open All Channels
seplocked Features and Ideas Discussion
blankseplocked BOUNTY REFORM: Payout Cap at Value of Destroyed Property
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: [1] 2

Author Topic

Amicus
Gold Diggers Inc.
Posted - 2005.09.03 01:40:00 - [1]
 

Seeing as how the old Bounty Reform Solutions thread is getting a bit cluttered, I am putting down the consensus reached in that thread here for further comment and future reference. Both pirates and carebears (and even some Devs at the Dev party last March) have voiced some support for a solution to the bounty fraud problem along these lines.

BOUNTY PAYOUT CAP AT VALUE OF DESTROYED PROPERTY:
Cap the amount paid out on a target’s bounty at the fair market value of the target’s destroyed property (i.e., ship, clone, implants, modules, cargo, skill points).

This means that the payout on any bounty would never be more than the loss to the bounty target from getting killed. The cap does not limit the size of the bounty. The cap only limits the amount paid out for a particular kill. Whatever is not paid out from a bounty on a kill because of the cap remains for the next hunter to collect.

That is the proposal in a nutshell. If you are in a hurry, you can stop reading here and add your support, proposed modifications, flames, etc., to this thread. If you are interested in a fuller explanation for how this proposal can work, then read the next two posts in the thread.

Continued next post.

Amicus
Gold Diggers Inc.
Posted - 2005.09.03 01:40:00 - [2]
 

Insurance Factor:
Under the proposed system the target’s ship insurance (both the insurance payout and the premium cost) should be factored into the payout cap on a bounty. For example, say the target has 100 million isk payout on his ship, for which insurance he paid 75 million isk, and at the time he is slain he still has four weeks remaining on the policy (1/3 of the total period). The payout cap could be reduced by 50 million for the insurance payout (i.e., 100 minus [75 x 1/3]). The closer to the end of the policy period, the more the insurance payout reduces the bounty payout cap.

Skill Point Value:
If the target actually loses skill points because of the pod-kill that should increase the cap on the bounty payout. Skill points have value as well; look how much people will pay for implants that give only minor increases to skill earning. Perhaps add 400 isk per skill point lost to the payout cap on a kill. That way a bounty hunter who caused a loss of a week of skill points (around 250,000 points) could collect over 100 million isk.

FMV Calculation – Keep it Simple & Low:
The calculation of the fair market value of destroyed property does not have to be perfect. It would be better to err by setting values too low rather than too high, to insure that bounty fraud is uneconomical. The standard market value for modules, etc., could be calculated once per day over down time, or even less often, so as not to slow down the server with the calculation. Property for which it is too complicated to calculate a value could be excluded from the payout calculation (e.g., items that cannot be sold on the Market like some named modules).

Popping the Bounty:
To dissuade the target from “popping” his/her own bounty just to get rid of pesky bounty hunters, the payout on the bounty could be further limited to 90% of the value of the destroyed property. So that by collecting his/her own bounty the target would still have to incur a loss equal to 10% of the value of his/her destroyed property.

Continued next post.

Amicus
Gold Diggers Inc.
Posted - 2005.09.03 01:41:00 - [3]
 

EXAMPLES OF SYSTEM:
Example (1): Dudley DoRight ugh(bounty hunter) one day manages amazingly to kill Lord X Twisted Evil(pirate extraordinaire). Lord X has a bounty of 200 million isk on his head. However, at the time Dudley kills Lord X, Lord X’s destroyed property (ship, modules, implants, cargo, clone and equipment minus ship insurance value) have a total fair market value of only 150 million isk. The payout to Dudely is 135 million isk (i.e., 90% of the value of the destroyed property), and 65 million isk of Lord X’s bounty remains to be collected by the next hunter.

Example (2): Lord X Twisted Evil, tired of getting ganked by Dudley, decides to collect his own bounty with True Buddy YARRRR!!, his second account. Lord X goes out in a shuttle. Buddy destroys the shuttle and sends Lord X’s pod to oblivion. At the time, Lord X has no implants and no insurance on the shuttle. Lord X did pay 4 million for his clone, so he loses no skill points. Assume the market value of the shuttle is 5k. The payout to Buddy would be 3,604,500 isk (or 90% of the value of what Lord X lost, a shuttle and clone worth a total of 4,005,000 isk). Lord X still has a remaining bounty of 61,395,500 isk. Buddy gives all the bounty payout to Lord X, who is now 400,500 isk poorer and still has a very high bounty. Evil or Very Mad On the other hand, Lord X is also confident that people seeing his high bounty will know that it reflects his true “ebil” genius for ****ing people off, rather than just money he has put up himself to attract attention. Twisted Evil

Amicus
Gold Diggers Inc.
Posted - 2005.09.03 01:41:00 - [4]
 

OTHER BOUNTY REFORMS:
There are many other things that could be done to improve the bounty system, and I expect some of them will be posted below. Here is one other proposal I think would be worth considering.

