Bounty System Overhaul

EVE Technology and Research Center Player Features & Ideas
1

Disclaimer: Any numbers given herein are purely theoretical with the intent of showcasing an example.

After looking over the bounty system, current and prior, I believe I have developed a more ‘user friendly’ implementation which heavily, if not outright entirely removes the possibility of exploiting it.

The idea is as follows, and uses the following (in-game) IG and (possible implement) PI:

IG: Security Status
IG: Bounty Placement
IG: Mission NPC’s (Concord)

PI: New Skill (Bounty Hunting)
PI: New Module (Concord Beacon) This would not be necessary with other ideas presented.

Example: A 1,000,000 ISK bounty is placed on a character (Pilot A). Pilot A has a 0.0 Security Status. Two options are available to Pilot A: pay the bounty off, or worry about bounty hunters.

To pay the bounty, dock at a Concord station and simply pay it (removes active currency to NPC). An increase in Security Status inversely affects payoff, and vice-versa.

If Pilot A has 5.0 Security Status, their payoff is reduced by (amount - (SS x 1%) x (amount) )

If Pilot A has -5.0 Security Status, their payoff is increased by (amount + (-(SS x 1%) ) x (amount) )

Pilot A refuses to pay for whatever reason. Pilot A is entered into a Collections Mission roulette with all other bounty laden pilots.

Pilot B wants to Bounty Hunt. Pilot B has 0.0 Security Status. By docking at a Concord Station, an NPC will randomly assign a Collections Target from the available pool.

The pool will not factor pilots who have not logged in within at least a week. The Collections mission will not offer any details to the pilot’s location.

Pilot B draws the Collection on Pilot A. Pilot B has 4 standard days to complete the mission (96 hours).
The bounty is 1,000,000 and both pilots have 0.0 Security Status. This results in 1 of 2 options.

  1. Pilot B can defeat Pilot A upon locating them for 10% of the bounty (multiplied by the positive Security Status or reduced by a negative one (for Pilot B) )

2. Pilot B can tackle Pilot A upon locating them and activate the Concord Beacon which, after a relative amount of time, if they can keep the target locked down, Concord arrives to destroy the ship (this will not work in Wormholes, NullSec and take significantly longer in LowSec) for 5% of the bounty (same multipliers)

If completed through option 1. The payout is higher, but Security Status increase is equal to 1 Pirate Commander Ship from a 1.0 Anomaly.

If completed through option 2. The payout is lower, but Security Status increase is equal to completing a DED 4/10 site.

In either case, this provides incentive to improve payout by increasing Security Standing.

The current method can persist with similar math, however, ‘bounty hunting’ pilots without an official Concord sanction (Collections mission) for that pilot will result in a loss of Security Status, as it already does, effectively diminishing payout to possibly 0 (at -10.0 Security Status)

This is where the Bounty Hunting Skill comes in. It creates a 1% additional payout per skill level if below 0.0 Security Status. (Ideal training time is guesstimated at x8) This allows -10.0 pilots to still receive the fruits of their labors while improving their Security Status.

In the case of people over 0.0 Security Status, this could result in a flat Concord ‘compensation’ such as (1,000 ISK x Bounty Hunting skill level x Security Status) for the bounty hunter’s contribution to public safety. (I do not feel this should be tied to the collected bounty as this opens a Pandora’s Box of potential abuse.)

Any bounty amount collected (not including any ‘overage’ covered by Concord) is deducted from the Wanted pilot’s current total.

Edit to reflect new ideas:

Time reduction:

Bounties reduce over time, perhaps in relation to Security Status / Online Status.

Notification:

Relevant parties are notified of the parameters of the limited engagement.

Innocence:

Alpha pilots receive a small window upon creation of bounty immunity unless deactivating safety.

HighSec limitation:

Pilots must restrain targets in HighSec for Concord to handle, as deadly force is not authorized legally.
Bounty Hunting in HighSec not allowed for whatever reason…

Set-Up:

Like War Declarations, you must pay a fee to instigate a bounty and maintain that fee if the pilot is not Collected on within the approved window.

Spool-Up:

Upon becoming an active target, you are notified with a (time-increment) window before hostile actions are sanctioned.

Justification:

Attach a “UDUNRONG” message to the bounty. (for lulz if nothing else)

Limitations:

Only 1 Collections effort can be active at a time.

