Creator's "Day" IRC Logs

Creators "Day" Logs
These are the logs of the creators "hour" (day). I have created an index for you, so you can jump to any point you want.
Simply hit ctrl + F and type in the number of the section you want to jump to, or click the link.
- Bobbin.
1.0.0: Front Page.
[ 15:06:12 ] * < Azzer >  is now going to make a start :)
[ 15:06:40 ] < Azzer >  First topic up for discussion is the Front Page. Atm I'm quite happy with it, but I worry it's too complex/not clear enough/not going to get people to want to sign up on the spot.
1.1.0: Front Page One-on-ones.
1.1.1: Splatter.
[ 15:08:57 ] < Azzer >  Splatter, the front page!
[ 15:09:20 ] < Splatter >  Hey :D Well I think it's fine, however - most games I play have a better way of showing how the game works
[ 15:09:36 ] < Splatter >  like with more screenshots. Having just checked the 'about bushtarion' section, IMO it seems a little lacking in that area :/
[ 15:09:51 ] < Azzer >  So from the front page, a quick few thumbnails right there on the main page perhaps?
[ 15:10:06 ] < Azzer >  That linked to a few screenshots, just to let people see quickly what the game was like before they signed up.
[ 15:10:22 ] < Splatter >  That would work I think :D I mean I think it helps when deciding to play a game to see what it looks like on the inside
[ 15:10:39 ] < Azzer >  Pictures speak a thousand words, or do you think there should be some description/text on the front page too?
[ 15:11:05 ] < Azzer >  I see some games with no description at all, just some pics. Some don't have anything, just a logo and a few links to signup/login now.
[ 15:11:14 ] < Splatter >  Maybe some small text? Sort of referencing hte portal a little more
[ 15:11:15 ] < Azzer >  Maybe that works, maybe that doesn't, I wouldn't know.
[ 15:11:34 ] < Azzer >  I agree the front page does need "something" doing anyway. Thanks for your input :)
1.1.2: Darksider.
[ 15:11:47 ] < DarkSider >  woo
[ 15:11:56 ] < Azzer >  Ok big-man, usually you talk about game mechanics, I'd love to hear you talk about visual design ;)
[ 15:12:44 ] < DarkSider >  I think The front page must be changed to take off some of that home made look, and get it a bit higher. That picture is not too bad but i think there should be something more eye catching.
[ 15:12:57 ] < Azzer >  More like a simple, slick logo type thing?
[ 15:13:21 ] < DarkSider >  Yeah, but something really nice that makes you want to get past the door and see what's inside.
[ 15:13:46 ] < Azzer >  I'll have to call for some graphic artist volunteers to donate some artwork after this, I agree I think I want a simple, slick logo, hard crisp lines and the like.
[ 15:13:51 ] < DarkSider >  Also i think we should rename the economy and remove the "seeds" and plants. Most of the new guys are put away of this terms and think it's too geeky like.
[ 15:14:13 ] < Azzer >  On the front page? Don't think seeds or plants are mentioned there.
[ 15:14:32 ] < Azzer >  But I'd certainly like to move more away from gardening references, but we'll talk about that a bit later on with general game layout etc.
[ 15:14:50 ] < Azzer >  I'm sure you'll be back to talk on things later DS, thanks ;)
1.1.3: Bunion.
[ 15:15:03 ] < Bunion >  :)
[ 15:15:10 ] < Azzer >  Does my twin match what I've said? ;) Talk away! :D
[ 15:15:24 ] < Bunion >  basically i had the same point as DS with the general feel and look of the front page
[ 15:15:39 ] < Bunion >  so sadly, nothing more to add :(
[ 15:15:43 ] < Azzer >  Hehe ok cool!
1.1.4: Jorizz.
[ 15:15:56 ] < Azzer >  You're a graphics guy Jorizz.
[ 15:15:59 ] < Azzer >  What have you got to say on it?
[ 15:16:01 ] < Jorizz >  Hehe yeh
[ 15:16:11 ] < Jorizz >  Well I for one agree with DarkSider with the home made look
[ 15:16:18 ] < Jorizz >  I would go for a much more simple sleek design
[ 15:16:31 ] < Jorizz >  plus the image currently show doesnt really match with the age group we're targetting
[ 15:16:34 ] < Azzer >  technical/crisp/more like a logo
[ 15:16:47 ] < Jorizz >  Yeah - make the portal for all the news updated, extensions
[ 15:16:51 ] < Jorizz >  private worlds etc
[ 15:17:01 ] < Jorizz >  keep the overview, imagery - graphic and simple
[ 15:17:06 ] < Azzer >  Do you think the portal links on the elft & right should still be there for a front page?
[ 15:17:14 ] < Jorizz >  Most of them not
[ 15:17:16 ] < Azzer >  Or should a front page JUST be an image with a few links to login/register/forums/manual etc.?
[ 15:17:24 ] < Azzer >  And then once logged in you get the portal links?
[ 15:17:36 ] < Jorizz >  There could be a few links at the bottom
[ 15:17:45 ] < Jorizz >  but mainly imagery - im willing to work out a concept on this one
[ 15:17:57 ] < Azzer >  I'd love to have some work from you, you and everyone knows I can't do art myself.
[ 15:18:25 ] < Jorizz >  Yes
[ 15:18:28 ] < Azzer >  We'll talk privately after the discussion on it, I may have some other things I'd like to try and rope you in to doing, for some BC's or something perhaps.
[ 15:18:37 ] < Azzer >  Cheers for the input
[ 15:18:38 ] < Jorizz >  Sure :)
[ 15:18:40 ] < Jorizz >  np
1.1.5: Goddess.
[ 15:18:53 ] < Azzer >  Ok last person on the topic then I'll open it to everyone to talk about :)
[ 15:18:55 ] < Goddess >  hi :)
[ 15:19:15 ] < Goddess >  well, i do agree w mos of wat was said so far... on the layout
[ 15:19:24 ] < Goddess >  would like to add sumthg thu :)
[ 15:19:52 ] < Goddess >  tbh, 1st i saw bush front page
[ 15:20:02 ] < Goddess >  it was coz a good friend asked me to ;)
[ 15:20:24 ] < Goddess >  if i had stumbled across on my own i doubt i would have joined (hehe)
[ 15:20:28 ] < Azzer >  And what did you think? "Wow this looks interesting!" or "What the HELL is this..."
