• Those wishing to contribute to the game by making suggestions (both small and large) should read the following before doing so.

    Bushtarion largely runs completely automatically, and has been designed intentionally to be as self-maintaining as possible, with mechanics and balance considered at a completed point.

    Please do not spend large amounts of time coming up with complex suggestions in the hope that they will be read and possibly implemented in the future, unless you just enjoy the discussion, theory-craft, and such.

    The most likely changes will be rules-changes, specific number-tweaks to units, techs, and similar sorts of changes, and only if a large community consensus is reached as "proof" that a change would, overall, be an improvement, and are more likely to be done in batches, occassionally, not as a regular thing.

Suggestion for the sake of it

Garrett

Landscape Designer
Joined
Dec 14, 2007
Messages
1,872
Re: Suggestion for the sake of it

before creator's day I probably would have agreed with those words, but definitely couldn't agree anymore. Plus I don't think so much that he stopped caring about his bread and butter but everyone reaches a burnout point and needs time to re-energize.

creator's day and the coding of age 5 and the mini round shows that he's working on changes. not everyone is going to like all the changes or feel that certain things were addressed.

azzer probably discounts some people more than others and probably shouldn't. even if he doesn't like the tone or the full idea, doesn't mean elements aren't good and he can't use those elements to make a whole brand new idea that fits better.

hell that's the only reason i make suggestions, here is something to work with.. here is how i see it playing out, but as the creator, he's going to know how it fits (if at all)

anyone making a suggestion other than a typo fix is scarcely going to find their idea implemented quite the way they put it or thought it would play out. anyone believing that it should be done their way to the letter when they don't know what all goes into preparing it for gameplay is fooling themselves.
 

No-Dachi

Official Helper
Joined
Dec 15, 2007
Messages
975
Location
Oslo, Norway
Re: Suggestion for the sake of it

f0xx said:
Do you know how stressing it is to control 15 people, not to talk about 50, not even to talk about 100!
That, my friend, is why you elect officers when leading a larger group of people.

It's not a problem to lead 50-75 people if you have 1 leader, 1 co-leader, and 4-5 officers. The officers deals with the minor everyday problem, and the hard cases and decisions goes up the chain of command to the leaders. If needed, you can add more chains; senior officers, e.g.


As to the idea of opening for larger alliances, I think that it will get more new blood into the top levels. And let's face it; the current top players have too much ego, and too much grief to ever be able to play it out in one big ass alliance. Some might try, but the result will be that it will disband into several warring factions, which then will start recruiting to get the upper hand. And in the end you'll be stuck with 2-4 major groups, out of that one alliance. Add that together with whoever else is trying to create a core from the start, and you'll have a fair share of alliances. If this is implemented at the same time as solos are nerfed, you'll see a drastic increase in the number of players actively fighting for the top.
 

pinpower

Landscape Designer
Super Moderator
Joined
Dec 20, 2007
Messages
2,136
Location
Bournemouth
Re: Suggestion for the sake of it

Twigley said:
I dont personally think alliance sizes should go up i just think that alliances should have more bonuses and solos nerfed HEAVILY.


im sure its been suggested before...BUT

IMO, i think alliance size should increase...but to a point...maybe 30-35.
Solo play should basically be kept the same, but there should be a fair amount of bonuses for allied play (not going to try listing some here...but some good advantages!) and those should start with the highest available bonuses at say...10 members...then as the alliance size increases they will loose those bonuses.

There are some serious kinks that would need working out...i.e. a group of say 30 players creating 3 alliances...all working closely together to grow and then 2 disbanding to form 1 alliance once they have gained a strong enough lead...but im sure things could be done to combat this...
 

Enrico

Tree Surgeon
Joined
Dec 14, 2007
Messages
518
Re: Suggestion for the sake of it

A few rounds back Azzer organized a PW between the rounds (or during? cant remember) where all who joined up was placed in one of four alliances. (I think they where 50 players pr ally) in a capture the flag scenario.

Anyway, that proved just how a large ally would probably work.
Attacks:
The CO posts a general launchtime for an assault: The MO then posts say 2 real and 4 fake targets. Everyone online sends. Result: MassBash. either a big BR or a send out.

Defence: MO decides which target to defend real, and which to fake, and pray that not to many **** up.

Now, it is fun, but not really bushtarion as we know it :p

I'd say an increase to maybe 30 players an ally would be maximum, but the most important thing is to make life harder for the solos. Make it so that you must be 4 times as skillfull to get in the top 250 as a solo than as a allied player, and only those with legit reasons to stay solo would do so.
 

