my 2 cents

No-Dachi

Official Helper
Joined
Dec 15, 2007
Messages
975
Location
Oslo, Norway
I know that Travian uses a similiar system as you suggest. I havn't put any thoughts into the benefits of your idea yet, but the first thing that pops into my mind is that it will be pretty damn hard to ever kill someone, if you line up your alliance with good day/night cover. Your alliance will also usually never have a weak time. But I'm not totally opposed to it.
 

Melnibone

Head Gardener
Joined
Jan 11, 2008
Messages
380
I'm for some form of troop sharing. Allow each player to nominate another player in a similar way to the nap system.

These players then have access to each others troops for defensive purposes only. You've immediately made ftw gameplay far more feasible for those who can't get online 24 hours a day, and effectively cut activity requirements in half.

Admittedly this would kinda nullify LET rushes.

Sorry for my N00bness,its been a long time since i played but if expanded on and implemented properly i think it could be a very positive move i'll discuss the reasons why i think it could be beneficial and you can either agree or flame mercilessly

1) Firstly it decreases activity needed to be successful, if it could be done for 12 out of the available 24 hours in every day that would STILL require insane activity imo yet allow every player to play competitively, play well and still get a sleep......how many people play more than 12 hours a day lol?

2) it increases co-operation with other players, i see this as a major selling point of the idea as it would help develop 'cores' as people will be more likely to play together with someone they know that will manage their account sensibly and well.

3)it partially removes the current need to post your mobile number as you will never need to wake up in the middle of the night

4)if it could only be activated for 12 hours (much like sleep only the acct was playable by the other player possibly by receipt of a link to click sent by mail?) this i feel would remove the possibility of the obvious abuses to any system like this

some of the negatives ive seen not only on this posting of the suggestion but the many times its been suggested previously......

'it makes you unkillable' - it doesnt, it makes you harder to kill, at the moment if your active, contactable and your allly mates can text you to get online and to send out you already have the same protection this feature offers, what it does is make it also available to someone that plays 12 hours a day.... does anyone seriously suggest to be succesful at a game you should have to put in more than half your life for 3 months??? i hope not i say this would increase competition as more people could commit to the levels required to compete for the top

'it nullifies let rushes' - how does it? again if that person is contactable at the moment you are ruining someones sleep/leisure time/work assignment not killing their troops,with this suggestion both the players involved need to be contactable/online for a full 12 hours LET rushes will still be possible they'll just be harder and make it a much more level playing field for everyone.

I am not saying implement this idea i am saying its something id at least like to see some opinions on and discussions about as i think a refined version of the original idea could be a good thing to help make it more about skill and activity up to 12 hrs a day (still a helluva lot) rather than skill and 24 hour activity as thats all it'd change
 

Ahead

Head Gardener
Joined
Dec 15, 2007
Messages
275
The 5 minute tick round was more fun than 10 minute tick rounds. Made it easier to rebuild if you did get LET rushed.
 

Ahead

Head Gardener
Joined
Dec 15, 2007
Messages
275
The 5 minute tick round was more fun than 10 minute tick rounds. Made it easier to rebuild if you did get LET rushed.

This is so right. The entire round was hilarious.

Indeed. The only excuse people came up with against it was that it burnt them out. The most easily solveable problem ever - don't play so hardcore if you're a pansy and getting burnt out!
 

Zaheen

BANNED
Joined
Feb 20, 2009
Messages
802
Location
The Clouds
Indeed. The only excuse people came up with against it was that it burnt them out. The most easily solveable problem ever - don't play so hardcore if you're a pansy and getting burnt out!
I played a 3 day PW (5 minute ticks) and that burnt me out, but yeah the lesson is not to play so hardcore...

And the sooner them emos who play that way get burnt out, the better! I have wanted 5 minute ticks since Round 8, but always flamed for saying it.

Big sad face for missing that round now.

-----

What's fun about it is, it's so easy to forget it's 5 minutes and you end up missing ticks, having to fix mistakes etc.

Jeep rushes are much more fun XD
 

CFalcon

Official Helper
Joined
Dec 14, 2007
Messages
680
Location
Kent UK
Melni, you're looking at the problem the wrong way round. If over-the top activity is what you think is ruining the game, then don't simply deal with that problem by making an artificial way for everyone to be hugely active.

I think we can all agree that if you put more time in you should do better than someone who puts less time in. Otherwise people won't play at all. So the activity problem is not about competition. The problem is *having* to be available near 24/7 if you don't want to wind up with no troops or land left when you wake up, not having to be active to be competitive.

At the same time, if we simply make it so there's an auto-send out system (which is effectively what you're suggesting), or if there's more advanced sleep mode, or whatever, then we're not doing the game any favours. Do you really want to have to wait weeks and weeks to get a single battle report, because every time you attack somewhere you either get overwhelming defence or a send-out every single time?. The game would be dead in less than a month.

