Design Directions & Routes

[No-Dachi]

Right now I almost love you!

 

[Changer]

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...

That sounds perfect. I hope background testing of it goes well and it can be implemented sometime within the coming round.

Right now I almost love you!

Agreed!

 

[Melnibone]

Then use the high intelligence God gave you, in the games quoted players are intially placed in an area (travian,tribalwars) where they can quickly see the progress of their neighbours and can if they choose relocate to the fringes if the area involved is too competitive or stay to fight for limited resources and locations

In any given rounds the id's created first are from experienced players as they know the exact startup time and date. Make signups live a few hours before startup of the round therefore it creates a new tactical dimension

1) create an account at startup and be in the thick of things or
2) leave it a day or 2 and be in a less competitive area but be way behind in techs/land

If this was done in a central way expanding out including time (tick modifiers), new players or those that wanted a lazy round could start late, starting 8-10 ticks or more attack distance from the highly contested centre thus creating a more leisurely atmosphere to the game

Have a set maximum limit say of 12/18 ticks so no-one could start late intentionally to gain invulnerability from the centre while still giving new players or late starters more time to organise defense from alliance mates etc as well as more safety (a 5 tick 15% grab of 2k is always better than an 18 tick 15% grab of 2k)

Players in the core/centre (distances would ofc be dictated by any decision you made) could ally as normal and send defense as could smaller allies on the fringes. To stop abuse once a player/alliance increased beyond a certain size say 75-80% of ranks 1-5 (alliance) top 100 or so (for players) they become 'central' alliances/players and the time restrictions become null and void

All just vague thoughts off the top of my head but imo it allows you to have the elite fight for the win and the casuals have a place in the game that doesnt make them bang their head off the wall in frustration the way it does now

More importantly what makes you think anyone will give you more than basic ideas? players are just that, players, we have opinions and views, we can and will offer basic suggestions but its YOUR game YOUR income and YOUR livelihood dont expect everything to be presented to you in a ready to go format requiring little thought or effort on your part from people that have nothing to gain from their ideas (last i heard you had not offered any % of income to anyone that came up with ideas to save a game that in your own words is in decline!)

 

[No-Dachi]

I might've misread, but what's gonna stop me and a few friends signing up a week late, joining a FTW ally, and being surrounded by small land farms all to ourselves?

 

[Azzer]

Melni - I'm still not entirely sure what you're saying, it all sounds very fuzzy, but what I can pluck from it all is perhaps;

* The later you signup (or the newer your account signup date?), the... lower your attack limit is? Or perhaps older people simply cannot attack you regardless of your score?

I don't know. You keep repeating this "distance from the core" thing, but Bushtarion doesn't have a geographical map. There is no centre. There is no edge. There is a score limit on attacks. There are ETA modifiers. So what are you actually talking about?

Bushtarion has no geographical map. There is no middle. There are no edges. There is no physical distance, great or small, between players. So what are you proposing - convert Bushtarion in to a game that has an actual map, where there are physical distances between players that affect the ETA? Or are you suggesting to utilise Bushtarion's own structure and mechanics, and that perhaps you cannot attack an account that is "newer" than your own account by X age (or if you do, you get increased ETA)?

This is what i'm trying to pin you down on in both my previous replies to you - the actual suggestion you are trying to put forward. Because all you seem to be talking about is this "centre" and "edge", which doesn't physically exist in the Bushtarion world, as Bushtarion is not map-based... so perhaps I'm just missing the point/mis-understanding you?

 

[Melnibone]

Melni - I'm still not entirely sure what you're saying, it all sounds very fuzzy, but what I can pluck from it all is perhaps;

* The later you signup (or the newer your account signup date?), the... lower your attack limit is? Or perhaps older people simply cannot attack you regardless of your score?

I don't know. You keep repeating this "distance from the core" thing, but Bushtarion doesn't have a geographical map. There is no centre. There is no edge. There is a score limit on attacks. There are ETA modifiers. So what are you actually talking about?

