, renewable...kind of like a roving wardec. People could spend more money to get licenses that will enable them to kill people with higher amounts of bounty on them.

This will enable them to look people up anywhere, as long as they have bounties on them. They can be engaged in any security space, However, the bounty hunter will also appear flashing red. Fleet arrangements will have to be made...they might need their own special mark in the overview so that out-of-corp alts might be valid targets if they are repairing a bounty hunter in the middle of engagement.

That's my idea, it might need some tweaking though.
Grumpy Owly
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#27 - 2012-02-16 03:33:58 UTC
The Mittani wrote:
Your sig says:

"All griefers are lazy cowards with the current climate of broken player policing systems."

Get out of my thread.

Grumpy Owly
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#28 - 2012-02-16 06:09:11 UTC
T'amber Anomandari Demaleon wrote:
There have been so many good suggestions for Bounty Systems and still we've yet to see a viable solution implimented to both secure the system from abuse and to create a "proper" mini profession out of Bounty Hunting. Alot of CSMs candidates have supported various Bounty ideas but they're still sitting rotting in the to-do vault at a secret location in the CCP lair.

As a supporter of mini professions this topic interests me and I'm definately willing to support it again. Two interesting conversations with Dierdra Vaal and Evelgrivion who've both come up with similar ideas on Bounty Hunting last week reignited my hope that there is a solution - and Evel's idea from his blog follows:

Evelgrivion wrote:
Fixing the Bounty system
It occurred to me the other day that everything that is wrong with the bounty system can be expressed in a single sentence:

"Bounties don't work because the payouts are worth more than the clones."

Now that implants are included in pod-mails, the market value of a destroyed clone is public knowledge; this has created an opportunity to implement a new bounty system. As the nature of the current problem is that a friend or an alt can claim an outstanding bounty, the fix is actually relatively straightforward; change the mechanics of bounty payment to only supply a portion of the value of each clone and treat the total bounty on a pilot's head as a payout pool.

With a proportional payout pool, pilots will no longer be able to take a bounty for themselves without suffering more in losses than payouts. By supplying small payments rather than a lump sum, a new incentive is created to keep podding a given pilot as long as there's money in the bounty pool.

Voila! The eternally broken bounty system is fixed!

Combined with suggestions from posters like Malcanis and Lana Torrin (whos original thread alot of us supported during CSM4 and CSM5) we've got a pretty solid foundation for a decent system. As I'm not a professional bounty hunter nor have I spent much time in this profession (although I've been on the recieving end ) I must rely on others who do and I'm open to suggestions from those in the know aslong as they're relevant. While all these suggestions could be potential fixes to the current system theres possibly some room left for increasing the viability of this being a fulltime profession if a pilot so wished - some sort of non-isk but i have a big ***** reward that can be shown off to all and sundry.
Grumpy Owly
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#29 - 2012-02-16 17:43:23 UTC  |  Edited by: Grumpy Owly
Lyris Nairn wrote:
I disagree entirely with your desire not to include a Boba Fett outfit in the NeX store.

I agree entirely with transferable kill rights and believe that in no way could this become easily exploitable.
V's Damsel
#30 - 2012-02-16 18:52:50 UTC
I believe fixing the bounty system is one of Wusti's items to take to CCP. Though he didn't specify (as most other candidates aren't specifying) about how. Ask him.
Grumpy Owly
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#31 - 2012-02-17 01:49:11 UTC
Asuri Kinnes wrote:
Tradeable kill rights. That's about the only thing I can think of that doesn't *immediately* mean giving the target the isk... still, just look yourself up, buy your own contract

/whack yourself


So I'm not sure where to go from here...

/bump for Keld.
Grumpy Owly
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#32 - 2012-02-17 02:19:30 UTC
Hans JagerBlitzen wrote:
From my platform document:

Any hope of a player-driven security solution is DOA while we are hampered by archaic kill right
and bounty mechanics. The problem with each is simple. Kill rights are only useable by the
victim, and bounties are only redeemable on pods.

