DMC. "Maybe use your ganker skills as a Bounty Hunter?"

I think this is where our philosophies may diverge on crime. That’s awesome to be a player that can go guns blazing all-in outlaw, and I enjoy seeing some of the RPG elements that goes with it. And maybe someday I may have the time to explore that side. But I hope there is room also for the outlaw that no one suspects. I feel that players in high sec shouldn’t know where danger might come from. “That guy there with 0.0 sec status looks harmless enough…” That’s some of the reason I personally care about sec status, and hope CCP may someday revisit that game mechanic.

Perhaps then you could use your vast experience in high sec content to come up with some ideas on how a new working bounty system could be achieved? There seems to be a new thread every couple months on new bounty ideas, so there does seem to be some intense demand for it. But it’s a very tricky puzzle to solve, all of them have flaws. Maybe mull it over, and an idea or two may sprout over time? Even though it’s like searching for gold at the end of a rainbow, I think an actual working bounty system is still something worth the effort and could make high sec stand out even more among all the games out there.

1 Like

Well yeah, I do have an idea.

I’m writing this from a perspective of someone who cares about the money, because most people simply do that. They don’t want to kill for sports, which is perfectly fine, though things of course shouldn’t work in a way that it feeds greed. Greed is bad. Ask Hilmar. : - )

There needs to be more people with higher bounty and the payout mechanic needs to be changed. The 20% payout might prevent people from cashing it themselves via alts/friends, but it also makes it meaningless. The full payout might make people cash it in themselves, but in return does it make everyone who doesn’t do such a thing an actually interesting target. There are people who truly appreciate this. That’s some serious spice added to the game for both the hunted and the hunter.

Let me tell you the short story of how I had a billion ISK bounty on my head, before these changes. Good old Solstice Project sat in Dodixie trying to talk money out of some honourable drunk person. Let’s say I was really good at that. At first I didn’t know I’ve succeeded, but when I came back from work four hours later I’ve seen he indeed sent me money … in form of bounty … one billion ISK. That was a lot back then.

And I was sitting in Dodixie. As -7. Ha! Panic! :smiley:

Back then Dodixie was really active. A lot of people at the undock. Back then I also wasn’t yet skilled enough to figure out how to get the ■■■■ out of there and it was a thrilling 15minutes I’ve used to try to escape until Alex [forgotthefullname] managed to get the final blow. Sadly I had no instaundock bookmark back then and using the pod wasn’t an option, because it had to do a full turn around. My mind was too occupied to come up with something sensible. lol

When the whole bounty is being paid out, then there is actual meaning because people will come after you for it. When you know only 20% of the bounty will be paid, then you know very well that most people will not give a ■■■■, because the vast majority of people will simply not come to check if you have a ship/fitting that makes an attack worthwhile.

I believe bounty should be paid out in full up until a hard limit calculated in relation to the cost of the ship used to gank the target … plus profit. When I invest 100 million ISK to gank someone who has a billion ISK bounty, then I should be compensated that money PLUS making profit.

Now some losers people will scream THAT’LL INCREASE SUICIDE GANKING and I will say YES THAT’S WHAT IT’S SUPPOSED TO BE DOING BOUNTY HUNTING IS PERFECT FOR GANKERS AND THE GAME WOULD BENEFIT FROM MORE, you sissies. Bounty Hunters aren’t honourable people. They’re killers. ASSASSINS. Your skewed, overly romantic idea of what bounty hunters are is from TV. You’re basically Disney Princes and those guys don’t actually stand a ■■■■■■■ chance in a competitive environment.

Uuuuhhh … I digress.

… otoh when I invest a double-volley thrasher for less than two million ISK, the payout should be 2 million ISK plus a bit. If the amount of bounty on someone’s head doesn’t cover the cost, well, then the full bounty should be paid out.

This way abuse is being prevented, because anyone who wants to cash in on his bounty will not gain a lot when he uses a cheap ship and is still being forced to pay a lot if he wants to remove a high amount of bounty.

Now please … fill the loopholes, so I can rethink this first part.

