• Those wishing to contribute to the game by making suggestions (both small and large) should read the following before doing so.

    Bushtarion largely runs completely automatically, and has been designed intentionally to be as self-maintaining as possible, with mechanics and balance considered at a completed point.

    Please do not spend large amounts of time coming up with complex suggestions in the hope that they will be read and possibly implemented in the future, unless you just enjoy the discussion, theory-craft, and such.

    The most likely changes will be rules-changes, specific number-tweaks to units, techs, and similar sorts of changes, and only if a large community consensus is reached as "proof" that a change would, overall, be an improvement, and are more likely to be done in batches, occassionally, not as a regular thing.

Granaries

Smoke

Weeder
Joined
Dec 14, 2007
Messages
10
Okay, so here I am, extremely bored at work, and I find myself perusing the forums to pass the time. I began reading the suggestion for the 'unit-upkeep' theory, and it got me to thinking. Instead of putting a limit such as upkeep on units to keep the higher-ranked players "in-check" why not institute a unit/development that is required of all players on an equal basis. It would actually change the dynamics and strategies of the game to quite a different level.

The theory/suggestion is based upon a storage center for seeds and plants. This storage center, or Granary, is a building you start with that is constantly required to develop/upgrade in order to be able to store/hoard seeds and plants for both lower ranked players and higher ranked players. If you are a higher ranked player with a large amount of acres, you would be required to constantly upgrade your Granary to the point that you wouldn't lose seeds and plants on an overall daily basis.

Secondly, along with this type development, a new unit can be built/developed that would have a sole purpose of destroying Granaries or knocking them down a few levels. It could be a LET type unit that you need a crapload of to take down a Granary a single level and could not kill/strip any other units, or it could be an INN unit that has a sole purpose of taking the granaries down. Either way, it would be a potentially expensive unit so that in the beginning of the round it wouldn't have much effect, but later in the round it could be utilized as a weapon and as an extra flak type unit that provides a bonus to your attacks.

There's the overall idea, now here are the possible ramifications of implementing it.

Effect on the beginning of the round:

When you start, you have a Granary that can store seeds and plants up to a certain level. Depending on your land amount and acre distribution, you can utilize this starting level Granary only to a certain point. After this certain point, you are required to upgrade it in order to fully store seeds and plants that you would gain over time. This would act as a development/upgrade and would essentially further elongate the flak-wars portion of the round and would slow down the fast-movers and keep the player-base on a more even level. Here is where the idea would first be shot-down by you readers, saying "WHY PUNISH US FOR BEING GOOD!?!?" Simple solution, the first few upgrades of the Granaries would be the most effective and would sustain seed and plant storage to a high enough level to co-incide with an acre count equivalent to 3k maybe? (This could be discussed/changed to work efficiently) They would be short developments so that you are not too inconvenienced by it but long enough to make it so that you have to plan your development strategy accordingly.

(There is probably a whole lot more it would do to the beginning, but this is what I've thought of thus-far)

Effect post-beginning:

The Granaries could have multiple benefits to the game. They could act as a buffer on incomings where they take "x" amount of damage, or they could have no defensive capabilities at all, this can be discussed. Their main attribute however, comes in the form of a building/development that has no limits on its size and needs to be constantly upgraded throughout the round in order to store seeds and plants. For those who are active, you wouldnt need to upgrade so much because you can plant when its sunny and keep your seed and plant storage to a manageable level. For those of you who have a crapload of acres and want to be seed/plant-whores, you would need to pay the price by upgrading your Granary to the point where you have enough storage. The price for these upgrades after the initial upgrades, would be in comparison to the purchasing price of acres or it would co-incide with your amount of land.

This would have multiple effects on the strategy of game-play. In addition, it would keep bot-bashing down because grass and flower acres produce a crapload of seeds and you would need to upgrade your Granary to support seed production from a crappy acre distribution. It would make players more inclined to be more intelligent about their acre distribution and attack choices. A new unit would be introduced that could either act as additional LET flak or additional INN flak, and so on.

I know it would most likely be very complicated to institute, but I think it would be something that would have a very interesting effect on game play. A veteran player's strategies would have to be re-worked but their core strengths and knowledge about the game would still be relevant.


This is an idea that popped into my head and I figured I would throw it out there to see what you all think.

Thanks for reading :D (Writing this just swallowed up a half-hour here at work!!! Hoooray!!!)
 

