The game

[aGit]

4chan much?

Unnaprove this as i removed the post above and it doesnt make sense without that.

 

[Polo]

What I don't like: The dicks who play this game. There are far too many players who think that since they can beat 50 other active players + they have been here for so long their word is law. If I was a new player I would be put off by the amount of rude conversations that go on, on the forums. Every conversation turns into an insult/flame war.

I don't think those "dicks" think their word is law because they've been around for a while and are good at the game. I think they're dicks because people (read newbs/noobs) post idiotic posts such as the one you posted.

I'd like those "amazing" players to help out newer players, if you want a larger player base, then stop insulting people and go out and teach people how to play.

Personally, I spend more than enough time playing this game. Why should I help out newer players? There's no benefit, especially as the nearly always turn out to be morons. Occasionally, I'll spot someone in game or on the forums who appear to be reasonably active and sensible. When this happens, I might get to know them better to see if they're someone I'd like to recruit. For example, I recruited Alcibiades for War? Huh? last round as he seemed to be one of the very few people who posted on the forums that was actually sensible. Help for new players shouldn't be a given, they should act like they deserve it.

I'd like some way of decreasing the amount of active time required/increase you're productivity (I really enjoyed 5 minute ticks as I could run an entire attack and be home in about an hour.)

If you think 5 minute ticks reduces the amount of activity required to play, you obviously didn't play r29 in an active ally.

I'd like there to be a way for smaller players to stand up to bigger players. (customization of troops as has been suggested or anything else that could work.)

Why and how? Ignoring routes, a bigger player should be able to take on a smaller player 1v1. It would be retarded any other way.

I'd like to see Azzer more involved in the game (sending government attack mobs to top ranked players, etc.)

This is the most idiotic suggestion ever and doesn't even deserve reasons as to why.

 

[WackyJacky]

Polo you are a great model of players be such assholes that people quit this game! I've posted on the forums in a discussion maybe 2 times in the last couple of months and both times you have reminded me why I never post on the forums. Who cares if my ideas are ****, you don't have to be such an ass in the way you tell me. It's like that thing in school, if you have nothing nice to say, don't say it. And don't cut down peoples thoughts just for the sake of it, if you want to cut me down then ffs post something else USEFUL instead of just saying "this sucks, o this idea sucks too." Tell me why it sucks and post another suggestion. At least I am trying to do something useful.....

 

[BlackWolf]

Polo owns you all. Hes my hero!
Act like idiot and you get treated like idiot, play long enought and you become old fart who doesnt give a flying pussy of anything anymore. You want to get help, then show some god damn respect and think twice before you make your idiotic suggestions. There was same kind of old geeks when I joined this game way back then and I got same way treated like crap back then. Some of us just clearly can take it and some cant. You either suck up and act nice towards older people like you should or then you go rebel all the way... or well go home suck some moms tit... decison is always yours.

 

[Silence]

Polo you are a great model of players be such assholes that people quit this game! I've posted on the forums in a discussion maybe 2 times in the last couple of months and both times you have reminded me why I never post on the forums. Who cares if my ideas are ****, you don't have to be such an ass in the way you tell me. It's like that thing in school, if you have nothing nice to say, don't say it. And don't cut down peoples thoughts just for the sake of it, if you want to cut me down then ffs post something else USEFUL instead of just saying "this sucks, o this idea sucks too." Tell me why it sucks and post another suggestion. At least I am trying to do something useful.....

To be fair, his manner was not fantastic yet I can hardly criticise on something like that


HOWEVER your post lacked any thought at all, you blurted a lot of garbage without much though and justification for those reasons, so people like polo get frustrated that he bothered to read the whole thing and just flame it because it is easy to flame.


But do not be disheartened! The active users of this forum actually love a well constuctive interesting post on any topic. Just put a tiny more thought in the posts!

Consider your ideas a little more and I think you will get a lot more positive feedback rather than becoming one of those nicks in the forums which everyone ignores because, lets face it, they never post anything interesting. For example Timtardtams and willymichedwigdhjwkbily, Im sure Im not the only one who skips over *every* post they make, Ive had discussions about how we ignore them =P

 

[WackyJacky]

Alliance Wars: I took a look through the news and found the alliance war update:
http://bushtarion.com/portal/portal_news_updates.php?NID=113

If there is anything more up to date I have missed please let me know, but going off of this:

What about increased bounty gains for the smaller alliance or it takes more players to make the attack "unfair." This would provide a little incentive for using the war system.

