New Unit & Devolopment Structure: General Introduction

[Tim]

Re: New Unit & Devolopment Structure: General Introduction

This new "skeleton" looks very interesting. I notice that quite a few posters have referred to your suggestion as a new game however I think the visualisation of the changes you have proposed make it clear that it is simply a change, similar to the introduction of middle ticks or the introduction of unit bonuses.

I feel that it would make a lot of sense to introduce something like this, for a number of reasons.

--

1/

The current unit structure is getting quite old. The basic tech trees and routes were introduced in R8 at the start of Age 3 and the third branch (Rangers/Puppets/Extremist etc) was brought in later. Then the Fantasy route came, but this was still a subset of the existing structure.

A refresh would be good for old and new players alike. Old players have experienced all the routes so change can be good, provided it is done in the right way. New players to the game who have no experience whatsoever must find all the unit bonuses awfully confusing.

2/

This suggestion would introduce a more flexible structure for units that is allows for greater use of tactics. While changing ETAs may sound different at first, it makes sense in terms of realism and along with the other new options opens up a whole new world of tactical possibilities.

3/

The unit "skeleton" and proposed changes simplify things. It still allows specific units to have a greater effect against specific units and classes of unit but actually brings it into a standard structure which can be compared against other units.

--

I am personally all for this change as I feel the game has become somewhat stale. I must state though that I haven't analysed the proposed units in great detail so can't comment on those, however the actual unit structure is definitely most interesting.

 

[Sekishi]

Re: New Unit & Devolopment Structure: General Introduction

A Message to all readers. Most of you feel like just reading the suggestion is often enough, and that everything is up to Azzer to decide or not. While this is true to a large degree everyone seam to forget that players can influense more then they belive. If everyone sat on their ass and dident sign up unless Azzer would change something he would change it. And be it if you like this suggestion or not. I ask that you post your comments on it here, its alot to read for some but its all rather easy reading, and it is a very important topic in terms that it might affect the games future and i belive more voices on the matter should be heard. So i hope those against this suggestion are willing to post, aslong as its constructive and everyone agree's that flame wars does not help this game or the suggestion one bit. I would also encurage influensial players that might discuss this suggestion together with others in PM or in their Alliance Channels or Politics to please guide their members to help post their comments. The more responses and the more voices heard from the community the better can the suggestion be judged.

 

[CLem]

Re: New Unit & Devolopment Structure: General Introduction

I am a bit unsure about the living/vehicle/building thing. In the world of alliance play, you often do combined attacks and use your mate's troops to complement yours, e.g. rpg and SA. Now if they two type targets different things the effectiveness of that is nullified. I liked the way that there is just two parameters, health and armour. Simple and straight forward.

If people flk their route well, then it is them well played, they shouldn't face a unit that specifically aim at that unit that they so intentional try to flk.

 

[Sekishi]

Re: New Unit & Devolopment Structure: General Introduction

I am a bit unsure about the living/vehicle/building thing. In the world of alliance play, you often do combined attacks and use your mate's troops to complement yours, e.g. rpg and SA. Now if they two type targets different things the effectiveness of that is nullified. I liked the way that there is just two parameters, health and armour. Simple and straight forward.

If people flk their route well, then it is them well played, they shouldn't face a unit that specifically aim at that unit that they so intentional try to flk.

Im not saying every unit will target in that format. Most units would be as you say the 2 Paramater mostly of just Lethal (All kinds). But there will be come units that might have: Let(All), Let(Crime) for instance as targeting. The unit might be a Pure Let targeter but its possible to make it target only certain parts of all those lethal units. And in cases where units becomme to strong it makes ballancing them again easy. Thats the main reason for this new structure, alot of the reason of the new +% bonuses etc or -% is the fact the targeting system aint flexible enough currently to aim towards the elements thats unballanced. This new structure would not have that problem.

 

[CFalcon]

Re: New Unit & Devolopment Structure: General Introduction

In general I like. New routes would definately breath some life and interest back into the game. I also like the different eta types.
The routes themselves, I don't think I can comment on without more details.

I'm cautious about the new targeting system. It could definately be interesting, bring new tactics and help with balancing issues, but Clem raises some valid points. If it's done right though these shouldn't be a problem.


I must also add that I'm instinctively wary of such a big change. There are plenty of positives here. However no amount of thinking beforehand can guaruntee a balanced system. The current system is far from perfect, but it works fairly well, and I wouldn't want to see it thrown out the window for the sake of change.

