Jump to content

How far we have fallen


ReuKinChe
 Share

Recommended Posts

Geez, I sure hope he consented to this before they hit him. Otherwise, this speaks volumes about what the Farkers are willing to do to their own alliance members. I'll reserve judgment for now though.

  • Upvote 4
  • Downvote 1

orwell_s_1984_oceania_s_currency_by_dungsc127_d97k1zt-fullview.jpg.9994c8f495b96849443aa0defa8730be.jpg

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, this is a thing that was called out as a likelihood from the start of the bounty system as a concept and was proven to be a thing during the tournament (albeit usually in order to circumvent the trade restrictions there).

Who could possibly be surprised at this?

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Sir Scarfalot said:

Yeah, this is a thing that was called out as a likelihood from the start of the bounty system as a concept and was proven to be a thing during the tournament (albeit usually in order to circumvent the trade restrictions there).

Who could possibly be surprised at this?

I think the trend in this thread is more proving a point, rather than being surprised. However, I can definitely see players that have never heard of the bounty system before being surprised when the potential exploits are shown.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Bortwald said:

It is exactly the fact that he consented that is killing the bounty system!

Assuming that is true, why does it appear that he's fighting back? If he did indeed consent, he goofed himself. There's no way the cash they get from the bounties is going to cover the costs of the infrastructure damage inflicted. I don't see how this is anything but a loss for him.

orwell_s_1984_oceania_s_currency_by_dungsc127_d97k1zt-fullview.jpg.9994c8f495b96849443aa0defa8730be.jpg

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As one of the loud mouths here, I gotta say inorder for this guy to have so many high bounties implies he deserves it. Congrats to fark for being the only nations willing to right the wrong. Fark out shines us all

O/Fark

  • Upvote 5
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Big Brother said:

Assuming that is true, why does it appear that he's fighting back? If he did indeed consent, he goofed himself. There's no way the cash they get from the bounties is going to cover the costs of the infrastructure damage inflicted. I don't see how this is anything but a loss for him.

I discussed how to cancel bounty effect, as probably everyone has done.

You have to fight back, or Alex will ban you.

You have to fight against friends, so at the end damages will be less than fighting a real enemy and you can share the bounty. Also fighting with friends assure you that the loot will come back home. Sure, there will be still damages on both front, but still less than if fighting against a real enemy.

You have to fight against 3 friends, so you close all spots for enemies.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The payoff for allowing non-friendly elements to take up your slots is:

a. you are dealt damage by the enemy (-1),
b. you pseudo-provide the enemy with money (-1),

The payoff for allowing friendly elements to take up your slots is:

a. you are dealt damage by friends, (±0)
b. you do not provide the enemy with money (+1),
c. you deprive the people/person who targeted you of their money by it basically being returned to you eventually/kept by friendly elements (+1),

So the damage dealt to you by friends (even if it is greater than the sum of applicable bounties) is still preferable to allowing enemies to take up slots.

Edited by Dio Brando
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Bortwald said:

I discussed how to cancel bounty effect, as probably everyone has done.

You have to fight back, or Alex will ban you.

You have to fight against friends, so at the end damages will be less than fighting a real enemy and you can share the bounty. Also fighting with friends assure you that the loot will come back home. Sure, there will be still damages on both front, but still less than if fighting against a real enemy.

You have to fight against 3 friends, so you close all spots for enemies.

Yeah no, I get that. But what I'm saying is, even fighting friends, even right now, they've done more damage to him than they'll gain from doing said damage. It's a net loss for him personally and for the alliance if they plan on rebuilding him. It also strikes me as defeatist to decide to hit your own alliance member, it implies that they would be incapable of protecting him from actual enemies.

  • Upvote 1

orwell_s_1984_oceania_s_currency_by_dungsc127_d97k1zt-fullview.jpg.9994c8f495b96849443aa0defa8730be.jpg

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Big Brother said:

Yeah no, I get that. But what I'm saying is, even fighting friends, even right now, they've done more damage to him than they'll gain from doing said damage. It's a net loss for him personally and for the alliance if they plan on rebuilding him. It also strikes me as defeatist to decide to hit your own alliance member, it implies that they would be incapable of protecting him from actual enemies.

Bounty hunters will come. If first swarm won't get the bounty it will be even worst, as a new swarm will come after the first.

Fighting against a friend is a net loss. But less than with a real fight against a real opponent. Let's make a (not real but) easy example.

Nation A have a bounty on him.

Nation B is a friend of A, nation C an enemy.

Let's say that both B and C would made and suffer same ammount of damage (quite sure C would do more than B, but go on assuming they do the same).

At the end of the war with A against his friend B, A get beiged.

A suffered 50m of damages, B suffered 50m of damages.

B takes the bounty and the loot. He keep the bounty and some part of the loot to go even: so he keeps for himself 50m.

He than gives back to A 20m. A suffered 30m of damages, B 0 damages.

Now do A against C. A get beiged.

A suffer 50m of damages. C 50m.

C takes the loot and the bounty: so C have a net earn of 20m.

A have a loss of 50m.

 

The math is easy, first war to the alliance means 30m damages, second war to the alliance means 50m damages.

