bounty idea...

[mrmongo]

now i know nothing will ever get implemented but for talking of its sake id love an addition to the bounty system where I could put some of my money up to put a bounty on someone.

EG. i keep getting repeat attacked by the same person over and over... he doesnt care about neg h/f everytime i rebuild i get killed again... like im targetted for being in an easy to attack alliance and because of my route choice... whatever..

(If anyone says, get a better ally, or, change your route... go take a running jump ya douche! we cant all get in epic alliances... and different routes are made to be played)

So the idea would be... as i cant kill him and my ally cant kill him... i could put a bounty on his head from my own money... sort of a private kill and collect system which would work on the lines of

Bountied Target = 1,000,000,000 score and bouny is paid out per % of that persons unit score that is killed. So i put up £100,000,000,000 and 2 people send at him 1 person kills 60% and another 40% of his unit score so get a 60/40 split of the bounty.

Ofc if the person was neg h/f then thier existing bounty remains too but its an added incentive for someone or some people to kill them... obv the money you put up is gonna be the biggest incentive.

There is this kind of system in an app World War for the iphone etc... And i know it will never happen but hey i like it so i share it.

PEACE!

 

[Elderveld]

i can think of a fwew way's to abuse this

but i like it!

 

[Dax]

Nice idea, needs a few head-knocks from people like Martin, Polo, CF to nail any possible exploits in the idea - But it seems alright.
What if they stack the bounty and can't afford it when payout time comes?

Does the Government call in 'asset reclaimers'? Hahahaha.

 

[Elderveld]

Im pretty sure you'd have to pay the funds rite away, and they just get paid out once killed.

Fwew way's to exploit this:

If a member restarts, gets officers, and sends to a player whit 1m gards/harvs. And an alliance members puts a bounty on his head of 1T, it could easly be abused.

Or to transfer funds to a zeroed player. Find a "almost" zeroed player wich he can zero whit a fwew lets, and put a bounty on his head from a fwew fellow allied players, could easly get back up again.

--

Another way is if u do not want to grow. U'd put a bounty on rank 1 alliance player, Wich u might kill in the future. And once u did that you'll get all those funds again

 

[LuckySports]

Im pretty sure you'd have to pay the funds rite away, and they just get paid out once killed.

Fwew way's to exploit this:

If a member restarts, gets officers, and sends to a player whit 1m gards/harvs. And an alliance members puts a bounty on his head of 1T, it could easly be abused.

Or to transfer funds to a zeroed player. Find a "almost" zeroed player wich he can zero whit a fwew lets, and put a bounty on his head from a fwew fellow allied players, could easly get back up again.

--

Another way is if u do not want to grow. U'd put a bounty on rank 1 alliance player, Wich u might kill in the future. And once u did that you'll get all those funds again

Yeah, Whilst I love the idea, Its WAY too easy to abuse.

 

[Max]

What a unique and interesting idea

Could a potential fix be - you can put up a bounty on their head, but the maximum bounty you can put on them must be less than the value of troop score they currently maintain.

Therefore, if the player is zeroed and you put a bounty on their heads, there is nothing to be claimed. If the player has £1tril worth of troops, you can place a bounty on their heads up to the £1tril (if you can afford such a large lump sum, of course hahaha!).

Another potential way to avoid some abuse is to allow each player only one person they can place a bounty on at a time, and perhaps only once a week?

Still abusable, but maybe if some other suggestions come in we can be sure to fill any loop holes? Worth a try!

 

[LuckySports]

Hmm, maybe, and prevent their alliance-mates from claiming the bounty, and PNaps..

 

[Max]

Some more thoughts:

The bounty can easily be incorporated into the already existing system as follows:

A player that has been really annoying you, and you want to have killed, is titled as "ignoble" and has a 37% bounty on his head (5% base bounty + 32% for ignoble).

Now, you offer to place a bounty on his head up to a fraction of his existing troop score (anywhere from 50%-100%, not sure about this yet, let's assume 50%). Say for example he has £500bil worth of troops, and you pay out £250b out of your own pocket to make him a tastier target to the playerbase.

Since £250bil out of £500bil is equivalent to 50% of the troop score, the bounty on the targets head is simply a summation - 50%+37%=87%! Tasty tasty

Then, the bounty hunting system works exactly as before, including earning a greater bounty when you attack honourably, don't rush... etc. etc. Same rules apply, just the percentage is increased.

