Fundamental Incentive Brainstorming

[Dax]

Upping insurance isn't ruling out killing people - It's addressing a change that must be made in the situation of having nobody to kill/attack without hitting the same old faces. It's really simple Matt, and quite frankly I'm surprised a few of you haven't realised and acknowledged this in the urgent way that it should be.

I ran a damned PW of 50 people to prove that a higher rate of insurance does neither damage the game, nor people's enjoyment of the game - Whether they be playing casually, or for success. Start looking at the clear evidence I have provided, and consider it. This whole 'tunnel vision' thing regarding "Well we like it this way" is inevitably going to kill the game you apparently love. Upping insurance is something that CAN AND HAS been effectively tested, and can be instantly implemented, too.

This insurance level can be gradually reduced if the playerbase swells again, to compensate the nature of people having a far wider variety of targets - In simple, small bites of understandable wording: It's not technically permanent.

Prot: There were 8 introduced to this game by one person that I know. I then either spread the word to others, or found others locally that played. I will add that all of these people are in my very regular social circle.

And how the hell can you contend what other people have told me regarding their experiences of this game? I've told you exactly how it is. They didn't all play in an active/contactable role. Any who did got fed up faster than those that didn't, but it still doesn't avoid the fact they all stopped for the same reason. Jesus Christ.

 

[CFalcon]

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.

I see what you're saying, but you're not allowing for some other incentive to attack being implemented. I agree that simply raising insurance to 90% and doing nothing to counterbalance by boosting attacking would make the game very bland.

And the game was also at it's height before the rise of the smartphone. Times change.

 

[tobapopalos]

CF's second post

I started writing my first post before this appeared, so obviously I didn't take it into account when doing it.

The first point - I don't like the idea of removing LETs, or changing the way they work. Most of us play because we like killing stuff, and although it might help bring in new players it would also drive away old ones. I'd rather we focussed on things which would only attract new players. In its current state the game will not survive such a controversial change.

I like the idea of increasing the sphere of influence that effectiveness (or its replacement) has on the game. Effectiveness has really only been a side-show to score, without any real use. People go for effectiveness purely as a ranking rather than a means to an end. If you're not gunning for rank 1, or a portal spot, it holds no real sway over you. If gaining effectiveness had a palpable reward (such as the special troops you mentioned) which aided you ingame, players would take it much more seriously, and it would encourage more interesting gameplay.

I don't think increasing bounty is the answer. I don't know why, I just don't like the idea. Hardly logical, but that's how it is sometimes.

The idea of expanding the user profiles and awards is also a great idea. To keep with the CoD theme, it would be like all the different types of challenges. Zero a fully developed SA player in your 70% range as an RPG, land on the rank 1 alliance as a solo, kill 10b of troops as a PoM, etc. etc. That would give players so many more things to aim for, and not in a statwhore kinda way, and it would be a pretty cool (geeky) way of showing your skills. Also, the current user awards need updating. Dove of peace, anyone?

 

[Dax]

CF's second post

I like the idea of increasing the sphere of influence that effectiveness (or its replacement) has on the game. Effectiveness has really only been a side-show to score, without any real use. People go for effectiveness purely as a ranking rather than a means to an end. If you're not gunning for rank 1, or a portal spot, it holds no real sway over you. If gaining effectiveness had a palpable reward (such as the special troops you mentioned) which aided you ingame, players would take it much more seriously, and it would encourage more interesting gameplay.

The idea of expanding the user profiles and awards is also a great idea. To keep with the CoD theme, it would be like all the different types of challenges. Zero a fully developed SA player in your 70% range as an RPG, land on the rank 1 alliance as a solo, kill 10b of troops as a PoM, etc. etc. That would give players so many more things to aim for, and not in a statwhore kinda way, and it would be a pretty cool (geeky) way of showing your skills. Also, the current user awards need updating. Dove of peace, anyone?

