A few thoughts/Ideas

[WackyJacky]

I believe bounty hunting needs a bit of work.
First of all: You should not be penalized for rushing.
Rushing is a tactic, to get kills, and it shouldn't be penalized. By penalizing a rush you are giving the target 10-20 more minutes to get online to send out

Secondly: If you have an "enemy" do you receive more bounty for killing them?

Third: Bring back Titles. For two reasons. 1. It will make killing a bigger player more rewarding. 2. As was stated in another thread regarding Vampires, it's there to satisfy people, it gives them something to do and enjoy.

Finally: Contactability. It's ruining the game in my opinion. You can't attack certain targets because they get on almost every time.... and no one wants to attack 10 times and hope 1 out of 10 times the person can't get on. I have been trying to think of a solution to this problem, but so far I don't have anything I like.
My first though was bigger alliances as then players will feel more secure and may not give out their numbers, but the playerbase cannot support it.
I was also thinking something akin to sleepmode, as in you have your 8 hours (which you would decide at the beginning of the round, and would stay the same hours for the whole round) in which you get say 50% seeds but your injuries and insurance go up by 50% (defending your ID only.) However that may be a bit drastic/abusable.
Just throwing out ideas here.

Edit: I just read a post regarding the playerbase and why it is so low. As has been mentioned thousands of times the learning curve is insane. And no one wants to read a tutorial, no matter how short it is. What about making training alliances? As anyone who has heard of Saplings will know that it was a training alliance,even though I had already been playing for awhile it helped me learn new things.. even though my "mentor" was drunk the whole time. Anyways: If we could create training alliances it would greatly help deal with the learning curve. I joined an alliance recently, as I restarted, inactively, just to get a bit of protection. But half the players don't even know what IRC is, why yobs would be useless in a certain defense, how to steal land, etc. That is why players quit, because they can't understand things. Therefore when players sign up they could apply for a training alliance. Anyone who wants to lead one can simply apply to lead/help out. Obviously this needs a bit of work, but I think it could do the game a lot of work if people are willing to help out.

Edit 2: I would appreciate if those players who value their opinions very highly could please be polite in this discussion, as I don't want this thread to end up like 97% of the other threads on the forums (an egotistical battle.)
Cheers

 

[aGit]

rushing is penalized because making a eta 3 attack into a att3 attack when sent at the end of the tick doesnt really give the recipient any chances to get defended at all. not exactly fair now is it. On top of that, try playing a round as a big PA player in the top5 when virtually anyone not in your alliance gets a -1 or -2 to you, and live with the emp rushes.

rushing is a tactic, agreed. however one imposed on you by your sucky alliance/solo status/shitty play =)

 

[WackyJacky]

rushing is penalized because making a eta 3 attack into a att3 attack when sent at the end of the tick doesnt really give the recipient any chances to get defended at all. not exactly fair now is it. On top of that, try playing a round as a big PA player in the top5 when virtually anyone not in your alliance gets a -1 or -2 to you, and live with the emp rushes.

rushing is a tactic, agreed. however one imposed on you by your sucky alliance/solo status/shitty play =)

Yes but as a top 5 player EMP rushes aren't going to do anything to you. 1. Emps suck. 2. Players can't buy enough to attack you and deal sufficient damage without making themselves perfect targets for other players. 3. Your contactable so you can send out, but even if you weren't contactable the Emps wouldn't make a sufficient dent in your army.

Rushing is imposed on players by other alliances. If they are contactable, if they have players online 24/7 that are great against your route.

 

[aGit]

a single emp rush, of say 10m can easy kill, or did when i last played PAs back in TRFC, 8-10m PA (depending on your unit ratios ofc). for cost effectiveness that is awesome.

now multiply that one inc by umpteen, and you get a constant stream of SMSs telling you to get online because of some tard is rushing your ass, again. In trfc i'm sure i lost more than 100m PAs due to this annoying rushing. i have no love left for low eta let rushes.

also, the PA was just an example, there are SA rushes, biker rushes, rpg rushes, harrier rushes, tl rushes, pretty much every route has a unit or two that can effectively be used versus certain other routes for good killing and bounty hunting. add - eta to those mobs and you get a recepy for unfairness. granted, that as is, in my oppinion the current system favours stealth mobs, but they ofc have other shortcomings.

you are also assuming that everyone is always contactable, while that may be the case for majority of the time. it is not allways so.