 

[Garrett]

Re: New Unit & Devolopment Structure: General Introduction

A Message to all readers. Most of you feel like just reading the suggestion is often enough, and that everything is up to Azzer to decide or not. While this is true to a large degree everyone seam to forget that players can influense more then they belive. If everyone sat on their ass and dident sign up unless Azzer would change something he would change it. And be it if you like this suggestion or not. I ask that you post your comments on it here, its alot to read for some but its all rather easy reading, and it is a very important topic in terms that it might affect the games future and i belive more voices on the matter should be heard. So i hope those against this suggestion are willing to post, aslong as its constructive and everyone agree's that flame wars does not help this game or the suggestion one bit. I would also encurage influensial players that might discuss this suggestion together with others in PM or in their Alliance Channels or Politics to please guide their members to help post their comments. The more responses and the more voices heard from the community the better can the suggestion be judged.

to mods:

as long as mods continue to straight delete posts, who cares. there are many sides to all arguments to consider. i find it perfectly reasonable to ask how to get things accomplished beyond the suggestion itself. the suggestion itself may be good but without discussion on what it would actually take, then all you have is a good light show. all angles need to be looked at.

if what it takes to implement suggestions outweighs the benefit of the suggestion, then it wouldn't make it. trying to talk about what would be needed in implementing ANY suggestion, can only HELP azzer in his decision making.

if no one can handle being asked difficult or hard questions, then all you are going to have is a poorly made pipe dream.

as long as mods continue to be irresponsible with their positions, everyone should just continue to fly away from the forums and from the game.

specifically to darryl: who in the hell are you to tell people how to think about suggestions? yes it's up to azzer to decide but this is a discussion about the suggestion and discussing how hard it would be or wouldn't be is part of trying to help take the suggestion an additional step further.

I happen to have spent many years here like alot of you and yes i've stopped playing and giving azzer money, but I still would like to come back some day when it's fun. so i'm still on the forums talking where i see fit, until you asshats come and delete EVERYTHING.

get off your damn high horses, maybe you don't understand where my angle is, but my DAILY JOB is to poke holes in the process and break stuff or at least try to break stuff, so when it goes into production it is the best damn thing it could be.

yes i've not gotten along with sordes in the past, but i see potential in this idea, and if we talk about how it can be implemented then maybe it will help spark azzer up...

in short your behaviors are PATHETIC

 

[Sekishi]

Re: New Unit & Devolopment Structure: General Introduction

Garrett. The last time you replied in this topic you started a chain reaction that lead the Suggestion far off topic. You even admited not even having read the suggestion last time which really did not help prevent the posts being deleted. So i would like to ask you to please keep the post ON TOPIC, no matter if it takes 2 years to code the suggestion keep your responses on the Quality of the suggestion and not the means around it. Its up to Azzer if he wants to spend the time or not, intil then you help respond if you think its good enough or not to be worth it. Thats your duty as a player or member of the community. Not to hack down on suggestions because you think it will require to much coding. So please take to your Mod Bashing elsewhere, and if your to continue posting in this topic please make them about the actual suggestion.

 

[Bobbin]

Re: New Unit & Devolopment Structure: General Introduction

Hmm... My post was just as valid as any others Darryl. Any comment is viable on a suggestion (apart from daft flames ofc) So I'm going to restate it.

I like the suggestion, and it all sounds good. But it does feel like a different game to me, as i said the first time.

I'll also add that maybe turning Bush into a different game could be a good thing, never said either way on that one. However, instead of completely turning the game upside down, and removing all the work put into it over the past few years. I think it's a better idea to fix the current route structure rather than completely change it. I'm always in favour of baby steps than giant leaps.

Also time to implement it is a very viable factor, which i think we're all entitled to comment on. If it was to take an entire year to make this change, which is possible, then nothing else would get done. I for one wouldn't want to see any baby steps not happening while waiting for a leap. Waiting for a whole new version while a current, and possibly flawed version goes unchanged/fixed is something that could drive away players.

Garett - While i may agree with you, Please don't de-rail the thread. Take any comments you have about what the mods do, either directly to the mods, to Azzer, or just make another gripe about it.