I can agree with these points - It requires a multitude of ideas to really swing things, but appropriate and new achievements (much like console gamer achievements) would be a good addition.

 

[Ogluk]

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.

I see what you're saying, but you're not allowing for some other incentive to attack being implemented. I agree that simply raising insurance to 90% and doing nothing to counterbalance by boosting attacking would make the game very bland.

And the game was also at it's height before the rise of the smartphone. Times change.

I was mainly just disagreeing with DaX and his MOST/ALL troops coming back comment, i'm all for additional incentives for attackers to attack and fight, and for defenders to stay and fight, and MILD increasing of insurance COULD work, but only up to 40-50% imho.

and DaX, yes high insurance has been tested, on an incredibly small scale of active players, there were barely 10 of us ACTUALLY playing your world with anything resembling world 1 activity, and even then, it was me, trying to catch ed offline half the time (he still ran all the time ) so just like your incredibly small sample case of those you know and why they left the game, your PW is barely worth considering as a reliable and valid source of evidence due to the small sample size again.


Also, the achievementy/awards things sound good

 

[LuckySports]

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.

I see what you're saying, but you're not allowing for some other incentive to attack being implemented. I agree that simply raising insurance to 90% and doing nothing to counterbalance by boosting attacking would make the game very bland.

And the game was also at it's height before the rise of the smartphone. Times change.

I was mainly just disagreeing with DaX and his MOST/ALL troops coming back comment, i'm all for additional incentives for attackers to attack and fight, and for defenders to stay and fight, and MILD increasing of insurance COULD work, but only up to 40-50% imho.

and DaX, yes high insurance has been tested, on an incredibly small scale of active players, there were barely 10 of us ACTUALLY playing your world with anything resembling world 1 activity, and even then, it was me, trying to catch ed offline half the time (he still ran all the time ) so just like your incredibly small sample case of those you know and why they left the game, your PW is barely worth considering as a reliable and valid source of evidence due to the small sample size again.


Also, the achievementy/awards things sound good

With as small as the playerbase is getting his small sample is becoming a larger and larger percentage of the playing members.

Your assumptions that the people playing have to be active is kind of ridiculous. Active members have less problems with being killed than less-active folks For obvious reason.

Back to the conversation, simply increasing the insurance won't fix the problem. It could help a bit, but I don't see it doing anything big. I'm not saying we need major sweeping changes to address the issue, but we do need something.

Of course, any major changes should be tested in a beta world. Perhaps have all W1 account creations automatically mirrored in the beta world. It won't guarantee active participation, but it should help it considerably, and you could test all all the changes you want without fear/worry of negative side effects on World 1.

Then at the end of every round, you can transfer the changes that tested well over to W1 to see how they do there. If they pan out, make them permanent, if not, reverse them.

 

[Garrett2]

in shortening round length you'd need to give punits a discount. you may say nay, but shorten rounds and keep punit cost the same or even increase to help recoup expenditures for buying to begin with... see where that gets you.

further more, changing some of the fundamentals as have been stated pretty much means that bushtarion would no longer be bushtarion.

you'd have been better off starting from scratch on an entirely new game rather than get ready to completely gut this game and come up with ultimately an inferior product.

 

[Max]

To throw in my thoughts as a "casual gamer" (I only play at most a few hours a day, and am uncontactable).

The only reason I still play this game with interest and zeal (rather than a purely social point of view) is the User Profile Points. I am never going to win rank 1, and even getting rank 1 in a statistic is incredibly difficult for me given my activity (e.g. losing to Quitus on kills, who was the most active player that round).

Therefore, I have LOVED going for the profile points. It's something that I can't lose after being zeroed. It's something to aim for that's different, requires a totally new strategy every round to achieve, and makes the game incredibly varied, staving off boredom for years.

I really do think that expansion is the way forward, and it gives something else to aim for after each round is "won". It's what keeps me playing the game bushtarion, rather than just idling and chatting to friends in IRC. And I know a lot of other players who are similarly inclined, in that once a round is decided they shoot for another award instead - something they can obtain that isn't ripped away from them whenever they get zeroed.

