Big Boy Bounties

[Ezekiel]

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.

Amen.

 

[pinpower]

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.

My thoughts exactly. Personally i dont see a problem with the odd suicide attack being able to make a small profit, as like Steve says it isn't sustainable as repeat attacks will have a decreased bounty.

 

[Silence]

Bit of a stagnated argument. I don't like it because profiting off throwing all your troops away is silly, on the other hand resistance is good, prevents the game stagnating. They are both valid arguments.

So I pondered a little and this is what I came up with.

This argument won't go anywhere unless a new concept is added so therefore I would like to suggest that the "counter attack" mechanism is removed or lowered to 1%. So then the little guy will have to at least consider "what if he gets online, I’m risking my acres here".


Just a thought!

 

[Hobbezak]

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.

Actually that's what keeps the round alive for the rest of us who aren't the top ally. I've seen numerous rounds where I was happy that the top grew, so we would finally get out of range, and could actually play the game, instead of being pwnd constantly by bashes at 30-40%.
So not only will you be annoying the top, you'll also keep them smaller, making it easier for them to keep targets in range to bash.

edit: @Silence: You'll get Darksider clones, going solo, massing on rpg, rushing the top, and living off the bounty. Who needs land when you got a constant stream of income?

 

[zhouj]

<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.

It's funny you respond to my comment about you not actually responding to the point being made by again not responding to the point.

MASTERFUL.

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.

You think making people have to be active/contactable for all 76 days is somehow going to make this game more fun for everyone? An active top ally means more incoming for the smaller allies and a more annoying round for the top one.

The fact that this game requires people to wake up at night or lose all their troops is probably half of what's killing it. Why would you want to continue encourage that trend?

It's also irrelevant that the intent wasn't to punish when the effects are clearly biased towards rewarding behavior that shows neither effort nor skill.

 

[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.

It's funny you respond to my comment about you not actually responding to the point being made by again not responding to the point.

MASTERFUL.

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.

You think making people have to be active/contactable for all 76 days is somehow going to make this game more fun for everyone? An active top ally means more incoming for the smaller allies and a more annoying round for the top one.

The fact that this game requires people to wake up at night or lose all their troops is probably half of what's killing it. Why would you want to continue encourage that trend?

It's also irrelevant that the intent wasn't to punish when the effects are clearly biased towards rewarding behavior that shows neither effort nor skill.

I responded to every part of your post, so stop being retarded and just admit it when you have nothing to say instead of trying to be a funny little man in a hut.

 

[MattM]

The fact that this game requires people to wake up at night or lose all their troops is probably half of what's killing it. Why would you want to continue encourage that trend?

Firstly, that's an exaggeration of this adrenaline rush/bounty addition- this has already been covered. Secondly, why on earth not? If everyone only lost troops when they were online it would remove the need for balance in timezone in alliances. Thirdly and finally, yes it does make it more fun- at least for a majority in my opinion.

You think making people have to be active/contactable for all 76 days is somehow going to make this game more fun for everyone? An active top ally means more incoming for the smaller allies and a more annoying round for the top one.

Yes, I do think that people who want to win a game should have to put in the effort throughout. I personally have got tired of alliances winning after one week of little sleep during flak wars.

I don't think this change will alter this situation very much, but I do like the change a lot. It is nice to see an incentive to hit the top alliance. Dealing with all kinds of incoming should be part and parcel of a win.

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.

I agree with this if, as I said previously, that it transpires that the current values are too high for this to be sensible.

 

[Ezekiel]

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.

 

[Davs]

If it gets to the stage where pressure to be contactable 24/7 and insanely active gets too high, then fewer people will play that actively. It may even cause the game to revert to the good ol' days when contactability wasn't as important, and the focus was more on getting a good balance of players from all timezones (or as many as possible).

So although there will be players who may not like it in the time leading up to it, I think the end result could be good for the game.

Although this is a very hypothetical view and quite probably won't be the case, but I can dream.

 

[MattM]

Although this is a very hypothetical view and quite probably won't be the case, but I can dream.

