Activity suggestion (increase length of ticks)

[Amanala]

Yet another activity related thread:

This may have been discussed before, or someone may be in the middle of writing up a thread regarding this topic, I really don't care to check, maybe that makes me lazy. After looking through a few of the ideas already posted regarding reducing the need for excessive activity / contactability (which I don't accept is a problem, but as a fairly active and contactable person perhaps I'm a little bias) I find that most of them fall down because they're too complex. So what I propose is quite simple and it's to increase the length of the ticks. I don't know what it should be increased to exactly, 30 minutes sounds too long, and 15 is too odd, but I do like the sound of 20.

I support this idea:

Firstly, because it (in theory) will decrease the need for huge activity and unwavering contactability, with-out adding, complicating, or excessively changing the core game mechanic. Secondly, I recall reading a few threads regarding the even more excessive activity required as an allied member in an earlier round where five-minute ticks were experimented with -- If activity and contactability increase with shorter ticks, would it not follow that they decrease with longer ticks? And finally, this would not favour allied or solo players particularly, and I also believe that it would help to alleviate some of the problems associated with solo-play (with slower ticks there are less zero'ings per an hour).

Possible problems:

-- The round length may need to change, and to me the prospect of a doubly-long 152 day round sounds totally awful.
-- It will damage the effectiveness of rushes.

Please comment, but don't be a dick about it.

 

[Weeble]

The trouble with longer ticks is it'll make the game more boring. Sometimes speed and snap-decisions are a fantastic way to keep someone enthralled in the action! If they have to wait 20 minutes before they can come back and do another action, or look at the next stage of battle, they're not going to bother.

10 minute ticks work perfectly because there's just enough time to perform an action then make a cup of tea, or play a mini online flash game. It keeps the population stuck in!

 

[CFalcon]

Would also swing the game very much in favour of the defenders. When we had 5 minute ticks, the game was much more favourable for offence. With half hour ticks, it would be much easier to plan defence, and if you can't get someone online in the space of 3 hours then that's *very* unlucky.

I'm all for reducing activity requirements, but this will have a big effect on the game balance.

 

[Amanala]

The trouble with longer ticks is it'll make the game more boring. Sometimes speed and snap-decisions are a fantastic way to keep someone enthralled in the action! If they have to wait 20 minutes before they can come back and do another action, or look at the next stage of battle, they're not going to bother.

10 minute ticks work perfectly because there's just enough time to perform an action then make a cup of tea, or play a mini online flash game. It keeps the population stuck in!

Whether or not it'll make the game more boring is pretty subjective. But I don't totally disagree. Who isn't going to bother? I'd bother, and I'm sure others would too. Question: Did five minute ticks make the game more fun?

PS: When you said "they" ... Did you really mean "you"?

Would also swing the game very much in favour of the defenders. When we had 5 minute ticks, the game was much more favourable for offence. With half hour ticks, it would be much easier to plan defence, and if you can't get someone online in the space of 3 hours then that's *very* unlucky.

I'm all for reducing activity requirements, but this will have a big effect on the game balance.

I specifically mentioned that 30 minute ticks would likely be too long, so we can happily agree there. But as for swinging the game in the favour of defenders, well, that's exactly what I believe needs to be done. As it stands, the game balance must be changed to reduce activity, and in my opinion, my suggestion would do so far less than many others. The fact is that you can't have the same game, play consistently at the top, and not have to be active and contactable.

 

[CFalcon]

Question: Did five minute ticks make the game more fun?

Yes

But as for swinging the game in the favour of defenders, well, that's exactly what I believe needs to be done.

I would prefer to see the game move to being more about attacking. The general trend of changes over the last 20 rounds has been buffing defence so that nobody can ever lose, and looksy at what's happened to player numbers! Attacking is just more fun (and if you like defending, then you need people to be attacking you in the first place!). I would rather see the game become more offence orientated, and to compensate make greater use of insurance.

The fact is that you can't have the same game, play consistently at the top, and not have to be active and contactable.

Probably true

 

[alwaysnumb]

Bush is based on an old space game right?
When I last played it you 1st attack takes 24hrs to attack and return
It has 1hr ticks and a massive player base.
I found it boring

 

[Steve_God]

I've played tick based games that are as long as an hour a tick, all the way down to 10 second tick speed-rounds.

For a tick length that is 'sustainable' for a whole round, without being too boring, around about the 10 minute mark is pretty much spot on.
Anything more than 15 minutes, and it'd change the dynamics of the game.

 

[DarkSider]

Don't really like the 20 minute ticks myself, it just makes you wait for longer so it's debatable if it helps with activity or not .. if you want to change tick length maybe something like 1h ticks would do But Since the players already in the game are used with a pretty fast speed that might not be too appreciated.

 

[Illumination]

I, like Captain Falcon, loved the 5 minute ticks. I could run an attack and still have time to do other things that needed to be done. 30 minutes is all it took, it was lovely and I attacked more than I ever normally do. It didnt change the amount of time I was online, just allowed me to be more productive while I was (offensively).

 

[Cheese]

I don't play games with ridiculously long ticks it's boring.
10mins is fine.

 

[antisback]

would be interesting to have a one day round with 30 second ticks (or maybe add it as an option for pw's) - but thats just me going off at a tangent


Increasing the length of ticks has been discussed alot before and would just make the game stale imo

 

[StormyWaters]

I can honestly say I wouldn't play this game anymore if the ticks were much longer. I find it hard enough to find time during the day to get in an attack, there'd be no way I'd wait twice as long.

