Random alliances - Can they work, and how?

DarkSider

Tree Surgeon
Joined
Dec 14, 2007
Messages
796
Re: Random alliances - Can they work, and how?

All the points discussed are just cosmetic things imo.
The main problem that would need to be resolved is for spies infiltrating in alliance so easy. I played utopia too and the random distribution worked fine there (in theory) because a random guy landing in your kingdom had almost no spying abilities as long as you used an outside board for discution or a mirc room. In bush it's crucial the plan to be known by members, lethal defences to be massed, so it's very hard to think of ideas how to hide mobs/politics from all the members and which of them should be trusted. That's the part that would need to work and i very much doubt practical solutions can be found.
 

rooney

Head Gardener
Joined
Dec 14, 2007
Messages
330
Location
essex, england
Re: Random alliances - Can they work, and how?

spying is gonna be much more difficult as of age 5. you seem to be forgetting that the leader will be able to set authority levels for memebrs and threads. say 5 of 20 members are random, then they get a 0 authority level and need to be PMd to know whats happenning, then as they prove themselves they are allowed to see more and more threads. could help the spying issue out a lot
 

f0xx

Landscape Designer
Joined
Dec 18, 2007
Messages
2,195
Location
Plovdiv/Bulgaria
Re: Random alliances - Can they work, and how?

rooney said:
spying is gonna be much more difficult as of age 5.

I would really like you to tell me how do you know that?

I don't like it when people are talking complete crap like this, because that is exactly what you just said.

So please, before "age 5" is out for everyone to test, try to refrain yourself from making stupid statements like this in attempt to make yourself look more informed than others.
 

Alcibiades

Plant Geneticist
Joined
Dec 13, 2007
Messages
4,267
Location
Canada
Re: Random alliances - Can they work, and how?

I think all rooney meant to say is if the planned Alliance Politics board ideas go into place, it will probably make spying a lot harder unless someone the officers trusts works their way up into a position, and then stabs them right in the back. Which is entirely possible, but seems like it will make the task a bit harder. Or make spying more of a challenge.... And I'm inclined to agree with him.

I think spying would still remain something of an issue as people would probably have personal loyalties to players outside of their alliance because that is the nature of the game. you make friends in one ally, don't necessarily play with them again, but continue to share information and gossip and then if you're sorted with an ally you don't like, or put with someone who is an 'enemy' of yours, you are more likely to want to spy. And a really dedicated spy won't be turned away by having to prove themselves trustworthy, that's what a good spy does anyways.
 

DarkSider

Tree Surgeon
Joined
Dec 14, 2007
Messages
796
Re: Random alliances - Can they work, and how?

rooney said:
spying is gonna be much more difficult as of age 5. you seem to be forgetting that the leader will be able to set authority levels for memebrs and threads. say 5 of 20 members are random, then they get a 0 authority level and need to be PMd to know whats happenning, then as they prove themselves they are allowed to see more and more threads. could help the spying issue out a lot

I'm not forgetting anything you just didn't put some thought in what would a spy search for.
If i'd be a random member in a top alliance and trying to get them killed, politics would be the last place i'd trust for information. Sure you can read things in clear english there but what you need is 100% trustable information you can pass on. Activity, members beeing offline for a rush, stealth reveal, weak times etc.
To stop that you'd need random members to have their eyes closed (hidden everything from players online to politics and incoming hostile/def) and just hear a voice saying id 5678 has big incoming, send all your lethals there it's going to be all good. You might want to get the trust of the random member but how you make him trust you ?!
And 5 random members with 15 set it's quite pointeless imo. It will be a race to kick the new randoms until some of the known and trustable players land in your random spots.
Full random allies can work, but not in the current structure. It must be something closer to utopia where attacks happen instantly and the target being online or not doesn't make much of a difference. The member defence should disapear and all alliances to be public. After that point we can think of ways to implement random allies :)
 

Garrett

Landscape Designer
Joined
Dec 14, 2007
Messages
1,872
Re: Random alliances - Can they work, and how?

it's a bad idea for this game period. you want to play utopia, go play utopia.
 

