• 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.

Improving Bushtarion End-Game

Dark_Angel

Landscape Designer
Super Moderator
Community Operator
Joined
Jan 11, 2008
Messages
1,978
Location
UK
[Edit] This suggestion is for future rounds - in which powerblocks may or may not exist (IMO the end-game experience is the same regardless)

Pre-suggestion info: For those of you unfamiliar with the Bushtarion "end-game" concept it is basically the point you reach when you've no targets in range and nothing to do but wait for new targets (this can take days, in some cases weeks). The only gameplay you experience is sending defence however incomings tend to be few and far between in an alliance that has predominantly "end-game" members.


  • Just out of interest, is anyone able to think of possible solutions for the, somewhat placid, end-game experience Bushtarion has to offer?

Something I have thought on briefly is the possibility of a/a number of Bot(s). I'm not talking small/moderate size bots, I'm talking a HUGE bot(s) that require a sizable amount of effort to land on/kill. I've not thought too much about the details of this proposal, this suggestion is more a request for suggestions really, but my idea goes something like...

After a certain number of progression-based criteria have been met, the game introduces a new bot(s) into the game.


This bot would have a huge number of staff and a relatively large amount of land. The point of having the bot would be to provide end-game players with something to do. Killing the bot wouldn't be easy, and might take days - even weeks to do.
The bot(s) could be given enhanced funds to help it regenerate land/troops more quickly, thus making killing it harder.
The bot(s) would not simply be a land-cow for end-game players, but rather a real challenge for those willing to try and kill it.
I think, generally, it shouldn't be financially viable to steal land from the bot(s). The emphasis would be more on fun than stealing low-cost land.
Rewards for killing "the bot" (i.e a flag on your public profile, etc)
In short, I'm talking about something vaguely similar to ID 1 in havoc - whereby everyone masses ID 1 to "kill Azzer".

Jussssst a thought.
 
Last edited:

Martin

Garden Designer
Super Moderator
Community Operator
Joined
Dec 14, 2007
Messages
970
Location
England
Don't sNAP?
Delete safelists?

Sorry mate, I like you are a person but you're setting yourself up for some serious abuse by posting that.....

If you don't want to win, then delete when you're bored and restart. I've done it, others have done it. Depends if you value portal, if you value portal you won't want another 'challenge'.
 

CLem

Head Gardener
Joined
Dec 15, 2007
Messages
415
Sorry mate, I like you are a person but you're setting yourself up for some serious abuse by posting that.....

I can't agree more, this actually made me chuckle when I saw the thread. I like the concept, but only when ALL possible targets are gone. And by that I mean no-one outside your alliance is in your range, so if I were Azzer, I would never implement it this round ;)
 

Dark_Angel

Landscape Designer
Super Moderator
Community Operator
Joined
Jan 11, 2008
Messages
1,978
Location
UK
Don't sNAP?
Delete safelists?

Sorry mate, I like you are a person but you're setting yourself up for some serious abuse by posting that.....

If you don't want to win, then delete when you're bored and restart. I've done it, others have done it. Depends if you value portal, if you value portal you won't want another 'challenge'.

Lol, when arent I getting abuse :p?

I see what you're saying Martin, but tbh if people can't read this post as its intended, from an objective point of view, then thats very much their problem.

And as for the proposal of just restarting if you get bored, I saw that response coming too. It is horribly backwards to me :S

Who plays a progression-based game to get to the very end and restart? Specifically MMOGs, you don't level your character to level 70, say "yeah this is nice" then delete and restart restart. Blizzard adds more content so those players have an experience those lower down do not. Indeed I wonder whether World of Warcraft, for example, would have as many subscribers as it does if it didn't allow multiple characters? If you had to stick with the same character for the foreseeable future, with literally nothing to do.

Whilst Bushtarion is not the same, the principle is.

[edit]

Oh and just to clarify, can people not reply to this suggestion with anything to do with this round/TBA in their post.

People using every opportunity, however small, to have a go at TBA - is getting a bit old tbh.

This suggestion has nothing to do with powerblocks, the end-game scenerio is as much of a problem in a round where powerblocks do not exist.
 

Martin

Garden Designer
Super Moderator
Community Operator
Joined
Dec 14, 2007
Messages
970
Location
England
Don't sNAP?
Delete safelists?

Sorry mate, I like you are a person but you're setting yourself up for some serious abuse by posting that.....