4 Likes

In before people being triggered by one of the words and posting without reading the full post. Also in before people who start formulating a response before they’ve read the whole thing.

1 Like

Let me see if I understand your concept correctly.

Bountied Pilot with 1 Billion Bounty

Bounty Hunter “ganks” Bountied Pilot with 80 million isk (as an example) tornado (and if in Concord controlled space forfeits ganking ship) and collects, say, (again, as an example) 80 million isk plus 10 percent of “bounty”. This “gank” would decrease the Bountied Pilot’s bounty by 180 million isk, and the remaining bounty to be collected would be 820 million isk.

So, the Ganker loses time spent hunting, plus their “weapon” (the ganking ship) and gains 180 million isk?

The Bountied Pilot suffers a loss on their killboard (public or not) and has their bounty reduced by 180 million isk.

Is that what you are suggesting? If so, I’d suggest one additional modification of your proposal, I’d eliminate the security status loss (to the bounty hunter/ganker) when a bounty payment is involved.

As an additional observation, you are proposing eliminating the current mechanism involving the valuation of the Bountied Pilot’s ship, so the Bountied Pilot’s ship valuation would play no part in the calculation of bounty payout.

2 Likes

I do agree that the game shouldn’t cater to greed, that’s a good point. But there should at the same time be some excitement and suitable reward that originates from going after a juicy bounty, and that’s a good point too. A mechanism that appeals to players want of some spice, as you say, and maybe even vanity, could be interesting. I bookmarked this in case an idea ever sprouts from your post. Liked the story too.

1 Like

I like this.

In a sort of lore sense, it kinda seems reasonable that if you are going after bountied players, that you are in a way acting as a vigilante. So yes the cops will still punish you by taking away your ship, but may look the other way about adding the incident to your record.

It would make more sense if the system were changed to that bounties could only be placed during a suspect/criminal timer, that way the bounty system made more sense as a true law enforcement tool. But even without such a change, if this idea were added now, I think it would still be at least a slight improvement over the current system. It may not matter to those who want -10, but to those that do watch their sec status, it’s a little something.

1 Like

I think a good time was had by all.

Given your points, possibly some means of compromise could be possible. The full payout can be abused. The 20 percent is not worth the trouble.

Thinking about it, it would take some means of mechanics to determine the difference between flying out to meet an alt or friend in a pod and getting popped for full payout and an actual firefight between players.

Seeing what highsec aggression mechanics does I don’t presume yet more cycles on the server is going to help. But in some way, perhaps something as simple as “damage taken” can be the trigger. I would use a sliding scale based on that. Very little damage to pop a pod. Lots of damage needed for a player using a tanked ship and trying to actually not get blown up. It could be surmised then that a player with a bounty would be safer flying around in a pod! :smiley:

The system does need a fix, that’s for certain. How I do not know.

2 Likes

Although it probably comes across weird, considering I favour -10 over everything else, personally I’d not like the removal of the loss of sec status. Ignoring my personal opinion, I believe that doing so could cause a rampage due to the fact that bounty can be given to anyone, at any time.

It’d definitely help increasing the amounts of people with bounty and it would also increase the bounty per character. On everyone. It’d also, definitely, increase ganking significantly. It’s not a bad idea, but holy ■■■■ this can go so wrong! :smiley:

Regarding the rest of your post:

Yes, that’s pretty much it.
You’re an active listener?

Now that I’ve confirmed … what do you think?

I would still favor it (removing the security status hit from bounty hunting kills).

My reasoning for this arises from a number of different situations in game, and the lore of EVE Online; and, while bounty hunters work at the edge of the law, irl, the profession as a whole is considered legal.

In this EVE chronicle it is made plain the four empires/factions see capsuleers as dangerously useful “wild cards” in their political struggles, and the faction that fails to utilize these “weapons” is in fact failing to leverage their (the capsuleers) usefulness. Each faction intends to “use” capsuleers, not only against their political enemies; but against other capsuleers. Seriously, why would they place any inpediment against capsuleers “economically inconveniencing” each other, at every opportunity? Afterall, capsuleers are effectively immortal. How else do you hobble a fractious group you cannot effectively control? You manage them. You diminish their economic base. And one of the easiest ways is to keep this fractious group occupied is by playing on slights and resentments, and just plain greed, and setting them against each other.

