?Fix To Bashing?

[Davis]

Alright so I am not making this out of a hate for getting bashed, because you see, I personally do most of the bashing so today, i sent out an attack right at the AR line, hoping for the best. Then i get a surprise visit and end up going to church where i get no signal. But instead of recalling i think, eh its a PoM whats the worst that can happen. I get home to remember, i sent bikers too, triggered SAS and lost all of my bikers. Now at first i was pissed, but then i saw that i got pretty nice insurance to buy back about 1/2 of what i lost, and in the time the attack took i made enough to buy back the rest + some . now enough about my attack.

I think that insurance should either be completly removed if not lowered a lot for attacks, you know fully what you're getting into when you attack, now if you went away and couldn't recall that is your own fault, if you miss the tick and recall a tick too late, thats your fault, if you send at someone you know will kill you but with the bounty/insurance you'll break ~even, thats abuse of the system in my eyes. Because in my eyes the system was put there to help out the person who gets massed and in result dies, but since they get insurance/injuries its not like its the end of their round and they have to spend weeks rebuilding, or some cases, just plain quit. Or for the solo's who don't have 19 people watching them to prank/hl/what ever them to get online if they're getting smashed.

So why should I someone who is top 20, and has 3x as much land than almost anyone i attack, and twice as much troops get insurance on top of bounty for hammering someone 1/2 my score to the point where it actually encourages me to do such attack without fear of losing my troops and being an easier target(without my alliance). I for one think its stupid.

sorry if this makes no sense let me know where you get confused (i'm not the best at paragraph/sentence structure)

 

[Bruce666]

i liked the old title system but i think u shud still get insurance and injuries but just in defence, if u get it in offence it is yur own fault if u fail at attacking it should be a penalty of losing it all if u dont look after yur attacks do the spying make sure you know

but i allways likes the disreputable titles and such i would like that brought back

But on the whole i agree with you Davis

and congrats on the round

Bruce

 

[Davis]

yeah that's exactly my point, defence does indeed deserve insurance whether you're defending someone or you're getting attacked because sometimes you cant help but die. where as attacking its your own fault if you died. period.
I also think the titles/old bounty hunting should be brought back to life would help.

and thanks sorry i left you guys round start i hope there's no hard feelings there and i owe my round to my ally without them i'd be just a noob, same as every round i play

 

[TaO]

Agreed, offensive base insurance is stupid.

Attacking already gets you bounty.
Attacking is at own risk.

Attacking insurance should be removed.

But then, i HIGHLY doubt this will be a "fix" to bashings.

 

[CFalcon]

How does making it more risky to attack alone solve bashing? Surely that would encourage attacking in groups and encourage attacking targets who can't fight back.

While it does seem unfair that attackers get same insurance as defenders, removing anything that encourages attacking and getting involved is a bad thing.

 

[TaO]

How does making it more risky to attack alone solve bashing? Surely that would encourage attacking in groups and encourage attacking targets who can't fight back.

While it does seem unfair that attackers get same insurance as defenders, removing anything that encourages attacking and getting involved is a bad thing.

Like i said Above
Attacking gives you bounty.
Increase the base bounty a little bit, and totally remove the base insurance while attacking.

But still doing this, does not stop anyone from bashing.

 

[atsanjose]

i heard h/f will come back!

this thread is obsolete

 

[timtadams]

Huh?

Current situation:

OK, im a noob, im new, im gonna see how this game works

hmm, lets attack this guy and try and get some land

Oh noes i just got zeroed, but oh lookie! I got some money to get back some of my troops

Alternate situation:

OK, im a noob, im new, im gonna see how this game works

hmm, lets attack this guy and try and get some land

Oh noes i just got zeroed. I will have to wait days to get those troops back.
**** that, this game sucks, i quit

--------------------------------------------------
Firstlly, im not even sure this would reduce bashing, especially when usually when you bash you dont take many losses anyway, hence minimal amount of insurance.
And if i do make a mistake, like playing CIV or Command and Conquer and forgetting about attacks, and triggering and dieing, why do i have to be punished by no insurance?
What if my net dies? Or there is a blackout? or i spill water on my laptop? Or a meteor strikes my house, or a crazy axe murderer starts killing my chickens, or I accidentally poked myself in the eye? I cant recall and i die. Then i get no insurance. That would suck.

 

[tobapopalos]

Not getting insurance is not a punishment if it's the same for everyone. We all managed without insurance and base bounty before.

I agree with the original suggestion about getting rid of insurance on attacks. It's too easy to make a profit with insurance and bounty.

Having said that, I doubt it will make any difference in stopping bashing.

 

[timtadams]

OK, i agree its not a punishment, i just couldnt be ****ed to think of a better way to put it.

But i still think it should exist, specifically for the noobs who are trying to get to grips with the game. Presume you read the first part of my post so you understand where im coming from

 

[TaO]

OK, i agree its not a punishment, i just couldnt be ****ed to think of a better way to put it.

