Age 2 feedback only thread

[Azzer]

Please don't reply to other people or start any debates here, we can do that on other threads! I'm after just a clean, clear-cut way for myself to quickly browse through each individual's own opinions, thoughts, and discoveries, without only seeing 4 and then a huge debate!

I'd like to encourage everybody that is taking part in Age 2 - whether you are an "old school" player who remembers what it was like and have had opinions changed or strengthened, or somebody that never had the opportunity to see and experience age 2 style mechanics and play before and want to give your thoughts in relation to "modern day" Bushtarion.

I'd also like you to think about the gameplay, mechanics, and style... but also think about the way people play it - bashing, waving, tactics, alliances - the "psychology" of players almost - and how Age 2 may (and may not) affect these things!

You can post after only playing it for a day or two (and feel free to update your post any time with edits!), or hold off until it's over, but either way, I'd like to hear from everybody willing - old or new, quiet or loud, shy or forward!

Some things you can comment on if it helps you think about what to post;

* Was it fun? More fun, less fun? Why?
* Land only giving "land * 1000" as score, how was that? What would modern Bush be like if it had that or similar?
* Cash, seeds and plants give hardly any score compared to troops - so you often jump up hugely when you "spend up" - what difference does that make to the game? Again, what would modern Bushtarion be like with a similar system, compared to the current "equal score" system for troops/cash/plants?
* What about the old interface, and the lack of all the "advanced" features most of us are used to nowadays? Does it make it feel harder and clunky, or is it somehow "good" being so basic? Any particular things that just felt "better" when stripped back to basics?
* Were the "early wars" different? Did you pick targets differently?
* What about your attacking and defending strategies - just the same as age 5, or does something alter that completely (and if so - a mechanic/rule... or just a more/less "honourable" mindset from being on the old server?)
* To the players who weren't around in Age 2: You'll have been playing alongside and against a lot more "old school" players than you will be used to - were they different to the modern day players in any way, or is it all just the same?
* To the old players who haven't been around much in recent times - did the "newer" Bush generation seem much different in how they play or act?
* What were the worst things about Age 2 compared to today?
* What were the best things about Age 2 compared to today?

^^ I'm not asking you to answer all of these questions... they are just a bit of random brainstorming on few subjects you might like to waffle on about, but feel free to talk about any and everything to do with Age 2 - whether you post is a quick footnote or a long essay!

 

[Alcibiades]

in the Alliance Politics, I love having all the threads listed right at the top so i can quickly browse from one to the other without having to go back to Pols everytime.

 

[Martin]

My post doesn't address all my feelings positive or negative, what springs to me as a massive positive of playing with the Age 2 code is the land score and fund score. It means you can stay low and amass land, you can have tight knit defence as an alliance and not show your true value until you want to. Means those who can use lower flak and less basics can keep their score *so* much lower.
Personally this allows the conservative playstyle to be so much more beneficial and it allows more tactics than pure activity from the off.

If anything happens with landscore then land caps need to be removed or initial grabs increased to limit any stagnation.

ALSO I have been refreshing most of the day on my phone, and sending defence was a doddle, normally I have to dance around with the curser and try several times to select a box. I don't know if it's the lack of java scripts or something, but whatever it is that messes it up my phone, I want the option to remove it in the main game!


Just my initial comments.

 

[Bobbin]

I agree with removing the fund score and land score. Put it back to how it used to be.

 

[Mysterious]

I like the ability to not have to mass tons of Basics to save land initially.

Maybe you could get an option to upgrade your flak or something later on (not too late mind you) so that you need that many basics to save your land. But ya know..it's just nice not to have to amass tons of basics at the start.

 

[Tombi]

I agree with removing the fund score and land score. Put it back to how it used to be.

As do I

I like the ability to not have to mass tons of Basics to save land initially.

Again, Agreed.

Also i have found my activity is considerably lower and i am still doing fairly well - Yes i know the PB for this world is smaller, much smaller than W1, But i have found it to be alot less activity intensive due to the fact that Land stealers aren't available immediately.

