New Alliance Cap

[Zaheen]

I have never seen such low numbers in Bushtarion since I started playing many years ago, I feel that with the decrease in numbers the game should be adjusted slightly to make it fair all around.

Instead of having the same over-sized alliances, I think they should be lowered to make it more challenging, giving smaller groups of players an even chance from the start as opposed to recruiting any random just to fill the gaps.

Yes, there may be some flaws but due to the current climate I feel that 20 is too much, I'm sure many others agree, let's vote on it.

Does not matter about the actual size yet, let's just see if the majority want the change - please try and get everybody you know to vote

 

[Alcibiades]

We tried this. It was disastrous.

Smaller alliances = more required activity = even worse burnout rate. This doesn't even out the playing field, At best it retains the status quo and at worst it increases the amount lower allies get dumped on by an exponential amount.

Also assuming this does work out I don't really see any advantages. Lower allies will still be bashed by the bigger ones. It doesn't matter if you have 20 people 150% your size or 10. Undefendable Inc remains undefendable Inc regardless of the number of players involved. The ratio remains similar enough. I just don't see any pros and many cons.

"No" vote from me.

 

[Zaheen]

The point was, it's much easier to take down 10 players than it is 20.

It is much easier to form a new alliance of 10 players than it is 20, and it is much easier to land on an alliance of 10 players than it is of an alliance of 20.

What was it before? I don't think I was around.

10 for private? 15 for public?

I've seen it 20/25 before.

 

[Hobbezak]

http://www.bushtarion.com/forums/showthread.php?t=4228

Long story short: It's detrimental to the game for less active players.

 

[tobapopalos]

http://www.bushtarion.com/forums/showthread.php?t=4228

Long story short: It's detrimental to the game for less active players.

And more active players.

 

[nopjes]

rather have bigger alliances

 

[Zaheen]

Oops, I should look on the 2nd page next time...

You can lock this thread, all is explained in that other thread =]

 

[timtadams]

Well, there is a simple solution. It involves not treating the game like a religion, and not giving out your phone numbers to save your precious troops.

No, Seriously.

play for fun, play to wage war, to have good battles. Not to win the round 2 weeks in and have the lower ranks trying not to get into range etc etc blah blah.

I mean, i thought rank 1 has a boring round? Well this wouldnt happen if you didnt run away with the round.

Yes possibly more burnouts (only because people force it on themselves). Why is this necessarily bad? You can rest, and next time not play so religiously.

*Just my thoughts. I dont really care as i have my own goals, that do not involve 24/7 contactable and 12+ hours a day activity.

 

[tobapopalos]

Never going to happen, timtadams. You're asking ftw players to deliberately sabotage their own chances when they're playing to win. If you want to win you don't start giving your opponents an easier ride. That's how you end up losing.

 

[Polo]

Never going to happen, timtadams. You're asking ftw players to deliberately sabotage their own chances when they're playing to win. If you want to win you don't start giving your opponents an easier ride. That's how you end up losing.

I disagree. The way the game works makes it very hard to recover when you die and thus people give out their phone numbers to prevent the dying. If there were in game mechanisms which meant when you died, you weren't completely dead, the activity and contactability required would be a lot less.

For example, I made this suggestion last year and I still feel it would improve the game no end: http://www.bushtarion.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2270

 

[InSoMnIaC20]

That was one of the most well thought out suggestions to date IMO.

Unfortunatly I don't think it will ever happen because well, to put it simply, Azzer isn't here to even consider it :/

 

[timtadams]

Well, as Polo puts it, if battles werent so hard to recover from, then yeah, it wouldnt be such an issue.

One simple way to fix this is to dramatically reduce loses. This however causes problems of more units firing next tick when maybe they shouldnt. So give massive injuries instead.

I recently got back into another game I used to play, where you can increase income, and attack to steal other players stored gold. Then spend gold on building up your armory/technology/troops received per turn. You take pretty much negligable loses during attacks. Instead your weapons take a little damage which can pay (only a small fee usually) to repair. EG i attack, steal $5m i might have to pay $150k in repairs. I might lose 20 of 20,000 troops

The great thing about this game is that it requires hardly any activity.

