Bounty alternative

[Alcibiades]

So i'm robo PA, these striker guys from KHaos have successfully managed to kill me a few times this round, so now they are ranks 1/2 on my Enemies list and have 75% bounties.... so early this morning i was massed by them, got killed but still had some PAs/CWs fire (as the BR below will demonstrate...) got killed and get... nothing for my efforts? A few measly Eff points but basically bugger all. Yet woohoo, i have 75% bounty on these two guys who utterly pwn me. I'm sick and tired of this half assed goddamn round and the utter crap half done 'improvements' which are just glitches with fancy names.

Honestly, the reason I hated L/F the most was because there were *so* many random unpredictable variables that you could rarely make a judgment call with any accuracy as to what was going to happen this tick. But hell, compared to Injuries % return and Bounty/Enemies List, L/F was like Adding and Subtracting.

I mean what the hell, i understand the presence of bugs in the game because we're all human but by God, these changes should not have been rushed in in their current state because it's one big messy sweaty load of German bollocks. Seriously. This is messed up. Azzer, get back from your vacation and sort your s h i t out please.... or by the time you return you won't even have a goddamn playerbase.

Now, I have mentioned this idea recently in IRC and decided that despite some initial opposition it's not too bad. I'm sure it'll get torn to pieces on here or ignored but where would we all be if no one tried? :P So basically, i figure that since we've removed bounty as a fulltime rank (whch i agree with btw) and since unless you've decided on being suicidal all round, you usually cannot claim bounties on the top 5-10 or so players in your list because they are routes which dominate you. Rpg/Strikers for me. So, make bounty personally claimable in attacks. This might be impossible with the way the units fire but honestly i don't see how it is much different than the outline for an attacking tick but just alter it to defense as well. It might also make the server go berserk but i'm the idea man, not the technical guru.

This way, at least i'd get something out of defence other than a wipe out BR and a measly 400k eff points. It makes bounty essentially function as a form of insurance. This way you could also reduce injury % (which i still think is absurdly high in some cases) but it also gives me something out of getting utterly shat on by routes that destroy me.

Perhaps i'm being too greedy for players to recoup losses, but it's simply moronic that I can't claim bounties on upwards of half of my active enemies. On that note, of 'active' enemies, there needs to be implemented a way to manage your Enemies as has been said numerous times before. My list stats: 108 enemies, 5 (count them on one hand, 5) active bounties. Seriously? really? It's an overload of total bullshit.

Battle Report - Defending Extraordinarily Angry user of Bushtarion [1333333333333337]
[range] 12,816,660 allied Psychopathic Android attacked, killing 1,133,771 hostile staff.
[range] 20,910,042 hostile Political Mastermind attacked, distracting 87,782,227 allied staff.
[range] 34,666,860 hostile Striker attacked, killing 26,449,515 allied staff.
[range] 23,584,742 hostile Hippy Van attacked, distracting 12,992,780 allied staff.
[range] 304,388 allied Cybernetic Warrior attacked, killing 2,131,995 hostile staff.
[range] 8,577,953 hostile Apache Longbow attacked, killing 719,356 allied staff.
[range] 19,164,088 hostile Marine attacked, killing 9,409,016 allied staff.

Distracted: 100,775,007 [£1,062,321,452,200] friendlies distracted.
Died: 3,265,766 [£103,061,603,400] enemies dead. 36,577,887 [£2,053,568,682,000] friendlies dead.

You gained 494,104 effectiveness.

(PS: check out the 1337ness of my PAs ;))

[Melnibone]

Isnt bounty only attainable when you attack someone bounty has never been available on a defense in any form????

[Alcibiades]

Isnt bounty only attainable when you attack someone bounty has never been available on a defense in any form????
Yep, but why bother having bounty claimable on targets i have to suicide on to get bounty that will result in me not making a profit. Doesn't that seem insane to you?

And what's wrong with claiming bounty at home? you're still killing the enemy, and besides, it'd give the attackers less incentive to return to their targets if they know they are just feeding them money. Perhaps?

[f0xx]

Lol, you must be joking right? Claiming a bounty while you are defending yourself? Thats just so wrong...