 

[Sekishi]

Re: New Unit & Devolopment Structure: General Introduction

Bobbin. From most players i would agree to comments that alot of this feels like a different game but from you i find it strange considering nothing ive proposed is really different from the Bushtarion of the past where Bushtarion actualy was growing alot in playerbase and not shrinking like today. The change in Routes, sure its a rather drastic step. But with the old structure that is today you where there when it was made i remember playing in NTH with you the first round of Age 3 before you left for Core. The situation would be very simular to back then but asked today you would answer that was stil Bushtarion since the actual gameplay did not change very much just the interface of it. Its like A sequel to a movie, lets take Xmen as a rapid example, xmen, xmen2 and xmen last battle are all xmen since their all based on the same concept and follow the same storyline. This would not be any different. The Targetsystem would only be a upgrade of the current one, so i dont see that as being a drastic change. As for the routes if it wasent for the fact that the 17 Options today are hanging by a thread and there are complaints all over, many many many players are complaining that their now staying in Bushtarion for their friends not because the game is fun anymore is a serius thing to consider. The remake of the routes if you read what i wrote are all based on elements that exists today or been suggested as wanted things in the past. My suggestion if you try to visualise as Tim mentioned, would look very simular to the early stages of Age 3. That was stil Bushtarion and after Age 4 came in, Bushtarion's decline started to speed up alot so one cant really use Age 4 change as a valid reason not to consider a drastic change. Because the changes Age 4 brought have been far from all good so a suggestion like this exists to try to fix the flaws that has happened since then. And i know you said you basicly liked the suggestion but felt it perhaps is a little drastic, well Bushtarion is in a crisis and drastic steps does need to be taken perhaps not this but something and Azzer has done a poor job on it so far so just waiting for him to fix it when he seams to pay very little attension to Bushtarion these days is a poor choice to take. And as for the code work, for us players thats not really something we should judge it by. I dont think its you thats coding it Bobbin ? And Azzer would not be the one to outline the new Routes anyway, he has always done that poorly so the best choice would be to for starter let me post up the Entire "Base" for the new routes and units, devlopments etc. Then invite a larger base of players. For instance create a topic here in Suggestions for each Route, starting with the Genic units and invite anyone who wants to to take part in the creation of the base. Then after that is "coded" then invite to a large Private world, have players go in and start testing and have a open topic again here on forums for feedbacks to be posted. Let the community do most of the job and let Azzer stick to the coding of what the community builds up. That would save him ALOT of work, and then the overall workload or code time would be reduced drasticly.

 

[Garrett]

Re: New Unit & Devolopment Structure: General Introduction

Garrett. The last time you replied in this topic you started a chain reaction that lead the Suggestion far off topic. You even admited not even having read the suggestion last time which really did not help prevent the posts being deleted. So i would like to ask you to please keep the post ON TOPIC, no matter if it takes 2 years to code the suggestion keep your responses on the Quality of the suggestion and not the means around it. Its up to Azzer if he wants to spend the time or not, intil then you help respond if you think its good enough or not to be worth it. Thats your duty as a player or member of the community. Not to hack down on suggestions because you think it will require to much coding. So please take to your Mod Bashing elsewhere, and if your to continue posting in this topic please make them about the actual suggestion.

I'm free to question whatever I want. Asking you if you've taken any of the implementation into consideration is perfectly valid.

Often times knowing how something is going to go in or how it would fit makes all the difference in the world. You may find that something that you really liked about your piece doesn't work due to this or that logisitical thing. Then if it doesn't work due to some restricition or restraint, then that piece would have to change... which would have to change the other 'balanced' pieces you would have down the line.

So in challenging you if you know about implementation opens up the dicussion to knowledgable people who do know alot about putting things together (polo's posts for example were very helpful). So if multiple people are posting about shortcuts in coding or what kind of task this or that is.. then maybe it wouldn't look daunting to the creator or help him get motivated to make a change or 5.

Just because you don't understand me, doesn't make me any less valid. I appreciate you trying to police your own thread, but I will continue to make my posts as I have always done.

Thanks for your concern.

If this still wasn't on topic enough for you:

I am in total disagreement with the specialized targetting. cheers.

 

[Sekishi]

Re: New Unit & Devolopment Structure: General Introduction

Garrett then please share with me why your against that. Since for me it seams very obvious with the mess of the Targeting situation that exists today that a better version needs to be made to help clear up the problems this game faces on ballance. Its impossible to add new things to this game without either tones of different bonus or handicap traits and even then ballancing other elements are extremly difficult. Allowing for specialised targeting would solve this problem, but problem is that you cant adapt this well to the current Unit Structure because its to wide in range. And i could have explained it wouldent be much of work to you and tried, but because i cant code you did not take it seriusly. But when things would just be a slight upgrade of things already existing it does not take much brains to figure out that its not alot of work to update either targeting or the new unit structure. The hardest element would be to add elements like Fund stealing, but when you have fund destruction already in the game it means only slight modifications, and a new Unit type IE Buildings arent alot of work because its just a new target variable. So i cant see the "difficulty" of coding even a issue in this suggestion.