Alcibiades

Plant Geneticist
Joined
Dec 13, 2007
Messages
4,267
Location
Canada
Re: Suggestion for the sake of it

personally speaking, if you're not one of the 'top players' in bushtarion, it's next to impossible to recruit a competitive alliance, let alone an alliance for fun. Also, if you aren't one of the big names, it is next to impossible to recruit a full ally of active competent players. And that's only with 15 players, 18-20 when i was actively playing allied with some knowledge of the game. I think it'll be a whole **** ton harder to recruit for an ally of 100, or even 30; unless you consider random ally placement which has it's (rather glaring) flaws and would probably result in a catastrophically paralysed ally, or a fracture split, neither of which help the situation.

BlackWolf said:
By responding by "I think 100 is too much" Is same as you are saying:

"I dont like idea of playing in alliances of 100, as it would mean im only one small replaceable bit and that doesnt fit my ego"
or
"I dont like idea of 100 man alliances as it would make alliance wars last so much longer and require so much more skills over activity"
or
"I love being solo... make it 100 alliances and I will quit"

Right, apart from me disagreeing with you analysis of what everyone has said i'll take it for granted you aren't completely full of **** and rebutt you some. No one has reasonably argued that the idea of playing in allies of 100 would mean they are only one small replaceable part and that it hurts their ego... so you're making that **** up out of thin air.

Alliance wars last much longer, yes it would make it happen, and it would increase the already astronomical burnout level because wars simply wouldn't end... and the same people would get raped because they would have some contactability weakness that would get them continually crucified. So, seems like you've been out of touch after not playing for a few rounds BW. Sorry to break the news....

I hate solo, it's boring **** and imba imba ezzmode. Solos should be nerfed into extinction.

BlackWolf, please feel free to actually read posts before replying it would help immensely; also, thinking before writing helps a lot. ;)
 

f0xx

Landscape Designer
Joined
Dec 18, 2007
Messages
2,195
Location
Plovdiv/Bulgaria
Re: Suggestion for the sake of it

Alcibiades said:
personally speaking, if you're not one of the 'top players' in bushtarion, it's next to impossible to recruit a competitive alliance, let alone an alliance for fun.

Ofcourse, that is how it should be. That is why players like DarkSider and Welshie can get 20 of the best players (read big egos) and not only that, but they can also make them restart 50 times each so they can get the right ID. Everyone who has the will and desire to prove himself WILL do it. Back when I started playing Welshie was already a legeng, as for DS, well he is **** even nowadays, dunno why people worship him so much :p

BlackWolf also has his good moments sometimes and no matter how silly comments he makes he will still be one of the best team players I have seen.

Now, I THINK, as I already said, that the suggestion is good. 100 is too much though for the current amount of the playerbase. A number of 50 should be OK.

And one more thing, when people say that the top will just mass recruit, I will tell you that they want. And no, I don't think so, I KNOW it. Those who mass recruit are usuallly the alliances bellow rank 1. No active and skilled player who is playing in a winning alliance will stand a leader who takes away so many of his targets by simply recruiting them.
 

Ogluk

Official Helper
Community Operator
Joined
Jun 3, 2008
Messages
764
Location
Bracknell
Re: Suggestion for the sake of it

Alcibiades said:
personally speaking, if you're not one of the 'top players' in bushtarion, it's next to impossible to recruit a competitive alliance, let alone an alliance for fun.

does that make me one of these 'top players' or something, i've found it very very easy to recruit both a competitive alliance, and before that an alliance for fun and have had trouble keeping the numbers down to 15 in both cases, if i had gone all out recruiting i could have very easily gotten 30 people for the non-competitive alliance and probably about 25 for the ftw one.

25 man alliances!!!!
its the perfect number!!!!
 

Twigley

Hydroponics Developer
Joined
Dec 14, 2007
Messages
2,694
Location
UK
Re: Suggestion for the sake of it

You don't need to recruit the best to win the round or play for the win.

Pfft just look at Interlude :p
Manipulation is ftw.
We where not the best but we where a damn good TEAM which imo made us the best.
Pff i had no expeirence leading but i just said to people joining that if they joined they had to put 100% faith in everthing i did ... and it worked we got rank 1.
It even meant times where i would make a CRAZY call not to continue to rape an alliance to the ground even though it would mean a 70% chance of winning but 100% is nicer than 70% (<3 Quitus no raping for you ;p)
Because we felt like a team we had each others backs etc.
All you need is a cheerleader like Lukey to keep the moral up and there you go :p

You dont really recruit the skills these days you recruit the activeness and the fun people, and Lukey! :p
 

Alcibiades

Plant Geneticist
Joined
Dec 13, 2007
Messages
4,267
Location
Canada
Re: Suggestion for the sake of it

Ogluk said:
Alcibiades said:
personally speaking, if you're not one of the 'top players' in bushtarion, it's next to impossible to recruit a competitive alliance, let alone an alliance for fun.

does that make me one of these 'top players' or something, i've found it very very easy to recruit both a competitive alliance, and before that an alliance for fun and have had trouble keeping the numbers down to 15 in both cases, if i had gone all out recruiting i could have very easily gotten 30 people for the non-competitive alliance and probably about 25 for the ftw one.

