Karma, the new anti-bash

[Souls]

So, bashing's a problem, and I've thought of a solution!

The idea: Karma. We all know the golden rule: Do unto others as you would have done unto you. Well, let's apply it to Bush :P

The guts: Karma would be a value based on how you attack. The more you attack under xx% (I was thinking 40-50%), the more karma you get. Once you reach a certain amount of karma, the effectiveness of your troops would be decreased, either through decreased AD/HD, or decreased AR/HP. Stats would be decreased in x% (Base 5%) intervals, and only after reaching the "checkpoints". Example, if it didn't make sense.


Karma Reduction
250 5%
500 10%
1000 15%
1500 20%

usw.

It'd be a one-way road, so attacking above xx% won't give your troops benefits.

Things that still need to be worked out:

The numbers, to make it applicable[/*:m:3l29kiez]
How it would decrease. Attacking above xx% would decrease karma, or would it go down over time?[/*:m:3l29kiez]
Would the number of attackers impact it?[/*:m:3l29kiez]
What should the penalty be?[/*:m:3l29kiez]
More to be added with discussion, hopefully. :)

[Alcibiades]

It's like a sexier version of Experience and L/F all rolled into one. I'm sure it'll receive it's fair share of bashes by the usual culprits (the idea, not the player) but frankly, in light of no other system currently in order, i like karma, the name rocks. Souls ftw!

[Melnibone]

*SIGH* when will people learn that the only system of this kind that can EVER work in this game is when there is a negative effect to the action and not the player??

Simply put when you start doing calculations and equations to work out your 'level' and therefore how much effect you lose over the course of a round it causes imbalances, perceived unfairness and most importantly players who learn how to abuse it to gain advantages

What people who want to stop bashing need to do is find a way to penalise the actual action as it happens

Azzers changes to land stealing will achieve this as it will penalise you when you attack unfairly but not when you attack fairly, isnt that the whole point of suggestions and gripes like these????

[Netherdragon]

guess it could work but

1: it would have to be done extremely well to stop it being abused and to keep the effects fair

2: azzer probably wont input it anyway as he never does with most things people come up with in the forums

but if done right im all for it :)

[Souls]

My only discrepancy to Azzer's less-land policy is that it's basically a slap on the hand. You get reduced land for sending that low, but you still don't suffer as much as you do if you send higher. There's no incentive to stop sending that low, as it only means you'll need to send more attacks out to get where you want to be. IMO, to stop the problem, there has to be a lasting effect that will deter you from doing it in the first place.

[TheNamelessWonder]

I don't like the suggestion, but I like the thinking behind it.

One way or the other, there has to be some sort of deterrent to prevent larger players from bashing at 40% without consequence.

[Pete]

pfft dnt make it effect troops, it means more for me to have to work out :(

[Hippie]

the higher your karma the less eff you get and the more eff people get against you? and/or higher bribing % (not extra killing/losses) when defending/attacking?

don't flame me, just throwing around ideas

[Enrico]

Hmm what if bad karma would mean that you got less injuries?

or how a bout this idea:

When you attack below a certain value (must be quite low: maybe 45% or thereabouts) the target would in effect get a new type of unit defending it.

"Guilty conscience" Innit 3 ******/******/*****/***** (Bribes) Target: all Range/Middle/Close

It would read something like this.

"xxxx bouts of guilty conscience affected your staff and made xxxxx friendly staff desert your mob"

As it is classified as bribes, no injury. The number of bouts of guilty conscience would be affected by how "nasty" your attack was (i.e. how small the target + any defenders is) whether you use sneaky tactics (rushes, sending just LETs without the target having a bounty) and how many instances of guilty conscience you have triggered earlier.

The attacks would never be so great as to stop you landing/killing or whatever, just act as a punishment for being "evil"

The Guilty conscience would always trigger when you attack small targets, so it would not show up in a spy report at attacking for 3. (But if the attack is one-on-one, against someone you haven't hit earlier, or whom you have a bounty on, the number of bouts of guilty conscience would be low...)

Naturally: if you bash someone many against one, in an repeat attack, with a pure LET rush, the effects could be quite severe, maybe loosing you as much as 50-70% of your staff over 3 ticks...