Also I believe the "Wars Won" should be brought back, but slightly different. Perhaps a "Battles won" that only you're alliance and the alliance you are at war with can see. Everytime the opposing alliance steals you're land, or kills (just kills? Distracted as well? Bribes) you're troops they "win a battle." After a certain number of battles won (say 5, though it can be any number.) perhaps you get an increase in bounty, all you're injured troops for the next x ticks (1 day?) are immediately brought back (or half the time.) (open for more suggestions here for bonuses.)

Garret/Polo, as to the smaller players standing up to bigger players:
First of all Polo I agree, a bigger player should be able to beat a smaller player, however it shouldn't be an absolute crushing. Perhaps it could be tied into the fairness calculator - if you attack a target 200% of you you're troops perform x% (20%) better. However if you attacking a bigger alliance + bigger target maybe you're troops perform 25% better, if attacking alone (if with multiple people it would be significantly reduced.) Maybe if you are solo you have an automatic 5% performance increase + the additional x% from attacking higher.

Finally activity:
I have been thinking for awhile on how to decrease this, but out of all my suggestions I only have one that is even a tiny bit feasible, yet still would need a lot of work. It would be similar to sleepmode - At the beginning of the round you choose x (8?) hours that you would consider you're most inactive time (when you sleep perhaps.) Those 8 hours would be private, so no one else knows them. During those 8 hours you would get increased Injuries/Insurance (% to be worked out later.) Now of course this would make it harder to take down players as right now most people tend to attack people they want to kill during those "8 hours." Therefore I would like to tie it into the War feature - when at war with the target alliance they would get slightly decreased Injuries/Insurance but still enough so they can sleep through it. If attacked and killed by a Solo, and if you are in an alliance you would get a % in between the not at war and at war %s.

Note: You would not be in sleepmode, and thus you would still be able to attack/defend, etc. You would simply be getting more insurance/injuries.

Like I said this was my only slightly feasible idea, and I don't even like it that much, but it's the best I have on that topic atm.

There is some thought for you silence

 

[Ahead]

I don't think you should completely reject Wacky's post actually Polo/Garrett. Whlist the CRA idea was pretty poor, the 5 minute ticks point is acceptable. Remember we're not just thinking of the "active allies", 5 minute ticks makes more sense for new players. If merged with a suggestion like the improved sleep mode (for example) idea, that involves players getting higher bounty/insurance, I don't see a problem with 5 minute ticks.

If you get higher insurance there is less incentive to be contactable or be online all the time in 5 minute ticks.

If you get higher bounty, it encourages attacking, which obviously makes the game. No attacking = no game.

5 min ticks can sometimes = hectic? Hectic = fun. Games supposed to = fun. Win-win situation. If you are a SQ and care too much about score though maybe it is loss (yes that's right everybody who rejects my idea is inadvertently calling themselves a SQ )

 

[Twigley]

I would personally love 5 minute ticks because of my activity.

Dont know the burnout factor with 5 min ticks ... is it more cos it's faster or less because you can rebuild faster .. hmm.


In regards to newer players - wacky i think you will find there are leaders at the top who let newer people have a chance.
Me and JJ do it everytime we lead.
One player off the top of my head is goku.

 

[Ahead]

I would personally love 5 minute ticks because of my activity.

Dont know the burnout factor with 5 min ticks ... is it more cos it's faster or less because you can rebuild faster .. hmm.

Same. Theoretically, it should go both ways, and by reducing the amount you lose when you're offline, that should reduce burnout as it won't matter as much if you die. Maybe lower insurance whilst attacking but have higher bounty, and increased insurance whilst defending yourself, linking it in with the situation (a sliding scale like it used to be - I know it used to be flawed but hopefully the new fairness calculator would correct that).

More attacking = more fun; but it's not as crippling if you do die in your offline time = you feel safer whilst offline.

