Discussion to a suggestion... how to make the rounds more competitive?

Martin

Garden Designer
Super Moderator
Community Operator
Joined
Dec 14, 2007
Messages
970
Location
England
We're all up for suggestions of automated alliance, constant complaints about how the same people team up over and over....

How about:

Martin leads an alliance
Twigley leads an alliance
Silence leads an alliance


We all recruit 20 members who we would have in our alliance, as normal. However before round starts we share the 57 names of the other members and we 'scatter' them. We all then take it turns to select one person in our alliance until all 57 names are gone, and we each have 20 people in our alliances.

So when round starts we have the 3 competing alliances on fairly equal playing fields. I would trust anyone else leading in this position to have no spies and to play how it should be played etc.

I personally don't have time to lead so my name above is just an example, but would the top leaders e.g. Changer, Twigley, Silence, Toby etc. be willing to do it?
 

Azzer

Administrator
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
Dec 13, 2007
Messages
1,215
It'd certainly be really nice to mix things up a bit player wise, do think there's been far too many rounds now where (by and large) the same "groups" stick together on one side or the other, makes it all feel very stale (the odd change here or there doesn't cut it!). Would be really interesting to see how the "sides" did, too!
 

Silence

Head Gardener
Joined
Dec 14, 2007
Messages
331
Two assumptions made me giggle

1) That im one of the best leaders
2) That 19 other people would *want* to be in my group

Made me laugh anyway


Stupid jokes aside; I do like this. I hate stagnated rounds and I dislike the clicky groups too
 

Ezekiel

Harvester
Joined
Jul 2, 2009
Messages
225
I've likened it to a primary school playground football match. You pick your mates, the ones you are know are good, and every match goes the same. Any people on your team you aren't mates with you ***** and moan a treat them like sheet. Unless they are scoring goals. Then you just ignore them.

But in P.E when the teachers deliberatley split you up, the teams were balanced and the games closer. You got to still play with a few of your friends. No one won 10-0, but some team still won.

The problem I see is that childish mentality copies over here. Because some people know they could be winning 10-0, they get whiney and stroppy. They ether don't try and sit on the wing, or just give up all together. If people had the patience and insight to play with a bitmore grace, everyones round would be a lot more interesting.

And before anyone chimes in, I'm not speaking about any one specifically and I'm sure they're exceptions, but that's generally how I see it.

I like the idea of picking some 'captains' to deliberatley seperate the cliques and get a bit more friendly competition.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

tobapopalos

Hydroponics Developer
Joined
Dec 14, 2007
Messages
2,759
Location
Manchester
Two assumptions made me giggle

1) That im one of the best leaders
2) That 19 other people would *want* to be in my group

Made me laugh anyway


Stupid jokes aside; I do like this. I hate stagnated rounds and I dislike the clicky groups too

I agree with this entirely. I'd be happy playing like this, but I don't think I'd want to lead. I don't have the FTW mentality when it comes to leading.

But if we could agree on 3 "captains" for next round I'd definitely be up for it. It sounds like fun.
 

Martin

Garden Designer
Super Moderator
Community Operator
Joined
Dec 14, 2007
Messages
970
Location
England
Two assumptions made me giggle

1) That im one of the best leaders
2) That 19 other people would *want* to be in my group

Made me laugh anyway


Stupid jokes aside; I do like this. I hate stagnated rounds and I dislike the clicky groups too

I agree with this entirely. I'd be happy playing like this, but I don't think I'd want to lead. I don't have the FTW mentality when it comes to leading.

But if we could agree on 3 "captains" for next round I'd definitely be up for it. It sounds like fun.

IF the agreement of the concept is shared, then a few names can be raised and 'captains' voted for. If we really want to push it we may be able to even do 4 teams - I see 7 full alliances and 2 only lacking 1-2 members, so there is the amount of people to make it possible.
 

Silence

Head Gardener
Joined
Dec 14, 2007
Messages
331
A lot of bullshi!t


Go take your pathetic, lousy, useless, scummy, depressing, negative opinions elsewhere.

Until you have something nice or constructive to add piss off.

I think I can say with confidence that readers don't want to see yet another flame war thread because you decided to piss on it.
 

Martin

Garden Designer
Super Moderator
Community Operator
Joined
Dec 14, 2007
Messages
970
Location
England
A lot of bullshi!t


Go take your pathetic, lousy, useless, scummy, depressing, negative opinions elsewhere.

Until you have something nice or constructive to add piss off.

I think I can say with confidence that readers don't want to see yet another flame war thread because you decided to piss on it.


His point was as constructive as your initial post...

Anyway, if I feel any posts are even going to take us off topic, I will simply delete them. I want this to be a clean discussion. So please post about the topic in question only (that is generic and not just to you Silence).
 

IceOfFire

Garden Designer
Joined
Dec 14, 2007
Messages
932
This is a really good idea, i like it!!

Shotgun not being a leader though, never doing it again!!

But if you find the right committed people, seems like a good idea!!
 

