Fundamental Incentive Brainstorming

[CFalcon]

This thread is to bounce around ideas about how to improve the game by addressing the very core, fundamental mechanics. This is not a thread to discuss aesthetic changes, or discuss already existing mechanics (sleep mode, insurance/bounty, anti-rape, alliance size, h/f etc).

What I want to do is to look at the real core of how the game works. How players grow, what their motivation for playing is. Because the current system is inadequate, no two ways about it. The game does not lend itself to casual play. Either you're shooting for rank 1 in something (either valuation or one of the stats), or you're really not involved at all, and are likely to sooner or later drift away.

I'm aware that alot of people aren't trying to get rank 1 in anything and are just hanging around to chat with friends, but that isn't a viable model for drawing new people in, or keeping hold of those who aren't, or don't want to be, seriously involved in the community.


I've been thinking on this for a while now, and I can't come up with anything concrete, hence this thread, but I can at least condense it into the following statement:

*** Stop attacks being about destroying the defender, and instead make them about the attacker gaining something. Not just land/bounty, and not just stuff that boosts their effort for rank 1 (valuation or stats), but none-the-less meaningful and desirable bonuses and achievements ***


Perhaps this conversation better illustrates what I'm trying to get at:

[15:39] <DAway> IMO round length has been an issue for some time, that kind of change is quite straightforward ofc
[15:40] <CF> well yeah, changing the absolute values of some of the mechanics already in place could happen right away
[15:40] <CF> but imo there need to be some more fundamental changes
[15:41] <CF> i might open a brainstorming thread
[15:42] <CF> but then again, i might not
[15:42] <CF> 95% of replies would be drivel
[15:42] <DAway> Yeah I want to get the ball rolling so that we've got some community-led ideas on the table for whenever magpie can get someone involved to code them.
[15:43] <CF> i've been thinking on this for quite a while now, and can't come up with something concrete
[15:43] <DAway> we need to distinguish though, as we've just said, between huge changes and small ones that could be made with very little effort (i.e that magpie could get Azzer to implement in a day or so)
[15:43] <DAway> things that are small/easy to change but would make a difference
[15:43] <CF> there needs to be a really fundamental change in how people grow
[15:43] <CF> completely get rid of 'zeroing'
[15:44] <CF> make the point of attacks to gain stuff for the attacker, not lose stuff for the defender
[15:44] <CF> land/bounty are inadequate
[15:44] <CF> but i can't think what to replace them with
[15:45] <DAway> I think you're right, people don't like building up/putting a lot of time in to have it all taken away. That used to really worry me, before I got good at the game. Time is scarce these days, for the majority of people.
[15:45] <CF> 'cos ragequitting after zeroing, and the burnout resulting from the fear of being zeroed, are by far and away the biggest problems with the game
[15:45] <DAway> I'd say replace them with bacon, but only because I'm eating a bacon sandwich
[15:46] <CF> all other problems really are secondary
[15:46] <CF> there've been some decent suggestions relating to insurance/bounty that kind of address the problem
[15:47] <CF> but they feel like plastering over the problem rather than getting to the core
[15:49] <DAway> A solution really is quite difficult, because we're trying to accomodate the mainstream gamer. The mainstream gamer wants instant gratification, or as close to that as possible. When they die, they want to respawn straight away (courtesy of FPS games like COD)
[15:51] <CF> true
[15:51] <CF> although we're going to have to go down that road
[15:51] <CF> at it's core CoD is about trying to earn things
[15:52] <CF> weapons/attachments/challenges/titles etc etc
[15:52] <CF> it's not about dicking on everyone else
[15:52] <CF> well, for most people it isn't anyway
[15:54] <DAway> aye, but whereas those bonuses, enhanced weaponary, better attachments, titles, kill streaks, are easily balanced in FPS games, in Bush giving any sort of a bonus to a play in return for playing well is massively problematic. You must allow people the opportunity to analyse what could happen in a fight, its one of the best things about Bush that you can work out what is going to happen (as you well know, with that battle calc
[15:54] <DAway> So perks would have to be limited to their impact on your growth, that I can think of
[15:54] <DAway> and perhaps how you appear to the playerbase
[15:55] <DAway> so if you can get something for attacking effectively, without the other player losing anything substantive, it could be something like prestige, whereby next to your ID there's some kind of indicator of your skill level
[15:56] <CF> true, the bonuses you earn shouldn't be able to affect how battles will turn out
[15:56] <CF> other than allowing you to get more/different units
[15:58] <DAway> ah, well yes, that is one thing that'd make it ok to have that kind of perk. More/different units, so long as their ability and their impact on the fight is clear (i.e their attributes are not hidden or in any way vague)
[16:04] <DAway> The more I think about it I quite like the player rank idea. The mainstream gamer is never short of vanity, but more than that, for a game like bush a rank of some kind that appears next to your name and follows you from round to round could potentially be desirable.
[16:04] <DAway> I like it from a loyalty point of view
[16:04] <DAway> to keep people involved
[16:05] <DAway> because right now your account profile is quite disconnected to your profile in any particular round, at least I get that sense
[16:06] <CF> i dunno about player rank specifically
[16:06] <CF> but the account profile would definitely be a good area for expansion

