Suicidal / Score Drop

[Zaheen]

Originally Posted by antisback

I still don't see the need for it, the only people it helps are people in the top 3/4 or the top ally who've already completely bashed everyone away.

What about the 100's of other players who may want to suicide some score to kill somebody? And do not want to rely on rushing somebody massive, and also players with OCD (like me) who want to suicide crappy Generic units without having to send them 20 times just to die. You're only looking at it from one perspective, and that's being in the top 5.

I understand what you are saying, but like I said this wasn't meant for abuse - it is meant for bored players and players who want to have more targets.

Likewise, I could use it now and get some more Bounty targets. Does that sound reasonable?

I just don't want to have to run my troops into some Bunkers / an alliance / top alliance because I'm going to create a right mess and scare some people, and also I may lose H/F sending it to the Bunkers repeatedly, that and I don't want to give anybody loads of H/F each time I want to suicide! As it is now, I have no honourable targets other than allied players, there might be 1-2 floating around but it will look really dodgy if I keep sending my troops to them. I'm sure you can imagine what people might think if I did that today.

Originally Posted by antisback

Bash r2 ally into oblivion, 5 or so players can then leave, hit sleep mode as they're leaving, they've already agreed it with their own ally so they're not going to tell people who's just left, once sleep mode is over, they've got ar, they send to this suicide ID, and rejoin just after. Hey presto, you're free to continue hitting the ally who's only respite would've come from dropping out of range.

This is what gamers would do, torment personal enemies until they beg for mercy. There is major potential here for the alliance you're speaking of to get rushed and taken down by other alliances watching, don't rule them out so easily. Resistances will be easily formed if the top alliance was down to 10-15 players as opposed to 20.

Does this not sound like great entertainment with the potential of a great tactical roller-coaster round?

Nobody should have to be stuck up with no targets and only a delete option. I have deleted Rank 1 Solo bunkers before when I Tractor flaked the living daylights out of EVERYONE around me, up to 45k+ land. Nobody attacked me for a week, and I told everyone if I'm not killed within a week I will delete out of boredom. What do you think happened? Somebody decided to copy me and send 200M Tractors at me and take one set of land, but they didn't come back for more, but me losing a little land didn't really phase me at all.

I think a solo player would get the short end of the stick in an alliance v solo trade off anyway, but you haven't mentioned that once in your post.

[Alcibiades]

If you're stuck at rank 1 with loads of troops and no targets, that's your own damn fault and the "cost" of winning. Happened to me when we round the last round or w/e. I just kept buying dogs, but not really doing a lot. Sure I was bored, but it let me get on with the real world and have the satisfaction of having won. As for then disabling it for rank 1, then you remove the purpose. Anyone under rank 1 has a target they can suicide on, and if you make everyone have to be solo to use it, it removes the value for allied players.

I don't particularly like this idea, (as it stands, or as I understand it) it is just a different angle on the 5 minute tick round where there was *too* much action. An increase in action means a higher need for contactability, which means a higher burnout rate. I don't like the idea of being able to torment your opponents mercilessly. That is a really horrible way to play (and be played) in this game. The one redeeming feature about being zeroed pre injuries/insurance was that once you were dead, you STAYED dead until you were ready to resume your playstyle at a high rank. This would simply drive more people out of the game because they could be targetted right down to zero. Could you imagine POMs being repeat attacked by Sorcs/Bikers until they were out of the game? Sounds like a shitload of no fun at all. Resounding NO from me.

You have proposed a fair number of good ideas recently Zaheen, however, I don't think this is one of them. Sorry.

[jamesNchina]

Originally Posted by antisback

r2 can just sell seeds and donate to stay out of range, or suicide on some ally/solo player, the only people it benefits are the ones stupid enough to keep planting when their targets start to dry up

I'm pretty sure this comment was directed at me and given the 'stupid' adjective included I feel it necessary to defend my actions.
a) I planted up intentionally for the following reasons;
1) at the time there were still many inc. rushes during Euro nights.
2) Euro nights are my primary responsibility for defending my ally mates, it has been this way since I began playing Bush... somewhat the bain of my time zone.
3) As is also true most every round there often several hours where I am the only one online.
4) Being a team player and going all in to defend an offline member has always been a personal top priority for me. That feeling was/is even stronger in me as the leader.
5) I felt that many of these people being rushed in the middle of the night earned the benefit of being able to sleep the night through without being pranked online to send away and more so not being pranked on to send defense. Most on the alliance spent many sleepless nights early on in round for us to obtain rank-1.
6) after all the hacks I would think it was noticed that I hired up and massed only the low eta and fragile units of my route. However as fragile as they are it was extremely effective in my original intent as many of the rushes even when sent in waves with fakes were turned away BR free.
7) for 2 days straight I planted and donated to HQ (we could suicide all of HQ troops 2-3 times over no problem ) to try and get just one FNG member in range for an attack. But I guess your maths skills are even better as you all did the same and stayed at 29%