[ 15:20:36 ] < Azzer >  The 2nd I guess? ;)
[ 15:20:54 ] < Goddess >  the white background is not very 'appealing' to our generation
[ 15:20:57 ] * < Goddess >  thinks
[ 15:21:09 ] < Goddess >  so, while getting a different setup altogether
[ 15:21:22 ] < Goddess >  maybe not a bad idea to reform on the color as well
[ 15:21:29 ] < Azzer >  The white/black default is a hotly debated topic. From a business perspective, a LOT of my income (people paying) comes from people that play from an office, workers.
[ 15:21:44 ] < Goddess >  no doubt
[ 15:21:46 ] < Azzer >  And a lot say a white background is easy to log in to, but a black background stands out too much as a "game" - but perhaps Bushtarion needs that now.
[ 15:21:50 ] < Azzer >  To say "This is a game!"
[ 15:21:53 ] < Goddess >  i actually play using white
[ 15:22:12 ] < Azzer >  It's a difficult subject, black or white default, I think a forum vote on that one might be needed this week :)
[ 15:22:15 ] < Goddess >  thou, it doesnt strike as a catching game
[ 15:22:35 ] < Azzer >  No definitely, well I think we all agree it definitely needs working on. Ok thanks for the input, one more person now!
1.1.6: SadYear.
[ 15:22:52 ] < SadYear >  \o/
[ 15:22:54 ] < Azzer >  SadYear promised me marriage to his sister if I left him talk.
[ 15:22:57 ] < SadYear >  :o
[ 15:22:59 ] < SadYear >  did I ?
[ 15:23:02 ] < SadYear >  first things first
[ 15:23:03 ] < Azzer >  You have now, thanks.
[ 15:23:12 ] < SadYear >  make the front page 800x600 friendly
[ 15:23:18 ] < SadYear >  or even 640w480
[ 15:23:20 ] < SadYear >  x*
[ 15:23:24 ] < Azzer >  Ouch, why so small?
[ 15:23:35 ] < SadYear >  because there are people using such resolutions duh
[ 15:23:42 ] < SadYear >  and the login thingie is on the right
[ 15:23:44 ] < Azzer >  But once in the game you need a large resolution to play
[ 15:23:48 ] < SadYear >  so you need to scroll right to use it
[ 15:23:59 ] < SadYear >  indeed
[ 15:24:06 ] < Azzer >  So much data on the screen, you couldn't PLAY on that small a res, so surely having a big res to start with makes no difference?
[ 15:24:06 ] < SadYear >  same problem ingame for small resolutions
[ 15:24:19 ] < Azzer >  I can't make it smaller in-game, there's just too many columns of data on most pages
[ 15:24:27 ] < SadYear >  but front page at least ?
[ 15:24:35 ] < Azzer >  Front page could be if we go with this "crisp" feel
[ 15:24:39 ] < SadYear >  :)
[ 15:24:47 ] < SadYear >  black/white background
[ 15:24:47 ] < Azzer >  Eg a small(ish) image centred, with some links undernearth maybe a little text and nothing else
[ 15:24:53 ] < SadYear >  why not have both ?
[ 15:25:14 ] < Azzer >  Only one can hit a user for the first time/first impression?
[ 15:25:24 ] < SadYear >  sure but when it's needed for work
[ 15:25:26 ] < Azzer >  Can't have half a black screen half a white screen? :P
[ 15:25:33 ] < SadYear >  you can set it white or black if you wan't
[ 15:25:39 ] < SadYear >  want* Bunion
[ 15:25:53 ] < SadYear >  some games or forum have nice setups
[ 15:25:54 ] < Azzer >  The default is the important thing though... the very first thing that hits a brand new visitor
[ 15:26:02 ] < SadYear >  where you can choose from predefined themes/colours
[ 15:26:30 ] < SadYear >  I don't know what's best for 1st impression
[ 15:26:32 ] < Azzer >  Well registered users can already change their colour scheme, and when logged in it also affects the portal (try it!)
[ 15:26:38 ] < SadYear >  I know :P
[ 15:26:42 ] < Azzer >  But for first impression you can't hold that data - a brand new visitor to the site
[ 15:26:56 ] < SadYear >  yup so two basics could be cool
[ 15:27:00 ] < SadYear >  not sure :)
[ 15:27:05 ] < Azzer >  Anyway let's open the topic for everyone now, get some general feedback, before moving on!
[ 15:27:10 ] < SadYear >  eh
[ 15:27:13 ] < SadYear >  not done :(
[ 15:27:16 ] < SadYear >  but meh :P
[ 15:27:18 ] < Azzer >  hehe go ahead, one more thing
[ 15:27:25 ] < SadYear >  I'd like to see the latest news from ingame
[ 15:27:29 ] < SadYear >  directly onto the front page
[ 15:27:34 ] < Azzer >  What news exactly?
[ 15:27:37 ] < SadYear >  so people actually knows the game is alive
[ 15:27:39 ] < SadYear >  from the portal
[ 15:27:58 ] < Azzer >  Hmm that would take away from this idea of a "simple login screen" type front page though
[ 15:28:10 ] < SadYear >  hmmm
[ 15:28:18 ] < SadYear >  would show the game is moving
[ 15:28:24 ] < SadYear >  and things are getting worked on
[ 15:28:33 ] < Azzer >  Can only do one or the other... a "portal" based front page... or a simple screen front page.
[ 15:28:47 ] < SadYear >  I think I like the portal based idea
[ 15:28:55 ] < SadYear >  but that's personal opinion ofc
[ 15:28:58 ] < Azzer >  Maybe the portal just needs a total re-design then
[ 15:29:05 ] < SadYear >  who knows :)
[ 15:29:08 ] < SadYear >  done now :)
[ 15:29:11 ] < SadYear >  go -m :P
[ 15:29:13 ] < Azzer >  Let's ask others! Thanks Sad!
1.2.0: Open Floor Discussion.
