Bounties proposal

DeletedUser

ok so town A puts a bounty on me that will keep me locked up for ten days. Then their best duelist takes me out. He gets one third for the bounty on my head but deposits it back into town treasury. Nobody breaks me out so the town gets the other two thirds back. They have all the money they started with to repeat the cycle effectively killing my character
 

DeletedUser1105

If you get locked up for 10 days, that will cost an initial $2400 ($240x10). Then, once you are in jail, there is 10 days whereby anybody springing you out of jail will earn $800. Not bad earnings for a a few duels work (especially if you think about it and attack at night, when most players will be sleeping in the hotel).

Added to that is Oakley's excellent suggestion. I would expand that and also allow the prisoner to sell thier items in order to pay off their bounty (like a fine), which goes into the town treasury. That way, they would have to sell some nice items (duellers don't work much, so they won't have many tobaccy leaves and such) in order to be set free.
 

DeletedUser

Keighlon you're paranoid! If anyone can be bothered enough to imprison you for ten days, then let me know, I'll rescue you......and buy you an ice cream! Don't forget that a LOT of people feeling deeply aggrieved that they have no collective sanction against troublesome duellers. This HAS to hurt the dueller. What I'm proposing also lends some excitement to the other side of things too.

Reluctantly I concede that there is some sense in Oakley's proposal and monkeys' refinement. Would either of you like to frame an amendment?

By the way, in the case of being sprung from jail the amount would be $1,600 not $800. it is one third to the one who captures and 2/3rds to the one who releases.
 

DeletedUser1105

Ulthor said:
By the way, in the case of being sprung from jail the amount would be $1,600 not $800. it is one third to the one who captures and 2/3rds to the one who releases.
Click to expand...

Oops, that's true. Makes my point even more valid.

Ok, under jailbreak:

3. Whilst incarcerated, a prisoner may work certain jobs (only those with a difficulty level of less than 10), and recieve the money and XP as usual. They travel to the work site and work, but automatically travel back to jail after the work is completed (It is possible to stack jobs, the travelling would commence once all jobs are finished).
4. At any point during thier incarceration, a prisoner may 'post bail' by paying half of the bounty.
5. Prisoners will be able to use the general store of the town holding them to sell thier items, in order to assist them with paying the 1/2 bounty. They will not be able to purchase any items until they are free.


May need re-wording a little, but I think that covers it.
 

DeletedUser

Yes it does validate your point.

If we are setting that prisoners can do jobs, why not just make them able to work as normal? Otherwise you are asking the devs to make a whole new system. I'd say bail should be 1/3rd of bounty. What happens if a prisoner hasn't raised bail and their term ends. Do they then take the money they have earned with them.
I'm thinking that this just makes it too cushy for the prisoner....all they are doing is getting a free spell without being attacked. personally i'd love being in your prison. i can work jobs in non-duelling gear without getting attacked. Please please put a bounty on me.
There could be some way in which the work a prisoner didn't go into their own pocket i suppose........but as it stands this is just too favourable to the prisoner.
 

DeletedUser1105

Your idea of having them work as normal certainly makes it too favourable. The idea that they can only do jobs with a difficulty of less than 10 makes it not quite as cushy as you may think, as they would not make a lot of money.

It is also a way of making sure that people imprisoned don't walk away from the game. At least they can do SOMETHING.

Or another way it could work is, the prisoner can 'work' off his sentence. Every two hours work he does, it takes 2 hours off his incarceration time. The money earned goes to the town treasury. The prisoner would have to earn XP from the jobs, otherwise they would just work the tobacco fields so they were not filling the town coffers. If they could earn Xp, it's in thier own interests to do the best job they can. Maybe make it so they only earn 50% of the xp though, so its not too cushy.

And who said they cannot be attacked? I'd say let be duellable. Unless they click 'sleep' in the jail, they should be just as open to attack as others.
 

DeletedUser

i think you are too concerned about people walking away from the game. i daresay people are doing that in droves every day. It would be exiting being in prison and trying to get released. Remember you would still have access to a town forum and know that people were gunning to get you out. I guess work off to reduce sentence makes some sense.
So in what way are they actually penalised under your system, it doesn't sound that much different to normal play?
 

DeletedUser1105

1) They cannot initiate duels.
2) They cannot earn any money from jobs (it goes to the town treasury).
3) They only earn 50% XP from the jobs they do.
4) Maybe sleeping only regenerates 50 energy and 300 health points, which is less than the dormitory in a hotel?
5) No access to shops to purchase items.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser

At the end of the day this is a matter of personal preference. If lots of people want it that way, then i'll yield. But do bear in mind that the vast majority of prisoners will be there for one day. you are making all these things so that someone serving a month in jail doesn't get bored. i think they SHOULD get bored. That's part of the punishment. And if they quit, then the people who put up the rewards have achieved a great victory.
 

DeletedUser

I would definitely not allow prisoners to do their normal jobs . To have a jailed dueler go and "rob settlers" to raise his bail is not acceptable . Doing menial task , "tend pigs" ,"tend sheep" ,harvesting grain ,corn,berries and such would be seen as demeaning by the "Billy Badass" thus adding insult to injury . Allowing the work time to count as time served I think is fair . If the "work" time is counted towards sentence time then the money should go to the town . Yes this is severely over complicating the issue , however by giving the prisoner the chance to earn his way out You kill off many of the 'it's not fair , I could be locked up forever' arguments . I see this "escape clause" as a means of making the idea more palatable for others . The only issue I had the idea as first proposed was the possability of long sentences . Ulthor has persuaded Me that those are very unlikely .
 

DeletedUser

Basically at the end of the day i will concede this point if that is what it takes to get wider support. But at this stage I'm still arguing that it is unnecessary, complicated and hard to implement. I don't know if have read Hightowers' [rather excellent] post about what ideas will be accepted. So on the grounds of simplicity alone i'd ask you to reconsider your objections.
 

DeletedUser

I concede the point . Are You just absolutely in love with $240 a day ?
$300 a day makes for easier math .
 

DeletedUser

oops i replied to this but somehow managed to not post it!
Oakley I'm not at all in love with $240. It's just the same as a building chunk is all so i thought towns would have the benefit of choosing between two course of action so it has that merit . $300 suits me absolutely fine. Perhaps This is too cheap? maybe it should be $600? or even $150. Whatever you guys say.

I'm in a maxed out town, we can send out a posse to avenge ourselves quite nicely under the current system.
This is primarily about allowing several smaller towns to inflict collective punishment on a pest that they are plagued by. I daresay there will be other effects but that was the reason for it. So really it is up to the people that are in mid and smaller towns to say what is a reasonable amount.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser1105

Yes, the actual amount is not important. let the Dev's work out how much they think would be appropriate. As long as we get the mechanics of it right, they can do the rest.
 

DeletedUser

Does anyone want to amend the original proposal in the light of this discussion?
 

DeletedUser

Well I want to have all your guys full support if possible. Are there any points that you still have doubts about?
 

DeletedUser1105

I think Oakley's point about them only being able to work menial jobs, with the only benefit being a reduction sentence (just in case they don't get help, or the help doesn't work), should be added.

Other than that, I'm fine with it myself. I think we have covered it now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top