Bounty System – Let the Ferryman Judge the Damned

@uluckyhitreg

Placing a Bounty:
When a player is killed by another, they respawn on the Ferry of the Damned. There, the Ferryman himself offers a new option: to place a bounty on their killer for a fee in gold or doubloons.

No. Unwilling bounties should never be a thing.

Bounty Hunting Voyage:
At the ship’s quest table, crews can vote for a “Bounty Hunt” voyage. Once accepted, the game selects a live player with an active bounty and server-merges the hunter crew into their world.

Ah good. So players are made unwilling targets if they win a PvP encounter, and now people can chase them across servers.
No.

Tracking the Bounty:
The hunting crew spawns nearby, but not too close to the target and receives a magical compass pointing to their location.

And now the person who defender their treasure & won PvP is not only chased across servers, but the chaser has unerring radar that always points right at them.
No.

Why This Works:

It does not work. But I'll go over each point.

Uses existing systems (Ferry, server merges, voyages).

Ok? Those systems don't really need an unwilling bounty system tacked on.

Adds purpose and excitement to PvP without disrupting the sandbox.

Or it makes players unwilling targets.
Think of it this way: A crew attacks you for your treasure.
You fight them off & sell.
They are salty & put a bounty on you.
Now you have people all across the game trying to hunt you down. All because you won a fight.
No.

Makes the Ferryman feel more involved in the world’s lore.

He's already involved. Tacking on an unwilling bounty system does not make him better.

Offers high-risk, high-reward gameplay for both hunters and targets.

Or it offers griefing and frustration for targets.

---

These bounty ideas pop up every two weeks on average, and the answer is always the same:

1. No. It promotes griefing.
2. No. The targets are unwilling in this chain of events.
3. No. There's already a soft bounty system in the form of Emissaries. And it's opt-in for the targets.

Take your pick of any or all 3.

@uluckyhitreg

You’re acting like the idea is forcing people into PvP when it’s literally only affecting people already choosing to PvP by attacking others.

Ok. What about when someone is attacked (IE: Not attacking first), and the people who failed to win the fight put a bounty on the person who was attacked?

Is that still 'choosing to PvP'? No.
It's being attacked (Not attacking) & then having a bounty put on them against their will.

If you kill someone, they should have a way to respond — not by just logging off or running — but by putting a target on your back.

You kill them back. Again; No need for an unwilling system.

You think it's griefing to be hunted after picking the fight? That’s called consequence.

No, it's called griefing. You're siccing the entire player base on them because they won a fight.

Also, this isn’t some forced cutscene or new game mode. The hunter chooses to do the bounty. The target just continues playing like normal. If they’re as good as they think they are, let them prove it by staying alive.

It's a forced bounty. Nothing to do with game modes or cutscenes.
The person having a bounty put on them is not agreeing to it. Thus it is forced upon them.

And the "this idea comes up every 2 weeks" argument? Cool, maybe that’s because it’s something people actually want, but the system hasn’t been done right yet.

Or maybe it's because 1% of players who have no idea about game design want a way to force anyone who kills them to be punished?

You don’t like it? Fine. But don’t act like nobody should.

I am not acting like nobody should.
I'm pointing out the flaws in the idea.

Also; Emissaries is literally a bounty system where the target opts in.
No need to force bounties on people who don't want it with a half-baked unwilling system that is designed to punish anyone who wins a PvP encounter.

@uluckyhitreg

You’re still missing the point. If someone gets attacked, wins, and a bounty gets placed on them — congrats, they survived. That bounty doesn’t magically ruin their game.

You're missing the point.
If someone wins a fight, they don't deserve to have a giant target painted on them by someone salty they lost.
Welcome to considering other players.

Also, no, it’s not griefing. Griefing is spawn camping, trash talk, and harassment

And an UNWILLING Let me say it again: UN-WILL-ING, as in 'NOT AGREEING TO IT' bounty system is harassment.

This is literally content.

It is literally bad content.

You're treating it like the game should protect PvPers from any kind of consequence.

Nowhere did I say that. I just pointed out the flaws in an, and let me say it again, UNWILLING system.

Let me say this next part louder, for the people in the back (Mostly you):

If someone won their PvP, they don't deserve to have a target painted on their back.

