Bounty

[moorer]

I am going to suggest that the bounty system is either changed or removed altogether otherwise it will help drive players away from bushtarion because of the style of play it encourages.

Bounty was introduced back in the days of green and red titles (if my memory isn't failing me) to encourage players to attack those in the game who had, through their "dishonourable" actions, placed a bounty on their head.

However, the introduction of base bounty has encouraged the growth of attacks simply sent to kill and collect bounty. Last night, for example, two players in my alliance were killed by straight lethal mobs sent by ID's at least twice their size seeking to collect bounty.

This cannot be the purpose for which bounty was designed. How is this going to encourage players to keep playing bushtarion. Two weeks work building an account only for it to be destroyed in such a manner is, in my opinion, going to drive players away from the game.

I believe that bounty should either be removed from the game completely or, at the very least, should be severely restricted (if not prohibited) for attacks on players less than 75% of your score (I picked that figure arbitrarily). Bounty should reward honourable attacks not encourage dishonourable ones.

Yes, you can say the victim could seek a better alliance, could be contactable 24/7 and could have a better troop set up to deter attacks, but we all know that not everyone chooses to devote their entire life to bushtarion and therefore will not give out their mobile numbers to enable 24/7 contactability. Not everyone can get in a strong alliance, and no matter what your troop setup every route has a nemesis and in any event sheer numbers will tell when the attacker is twice your size.

It should be the aim to develop a game environment that encourages players of all levels of activity and skill to play I believe the current bounty sytem hampers that aim.

How do others feel on this point?

 

[Ahead]

Yeh maybe remove land too, cos people attack me and zero me to steal my land. And I don't like being zeroed

/sarcasm

Surely this is the same principle as your argument? But if someone attacks you for land, you lose your staff AND your land. Therefore it's better for you to just be attacked by pure LETs because you lose less?

Bounty encourages more attacking which, in a war game, can't be all that bad really. If anything I think base bounty should be increased slightly, and a separate bounty rating system should be implemented in conjunction with this - so that bashers and people that hit low etc have an extra bounty on them. This solution could actually make people think twice about attacking low, which could possibly solve the issue in your suggestion to an extent

Perhaps implement a 'Bounty Rating' (similar to l/f), that only has positive values. Similar to the AR mod it drops every tick, but you gain 'Bounty Rating' if attacking under 50%, waving or bashing. Then it could be split up to add extra bounty on top of the base bounty so, for example, a bounty rating of 500-1000 would give you 5% extra bounty, 1500-2000 10% extra etc. I realise l/f was removed for a reason but I think this could be fairly effective. (If this isn't implemented there should be a sliding scale for base bounty imo - so attacking at 30-35% nets you 0-5% max, and attacking at 200%+ could get you up to 50% bounty.)

^ My suggestion taken from another thread.

 

[moorer]

I have no problems with attacks to steal land - as you say that is the point of bushtarion as a game.

I disagree with you on increasing base bounty I don't think increasing base bounty will encourage anything other than more hits at 40% of score for pure bounty reasons. I repeat that I believe the bounty system should not reward dishonourable attacks at all. Yes bounty encourages attacking but surely it should be encouraging honourable attacks not dishonourable.

Your suggestion of the introduction of an additional bounty system for players who attack dishonourably rather highlights the flaw in the original system in that it is rewarding the wrong sort of attacking style which was my point!!

The extract you quote from another thread is of some merit however.

 

[Polo]

This cannot be the purpose for which bounty was designed. How is this going to encourage players to keep playing bushtarion. Two weeks work building an account only for it to be destroyed in such a manner is, in my opinion, going to drive players away from the game.

I suggest harvest moon as an alternate game if you can't handle getting killed.

I believe that bounty should either be removed from the game completely or, at the very least, should be severely restricted (if not prohibited) for attacks on players less than 75% of your score (I picked that figure arbitrarily). Bounty should reward honourable attacks not encourage dishonourable ones.

This is already in place. You get bugger all bounty for attacking at the lower end of your range.

Yes, you can say the victim could seek a better alliance, could be contactable 24/7 and could have a better troop set up to deter attacks, but we all know that not everyone chooses to devote their entire life to bushtarion and therefore will not give out their mobile numbers to enable 24/7 contactability. Not everyone can get in a strong alliance, and no matter what your troop setup every route has a nemesis and in any event sheer numbers will tell when the attacker is twice your size.

Do you seriously want to play a game where nobody ever take losses?

 

[moorer]

Polo I would like to play in a game where the experienced players offer constructive arguments rather than facetious comments.

 

[Polo]

Polo I would like to play in a game where the experienced players offer constructive arguments rather than facetious comments.

You're definitely playing the wrong game then.

Besides, my post was constructive. I suggested an alternative if you don't like the current situation and I told you your suggestion was already in place. Seems pretty constructive to me, anyway.

 

[moorer]

Okay, well to take your point that bounty is minimal at lower score range I would reiterate that, in my opinion bounty should not reward any attacks at less than say 75% of range let alone at lower levels.

Attacks at 30-40% range bring more gripes than any other and here we have a game system that rewards players who attack at that level even if minimally.

If the stated aim is to attract more players then surely we want to create a playing field encouraging the right type of game or do we want a game to develop where all attacks are so one sided?

I can only speak for myself and say that I don't want the game to develop that way.

 

[Ahead]

I agree with Polo.

I have no problems with attacks to steal land - as you say that is the point of bushtarion as a game.

No, the point of the game is to have fun. The secondary purpose is to win I suppose. You win by having the highest SCORE (which can be gained through bribing, converting, or making a profit through bounty attacks). Having the most land does NOT mean you win the round; so your logic is flawed there

I disagree with you on increasing base bounty I don't think increasing base bounty will encourage anything other than more hits at 40% of score for pure bounty reasons. I repeat that I believe the bounty system should not reward dishonourable attacks at all. Yes bounty encourages attacking but surely it should be encouraging honourable attacks not dishonourable.