 

[Dark_Angel]

*** Stop attacks being about destroying the defender, and instead make them about the attacker gaining something. Not just land/bounty, and not just stuff that boosts their effort for rank 1 (valuation or stats), but none-the-less meaningful and desirable bonuses and achievements ***

This is the biggest area we need to address IMO. How can we make Bushtarion a more desirable game to play for your everyday casual player. Bush hasn't had its playerbase dwindle purely because of a lack of development. There are fundamental flaws that mean the game appeals to a small number of people. If we're going to grow as a game we need to iron out these flaws and make Bushtarion a game that appeals to most people, rather than a few.

 

[CFalcon]

So, to get the ball rolling, some thinking out loud:

Make all units non-LET. That's not to say get rid of the Class based targetting system, which I think is great. Rather, make zeroing a thing of the past, with some units only disabling, or units only "dying" for a few ticks.

In order to make attacks worthwhile, create an incentive besides land for attacking. Increasing bounty would achieve this in a limited sense, but I'm not sure it can have a large enough impact without totally throwing all route/unit balance out the window. I suppose what this means is massively expanding the scope and importance of effectiveness, or some new similar mechanic.

Make effectiveness, or it's replacement, not just be a stat, a meaningless number, but have it somehow impact on growth/valuation/battles. However, make that impact be clear and obvious, so that battles stay semi-predictable.

Perhaps effectiveness could increase the number or variety of units available to you. That way battles are still just as predictable as they are now; with a few hacks and a working knowledge of game mechanics you can make a good guess at how the battle will go. Maybe have a unit cap like alliance HQs currently do, but tie it in to effectiveness.

Also, massively expand the Account Profile and associated awards. Make a whole host of new awards that have to be achieved directly in battles (kill x number of unit y in a single battle, achieve a 10:1 kill ratio, that kind of thing).

 

[LuckySports]

I agree, I've been considering ways to reduce the damage an attack does.

The big thing would require a complete overhaul of the battle system though, and that's something has makes this game unique and fun.

Some patches would be making troops harder to kill, and have them do less damage, though that would have a side effect of making it considerably more difficult to stop people from losing land.

 

[tobapopalos]

I like the profile rank idea. Playing to the ego is always a good idea.

I also like the idea of getting rewards for efficient/effective attacking. It seems to me that insurance/injuries/bounty all kind of go the opposite way. Insurance and injuries obviously help if you've been killed, but they also reward you for losing **** on attack. "Oh I zeroed myself attacking that guy, but with bounty, insurance and injuries I made a profit! Woo!"

I'd like to see insurance/injuries removed for attackers, but replaced with something which rewards you for GOOD attacking. I've got no idea what that might be, though. It always baffles me when you flak a target and land for minimal, or no, losses and then you lose effectiveness for it. Nothing is more effective in terms of reward per cost.

I'd quite like to see effectiveness removed and rethought. A rank which rewards bloodlust is great, but effectiveness just doesn't cut it for me. Honour is also a bit broken (20 honour for defending with 10k terrors?).

I think the gardening aspect could be renamed, or re-done completely. I don't know how many potential players we lose simply because they don't want to play some gay farming game, but I imagine it is quite a few. Simply renaming tree/bush/flower/grass as gold/oil/iron/coal or whatever would make a positive difference, but it could also go further. How many players actually enjoy working out how many harvs they need? A lot of the land-related stuff could be removed and it wouldn't be to the detriment of the game, and it would make it easier for new players to learn. They could focus more on the combat (fun) side of things rather than trying to figure out why their land isn't making any money (boring).

That's all I can think of atm, but I'll probably come up with more later. I hope it was fundamental enough for you.

 

[Dax]

Rather, make zeroing a thing of the past ... units only "dying" for a few ticks.

I've wanted this for a long time. A proper insurance system for all troops, that will expose your land for 12 ticks if you die, but you WILL receive most of those troops back could be a good talking point?

