Jump to content

Bounty Removal


Ukunaka
 Share

Recommended Posts

 I think it would be cool if there was a way to remove bounties from yourself by paying 1.5x or 2x the bounty amount.

• 14 days (or 10) must pass before you can pay off your bounty and doing so will notify the nation that placed a bounty on you, however they will not get their money back.
• You may not be in any wars (defensive or offensive) when paying off a bounty
• You may only pay off bounties on yourself
• (if possible) while in vacation mode days are not removed from the timer required to pay off

I Think with the way the current bounty system works, defending against continuous bounty hunters and defeating them can quickly become more expensive than just letting the first bounty hunter biege you and claim the bounty, this provides an option to get rid of older bounties and Incentivises Defending against bounty hunters instead of just taking the loss to get rid of the bounty. with the 14 day period required it also allows enough time for some bounty hunters to have the opportunity to claim the bounty.

  • Like 1
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

if this seems too extreme to some, i also suggest a possible reduction of the minimum bounties to around 500k (~750k). this also would open up the dynamics of bounties especially to nanos and lower tier micros while simultaneously alleviating some of the reduction of bounties' effectiveness.

Edited by Ukunaka
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Ukunaka said:

 I think it would be cool if there was a way to remove bounties from yourself by paying 1.5x or 2x the bounty amount.

• 14 days (or 10) must pass before you can pay off your bounty and doing so will notify the nation that placed a bounty on you, however they will not get their money back.
• You may not be in any wars (defensive or offensive) when paying off a bounty
• You may only pay off bounties on yourself
• (if possible) while in vacation mode days are not removed from the timer required to pay off

I Think with the way the current bounty system works, defending against continuous bounty hunters and defeating them can quickly become more expensive than just letting the first bounty hunter biege you and claim the bounty, this provides an option to get rid of older bounties and Incentivises Defending against bounty hunters instead of just taking the loss to get rid of the bounty. with the 14 day period required it also allows enough time for some bounty hunters to have the opportunity to claim the bounty.

Just as another idea, perhaps set a 2 week timer for bounties to be claimed, otherwise the money will go to the nation it was set on. That way, not only will nations be rewarded or at least break even for successfully defending against bounty hunters, but also this will discourage people from placing bounties on players they know can't be taken down, such as the current $65,000,000 bounty on Nueva Granada (PnW's largest player). However, the idea about vacation mode putting the 2 week timer on hold would be necessary so that this mechanic would not be abused.

Edited by Chopsuey Cyanide
I have no idea what I'm doing but that doesn't stop me from doing it.

pfp_maybe_1_15.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Chopsuey Cyanide said:

Just as another idea, perhaps set a 2 week timer for bounties to be claimed, otherwise the money will go to the nation it was set on. That way, not only will nations be rewarded or at least break even for successfully defending against bounty hunters, but also this will discourage people from placing bounties on players they know can't be taken down, such as the current $65,000,000 bounty on Nueva Granada (PnW's largest player). However, the idea about vacation mode putting the 2 week timer on hold would be necessary so that this mechanic would not be abused.

I'm not sure that's a good plan; the point of bounties is specifically in order to allow smaller nations the chance to call down thunder on larger nations through the force that other larger nations can bring to bear. Sure, no individual player can reasonably expect to take down Nueva Granada, but it is still very much possible for him to be defeated.

 

Take a few nations with serious raiding experience and enough cities to pull together more than 50% of his military capacity each, and open up the spy operations: first assassinate him to 0-3 spies, then regularly chip his airforce down. Once his air is low enough, jump in right at the very end of a pre-arranged turn, preferably when he's known to be likely asleep, then suicide dogfight airstrikes. 3 air attacks means that the last one has a real chance of IT, and then his tanks are crippled on that front. Now, he really, really needs to not be online when the strikes begin or he could take ground control and then all three fronts are lost even before the counters roll in. Counter the counters ASAP, and then counter the counter counters, and that particular loop can get arbitrarily high so make sure you've got a coalition at your back and more importantly that Nueva Granada doesn't. ...I didn't say it'd be easy, or likely, I said it'd be possible.


