Bounty

[ZigZag]

I feel that if there is going to be a base bounty you should receive it as the defender also. Since the attackers are getting both bounty and insurance why shouldn't the defender.

Example being attacked by more than one, massed waved or what ever.

Three people attack on the same tick

Died: 174,396,007 [£1,542,571,126,400] enemies dead. 9,764,257 [£601,957,673,800] friendlies dead.

Now they receive bounty for what they killed. Plus insurance on their developed units. The person who got killed received insurance on his developed units even though the damage was 2 1/2 times more to them than he received.


Now the next tick it's reversed damage is 1 1/2 to 1 the next tick

Died: 223,241,566 [£1,861,372,544,800] enemies dead. 57,532,345 [£2,470,811,201,900] friendlies dead.

They get more bounty/Insurance and all the defender receives is insurance. Something should be balanced out here. Flame all you want I don't really care

 

[lavadog]

Hmm imo it would make rebuilding far too easy then. You would almost immediately be able to be back at the level you were before the attacks, meaning the attack wouldn't have damaged you one bit. The whole point of attacking is doing damage, not in the short term, but making the other guy rebuild a few days and hoping he doesn't come back to kick your ass then

I know it doesn't really seem fair, but hey, war usually isn't

 

[Alcibiades]

The idea used to be that you had to go 'claim' bounty and thus, had to acquire it somewhere that wasn't on your own home turf. I understand where that's coming from, but also the frustration of ZigZag's situation.

The attackers have had to go out and claim the bounty, therefore they deserve it. You shouldn't get bounty for defending in general imo.... however *if* we must implement something like this i'd suggest making it possible to claim bounty only while defending someone else. It will be impossible to get bounty at home though since i just don't like the idea of someone getting bounty/insurance/injuries just by staying home and fighting. It would encourage a lot more 'last ditch' kind of defence, i.e. buying RPGs or 117s to fire early and do some damage, they'll die, you get bounty, you rebuy troops next tick to rinse and repeat. In that case you could of course add the 'tick delay' idea like with insurance but that just seems overly complicated to introduce simply because you don't like not being able to get bounty at home.

I'm not saying this shouldn't be done 'simply because it hasn't been done before' but because it's not necessary, bounties should be CLAIMED; hence the term bounty HUNTER, not bounty defender, or bounty stationary turrets, or bountyspike trapping. If you want bounty, go and get some. If you want fairness, go play with your Ken and Barbie dolls.

 

[Martin]

You need more rewards for attacking than defending or the game would stagnate.

 

[pinpower]

You need more rewards for attacking than defending or the game would stagnate.

I agree with Martin.

I dont agree with this suggestion, you definately shouldnt receive bounty for defending.
x

 

[Garrett]

I don't believe 'Dawg the Bounty Hunter' has criminals falling into his lap. I believe the show revolves around him chasing them. Otherwise, why go out and work. The bounty target will come to you.

 

[rooney]

imo, you should only receive bounty on attacks, but if someone defends the guy you attack, you should also get bounty on the stuff you kill of the defenders, rather than only the guy you actually attacked

 

[lavadog]

^ aha, that is a pretty interesting suggestion. Maybe only get half of the bounty on the units of the "extra" defender? Don't know why, but giving full bounty for other defenders as well doesn't really seem like a good system to me.

 

[pinpower]

yeah tbh i kinda like that idea...but it would have to be a lower percentage, half seems about right (and then subjected to the normal changes based on attack range/mob eta etc)...

 

[lavadog]

yeah, givin them less bounty would be because you didn't actually go out to kill them, but they're alli mate. So bounty you get on them should be a nice extra, but nothing more than that.

 

[Garrett]

well perhaps if it was a solo person it would go on the combined scores on the total of defenders...

but how about basing the bounty gained when attacking an allianced person, based off the alliance combined score rather than the # of defenders? Yes the formula would need to be tweaked as well.

You could even make it... more bounty for hitting an allied target and less bounty for hitting a solo target. (mebbe giving some relief to lower ranked solo players and stop some suggestions that reoccur like upping the minimum attack %?)

