Suicidal / Score Drop

[Zaheen]

Another idea I thought of, to help players who are stuck in the ranks, or just anybody in general who wants to suicide some troops.

Like a Government ID, this one would be available to all players to send to. Perhaps the ID could be [X] to assure nobody types a number in by mistake.

The purpose is ID [X] would be so that any player, at any score level can run undesired troops and kill them off. This is sort of similar to a planned suicide, or sending troops to Bunker players, who gain an unfair amount of H/F and other methods of killing troops.

To encourage players not to send at random targets to suicide, and so that any legit players won't ever be seen as troop trading, and bribing. As there has been accusations and incidents of real cheating, there can be no excuse for not sending to ID [X].

Basically, it's a target for anybody to drop score.

Not only, for some players with OCD like myself, and Stargazer who like even numbers, sometimes trying to kill off Generic units can be a pain due to injuries.

ID [X] would return NO injuries, and NO insurance, to allow somebody to safely suicide and score drop.

_____

I know what you are all thinking, but there is potential for lots of anti abuse and cheating. People can no longer complain about intentional troop trading and intentional retaliation, H/F would not be abused as much to players who are on the receiving end of a suicide.

I'm trying to think of potential abuses for such an implementation that would create cheaters, but really if somebody wants to suicide some score/troops (at any score range), they should be able to do so without being called a cheater.

This should encourage players to have more fun, as opposed to just trying to get as highly ranked as possible, and to all players who like to suicide troops to drop score, and have another chance to fight somebody you really hate. This is to encourage more tactical rounds, and more fun rounds for players and enemies alike.

TL;DR
A Government based ID that allows you to suicide with no injuries and insurance to allow every player in the game to drop score.

Pros
- Players can kill off Generic units properly
- Players can never be accused of cheating by being forced to attack the only targets in range to drop score
- Players will no longer have any excuses for non malicious troop trading (like some players have been accused this round).
- To give all players a chance to suicide units without any retaliation.
- To allow you to have more targets
- To stop potential mutual H/F gains
- To prevent new players being tricked into losing land
- To give all players an extra ID in which they can send units to, to either run or defend themselves with
- To encourage players to stop playing contactable and playing to win, as this is not what games are about
- Encourage more fun

Cons
The only con I can think of is if a very skilled player keeps score dropping to torment somebody less skilled, or an alliance less skilled. This will come with a price, and that price would be their rank.

I can't think of any more, perhaps somebody else could?

P.S. I might edit this a few times, so don't quote bits of it and start commenting, just post your own comments and suggestions separate, and vote if you could!

This suggestion is dedicated to JamesNChina, and anybody who has ever been in a position like his.

 

[Max]

I like this suggestion - but I am worried that the people it will benefit most are those in the rank 1 alliance, because they are hardly the demographic that need the most assistance.

Still - it's a great idea and would have prevented a lot of the grumbling and boredom at the top of the alliance - in turn cutting down the probability of said players cheating. So I'm pro it as an "anti-cheating" suggestion

 

['Tiger']

I quite like this idea.

The only thing I can think of is if people actually sent troops to attack this ID, and massed them. Would ID [X] have better troops than anyone to kill?

Eg:

The rank 1 alliance all sends their troops to ID [X] to attack them, possibly to kill. What would happen then?

 

[Zaheen]

I quite like this idea.

The only thing I can think of is if people actually sent troops to attack this ID, and massed them. Would ID [X] have better troops than anyone to kill?

Eg:

The rank 1 alliance all sends their troops to ID [X] to attack them, possibly to kill. What would happen then?

ID [X] is Invincible.

Also, it could start off with Havoc units and there is no way it would die before round end, not a chance.

 

['Tiger']

So basically a stupid number of troops which no one can kill, and troops with no one can get eg Bio-Mechanical Warriors.

That sorted then

 

[No-Dachi]

If it turns out the r1 ally abuses it, you could simply disable the option for rank 1. However, I don't really see it happening. They would be too easy to take down if they all suicided on ID X.

 

['Tiger']

Nahh just something that crossed my mind tbh. Instead of making a new ID for this though, why not just make ID1 have troops and do it that way?

 

[Zaheen]

Nahh just something that crossed my mind tbh. Instead of making a new ID for this though, why not just make ID1 have troops and do it that way?

Because then some new player might accidentally send to attack ID 1 instead of defending.

