Big Boy Bounties

[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!

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?

It was early... didn't actually pay any attention to those values... but you're right, it did do less damage, thanks for pointing that out
I'd best do more attacks then to see how many it takes before the repeat attack factor kicks in

 

[willymchilybily]

Hmm who is actually going to be "-2'ed"?

I can only see this being a problem for the rank 1 alliance and even then at this point when they have got this big bounty they have already won the round?
If the round was still going and 2 allies where on top they wouldnt have so much bounty cos they'd be hitting around their range and defending and getting the honour.

I cant see people around rank 200/300 hitting the rank 20 - 100 players alot for bounty either as they are normally inactive.

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.

i completely agree with twigleys first point posted above and would like to add.
because it only really affects rank 1:

• some one attacking you even if rpg that is good against a robo is hitting some one 6 times thiere size
  
• to be in rank one they are contactable
• 
  
• you dont get a 76% bounty overnight... it takes 1/4 - 1/3rd of the round, by which stage rank one is generally set in stone and has little damage overall to the alliance

the only thing that bugs me about it is only rpgs can really get away with it to any signifcant benefit, which is both good(stops abuse) and bad (only affects rpgs/robos, not all routes, kinda a shame)

ps. sorry if some of the points were made before. i know ive skimmmed over some post saying about contactability etc, and could get riddiculous. but cummon rank 1, secured it.....why not leave your **** at alliance hq if you really want a good nights sleep for one night and not get rushed. no bounty at hq. So if they try it they die and gain nothing back. unlikely to get a land loss unless major resistance is still around. and you can afford to score drop some seeds on some watchtowers im sure.

 

[willymchilybily]

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.

just incase you didnt read my last post to the end as this issue seems to be the main one i see in other posts.

a rank one player robo with no competion or resistance, can afford to leave his troops at hq with little fear of an incoming at the hq, as no bounty will be gained (and you can by watch towers) and it would be pretty hard to land you. (obv dont leave your sd's at HQ incase some cheeky thief Adren rushes you with his thief+flak and all your guru players are sleeping too)

 

[Hobbezak]

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.

just incase you didnt read my last post to the end as this issue seems to be the main one i see in other posts.

a rank one player robo with no competion or resistance, can afford to leave his troops at hq with little fear of an incoming at the hq, as no bounty will be gained (and you can by watch towers) and it would be pretty hard to land you. (obv dont leave your sd's at HQ incase some cheeky thief Adren rushes you with his thief+flak and all your guru players are sleeping too)

There are usually solo's just outside top 20, they can still be rushed (-1), which still gives bounty x2. Do you suggest they keep their troops at HQ too?

 

[willymchilybily]

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.

just incase you didnt read my last post to the end as this issue seems to be the main one i see in other posts.

a rank one player robo with no competion or resistance, can afford to leave his troops at hq with little fear of an incoming at the hq, as no bounty will be gained (and you can by watch towers) and it would be pretty hard to land you. (obv dont leave your sd's at HQ incase some cheeky thief Adren rushes you with his thief+flak and all your guru players are sleeping too)

There are usually solo's just outside top 20, they can still be rushed (-1), which still gives bounty x2. Do you suggest they keep their troops at HQ too?

hobbz, to me the whole point is that people are unhappy about being contacted 24/7 because they are rank 1 allie and getting incoming from 'Darksider clones'. Its not like they are going to if your solo you're either online or not online. i doubt anyone one is going to phone you because you have incoming as a solo. But as a solo you also gain AR. so it isnt like some one could attack you ALL the time, like they could an allied person. its still giving them enough incentive to try it. but even then solos bounty i wouldnt expect to be as high as allied person's bounty, because they would be in range of top ranks who would also be looking for easy solo targets. I dont see it affecting solos to the same extent, or being profitable. but i guess yeah its best to consider it, and if you show me some evidence of people doiing it, profitably i'd be impressed.

