Big Boy Bounties

[zhouj]

(BTW, you're so not biased at all with the bounty, seeing as you're RPG and there's a bunch of top robos, right? Right.)

Didn't say if I'm in favour of it or not, I'd just stated from experience that the top alliance has a tendancy to complain in every situation (and I also didn't rule myself out in that one! lol)

Everyone complains, as I noted, so it's really a non-unique argument, which doesn't really need to be pointed out.

And your implication clearly was that this was just rank 1 alliance complaining because they were rank 1.

 

[Ram]

So what you're saying is..

It's okay that I as a tiny person can take down a top 10 player?

as 3mil rpg can take down a top 10 player :roll:

That 3m turns to 3.5m that 3.5m turns to 4.2m that 4.2m turns to 5m ect ect.

 

[TaO]

Nobody (excluding tools like Ezekiel) was saying that at all, BigBoss, maybe you'd care to actually read people's posts.

Okay he didn't say.. "I can take down a top player"

But with a 150+% bounty on someone, you can rush rush rush them with ETA1 non stop..
And by doing so you can actually kill quite alot of someone.

So what you're saying is..

It's okay that I as a tiny person can take down a top 10 player?

as 3mil rpg can take down a top 10 player :roll:

3mill RPG can't.. but with the bounty made he can get another 3.5million
then he attacks an other robo in top 10.. gets more bounty, get 4m RPG.
Attack next armor guy in top 10, and get 5m RPG... and so on..

What i'm trying to say is..
This as it is now, is just encouraging suicide attacks in which people don't suicide..

 

[Ezekiel]

Ezekiel you're funny... From all of your older posts i'm not even gonna read a single line of the posts you made in here..
I'm pretty sure it goes like this..
Person A; say something
Ezekiel; No you're wrong and i'm right
PersonA; That's not what i said
Ezekiel; Yes you did, and if not, i'm still right!

Well maybe you should read so you don't look like an idiot.

/argument

RPGs are ETA4, actually. Funny you'd /argument on a misleading post.

If you want to think bandaids cure cancer, good luck. You'll need it with your terrible genes.

Doesn't matter what ETA, its not ETA5, so it's going to be reduced. Keep clutching at them straws.

Nobody (excluding tools like Ezekiel) was saying that at all, BigBoss, maybe you'd care to actually read people's posts.

Quote may saying that. Go on.

And still, you lot do the classic arguing technique where you pick out one point and debate it and ignore the other points I made that. If you want to argue with my own opinion then at least do it properly. And with out the childish insults? Makes it look like you are struggling to come up with a decent argument.

 

[MattM]

Nobody (excluding tools like Ezekiel) was saying that at all, BigBoss, maybe you'd care to actually read people's posts.

Okay he didn't say.. "I can take down a top player"

But with a 150+% bounty on someone, you can rush rush rush them with ETA1 non stop..
And by doing so you can actually kill quite alot of someone.

What i'm trying to say is..
This as it is now, is just encouraging suicide attacks in which people don't suicide..

Presumably after a couple of hits the bounty is severely decreased due to the repeat attacks and it becomes non-cost-effective? I'd hope this was the case anyway, as you're right in this regards. (Also the other player would grow somewhat and lose the -2... )

 

[TaO]

Ezekiel you're funny... From all of your older posts i'm not even gonna read a single line of the posts you made in here..
I'm pretty sure it goes like this..
Person A; say something
Ezekiel; No you're wrong and i'm right
PersonA; That's not what i said
Ezekiel; Yes you did, and if not, i'm still right!

Well maybe you should read so you don't look like an idiot.

/argument

RPGs are ETA4, actually. Funny you'd /argument on a misleading post.

If you want to think bandaids cure cancer, good luck. You'll need it with your terrible genes.

Doesn't matter what ETA, its not ETA5, so it's going to be reduced. Keep clutching at them straws.

Nobody (excluding tools like Ezekiel) was saying that at all, BigBoss, maybe you'd care to actually read people's posts.

Quote may saying that. Go on.

See what I mean?
I am posting something which is negative about you, and you pick a side already.. That's why most people can't be arsed about what you say

 

[Steve_God]

So what you're saying is..

It's okay that I as a tiny person can take down a top 10 player?

as 3mil rpg can take down a top 10 player :roll:

That 3m turns to 3.5m that 3.5m turns to 4.2m that 4.2m turns to 5m ect ect.

And then the difference in size means that they loose the mod that they needed to make it profitable

Edit: MattM beat me too it

 

[atsanjose]

So what you're saying is..

It's okay that I as a tiny person can take down a top 10 player?

as 3mil rpg can take down a top 10 player :roll:

That 3m turns to 3.5m that 3.5m turns to 4.2m that 4.2m turns to 5m ect ect.

And then the difference in size means that they loose the mod that they needed to make it profitable

lets suggest that the repeat attack ticker doesnt count when you have a red title!

 

[Steve_God]

[...snip...]
lets suggest that the repeat attack ticker doesnt count when you have a red title!

Ermmm... not sure if that's the case or not?
*goes to re-read the honour/fame stuff*

Edit:

Honour can be lost through activities such as attacking people considerably smaller than yourself, or repeatedly picking on the same individual. The more successful you are in these particular activities, the higher the honour losses can be.