Spot on CF.

As for the "no death" idea - I thought Polo's insurance idea dealt with all those problems quite adequately imo.

Some achievement ideas to ponder on:

* Kill streak - rewards for killing a number of players (e.g. over 2x damage done to received?) repeatedly, before you end up dying yourself! Perhaps 5 and 10?

* Land streak - rewards for stealing multiple times without losing land yourself. Easy one to win if you are in a top alliance, of course, but still achievable for all players if set to a sensible level.

* Big donator - rewards large alliance donations as an act of generosity, which would have even more meaning if the HQ gets an update

Then you could have the player specific awards, some of which toby mentioned, which sounded awesome. The important point is this - to encourage playstyles that are not "run of the mill", but that push creative thinking and strategy, which can only be a good thing. A few more ideas in light of toby's suggestions:

* Finish the round in the top 15 without being in the top alliance.

* Profit on an attack by winning a large enough bounty to more than recover your losses (rewards those who don't get rank 1 bounty hunter, but who did well nonetheless)

* Kill at least one of every unit type in the game (encourages players to use different strategies to beat every route... although a bit easy for RPGs and other early firing routes admittedly)

 

[tobapopalos]

* Profit on an attack by winning a large enough bounty to more than recover your losses (rewards those who don't get rank 1 bounty hunter, but who did well nonetheless)

This would be way too easy to get, considering you could just attack any PoM. Just needs a tiny bit of tweaking, though.

 

[CFalcon]

So more profile awards is a definite hit.

But I'm seeing mixed reactions on the proposal to reduce / get rid of zeroing, whether that be done through insurance or other means.

The problem as I see it is thus:

1. Two of the biggest reasons for people leaving the game are either ragequitting after being zeroed, or burning themselves out from fear of being zeroed, or deciding not to keep playing because they know they can't commit enough to not be constantly zeroed.
2. However, one of the most gratifying things about the game is winning a really awesome battle and crushing your enemies.

It's all very well saying "just learn to rebuild", but you can see what that philosophy has done to the playerbase. And don't give me "but back when there was no insurance, the playerbase was way bigger". Yeah, and there were no smartphones, and games in general were very very different. People have different expectations and demands nowadays.

What we need to find is a way to bridge the gap between 1. and 2.

I know this community hates change, but things really cannot carry on as they have done. If you want the game to recover, you have to get used to the idea of change. Reducing losses in battles, and finding alternative incentives to attack will not 'destroy' bushtarion, will not stop it 'being' bushtarion. We will still have a Class targetting battle system, ticks, etas, land, alliances, antirape. Embrace the change.

 

[Dax]

l had said this previously, but there appears to be no unison in that philosophy.

 

[Dimitar]

remove gardening.

 

[Coruba]

If I am allowed to put my two cents in and like Max I am also uncontactable I play cos I love playing the start. It is really the only time I have any chance for any period of time to compete against the very best players on an even footing.

I work, have a family and have a sport which takes up a lot of my spare time so therefore my time is limited so obviously being zeroed for me is basically game over and then I wait for next round start.

So what would I like to see as a casual gamer?
- Shorter rounds (allows me to play the best part of the game more often)
- Multiple Accounts (I would like to see how different units when matched with others work out. Very difficult usually in alliance play when you are restricted with time restraints)
- More Routes - (Can never have too many imo)
- Option to mix and match routes - (Don't want to increase the limit one can have though)

Outside of that I think the game is perfect. The big one for me really is having to wait so long in between round starts.

Another option is having a score that once one alliance reaches there is an automatic restart.

Hope that helps

Coruba

 

[LuckySports]

I don't see multiple accounts ever being allowed. When you open a window for potential abuse, they'll make a barn door out of it. Mixing and matching routes would be complicated, and cause a lot of potential balance issues.