It doesn’t matter how old your toon is, or how rich you are, or whether you're strong enough to
engage in PvP, CONCORD currently says that only you can take care of your issues. That's
bullshit. This is EvE, its a sandbox, being able to pay someone else to take out a revenge hit just
makes sense, no matter where you live.

When Mittens catches one of my Mackinaw pilots with their pants down, fapping away while
mining a belt, he won't hesitate to blast it into oblivion, tech 2 rigs and all. I deserve the right to
make him pay, but my Mackinaw pilot will never be able to enact the revenge herself.
I should be able to head to the nearest CONCORD office, pony up 100 million isk, and relinquish
my kill rights to create a bounty upon his property. Nope, not upon his pod – no one's going to
catch that in empire space, without the assistance of bubbles. And he'd simply pod himself to
take my isk, which would be completely wasted.

Until the kill right period has expired, the 100 million isk placed on the contract should be paid
out in the form of bounties equal to a fixed percentage of the values of the ships and modules
Mittens loses to those that accept the contract. This prevents exploitation. If a partial bounty is
only worth 75% of the property destroyed, there's zero economic incentive to deliver on your own
contract, unless you just want it off your back. Some pilots may WANT to do this, because lifting
a bounty will mean they won't be actively hunted anymore. That freedom shouldn't come cheap
though, you'll still have to incur a stack of loss mails.

CONCORD should also provide me the option of exactly who I can offer the bounty contract to.
For example, I could pay an individual to take on the task (such as a professional, skilled
assassin) – or pay my own corp-mates to assist in retribution. I just don't want anyone being able
to accept the contract, otherwise The Mittani might just take care of it himself.

Bounty contracts should also be able to be used to transfer kill rights to the general public, but we
could limit this to a subset of licensed bounty hunters who would be authorized to accept such a
public contract. Remember those Navy Comets with the police skins? Let's give em back to
players so they can punch those blinky lights and yell "WHOOP WHOOP" to their hearts content
while they chase down the bad guys. Of course, any publicly licensed bounty hunter would have
to have a high security status to pass CONCORD's background check and be accepted into the
program. That just makes sense!
Grumpy Owly
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#33 - 2012-02-21 15:52:06 UTC
Elise Randolph wrote:
This dove-tails into the bounty question quite well. I agree that the current system is dated and, moreover, inherently flawed; I would love for this barely-existent profession to get some love, but I think a complete overhaul is necessary. I like Malcanis' idea to a point - the overall idea is sound but the devil is in the details. I think it is very dangerous to have a bounty system with payouts based on the player-driven market. Eve players are devious, if there exists a way to cheat the system we will figure it out fast. Perhaps a simple fix is to calculate payoffs from a mass-base. That is to say, killing a bigger ship would entitle the players into bigger portion of the payout. 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.
Issler Dainze
Tadakastu-Obata Corporation
The Honda Accord
#34 - 2012-02-21 18:55:53 UTC
Bounty hunting was broken the moment they implemented it. I would love to see something replace what we have. It is a tricky problem but I like the idea of a bounty hunting revamp that introduces some sort of player run police force. Introduction of player law enforcement could also be a big part of fixing low sec.

The key would have to be somehow tying the bounty to a "crime" and restricting rewards to an appropriate part. Tricky problem but I know a lot of folks are brainstorming a way to make it better.

I don't consider this something I personally have thought much about (other than the player law enforcement idea) so I can't say it is part of my CSM 7 efforts but I do support getting CCP to revamp this long broken game mechanic.

Darius III
Interstellar eXodus
Good Sax
#35 - 2012-02-21 19:56:38 UTC
I think bounty hunting is a fine example of CCP's competency. So you want to get revenge on another player-Great! We'll have this mechanic where you think you are paying someone to get even, and really you are just giving the player you hate, all your cash that you spend. Brilliant +1


Grumpy Owly
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#36 - 2012-02-21 20:47:24 UTC
Seleene wrote:
Having had a chance to give that proposal a complete read, I have to say that I think it's got potential but is ultimately too convoluted. There are pieces of it that I like with regard to ensuring that the system could not be completely exploited but, as others have said, I don't really agree with tying it into the player-controlled market in terms of how payouts are determined. I would like to see players be able to take direct control over this mechanic and tweak it as much as possible.