RoE:

As a pilot can fleet up to split the bounty payout for help, so too can a Wanted pilot fleet up to protect their hide. This splits the payout of the Collections target between the active fleet ships.

Bounty Insurance:

By paying certain factions, you could potentially insure your clone, or deflect bounties, in correlation to your standings and asset value in a given space.

2

Wow this is a huge pain in the ass to overhaul a system that doesn’t interfere with anything right now. If concord goons get sent after me because somebody else put a bounty on me, that’s a problem. If my bounty changes whether or not you can engage me in highsec, that’s a problem.

Before this goes any further I need you to explain to me why you want to do more to the bounty system than ignore it, and if it interrupts my regular gameplay then I’m probably not going to support it much.

3

EVE touts itself as a the proverbial sandbox in space. In keeping with such, in a sandbox, one can essentially do whatever they desire. As bounties are a part of the game that do not seem to be going anywhere, simply ignoring their existence does nothing to improve the game.

To address your inquiry:

You can, with ease, simply remove your bounty, either through payoff (at a diminished scale with improved Security Status) or with the assistance of others (perhaps a ‘backdoor’ option that allows you to bribe Concord to stay off of you or remove your bounty through other means).

As it stands, yes, bounties have no real impact on the game, and while it may be easy enough to simply sweep them under the rug, I see no reason why this can not be yet another valid approach to playing the game.

4

Because, for example, let’s say I drop a 400million bounty on an alpha character trying his best to rat in a VNI. As a newer player that pilot is screwed. Where does he magically conjure 400mil? Can he afford to replace his VNI when somebody draws his name from the gank pool? You have to first see how badly the bounty system has been abused with no consequences to think about how it will be abused with consequences.

This is just one example of how changing it for lore reasons could have a direct and negative impact on the player base immediately.

5

My solution to this would be to implement a ‘time-increment’ reduction in bounty. I have seen this used in other games. To use your example of 400,000,000:

Upon placing the bounty, the Alpha pilot receives is notified of their Wanted status. For every (time-increment) passed that the bounty is not collected, the total amount diminishes by (% factor of ‘highest’ amount (In the event of multiple bounty placements) ) until collected or 0 sum is reached. This (time-increment) is not reset if a new bounty is placed, but the passage of it does reflect the new higher balance.

This, in tandem with not being able to choose your target (anymore so than now at least) ensures a more measured response.

Regarding Alphas, perhaps a time window after character creation wherein the pilot is ineligible to receive a bounty provided they do not enter Suspect Status or turn off their Safety?

6

As long as it doesn’t give you limited engagement with me in Highsec, you can change anything on the periphery. Making new players immune from the bounties for awhile speaks to their potential for abuse

7

Clarify this for me: You pay a measly ISK sum and get a kill right for a character?

8

It honestly does not. As stated, the immunity persists only until X time passage, or the Safety is turned off for any reason.

As with War Declarations, the relevant parties would be notified, allowing pilots to ‘wait it out’ as is already the case.

You keep stating ‘could be abused’.

There is no solution that allots 0 potential for abuse. Mitigation of abuse is all that can be sought. Seeking a 0 abuse solution will result in 0 solutions. Everything in EVE can be abused to some greater or lesser degree.

As far as HighSec engagement, this is not fundamentally any different than it is now. ‘To reduce abuse’ one could use the beacon idea as being the only ‘legal’ solution in HighSec.

I do appreciate you pushing me to develop this idea, however, perhaps helping the idea develop along a pattern that is consistent with your tolerance for potential abuse as opposed to simply stating abuse can happen without offering a solution, would help the idea develop more robustly(?)

1 Like
9

No. I am not sure how you inferred that?

10

Pretty much what I inferred.

11

This does not allow you ‘kill rights’ nor does it allow you to ‘pod’ a pilot. Only to act in a limited fashion against a pilot who knows to look for you, as determined by a lottery draw within a narrow window.

Kill Rights last 30 days to my understanding and can be sold, effectively making it very difficult to know who, if anyone, might be coming after you, should you have incurred such.

These Collections missions do not give you podding rights, last only 96 hours, and can not be sold off, ensuring the possibility of engagement remains between the given parties, who are both notified.

It’s more of a limited form of player versus player war declaration.

12

The lottery and narrow window is completely irrelevant. Not only can you find a character via the killboard and with locator agents in a matter of minutes, you also just need to spend enough ISK or organize enough ISK spending to get the lottery to pick the results you want to see.