If you don't want to win, then delete when you're bored and restart. I've done it, others have done it. Depends if you value portal, if you value portal you won't want another 'challenge'.

Lol, when arent I getting abuse :p?

If people can't read this post as its intended, from an objective point of view, then thats very much their problem.

And as for the proposal of just restarting if you get bored, I saw that response coming too. It is horribly backwards.

Who plays a game to get to the very end and restart? Specifically MMOGs, you don't level your character to level 70, say "yeah this is nice" then restart. Blizzard adds more content so those players have an experience those lower down do not.

Whilst Bushtarion is not the same, the principle is.


btw, just for the record I am aware my post(s) here haven't been 'constructive'.

All I will say in answer to your question is; those who play a game or have fun would do it. If you don't play a game to get the most fun out of it....

Anyway, you get my perspective on it, I'm not going to be petty enough to spam your suggestion. :)
 

Alcibiades

Plant Geneticist
Joined
Dec 13, 2007
Messages
4,267
Location
Canada
I've always found that it was a nice revenge on players who pulled away. While i might be persuaded that 'punishing the winners' by leaving them with an empty few weeks of the round might be unfair, I doubt it and frankly i'm not too concerned. As far as I'm concerned, it's the price of winning. You can always delete if you don't like it ;) True, then you might lose your ranking, but i'm sure with your ally to help you you could get it back whilst having more fun.

i don't think 'adding game content' is the right way to go. Your comparison between WoW and Bushtarion, while valiant, is incorrect. The main (fatal) flaw is that Bushtarion has rounds whereas WoW just keeps going and going so it *has* to add new content. Bushtarion is reset every few months and so it appears that you're essentially griping about the length of the round, in which case the obvious solution would be to shorten the round, not to add another layer of overly complex, unnecessary 'bots'.
 

DarkSider

Tree Surgeon
Joined
Dec 14, 2007
Messages
796
I actually thought about a pw mod close to this suggestion when the pw mods got introduced first time - the entire pw would be in the same side working together against one or more bots .. a cooperative pw :p

However about your suggestion - Usually it would only help the top say 5 max 8 players as the other 12-15 members in top alliance usually have at least one target so i'm not sure about the importance to fill their boredom :p
I don't think it's a bad idea but probably they need to be all bunkers with alot of troops and not too large amounts of acres :p
If they had over 20k acres and played any other route it would be too easy to get killed once their AR goes down and most likely they wouldn't make it in range of top 5 anyway :D After all we want players to focus more on killing eachother instead giving more farms so they can just play the outgrowing game all round long.
 

No-Dachi

Official Helper
Joined
Dec 15, 2007
Messages
975
Location
Oslo, Norway
If this was implemented, why would any blocks ever want to split up?

The problem this game has is attracting new players, not entertaining the top 60 (whom will be here next round anyway, regardless of how boring it is for them the last two weeks).
 

Garrett

Landscape Designer
Joined
Dec 14, 2007
Messages
1,872
i think effort would be better spent creating a viable resistance system. which also isn't needed. make being in an alliance worth it by having a better HQ and HQ/War system and maybe the top won't be so bored.

at least with a resistance system the top should always be challenged. this suggestion boarders on the inane, imo, because it would be pandering to a very small group of people and not really a benefit for the game as a whole.
 

Dark_Angel

Landscape Designer
Super Moderator
Community Operator
Joined
Jan 11, 2008
Messages
1,978
Location
UK
i think effort would be better spent creating a viable resistance system. which also isn't needed. make being in an alliance worth it by having a better HQ and HQ/War system and maybe the top won't be so bored.

at least with a resistance system the top should always be challenged. this suggestion boarders on the inane, imo, because it would be pandering to a very small group of people and not really a benefit for the game as a whole.

Indeed that would be two birds with one stone.

I'd agree with that.
 

CLem

Head Gardener
Joined
Dec 15, 2007
Messages
415
imo Bush doesn't need a resistance system, the resistance had worked perfectly in previous rounds. if a knee jerk reaction prompts a resistance system it will just be a punishment for the top alliance that put in the effort and would require even more dedication to win. This round is an exception imo.
 

Polo

Garden Designer
Super Moderator
Joined
Dec 14, 2007
Messages
1,005
Reduced round length.
Non-exponential land score.
Unit/tech modifications so teching lasts say half the round rather than 2 weeks and early units are a lot more useful.
 

Max

Garden Designer
Joined
Dec 14, 2007
Messages
1,015
Location
London
How about a PW?

