The game

DarkSider

Tree Surgeon
Joined
Dec 14, 2007
Messages
796
Well i'm bored and this discution started in a small channel so i'm wondering what ppl like at the game, what they hate, in which direction they'd want the game to go to improve their time invested in here.
Most likely too late for the suggestions/opinions to be considered for a near future round but it'd be nice to see at least players 2 cents on the matter.


I'll give it first go and try to cover only one aspect for each topic so others have subjects to talk about :p


What i like:
Small community which means players are known (at least the good ones) and there is more drama when the wars start. The more personal you know the players you play against, the more fun it is. The bigger the comunity is, it starts to look more like a game vs cpu where you don't get the satisfaction to laugh in his face, show off your awesomeness and yell the traditional PWNED :p Even tho i'd want some more players so we don't have just ~3 good alliances and 'the rest' but still keep the current small comunity feeling.

What i dislike:
The game is fairly easy to understand and learn (even if you need to keep manual page on unit stats for the rest of the round) and activity is the main quality when looking for a good player. Knowledge has a small importance, you beeing more experienced, knowing the game better than a first rounder, won't make your units perform better, you can't customize the troop formation or other tactics so your ability to adapt and the knowledge you gained over rounds won't matter at all, it's all about unit size.


In which direction i'd want to see the game go:

A combo between current bush and travian. What i mean by that is take from travian the more relaxed alliances where you are tagged as part of a group, but you are more independent, you grow and die depending on your skill most of the time, other alliance members getting killed won't have as much direct influence over your own growth but you can still have the "group fun" :p

I like team play i just dislike the alliance play in bush. Don't take this like a flame against DW but from what i hacked and spyed them they are hardly enjoy playing the game. Most members are zeroed and with lots of savings afraid to buy any troops since they'd get killed not long after, loosing land left and right, sleepmode as much as possible etc. I respect their name and the many rounds they played together but my personal opinion and they can tell me wrong is that bush is more of an excuse to be together with some players in a mirc room, have a chat and a laugh and what happens with the game it's more like another subject to talk about than a game they *play*.
Or i look at some high ranked players not in RRR. Their only thing with bush atm is to be online so they don't get killed or other members of their alliance get killed. How can that be fun ? You login into bush so you prevent something bad to happen or it should be login to bush to have a great time the few hours you want to play every day ?
I don't know about others but i hate with a passion the defensive playstyle. Keep troops home because we might get attacked and we need to defend, keep troops home as we might need to retal, just stay online and refresh as who knows what might happen and we need to prevent bad stuff to happen.
I reeeeally want something to change here so every minute you play the game to think expansionist, kill them more than they kill you, get all the land you can, all the troops you can, every day produce some action instead the current way of beeing online to prevent action.
 

Polo

Garden Designer
Super Moderator
Joined
Dec 14, 2007
Messages
1,005
What i like:
Small community which means players are known (at least the good ones) and there is more drama when the wars start. The more personal you know the players you play against, the more fun it is. The bigger the comunity is, it starts to look more like a game vs cpu where you don't get the satisfaction to laugh in his face, show off your awesomeness and yell the traditional PWNED :p Even tho i'd want some more players so we don't have just ~3 good alliances and 'the rest' but still keep the current small comunity feeling.
I disagree, to an extent. However, I view the community more as alliances/"groups". For the past few rounds, there's been ~2-5 "ftw"/decent alliances. The game would be so much better, imo, if there was ten times that number of active/competant alliances who played together for many rounds so as to form "cores" such as The Dutchies or ViruS. For me, the game is much more fun when playing against an enemy alliance that has such legend. Sure, I've played against "Twigley's alliance" many times, but it's just not the same as playing against The Dutchies where you're playing against the name of the group rather than just one player. With a community as small as this one, I very much doubt we'll see groups such as The Dutchies or ViruS any time soon.

Also, I think it's too easy to make a name for yourself due to the size of the community. Some people may think this is a good thing - but I don't.
What i dislike:
The game is fairly easy to understand and learn (even if you need to keep manual page on unit stats for the rest of the round) and activity is the main quality when looking for a good player. Knowledge has a small importance, you beeing more experienced, knowing the game better than a first rounder, won't make your units perform better, you can't customize the troop formation or other tactics so your ability to adapt and the knowledge you gained over rounds won't matter at all, it's all about unit size.
Completely agree here. Activity and the lack of action (at the top, it's usually free land, mass recalls or killing someone who actually can't play 24/7) make the game so stressful and boring.

