Choose your play style

[Cheese]

Just a little idea thought I'd share:

I was thinking that maybe once per week? You could set yourself to 1 of 5 options for your hostility / defensive

1 - Extremely Defensive - gives +10% extra injuries / insurance
2 - Defensive - gives 5% extra injuries / insurance
3 - Neutral - No bonus
4 - Offensive - gives 5% extra base bounty
5 - Extremely Offensive - gives 10% extra base bounty

I just feel bounty hunting is a good part of the game and needs a small but active part back in the game, and also think it adds a nice tactic to be able to chose your play style and as you can't change it more than once a week (18 ticks to activate) it's hard to abuse.

What do you people think? And I know maybe some better names for the choices but I'm a bit stoned

 

[Souls]

If there aren't any drawbacks then why would Neutral even be an option?

 

[Satureum]

Perhaps he means...

The more you defend, the better bonus you can choose, the more you attack the better bonus. If you do nothing, no bonus.

I like the idea.

 

[Cheese]

If there aren't any drawbacks then why would Neutral even be an option?

Good point I am stoned So maybe have it +5% seed production

And no you don't have to defend more or attack more you manually choose.

 

[Satureum]

Good point I am stoned So maybe have it +5% seed production

And no you don't have to defend more or attack more you manually choose.

Ah, well, then I disagree. Sorry

I would think you get to choose a bonus for doing a certain amount of Kill/Distract/Bribe/etc...damage to players, either attacking or defending.

 

[Weeble]

Although good in theory it wouldn't make much sense in the long run. It would allow larger players to become...even larger. If a group of players goes "Extremely Offensive" before a very large co-ordinated attack, they could earn a heck of a lot in not very many ticks, which would be a problem!

If suitable 'punishments' were added to each playstyle then I might see it working, but for the moment I have nothing. Good to see people think of Bushtarion even while stoned though ;-)

 

[DarkSider]

Yes, definately a good sugestion, it been suggested before in different forms.

I think like Weeble there should be drawnbacks that come with your bonuses like :

+ 20% insurance/injuries in any defence, max 3 mobs availeble, + 1 eta on all defences, -10% injuries in attacks

+ 10% insurance/injuries in any defence, max 4 mobs availeble, -10% injuries in attacks

neutral

+ 20 % to max cap and effectiveness on every unit stealing resources (geos,wheelies,seed thiefs, arsonists etc), increase developements research time by 50%, -10% insurance in defences

+ 15 % bounty hunting, -10% acre income, - 10% insurance in defences

 

[Weeble]

I would've thought if you're going defensive, you shouldn't be able to send out mobs at all. Drawing on what you've come up with, I would've gone for something like...

Extremely Defensive - +15% insurance/injuries, cannot send out mobs (hostile or friendly)
Defensive - +10% insurance/injuries, can send friendly mobs only
Neutral - Can send out friendly and hostile mobs. No bonuses.
Offensive - +10% bounty, can only send out hostile mobs
Extremely Offensive - +15% bounty, can only send out hostile mobs, -25% seed production

You could throw in reduced/increased development times, stuff like that to each option as well to 'balance' them out a bit more. This idea certainly has potential, but like everything else in this game it will require huuuuuge amounts of balancing and working out!

 

[No-Dachi]

I definitely think that there need to be downsides to every option as well as benefits. I think DarkSider's numbers needs to be tweaked down a bit, though. I'd rather see this as a small thing - a little extra, than potentional gamebreaking options.

Also, weeble posted a very good point; if this can be coordinated with large alliance attacks it could come out of hand pretty fast. Unless you tweak it to either have a long implementation time, or to have a small enough effect.

But as always numbers can be tweaked. I'm still indecisive on the concept, though. I'm not sure if this is something I'd like to see or not. Holding my vote for the moment.

Edit:

A bit harsh to not let a player run to ID 1, don't you think Weeble? That option would in effect only be viable for a Sentry guy. Same goes for the offensive ones - they can't really be chosen by people in alliances. Especially not with a weeks "cooldown" on changing.

How about making it only 1 friendly mob? Or increased ETA on defence or something like that instead? I'd like options every player could chose, and not just the inactive Sentry guy and the stealth rushing super active solo.

 

[pinpower]

Yeah i like this as an idea but there would have to be carefully balances positives/neagtives with each option

Extremely Defensive - +15% insurance/injuries, cannot send out mobs (hostile or friendly)
Defensive - +10% insurance/injuries, can send friendly mobs only
Neutral - Can send out friendly and hostile mobs. No bonuses.
Offensive - +10% bounty, can only send out hostile mobs
Extremely Offensive - +15% bounty, can only send out hostile mobs, -25% seed production

I dont like the idea of only being able to send either friendly or hostile mobs depending on what you've chosen. To a smaller alliance that would mean they were unable to use the "offensive" or "Extremely offensive" options, without basically leaving themselves open to days of being land raped. I suppose the only point is that nobody would know what options a person had taken (I assume?) but once you find a group of easy targets your going to keep going back.

Conversely, if the smaller alliance are struggling a bit and decide to boost defence by a group of them going the "extremely defensive" or "defensive" options then yes they will be in a better position to defend against (usually) bigger attackers. BUT they wont have the ability to grow in score, meaning they are in basically the same position a week later.