Reformed Criminals:
With the working bounty system proposed above, it would be reasonable for other methods to exist for bounty targets who no longer wish to pursue a criminal life to get rid of their bounties, rather than having to die horribly. Evil or Very Mad Such methods of escaping death might include “public service” work through agents and/or paying isk for bribes, fines, and lawyer fees. Similarly, a bounty target who gets his security status up to a certain level might have his bounty suspended, but if the target later returns to a life of crime the former bounty could be reinstated.

Spy4Hire
Posted - 2005.09.03 03:05:00 - [5]
 

Edited by: Spy4Hire on 03/09/2005 03:08:54
Try here...

Offer bounties on all ships destroyed just like rats... at 1% of the ship's value deducted from the destroyed player's payout.

In the case of a bountied pilot the payout would be higher for the destroyed ship, but perhaps to prevent too much griefing it should be no more than 3% ship value (+ max bounty if less than 10% of ship value) + 0.1% per -0.1 security standing so that someone with a pimply 5k bounty is not loosing 10% of their BS value payout (8 mil or more) because of a chumpy bounty. If the pod gets away the attacker recieves 10% of the pod bounty deducted from the bounty total.

But it would give a purpose to having bounties, and a purpose to go after bountied pilots (higher bounty payout than base 1%).

Derron Bel
Amarr
Imperial Academy
Posted - 2005.09.20 08:01:00 - [6]
 

I like it.

TuRtLe HeAd
Apocalypse Enterprises
Posted - 2005.09.20 08:08:00 - [7]
 

Edited by: TuRtLe HeAd on 20/09/2005 08:11:03
Keep placing a bounty on a players head, Thats a Bonus for getting their pod.

And Have a Default payout on a Pirate for his ship value. make it 10% of the ship value. (Based on Base Value)

Example 1: Bounty hunter Bart Simpson kills the Evil pirate spongebob squarepants.

Spongebob was flying a tempest and had a bounty of 20 million.

Payout for the tempest is about 10 million, to the person/gang that killed him. If they get the pod they get the 20 mill bounty as well.

Totalling 30 million.
10 mill if he only gets the ship.


We dont need to change the way bounties are placed or claimed , we just need to add the loss of ships to the bounty payout.

Rez Lo
Posted - 2005.09.20 18:22:00 - [8]
 

Good work Amicus. I could do with out the bribes/lawyer fees to remove bounties. I feel if you commit a crime where the victim's only chance at justice/vengeance is to place a bounty. Then you should be forced to live with the consequences of that action. Even if your victim has deep pockets and can keep a bounty on you indefinitely. I would be willing to make an exception, if s the perpetrator regained sec. status to positive status and a fair amount of time has passed since the bounty was placed.But for those negative sec. status they should not be easily let off the hook, especially with bribes or mission running that's just too easy.
Rez

Shira d'Radonis
Amarr
The Amarr Mission
Posted - 2005.09.20 19:21:00 - [9]
 


I think this is a very good idea and would help to settle the problems of the current bounty system.

Another intriguing idea would be for NPC factions to be able to put bounties on the heads of pirates who commit infractions in their regions...

Fester Addams
Minmatar
Posted - 2005.09.21 09:25:00 - [10]
 

Its a very interesting Idea but how will you deal with the situation when Duley DoGood manages to kill Lord X's ship but Lord X escapes and is only podded 1 hour and 20 min later when he tries to dock at a station?

The problem Im pointing to naturally is that noone dies in an expensive ship, we all die flying a pod...

Derron Bel
Amarr
Imperial Academy
Posted - 2005.09.21 10:58:00 - [11]
 

The basic gist of the idea is that bounties would be paid for destroyed property. So the ship itself would be worth most of the bounty, most likely. Not the pod.