In which direction i'd want to see the game go:

A combo between current bush and travian. What i mean by that is take from travian the more relaxed alliances where you are tagged as part of a group, but you are more independent, you grow and die depending on your skill most of the time, other alliance members getting killed won't have as much direct influence over your own growth but you can still have the "group fun" :p

Haven't played Travian so I'm not sure how this would work or what it would be like, but from the vague idea, it sounds fun. :p

I'd like to see the game become much more strategically in-depth so it's not so much a brute-force numbers game. Basically, a lot more customization so your ID is truly your ID and not just a clone of others (for example, hack pretty much any PA player and you'll see them playing the game in the same way PA players have for as long as I can remember). Specifically, I'd like to see a massive, varied, open tech tree that allows people to taylor their troop setup to their own liking - possibly with varying stats each round (like in Planetarian) to help prevent such stereotypical playstyles forming.
 

Garrett

Landscape Designer
Joined
Dec 14, 2007
Messages
1,872
i dislike that the other allies can't war properly with the top ally looming over our heads
 

willymchilybily

Landscape Designer
Joined
Dec 14, 2007
Messages
1,418
Location
uk
i was thinking about it. and the thing i think that would make this game most fun. Is more players.

thus you have more targets, more people to collect bounty on. more targets to land. You dont hit the same targets and bash the same people. Infact bashin is significantly reduced. This got me thinking. maybe thats whats happening to the game. not one change or another making people quit. not one reason or another.
but when you die, its clear your at the bottom. but you will still get bashed by the same alliances and same people. because you're their only decent targets. maybe as the community shrinks the fun shrinks. and when the community grows the fun grows. and one is a catalyst for another. (maybe test the theory make some smart bots. and throw in an extra 200 random ids, played by a clever AI system)

the more people playing this game the more fun this game would be. So maybe a way to accomodate this, is make it easier still to get into. more advertising. easier to start. there seems to have been alot of good changes. im enjoying my round.

when i play bushtarion the amount of people that ask me what im doing. and are tempted to play and are interested in it seems quite high. but what they say to me is it looks quite indepth and technical. (they see me do an ar calc, using spy parsing from polo's addon and windows calculator).

Ps. the thing that got me started on the game. was i was told i could get 5 pounds if i voted for bushtarion.com on a computer games voting site. then it was explained a bit more by my mate u need an account to recieve the £5. then finally i got an account. voted and got my free £5..they were bush credits.so thought sod it all that effort for five virtual pound. im getting my bloody moneys worth.

6years later, and i curse my greedy greedy, and slightly addictive personality.
 

septimus

Harvester
Joined
Jan 2, 2008
Messages
116
For me I find a way to have fun no matter what I happen to be doing that round, this round Im a puppet, never played a real briber before, and Im loving every minute of it, trying to take that stat, finding out just how useless a few million of alot of units is(somewhat j/k :p).
I think it's up to the players to make their own fun, I've been in allies at the top, middle, and bottom, and always found a way to have fun once I understood the basic game mechanics(which as DS said doesn't take that long to find out). When I was new it wasn't dying that annoyed me as much as dying and not really understanding how/why. Once I figured that part out I could accept the inevitable death more easily.

My biggest problem with the game is repeat attacking, it's a function of the game, the bigger you are the less targets you have the more you have to hit the same people. Certain routes are best against other routes, so again you've got limited targets, and wind up having to hit them multiple times. I just think something should be done to make that less beneficial.

I think the more players in the game the more fun it will be, having a name isn't a big deal as Polo said because the community is so small, the game needs new blood, I don't know how to do that, most people that play an online game want to win, it's not easy to win, a bigger middle of the pack kind of group would imo make things much more interesting. The top 100 spots will always go roughly to the same people because the game isn't so much about skill but about activity. It's just my opinion that there needs to be more competition between ranks 5/6-15 really. I don't know how to improve it, we'd need to see a sudden influx of alot of players, because as it is now I don't see why many new people would really stick around unless they have alot of time to devote to the game.

I always tend to think of it in terms of someone that has 2 hours a day to devote to the game. In most instances 2 hours a day is actually alot of time, in Bush it's not, that's 1 attack or defense a day. As it is now if you're in a mid level ally chances are you'll log in zeroed, and won't be able to do anything in those 2 hours, what's the incentive to stay? I don't know how to change it or improve it, I think insurance and injury are a really good first step.

Anyway, that's my thoughts, either way I'm enjoying myself.
 

Chezz

Harvester
Joined
Mar 30, 2008
Messages
175
i was thinking about it. and the thing i think that would make this game most fun. Is more players.

thus you have more targets, more people to collect bounty on. more targets to land. You dont hit the same targets and bash the same people. Infact bashin is significantly reduced. This got me thinking. maybe thats whats happening to the game. not one change or another making people quit. not one reason or another.

In my opinion, this wouldn't change things much at all. Just as DS and Polo mentioned, having more people would just mean more clones to attack, making it even more reptitive and boring, if you ask me.