Of course, this would never be the case with bushtarion, due to the way attacks work. But the whole point is, the only problem with being attacked is losing gold instead of losing your whole armory. And this game still has >6,000 players

Bushtarion should be about land, not troops.

In my opinion, i think increase injuries to 90-95%. Maybe increase land cap a bit, maybe.

If this were the case you would see a gazillion more good battles. It would be more fun and not require so much activity just to save troops.

well, thats my hypothesis anyway

 

[atsanjose]

Bushtarion should be about land, not troops.

agreed

 

[Zaheen]

rather have bigger alliances

And how many of those do you think would be filled at the round start, 2?

Polo we both know Azzer doesn't have the time right now, I only see you wasting your time thinking of possible solutions that require him to code something lol, as sad as it is...something should be done by everyone who cares, we all know who doesn't care.

We just need people to stop being idiots, it's hard to know who does and doesn't give out their numbers but it's at the stage now where almost everyone does it. Yes I know SOME of you don't, but the SOME that don't are not the people I am talking about here.

I see a smaller alliance cap leaning towards more solo players due to the fact not having enough defence in a poor alliance to make it worthwhile. Would lots of solo players make the situation worse, or better? I'm not really sure.

 

[Polo]

Polo we both know Azzer doesn't have the time right now, I only see you wasting your time thinking of possible solutions that require him to code something lol, as sad as it is...something should be done by everyone who cares, we all know who doesn't care.

That suggestion was made well over a year ago. I know Azzer has been ill but it's ridiculous how much he's been ignoring Bush. Sure, he wants to work on his RPG but you'd have thought maintaining a current game with hundreds of customers is more important than working on a new game.

 

[Melnibone]

Smaller alliances lead to more solo play and a much harder time for alliances

The last time i played in a 10 man alliance was in a 2-3 week mini-round (an official one organised by Azzer not a pw) it had more registered players than this full round will have yet it had a similar number of alliances

As an allied player it was absolute hell even as the winning alliance its an experience i'd never like to live through again..... I led and had players like Garrett, HarrierGirl, Angela, Howl, Tiff, Timster etc probably one of the best lineups i could have hoped for and it still sucked anything less than 16-20 is unworkable as the game is played over 3 main timezones (UK, US and Australian in an alliance of 10 thats max 3-4 from each zone 1 or 2 busy and your alliance is dead.............

 

[tobapopalos]

Never going to happen, timtadams. You're asking ftw players to deliberately sabotage their own chances when they're playing to win. If you want to win you don't start giving your opponents an easier ride. That's how you end up losing.

I disagree. The way the game works makes it very hard to recover when you die and thus people give out their phone numbers to prevent the dying. If there were in game mechanisms which meant when you died, you weren't completely dead, the activity and contactability required would be a lot less.

For example, I made this suggestion last year and I still feel it would improve the game no end: http://www.bushtarion.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2270

Changing the game mechanics isn't exactly the same as simply asking people to be less active, which is what timtadams was suggesting. Your suggestion will make the game a bit more lowbie-friendly but imo it is a bit overpowered. Getting killed and still having 80% of your staff seems a bit powderpuff to me.

I also completely agree with what Melni says. Smaller alliances make for a much less enjoyable round. I absolutely hated it in round 28.

 

[Iamsmart]

Sadly discussing changing alliance sizes (smaller) is pointless. Azzer already made a post that it'll never happen.

I wish it would be changed to 10. But it won't be, so don't waste your time.

 

[Dax]

Bounty remaining the same, and raising injury/insurance sounds good to me.
People can be bounty-hunted, land can be taken - So growth will remain, but the loss of troops won't. Larger BR's will occur, and more fun could be had.
Test it first, with a public private world. Leave alliances as they are, and increase advertising. This will bring back Bushtarion to the masses, and allow new people to grasp this game better.