Possible minor changes - Consultation

[Dark_Angel]

As you may or may not know our admin, Azzer, is no longer involved in updating/developing Bushtarion.

Having spoken to him recently, though, he has agreed that if we can agree on a list of small/moderate changes it should be possible to implement these in the near future.

This thread has been opened to gauge opinion on what changes these might be.

You might want to consider discussing: (This list is not exhaustive!)

• Alliance member limits
• Round Length
• Balancing (Unit stats etc)

These are just a few things that could be changed fairly easily. Try to think of others - Bearing in mind that that these are the kind of things we're looking at, not huge changes that will require months of coding.

Note:

I'm not, by any means, suggesting that these changes will "save" the future of the game or massively overhaul gameplay. What they may do is help throw a bit of life into the game and potentially mix things up a bit.

Lets keep the discussion focused tightly on what might help. Anything off-topic will be removed. Also, respect the ideas and views of others.

I will monitor this thread and look at whether we have any ideas to take forward by [edit - Around the end of April]

[Edit] I'm aware one of our biggest problems atm is multis. This is being looked into by Azzer who is considering what ways they may best be dealt with.

 

[Garrett2]

Remove h/f, vamps and harriers.

15 man alliances.

Balancing only if willing to re-evaluate after tweaks.

 

[Dark_Angel]

Balancing only if willing to re-evaluate after tweaks.

Shouldn't be an issue. I'm hoping he'll be making a few changes over months rather than weeks. (Not continuously, just here and there) So re-evaluation of any balancing should be fine.

 

[antisback]

Remove rushing (everything has to be sent eta 5)
1 month rounds
10 man ally's (only while the player base is so small)
20 min ticks
have enough bots to round the player base number up to 1500 players and make bots better.


The biggest thing that killed the game was the fact you can leave for an hour come back and you'll be zeroed and a land train set-up losing sometimes as much as 3 months effort. Anything to reduce the intensity of the game would help.

 

[Garrett2]

1 month is too short. A fiver a month for a punit? More if you aren't using euros. Not that I buy them, but some folks aren't done tekking yet heh. (I am but I've seen others who are not)

 

[antisback]

Cut the cost of punits to 3 pound a round then, it's not like that's alot of money.

 

[Garrett2]

3 still too much. 2 or less and we're talking. cuz whatever you post - it's almost double for anyone else. it's a fiver for very little return. if people want to give away $5 so bad, i have an address where they can send this to me every 76 days (or every 30 should it change to 1 month). you would get almost the same value.

 

[edd]

I have heard that at 20,000 acres you start to produce less per acre beyond 20k. If this were made into something dynamic that started at maybe 5k and increased over the course of the round it would mean that smaller players and more importantly smaller alliances would fare a bit better, particularly in the early round.

I don't know anything about coding so i find myself unable to comprehend the difficulty of this task, if it is even sensible in the first place . Would it be a question of changing a couple of numbers around as you would in an excel sheet or would it take a long time?

 

[Chris'o]

10 man allys
more bots
make nutters better, maybe fire range and medium as well
make p-units free

 

[Max]

The round length is far too long as it is, I suggest we could go so far as actually halving the round to 6 weeks, with a reduction in P-Unit price to match - perhaps £3.

(Has nobody else noticed that actually the P-Unit price has remained constant and hasn't increased with inflation over the last 10 years?)

I'm really not convinced about the alliance size reduction. Sure you'd get more alliances, but the coverage would be awful and would mean that solos got a really easy ride. I think smaller alliances might actually force people to play more addictively and actively and with greater contactability, far from casual.

As for unit tweaks, my only suggestion would be to return the old nutter back to its former £3k glory!

I have heard that at 20,000 acres you start to produce less per acre beyond 20k.

I tested this a while back and it turns out to be an urban myth!

http://www.bushtarion.com/forums/showthread.php?t=6045&highlight=seed

 

[Dimitar]

game's beyond repair

either do a massive overhaul, or just let it run its natural course

[Removed by DA - Off-topic.]