 

[n0c0ntr0l]

I agree with removing the fund score and land score. Put it back to how it used to be.

As do I

That's 3 of us.

 

[Jase]

I agree with removing the fund score and land score. Put it back to how it used to be.

As do I

That's 3 of us.

4 Of us, on a slightly, partially negative feedback note, starting with all intel is bad

Its weird how much you relay on certain things like tooltips, "sell surplus" buttons, plant all buttons.

 

[brainiac132]

*sorry azzer if this isn't as clean cut as u wanted, it was late nite, and i randomly jotted things down, i don't mean this to start any debate, just stating my simple opinion*

*Edit 2: Also, i'd like to point out that i really like the newer version of the game besides the lack of the things below. The more streamlined look, the easier navigation of pages, and the politics stuff...but i think adding the things below to this would improve things. *

Intel: I like that it is there from the start. I think the modern way of doing things gives an advantage to top groups, who are more organized and usually assign people to get them within like the first 3-4 days anyways, and then they are free to pounce on the blind little people beneath them. By giving intel to all, at least individuals from the smaller unorganized alliances can mount counters against their larger foes in the beginning, forcing them to defend themselves more often. I believe we started seeing 1 week wins around the time you cancelled this out I believe. I know, they weren’t much more prolonged before that, but longer than 1 week at least. Lol

Weather: the randomized weather in the age two seems different than in the modern system. I believe you changed it sometime around age 9 or 10 during age 3. The modern one is more based on seasons, where you have heavy rain and snow in fall and winter months, whereas this older version seems to have more random weather in it through. I think the fact that fall sets in as the first week ends and the second week begins is another reason u have 1 week wins nowadays, because the weather goes to winter at the end of the first week, which gives a HUGE advantage to those with the most land, as they can save, and plant on the days it is not rainy (and they are usually the more active types, so it’s more likely it’ll happen this way). The smaller, less active people, however, won’t have as much land, and their possible advantage in troops wouldn’t be much good, because they couldn’t replinish their troops after 1 or two attacks. A more randomized, and less season heavy weather system might be good? I dunno.

Land/troop score: I like the older version better (that's five), because it places more emphasis on troops, rather than land. Granted, you can hold more land then u probably once could nowadays, which does lead to some very high troop counts these days. But, the troop score in the older version seems to place a heavier emphasis on them, making it a much more interesting game battle wise I think. People picked and chose their battles, rather than randomly suiciding. I do think it will result in less land held by more people, but I think people will be able to gain higher amounts of it, and fight to keep it based on the troops. I think that is why u always hear about the good player back in the old days. They were the few who could steal massive amounts of land all the time and even though it was hard to keep, they were able to keep high amounts. PLUS, the higher potential for land gain keeps people going out and stealing more, I think, creating a bit more activity. In the newer ages, I can get to 10k without a problem and sit on it for the rnd…maybe lose a bit here and there, and then simply flak my way to increase it back. Back then, if I were not in the top ally or a decent public group, I woulda had trouble holding 6k land, and woulda had to be actively seeking more to keep it or increase it. I think combining this older version with newer bounty hunting could make for some far more active attacking and turnover of ranks. Also, I think the modern group of people are more aware about how to block land using prots than the people playing back during age two. It might have been a top rank strategy to use prots, but I don’t think it was as common among intermediate-lower ranks (like 6-15) to use prots as it is now, which might be why land is higher among lower ranks than it used to be. The injury system (I don’t know if that is still in use or not) would be quite interesting in this version as well, with troops being so emphasized.

Public alliances/private alliances: I think the old public/private differences were fun and great. Why? Even though it was sometimes abused by the top, by having private alliances go public, creating a bit of a block in a round or two, it provided some VERY interesting competition in the lower ranks. The fights for the top ten and number 2 spots, I think, were far more interesting back then, as u had multiple private alliances trying to take on public alliances, and vice versa, trying to compete for rank 2 or whatever. I was thinking about this awhile back, and maybe it would be unfair to rank 1, but maybe there is someway u can keep a rank 1 group from going public and abusing it to create a block? I dunno. But if that could be done, and then u combine it with the “all defense” below, u could see some massive turnover in ranks, I think, creating a far more interesting rnds, maybe not for the win, but in general. And I think that is the problem, there is less fun going for the lower ranked positions nowadays…it’s all about chasing rank 1. Where are the fun dogfights for rank 2, 3,4,5,6,7,8…?