No-Dachi

Official Helper
Joined
Dec 15, 2007
Messages
975
Location
Oslo, Norway
Re: Random alliances - Can they work, and how?

The problem is not that the top alliances are not recruiting noobs; the noobs are not active and competent enough to play at that level yet, so why should they be included?

The problem is the lack of a decent alternative. The lack of safe homes for noobs. A place where you don't have to rebuild each night, a place where you can actually learn to play (and not learn to rebuild). Some will argue that this is what they enjoy doing - but is it what most people enjoy doing? Is rebuilding going to teach you how to actually play the game on a competitive level? I think not. I believe that we are losing both existing and potential players because they have no where to go! The top alliances have too harsh demands for a new player to join. The mediocre alliances are either full, or unable to provide protection to their members. This game is too demanding to only play with another 19 players. If you say that the players in a low ranked alliance log in and play for 2 hours a day each, that's 40 hours. Even if they have a perfect set up with timezones covering, they will at most have 3 members online at the same time. How on earth are they going to cope with incoming from players twice their size? Remember, they have usually no experience, they have little in game knowledge of units, they have little to no experience in organizing defence, and I would like to think that they would want to send out a mob to attack every now and then. Guess what? They can't. They can't both send their troops out to attack and at the same time keep their friends safe. (and cut the crap - you cannot expect noobs/new players to be available for pranks and still play another round!).

So, how to fix this? However much I want random alliances to work, I simply can't picture it. In PA/utopia it works because you can defend whomever you want, and hence you're able to have an alliance outside your galaxy. Bushtarion is created in a totally different way, and if you prevent people from playing with their friends they. will. quit!

Does decreasing the size of alliances work? Seriously.. quit smoking. Increasing the size of alliances will alter the way competitive play is done, but I believe it will allow bush to gain an increased player base, which will lead to more targets, less consistent incomings and more fun. There are downsides to this as there is to every idea ever thought of, but these can be countered with other minor changes to help revitalize the bushtarion community.

Those who oppose this suggestion will majorly be competitive players, and players that fear that this will only add up to more bashing. Bearing in mind that this is a change for the rest of the game, not the top 2 alliances, the bashing problem can be solved in different ways. For example: You can start decreasing the land cap to 0 if you send overwhelming forces. You can double the armor and HP of units, while leaving the damage intact, to ensure that you might actually live through an attack and wake up with some units. You can change the way targetting works so that if there are more than X attackers you will start firing also on the other attackers. You can halve the score land gives, to make people drop out of range faster if they are zeroed. You can add a base insurance again, and 1 % injuries, while halving the score funds gives and so help zeroed players back on their feet. Now, keep in mind that these are all examples that are meant to give ideas and plant seeds of thoughts, and not actual suggestions that are meant for discussion and mindless, knee-jerk reaction based criticism.

Bottom line is, things can be changed, and they can be changed for the better. Yes, it will be more difficult to attack - so what? People are moaning about the lack of skills in the game. So how about we re-introduce it? People in the lower ranks will probably be able to attack just as it is now, the top ranks will have to attack with friends, faking/recalling sending in waves etc. Remember that you will have 49 friends to attack with, just as they will have 49 friends to defend with. You do not have to attack one player on one tick! With the introduction of a working and functioning HQ you can also hit that to draw defence, before attacking the members with rushed attacks. Perhaps we can even see a use for the thief route?

I think we can all agree that something needs to be done. And while reading this post keep in mind it's written in one go, without re-reading or anything. There will be spelling mistakes, there will be grammatical errors, there will be flaws in my logic. When you start flaming and criticizing, please think of the idea behind this, and not the actual wording. Think outside the box - outside your comfort zone, and consider the change. Consider it from different angles, and not only what will benefit yourself.
 

Polo

Garden Designer
Super Moderator
Joined
Dec 14, 2007
Messages
1,005
Re: Random alliances - Can they work, and how?