It was to be a clear cut different, and no mistake for new players, hence X (or something that can't be mistaken for any player ID).

[^^] perhaps?

 

[Dimitar]

I don't like this. Will tell you why when I figure it out

 

[Zaheen]

I don't like this. Will tell you why when I figure it out

Give you rep for this.

 

[antisback]

I agree with dimitar, something doesn't quite sit right with me.

The only people it benefits is people in the r1 ally. They could calculate exactly how much score they want to drop, drop down just enough to hit r1 in the r2 ally take all his land and keep doing so till they have an inordinate amount of land and have taken out their closest rivals. It's far to abusable, not planting to stay out of someones range is a perfectly legitimate tactic and sometimes the only way to survive, I don't think it's a good idea to take this away. (This is also why I got so pissed off at the incident earlier in the round when many people said it was trivial or ethically fine)

I quite like this idea.

The only thing I can think of is if people actually sent troops to attack this ID, and massed them. Would ID [X] have better troops than anyone to kill?

Eg:

The rank 1 alliance all sends their troops to ID [X] to attack them, possibly to kill. What would happen then?

ID [X] is Invincible.

Also, it could start off with Havoc units and there is no way it would die before round end, not a chance.

I'm sure people would end up seeing this as a challenge, I know I would at least anyway

 

[No-Dachi]

Then disable it for r1. Although, that might mean that r2 can abuse it and stay out of range all the time..

 

[antisback]

r2 can just sell seeds and donate to stay out of range, or suicide on some ally/solo player, the only people it benefits are the ones stupid enough to keep planting when their targets start to dry up

 

[Zaheen]

It wasn't intended for abuse.

Then we'll make it so you need to go solo* to use it, which means you will suicide troops and potentially have your land farmed.

* Optional code to stop a solo with incoming to be able to suicide as this might ruin some attacker who has calculated a perfect hit. (However you can still suicide with an attacker on you anyway, by attacking any player around you, so I can't see this being a problem).

Simples.

P.S. No-Dachi, I like the way you think.

 

[antisback]

I still don't see the need for it, the only people it helps are people in the top 3/4 or the top ally who've already completely bashed everyone away,

Bash r2 ally into oblivion, 5 or so players can then leave, hit sleep mode as they're leaving, they've already agreed it with their own ally so they're not going to tell people who's just left, once sleep mode is over, they've got ar, they send to this suicide ID, and rejoin just after. Hey presto, you're free to continue hitting the ally who's only respite would've come from dropping out of range.

As I say the potentials for abuse far outweigh any benefits, which as far as I can tell would only help those who really don't need any more help, ie. in an ally that's already won the round.

 

[Zaheen]

I still don't see the need for it, the only people it helps are people in the top 3/4 or the top ally who've already completely bashed everyone away.

What about the 100's of other players who may want to suicide some score to kill somebody? And do not want to rely on rushing somebody massive, and also players with OCD (like me) who want to suicide crappy Generic units without having to send them 20 times just to die. You're only looking at it from one perspective, and that's being in the top 5.

I understand what you are saying, but like I said this wasn't meant for abuse - it is meant for bored players and players who want to have more targets.

Likewise, I could use it now and get some more Bounty targets. Does that sound reasonable?

I just don't want to have to run my troops into some Bunkers / an alliance / top alliance because I'm going to create a right mess and scare some people, and also I may lose H/F sending it to the Bunkers repeatedly, that and I don't want to give anybody loads of H/F each time I want to suicide! As it is now, I have no honourable targets other than allied players, there might be 1-2 floating around but it will look really dodgy if I keep sending my troops to them. I'm sure you can imagine what people might think if I did that today.

Bash r2 ally into oblivion, 5 or so players can then leave, hit sleep mode as they're leaving, they've already agreed it with their own ally so they're not going to tell people who's just left, once sleep mode is over, they've got ar, they send to this suicide ID, and rejoin just after. Hey presto, you're free to continue hitting the ally who's only respite would've come from dropping out of range.

This is what gamers would do, torment personal enemies until they beg for mercy. There is major potential here for the alliance you're speaking of to get rushed and taken down by other alliances watching, don't rule them out so easily. Resistances will be easily formed if the top alliance was down to 10-15 players as opposed to 20.

Does this not sound like great entertainment with the potential of a great tactical roller-coaster round?

