AR system suggestion

[BlackWolf]

Re: AR system suggestion

That is not the problem yoyo, it never has been and never will be.
That is outcome of the problem. Not reason of it.

 

[yoyo]

Re: AR system suggestion

That is not the problem yoyo, it never has been and never will be.
That is outcome of the problem. Not reason of it.

errr thats funny because i apllied to numerous alliances and they all wanted my phone number and at least eight hours a day for seventy days online..

i am real sorry BW, but the reality is i went solo many rounds ago because people wanted my phone number so they can call me while i am sleeping to log on and defend. many people did exactly what i just descibed above.

you want more alliances? less solos? SO DO I !

just have azzer force everyone into an alliance upon creation.

well thanks for the reply BW

 

[f0xx]

Re: AR system suggestion

That's silly... only the alliances who play for the win will want your phone number.

Even so, if you say that ALL alliances want your number (which is not true), make one in which you wouldn't want people's numbers.

People play solos because currently, solos get better defence (much better). In order for alliances to compete with those solos, they raise their expectations, activity and contactability wise which eventually drives people away from alliances and we are stuck in a circle. Remove ALL benefits from solos (not the option to play as one) so players will again want to play in alliances and everything will be normal because those solos who work as alliances will not be getting AR every time a mediocore alliance with not-so-experienced attack organiser launches a coordinated strike on them.

 

[willymchilybily]

Re: AR system suggestion

How would you keep solos active if you punished them for logging in?

yup
first point i thought of.
your giving them reduced advantage to be online. infact the more active you are the less protection you get. lol

let alone accounting for just having been raped and wanting high ar. or the fact not all pnaps are online when you are
originially i thought reasonable idea. in reality its unfeasible and wouldnt work. (ps.why is this in bushtarion discussion and not suggestions....*prods the mods)

pps.lol just seen yoyo post then bw post then yoyo repost hillarious how black wolfs valid point is just disregarded. hahahahah even the newer people ignore him

 

[BlackWolf]

Re: AR system suggestion

Thank you willy, It is funny how f0xx still understands my point where you dont.
If you dont have brains to see anything else than what you want to see then maybe you shouldnt even post on forums where people are trying to share thoughts and ideas and comunicate, not try to make fun of others.

 

[philipd12]

Re: AR system suggestion

i went solo many rounds ago because people wanted my phone number so they can call me while i am sleeping to log on and defend

Just give them a fake mobile number

 

[atsanjose]

Re: AR system suggestion

i went solo many rounds ago because people wanted my phone number so they can call me while i am sleeping to log on and defend

Just give them a fake mobile number

now thats even more sad phil

 

[jerky413]

Re: AR system suggestion

Being this is a war game, how about making the Solos have to employ some form of strategy.

Currently, players attacking solo players have to calculate and research an attack (to avoid AR), whereas when attacking allied players, you just send pretty much everything since government won't intervene.

Of course, they have to check for defenders etc... but many ally players are too scared to defend anything but last tick so they don't lose their staff (but they expect the others to fully defend them) at which the solo guy just range,middle, recalls after inflicting much damage. Allied player now pissed that everyday he is 1 step forward, 2 steps back. This also is killing allied play.

With all the develepments allys do just to get search lights, why can't there be something in there that aids in the defense as a result of some of those developments? Sort of like a defensive bonus multiplier or something.

While i know i'm wasting my time with ideas that most likely will get dissected, quoted, misquoted etc.. I just wanted to throw them out there in hopes adequate changes are made and/or considered before this game completely dies.

 

[Augustus]

Re: AR system suggestion

we would not even have this discussion if all these alliances would not require seventy days of 24/7 activity and your personal phone number so they can wake you up in the middle of the night.

i would be in an alliance right now if this were not the case

I agree that more and more alliances are expecting contactability and decent activity, but to say all of them are I find hard to believe(especially after checking recruitment messages and only spotting one Alliance that requests a contact No). Its not just being woken up thats a problem, it's having to send txt messages/pranking people that is also a problem. I play the game to have fun, not waste money on txt messages.

eople play solos because currently, solos get better defence (much better). In order for alliances to compete with those solos, they raise their expectations, activity and contactability wise which eventually drives people away from alliances and we are stuck in a circle.

To totally point the finger at solos is unfair IMO. Resistances are a major reason for phone numbers being a necessity, not the occasional solo wave. Personally I think that the competitiveness of Alliances is a major reason for people moving to solo play, as round by round the expectations of Alliance members becomes more demanding. This is my personal reason for going solo this round. My last round in an Alliance was at times more stressful than enjoyable, as I tried to franticly get people online to defend massive incomings.

So the problem we face is that Alliance play doesn't have the flexibility that most people need to make it an enticing option. This, IMO, is a direct result of Alliances becoming more and more competitive, which in turn makes solo play the easier/more enjoyable option.