If someone loses and wants to throw some gold to see if someone else can finish the job, that’s not griefing. That’s just pirate logic.

If someone loses; They should suck it up and either try again or give up.
Nowhere should they be able to pay other players to cross servers to hunt their target down.

And let’s not act like Emissaries are the same thing.

They are.
Emissaries has been described as 'Opt In Bounty'. Only the target is the one making the decision to opt in.

Reapers chase you because you stack loot, not because you killed them.

Until you add in a bounty system to pay them to target people.

This is personal. It adds story and rivalry — something this sandbox needs more of.

If you need to describe ANY PvP in ANY game as 'personal', then you need to touch grass.
It's a game. It should never 'be personal' that someone lost a PvP fight.

You’re not pointing out flaws. You’re just defending the status quo like it’s sacred.

Except I pointed out very real flaws.
Sorry you're too blinded by enjoying your idea to see them.

Sea of Thieves thrives on chaos, and this idea feeds that.

This idea feed griefing.
'That crew defend their treasure from us! Let's put a bounty out on him so he gets attacked by everyone!'
'That streamer defeated us! Let's put a bounty out on him so he gets attacked by everyone!'

If someone can't handle being a bounty, maybe they shouldn't be out there causing bounties.

So if people don't want a bounty they should....never win at self-defense? Just throw every fight & give up all treasure they ever get to the first people to attack them.
Because the alternative; Winning the fight, would give them a bounty they don't want.
What an absolutely horrid take.

@uluckyhitreg

Jesus. Give it up. The idea is horrid but you will go down swinging because you can't accept criticism because you came up with it.

You’re shouting “UNWILLING” like that settles the debate, but Sea of Thieves is built on risk, not consent forms.

Except the only two systems that put targets on people (Emissaries & Hourglass) are both opt-in.
Kind of makes you think the devs want people to be willing to be easily-found targets, huh?

You opt in to danger the moment you load into high seas mode. Reapers can chase you. Alliances can betray you. Randoms can broadside you. It's not a cozy cruise, it’s a pirate sandbox.

So what? That does not excuse a new system that paints an unwilling target on someone.

This idea doesn’t force anything. It gives players a chance to take a bounty hunt if they vote for it. The target isn’t dragged into a new mode or put in some bounty-only lobby — they just keep playing.

And you're ignoring my points to make an point that I've already proven is wrong.
The idea forces the target to be a bounty.
They did not agree to be a bounty, so it is forced on them. Amazing how 'basic cause and effect' works, huh?

Nothing changes for them unless someone shows up and finds them — and guess what? They can win again.

Except, as you described it; Other players can cross servers & get a freaking compass that points at them.
Which means someone WILL show up and find them in minutes. Thus interrupting anything they may be wanting to do.
All because they defended themselves & won.

You’re calling it griefing, but the entire game loop of SoT is based on crews clashing, outsmarting, and out-sailing each other. This system gives meaning to those encounters.

No. it gives meaning to people salty they lost who want to turn the winner into a pinata.

If someone keeps winning and building up a bounty, that’s not a punishment — that’s reputation. That’s legend material.

Unless they only wanted to log on to do a few Voyages. But screw those guys, I guess.
They either have to throw a fight or keep being attacked 'Because PvP legend!'

Why do PvP players always think 'Shove my content down your throat' is a good idea?

You keep saying “flaws,” but what you’re really against is noobs you kill getting a chance to send someone who can PvP after you. Lol.

You keep saying 'Content' but what you really want is to punish anyone who defeats you in battle. Lol.

Some of us actually want the world to feel alive, reactive, and full of consequences. Not just a string of isolated brawls with no memory.

And some of us don't want a target splashed on our back & and giant COME KILL US OVER HERE! beacon because we fended off someone trying to steal our treasure.
Guess which one of us the devs have consciously designed around with every PvP system so far? ;)

@uluckyhitreg

Look, defending yourself and winning a fight doesn’t mean you get to run the show forever without consequences.

The consequences to being attacked are winning or losing.
Not 'Losing, or winning & getting a target shoved up your nethers by someone salty they lost'.

This isn’t “punishment” — it’s real gameplay with stakes.

And the normal stakes are the treasure you have aboard.
This is a punishment for winning.

If you kill someone, expect that they might put a price on your head. That’s how PvP works anywhere that actually matters.