All defense: I always liked this feature myself, and I still like it. Why? Because it actually brought the use of a tactic to the game. In the modern game I feel we’ve lost certain tactics because they were deemed “unfair” or dishonorable or cheap…blah blah blah…I remember this was one of them, because people felt getting ahead wasn’t about how well you played, but who you knew. Personally, I saw this one as a valid tactic, because, even the way it was being used (where the top ranks were defending the targets of their enemies to cut off their land sources), I felt it was a good tactic due to the fact that you are cutting an opponent’s supply lines, just like in real war. It’s a valid tactic there, why not in the game?

Defense/Eta boost: Again, I think this is a tactic thing that was sorely missed. I can’t remember why it was taken out, so maybe I need to have the abuses thrown back at me , but I remember this being a valuable tactic, and one that could hurt u if u did it wrong on lack of sleep, but help u also. Especially as a solo defending against multiple targets. Judging how to pick your battles in those instances was a good defensive skill to have (even if rather basic), especially if u were summoned in the middle of the nite to do it. But, whether u liked it or not, when it was removed, a tactic (again, even if basic) requiring judgement was taken out of the game, or so I think.

 

[Tombi]

I like the ability to not have to mass tons of Basics to save land initially.

Again, Agreed.

Also i have found my activity is considerably lower and i am still doing fairly well - Yes i know the PB for this world is smaller, much smaller than W1, But i have found it to be alot less activity intensive due to the fact that Land stealers aren't available immediately.

 

[Godsend9701]

so i like how land cost so much, means flak wars goes for much longer, and winner cant really be classed within a week

dont like the intel system, modern way is better, only cuz it would only bring back spies.

land/troop score is ok but i think plants and seeds should be sold alot cheaper so you can get heaps of land and still be making **** all.

thats all i got so far.

 

[Melnibone]

so i like how land cost so much, means flak wars goes for much longer, and winner cant really be classed within a week

dont like the intel system, modern way is better, only cuz it would only bring back spies.

land/troop score is ok but i think plants and seeds should be sold alot cheaper so you can get heaps of land and still be making **** all.

thats all i got so far.

dont like the intel system, modern way is better, only cuz it would only bring back spies.


You start with all intel meaning you can spystrip an alliance in the first day or so totally negating the current trend for spies so complete opposite and a better way of playing the game

Nice to see land back to where it used to be i.e. everything, dont know if its because of fewer players or not but stealing land and more importantly keeping it even at the cost of suiciding troops is seeming to be much more important than the current age

Fewer units and route choices means it'd be much less intimidating for new players and no silly units that were created to please the QQ's on the forums introduced yet.

Fast paced, easy to pick up and people will care about land and therefore hopefully fight more battles to keep it...... this is actually the game i played 18hr days at and probably would again.... sorry but this has only served to confirm my suspicions that Bushtarion has nowhere to go..

Its become to complicated for new too elitist for the number crunchers and bug exploiters and lets not forget the defense limitations being lifted will ensure that players can play a whole round even those with no offensive targets

Fancy it up a little add the cosmetic changes over the ages i.e plant all button etc and make this the real game again lets face it no browser based game can compete with pay to play games and this was the succesful era of bush quick to pick up easy to play and damn addictive...........

 

[Dwarf]

Right i havnt been in many epic battles or anything but i thought id give my opinions so far. Dont worry if they dont make sense, I kinda rushed through it!

Ill try to answer all of azzers bullet points

- It was fun, more fun than the current round but not sure whether that was due to nostalgia rather than the gameplay. Although the gameplay i found crude but fun!