Numbers are surely incorrect, but I think I have explained well my idea on the bounty system

Edited by Bortwald
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Big Brother said:

Assuming that is true, why does it appear that he's fighting back? If he did indeed consent, he goofed himself. There's no way the cash they get from the bounties is going to cover the costs of the infrastructure damage inflicted. I don't see how this is anything but a loss for him.

He's fighting back because if he doesn't its basically slot filling.

LTcxGHN.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Bortwald said:

Bounty hunters will come. If first swarm won't get the bounty it will be even worst, as a new swarm will come after the first.

Fighting against a friend is a net loss. But less than with a real fight against a real opponent. Let's make a (not real but) easy example.

Nation A have a bounty on him.

Nation B is a friend of A, nation C an enemy.

Let's say that both B and C would made and suffer same ammount of damage (quite sure C would do more than B, but go on assuming they do the same).

At the end of the war with A against his friend B, A get beiged.

A suffered 50m of damages, B suffered 50m of damages.

B takes the bounty and the loot. He keep the bounty and some part of the loot to go even: so he keeps for himself 50m.

He than gives back to A 20m. A suffered 30m of damages, B 0 damages.

Now do A against C. A get beiged.

A suffer 50m of damages. C 50m.

C takes the loot and the bounty: so C have a net earn of 20m.

A have a loss of 50m.

 

The math is easy, first war to the alliance means 30m damages, second war to the alliance means 50m damages.

Numbers are surely incorrect, but I think I have explained well my idea on the bounty system

You're missing my point though. Obviously, less damage is preferable to more damage but what I'm saying is that the best possible outcome would be to avoid war entirely. Anything else is always going to be a loss from an economic point of view, regardless of how much is lost.

orwell_s_1984_oceania_s_currency_by_dungsc127_d97k1zt-fullview.jpg.9994c8f495b96849443aa0defa8730be.jpg

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As i see it, it's unlikely that the goal is just to get the bounty and "ward off" bounty hunters. In the war timeline it's clear that the attacking nations intended to deal the maximum damage possible (using full ships to attack instead of just 1 to reduce resistance), and from an economic standpoint it doesn't make sense.

I don't know what caused Fark to do so, but when someone gets big bounties on their head it's suffice to say that the nation in question is either hated or controversial.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

pyCZf0K.png

 

The nuke bounty system is in particular broken. I had $30 million worth of nuke bounties on me. I was able to make a new city, not build any infra in it and then have someone nuke it so we could share the bounty. It shouldn't be this easy to game the system. 

Edited by Smith
  • Upvote 6

C0r3Fye.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Tuanduy1102 said:

As i see it, it's unlikely that the goal is just to get the bounty and "ward off" bounty hunters. In the war timeline it's clear that the attacking nations intended to deal the maximum damage possible (using full ships to attack instead of just 1 to reduce resistance), and from an economic standpoint it doesn't make sense.

I don't know what caused Fark to do so, but when someone gets big bounties on their head it's suffice to say that the nation in question is either hated or controversial.

I agree with you, except the last sentence. I think you underestimate how willing people are to waste millions of fake game money (that doesn't actually matter at all) on bounties, just for shits and giggles. Hell, I've considered slapping a 100 million bounty on people just for the fun of it myself. Some would say that's a waste but it depends on what you value. Regardless, to say that all nations that have bounties on them are hated or controversial seems reductionist to me, it's a generalization and a simplification. There's more than two reasons (like hatred and controversy) to put a bounty on someone.

  • Upvote 2

orwell_s_1984_oceania_s_currency_by_dungsc127_d97k1zt-fullview.jpg.9994c8f495b96849443aa0defa8730be.jpg

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Sir Scarfalot said:

Yeah, this is a thing that was called out as a likelihood from the start of the bounty system as a concept and was proven to be a thing during the tournament (albeit usually in order to circumvent the trade restrictions there).

Who could possibly be surprised at this?

Also note: it literally happened before, exactly like this, and still does, with the treasure system.

Edit: Also, nuclear bounties should stipulate that the nuke hits the most infra-rich city, probably. I'm earnestly surprised bounties made it through the test server with no one realizing you can just nuke a new city for the cash.

Edited by Spaceman Thrax
  • Upvote 5

Slaughter the shits of the world. They poison the air you breathe.

 

~ William S. Burroughs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Killzbob was removed from Fark and attacked for internal reasons that are not a concern of other alliances. In regards to the bounties (which are a bonus) if we are breaking any rules please enlighten me.

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Tuanduy1102 said:

I don't know what caused Fark to do so, but when someone gets big bounties on their head it's suffice to say that the nation in question is either hated or controversial.

Ah yes. The ever so hated/controversial nation of Purple Yui-Land. What have you done this time @Yui? Cakes, hugs, compliments?

BountyYui.png

(I know 1m is not big. But there are other examples for people with larger bounties that weren't meant seriously as well :*)

Edited by Mitsuru
  • Upvote 6
  • Downvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Tuanduy1102 said:

I don't know what caused Fark to do so, but when someone gets big bounties on their head it's suffice to say that the nation in question is either hated or controversial.

I'm loved by all I guess

Shifty! Shifty! Shifty!

d5f84848e700d80edcb4f508fdee059c.jpeg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and the Guidelines of the game and community.