Ah. 'Other game does this! So it should be shoved onto everyone in SoT, regardless of popularity!'
Nah. Go play those 'other games' for their lopsided bounty system.

You keep acting like this is some personal vendetta system forcing harassment. It’s not. Hunters choose to hunt — no one’s dragging anyone anywhere.

You keep thinking the target has to be moved somewhere or it's not unwilling.
'Hunters choose to hunt'.
WEIRD how you're not saying 'The prey chooses to be prey'. Almost like you know they are not choosing it.

The compass isn’t a tracking missile; it points roughly and still takes effort.

So what? The target is still unwilling. Which makes the idea bad.

If you don’t want to be hunted, maybe don’t make yourself a target by killing other players. Simple as that.

ROFL!
'If you don't want to be forced into my garbage system, just throw every fight from now on! Simple as that!'
Talk about that PvP entitled 'Do what I want or suffer!" mindset.

If you want a horrible, abusable, garbage forced-in bounty system; Play any of those other games that have it. Simple as that.

@uluckyhitreg

You don’t like the idea? Cool. But let’s not act like it’s some game-breaking nightmare.

Except it is, as I have pointed out but you continue to ignore because 'My idea!'

Sea of Thieves is already full of chaos that nobody opts into — server merges, spawn camping, third parties. That’s the pirate life.

Not a valid reason to add an unwilling system, as I said above.

This isn’t griefing, it’s gameplay with consequences.

It's griefing. You denying that fact does not change it.

One crew. One hunt. One chance at payback. If you sink someone, maybe they remember. That’s not harassment, that’s memory.

And then you sink that crew when they attacked you.
So they put a bounty on you.
And you sink the next crew.
So they put a bounty on you.
And the next. And next. And next. And next.

And what the holy hell does the target get from this?
Not treasure; No one attacks with treasure aboard.
All they get is harassed non-stop.
Which is griefing.

If you sink someone, maybe they remember. That’s not harassment, that’s memory.

And this comment has nothing to do you with your forced-griefing system.

You keep shouting “unwilling” like that word has power in a game where everything is unpredictable. If you want guaranteed safety after a fight, try Animal Crossing.

And if you want some BS bounty system, go play GTA.

And let’s be real — this whole meltdown reeks of “I like to PvP, but only when I control the terms.” Not how it works. You want to sink people and then log off in peace? Wrong game.

I'm not having a meltdown. I'm pointing out the flaws in your idea.
Sorry you can't accept criticism because 'My idea has to be amazing!'

Edit: I will add that I can indeed 'sink people & log off in peace'.
You being so ego-driven that you will act like your idea is already how the game works, and that this idea is a natural extension of the game, is hilarious.
You want a garbage bounty system that punishes people who win fights? Wrong game.

I like arguing with little kids as much as the next person, but I’ve got a life and work to do lol.

Aww, an Ad hominem because your idea was critiqued.
That's ok, little Timmy; You'll grow up someday.

@uluckyhitreg

So if someone logs out, the bounty doesn’t disappear — it stays on them and just waits until they’re back online.

So they can log in the next day and still have people appearing across servers to hunt them. Meaning they're never free of being hunted and harassed.

So much for fishing. Or doing Voyages.
They will be hounded, hunted, and harassed with a target on their back until they lose a fight.

Oh wait; Even if they lose, they will be harassed. Because all it takes is getting one kill so their opponent is on the Ferry, and their opponent will place a bounty on them. Even if said opponent ends up winning & sinking them.

---

The idea just does not fit SoT.
Yet your retorts are basically 'Just never win' and 'Just play other games', as if your idea is a foregone conclusion because it's just THAT good & the devs would be happy losing everyone who do not want to participate in a system they cannot avoid.

I can tell you, with complete confidence, that an unwilling, unavoidable system like this would lose more players than it would make happy.

@Guildar9194

Except the only two systems that put targets on people (Emissaries & Hourglass) are both opt-in.
Kind of makes you think the devs want people to be willing to be easily-found targets, huh?

So would the PvP flag (the one that makes your ship a shadow with a red skull on the map) not also count as Opt in?

Also i feel like they have to be trolling or something to not recognise the reason you have to repeat multiple times about the unwilling factor is that all things that make you a target were always featured you opted into.