Then you can focus your efforts elsewhere, giving yourself the opportunity to win more user profile points and donating to the game to help Azzer.

If you're high enough that there are no more challenges in W1, there are plenty to be had in a PW :D
 

pinpower

Landscape Designer
Super Moderator
Joined
Dec 20, 2007
Messages
2,136
Location
Bournemouth
Ive always liked the idea of pretty high ranked bots being introduced near the end of the round that will not only act as possible targets for a rank 1 alliance but will also work together attacking the rank 1 alliance (would have to be balanced ofc) in a way that would actually require some effort to defend (so to stop them being able to go inactive and sail their way to a massive win). Basically like a mini resistance led by bots (which at this later stage in the round could boost the chances of a real resistance which is good).

Im talking last few weeks of the round though, when any sort of "resistance" attempt is worthy of help.

It would have to work both ways though, not just as a way to make things harder for the highly ranked but also give them something to do. Some of the counter arguments so far have had some truth but any element of a game that punishes those that succeed cant REALLY be a good thing can it?
x
 

Hobbezak

Garden Designer
Joined
Dec 14, 2007
Messages
894
Location
Antwerp, Belgium
I've always found that it was a nice revenge on players who pulled away. While i might be persuaded that 'punishing the winners' by leaving them with an empty few weeks of the round might be unfair, I doubt it and frankly i'm not too concerned. As far as I'm concerned, it's the price of winning. You can always delete if you don't like it ;) True, then you might lose your ranking, but i'm sure with your ally to help you you could get it back whilst having more fun.

Not just the price of winning, but also the price of overpowering everyone who comes in your range. To be honest, it can't be that hard to keep people in your range (donate your entire income to HQ for example?).
Take Ashes in r22 for example, they didn't have a major resistance against them, and still they had quite a few targets even late in the round. Simply because they didn't send half their alliance on the few people in their range (after they won that is :p). It's more fun for the lower alliances (they actually get incoming that is defendable, instead of the incoming where the total incoming mob represents more score than your entire alliance) and for the winning alliance.
So a big no against this suggestion.
 

BlackWolf

Landscape Designer
Joined
Dec 14, 2007
Messages
1,217
Location
Lappeenranta, Finland (Wolf territory)
Reduced round length.
Non-exponential land score.
Unit/tech modifications so teching lasts say half the round rather than 2 weeks and early units are a lot more useful.

Reduced round length doesnt really work = even more activity and connectivity needed + even more burnouts and more leaving after "giving their all". Shorter the rounds are more and more people must give to those rounds without minutes rest.

In other hand on past when round ended pretty fast but after that there were long "nothing to do" perioid actually even people make these kind of BS posts has proven to be what keeps people playing. Other option would be longer no game perioid between rounds, longer ticks etc.

Non-exponential landscore... After long thought I dont see it would change anything. Sad but true. It would only bring back same scorequeening we know but in other form. In form of alliance covered suicides to keep score low and to rape small people.

In other therms there must be some kind of 3rd option to do, like that granary idea. Which would FORCE top to spend their investments to score, instead of queening. Yet not allow possibility to have huge amount of land while no score... Without player getting "punished" of it.

Unit/Tech... This as first idea of yours would mean scrapping whole current base of bushtarion. As this game with its current structure cant hold this kind of suggestions. It would only end up to even more dominant routes which are so overpowered that no one would bother to play other routes. If you start to think current bushtarion situation is already almost unbearable, some routes when used in masses are already so overgood and then some have been bonus fixed that this game and its routes have turned from joke to something so sad you cant even laugh anymore.


Is players memory really this bad?
Azzer already did all of this not that long ago... Only like some past 10 rounds we have played game where insurances and injuries were so high that rounds lasted for whole round long. I reemmber how my alliance almost lost its victory on last hours of round due mass incs.

What happend? Instead of praicing Azzer everyone told how his system sucked and then pretty quietly insurances and injuries were removed.
 

BlackWolf

Landscape Designer
Joined
Dec 14, 2007
Messages
1,217
Location
Lappeenranta, Finland (Wolf territory)
Ohh I forgot to mention of reduced round length that it would also mean reducing P-unit price, and game cash prices. Or keeping P-unit&cash at same and some people will not buy it.

To my it is supporting Azzer to some it is like buying anything else and if you get it for only 2 weeks or so they dont think its worth of it.
 
Top