Okay, you get 80% injury + the bounty...

Besides if you want a fat bounty you have to take the initiative in your own hands... claiming a bounty while you are defending yourself is just so damn wrong...

[Alcibiades]

Lol, you must be joking right? Claiming a bounty while you are defending yourself? Thats just so wrong...

Okay, you get 80% injury + the bounty...

Besides if you want a fat bounty you have to take the initiative in your own hands... claiming a bounty while you are defending yourself is just so damn wrong...

Might as well rip bounty right out of the game, why do we even have it if we can't claim it? I'm just trying to fix a glaringly broken system.

And I think a reduced injury returns is necessary because atm it's just far too ridiculous, despite Azzer's changes already. That'd make bounty much better.

And it's no more wrong than having a 75% bounty on a target i can't ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever (am i getting through to you here?) EVER claim.

[Nonny]

Okay, you get 80% injury + the bounty...

As soon as I saw this line I thought to myself. This would surely be abusable?

Two players who left convenient troop setups for one another so they could alternate spanking each other, (oo-er), would make a killing!? Ahem .. killing ya geddit ... killing y'see they .... anyway.

That would kill the bounty whilst defending at home idea if I've got it right. Irrespective of whether you like the idea or not.

[f0xx]

That is not a valid "excuse". I have 75% bounty on targets that are less than 30% of me...

Then I have 75% bounty on targets that are 50%, 80% and 1000% of me...

You get my point do you?

Just because most of your bounties are uncollectable from your point of view, mine are not.

[Alcibiades]

That is not a valid "excuse". I have 75% bounty on targets that are less than 30% of me...

Then I have 75% bounty on targets that are 50%, 80% and 1000% of me...

You get my point do you?

Just because most of your bounties are uncollectable from your point of view, mine are not.


Surely whatever route you are you have enemies who can defeat you in battle, maybe not as utterly as strikers versus Robo... but i don't think your excuse is any more valid than mine. I have 5 collectable bounties, all of them on targets untouchable. Hooray, that's bullshit, i know most of the people i talk to, so far just about everyone but you has problems similar to mine.

[f0xx]

The better suggestion is to remove bounty completely from the game.

Like that more?

[Alcibiades]

The better suggestion is to remove bounty completely from the game.

Like that more?

Much more so :) But since both are unlikely i wanted to post a possible solution. Apparently you'd rather devote your brain to destroying my suggestion than improving it :(

[Melnibone]

Sorry Alci but no-one is going to try to improve a suggestion that basically sucks no offense to you personally mate but the idea is horrible its called bounty hunting not bounty sitting on your ass and getting funds, we both agree the better solution is to remove bounty altogether so why not push for what you see as the best option?????? i.e getting rid of BH altogether

[Alcibiades]

Lol touche salesman :(

Well then shall we start the "Let's Scrap Bounty Hunting because it's Bollocks?!" group? ;)

[Melnibone]

lol sign me up :)

[f0xx]

I tried to be gentle but Melni pretty much nailed it :P

[Alcibiades]

I tried to be gentle but Melni pretty much nailed it :P

No no you really gotta hammer that sucker through my thick skull ;)

[DarkSider]

While i agree the bounty in current form wasn't great i can't say i agree with removal of bounty for good. There are too many that really enjoy colecting a big bounty so the mechanism must be improved not eliminated.
Original post complained/suggested to change the way bounty is given on players that you can hardly colect the bounty from. I suggested in the past to Azzer that the bounty in the current form shouldn't exist for individual companies as it's abusable and i just can't see a good ideea to make it work, but to give alliance bounty which could be colected in alliance wars. I'm sure other alternatives can be suggested, but just scraping everything from the game that doesn't work perfect it's not a good ideea imo, some like a simple game but i'm sure there are enough who want skill to represent just a little bit more than pure activity.