 

On 5/4/2018 at 7:02 AM, Ukunaka said:

 I think it would be cool if there was a way to remove bounties from yourself by paying 1.5x or 2x the bounty amount.

• 14 days (or 10) must pass before you can pay off your bounty and doing so will notify the nation that placed a bounty on you, however they will not get their money back.
• You may not be in any wars (defensive or offensive) when paying off a bounty
• You may only pay off bounties on yourself
• (if possible) while in vacation mode days are not removed from the timer required to pay off

I Think with the way the current bounty system works, defending against continuous bounty hunters and defeating them can quickly become more expensive than just letting the first bounty hunter biege you and claim the bounty, this provides an option to get rid of older bounties and Incentivises Defending against bounty hunters instead of just taking the loss to get rid of the bounty. with the 14 day period required it also allows enough time for some bounty hunters to have the opportunity to claim the bounty.

Anyway, paying off bounties... I don't think that's a good idea. The point of bounties, again, is to allow smaller nations the chance to fight against larger nations by creating an incentive for other larger nations to go to war against them. This was used to great effect in the Candles War.

If it's possible to buy off your bounties, even at a markup, then you're forcing smaller nations into a bidding war against someone arbitrarily wealthier than they are, instead of making bounties a viable and meaningful attack option for them. The other alternative use for bounties is for larger nations to attack nations arbitrarily weaker and poorer than they are, only now they have the same advantage of wealth and the poorer nation still isn't going to have a chance in that bidding war.

I also think bounties shouldn't expire, because that just makes them into short-term gambles on the part of the bountier. Right now they're a source for conflict and add depth to the strategic decisions that nations and alliances face. Do they allow the bounty to be claimed? do they claim it themselves? do they defend themselves to the best of their ability, despite the potentially unlimited pirate and rogue forces they can therefore face? Do they break alliance and declare war against their former friends because their old bounties just got too much to ignore? These things would all be lost if bounties could be bought off/expired.

Edited by Sir Scarfalot
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎5‎/‎5‎/‎2018 at 8:25 PM, Sir Scarfalot said:

I'm not sure that's a good plan; the point of bounties is specifically in order to allow smaller nations the chance to call down thunder on larger nations through the force that other larger nations can bring to bear. Sure, no individual player can reasonably expect to take down Nueva Granada, but it is still very much possible for him to be defeated.

Could you explain how this (in reference to my previous post) can prevent smaller nations from utilizing the bounty system in the way it is supposed to? I am all for smaller nations using the bounty system to bring down larger aggressors, or whomever it may be, however I feel that there needs to be some form of reward for someone who manages to defend off bounty hunters. In my opinion, the ability to place a permanent bounty on someone is extremely strong since it can result in an endless stream of attacks from ambitious bounty hunters. Even a bounty of just $1,000,000 can cause the nation to be attacked relentlessly which costs them all kinds of damages. In my opinion, if a nation can survive 2 weeks without losing a single war to a bounty hunter, then they should surely be rewarded. The only flaw I can see with this idea is that if nobody tries to claim the bounty, then the smaller nation is punished which also is not fair; so I'll propose another idea: if a nation with a bounty can successfully defend against 3 bounty hunters, their bounty should be either removed, or fronted to the person it was placed on. This will prevent a skilled player from being continuously punished by the huge target hanging over their head, while also providing a fair opportunity for the smaller nation to defeat their target. In addition to this, I think a personal bounty feature should be added so that a smaller nation could coordinate a 3 man assault against their target; the smaller nation could offer a divided reward to his mercenaries if they are successful in their wars. I believe this will solve the abovementioned issues related to permanent bounties, while also maintaining the strength and purpose they are supposed to have.