@uluckyhitreg

Your weak “unwilling” argument is easy to patch: just limit bounty placement to players flying an Emissary flag. They’ve already chosen the PvP risk.

Wearing an emmisary flag (unless reaper) doesn't mark your location except for Grade 5 Reapers who can see where the Emmissarys are and are equally identifiable, the key difference they can't instant jump to the same server as you.

Emmisary's opt in 'bounty' system is closer to the fact passing ships can decide you are worth sinking because you are flying an emmissary rather than people knowing where to find you without any risk to themselves (Reapers can be seen by everyone so it's balanced for them to see emmissaries and besides they dont see the grade of those emm ships on their map, they have to approach and check out the grade to see if they wanna hunt it or not anyway.) I won't know what treasures are on a ship easily from a distance but if i see an emmissary flag, even a grade 1 flag is still treasure but it gives me a general idea of that ship either is loaded with treasure specific to that faction (except reapers) or might be doing voyages of that nature so i can tell and see if i can nab high value loot after they finish the voyage or i can just sink them because a Grade 5 flag is worth a decent enough amount anyway.

Let's also not forget ship sizes exist and being bountied could come with a sloop being chased by a gally which it has a more uphill battle to fend off solely for successfully defending their ship from an aggressor.

This is not a risk/reward system if the bounty can be put on you by a sunk crew, risk implies no guarantees whereas a bounty means it's closer to a matter of time before someone shows up to come after you where an emmissary can do their whole session unbothered or avoiding others because again, they wont always know where you are.

People have varying levels of time they can dedicate to Sea of Thieves daily or sometimes every other day. They do not need to get a target on their back for protecting themself from an attacker only to have their limited available time to get some stuff done made infinitely more effort because a hunter could show up at any time locked onto knowing where their direction is solely because someone didn't want to accept they sunk and let's consider how the bounty is arranged.

Is it a fixed sum? In which case at a low cost some random crew can just charge at you, get sunk intentionally or not then bounty you just to intterupt you more.

Is it an amount you put in yourself? In which case rich people with nothing else to spend it on can put a massive number on your head to make everyone and their ancestors chase you for that reward.

Hourglass already rewards fighting off those who will hunt you with a streak system that adds more value to your hourglass with each win (and at 4 wins you are marked on the map).

I can't tell if this sprouted into your mind out of wanting payback at someone who hunted you down and sunk you in whatever session you played before making this thread or if you simply don't like that running is a legit option in High Seas and think people must turn around and fight you like you are entitled to a fight if you chase.

@uluckyhitreg

and moved on

No you did not.

But the endless nitpicking and emotional reactions are just sad.

The only one who has had an emotional reaction is you.

The system doesn’t force PvP — it gives players an optional response after being killed.

Show me where you idea lets the target opt out.
Because it does not, which means it forces them to be hunted.

Hunters have to opt in.

Weird how you keep ignoring that the hunted does not get to opt in, in order to lie and say 'it's opt in!'.

You're not arguing against the idea — you're just mad it might result in someone chasing you in-game.

Once again; You being emotional and attacking posters instead of refuting their points.

I’m barely invested at this point. I only kept replying because the reach has been so entertaining.

Which is why you keep replying, and have insulted and attacked people for replying. Because you're 'barely invested'.
Riiiiight.

Watching people spiral just because someone doesn’t fold is hilarious.

And the only person spiraling is you. But project harder.

Feedback isn’t a war — it’s collaboration. Learn the difference.

You posted your idea.
People posted why it would not fit.
Rather than accept this, you have decided everyone else is wrong and your idea is super special awesome and correct and everyone MUST just be too blind to see it.

The only one who turned it into a 'war' was you.

The hunted doesn’t need to opt in — because they already did the moment they engaged in PvP and got a bounty. That’s the entire premise: actions have consequences, and others can choose to respond. That’s not “forced PvP,” that’s cause and effect in a multiplayer game. You don’t get flagged randomly — you got flagged because you killed someone. The hunter opts in. The target already made their choice.