[ 15:29:21 ] < Markb >  I think you need a splash page, with a big catching image, with just the basic links signup / register / info about the game leading to the portal
[ 15:29:21 ] < The-Ace >  on sadyears point, what about just a 'latest news- ally x declares war on ally y' to show things are happening
[ 15:29:22 ] < Mattheus >  Azzer, on your point about the white page looking more like work...surely the big colourful picture right in the centre kinda negates that? :P (And I completely agree with DarkSider and Jorizz btw)
[ 15:29:22 ] < Azzer >  Ok everyone :)
[ 15:29:23 ] < LuShBa >  I'd love everyone to have a look at ogame.org, I think it picks points from everything mentioned. e.g screenshots, simple, striking. Also its black, doesn't mean we have to get rid of the simple 'lite login' for work users.
[ 15:29:25 ] < Iamsmart >  LOL
[ 15:29:26 ] < Sordes >  There isent much to say that has not been said i think. And the general idea's regarding most of the topics discussed here i think will go on for a long time. Id like to suggest a Subforum be added under "Suggestion" to further help devolop the idea's discussed here and later discussions. It makes reading logs easier aswell if we seperate them to the related topics. It also helps make this creator's houer continue on a civel format even after it ends.
[ 15:29:29 ] < TheTallOne >  I agree with the simple login - but I don't want a small 800x600 - 1024x800 is required. Maybe the page can be designed so that it displays 1024*800, and then in settings, users can choose one of 3 resolutions which are remembered by cookies for later.
[ 15:29:33 ] < Teh_Dude >  [15:27] <@Azzer> Hmm that would take away from this idea of a "simple login screen" type front page though <---- Why is the login page so simple when your trying to attract new people? if your already registered then you will be able to login just as easily, but attracting new players a more complex front page may be needed
[ 15:29:35 ] < Grey >  To find out what sort of colour schemes are most appealing to the avg bush player (and could therefore look good to the people you want to attract) Why not just look at what colour-schemes people are using at the moment ingame and adjust the title page accordingly?
[ 15:29:45 ] < Bunion >  i think that was a bad idea
[ 15:29:45 ] < Dennis >  This isnt good :P
[ 15:29:53 ] < Cyboth >  I think everything on the right and on the left should be scratched, have users online, new bush logo, under the logo have the login, and then under the login have How To Play, explaining the basic stuff, for someone to start, with images. there shouldn't be more than that, you have to think someone will join, read the how to play, if it looks simple and fun, he'll register and start right away.
[ 15:29:53 ] < Signer >  For those who want to use it at work, what's wrong with the lite_login? instead of http://www.bushtarion.com/portal_lite_login.php , make it a bit easier to remember
[ 15:29:54 ] < Azzer >  We only do this for 5 mins or so per topic, don't worry.
[ 15:29:56 ] < Sordes >  However on the topic as a whole. I dont think White is bad, but how things are currently formated is. I belive the crisp feeling with the logo is a good idea. Make a good layout on the left side for Forums, Manual, Wiki(tutorial?), Signup and Login. The main page would then be Logo in middle, then a status bar that has some game information like Tick Speed, Current Tick out of, And a Message from the Admin. Then bellow that a Random Ingame feature
[ 15:30:12 ] < kieran >  good suggestions will potentially be missed this way :|
[ 15:30:20 ] * < Azzer >  points out this "spammy" public mode will likely only be for 5 minutes per topic, so just put up with it if it's too much to read and wait for the "quiet times" with just me and one other person talking.
[ 15:30:22 ] < Sordes >  , like massive warfare, have a screenshot of a incomming then text outlining it all a little. And we can have other features aswell listed to help give a clean view of the game.
[ 15:30:25 ] < pyromaniac >  we need a better pic put it that way
[ 15:30:28 ] * < Azzer >  will be reading EVERYTHING said :)
[ 15:30:29 ] < Darryl >  Yes Tomdz
[ 15:30:31 ] < Monk >  As for the office work mind .. Azzer has the Lite Login .. so doenst need to worry about the initial background
[ 15:30:37 ] < SadYear >  oh and Azzer
[ 15:30:38 ] < Nopjes >  there are currently 23 links on the front page, i think this is to much and makes the game look to difficult
[ 15:30:40 ] < SadYear >  I forgot
[ 15:30:46 ] < SadYear >  along with the new logo or possible new logo
[ 15:30:49 ] < Darryl >  I'll be pasting all logs to the forum for people who miss it/ can't keep up
[ 15:30:49 ] < SadYear >  find a catchy line
[ 15:30:55 ] < Tim >  Azzer - the old "default" colour scheme does scream out "THIS IS A GAME!!!" and would be good for the main page. The lite login page however should be white for us office workers.
[ 15:30:56 ] < SadYear >  you know like Calgone or something
[ 15:30:57 ] < Smeef| >  think we need to do the voice thing for comments
[ 15:30:58 ] < Goddess >  slogan :D
[ 15:31:01 ] < SadYear >  yup Goddess :)
[ 15:31:05 ] < SadYear >  exactly :)
[ 15:31:07 ] < kieran >  Most recent (random?) BR on the front page. You'll draw more people in with "5,000,000 Cybernetic Death Machines killed 12,000,000 staff" than allusions to a gardening simulator.
[ 15:31:12 ] < Freddy >  [15:28:48]  As for the office work mind .. Azzer has the Lite Login .. so doenst need to worry about the initial background - Maybe so, but I think maybe the address needs to be a little easier to recall
[ 15:31:13 ] < Monk >  Tim .. read what i said .. felt almost abused
[ 15:31:14 ] < Azzer >  The-Ace - I thought that's what he meant about the latest news - actual "in-game events" on the front page. War declarations/attacks/live stuff on the front page.
[ 15:31:16 ] < Tomdz >  i like the idea of the simple login screen with a logo and at at the bottom a few links
[ 15:31:16 ] < SadYear >  no idea what it could be tho
[ 15:31:20 ] < banned_again >  i would like to have pic.
[ 15:31:21 ] < banned_again >  that explain
[ 15:31:22 ] < banned_again >  y
[ 15:31:23 ] < Mattheus >  a simplistic 'sleek' front page is better imo. Too much clutter is bad, last thing I wanna see is a big wall of text hitting me when I go onto a nbew site
[ 15:31:23 ] < Azzer >  That might be a good idea.
[ 15:31:23 ] < banned_again >  or sth.