 

[Polo]

Re: New Unit & Devolopment Structure: General Introduction

I agree with those who say there may be too many targetting options. Route + Type + Class is a bit over the top. Perhaps drop one of the three (Type, imo) and it would be better.

Also, I'm all for different ETAs for Attacks and Defence (pretty sure Harriergirl suggested this a while back btw) but I don't agree with having another ETA for returning. That would complicate it too much.

 

[Sekishi]

Re: New Unit & Devolopment Structure: General Introduction

Sadly for the targeting to be able to effect ballance properly all 3 are needed. The reason for that is because Route Type can indicate the broader and help single out Elements of a Single Route, example if the Bunker Unit is to strong, its impossible to target that unit effectivly without being able to select what route to be targeted. And further without the Unit Type its impossible to create differances within say Lethal units, while how many is discussable AIR i added because i think its safe to say it should be hard to Bribe a flying unit hard to hand them cash or the like to do it. But "Health, Armour, Building" are the limited 3 that are needed at the very least. I choose to broaden it a little more but thats a discussable topic. As for ETA's, Attack and Deffence eta are as many say the simple of the two. Return is a add to be able to for instance make a unit that i had in mind "B2 Bomber" Be able to have a slow attack in stealth, but a quick return making it more usable then if it was alot of ticks both ways. Return eta is part of what can help regulate how long time a unit is out attack or deffence. A Quick return unit could also be sendt to deffend more places which would help overall add enough options to create new type of units.

 

[Garrett]

Re: New Unit & Devolopment Structure: General Introduction

if all 3 are needed then I don't see this as being a positive step... and also what i was talking about earlier, there is no flexibility in your suggestion - it has to be this way because it's the only way it will balance.

look at starcraft for example, there are surface to surface units, surface to air units and air to air units...

doesn't matter if it's machine or flesh, effectiveness comes into play but that's surrounding the armour and health stats.

not to mention that starcraft is a more robust game than bushT. you want to do a face lift to bring more in, but if time and time again complexity comes up... the system you propose with targetting is too specific - doesn't matter what I propose if you say it's the only way to get the rest of your idea to balance.

the suggestion wins points (again) for 'clever yet futile' as while it addresses many items, targetting is a widely misunderstood issue and your suggestion will not solve that problem - it will simply change it into a new wave of misunderstanding and frustration.

 

[Sekishi]

Re: New Unit & Devolopment Structure: General Introduction

First Point: Starcraft is Ballanced around 3 Races, Its limited to TOPS 8 players at a time. And its based to last on average less then a Houer pr game. Dont compare that to a game that currently has 17 "Races" and is based with "Hundreds" of players and Last "75 Days day and night" Its not even comparable. And just to point out, Starcraft ballance works on more then just health and armour, it works on the fire speed of units, the target range of units, the general abilities of units. Its not as simple as you point it out, but ballancing Starcraft is much easier then ballancing Bushtarion

Second Point: You say i misunderstand Targeting of this game. Who do you think have been teaching people about how to layer flak, layer killers etc designed to be so in this game in the first place Garrett ? I did that i know far better then you how targeting works. So dont come here and say things are futile because i dont understand it, its you who dont undrestand that without the ability to specific targeting Ballance is imposible unless you want to drag it down to around Age 2 Standards where there where only 3 "Races" to begin with, and each Route had only 6 units each. Then this current system worked with barly a flaw at all. But currently the 17 and more then 100 units in the game IT DOESENT WORK WELL. IF your so smart and say it doesent work. SUGGETS SOMETHING ELSE since so far youve done very little other then try to point out how things doesent work without backing it up at all and showing nothing but inexperience in the matter.


Third Point: Compare my suggestion, with the current situation of the game. Mine is less then half as complex, so it takes many steps towards the right direction. It puts all the wanted elements of the current attempts to ballance by making say units stronger vs thug units etc. It removes the need to go and read the manual and click on every unit to see its list of bonuses which rearly even plays a part in larger battles making the change almost pointless on top situations only when top bashes low. The current system is flawed and complexed. Mine offers to clean that mess up, im not saying its my way or no way. Im saying my way, is better then current way. If you know a better one, state it or dont come and say that its worse then today. It is steps to making the game simpler, but when one wants to have a broad amount of units, a broad selection of playable styles that makes alot of units. And to battle alot of units, in big battles aswell as smal. Selective Targeting in the Target System is needed. Im not saying every unit will be specialised targeting. Im saying the Target System would allow for that.