Edited by Chopsuey Cyanide
I have no idea what I'm doing but that doesn't stop me from doing it.

pfp_maybe_1_15.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I feel that if you have a bounty on you you should be able to pay it off although still have a history of bounties as they are normally posted for a good reason. Although it is a tool for nations to use strategically. thus if you can pay it off it isn't very effective.

Edited by Sean289
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Chopsuey Cyanide said:

Could you explain how this (in reference to my previous post) can prevent smaller nations from utilizing the bounty system in the way it is supposed to? I am all for smaller nations using the bounty system to bring down larger aggressors, or whomever it may be, however I feel that there needs to be some form of reward for someone who manages to defend off bounty hunters. In my opinion, the ability to place a permanent bounty on someone is extremely strong since it can result in an endless stream of attacks from ambitious bounty hunters. Even a bounty of just $1,000,000 can cause the nation to be attacked relentlessly which costs them all kinds of damages. In my opinion, if a nation can survive 2 weeks without losing a single war to a bounty hunter, then they should surely be rewarded. The only flaw I can see with this idea is that if nobody tries to claim the bounty, then the smaller nation is punished which also is not fair; so I'll propose another idea: if a nation with a bounty can successfully defend against 3 bounty hunters, their bounty should be either removed, or fronted to the person it was placed on. This will prevent a skilled player from being continuously punished by the huge target hanging over their head, while also providing a fair opportunity for the smaller nation to defeat their target. In addition to this, I think a personal bounty feature should be added so that a smaller nation could coordinate a 3 man assault against their target; the smaller nation could offer a divided reward to his mercenaries if they are successful in their wars. I believe this will solve the abovementioned issues related to permanent bounties, while also maintaining the strength and purpose they are supposed to have.

I think you're forgetting the economy of scale here; a bounty of $1,000,000 on a nation at 7 cities and a little over 900 score is well worth the attempt since the financial aspect of the risk is much lower than the amount of military that would be required to risk an assault on a nation at 33 cities and 8000 score. Even if completely successful, a war like that can easily cost hundreds of millions worth in munitions, gas, aluminum, and steel. Ultimately, you can't expect results at all until the ante gets higher than the costs of waging the war in the first place, and that can become obscenely expensive.

The 'endless stream' of bounty hunters isn't endless at all: you either are strong enough to where no-one will take the risk fighting you, or you bank your resources, deconscript your military, and take a loss. Raiders are much, much less common once you and/or your alliance grows larger.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Sir Scarfalot said:

I think you're forgetting the economy of scale here; a bounty of $1,000,000 on a nation at 7 cities and a little over 900 score is well worth the attempt since the financial aspect of the risk is much lower than the amount of military that would be required to risk an assault on a nation at 33 cities and 8000 score. Even if completely successful, a war like that can easily cost hundreds of millions worth in munitions, gas, aluminum, and steel. Ultimately, you can't expect results at all until the ante gets higher than the costs of waging the war in the first place, and that can become obscenely expensive.

The 'endless stream' of bounty hunters isn't endless at all: you either are strong enough to where no-one will take the risk fighting you, or you bank your resources, deconscript your military, and take a loss. Raiders are much, much less common once you and/or your alliance grows larger.

The $1,000,000 bounty instance was just an example, I know that a bounty like that on a 1000 score nation is in most cases not worth it. However, once the ante does build up to a profitable amount, the issues I mentioned previously become apparent again.

Also, I would like to argue that the endless stream I mentioned before is very well present where as long as the bounty hanging on your back exists indefinitely, then raiders will strive to claim it indefinitely. Also, in my other post I said that if a nation manages to defeat 3 ambitious bounty hunters then they should be able to erase the bounty, either by means of complete removal, or redistribution into their nation; however I did not say that they were undefeatable, just that if they can pull off this feat of defending 3 attacks, that there should be some reward for them. There will always be someone willing and capable of attacking you as long as the incentive is temptatious enough, there is no reason why a nation should be forced to take a loss to their record, infra, and resources for the purpose of removing a bounty. I believe my proposal is an easy fix that will solve the major issues with bounties while also maintaining the power they should have.