Bushtarion has no geographical map. There is no middle. There are no edges. There is no physical distance, great or small, between players. So what are you proposing - convert Bushtarion in to a game that has an actual map, where there are physical distances between players that affect the ETA? Or are you suggesting to utilise Bushtarion's own structure and mechanics, and that perhaps you cannot attack an account that is "newer" than your own account by X age (or if you do, you get increased ETA)?

This is what i'm trying to pin you down on in both my previous replies to you - the actual suggestion you are trying to put forward. Because all you seem to be talking about is this "centre" and "edge", which doesn't physically exist in the Bushtarion world, as Bushtarion is not map-based... so perhaps I'm just missing the point/mis-understanding you?

Meh my bad i shouldnt post wasted (but then id never post lol) my idea is to transform bush to include a form of geographical placement i know there are lots of things in the game that you need to suspend 'realism' for (like vampires fighting robots lol) but the strangest thing i remember when starting as an anally retentive logical person is where my land comes from, where it goes and how....

By introducing locations to the game in a very simple form you could allow newer players to have the protection i discussed in my earlier posts here while still allowing those going ftw to fight against players of similar skills and goals it doesnt need exact locations to give an improvement merely a centre and an edge

No-Dachi i totally understand your concerns but again i feel i covered that in a previous post (possibly badly if so i apologise) but if you start a week late or even a month late as soon as you enter the top 100 (for example) or your alliance is 80% score of the rank 5 alliance you immediately become available to attack and be attacked by those above you with no ETA mod therefore while you may be giving yourself a slight advantage in incoming at your start because you are starting a week to a month late any advantage you are giving yourself by being placed in a 'safer' area is invalidated by the fact you are less teched and upon hitting the top 100 (for a player of your calibre even starting a month late youd be there in less than a week) youd be getting attacked by better teched people with more land thus preventing any possible abuse if this needs clarified further or you can think of any abuse i havent please repost and i'll look at it again

Think of it as a large continent that players are fighting to control by being the largest company/alliance in, those in the 'thick' of things when stealing land from each other arent moving merely expanding but those in the starter zone/edges call it what you will, because of their location on the fringes when their company expands they have to expand towards the middle giving a sense of logic to new players that by getting bigger/being better they are progressing towards larger battles against better players and any n00b bashing is going to take 18 ticks instead of 5 thus deterring the current trend of picking on newer players

This is a very rough idea but tbh i think it is badly needed for any mass influx of new players to come to the game let the pros fight the pros let the noobs fight the noobs soon the better noobs become pros and the game expands. As it is a new player comes gets bashed by the pros and quits powerblocks or not the steep learning curve and the heartlessness of those going ftw discourages any new player from developing a love or hunger for the game

 

[Max]

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...

This sounds fantastic. I think that it would also encourage people to attack at 70% or above if there were increased land gains for attacking fairly within this region (say up to 25/30%), if the fairness calculator works well

 

[Matt]

one thing i have an opinion on and i dont no if its been mentioned already ive read soo many posts in this thread but not go through them all yet.

but anyways,

id like to see a sub unit for the SO-Puppet branch, something instead of steel wall's.

i dont mean get rid of steel walls all together,
but have a choice of steel walls and a armour flak unit you can send along with you puppets.

but you can only choose one. when teching so you either go defensive with the steel walls, or offensive with the other unit.

i dont have an idea what this other unit could be as of yet,

but i would think something along the lines of £45,000 in price HP *, AR *****, HD *, AD *. INT somewhere around 760

then maybe the puppets might need a reduction in power. but please i welcome everyones input on this matter.

What you guys think?

 

[Dark_Angel]

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...

This sounds fantastic. I think that it would also encourage people to attack at 70% or above if there were increased land gains for attacking fairly within this region (say up to 25/30%), if the fairness calculator works well

Where does this leave people at the top after a month and barely 30% targets as it is?