 

[WackyJacky]

More thoughts

Melnibone: or you could simply make all attacks eta 5
[4:39pm] Wacky: and that would accomplish....?
[4:40pm] Melnibone: it gives every alliance time to get the anti unit there
[4:40pm] Wacky: so how would you ever kill anything then?
[4:41pm] Melnibone: by actually fighting wars
[4:41pm] Melnibone: making the game alliance based

Melnibone: you dont make the game fair so theres no gulf between the best and the rest you just give the rest a chance to learn and improve to become the best
[4:43pm] Wacky: Hence my tutorial allys (Saplings-esque)
[4:43pm] Melnibone: the most active/skilled/contactable alliances shouldnt be penalised there should just be compensation for those below to have fun playing
[4:44pm] Wacky: hmm
[4:44pm] Wacky: like drastically increased insurance for being attacked by someone way bigger
[4:45pm] Melnibone: like no bounty if more than one attacker
[4:45pm] Melnibone: double insurance if attaced by more than 300% of your score
[4:46pm] Melnibone: you dont alliance attack for bounty
[4:46pm] Melnibone: only solo BH's do
[4:46pm] Melnibone: you alliance attack to smash the enemy and gain land
[4:46pm] Melnibone: give BH and such back as ranks but purely for solos

Melnibone: people stay and learn complexity if they can ACTUALLY play by having as much as 70% of their troops back after a bash they'll be more likely to stick with it and learn more
[4:49pm] Wacky: I also feel we need more incentive to war
[4:49pm] Wacky: OF of course doesn't because we love kicking everyones ass
[4:49pm] Wacky: but everyone else plays politics
[4:50pm] Wacky: I play to war, but other people just play to scorequeen
[4:50pm] Wacky: and we need to find a way to break that
[4:50pm] Melnibone: and thats the story of our round we'll finish high and prove to others that by growing a set and fighting alone you can succeed

 

[WackyJacky]

Agit - I'd say right now rushing is key to killing top players. However if we implement some of Melnibone's ideas then the top wouldn't have to worry about rushes as much.

 

[Alcibiades]

I believe bounty hunting needs a bit of work.
First of all: You should not be penalized for rushing.
Rushing is a tactic, to get kills, and it shouldn't be penalized. By penalizing a rush you are giving the target 10-20 more minutes to get online to send out

aGit is quite correct in his assessment of rushing.

however an angle he left out is that giving out full bounty for rushing encourages people to rush *solely* for bounty which leaves a great potential for tons of players to be zeroed for no purpose other than simply acquiring bounty; people won't even stay for land because that means they'd actually have to fight someone, as opposed to being able to rush. This encourages 'negative gameplay' as i call it, and would encourage players to leave if they continually find themselves being zeroed to no purpose (as they see it). I do not support removing the bounty rushing penalties.

Secondly: If you have an "enemy" do you receive more bounty for killing them?

Where does this 'enemy' stuff come from? Do you mean Combat Stats tracking? Because that has no effect on bounty/attacks/land steal %s or anything because it's simply a form of 'combat stat tracking' without any ingame effects.

Third: Bring back Titles. For two reasons. 1. It will make killing a bigger player more rewarding. 2. As was stated in another thread regarding Vampires, it's there to satisfy people, it gives them something to do and enjoy.

There are about 15 threads about this very topic, can you use Search before you post please? Would save conscientious and literate players like myself from having to repeat ourselves every time some ****ing moron posts a stupid ****ing thread like this. To go on...

http://bushtarion.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2290&highlight=fame

That is a discussion which had to with L/F and the 'old system'. From that sprung the idea of the 'Fairness Calculator' which is addressed here: http://www.bushtarion.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1668

It would need a new and working "fairness calculator" - the reasons for it's removal are largely down to the impracticalities of the current one. If/once a new FC has been created that actually "works" and can be detailed in it's workings publically etc., there's no stopping what it can be used for...!