 

[septimus]

Re: AR system suggestion

Well, I mean, if you were frantically trying to get defense then maybe that's on you, Im not saying that as an insult, I never worry too much about it, I make it known that I can't contact overseas, if that's a problem for the ally then I don't join, I also let them know that while I give a number it's not a guarantee of anything, if I'm able to get on then sure, I've never once been awakened by a call, not because they haven't tried, it just doesn't wake me, if that's a problem for them then so be it.

My point is, if you're a good player, more often then not the ally will overlook your reluctance to give a number, and if they won't then find another ally, there's definitely allies out there that will take you in regardless. People go solo because the defense is more reliable, and better then it is for allies very often.

 

[f0xx]

Re: AR system suggestion

eople play solos because currently, solos get better defence (much better). In order for alliances to compete with those solos, they raise their expectations, activity and contactability wise which eventually drives people away from alliances and we are stuck in a circle.

To totally point the finger at solos is unfair IMO. Resistances are a major reason for phone numbers being a necessity, not the occasional solo wave. Personally I think that the competitiveness of Alliances is a major reason for people moving to solo play, as round by round the expectations of Alliance members becomes more demanding. This is my personal reason for going solo this round. My last round in an Alliance was at times more stressful than enjoyable, as I tried to franticly get people online to defend massive incomings.

So the problem we face is that Alliance play doesn't have the flexibility that most people need to make it an enticing option. This, IMO, is a direct result of Alliances becoming more and more competitive, which in turn makes solo play the easier/more enjoyable option.

No, that is the problem with you solo lovers. When you are a solo, you are not afraid to attack alliances becuase they just cannot bash you back, if they do they will trigger AR (we are talking about mediocore players here). If everyone is allied though, then everyone will first THINK before they attack becuase they know that if they are not good enough they will be retalled and mashed. That is when solo play destroys alliance politics and that is where the game gats boring and fails. That is where solo play is better than alliance play.

When I am solo, I am invincible to bashes, especially if I have two active naps. How are you going to argue with this adequately?

 

[roger rabbit]

Re: AR system suggestion

eople play solos because currently, solos get better defence (much better). In order for alliances to compete with those solos, they raise their expectations, activity and contactability wise which eventually drives people away from alliances and we are stuck in a circle.

To totally point the finger at solos is unfair IMO. Resistances are a major reason for phone numbers being a necessity, not the occasional solo wave. Personally I think that the competitiveness of Alliances is a major reason for people moving to solo play, as round by round the expectations of Alliance members becomes more demanding. This is my personal reason for going solo this round. My last round in an Alliance was at times more stressful than enjoyable, as I tried to franticly get people online to defend massive incomings.

So the problem we face is that Alliance play doesn't have the flexibility that most people need to make it an enticing option. This, IMO, is a direct result of Alliances becoming more and more competitive, which in turn makes solo play the easier/more enjoyable option.

No, that is the problem with you solo lovers. When you are a solo, you are not afraid to attack alliances becuase they just cannot bash you back, if they do they will trigger AR (we are talking about mediocore players here). If everyone is allied though, then everyone will first THINK before they attack becuase they know that if they are not good enough they will be retalled and mashed. That is when solo play destroys alliance politics and that is where the game gats boring and fails. That is where solo play is better than alliance play.

When I am solo, I am invincible to bashes, especially if I have two active naps. How are you going to argue with this adequately?

well you could have addressed the point he was making vs the one you made up to talk about. he was talking about his reason to go to solo play because he does not like the current state of allied play. respond to his point of why he does not like allied play...help him and the playerbase get back into allied play vs belittling his comments.

 

[BlackWolf]

Re: AR system suggestion

I can answer to you without making 57lines of quotes and still talk of same matter.
Please learn to use quotes without spamming.

What f0xx is after is whole solo concept. He made it pretty clear that current way of solos doesnt work at all. He gave example of one situation which was then without even trying to think about things retaliated by multiple solo lovers how alliances are this and alliances are that.

If you dont have enought brains to understand that any mediocre player in this game is getting 10 times better defence as solo than they are in any alliance which they are able to join then you really should stop posting to threads like this.
Why alliances demands contacts? Because alliances dont get automatical goverment defence to stop 10 people massing on one. They must gather those 10 people to defend against that attack. If they dont they just die 1 by 1. I have seen solo groups (read alliances) massing on single alliance after alliance, something that couldnt ever happen on solo. So what possibility does those alliances have? They demand more from people playing in alliances and rest will get killed few times because of no defence and go solo.