Argument Two: I have spent over the years a good bit of time interacting with Rookies. Consequences of actions, made in game, without understanding the nature of those consequences (when you first start playing EVE) has stifled many Rookies initial enthusiasm, for what seems at their first glance something they (the Rookie) can initially attempt.

The Rookie learns there is bounty hunting in the game. (It’s one of the first things they see on their screen, in any station, when they examine the interface.) Then they see someone with a bounty (oddly enough, Mike Azariah of Magic School Bus fame is often the first player they see with a billion plus bounty). Then, they usually ask in local or Rookie Help about bounty hunting. And, all the sorry consequences of the current Bounty Hunting system is explained, including the fact…if they perform (from what is in their irl experience) a legal act, probably a daring act in a computer game, is in essence a futile, inconsequential effort which will benefit no one, including themselves, and will in fact, label them a “criminal” at the very start of their EVE career…well, at that moment all their prior excitement vanishes, in the blink of an eye.

(I would like to note this also applies to faction warfare as well.)

It is this critical period, when they have no experience of the game, but are enthused, where their lack of experience in understanding in game consequences, stifles their moment for in game action. And instead of acting on this intial inclination to play (to act), they hedge their bets, and play it safe.

I do not think the loss of the ship in attempting to secure a successful bounty hunt stands in the Rookie’s way, it is the label of “criminal” and their utter lack of understanding of what being a criminal means in game.

So, why not remove this impediment?

Argument Three: We are at (as usual) a crossroads in EVE Online. Highsec has become increasingly safe from pvp. The past means of settling disagreements, i.e. wardecs (if you wanted legal) has evolved into having something like an 800 million to a cool billion price tag.

If you couple the expense of pursuing personal justice, along with the ever increasing specialization of EVE vocations, not only does the individual seeking recourse “to justice” need to have the prescience to have trained into combat skills but the determination to actually practice those skills to have any shot at “getting back their own”, OR they have to have knowledge of the current mercenary scene (increasing the base cost if they choose a merc option), OR they have to have the necessary social skills to have the necessary number of friends (whatever that number may be given the situation) to achieve “satisfaction” and be willing to “trust” said friends with what ever reason they choose to disclose, to their friends, as the initial flame to the conflict.

Now, all of that…all the prep, socializing, and cost…stands between a law abiding, athanor owning, miner trying to defend his lawfully extracted asteroids from itinerant and sometimes (from what I hear about) “locally” rude ore thieves, operating blatantly across highsec, at the moment, and as things stand now, in highsec, cannot be held accountable for their their actions…unless the law abiding, athanor owning, miner chooses the cost of lawless actions, which tarnish his reputation and standing within the legal community.

As I understand it, CCP coded the “mining interface” (I apologize I don’t mine and don’t know the precise terminology) to display all miners at a created asteroid belt site. Well, if they went to the trouble to preemptively do that, it seems obvious to me CCP intended that information to be used.

Why not use it (the info) to “bounty” “unauthorized” miners?

True, but this is the Age of Chaos, is it not?

Did not CCP state they would be trying a lot of things out, things that would not work, things they would roll back or modify?

With war decs now relegated to the realm of the wealthy in EVE (wealthy in social contacts or isk), why not breathe life into an entirely forgotten area of the game that has often been lamented for it’s lack of effective implementation?

Why not let Rookies try? Why make them choose between action and criminality at the very start of their EVE career?

And if bounty hunting was somehow made workable, would not fear of the sheer inconvenience of a “return” bounty make some capsuleers think twice about frivolously ab/using the system? After all the whole “what’s good for the goose” proverb would have new relevance in a New Eden when bounty hunting was…effective.

To preemptively address the perennialy posed question as to alts clearing bounties? What about it? If you want to do it, do it. This too would help stifle the abuse of the system, in all likelihood.