For example, in today's situation, an RPG player might only have a few Robo, Striker etc. players in his range. If he wants land/bounty, he has no choice to attack, say, Spec Ops with no SAs, with, say, mass snipers. This might create new strategies and make the game more interesting, instead of the usual "mass RPGs and attack armoured routes" strategy.
 

tobapopalos

Hydroponics Developer
Joined
Dec 14, 2007
Messages
2,759
Location
Manchester
I'm sorry...are you saying that having more targets would make the game boring? What ****ing planet are you on?
 

Chezz

Harvester
Joined
Mar 30, 2008
Messages
175
Obviously, I'm not saying that they will cause the game to be boring per se, but with the availability of more targets that people can comfortably eliminate with their current strategies, there would be little incentive for the game to become more varied and different each time. Currently, the strategies are almost identical for every player of the same route.
 

Iamsmart

Landscape Designer
Joined
Apr 26, 2008
Messages
1,668
It certainly would make the game easy - Since every route pretty much pwns at least 1 route.

(No, I'm not saying the game wouldn't be more fun with more people :p)
 

Chezz

Harvester
Joined
Mar 30, 2008
Messages
175
It certainly would make the game easy - Since every route pretty much pwns at least 1 route.

(No, I'm not saying the game wouldn't be more fun with more people :p)

Yeah, that's pretty much what I'm saying. In today's context, you just keeping pwning the same routes over and over again. And get pwned by the same routes over and over again. Having more people doesn't really solve that problem, does it?




100th post!
 

Chezz

Harvester
Joined
Mar 30, 2008
Messages
175
And I'm NOT saying that having more players makes the game less fun, it just doesn't improve the game much, except for having more allies, teammates, targets etc.
 

WackyJacky

Head Gardener
Joined
Dec 14, 2007
Messages
274
Location
USA
What I like: The coummunity. There is almost always at least one person I like enough to talk to online, at least in my experience. I love alliance play. I love attacking alliances and trying to trick them into falling for fake mobs, or overwhelming them to the point of quitting.

What I don't like: The dicks who play this game. There are far too many players who think that since they can beat 50 other active players + they have been here for so long their word is law. If I was a new player I would be put off by the amount of rude conversations that go on, on the forums. Every conversation turns into an insult/flame war.

In which direction I'd like to see the game go:

I'd like those "amazing" players to help out newer players, if you want a larger player base, then stop insulting people and go out and teach people how to play.

I'd like some way of decreasing the amount of active time required/increase you're productivity (I really enjoyed 5 minute ticks as I could run an entire attack and be home in about an hour.)

I'd like there to be a way for smaller players to stand up to bigger players. (customization of troops as has been suggested or anything else that could work.)

I'd like some work done on the war feature so that more wars happen, instead of just the few every now and then. But that may simply be an alliance/leadership choice.

I'd like to see Azzer more involved in the game (sending government attack mobs to top ranked players, etc.)
 

Garrett

Landscape Designer
Joined
Dec 14, 2007
Messages
1,872
I'd like some way of decreasing the amount of active time required/increase you're productivity (I really enjoyed 5 minute ticks as I could run an entire attack and be home in about an hour.)

I'd like there to be a way for smaller players to stand up to bigger players. (customization of troops as has been suggested or anything else that could work.)

I'd like some work done on the war feature so that more wars happen, instead of just the few every now and then. But that may simply be an alliance/leadership choice.

I'd like to see Azzer more involved in the game (sending government attack mobs to top ranked players, etc.)

Here is some law for you ;)

5 min ticks issue - been talked about for years, generally agreed for the majority, especially since at least one of the mini rounds was 5 mins, that 5 mins is too hectic. There are other suggestions for reducing activity required. Please let 5 mins ticks go. Buy pworlds imo.

Smaller players standing to bigger players. This is where politics comes into play and you have to band together to make this happen. What incentive is there for me to increase my value and score if you can have 1 or 2 quick/easy mechanisms to stand toe to toe? Either please explain or rethink the wording/explain mechanisms that could accomplish what you are looking for as I can only guess as to what you are implying.

War - agreed

Azzer 'ingame' put in at least 1 thread talking about game direction or development, etc etc, that CRA was a mistake and that he would never do it again. His involvement should be limited to enforcing rules on rulebreakers (and can attack with the govt farmers, etc as he already does) and providing friendly entertainment (random news, more stuff like random hamsters, xmas holiday cease-fire, etc etc) So 'CRA', 'Azzer self crusade vs the top', etc have been smacked down by the creator himself. So instead of the same dead horse being smacked around again, new ideas on dynamic systems that would be fair please.
 

WackyJacky

Head Gardener
Joined
Dec 14, 2007
Messages
274
Location
USA
I'd like some way of decreasing the amount of active time required/increase you're productivity (I really enjoyed 5 minute ticks as I could run an entire attack and be home in about an hour.)

I'd like there to be a way for smaller players to stand up to bigger players. (customization of troops as has been suggested or anything else that could work.)