Podding rights is irrelevant as well. People are after the ships, not the pods.

Again: You can just pay a meager ISK sum to get a kill right for any character, without those having done anything wrong to deserve such a kill right.

13

This would have to be unalterable. No amount of ISK will influence the lottery.

For added measure, turning down a Collections Mission for any reason results in not just a loss of agent standing, but a lockout window, so you can not cycle through targets with any efficiency seeking a given one.

The use of Locator Agents actually works fine in these parameters.

14

‘Deserve’

This concept does not work in EVE. If we base things on that, all WarDecs, except those approved by CCP in person hearing both sides through communicative measures, all ganking, suicide or otherwise, all scamming, heck, the entirety of CODE, would be invalid as concepts.

15

Why would you reject a mission to kill another player? It’s a free kill. Why would anyone refuse that?

If you put 1B bounty on a character, they are more likely to get drawn in the lottery because there are more “tickets” with their heads in the bowl. And the more characters do that, the more tickets with that head land in the bowl.
If you make it independent from the bounty amount, you can spend 1B ISK to bounty maybe 100, 1,000 or 10,000 characters for a a meager ISK sum. The more people do this, the higher the chances are to draw something you like.

Either way, your lottery gives player A a kill right for another player who does not necessarily deserve it. This is the same terrible bounty rework system that so many other people have suggested before you.

16

Deserve in the sense of that you have done something illegal for which the game mechanics put a punishment on your head. Just flying around and getting bountied is not a thing that should create a kill right against you.

1 Like
17

I don’t think you are understanding the concept of the lottery. It is character based, not amount based, or number of separate bounties placed dependent.

1 character = 1 ticket

No more, no less.

Regarding turning down a mission, perhaps the target is deep in enemy Null Sov, and to get them would take such significant resources as to not be worth it. Perhaps the target simply has too low of a bounty to be considered worth the time.

I understand the concept has been mentioned before, but I have yet to see any other remotely viable alternatives offered (that result in keeping / making bounties part of the game)

18

As it stands, one could WarDec your whole Corp/Alliance and get kill rights on all of you for a nominal ISK sum with no reason or validation.

And this suggestion counteracts that notion how…?

19

I have 4 accounts with 3 characters each. That’s 12 tickets that I can draw and I can just create new alpha characters to get even more draws. And a downtime also does not matter because alts.

Yeah, deep in null sec might be an issue, but the majority of characters lives in high sec and low sec. It is also still a free ship kill for the attacker. The bounty is not really of importance, you get the ship killed with a mere frigate (point + jams or damps, for instance) and you can grab the nice loot.

You won’t see any remotely viable alternative because there are none for the setting that is EVE. You have the choice between

  1. the old system where you could cash in the bounties with an alt, which invalidates the system.
  2. the current system which pays only small, ship value dependent amounts of the bounty pool, which makes hunter profession not worthwhile.
  3. an iteration of your idea, which creates a kill right for no good reason on anyone and that can also be exploited with alts.

If you find a solution that does not sport any of these negative aspects, you win EVE.

With a war, you risk your own assets. You can be engaged by the opponent, your opponent can call reinforcements and allies, the opponent can leave an empty corp hull behind and continue their business. A war means a risk for both parties. Your suggestion does not impose any risk on the attacker.

20

While I think I can see where the OP is going with this, and I think it is a good idea, the real abuse tends to come from how bounties are placed. It is very difficult to limit how a bounty is placed. Unless there is a way to restructure the bounty system to limit the way bounties are placed, any other reworking won’t really achieve much. In the real world, there are limitation on how bounties are placed, which are usually placed by law enforcement agencies, not common civilians. So, unless we want CCP to implement a system whereby bounties are placed on only those with a negative security status, or we otherwise file a “bounty petition” because somebody did something and we seek revenge, there is very little that can be done with the system. I would like to see something help to make it more relevant, but there is no easy answer on how this can be done. I’ve tried suggesting a few things on another thread, but those were also shot down by others (see the “Beating a Dead Horse” thread). Yes, something should be done, but until we can start coming up with a viable option, rather than just shooting down everyone (typical Eve behavior), nothing will happen. Sadly, there are some who don’t want the system “fixed”. Then again, those are the same who are most likely to exploit it.