Maybe making insurance ON THE ATTACK much lower than that of ON THE DEFENCE could be a start? And obviously to level this out we make bounty a more prevalent attacking incentive as much as gaining land. Throw in the insurance of allied/NAP DEFENDERS being the same as the ATTACKERS could maybe balance out the fairness of things (so if it's a "no-hope" situation, you could rely on the player's insurance to recompensate them, rather than hurling alliance staff at trying to lessen damage/land-loss)?

These are just quick thoughts, nothing major - But I'm sure the brains within this group could figure out something to base things on, at least.

 

[Dimitar]

So you're saying we should have christmas break all the time? No kills, woohoo

 

[Dax]

So you're saying we should have christmas break all the time? No kills, woohoo

You still kill people, insurance just rules out people dying utterly.

 

[Ogluk]

Mmm, i'm all for making the game more accessible and easier to enjoy for the casual player, but killing the single most enjoyable aspect of the game to do that? really...

So we'd become farmville, with funny battle reports of units hitting each other with pillows, EXCELLENT GAME PLAN!

 

[edd]

I wasn't around during the original period of 'experience' but maybe u could bring it or a modified version back for defenders only? perhaps with experience your troops could improve their initiative as well as stats?

Apologies if this is truly stupid

 

[Dimitar]

How is that a good idea? Plus I figured the whole '24/7 contactability' thing covers that supposed issue.

Any-****ing-whore, it seems retarded that you can get killed, somehow save your land, and have the exact same score in 2 hours.

If you die, you die. Go ****ing rebuild. The round is over 2 months for a reason

 

[Dax]

How is that a good idea? Plus I figured the whole '24/7 contactability' thing covers that supposed issue.

Any-****ing-whore, it seems retarded that you can get killed, somehow save your land, and have the exact same score in 2 hours.

If you die, you die. Go ****ing rebuild. The round is over 2 months for a reason

The point was never made to NEVER kill people - It was a starting point to discuss a higher level of insurance (again).

 

[Dimitar]

Never made as in... before or after you edited your post?

 

[Dax]

Never made as in... before or after you edited your post?

It was edited because originally I typed the SECOND paragraph first, and then noticed afterwards that both paragraphs together clashed with one another and couldn't make sense - Thus adjusted appropriately.

My point is heighten insurance. It's something I suggested before with vague numbers and received a multitude of positive and constructive feedback. My point still stands:

 

[Dimitar]

thankfully toby decided to copy/paste your initial post on irc, so here goes

=(18:57:45)= <@toby> I've wanted this for a long time. A proper insurance system for all troops, that will expose your land for 12 ticks if you die, but you WILL receive all/most of those troops back could be a good talking point?
=(18:57:46)= <@toby> Maybe making insurance ON THE ATTACK much lower than that of ON THE DEFENCE could be a start? And obviously to level this out we make bounty a more prevalent attacking incentive as much as gaining land. Throw in the insurance of allied/NAP DEFENDERS being the same as the ATTACKERS could maybe balance out the fairness of things (so if it's a "no-hope" situation, you could rely on the player's
=(18:57:46)= <@toby> insurance to recompensate them, rather than hurling alliance staff at trying to lessen damage)?


EDIT: apparently irrelevant pictures make posts more important, so here

 

[Ogluk]

DaX, if i could, i'd ban you for spam for your utterly pointless and unnecessary pictures seriously, grow up

back on topic though:
The game was it it's peak, thriving you could almost say, when the insurance level was set to an incredible 0% with it being a development purely available to solo players.

I really don't see making the game basically babysit everyone with super high insurance or no real lethals etc will help it, if anything it'll drive away the last of the dedicated support it has, I speak for a fair few people here, we play to KILL people, if they're just going to bounce back to 90% of their score before i sent, i just won't bother, it removes the satisfaction factor.

IF anything resembling this were to come into existence, I'd promptly walk away from the game, no point playing a WAR game, where you can't kill anyone properly.

 

[Ogluk]

I like the profile rank idea. Playing to the ego is always a good idea.

I also like the idea of getting rewards for efficient/effective attacking. It seems to me that insurance/injuries/bounty all kind of go the opposite way. Insurance and injuries obviously help if you've been killed, but they also reward you for losing **** on attack. "Oh I zeroed myself attacking that guy, but with bounty, insurance and injuries I made a profit! Woo!"

I'd like to see insurance/injuries removed for attackers, but replaced with something which rewards you for GOOD attacking. I've got no idea what that might be, though. It always baffles me when you flak a target and land for minimal, or no, losses and then you lose effectiveness for it. Nothing is more effective in terms of reward per cost.