From that it would appear that it's still the case

 

[Ezekiel]

See what I mean?
I am posting something which is negative about you, and you pick a side already.. That's why most people can't be arsed about what you say

What the hell are you on about pick a side? You want me to side with you against myself? You post some drivel inferring I don't listen when if you read my posts you'd see all I do is reply to quotes about the point whoever is making. Climb of my nuts gorgeous.

 

[Dark_Angel]

So all i see is that this means more people will be encouragaed to attack rank 1 and deal out some damage. I personally don't see that as a bad thing.

agreed

-

I think rewards for resisting are a good thing.

agreed

-

Not sure how this helps the resistance actually get its act together with organizing...

You can't organise anything unless you have participants. And you don't have participants if you don't have incentive to attack. Sometimes "we need to bring down rank 1" isn't a good enough reason to encourage people from rank 3+ alliances, they're far more concerned with securing a top 5 finish.

As I said to Azzer when discussing the possible implementation of this mechanism player-participation in resistances is a fairly difficult thing to achieve (as is evident this round).

You can get a vast number of players to take part but in a lot of cases a lot of attacks, even successful ones, those doing the resisting are more out of pocket than those being targetted.

It is this fear of failing/marginally winning that puts a lot of people off borrowing their troops to resistance efforts. This implementation has made taking part a lot more viable amongst those who, and this is key, want to take part but don't want to risk losing copious amount of troops/score for the generally quite low chance of doing any real damage.

-

Resistance aside, this will ensure rank 1 have to work a bit harder to secure their position (perhaps not as an alliance, but individual members - who will have to do more than sit and count funds for the remainder of the round).

 

[TaO]

Hey!
We do more then just sit and count our funds

How do you think we maintain those red titles?
We make sure nobody gets near us..
Its hard

 

[Cheese]

I see a terrible player thinking it's great because now he can rush with -2 ETA mod and get some easy bounty.

Wrong. I haven't sent one rush and I doubt I will, i'm hardly a bounty hunting route/setup. And it's far from easy, with 8+ defenders is it? Only need one defender with some cheap LET flak to ruin it anyway. And use the word terrible as much as you want, even though the only terrible thing in this thread is how predictable it was.

8+ defenders? Are you trying to be even dumber than you already are? The entire point of an -2 ETA rush sent end of tick, or stealth for that matter, is that it's basically impossible to defend. Good luck finding proper ETA1/2 LETs to defend with.

Hmm...
Humvees / Jeeps - when in the rank 1 ally 50m-100m of these can really alter any incomings results.
Apaches - eta 3 -1 with defence boost, do I need to explain your route for you?
Petrols - eta 3 -1 with defence boost. Very cheap and can do a nice amount of damage
Harrier - eta 3 -1 with defence boost. May die easy but also kill nicely
Werewolf - good flak
Siren - will stun the incoming = very effective.

Or let me guess none of these are proper LETs as you can't admit to being wrong.

Now, if your infantile mind can comprehend this, before with bounties, it would be very difficult to break a profit, even hitting a target with 71% bounty. When you multiply that 2x or 2.5x, even with the penalty for not sending ETA5, it becomes absurdly easy. Early inits are balanced with the caveat that they will be able to kill less troops than their cost. When you massively change bounties to completely override that, it becomes trivial to LET rush.

I wonder if you weren't in the top 10 would you have this same opinion? I highly doubt it.
As people have said already there are very few people who can do any proper damage who can actually get a -2 boost! Lets say there is 1,000 people playing the game the only people this can have any negative impact on are the top 20. 20 out of 1000 aint a lot.
Azzer has always wanted to give incentives to hit the top and this is just one of them. You think this was bad, try round 8 when CRA was implimented where you got random incoming from the government, now that is something to cry about.
Listen please zhouj you got given ears so use them.

It's a bandaid change to the fundamental flaws of a high intensity game. It further moves the game towards requiring contactability and, while it may lengthen next round, it will probably just burn more people out. Not to mention, it also doesn't really inspire a resistance, especially since resistances should probably happen when your targets aren't at 700% of you.

No. Ranks 2 and 3 already have to be this contactable and this burnt out to defend against a massive rank 1 ally. This means you just have to be as contactable as us. Seems fair.

And we shouldn't resist? Ok why don't we just all delete and let you 20 sit there for the rest of the round then on your own.

Good job trying to straw man the argument. First, the point was that it made the game require even more contactability and didn't solve its major problems. Your response is completely irrelevant to that. Extending the round does nothing for that problem for anyone.

The second point was that the new bounty system does very little, if anything, to help resistances succeed or help them organize, when it requires the top alliance to have people 300% or 700% of the primary resisters. How you got "don't resist" out of that, intelligent people will never know.

Um actually you are quite wrong zhouj, a resistance doesn't need to be 20 ids sending at 1 id, some very carefully placed rushes can be much more effective. Specially when very few of the top ally have decent staff. The majourity of the active ones just keep buying flak to try steal my land

Uh, a RPG would definitely get the 2.5x boost in bounty if he rushed toby at -2 or the 2.0x boost with -1.