Only side-effects I can see are that it may discourage huge battles as it's more cost-effective to let the person die and get high insurance. And also activity plays a larger part in the game, early round in particular. But surely the more active you are the more you deserve to get out of the game (in terms of rushing for kills and winning).

 

[Old Fart]

What i Like about Bush:
1. Playing with old friends
2. Wiping out other players
3. Being wiped out by other players
4. Known core groups who have major grudges against each other. make it all the more fun.

What i dislike about about Bush:
1. Moded attacks - Doesn't deter anyone, and without the ability to build eta 7 view doesn't help alliance organise defence if the target is offline.
2. Current playerbase is too small = time to get advertising - including the current playerbase raising awareness of the game.
3. min attack percentage is too high. Smaller playerbase means less targets = less growth = staganation.
4. Seed Whoring - maybe organising govt seed tax to force players to spend. ie. use it or lose it.
5. Insurance, injury & bounty - some of the most fun i've had in this game is rebuilding from rank 1300+++ back to the top 100. Those 3 things have taken that from me.
6. Certain 2 alliance leaders who have there alliance retal for each and to do so have started to prank there players online.
7. Inability of alliances to war on there own.


I miss the old days

Cheerio
An Old Fart

 

[Garrett]

I would personally love 5 minute ticks because of my activity.

Dont know the burnout factor with 5 min ticks ... is it more cos it's faster or less because you can rebuild faster .. hmm.

Same. Theoretically, it should go both ways, and by reducing the amount you lose when you're offline, that should reduce burnout as it won't matter as much if you die. Maybe lower insurance whilst attacking but have higher bounty, and increased insurance whilst defending yourself, linking it in with the situation (a sliding scale like it used to be - I know it used to be flawed but hopefully the new fairness calculator would correct that).

More attacking = more fun; but it's not as crippling if you do die in your offline time = you feel safer whilst offline.

Only side-effects I can see are that it may discourage huge battles as it's more cost-effective to let the person die and get high insurance. And also activity plays a larger part in the game, early round in particular. But surely the more active you are the more you deserve to get out of the game (in terms of rushing for kills and winning).

yes 5 min ticks would be great for 6% of the playerbase.

so you've reduced world 1 to a pworld.

hence go get your own pworld. that is all.

 

[WackyJacky]

3. min attack percentage is too high. Smaller playerbase means less targets = less growth = staganation.
5. Insurance, injury & bounty - some of the most fun i've had in this game is rebuilding from rank 1300+++ back to the top 100. Those 3 things have taken that from me.

3. The min attack percentage may be too high for high ranked players, but for lower ranked players it is pretty low.
5. I agree rebuilding is great - but if you are in a rank 2 alliance growing from 1300 to top 100 is quite easily achieved in a few days. If you are a solo or not in a top alliance, it's possible, but a lot harder/time consuming as you have to watch land fat, AR, etc. No one wants to rebuild 40 times

 

[Alcibiades]

I would personally love 5 minute ticks because of my activity.

Dont know the burnout factor with 5 min ticks ... is it more cos it's faster or less because you can rebuild faster .. hmm.

Same. Theoretically, it should go both ways, and by reducing the amount you lose when you're offline, that should reduce burnout as it won't matter as much if you die. Maybe lower insurance whilst attacking but have higher bounty, and increased insurance whilst defending yourself, linking it in with the situation (a sliding scale like it used to be - I know it used to be flawed but hopefully the new fairness calculator would correct that).

More attacking = more fun; but it's not as crippling if you do die in your offline time = you feel safer whilst offline.

Only side-effects I can see are that it may discourage huge battles as it's more cost-effective to let the person die and get high insurance. And also activity plays a larger part in the game, early round in particular. But surely the more active you are the more you deserve to get out of the game (in terms of rushing for kills and winning).

I'm going to have to state that it increases the burnout factor for the active players; whilst allowing the more inactive players a chance to accomplish more in the short time they are online. It's a double edged sword imo; if you're in one of the top handful of allies, 5 minute ticks is a punishingly brutal experience. In the 5min tick mini round i just about died from staying up for so long and simply having to spend all my time organizing defence which is a hectic enough process in 10 minute ticks; let alone 5. I'm sure anyone who organized defence in that mini round will know precisely what i'm talking about.

