Latest Changes

[DarkSider]

That's absolutely bad
All you have to do for the new flyover to be useless is keep spamming with gards every incoming. They won't know if it's gards, guru, basics, HT, petrols or anything .. so it's totally useless :/
All it will achieve is mark the solo's and the players in less active and unorganised allies and that imo is quite bad. As it was before it would slow growth of the solo's and less active allies but it would also allow competitive allies to fight eachother very early so everybody would get a piece of action from both ends.
Don't see why it got changed really .. if the "farms" have it hard means the active have a hard time getting new acres and need to fight more competitive allies. Keep all visible and remove the 3 developements for reduced caps to make it even more appealing for top active allies to fight early instead farming at 30-40%.
As it is now it has negative effects only on solo's and inactive allies so it's not exactly fair imo.

 

[pinpower]

That's absolutely bad
All you have to do for the new flyover to be useless is keep spamming with gards every incoming. They won't know if it's gards, guru, basics, HT, petrols or anything .. so it's totally useless :/
All it will achieve is mark the solo's and the players in less active and unorganised allies and that imo is quite bad. As it was before it would slow growth of the solo's and less active allies but it would also allow competitive allies to fight eachother very early so everybody would get a piece of action from both ends.
Don't see why it got changed really .. if the "farms" have it hard means the active have a hard time getting new acres and need to fight more competitive allies. Keep all visible and remove the 3 developements for reduced caps to make it even more appealing for top active allies to fight early instead farming at 30-40%.
As it is now it has negative effects only on solo's and inactive allies so it's not exactly fair imo.

Agreed pretty much with everything said here. Prefered it before, and think it was better all round.


Edit: Although as i said in another thread, if it has to be changed i think i prefer this to having it after hacks (as some people suggested )

 

[Polo]

That's absolutely bad
All you have to do for the new flyover to be useless is keep spamming with gards every incoming. They won't know if it's gards, guru, basics, HT, petrols or anything .. so it's totally useless :/
All it will achieve is mark the solo's and the players in less active and unorganised allies and that imo is quite bad. As it was before it would slow growth of the solo's and less active allies but it would also allow competitive allies to fight eachother very early so everybody would get a piece of action from both ends.
Don't see why it got changed really .. if the "farms" have it hard means the active have a hard time getting new acres and need to fight more competitive allies. Keep all visible and remove the 3 developements for reduced caps to make it even more appealing for top active allies to fight early instead farming at 30-40%.
As it is now it has negative effects only on solo's and inactive allies so it's not exactly fair imo.

Agreed pretty much with everything said here. Prefered it before, and think it was better all round.


Edit: Although as i said in another thread, if it has to be changed i think i prefer this to having it after hacks (as some people suggested )

Agreed.

 

[InSoMnIaC20]

all though im prety un heard of and my opinion probably discounted =P i agree with DS pin and polo here. Hacks then mini spy would be better as i think mini spy with out ids would destroy flack wars.

 

[willymchilybily]

the whole point of the mini spie is so you can if done right see if your attacks are being defended. and you can act appropriately

I only agree with DS on this. as after you have hacks you why would you want a rubbish spy to delay you from gettign the good ones.

it shud be before hacks. and show ids. As before you have hacks you dont know what an id sent anyway. show the id of the defender wont have any affect from not showing the id of the defender until hacks are out. as they can still fake. and it allows you to gather very primiative id lists.

but not showing the id of the defender renders them very enfuriating. at least now if you do do this i completely change my starting stratergy. bash the solo's not the allaince lists we have.

ls no allaince fighting right here from me straight away. and now i can fake every incoming I like, right up until spies come out. so i may as well get much more flak and start attacking sooner, than my usual 1800-2k land mark. as flak now has more uses.

(ps i also did just realise. least now even if some one masses bikers and hits a pom. the poms hit little armour they will most likely stop hardly any bikers, or definately alot fewer, so anything shooting after pom can now actually kill the bikers, where as b4 poms would stop a fair few of them..effect. bikers are more fragile, and now longer shielded by the unit they are trying to kill)

 

[Garrett]

Ok last post on this subject for a while because I'm not playing and really don't have time to do much else this round.