The solution, clearly, is to make systems that reduce the impact of being attacked while you're away without making it so you can't be attacked while you're away. The game needs *more* battles, not less, if it wants to attract and keep players. And battles can't happen regularly if either they're impossible to bring about, or if when they do happen one side loses everything. Got to aim for the middle ground, which neither your suggestion or the current situation achieve.
 

penguin

Official Helper
Joined
Nov 17, 2008
Messages
178
Location
Ohio, USA
There are a lot of reasons (I think) that is causing the player base to dwindle a bit. [You know, my opinion on random stuff. :p]

Spies - They aren't really killing the game, but they aren't helping much either. A lot of people hate spies, etc. blah blah blah, but they aren't taking hundreds of players' interest away from this game. It's a cheap tactics for alliances who don't want to wait until their intel rushers get spy.

Powerblocking - while it's unfair, it's probably only a small portion of the player base going down. It's also frowned upon by Azzer as far as I know. Also, it's basically 40 people against x amount of other alliances with a possible 20 people. Yeah, it may be like rank one and rank three alliances, but still, it is a tactic that should die. If you need a powerblock to keep your rank, you probably don't have enough activity, or you're paranoid as hell. Also, there aren't enough people to be in enough alliances for powerblocks to be fun and entertaining.

Bottom Feeding - Yes, you've probably done it. My very first round (that was probably my favorite round, next to R35 :p) I got a crap-ton of mails saying I sucked and that I was too noobish and blah blah blah bunch of crap talking. I brought maybe 10 people to the game that round, fresh 100% new blood; however, the constant bashing from alliances 4 ranks + above the alliance I ran AND the war with TNG and the people in the alliance getting FLOODED with information about the game, only one person out of the 11 noobs in that alliance stayed. No, not everyone has left because of the type of messages that I typed about above, but it's the constant 'you're a retard' type comments to new players that makes some people actually leave, and I have talked to a few of the people who were going to leave. Some through IRC, others through in-game, but this is one of the common reasons. Seriously, you were new to the game once upon a time too, were you rank 1 in the WHOLE game that very first round? Didn't think so.

Alliance Attack targets - I have been in hounds last round, and we had 'remember the name' constantly waving us. We were four ranks BELOW them when our leader officially declared war on them, we managed to take them down a couple ranks and someone wiping out one of their top three to drop them below our score and ult. preventing them from portalling. I understand if rank 5 wants rank 4's spot and attacks them, or attacks rank 6 to hold their rank 5 spot (cause they are like a billion below the score of taking rank 5), but when rank 5 has a 10 billion score lead on rank 8, they shouldn't 'farm' them for their land to gain ranks, not only does it make rank 8's members mad, it shows alliance weakness. I have been to the point where I wanted to quit because of alliances attacking 4 or 5 ranked alliances lower than them.

Oober Activity - I don't think this is a major factor in people leaving, although I read somewhere someone was quitting because rank 1 alliance already wins in the first 7 days. While 16 hours a day and full contactability may be FTW alliance requirements, I say let them have their rank 1 and boredom because they have no targets, all the brs and fights are in the lower ranked alliances. Let them have their glory while the people in the lower ranks have more targets and more attacks/defense going out. Granted rank 2/3/4 are attacking each other if they are close in ranks, but there's more fun in ranks 5-10 when there are full alliances.

But it's quite pathetic [IMO] that people don't have a life to play bushtarion and win within the first week of the round and continue with the no life (stereotype anyone?) when they already have a win. You don't need to have just a bushtarion life to do well in this game and I proved that in R35. I was in DW and I portalled, DW finished rank 5 and I actually had a life outside of bushtarion.

If the community held back the temptation to tell newer players that they are moronic because they made a 'n00b' move and keep the nasty comments nice until the other person knows them, I think more people would stick around rather than quitting before they play one round.

Yes, the player base will have a 'wave' effect within bushtarion, but which game doesn't have that type of player base? People get sick of games all the time, stop playing, and after a few months, years or whatever, they go back to playing it. Granted we don't have two pages of full alliances again, but just give it time.

The game isn't really hard to learn, it takes time because of all the different aspects of the game. If people are willing to stick around for more than a couple of rounds, they will learn more and more of the game.

But my mind and thoughts went blank.
Thanks willy for making this thread :p Just wanted to add my two cents too :)
 

Melnibone

Head Gardener
Joined
Jan 11, 2008
Messages
380
Melni, you're looking at the problem the wrong way round. If over-the top activity is what you think is ruining the game, then don't simply deal with that problem by making an artificial way for everyone to be hugely active.

I think we can all agree that if you put more time in you should do better than someone who puts less time in. Otherwise people won't play at all. So the activity problem is not about competition. The problem is *having* to be available near 24/7 if you don't want to wind up with no troops or land left when you wake up, not having to be active to be competitive.

At the same time, if we simply make it so there's an auto-send out system (which is effectively what you're suggesting), or if there's more advanced sleep mode, or whatever, then we're not doing the game any favours. Do you really want to have to wait weeks and weeks to get a single battle report, because every time you attack somewhere you either get overwhelming defence or a send-out every single time?. The game would be dead in less than a month.

The solution, clearly, is to make systems that reduce the impact of being attacked while you're away without making it so you can't be attacked while you're away. The game needs *more* battles, not less, if it wants to attract and keep players. And battles can't happen regularly if either they're impossible to bring about, or if when they do happen one side loses everything. Got to aim for the middle ground, which neither your suggestion or the current situation achieve.