I have no idea what I'm doing but that doesn't stop me from doing it.

pfp_maybe_1_15.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Sean289 said:

I feel that if you have a bounty on you you should be able to pay it off although still have a history of bounties as they are normally posted for a good reason. Although it is a tool for nations to use strategically. thus if you can pay it off it isn't very effective.

If nations were allowed to pay off their own bounty, then that would prevent smaller nations from using them as their only leverage against larger nations since the larger nation will be able to simply pay off any bounty the smaller nations puts against them. In my other post, I proposed that a bounty should be removed after a nation is attacked x amount of times, I personally suggest 3, but Alex can decide that value if he does happen to implement this change.

I agree with you about keeping a bounty history not only for bounties placed against the nation, but also bounties the nation has put against other players, however this is more of a quality of life change.

I have no idea what I'm doing but that doesn't stop me from doing it.

pfp_maybe_1_15.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Chopsuey Cyanide said:

There will always be someone willing and capable of attacking you as long as the incentive is [tempting] enough

This is true. For that matter it is true even without bounties. And it should never not be true.

2 minutes ago, Chopsuey Cyanide said:

Also, I would like to argue that the endless stream I mentioned before is very well present where as long as the bounty hanging on your back exists indefinitely, then raiders will strive to claim it indefinitely.

While true, the words you're looking for aren't 'strive to' but 'consider attempting to'. It's a matter of risk-management and profit potential.

5 minutes ago, Chopsuey Cyanide said:

if a nation manages to defeat 3 ambitious bounty hunters then they should be able to erase the bounty, either by means of complete removal, or redistribution into their nation; however I did not say that they were undefeatable, just that if they can pull off this feat of defending 3 attacks, that there should be some reward for them.

This would result in the simple strategy of 'bounty removal services', where you hire 3 pirates to attack you, possibly after they've already been wrecked by counters and are about to enter a rebuilding phase, and then the bounty is gone cheaply for all involved. Ultimately, that's just yet another cheap way to avoid what bounties are meant to encourage; which is real, competitive warfare.

8 minutes ago, Chopsuey Cyanide said:

there is no reason why a nation should be forced to take a loss to their record, infra, and resources for the purpose of removing a bounty. I believe my proposal is an easy fix that will solve the major issues with bounties while also maintaining the power they should have.

There is a reason: removing the odious bounty. Bounties are an attack, they put the victim between a rock (losing wars/getting nuked) and a hard place (living under greater threat due to bounties). Bounties are already often removed by having friends or allies do an attack then deconscripting units to make the war even cheaper, and then the bounty actually helps the victim.

  • Like 1
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎5‎/‎4‎/‎2018 at 10:02 AM, Ukunaka said:

 I think it would be cool if there was a way to remove bounties from yourself by paying 1.5x or 2x the bounty amount.

• 14 days (or 10) must pass before you can pay off your bounty and doing so will notify the nation that placed a bounty on you, however they will not get their money back.
• You may not be in any wars (defensive or offensive) when paying off a bounty
• You may only pay off bounties on yourself
• (if possible) while in vacation mode days are not removed from the timer required to pay off

I Think with the way the current bounty system works, defending against continuous bounty hunters and defeating them can quickly become more expensive than just letting the first bounty hunter biege you and claim the bounty, this provides an option to get rid of older bounties and Incentivises Defending against bounty hunters instead of just taking the loss to get rid of the bounty. with the 14 day period required it also allows enough time for some bounty hunters to have the opportunity to claim the bounty.

I like the idea of bounties being able to be removed, but giving nations the ability to pay them off would cause other problems; rich nations could just pay off bounties against them, giving them an option that the poor nations do not possess which would cause the system to be unbalanced and one-sided. Everything else in your post I can get onboard with. Nations should have a way to liquidate their bounties, vacation mode should not affect the timer you proposed (necessary for balance) and that a nation should not be able to immediately have a bounty removed.