I'd like some work done on the war feature so that more wars happen, instead of just the few every now and then. But that may simply be an alliance/leadership choice.

I'd like to see Azzer more involved in the game (sending government attack mobs to top ranked players, etc.)

Here is some law for you ;)

5 min ticks issue - been talked about for years, generally agreed for the majority, especially since at least one of the mini rounds was 5 mins, that 5 mins is too hectic. There are other suggestions for reducing activity required. Please let 5 mins ticks go. Buy pworlds imo.

Smaller players standing to bigger players. This is where politics comes into play and you have to band together to make this happen. What incentive is there for me to increase my value and score if you can have 1 or 2 quick/easy mechanisms to stand toe to toe? Either please explain or rethink the wording/explain mechanisms that could accomplish what you are looking for as I can only guess as to what you are implying.

War - agreed

Azzer 'ingame' put in at least 1 thread talking about game direction or development, etc etc, that CRA was a mistake and that he would never do it again. His involvement should be limited to enforcing rules on rulebreakers (and can attack with the govt farmers, etc as he already does) and providing friendly entertainment (random news, more stuff like random hamsters, xmas holiday cease-fire, etc etc) So 'CRA', 'Azzer self crusade vs the top', etc have been smacked down by the creator himself. So instead of the same dead horse being smacked around again, new ideas on dynamic systems that would be fair please.

5 min ticks - they were simply an example as way to increase productivity. I agree they are very hectic, but in my opinion they were good. They gave a target half the time to be pranked online, etc. however I will let it go.

The problem with politics is they require activity to send mails and such, and bigger players tend to have more activity in this game. I am simply saying smaller players/alliances SHOULD be able to attack and successfully kill players with a score/troop advantage. I know that it is already possible however it is very tough, especially since as mentioned earlier higher score tends to mean a higher activity. It would be basically like adrenaline rush, that's an advantage vs. bigger players, so more feature such as "adrenaline rush."

Azzer's involvment: if he doesn't want to use CRA that's fine. I do enjoy the bot mails and news reports.
 

Garrett

Landscape Designer
Joined
Dec 14, 2007
Messages
1,872
5 min ticks - they were simply an example as way to increase productivity. I agree they are very hectic, but in my opinion they were good. They gave a target half the time to be pranked online, etc. however I will let it go.

The problem with politics is they require activity to send mails and such, and bigger players tend to have more activity in this game. I am simply saying smaller players/alliances SHOULD be able to attack and successfully kill players with a score/troop advantage. I know that it is already possible however it is very tough, especially since as mentioned earlier higher score tends to mean a higher activity. It would be basically like adrenaline rush, that's an advantage vs. bigger players, so more feature such as "adrenaline rush."

Azzer's involvment: if he doesn't want to use CRA that's fine. I do enjoy the bot mails and news reports.

5 min ticks - well the reason i bring it up, is that there are other ideas and i want to see more ideas on how to reduce activity. 5 min ticks are great if you want to send and not care about being active/paying attention/defense. if you are in an alliance setting, the activity requirement to be ftw is astronomical at 5 mins... or imo it would be the death of ally play. that's all i'm saying. more/new/different ideas i think would be beneficial.

smaller vs bigger - i agree on certain points and initially the overall concept from your first post, but asking for ideas on how to do this beyond adrenal rush. If you are small enough and you are a route/set up that is detrimental to who you are attacking... adrenal rush is really good.

ingame fun things are fun. i always enjoy the bot bribe attempt and would consider it if they actually paid ;)
 

Ram

Head Gardener
Joined
Oct 12, 2008
Messages
462
What I like: The coummunity. There is almost always at least one person I like enough to talk to online, at least in my experience. I love alliance play. I love attacking alliances and trying to trick them into falling for fake mobs, or overwhelming them to the point of quitting.

What I don't like: The dicks who play this game. There are far too many players who think that since they can beat 50 other active players + they have been here for so long their word is law. If I was a new player I would be put off by the amount of rude conversations that go on, on the forums. Every conversation turns into an insult/flame war.

In which direction I'd like to see the game go:

I'd like those "amazing" players to help out newer players, if you want a larger player base, then stop insulting people and go out and teach people how to play.

I'd like some way of decreasing the amount of active time required/increase you're productivity (I really enjoyed 5 minute ticks as I could run an entire attack and be home in about an hour.)

I'd like there to be a way for smaller players to stand up to bigger players. (customization of troops as has been suggested or anything else that could work.)

I'd like some work done on the war feature so that more wars happen, instead of just the few every now and then. But that may simply be an alliance/leadership choice.

I'd like to see Azzer more involved in the game (sending government attack mobs to top ranked players, etc.)

tl;dr

But nevertheless.
NO_U_shoop_da_whoop.jpg
 
Top