Alliances have not caused situation to be like this! Situation is caused by massive advantage of solos vs. alliances. Your survivability as solo is so much bigger that it has pushed alliance players to be solos. This is never ending road. More solos = more solo groups = more masses on fewer alliances = more people going solo, and remaining alliances once again pick their members even more carefully and demand more of their members. Get it? It is going in circles and has gone for rounds now.

It is simply bullshit to say things like "alliance play doesnt have felxibility etc." I want to see the day when AR is removed from solos and we will finally get to retaliate you all solo lovers with the full force of our alliances. THATS FLEXIBILITY!

 

[f0xx]

Re: AR system suggestion

well you could have addressed the point he was making vs the one you made up to talk about. he was talking about his reason to go to solo play because he does not like the current state of allied play. respond to his point of why he does not like allied play...help him and the playerbase get back into allied play vs belittling his comments.

The current state of allied play is only because of the power solos hold at the moment. If you are stupid enough not to undertand this, then I understand why you protect solos so zealously.

There you go, I responded to his comment, happy now?

 

[Harbinger]

Re: AR system suggestion

As long as solo play is part of Bush then AR has to remain - those of you who are arguing that AR should be removed know very well that solo play would then be impossible. Take away PNaps, in some way use the code to stop triggering and massing by solos - but as long as solo play is allowed then AR must remain.

No AR - no solo play - so Bush then becomes an alliance only game. That's fine - but the only way that would work is that EVERYONE is randomly allocated an alliance when they sign-up. Let's say there are 20-25 alliances set up by the system - they are filled in rotation - if 1000 players sign up then that means 40-50 per alliance. You have no control over who you will be playing with. Alliances are locked for the entire round. The only way you can switch alliances is by deleting, waiting for that account to delete and then sign-up again and be randomly allocated for a second time (bad luck if you get the same alliance ) Or a halfway house - where let's say alliances are locked at 10 chosen members (so you can partly choose) and thereafter sign-ups are allocated.

Whatever way it was setup, there would have to be some way of people immediately joining an alliance if solo play is outlawed.

 

[moorer]

Re: AR system suggestion

Couldn't agree more Harbie.

FTW alliances are guilty of bashing alliances lower in the food chain just as much if not more than the solo "groups".

Whilst we continue to allow hyperactive players to form their close knit alliances then we will never see a truly "competitive" alliance round.

Solos have little hope of damaging these alliance singly so must attack in groups if they hope to succeed same of any alliance really, a solo has little hope of landing attacking an allied target where the alliance has any sort of reasonable activity level.

 

[roger rabbit]

Re: AR system suggestion

the reason i keep making these remarks/comments is because the reactionary nature that people have to solving the "solo problem." but you still wont fix as much as you want because you're not addressing the cause.

alci really put it nicely in another thread when he said that injuries is what is causing allied play to deteriorate. therein lies, imo, the reason why more people have abandoned allied play and have embraced solo.

i dont remember anyone complaining as much before injuries was introduced.

put your head around the cause of the problem vs trying to fix the effects it.

and everyone bashes, allied or solo. just that it seems worse now that more solos are around now.

 

[f0xx]

Re: AR system suggestion

This thread is so full of **** I refuse to read it anymore.

People don't seem to understand that most of the people who are posting against solo play have no problem palying in alliances or as solos, because they just know what they are doing.

Solos don't bother me, neither they bother BW or Silence or whoever. The thing is, they are those who destroy the game and because we love we try to protect it, but some people will not give up their personal benefits...

 

[BlackWolf]

Re: AR system suggestion

I so agree with f0xx.
I have played as solo and loved it, I have lead alliances and loved it, I currently play as mmber of alliance and I love it too.
I was the one who made post to old forums about how solo play is next to impossible something like 10+ rounds ago. I have always thought that solos are part of bushtarion as alliances are. I just at the current state of bushtarion dont see any other way to stop this down hill than to cut AR out. That is what I would do. You dont agree? Fine.

I have been telling how this game is going straight to hell for how many? 10 rounds. Was I ever listened? No. Well here we are... Is anyone still listening? Well this time I must say yes. Some people who I wouldnt have ever thought to see things my way have turned their opinions around and started to agree with me. I am not genius, or I dont say I'm right. But hell yes I say that something must be done. And that something is not wrapping same **** to new paper and calling it age 5.

 

[Augustus]

Re: AR system suggestion

What f0xx is after is whole solo concept. He made it pretty clear that current way of solos doesnt work at all. He gave example of one situation which was then without even trying to think about things retaliated by multiple solo lovers how alliances are this and alliances are that.

And my point is that currently Alliance play pushes people towards playing solo, because it is less demanding and more rewarding. Alliance play in its current form has issues and trying to push people from Solo play to Alliances will only serve to shrink the playerbase further IMO. We will have to wait and see how the playerbase changes over the next couple of rounds, if I am wrong, then I will gladly admit it.