What if you want to retract a bounty? Well, I think this should be possible to do at any time, but the money should return at the same rate as insurance money (to avoid using retracted bounty money for funds to help with incoming).

Similarly, if the player you put the bounty on is a bit crazy and ends up zeroing themselves on an attack... suddenly their troops score is 0. If the troop score is less than the bounty offered on their head, then at the same rate as insurance, this money should be returned to the player who put it there in the first place. In the example above, the player with the 87% bounty on their head kills themselves in an attack, therefore the entire £250bil gets returned to the player who placed it there, in 12 ticks time. The bountied player now returns to his pre-exisiting 37% bounty level.

I really think this can be made to work, I really do

 

[Dax]

I love the thought, Max. More ideas on how it can be exploited, and then ideas to counteract those, is the way forwards.

 

[Alcibiades]

Some more thoughts:

The bounty can easily be incorporated into the already existing system as follows:

A player that has been really annoying you, and you want to have killed, is titled as "ignoble" and has a 37% bounty on his head (5% base bounty + 32% for ignoble).

Now, you offer to place a bounty on his head up to a fraction of his existing troop score (anywhere from 50%-100%, not sure about this yet, let's assume 50%). Say for example he has £500bil worth of troops, and you pay out £250b out of your own pocket to make him a tastier target to the playerbase.

Since £250bil out of £500bil is equivalent to 50% of the troop score, the bounty on the targets head is simply a summation - 50%+37%=87%! Tasty tasty

Then, the bounty hunting system works exactly as before, including earning a greater bounty when you attack honourably, don't rush... etc. etc. Same rules apply, just the percentage is increased.

What if you want to retract a bounty? Well, I think this should be possible to do at any time, but the money should return at the same rate as insurance money (to avoid using retracted bounty money for funds to help with incoming).

Similarly, if the player you put the bounty on is a bit crazy and ends up zeroing themselves on an attack... suddenly their troops score is 0. If the troop score is less than the bounty offered on their head, then at the same rate as insurance, this money should be returned to the player who put it there in the first place. In the example above, the player with the 87% bounty on their head kills themselves in an attack, therefore the entire £250bil gets returned to the player who placed it there, in 12 ticks time. The bountied player now returns to his pre-exisiting 37% bounty level.

I really think this can be made to work, I really do

OMG This. Max, I love you. It's real and it's deep. You are a clever fellow. This would be entertaining as hell and make bounty hunting insanely profitable for the correct routes.

 

[Ogluk]

and make bounty hunting insanely profitable for the correct routes.

or insanely profitable to those who know how to assign bounties to those likely to kill themselves on attacks

 

[CFalcon]

I'm liking the idea of expanding bounty somehow, but I still see ways to abuse.

Firstly, there should probably be some limit in place on Max's suggestion to stop bounty's going over 100% (100% troop value bounty + 60% government bounty type of thing). Would seem a little ezz-mode.

Would also need some anti-abuse limitations. Limit the amount of bounty you can claim to your current value. If you've just restarted then you can only claim your current value's worth, so no more than doubling your value at a time. Limit the number of times you can put bounty on a certain target, the number of times you can claim bounty from a certain target, and the number of times you can claim bounty a certain person has put out.

Even then you have a 1-time potential money-transfer system, although the magnitude of abuse is limited.

 

[mrmongo]

Im pretty sure you'd have to pay the funds rite away, and they just get paid out once killed.

Fwew way's to exploit this:

If a member restarts, gets officers, and sends to a player whit 1m gards/harvs. And an alliance members puts a bounty on his head of 1T, it could easly be abused.

Or to transfer funds to a zeroed player. Find a "almost" zeroed player wich he can zero whit a fwew lets, and put a bounty on his head from a fwew fellow allied players, could easly get back up again.

--

Another way is if u do not want to grow. U'd put a bounty on rank 1 alliance player, Wich u might kill in the future. And once u did that you'll get all those funds again

i think to avoid this you can only place a bounty on a player who has attacked you, so i couldnt just put a bounty on anyone, only people that have attacked or caused damage to me and maybe within a certain amount of time.
Say player 1 kills player 2, player 2 can then use some of his insurance money to put a bounty on player 1 within a week of being killed/attacked etc.