Other than that, I can't disagree too much with the other comments.

 

[Dax]

I don't see multiple accounts ever being allowed. When you open a window for potential abuse, they'll make a barn door out of it. Mixing and matching routes would be complicated, and cause a lot of potential balance issues.

Other than that, I can't disagree too much with the other comments.

Same opinions as Lucky, really. Although I personally am always irritated by round start, I know it's a big point for a fair portion of the veteran players, and I can say for fact that the rounds are much too long now with so few people around. Maybe if we verge nearer to a "heyday" playerbase, I will ask for the rounds to be restored to their current length (as there is more to do).

 

[tobapopalos]

I just thought of this, so it might be a terrible idea, but I want to get it down in writing now before I forget. And even if you all hate it, it might have something good in it which we can rip out and use.

So a major problem we have is that a lot of people hate getting zeroed. It is kind of annoying if you spend an entire round ranked 20th and then get killed on the last day, leaving you with nothing to show for 75 days of hard work.

Which is what got me thinking...what if score was not the same as rank? What if you accumulated points for your rank over the course of a round, by having a large score, and you get more points for being higher ranked, and getting zeroed doesn't immediately ruin that. If you go from 10 bil score to 1 bil score by getting zeroed, your rank points might decrease slowly over time until it matches your new score. And if you rebuild quickly your rank would hardly go down at all. The idea being that this would be a more accurate representation of your skill which can't decimated in 1 tick.

Also, other things could contribute to your rank, so you can't just get to the top purely by flakking solos, and it might add more competition for the top. An alliance could win rank 1 score inside a week but they might not dominate the top 20 in rank.

I haven't really thought this through entirely, and it could be drivel. If so, I apologise. It's basically just a skeleton atm and needs quite a bit of meatiness added.


EDIT: I forgot to mention that this would also encourage fights as your troop score would be less important.

 

[Elevnos]

As I suggested a while ago, the possibility for another world, ran with AIs that can be created by anybody. Would be pretty cool if we got some instructions on how to script them

 

[Ogluk]

I just thought of this, so it might be a terrible idea, but I want to get it down in writing now before I forget. And even if you all hate it, it might have something good in it which we can rip out and use.

So a major problem we have is that a lot of people hate getting zeroed. It is kind of annoying if you spend an entire round ranked 20th and then get killed on the last day, leaving you with nothing to show for 75 days of hard work.

Which is what got me thinking...what if score was not the same as rank? What if you accumulated points for your rank over the course of a round, by having a large score, and you get more points for being higher ranked, and getting zeroed doesn't immediately ruin that. If you go from 10 bil score to 1 bil score by getting zeroed, your rank points might decrease slowly over time until it matches your new score. And if you rebuild quickly your rank would hardly go down at all. The idea being that this would be a more accurate representation of your skill which can't decimated in 1 tick.

Also, other things could contribute to your rank, so you can't just get to the top purely by flakking solos, and it might add more competition for the top. An alliance could win rank 1 score inside a week but they might not dominate the top 20 in rank.

I haven't really thought this through entirely, and it could be drivel. If so, I apologise. It's basically just a skeleton atm and needs quite a bit of meatiness added.

That's actually not a bad idea, could potentially work in Eff/honour/fame (if they're kept) into aswell, to create a proper points influenced by a handful of factors rather than just one finite score, means there'd be multiple ways of playing for points, all equal and working, and hopefully not with a totally incomprehensible way of working it out, a la the old Alliance points

 

[Dimitar]

Could just have an 'average score' deciding your final rank. So someone who's moving around ranks 20-40 all round long will finish higher than someone who's sitting around at rank 150 for weeks, saving seeds and planting up to get rank 15 in the end

 

[CFalcon]

I like, very much.

Could, or should, it be tied into other game mechanics in any way? I mean, the reason valuation rules and effectiveness is a side show, is that valuation directly impacts on other stats and mechanics.