Refer to Polo's post. Attacking dishonourably already reduces bounty significantly.

 

[harriergirl]

Do you know that they sent let only to collect bounty? They may have taken out your ally mates because they were defending fat targets. What are the routes of the players in question? Maybe they were being zeroed to hopefully open them up for bigger allies to come through and take land.

Just yesterday I took out a thug player 44% of my score simply because he kept sending pbs to defend my pure flak attacks on his ally mate.

I know it's frustrating but I doubt people that much larger than you are attacking for bounty, more likely they are attacking other reasons entirely.

 

[Hobbezak]

I wonder, if you send eta 5 pure SA, does that give you a bounty modifier like sending on a lower eta should?
Maybe Polo, who is even nice enough to suggest new games to unhappy players, could once again be his kind self and answer this?

If it doesn't, I would like to suggest that stealth mobs are calculated just like rushes: Only once your mob is visible (So if you send 1 non-stealth unit, you don't get a modifier), it is considered as sent, and therefore a pure SA-attack would give you the modifier like an eta 1 attack should?

A second question for Polo: How much do you lose if you send pure let at a target in your 40% range?
edit: "Significantly" really says nothing, I would test it myself but I currently don't have any lethals.

 

[f0xx]

Noone really knows the exact figures. From me personal experiance though, you collect REALLY low bounties on targets that are that smaller than you. Something like 1-2% of what you killed, which is really not worthy.

As for the first question, yes, pure SAs recieve less bounty. Again, noone knows the exactly numbers. The current system takes so MANY MANY factors when attacking.

As for the original gripe/suggestion - as Tana said, if those people are that much bigger than your mates, then perhaps they are not coming for bounty. Those people who attack for bounty attack players who are more than 70% of their score.

You should not make such assumptions unless you have some really hard proves to back them up, and you do not have such. And since your gripe/suggestion was completely based on that assumption (which I find incorrect), this whole thread serves no real purpose.

 

[MattM]

I completely agree with moorer; bounty shouldn't be and should never have been an option in this game. I don't like the idea of gaining cash by killing off somebody, the whole point of killing off somebody is to steal their land.

 

[moorer]

I based my opinion on the fact that the two attackers were both in the top 10 for bounty hunting, coincidence? I don't think so.

Just witnessed yet another attack incoming exactly same scenario attacker in top 10 of bounty table sending pure lethals on a player half his size.

I say again that bounty should not be earned on a dishonourable attack however small the bounty level may be.

I don't say changing the bounty system will eradicate such attacks but at least it would not encourage them.

 

[Polo]

I wonder, if you send eta 5 pure SA, does that give you a bounty modifier like sending on a lower eta should?
Maybe Polo, who is even nice enough to suggest new games to unhappy players, could once again be his kind self and answer this?

<3 Hobbe.

Attacks sent ETA 5 or above (I'm not entirely sure whether +eta modifiers count in this or not) gain maximum bounty. ETA 4 attacks have slightly reduced gains. ETA 3, significantly reduced. Etc... So sending SAs ETA 5 over ETA 4 will gain you a minor amount of extra bounty (ETA 5 v ETA 4 is very minor, I think). Stealth has nothing to do with bounty gains.

A second question for Polo: How much do you lose if you send pure let at a target in your 40% range?
edit: "Significantly" really says nothing, I would test it myself but I currently don't have any lethals.

From my experience thus far, you gain around 5% bounty attacking at 40% (rather than 25% bounty).

 

[f0xx]

I belive that Azzer mentioned somewhere that mobs made of 1 type of units gain less bounty. So do mobs which do not have geos in them.

 

[Polo]

I belive that Azzer mentioned somewhere that mobs made of 1 type of units gain less bounty. So do mobs which do not have geos in them.

This is wrong. ETA and attackers'/defenders' sizes are the only things which matter.

 

[f0xx]

The bounty hunter guild likes to see attacks full of different unit types, and real wars - those bounty hunters like blood to be spilled and bounties to be fought for!

I guess I have taken that the wrong way then...

 

[f0xx]

So, just to sum up everything.

Polo is right, the bounty at attacking at 40% of your score, eta 5, is ~5%.

That taking it is a normal attack (ie not a repeat attack). The bounty doesn't seem to be influenced by what kind of units are in the attacking mob (ie no geos in the mob does not decrease the bounty), which doesn't really matter since you are sending an eta 5 attack anyway...

 

[rooney]

If it doesn't, I would like to suggest that stealth mobs are calculated just like rushes: Only once your mob is visible (So if you send 1 non-stealth unit, you don't get a modifier), it is considered as sent, and therefore a pure SA-attack would give you the modifier like an eta 1 attack should

i really disagree, since the biggest advantage of the route is being able to send 4 attacks easily with one of them real and not have the defenders know which one to defend or even if its a real attack, this kind of thing is the reason i play SA route. also, pure LET mobs will contain only 3 unit types and no geos so they already get a massively reduced bounty gain, they dont need anything else taking away from them

 

[No-Dachi]

I agree with Hobbezak. The reason for attacking stealth is to bypass alliance defence, and I don't think that should give bounty. You get to kill offliners, isn't that enough? If you want full bounty you can use your route as everybody else will: full eta 5 attacks to gain most bounty.

This will hopefully reduce the amount of stealth "rushes" or kill mobs, and imo they are adding an additional level of stress/activity demand to the game. It's all fair and cool in a war, but just to kill for bounty? Nah..

Of course, this also means it will be harder to receive bounty off the top players - which may be a bad thing when doing a resistance.