Bigger alliances, especially later in the round will have far more options for say 8 of them to go offensive while 8 go defensive (leaving 4 neutral). Those 8 offensive (and the 4 neautral) are free to attack as a much larger alliance later in the round will be in a better position (often, more so than a lower ranked alliance) to defend with less people. As those people are higher in score, contactable, more active etc etc

These points are made on generalizations of course, but i think limiting a persons hostile/friendly mob sending abilities is the wrong way to go.


As negatives we could have things such as:

Extremely Defensive: +15% Insurance/Injuries - +1 On all returning defensive mobs - +2 On all outgoing hostile mobs
Defensive: +10% Insurance/Injuries - +1 On all outgoing hostile mobs
Neutral: As we are now. No Bonuses or Negatives.
Offensive: +10% Bounty - +1 On all outgoing friendly mobs (no addren rush)
Extremely Offensive: +15% Bounty - +1 On all returning Offensive mobs - +2 On all outgoing defensive mobs.


Obviously this is just an example. But i think if we seriously think about this it should be penalties that make certain things harder rather than taking them away completely.

I thought about giving "Neutral" a 5% increase in seed production, but then there would have to be a punishment...and i dont think its good to have a punishment whatever you choose. So its better to have neutral as it is now so people have an option not to limit themselves by choosing a playstyle.

I like this idea tho...Hopefully with some further discussions we can work out a good system.

x

 

[Weeble]

I dont like the idea of only being able to send either friendly or hostile mobs depending on what you've chosen. To a smaller alliance that would mean they were unable to use the "offensive" or "Extremely offensive" options, without basically leaving themselves open to days of being land raped. I suppose the only point is that nobody would know what options a person had taken (I assume?) but once you find a group of easy targets your going to keep going back.

Conversely, if the smaller alliance are struggling a bit and decide to boost defence by a group of them going the "extremely defensive" or "defensive" options then yes they will be in a better position to defend against (usually) bigger attackers. BUT they wont have the ability to grow in score, meaning they are in basically the same position a week later.

That is exactly why there have to be those kinds of detrimental effects.
An alliance would still be able to utilise the offensive options, but they would have to coordinate heavily and put some people on defense, some on offense, or just risk it and have everyone go offense. It's a risk you have to take.

If this was implemented with very few (or very relaxed) detriments (similar to the example you gave) it would make it a hugely abusable and very easy system. To make this kind of thing work you have to go to extremes.

 

[Cheese]

Or how about as a downside to the attacking options you can defend a max 2 mobs with either +1 or +2 onto eta.
And defensive same but 2 attack mobs??

 

[Ridiculous_Lee]

I like this idea, but I don't think bonuses should be applied to etas or as heavily to injury/insurance. I think it should look like this.

Extremely Defensive: 5% extra insurance/injury while defending, land loss prevented by 10% (That is, if they were going to steal 100 land, instead they steal 90.) Attack injury/insurance reduced by 5% and land gains reduced by 10%.

Defensive: 2.5% extra insurance/injury while defending, land loss prevented by 5%. Attack is reduced by 2.5% and 5%.

Neutral: Normal attacking and defending injury/insurance and land steal rates.

Aggressive: 2.5% extra insurance/injury while attacking, land steal increased by 5%. Defending insurance/injury reduced by 2.5%, extra 5% land lost.

Extremely aggressive: You get the gist, double the rewards and penalties of aggressive.

I do NOT think that these bonuses should be applied on something like bounty because the fairness calculator is not in stone yet. The land gains I am sketchy about, I hope the fairness calculator won't be affecting them as much as it has in the past. Number of available mobs is something that could work too. I like the spirit of the idea. Everyone wants to differentiate themselves as much as possible I think.

 

[No-Dachi]

On the topic of choosing playstyles. Does it have to be defence/attack? Or could the options perhaps be that one choice gave you an extra mob, one choice gave you 10% income, one choice gave you another % of possible land grab, one gives you -1 eta on all returning defensive mobs - stuff like that.

 

[Cheese]

On the topic of choosing playstyles. Does it have to be defence/attack? Or could the options perhaps be that one choice gave you an extra mob, one choice gave you 10% income, one choice gave you another % of possible land grab, one gives you -1 eta on all returning defensive mobs - stuff like that.

I just wanted to give the suggestion for people to give their opinion / work on so any suggestions are welcome

 

[Tapeyy]

I like the idea in theory but it would just add more complications to the game. I wouldn't be sad if something like this was implemented but I think it is a little unnecessary. also unless the numbers are perfect I would just sit as a bunker with max defense and laugh

 

[rooney]

good idea, but i dont like your numbers for one reason, why would you ever go offensive over very offensive or defensive over very defensive?

edit - now i read the other posts, ignore that cos its already been done

 

[BlackWolf]

I dont like this idea.
Basicly this kind of idea would only be aimed for top end players and actually those who would need such boosts wouldnt make the best out of it. So in the end I see it as tool to provide top even more boost to pull away of medium small level players.

You can count it from things like... offencive & bh boosts= more advantage more you attack = more active and better players pulls away even faster. Defencive = more it gives more you defend = more contactable and more active players in better alliances. These more active people are getting the edge anyways so I dont understand why they should be given even more tools to beat normal people.

Need I say more?

 

[f0xx]

I dont like this idea.

 

[Martin]

Over complicated an already complicated game. I don't think it would help overall. Just another thing for new players to see, get confused about, dislike and to benefit the more experienced players.

= No.