Without the 67% extra the chance of breaking even or profiting on a suicide run is small. That was the point of that quote. Besides, if i'm getting that big a rush, I don't have anywhere near the troops the target does, so I hardly see it being a massive problem.

67% extra? You must fail at math. The problem is that it does nothing except create more annoying LET rushes.

For a start toby is nanos, an RPG won't do that much damage to him in the first place. And another point is who the hell has more than 2-3m RPG that can get a -2 rush on toby? Seriously.

 

[Ezekiel]

Don't worry Cheese, even if they are talking complete horse sh!t and all you're replies are correct, they'll just ignore your points, call you a name, a sit there grinning like the imbeciles that they are.

 

[zhouj]

<lots of straw man arguments>

 

[tobapopalos]

I agree with zhouj on this. I'm not in the top alliance, so please don't try and use that as an excuse to discredit my arguments. I don't have a red title, so I'm not trying to get away with bashing little folks. In fact I'm the type of person who would usually do pretty well out of a change like this.

I really don't like the idea that you can just send an attack and not even bother if you lose all your troops. You shouldn't be able to make a profit while zeroing yourself. It seems totally contrary. I think it takes all the skill out of bounty hunting, and cheapens the rank as a whole. It's like bounty hunting for dummies :/

Any noob can send a pure RPG mob with -2 at a big robo and make profit even though they lose all their troops. It doesn't make sense.

 

[Hobbezak]

What people seem to be forgetting here, is that this doesn't solely apply for attacks on the rank 1 alliance. Sure, you won't get a -2 on ranks 20-40, but I know that last night, even rank 150 got a -1 on me, and I'm not in the top ally.

So what we encourage here, is low ranked people rushing top ranked players.
Let's take a step back, and see what this will accomplish:
1. You're a high ranked solo robo. You get rushed by an rpg everytime your ar mod allows it.
2. You're a high ranked allied RPG. You get rushed by TL everynight. Impossible to defend.

So, the victims of these rushes have 2 possibilities: Either be contactable 24/7, or continuously lose troops every night. A bit like what bikers did to poms back in the old days: Bikers weren't terribly effective, but they'd kill a few mil every night, resulting in a fair bit of losses when you looked at it over a longer period of time.

Result: Either the top player gets burnt out from being contactable 24/7, or he gets bored of losing troops to little shrimps every night. Either way, the top player will quit active play.

@Cheese: Sure, jeeps and humvee can provide for good flak. But in the case of an SA rush for example, you got 10 minutes to get those players with jeeps or humvee, on... That x2 modifier for -1 rushes, will make an SA rush probably worth your while on a TL or RPG. Fun times.

And @whoever said to retal: You'll get rushes from your counterroute, so retalling (especially on a solo) will not be the interesting option. And to retal, you have to be online.

I personally think this change is ridiculous, yet another way to punish whoever puts in the effort.

 

[Ezekiel]

<lots of straw man arguments>

Tada. Who'd of guessed it. No argument, just nonsense. Zhouj you fail at arguing so bad is painful. If you have nothing to add then be quiet.

I agree with zhouj on this. I'm not in the top alliance, so please don't try and use that as an excuse to discredit my arguments. I don't have a red title, so I'm not trying to get away with bashing little folks. In fact I'm the type of person who would usually do pretty well out of a change like this.

I really don't like the idea that you can just send an attack and not even bother if you lose all your troops. You shouldn't be able to make a profit while zeroing yourself. It seems totally contrary. I think it takes all the skill out of bounty hunting, and cheapens the rank as a whole. It's like bounty hunting for dummies :/

Any noob can send a pure RPG mob with -2 at a big robo and make profit even though they lose all their troops. It doesn't make sense.

Am I missing something here? The point about red titles wasn't about the fact it was those people posting, it was that fact that if you don't have a red title, you don't get some huge bounty . You get 2.5x base bounty which is 5%. So you wouldn't break even. Or am I getting something wrong?

Also i'd just like to point out in my FIRST post I said the figures will need to be changed. But i don't see how tailoring the changes around people with 67% bounty on them makes sense.

 

[Cheese]

<lots of straw man arguments>

Very intelligent post zhouj. Bravo!

What did I say? Can't admit when he's wrong. Lol prove my point some more please it's quite amusing.

 

[Davs]

The idea of this isn't to punish those who put in the effort, but to force them to keep up a level of effort to make them keep their rank. I certainly don't speak for myself when I say that I'm a bit bored of the rank 1 alliance getting too big to defeat and then just sits there gaining seeds - occasionally pummelling the poor souls who accidentally creep into their range.

That being said, I also agree with toby that you shouldn't be able to profit from suiciding.

I propose that the multipliers get reduced to say 1.5 and 1.75 for -1 and -2 respectively (maybe less). That way, the person sending the rush will get fewer overall losses (thus providing more incentive to attack the top) whilst still preventing them profit.

Please note, I haven't done any calculations to find ideal multiplier values, I just guessed - so apologies if these figures would still cause a similar effect.

EDIT: To Zhouj, Cheese and Ezekiel - just stop talking.