No matter whether alt or legitimate bounty hunter, the bountied party would have to live with inconvenience…the loss of a ship, a killboard record, and if clearing the bounty themselves the inconvenience of it all.

Capsuleers are (effectively) immortal, only economic loss (which in time can be recovered, if so desired) and loss of time, and loss of reputation and/or pride injures us…or disciplines us.

2 Likes

Thank you so much for your effort!

*reading*

I am currently writing a post that’s already several thousand words long. It’s an analysis of The Whole Bounty Hunting Problem. I’ve not reached a definite conclusion yet, but it appears that a global solution for bounty hunting is simply not possible unless criminal activity in EVE increases, which would provide the environment for an extremely simple solution.

Sadly there’s not going to be an increase in criminal activity, unless CCP removed the several mechanics deliberately implemented to keep it low.

Before beginning this post I’ve read through the chronicles, then the rest of yours. I’m going to work under the assumption that you’re talking about people with a positive sec status shooting other people with a positive sec status.

Given that this is The One Thing that keeps breaking any and all potential solutions that are not related to an overall increase in criminal activity, I must ask you …

How do you imagine this to work out in reality?

How do you imagine this would work in an environment where everyone can put bounty on everyone else? Isn’t the ultimate conclusion that everyone will explode at least once … and that every day … as long as I can put a bounty on someone to legally shoot him down?

As a side question, which isn’t that important in regards to Bounty Hunting … at least compared to the above:
How do Rookies really get to actually shoot anyone down? In the end it’ll be the veterans shooting down those who have a bounty. My approach towards a solution to Bounty Hunting was meant to be general, while your post appears as if it was directly aimed at Rookies.

How did Rookies as “justice bringers” suddenly appear in our context?

Am I just too tired and overthinking?

Hm.

When everyone can receive bounty, then everyone’s a target for everyone else. The limiting factor would be low bounty, meaning bounty too low to make up for the loss. This, though, can’t be a thing in such an environment, because everyone can and will increase everyone’s bounty to whatever minimum has been established by the MinMaxers.

Am I off?

I’ll share what I’ve come up with in my analysis eventually. You, btw, put me to shame, because your post is amazingly well written. Thank you for this!

I will try to address your points in the order you’ve written them.

But, to give you greater insight to my thoughts, for clarity of communication, I wish to point out that I am on record on these forums as stating my preference is to remove Concord entirely, and subsequently make capsuleers solely responsible for their own safety. (This is based on what my understanding of EVE was when I first started. As EVE was my first computer game, I was under the impression all opposition presented to me would be from other gamers. I had no knowledge of “npcs” whatsoever, and I personally view Concord as a silly construct…perhaps, if I had greater experience in gaming I would see it’s value, but I don’t have such experience…and here we are.)

Without knowing the details which you base such a statement on, I have no idea what you may have had in mind while you read my earlier post.

I agree with this statement. I have noticed a substantial source of friction between players involves their personal philosophy regarding a willingness or lack thereof to play as a “criminal” in EVE. Please note, it is the label of “criminal” that seems to be the sticking point, i.e. the source of the friction, not the actual “actions” themselves. I cite the increasing number of requests to give so-called “ore thieves” suspect status, so they can be attacked “legally”.

Now, personally I think EVE is only as good as its bad guys, so I see criminals as necessary to the success of the “story of EVE”. However, criminal actions are “demonized” in game, i.e. lots of complaints regarding theft, ganking, spying, can-flipping, gate camping, etc., which I view as simply “us versus them” activities. (And yes, I am making a point, I hope, by presenting a framework with which to view the game, which in turn will explain why I suggest bounty hunting security status penalties should be lifted.)

This assumption is correct. In fact, you could just shorten that to people with a positive security status, period. The impediment I am addressing, with my suggestion, is the reluctance to play as an officially in game recognized “penalized” player.