Lifted directly from the Portal Updates log also:

* A new "Fairness Calculator" has been implemented but is currently only "background code" - new FC values are being generated in battles but are not currently being used. This is to ensure I can run enough data and tests on it in all of your live battles to check for problems, abuses - situations where it's too low, too high etc. - and tweak as necessary, before implementing it. Advance note: This system may go live mid-round, which will impact bounty gain levels, max-land-cap levels, and effectiveness gains.

Search functions are your friend.

Finally: Contactability. It's ruining the game in my opinion. You can't attack certain targets because they get on almost every time.... and no one wants to attack 10 times and hope 1 out of 10 times the person can't get on. I have been trying to think of a solution to this problem, but so far I don't have anything I like.
My first thought was bigger alliances as then players will feel more secure and may not give out their numbers, but the playerbase cannot support it.
I was also thinking something akin to sleepmode, as in you have your 8 hours (which you would decide at the beginning of the round, and would stay the same hours for the whole round) in which you get say 50% seeds but your injuries and insurance go up by 50% (defending your ID only.) However that may be a bit drastic/abusable.
Just throwing out ideas here.

There is some effort out there to reduce the required contactability of players so that this game is more accessible to the 'average joe'. I do agree that contactability is one of the most important features of this game at the moment and that makes it popular amongst the younger crowd since they have the most time to kill and most ability to be 'online' whenever needed. Bigger alliances is not the way to go imo, since it won't reduce the need for contactability since the main problems will be, as always, available 'nightcover' and let's be honest, there simply aren't that many asians/aussies to go around to be reasonable nightcover, and the most they could do is prank people online. So problem is not solved.

And as for your 'related to sleepmode idea'... absolutely not. If it were the same all round you would be easy pickings for anyone with the ability to figure out when you were offline and then beat you bloody during that time, sure you wouldn't get too badly beaten but if people wave you continuously when they *know* you're offline you could theoretically end up with no harvs and no seed gain which generally equals fail. Why would i want that kind of playstyle? I appreciate your effort to fixing contactability, but so far your ideas are not sufficient.

Edit: I just read a post regarding the playerbase and why it is so low. As has been mentioned thousands of times the learning curve is insane. And no one wants to read a tutorial, no matter how short it is. What about making training alliances? As anyone who has heard of Saplings will know that it was a training alliance,even though I had already been playing for awhile it helped me learn new things.. even though my "mentor" was drunk the whole time. Anyways: If we could create training alliances it would greatly help deal with the learning curve. [snip] Therefore when players sign up they could apply for a training alliance. Anyone who wants to lead one can simply apply to lead/help out. Obviously this needs a bit of work, but I think it could do the game a lot of work if people are willing to help out.

The learning curve isn't *that* insane if you do enough reading and spend enough time just playing about ingame. It is hard, and definitely harder than most games out there, but not impossible especially given the new tutorial in place, and a sufficiently well written manual which is being worked on.

As i recall, Saplings ended up being pummeled to death by the surrounding alliances because everyone *knew* there were new players in it. The only way in which i could see training allies work is if they were in an entirely separate world populated entirely by newbies and the 'trainers'. Like a PW sort of thing. And let's be honest, that doesn't seem like something that is really going to happen.

 

[BuBbLeS]

Alci i beg you to stop.

all this laughing at other people being retarded is enough without you trying to kill me from laughing.

/me humps the Alci

 

[Garrett]

Rather than wade knee deep in the dead into the details going back and forth here... I'm going to generalize some...

