Honour/Fame & Bounty Suggestion

[LuckySports]

The amount of "skill" it requires to win is entirely dependent on the competition the alliance trying to win faces. There's not a lot you can do to change that.

Also - That post was in reference to bringing the government attack troops as suggested by Elderveld, not your post. Your post doesn't specifically target the R1 alliance.

 

[Chris_]

WARNING: THIS POST MAY BE SARCASTIC

Nah, the best way to fix bounty would be to increase page loading times. You want 76% bounty? Enjoy a 9 minute 50 second loading time for your military page and then 76 popups about dating sites and cheap viagra.

 

[Zaheen]

You sure eat an extra portion of Weetabix before you thought about that response, didn't you Chris?

I am impressed.

 

[Chris_]

You sure eat an extra portion of Weetabix before you thought about that response, didn't you Chris?

I am impressed.

WARNING: THIS POST MAY BE SARCASTIC

Nah, the best way to fix bounty would be to increase page loading times. You want 76% bounty? Enjoy a 9 minute 50 second loading time for your military page and then 76 popups about dating sites and cheap viagra.

I fixed it for you.

 

[willymchilybily]

toby and cf best sum up the main bones i have with the suggestion, although the intended aim of the suggestion is a worthy one (to make playing honourable/dishonourable more meaningful, or encourage discourage respectively) i think these suggestions are noot the solution to the problem. And unfortunately i cannot contribute a solution to the problem. because everything i have ever heard or discussed on the subject leads to the logical conclusion that it would not work and would do more harm to the game than benefit. though i think cf or some one suggested an alternative to you bounty on defence idea around the concept of making people not care if they are being bashed ...see below


-ve h/f causes:

reduced seeds
anything that makes it harder for rank 1 to pull away or keeps them in range of the lower ranks is bad from what i see as the biggest complaint is bashing and such suggestion increase bashing.(yes i know its not a suggestion at aimed at rank 1 but it will always affect rank 1 as when they run out of targets they inevitably bash any one in range to scramble more land)

reduced firepower
complicates an already difficult to to get into game. further alienating newcomers

bounty from defending red titles
id go with increase insurance over bounty. you should never profit. but scaled insurance is by far the best solution to this ive heard. not on red title basis alone more on the attack range. ergo to properly kill some one you cant hit them at 30% as they lose alot less. though whether the concept would improve the game or keep people in range for longer frustrating them. i dont know.

reducing targets imo bad. people will still chose to play dishnourably. limiting targets is what got us in this state of bashing dying staying in range and more perpetual bashing from same alliance. which caused a vicious cycle of smallr player base= more bashing for those that stay = mopre leave and so on. so even if it looks good in principle i think limiting targets kills this game. in any context

 

[Max]

Hi Zah!

I completely agree with your goal - to make having a red title more meaningful.

But I think rather than clamping down on the evildoers, we should further encourage the rise of the vigilante

By positivey re-inforcing the role of bounty hunters, people SHOULD be able to make a dent in the top alliance. I've seen solos do it, I've seen second ranked alliances do it. It's perfectly capable of working as a good deterrent... but perhaps we simply need an increase on the bounty gained in such attacks?

I quite liked the addition of the "big boy bounties" and I think enhancing the gains for bounty hits rather than punishing the perpetrators is a better approach.

 

[tobapopalos]

I don't think we need any more encouragements.

Base bounty
Most rank 1 players have massive bounty
Alliance bounty
Adrenaline rush
+3% alliance score for honour
+defending score for honour

If people still aren't willing to hit rank 1 then it is player laziness, not lack of incentive.

The fact that it IS possible for bounty hunters to put a dent in rank 1 shows that we do not need more changes in that direction.

 

[Dax]

Just to add, alliance titles add nothing to bounty anymore.

EDIT: Raising the land cap on >40%/>35% could be a fair way of maybe averting a little more, whilst shielding smaller alliances from rank 1 train tactics.

 

[tobapopalos]

Ah. So what is the point of alliance titles then? :?

 

[Davs]

Ah. So what is the point of alliance titles then? :?

bragging rights? General interest?

 

[Dax]

Ah. So what is the point of alliance titles then? :?

bragging rights? General interest?

There isn't one? There used to be a compounded bounty bonus on all members depending upon the alliance's general actions - Though it was absolutely panned, and was removed about the time when H/F in general was removed.

 

[Dimitar]

L/F sounded so much better

 

[Dax]

L/F sounded so much better

So true, brah.

 

[Elderveld]

I don't think we need any more encouragements.

Base bounty
Most rank 1 players have massive bounty
Alliance bounty
Adrenaline rush
+3% alliance score for honour
+defending score for honour

If people still aren't willing to hit rank 1 then it is player laziness, not lack of incentive.

The fact that it IS possible for bounty hunters to put a dent in rank 1 shows that we do not need more changes in that direction.

Ever wonderd why the players are lazy in trying to hit rank 1?
Yes, cause it is not worth while spending time in it.

Even whit a bunch of people (at least 10) you'd have a chance of killing him on his own. Then u have to be lucky that the targets gets no defence. And u have to be VERRY lucky the targets is offline and will not be contacted.

The chances of that all together for a succes is slim to nothing.

 

[tobapopalos]

Those issues can not be solved with this idea.

 

[Alcibiades]

The only good idea from the OP, was the possibility of collecting bounty off of red titled defenders. otherwise the idea is rubbish.

 

[willymchilybily]

@ alcibiades. i dont think the ability to gain bounty on defence is good. it sounds okay. but say you killed off rank 1incoming that was suiciding on defence. and gained alot of funds. your score gets boosted. and you may give them more targets to bash, and exacerbate the incoming to a point where it becomes unmanagable.... you should never gain more than you can lose. which bounty could create. plus coding is sarguably a little more complex to determin % gains.

insurance proportional to attack range is betterIMO, as it makes large incoming less scary as you lose less troops (higher insurance returns due to overwhelming size) and offsets the fact that rank 1 can suicide hit rank 2/3 etc. because thier land is so much larger and they recoup losses quicker.

also bounty is gained instantly insurance has a time lag. which i think is necessary for fairness.

 

[Davs]

@ alcibiades. i dont think the ability to gain bounty on defence is good.

I'm just going to cut in here, I think Alci meant the attacker can gain additional bounty for the troops of any defenders who have a bounty on their heads...

 

[willymchilybily]

indeed it does seem thats what alcibiades meant. just the original post the one which was "the only good idea" suggest defenders get bounty of red tittled attackers. or am i just miss reading?

 

[Alcibiades]

@ alcibiades. i dont think the ability to gain bounty on defence is good.

I'm just going to cut in here, I think Alci meant the attacker can gain additional bounty for the troops of any defenders who have a bounty on their heads...

That's what i meant. If you're attacking a target, and he gets defence from red titled folks, then you can claim their bounty too? Although since you mention it, it could make things wildly imbalanced and lead to some insane RPG massers who could just BH their way to the top. It's easy to see the abuse, now that wily points it out.