[DarkSider]

*SIGH* when will people learn that the only system of this kind that can EVER work in this game is when there is a negative effect to the action and not the player??

Simply put when you start doing calculations and equations to work out your 'level' and therefore how much effect you lose over the course of a round it causes imbalances, perceived unfairness and most importantly players who learn how to abuse it to gain advantages

What people who want to stop bashing need to do is find a way to penalise the actual action as it happens

Azzers changes to land stealing will achieve this as it will penalise you when you attack unfairly but not when you attack fairly, isnt that the whole point of suggestions and gripes like these????

It's a good ideea but won't work alone imo. If i don't care about getting new acres the downside for bashing won't affect me.

[Melnibone]

If your rushing for kills and not for land nothing will put you off....... lets be perfectly honest.....

[Augustus]

If your rushing for kills and not for land nothing will put you off....... lets be perfectly honest.....

A red title would!

[Alcibiades]

If your rushing for kills and not for land nothing will put you off....... lets be perfectly honest.....

A red title would!

It didn't really for me. It might have given me a split second's pause, but not much more than that. Then again, it seems that i'm not a good sample of the usual bushtarion playerbase

[Augustus]

I think mutual AR triggering is similar to red titles in the sense that when they were illegal/unlawful they put people off. Not everyone, but enough to make a difference. Any new attempt to put people off unfair attacks will be the same. They'll never put everyone off.

[Melnibone]

Agreed Augustus so what we need as ive said previously in this post is a game mechanism to punish the action and not the player

Red Titles did not stop bashes and if it was re-introduced still wouldnt, all red titles did was give players who werent the victim of bashes a chance to gain extra income through bounty hence why i think the whole l/f system was a joke, lets say i have a red title i get that through bashing players smaller than me say 30% that my route has an advantage over (fairly normal scenario under the old system) the problem is that a player at 30% of me even if i have a red title gets no protection from me he loses troops and 15% land, i can guarantee you the person collecting any bounty on me is not the victim of the bashing more likely than not its some player with my anti-route who will in turn lethal rush me to get income

Therefore with the injury system giving 80% returns and the new reduced land stealing (if its implemented) what will happen now compared to what would have happened in age 4

Age 4 - player a gets zerod, player a loses 300 acres of his 2k land, player b gets -30 l/f towards a title (very easy to offset with say a lethal rush on an offline bigger player with a route you can own and if he doesnt and goes red) player c gets bounty from hitting player b

age 4.5 - player a loses 20% troops, player a loses 100 of his 2k land, player b has sent eta 7 any losses he gets 20% back from and gets minimal acres, player c has to rely on other means to get his income

If im player A whos being bashed and im thinking of quitting/giving up/stopping playing which will keep me in the game longer? which scenario serves me as the victim of a bash better and my enjoyment of the game more....... there is only one sensible answer

If we are going to go on about stopping bashing and how bashing is totally unfair shouldnt we be prioritising minimising the effects on the bashed and limiting the success it gives bashers rather than trying to promote a system that only assists people who are not involved in the original act but wish an additional source of income?????

This is not a personal gripe at you Augustus weve discussed this in PM and i respect your viewpoints on the subject but bounty hunting does not stop bashing and thats a fact we had several rounds of it to witness. It also made certain routes almost impossible to play if you wanted to be competitive and stay out of the red it was a crap system it was an unfair system and it was a system that didnt work all reasons for its removal i just wish half the skilled and knowledgable players who whine about its removal would put their minds into developing a newer 'anti-bash system' that could be all the things bounty hunting wasnt

[Augustus]

Melni, your response has enlightened me in some respect. Before I used to view the situation of red titles as naming and shaming, making the 'unlawful' attacker answerable to someone by making them a bounty target. But you make a valid point that the victim doesn't benefit, other than having the impression that someone will avenge him for the sake of some Bounty. Now the new Bounty system/enemies is like a personalise red title which still has the same flaw of the victim not profiting from the situation (at least in the short term, if not at all). It also has a variety of other issues which I wont dredge up now. So yes, you are right, some other methods need to be implemented to look out for the little guy. But at the same time, soon we will approach a point where there is no reason or advantage to send at 30-40% ranges and the option might as well be removed. Personally I dont think it should come to this, so the hard part is achieving a fine balance. For the record though I loved Bounty, not just for the money but also for the feeling of dishing out some retribution. I want to see it come back in some way for both of these reasons. Azzer loved it, which is reason enough for it to be brought back in some way, shape, or form. :D

[atsanjose]

but are we getting a kasten (dutch word cba to translate) system too?