ToY

Weeder
Joined
Dec 23, 2008
Messages
15
Re: Granaries

I think its a great idea, to me it seems a bit complicating but maby I have just misread a few parts.
 

No-Dachi

Official Helper
Joined
Dec 15, 2007
Messages
975
Location
Oslo, Norway
Re: Granaries

My initial thought was no way. Then I read your post, and while I havn't really decided if I'm for or against the idea (numbers would need to be tweaked ofc), my question is, why? Would you care to elaborate why this change is needed - or rather, what good it'll do to the game? Because right now it seems as all it's doing is capping off inactive players abilities to play every now and then, without investing a lot of money into granaries.

I'm not shooting you down - I just need some more information.
 

Sweetlee

Weeder
Joined
Dec 14, 2007
Messages
17
Location
San Luis Obispo, CA
Re: Granaries

After seeing very legitimate concerns regarding upkeep, while I do see this as more feasible, I don't see it being perfect. I think the main flaw is the massive quantities of seed discrepancy between land types and the inactivity problem bit that no-dachi raises.

I think a very very effective method would be to make it acres based. Maybe up to 1000 acres, you don't need a special doohicky, but then when you get over 1000, to effectively harvest from those acres that are over 1000, you need a doohicky level one. Of course each level would increase with cost too.

I know this isn't going to meet bright reception from the top of the playerbase, but I do think that something like this would help to keep the rank 2 alliance in the game for longer. I know it is punishing activity/skill, but I think handicaps are necessary sometimes.
 

Smoke

Weeder
Joined
Dec 14, 2007
Messages
10
Re: Granaries

No-Dachi said:
My initial thought was no way. Then I read your post, and while I havn't really decided if I'm for or against the idea (numbers would need to be tweaked ofc), my question is, why? Would you care to elaborate why this change is needed - or rather, what good it'll do to the game? Because right now it seems as all it's doing is capping off inactive players abilities to play every now and then, without investing a lot of money into granaries.

I'm not shooting you down - I just need some more information.



It's not a capping off of inactive players, and I take no offense to your post. The idea does need more clarity and work, it was just a thought that I had in my head. It's a work in progress. It wouldn't cap off the inactive ones if it was implemented correctly. It would be a cheap and quick development up until a certain point in the game, such as 1-2 weeks into the round when the major developments are under way. Further along in the round, it would be a structure that you can upgrade when you log in every once in a while. It wouldn't necessarily force players to stay online to plant, but it would possibly coerce them into playing more and being more involved. It would also be something that can happen all round and something that you can do with your time/funds on the side. A permanent development that is always there.

The good that it would bring to the game would be that it would force the larger more experienced player base to implement a new strategy and play style, while also putting a "limit" (such a harsh and flame inducing word) on them, or to make them maintain a Granary of a certain level in order to accommodate the high acre amounts. Such as when you make a large land grab, you not only have to plant and fill those acres, you also have to start another upgrade to have your Granary at a specific level or have already upgraded it to that point in order for your seed production to be efficient. The inactive aspect is the key killer to this idea, and the Granary would probably have the most impact on the rest of the playerbase if it was more required after the 3k acre mark. From what I have seen in the past, a lot of the inactive playerbase rarely goes above 3k, but that can obviously be debated :p

The effect would have multiple implications. For instance, if you are inactive for a week, and you only have a basic level Granary, after possibly 2 days (maybe more, maybe less) your seed storage would be ineffective/full. This would keep you from 'growing' too much and getting in range of the higher players, and also keep you from being a juicy target for people who restart and grow insanely quickly with pure seed thieves. We all know that has been done (points at Hewo and Vannila....and probably many others). It would keep the inactive players at a level where they have targets of the same ilk where they can learn and understand the proper attacking strategies and their route's advantages/disadvantages. Upon learning these strategies it could possibly draw them into being a more active player (this is hopeful of course, but possible nonetheless)

I hope I've clarified it a little for you. The idea still needs work, but I enjoy constructive criticism.
 