I wasn't even in a top rank ally (Desperadoes woo!) but we got our fair share of inc and while it was fun for a few weeks, it ended up being a hellish, zombie like experience for me. I was continually exhausted, worn out, bleary eyed and filled with energy drinks and delivery food. I averaged about 2.5-4 hours sleep a day simply from the demands of staying awake for 5 minute ticks. And this was sleep snatched on the couch, sitting in front of my comp so i could be woken at the drop of a hat. Admittedly this isn't something the entire playerbase needs to do; but the higher ranked you are, the more active you have to be with shorter ticks.

While I feel that 5 minute ticks certainly does increase the 'efficiency' of those inactive players who get to accomplish more in the time they are on, i feel that the cost is too high for the active playerbase. There have simply got to be better ways to go about this.

Ahead I like the idea of a sliding scale of bounty/insurance in theory but as we've witnessed so far, it's proved very tricky to actually institute this kind of sliding scale (remember the first round injuries/insurance was introduced? it was a nightmare! ). However, with the advent of this new Fairness calculator it's entirely possible that a sliding scale can be structured around it. Also while i don't necessarily approve of the idea of simply 'letting your teammates die' because they get high insurance and rebuild faster, it would reduce contactability.

To sum up; i think we can come up with something better than 5 minute ticks.

 

[Tombi]

-snip-

To sum up; i think we can come up with something better than 5 minute ticks.

6 minute ticks

Well no sorry that was just a joke..

But WackyJackys post about so called 'experienced' players being dicks i 100% agree with Polo just concreted himself in that group and undoubtedly ill be flamed by him for this...
but the vast majority of the more 'experienced' players I've had no problems and what would appear to some as trivial questions they have answered without making any childish remarks such as 'n00b' or whatnot.
This is no way a gripe at polo or whatever its just Wackyjackys point is so vaild, a little more courtesy towards the newer players wouldn't go amiss and it would probably make us think more about trying to get there friends in the game instead of being flamed for virtually everything that is said/suggested.

I played bush a long while ago the last round i remember playing was when Antipodean were at the top, and back then the community was a whole lot friendlier towards each other and Azzer, nowadays he isnt seen on IRC for days at a time and it may be to moving house or whatever but i'm suprized he comes on atall.
Quite alot of the community have digs at him for whatever, saying about how he promised to implement things ages ago and still hasn't done and adopting a somewhat harsh tone towards him for really no reason.
As a whole i believe if the community became friendlier to each other the player base would expand due to newcomers not being scared off by the hostility currently shown between members.

 

[tobapopalos]

Wacky is hardly a new player. If he had been then I'm sure his post would've been received with more sympathy.

 

[Alcibiades]

But WackyJackys post about so called 'experienced' players being dicks i 100% agree with Polo just concreted himself in that group and undoubtedly ill be flamed by him for this...
but the vast majority of the more 'experienced' players I've had no problems and what would appear to some as trivial questions they have answered without making any childish remarks such as 'n00b' or whatnot.
This is no way a gripe at polo or whatever its just Wackyjackys point is so vaild, a little more courtesy towards the newer players wouldn't go amiss and it would probably make us think more about trying to get there friends in the game instead of being flamed for virtually everything that is said/suggested.

Genuinely new players do receive courtesy as far as i've noticed in general. not from everyone ofc but let's be honest, it's the internet, there are going to be dicks around regardless.

however, there are some people who aren't new, who continually post rubbish like 'plz can we haz L/F back plz? k? nao?' And it's just absurd and annoying for those of us who have been around for awhile to know why L/F and other game mechanics were removed. Because they were fundamentally flawed. It is the continuous advocation of a 'return' to what is perceived as bushtarion glory days that pisses off the 'experienced' group of players i think, more than the fact that they simply think they are 1337. ofc that does factor into it; but mostly in terms of I've seen where this game has come from; and I understand why it has gone the way it has. You are a newer/ignorant player and you don't understand why.

Now, I cannot argue that the 'experienced' players could exude a more helpful attitude but, for example, when you're confronted with the umpteen millionth post whining about L/F, or the old BHing, or insurance, or whatnot; some people just no longer have the ability to write something nice for the umpteenth time. I myself am guilty of it; but when i've had to post the same response an uncountable number of times my patience begins to wear thin.