- Having land more or less have no impact on your score would certainly help 0ed people from getting land rapped before they can build themselves up. You can also stay low farming small amounts of land but you are still vulnerable to people the same size as you as you have similar troop values. I suppose it has it's good and bad points but it's hard to decide what system is better.

- Having Cash, seeds and plants giving hardly any score is MUCH better, It means saving up for developments doesnt mean getting a** raped every few hours by players with alot more troop value than you. You end up having to buy up to defend yourself, starting the saving/raping process all over again! I also like the idea of being able to buy up and jump in the ranks, this would certainly make the end of a round more interesting.

- The interface!:

Overview - not much has really changed here apart from being able to see your AR modifier and Land fatness.

Messages (which is below news in age 5? Dont know why that needed to be changed) - Obviously being able to see the messages you have sent is good in A5! I like the simplicity of the old system tho. I don't know why we have a friend list in age 5? I get the ignore list but does anyone actually only accept mail from friends? Other thinks that have improved are new message thing at top of page not bottom which is much better.

News - Is much better now, especially the BR reports

Alliance Politics - A3 keep the politics topics at the top of the page, this is good! But the reply window at the bottom, this is bad!

Development - I really liked that the early developments only took about an hour to research and cost peanuts but i understand why the development multiplier is there so dont think that needs changing.

Hiring - is so much better now!

Land Management, Maintainance and Supply Depot - Not much has changed but it has changed for the better.


Intelligence - I like having all inteligences at the start, Maybe they should just be made more expensive. A similar system to the development multiplier would be good. Say it started at 100x Spys would cost 10bil, haxors 1bil ect. Obviously that multiplyer should come down quite fast!

Military - Much better now.

All the player date bit - Also much better now

- Early Wars, well there wernt really many early wars that i experienced, as people teched up so fast the battles i have been in have just been smaller versions of 'normal' battles. I suppose this allows people to familiarise themselves with their route and have more experimentation with the whole of their route but alot of the 'flak wars' tactics of the early part of the game are lost. Could be a good thing, could be a bad thing.

- For attacking and defending I just send as much as i could most of the time rather than tactics! It resulted in fun battle reports and normally some land lost/stolen so i thought it was much better, especially for newer players.

- I played for a couple of rounds in age 2 so i can't comment on this one.

- About newer players, i dont really think they got how much bush has changed, for example:

From: xxx of xxx [xxx], 15th Aug, 17:37
i'm going tl for some killing, any others who go tl or sa ??

That made me laugh! But in how they were playing/acting i didnt see much difference, maybe they just needed to get used to the old system.

- Worst thing - a, TAB, a, TAB, a, TAB, a! Giving me repetitive strain injury all over again!

- Best thing - Being able to play it again! It was like a time warp! But gameplay wise the A3 scoring system was much better.

Conclusion!

I really like the crude simplicity and fun of the old game mechanics, it was really quick and easy to get into and i presume would be less complicated for a new player encouraging them the play.

EDIT- 5 Minuite ticks is too fast! Glad they are at 10 mins!

 

[DarkSider]

Really hate the age 2 code
The graphic part puts me off big time, not even incoming/hostiles are ordered, i miss the unit tooltips, techtree is misleading as i thought you can develop first unit from every route so i end up with a route i don't want to play :/ The politics are upside down and so on .. i guess you don't treasure what you have until it's taken away and see how bad it is without

Anyway as i'm kinda fed up with it i'll give my small input from what i saw so far. Low funds score encourages cowardly play called by some skilled, where you have to rely on a few members in your alliance to defend your acres while you keep the minimal stuff and farm inactive/unskilled player accounts as much as you can. The more coward and more active in stealing from weak the more 'skill' a player has. As i started in age 3 i remember damn well what a fail this system was, with players trying to amass acres all round and sometimes get farmed at the end and there's nothing else they can do but buy up and get incoming from even bigger fishes or to slowly give up everything they played for. Having an army and knowing what to do with it it's an insignifiant part of the game, it's a small victory defending well and killing an inc as that's just a small part of what the attacker can buy.
At the end of the round, in the last couple of ticks everybody buys up and shows off with a big and total useless army that never got to fire a bullet ... but it looks pretty.
For me skill inside an alliance has a player that's in the first line of attacks and defence, killing left and right and every member in the other alliance has nightmares about him appearing in a spy report or incoming page. Current funds score is closer to that so the age 2 fund score gets a big thumbs down from me.

