Bounties

Tesha

I notice that whenever a bounty is claimed on someone, it's highly likely that they're going to immediately run into their city, for an unknown length of time since you don't know who took it. As someone who generally enjoys 1v1, I don't particularly like doing this or having it happen to me.

What if bounties were changed to inform someone when the bounty was placed on them, with no indication of when or if someone took it? To alleviate the "why are you attacking me" problems, maybe there could be something like, "As Tesha closes in on you, you catch a glimpse of a bounty contract in her possession." when you get attacked by someone with a bounty. Maybe initiating the bounty by attacking could lessen the bounty contract to 24 hours, if needed.

How do other people feel about this idea?

Torinn

Interesting.  I like it.

Austere

Bounties are generally an outcome of group conflict. I don't think the dispute should be settled by duels. I'd rather see them changed to a standardized decay time and forgo the claiming process all together.  Aust wants to raid Hashan? Thats fine, but Hashan is going to band together and hunt his ass down after the fact. 

Antonius

Austere said:

Hashan is going to band together and hunt his ass down after the fact. 

That's literally what the bounty system is designed to prevent.

Kresslack

I like the idea of people not being notified when a bounty is claimed. After all, that's the general sense of how bounties work. An individual -may- become privy to the fact that a bounty has been issued for them, but I don't see how they would ever have any indication of who was after them or when it was claimed.

Ajoc

People will pay to know who took a bounty, or simply ask. The anonymity of the hunter is rarely legitimate in my experience.

Kyrra

Or people just flat out tell you there's a bounty on you and ask if you want to duel for it.

Ajoc

I consider duel requests over bounties a respectful gesture; most people do not enjoy being jumped. There is no requirement for that, obviously, nor should it be expected.

Nazihk

Antonius said:

Austere said:

Hashan is going to band together and hunt his ass down after the fact. 

That's literally what the bounty system is designed to prevent.

IMO, it's there to stop "three dudes kill you once each", not "three dudes kill you once".

Puxi

Nazihk said:

Antonius said:

Austere said:

Hashan is going to band together and hunt his ass down after the fact. 

That's literally what the bounty system is designed to prevent.

IMO, it's there to stop "three dudes kill you once each", not "three dudes kill you once".

I agree with Nazihk here. If you raid and a group forms up while your bashing and smokes you for raiding, I don't actually see anything wrong with that. It would create some awesome post-raid conflict too since the person getting jumped could call in reinforcements which would create a bit of a skirmish.

Torinn

It would mean the tough hitters like Dunn or Proficy could be taken on by some little dudes as well, and it'd be legit.  

Ankhareoutef

Ajoc said:

I consider duel requests over bounties a respectful gesture; most people do not enjoy being jumped. There is no requirement for that, obviously, nor should it be expected.

Dude, I am so glad you said this.

If there's a bounty on your head, you're not entitled to anything.  You did something serious enough to warrant money on your head.

I legitimately cannot understand how people can get upset at someone jumping them because they have a bounty.

Kresslack

Puxi said:

Nazihk said:

Antonius said:

Austere said:

Hashan is going to band together and hunt his ass down after the fact. 

That's literally what the bounty system is designed to prevent.

IMO, it's there to stop "three dudes kill you once each", not "three dudes kill you once".

I agree with Nazihk here. If you raid and a group forms up while your bashing and smokes you for raiding, I don't actually see anything wrong with that. It would create some awesome post-raid conflict too since the person getting jumped could call in reinforcements which would create a bit of a skirmish.

This is an old tradition which bounties was designed to replace, because essentially it just turns into a tit-for-tat. A group raids a city. Hours, sometimes even the next RL day after the raid, one or two participants get ganked while hunting. Those people in turn group up and gank individual members of the group that ganked them. Rinse, lather, and repeat.

Anyway, like I said I agree with the idea that bounties should be as anonymous as they can be. If the person who took the bounty is revealed via word of mouth, well that's part of how the world works, but I don't think it should mechanically tell someone when or who is hunting them. Like Tesha mentioned, this allows them to try to avoid the conflict (and therefore repercussions for their actions) in advance.