BlackWolf

Landscape Designer
Joined
Dec 14, 2007
Messages
1,217
Location
Lappeenranta, Finland (Wolf territory)
Re: Granaries

I kind of like one side of this thing...
It could pretty effectively be balancing the cap between seeds & funds. So to store large quantities of seeds you would need to invest to those granaries, or you can turn your seeds to plants/funds in which case your value gets higher thus making "score queening" harder.
 

pinpower

Landscape Designer
Super Moderator
Joined
Dec 20, 2007
Messages
2,136
Location
Bournemouth
Re: Granaries

surely highly active players wouldnt need to ugrade their "graneries" very much as they could just plant far more regularly than normal? (every couple of hours...)

x
 

JJbrosandjl

Harvester
Joined
Jan 1, 2008
Messages
158
Re: Granaries

Would stop players at the stop just storing seeds! If it costs them money to do so, they probably won't do it :p

It would spark larger battles at the top, that's definitely a plus-side.
 

timtadams

Landscape Designer
Joined
Sep 9, 2008
Messages
2,260
Location
Australia
Re: Granaries

I really dont see a problem with seed storing, there are seed thieves that can take care of that, i know i utilised them very effectively against exactly the people that do this

So i dont think its necessary
 

JJbrosandjl

Harvester
Joined
Jan 1, 2008
Messages
158
Re: Granaries

timtadams said:
I really dont see a problem with seed storing, there are seed thieves that can take care of that, i know i utilised them very effectively against exactly the people that do this

So i dont think its necessary


Are you saying seed storing at top ranks is not a problem? :(

If you want to send seed thieves to top 10 players, then be my guest :p
 

Smoke

Weeder
Joined
Dec 14, 2007
Messages
10
Re: Granaries

timtadams said:
I really dont see a problem with seed storing, there are seed thieves that can take care of that, i know i utilised them very effectively against exactly the people that do this

So i dont think its necessary




It's not that there is necessarily a problem with seed storing, it would just make it costly to do so. What it could do, and I had this thought last night and I've said it before in the post, is it would put a limitation/boundary on the total seeds and plants you can have in stock. You would either need to convert the seeds into funds or troops which would raise your value and have you lose targets and make the round boring, or you could continue to steal land and personally choose to not upgrade your granary. You would still have a large amount of acres, but once your seeds and plants reach full capacity, you wouldnt gain value any longer and you would retain the same amount of targets. If you do decide you want to be able to reach full capacity, you would have to spend some of the funds in order to increase that capacity. This idea wouldnt necessarily hurt the more active player base, and in effect it could actually benefit them if they choose to have it work that way. For instance, if you have 20,000 acres and you are required to have a Level 10 Hydroponics Facility (I decided this would be a more nifty name than Granary) to reach 100% efficiency but your Hydroponics Facility is at Level 6, you would only be able to store/seed-whore your seeds to the Level 6 point and your value would stop increasing unless you planted those stored seeds and plants and converted them to funds/troops.
 

Garrett

Landscape Designer
Joined
Dec 14, 2007
Messages
1,872
Re: Granaries

go play travian, or conversely stop playing travian.
 

DarkSider

Tree Surgeon
Joined
Dec 14, 2007
Messages
796
Re: Granaries

I only like one bit about this suggestion - new tactics.
Bush is lacking in diversity of tactics imo, it has a crapload of routes that's true but the only thing you can do is attack/defend and recall if you don't like what you see. Damage is pretty much of 2 types only (land and troops) and can be done with the same attack.
Granaries could introduce new tactics:
- longer term damage to income due to decreased efficiency of damaged granaries
- immediate damage by destroying filled granaries with seeds/plants

Your little additions need improving as i guess nobody would be silly to fill their grannaries with grass seeds and run out of space quick if they plan on seed whoring but still i'm not totally convinced by the idea.

I'm all for adding a lot of different tactics like infesting an enemy acres to lower his future income, infesting yours while under attack so all the players that get a grab of your acres will get the plague spread over their own acres, send small amounts of specialised troops to assassinate army generals or whatever to decrease morale before a fight and so on .. just more than send/spy/ recall and repeat or stay.
 

Garrett

Landscape Designer
Joined
Dec 14, 2007
Messages
1,872
Re: Granaries

introducing a granary would lead to everyone saying 'wow, what a watered down version of travian. let's go play that' it would make this game too similar to at least 1 other if not more out there. with the popularity of travian it could lead to some unforseen troubles beyond the game?

but I agree diversity of tactics would be welcome. (no chasing effectiveness is not a diversity of tactics)
 

BlackWolf

Landscape Designer
Joined
Dec 14, 2007
Messages
1,217
Location
Lappeenranta, Finland (Wolf territory)
Re: Granaries

I would be all for impossibility of destroying granaries. You could sell those back tho. Making those granaries destroyably would be bad move in my opinion.
Yet if not possible it could give game some new tactics specially if land score is removed, as people could actually stay low and on high amount of acres as tactic and then raise to fight the top etc.
 
Top