 

[Hobbezak]

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.

just incase you didnt read my last post to the end as this issue seems to be the main one i see in other posts.

a rank one player robo with no competion or resistance, can afford to leave his troops at hq with little fear of an incoming at the hq, as no bounty will be gained (and you can by watch towers) and it would be pretty hard to land you. (obv dont leave your sd's at HQ incase some cheeky thief Adren rushes you with his thief+flak and all your guru players are sleeping too)

There are usually solo's just outside top 20, they can still be rushed (-1), which still gives bounty x2. Do you suggest they keep their troops at HQ too?

hobbz, to me the whole point is that people are unhappy about being contacted 24/7 because they are rank 1 allie and getting incoming from 'Darksider clones'. Its not like they are going to if your solo you're either online or not online. i doubt anyone one is going to phone you because you have incoming as a solo. But as a solo you also gain AR. so it isnt like some one could attack you ALL the time, like they could an allied person. its still giving them enough incentive to try it. but even then solos bounty i wouldnt expect to be as high as allied person's bounty, because they would be in range of top ranks who would also be looking for easy solo targets. I dont see it affecting solos to the same extent, or being profitable. but i guess yeah its best to consider it, and if you show me some evidence of people doiing it, profitably i'd be impressed.

I've been solo for the large part of the round, and got to 47% bounty, without bashing, without ever attacking under 40%, without repeat attacking, in fact almost without killing anyone. Every time you kill someone at 40% (without being repeat/wave), you lose a total of 180 honour, and you gain 150 fame. So without doing honourable attacks as well, you're on a 50% bounty in maybe a week.

Do you want evidence of how 100% of whatever you kill as an rpg on a PA, results in break-even?
Do you want evidence of how 100% of whatever you kill as an SA on a thug, results in break-even?
I don't think it's hard to imagine anyone rushing with a counterroute, doing equal or more damage as receiving?

And as I said before in here, when you're top 30 (which the highest ranked solo's usually are), you get -1 rushes from people around rank 150 (who do have a decent amount of troops and activity, especially if they don't have any landscore because they live off the bounty).

 

[willymchilybily]

look to me the point about solo's is almost irrelavent, because its not like you cant hit a solo when hes offline or something similar. where as an allaince the member gets defence, thats why rushing is somthing more likely when attacking an allaince.

you could still attack thatsolo, not rush and get the same bounty if they werent online..

but just for arguements sake

1mill rpgs cost £56,000,000,000

if you suicide them you need to make more than that in bounty. as attackign some one much bigger than you could mean you will lose pretty much everything, except maybe some humvees.

47% bounty (including base bounty)
30% insurance for the attacker on top of bounty

56,000,000,000-(56,000,000,000*0.3)=£39,200,000,000 bounty return required

£39,200,000,000/0.47 = £83,404,255,319

so 1mil RPG need to kill £83bill worth of troops to break even. I dont think they are doing enough damage to muster that. and if they send with snipers they are likely to be seen at eta 3(-1) (rushing end of tick) thats 40 minutes instead of 60 minutes....its little difference to not rushing in terms of if the player is online you arent going to sneak under the radar. and if he's offline it makes no difference what eta you send.

 

[zhouj]

look to me the point about solo's is almost irrelavent, because its not like you cant hit a solo when hes offline or something similar. where as an allaince the member gets defence, thats why rushing is somthing more likely when attacking an allaince.

you could still attack thatsolo, not rush and get the same bounty if they werent online..

but just for arguements sake

1mill rpgs cost £56,000,000,000

if you suicide them you need to make more than that in bounty. as attackign some one much bigger than you could mean you will lose pretty much everything, except maybe some humvees.

47% bounty (including base bounty)
30% insurance for the attacker on top of bounty

56,000,000,000-(56,000,000,000*0.3)=£39,200,000,000

£39,200,000,000/0.47 = £83,404,255,319

so 1mil RPG need to kill £83bill worth of troops to break even. I dont think they are doing enough damage to muster that. and if they send with snipers they are likely to be seen eta 3(-1) (rushing end of tick) thats 40 minutes instead of 60 minutes....its little difference to not rushing in terms of if the player is online you arent going to sneak under the radar. and if he's offline it makes no difference what eta you send.

Did you not read how rushing -1 and -2 multiplies bounty 2x and 2.5x respectively?

SERIOUSLY?

