Design Directions & Routes

[BlackWolf]

That some route can in hands of good player do well doesnt mean route over all is worth anything. Theres too many routes in this game that are just like that. Sure vamps can do wonders when massed, but what else they can do?

What about extremists, stun bots, rangers etc etc.

That some f0xx can play in uber contactable alliance some route with his 16h activity doesnt mean route over all is worth a smeg. Rangers are way too weak, strikers are in funds to funds way over powered, all TL routes over all sucks nowdays, Dragons and vamps doesnt really have place in this game at all.

List could easily be continued.

 

[Enrico]

Agree, make all routes playable without P-unit, but make the P-units open up new strategies for the routes. (Like Hypnos and ROs do to their "mother-routes" today)

One thing I noticed on Polos spread sheet was that Puppets was ranked so lowly. Puppets in my respect is one of the most powerful routes, when they are played well. But that takes a level of skill and understanding 90% of the players don't have or wants to take the time getting.

If the routes are rebalanced Id like to see a way where technically no route owns another route so much that a "no loss - target zeroed" result is possible one on one.

 

[Turnip2k]

One thing I noticed on Polos spread sheet was that Puppets was ranked so lowly. Puppets in my respect is one of the most powerful routes, when they are played well. But that takes a level of skill and understanding 90% of the players don't have or wants to take the time getting.

Another major factor in this is the fact you need alot of activity. I must admit, puppets are great fun, but if your not able to stay alive long enough to bribe a decent army, you are going to get smushed.

This is probably for another topic, but this game is far too heavily based around activity - making it more fun for people who can only log on a few times a week will do wonders for the playerbase.

 

[LAFiN]

This is probably for another topic, but this game is far too heavily based around activity - making it more fun for people who can only log on a few times a week will do wonders for the playerbase.

An idea would be to decrease tick speed to 15 minute ticks, or increase unit ETAs. But I also agree, this game is too demanding to play if you really had any sort of life.

 

[ViVi]

I've always wanted nutters to have a really low init, personally. Would make that route playable.

 

[Enrico]

This is probably for another topic, but this game is far too heavily based around activity - making it more fun for people who can only log on a few times a week will do wonders for the playerbase.

An idea would be to decrease tick speed to 15 minute ticks, or increase unit ETAs. But I also agree, this game is too demanding to play if you really had any sort of life.

I disagree, as attacking blindly is brain-numbingly stupid, making an attack take even longer is sure to kill of any interest! (I really preferred the 5 minute ticks, then I could log on and play 2-3 hours in a go and pull off some decent attacks in that period. With 15 minutes ticks I would hardly get in one attack in same period of time.) As a bonus, with 5 minute ticks the rounds take less time.

Ideally the game should be enjoyable for anyone who can play say 2-4 hours a day, most days of the week, and where increasing that activity level would only marginally give you an edge.

 

[DaN]

yeah u could pull some decent attacks with 5 mins ticks in 2/3 hours, but then u could also be completly cleaned up in that 1 hour u got pranked but couldnt get online...

 

[Crumpet]

The average person playing this game doesn't post contact info. I thought the point of all these changes was to bring in more people. Having to be called/highlighted at night def does not appeal to the average person that may be wanting to play a game for a few hours here and there just for the fun of the game. If you want to win, sure let someone wake you. The game already takes a lot of peoples time. Why make it even more time consuming by making ticks even longer.

5mins, 10mins, what's the difference. Most of the time you can either get online right away or you can't get on at all, plan and simple. I don't think 5min ticks would jeopardize anything. It might actually be fun to have a shorter round, that way you can get those epic attacks in and not get bored once a few alliances that have opted to be 24/7 contactable have taken over and then a new one would start before the game died down for the last 2-3 weeks.

 

[DarkSider]

The current tick speed it's pretty balanced for both attackers and defenders. Sometimes it looks so slow when you're attacking but when you're under heavy siege and you need to make many decisions and get players online for first tick defence the 10 min tick it's too damn fast
I think however a player can send too many attacks in a short interval and possibly an increased eta for returning mobs can help a lil bit. Maybe just mobs that landed or stayed on an attacking tick to get +2/+3 returning eta or smth like that, making retaliation an awesome option or getting extra breathing room if you want to just play defensive.

 

[tobapopalos]

To say that 5 minute ticks would make no difference is naive to the point of retardation. You could go to dinner for like 25 minutes and come back dead.

 

[harriergirl]

To say that 5 minute ticks would make no difference is naive to the point of retardation. You could go to dinner for like 25 minutes and come back dead.

toby is right

 

[Crumpet]

To say that 5 minute ticks would make no difference is naive to the point of retardation. You could go to dinner for like 25 minutes and come back dead.

Sucks to be you then...? 10 minute ticks makes the game require more of your time. More time = less interest for newer people.

