Bounties...

[bjornredtail]

I belive I have found a potential loophole in the bounties system that would lead to a sort of dirity trick in game. A high ranking warlord could set a bounty on the 5 biggest threats, then go on vacation until they are to an acceptable level. He could then come back, set the bounties on another 5. And so on. There would be little to no chance of repriseials. To correct this, I propose a cupple of safeguards.
1. Have bounties expire after a set time. This would be espically useful in the faster servers, as you could set the time frame on bounties to a relatively short period of time, like a week. For slower servers, this is far from the best option, as the deadline for bounties would have to be far longer, about a month in my estmation.
2. Freeze payments with armies, if not before. The problem with this arises when someone is going after the bounty as the issuer goes on vacation. In cases like that, the payment could be issured when the issuer comes back from vacation mode. Again, this doesn't completely eliminate the tatic, it just makes it more expencive to implement, and therefore more usless.

[The Beatles]

Um, I don't really see the payment problem. The payments are deducted at the time the bounty is set. So if the warlord wants to go on vacation, sure. He'll miss out on a lot of turns as the bounties are completed, and anyways he's made his payment, so it's OK whatever he does.

[bjornredtail]

Oh... I though payment occured at the time the bounties objective was met.

[The Beatles]

No, it's deposited with the mercs when you place a bounty.

[edit]Actually I think an expiry time, or an option to wipe the bounty and have the cash paid to last attacker /might/ be a good idea. Exploitable though...

[Urran Voh]

I think someone should wipe all the old bounties. After all, it does get tiresome seeing the same old ones up there...

[bjornredtail]

Perhaps set up a script to eliminate all those that were issued by, or to dead warlords.

[Urran Voh]

I like it. That way, almost all the Bounties would be gone and only the current ones would show up.

[Veranor]

I just changed a few elements of bounties and will do a few more soon.

Done so far:

• Order of cash/runes/food when you deposit (now it is the same as the aid page)</li>
• Made it so you can only have 1 bounty on a particular person (IE: you can't have 5 bounties on the same guy... less clutter)</li>

Going to add in:

• Bounties expire unless you renew them every X days (simply clicking a button)... should you have to pay a fee to keep it up there?</li>
• The ability to add more resources to the bounty (there would be a max amount of edits per bounty)</li>

Comment, suggestions?
Any possible exploitations?

[Urran Voh]

I don't think you should have to pay to keep a bounty. Just wasting resources...

Other than that, I like it a lot.

[bjornredtail]

I would only limit the edits to a few times over a certain timeperiod. Or, if the bounty renewal system is implemented, once or twice per renewal. Also, if the renwal system is implemented, be sure to put a reminder daily in the news, and a single warning via ingame message 24 hours before experation.

[Veranor]

I would only limit the edits to a few times over a certain timeperiod. Or, if the bounty renewal system is implemented, once or twice per renewal. Also, if the renwal system is implemented, be sure to put a reminder daily in the news, and a single warning via ingame message 24 hours before experation.

That's how we were going to do it but (refer to my other post) we decided to do it so you can have unlimited edits, but the amount you can add is your (aidlimit - amount there), so people can't send 10x the aidlimit. I think this allows resources to be added at creators whim, but not too many.

[The Beatles]

The turns script recalculates bounties, right? In that case, it should check whether the target is dead, and then complete it. Also, I believe if someone sets the bounty to decrease to rank 1000, and there are only 100 players, then currently it would never be completed. So maybe rank should be limited to half the number of living players?
Also, there is a percent deduction for mercs, right? I believe there was, but just checking.

[bjornredtail]

What would happen if someone sets a bounty, then the number of active players drops then? Also, would that ranking incude the dead?

[sh0e]

The turns script recalculates bounties, right? In that case, it should check whether the target is dead, and then complete it. Also, I believe if someone sets the bounty to decrease to rank 1000, and there are only 100 players, then currently it would never be completed. So maybe rank should be limited to half the number of living players?
Also, there is a percent deduction for mercs, right? I believe there was, but just checking.

imho the only bounties that make any sense are land bounties
ranking being the worst of the bunch
but i guess it doesnt hurt to put them in

a nice idea would be to add bounties for number of successful attacks
(which would be a pain in the hindquarters i know)

id extend it to allow for multiple or incremental bounties..
kind of like a "down payment for now.. the rest when you finish the job"
which is a reason why i dont like how you made only one bounty allowed

you should make a fee be payed if the bounty fails and is not renewed

and im curious as to if there is a reason that anonymous bounties are not in the mix?

[Veranor]

"id extend it to allow for multiple or incremental bounties..
kind of like a "down payment for now.. the rest when you finish the job"
which is a reason why i dont like how you made only one bounty allowed"

Should we do this?

The argument against it was that it's like free auto-aid to an attacking party.