 

[Hobbezak]

look to me the point about solo's is almost irrelavent, because its not like you cant hit a solo when hes offline or something similar. where as an allaince the member gets defence, thats why rushing is somthing more likely when attacking an allaince.

you could still attack thatsolo, not rush and get the same bounty if they werent online..

ffs, you can't. My whole point is that you get your bounty x2 for that rush, not that you get that decreased eta, because as you say, that's irrelevant for the solo.

but just for arguements sake

1mill rpgs cost £56,000,000,000

if you suicide them you need to make more than that in bounty. as attackign some one much bigger than you could mean you will lose pretty much everything, except maybe some humvees.
47% bounty (including base bounty)
30% insurance for the attacker on top of bounty

56,000,000,000-(56,000,000,000*0.3)=£39,200,000,000

£39,200,000,000/0.47 = £83,404,255,319

so 1mil RPG need to kill £83bill worth of troops to break even. I dont think they are doing enough damage to muster that. and if they send with snipers they are likely to be seen at eta 3(-1) (rushing end of tick) thats 40 minutes instead of 60 minutes....its little difference to not rushing in terms of if the player is online you arent going to sneak under the radar. and if he's offline it makes no difference what eta you send.

47% bounty x 2 for rushing -1= 94 %
39.2b / .94 = 41b.

Now we take the 41b/ original 56b -> You need to do at least 73% of the damage done on you.
I can tell you that most counterroutes can pull that off on a much larger opponent, as long as they fire first.

edit: Apparently, while I was checking my own ratios with those of CF on certain routes, zhouj already said what I wanted to say ^^

 

[willymchilybily]

ah, i obviously didnt understand so attacking eta -1 and -2 DOUBLES the amount of bounty you get... i just thought it prevented it being less than normal.

/me looks for a nice offline solo

but seriously thats a bit odd. i mean i know rushing 1 unit type will reduce the gains you get anyway. but i had no idea rush attacking gives an additional bounty gain.

news and updates says

* Adrenaline rush no longer counts against you in bounty gains - if your mob is an eta 5 mob, and you get an adrenaline rush of -2 to ETA 3 - for bounty calculation purposes, it is still treated as an eta 5 mob.

says nothing about double bounty for hitting up and rushing!! where does it mention that?

 

[Hobbezak]

Azzer took it off the portal. Does this mean it hasn't been implemented?

 

[Azzer]

Oh, bugger, think I sent it to messages from admin but forgot to add it to portal news, sorry!

 

[willymchilybily]

now i get what the hole thread, is about... there was nothing in forums but this thread. nothing on overview and nothing in portal news.

...I guess just more reason to play honourable. but i guess it may be a step to far experience will show if it is.

though i'd prefer the bounty multiplier to be based on the range above you, you hit. and adrenalin rushing simply to not affect the bounty gains.... in this way you are not encourage to attack specifically those much biogger than you but EVERY ONE from 70% of your score upwards. and If they have been dishonourable enough then they will have a high enough bounty to make sure with the multiplier you can attack them and its worth your while.

If it was done like this all it would mean is every one with a bounty on thier head could have people potentially trying to get it.... not just be TOOO big for it to be gotten and not worry. SO i like the idea of making all ranges with bounty accessable to all the player base.

an example:
if the multiplier was something like if attacking OVER 100%
bounty gained * [(thier score/your score)^0.5]<---multiplier based on relative size

100% of your score = no multiplier
150% of your score =bounty * 1.22
200% of your score =bounty * 1.41
300% of your score =bounty * 1.73 (-1 adren rush possible, doesnt affect bounty)
500% of your score =bounty * 2.23 (-1 adren rush possible, doesnt affect bounty)
700% of your score =bounty * 2.65 (-2 adren rush possible, doesnt affect bounty)

im not saying these numbers are perfect but just manipulate the 0.5 higher or lower to give values that are more acceptable if these ones arent

 

[Cheese]

Isn't the current system pretty much simular to what you are suggesting...
e.g. you adren rush someone and you get a bounty because they are bigger.
Your suggestion is just a bit too complicated

 

[willymchilybily]

Isn't the current system pretty much simular to what you are suggesting...
e.g. you adren rush someone and you get a bounty because they are bigger.
Your suggestion is just a bit too complicated

complicated...lol? for real?

