Removing kill bounties from RA

[SoScared]

Kill bounties has 0 connection to game balance in terms of fairness. It's by nature a neutral function. Like starting cash. It's a 100% non-partisan function that exaggerates every part of the game, good and bad. It follows then that kill bounties will enhance broken game balance.

Gatekeeper made a rare post somewhere recently, regarding this issue, and pinned it down to (paraphrasing):
"Provides dopamine and prevents the action from drying up in-between heavy engagements. Also supports late-late game."

As I see it, in terms of effect, this particular observation overshadows the entire game balance discussion.

The bounty differentials between players are for the most part a fraction of the total income per player. Regardless, the differentials are due to difference in performance/skill and/or poor balancing. The latter can be altered.

[AoAGeneral1]

Overshadowing examples is not good because of title names.

From what SoScared mentions it has everything to do with the game. Yak crashes are only good if it kills. (money made). Defenses are cost effective when attacking. AKA base crawling. (money made).

As Materianer mentioned testing time. Im off this coming Saturday. (22nd of April.)

PS typing from phone is annoying @_@

[Orb]

It's like you ignored what Soscared said. Bounty is not the root cause of imbalance. Base pushing is not effective due to bounty. It's effective because its cost effective, which is then reflected in bounties. Removing bounties will not fix the core imbalance issues you have with the game.

I also don't know why we are striving for perfect balance (which isn't possible anyway). I like the more fun aspects of the game, such as bounties, or the wonky way combat works. I like how yak crashes are hit or miss. I like how a demo truck can blow up in your own base. Removing these more fun aspects will just make it another generic RTS.

[OMnom]

@AoA

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Validity

"Given a set of circumstances" == premises. Not using the Webster's definition of what a circumstance is. I'm using the philosophical/logic definition of validity.

The reason I tried to structure the thread that way, is because a lot of the stuff you've posted skips the logic. You just jump straight to the conclusion and assume the argument is self-explanatory, so its hard for the rest of us to debate with you. For example:

So the removing bounties promotes saving units. AKA repair pad for tanks or medics.

You can blow this open by simply comparing a bounty mammoth that will give your opponent $200 versus a non-bounty mammoth. You send them both into the same battle, and shit goes down. If you retreat both, both tanks will die. If you do not retreat both mammoths, they will both die. But if you choose to save one mammoth, only the other one will die. Which one do you save, if you choose to do so?

By logic, you can either choose to save the mammoth with the bounty on it, or, you could argue that you save neither mammoth and hope to get as much value as you can. You never save the mammoth without the bounty...if you do so, your opponent gets $200 by killing the bounty mammoth. Therefore, your premise, as written, is false.

If you want to disprove this argument with veterancies, I'll show you why removing the bounty system without altering the veterancy system would cause imbalance.
If you want to try to compare it between two games, one where you have 2 non-bounty mammoth's and the other where you have 2 bounty mammoths, with the same conditions, then you save either one because there is no difference between the two mammoths. But if you chose to sacrifice both mammoths, the non-bounty mammoths have a higher value than the bounty mammoths because they do not give your opponent $400. Since you're more compelled to save the mammoths with the bounties, your premise of "Removing bounties promotes saving units" is false.

Or, if that was actually your argument, i.e, "If you removed bounties, then it promotes saving units." then there is no valid, clear, or self-explanatory connection between removing bounties and saving units. Right now, it reads as "If you removed bounties, then X will happen. Because of X, then people will want to save their units." Asking people to fill-in-the-blank for your own argument is a recipe for disaster. Juicebox may be at fault for losing his calm against you, but a lot of the stuff you're writing is disorienting because you skip your connections and only write the premise with your conclusion.

This is assumption as well. You can easily place other constructions on hold and allow the money to pour into one build queue to finish it off faster. Once built you can then resume other queues. ... The above is repeat incorrectness due to "Placing other queues on hold"

Okay...so what if it is possible to funnel all $600 into one or two queues? How does that make 2' false?:

2' : The money you make from bounties provides additional income to rebuild all assets, not just buildings.

