If I were to start bushtarion from scratch I would... - Page 2

Its not personal,its Bush · 14-04-2012, 12:18 AM

I would ensure all allys were balanced,eg players had skill levels and an ally could only have a certain amout of skilled and non skilled players.

Rather then the way it is today all the best players in two allys...Borrring.

LuckySports · 14-04-2012, 06:11 AM

Fully Random alliances would never work..

1. You cannot "meaasure" a person's ability to play. People excel in different areas. So balancing alliances just can't happen.

2. People put in different effort. Its not even about activity, Some people just put more effort into maintaining an alliance than others. When you have 2-3 people doing ALL the work, the will end up quitting.

3. Most people still sign up to play with friends. Take that option away from them and you will lose another rather large portion of the playerbase. Removing solo would have a similar, though likely lesser effect.

The only way random alliances could "sort of" work would be to allow a "core" to form, and then arrange the various "cores" randomly to try to create a semi-random selection of folks. You are still probably going to kill the game off, but slower than making it completely random.

flameharvester · 14-04-2012, 06:50 AM

If any of you have played utopia- the format for random alliances there is the only way it would ever work.

Its not personal,its Bush · 14-04-2012, 10:11 AM

It could be measured by lots of things,activity,amount of rounds exp,amount of portals etc.

Like take this round for example,all ready over which is so sad-why?Because the 20 best players are in one ally.

tobapopalos · 14-04-2012, 11:01 AM

If who I was allied with was controlled by the server, and the ability to go solo was removed, I would definitely quit. Random alliances just would not work, and solo is such a great way to play when you can't, or don't want to, commit to an alliance.

Take away the freedom to choose how we want to play, and where, and I guarantee the remaining playerbase will dissolve overnight.

CFalcon · 14-04-2012, 12:13 PM

If the game had been random alliances from the very start, back in Age 1, then it could have worked. People would have accepted that that's how it is and the people who liked that system would have stuck around.

But we're at a stage now where the vast majority of people are only still here to play with friends and because they, to a certain extent, like the current setup.

Alcibiades · 14-04-2012, 02:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tobapopalos

If who I was allied with was controlled by the server, and the ability to go solo was removed, I would definitely quit. Random alliances just would not work, and solo is such a great way to play when you can't, or don't want to, commit to an alliance.

Take away the freedom to choose how we want to play, and where, and I guarantee the remaining playerbase will dissolve overnight.

This. We tried random alliances in a PW iirc, and it was an unmitigated disaster.

Iamsmart · 14-04-2012, 03:30 PM

Can you guys not read?

a) the thread says 'if I can start Bushtarion from scratch'
b) I already posted it would have had to be done from the start, and it is nowhere near possible to do now
c) ty CF for thinking
d) LuckyFool, I can't say any of your points have any logic behind them. You don't need guaranteed 100% balanced random alliances, it'd be a hell of a lot more balanced and competitive than it is now. Currently the game is balanced around the idea 'oh, an alliance is winning, herp derp we all need to team up and kill them' which is just stupid (but necessary because of how poorly the game was designed in that sense).

tobapopalos · 14-04-2012, 04:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iamsmart

Can you guys not read?

I can read. I didn't read anything of yours. I was not even talking to you, so you can go play in traffic.

Iamsmart · 14-04-2012, 04:23 PM

you're being dumb

Garrett2 · 15-04-2012, 12:23 AM

to start from scratch would entail banning every last one of you in search of a better and brighter future.

that's what i'd do.

LuckySports · 15-04-2012, 02:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flameharvester

If any of you have played utopia- the format for random alliances there is the only way it would ever work.

I've played Utopia..

It works there because it is a VASTLY different game. You can login once a day and do really well, You don't lose ALL your troops to a single attack..

And even then, most of the Top kingdoms aren't quite as random as you think.. I was in one of them a long time ago.. They will have someone defect until they land in the kingdom, or convince the new guy to give up his spot for their own player. (Gives out his login details, their player will play from a proxy so it looks like the same person) It has been ages since I've played that game though.

All attacks take place instantly, but takes time for your troops to come back from it. You KNOW the numbers associated with your troops so you can calculate with 100% certainty that you will win a fight if you have all the intel. Its such a different game that, whilst I understand where you could make the comparison, it still fails to justify it.

This is probably going to haunt me for the rest of my life, but.. I agree with Toby (Gasp!) If you removed my ability to play with my friends, I would almost certainly quit. I'm sure many others would, so you WOULD end up starting completely from scratch, including a new player-base.

Garrett2 · 16-04-2012, 06:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by No-Dachi

Regarding the AHQ: Sordes made a brilliant suggestion regarding them that could form the basis of the new AHQ system.

my HQ idea was better and less convoluded.

willymchilybily · 16-04-2012, 08:31 PM

i have an hq system ive been musing over for some time now. Ill post when i cba but that would be part of my main change, more useful hq.

id agree random alliances wud be fine if it had always been random. the culture in bush is different and i think it would lead to more loss in player base initially, but who knows overall new players feeling more welcome and being part of something could help keep players and get more players.

theres also a ton of good suggestions in the suggestion thread, Id probably start there and pick out the best ones.