[ 15:31:25 ] < Forrow >  you could go totally minimalist for the actual URL Bushtarion.com, (the site first time users will be directed to) and have just a login and register button, and a more complex page for more experienced players to set as their 'bushtarion link'. a nice interesting picture or logo could feature on this basic page.
[ 15:31:34 ] < SadYear >  Azzer : ingame why not, but admin too
[ 15:31:34 ] < banned_again >  pic. or text mayb why bushtarion is fun !
[ 15:31:35 ] < Garrett >  After having a good sleek design at the top, I believe sign ups should be right under it with any highlights or items to draw attention to signing up. This is the main point of the front page. To sign up - right now signup or sign in is on the right side. put it in the middle
[ 15:31:42 ] < Azzer >  Some people don't understand this open area is only for 5 minutes per topic :)
[ 15:31:45 ] < Fubu >  i agree, with the layout needs refreshing, and the overview more appealing, users online, login/signup, news links, should be on first page, then others once u logged in
[ 15:31:47 ] < Peter >  ooh "5,000,000 Cybernetic Death Machines killed 12,000,000 staff" than allusions to a gardening simulator.<---- could be used to give ideas of ratios
[ 15:31:50 ] < Dennis >  damnit!
[ 15:31:53 ] < Dennis >  i have done reading :P
[ 15:31:55 ] < Longinus >  on topic of loading times doesnt a black background load faster then white? (see blackle.com for example alternative google but faster loading) kinda proves it i guess
[ 15:31:57 ] < Garrett >  community is also a part of bushtarion - in the past - you used to have rotating graphics for sign in.
[ 15:32:02 ] < LuShBa >  ogame.org
[ 15:33:05 ] < Sordes >  There isent much to say that has not been said i think. And the general idea's regarding most of the topics discussed here i think will go on for a long time. Id like to suggest a Subforum be added under "Suggestion" to further help devolop the idea's discussed here and later discussions. It makes reading logs easier aswell if we seperate them to the related topics. It also helps make this creator's houer continue on a civel format even after it ends.
[ 15:33:07 ] < Willymchilybily >   [15:32]  there are currently 23 links on the front page, i think this is to much and makes the game look to difficult<----- maybe the front page has the lggoin and a link to the other links on the front page at present. that way if your trying to nvigate to a pages its not much different to the current system but on first inspection it isnt overbearing to a beghuiner
[ 15:33:10 ] < Monk >  shorcut to Loggina gain?
[ 15:33:11 ] < Dennis >  ;) Bobbin :P
[ 15:33:14 ] < Ahead >  I agree with Garett.. too many links.. just make it picture, register, sign-in and maybe a link to wiki or something? And have a nice front page on the wiki which says what bush is about etc
[ 15:33:19 ] < Garrett >  so thumbnails with user art, some screen shots.
[ 15:33:20 ] < DarkSider >  LuShBa, i think that ogame.org looks exactly like something we need. Even a tiny animation with a tank fireing or something, anything to catch your eye in order to press "register now"
[ 15:33:25 ] < Sordes >  Just a method to help keep it clear on a later issue. As its clear each topic is big
[ 15:33:30 ] < pyromaniac >  so we are basically saying more mature sleek and eyecatching front page...possibly blck or keep white with black logo
[ 15:33:34 ] < Jorizz >  How would you guys feel with a simple flash generated front page?
[ 15:33:35 ] < Freddy >  The current main page is a bit cluttered, I think you could make do with just a very basic main page, with the detail coming up after they've registered, at the Portal page where they register a new ID in W1
[ 15:33:36 ] < Azzer >  OGame.org front page is quite nice.
[ 15:33:40 ] < Mattheus >  NO FLASH JORIZZ
[ 15:33:42 ] < Mattheus >  NOOOO
[ 15:33:43 ] < Markb >  no to flash
[ 15:33:44 ] < Azzer >  Jorizz - No flash
[ 15:33:46 ] < Azzer >  Or Java
[ 15:33:48 ] < Bobbin >  Jorizz - Flash generated is a no no
[ 15:33:48 ] < Garrett >  Also polo got skipped and he was the 3rd person to raise his hand. i believe this should be done in order not at 'random selection'
[ 15:33:49 ] < Jorizz >  Ok :p
[ 15:33:50 ] < Mattheus >  flash is evil
[ 15:33:51 ] < Jorizz >  thats clear
[ 15:33:55 ] < Fubu >  lol
[ 15:34:11 ] < Monk >  yeah jorizz .. be told
[ 15:34:16 ] < Gooner^ >  I agree with Garrett
[ 15:34:18 ] < Forrow >  the simple (ish) text based nature of bush is one of the reasons i still play it
[ 15:34:19 ] < harvey >  u want it to look flashy yet seem simple!!
[ 15:34:24 ] < Azzer >  Garrett - people might have a cat jump on their lap, a phone ring, be slow typing, changing a music track, looking at the weather outside - I'm not going to make it first person to raise the hands :p
[ 15:34:33 ] < Fubu >  the front page though deffinitly needs to give an impression of the game
[ 15:34:36 ] < Fubu >  like what its about
[ 15:34:37 ] < Bobbin >  Garrett - you get a proper cross section of opinions with random selection though
[ 15:34:39 ] < Fubu >  what you do
[ 15:34:42 ] < Azzer >  People can talk in these public parts if they miss out on a private chat with me :P
[ 15:34:49 ] < Fubu >  it needs to make you want to register and play
[ 15:34:55 ] < banned_again >  agreee
[ 15:34:55 ] < banned_again >  !
[ 15:35:02 ] < banned_again >  maek pepole want to register and play!
[ 15:35:04 ] * < Dennis >  slaps Intense around a bit with a large trout
[ 15:35:17 ] < Fubu >  too much info puts newcomers off
[ 15:35:26 ] < Fubu >  bt then again not enough doesnt intise them
[ 15:35:27 ] < Goddess >  Azzer, where should we send 'artwork' for ya to see ?