And if it is the case with new players i'll try to link them to the original threads discussing this matter, or lay the case out as brusquely and succinctly as possible to explain why it was before and why it's gone. however, in the case of players who i deem should know better than to post those inane ranting, falsely nostalgic posts, my patience flies right out the window and a rather tart, venomous and (mildly) derogatory retort is written. Some people should simply know better than to post the kind of rubbish they do; and some of us feel it necessary to call them out on writing pointless crap.

i fully expect people to call me out if i write crap, and i remember when i first joined; i made suggestions that had been made before and was linked to the appropriate threads, and called a newbie and all that fun stuff. As i've said in multiple other threads, we shouldn't mollycoddle people and treat them with kid gloves simply because they're wrong, or new. If you're wrong, you're wrong and i'll state my case as bluntly as i like. As one of my favourite quotes says: Stupid questions deserve stupid answers. If you write something stupid, expect to have it torn apart and thrown back at you; i find it helps people learn to read, think and analyse before they post if they realize they'll come up against ferocious criticism directed more that their ideas, than their 'n00bishness'.

*The defence rests it's case, Your Honour*

 

[Chezz]

:winner:

Alci wins the prize of the year for the best speech about crap and dicks.

:nworthy::nworthy::nworthy:

 

[Ahead]

Same. Theoretically, it should go both ways, and by reducing the amount you lose when you're offline, that should reduce burnout as it won't matter as much if you die.

I'm going to have to state that it increases the burnout factor for the active players; whilst allowing the more inactive players a chance to accomplish more in the short time they are online. It's a double edged sword imo; if you're in one of the top handful of allies, 5 minute ticks is a punishingly brutal experience. In the 5min tick mini round i just about died from staying up for so long and simply having to spend all my time organizing defence which is a hectic enough process in 10 minute ticks; let alone 5. I'm sure anyone who organized defence in that mini round will know precisely what i'm talking about.

In your opinion. I, however managed to play in the winning alliance (not just as a sit-back and watch my alliance mates do everything sort of player - I'd like to think I played a decent part) without being on the brink of death. Your experience was possibly due to the rest of your alliance not putting the time in for their rank and you did the work of 2-3 people. That is bound to happen in 5 and 10 minute ticks, but as with most things in life generally it creates an equilibrium whereby you are in an alliance you deserve to be in afterwards.

While I feel that 5 minute ticks certainly does increase the 'efficiency' of those inactive players who get to accomplish more in the time they are on, i feel that the cost is too high for the active playerbase. There have simply got to be better ways to go about this.

Ahead I like the idea of a sliding scale of bounty/insurance in theory but as we've witnessed so far, it's proved very tricky to actually institute this kind of sliding scale (remember the first round injuries/insurance was introduced? it was a nightmare! ). However, with the advent of this new Fairness calculator it's entirely possible that a sliding scale can be structured around it. Also while i don't necessarily approve of the idea of simply 'letting your teammates die' because they get high insurance and rebuild faster, it would reduce contactability.

Maybe lower insurance whilst attacking but have higher bounty, and increased insurance whilst defending yourself, linking it in with the situation (a sliding scale like it used to be - I know it used to be flawed but hopefully the new fairness calculator would correct that).

I did actually say that And I said that "letting your teammates die" could be a side-effect of it for alliances that have no chance of contacting the player or beating the inc. If you don't approve of it then that just means you agree with my idea more?

To sum up; i think we can come up with something better than 5 minute ticks.

That something better can be 5 minute ticks combined with something else, such as increased insurance/bounty as I suggested. Then mix that with some sort of personalisation and this could also make the game more skill based instead of activity based as increased bounty and reduced insurance whilst attacking means picking targets and calcing battles better (a skill-based thing), but dying when you are offline (an activity-based thing) nets you higher insurance so isn't as crippling.

 

[Alcibiades]

Same. Theoretically, it should go both ways, and by reducing the amount you lose when you're offline, that should reduce burnout as it won't matter as much if you die.