 

[Alcibiades]

I can honestly say I wouldn't play this game anymore if the ticks were much longer. I find it hard enough to find time during the day to get in an attack, there'd be no way I'd wait twice as long.

:winner:

Doubling tick length would, for many people, force them to stay online twice as long.

Example: It's 1:00 AM, i'm about to go to sleep, we get eta 5 (or god forbid 6, 7) incoming, i now have to stay up twice as long to deal with it? No thanks.

Sure it might allow people to wander away for longer but in all reality i don't think that's how it would turn out. 20 minute ticks is still too short to let people walk off for a coupla hours (or half a day or whatnot). Either ticks would have to be super long, in which case I get the feeling a large number of players would be very very upset/leave or pretend to leave; or make them a lot faster.

We tried 5 minute ticks and yes, much more could be accomplished in a short span of time, but as far as i was concerned for alliance play, it was absolutely devastating. Did you ever try to coordinate defence with 5 minute ticks, especially in a semi inactive ally? ABSOLUTE HELL.

 

[pinpower]

Something similar to this was suggested a while back here:

Sordes Ticker Change Suggestion

Its about a couple of things so my thoughts on this is specifically:

Initial Thoughts
and
More Specific Examples

Apologies if i sound retarded, that was over a year ago...cant believe how long ive been here!!


Edit: For those too lazy to look through those threads/posts:

Also...a full attack would take over 4 hours to complete (nearly 5)...so by doing this you arent making it easier for people to play less actively...you are forcing them to be more active (in a different way..which i shall explain)

For example, im a 15 year old kid (imagine) and i can play bush when i get home from school for a couple of hours before i have to do homework, have dinner with parents etc etc...so i can play from 4pm to about 7pm maybe...or maybe i can only play from 8pm to 10pm each night
Your suggestion would mean that i could no longer play at any sort of competitive level...i would have time to send an attack...but i wouldn't have time to watch it land and plant on the stolen land...

Also what about players that are less than 2 hours active a day...they cant ever attack successfully (yes they could attack and land....but assuming they can only play for 2 hours a day they would have to wait til the next day to even fill their acres)

ALSO...think about round start...right now to do well you need to be on at round start for a good amount of time...if the tick speed doubled you would have to be online far far further into the night...

Your suggestion would mean that you didnt have to by physically sat at the computer for as long (edit: Or as constantly rather)...but to be able to play you would have to have the ability to get back to the computer

 

[StormyWaters]

Something similar to this was suggested a while back here:

Sordes Ticker Change Suggestion

Its about a couple of things so my thoughts on this is specifically:

Initial Thoughts
and
More Specific Examples

Apologies if i sound retarded, that was over a year ago...cant believe how long ive been here!!


Edit: For those too lazy to look through those threads/posts:

The idea discussed in that forum is essentially the same thing as halving the current tick speed to 5 minutes and just multiplying the current eta's by 4. So why would you have two seperate tickers? Not that I like the idea very much, just adding an extra ticker seems redundant.

 

[pinpower]

Yeah, I know that his suggestion is a couple of different ideas. But one of the main elements involves increasing the tick speed for attacks etc to 20 mins. Which is what is being suggested here. My replies that ive highlighted are in reference to this part of the suggestion.

 

[Alcibiades]

that's why my analysis a coupla posts above is pure win. Increasing tick length simply needs to a different kind of activity required without really lessening the time requirements. It might help those who work in an office or who can only check in every 20-30 minutes, but it doubles the length of time required to check in which is, in my eyes, a really big no no.

 

[timtadams]

Everbody has pretty much said what i wouldve

I would find it more boring. And i dont want to have to wait longer to attack. As it is i hardly attack just because i cba to wait 1hr and 20min to see if i land. I just got more lazy as the round progressed

And i absolutely loved the 5 min ticks, mind you i would not like if it was permanent. I want more 5 min tick minirounds!

Alci pointed out that you would have stay up longer if you get inc before you go to bed, but if you dont [get inc] you will probably go to bed earlier because you will be be less likely to send out an attack earlier. I find it often goes something like this: 'Hmmm its only 11 pm, i can send out another attack before i go to bed'. So i got to bed just over an hour later. However, if it were 20 min ticks i would be like: 'F*** that, im not staying up another 2 and a half hours!' and go to bed at 11 rather than after 12.
Im pointing out it could swing either way, and not necessarily increase the amount of time you are online overall. I guess it would depend on whether your alliance got attack a lot or not.

I think i was going to say something else, but ive forgotten. Oh well, time for sleep

[edit] lolz, so many replies before i finished typing And sorry if you cant understand me, me iz a bit tired after long night shift

 

[Souls]

Why so drastic? A change of 5, or even 2 minutes, changes it from 6 ticks per hour to 4 or 5. That's enough to reduce activity by a fair margin, at least for me I know it is.

 

[Tapeyy]

10 minute ticks was the entire reason i stuck with this game and not others. Really was the only thing, other games have cooler ideas imo, but i really i could never wait an hour just for a tick like in other games... even 20 minutes would be to long. the tick speed is fine it means you can play the game instead of playing the waiting game. if you want to reduce the activity that is required then look else where i think.