 

[Azzer]

Where does this leave people at the top after a month and barely 30% targets as it is?

In a position where their advancement will naturally slow down because of this allowing others to catch up to the point they can provide an actual challenge to the top, without being the equivalent of cattle for the top.

When the top are that far ahead that their *ONLY* targets are at 30%, this creates two things;
* The top get bored (ocassionally farming anyone that hits their 30% range).
* The rest of the game get annoyed, upset, and bored.

So anything that changes the current status-quo is going to be good

 

[timthetyrant]

it still wont prevent ppl from attacking low to get converts or bribes, but its better then nothing. i dont know how converting works, but i think it is a percentage of the value killed, so maybe attacking lower will give a lower conversion percantage, but then again some converters need to attack low, like scrappers. so i dont know if it should be changed

 

[Dark_Angel]

Where does this leave people at the top after a month and barely 30% targets as it is?

In a position where their advancement will naturally slow down because of this allowing others to catch up to the point they can provide an actual challenge to the top, without being the equivalent of cattle for the top.

When the top are that far ahead that their *ONLY* targets are at 30%, this creates two things;
* The top get bored (ocassionally farming anyone that hits their 30% range).
* The rest of the game get annoyed, upset, and bored.

So anything that changes the current status-quo is going to be good

A bit dubious about this. You can't stop someone winning? The "top" will get ahead by a sizable amount at some point in the round.

Trigger scenerio:

* The top get bored

-

They're left with nothing to do but hope someone does enter range. What incentive is there to log in atall if the X number of people bordering 30% of you won't give you a land grab of any amount?

-

I've just a fear that this will further stagnate gameplay for those who get ahead early on, and spend the round waiting for targets. Those targets are now to be provided protection from "the top" by essentially being offered immunity in the form of nobody in their right mind wanting to attack and lose score for nothing?

Unless I'm missing something huge

 

[Azzer]

A bit dubious about this. You can't stop someone winning? The "top" will get ahead by a sizable amount at some point in the round.
Trigger scenerio:
* The top get bored
-
They're left with nothing to do but hope someone does enter range. What incentive is there to log in atall if the X number of people bordering 30% of you won't give you a land grab of any amount?
-
I've just a fear that this will further stagnate gameplay for those who get ahead early on, and spend the round waiting for targets. Those targets are now to be provided protection from "the top" by essentially being offered immunity in the form of nobody in their right mind wanting to attack and lose score for nothing?
Unless I'm missing something huge

By making "raping at 30%" an ineffective way of "getting ahead", we effectively reduce people's ability at getting ahead quite so fast - since anyone that gets in to a top position does, at one stage or another, do it by relying on the 30% rapes giving land. If these 30% and similar rapes don't give land, and you can't "uber-hard-core-bottom-feed" your way to the top, it's less likely people will give themselves quite a gap in the rankings in the future.

But either way, if you think a system designed to prevent bottom-feeding in all of it's forms - from mid-ranks to top-ranks... should give "exemptions" to the top ranked so they can bottomfeed freely and reap the rewards of it, then you have a pretty distorted/twisted opinion of how the game should be played or which groups/types of players the game should pander to... hell, if after introduction of such a system a group of players still managed to get that far ahead of everyone else to the degree the only targets were at 30% and below, then I'd say that they shouldn't need hand-holding to the degree they get special exceptions to a core game mechanic, but rather they warrant further challenges to keep the game interesting for all, and a system that simply prevents bottomfeeding "at all levels" across the board regardless of your rank or number of targets, seems the fairest way of doing this! (otherwise we're just left inventing features that attack the top, which the top don't want either... )

 

[Dark_Angel]

I'd feel differently if raping at 30%/bottom-feeding was a choice "the top" made. But it isn't. There's a point in the game, disturbingly early on, when your only chance of land is at 30%.