The average person that stumbles apon a game like this wants to be able to play it and get somewhere without it taking over their lives. (Lets face it even I've fallen into this from round to round, not sleeping, waking up at all hours of the damn night, etc)

Again, just because something suits you doesn't mean it works best for the greater good of the game. And I'm not saying a tick change will either but it's def worth trying out just to see how it effects the games first starters/new players. If it doesn't go well you just change it like so many other things have been changed. No harm no foul.

 

[Garrett]

5 min ticks is too fast. period. it would destroy ally play. period.

if you want antinoobkillers arena, then 5 min ticks full steam ahead.

if you want the game to grow, finding ways to enhance the atmosphere and game play without changing the timer is a better way to go.

if the other forums weren't dead and if i cba, i'd link you post after post after post talking about 5 min ticks. hell I wanted 5 min ticks myself for a while, but after playing 5 min tick worlds... it's too crazy for ally play. too hectic in general.

Ogame for instance doesn't even have ticks. they have real time development and attacks. depending on your ships and your tech it takes x amount of time and it just ticks down and down until it's done.

if you want to change the timer then i'd say you'd need to move bush to a more fluid real time game than worry about timer changes because 5 mins is toooo much activity. you'd see the opposite effect of what you wanted.

In fact upping the ticker to 20 mins would require less activity to play. most browser txt games have long terms and actions (even or especially the real time ones) so you can do an activity and then leave for a while. that's why their attacks take HOURS.

the fact that everything is 10 mins when you are online or not, causes people to want to be online more. going down to 5 mins would increase that drive and burn people out faster. you want slower ticks not faster.

 

[tobapopalos]

To say that 5 minute ticks would make no difference is naive to the point of retardation. You could go to dinner for like 25 minutes and come back dead.

Sucks to be you then...? 10 minute ticks makes the game require more of your time. More time = less interest for newer people.

The average person that stumbles apon a game like this wants to be able to play it and get somewhere without it taking over their lives. (Lets face it even I've fallen into this from round to round, not sleeping, waking up at all hours of the damn night, etc)

Again, just because something suits you doesn't mean it works best for the greater good of the game. And I'm not saying a tick change will either but it's def worth trying out just to see how it effects the games first starters/new players. If it doesn't go well you just change it like so many other things have been changed. No harm no foul.

10 minute ticks actually require LESS time, as you don't have to be constantly refreshing to check for incoming. With ten minute ticks you can go afk for an hour and be relatively safe (apart from against LET rushes) whereas with 5 minute ticks if you want to stay alive you have to refresh every half hour. And even more often if you're checking for incoming on ally-mates. If you send an attack you can then go afk for the next 40 minutes until it's af3. With 5 minute ticks you only have 20 minutes. And don't get me started with organising defence...

Your argument that I'm only saying this because I don't care about "the little guy" is kinda ridiculous, as I've been playing in fairly mediocre inactive alliances most of my time in bush, and I know that having 5 minute ticks would be horrible.

Maybe you forgot that we did actually try 5 minute ticks for a mini round? Most of the active people I spoke to at the time hated it. I personally skipped that round purely because of it.

Basically, 5 minute ticks would be ****.

 

[Melnibone]

5 min ticks is too fast. period. it would destroy ally play. period.

if you want antinoobkillers arena, then 5 min ticks full steam ahead.

if you want the game to grow, finding ways to enhance the atmosphere and game play without changing the timer is a better way to go.

if the other forums weren't dead and if i cba, i'd link you post after post after post talking about 5 min ticks. hell I wanted 5 min ticks myself for a while, but after playing 5 min tick worlds... it's too crazy for ally play. too hectic in general.

Ogame for instance doesn't even have ticks. they have real time development and attacks. depending on your ships and your tech it takes x amount of time and it just ticks down and down until it's done.

if you want to change the timer then i'd say you'd need to move bush to a more fluid real time game than worry about timer changes because 5 mins is toooo much activity. you'd see the opposite effect of what you wanted.

In fact upping the ticker to 20 mins would require less activity to play. most browser txt games have long terms and actions (even or especially the real time ones) so you can do an activity and then leave for a while. that's why their attacks take HOURS.

the fact that everything is 10 mins when you are online or not, causes people to want to be online more. going down to 5 mins would increase that drive and burn people out faster. you want slower ticks not faster.

absolute truth, position players instead of these random companies that no matter their size can attack in 5 ticks if the company is in range, its no coincidence that games that have attack ranges based on distance rather than size (travian, tribalwars etc etc) have hugely greater player bases as you can be the biggest fish in your small pond and it takes days for people to attack you giving you a position of security on minimal activity meaning you can play in bursts which is much more in keeping with real people that have real lives....

 

[Azzer]

absolute truth, position players instead of these random companies that no matter their size can attack in 5 ticks if the company is in range, its no coincidence that games that have attack ranges based on distance rather than size (travian, tribalwars etc etc) have hugely greater player bases as you can be the biggest fish in your small pond and it takes days for people to attack you giving you a position of security on minimal activity meaning you can play in bursts which is much more in keeping with real people that have real lives....