But i still think it should exist, specifically for the noobs who are trying to get to grips with the game. Presume you read the first part of my post so you understand where im coming from

Bushtarion is the first and only game i have ever played which provides a form of insurance.

 

[timtadams]

That doesnt make it a bad thing though, does it?

 

[DarkSider]

I was going to post something similar to what timtadams posted .. i'm amazed he can do proper posts every now and then
Point of insurance in any BR is to keep players interested if it goes horribly wrong. It's needed even in attacks imo, you can go in a BR where you don't even fire or as original poster you attack a prot and get close to no bounty. If that was your entire army you'll need to chill a few days and often that makes ppl loose interest in the current round or even in the game.

Also as usual i'm on same wave lenght as CFalcon .. attacking needs to always be a more appealing action than defending. Saying stuff like if you attack [...] it's your own fault it's not in the interest of the game imho.

And yeah .. how will punishing attacks that went wrong because the attacker was away or misjudged what's going to happen would prevent bashing in any way ?

L/f ftw

 

[Davis]

i see you guy's point i guess bashing is the wrong word. I didn't mean bashing as in attacking in a group, i mean bashing as in attacking someone much smaller than you, and i can see that this may not stop that either because now that person that may kill you a bit with no insurance looks a lot tastier than the person that will kill you even more with no insuance.

i guess what i was looking at was, back when i started playing there was no insurance so when i attacked i wouldn't stay just for the sake of killing someone and making a profit (not only with bounty but with insurance) or if i was going for land staying even if i'd lose close to all troops because i knew i'd get about ~1/2 of them back with insurance but now i can stay on just about anyone

and yes
L/F and old BH system ftw

 

[tobapopalos]

Point of insurance in any BR is to keep players interested if it goes horribly wrong. It's needed even in attacks imo, you can go in a BR where you don't even fire or as original poster you attack a prot and get close to no bounty. If that was your entire army you'll need to chill a few days and often that makes ppl loose interest in the current round or even in the game.

I think insurance just encourages laziness when attacking. People do stupid attacks and lose most of their troops, but it's ok because they get insurance and maybe land. I think it takes some of the skill (for want of a better word) out of the game.

 

[Davis]

Point of insurance in any BR is to keep players interested if it goes horribly wrong. It's needed even in attacks imo, you can go in a BR where you don't even fire or as original poster you attack a prot and get close to no bounty. If that was your entire army you'll need to chill a few days and often that makes ppl loose interest in the current round or even in the game.

I think insurance just encourages laziness when attacking. People do stupid attacks and lose most of their troops, but it's ok because they get insurance and maybe land. I think it takes some of the skill (for want of a better word) out of the game.

another point i tried to make but either i didn't do a good job or no one acknowledged it

 

[timtadams]

Point of insurance in any BR is to keep players interested if it goes horribly wrong. It's needed even in attacks imo, you can go in a BR where you don't even fire or as original poster you attack a prot and get close to no bounty. If that was your entire army you'll need to chill a few days and often that makes ppl loose interest in the current round or even in the game.

I think insurance just encourages laziness when attacking. People do stupid attacks and lose most of their troops, but it's ok because they get insurance and maybe land. I think it takes some of the skill (for want of a better word) out of the game.

From a different perspective:

As you say people arent as afraid to lose some troops thanks to insurance. Could this not encourage people to attack larger players with more land? Resulting in less bashing smaller players?

 

[Souls]

Point of insurance in any BR is to keep players interested if it goes horribly wrong. It's needed even in attacks imo, you can go in a BR where you don't even fire or as original poster you attack a prot and get close to no bounty. If that was your entire army you'll need to chill a few days and often that makes ppl loose interest in the current round or even in the game.

I think insurance just encourages laziness when attacking. People do stupid attacks and lose most of their troops, but it's ok because they get insurance and maybe land. I think it takes some of the skill (for want of a better word) out of the game.

From a different perspective:

As you say people arent as afraid to lose some troops thanks to insurance. Could this not encourage people to attack larger players with more land? Resulting in less bashing smaller players?

This will never happen. The common playerbase mentality is attack for profit and attack where land is easiest. You'll never see more than the odd person attacking upwards, for the simple fact that all the game is anymore is bounty rushes and land trains. Base bounty has killed the game more than insurance has, in my opinion.

 

[timtadams]

Just to clarify, i didnt mean upwards. I meant not as low. So instead of attacking at 40-50%, they may rather attack at 70-80% where there is more land.
Thats just what i was thinking at the time. Now im not so sure

 

[Davs]

Not getting insurance is not a punishment if it's the same for everyone. We all managed without insurance and base bounty before.

I agree with the original suggestion about getting rid of insurance on attacks. It's too easy to make a profit with insurance and bounty.

Having said that, I doubt it will make any difference in stopping bashing.

It'll probably increase bashing as people will want to send "lower risk" attacks.
At least with insurance people are a little less scared of taking damage, without it they're just going to hit smaller and smaller players.