Hear, hear.

 

[Twigley]

edit: @Silence: You'll get Darksider clones, going solo, massing on rpg, rushing the top, and living off the bounty. Who needs land when you got a constant stream of income?

I don't like this aspect of it.

 

[Silence]

edit: @Silence: You'll get Darksider clones, going solo, massing on rpg, rushing the top, and living off the bounty. Who needs land when you got a constant stream of income?

But the incentive to do that is already there, the Darksider clones can exist regardless. My suggestion is preventing the majority doing it quite so often without thought.

 

[zhouj]

The fact that this game requires people to wake up at night or lose all their troops is probably half of what's killing it. Why would you want to continue encourage that trend?

Firstly, that's an exaggeration of this adrenaline rush/bounty addition- this has already been covered. Secondly, why on earth not? If everyone only lost troops when they were online it would remove the need for balance in timezone in alliances. Thirdly and finally, yes it does make it more fun- at least for a majority in my opinion.

First, it's not a description of this change; it's a description of the current state of the game. It takes less than a hour and half for your troops to get zero'd. The high intensity and high time demands for this game are major drawbacks in getting people to continue playing. Second, yes, encouraging LET rushes, in general, is consistent with furthering that trend of needing people to be around and to be on-call. It makes it more fun for a handful of RPG/SO/TL players who will find this change incredibly amazing. It's not going to make an ally lose the round but it will encourage rushing on all levels.

You think making people have to be active/contactable for all 76 days is somehow going to make this game more fun for everyone? An active top ally means more incoming for the smaller allies and a more annoying round for the top one.

Yes, I do think that people who want to win a game should have to put in the effort throughout. I personally have got tired of alliances winning after one week of little sleep during flak wars.

I don't think this change will alter this situation very much, but I do like the change a lot. It is nice to see an incentive to hit the top alliance. Dealing with all kinds of incoming should be part and parcel of a win.

You don't present an argument about WHY it would make the game more fun. Yes, the top ally should have to earn its victory. How does that make it more fun for them to bash everyone even more for 76 days? What you present are normative statements about about a round ("should have to put effort", "should be part and parcel of a win") rather than positive ones about how making changes would make things more fun.

 

[zhouj]

<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.

It's funny you respond to my comment about you not actually responding to the point being made by again not responding to the point.

MASTERFUL.

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.

You think making people have to be active/contactable for all 76 days is somehow going to make this game more fun for everyone? An active top ally means more incoming for the smaller allies and a more annoying round for the top one.

The fact that this game requires people to wake up at night or lose all their troops is probably half of what's killing it. Why would you want to continue encourage that trend?

It's also irrelevant that the intent wasn't to punish when the effects are clearly biased towards rewarding behavior that shows neither effort nor skill.

I responded to every part of your post, so stop being retarded and just admit it when you have nothing to say instead of trying to be a funny little man in a hut.

Typing "asdf" to every post in this forum will, yes, prove that you did imply to reply every post.

 

[MattM]

I said it would make the game more fun for the majority- it certainly makes it more fun for players to have an incentive to rush large targets.

It may not make it more enjoyable for the top alliance- but it definitely should do: if you're getting enjoyment out of putting in 1 week of work for a 76 day round win then that's kind of a shallow outlook. I would suggest that it makes it a much more satisfying win to actually have to put the effort in.

In fact this is true- name me a previous round where the rank 1 alliance doesn't bemoan on here or IRC about a lack of targets or action.

First, it's not a description of this change; it's a description of the current state of the game. It takes less than a hour and half for your troops to get zero'd

This thread is about adrenaline rushing for bounty, correct? There is no way that this comment applies here- one adrenaline rush takes a minimum of 50 minutes, and the circumstances in which these occur would never zero a player. For example- if several rush at once, the bounty gains will be minimal, and each of the small players will not gain anything out of the attack.

The high intensity and high time demands for this game are major drawbacks in getting people to continue playing.