If you get money from bounties, you can use it all for only pillboxes, for pillboxes + infantry, for any combination of units. "Pausing a queue" doesn't make this argument false -- If I pause a queue to build 6 rifles, I still get $600 in assets.

In addition, you can't say that (2'') is incorrect because of "pausing a queue"....

2'' : The money you make from bounties provides additional income to rebuild all assets. Since a strength of basepushing is using all of your assets to attack, therefore, bounties contribute to basepushing.

...if you also support (3), which uses 2''.

3. If (1) is true, and if (2'') is valid, then A) it follows that the winner of an engagement will have more money to rebuild than the loser of an engagement, and B)
the winner will be able to out push the loser. Therefore, bounties are imbalanced and should be removed from the game.

Even if you are right about pausing queues, then pausing a queue and funneling money into certain queues would be the problem -- not bounties. In which case, we just spent 6+ pages talking about something pointless when we really should have been discussing how funneling all of your money into a few queues is imbalanced.

With 3 pillboxes how much money can be earned killing infantry in 5-7 seconds?

Situational, as JuiceBox has already pointed out. And, as SoS has repeatedly mentioned bounties just exacerbate all losses and highlights all wins. Yes, we know pillboxes are good, which is why I've been complaining about veterancy in pillboxes since I found out that like 6 months ago.

Incorrect. Removal of bounties has had no effect on money making with ore trucks. Tested. On low eco maps the base pushing is popular because you don't lose assets easily with defense structures. AKA killing infantry with defenses for greater outcome. The structures are also repairable while tanks are not. So without bounties on low eco maps it will be about the samething. Holding these spots to keep your eco going.

Since the removal of bounties has had no effect on total income from ore trucks (RA, not TD i hope), why should we care about the money we get from bounties then? If it has no effect, and you tested it, why change it at all? And from everything you've posted, shouldn't you be more concerned with the effectiveness of basepushing itself rather than the money you get from basepushing? I'm not the only one that thinks this, and I'm sure Orb is not the only one either:

It's like you ignored what Soscared said. Bounty is not the root cause of imbalance. Base pushing is not effective due to bounty. It's effective because its cost effective, which is then reflected in bounties. Removing bounties will not fix the core imbalance issues you have with the game.

___

The video you sent between anjew vs Norman was an extreme case -- both players lost their MCVs, and so they lost their ability to expand their economy. Yes, norman was just turtling and using Air units to snipe everything, but where exactly do the bounties matter?

In addition, there was no way anjew could muster an economy capable of breaching a MRLS/Mammoth/Orca turtle. To me, the equilvalent to this in RA would be two players having lost both their MCVs, with one trying to brute force their way into an arty/pillbox line. Of course the player with higher tech is going to win out.

TD is already a completely different game, especially regarding power and economy.On top of that, Norman had an Ion cannon that instantly deleted large chunks of anjew's forces everytime anjew tried to make something happen. I'm not a TD player, so I don't expect anything about what I said about TD to be accurate.

[anjew]

To me, the equilvalent to this in RA would be two players having lost both their MCVs, with one trying to brute force their way into an arty/pillbox line. Of course the player with higher tech is going to win out.

I feel an equivalent (or atleast situation that exaggerates this imbalance) is if both players are without MCV in a very close game and one player has 1 harv, the other none. Say the 1 harv guy tries to bruteforce arty/pillbox, he loses his whole army and maybe gets a few things himself. If the player with no harvesters is smart he could use the bounty to make a new harvester. All of a sudden the entire dynamic of the game has changed, the player with no harvesters is rewarding with not only an army advantage but with the ability to match production of his opponent. The player with 1 harv has not only lost his army, he has negated all the work he has done throughout the game and given his enemy the means to destroy him.

TD is already a completely different game, especially regarding power and economy.On top of that, Norman had an Ion cannon that instantly deleted large chunks of anjew's forces everytime anjew tried to make something happen.