[jamesNchina]

on the original post my opinion is IDK. I never played on an alliance that ended up being rank 1 or even relatively close and after this round I never would again even if I were to continue playing Bush.
I think that the opinions voiced both for and against are very valid.
However to address the comment made about it giving rank-1 players the ability to suicide and bash rank-2. Um how is that any different than rank-2 suiciding on a solo bunker and then continuing to bash rank-3 or rank-4. Oh wait you guys never do that LOL. Maybe the real answer is a method to stop bashing lower and provide more incentive to attack up!! Hence removing the need for rank-1 to be bored because of successfully playing the first half of round and having to essentially stop playing the remainder of the round.
On another note, Zaheen could you just leave the issue lie? Krikey my sterling reputation has already been burned to the ground could you please quit giving these sore losers more ammo to kick a dog when he's down. Thanks
I vote no

[LuckySports]

Originally Posted by jamesNchina

I'm pretty sure this comment was directed at me and given the 'stupid' adjective included I feel it necessary to defend my actions.

It wasn't directed at you. You weren't the first one to do this.

[Max]

You could argue that the sole cause of cheating from members in TTB this round is a lack of targets.

So Lucky is absolutely right in that James wasn't the first, and I really do think this idea would reduce cheating (and potentially make it easier for rank 2 to resist? although at the cost of more inc from rank 1!)

['Tiger']

Originally Posted by LuckySports

It wasn't directed at you. You weren't the first one to do this.

But it was still fun to read the reasons

[Zaheen]

Originally Posted by Alcibiades

If you're stuck at rank 1 with loads of troops and no targets, that's your own damn fault and the "cost" of winning. Happened to me when we round the last round or w/e. I just kept buying dogs, but not really doing a lot. Sure I was bored, but it let me get on with the real world and have the satisfaction of having won. As for then disabling it for rank 1, then you remove the purpose. Anyone under rank 1 has a target they can suicide on, and if you make everyone have to be solo to use it, it removes the value for allied players.

I don't particularly like this idea, (as it stands, or as I understand it) it is just a different angle on the 5 minute tick round where there was *too* much action. An increase in action means a higher need for contactability, which means a higher burnout rate. I don't like the idea of being able to torment your opponents mercilessly. That is a really horrible way to play (and be played) in this game. The one redeeming feature about being zeroed pre injuries/insurance was that once you were dead, you STAYED dead until you were ready to resume your playstyle at a high rank. This would simply drive more people out of the game because they could be targetted right down to zero. Could you imagine POMs being repeat attacked by Sorcs/Bikers until they were out of the game? Sounds like a shitload of no fun at all. Resounding NO from me.

You have proposed a fair number of good ideas recently Zaheen, however, I don't think this is one of them. Sorry.

Even though this was my suggestion, I have always had this view. Also without trying to sound like a suck up this is the best argument I have read and justifies the resounding NO, however...the whole principle and purpose was a deterrent for cheaters and cheating, and any form of mutual attacking.

You know this is going to only increase with no active Admin around right?

With that said, because of the way you thought this through and the detail you have read my post I cannot reply with a better reason than to agree with you on the basis that it is their fault in the first place.

I've burned myself out in 5 minute PWs and I've even burned myself out in W1 with 10 minutes so I can fully understand this, but please understand it was to prevent any sort of cheating, non-mutual or otherwise. I won't defend the suggestion any more.

Thanks to everyone who gave proper constructive arguments, and to Lucky who votes yes because he's probably been in that position himself. I bet that's down to you guys being contactable (and for the first time in a long time, I really don't want to start the argument about that all over again).

Well I'm all burned out of suggestions for now, and I would like to apologise to James as well because my suggestions are just highlighting his recent actions and I hope he's not seen in a bad way any more because he really is a great guy.

Caio.

[SWAT]

Kind of going off of this idea, spin it like this:

everyone has the ability to donate non-lethals/basics to the ally troops as 'base fla'k that has extremely high init eta so they arent worth sending for flaking purposes, but they can be killed off by base attacks. That way the ally doesn't lose value but the players can rid themselves of non-lethals/basics. And, it eliminates the ability for abuse and people cheating but keeps the value in the game for potential damage if someone has the balls to attack a top 5 ally base.

just a thought.