Chances are a player who restarts is gonna be surrounded by lower level players which are unlikely to attack a bigger alliance unless the id is made solely for exploiting this system.

And well done Max good thoughts !!

 

[jamesNchina]

Seems to me it would be a system that should be called "Bash the Basher" :/ and with the potential for abuse would only increase the amount of bashing already happening.
Instead why not a system that makes it more profitable for the person being bashed... like maybe being able to collect bounty on the number of units he kills of the dishonorable attacker... immediate gain to rebuild and or hire troops for mid/close ticks thereby increasing the gain, basher taking greater losses, and some fun BR's

 

[Elevnos]

What about you can put a bounty on someone's troops, say, you pay however much you can afford and it would divide that sum by 5 (to 20%) then split it evenly for their existing troops. However those troops are killed, the player killing them would get the 20% of the original sum paid to spend how they wish. This stops players from trading money (without a massive interest) and still allows the killing of targets.

A maximum amount of funds could be placed on a player of their total troop score (so the bounty could never go above 20%) and that way this stops most abuse of the system...

 

[willymchilybily]

With max's tweak this idea is actually really good. As if you place some bounty on some one but can only afford a small amount, Some one else could top it up if they hated the same person.

You would have an upper value placed on you so elvanos if the person had £200bil and you put £20bill on. It would mean if the guy was killed the attacker would gain £20 bil on top of their normal bounty. Anyway. And if you only killed £35bil troops you would still net the £20 bil

The only possible remaining abuse is some one who was solo could put funds on someone to score drop stealthily before the incoming arrives at attacking for 3. But this wouldn't make much difference to the game if they want to score drop and are willing to risk putting bounty on someone who may suicide so they get thier funds back in full rather than buying a cheap low eta unit and suiciding it on rank 1 for 20% of them, that's their choice. And will hardly make any difference to the game dynamic.

If you think this is unfair then use cf's suggestion and combine it with others. You can only put bounty on one I'd once, plus an additional time for each time they have attacked you.


I like this suggestion also because if you have some one below you, out of range, giving you abusive mails, you likely have funds to give him a bounty before you add him to ignore.

I'd also be very interested in being able to see how much player given bounty you have on yourself, and keep it completely separate from the current less clear bounty system. Although the additional bounty given could be displayed as a % of your current troop score in the player tooltip(when you hover over an I'd) for others to see.

 

[Max]

Hmm you are right about the solo abuse - donate a huge whack of your funds on someone you know won't get killed, then take a score drop and gain AR. Then when inc is over - you can simply retract the bounty and get all your cash back.

Perhaps you can only put a bounty on someone's head if you have no incoming mobs? Tricky one. Well done for spotting it willy.

 

[Elderveld]

dont put the option to retract it

 

[Alcibiades]

dont put the option to retract it

But it should be an option to be able to retract it. It should just have more strict rules around it to make it impossible (or at least, pointless) to abuse.

 

[willymchilybily]

I dont see the need to retract the bounty. if you put it on its on. if you are that worried go claim it yourself!

i dont think a score drop solo abuse would be that big a deal... As there is no garentee you get the funds back. for example put a bounty on edd. (lol no offecne edd ) but you may never see any one claim it. Theres no garentee he will suicide and not die or that you will get your funds back if you cannot retract it at will. So no problem

But if you really want an alternative for retraction of bounties: have a delay. for applying it as well as removing it. eg. the bounty takes 12 ticks to process and be put on a players head, and removed from your funds. The retracting also takes 12 ticks to process and return to the player. Thats the simpliest way i can see of doing it to avoid score droping before an incoming arrives.

Id still prefer there to not be this retract facility. imagine if you put a bounty on some one you were sure wouldnt die in rank 1 alliance, even after 12 ticks you score drop get more targets, and still have access to a 12 tick cash payout to grow again afterwards. so you could keep some money safe without risk of it giving score or being taken by seed thieves. the chances of someone bothering to do this is slim imo. (although people trying to keep out of rank 1 aliance range may find it useful but there is still a risk they will lose the money and not get it back). but its still a possability if retract can be done easily, a retraction limit could also be set. I dont see any need to retract it in the first place unless you put more on than you intended to, so i cant see why in the whole round you would need to retract more than 10 bounties.