Amicus
Gold Diggers Inc.
Posted - 2005.09.21 18:32:00 - [12]
 

Originally by: Derron Bel
The basic gist of the idea is that bounties would be paid for destroyed property.
Derron has it right. Some players object that payouts should only be for "kills" rather than property distruction. However, in the Eve universe clone technology has done away with death as a punishment. Merchants will not pay high bounties on a pirate for what often amounts to only a minor inconvenience caused by a pod-kill. They will pay, however, to remove the pirate as a threat, which requires destroying the pirate's ship, weapons, implants, skill points, etc.

Fester Addams
Minmatar
Posted - 2005.09.22 07:35:00 - [13]
 

Originally by: Derron Bel
The basic gist of the idea is that bounties would be paid for destroyed property. So the ship itself would be worth most of the bounty, most likely. Not the pod.


Yes I read that but how do you keep track on the loss of property if there is a delay between the loss of ship and loss of pod?

Lets use another example, Dudley DoGood tracks down Lord X and kills his ship but the pod gets away, Lord X escapes to a moon or somthing similar and then executes his escape plan alpha (ie instajump through the gate) but unluckily for him a former victim (lets call him Lucky) happen to be guarding the gate and manages to pull off a kill of the pod.
What would Luckys payout be?

To me it seems like your Idea would work better with the bounty paying out based on destroyed value only.

In the above example Dudley DoGood would get a payout for killing Lord X's ship based on the ships value (ship cost, destroyed modules cost minus insurance...) and Lucky would get a payout for whatever value Lord X lost due to getting podded (implants, loss of SP's...).

Amicus
Gold Diggers Inc.
Posted - 2005.09.22 15:13:00 - [14]
 

Originally by: Fester Addams
To me it seems like your Idea would work better with the bounty paying out based on destroyed value only.
Sorry Fester my example was not clear on that; yes that is the idea of the proposal--paying for ship-kills as well as pod-kills. You would not be required to get the pod to get a reward. Originally, there was an idea of putting it on a timer, and my example above harkens back to when that idea was still being considered.

Fester Addams
Minmatar
Posted - 2005.09.23 17:47:00 - [15]
 

Ahh, then I fully suport your idea.

Its about time people would start making some isk off the pirates :)

Adjodlo
Posted - 2006.03.07 07:04:00 - [16]
 

FINALLY! A bounty reform idea that makes sense!

CCP I beg you, please make this happen. The current bounty system is an embarassment.

Audri Fisher
Caldari
Burning Bush Enterprises
Posted - 2006.03.07 22:32:00 - [17]
 

I like it.
It seems to solve a lot of the current problems, and is basicaly fraud proof.

Valcali
Posted - 2006.03.11 13:58:00 - [18]
 

I like this system as well. It makes a lot of sense and has a safe guard against a pirates collecting their own bounty.

DeckardIRL
The Randoms
Posted - 2006.03.11 14:15:00 - [19]
 

Edited by: DeckardIRL on 11/03/2006 14:31:12
<link href =http://myeve.eve-online.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=297395>Linkage</link>

OK someone please tell me how to put a link in... as you can see my html is ****e....

Deckard

Amicus
Gold Diggers Inc.
Posted - 2007.01.11 04:49:00 - [20]
 

Hmmm, have not seen bounty reform mentioned in a while.Sad

Tarron Sarek
Gallente
Biotronics Inc.
Initiative Mercenaries
Posted - 2007.01.11 06:20:00 - [21]
 

Last time I mentioned an idea, strangely enough exactly along the lines of this thread, it got shot down.
I don't like wasting my time, so I didn't do it again.

But of course I totally agree. It would be a good system. Payout should be considerably less than destroyed property, just to make sure it really hurts.

Amicus
Gold Diggers Inc.
Posted - 2007.04.06 01:49:00 - [22]
 

Edited by: Amicus on 06/04/2007 01:49:51
Ah finally! Reform of the bounty system is on the dev Drawing Board:

Quote:
“Bounty System
Long-awaited upgrades to the “bounty hunter” profession, rewarding those who want to fight the good fight without just making it more profitable for pirates to claim their own bounties.

Hooray!Very Happy

Jart
Posted - 2007.04.06 21:02:00 - [23]
 

I think bounties should not depend on the ship and equipment that the target is flying. If I placed a bounty on someone, I would like to think it would offer an incentive to others to kill them no matter what they were flying. Also, it is tricky enough to track and kill someone, but then have that dependant on what they are flying as well would I think make it too difficult to make bounty hunting a serious proposition.