Wouldn't the sensible thing be to post them up here - snip -

You might be weary -snip- which is fair enough

-snip-

But waggling a "I know how it's all going to go wrong and I'm not telling any of you" just feels plain wrong, to me

1) no it's not the sensible thing. i posted points about routes, and then 2 follow ups by your staff were less than helpful or instructive then said staff went onto irc and conitnued the badmouthing.

2) very very weary of the same BS. it's time for me to go.

3) not waggling. i posted some quick points they were shot down, and I just wanted to have a record, for the record of what I see is wrong. no one was interested in listening before. so no it's not waggling a finger. it's something i'm creating for my own sake.

We think the changes are good and overall positive -snip-

We've worked hard -snip-

I am most certainly open to opinions and suggestions.

1) i'm glad you do. I don't. so I posted where things don't make sense. there were like 2-3 good parts and were in my original post but I lost the post and had to repost quickly.

2) never said you didn't. I said you should be beaten for your end results.

3) no. not when it comes to ingame things.


Anyway, no matter how I write things, the same people who don't like me or my input will continue to make fun / run me down. Those who like me will continue to like me.

On a large scale (should this round have active warring) there are a couple scenarios that you couldn't have tested for, and I see the changes having some pretty interesting unintended consequences.

Not to mention that 2 routes were made irrelevant by the group. Enjoy the game folks and see you in a couple months maybe.

 

[Alcibiades]

I have to say i find many of these changes intriguing. I'm not a particularly competent mechanics guy but i'm willing to give these all a shot.

Sad to see my uberly overpowered POMs are getting reductions but it's sensible.

The mini intel will make my poor flak very happy to not get PBed/HTed etc to death. No sense in risking defence early round imo when there are bound to be so many other more sensible targets.

EMPs i think will prove to be a bad call since the whole reason they were introduced (seemingly) was to curb PAs. Perhaps not but it's the major negative i can see.

nice to see the 10 land immunity was nixed.

I won't comment on all the unit changes since i'm not really competent enough to do so, suffice to say i'm interested to see how it all plays out, and at the very least my interest has been tweaked for a number of routes i would ordinarily never play. Doubtful many of them will be fun to play solo but that's what i'll try to do!

Cheers on the work, hope everything turns out well.

 

[Iamsmart]

That's absolutely bad
All you have to do for the new flyover to be useless is keep spamming with gards every incoming. They won't know if it's gards, guru, basics, HT, petrols or anything .. so it's totally useless :/
All it will achieve is mark the solo's and the players in less active and unorganised allies and that imo is quite bad. As it was before it would slow growth of the solo's and less active allies but it would also allow competitive allies to fight eachother very early so everybody would get a piece of action from both ends.
Don't see why it got changed really .. if the "farms" have it hard means the active have a hard time getting new acres and need to fight more competitive allies. Keep all visible and remove the 3 developements for reduced caps to make it even more appealing for top active allies to fight early instead farming at 30-40%.
As it is now it has negative effects only on solo's and inactive allies so it's not exactly fair imo.

QFT

Sorry Azzer, I know you're probably not happy since we complained all yesterday about it - But either keeping the change you made or removing it completely were your main two most sensible options...

 

[Enrico]

The minispy will still just show the last 15 minutes, so an early defence can catch attackers offline. As for no IDs, without haxxors you wouldnt know what route the defender was in the first place, the only change now is that defenders can fake from the get go...

And unless an ally is really inactive, how would the minispy really sort out the active from the inactive. But it WILL make solos a bit more vulnerable... as now LETs can be sent earlier with little risk of running into AR.

Well, solo play is supposed to be much harder than allied play, so no problem there.

 

[Iamsmart]

Hack is out really early...You would know the route.

Also you can tell how inactive an alliance is by the size of their players? Duh?

Also I hate when people just use "solo is supposed to be hard" excuse when solo's get nerfed. It's such a retarded excuse for a supposedly balanced game.

 

[Souls]

Azzer said it himself, solos just shouldn't be at high ranks without an alliance.