it just seems a bit silly. To encourage rushing and not encourage just trying to take down people bigger than you of all sizes. that are being dishonourable. whether you can rush them or not.

it allows everyone in affect to bounty hunt if the target is dishonourable enough, irrelivant of size. and removes the necessity to rush to get the bonus. Just seemed a more logical way to achieve a similar if not more all-encompassing thing. for example some one could attack some one twice thier size and still benefit from the multiplier giving just enough extra to allow it to be profitable.

but maybe you're right it could get complex, as after all you would need to put a cap on the maximum bounty multiplier. else some one with barely any land and like 1000 rpgs could attack a top ten robo and gain riddiculous bounty due to thiere relative sizes giving too large a bounty multiplier.

 

[Davs]

Isn't the current system pretty much simular to what you are suggesting...
e.g. you adren rush someone and you get a bounty because they are bigger.
Your suggestion is just a bit too complicated

complicated...lol? for real?

it just seems a bit silly. To encourage rushing and not encourage just trying to take down people bigger than you of all sizes. that are being dishonourable. whether you can rush them or not.

it allows everyone in affect to bounty hunt if the target is dishonourable enough, irrelivant of size. and removes the necessity to rush to get the bonus. Just seemed a more logical way to achieve a similar if not more all-encompassing thing. for example some one could attack some one twice thier size and still benefit from the multiplier giving just enough extra to allow it to be profitable.

but maybe you're right it could get complex, as after all you would need to put a cap on the maximum bounty multiplier. else some one with barely any land and like 1000 rpgs could attack a top ten robo and gain riddiculous bounty due to thiere relative sizes giving too large a bounty multiplier.

I get the impression you kinda missed the point of this gripe.

The purpose of this gripe was to complain about the new change which allows players to adren rush people in such a way that guarantees them a profit even if they lose all of their troops.

Your proposed solution seems to make this even more likely.

 

[willymchilybily]

I get the impression you kinda missed the point of this gripe.

The purpose of this gripe was to complain about the new change which allows players to adren rush people in such a way that guarantees them a profit even if they lose all of their troops.

Your proposed solution seems to make this even more likely.

With the introduction of the big boy bounties this means that people could go against their weak route and still atleast break even if not profit. This needs to be removed or reduced significantly.

im not setting any limits or values, it can be adjusted to suit the desired affect. im merely saying its silly to tie such extra bounty gains in directly to adrenalin rushing only.

if its azzers intention to give more incentive to resist the higher ranks (who have no choice but to attack at lower ranges/dishonourably when they are rank 1) then maybe something more realistic and effective, and open to all. that can be tuned to give a nice balance. not something that just incourages people to adrenalin thiere weaker route for some easy bounty gains.

its only my suggestion in a relavent thread, whether its pandering to the orignal gripe or not it seemed like the best place to post it...if you want to give feedback on my alternative suggestion maybe just 'i do/dont like it because....' would help me understand whats wrong/right with the suggestion. and as i said my values are not set in stone, its simply in my opinion a more effective game mechanic to achieve azzers goals.

i cant state personal views on the current values as i am still yet to see the information from an official source. just the gossip of the forums. theres still nothing on news/updates/manual/overview i can go on to make a fair judgement on whether the values of bounty bonuses are too much....i dont dislike the concept though. far from it. but the values may or may not be appropriate

 

[Hobo]

not really sure i like the new changes as well.
I came back to the round to give the new bounty system a go and try to get a decent bounty score. Now i have been in sleep for a week, so dropped back considerably, but spying around its kinda obvious i am gonna need to restart as an rpg ( I am SA)

as far as I can see its the only route thats gonna be effective at rushing.

kinda a shame!

 

[Hobbezak]

not really sure i like the new changes as well.
I came back to the round to give the new bounty system a go and try to get a decent bounty score. Now i have been in sleep for a week, so dropped back considerably, but spying around its kinda obvious i am gonna need to restart as an rpg ( I am SA)

as far as I can see its the only route thats gonna be effective at rushing.

kinda a shame!

SA vs thug would seem highly effective as well... :/

 

[Hobo]

yeah

but there arent that many!

though loads of armour about this round!