I have another idea in another thread but I don't want to link it and hijack this one.

Amicus
Gold Diggers Inc.
Posted - 2007.04.07 01:15:00 - [24]
 

Hi Jart.

Thanks for the input. No problem with posting a link to your thread here. I take it you are talking about your thread Bounty Hunting.

Blind Bounties: I see your idea very briefly is to keep the bounty target a secret from the hunter until the last moment when the target shows up in Overview, as a method of preventing fraud. However, what if the hunter once he sees the target on Overview sends a message (or has a buddy send a message) to the target suggesting that they split the bounty in exchange for the target letting the hunter shoot his pod?

Whatever the bounty system, you always have to assume that the target will get the money somehow. There is no way to avoid that, because isk can be traded for anything inside and outside the game. The trick is to make the kill in some way still worth it to the bounty payer, even if the target collects the bounty.

Jart
Posted - 2007.04.07 10:01:00 - [25]
 

Edited by: Jart on 07/04/2007 10:05:31
Edited by: Jart on 07/04/2007 10:05:06
Edited by: Jart on 07/04/2007 10:02:03
Yes you are right my idea is not completely foolproof, but as you cannot pick who the target is, the chances that they are someone that you actually know are random. Splitting the bounty with the target could also be a problem, but would be better than we have now. It really depends on the calibre of the hunter I guess. Also, as the bounty is not visible to the hunted, he has no way of determining if the attacker is telling the truth about what his "50%" of the bounty actually is Smile
Also with anonymous targets people will be more inclined to add bounties and some could get much larger then the current ones and bounty hunting would be much more viable. There might need to be further changes needed for balance though.
I think your system would make bounty hunting less prone to fraud, but will people really go after some of the most dangerous people in the galaxy only to find them in a ship worth very little? Or even if you do find them in an resonably priced ship, if you don't kill them first time they might just go switch to something worth nothing, until you give up.
I think your idea supports people checking others out as they pass to see if they are worth engaging, but not the idea of specifically trying to find targets with high bounties.

Braseur
Posted - 2007.06.28 14:19:00 - [26]
 

I've not managed to get in-game since RevII so I'm not aware of any changes to the bounty system other than there was/is supposed to be some?

I think the ideas above are great, particularly being paid 90% of ship/mod/clone/sp value, or any percentage of. The amount paid out removed from the pirates bounty value, if there is bounty remaining so be it, if not the pirate is bountiless till he gets on the wrong side of someone rich again...

In addition to that, someone made a comment about people with deep pockets making it impossible for a pirate to escape his/her bounty, so perhaps implmenting a similar system to the above... pirate blows Mr Afk's ship up, Mr Afk has x minutes to get himself to a bounty office where he can place a (or add to existing) bounty based on 90% of what was lost? This way Mr IskieszMan can't indefinately bounty a pirate. Just an idea.

Oh, I also bump the idea of pirates being able to 'freeze' bounty's on themselves by increasing security status, but it should return as and when they return to there naughty ways...

Last but not least. Someone else mentioned that if the above was implemented then the pirates will just fly round in cheap ships so that the Bounty Hunter can't make money?
Well if pirates are only seen in shuttles or cheapo ships then they won't be able to harrass as well as they might do in t2 fitted mega or suchlike? (I'm aware there are some cheap ships+fittings that can be quite a nuisance...)

So, conclusion, I agree with all that has been said on the forum, but be fair to the pirates and cap the bounties being placed based on loss imo.

Regards.



Lord Zugzwang
Posted - 2007.07.03 06:15:00 - [27]
 

I would like to make a suggestion. First, I would like to say that is more highly prized to be a pirate than a normal Joe. Bad guys get all the perks, and get protected by CONCORD to boot. There is no equivalent for good guys. People call good guys care bears, but they may be people who are not into griefing. Our young players should have some good guys to idolize. The kids look up to the pirates as the only elites and disrespect the rest. The pirates get a cool color than everyone else, and a little skull representing their badness to galaxy.


Here is my suggestion:

1. Create CONCORD Marshals
Create a new training (rank 8 or 10) to become a CONCORD Marshal (level 4 or 5) and require Fast talk 4 or 5 as a prerequisite. Also, require that the member have and maintain a +5.0 standing with CONCORD. This is not easily done and takes a bit of time.