[Melnibone]

The game itself because of its 'real time' ticker will always favour activity over skill and a combination of the two will always be successful in game environments such as this

Why Bounty Hunting failed was simply that it did not reward skill, how much skill does it take to know that secret agents and terrorist leaders kill rpgs, bikers kill poms etc etc these are not skills they are the fundamental basics of the game and examples like the 2 given and others like them were what BH was, a quick rush to allow funds for players who did not wish to have more than their current acres because it made them a 'target' so to avoid having their round spoiled they would stay low in land and seek to spoil others rounds it was a selfish and petty system to reward the top players who no longer wished to put in the activity that earned them their reputations

What you seem to be looking for and i apologise if im wrong is some form of achieving a high ranking without putting in the insane activity thats currently required. Now if you can suggest something to replace BH that rewards skill without penalising other players who are not contactable or active then great suggest away to just want a system that benefits the elite few is simply 'i want something for me and not whats best for the game' and the idea itself is doomed to fail

Yes one of bush's biggest problems is the insane activity needed to be successful yet it is also the thing that means that the top ally will alternate as people cannot keep up 3 months of constant activity round after round, Looking at so many posts from BW and others about how player numbers have dropped i think its more a case of players picking their rounds to play now as i know personally i will probably not play next round but the one after or the one after again i'll be back to have another go at it in fact oldies like me will probably never fully retire we'll just be inactive for a few rounds

So to summarise if you can come up with an idea thats for the good of the game and not just your own personal playstyle i'll be pleased to hear it :)

[DarkSider]

You couldn't be more wrong :P

First, if you took a bit more time to read the post you replyed to you'll notice my suggestion would actually work against me(solo) as i posted the bounty for companies in the current form to be removed and only used for players inside alliances, so they can colect the bounties by declaring wars.
And second you saying it takes alot more activity and skill to sit on acres and generate funds ? Or brute force your way in an alliance at an hour when their defence is weak and have some ticks of free acres ? I don't deny it takes some activity and skill to get the most acres but you are very wrong imho if you even compare the activity, determination, planning required for a top bounty hunter with the activity needed to be in top 10 for acres. Playing for acres you can follow other player attacks, piggy, send undefendable attacks and just sit your ass on them and wait for cash to come. "Any" nub in a top alliance can blow all his money on flak and get some acres while having lower score at round start and flexes his muscles how great he is. To BH you have to do it all alone, and from what i remember in past rounds there weren't that many active and determined enough to score very high in BH.
And no, it's not a trivia game to know all it takes to get bounty is to send your agents to an rpg player. If it was as easy and unskilled as you try to make it look many more players should have colected large bounties, but not many did.
Look at past portal ranks, you really belive all members in top value alliance who finished high on valuation played better than others on that rank ? Or at least a few (a few more imo) where just 'lucky' to have a solid defence to save their butts so they can generate valuation while inactive. Not to mention diplomacy that is alot of the "skill" when playing for valuation. Hell look at the acres Martin has and let's ask him how active he was this round :P

[Melnibone]

First, if you took a bit more time to read the post you replyed to you'll notice my suggestion would actually work against me(solo)

To start with your very much allied we were in the same channel a week ago, trying to hit pest and you were there as Pestiferous's representative??? not at all my direction was on your style of play, not as to whether your allianced or solo, but since you mentioned it your saying it will only be available to alliances? so you want to introduce a major part of a game that can generate income that over half the playerbase cant utilise? That destroys the suggestion there alone.....

Now lets look at your other points you state If it was as easy and unskilled as you try to make it look many more players should have colected large bounties, but not many did..

The reason not many did was because people purposely avoided getting red titles and those who did were usually 24hr contactable, now red titles were obtained by attacking unlawfully i believe the food chain operates in bushtarion in such that land must filter upwards with the lowest denominator being able to buy it cheaply therefore the removal of bounty hunting will (and imo already has) allow there to be more land at medium to high rankings, this combined with injury has allowed BIG wars the likes of which we havent seen before it has also allowed for more attacks to be made as people are less worried both about titles and losing troops for someone who has campaigned so long and so hard for the game to be more attacking orientated it seems like (while i respect you as a player and like you as a person from our limited chats so far) i think this is purely selfish from yourself as it is something that you personally dedicated so much time to and got so much income from