I'm going to have to state that it increases the burnout factor for the active players; whilst allowing the more inactive players a chance to accomplish more in the short time they are online. It's a double edged sword imo; if you're in one of the top handful of allies, 5 minute ticks is a punishingly brutal experience. In the 5min tick mini round i just about died from staying up for so long and simply having to spend all my time organizing defence which is a hectic enough process in 10 minute ticks; let alone 5. I'm sure anyone who organized defence in that mini round will know precisely what i'm talking about.

In your opinion. I, however managed to play in the winning alliance (not just as a sit-back and watch my alliance mates do everything sort of player - I'd like to think I played a decent part) without being on the brink of death. Your experience was possibly due to the rest of your alliance not putting the time in for their rank and you did the work of 2-3 people. That is bound to happen in 5 and 10 minute ticks, but as with most things in life generally it creates an equilibrium whereby you are in an alliance you deserve to be in afterwards.

Well let's not think of things just to benefit the 'top alliances'. My whole point in this case revolved around how it was the lower alliances who suffered a lot since, as you say, there are usually only a few truly 'dedicated' players who do everything. You would drive them out of the game; without a doubt. I don't see how forcing burnouts in less well organized alliances establishes an equilibrium but perhaps i'm being dense in my sleepy state. Could you elaborate a little for me?

While I feel that 5 minute ticks certainly does increase the 'efficiency' of those inactive players who get to accomplish more in the time they are on, i feel that the cost is too high for the active playerbase. There have simply got to be better ways to go about this.

Ahead I like the idea of a sliding scale of bounty/insurance in theory but as we've witnessed so far, it's proved very tricky to actually institute this kind of sliding scale (remember the first round injuries/insurance was introduced? it was a nightmare! ). However, with the advent of this new Fairness calculator it's entirely possible that a sliding scale can be structured around it. Also while i don't necessarily approve of the idea of simply 'letting your teammates die' because they get high insurance and rebuild faster, it would reduce contactability.

Maybe lower insurance whilst attacking but have higher bounty, and increased insurance whilst defending yourself, linking it in with the situation (a sliding scale like it used to be - I know it used to be flawed but hopefully the new fairness calculator would correct that).

I did actually say that And I said that "letting your teammates die" could be a side-effect of it for alliances that have no chance of contacting the player or beating the inc.

Touche. I hadn't noticed you'd mentioned the bit about the new FC. I still don't like the idea of increased insurance when you're offline. The problem i see in this case is that as i remember, one of the huge flaws of having a very high insurance was that as soon as the insurance came back you were once again a target without any troops and masses of score from having a bunch of insurance. That meant you could get hit repeatedly whilst being offline. A possible solution to that is to not have the cash actually 'count' as score until you log on or some such device. I don't know what could be implemented that is a 'fair' mechanic, but i'm sure better game oriented minds than my own could come up with something functional.

To sum up; i think we can come up with something better than 5 minute ticks.

That something better can be 5 minute ticks combined with something else, such as increased insurance/bounty as I suggested. Then mix that with some sort of personalisation and this could also make the game more skill based instead of activity based as increased bounty and reduced insurance whilst attacking means picking targets and calcing battles better (a skill-based thing), but dying when you are offline (an activity-based thing) nets you higher insurance so isn't as crippling.

I still find 5 minute ticks too punishing, regardless of increased insurance/injuries as i stated above. I think that increased insurance/injuries and the 5 minute tick speed might help rebuilding but i would oppose that actually being proposed or used as a solution for reducing activity requirements. Having a lot of insurance/injuries would mean you remain in your high ranked enemies range for a lot longer and are back there a lot faster... which is something of which i do not approve. There's a reason high insurance/injury rates were removed, they don't improve gameplay and in fact worsen it across the board.

Personalisation of accounts is a different kettle of fish, and something i think would be great to have especially in terms of attracting/retaining player interest and broadening the tactical knowledge of the game.

 

[Matthew]

What I like: You can play the game as actively/inactively or as attentatively as you choose.

What I dislike: Players who are scared to lose troops and the prospect of rebuilding. These players provide nothing to the game. There are a few players which send mass mobs 0ing people for bounty, dont take their land, send their troops away when they get incoming and then just go into sleep mode when they go to bed making them 'indestructable'. I also dislike the fact that people can have 9 acres as a safety net as these players also are indestructable. This is becoming common nature in the game and its just scorequeening gayness.