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
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