[ 15:35:37 ] < Bobbin >  admin@bushtarion.com
[ 15:35:37 ] < Bobbin >  :P
[ 15:35:43 ] < Monk >  a big Forumn post shortly i think Goddes
[ 15:35:45 ] < Goddess >  ok then
[ 15:35:46 ] * < Dennis >  welcomes MattM here
[ 15:35:47 ] < Monk >  that should do it
[ 15:35:49 ] < Smeef| >  AZZER I THINK THEY SHOULD RAISES THERE HANDS WITH A LITTLE TITLE ON WHT THERE GUNNA SAY
[ 15:35:54 ] < Azzer >  Goddess - Hmmm... form PM me with a link to it, or if you email it to that address forum PM me what the subject was incase my rather strict spam filter gets it
[ 15:35:56 ] * < Goddess >  thinks mailbox will be flooded :p
[ 15:35:57 ] < Azzer >  (so either way forum PM me)
[ 15:35:59 ] < Smeef| >  THEN U PICK
[ 15:36:01 ] < Mattheus >  Azzer...dare ask if none of the artwork submitted is good enough would you not consider paying a professional?
[ 15:36:07 ] < Azzer >  Smeef| - Please don't talk in all caps.
[ 15:36:09 ] < DarkSider >  glatiatus.com has a nice front page
[ 15:36:10 ] < Mattheus >  doubt it would be that pricey for a 1 time pic
[ 15:36:11 ] < Darryl >  Smeef, no caps please, what you have to say isn't anymore important than anyone else
[ 15:36:13 ] < Smeef| >  sorry
[ 15:36:21 ] < Markb >  Smeef|: its done by topic
[ 15:36:22 ] < Dennis >  pwnd :D
[ 15:36:25 ] < Fubu >  i think after these discussions any art work/ required graphics that azzer/bush needs should be put on a forum post
[ 15:36:29 ] < Monk >  Matteus ? u seen jorriz?
[ 15:36:35 ] < Fubu >  so people can all contribute and then take it from there
[ 15:36:37 ] < Azzer >  DarkSider - glatiatus.com <- That link doesn't work?
[ 15:36:40 ] < Smeef| >  i no i mean what there gunna say on the topid
[ 15:36:42 ] < Fubu >  maybe incorporate ideas
[ 15:36:43 ] < Smeef| >  topic*
[ 15:36:46 ] < DarkSider >  http://www.gladiatus.com/?kid=1-03702-00102-0804-10113154
[ 15:36:57 ] < DarkSider >  that works ?
[ 15:36:57 ] < Bobbin >  I think Sordes Idea of a sub forum... even if a temporary one for this discussion would be a good plan
[ 15:36:57 ] < Nopjes >  yes azzer. it has not got a line from top of the screen to below of various links wich imo shouldnt be there and are not neccesary, especially not for a visitor/potential player.
[ 15:36:58 ] < Dennis >  hmm nice
[ 15:37:03 ] < Azzer >  Not too bad, I prefer the ogame one.
[ 15:37:06 ] < Azzer >  I think the ogame thing is nice.
[ 15:37:10 ] < Mattheus >  yes Monk, but as far as I know he just uses already existing pictures and plays around with them in photoshop?
[ 15:37:13 ] < Bobbin >  we could create topics for every topic discussed
[ 15:37:16 ] < DarkSider >  But it needs a good professional picture
[ 15:37:22 ] < Bobbin >  then lock it from new topics being made.
[ 15:37:31 ] < Azzer >  Sordes / Bobbin - yes a good idea, will work on that after, remind me after this :0
[ 15:37:39 ] < Azzer >  Ok I think that's everything on the front page.
[ 15:38:00 ] < Azzer >  In summary I think the consensus is... new front page, not a protal - an image, new sleek image, with a few links, a bit of text. www.ogame.org is a nice example.
[ 15:38:06 ] < Azzer >  *portal

2.0.0: Registration / Login System.

[ 15:38:40 ] < Azzer >  Ok next topic up for discussion.
[ 15:38:51 ] < Azzer >  This one will probably be quick as it relates heavily to the front page
[ 15:38:55 ] < Azzer >  Registration / Login System
[ 15:39:03 ] < Azzer >  How you register/login, I'll make this a quick 5 minute topic.
[ 15:39:06 ] < Azzer >  So just a couple of talkers.
[ 15:39:18 ] < Azzer >  Raise your hands if you have any ideas/comments on the registration/login system now please.
2.1.0: Registration / Login System One-on-ones.
2.1.1: Freddy.
[ 15:40:16 ] < Azzer >  Freddy, registration system/login system!
[ 15:40:30 ] < Freddy >  Right, It was pointed out before, but for people with the need for a little discretion
[ 15:40:34 ] < Freddy >  The Lite login is perfect
[ 15:40:45 ] < Freddy >  But, I think the address needs to be made a little more simple
[ 15:40:51 ] < Freddy >  To remember
[ 15:40:57 ] < Azzer >  Like www.bushtarion.com/l
[ 15:41:02 ] < Freddy >  Yeah
[ 15:41:07 ] < Freddy >  Or lite.bushtarion.com
[ 15:41:08 ] < Azzer >  Or maybe lite.bushtarion.com
[ 15:41:10 ] < Azzer >  Hehehe
[ 15:41:10 ] < Freddy >  Along those lines
[ 15:41:12 ] < Freddy >  lol
[ 15:41:25 ] < Freddy >  Also helps with mobiles logging on
[ 15:41:27 ] < Azzer >  Ok yeah, better/improved/easier to access or remember lite login screen
[ 15:41:36 ] < Azzer >  Sounds good :)
[ 15:41:39 ] < Freddy >  Ty
[ 15:41:40 ] < Freddy >  =)
[ 15:41:42 ] < Azzer >  Anything else before I boot you off the stage?
[ 15:41:44 ] < Freddy >  Nah :P
[ 15:41:47 ] * < Azzer >  boots.
[ 15:41:48 ] < Azzer >  Thanks!
2.1.2: Dennis.
[ 15:42:08 ] < Dennis >  woohoo im voiced \o/ *cough*
[ 15:42:17 ] < Dennis >  Uhm I agree with freddy about the lite login
[ 15:42:30 ] * < Azzer >  grins.
[ 15:42:33 ] < Azzer >  Anything else!?
[ 15:42:34 ] < Dennis >  but im more aware that ppl will be confused that they have to sign up twice when playing for the first time
[ 15:42:43 ] < Dennis >  first the account
[ 15:42:46 ] < Dennis >  then the actual ID
[ 15:42:51 ] < Azzer >  I'm sure I changed it a while back
[ 15:42:55 ] < Dennis >  Really?