Can't say much about land score unfortunately, due to lack of acres in the world atm it's quite hard to make a comment about land score alone so hopefully others can give their input about this closer to round end

And also you can't really judge "the early wars" or anything like that since the enthusiasm and interest of the first week in w1 is 1000 times bigger than what i see in this age 2 code. Most send a few mobs when they cba and research some stuff .. the difference between allies will be made by those who had more of those who wanted to play this

I'd want to test the low land score but with the age 5 code, this interface is too barbaric and really makes me want to close that tab And choose a time when players are more bored not the first 2 weeks in w1

 

[Nitrous]

i'd want to test the low land score but with the age 5 code, this interface is too barbaric and really makes me want to close that tab and choose a time when players are more bored not the first 2 weeks in w1

qft!

 

[Enrico]

My thoughs on the subject... and minf you I originally started pakying in age 3, so I have no dowwy eyed nostalgia-trip.

1. Weather seems much more random = bad. I like the more clearly defined seasons weatherlike in the newer ages.

2. All intel available at the start = bad. Makes it much tio easy to start sending lethal attacks and calculating attackmobs.

3. I wont comment on the routes per say, they are clearly unbalanced, and the lack of stealth and bribers are a drag, but what I do like is the fact that engineering + engineered unit is separated from the normal tree. basic soldiers being availale to all routes is also nice. I still think routes should be much more open insofar as the players mixing and matching, and choosing between different devs, on the other hand i understand how that is hard to balance.
4. The score system seems kinda kooky, but that might just be a matter of what you are used to.

All in all many things seems less random except the weather which seems too random. I found it much easier to calculate "perfect" mobs, and that is boring.

All in all interesting, but I much prefer age5s routes, it takes more "smartness" if you will to play _that_ game than the age2 version.

 

[Rosa]

I know I'm probably playing age 2 wrong because I'm a bad player.

But I feel that age 2 is really all about just massing on flak and basics. Lethals do almost nothing [my 1.4 mill PBs killed like 3 mill flak per tick.. :z] and take forever to tech [expensive]. Especially since land is so expensive back then.

I like a bushtarion where I could actually kill someone... right now it actually feels like a gardening game.

 

[Shyslywolf]

"Old" vs. the "New"

"Old" vs. the "New"

Ok as requested here are my thoughts:
1. I find myself reflecting back to the days when we played with this old code. It feels really clumsy and archaic. I love all of the features that Azzer has added to enhance the game over the years. Specifically, the drop downs that appear when you run your cursor over a target with the new code; the news appearing in red for new news which we have not seen yet; the more in depth details of the battles and the details about what your troops have killed bribed etc.; the insurance system and lastly the more complex troop types that we have today.

I used to have to pack around a notebook with all sorts of different details & troop statistics as a quick reference so that i did not have to look it up every time. Personally for me, i find nothing really appealing about the old code or the way we used to play. I think that the enhancements that have been made to the game are right on mark to make the game better.

2. land value- Money Value, etc:
I know that this has been a big bone of contention as to wether to make land, seeds money etc worth anything. for me, i think that they should have value. I did find this age 2 round to be a lot slower than I am used to (almost boring to be honest). I do not know why it is so much harder to take & accumulate land with the old code, but there is definately a difference. I do find that they way that the scores are calculated with land and seeds creating no value, cause a pretty misleading score. yeah,the active players love it because they can farm the weaker players for longer before they jump up in score, but for the more-inactive players, it just means longer until they can get their developments done. I actually found myself in 42nd place today when i grew my seeds even though i only had 600 land... that is pretty unrealistic to me.