The +5.0 standing players that I know are well respected and have high ability. A CONCORD Marshall should have a different color depicting their status. This is the same status achieved by pirates. Players within the system would know who to call on for help, or may even be able to assist the Marshall.

2. CONCORD Marshalls may deputize (gang)
Any members of the Marshall’s gang are temporarily deputized while they are ganged. This would require a different icon than the actual Marshall.

3. Bounties may only be placed on players with a negative CONCORD standing only.

4. Stealing gives a negative standing

5. Only Marshall's or their deputies may collect bounties

6. Remove standing penalties for Marshall's/deputies in highsec or lowsec for carrying out their mission

7. Include average market price of items stolen in bounty

8. Destroying his ship is enough to collect the bounty

Option:
Split the bounty into number of ships/items he has stolen for a max of 4. The payout for the first collection is 40%, the second 30%, the third 20% and the fourth 10%.

Last, it seems odd that CONCORD does little for protection of the common citizen in their space. A griefer can steal from a can, and a miner is powerless to stop them. He has to stop his mining operation and then try and form a group to go after the griefer in 15 minutes. This seems a little unrealistic. This suggestion is basically from the old west, where the ranchers after being beaten by someone specialized in fighting would call the sheriff or marshal. The sheriff would then organize a posse and go after the bad guys. The current system is broke, and if the griefer needs to he can remove the bounty easily enough. If not he can hide in highsec and be protected by CONCORD until the wind has blown over, or he has found a way a way to remove the bounty (assuming he cares).

Possible issues:
* How to gain CONCORD standing faster
Should we worry about it??

* The pirate in a gang with non-bounty players
Should we worry about it??

* How many players even have a +5 standing?
Is it enough?

Dhaikin Lharoud
Caldari
Antares Technology
Posted - 2007.07.25 17:03:00 - [28]
 

Bounties are a great concept in the game, too bad they are broken.
This is my proposal to get them fixed......

You can place a bounty on someone that has a negative security status,
and you have aggro on them (the 15 min timer), or kill rights.

That keeps people from abusing bounties to get free kills.

People with bounties on their heads are KOS everywhere, pods too.

The payoff for killing the person is not the cash, but a security increase.
Make it .... say 1.0 per 100M, diminishing as the isk goes up, so that
someone cant realistically buy better security status, without a lot of time
and isk invested. You can also add a bounty delay period, like the 24 hours
for a jump clone, so that you can place a bounty once every timeframe, be it
24 hours, or a week.

It takes 24 hrs to put a bounty on someones head (this will be needed, to stop bounty traps)

If you have a bounty on your head, you don't have the right to place a bounty on anyone.

This will make people with bounties on them rare birds indeed. We wont have punks running
around with 5K self-placed bounties, cause they think the skull looks neat.

We also have a new way for people to increase their sec staus, as long as the
sec status increases are small, it wont be abused ..... say .00001 for a 5K
bounty or something like that.

with this plan .....

You can't just place a bounty on some random negative status person,
as you dont have aggro on them.

Security status below 0.0 will mean something, as you can end up being KOS in empire.

There is a way to increase your security status, but if you are negative you need to
be careful about who you upset.



DL

largewhereitcounts
Posted - 2007.07.30 22:04:00 - [29]
 



___Bounty hunting other players can never work in any game, Bounty hunting NPC's is the only option.



Torothanax
Posted - 2007.07.30 22:30:00 - [30]
 

Originally by: Amicus
Originally by: Derron Bel
The basic gist of the idea is that bounties would be paid for destroyed property.
Derron has it right. Some players object that payouts should only be for "kills" rather than property distruction. However, in the Eve universe clone technology has done away with death as a punishment. Merchants will not pay high bounties on a pirate for what often amounts to only a minor inconvenience caused by a pod-kill. They will pay, however, to remove the pirate as a threat, which requires destroying the pirate's ship, weapons, implants, skill points, etc.


I agree. Podding in eve is more of a minor bother then anything else, unless you lose implants. It's like spitting on someone after you knock them out. Do they care at that point? Probably not.

I think this would go a long way in preventing fraud. 75% or so of the damage you inflict is taken off thier bounty and added to your wallet. No more alt pod kills for free cash. No implants in the pod? Then the only pay out is percentage of the clone cost.

The only punishment in eve is loss of isk. If you don't inflict any punisment, why should you get paid?

T


Pages: [1] 2

This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to https://forums.eveonline.com

These forums are archived and read-only