[ 15:42:56 ] < Azzer >  So when you sign up a new account, it auto makes a new ID
[ 15:43:00 ] < Azzer >  Or did I dream it
[ 15:43:04 ] < Dennis >  Oh *goes silence then*
[ 15:43:10 ] < Dennis >  I dunno
[ 15:43:12 ] < Markb >  (it auto makes a new id)
[ 15:43:18 ] < Azzer >  Ah good, thanks Markb
[ 15:43:19 ] < Markb >  (I just checked mysel)
[ 15:43:19 ] < Dennis >  This is my first and only account :P
[ 15:43:22 ] < Dennis >  aah ty ;)
[ 15:43:32 ] < Dennis >  then im done :>
[ 15:43:32 ] < Azzer >  Hehe ok, cheers Dennis! Couple more talkers then ;D
2.1.3: Peter.
[ 15:43:49 ] < Peter >  hey :)
[ 15:43:52 ] < Azzer >  Hello
[ 15:43:58 ] < Peter >  yeah i agree with everything said so far
[ 15:44:00 ] < Peter >  One thing to add really :). You know when you click login on front page and it comes up with your id's? Well if you only have the one id, could you make it log into that one straight away. Its just a little bit more effort in the morning when i wake up :D
[ 15:44:21 ] < Azzer >  mmm yeah probably makes more sense
[ 15:44:32 ] < Peter >  its hard enough to open my eyes :)
[ 15:44:34 ] < Azzer >  I expect 99% of all logins to an account with 1 ID, just head straight to overview.
[ 15:44:44 ] < Peter >  yeah
[ 15:44:51 ] < Peter >  thanks :)
[ 15:44:54 ] < Azzer >  I'll look in to that one!
[ 15:44:57 ] < Peter >  :)
[ 15:45:04 ] < Azzer >  Thanks Peter
2.1.4: SadYear.
[ 15:45:45 ] < SadYear >  All I wanna say is : [Remember me / Keep me logged in for ...] - feature !
[ 15:45:51 ] < Azzer >  To your account?
[ 15:45:54 ] < SadYear >  yes
[ 15:46:05 ] < Azzer >  I've always been against that as a security risk - people using it as an "excuse" when they break multi or 30 minute rules
[ 15:46:06 ] < SadYear >  and possibly ID maybe too
[ 15:46:15 ] < Azzer >  "Oh damn i used remember me but my brother went on my PC I couldn't help it!"
[ 15:46:19 ] < Azzer >  I can see that being a common excuse
[ 15:46:25 ] < SadYear >  :/
[ 15:46:48 ] < Azzer >  For that reason I think I'm going to hacve to keep to logins fresh each time
[ 15:46:54 ] < SadYear >  ;(
[ 15:46:57 ] * < SadYear >  sobs.
[ 15:47:05 ] < Azzer >  As much as I like auto logins too - for me personally NOBODY but me uses my PC...
[ 15:47:13 ] < Azzer >  I think it's just going to cause a lot of trouble like that :P
[ 15:47:15 ] < SadYear >  it would help loging in via phone
[ 15:47:26 ] < SadYear >  I hate being pranked at ETA 5
[ 15:47:28 ] < SadYear >  d/cing
[ 15:47:36 ] < SadYear >  and having to log back at att for 3
[ 15:47:42 ] < Azzer >  I'll have a think on it. But I have to say I'm weighted more towards not supporting an auto-login feature.
[ 15:47:55 ] < SadYear >  support autologin
[ 15:48:02 ] < SadYear >  and make the multi rules stricter ?
[ 15:48:07 ] < SadYear >  for those accounts using it ?
[ 15:48:13 ] < SadYear >  meh complicated :/
[ 15:48:16 ] < Azzer >  Maybe, we shall see... it's the one possibility if I do do it.
[ 15:48:20 ] < Azzer >  Ok cheers Sad, open it to everyone just for 3 minutes or so now :P
[ 15:48:20 ] < SadYear >  anyway 't was all
2.2.0: Open Floor Discussion
[ 15:48:24 ] < Mattheus >  I don't really see how we can debate about this much imo, a login system is a login system. Nothing really wrong with it...but freddys point was a good one
[ 15:48:26 ] < RichardM >  May I suggest an option to edit your ID name, easier than deleting/restarting, would have saved Welshie and Co so much time this round
[ 15:48:55 ] < Willymchilybily >  on the auto loggin in feature surely there is clever software available that remebers your details any way if you choose to so just have to click one button to relogin i know i just hvae to clikc login on firefox takes 2 secs.
[ 15:48:56 ] < Peter >  RichardM what you mean before the round starts
[ 15:49:00 ] < Cyboth >  lulz!
[ 15:49:00 ] < RichardM >  yes
[ 15:49:04 ] < Markb >  I think the lite login link should be bushtarion.com/lite
[ 15:49:44 ] < Freddy >  Uhm back on topic, is there any way to increase the cookies rule?
[ 15:49:47 ] < Smeef| >  firefox remembers me
[ 15:49:52 ] < Azzer >  Freddy - max amount of cookies from 10?
[ 15:49:58 ] < Freddy >  Some of us have to login at universities/school/phone etc
[ 15:49:59 ] < Azzer >  Well yes I *CAN*... but... I'm not sure why I should :P
[ 15:50:00 ] < hippie >  ff remembers me as well
[ 15:50:01 ] < Darryl >  That's your password, not to directly login, Smeef
[ 15:50:06 ] < Bobbin >  Smeef| - but it doesn't keep uou logged in, like it used to
[ 15:50:08 ] < Tim >  I like auto-login personally, but it has the disadvantage that you have mentioned. If you were implement such a system you could have it on an amendment to EULA stating that if you enable auto-login then you MUST be the only person to use the computer/device. That way, the excuse that "I left it logged in and my bro used it" is therefore grounds for a EULA breach in itself.
[ 15:50:13 ] < Freddy >  And everytime I log in, it's a cookie gone
[ 15:50:16 ] < Bobbin >  sessions used to be awesome, used to keep you logging in perm :D
[ 15:50:23 ] < Nopjes >  same freddy
[ 15:50:25 ] * < Azzer >  pokes RichardM.
[ 15:50:25 ] < hippie >  i just turn on monitor and click login, the stuff is always there for me
[ 15:50:26 ] < Hiuey >  can i talk again?
