HAHAHAHAHA
They knew what they were doing.
This game, that used to be fun to play, is dying.
Ending Powerblocks :(
- Thread starter Azzer
- Start date
HAHAHAHAHA
They knew what they were doing.
This game, that used to be fun to play, is dying.
Hobbezak
Garden Designer
Nah, I don't think that quite cuts it. How about we all agree to not recruit anyone who has been in a powerblock in the last year? (Obviously people deserve a second chance after a few rounds)
Who needs changing rules etc, when the playerbase itself can quite easily put a stop to these tactics?
edit: And the whole "I didn't know"-route is total idiocy obviously. You don't have to be a genius to find out that a powerblock has a bad impact on the game (I'm sure some of the people in TBA were on the receiving end of the r14 Oma's Bende powerblock?), and even then, you can choose to disband when you see it's just not cool. Plenty of people left TBA according to my information, because they saw that powerblocks are ftl. So anyone who comes in here now saying "omg I didn't realise" are making a fool out of themselves, because they've already proven they DO know, and that they just don't care.
Yeah mate, its a game..don't take it so serious!
BlackWolf
Landscape Designer
Thank you fred, of accusing me to be a multi. That is discussion between you and me. As I said I am sure Azzer found it hilarious that you accused me to be a multi. Leader of rank what... rank 16 alliance whos activity is poor and who has sent like 15 attacks.
Unapproved by DA - post is off-topic. Notification sent to user.
Last edited by a moderator:
Interesting....
I remember, when I was back in my early days (round 6) Azzer told our alliance to seperate as we had so many members (or that's what Sordes told me anyway).
I don't quite understand Azzer's post, as it would be unfair to use admin powers to kill the powerblock this round, at this late stage. If you were going to do something (as you knew powerblocks affect the wallet from previous rounds) you should have done it earlier.
As much as I despise powerblocks they played well to win, there are 3 stronger alliances than them (for the sake of argument) and we didn't work together to stop them. They did their politics well and "deserved" it.
I agree an admin coming in future rounds and stopping them by making it against the rules, and an admin stepping in the same way he does with farming etc.
This round it's not against the rules, you knew powerblocks happened before and you never made it against the rules. I would find it hilarious for them to all die as they all want their scores so much but really you can't do sh*t this round.
Just impliment a rule against mutual non-attacking for an extensive amount of time for next and future rounds and step in using admin powers (your common sense) when you feel necessary.
I remember, when I was back in my early days (round 6) Azzer told our alliance to seperate as we had so many members (or that's what Sordes told me anyway).
I don't quite understand Azzer's post, as it would be unfair to use admin powers to kill the powerblock this round, at this late stage. If you were going to do something (as you knew powerblocks affect the wallet from previous rounds) you should have done it earlier.
As much as I despise powerblocks they played well to win, there are 3 stronger alliances than them (for the sake of argument) and we didn't work together to stop them. They did their politics well and "deserved" it.
I agree an admin coming in future rounds and stopping them by making it against the rules, and an admin stepping in the same way he does with farming etc.
This round it's not against the rules, you knew powerblocks happened before and you never made it against the rules. I would find it hilarious for them to all die as they all want their scores so much but really you can't do sh*t this round.
Just impliment a rule against mutual non-attacking for an extensive amount of time for next and future rounds and step in using admin powers (your common sense) when you feel necessary.
Gadfly
Digger
Interesting topic. Should have been put up a long time ago not that it in my opinion would have done any good. This game has really gone down the tubes and I for one am probably going to look for another game that offers a better chance of winning. I am tired of supporting a game by buying gamecash just so the big powerblocks can bash the crud out of me for my effort.
I will most likely stay in sleepmode through out the rest of the round as there is no safe place to park my staff against the constant bashers.
I will most likely stay in sleepmode through out the rest of the round as there is no safe place to park my staff against the constant bashers.
lol did i post yur name?
you were 3% of my score
of course it was a multi attack
Unapproved by DA - post is off-topic. Notification sent to user.
Last edited by a moderator:
I know I won't have any TBA people in my allies anytime soon. Unless they were recruited as noobs in the noob army. I think I could make an exception for the ones who just started this round, but anyone who has been playing for rounds will not be accepted by many people in the active playerbase.