The problem with this statement as already noted, was that it also punishes people who fight back when attacked and win. While yes, people can keep trying to run. Not everyone will stop chasing or be easy to lose, sometimes they somehow force your ship to stop running be it anchoring, mast breaking or whatever, regardless you are encompassing those who were attacked first and were forced to fight back to not lose their stuff as being in the same boat of consequence of those who were the aggressors sinking other ships. It might be more opt in to be hunted if you can only bounty someone who shot you first but even then there is a multitude of things people looking to be hunted by others can do to be hunted. Reaper Emm, Reaper Flag (PvP flag) or Hourglass all work to that effect. @uluckyhitreg

@uluckyhitreg said in Bounty System – Let the Ferryman Judge the Damned:

Sure, buddy. Keep telling yourself that.
Meanwhile, I laid out a system, addressed concerns with actual counterpoints, and kept adapting it based on feedback. You? You’ve just been stuck on one point, ignoring every response that didn’t fit your narrative.

The hunted doesn’t need to opt in — because they already did the moment they engaged in PvP and got a bounty. That’s the entire premise: actions have consequences, and others can choose to respond. That’s not “forced PvP,” that’s cause and effect in a multiplayer game. You don’t get flagged randomly — you got flagged because you killed someone. The hunter opts in. The target already made their choice.

But keep pretending it’s forced, if that helps you sleep at night.

Also, thanks for proving my point about people taking feedback or pushback as some kind of personal attack. You’re not engaging in critique. You’re venting. Big difference.

Anyway, I’m not here to win your approval. I’m here to throw ideas around. If that rattles you this much, maybe rethink your approach to discussion.

And honestly, I don’t even care at this point. I’m just loving how you can’t let it go. I don’t tag you, don’t mention you, yet you keep circling back like you need the last word. All this effort just to convince others I’m wrong — while ignoring the fact that not everyone has to think like you. Keep looping, it’s funny to watch. 😂

The hunted doesn’t need to opt in — because they already did the moment they engaged in PvP and got a bounty.

"The hunted consented to being harassed when they had the utter gall to win a fight they did not even start!"
How can you not see how utterly wrong that statement is?

That’s not “forced PvP,” that’s cause and effect in a multiplayer game.

Not in this multiplayer game.

Also, thanks for proving my point about people taking feedback or pushback as some kind of personal attack. You’re not engaging in critique. You’re venting. Big difference.

Says the person who called me a child and said everyone else was being emotional.
Project harder, child.

Anyway, I’m not here to win your approval. I’m here to throw ideas around. If that rattles you this much, maybe rethink your approach to discussion.

Again; Only person who's gotten offended was you.

And honestly, I don’t even care at this point. I’m just loving how you can’t let it go.

Projection, thy name is you.

I don’t tag you, don’t mention you, yet you keep circling back like you need the last word.

You reply to my statements without tagging me, becuase you don't want me to reply.

All this effort just to convince others I’m wrong — while ignoring the fact that not everyone has to think like you.

Weird how I never said that, and everyone else has agreed with my critiques.

@lem0n-curry said in Bounty System – Let the Ferryman Judge the Damned:

If this is possible after getting killed (not sunk!), it's just a way to get some help in fighting another crew.

It will take away the time a PvP oriented crew (not interested in Hourglass) has to spend looking for a crew to fight with as you just get spawned "just far enough" and with a compass directing you to the target (or targets if the crew that put up the bounty may still be there as well).

My guess is, that the bounty hunter will first try to sink the bounty giver and then the actual bounty.

Hmm it seems that only a kill is needed to get the actual bounty ... not an actual sink.

The only problem being; The person having a bounty put on them might not want to PvP. They might be sailing along, get attacked, and win.
And now the losing crew puts a bounty on them.
Now ANOTHER crew spawns in to attack them.
Defender wins again.
Losing crew puts a bounty on them.
Another crew spawns in to attack them.
Defender wins again...

See the loop?
Someone who wanted to do Voyages. Or kill skeletons. Or just sail around. Now has to deal with a chain of attacks non-stop.
A chain they did not look for or opt into.

And let's not forget that the OP said these bounties would last through DCs.
So a person could quit one night because they are sick of being harassed, log in the next day, and get harassed again.

Why is it PvP players always say 'This mechanic only requires the attacker to consent! The defender should just suck it up! They are my content!'
Oh, right; Because they always view themselves at the harasser, never the harassed.

And what was OPs response to people not wanting to be a bounty pinata?
'Just don't do anything (IE: Win a fight) that would make you a bounty target.'
Yes, his defense was 'Just throw every fight or accept being a gold pinata'.