Bounty - I agree the system needs tweaking. However, (and to me this is across all game mechanics) suggesting to go back to a previous method that is no longer part of the game is highly counter productive.

a big reason is you get all the oldies talking about why that didn't work. (because it doesn't work) rushing strikes got reduced bounty for good reason. However, to help with resisting and incenting the playerbase to hit the top to keep the game moving... something else than the standard bash calc needs to be in place.

so please lets move forward with other ideas rather than the continue petitions of bringing things back to the way they 'were'

things were broken the way they 'were' that's probably why probably enjoyed them so much

 

[WackyJacky]

Alci i beg you to stop.

all this laughing at other people being retarded is enough without you trying to kill me from laughing.

/me humps the Alci

*sigh*

And finally the biggest problem with the game.

You guys wonder why nothing ever changes and why the playerbase is shrinking. I've read countless posts like this in the past, which is why I don't post on the forums much because all anyone ever gets is:

"This has been suggested" "Your a moron" "Your ideas suck" "Things are best this way because of these reasons, but really its just because I benefit from the current game style."

Obviously you missed the central point of my discussion which was that my ideas are simply ideas, and I don't expect them to be implemented however I was trying to take in others opinions so as to create a suggestion which could be implemented. It is not my ideas here that matters, but the points I have spoken about.

I know certain things have been suggested, however I was simply condensing all my thoughts into one posts.

However since all my thoughts are "retarded," I won't bother you all anymore with my view points because apparently I'm not a good enough player to suggest changes.

Grow up guys. At least I'm trying to do some good rather then just show off my e-penis. Show it off in game, and leave the forums for actual chat, not bullshit. If you want to be a dick then go ahead and send me all the mails you want, but this thread is not about how awesome you all are, it's about improving the game.

 

[Alcibiades]

Then make useful and thoughtful suggestions, instead of asking for something from the past to be brought back when it was obviously and deliberately flawed. Just to further prove your point wrong, plenty of things change, things change from flawed systems, to more or at least hopefully more functional systems. hence why L/F is no longer in existence in it's previous form because it's ****ing broken.

i don't benefit any more from the current gameplay than i did from the previous age of gameplay, and even the round before that. I just continue to play as before. I don't benefit any more or less from rounds past to the current rounds; i just think that broken game mechanics should not be reintroduced for sentimental reasons when Azzer is currently working on a new system to replace the old one. for christ's sake, would you please read forums and threads and responses before you post knee jerk reactions from the bottom of your soulless being?

Just because you suggest something doesn't make it worthwhile, not all change is positive change etc etc.

Sure you tried to make changes, kudos to you, here's a ****ing cookie.

now to take the immortal words of Eminem:

"Didn't you listen to the last round meathead, pay attention, you're saying the same **** that he said... matter of fact dog, here's a pencil, go home write some ****, make it suspenseful and don't come back until something dope hits you, **** it, you can take the mic home with you"

You get mad at us for making unconstructive comments but you didn't address my concerns at all, you avoided them entirely. Not to mention the fact that none of your suggestions are A: New; B: valuable; C: Doing anything that isn't in another dozen threads around here.

By all means go play the hard pressed, enemy surrounded martyr, but don't expect it to garner you any damn sympathy.

EDIT: I'm certain that if you used the search function, you'd have found myriad threads dealing with the exact same problems you raise here, and instead of starting yet another thread like it, much to the irritation of aGit, Garrett and myself which causes us to be more blunt than usual, you'd have found your time more usefully spent adding to those threads, rather than writing new ones. Do you not agree? And let's be honest, this thread isn't about how awesome aGit, Garrett and myself are (although we are admittedly pretty ****ing awesome) it has more to do with how thoughtless you are. You won't agree, but it's the simple truth, OK?

 

[Polo]

"This has been suggested" "Your a moron" "Your ideas suck" "Things are best this way because of these reasons, but really its just because I benefit from the current game style."

You're a moron...

 

[BlackWolf]

Rushing should be tied to alliances and their rank/score. Thus it wouldnt allow usage only to zero someone, but it would be option to take down big alliances. In same time game shouldnt have any kind of units that can land big blows with taking minimal losses. At least not bounty wise.