[ 15:50:27 ] < Hiuey >  yay!
[ 15:50:28 ] < Mattheus >  good idea tim
[ 15:50:28 ] < Azzer >  A name change function
[ 15:50:35 ] < Dennis >  yes please :S
[ 15:50:37 ] < Freddy >  Now, I know I'm not multi'ing, cheating etc, but I can't really do much to counteract it
[ 15:50:38 ] < Jorizz >  Im against
[ 15:50:42 ] < Darryl >  Just have a "Do not use on shared PCs"? The problem is if you get autologged in because another idiot enables it, it'd be a very harsh lock.. :p
[ 15:50:43 ] < Smeef| >  well my brother plays bushtarion, i think there should be a timer to say when somone last logged in
[ 15:50:43 ] < Freddy >  Just a point I thought I'd make
[ 15:50:44 ] < Azzer >  It's one I've thought about for a long time. But I don't want such a thing to be abused.
[ 15:50:46 ] < Alcibiades >  [11:50:07]  A name change function<--- absolutely necessary
[ 15:50:47 ] < Azzer >  One name change per ID per round?
[ 15:50:50 ] < Freddy >  And to see whether anything can be done
[ 15:50:52 ] < Hiuey >  hell no!
[ 15:50:52 ] < Garrett >  oh ffs. anyway. look the lite login - have it on the front screen with a small bit of attention - and then like alot of items these days if you select lite login - have a link to add it to your favs. why bother remembering when you can just remind people to set it to their personal links.
[ 15:50:53 ] < Jorizz >  Would be too easy to just switch names etc
[ 15:50:54 ] < RichardM >  yes, save having to live with spelling mistakes etc all round
[ 15:50:56 ] < Hiuey >  no name change should be allowed
[ 15:51:00 ] < Hiuey >  no
[ 15:51:02 ] < Smeef| >  cos im cookied locked as he wasent home like 4 days but hed been on 10min earliuer
[ 15:51:04 ] < Sordes >  Azzer that is good, if anymore then its a purchase option
[ 15:51:05 ] < Hiuey >  because you could piss someone off loads
[ 15:51:06 ] < Dennis >  I agree with RichardM
[ 15:51:08 ] < Hiuey >  and rape them
[ 15:51:13 ] < Hiuey >  but then people couldn't come after you
[ 15:51:13 ] < Mateen|hl >  no name change
[ 15:51:14 ] < Dennis >  for us typo'ing guys :P
[ 15:51:16 ] < Hiuey >  if you changed your name
[ 15:51:19 ] < Garrett >  also with registering once you decide to sign up, have maybe small thumbnail pics that people can enlarge if they have questions.
[ 15:51:19 ] < Hiuey >  im against the idea
[ 15:51:20 ] < Azzer >  hippie - your ID would stay the same, so you'd stay in all enemy lists with an updated name
[ 15:51:21 ] < RichardM >  make it just pre round start if its a concern
[ 15:51:27 ] < Azzer >  *Hiuey even
[ 15:51:30 ] < Jorizz >  Azzer
[ 15:51:32 ] < Forrow >  thing is a lot of potential players would be using a 'family' pc
[ 15:51:33 ] < hippie >  i was gonna say
[ 15:51:36 ] < Jorizz >  I remember people by names
[ 15:51:37 ] < Darryl >  Or you could just restart with a new ID before the round, richard?
[ 15:51:40 ] < Jorizz >  not by ID's
[ 15:51:43 ] < Garrett >  the registration in the middle of the creen and thumbnails either to the left or right of screen shots. maybe even right/wrong examples.
[ 15:51:46 ] < Darryl >  Very short deletion times pre-round start
[ 15:51:51 ] < Jorizz >  If somebody has been stealthing me etc
[ 15:51:52 ] < Monk >  10minutes
[ 15:51:55 ] < Monk >  ^^
[ 15:51:56 ] < Jorizz >  and just changed name
[ 15:52:01 ] < Jorizz >  I would have no idea who he was
[ 15:52:03 ] < MattM >  Might miss a vote though, Darryl; which could be a concern
[ 15:52:05 ] < Willymchilybily >  i think name change should be allowed in the first few starting days and only once to allow for people that make spelling mistakes
[ 15:52:08 ] < Mattheus >  I don't like the name change idea. Sometimes when i fogget peoples id's i search for their name. this would screw that up royally
[ 15:52:12 ] < Mattheus >  *forget
[ 15:52:13 ] < Azzer >  So do most people think you should *NOT* be able to change your name once your ID is made? (obviously people can mail me for typos in a name which I sometimes fix if your ID has already started and got far ahead)
[ 15:52:19 ] < SadYear >  oh Azzer
[ 15:52:29 ] < SadYear >  anyway of setting up a html code or something
[ 15:52:30 ] < RichardM >  True but if anyone wants to repeat the excellent Hell effort it would make it a lot easier lol
[ 15:52:30 ] < Bobbin >  [ 15:52:05 ] < Willymchilybily > i think name change should be allowed in the first few starting days and only once to allow for people that make spelling mistakes <--- if you make a spelling mistake, just ask Azzer nicely
[ 15:52:31 ] < Jorizz >  I'd agree on a compromise
[ 15:52:32 ] < Monk >  agree azzer
[ 15:52:33 ] < Freddy >  I think at the start, it should be possible
[ 15:52:35 ] < kieran >  limited number of name changes per ID per round?
[ 15:52:36 ] < Freddy >  Pre-round start
[ 15:52:39 ] < Freddy >  Once only
[ 15:52:41 ] < Fubu >  before it ticks...yes
[ 15:52:41 ] < Jorizz >  3 days after the account is created - you can change it once
[ 15:52:42 ] < Jorizz >  or so
[ 15:52:45 ] < Bobbin >  he changed my ingame name last round as i messed up :P
[ 15:52:46 ] < Fubu >  once its started no chance
[ 15:52:46 ] < SadYear >  like www.bushtarion/acc=SadYear;pwd=******
[ 15:52:47 ] < Freddy >  After that, no
[ 15:52:53 ] < pin|work >  i vote pre round only, and only once
[ 15:52:53 ] * < [R]Martin >  is know known as xxx of yyy but was previous zzz of sss
[ 15:52:54 ] < [R]Martin >  ?
