Lets try this

[rooibaard]

Hi Guys

I have read alot of posts, and all of them are moaning about the members dropping blah blah blah.

I have however a suggestion, maybe it works maybe it does not. But anyway, here follows my can of beans.

I have played bush a few times, and last was round 32. Must admit that three things pissed me of.
1) people spying and jumping alliance.
2) Alliances getting waved and people jumping ship.
3) Being picked on by clearly beter and bigger alliances.

Therefore maybe we can get aliances working better, by having people being chucked into random allainces according to their experience in the game. Maybe they should fill in a form, where you answer how active you will be, will you buy ultimate unit, wnat solo or alliance ect. And then by a not so random setup you get put in an alliance. And you can not leave this alliance ever?

What do you think?


Regards

Gerhard

alliance.

 

[Dax]

It's been done, and it didn't work well at all (fun CTF round a few months back) - People that created an ID then disappeared were placed with people who wanted to go for top rank.
This point has been discussed so many times now, and the simple reply is: It will never work.
You can't make players do something they don't want to, because that takes their enjoyment from the game. And that's as unfair to them as you complaining that they bash you as the game currently stands.
If you're bothered about bashing, go active and join a competent alliance. Better defence = Less bashing.

 

[Iamsmart]

the CTF world wasn't random and it was 1-2 years back, it was just locked alliances after 3-5 days.

Random alliances won't work anymore. It should have been that way from the start (I know some/maybe most don't agree on that). People are too spoiled now to do any sort of random alliances, people dislike each other too much and it would cause a lot of people to quit both from the aspect they refuse to play with people not putting in their effort/people they don't like, and unless a very good system was thought of it would probably mean the removal of solo's. And the game really can't afford a(nother) dramatic decrease in players.

If it had been that way from the start (in my opinion) the rounds would, overall, be more competitive and therefore more fun. Some people might not like the aspect of playing with people putting less effort than them, or the random factor that your alliance could get a bit unlucky with random players, but if it was that way from the beginning they'd be used to it. Could have even had some sort of a draft system where you could maybe pick a core of 5 players and then the other 15 were random, etc. Meh. Sometimes it saddens me the potential things this game could have had

Not much to discuss though really, it's not viable anymore.

 

[Illumination]

I still think it would work, on a smaller scale. Keep alliances at 20, you enter with 15 chosen members (friends, strong players, etc) and 5 voids are left. Fill those with players who want to be placed in an alliance. Then, create rules for how those spots work (how/if they can leave the alliance, be kicked, replaced, etc..)

 

[Iamsmart]

I'd love to see you come up with a workable viable plan. But I doubt you can.

 

[Alcibiades]

I'd love to see you come up with a workable viable plan. But I doubt you can.

Indeed. It'll be impossible to make everyone happy, and that'll leave us with either many players leaving, or such a large number of compromises that the point of the random alliance will be rendered moot.

 

[tobapopalos]

I agree. It would be great if it could be made to work, but I sincerely doubt anybody could...kind of like Communism.

Personally I loved Martin's idea of an alliance mash-up he made a few rounds ago, and it received quite a lot of public approval, but unfortunately it petered out and nothing came of it. As it stands, far too many people only want to play with their friends, and they usually want to know who they are going to be playing with before the round starts. So with random alliances I'm sure they would be sceptical of their future alliance mates and would probably either quit or go solo.

 

[Zaheen]

rooibaard, those are the things that anger me also, but there is nothing you can do about any of them.

Even IF alliances were locked, you'd get people spying in there then simply deleting/restarting. In love and war people do awful and nasty things just to win and benefit from. Even if it means hurting everybody else in the process.

The only way to prevent this is by taking them all out, clean out, bashing them off completely until they are far far out of range, in doing so would give you a nasty Bounty and somebody would do it back to you.

But that has become a difficult task these days because most of them have mobile phones strapped to their backsides and just flee.

...or go solo.

Nothing wrong with that.

 

[tobapopalos]

...or go solo.

Nothing wrong with that.

Indeed not. Some of my favourite rounds have been solo/pure solo, but I know there are a lot of people who hate it and would just quit rather than play solo.

 

[Alcibiades]

...or go solo.

Nothing wrong with that.

Indeed not. Some of my favourite rounds have been solo/pure solo, but I know there are a lot of people who hate it and would just quit rather than play solo.

But a game filled with solo players does not make for an interesting round; imo.

 

[tobapopalos]

...or go solo.

Nothing wrong with that.

Indeed not. Some of my favourite rounds have been solo/pure solo, but I know there are a lot of people who hate it and would just quit rather than play solo.

But a game filled with solo players does not make for an interesting round; imo.

I know. That's why I already said it wouldn't work. Learn to read, stoopid monkey

 

[Alcibiades]

My comment was more to Zaheen. I already know precisely what you meant toby, clones, remember?