I'd quite like to see effectiveness removed and rethought. A rank which rewards bloodlust is great, but effectiveness just doesn't cut it for me. Honour is also a bit broken (20 honour for defending with 10k terrors?).

I think the gardening aspect could be renamed, or re-done completely. I don't know how many potential players we lose simply because they don't want to play some gay farming game, but I imagine it is quite a few. Simply renaming tree/bush/flower/grass as gold/oil/iron/coal or whatever would make a positive difference, but it could also go further. How many players actually enjoy working out how many harvs they need? A lot of the land-related stuff could be removed and it wouldn't be to the detriment of the game, and it would make it easier for new players to learn. They could focus more on the combat (fun) side of things rather than trying to figure out why their land isn't making any money (boring).

That's all I can think of atm, but I'll probably come up with more later. I hope it was fundamental enough for you.

Also, everything toby said here is pretty damned perfect

 

[Dax]

I really hate endlessly repeating myself, so for the benefit of those unable to read, I'll re-state the point:

HEIGHTEN INSURANCE FROM 20%. This is not implying to nullify murdering one another, but what it will do is keep new players around. What you are all doing is defending something that new people detest. How do I know this? It's called personal research:

I and 8 others are introduced to this game via SilverStill, a shitload of time ago. I and one other (Dandomessi) are the only ones of the 8 that are still playing. The others found building up only to die (and the fact that this game is based upon farming in a few cases) totally lame, and a waste of time.

SilverStill himself, mailed me this recently:

Subject: re:
yeah it shows, there are a few little changes, none are good.
its just annoying me now, lol.

is that the same discworld?
i messaged them with no reply...

I now push to my inner-group advertising of the game - Players like Omaga, Big_Rick, Don, Peggy, and a couple of others all played this game in my local area. All of the examples left this game because, and I quote two of them: "It's a bit pointless really. Why bother playing a game for 4/5 hours a day to die every time, when I could just play on my <insert console name> instead, and not face the same constant disappointment?"

Now, there are a couple that have stayed in this game (Dave, Dandomessi). They play for achievements, and a laugh. These people even within these examples, are statistically very few.

To suggest we keep this obscenely low insurance and attitude referencing the now utterly defunct 'glory days' with such a small playerbase, is inviting this game to never expand. The facts are that simple.

 

[Ogluk]

I really hate endlessly repeating myself, so for the benefit of those unable to read, I'll re-state the point:

HEIGHTEN INSURANCE FROM 20%. This is not implying to nullify murdering one another, but what it will do is keep new players around. What you are all doing is defending something that new people detest. How do I know this? It's called personal research:

I and 8 others are introduced to this game via SilverStill, a shitload of time ago. I and one other (Dandomessi) are the only ones of the 8 that are still playing. The others found building up only to die (and the fact that this game is based upon farming in a few cases) totally lame, and a waste of time.

SilverStill himself, mailed me this recently:

Subject: re:
yeah it shows, there are a few little changes, none are good.
its just annoying me now, lol.

is that the same discworld?
i messaged them with no reply...

I now push to my inner-group advertising of the game - Players like Omaga, Big_Rick, Don, Peggy, and a couple of others all played this game in my local area. All of the examples left this game because, and I quote two of them: "It's a bit pointless really. Why bother playing a game for 4/5 hours a day to die every time, when I could just play on my <insert console name> instead, and not face the same constant disappointment?"

Now, there are a couple that have stayed in this game (Dave, Dandomessi). They play for achievements, and a laugh. These people even within these examples, are statistically very few.

To suggest we keep this obscenely low insurance and attitude referencing the now utterly defunct 'glory days' with such a small playerbase, is inviting this game to never expand. The facts are that simple.

and sweeping fundamental changes would be a giant iron stake through the slowly bleeding out heart of the game, small steady change in such a direction might work, but you can't just fundamentally change the game with such a small playerbase that does enjoy for the most part how the game is currently, alienating your playerbase will just kill things quicker, and its alot easier to get new players to stick around when other people are still actually playing the game

 

[Dimitar]

Well first of all, don't act all condescending when you know perfectly well that you asked for most/all troops to return.

Second of all... I don't really care for the rest of it. "Research" including 8 people barely counts as research. Plus I highly doubt they all quit because they couldn't handle being killed and having to spend two to three days rebuilding. I think more fitting reasons for their quitting would include: contactability requirements for any competitive alliance, general not liking of the game, unfriendly enviroment, thinking that it's not worth playing a game that includes gardening, heart attack, scorequeens who would do anything not to lose some troops, etc.

Also, I've no idea what that mail in the middle of your post has to do with anything