A long time ago after the Dominion expansion, there was supposed to be a feature implemented called 'Treaties' which would have re-vamped the current contract system and made proper bounty hunting and mercenary work actually workable. I bring this up a lot because of the fact that I've spent the majority of my EVE career in mercenary alliances / hunting people down. Having an in-game mechanic, an officially supported system, that formalizes player agreements / assassination through a modified contract system is something that I've been a proponent of from the day my corp took its first mercenary contract back in April of 2004. Having gotten very close as a CCP dev to getting that into the game only pushes me to want it and demand it that much more.
Grumpy Owly
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#37 - 2012-02-21 21:06:58 UTC
Vincent Athena wrote:
The bounty system as it stands is an almost useless part of the game. I have seen several suggestions to make it better, many following my line of thinking, such as those from Malcanis. Here are ideas I like, and those I do not.

I like the idea that the bounty payout should be proportional to the value lost by the target. There should be payouts for both ship destruction as well as pod destruction. By doing the payout this way a player with a bounty on them could not make money by having an alt kill them. Also as it is likely that any given payout would be less than the total bounty, the target can be killed multiple times before the entire bounty gets used up.

I also like the idea that the person placing the bounty can limit it to certain groups of players, such as their corp or alliance, or have it based on standings. I also think that the person placing the bounty should have the option that it cannot be collected by someone in the same corp, alliance, or with good standings to the target.

I think bounties should not be tied to kill rights. A “White Knight” with lots of ISK should be able to place a bounty on any criminal. Then again, anyone with kill rights should be able to place a bounty whoever killed them, even non-criminals, although those would expire with the kill rights. Bounties on criminals should not expire, unless the criminal goes straight and gets positive security rating. I also think that if I see someone with a bounty, I should be able to shoot without having to accept some sort of “bounty contract” first.

The bounty system should be set up to encourage people shooting at each other and making explosions in space, what we all came here to see.
Grumpy Owly
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#38 - 2012-02-22 04:25:06 UTC
Leboe wrote:
It would make sense to do over bounty hunting during sweeping lowsec pass, which I am pushing for. The lack of a working bounty system isn't as pressing as other things (0.0 in general)

I'd support scrapping it in favour of more fleshed out pirate/antipirate mechanics and some wardec tweaks.
Shadow Kingdom
Best Alliance
#39 - 2012-02-22 10:51:57 UTC
Replied here.

Member of CSM 4&5 ... &8

Grumpy Owly
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#40 - 2012-02-23 01:24:37 UTC
Korvin wrote:
I can see 2 proposals on a link, concerning 2 different systems in EVE.
1st is a bounty hunting system.
2nd is a killrights system.

The 2nd proposal is pretty clear for me. Allowing players to contract their killrights to revenge seems like a good idea for me.

The 1st is much more complex.
I agree, that the current bounty hunting system in EVE does not fulfill it's goal - to punish the bad guy.
On the other hand, in a complex game of EVE, every player have it's own values, and keeping his pod alive is just a single option through all other available.
Making most of my ingame money as a mercenary, I'm aware of these issues. The problem is, that every time you want to revenge and seek a mercenary, you need to find out - what type of damage should be more painful to your victim: Is it a pod, or the most expensive ship he owns, or a pos, or you want him to stay docked forever? The second step is to make sure that the mercenary did the job the way you want it. This is a real issue, all you can check at the moment is a reputation of the "punisher" corp. Some tools could be improved to control this. Lucky for us we have an API killmail verification now. The most difficult question is the payment. Each side does not tend to trust the other. The KPI determining the success of the revenge are hard to define. Obviously, the only way this could be solved in a current time is a third party service. Sigh, we need more Chribbas.

We had alot of discussions on the subject in CCP during CSM4 and 5 terms, I remember same discussions on a last fanfest, I can assure you, CCP are aware on this issue.
Previous page123Next page