Please change new restrictions to the bounty mode modifier

@jables, can we make the mode modifier allow values must be within [-1.0, 1.0]? The latest path now disallows negative values

I was playing some fun games where you took a small *penalty* for killing an enemy com (setting at -0.1x in bounty mode).
It's a great way to keep a game more balanced over time, giving less performing players a chance to catch up. Let's say you are doing great an go kill an enemy com. Now your other opponents have fighting chance, since they have a slightly better eco than you.
It's like an on-the-fly handicapping system.

The more options the better

more options always better. I would also say that also in game the communication whether bounty mode is enabled and how much the rate is could be better. If you didn't pay attention on the startup screen you don't know it until someone kills a com.

I don't like this idea.
It is just to steal the resource from a good player and to encourage players to camp.
This also makes the duration of game longer.

The bounties should never be negative.
And when you can knock out your opponent, you should always do it!
No matter the game is in FFA, TA, or 1vs1 ladder, reducing your opponents is always the right thing to do.

Think about the value of bounty.
If it is -1, you can only kill one enemy commander, and then you get no more resource.
If it is -0.5, you get only half income for killing one enemy commander.
And you get no resource after killing the second one.

All the player can do is to sweep the units and buildings of the enemy, while keep enemy commander alive,
and finally eliminate all the enemy commanders at once.
This game style leads to the super weapon and game ender,
and the duration of game is extremely prolonged.
Does this make the game more interesting? I don't think so.

there are people who like this, and it is a option, if you don't loke just don't play a game with negative bounty.
The point is: the more options, the better

Come on!

I typically had it at -0.1x so it didn't kill you.

The value depends on the number of the players.
In a ten players FFA, -0.1 is still too serious.
After killing 4 opponents, the best player has only 60% remaining income.

I feel that the bounty value is very difficult to balance it,
and most of the players don't know how big the impact is.

For positive values, the first one who knocks out several players become near invincible.
For negative values, it discourages the player who wants to play aggressively.
If this value must be non-negative, I believe it should be small and negative.

Why the value of the bounty must be addition or subtraction?
How about multiplication?
For example, (0.95)^n.
If you kill one opponent commander, the income become 95%.
And it becomes 90.25% after you kill the second one.
In this way, it doesn't drop as faster as the subtraction.
And I think it may be more adaptive for the bigger game with multiple players.

Look at the >1.0 side.
What do you see for (1.1)^n ?

I find out that 0.95^4 = 0.81450625, which makes nearly no difference to 80%.
The multiplication is not a good idea, either.

When you knock out an opponent, you can get his metal spots for building extractors.
So the income of metal increases linearly in theory.

For -0.05 bounty
The original income: x2 => x3 => x4 => x5 => x6 => x7
The subtraction bounty: 0.95 => 0.9 => 0.85 => 0.8 => 0.75 => 0.7
The obtained income: 1.9 => 2.7 => 3.4 => 4 => 4.5 =>4.9
I think it is still playable.

For -0.1 bounty
The original income: x2 => x3 => x4 => x5 => x6 => x7
The subtraction bounty: 0.9 => 0.8 => 0.7 => 0.6 => 0.5 => 0.4
The obtained income: 1.8 => 2.4 => 2.8 => 3.0 => 3.0 => 2.8
There is a watershed.
After that point, the player is better not to attack the enemy.
Otherwise, he gets less income even with enemy metal extractors.

You are right.
The absolute value of the bounty must be small.
It is very sensitivity, no matter it is base on addition or multiplication.
Now I think it is no way the let its absolute value be greater than 2.

I was playing 3 player ffa, so a -0.1x worked well.

just because you *could* set up a game that was bad with a negative bounty, doesn't mean you *can't* set up a game that's good.

if you don't like the settings, go ahead and leave that lobby. but that's no reason to vote against the option

It is much more worse than that.
I just leave this here for further insights. Just imaging where the purple curve is going to.

If you don't like it, don't play it. The option shouldn't be removed just because you don't want to play it.

Can you tell us acceptable reasons to vote against it?

I mean if you like the option you vote yes if you don't like it maybe you should vote yes too? It seems like the entire reason for a poll to me.

And its that kind of thinking that ruins game design!

Uber employee #1: That's it we've added every option everyone wanted for hosting a game.
Uber Employee #2: Awesome now there are 50 servers all with different settings waiting for players.
Uber Employee #1: Yep I'm starting my gas giant only game right now!

There is a reason they added the limit so

Wouldn't happen.
Also why add a negative value to begin with, all that encourages is mega FFA camping. It's bad enough I have to kill 9 other players without getting 2v1'd but try doing that with a 9 com kills efficiency reduction (don't know the numbers because maths but it would be insane trying to do anything after 5 or 6 kills).....
And the mentality that "more is better" doesn't mean :
A. It would actually be better because being stuck in a 50 min game with 3 players in a Mexican standoff waiting for someone to kill the other is bad enough.
B. Allow griefers more possibilities to bother people ( Set the limit to -1% and just lie that it looks normal on their screen) and "opps sorry guys my bad" is the first thing on the in game chat.
It should ether be a good thing or not exist all together. To tell a player "Hey good job for that hard fight but since you did such a great job and killing that com off were now gonna reduce your economy ," is ridiculous.

I don't understand what's wrong with adding the option for people that want it.

Back in the early 2000s when I played TA a lot I could regularly wait up to an hour for a game against just one person. In this day and age I get people leaving a 10 player FFA lobby with 9 people in it because they refuse to wait 2 minutes for somebody else to join.

I say, **** those people.

Add all of the options you want. Mods are a good example of this and how this works. I'd like to see land only matches and matches with artillery turned off. Lets face it, some things are overpowered in FFA and make FFA less fun as a result. Lets have the option to tweak the game for specific game types like this. If 10 players want to play with a negative bounty reward, then let them.

I dont get this discussion.

The value is a multiplier:

e.g. if you set it to 0.5 it means you lost half your economy after a kill.
This is already what you ask for.

If you set it to the minimum allowed 0.01, it means you lost 99% of your economy after a kill, which is roughtly the same as no economy at all.

Every value below 1.0 is a *penalty*.

What's the point of having negativ values? It will always means 0 economy, which is almost like 0.01!

Nope.
A bounty factor of 0.5 will give you 1.5 at the first kill, 2.0 at the second, 2.5 at the third and so on.

This is what happens when someone who doesn't know what they're talking about states their interpretation as fact. Let this be lesson to you in all future endeavours.

Well, I had assumed that it followed the same rules as the eco modifier, is this not the case?

Nope, it adds to the eco modifier, like @crizmess said.