 

[antisback]

Azzer said it himself, solos just shouldn't be at high ranks without an alliance.

why not, why shouldn't a skilled active player be able to play solo at the higher ranks?

 

[willymchilybily]

Azzer said it himself, solos just shouldn't be at high ranks without an alliance.

why not, why shouldn't a skilled active player be able to play solo at the higher ranks?

im always told this game is meant to be balanced like rock scissors paper. so there i no way a solo. with a smaller army than the attacker, and a route that will be vunerable to at least one other route can hold land & score. they can hold land by dying and having flak stoppers stopping land loss. or they can hold score by losing land. ar does its best to help them from being ruined. but due to the nature of the game itself solos arent able to do well. No route can be good against every other route. else every one would be that route. and allies would still win with shear numbers not skill

this is my opinion but if u think about it rock scissors paper style. paper cant beat rock and scissors else paper is imbalanced and too powerful. so yess the game is meant to be balanced and because it is that is Exactly why a solo will struggle to do as well as some one in an allie that can have 19 different defenders, from a variety of routes, and online at a vairety of timezones and can contact them when things get too much and the person needs to get on.

solo's should not be able to be better than an active team of 20 people working together. with or without 2 pnaps

imo all ar does is keep your land safe after you die and stop some one 3.33 times your size sending everything theey have at you. some one that sends a well calculated attack can still kill you. in an allie you ahve 19 people to prevent this. as solo you have at most 2. in an allie you have chat and politicas to organise as a group. as solo you have mails and preying ur naps are similar timezone.

if u think of a better system...fire away http://www.bushtarion.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=13

 

[Iamsmart]

Azzer said it himself, solos just shouldn't be at high ranks without an alliance.

When?

I doubt that.

 

[Alcibiades]

Azzer said it himself, solos just shouldn't be at high ranks without an alliance.

When?

I doubt that.

he may not have said that directly but i'm pretty sure i remember him stating that Solos should not be able to compete with allied players at the high ranks. I could be paraphrasing here a little, but there is a definite feeling that solos are simply not meant to be competitive at the highest ranks; which are, in effect, thus reserved for allied players.

Then again i'm a delusional raving lunatic, so this could be one of my more psychotic episodes However i'm sure Azzer himself will weigh in shortly.

 

[warrior]

Azzer said it himself, solos just shouldn't be at high ranks without an alliance.

Why not? if they put effort and thought into it why should they be punished for not wanting to join alliance?

 

[antisback]

Azzer said it himself, solos just shouldn't be at high ranks without an alliance.

why not, why shouldn't a skilled active player be able to play solo at the higher ranks?

-snip-

What i mean is although i do prefer allied play it places certain stresses and pressures on a player that are not required for solo player.

There's also the issue that alliance play is all about who you know, you won't be allowed into a decent alliance unless you have connections.

If you deny the chance for solo player to play at a high level you make the game very unapproachable for new players.

All in all i don't see the harm in a group of 3 active, contactable, organised solo's in being able to play in the top 30/50. They quite clearly will not be able to take down any ally's but they will ofc be a thorn in the side of them.

 

[Davs]

there are a few players who are capable of achieveing such things - just perhaps not as many as it might be nice to see, but that's just how things are tbh

it is possible to do well as a solo, you just need to be that little bit better at the game

 

[MattM]

With the amount of horseshit that gets thrown around in terms of politics, it should be alliances that are frowned upon, not solos.

I don't like the intelligence changes at all. Back to normal Drive-by/Flyover/Hack/Spy in my view.

 

[Enrico]

Hack is out really early...You would know the route.

Also you can tell how inactive an alliance is by the size of their players? Duh?

Also I hate when people just use "solo is supposed to be hard" excuse when solo's get nerfed. It's such a retarded excuse for a supposedly balanced game.

Yeah, but "flyover-spy" is out before hax... and spies are usually out in an ally before flakwars are done, so I dont see the problem.

And people tend not to grow as large in an inactive ally, now do they? Anyway, the solution is to not overdefend, and use as few people defending as possible, maybe even sending some defence eta2 as many probably will only flyspy when attacking for 3...