:D

[Melnibone]

Now the new Bounty system/enemies is like a personalise red title which still has the same flaw of the victim not profiting from the situation

Id love for the new system to have some way to let you take your revenge, but for me it would need to be personal if you've been attacked unlawfully why not have the system remember the unlawful attack (currently does with the enemy system), the problem lies with say an rpg player having no way to take revenge on a s/o for example

There is a small core of players who loved BH why not have a system (just throwing ideas around if this sucks i wont be offended) whereby if you have a large unclaimable bounty on an enemy then you can farm this out to the game in general

How i would see such a suggestion working

Player A gets attacked unlawfully by Player B
Player A's route means he cant claim the bounty, so Player A flags this up in his enemy list as say 'unclaimable' (small check box), Player B's id is then posted in a bounty for sale list (or similar) viewed globally by anyone
Player C can click on this list and check the id then claim the bounty till the value damage done originally to Player A is recovered but no more, and any bounty attack must be notified in advance by clicking on the list

This would allow fairness as it would be true Karma you would only be accountable for the crimes you commit, and it would not be at the whim of a broken system like l/f, also it would bring BH back to the game on a global scale as anyone could attempt to claim it (even poms would get some for stealing acres)

This would allow Bounty Hunters to bounty hunt without flagging an acct up for mass bashing from the whole game, during rd 21 i abused the system no end i would flak attack at 30% and lose -2 to -7 l/f on the close attacking tick then i would run my HV's and louds and flak against a large pom and i would get +30 l/f per tick therefore i could bash 90 small players for their land at 30% and rectify it with one eta 4 hit against an offline solo pom???

These types of abuses will always be available on an equation based system no matter how long and hard you work on it if you want bounty hunting back then by all means try but think outside the box try to make it workable i personally didnt like the sytem and dont want it back but tbh what ive suggested has more chance of working than anything based on the old bounty hunting/lf system sorry but its true

[Augustus]

Good idea! I was going to suggest something similar. The only difference being that the victim would be responsible for finding someone to claim the bounty. Also introducing a fee for recruiting someone else to claim a bounty for you. This would reduce the chance of bounty farming, as only those who are really after revenge would pay a fee to see their enemy get zeroed.

[Azzer]

Interesting concept on the idea of "passing" a bounty on to another individual... would like to hear more about this. With awareness of somebody "taking" a bounty off another person but doing nothing with it, and no ability to "sell" a bounty to someone for money (money transfers).

[DarkSider]

There might be a few interesting things in that suggestion but i don't really like it integrated in the suggested way in the old version of personal bounty.

First of all the personal bounty as we know it it's abusable. I could have a fresh account, send 15 mobs of 1 hippy to some players then 2 hippy to a player i dislike. A few hours later that player gets 75% bounty and i can mark it to be claimed by somebody else.

Another thing is if 2 or more players have been attacked by same id and they both put the bounty in the list. The highest level is BH-ed first ? And when that bounty is claimed next one kicks in ? Because there would be no reason if player A attacks B and C and both B and C put their bounty in the list, claiming bounty passed from B to cancel bounty put on list by C. He can even put it on list right after other bounty was claimed.
If all bountyes for an id are on the list you could have BH-ers select before the BR takes place what bounty are they after. But it wouldn't be right to allow players to block access to some of the bounties so i guess they can be collected from the highest level.

But overall i don't really like it :p Not only one active attacker might kill 2-3 players a day and all could flag him with a 75% bounty if it's the first time they died so much, but also the very basics of the personal bounty are abusable and such addon on it will make it even more flawed.

Bounty has to return imo one way or another, but personal bounty in current form it's not quite a good substitute.