BlackWolf
Landscape Designer
You ever heard of restarting?
How my score makes me multi... you were zeroed I got -2 rush... easy and fast acres.
Unapproved by DA - post is off-topic. Notification sent to user.
humm, for thoes that are moaning about us eating humble pie, I for one have never been part of a powerblock so didnt know what it was like and since being part of TBA come to realise that I prefere to be solo. I think a lot of people will no longer wish to be part of winged allainces, there is a future for bushtarion a fun future at that.
Future
Future
I've played for 5-6 Rounds and this one has been very aggravating. To have bought p-units and to have a good staff but to have it 0'd in one single attack as has happened multiple times this round is a pain and makes me not want to buy in game cash knowing it could be all wasted.
I liked someones idea of reducing land grab if score margin is huge.
Maybe limit attack range to less of difference. Instead of not being able to attack someone 30% below my score i couldn't attack someone 60% or more below my score.
Unit balance i feel could be tweaked some to help prevent the utter annihilation of staff. Seen many attacks this round with 1 primary unit being bought in super high numbers. 20 M vamps, 15 M SA, 25M RPG etc wiith little use for other units.
Thanks
Future
I've played for 5-6 Rounds and this one has been very aggravating. To have bought p-units and to have a good staff but to have it 0'd in one single attack as has happened multiple times this round is a pain and makes me not want to buy in game cash knowing it could be all wasted.
I liked someones idea of reducing land grab if score margin is huge.
Maybe limit attack range to less of difference. Instead of not being able to attack someone 30% below my score i couldn't attack someone 60% or more below my score.
Unit balance i feel could be tweaked some to help prevent the utter annihilation of staff. Seen many attacks this round with 1 primary unit being bought in super high numbers. 20 M vamps, 15 M SA, 25M RPG etc wiith little use for other units.
Thanks
i agree 100% except the solo bit
yeah id never been in a winged alliance before, when i was in tdt using the search page brought like over 8 pages of results, now in SG rank 50 i use it and virtually all the results are for chance and WH which is no fun cos they defend to well I agree with Steve's suggestion of adding into the EULA a bit that prohibits powerblocks, yeah maybe it has damaged the game slightly this round with people becoming bored but it was a mistake that wasn't envisioned when the 3 allys were created, we can learn from this by creating that paragraph in the EULA.
We've played this round together people aren't 'gunna backstab now just let the round run its course and make sure a 'powerblock' doesn't happen again.
All of the other winged allys shouldn't be looking so smug either because your doing pretty much the same, albeit not at the top of the game because were here but if we were not im pretty sure you would do the same
No one is saying to backstab anyone, the proper way to go about it is for you all to realize that rank doesn't matter and say at 18:00 GMT on April 15th we will start attacking each other just to see what happens. All of you are complaining of nothing to do and claiming to never want to do this again. All I am saying it isn't "backstabbing" if you all decide to start attacking one another, the correct term for that is "fun."
Because this round was started with all the allys together and will probably end like that, and i don't think anyone will attack the other allys, they will probably get kickraped if they try it
DarkSider
Tree Surgeon
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2007
- Messages
- 796
Where to start
First i'm pleased Azzer came out and spoke his feelings in a mature and direct way and also to notice that he is thinking of solutions to prevent stale situations in the future.
Second, i don't want to repeat what i said several times before so i'll try to say it short. Fighting for pure score (from acres) can get you in this situation. A top alliance to win needs a few things:
- Access to easy acres
- easy to defend them
- weakened competition
- uneventful round, just random vulturing and bashing.
So forming a temporary powerblock gives you access to all those, a round long one will give you access to easy acres for a while until they become extinct but you still end on top score.
Almost all top alliances that aimed to win played efficient to acomplish their goal. Which ofc means avoid damaging wars as much as they could and have the upper hand in terms of numbers and strength when they had to deal with competition.
So to conclude, when alliances play for pure size there will always be less action. They will temp nap so they don't get hurt or temp nap to overwhelm and kill without loosing much. Key word is avoid taking damage = kill action.
There have been very few balanced wars on top that i have witnessed when allies fight for size and to me that's a not so interesting game.
Compare that with effectiveness. That rank was the answer to all prayers. You could powerblock as much as you wanted, bottom feeding wasn't as rewarding, overwhelming wasn't rewarded, more balanced big fights where the way to go and often rank 2-3 score ally who had to deal with a lot of action coming from rank 1 and also attacking themselfs for land gave them well deserved #1 effectiveness. That rank was asking acres, big army, smart calls, good tactics and you couldn't get it by avoiding action.
In the unified score i hoped the new score can be just size but the size to be earned in action. I have no doubt that the current settings aren't favorable for that and something needs changing.
I personaly liked the idea of population happiness which depending of the action your company and alliance deals with can increase or decrease productivity of your acres. Those peasants are eager to get the ball rolling !!
On another note i can't say i agree much with what JJ/Steve/Twigley did this round but i can undestand their initial reasoning. They are all old chaps and grew old with the game. The game for me doesn't offer the same level of satisfaction as my first couple rounds since it's like eating the favorite soup every morning for a couple years. I guess it's same for them too, they are die hard allied members so for them it must be even harder. They can change their routes and go a crazy SA/tl combo, they can choose a funky alliance theme name, play ftw, play resistance but at one point you just do the same thing over and over again. You just need some diversity. So why not try a big group and play brute force for a change
I'm speaking from experience since i often change from solo round thugs to allied ftw, solo bunkers, cheerleading round, crazy army setup in an alliance, resisting, large solo group etc, because it's too damn booring to play same thing over and over, the game changes very little.
That's why came so many suggestions to scrap all the units and make new ones or others suggestions of same impact to change the game to almost a new game with taste of bushtarion and the old small comunity that you attached to. With the lack of extreme game changes players need to choose extremely different playstyles so they get the needed diversity and powerblocking to play brute force it's just another one on the list.
First i'm pleased Azzer came out and spoke his feelings in a mature and direct way and also to notice that he is thinking of solutions to prevent stale situations in the future.
Second, i don't want to repeat what i said several times before so i'll try to say it short. Fighting for pure score (from acres) can get you in this situation. A top alliance to win needs a few things:
- Access to easy acres
- easy to defend them
- weakened competition
- uneventful round, just random vulturing and bashing.
So forming a temporary powerblock gives you access to all those, a round long one will give you access to easy acres for a while until they become extinct but you still end on top score.
Almost all top alliances that aimed to win played efficient to acomplish their goal. Which ofc means avoid damaging wars as much as they could and have the upper hand in terms of numbers and strength when they had to deal with competition.
So to conclude, when alliances play for pure size there will always be less action. They will temp nap so they don't get hurt or temp nap to overwhelm and kill without loosing much. Key word is avoid taking damage = kill action.
There have been very few balanced wars on top that i have witnessed when allies fight for size and to me that's a not so interesting game.
Compare that with effectiveness. That rank was the answer to all prayers. You could powerblock as much as you wanted, bottom feeding wasn't as rewarding, overwhelming wasn't rewarded, more balanced big fights where the way to go and often rank 2-3 score ally who had to deal with a lot of action coming from rank 1 and also attacking themselfs for land gave them well deserved #1 effectiveness. That rank was asking acres, big army, smart calls, good tactics and you couldn't get it by avoiding action.
In the unified score i hoped the new score can be just size but the size to be earned in action. I have no doubt that the current settings aren't favorable for that and something needs changing.
I personaly liked the idea of population happiness which depending of the action your company and alliance deals with can increase or decrease productivity of your acres. Those peasants are eager to get the ball rolling !!
On another note i can't say i agree much with what JJ/Steve/Twigley did this round but i can undestand their initial reasoning. They are all old chaps and grew old with the game. The game for me doesn't offer the same level of satisfaction as my first couple rounds since it's like eating the favorite soup every morning for a couple years. I guess it's same for them too, they are die hard allied members so for them it must be even harder. They can change their routes and go a crazy SA/tl combo, they can choose a funky alliance theme name, play ftw, play resistance but at one point you just do the same thing over and over again. You just need some diversity. So why not try a big group and play brute force for a change
I'm speaking from experience since i often change from solo round thugs to allied ftw, solo bunkers, cheerleading round, crazy army setup in an alliance, resisting, large solo group etc, because it's too damn booring to play same thing over and over, the game changes very little.
That's why came so many suggestions to scrap all the units and make new ones or others suggestions of same impact to change the game to almost a new game with taste of bushtarion and the old small comunity that you attached to. With the lack of extreme game changes players need to choose extremely different playstyles so they get the needed diversity and powerblocking to play brute force it's just another one on the list.
Turnip2k
Harvester
I don't understand why you are afraid to use admin powers to disrupt situations like this Azzer - I understand that you have had huge problems with the playerbase complaining in the past when you interviened...but if it comes down to annoying some of the playerbase and losing a chunk of the player base (and your income), there should be no question in doing it. Obviously now it won't do much good since its round end, but in the future, step in using your common sense before this sort of thing becomes a problem.
Also, the fact the rest of the playerbase let this happen is part of a growing trend of apathy I feel. For some reason, as rounds go on, people seem less bothered with large scale attacking, or forming a resistance to bring down a bigger enemy. It's partly this problem that allowed this to happen in the first place, as there was certainly the ability and numbers in the other allies to squash this out. I think finding out why this is, and fixing it, will help prevent this sort of thing in the future and also rekindle the playerbase.
As for the dwindling playerbase, you may just have to put a little bit more work in for next round (changes that inspire interest etc..), but hopefully things will get back to normal soon.
Edit :
On the effectiveness side of things, I do agree it helps rank 2 allies get some enjoyment back out of the game - it most certainly gave us a reason to keep playing actively when we obviously weren't going to take the top value spot back in R21. It encourages good defending and attacking, and was a very satisfying acolade to achieve ultimately - it shows you are good at fighting, not only getting land and playing it safe.
I agree with this too - the game has undergone some changes in the past (layout, interface, options etc...), however nothing fundamental has changed (with the exception of a few routes being added). To stop it getting stale, the mechanics of the game need to be mixed up! Add more routes, change the current routes, change what people can play for, whatever - just allow people to do somthing differently from what they have been doing for the last god knows how many years. (Nice post DS btw).
Powerblocks are indeed a bad bad thing - there could be a 'loyalty' measure for each ally member, to remain in that ally (to prevent the swapping out problem that was present early on). Also there is perhaps a need for punishments for not attacking each other and / or rewards for doing so - a war game should severly frown upon mutual non-attacking between allies.
Also, the fact the rest of the playerbase let this happen is part of a growing trend of apathy I feel. For some reason, as rounds go on, people seem less bothered with large scale attacking, or forming a resistance to bring down a bigger enemy. It's partly this problem that allowed this to happen in the first place, as there was certainly the ability and numbers in the other allies to squash this out. I think finding out why this is, and fixing it, will help prevent this sort of thing in the future and also rekindle the playerbase.
As for the dwindling playerbase, you may just have to put a little bit more work in for next round (changes that inspire interest etc..), but hopefully things will get back to normal soon.
Edit :
There have been very few balanced wars on top that i have witnessed when allies fight for size and to me that's a not so interesting game.
Compare that with effectiveness. That rank was the answer to all prayers. You could powerblock as much as you wanted, bottom feeding wasn't as rewarding, overwhelming wasn't rewarded, more balanced big fights where the way to go and often rank 2-3 score ally who had to deal with a lot of action coming from rank 1 and also attacking themselfs for land gave them well deserved #1 effectiveness. That rank was asking acres, big army, smart calls, good tactics and you couldn't get it by avoiding action.
In the unified score i hoped the new score can be just size but the size to be earned in action. I have no doubt that the current settings aren't favorable for that and something needs changing.
I personaly liked the idea of population happiness which depending of the action your company and alliance deals with can increase or decrease productivity of your acres. Those peasants are eager to get the ball rolling !!
On the effectiveness side of things, I do agree it helps rank 2 allies get some enjoyment back out of the game - it most certainly gave us a reason to keep playing actively when we obviously weren't going to take the top value spot back in R21. It encourages good defending and attacking, and was a very satisfying acolade to achieve ultimately - it shows you are good at fighting, not only getting land and playing it safe.
On another note i can't say i agree much with what JJ/Steve/Twigley did this round but i can undestand their initial reasoning. They are all old chaps and grew old with the game. The game for me doesn't offer the same level of satisfaction as my first couple rounds since it's like eating the favorite soup every morning for a couple years. I guess it's same for them too, they are die hard allied members so for them it must be even harder. They can change their routes and go a crazy SA/tl combo, they can choose a funky alliance theme name, play ftw, play resistance but at one point you just do the same thing over and over again. You just need some diversity. So why not try a big group and play brute force for a change
I'm speaking from experience since i often change from solo round thugs to allied ftw, solo bunkers, cheerleading round, crazy army setup in an alliance, resisting, large solo group etc, because it's too damn booring to play same thing over and over, the game changes very little.
That's why came so many suggestions to scrap all the units and make new ones or others suggestions of same impact to change the game to almost a new game with taste of bushtarion and the old small comunity that you attached to. With the lack of extreme game changes players need to choose extremely different playstyles so they get the needed diversity and powerblocking to play brute force it's just another one on the list.
I agree with this too - the game has undergone some changes in the past (layout, interface, options etc...), however nothing fundamental has changed (with the exception of a few routes being added). To stop it getting stale, the mechanics of the game need to be mixed up! Add more routes, change the current routes, change what people can play for, whatever - just allow people to do somthing differently from what they have been doing for the last god knows how many years. (Nice post DS btw).
Powerblocks are indeed a bad bad thing - there could be a 'loyalty' measure for each ally member, to remain in that ally (to prevent the swapping out problem that was present early on). Also there is perhaps a need for punishments for not attacking each other and / or rewards for doing so - a war game should severly frown upon mutual non-attacking between allies.
Last edited:
When Azzer left Astroempires. Many of us tried bushtarion for the first time, this round. Of the 7 people from my AE alliance that tried it, I'm the only one who stayed.
My Alliance gets mauled badly. I get 0'd every other night because it's hard to have night cover, and being a working person with a family, I can't stay up all night. Heh, the wife wasn't too pleased when I brought the netbook and phone into the bedroom and got texted 3 times that night. Heh. Sleep mode seems like a good idea, but the use of it is discouraged in my alliance. So I continue to get 0'd every other night, and learn that any BCs i spend on game cash (which is also looked down on) is basically wasted...because I get 0'd again soon after. But I buy bush cash because I can afford it, and it allows me to help my alliance in defends and attacks..which is where the fun and entertainment lie. I also bought BCs so I could buy purchase units for other folks in my guild who could not afford it.
The stigma around BCs and sleep mode...make me feel dirty and disingenuous...and I've now been zeored enough that I resolve not to spend BCs on game cash anymore. It's not worth it.
I can say that we recently got into a war. We tried to get help from a loose NAP that we had with another allaince...whichi didn't work out to well. And the Alliance that we were at war with had help from at least 3 other alliances. That's good for the folks who get 0'd by the "helper" alliances (they get insurance). But bad for folks who get 0'd by the actual warring alliance (like me). I'm still sorting out my feelings on this..like any war, there are allies, and this is understandable..but I think that once war is declared, 30-45% attacks shouldn't be allowed by alliances that are not directly declared in the war. I spent 30 bucks last week (because war was declared) and got zeroe'd that night lol. (No insurance either). And 70% of the attackers were not in the alliance that declared..and many were attacking with HUGE armies at 30-35% range. There is something flawed about the way war is handled.
So I've basically had to start over. This being my first round, it's still fun to learn. I don't really know anything different than the powerblocks. I don't get all the names that refer to the lack of "Of" in this round, quite frankly they annoy me.:mrgreen:
One thign that might be cool... is that if you get 0'd by someone from an alliance that you are at war with, you can choose to come back with as a different route, and keep whatever land you had at the time of your zeroing and being able to choose some researches that you would liek to transfer to the new route. We were very vulnerable to RPGs, for example...and it would be nice to come back as a different route, with a little head start (i.e. having the land and all your research done). You could sstill make it so that the purchase unit would have to be bought..then perhaps you would have another avenue of cashflow besides BCs for game cash.
AS this is my first round, take everything I've said with a grain of salt, but I figured I might as well put a brain dump on here, since it seems like Azzer would read it.
Thanks for reading!
Edit; Regardign sleep mode...perhaps the use of it should be restricted during war time (i.e. durign war you can only go into sleep mode for 24 hours or more). This might help reduce the stigma of using it for folks... like for getting a good night's sleep before a big presentation at work or something.
My Alliance gets mauled badly. I get 0'd every other night because it's hard to have night cover, and being a working person with a family, I can't stay up all night. Heh, the wife wasn't too pleased when I brought the netbook and phone into the bedroom and got texted 3 times that night. Heh. Sleep mode seems like a good idea, but the use of it is discouraged in my alliance. So I continue to get 0'd every other night, and learn that any BCs i spend on game cash (which is also looked down on) is basically wasted...because I get 0'd again soon after. But I buy bush cash because I can afford it, and it allows me to help my alliance in defends and attacks..which is where the fun and entertainment lie. I also bought BCs so I could buy purchase units for other folks in my guild who could not afford it.
The stigma around BCs and sleep mode...make me feel dirty and disingenuous...and I've now been zeored enough that I resolve not to spend BCs on game cash anymore. It's not worth it.
I can say that we recently got into a war. We tried to get help from a loose NAP that we had with another allaince...whichi didn't work out to well. And the Alliance that we were at war with had help from at least 3 other alliances. That's good for the folks who get 0'd by the "helper" alliances (they get insurance). But bad for folks who get 0'd by the actual warring alliance (like me). I'm still sorting out my feelings on this..like any war, there are allies, and this is understandable..but I think that once war is declared, 30-45% attacks shouldn't be allowed by alliances that are not directly declared in the war. I spent 30 bucks last week (because war was declared) and got zeroe'd that night lol. (No insurance either). And 70% of the attackers were not in the alliance that declared..and many were attacking with HUGE armies at 30-35% range. There is something flawed about the way war is handled.
So I've basically had to start over. This being my first round, it's still fun to learn. I don't really know anything different than the powerblocks. I don't get all the names that refer to the lack of "Of" in this round, quite frankly they annoy me.:mrgreen:
One thign that might be cool... is that if you get 0'd by someone from an alliance that you are at war with, you can choose to come back with as a different route, and keep whatever land you had at the time of your zeroing and being able to choose some researches that you would liek to transfer to the new route. We were very vulnerable to RPGs, for example...and it would be nice to come back as a different route, with a little head start (i.e. having the land and all your research done). You could sstill make it so that the purchase unit would have to be bought..then perhaps you would have another avenue of cashflow besides BCs for game cash.
AS this is my first round, take everything I've said with a grain of salt, but I figured I might as well put a brain dump on here, since it seems like Azzer would read it.
Thanks for reading!
Edit; Regardign sleep mode...perhaps the use of it should be restricted during war time (i.e. durign war you can only go into sleep mode for 24 hours or more). This might help reduce the stigma of using it for folks... like for getting a good night's sleep before a big presentation at work or something.
Last edited:
Mysterious
Harvester
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2007
- Messages
- 170
Ha...backstab friends?
My personal opinion is that if they are actually your mates, then wouldn't mind a bit of banter, a bit of fighting, a bit of combat. They'd look upon it as a laugh, and a bit of fun. Plenty of times I have hit people in other alliances who I consider friends, and good ones at that, and we've both just laughed and bet who wins.
But eh...each to their own. I commend Azzer for pointing this out, I for one have been avoiding any public contact purely because this round has been the most pointless one ever. Even when I was defending against one alliance in the past against overwhelming odds, it was bearable, and there were more targets. But this round is atrocious.
How can you justify teaching newcomers to powerblock, that strength is in numbers and that that as long as you have these numbers, it doesn't matter what route you hit? Plenty of times I have seen an RPG hit a thug or vamp, a robo hit a striker etc etc. Surely the point of teaching these newcomers is to educate them to play well, not to teach them to play poorly. Another reason that will not have a positive outcome to the game imo.
End of rant.
My personal opinion is that if they are actually your mates, then wouldn't mind a bit of banter, a bit of fighting, a bit of combat. They'd look upon it as a laugh, and a bit of fun. Plenty of times I have hit people in other alliances who I consider friends, and good ones at that, and we've both just laughed and bet who wins.
But eh...each to their own. I commend Azzer for pointing this out, I for one have been avoiding any public contact purely because this round has been the most pointless one ever. Even when I was defending against one alliance in the past against overwhelming odds, it was bearable, and there were more targets. But this round is atrocious.
How can you justify teaching newcomers to powerblock, that strength is in numbers and that that as long as you have these numbers, it doesn't matter what route you hit? Plenty of times I have seen an RPG hit a thug or vamp, a robo hit a striker etc etc. Surely the point of teaching these newcomers is to educate them to play well, not to teach them to play poorly. Another reason that will not have a positive outcome to the game imo.
End of rant.
f0xx
Landscape Designer
Interesting...
I didn't read some of the replies so I might be repeating someone, here is what I have to say on the subject of powerblocking:
First of all, I give thumbs up to Twigley/Steve/JJ for giving home to so many new players and let them "win" in their first round. What you don't realise though, is that you are spoon feeding them. If you give them an easy victory like that, especially in their first round, you don't "teach" them skill. I ain't going to discuss the effect the powerblock has on the alliances outside of it (especially such a big one).
The only other game which I've been playing longer than bush, and I still do, is a mud game. What I've learned from it is that not everything can be fixed by ingame mechanics. Sometimes you must have rules and punishments for certain ingame behaviours which cannot be prevented by mechanics. One of those behaviours in bush is powerblocking. Another is AR triggering.
But since this topic is about powerblocking, I should stick with it. Just make a rule (one for next and future rounds) that powerblocking is not allowed. Then give a definition of powerblocking. Yes, it is that simple.
Powerblocks damage the game, if someone loves the game (not the selfish love, but the true one) he would never be part of a powerblock. Though, there are a lot of powergamers out there who would do *anything* to win, without caring about the game itself. Then they would use the "we didn't know that powerblocks damage the game so much" excuse. Sorry, I ain't buying that.
So, it is time to draw the line and define what is acceptable and what is bad (trashy) ingame behaviour and punish the second one accordingly.
I didn't read some of the replies so I might be repeating someone, here is what I have to say on the subject of powerblocking:
First of all, I give thumbs up to Twigley/Steve/JJ for giving home to so many new players and let them "win" in their first round. What you don't realise though, is that you are spoon feeding them. If you give them an easy victory like that, especially in their first round, you don't "teach" them skill. I ain't going to discuss the effect the powerblock has on the alliances outside of it (especially such a big one).
The only other game which I've been playing longer than bush, and I still do, is a mud game. What I've learned from it is that not everything can be fixed by ingame mechanics. Sometimes you must have rules and punishments for certain ingame behaviours which cannot be prevented by mechanics. One of those behaviours in bush is powerblocking. Another is AR triggering.
But since this topic is about powerblocking, I should stick with it. Just make a rule (one for next and future rounds) that powerblocking is not allowed. Then give a definition of powerblocking. Yes, it is that simple.
Powerblocks damage the game, if someone loves the game (not the selfish love, but the true one) he would never be part of a powerblock. Though, there are a lot of powergamers out there who would do *anything* to win, without caring about the game itself. Then they would use the "we didn't know that powerblocks damage the game so much" excuse. Sorry, I ain't buying that.
So, it is time to draw the line and define what is acceptable and what is bad (trashy) ingame behaviour and punish the second one accordingly.
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2007
- Messages
- 1,215
If enough people think it acceptable to have a EULA against powerblocking, I will seriously consider it. It would have to be clear and concise so that people couldn't abuse the rule by getting people in to trouble who are not powerblocking - eg 5 alliances working together to take down a rank 1 top ally who are only working together as a "resistance", is not the same as 3 allys agreeing to work together permanently. Defining what is a powerblock, and what is not a powerblock, in clear cut manners that cannot be mis-interpreted against innocent people and cannot be "evaded" by naughty/bad people who find a way around the rules, would need to be done, so I'd welcome some feedback on having a stab at writing a clear-cut definition. Also it'd have to be "provable" - eg what if the current powerblock never mentioned eachothers allies anywhere in-game, in-forums, or in IRC - they pretended to be enemies too scared to attack eachother just to evade the rules, while in private (invisible to anyone including admin), they agreed not to attack eachother.
With or without a rule - I will still be working on game mechanics and features to help keep the game interesting when fighting against the odds against large powerblocks etc., and also systems to help limit "bottomfeeding".
With or without a rule - I will still be working on game mechanics and features to help keep the game interesting when fighting against the odds against large powerblocks etc., and also systems to help limit "bottomfeeding".