[SWAT]

Originally Posted by jamesNchina

on the original post my opinion is IDK. I never played on an alliance that ended up being rank 1 or even relatively close and after this round I never would again even if I were to continue playing Bush.
I think that the opinions voiced both for and against are very valid.
However to address the comment made about it giving rank-1 players the ability to suicide and bash rank-2. Um how is that any different than rank-2 suiciding on a solo bunker and then continuing to bash rank-3 or rank-4. Oh wait you guys never do that LOL. Maybe the real answer is a method to stop bashing lower and provide more incentive to attack up!! Hence removing the need for rank-1 to be bored because of successfully playing the first half of round and having to essentially stop playing the remainder of the round.
On another note, Zaheen could you just leave the issue lie? Krikey my sterling reputation has already been burned to the ground could you please quit giving these sore losers more ammo to kick a dog when he's down. Thanks
I vote no

I agree completely. I believe I posted in our threads, 'how is this different than suiciding to score drop for easy land'. There is no way to stop actions like this as it is a basic game strategy at this point in the rounds. However, being ranked so high you don't have targets to suicide to, so it doesn't leave many options.

[timtadams]

If rank 1 keeps bashing 2, will this not slow growth of 2? And hence allow lower alliances to catch up? And if This was so, then would it not be easier to create resistance, due to rank 1 slowing themselves, allowing other alliances to catch them?

Or maybe rank 2 will bash lower lower alliances more. Or maybe they wont because they suffer too much damage from rank 1 and are not big enough to bash the next few alliances.

Or maybe rank 2 could score drop themselves to stay out of range. And so the difference between ranks 1 and 2 and lower ranks becomes smaller, increasing the competitiveness of the game.

In otherwords "rank 1 bash rank 2 more" is all speculative.

I like the idea and would like to see it trialed. Seriously, if the game wants to keep moving, it needs to innovate itself.

I would suggest just make it ID 1. Imagine someone sending to attack instead of defend and hitting sleepmode. The results would be... hilarious.

[willymchilybily]

I like the idea a little. But would never use it. I suicide to get insurance, and reset up my route differently as im generally bored. Hitting id x gives no insurance and i would therefore not use it. It would still appear i am cheating if i suicided on a briber. But as i tend to suicide in a manner where i lose a big br i rarelY hitt bribers if suiciding. So meh. Not good not bad, but i dont think you can claim some one attacking an id other than x to suicide is cheating.

As for rank 1 suiciding would make no difference. They have the option to donate all. It only comes into play if they can lose troops and gain targets after they have bashed rank 2 out of range. Simple solution is you can only attack id x once a week. Done.eventually they would get so fat that they wouldnt be able to fight rank 2 due to losing troop advantage. And gives rank 2 a week to sit on troops. Often the probelm is rank two members get fat and have no troops theselves. If they grew slowly it would not be a problem. It only changes the dynamic a little. And if they really wanted rank 2 could suicide and let rank 3 take r2 and take the heat for a while

[Zaheen]

Originally Posted by willymchilybily

I like the idea a little. But would never use it. I suicide to get insurance, and reset up my route differently as im generally bored. Hitting id x gives no insurance and i would therefore not use it. It would still appear i am cheating if i suicided on a briber. But as i tend to suicide in a manner where i lose a big br i rarelY hitt bribers if suiciding. So meh. Not good not bad, but i dont think you can claim some one attacking an id other than x to suicide is cheating.

As for rank 1 suiciding would make no difference. They have the option to donate all. It only comes into play if they can lose troops and gain targets after they have bashed rank 2 out of range. Simple solution is you can only attack id x once a week. Done.eventually they would get so fat that they wouldnt be able to fight rank 2 due to losing troop advantage. And gives rank 2 a week to sit on troops. Often the probelm is rank two members get fat and have no troops theselves. If they grew slowly it would not be a problem. It only changes the dynamic a little. And if they really wanted rank 2 could suicide and let rank 3 take r2 and take the heat for a while

I guess a very high ranked solo could replace this suggestion.

Thread can be closed now, it was to reduce mutual attacks and cheating, and also to increase fun for others who accidentally got too big.

If people want to shoot down or abuse the suggestion, making it sound and seem worthless that is fine, but that was never intended when I posted this, that is all.