Morale

[alwaysnumb]

Another idea to slow lots of attacking at dishonourable levels.

Introduce a new stat called morale

When I attack dishounourably I lose morale
When I attack/defend honourably I gain morale
Morale comes back over time
Depending on morale level this dictates how low I can attack

 

[Davs]

Strikes me as yet another mechanic that'll piss off the top alliance. And before some idiot shouts and whines about how I shouldn't expect an easy win or any other poorly thought out response which bares no relevance to me anyway (I've never played nor never will play to win), actually read what I have to say rather than just assume that I sit at home crying because there's no big red win button.


Essentially, this is majorly flawed because when the rank 1 alliance (and even big solos) get to a certain score size, the only people they can hit are players in the lower levels in their targetting range. Not because the bigger ones are too hard to land on, but because there are no bigger players except members of their own alliance. All this will do is make the top players even more bored for the latter half of the round, which could very easily drive more people away from the game.

If this weren't the case I'd say it was a really good idea - as for the middle rank alliances and solos this would force people to play in a more interesting way. But sadly this game always leads to the top players pulling massively ahead from everyone else, at which point their essentially being penalized for being too good (doesn't exactly scream "fairness" does it?)

 

[alwaysnumb]

Have all those people with current red titles had no honourable targets since day1?
Is it fair that a whole bunch of guys send +2 on the biggest guy in the smallest allie and then go straight back?
Do you think its right that its possible to get so far ahead in a game that you have noone to attack anymore?
Does anyone really care?

 

[john]

Have all those people with current red titles had no honourable targets since day1?

They have honourable targets, however the honourable targets are often harder to land on.

Is it fair that a whole bunch of guys send +2 on the biggest guy in the smallest allie and then go straight back?

Of course it's not fair, but thats the way the game goes. And thats also why there's things like landcaps, and eta modifiers.
And who says the big guy in the little ally cant do the same thing to a smaller ally to get his land back?

Do you think its right that its possible to get so far ahead in a game that you have noone to attack anymore?

Once again, thats how the game works now. Rank 1 usually gets a giant land lead and gains score from it. The rest of the allies stay out of their range.

There are already lots of tools in place to discourage dishonourable attacking. Attack honourably and you get WK/WW; attack dishonourably and you get land capped, increased eta, and gain a bounty on your head. Adding more **** isn't going to do anything else except kill the player base even more.

 

[Dimitar]

Spot on, John.

PS: I still wuv u.

 

[Davs]

Have all those people with current red titles had no honourable targets since day1?
Is it fair that a whole bunch of guys send +2 on the biggest guy in the smallest allie and then go straight back?
Do you think its right that its possible to get so far ahead in a game that you have noone to attack anymore?
Does anyone really care?

Please reread my post. I said it was a good ideas as far as the lower ranked players go, but it simply isn't viable because it unnecessarily punishes the top just for getting a lead.

The questions you chose in response, whilst they do highlight problems that do exist within the game at the moment, completely ignore what I actually said (with the exception of question 3, which is just stupid as your suggestion will make the top run out of targets faster than they currently do. Good going.)

 

[alwaysnumb]

when an allie gets way ahead they make hardly any attacks.

 

[Dimitar]

I don't get it. What happens if you lose morale? Do your troops start suiciding or something? Or is it just something that will tell you that you're wanted by the government AND your troops are feeling bad about it?

 

[alwaysnumb]

The worse your morale gets the higher % you are forced to attack.
It recovers over time or by attacking honourably/defending your allie

 

[LuckySports]

just another way of stagnating the game and causing more people to quit..

If anyone remembers, we had the most people playing when it was a mass FFA, before azzer started putting in all these rainbows and unicorns changes.. :/

STOP BEING NICE!

^_^

 

[alwaysnumb]

So conclusion is

People will quit unless they can constantly attack anyone within minimum range as often as they like.

 

[Ogluk]

So conclusion is

People will quit unless they can constantly attack anyone within minimum range as often as they like.

People will quit if they have nothing they can actually do ingame ;o as what is the point of a game where you can't do anything. It'd effectively turn it into farmville with an attack every other day at best, sorry but that isn't attractive to anyone

 

[CFalcon]

There are plenty of suggestions on forums that would actually reduce bashing, activity requirements, "unfairness", stagnation etc etc.

http://www.bushtarion.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2270
http://www.bushtarion.com/forums/showthread.php?t=3090
http://www.bushtarion.com/forums/showthread.php?t=4803
http://www.bushtarion.com/forums/showthread.php?t=4574
http://www.bushtarion.com/forums/showthread.php?t=4673

None of them involve reducing possible targets (better sleep mode, higher attack ranges, more punishment for negative h/f).

As has been said dozens of times, if you want to stop ragequitting from losing everything in a tick, then stop battles being so drastic. Don't just stop battles happening all together. That's a sure fast-trak to a completely dead game. We need *more* battles with *less* consequences.

So to sum up my thoughts, what I feel the game needs is more battles, which are ultimately what we derive fun from, and to bring this about we need less severe consequences for these battles in order to encourage them. This will result in activity being less vital, while time and effort will still be rewarded. It so happens that we already have mechanisms in place to reduce consequences and encourage battles. Bounty and insurance.

Of course, the real issue, the elephant in the room, is having an admin that gives a crap.

 

[alwaysnumb]

It could restrict you to a few (say at least 4) attacks at 30%/day or more if you defend/attack honourably.
You could also make attack range lower than 30 but goes down real slowly as honour increases over time. So every few days it could be possible to attack at 25%.

 

[alwaysnumb]

How are we supposed to play Fantasy Bush suggestions when we get reminded that the Head Boss isnt around.

 

[LuckySports]

It could restrict you to a few (say at least 4) attacks at 30%/day or more if you defend/attack honourably.
You could also make attack range lower than 30 but goes down real slowly as honour increases over time. So every few days it could be possible to attack at 25%.

every few days.. Who wants to sit around and play with themselves WAITING to attack? and suggestion that potentially reduces the target pool will only hurt the game more, possibly to the point of breaking.

 

[alwaysnumb]

Well I can wait around all round and I cannot attack at 25% so you didnt get what i just said.

 

[LuckySports]

Well I can wait around all round and I cannot attack at 25% so you didnt get what i just said.

i got exactly what you said.. but yer still waiting.. :/ a better suggestion would be to drop the range down to 25% permanently (used to be like.. 20% or lower a long time ago)

 

[willymchilybily]

always numb you say people dont read your posts or ignor it.

but you are ignoring every one elses posts who have experienced many different changes within the game.

captin falcon made a good post showing alot of good suggestions. with the links included. and you just skipped over it

and posted a suggestion in the same vein that prevents people attacking at a certain range. and limits targets

i see what you are getting at. you want people not to attack dishonourably all the time. you want to force them to attack honourably now and again in order to be able to attack dishonourably.

but at the top ranks there is no option to attack honourably. is the main point. and secondly the point thats been made was that limiting peoples targets even in the way you suggest will likely be detrimental to the game. raising attack range does not make it any easier to defend, as that person that sends to the highest ranked guy in your alliances eta +2 time and time again will keep coming back at any range. all you effect is if he brings his allie mates with him to get the job done.

i dont mean to be brash or rude, but you have now made two suggestion to reduce the range or frequency with which players can hit thier minimum range. and they have both came back with the same answers and reasons as to why that sort of game mechanic will not work as you think it will

 

[Dax]

The game is fine. It has been said so many times my mind hurts. Adjustments to H/F relating to insurance values is about the best idea I've seen (ahem, myself & Polo).