Not sure if people get noticed when bounties are placed on them, aside from logs, but I think they should have no indication of the bounty until someone tries to actually collect on it, unless they are able to glean information about it via due diligence.

Antonius

Nazihk said:

Antonius said:

Austere said:

Hashan is going to band together and hunt his ass down after the fact. 

That's literally what the bounty system is designed to prevent.

IMO, it's there to stop "three dudes kill you once each", not "three dudes kill you once".

Groups aren't exactly great at stopping after the first kill, so a lot of the time it's "three dudes kill you two/three times together."

The point of the bounty system is to say "This person is allowed to attack this other person for the crime they committed against the city."

Minifie

Bounties are already much better contracts with less of the downsides. If you can’t kill them in the 7 days, then they probably did nothing at all, or AFK’d on a ship or city. I still like bounties in their current iteration, still not sure they really need changing at all.

Puxi

Why do contracts expire if you kill the person that took the contract, but if you kill the person that took your bounty, it does not?

Kresslack

Puxi said:

Why do contracts expire if you kill the person that took the contract, but if you kill the person that took your bounty, it does not?

Contracts are assigned to a specific person. Bounties are more of an open ended arrangement where multiple people can attempt it (should someone fail).

To make things really interesting, could allow bounties to be accepted by multiple people, with only the first to actually complete it getting the reward.

Solnir

Kresslack said:

Puxi said:

Why do contracts expire if you kill the person that took the contract, but if you kill the person that took your bounty, it does not?

Contracts are assigned to a specific person. Bounties are more of an open ended arrangement where multiple people can attempt it (should someone fail).

To make things really interesting, could allow bounties to be accepted by multiple people, with only the first to actually complete it getting the reward.

Kresslack said:

A group raids a city. Hours, sometimes even the next RL day after the raid, one or two participants get ganked while hunting. Those people in turn group up and gank individual members of the group that ganked them. Rinse, lather, and repeat.

The first bolded would cause the second bolded.

Shirszae

I like bounties the way they are, personally.

Kiet

Kresslack said:

Puxi said:

Why do contracts expire if you kill the person that took the contract, but if you kill the person that took your bounty, it does not?

Contracts are assigned to a specific person. Bounties are more of an open ended arrangement where multiple people can attempt it (should someone fail).

To make things really interesting, could allow bounties to be accepted by multiple people, with only the first to actually complete it getting the reward.

actually, only one person can attempt each bounty. which is why it's annoying when people take up bounties trying to get a snipe kill in and so on.

Minifie

You can always join mark and take contracts as well, join dauntless, or hunt down relic holders. There is a multitude of ways to currently push to engage someone just fine in 1v1 with no ruling grey area. The current system works great because having a bounty on your head is meant to make you unnerved, cautious and prepared at any time to be jumped, but currently you know the length of time you can be hit, but unless you dig deeper, you don't know whom. 

Contracts people feel a bit braver because if they luck out and kill the mark, or die, it's done, contract finished. If I kill you 20 times in a row your bounty is still there, and you can just keep on going and going and going. Both systems have differences, but are not "meant" to be better than one another. Making bounties easier and easier to complete isn't necessary. If you cant hunt a bounty, don't take a bounty.

Tesha

It's more about facilitating the bounty than making it easier to complete - you still need to kill them, ambush, whatever. The only thing this would change is the notification that someone claimed it, which is generally followed up by the bounty target instantly using one of the various instant travel methods to return somewhere safe before the hunter can go from the bounty board to the target.

I think bounty contracts should fail if the person you have a bounty on kills you, and the duration significantly reduced, but that's outside the scope of this idea.

[Deleted User]

I liked the way Imperian's was setup, personally. Wherein bounties aren't personally claimed, they just get fulfilled if someone of the city/allied to the city who placed it kills the person who's bountied. Still gives the same message to the person who dies, that a bounty was completed on them.

At least that way you don't have to deal with people running and hiding until it goes away, since they last until the person dies.

It is exactly how bounties work in real life for things, and is how they should work tbqh. Bounties are thrown out, and the first person to fulfill it is the one who gets rewarded.