I have no idea what “The One Thing” is, that is “breaking any and all”. Neither do I have any insight as to what you may be referencing and can only chalk this “faliure to communicate” (:smiley:) up to the limitations of written communication. Honestly, I am able to grasp you feel you’ve communicated something; but, I’ve no idea of what it is.

When I wrote my initial response/recommendation regarding the removal of security status penalties, the ramifications, I envisioned, from such an action was: first and foremost, the elimination of the social/moral obstacle these penalties seem to inhabit in some EVE player’s personal philosophies.

Your idea to base the bounty received, not on the value of the bountied individual’s ship, but upon the bounty hunter’s ship and a percentage of the bounty posted opened my eyes to a number of possibilities.

One possibility/vista that opened before my eyes was the old Feyd Rautha Harkonnen gambit of flying a much smaller ship against a much larger, presumably better armed and/or perhaps “piloted” ship. The old http://evedarklord.blogspot.com/2013/08/sexy-times-ishkur-of-fantastic.html?view=flipcard. Sort of, in highsec at least, can I get the job done in the time allowed?

The second possibility was eliminating that moment of disappointment Rookies face, when the current bounty system is explained to them, including the coup de grace, security status loss. Concurrent with this thought was bounty hunting could provide that “magic moment” (what CCP is currently calling a first death) with an easy to understand context, i.e. I-went-to-blow-up-a-pilot’s-ship-and-collect-a-bounty-and-he-killed-me scenario. (See this, for context: https://www.pcgamer.com/eve-online-to-implement-grief-counselling-when-new-players-lose-their-first-ship/).

Third, eliminate security status loss and you open a door for miners to defend “their” belts. Yes, it will cost them a bounty; but revenge usually entails payment of some sort.

And finally, back to your idea of basing the bounty on not the bountied party’s ship, but the hunter’s ship touches on one of EVE’s cornerstone philosophies, Risk v. Reward. Should I as a bounty hunter fly the “sure thing” and risk losing it; but have a better shot at “scoring” the bounty? Or, gamble and fly a less optimal, but perhaps better camouflaged, or even enjoyable ship? From what you proposed, outside of highsec (and the enforcement of Concord’s mechanics) the loss of a bounty hunter’s ship would all be on them, meaning no reimbursement. In highsec, presumably the most complicated area of the game due to Concord time restraints regarding aggression, successful bounty hunter’s would receive compensation for a successful bounty kill, if they lost their ship in the process.

So, I based my arguments, in the post, on those thoughts.

The is definitely a possibility; but I argue that sheer parsimony will eliminate some of this (people won’t want to spend their hard earned isk, if the possibility exists their nemesis can just farm it by using an alt to clear the bounty. Afterall, I believe this is one reason cited we have the current iteration of bounty hunting.)

As to the “everyday”, well, I am not suggesting CCP eliminate their griefing policies. You want to continually place a bounty on some character? Conceivably that could fall under bannable “griefing”.

I also argue many pilots simply won’t bounty someone because they won’t want the potential associated hassle (throwing good isk after a bad experience - retaliatory bounties, etc.); this attitude will not be shared by others. Those others are looking for a fight, and will throw bounties around like rice at a wedding, if they have the isk reserves to do so.

Well, if you eliminate the security status consequences, many people who are so-called “innocent bystanders” may/will either ask a friend/alt to clear the bounty tout suite, and pocket a little isk change along the way, or return the favor and place a bounty on their “persecutor” and attempt to exact a little “justice” on their own (perhaps, even at times, with their persecutors own reused isk).

I would like to note this version, no security status penalty bounty hunting, effectively provides an avenue to bypass the onerous option of war deccing, in it’s current form, when “gentlemen” and/or “ladies” seek “satisfaction”, from one another.

You placed too much emphasis in your own mind on my using Rookies as an argument for removing security status penalties.

If you strike “When everyone can receive bounty” from that sentence, does not the remainder sum up EVE’s core design philosophy?

This is an important point, in my mind; but, perhaps not in the way you meant it. If you eliminate the security status penalty, thereby widening the appeal for hunting as a vocation for the more daring, but none-the-less “law abiding” public, perhaps the increasing multi-billion isk bounties of today will become a thing of the past, as effective bounty hunters will emerge and claim those bounties.