As i say i may be wrong about your motives and i apologise if i am but i have yet to see you post anything that is anything other than conjecture and opinion you speak about how someone played 'better' to achieve a ranking. Portals do not show skill they do not show commitment or how someone 'played' a round they show their final score none of your comments like this in your last post detract from the fact Bounty Hunting does not work, a revenge system would have been nice if it worked but as no-one seems capable of fixing the unfixable why not just remove it and play bushtarion as it was created at the start, was played for most of its history and now its *almost* removed will continue to be.... WITHOUT BOUNTY HUNTING AS IT SUCKS sorry for the last little childish bit im just frustrated people will not think bounty hunting through to all its conclusions and see it for the negative force in the game it was/is

[willymchilybily]

back to the very original post. I did like 1 thing you would get from bounty from defending. that is you can only have a bounty on some one that has hurt you. so if some one keeps bashing you, the defender could claim bounty against some one that is just repeat attacking. this extra bounty would stop all losses to the target. and penalise the attacker. he would only be claiming bounty off people that continously bashed him for land.

ofc its abuseable making some one attack you again and again getting 80% back lowering your score gaining ar getting more targets to attack and more cash than you can spend.

and also all the previously mentioned downsides rule out the suggestion from ever working.


no doubt this suggestion will also be shouted down. but, why not have a bounty system where you and your pnaps can claim the bounty.

lets say the naps get 50% and you get 50% of the claimable bounty. So there is incentive to help. but more incentive to try and get the bounty on your own. where possible.

as you only have 2 naps a maximum of three people can attack but that would hardly ever happen as it means splitting the bounty three ways.

this also allows you to target poeple who have bounty and are bigger than you. so people bashing smaller people could get a mini resistance trying to get revnge. the bounty being the incentive.

also as there will be three of you there should always be people you can try and attack for bounty. so those that really liked the old bounty system should enjoy this.

ofc you wont be able to go and claim your pnaps bounty without your nap. they must help with the attack. else the system wont know to give out the bounty.

also if some one is trying to abuse the system with 2 ppl picking on smaller bounties. or using a bigger pnap lik somone thats in the top 30 to attack some one thats 30% of his score then the attack is dishonourable the bounty returns are tiny and split between 2 people even smaller. and the person who got attacked is no longer on a bounty list and only lost 20% of his troops.

ofc DOWN SIDES:
not every one has naps.
i cant think of any more really hence why i made the suggestion

[Melnibone]

Definately not going to shout this one down, Alliance players can get their mates to take down someone who has hurt them or pissed them off and they have 17-19 people to help them do this, as solos only have 2 p-naps at most id be quite happy for them to get a small(ish) bounty from helping their p-naps it would need to be realistic say 15-30% max and the original person who gets attacked gets nothing as they have done nothing except pass on an id

Would also soften the blow of removing triggering for each other which while legal is the lamest tactic in the game id definately consider your idea in conjunction with mutual triggering being removed and feel it might give all those who loved BH in the past the option to still sort of do this without being to negative to alliance players

I just dont know how realistic it would be as im not in the least technically minded and dont know how much work would be involved in coding someones enemies list to be both viewable and targettable by any p-naps they may have but yeah WMB i like your thinking :)

[f0xx]

The suggestion looks good theoretically. From what I hear, it is like that even atm.

[willymchilybily]

oh. ? i didnt know that it already was working like that. can some one post a br, with confirmation. aka they helped a nap atatck an enemy and got bounty themselves. I didnt think it was in place. as i have no naps :( i cant check it out myself.

If it is indeed working like this does any one know return rates. aka what a nap would get (% wise 50:50? 30:70?) for helping thier nap claim a bounty. or if some one has a br we could try to work it out from.[ nb. That is assuming the bounty isnt split on who did more damage]

cheers

[f0xx]

Dude calm down :P

At the moment the injury/bounty system is kinda buggy so noone could give you the exact info and numbers except azzer.

What I am posting here is just things that I've 'heard'. Nothing more.