Nobody should have to be stuck up with no targets and only a delete option. I have deleted Rank 1 Solo bunkers before when I Tractor flaked the living daylights out of EVERYONE around me, up to 45k+ land. Nobody attacked me for a week, and I told everyone if I'm not killed within a week I will delete out of boredom. What do you think happened? Somebody decided to copy me and send 200M Tractors at me and take one set of land, but they didn't come back for more, but me losing a little land didn't really phase me at all.

I think a solo player would get the short end of the stick in an alliance v solo trade off anyway, but you haven't mentioned that once in your post.

 

[Alcibiades]

If you're stuck at rank 1 with loads of troops and no targets, that's your own damn fault and the "cost" of winning. Happened to me when we round the last round or w/e. I just kept buying dogs, but not really doing a lot. Sure I was bored, but it let me get on with the real world and have the satisfaction of having won. As for then disabling it for rank 1, then you remove the purpose. Anyone under rank 1 has a target they can suicide on, and if you make everyone have to be solo to use it, it removes the value for allied players.

I don't particularly like this idea, (as it stands, or as I understand it) it is just a different angle on the 5 minute tick round where there was *too* much action. An increase in action means a higher need for contactability, which means a higher burnout rate. I don't like the idea of being able to torment your opponents mercilessly. That is a really horrible way to play (and be played) in this game. The one redeeming feature about being zeroed pre injuries/insurance was that once you were dead, you STAYED dead until you were ready to resume your playstyle at a high rank. This would simply drive more people out of the game because they could be targetted right down to zero. Could you imagine POMs being repeat attacked by Sorcs/Bikers until they were out of the game? Sounds like a shitload of no fun at all. Resounding NO from me.

You have proposed a fair number of good ideas recently Zaheen, however, I don't think this is one of them. Sorry.

 

[jamesNchina]

that ackward moment when being a team player is STUPID

that ackward moment when being a team player is STUPID

r2 can just sell seeds and donate to stay out of range, or suicide on some ally/solo player, the only people it benefits are the ones stupid enough to keep planting when their targets start to dry up

I'm pretty sure this comment was directed at me and given the 'stupid' adjective included I feel it necessary to defend my actions.
a) I planted up intentionally for the following reasons;
1) at the time there were still many inc. rushes during Euro nights.
2) Euro nights are my primary responsibility for defending my ally mates, it has been this way since I began playing Bush... somewhat the bain of my time zone.
3) As is also true most every round there often several hours where I am the only one online.
4) Being a team player and going all in to defend an offline member has always been a personal top priority for me. That feeling was/is even stronger in me as the leader.
5) I felt that many of these people being rushed in the middle of the night earned the benefit of being able to sleep the night through without being pranked online to send away and more so not being pranked on to send defense. Most on the alliance spent many sleepless nights early on in round for us to obtain rank-1.
6) after all the hacks I would think it was noticed that I hired up and massed only the low eta and fragile units of my route. However as fragile as they are it was extremely effective in my original intent as many of the rushes even when sent in waves with fakes were turned away BR free.
7) for 2 days straight I planted and donated to HQ (we could suicide all of HQ troops 2-3 times over no problem ) to try and get just one FNG member in range for an attack. But I guess your maths skills are even better as you all did the same and stayed at 29%

 

[jamesNchina]

on the original post my opinion is IDK. I never played on an alliance that ended up being rank 1 or even relatively close and after this round I never would again even if I were to continue playing Bush.
I think that the opinions voiced both for and against are very valid.
However to address the comment made about it giving rank-1 players the ability to suicide and bash rank-2. Um how is that any different than rank-2 suiciding on a solo bunker and then continuing to bash rank-3 or rank-4. Oh wait you guys never do that LOL. Maybe the real answer is a method to stop bashing lower and provide more incentive to attack up!! Hence removing the need for rank-1 to be bored because of successfully playing the first half of round and having to essentially stop playing the remainder of the round.
On another note, Zaheen could you just leave the issue lie? Krikey my sterling reputation has already been burned to the ground could you please quit giving these sore losers more ammo to kick a dog when he's down. Thanks
I vote no

 

[LuckySports]

r2 can just sell seeds and donate to stay out of range, or suicide on some ally/solo player, the only people it benefits are the ones stupid enough to keep planting when their targets start to dry up

I'm pretty sure this comment was directed at me and given the 'stupid' adjective included I feel it necessary to defend my actions.

It wasn't directed at you. You weren't the first one to do this.