25 man alliances!!!!
its the perfect number!!!!

perhaps it's about who you know. I would be hard pressed to come up with a truly competitive alliance.

if it was that easy to recruit an alliance that is having fun and also can play competitively why are we seeing 14 allies? Some of it due to gameplay yes, some to solos, some to the high activity requirements of alliances, and contactability, and the stress of being available all round.... oh wait, we're back to alliance requirements, which are the biggest factor in limiting recruitment. Jeez, now i've gone and proven myself right again. Bugger ;)

Twigley said:
All you need is a cheerleader like Lukey to keep the moral up and there you go :p

You dont really recruit the skills these days you recruit the activeness and the fun people, and Lukey! :p

Cheerleaders help, but continuous attacks and injuries brutalize morale. And most alliances i would figure don't have the spine throughout the entire ally not to lose morale and spirit at some point or other in the round. of course rebounding from such a low is always a good boost for morale when things pick up again.

Activeness you say twigley? yes, that's an alliance recruitment factor that limits for many players (or so it seems) the availability of alliance play. Was it that round that you drove yourself into an extremely unhealthy state and just about killed yourself playing bushtarion? yeah... that's how i want to 'enjoy' my rounds ;)
 

Twigley

Hydroponics Developer
Joined
Dec 14, 2007
Messages
2,694
Location
UK
Re: Suggestion for the sake of it

No it wasn't the same round.
Round 25 was the one we won and most nights i slept very nice and went out alot ... just came on sometimes and me and lukey took it in turns organising stuff.

Round 26 when i led RedTube at the start to rank 1 and then when the whole top of the game turned against us from day 2 -> 2 weeks in was where i drove myself into the ground and we never really had any morale as i dont think we bonded very well.

I would rather have an alliance member who would come on every so often to send attacks etc to get big AND be contactable to get on for 2 mins than someone who plays 12 hours straight a day but then cant come on when needed.

I would say the first is more active than the 2nd.

So ner ner ;)
 

Alcibiades

Plant Geneticist
Joined
Dec 13, 2007
Messages
4,267
Location
Canada
Re: Suggestion for the sake of it

Fair enough about the bush history, my knowledge is pretty rudimentary ;)

Twigley said:
I would rather have an alliance member who would come on every so often to send attacks etc to get big AND be contactable to get on for 2 mins than someone who plays 12 hours straight a day but then cant come on when needed.

I agree with you there. And it is the first kind of contactability which i think is a harder pressure on the player than the second kind. because if you are uncontactable that's it, there's no worrying you engage in because there's simply nothing you can do. Whereas someone else now has to work double time to cover for this person during their inactive hours.

*shrug* i wouldn't mind larger allies just to spread out the stress/timezone necessities but i don't think enlarging allies is simply going to magically result in harmonious ally cooperation, more allies, and less burnout.
 

Sekishi

Pruner
Joined
Feb 28, 2008
Messages
84
Re: Suggestion for the sake of it

Ok people are missing the point a little here or dont really see the real effects of this suggestions so I will today tell a little about Bushtarion History since most here wouldent know it.


Back in Rounds 5 and 6, Long long ago now. There where no Alliance Size Limits. basicly at one point one alliance where like over 90 People, but even if they could gone much higher they dident. Why ? Well part of it is if to many are together there really arent any targets, current memberbase are very simular to how it was back then. Numbers are about the same, however there where many alliances that where even only 5 Members, most however where around 20, and a few where 40 or 60. But the general thing is, the alliances where "As big as they could handle or as big as their group of friends". Back then All Alliances where also Public, perhaps thats a good way to go now again also. Everyone can see where they belong. Solo's will be a blinking beep and that will be a nice handicap again.