 

[MattM]

more bots

I am inclined to agree with this.

I also agree with shortening the round length and cutting alliance size. We need to scale back and deal with the reality that there really aren't enough people right now- the mechanics were designed for a larger playerbase.

 

[Gazzy]

I have to say, this is the single best news the game has recieved for a LONG time. Even minor unit tweaks each round (which I believe takes minimal, if any, coding) would keep the game from complete stagnation.

Around the subject of alliance numbers:

Smaller alliances would make it harder for casual players to survive (something which is already VERY hard for them to do). Making alliance numbers smaller would make it far too easy to hit non-FTW alliances ... In turn this would lower the moral of casual players, eventually making more of them quit. Despite what some think, the game needs casual players as its majority base.

In a perfect game, the alliance size would be on a competitive based scale. However, this is impossible. And so I would suggest no changes made to the alliance size.

Round length:

I quite like the rounds being long enough for them to 'unfold' and develop. Yes, it sucks to see 1 alliance 'win' after 2 weeks ... but there is still a lot of action at the lower end and the rank 2 spot is going to be interesting.

As a concept I wouldn't be against a slight reduction ... as things can sometimes trail off a little at the end. But I wouldn't want to see them reduced past 2 months (a LOT happened in the final 3-4 weeks of last round).

On unit tweaks:

Shield Androids to only target ALL (as opposed to LET/ALL). They're not as good at being LET flak as they should be, but by changing them to target ALL they become slightly more useful sweepers in the early game, making them a more versatile unit.

I think Harriers need the small amount of health damage they do removing. It's that which makes them such a good rush unit. Without it they're still a good unit ... just less good at rushing on their own. Similarly, consider increasing the Apache ETA to 4 to match Strikers.*

The werewolf conversion ratio is really bad ... which is a shame as otherwise they would be a really fun, balanced unit. I've not looked at it too much but I suspect it's to do with combination of targeting LET/ALL and yet only converting 'Living.' I'm not in a position to suggest where the tweak should be, but it should be made.

On a similar note I think Zombie's should have their ETA reduced, as they are too slow to be useful. Possibly ETA 3 with a VAST reduction in health damage, or conversion rate (or a combination of both). Just a shame to see a very themed unit not in use.

* As a tactic, I'm not against rush's. Just with such a small player base it makes it difficult for casual players to survive (as previously discussed). If the player base ever grew to a reasonable size again, I would be all for retracting the changes proposed here.

Other tweaks:

Shorten the 72 ticks it takes for NAPs. Very minor I understand. But 72 is excessive. I think 2-3 hours would be sufficient to stop any abuse while allowing some degree of protection.

WKs and WWs to gain quite large bonuses when defending from a dishonourable attacker. Basically trying to provide an additional benefit to casual players while not nerfing competitive players. Also quite thematic.

The land cap for waves should be vastly and progressivley increased, to the point where it makes them almost pointless (after say the 3rd person ...). The key trigger should be number of people before and after, rather than (or opposed to) just the value of units there on that tick. Most people hate getting smashed, but being waved can be enough for players to throw the towel in. It would also largely curb the multi's key tactic.

- Gazzy.

 

[Nickk]

3 still too much. 2 or less and we're talking. cuz whatever you post - it's almost double for anyone else. it's a fiver for very little return. if people want to give away $5 so bad, i have an address where they can send this to me every 76 days (or every 30 should it change to 1 month). you would get almost the same value.

I agree with Garrett here.
P-unit should be free but I understand if this might not be possible. So the price should be cut down to £2>. There are a few reasons to this:
1) It is now clear that Azzer is not making any key updates to this game and that he has other priorities.
2) Many people who are playing now do not buy the p-unit and wait till the the last week of the round to get the p-unit for free. (a cut in price may encourage them to pay)
3) Because many don't get the p-unit now they are limited to a number of "legit" routes they can go, and therefore limiting the fun of this game.
4) The large number of cheaters in the game which are not dealt with, make (certainly me) skeptical into paying for a p-unit.