With the new code, i know that we have an established winning alliance in like 2 weeks of the start of the round, but i truly believe that that is partially due to people playing on the same teams or alliance. just like in sports etc, a team will usually stay in power (or be the champion) for a while, then things will change and a new one will come along. a good player will try new alliances and meet new people, where others will keep the same people and plan that they have had forever. it goes back to the old saying "if it ain't broke don't fix it". Unfortunately that means that the same groups win time after time. Personally for me i usually go solo because many of the top allies require x ammount of availability and contactability or they will kick & rape you when you are off line if you are not able to contribute the appropriate ammont of time.

A couple of the features that i really liked about the old code was the instant hacks spies etc, and the fact that everyone could order a form of lethal troop (soldiers) from almost the get go. Over-all, my vote is to stick with the new code and enhancements that we have today. It was neat to look at the old code, but it was almost frustrating to use compared to the enhancements that we have today.

That is all i have from my soapbox... I am not looking for input or arguments, you asked for my oppinion and there you have it.

Thanks - Alex

 

[Polo]

Really hate the age 2 code
The graphic part puts me off big time, not even incoming/hostiles are ordered, i miss the unit tooltips, techtree is misleading as i thought you can develop first unit from every route so i end up with a route i don't want to play :/ The politics are upside down and so on .. i guess you don't treasure what you have until it's taken away and see how bad it is without

Agreed. The "little things" really do make a massive difference.

Anyway as i'm kinda fed up with it i'll give my small input from what i saw so far. Low funds score encourages cowardly play called by some skilled, where you have to rely on a few members in your alliance to defend your acres while you keep the minimal stuff and farm inactive/unskilled player accounts as much as you can. The more coward and more active in stealing from weak the more 'skill' a player has. As i started in age 3 i remember damn well what a fail this system was, with players trying to amass acres all round and sometimes get farmed at the end and there's nothing else they can do but buy up and get incoming from even bigger fishes or to slowly give up everything they played for. Having an army and knowing what to do with it it's an insignifiant part of the game, it's a small victory defending well and killing an inc as that's just a small part of what the attacker can buy.
At the end of the round, in the last couple of ticks everybody buys up and shows off with a big and total useless army that never got to fire a bullet ... but it looks pretty.
For me skill inside an alliance has a player that's in the first line of attacks and defence, killing left and right and every member in the other alliance has nightmares about him appearing in a spy report or incoming page. Current funds score is closer to that so the age 2 fund score gets a big thumbs down from me.

Completely agreed. The age 2 funds/seeds/plants score just increases massively cowardly behaviour. I never really understood why people would just whore funds all round purely to spend up in the last few ticks so they get a pretty rank and pretty troops. The game should be about using every troop you have at your disposal.

I feel reduced/no land score would make the game better as it will be more about doing whatever you can to prevent land loss and steal more - making troops used in battles a lot more (hopefully... :-/). But as DS said, it's hard to test in this environment.

 

[Dark_Angel]

Anyway as i'm kinda fed up with it i'll give my small input from what i saw so far. Low funds score encourages cowardly play called by some skilled, where you have to rely on a few members in your alliance to defend your acres while you keep the minimal stuff and farm inactive/unskilled player accounts as much as you can. The more coward and more active in stealing from weak the more 'skill' a player has. As i started in age 3 i remember damn well what a fail this system was, with players trying to amass acres all round and sometimes get farmed at the end and there's nothing else they can do but buy up and get incoming from even bigger fishes or to slowly give up everything they played for. Having an army and knowing what to do with it it's an insignifiant part of the game, it's a small victory defending well and killing an inc as that's just a small part of what the attacker can buy.
At the end of the round, in the last couple of ticks everybody buys up and shows off with a big and total useless army that never got to fire a bullet ... but it looks pretty.
For me skill inside an alliance has a player that's in the first line of attacks and defence, killing left and right and every member in the other alliance has nightmares about him appearing in a spy report or incoming page. Current funds score is closer to that so the age 2 fund score gets a big thumbs down from me.

Completely agreed.

Ditto.