That's true and can account for more of difference between bounties earned but RA also has the nuke and demo trucks which can effectively take out entire armies as well as buildings. A good nuke could reinforced a players army quite nicely.

as SoS has repeatedly mentioned bounties just exacerbate all losses and highlights all wins.

But why does this need to happen?

It follows then that kill bounties will enhance broken game balance.

Or perhaps it is covering it up. A lot of player mention that without it the economy starts to dry up. Perhaps what materia said about ore regeneration isn't too far off the mark.

[OMnom]

To me, the equilvalent to this in RA would be two players having lost both their MCVs, with one trying to brute force their way into an arty/pillbox line. Of course the player with higher tech is going to win out.

I feel an equivalent (or atleast situation that exaggerates this imbalance) is if both players are without MCV in a very close game and one player has 1 harv, the other none. Say the 1 harv guy tries to bruteforce arty/pillbox, he loses his whole army and maybe gets a few things himself. If the player with no harvesters is smart he could use the bounty to make a new harvester. All of a sudden the entire dynamic of the game has changed, the player with no harvesters is rewarding with not only an army advantage but with the ability to match production of his opponent. The player with 1 harv has not only lost his army, he has negated all the work he has done throughout the game and given his enemy the means to destroy him.
mark.

I can't really comment on this situation because I've never been here before...I know this situation is exaggerated, but I can't help but scale this up to something more realistic like 2 harvesters versus 5 or something. I've certainly donated my fair share of bounties to my opponents in similar situations, as my basepushing tends to be extremely wasteful. I do think that you're right that the person who is at the economic disadvantage likes the bounties more than the person with the economic advantage, but if this is the case, then the snowball argument would have a flaw if the winner of the engagement had the economic advantage to begin with. I don't think that's too big of a deal, since if someone wins an engagement, and if he had a a prior economic advantage, he's probably going to win the whether or not bounties are in the game.

The more pertinent scenario would probably be where both players had equal assets and equal economy, but the resulting first battle tilts the game in favor of the winner of the first battle. I don't believe bounties are the root cause of this though; I think its just mostly because the winner simply ends up with a larger force, which he can use to secure more map control. Getting rid of the bounties might change this dynamic, but I'm currently unable to play at the "normal" hours of 1900-0000 UTC to test this out...I'm going to have to trust that Materia, AoA, and the rest of the people testing this out will do it thoroughly.

TD is already a completely different game, especially regarding power and economy.On top of that, Norman had an Ion cannon that instantly deleted large chunks of anjew's forces everytime anjew tried to make something happen.

That's true and can account for more of difference between bounties earned but RA also has the nuke and demo trucks which can effectively take out entire armies as well as buildings. A good nuke could reinforced a players army quite nicely.

I know you don't get bounties from killing your opponent's army with a demo truck, but I think you get bounties from killing stuff with your nuke. I don't know how bounties worked in that TD game; did norman get bounties from his ion cannon kills? If so, then yeah, bounties are going to have an impact from the burst of money he gets, but from my view, the reason you lost that game is because his "free" ion cannon got so much value. Unlimited free damage and/or free units can be quite a big problem in RTS games, depending on how good it is...just look up "ravens tvt sc2" and you'll see what I mean.

as SoS has repeatedly mentioned bounties just exacerbate all losses and highlights all wins.

But why does this need to happen?

It follows then that kill bounties will enhance broken game balance.

Or perhaps it is covering it up. A lot of player mention that without it the economy starts to dry up. Perhaps what materia said about ore regeneration isn't too far off the mark.

I think, in RA especially, resources are a very touchy subject for a lot of players...during my competitive map making thread, I was in the process of trying to dissect the RA eco. In particular, I was trying to find the exact differences between 3 ore mines + small ore patch versus 1 ore mine + large ore patch and how oil derricks affected the economy, but I haven't been able to continue any of that stuff for about 3 weeks now. In my opinion, I think figuring the map making portion might be useful for figuring out how to stablize the RA eco (including bounties), and hopefully also stop the "its not balance, its the map" arguments.