But during these rounds something happened. Round 5 i was a brand new player in this game, thats right BRAND NEW, never tried it before Worms introduced me to the game. We started up, and joined GITK, the second biggest group at the time. And they dident mind letting in new players that might have a benefit for the group in later rounds. Noticing this anyone ??? It gives players a CHANCE to becomme connected to groups, unlike today where its so limited and secretive that its almost impossible without like staying 5 rounds first. During that time landscore was also real low, Vapor for instance stole over 30k acres rather rapidly and even me starting 3 weeks left of the round made portal strangly. But at the end of the round I had a massive positive idea of the game. So i went and yelled at all friends i knew. The round after Disease joined bushtarion, in Disease the only real outsider was Drak, who myself and Vapor meet in the GITK alliance. So Disease brought its memberbase of around 20 Members into Bushtarion, we recruited a few others and merged with "Final Fantasy" Aeris and Lapskaus are probably names known to a few today.

Disease whiped away the new GITK, and TerraHawk and PureEvil was formed more as a result. Disease also later disbanded since the fun was gone and only the "true Disease members stayed". And most of the members that left, Aeris and Lapskaus included formed TheCure. Since Disease fell apart there where many who where interested in a new place and went there. From the Alliances that round Disease, GiTK and TheCure a handfull later formed Angels, who became the ground group that formed the group known as Core today. NTH and Virus joined the game in bigger numbers starting the next round. And since it was stil very open in the memberbase we had at this point these groups formed: NTH, Core, Virus, Disease and Dragons (TheCure revived). Even today, alot of the memberbase originate from one of these groups. Myself Originate from Disease and worked with Core a long time but soon became a loose agent and recruited and lead myself a few times later. From Virus the Dutiches spawned. Im sure somoene else spawned from NTH and Dragons also. But as you can notice As good as ALL groups today, spawned from a bigger alliance at one point or the other. At this point Groups where even having arch enemies. Core vs Virus was a standard for a few rounds. Spying was common also, but it gave the rounds alot of life, it wasent stagnate.

Later memberbases where reduced since some groups took things way to extreme (Dragons, Virus and NTH) Dragons at one point had like 140 Members at least in 3 Public wings. This is the Origin of memberlimits, since the groups became a little well organised and to big. But Most groups where stil on average size, but alot of new seirus players got into the bigger groups easliy because they where always looking for new players. And they had ROOM for new players. Today how many new players cant really settle in the game because they cant join anywhere get forced to be solo or they will not be able to enjoy the game at all ? Without community bonds the game wont survive. Large groupings creates sutch bonds, and from them new compedative groups are formed. Like some want to be a little more seirus so they team up with others of the same idea. People who say 25, 30 memberlimits etc. Are people who dont understand what this suggestion is about. Its about 3 things.


1: Destroy Solo Advantages Completly. Make Alliance Play the Dominate and Most advantages again without a doubt.

2: Create the room for new players to join communties, form bonds and as a result stay in the game for longer because if you get new friends somewhere your very much more likly to stay.

3: Create a base where new groups can be created within larger groups. Create a baseline that can give brith to the "next generation bushtarion players". Hell even older players will feel interested if the game starts spawning more compedative play or alot of new groups again. Most older players left because of 2 reasons: They fell out of their communities (sutch as me) or because real life cought up to them. But even they alot stayed because of their friends. Today the game is far to egoistic and the community doesent spawn alot of new members becase there is no where for them to spawn in the first place..

New players to the game in the old days went like this: Joined the game --> Joined an Alliance --> Joined Alliance Channels --> Joined Bushtarion Irc Channel --> Joined Forums ---> Meet a whole range of different people new for each stage.

They meet so many more new ones. Today Bushtarion IRC is stil bigger then back then, but few really meet there. Most meet in own alliance channels start to chat there, go and support each other in main channel etc in alliance conflicts etc. In Old Members of Virus or members of Core would always fight for instance, one joining the other block was almost unthinkable. it was pure warfare and honestly Pure Fun and a very large community that grew and grew, hell even what remains today is just the result of the old one buildt in these days crumbling away. I was against big alliances before, because the game had alot of groups and was growing in compedative play. now the game has reached a stage where its droping rapidly. its time to bring back the SOURCE OF THE BUSHTARION COMMUNITY
 