At that point, it becomes a simple calculation, imo. With small bounties, where the hunter will receive what some may view as a trivial amount of isk, the hunter has to calculate the time spent for such isk sums versus the appeal of other ingame activities, which may include greater isk making opportunities.

As for “innocent bystanders” or “drive-by” bounty recipients, with no security status penalty, they can pocket the isk themselves with an alt or a friend’s assistance. Much like today. (And make out like bandits, so to speak, :stuck_out_tongue: ).

These were my thoughts when I made my post.

So, in summation, by eliminating the odium of the security status penalty, you remove the moral/philosophical objections attached to bounty hunting, as it stands now, and potentially open it up as a viable ingame career to a greater number of pilots, and provide an avenue for retribution which avoids the currently cumbersome war deccing mechanics.

o7

p.s.

In my mind, there is no “off”, we are having a discussion based on idea you had on switching the bounty payout formula from a payout based on the bountied parties ship value to a formula based on the bounty hunter’s ship’s value…and, the conversation simply took an interesting turn.

1 Like

but you can put a bounty on anyone for no reason, so its back to suicide ganking as usual

1 Like

Yeah that’s true.

The intention was to go after career criminals that have high Bounty amount, not someone with 100k Bounty.

Just get rid of CONCORD.

The Bounty system should be reworked and turned into a viable career choice. And for starters a Bounty should only be placed on characters with a Criminal Flag.

I have sent you an in game email, with details outlining “practical applications” if that was the type of response you were looking for when you asked:

I did not wish to bury your thread with potentially tangential minutia.

Words! So many words! What do they all mean? D:

Posting a quick one here, to make sure no one’s thinking it’s being abandoned.

Doing so will not provide anyone with any additional gameplay, because bounty hunters require criminals. There aren’t enough criminals around to make bounty hunting a thing, otherwise we’d all already be shooting each other all day. Please think this through before you let your obvious and absolutely irrational dislike of “criminals” show again.

Anyhow … obviously it is not the case that bounty hunters are shooting criminals all day, or the other way round. The reason isn’t because gankers are super competent, or because AntiGankers aren’t, or because the game favours one side over the other. No. It’s because both groups are too small to have any meaningful impact on the population, let alone each other.

And be sure that I am not going to be discussing this with anyone who isn’t capable of having a rational conversation about this.

I wouldn’t worry about it. Your post is complex enough that it takes a while to being properly processed and, honestly, I can’t make heads or tails of the idea of getting rid of the security status. I admit that I can’t follow your thought process, can’t combine it with my own and can’t manage to go anywhere with it.

But that’s just me! I’m not even real! :blush:
(your posts are awesome!)

How a Bounty was gained worked fine before CCP changed the mechanics, it was the collection / Bounty payout that was messed up and needed the rework. When CCP changed the mechanics for Bounty, they made both the payout and gaining a Bounty messed up.

Also there’s plenty of Criminal’s available to actually make Bounty Hunter a viable career. The only obvious irrational viewpoint here is you thinking that High Security should be a free for all shoot em up war zone without incurring any consequences for your actions. Since you’re biased and favor that type of scenario, there’s definitely no reason to continue a discussion about it.

1 Like

This irrational nonsense is exactly why there is no point in talking to you about these kinds of things. The first paragraph was just fine, though ignoring that Highsec had far more criminals and people, who are doing other shenanigans, back then.

You always jump to this accusation, with zero rational thought behind it, exposing that there’s something seriously wrong with your perspective. You accuse ME of being biased, yet YOU are the only one here actually showing heavy bias towards the absolutely deranged idea of how people are just bloodlusting, murderous psychopaths who want to kill everyone.

The problem is you.

Because of deranged, biased and irrational people like yourself, we can not ever have any reasonable discussions about anything regarding this aspect of the game. We simply can’t. Not once did you, or anyone who says the same nonsense like you, ever contribute anything sensible to this topic.

Dismissed.