[WhoCares]

That's true and can account for more of difference between bounties earned but RA also has the nuke and demo trucks which can effectively take out entire armies as well as buildings. A good nuke could reinforced a players army quite nicely.

Demo truck doesn't grant kill to the player using it, so no bounty. Parabomb does grants kill and i don't know about the nuke.

[AoAGeneral1]

It's like you ignored what Soscared said. Bounty is not the root cause of imbalance. Base pushing is not effective due to bounty. It's effective because its cost effective, which is then reflected in bounties. Removing bounties will not fix the core imbalance issues you have with the game.

I also don't know why we are striving for perfect balance (which isn't possible anyway). I like the more fun aspects of the game, such as bounties, or the wonky way combat works. I like how yak crashes are hit or miss. I like how a demo truck can blow up in your own base. Removing these more fun aspects will just make it another generic RTS.

I didn't ignore what SoScared said.

The first paragraph in your sentence is the reason why I want it removed.

Starcraft Brood War.

@Omnom

Testing days ahead.

[OMnom]

@Omnom

Testing days ahead.

Agreed.

Starcraft Brood War.

Don't try to fool yourself though. BW is a great game (I ruined my wrist playing that game), and I'm sure you've done a great job with TD, but RA is RA. Balance RA using RA logic.

[AoAGeneral1]

That was in response to perfect balance.

I don't use same theory crafting techniques from other RTS games. With the exception of RA96 into ORA RA. (Just like CNC95 into ORA TD)

[Frame_Limiter]

·Structures/Defenses can currently circumvent the bounty system with well timed selling.
·Demo Trucks will grant bounties so long as you detonate them (if they get killed you don't get one.)
·The Nuke from the Missile Silo will grant a bounty.

----

How Experience & Bounties work:

The GainsExperience Trait:
2x unit value = rank-veteran 1
4x unit value = rank-veteran 2
8x unit value = rank-veteran 3
16x unit value = rank-veteran 4

*As an example the $900 V2 rocket launcher would need to kill $14,400 or 16x its value to reach rank level 4. [16 x 900 = 14,400]


The GivesBounty Trait:
Percentage: 10
ModLevel: 125
--
rank-veteran 1 = 25%
rank-veteran 2 = 150%
rank-veteran 3 = 275%
rank-veteran 4 = 400%

*As an example if a $900 V2 rocket launcher was rank-veteran 4 it would produce a bounty of $450 [90 + 400% = 450]

@Blackened - Veteran & non-veteran units provide the same amount of experience when killed. Experience is based off the cost of the unit.

[JOo]

i dont really care if we have bounties or not ...

what i would like though ... is a option-switch to make them invisible so you dont see them in screenshots or videos (intros etc.)

the money-bits that pop up can get quite ugly ... especially when you capture nuke explosions or infantry-blobs fighting each other ... but also when harvesters stuck in refinerys because of money-overflow

[anjew]

Demo truck doesn't grant kill to the player using it, so no bounty. Parabomb does grants kill and i don't know about the nuke.

I did some testing and it does count as long as you are the one to set it off. If someone attacks it, then they get the kill bounties (but not of their own units they dont).

There also appear to be a 'bug" where sometimes bounties are left out if they arent close enough to the demo truck

[Blackened]

[/quote]

@Blackened - Veteran & non-veteran units provide the same amount of experience when killed. Experience is based off the cost of the unit.

is there any conceived fix for this? It's currently not a big deal and won't ever will be but such a thing especially with bounties. But considering the extra effort it takes in killing ranked units you should be awarded thusly.

There also appear to be a 'bug" where sometimes bounties are left out if they arent close enough to the demo truck

You stop getting the bounty outside the scorch marks radius correct?

[anjew]

You stop getting the bounty outside the scorch marks radius correct?

Yes, I understand it is caused by the weapon itself but it still doesn't get the outer ring and the nuke gives bounty outside of its scorch mark so I would consider it a bug.