Perhaps you mean *continue playing for the win. I play this game, contribute to the playerbase, buy the P-unit etc. but I don't put in high intensity or large amounts of time and I still enjoy playing. If I didn't, I wouldn't be here. If you don't want to play a game unless you are playing for the win, then you should be prepared to work for it. If a few more incomings is enough to push you over the edge, then I suggest you look elsewhere in the game for enjoyment.

 

[Souls]

Actually that's what keeps the round alive for the rest of us who aren't the top ally. I've seen numerous rounds where I was happy that the top grew, so we would finally get out of range, and could actually play the game, instead of being pwnd constantly by bashes at 30-40%.
So not only will you be annoying the top, you'll also keep them smaller, making it easier for them to keep targets in range to bash.

Moot point. The top will always not plant for the little glimmer of hope that someone will grow into range, and so the ranks under them will always be fighting for whoever gets the privilege to not try and grow in range. The rank 1 alliance will never just be nice enough to let those under them grow, since they want to have fun too, right?

 

[Steve_God]

Another quick test of the new system:

RPG on a Top 10 POM (reason being that I only have 3 left with -2 mod)

Battle Report - Attacking Another Top 10 Player[range] 3,573,892 allied RPG Trooper attacked, killing 478,391 hostile staff.
[range] 22,451,269 hostile Political Mastermind attacked, distracting 3,573,892 allied staff.

Distracted: 3,573,892 [£200,137,952,000] friendlies distracted.
Died: 478,391 [£12,949,627,000] enemies dead.

You gained 22,132 effectiveness.
You gained 3.00 fame.
You gained 11.48 honour.
You earned £3,324,428,232 bounty.

Outcome: pointless for the risk of retal, and definitely not going to earn any repeat bounty hunters much income, (unless they have an NLD targeter of course )


Update:
Same target, 2nd attack.
You gained 12,931 effectiveness.
You gained 1.46 fame.
You gained 8.45 honour.
You earned £1,557,236,415 bounty.

Notice the huge reduction in bounty and honour from the first time!

 

[Hobbezak]

Another quick test of the new system:

RPG on a Top 10 POM (reason being that I only have 3 left with -2 mod)

Battle Report - Attacking Another Top 10 Player
[range] 3,573,892 allied RPG Trooper attacked, killing 478,391 hostile staff.
[range] 22,451,269 hostile Political Mastermind attacked, distracting 3,573,892 allied staff.

Distracted: 3,573,892 [£200,137,952,000] friendlies distracted.
Died: 478,391 [£12,949,627,000] enemies dead.

You gained 22,132 effectiveness.
You gained 3.00 fame.
You gained 11.48 honour.
You earned £3,324,428,232 bounty.

Outcome: pointless for the risk of retal, and definitely not going to earn any repeat bounty hunters much income, (unless they have an NLD targeter of course )

NLD gives far less bounty. If he had hypnos on the other hand...

 

[MacMikey]

Shitty f-117's are still eta 6....

 

[TaO]

Another quick test of the new system:

RPG on a Top 10 POM (reason being that I only have 3 left with -2 mod)

Battle Report - Attacking Another Top 10 Player[range] 3,573,892 allied RPG Trooper attacked, killing 478,391 hostile staff.
[range] 22,451,269 hostile Political Mastermind attacked, distracting 3,573,892 allied staff.

Distracted: 3,573,892 [£200,137,952,000] friendlies distracted.
Died: 478,391 [£12,949,627,000] enemies dead.

You gained 22,132 effectiveness.
You gained 3.00 fame.
You gained 11.48 honour.
You earned £3,324,428,232 bounty.

Outcome: pointless for the risk of retal, and definitely not going to earn any repeat bounty hunters much income, (unless they have an NLD targeter of course )


Update:
Same target, 2nd attack.
You gained 12,931 effectiveness.
You gained 1.46 fame.
You gained 8.45 honour.
You earned £1,557,236,415 bounty.

Notice the huge reduction in bounty and honour from the first time!

Mayb post the values?

Died: 1,020,035 [£6,285,909,200] friendlies dead.

So you did half the damage, and you got like half the bounty?