I also agree with everything you mentioned in the second paragraph.

I have no idea what I'm doing but that doesn't stop me from doing it.

pfp_maybe_1_15.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Sir Scarfalot said:

This is true. For that matter it is true even without bounties. And it should never not be true.

While true, the words you're looking for aren't 'strive to' but 'consider attempting to'. It's a matter of risk-management and profit potential.

This would result in the simple strategy of 'bounty removal services', where you hire 3 pirates to attack you, possibly after they've already been wrecked by counters and are about to enter a rebuilding phase, and then the bounty is gone cheaply for all involved. Ultimately, that's just yet another cheap way to avoid what bounties are meant to encourage; which is real, competitive warfare.

There is a reason: removing the odious bounty. Bounties are an attack, they put the victim between a rock (losing wars/getting nuked) and a hard place (living under greater threat due to bounties). Bounties are already often removed by having friends or allies do an attack then deconscripting units to make the war even cheaper, and then the bounty actually helps the victim.

The numbers are in reference to each separate post:

1.) Agreed

2.) Yeah those words are more fitting.

3.) Of course, Alex would have to make those services illegal which I understand creates other problems but it's manageable I'd think.

4.) I don't think a nation should have to eat a loss to their record just to have a bounty removed, it's unnecessary, avoidable and unfair. I do not think a bounty should have the power to guarantee a permanent mark on one's profile [it would be "guaranteed" because all bounties are inevitably claimed since they exist until that happens (unless my idea is implemented of course)]. I know it's silly to make such a big deal about the record but it's less about the record and more about the principle regarding it, losses are inevitable, but the ones catalyzed by bounties can be avoided if my proposal is accepted.

I have no idea what I'm doing but that doesn't stop me from doing it.

pfp_maybe_1_15.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Chopsuey Cyanide said:

The numbers are in reference to each separate post:

1.) Agreed

2.) Yeah those words are more fitting.

3.) Of course, Alex would have to make those services illegal which I understand creates other problems but it's manageable I'd think.

4.) I don't think a nation should have to eat a loss to their record just to have a bounty removed, it's unnecessary, avoidable and unfair. I do not think a bounty should have the power to guarantee a permanent mark on one's profile [it would be "guaranteed" because all bounties are inevitably claimed since they exist until that happens (unless my idea is implemented of course)]. I know it's silly to make such a big deal about the record but it's less about the record and more about the principle regarding it, losses are inevitable, but the ones catalyzed by bounties can be avoided if my proposal is accepted.

Alright, well, I don't disagree on any particular point. I'm just not convinced that there can realistically be a fair and balanced way for bounties to be removed.

I suppose a couple of options could be bounties expire after a full IRL year, or nations can buy off bounties by paying an amount that scales by their number of cities as well as the actual bounty, so that wealthier players still have to pay the same penalty relative to their income as a smaller player. That should help the balance.

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

21 minutes ago, Sir Scarfalot said:

Alright, well, I don't disagree on any particular point. I'm just not convinced that there can realistically be a fair and balanced way for bounties to be removed.

I suppose a couple of options could be bounties expire after a full IRL year, or nations can buy off bounties by paying an amount that scales by their number of cities as well as the actual bounty, so that wealthier players still have to pay the same penalty relative to their income as a smaller player. That should help the balance.

I believe a combination of the two options you provided would be another good solution to the issue.

I have no idea what I'm doing but that doesn't stop me from doing it.

pfp_maybe_1_15.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Sir Scarfalot said:

... or nations can buy off bounties by paying an amount that scales by their number of cities as well as the actual bounty, so that wealthier players still have to pay the same penalty relative to their income as a smaller player...

i like this idea actually more so than my 1.5x | 2x cost; i was thinking a little too simple on that matter to be honest, and your idea gets to the root of balancing against wealthier nations alot better than my general flat rate.

Edited by Ukunaka
  • Downvote 1
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.