I feel you may have misread my post my interpretation of the idea would need 12 hour activity from 2 well co-ordinated players to make it 'hard' to land on them this is what i feel would be the ideal cap on time needed to be successful after all if more people can play at the top level wont it make the game more open?

You want more battles id say having more full alliances of players WITH troops (because 24 hr activity/contactability wont be needed to stay alive) will facilitate more battles when i play i play to attack which i cant do without 24hr contactability as id frequently wake up with no troops, as someone that has fought at all levels of the game the same as yourself if people run all the time you get land which is always my aim in alliance v alliance wars killing troops usually wipes someone out of range allowing them to sit fat allowing them to replace losses quickly.

I appreciate the points you make CF and tbh if i thought a skilled player playing 12 hours a day wasnt enough dedication to earn a win instead of the current 24hr or 24hr contactability id be inclined to agree with you more but until 12 hrs or less is all thats required to play well and win the game will be the playground of a very small elite few which is bad for competition and bad for Azzers business...............
 

tobapopalos

Hydroponics Developer
Joined
Dec 14, 2007
Messages
2,759
Location
Manchester
Powerblocking - while it's unfair, it's probably only a small portion of the player base going down. It's also frowned upon by Azzer as far as I know. Also, it's basically 40 people against x amount of other alliances with a possible 20 people. Yeah, it may be like rank one and rank three alliances, but still, it is a tactic that should die. If you need a powerblock to keep your rank, you probably don't have enough activity, or you're paranoid as hell. Also, there aren't enough people to be in enough alliances for powerblocks to be fun and entertaining.

Powerblocking has happened once since round 18 and measures were brought in to make sure it didn't happen again. It isn't a problem anymore.
 

CFalcon

Official Helper
Joined
Dec 14, 2007
Messages
680
Location
Kent UK
The game needs *more* battles, not less, if it wants to attract and keep players. And battles can't happen regularly if either they're impossible to bring about, or if when they do happen one side loses everything. Got to aim for the middle ground, which neither your suggestion or the current situation achieve.

I feel you may have misread my post my interpretation of the idea would need 12 hour activity from 2 well co-ordinated players to make it 'hard' to land on them this is what i feel would be the ideal cap on time needed to be successful after all if more people can play at the top level wont it make the game more open?

You want more battles id say having more full alliances of players WITH troops (because 24 hr activity/contactability wont be needed to stay alive) will facilitate more battles when i play i play to attack which i cant do without 24hr contactability as id frequently wake up with no troops, as someone that has fought at all levels of the game the same as yourself if people run all the time you get land which is always my aim in alliance v alliance wars killing troops usually wipes someone out of range allowing them to sit fat allowing them to replace losses quickly.

I appreciate the points you make CF and tbh if i thought a skilled player playing 12 hours a day wasnt enough dedication to earn a win instead of the current 24hr or 24hr contactability id be inclined to agree with you more but until 12 hrs or less is all thats required to play well and win the game will be the playground of a very small elite few which is bad for competition and bad for Azzers business...............

Gah, we're so close to agreeing, and yet so far....

I agree with the bit in bold, but I *disagree* that the way to make sure people have troops to play with is to stop battles ever happening. The thing to do is to reduce the consequences of those battles.
 

penguin

Official Helper
Joined
Nov 17, 2008
Messages
178
Location
Ohio, USA
Powerblocking has happened once since round 18 and measures were brought in to make sure it didn't happen again. It isn't a problem anymore.

Eh. I've seen something like a powerblock, but it was more of an agreement not to attack each other. I wouldn't know for sure since I really don't pay attention to top ranked alliances.
 

willymchilybily

Landscape Designer
Joined
Dec 14, 2007
Messages
1,418
Location
uk
melnibone.
im more concerend with the intricacies. for example what if you want to play for 8 hours but its spread over more than 12 hours.

i want to play from 8gmt -12gm. i then work in a pub for 3 hrs. and send eta 8 to id 1. then com back and play till 00GMT. then i hand over my id to my friend. he nurses it for 12 hrs... but i want to play it again at 8GMT

also can he attack with it??
(assume no.. be annoying if they suicided you, and unfair if they got you land 24/7)

can he defend with it???
(assume yess if he has to send out to id 1, but may wish to only send some hippy/yobs to someone else to last tick self )


if he can defend with it you just doubled the amount of defence you can get at an allaince's uncontactable time. all you need to do is pair tls with robo, rpg with sa striker with vamps poms with sorcs and you can always muster a good amount of defence and always have a counter route online. you have made it twice as easy 2 defend. but attacking and getting people on for an attack is still just as difficult.

maybe im not fully realising your idea. its fine to some extent. not sure i like he idea in principle. as it still means top ranks are safe 24/7 and lower ranks with only 4-6 hrs of game play *2 people, so are just as vunerable as ever with the more active people being invincible. also there is nothing to prevent people from still using phone numbers. so if your account nurse is able to use your troops for defence for those 12 hours and you are able to as well then you have double the chances of contacting one of you online if needs be.
 
Top