This will, no doubt, be fairly successful in the mid/low ranks. But I can't see how it isn't going to be detrimental to gameplay at the top when you're essentially robbed of the only targets you have. (Remember too that bottom-feeding with regards to "the top" isn't the same as mid/lower ranks. Quite often the "top" player involved doesn't have an easy ride raping their 30% target, as although they're more often than not accompanied by a player of similar score, defence in the victim's alliance is quite often enough to do considerable damage to the player(s) attacking. As oppose to the mid ranks attacking lower ranks, where there is much less difference in score and lower alliances can't help themselves being raped)

If this doesn't drag out the middle/end of the round even more so than it does already for the top then I've no real problem with this. But if the top alliance(s) are left without targets a month/6 weeks in, and this new fairness thing just exacerbates this, that is too great a sacrifice to help reduce bottomfeeding for the rest of the game, IMO.

 

[Azzer]

Well I remember when the handful of bottom-feeders at the top made identical arguments back when the attack range got raised from 10%, then 15%, then 17.5%, then 20%... each and every time it was "But that's not fair on the top who's only targets are at 10%/x%"... at the end of the day, if there's going to be a game mechanic that helps prevent bottom-feeding "across the board", then i'm not going to give an exception to the rule that says "But if you're the highest rank in the game and somehow got in to a position where there are no other targets left and you're bored, I'm going to let you use the world now as your private playground and lift/remove/reduce the restrictions that every other player in the world plays by and let you attack really low down."

This change/system is going ahead, it is going to take place, and it will be applied to every player in the game - not targetting the top or the bottom, but everybody. And I think it'll severely limit/reduce the circumstances where a group of players will even be in a position where their only targets are at 30% in the first place - making the game a better one for every single player

 

[Dark_Angel]

This change/system is going ahead, it is going to take place, and it will be applied to every player in the game - not targetting the top or the bottom, but everybody. And I think it'll severely limit/reduce the circumstances where a group of players will even be in a position where their only targets are at 30% in the first place - making the game a better one for every single player

Well I sincerely hope it works

Will be interesting to see.

 

[No-Dachi]

It will without doubt make it harder to run away. It'll mean alliances will have to rely on the war system in order to bash other alliances, and that will 1) make it easier to pick out the aggressive forces, hopefully making alliances band together to take them out and 2) give alliances under X% protection from being raped senseless.

This will effectively change the metagame from "bash 30% until you get a list, then bash that alliance until you're strong enough to run away", to involving wars, fighting between "equals" and make it a more even fight for the top without having the mediocre alliances pay the entire price for the bloodlust of the rank 1-3.

I can't see that I see anything wrong with this suggestion. Yes, once someone run away with the game they will have less incentive to attack, but once you manage to run away there shouldn't be that much left of the game anyway. And if it is, you'll probably face a resistance sooner or later, so you wont be that bored

 

[DarkSider]

I'm not entirely sure how small gains would work for a top alliance that has the overwhelming army,activity, organization and dedication to keep attacking the alliances under them.
With small land looses the main requirement for ally play should be to just be contactable and send out and probably the top ally will just bash for fun to get some 100:1 kills if they can't get the land.

I'd much rather have the game less phone demanding with a proper working dynamic insurance that takes into accont all possibilities (which should be awful hard ) like fake attacking boosts or randomly spying a real attack and deciding to follow with some gards and geo and spoiling the gains for attacker and increasing the injury for target .. which could be the problem in this new FC tho i don't know if Azzer takes multiple attackers into his calculation.

Imo the direction where should be worked on should be alliance wars, make random attacking less rewarding but the gains are well worth it in a war (again not just land as you don't want to win a war and get out of it very land fat nor you want to loose it). Maybe stuff like 0 income but high insurance in war could work ?
Also it might be good the fast running away to be slowed down with some harsh exponential seed production from acres and/or dynamic BR's where the stronger you are the more you loose ?