DarkSider

Tree Surgeon
Joined
Dec 14, 2007
Messages
796
Re: Suggestion for the sake of it

Thanks for the bed time story grandpa :p

What happened in age 5 or whatever it's not really interesting in modern bush. Now it's alot about competition, at least at the high level having an 60 member alliance comparing with a 20-30 member one is a bit weird. How you had fun fighting a large amount of noobs and boosting your ego it's not really a thing of interest to me. You posting how fun it's to have large alliances, how interesting is to have spyes and such and what a shame alliances are so secretive this days.
Ever thought at one point players in those alliances are just tired of having to deal with spyes and would rather play less active solo ? Or they don't see the fun in getting woken each night to send defence ? Or you wondered why it was needed to put an alliance limit on allies that you say got to like 80 members ? I wasn't playing back then but i imagine it's just not fun if a top alliance recruits and gets mega powerfull. That's why the public alliance of 40 members was removed aswell. In the early ages the game was full of exploits and wasn't ballanced. That made it very fun for organized players with some brains no doubt. Since then alot of the gaps have been filled, alot of balancing changes.
I don't deny that groups of players fighting together in a form might be more interesting for most of the playerbase but i don't think the alliance member increase can solve anything.
When you want to change something that was already changed the other way around before you have to ask yourself: What was the reason alliance members where put in place and why is the reason alliance limits got shrinked ? Isn't it because it's too hard to send an attack and have success with it against an alliance with too many members ? Doesn't that make the game too stale ? Doesn't that make bashing a requirement which is not that much fun for receiving end and a bit stresfull for the attackers to always depend on other members beeing online and wanting to attack with you in the same time ? From there also the talks with some players wanting to fight and others not, somebody gets upset in the end.
Oh i know, let's remove solo play and then the game will be so damn great.[/sarcasm]
If you want alliance/team play you need:
- less stress
- less requirements
- posibly a reason for alliances that are not winning to aim for something that will give them satisfaction. Atm making 8 value&eff alliance it's just not interesting. The only goal in such alliance is to not get killed too much but it's hard to achieve something to be proud of.
It's too stresfull contactibility to play such a major role in achievements of an alliance. For many it's damn anoying to wake up or login when you don't really want to play just to send defence to another member. Bush turned into military training/full time job instead of a fun game since the more competitive play. If you increase the limits you won't change that, you still need alot of members online to fight a 50-100 man alliance inc or whatever and it's even more stresfull to call more members in 10 minutes and take a ton more decisions.
That imo has to be looked over if you want the alliance play to be better. Make me have fun in an alliance. I like to attack alone or en mass, i don't want to be required to keep my troops home waiting for a possible incoming that will never come or the alliance to get an unrecoverable blow when i'm not here to defend. For me it's fun to attack as an alliance and use offensive play as defence but i hate the defensive part and depending on others to be online/not **** up their mobs etc.
Personally, i would love if alliance screen would dissapear and then you'd either not be able to defend anyone in the alliance or when defending you would park your units at the other guy HQ. Cut the defensive needs but keep the offensive force of a group.
 

Sekishi

Pruner
Joined
Feb 28, 2008
Messages
84
Re: Suggestion for the sake of it

Darksider, Stop caring only about your damn own intrest. The game is filled with Ego's who care only about themselves now. The game is dieing, WHY ??? Because the community is crumbling.... WHY ??? Because Almost everyone is Solo and there is no place for new groups be formed.. WHY ??? Because currently Alliance Limits are to smal support it. AND Solo's generaly are to powerfull..

Ill repeat again so you get it. You state Your own Intrests because you would hate to lose the ability to go on fighting on your own. Fine that, its been part of the game for a while and you where afterall probably the one that started the main trend so im sure you like playing like this quite alot. But the game is suffering because of this playstyle. IN OLD, The game GREW, in MODERN The game is DIEING. I Belive OLD Is actualy more VALID then New now, since its easy to tell Modern is failing, while Old was a sucess.

The game might not need THIS Suggestion. BUT It needs a "VERY DRASTIC" Suggestion That DRASTICLY Improves Community Building, and no Irc suggestion or anything is going to form communities. Only Alliances has every been able to form good Communities in Bushtarion and pretty much ALL Communities today, can thank the Community the old ones buildt up that the game is even stil alive. Since its the COMMUNITY that has keept Bushtarion alive recently, not Azzer's rather smal and in the end pointless changes to a large degree. It doesent freshen up the game to make others want to stay atlest. Alliance Size is the EASIETS, FASTETS and MOST EFFECTIVE way to create a new growing community. Most top players will find it to boring to be a "MASSIVE BIG GROUP" Because no Challange = No Fun. So groupings will be created from sutch big groups. New smaler alliances will be formed as a result who will again recruit new people.. and sutch new alliances are born, new groups are born and a new community is established.


Sure it will mean the end to your favorite Solo play your so famous for. But honestly. Waiging your playstyle, against a new community in the game that might actualy revive the game which your playstyle actualy helps kill it... I dont think its even a contest of what choice is best. So be free to continue your own self intrests posts. Its afterall a suggestion board where all opinions do matter to some degree intil Azzer makes up his mind. But its purly self intrest and not good for the game's future.
 
Top