Polo · 16-04-2012, 08:45 PM

Unlimited ally sizes. Or, no allies but you can defend whoever you want.

14-04-2012, 12:18 AM	#16
Its not personal,its Bush Harvester Join Date: Apr 2012 Posts: 141	I would ensure all allys were balanced,eg players had skill levels and an ally could only have a certain amout of skilled and non skilled players. Rather then the way it is today all the best players in two allys...Borrring. __________________ I remember when your name had to have OF in. R6 solo,R7 Virustwo,R8 HeartOfAngels,R9 Stargazers,R41 Bribemania,R42 solo,R43 Solo/AnQ,R44 solo ragequit,R45 Solo

14-04-2012, 06:11 AM	#17
LuckySports Landscape Designer Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Nonya Posts: 1,217	Fully Random alliances would never work.. 1. You cannot "meaasure" a person's ability to play. People excel in different areas. So balancing alliances just can't happen. 2. People put in different effort. Its not even about activity, Some people just put more effort into maintaining an alliance than others. When you have 2-3 people doing ALL the work, the will end up quitting. 3. Most people still sign up to play with friends. Take that option away from them and you will lose another rather large portion of the playerbase. Removing solo would have a similar, though likely lesser effect. The only way random alliances could "sort of" work would be to allow a "core" to form, and then arrange the various "cores" randomly to try to create a semi-random selection of folks. You are still probably going to kill the game off, but slower than making it completely random. __________________ Retired.. more or less

14-04-2012, 06:50 AM	#18
flameharvester Head Gardener Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 461	If any of you have played utopia- the format for random alliances there is the only way it would ever work. __________________ R42: Flamey Returns - Co-Leader of RSF with recon and shaggy. R43: The World By storm - Fashionably Late R44: 3 Toed left foot of an irish rabbit - Leader of Lucky Charms. R45: hidden horror of the american dream - Flying Ninja Giraffes The obsession Begins! "<DaX\|HL>: Because I've been told 'oh Flamey this' 'oh Flamey that' for about 3 weeks now" Icyyy - "I Want to have flameys gay babys" <Elle> Flamey is the man

14-04-2012, 10:11 AM	#19
Its not personal,its Bush Harvester Join Date: Apr 2012 Posts: 141	It could be measured by lots of things,activity,amount of rounds exp,amount of portals etc. Like take this round for example,all ready over which is so sad-why?Because the 20 best players are in one ally. __________________ I remember when your name had to have OF in. R6 solo,R7 Virustwo,R8 HeartOfAngels,R9 Stargazers,R41 Bribemania,R42 solo,R43 Solo/AnQ,R44 solo ragequit,R45 Solo

14-04-2012, 11:01 AM	#20
tobapopalos Hydroponics Developer Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Manchester Posts: 2,632	If who I was allied with was controlled by the server, and the ability to go solo was removed, I would definitely quit. Random alliances just would not work, and solo is such a great way to play when you can't, or don't want to, commit to an alliance. Take away the freedom to choose how we want to play, and where, and I guarantee the remaining playerbase will dissolve overnight. __________________

14-04-2012, 12:13 PM	#21
CFalcon Official Helper Tree Surgeon Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Kent UK Posts: 674	If the game had been random alliances from the very start, back in Age 1, then it could have worked. People would have accepted that that's how it is and the people who liked that system would have stuck around. But we're at a stage now where the vast majority of people are only still here to play with friends and because they, to a certain extent, like the current setup. __________________ Moose-Samurai-Sadomasochism-Judgement-Tsunami-Leftovers-TheGovernment-Spiderpig-AverageJoes-Redemption-Salacious-KHaoS-Inimical-Chance-Enmity-KHaoS-NOMW-dRage Quit-Kleptomaniacs -Al'Tuin-TBA-PW-HeartCollectors Lords of The North/Le Loup des Mers of Imperieuse/General Craufurd of the Light Division/The 95th Rifles/Darkshine/The Old Man of the Mountains/MK Ultra/Jarl Ragnar/Wyrd bid ful araed/Ultima Ratio Regum/Winter Is Coming/Forth Eorlingas/Now for Wrath. Now For Ruin

14-04-2012, 03:30 PM	#23
Iamsmart Landscape Designer Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 1,626	Can you guys not read? a) the thread says 'if I can start Bushtarion from scratch' b) I already posted it would have had to be done from the start, and it is nowhere near possible to do now c) ty CF for thinking d) LuckyFool, I can't say any of your points have any logic behind them. You don't need guaranteed 100% balanced random alliances, it'd be a hell of a lot more balanced and competitive than it is now. Currently the game is balanced around the idea 'oh, an alliance is winning, herp derp we all need to team up and kill them' which is just stupid (but necessary because of how poorly the game was designed in that sense).

14-04-2012, 04:23 PM	#25
Iamsmart Landscape Designer Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 1,626	you're being dumb

15-04-2012, 12:23 AM	#26
Garrett2 Landscape Designer Join Date: Jan 2012 Posts: 1,661	to start from scratch would entail banning every last one of you in search of a better and brighter future. that's what i'd do.