1) it would increase the bounty when attacking an allianced person, whether or not they get allianced defenders
2) encourage more attacking of alliances.
3) by going off alliance score rather than # of defenders, then pretty much the bounty would be a set amount and wouldn't have an impact to defense decisions for an alliance.

just some thoughts

 

[DarkSider]

In my unified score suggestion i said it could be good both defenders and attackers to get a pretty big bounty while also a high insurance. For me at least troops make the game fun, many would be in favour of more acres but i like more troops into the game.
Maybe high insurance for defenders and high bounty on all troops for attackers .. something high anyway to keep many troops alive.
That together with a higher acre production means you can make troops from everything, you still have incentive to get and hold acres but you wouldn't be so scared of fighting the loosing battles or beeing caught offline and loose 1 month of income. (Omg you want to join my alliance and you don't sleep with your phone under pillow ? You're by bush definition useless)
To get the precious "PWNED" feeling when attacking you could also introduce another type of attacking that reduces both your bounty and target's insurance.

 

[lavadog]

and all of a sudden this can be turned into something that can potentially benefit a resistance movement seeing as how the top alli's have such high scores now, resistance alliances could make a nice profit on rushing and collecting bounty on em.

Brainstorming ftw

edit: this was mainly aimed at garret's suggestion

 

[Garrett]

and all of a sudden this can be turned into something that can potentially benefit a resistance movement seeing as how the top alli's have such high scores now, resistance alliances could make a nice profit on rushing and collecting bounty on em.

Brainstorming ftw

shhh, next you'll be wanting to add the top alliance land loss cap has been upped to 20%-25% in the system.

wait... what?

 

[lavadog]

hehe no, it just randomly popped up in my head ;P

 

[Alcibiades]

In my unified score suggestion i said it could be good both defenders and attackers to get a pretty big bounty while also a high insurance. For me at least troops make the game fun, many would be in favour of more acres but i like more troops into the game.

BAM! I love your thinking DS. Troops ftw, landwhores ftl!

To get the precious "PWNED" feeling when attacking you could also introduce another type of attacking that reduces both your bounty and target's insurance.

Maybe axe plant thieves and money launderers since most people don't stash money or plants and have units that reduce bounty/insurance instead? Just a bit of random thought action, but those units are pretty useless, so giving them another lease on life would be nice.

 

[Garrett]

hehe no, it just randomly popped up in my head ;P

I know, but you are right... perhaps in lieu of a system... retooling bounty in such a manner could have the intended effect of a system.

of course it will also go downstream and bigger bashing on the littler.. would that increase... considering waves and mass bash happen and have happened for eons... doubtful

 

[Garrett]

Maybe axe plant thieves and money launderers since most people don't stash money or plants and have units that reduce bounty/insurance instead? Just a bit of random thought action, but those units are pretty useless, so giving them another lease on life would be nice.

Outstanding point. However, I think in order to have a 'bounty stealer' unit... then bounty would have to be paid to you in the same manner that injury and insurance happen... but then again that probably should happen anyway to make it a consistent sytem.

Technically bounty shouldn't be paid until the troops go home anyway of a sorts... it's not like the contract holders are on site to pay as heads are immediately captured.

sorry for double posting. i didn't see alci's post

 

[f0xx]

The whole problem is that attackers get insurance.

The way I see it - attackers get bounty, defenders get insurance.

There should be no way to have both.

 

[lavadog]

hehe no, it just randomly popped up in my head ;P

I know, but you are right... perhaps in lieu of a system... retooling bounty in such a manner could have the intended effect of a system.

of course it will also go downstream and bigger bashing on the littler.. would that increase... considering waves and mass bash happen and have happened for eons... doubtful

You could make it percentage wise too tho, so that people with high scores can't just bash people in little alliances because they would get close to no bounty that way.

The whole problem is that attackers get insurance.

The way I see it - attackers get bounty, defenders get insurance.

There should be no way to have both.

Attackers get both insurance and bounty tho?