Lanre

Personally, the few times I've interacted with the system in comparison to the ye olde way of gather your friends all round and gank the raiders to scare them out of offensive conflict against your city, it's lightyears better than what it used to be...but it is pretty confusing for a few reasons:

1. It makes no sense for bounties to not be nullified upon killing the bounty hunter. You had your chance to meat out justice for whatever wrong you think your city was given. You failed, why should you be rewarded for failure with endless opportunities to keep trying to complete the bounty?

2. There needs to be some form of notification of why and when a bounty is placed on your head by a city. Sometimes I've had bounties out on me and I genuinely do not have a clue why they're out on me. It's fine, it's all good practice and good fun for me because I enjoy most forms of combat at most times, but at the same point it's kind of funny when someone is asking me to duel for a bounty and I ask what the bounty was for and they genuinely don't have a clue but it's a faction RP way to fight me. I'd like to at least know what I did or what prompted this glorious duel request to be made. 

Nazihk

Lanre said:

1. It makes no sense for bounties to not be nullified upon killing the bounty hunter. You had your chance to meat out justice for whatever wrong you think your city was given. You failed, why should you be rewarded for failure with endless opportunities to keep trying to complete the bounty?

Because otherwise you end up with stupid situations where people feel like they shouldn't take bounties because they should save them for the 'real' bounty hunters, so that they don't waste their city's chance at revenge.

Also because bounties are a reason for one person to kill you, but you can be defended by many more people. I shouldn't lose my shot at you just because I got wrecked by an earring train when I made my attempt. 

Reyson

Message #2124 Sent by Achaea

2018/4/09/14:58 The bounty placed on you by Hashan has been claimed by a citizen.

I suppose changing it to when a bounty's filed isn't a terrible idea, but, really, given they can sit on the board forever, that's kind of a major nuisance. I actually prefer it to reflect when it's claimed, since that lets you know your window's started ticking down. 

People who're gonna run away will run away, no matter what you do. Let 'em know, don't let 'em know, the moment some people get threatened with pvp, they're gonna gare and shipreturn or whatever. No force on the planet's gonna make 'em stay and fight, I don't think! C'est la vie. 

I think an interesting idea would be to put the bounty back on the board if you murder the person holding it, -but- its duration is cut in half, and the person who last failed it can't re-take it. 

From the perspective of the hunter, I dunno what's so bad about simply telling a person why you're gonna gank 'em, either during or after (or before, if you're feeling super honest). From the bounty's side, once you get the message from Achaea that you had a bounty claimed, you can pretty safely assume that if you're getting ganked out of the blue, that's why? Doesn't seem too complicated. 

Proficy

Antonius said:

Nazihk said: bu t

Antonius said:

Austere said:

Hashan is going to band together and hunt his ass down after the fact. 

That's literally what the bounty system is designed to prevent.

IMO, it's there to stop "three dudes kill you once each", not "three dudes kill you once".

Groups aren't exactly great at stopping after the first kill, so a lot of the time it's "three dudes kill you two/three times together."

The point of the bounty system is to say "This person is allowed to attack this other person for the crime they committed against the city."

So the reason behind this is you can kill players after a burst even if you owe them only one death as long as the follow through is immediate.
I guess you owe them one true death. So, basically they aren't wrong for killing 2 or 3 times.... 
And for you thinking this is my mindset it is not, I learned this from it happening to me.

[Deleted User]

Lanre said:

1. It makes no sense for bounties to not be nullified upon killing the bounty hunter. You had your chance to meat out justice for whatever wrong you think your city was given. You failed, why should you be rewarded for failure with endless opportunities to keep trying to complete the bounty?

I already explained this. Bounties are not contracts, why wouldn't you be able to get multiple chances? Bounties, in virtually every aspect (not just Achaea) is a "keep at it until it's done" thing. Not a "oh well better luck next time" thing. That's what contracts are.

Also it's mete. Not meat.

Aegoth

Bounties should definitely be a city-wide endeavour, where the person is alerted when it goes up, but any citizen can go for it, and the first to kill gets the bounty. That lends it a lot more danger and realism so people can meat out delicious justice

Kyrra

@Aegoth, like a well cooked steak?

Dunn

Agree with the Imperian model for sure. Leads to less congested bounty boards as well, which makes me smile.