Fourth Point: You say its clever which means you like atlest some parts of it or you havent read it at all yet and only responding to what others have posted. But you say its futile, the only reason this could becomme futile, is because players like you with a bad attitude towards players and those actualy making serius suggestions and atempting to give the impression Azzer would never do things like this. Azzer has already done it 2 TIMES ALREADY in the past, 3 if we count when the New Subroutes where added. And thats only in the time ive played, so im sure it was more between age 1 and age 2 aswell. So ill put it blunt, dont answer on Azzer behalf on things you cant answer for him. Yes its alot bigger then the average suggestion, but here is the fact i dont see you or anyone else comming up with something better.

Fifth Point: If you cant make constructive comments and only keep repeating the same statement that is totaly false over and over again. Please go to Gripe section and stay there. Since you obviously then arent capable of constructive feedback or debate.

 

[Twigley]

Re: New Unit & Devolopment Structure: General Introduction

As much as i disike 95% and disagree with 95% of what Garret says, i don't think he is being unconstructive,

He is bringing up possible flaws and you are informing of us of your opinion that your suggestion would work.

Atm i'm refraining from posting on my view on this untill i see unit suggestions with stats and more detailed post later.
And i also have the issue that you havnt played for a while and (still dont?) yet you are commenting on how the game is now and how o improve and i amwondering if you could clear that up for me.

 

[No-Dachi]

Re: New Unit & Devolopment Structure: General Introduction

I love the suggestion in general (the routes -are-outdated), and I'm all in favor of cutting the crap, so to say.

However, I agree with Polo that a Return ETA will complicate things too much. It would make it a lot harder to calculate your enemies defenses in a large scale ally attack as well as complicate things in general. While it's a nice idea, and opens up a lot of tactical options I feel it's a bit too much - at least at the moment.

I'm also not too sure on your three types of different targeting. Class should be enough, and route is a nice addition seeing we'll have so few routes to balance between. But while "type" is a good idea on the paper, I feel it would sort of clutter the system up again. I can definitely see the use for it, but I can't seem to justify the need of a third targeting type.

I feel this change (if done right) will bring Bushtarion back to what it was. At the moment it's like the floor of my room. There's so much **** lying around on it that you can't really see its a floor underneath it. You just assume it is as it's supposed to be a floor there somewhere.

Looking forward to read more about this as you post.

 

[Sekishi]

Re: New Unit & Devolopment Structure: General Introduction

Twigley, he would have been constructive had he brought up new points and bring up things thats been answered 3 times already. Thats something i see as unconstructive. But i do welcome him to post new things and i will be happy to answer that. Your issue with me not playing, well dont worry i can steal beat you in tactics, activity and knowlage. Its just Bushtarion as it is today, will do me very little good but that does not mean that im out dated. Ive read the Updates thats been comming out on regular basis, i talk with players on regular basis so while ive not actualy played i got a good understand of the general game situation. As for wait to see a full Detail Post, well unless this topic gets a large feedback base you wont. But since you brought it up i will mention it, that post would be the base code before full ballance several elements of it would be blank like unit cost of several all that would be really posted is the majority of the roles the units would have but the main reason ive not is that i wish to welcome more players to take part in its creation (since people feel im outdated there would be no reason to complain about it then) i would just help supply the first blue prints so to speak. But before that please comment on at the very least on the Concept.

Also a few have a problem with the targeting seaming a little to selective and belive this would make things hard to follow. I can understand that from a first perspective but would like everyone to stop for a few moments and think about it. If a unit has a targeting of "Let(Crime)" it would only take a few moments to understand its targeting Lethals on Crime, if someone has the targeting. All(Buildings) It would not be hard understand that its Buildings thats being targeted. Atlest not when it would be easy to see what units are classed as Buildings. The system simply seams more complicated then what it is.

 

[Twigley]

Re: New Unit & Devolopment Structure: General Introduction

I did comment on the concept.

And i dont really care about your opinion that you can "beat me" on activity, tactics and knoledge - i was just asking you about if you knew what the game was like and didnt expect a hostile response.

 

[BlackWolf]

Re: New Unit & Devolopment Structure: General Introduction

Im not going to really comment yet, cause at the moment i see it to be completely pointless.
I cant see a day when Azzer starts to do this change or would do this change. Im not actually sure what kind of change Azzer would do to his game when hes so busy with everything else but his game.
So as long as situation stays same and we see more and more glued on changes on top of each others at the end of the round and Azzer spends his time (and i really do mean hours after hours) playing stupid games like whatta hell that Conan game was instead of developing his game, suggestions like this are useless.
Im sorry Sordes. I know you were hoping more from me, but i have decided im not posting to suggestions unless im really really bored. Even this post i only made cause i do respect the work you put to these suggestions, and which are completely ignored by Azzer as has been basically all suggestions for nearly 2 years now.