No-Dachi said:
Perhaps we can even see a use for the thief route?
I haven't read most of this thread and this is off topic, but what's wrong with the thief route? If you'd have played actively last round, you'd have seen Exitlude's thief players use them very well. Arsonists are useless, but the thief unit is awesome and one of my favourite units in the game.
 

No-Dachi

Official Helper
Joined
Dec 15, 2007
Messages
975
Location
Oslo, Norway
Re: Random alliances - Can they work, and how?

Polo said:
No-Dachi said:
Perhaps we can even see a use for the thief route?
I haven't read most of this thread and this is off topic, but what's wrong with the thief route? If you'd have played actively last round, you'd have seen Exitlude's thief players use them very well. Arsonists are useless, but the thief unit is awesome and one of my favourite units in the game.


Perhaps I should've made myself clearer. I know the thief is far from useless, but right now it's highly situational, and is quite underused. If the alliances was made to have an upper limit of say 50 or 70 it would be almost a must to have some thiefs in there, for quick guerilla attacks on the enemy while they are out defending your decoys.

It's got a lot of potential, and when I said "a use" I meant a more outstretched use than we see today.
 

Cyrus

Official Helper
Community Operator
Joined
Dec 14, 2007
Messages
1,346
Location
Nottinghamshire
Re: Random alliances - Can they work, and how?

50 players is far to many, noobs will never be helped, jsut look at the 50 man little round we jsut had, there's no community, no real chatting, no organised attacks, its utter chaos. 20 players is the most any allai should be as this is big enough to defend with, keeps some sort of cumminity in an alliance, not to many people that you cant organise everybody. etc etc.
 

TheNamelessWonder

Tree Surgeon
Joined
Dec 15, 2007
Messages
520
Re: Random alliances - Can they work, and how?

Cyrus said:
50 players is far to many, noobs will never be helped, jsut look at the 50 man little round we jsut had, there's no community, no real chatting, no organised attacks, its utter chaos. 20 players is the most any allai should be as this is big enough to defend with, keeps some sort of cumminity in an alliance, not to many people that you cant organise everybody. etc etc.

I'd have to agree there. The 50-man experiment was unorganized chaos, no sense of community, and all the other nasty things Cyrus said. I don't see how anything larger than 20 would work.

Also, to deter bashing, how about bringing back L/F! :x-mas:
 

Alcibiades

Plant Geneticist
Joined
Dec 13, 2007
Messages
4,267
Location
Canada
Re: Random alliances - Can they work, and how?

TheNamelessWonder said:
Also, to deter bashing, how about bringing back L/F! :x-mas:

I don't recall that ever deterring bashing....

With injuries and increased contactability amongst the top 5ish allies, it has become necessary to some degree to send overwhelming force to wreck an opponent. Not to mention something of a decline of real tactics; since it's much 'easier' and lazier to bash than it is to organize a properly coordinated attack. Obviously there are exceptions to this, but blaming the lack of L/F for increased bashing seems overly simple to me. then again having universally claimable bounties on 'bashers' did have it's advantages :)
 

No-Dachi

Official Helper
Joined
Dec 15, 2007
Messages
975
Location
Oslo, Norway
Re: Random alliances - Can they work, and how?

Cyrus said:
50 players is far to many, noobs will never be helped, jsut look at the 50 man little round we jsut had, there's no community, no real chatting, no organised attacks, its utter chaos. 20 players is the most any allai should be as this is big enough to defend with, keeps some sort of cumminity in an alliance, not to many people that you cant organise everybody. etc etc.


There is a huge difference between a small shitty mini round that nobody gives a **** about, and a real round. If you need 50 players to win, I can assure you that the alliances will take the time to train them. And with the addition of an ingame GCI(??) IRC client with automatic created rooms for alliances, and perhaps an extended version of politics it shouldn't be any problems at all in organizing and training another 10-15 people a round.
 

