Petition to FDev: CMDR bounty payout change

Bloodsign

Bloodsign
Dear FDev,

I would like to see a change to bounty payouts for destroying a CMDR with bounties on their ship.

A CMDR'S bounty should be a pool, and when they are destroyed the rebuy of their current ship gets subtracted from that pool, and paid as a bounty to the CMDR who killed them. This has the following benefits:

- CMDRs cannot simply wipe out high bounties on a ship by getting destroyed once. CMDRs will have to think carefully whether they incur a bounty or not, as it will remain until depleted by rebuys.

- Since the amount awarded is balanced by the rebuy amount, CMDRs will not be able to exploit giving huge amounts of $$ to friends by allowing themselves to be destroyed as was done in the past.

- CMDRs will be more incentivized to hunt criminal CMDRs due to higher bounties.

- Benefit to crime and punishment: crimes actually have a lasting effect and make a CMDR a target for bounty hunters and law enforcement.

- Ability to pay off bounties would remain, and now has tangible benefits but also a sting.

Liking this post constitutes signing this petition.
 

Misty_Dark

Misty_Dark
I do not follow, it would still be possible to give away lots of cash to another player, it would simply be more expensive... but hey, you need to kickstart a friend, what is 200 million in rebuys worth to get them up to speed in a mining Type 9? that is what 1-2 hour worth of painite mining?
 

Bigmaec

Bigmaec
Yep, the whole "funding other players" argument should die in a dumpster fire.
With Vopals and wing missions you can turboboost new players without any bounties involved at all.
So please just remove the cap, or at least raise it significantly, preferably with a change to the bounty board.
 

lenna

lenna
Nope to the idea of increasing bounty rewards but I like the idea of bounties persisting after death as some kind of pool that needs to be either depleted from a rebuy pool or paid off. Multiple accumulation pools could be implemented.

For example:-
  1. 1000 Cr Bounty/0 Cr primary pool/0 Cr secondary pool
    1. Player dies: 0 Cr Bounty/1000 Cr primary/0 Cr secondary
    2. Player pays off (bounty and/or primary): 0 Cr Bounty/0 Cr primary/1000 Cr secondary
  2. 0 Cr Bounty/1000 Cr primary/0 Cr secondary and player gains another 1000 Cr bounty: 1000 Cr Bounty/1000 Cr primary/0 Cr secondary
    1. Resulting notoriety gained increases proportional to the total value of the 3 pools
    2. Payoff of bounty requires payoff of both Bounty and primary bounty pools (e.g. 2000 Cr moved to secondary)
    3. Player dies while clean primary pool could have a small percentage moved to the secondary pool but personally I think it should persist until paid off
  3. 0 Cr Bounty/0 Cr primary/1000 Cr secondary
    1. Secondary pool decays at some rate so long as both clean of any bounty and primary pool empty
    2. Obtaining a Bounty while secondary pool exists could result in the secondary pool balance being added to the primary pool
The primary and secondary pool concepts above could be merged to make things simpler since bounty payoff is notionally enforced on death anyway.

With the merged approach:-
  1. 1000 Cr Bounty/0 Cr pool
    1. Player dies: 0 Cr Bounty/1000 Cr pool
    2. Player pays off (bounty - pool only auto-decays): 0 Cr Bounty/1000 Cr pool
  2. 0 Cr Bounty/1000 Cr pool
    1. Player gains another 1000 Cr bounty: 1000 Cr Bounty/1000 Cr pool with resulting notoriety gained increased proportional to the total value of the 2 pools
    2. Pool decays at some rate (similar decay rules to notoriety) so long as clean
  3. 1000 Cr Bounty/1000 Cr pool
    1. Player dies: 0 Cr Bounty/2000 Cr pool
    2. Player pays off (bounty): 0 Cr Bounty/2000 Cr pool
    3. Bounty pay offs could carry higher pay-off subsidies for those with higher pools
The key point being that repeat offenders should not be getting off mostly scott free.

Regardless of circumstances, bounty payouts should remain capped IMO.
 

Old Duck

Old Duck
"Petition" should be followed by "We would like" rather than "I would like", otherwise it's really not a petition, is it?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom