Future Game Enhancements

[Shyslywolf]

Ok, once again i have an idea on how i think that we could better the game. It is my oppinion so i am sure that some others will have an equally strong opposing view.

Here is the thought... I am not sure how much programming it would take, but i think that it would greatly enhance the game.

I would like to see different stats for defending troops vs. attacking troops. I know that the troops already have the HP/HD, AR/AD, but it would be a neat to see a twist to that... such as attacking troops lose 3 armor when attacking X troop type, or X troop gains 300% armor or health when defending (not when attacking). something to offset the "you got wiped and I took no losses" concept.

We have worked so hard to make the game so that no specific route is totally dominant, that in turn I think that it has actually hurt the game.

I have been playing Bush for about 5 almost 6 years now... I am not the best player, I do not dedicate every waking moment to the game, but i have been faithful and have never missed a round.

That being said, with the "balancing of troops" no matter the size of my army, i can walk in and find that i have been 0'ed sometimes by players that are even a half to a third of my size.

I do not mind losing troops, but at least make it a good battle (with losses on both sides). The overpowering of certain routs to pawn another (in an effort to equalize the routes in the game) seems to take a lot of the skill out of the game and just make it a matter of timing vs skill.

I do not have the exact answer, but i do think that it would be worth looking into the idea of different troops having diferent defence abilities when defending (that are not available when in attack mode). Perhaps this would make the battle for the top a little more challenging as well.

these are my thoughts... now I leave it to everyone else to tear it apart.

-Shy

 

[Dax]

Originally I thought you were referring to bringing in a "defensive stats" element to the alliances page, but then noticed this to not be the case.
DEFENSIVE STATS ON ALLIANCE PAGES PLZ.

On point though; I don't like this, because routes like Bunkers ALREADY possess a defensive advantage, at the cost of offensive abilities. I think if you want to be better in defence, go Bunkers, and play a correct ratio; But it won't be the most fun in the world.
Defence advantages already exist that will suffice as they are; Anyone attacking you with the same units that you possess, yours will always go first.

 

[Polo]

Here is the thought... I am not sure how much programming it would take, but i think that it would greatly enhance the game.

I would like to see different stats for defending troops vs. attacking troops. I know that the troops already have the HP/HD, AR/AD, but it would be a neat to see a twist to that... such as attacking troops lose 3 armor when attacking X troop type, or X troop gains 300% armor or health when defending (not when attacking). something to offset the "you got wiped and I took no losses" concept.

This would only work if there was a significantly reduced amount of units in the game. It's a good idea though.

 

[Iamsmart]

I concur with Polo.

 

[Dax]

Here is the thought... I am not sure how much programming it would take, but i think that it would greatly enhance the game.

I would like to see different stats for defending troops vs. attacking troops. I know that the troops already have the HP/HD, AR/AD, but it would be a neat to see a twist to that... such as attacking troops lose 3 armor when attacking X troop type, or X troop gains 300% armor or health when defending (not when attacking). something to offset the "you got wiped and I took no losses" concept.

This would only work if there was a significantly reduced amount of units in the game. It's a good idea though.

You made a better relevant point to me. Win.

 

[willymchilybily]

obviously it goes against the grain of the current situatuion and people naturally can oppose change just because they dont like the concept without any real reasoning, so if some one just tries to shout this idea down it could be for that reason. But i do think some routes are more suited to allie play than others,

for example a sorc route is not impossible to kill, but for many routes that can kill it their are far easier targets, so in some respects above and beyond bunker route some routes are naturally harder to play offensively but gain defensive benefits.

and now bounty is spread only to the ddishonourable the harder to kill/land routes are less targeted by the general bushtarion populus and already yields this defensive aspect. I'd be worried to reprogramme the general current concept of the game and add a further defensive layer of complexity that could have 3 negative impacts:

• 1). It could allow further solo play to gain an edge, when it is arguably allied play that gives the most entertainment value to the majority of the player base, and the biggest feeling of community to the game, allowing solo play to be easier and more of a cop out option could cause fewer alliances and hurt the game.
  
  
• 2) the added level of complexity could alienate new and inexperienced players, and as mentioned is only really viable by removing the choice of routes available, else getting a balance would be very difficult.
  
  
• 3) a balance would be hard to allow it to have an affect in the world of a solo without making allie wars almost stale due to it being a case of getting bigger as quickly as possible, not fighting it out, as defencive route bonuses used in combination could be far to hard to over come.
  

for me personally if routes were to be given a further layer of programming to encorperate increased defensive capabilities id rather the capabilites be based on an attackers relative size not in general,

as if not it could further hamper peoples attempts to be honourable, and could even make the ability to play honourably redundant, this in affect not only adds complexity to the routes but to all size related game mechanics such as bounty gains and h/f and probably others i cannot think of at present.

in affect such an overhaul would be an almost complete game redesign, as far as i can see.

 

[Shyslywolf]

I'd be worried to reprogramme the general current concept of the game and add a further defensive layer of complexity that could have 3 negative impacts:

• 1). It could allow further solo play to gain an edge, when it is arguably allied play that gives the most entertainment value to the majority of the player base, and the biggest feeling of community to the game, allowing solo play to be easier and more of a cop out option could cause fewer alliances and hurt the game.
  
  
• 2) the added level of complexity could alienate new and inexperienced players, and as mentioned is only really viable by removing the choice of routes available, else getting a balance would be very difficult.
  
  
• 3) a balance would be hard to allow it to have an affect in the world of a solo without making allie wars almost stale due to it being a case of getting bigger as quickly as possible, not fighting it out, as defencive route bonuses used in combination could be far to hard to over come.
  

QUOTE]

I agree with part of what you are saying, and disagree with a bigger part of what you are saying...

Alliance play is actually the smaller portion of the game... Right now... there are 1071 players that play Bush... of that ONLY 262 people are allied... that leaves 809 solo players... even if you figure only the active players (which is 639 online in the last week), it still means that the solo players are the larger portion of the active players. That said, for some reason the alliance members always still seem to get the top 40-100 spots... (if i get a top 100 in any round as a solo player then I am extatic (Because I am a solo player).

The disadvantage of being solo is that you do not have 19 other people attacking and defending with you. a solo player (which is the majority of us players) has no way of making the top 40-100 people by the end of the game because the top alliances WILL at some point be able to get through the AR and take us out one at a time... this alone should be a good reason to add additional defence to people being attacked (it will make it harder for the alliances to just grab the top ranks and perhaps let some solo players have chance at the top). The last time that a solo player made the top without being allied was a solo player with Bunkers. He got it done... Then an alliance group decided to make an alliance of pure bunkers... thus the abuse of the route which caused us to come out with "bunker Busters" go figure...

I do not understand why you would support benefitting a minority group of allied people who already recieve the benefit of a 20 to 1 advantage over every other person playing the game. There are another 809 other people who would like to be able to have a fighting chance at the top ranks. We are not asking for a special "solo bonus"... just a bigger defence bonus "for everyone", so that people cannot be wacked in the first hit of an attack. Make it so that everyone has to work to take someone out. It used to be like that and it was a lot more fun.

 

[Dax]

Alliance play is actually the smaller portion of the game... Right now... there are 1071 players that play Bush... of that ONLY 262 people are allied... that leaves 809 solo players... even if you figure only the active players (which is 639 online in the last week), it still means that the solo players are the larger portion of the active players. That said, for some reason the alliance members always still seem to get the top 40-100 spots... (if i get a top 100 in any round as a solo player then I am extatic (Because I am a solo player).

The disadvantage of being solo is that you do not have 19 other people attacking and defending with you. a solo player (which is the majority of us players) has no way of making the top 40-100 people by the end of the game because the top alliances WILL at some point be able to get through the AR and take us out one at a time... this alone should be a good reason to add additional defence to people being attacked (it will make it harder for the alliances to just grab the top ranks and perhaps let some solo players have chance at the top). The last time that a solo player made the top without being allied was a solo player with Bunkers. He got it done... Then an alliance group decided to make an alliance of pure bunkers... thus the abuse of the route which caused us to come out with "bunker Busters" go figure...

I do not understand why you would support benefitting a minority group of allied people who already recieve the benefit of a 20 to 1 advantage over every other person playing the game. There are another 809 other people who would like to be able to have a fighting chance at the top ranks. We are not asking for a special "solo bonus"... just a bigger defence bonus "for everyone", so that people cannot be wacked in the first hit of an attack. Make it so that everyone has to work to take someone out. It used to be like that and it was a lot more fun.

Azzer has even has said that he would prefer players to use alliance play within the game {hence the removal of Psolo and insurance upgrades}, as it adds to the enjoyment of the game, and gets people socialising, and new people cycled into alliance play all the time.
Some people can only play solo; Which is fair enough, but please remember, the very active majority play in alliances. Even the group of people who were solo, formed an alliance in the end, because IMO, it just wasn't working for them as soon as the triggering AR hole was plugged.
AR is the solo's advantage, as well as having two people to add ON TOP of that to even your odds against any attacker.
A well organised solo trio can fend off pretty much any attacker that can get through without triggering AR.

 

[Ahead]

Even the group of people who were solo, formed an alliance in the end, because IMO, it just wasn't working for them as soon as the triggering AR hole was plugged.

Lol. Or was it because the rank 1 alliance was absolutely **** so they had a ridiculously easy chance to win? Oh no sorry, it was cos it "wasn't working for them", you're right.

 

[willymchilybily]

Even the group of people who were solo, formed an alliance in the end, because IMO, it just wasn't working for them as soon as the triggering AR hole was plugged.

Lol. Or was it because the rank 1 alliance was absolutely **** so they had a ridiculously easy chance to win? Oh no sorry, it was cos it "wasn't working for them", you're right.

if i understood it right, rank 1 alliancs, then solo band, then rank 2 alliance. once rank 2 alliance is bashed out of range or is too active to take you have only a solo band, if they keep intentionally triggering on eachother so that you can never land them isnt this in affect a power block?? as they can grow to the same size if not bigger than those above, but not risk being killed by intentionally triggering...isolating a segment of the players within the game by abusing a game mechanic

this:
anyway all nonsense aside, what ever benefit (defeinsively or otherwise) is given out to the comunity the alliances can reap the benefits and do so more effectively than a solo. So any definsive boost would in affect just make it harder to kill alliances. and if it was a solo only perk it would encourage more of what azzer, and anyone that can understand the benefits of allied play properly, doesnt want for the game.


also
649 IDs have been active in this world in the last week.
487 IDs have been active in this world in the last 24 hours.
if you take out the 50 or so visible and invisible bots

we have 500 regular commited interested players at most.so now that 25% allied with 1000 id's is more like 50% allied out of the active comunity its half the player base. just a thought before you consider the data you are manipulating to suit your argument so hastily and unscientifically.

 

[Cheese]

Alliance play is actually the smaller portion of the game... Right now... there are 1071 players that play Bush... of that ONLY 262 people are allied... that leaves 809 solo players... even if you figure only the active players (which is 639 online in the last week), it still means that the solo players are the larger portion of the active players. That said, for some reason the alliance members always still seem to get the top 40-100 spots... (if i get a top 100 in any round as a solo player then I am extatic (Because I am a solo player).

The disadvantage of being solo is that you do not have 19 other people attacking and defending with you. a solo player (which is the majority of us players) has no way of making the top 40-100 people by the end of the game because the top alliances WILL at some point be able to get through the AR and take us out one at a time... this alone should be a good reason to add additional defence to people being attacked (it will make it harder for the alliances to just grab the top ranks and perhaps let some solo players have chance at the top). The last time that a solo player made the top without being allied was a solo player with Bunkers. He got it done... Then an alliance group decided to make an alliance of pure bunkers... thus the abuse of the route which caused us to come out with "bunker Busters" go figure...

I do not understand why you would support benefitting a minority group of allied people who already recieve the benefit of a 20 to 1 advantage over every other person playing the game. There are another 809 other people who would like to be able to have a fighting chance at the top ranks. We are not asking for a special "solo bonus"... just a bigger defence bonus "for everyone", so that people cannot be wacked in the first hit of an attack. Make it so that everyone has to work to take someone out. It used to be like that and it was a lot more fun.

Azzer has even has said that he would prefer players to use alliance play within the game {hence the removal of Psolo and insurance upgrades}, as it adds to the enjoyment of the game, and gets people socialising, and new people cycled into alliance play all the time.
Some people can only play solo; Which is fair enough, but please remember, the very active majority play in alliances. Even the group of people who were solo, formed an alliance in the end, because IMO, it just wasn't working for them as soon as the triggering AR hole was plugged.
AR is the solo's advantage, as well as having two people to add ON TOP of that to even your odds against any attacker.
A well organised solo trio can fend off pretty much any attacker that can get through without triggering AR.

DaX why do you make so many stupid statements every day?
The solos were kicking arse without triggering, we held a hell of alot of the top 50 ranks, I was the highest solo for weeks (excluding when zhouj left his ally) I'll be honest it was too damn easy... the top alliance at the time had no idea how to kill or even land on a solo it was a complete laugh. The reason we formed an alliance is because we saw an opportunity and look where we are now
AR hole was not plugged it was just made mildly inconvinient.

 

[Dax]

Alliance play is actually the smaller portion of the game... Right now... there are 1071 players that play Bush... of that ONLY 262 people are allied... that leaves 809 solo players... even if you figure only the active players (which is 639 online in the last week), it still means that the solo players are the larger portion of the active players. That said, for some reason the alliance members always still seem to get the top 40-100 spots... (if i get a top 100 in any round as a solo player then I am extatic (Because I am a solo player).

The disadvantage of being solo is that you do not have 19 other people attacking and defending with you. a solo player (which is the majority of us players) has no way of making the top 40-100 people by the end of the game because the top alliances WILL at some point be able to get through the AR and take us out one at a time... this alone should be a good reason to add additional defence to people being attacked (it will make it harder for the alliances to just grab the top ranks and perhaps let some solo players have chance at the top). The last time that a solo player made the top without being allied was a solo player with Bunkers. He got it done... Then an alliance group decided to make an alliance of pure bunkers... thus the abuse of the route which caused us to come out with "bunker Busters" go figure...

I do not understand why you would support benefitting a minority group of allied people who already recieve the benefit of a 20 to 1 advantage over every other person playing the game. There are another 809 other people who would like to be able to have a fighting chance at the top ranks. We are not asking for a special "solo bonus"... just a bigger defence bonus "for everyone", so that people cannot be wacked in the first hit of an attack. Make it so that everyone has to work to take someone out. It used to be like that and it was a lot more fun.

Azzer has even has said that he would prefer players to use alliance play within the game {hence the removal of Psolo and insurance upgrades}, as it adds to the enjoyment of the game, and gets people socialising, and new people cycled into alliance play all the time.
Some people can only play solo; Which is fair enough, but please remember, the very active majority play in alliances. Even the group of people who were solo, formed an alliance in the end, because IMO, it just wasn't working for them as soon as the triggering AR hole was plugged.
AR is the solo's advantage, as well as having two people to add ON TOP of that to even your odds against any attacker.
A well organised solo trio can fend off pretty much any attacker that can get through without triggering AR.

DaX why do you make so many stupid statements every day?
The solos were kicking arse without triggering, we held a hell of alot of the top 50 ranks, I was the highest solo for weeks (excluding when zhouj left his ally) I'll be honest it was too damn easy... the top alliance at the time had no idea how to kill or even land on a solo it was a complete laugh. The reason we formed an alliance is because we saw an opportunity and look where we are now
AR hole was not plugged it was just made mildly inconvinient.

It appears to be a totally stupid statement, that alot of people agree with - Except the people doing it. It's only stupid, if you lot disagree with it. The only reason you see it as 'mildly inconvenient' is because you can no longer do it without punishment. But it is also strangely ironic that a day or two after the change kicks in, along comes AR Mod, and mysteriously, alot of their members were the most prolific of those triggering one another.
Your best bet was to just not comment on this one, Cheese.
So where is your relevant post to the topic? Because my post was definately on-topic.

 

[Ahead]

It appears to be a totally stupid statement, that alot of people agree with - Except the people doing it. It's only stupid, if you lot disagree with it. The only reason you see it as 'mildly inconvenient' is because you can no longer do it without punishment. But it is also strangely ironic that a day or two after the change kicks in, along comes AR Mod, and mysteriously, alot of their members were the most prolific of those triggering one another.
Your best bet was to just not comment on this one, Cheese.
So where is your relevant post to the topic? Because my post was definately on-topic.

Haha!! It was more like a week after the change that AR mod was formed, and I think you'll find that it was formed due to the Omgpop split rather than due to any AR changes. Maybe you should stop commenting without thinking about what you're posting Dax. Also, Cheese has every right to post in a thread when you make ridiculous statements.
Read my earlier post again. I'm pretty sure AR mod was formed because after a group of (some uncontactable) people left Omgpop to form Res, they had to recruit half an alliance worth of external players, who were of a lower rank, and - from what I can see - lower skill and activity level. As soon as this happened, it made sense to make an alliance to exploit how weak the then current rank 1 alliance was, and from it AR Mod obviously gained an incredibly easy round win.