IceOfFire

Garden Designer
Joined
Dec 14, 2007
Messages
932
The only thing i would say is,

I would be to worried about spies if i was the leader. I normally recruit people i know and trust not to to back stab me! But if i recruited say people who normally want to play with twigley, how do you know, the information wouldn't be passed over?


(No i am not saying Twigs is a cheat, but you know what i mean)
 

Martin

Garden Designer
Super Moderator
Community Operator
Joined
Dec 14, 2007
Messages
970
Location
England
The only thing i would say is,

I would be to worried about spies if i was the leader. I normally recruit people i know and trust not to to back stab me! But if i recruited say people who normally want to play with twigley, how do you know, the information wouldn't be passed over?


(No i am not saying Twigs is a cheat, but you know what i mean)

There's no guarantees to it, but I think I'd trust the guys to honour it.
 

IceOfFire

Garden Designer
Joined
Dec 14, 2007
Messages
932
The only thing i would say is,

I would be to worried about spies if i was the leader. I normally recruit people i know and trust not to to back stab me! But if i recruited say people who normally want to play with twigley, how do you know, the information wouldn't be passed over?


(No i am not saying Twigs is a cheat, but you know what i mean)

There's no guarantees to it, but I think I'd trust the guys to honour it.

I totally agree, it has no guarantee, but playing in this game has taught me, that it's hard to trust anyone in game!

Apart from this i would still be willing to give it ago
 

Ahead

Head Gardener
Joined
Dec 15, 2007
Messages
275
Good idea but:
1) there aren't 60 active people around.
2) the captains would pick the people they prefer and have played with before so 75% of the teams would probably be the same as they would have been before anyway.
3) sometimes its hard enough trying to trust those that you've actively/personally recruited for your alliance ( ;) ) let alone trusting people that are good friends with the leader of a rival alliance.
 

Martin

Garden Designer
Super Moderator
Community Operator
Joined
Dec 14, 2007
Messages
970
Location
England
Good idea but:
1) there aren't 60 active people around.
2) the captains would pick the people they prefer and have played with before so 75% of the teams would probably be the same as they would have been before anyway.
3) sometimes its hard enough trying to trust those that you've actively/personally recruited for your alliance ( ;) ) let alone trusting people that are good friends with the leader of a rival alliance.


1. They don't have to be mega super active, not all of them.

2. Yes they would have their prefered players, however I would choose to play with ~5 people I consider to be the best in the game, I expect other leaders would wish to choose them players if given the option.

3. All the teams would be playing for the win, I struggle to see how there is an issue with trust. I very much doubt anyone 'leading' the teams will take the opportunity for a dirty win and then accept rival members of other alliances. Seeing as this suggestion is for all those to keep the round interesting, if they don't want the round interesting they shouldn't take part.


I see your point, but I think you all under-estimate the ability to throw people into a team, in a battle for the death (all be it a game) and work with people they do not know.
 

Ezekiel

Harvester
Joined
Jul 2, 2009
Messages
225
I agreed that the rounds stagnate and that this is a good idea.

It's a shame you won't lead toby. I can see this being true of a few people, who would be great to lead but don't feel they could commit to the intensity of top rank play. You never know tobs, it may be a more relaxed round if everyone commits to it in this new light.

And those egotistacal, cheaters/loop hole abusers that will do anything ftw may find that there isn't room for that in a round full of above board compeititon.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

tobapopalos

Hydroponics Developer
Joined
Dec 14, 2007
Messages
2,759
Location
Manchester
Good idea but:
1) there aren't 60 active people around.
2) the captains would pick the people they prefer and have played with before so 75% of the teams would probably be the same as they would have been before anyway.
3) sometimes its hard enough trying to trust those that you've actively/personally recruited for your alliance ( ;) ) let alone trusting people that are good friends with the leader of a rival alliance.

1) There are certainly 60 active people.

You spend around 8.31 hour(s) a day playing Bushtarion.
Total ticks whilst "online": 1,161 55

2) That is not necessarily a bad thing in a way. You want to have some sort of control over who you end up with. But there would be an added random element by choosing in a cycle, 1 member at a time. The best players would still get spread about more evenly than they currently do if you have 3 or 4 leaders picking.

3) That could indeed be a problem. But on the other hand, it is likely that each alliance has a few people who are friends in it, and that might stop people from backstabbing.
 

timthetyrant

Head Gardener
Joined
Sep 30, 2008
Messages
388
the problem mightn't be finding some people to lead, but rather finding 57 ppl who want to play FTW and be allied, but i guess you could make another thread where ppl put their names in or you could get them to send a msg to some neutral party, and then they can make a list.
 

tobapopalos

Hydroponics Developer
Joined
Dec 14, 2007
Messages
2,759
Location
Manchester
the problem mightn't be finding some people to lead, but rather finding 57 ppl who want to play FTW and be allied, but i guess you could make another thread where ppl put their names in or you could get them to send a msg to some neutral party, and then they can make a list.

I'm sure you could find 57 people willing to play FTW, but a lot of them won't be FTW standard. So yeah, the best way to do it would be to make a thread where people put their names forward, then put all the applicants in a list and each captain chooses one at a time until we have 3 full alliances.
 
Top