Cyrus

Official Helper
Community Operator
Joined
Dec 14, 2007
Messages
1,346
Location
Nottinghamshire
Re: Random alliances - Can they work, and how?

ofc i cant just say it wont work blah blah, id be willing to try 50 man alli round but my fears are the same, there will be no closeness between members, and it is a pain in the arse to organise 50 people rather than 20 i dotn care what you say on that point.
 

No-Dachi

Official Helper
Joined
Dec 15, 2007
Messages
975
Location
Oslo, Norway
Re: Random alliances - Can they work, and how?

I've organized defence in 60 man allies and in 5 man allies and in a 300 member big alliance in PA. PA is different due to a lot of things, but I can tell you with my hand on my heart that organizing the online members our of 60 players is stress if you have to do it alone, but so can organizing 20 players be. It's all about delegation, and learning to organize and think in a different way. To put it in a different way, organizing twice the amount of people is no where near twice the stress.

And why should there only be one organizer? Why can't alliances work with a chain of command in situations like this?

I know you don't care Cyrus, and that you only want your point out there. So please, ignore this. But for the rest of you ...
 

Cyrus

Official Helper
Community Operator
Joined
Dec 14, 2007
Messages
1,346
Location
Nottinghamshire
Re: Random alliances - Can they work, and how?

i dont care no? i do care what your suggesting if its gonna change my round considerably, by saying everyone send at X id is not organisation at its best infact its just organised chaos. trying to get specific units there from 60 people is 'i put my hand on heart' a task n half.
im taking what youve suggested on board and from my experience a disagree with what your saying. and many others are the same as me so dont just disregard my veiws because im obviously a noob

:x-mas:
 

No-Dachi

Official Helper
Joined
Dec 15, 2007
Messages
975
Location
Oslo, Norway
Re: Random alliances - Can they work, and how?

So..
Cyrus said:
i dotn care what you say on that point.

You said yourself you didn't care, and hence I directed my post against the other people that might care. I don't mind that you don't agree with me - actually I rejoice in good discussions and it's hard without disagreement. So don't take my arguing as offensive, as it's not meant as anything but constructive arguing.

And yes, there's a difference between posting "everyone attack id 1 this tick!!!!!!1112" and splitting units and making the best use of what you can. And with that in mind I still stand by what I said in the previous post.
 

BlackWolf

Landscape Designer
Joined
Dec 14, 2007
Messages
1,217
Location
Lappeenranta, Finland (Wolf territory)
Re: Random alliances - Can they work, and how?

Before I rerally go to things I will respond to Cyrus message.
If you Cyrus think that 50 is too much for your alliance who is forcing you to use all 50 spots possible?
You could as well make smaller alliance of lets say 20 members or 25 members of good players you know and organize between them. Making organizing easier and faster, thus having less targets to cover and being tighter group you could compete against larger alliances.

This game is also about NAPs and coalitions as much as it is about 1vs1 fights (if not even more, when you have seen fair 1vs1 last time?), so in terms of alliance size it is pretty irrelevant of what size your alliance is as long as you play with best skill and activity. In the end its about politics and making right allys against others more than how many members you got. Yet it could be huge difference at the down end to have 7 people online instead of 3.

In the end it doesnt really matter if theres 40 vs 20 situation (2vs1) or 60 vs 20 (3vs1), or if theres colition of 100 vs 50. More people is involved to attacking side less easy it is to organize working attacks. With more people to alliance and less alliances dividing people to targets actually makes attacking harder, not easier.

The funny thing I see in posts like Dachis is the way people are responding to those. For some unknown reason people seems to think that game would be somehow different if alliance size changes. It is still same game. Alliance size doesnt affect to game play even nearly as much as people think it does. The change must be really radical to actually do something.

For example going to 10 members would half the current membercount and as such lead to radical increase in demand of contactability and activity. In other hand changing to 40 thus doubling it would in same way about half the demands of activity and contactability, yet pose a threat of "all best to one alliance" situation. Yet I bet those same people would be in winning alliances and outcome and actual round would be pretty much the same

Decision between one and another is not that hard really if you start to think game over all and not just your own self.
 
Top