The AR change has had very little effect this round, and I very much doubt it will have a huge impact on any future rounds either. The biggest problem this round has been a lack of any vaguely decent alliances and leaders to play ftw, not triggering on solos or anything of that sort.

 

[Dax]

It appears to be a totally stupid statement, that alot of people agree with - Except the people doing it. It's only stupid, if you lot disagree with it. The only reason you see it as 'mildly inconvenient' is because you can no longer do it without punishment. But it is also strangely ironic that a day or two after the change kicks in, along comes AR Mod, and mysteriously, alot of their members were the most prolific of those triggering one another.
Your best bet was to just not comment on this one, Cheese.
So where is your relevant post to the topic? Because my post was definately on-topic.

Haha!! It was more like a week after the change that AR mod was formed, and I think you'll find that it was formed due to the Omgpop split rather than due to any AR changes. Maybe you should stop commenting without thinking about what you're posting Dax. Also, Cheese has every right to post in a thread when you make ridiculous statements.
Read my earlier post again. I'm pretty sure AR mod was formed because after a group of (some uncontactable) people left Omgpop to form Res, they had to recruit half an alliance worth of external players, who were of a lower rank, and - from what I can see - lower skill and activity level. As soon as this happened, it made sense to make an alliance to exploit how weak the then current rank 1 alliance was, and from it AR Mod obviously gained an incredibly easy round win.

The AR change has had very little effect this round, and I very much doubt it will have a huge impact on any future rounds either. The biggest problem this round has been a lack of any vaguely decent alliances and leaders to play ftw, not triggering on solos or anything of that sort.

But note, that it wasn't a prod at anyone in particular. I was pointing out facts - A few days after the change, an alliance of ex-solos appear, you both react in a negative way to my stating of the clearly obvious? You've both just implicated yourselves, in a form.
I don't name and shame, I think that's negative to the community, but if a Bush-wide referendum was held on account of who thinks your solo group was behaving in a manner that was against the EULA, then you'd find alot of people in agreement with me. It's the truth, like it or not.
I don't dislike anybody in this game, but I do dislike a few player's penchant to take any and every opportunity to flame another player.
No topic relevant post for you either Ahead? Didn't think so.

 

[Twigley]

How AR Mod was formed and the reasonings were not really discussed much when it happened as we were just focussing on kicking ass.

RANDOM BABBLE ALERT:
Basically i came up with the idea of making an ally with all the top solos as the solos held like some of the top 20 and nearly all of rank 20-40. And i was also getting a little bored of how easy solo play was. I was also, as i think others in the group were, frustrated to see such little fight from rank 2 downwards. I asked a few people if they would join if i made one.

The initial aim was just to have fun, bash everyone below us, keep out of range of the top 7 players and our activity (we were the most active alliance at that point even with 4/5 restarts and 16 members) meant that we could play as a rank 2 ally pretty easy.

We were looking at trying to upset the top 20 rankings by getting as many people into it as possible.

Then Omgpop split and we formed quick as we saw an oppurtunity to possibly win the round with the help of the remaining omgpop and CNUT.

Due to their lack of co-operation we decided to simply forget the idea of winning and go back to the original plan.
Then when i was told some of res wanted to leave and join us, i knew there was a massive chance to win the round and we just ended up destroying everyone around us.
END OF RANDOM BABBLE

I told numerous people that AR Mod didn't care where it came.
If we won we won.
If we didnt, we improved our position before.
We had nothing to lose and everything to gain so there is no pressure on the ally.
Ended up that we prolly have the best group all round.

 

[Iamsmart]

I only read your post, the initial post and cheese's post, but I have no idea how either of them were even close to relevant

but that's besides the point, what this post was supposed to point out:

Rofl @ Cheese

 

[Twigley]

Yeah i just saw some talk on what happened through the round and people making judgement on what our ally was about so i thought id share the facts /me shrugs

I said it was random babble!

 

[Iamsmart]

probably good to post it somewhere in the forums though, although I'm not sure suggestions was the best place.

 

[Twigley]

sorry dad.

 

[Iamsmart]

I get it, because of your signature.

LOLOLOLOL.