[Augustus]

All my concerns about the new bounty system have come true. Proving that the new system is utterly useless. As someone suggested last round why not have red titles that dont rely on l/f, but are based on an average of lawful:unlawful attacks. This would be an adequate replacement for the poo sucking revenge bounty and help put people of the bashing that has been rife this round.

Now here's a really contraversial suggestion. How about revenge bounty between alliances? Say one alliance has bashed another past a certain value, a bounty becomes available on anyone in thats in the attacking alliance and it can be claimed by anyone in the defending alliance. This would be an incentive for alliances to attack up and make others think twice about picking on the same ally again and again. This would also allow people to get around the anti-route problem with the current system.

[f0xx]

Gah.. "This would be an incentive for alliances to attack up"...

Pleaaase.... the only incetive for an alliance to attack should be acres and revenge. If an ally is sucky enough it wont bother attacking no matter what...

Lazy people needing tons of reasons to attack...

[Augustus]

Gah.. "This would be an incentive for alliances to attack up"...

Pleaaase.... the only incetive for an alliance to attack should be acres and revenge. If an ally is sucky enough it wont bother attacking no matter what...

Lazy people needing tons of reasons to attack...

let me rephrase that then. It would make the fight for the top more interesting. Also it would give the mid to low val alliances a realistically profitable way of retaliating against the 'lazy' alliances that constantly bash alliances of a significantly smaller value. Its not a question of being sucky, its the reality of the game. The top alliances have to be 24/7 contactable to stay there and the lower ones become land farms for the top. At this rate alliance play will become the reserve of the more 'dedicated' player base, as the more casual player gets tired of pointless alliance play. Have you considered why there have been so many disbanded alliances this round? Strange seeing how the number of alliances has rarely passed 20, leaving it unattributable to a saturation of alliances. This may not bother you now but if things carry on this way it could get very boring competing for the top when theres only a dozen alliances. Some sort of lawfulness is needed otherwise the playerbase will only get smaller. Bounty is a good incentive to be lawful.

[Melnibone]

Gah.. "This would be an incentive for alliances to attack up"...

Pleaaase.... the only incetive for an alliance to attack should be acres and revenge. If an ally is sucky enough it wont bother attacking no matter what...

Lazy people needing tons of reasons to attack...

Hehe i agree with Augustus sorry F0xx but its easy to say 'alliances suck' but if someone is putting forward a reasonable suggestion why not try it anyway??????

[f0xx]

Some sort of lawfulness is needed otherwise the playerbase will only get smaller.

THAT I agree with and I will be the first one who will support the idea if it is well thought and balanced. This does not mean it has to be bounty.

I will give you a good example:

Person A attacks person B and person B is 30% of the score of person A, make it so that person A's troops fight at 30% of their usual strenght. Call it morale if you wish... your troops have less desireability to fight when you attack someone smaller...

Something like that, but to be more well considered ofcourse.

[Augustus]

Some sort of lawfulness is needed otherwise the playerbase will only get smaller.

THAT I agree with and I will be the first one who will support the idea if it is well thought and balanced. This does not mean it has to be bounty.

I will give you a good example:

Person A attacks person B and person B is 30% of the score of person A, make it so that person A's troops fight at 30% of their usual strenght. Call it morale if you wish... your troops have less desireability to fight when you attack someone smaller...

Something like that, but to be more well considered ofcourse.

I'm glad we agree on something ;)

An interesting idea, as this would be more offputting to anyone considering mindless bashing. Much better than the less land approach that is soon to be implemented, as everyone knows it is the troops that are really precious rather than the land. This combined with low injury returns would all of a sudden make 'unlawful' attacks less profitable. However I still think that there is room for an Alliance bounty of some sort, even if only between warring Alliances. It would make things a bit more fun and even though I know you have dismissed this it would be an incentive for attacking up. Although I partially agree on your comment on 'laziness', I think that it would allow one alliance to suddenly swap rankings with the one they are attacking. Currently it is possible to move up a ranking, but once injured troops return it is more than likely that they will swap back again. The suggestion is aimed at making the fight for the top less predictable and fought till the end of the round, rather than the 1 horse race that it has become in previous rounds.This round has seen steps in the right direction, but there is still a chasm in the value difference between the top three Alliances and all below that can't be fully blamed on the quality of the Alliances.