EDIT: also agree on changes on nutters, they are as useless as CDs atm

 

['Tiger']

I dont agree with the shortening of alliances. Sure it would make people become more active and so forth, but as others said, solos would get a more easy ride as they do now, and could possibly lower the moral of smaller alliances when more FTW alliances pick on them.

It wouldnt stop 20 people still coming together, setting up two 10-man alliances and going together, staying with the 20-man original set up of the game, just not in the same alliance. Multiple alliances would do this, and wouldnt be any different from the 20-man alliances.

The length of the round now, for me, is perfect. Its not too long as you have to get past the stages of round start, but then for lower alliances there are more times for enjoyment. And with the £5 charge for P-unit, it gives time to use your £5.

The unit tweeks:

Harriers: Make their ETA higher, to reduce all the n00bs using them to rush people with.
CG: Reduce their capabilties. At round start, they are REALLY hard to stop. Everyone rushes to get this route because they all know how easy it is to land with them. Either reduce their stats, or increase their cost.

 

[Spiky Spoon]

Other tweaks:

Shorten the 72 ticks it takes for NAPs. Very minor I understand. But 72 is excessive. I think 2-3 hours would be sufficient to stop any abuse while allowing some degree of protection.

Ahh. Good idea that one. Where did you get it from?

I like the idea of more bots, and giving them a wider variety of routes. I know it's probably random or something, but this round there seems to be only a few route choices.

i like the WW and WK idea too

 

[Chris'o]

Everyone is complaining about how the casual alliances are gonna get raped by FTW allys with half the alliance size. Now can you please explain to me how they are supposed to rape the sh#t out of FTF allys with only 10 players???

You people saying that dont realise that it will become dam hard for FTW allys to win...Hence making it more pleasurable and easier for FTF players. and to add to this resistances will be a LOT easier to pull off! packing the round with more excitement.

Also people that hate rushing units are p#ssies

 

[edd]

On unit tweaks:

Shield Androids to only target ALL (as opposed to LET/ALL). They're not as good at being LET flak as they should be, but by changing them to target ALL they become slightly more useful sweepers in the early game, making them a more versatile unit.

Targetting ALL increases the sweeping capability by a negligible amount because they are so poor in HD/AD as well as the fact that most people use hippies or w/e ALL flak when required.


Thanks max, i had seen that thread before but i had forgotten about it. It would be a good thing to put in i think but it would probably be hard to code from scratch.

 

[Dark_Angel]

Note - Any posts not either submitting a suggestion, or responding to the suggestions of others, will be removed. We have quite a task to get some suggestions on the table and hammer out some agreement - Anything not contributing to this end will be removed.

Some interesting suggestions so far - Please make sure that as well as submitting your own ideas that you comment on the input of others. (Constructively, where possible).

Taking the lead, discussion wise, so far:

Alliance sizes
Round length
More bots
Minor unit balancing changes

-

Also, from the last round of suggestions:


Minor changes (Cosmetic niceties/features) (Collated by Webvictim)

Give top 10/25/50 solos a rank on the portal - http://www.bushtarion.com/forums/showthread.php?t=4897

Add "Name does not contain" to search form - http://www.bushtarion.com/forums/showthread.php?t=3495

Make ID tooltips more universally available across the whole game - http://www.bushtarion.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1743

Add titles to ID history - http://www.bushtarion.com/forums/showthread.php?t=4432

Add an option to filter mails from Alliance HQs when browsing messages - http://www.bushtarion.com/forums/showthread.php?t=5745

Prevent users from messaging a user on their ignore list (with timeout) - http://www.bushtarion.com/forums/showthread.php?t=5704

Add confirmation before deleting threads in politics - http://www.bushtarion.com/forums/showthread.php?t=5699

 

[tobapopalos]

Making alliances smaller I do not agree with. There are so many reasons which I've pointed out in other threads that I can't be bothered doing it again. And I think these days those reasons are even more relevant.

Making the round shorter makes a lot of sense. How often have we sat here 40 days into the round thinking "christ I wish this was over already".