Though those games do not have rounds. In Tribal Wars case, for instance, their equivalent of a new "round", is starting up a new "world" - and at the point of startup, all players actually start in close proximity to eachother - regardless of if it's a brand new person to the game, or a veteran starting up in a new world. The "protection factor" only applies to people starting in an already established world and being cast out in to the outskirts of said world. If Bushtarion did not have rounds, something like this might be appropriate. As it stands, it resets once every 3 months, and everyone is on the same terms again - the equivalent of a new world starting up in those games.

The only equivalent, in the structure/nature of Bushtarion, would be to have the 30% attack limit take in to consideration account age, and that wouldn't really "work". So unless you have an alternate suggestion (multiple worlds, eg newbie worlds and pro worlds, again doesn't really "work" as you're just splitting the playerbase/community up based on account age/glass ceiling rules) that actually fits in to the nature of Bushtarion, keeps the game fun for everyone, and helps new players out...

I think it better to discourage bottomfeeding with mechanic changes, encourage topfeeding, and allow a newbie to be a newb and play low down in the ranks (the equivalent of being on the "edges" of a Tribal Wars world), or to prove their skill, get highly ranked, but be competing with other players who are highly ranked... account age irrelevant, only ability (score) relevant.

 

[No-Dachi]

Imo, the best way to discourage bashing and bottomfeeding is to implement a way for the landcap to actually hit zero. Most likely at a combination of attack range/units sent/number of players attacking. It would of course have to be diabled in ally wars.

 

[Melnibone]

absolute truth, position players instead of these random companies that no matter their size can attack in 5 ticks if the company is in range, its no coincidence that games that have attack ranges based on distance rather than size (travian, tribalwars etc etc) have hugely greater player bases as you can be the biggest fish in your small pond and it takes days for people to attack you giving you a position of security on minimal activity meaning you can play in bursts which is much more in keeping with real people that have real lives....

Though those games do not have rounds. In Tribal Wars case, for instance, their equivalent of a new "round", is starting up a new "world" - and at the point of startup, all players actually start in close proximity to eachother - regardless of if it's a brand new person to the game, or a veteran starting up in a new world. The "protection factor" only applies to people starting in an already established world and being cast out in to the outskirts of said world. If Bushtarion did not have rounds, something like this might be appropriate. As it stands, it resets once every 3 months, and everyone is on the same terms again - the equivalent of a new world starting up in those games.

The only equivalent, in the structure/nature of Bushtarion, would be to have the 30% attack limit take in to consideration account age, and that wouldn't really "work". So unless you have an alternate suggestion (multiple worlds, eg newbie worlds and pro worlds, again doesn't really "work" as you're just splitting the playerbase/community up based on account age/glass ceiling rules).

I think it better to discourage bottomfeeding with mechanic changes, encourage topfeeding, and allow a newbie to be a newb and play low down in the ranks (the equivalent of being on the "edges" of a Tribal Wars world), or to prove their skill, get highly ranked, but be competing with other players who are highly ranked... account age irrelevant, only ability (score) relevant.

Encouraging top-feeding can not and will not work until you make attacking at anything less than 50% pointless if i can send 5 attacks at 30% of my score each gaining 1% land that is always going to grow me by 5% of the targets attacked attacking UP against a skilled/active alliance means i send one attack with a 2-5% chance of landing (at most)

5% of 2-3k guaranteed is always better than a 2% chance of 15% of 10k (random average values)

L/F didnt work... BH didnt work lower land gains didnt work, from my experience the only thing that will revive this game is a new approach to attacking, from round what? you have the exact figures i dont playerbase and credit purchases have declined not increased through all the changes asked for by players and implemented by you

As stated i play randomly to mail old friends and they are becoming scarcer by the day and the no. of accounts registered and purchasing credits (by your own admission) are dropping, this is a suggestion and an idea (although a vague one) its your livelihood either its a problem or its not? i care not a jot tbh

 

[Azzer]

this is a suggestion and an idea (although a vague one)

I think that was the part I missed - the actual suggestion. You mentioned the problem of new players playing alongside old players, you mentioned a comparison of Tribal Wars (which I pointed out is different due to the nature of their worlds "never-ending")... I didn't actually see the actual suggestion for Bushtarion?

 

[Azzer]

Imo, the best way to discourage bashing and bottomfeeding is to implement a way for the landcap to actually hit zero. Most likely at a combination of attack range/units sent/number of players attacking. It would of course have to be diabled in ally wars.

Yeah, the new FC will allow gains to hit absolute zero depending on circumstances. Sending your entire army at 30% is likely going to net you zero, or something so minor as to not be worth the time attacking at 30% - the option will just be there to still attack at 30% for revenge/war purposes really, rather than an actual beneficial (and easy) gain But obviously attacking at 30% but against an alliance that's larger than you might allow some land gains... etc...