[BeakY]

The game itself because of its 'real time' ticker will always favour activity over skill and a combination of the two will always be successful in game environments such as this

Why Bounty Hunting failed was simply that it did not reward skill, how much skill does it take to know that secret agents and terrorist leaders kill rpgs, bikers kill poms etc etc these are not skills they are the fundamental basics of the game and examples like the 2 given and others like them were what BH was, a quick rush to allow funds for players who did not wish to have more than their current acres because it made them a 'target' so to avoid having their round spoiled they would stay low in land and seek to spoil others rounds it was a selfish and petty system to reward the top players who no longer wished to put in the activity that earned them their reputations

What you seem to be looking for and i apologise if im wrong is some form of achieving a high ranking without putting in the insane activity thats currently required. Now if you can suggest something to replace BH that rewards skill without penalising other players who are not contactable or active then great suggest away to just want a system that benefits the elite few is simply 'i want something for me and not whats best for the game' and the idea itself is doomed to fail

Yes one of bush's biggest problems is the insane activity needed to be successful yet it is also the thing that means that the top ally will alternate as people cannot keep up 3 months of constant activity round after round, Looking at so many posts from BW and others about how player numbers have dropped i think its more a case of players picking their rounds to play now as i know personally i will probably not play next round but the one after or the one after again i'll be back to have another go at it in fact oldies like me will probably never fully retire we'll just be inactive for a few rounds

So to summarise if you can come up with an idea thats for the good of the game and not just your own personal playstyle i'll be pleased to hear it :)

i'm sorry melni did i read u right? it looks like ur saying u have to have massive activity and be huge in value to do well at bounty hunting....my activity stat was at an all time high for the round this week at 0.77 hours a day playing. and in this last 3days b4 the round end i took my inactive vamp army and hit my 2 enemies who i had 75% Bounty on. and no they were'nt SA they were a striker heavy and an apache heavy player. i went with my 100mil gardies and ~30mil assorted LET +25milVamps (vs more LET in the form of health+armour heavy troops). and while mostly i died, my vamps survived enough and with my gd injury rates i came out on top.
in only 3days i took 2 rank~250 plays down to ~400 while i went from rank400 to ~550
but my BH rank went from nowhere to finishing 10th BH
where was i active? or top ranked?
i wasnt, and i made the system work
if u cant, dont be lazy and ask for it to be changed, work harder on it

[f0xx]

I am really trying to understand what you wrote there.... I mean like... I was staring for hours at your post trying to realise what your point is... and I still cannot find it.

Perhaps its because of the idiotic way you type or something else... no idea really, but anyway, whats your point?

[Melnibone]

emmm no beaky if you re-read my post i think you'll find instead of disagreeing with my post you actually agreed with it lol

basicly i dislike BH as it allows people to get rankings easily which your example illustrated perfectly

and F0xx nice to see you adding something to the convo as usual i.e. useless spam :D

[f0xx]

Oh, go burrow your head in the sand you old man :)

[BeakY]

emmm no beaky if you re-read my post i think you'll find instead of disagreeing with my post you actually agreed with it lol

basicly i dislike BH as it allows people to get rankings easily which your example illustrated perfectly

and F0xx nice to see you adding something to the convo as usual i.e. useless spam :D

yet u were saying that the only people to get it were the massivley active top ranked players, u wanted something that "rewards skill without penalising other players who are not contactable or active". i wasnt contactable, i wasnt active, i just used skill to pwn those who had pwnd me and thus got myself a portal place.

ps. like ur posts are EVER sensible or worth reading f0xx

[Melnibone]

Ah now i understand your point and tbh i think the misunderstanding here lies in the type of BH we are talking about your example is from the new 'revenge' bounty system whereas all my points are relating to bounty hunting as it was.

Hope this clears it up as BH is no longer a rank and now a stat, how easy or not is is to achieve is irrelevant, much in the same way 'most kills' or 'most damage done' is nice to have or maybe fun to aim for but it is not a recognised ranking