[ 15:52:55 ] < SadYear >  so you can use it in your favs ?
[ 15:52:56 ] < pin|work >  and after that...no more
[ 15:52:59 ] < [R]Martin >  In tooltips
[ 15:53:03 ] < Azzer >  SadYear - that'd be a huge security booboo.
[ 15:53:04 ] < Peter >  Bobbin> [ 15:52:05 ] < Willymchilybily > i think name change should be allowed in the first few starting days<--- or first few days of starting
[ 15:53:07 ] < Azzer >  So, no :P
[ 15:53:08 ] < SadYear >  ... :/
[ 15:53:12 ] < SadYear >  really ? :/
[ 15:53:14 ] < Bobbin >  yeah
[ 15:53:15 ] < Azzer >  Aye
[ 15:53:16 ] < Markb >  SadYear: its the same as the autologin
[ 15:53:20 ] < Fubu >  yes, a def NO!!
[ 15:53:24 ] < SadYear >  :[
[ 15:53:28 ] < Bobbin >  that's REALLY bad practice to pass a password via get
[ 15:53:28 ] < Azzer >  It's worse, URL's are open to every network to see it passes through
[ 15:53:30 ] < Bobbin >  REALLY bad :P
[ 15:53:34 ] < Peter >  next topic?
[ 15:53:34 ] < SadYear >  I used it alot in another game :(
[ 15:53:35 ] < Mattheus >  sadyear thats about as big a security hole as you can get
[ 15:53:37 ] < Azzer >  URL's should never contain stuff like that
[ 15:53:44 ] < Smeef| >  do you not think there should be a timer on the login screen to tell you when somone last logged in
[ 15:53:46 ] < Caranthir >  indeed
[ 15:53:48 ] < SadYear >  meh I didn't know sowwy :<
[ 15:53:50 ] < Caranthir >  thats very poor authorship
[ 15:53:59 ] < Smeef| >  so i dont get cookied locked again
[ 15:54:00 ] < Bobbin >  passwords passed by
[ 15:54:02 ] * < Bunion >  slaps trout around a bit with a large SadYear
[ 15:54:03 ] < Azzer >  Smeef - perhaps, but that might make it easier for cheaters to always time without ever hitting 30 minutes?
[ 15:54:06 ] < Bobbin >  POST or not at all ;)
[ 15:54:16 ] < Monk >  last player
[ 15:54:18 ] < Azzer >  Basically means everyone will always avoid the 30 minute rule
[ 15:54:20 ] < Monk >  not a person
[ 15:54:23 ] < Smeef| >  yes but it would save the family computers
[ 15:54:27 ] < Monk >  a specific person
[ 15:54:31 ] < Monk >  but it shows the games activity
[ 15:54:34 ] < Monk >  that type of think
[ 15:54:35 ] < Willymchilybily >  azzer if cheaters want to multi cant they just use hide proxy sites
[ 15:54:36 ] < Monk >  thing
[ 15:54:38 ] < hippie >  i think that 4 cookies is too many
[ 15:54:41 ] < kieran >  The 30 minute rule is easy enough to avoid anyway, using multiple logins on a computer, or even just different browsers.
[ 15:54:46 ] < Azzer >  Monk - what are you on about?
[ 15:54:49 ] < Freddy >  Proxy sites have a different IP every single time
[ 15:54:50 ] < Azzer >  You lost me :p
[ 15:54:54 ] < hippie >  maybe an option to log straight out if you do break the 30min rule
[ 15:54:55 ] < Freddy >  So, cookie locks
[ 15:54:58 ] < Bobbin >  indeed
[ 15:55:03 ] < Freddy >  after 10 that is
[ 15:55:07 ] < hippie >  saves the 4lost cookies
[ 15:55:07 ] < harvey >  yeah next
[ 15:55:08 ] < Azzer >  Willymchilybily - people that keep logging in with diff IP's, or anonymous proxy's IP's, get detected and can be tracked.
[ 15:55:12 ] < Monk >  Like a player counter .. but the last login "Last login 15seconds ago" shows that the game is active
[ 15:55:16 ] < Azzer >  Anonymous people leave a trail - a trail of anonimity ;)
[ 15:55:23 ] < hippie >  cause i know i have waited 30 mins and apparently broken the rule
[ 15:55:23 ] < Willymchilybily >  treu true
[ 15:55:23 ] < Caranthir >  so anyone with dial up is tracked? :)
[ 15:55:31 ] < Azzer >  Monk - ahhhh I see.
[ 15:55:37 ] * < Bunion >  is Anonymous. Bunion is Legion.
[ 15:55:44 ] < kieran >  rule 1 & 2
[ 15:55:48 ] < Iamsmart >  3 minutes is up.
[ 15:55:53 ] < Monk >  U can tell the Diff between Dial up and Broadband
[ 15:55:56 ] < Bobbin >  Caranthir - proper dial up uses a range of IPs and not a completely differeny IP{ every time :P
[ 15:56:02 ] < Azzer >  Perhaps but I think I'd rather if we do that show some live in-game news "So and so has attacked so and so" - but obviously can't do THAT it opens them to more attacks ;)
[ 15:56:10 ] < Azzer >  Anyway, next topic I think, we've covered this one ^^

3.0.0: Wiki / Manual

[ 15:56:21 ] < Azzer >  Next topic will be "Wiki / Manual"
[ 15:56:25 ] < Azzer >  Now for the manual
[ 15:56:33 ] < Azzer >  Darryl knows this but I've slacked here a lot, Darryl did most of the work
[ 15:56:51 ] < Azzer >  I wanted to replace the manual entirely with a wiki, and make the wiki have easily accessible menus on the left directly linking to the main "manual pages" (converted to wiki pages)
[ 15:57:06 ] < Azzer >  I still hope for this to be done, and have an entirely wiki oriented manual, with players actively updating and adding to the wiki
[ 15:57:17 ] < Azzer >  The wiki is a fantastic resource atm, but I think many people simply never use it/see it.
3.1.0: Wiki / Manaul One-on-ones.
3.1.1: Darryl.
[ 15:58:17 ] < Azzer >  Ok i think Darryl should talk first on this
[ 15:58:20 ] < Azzer >  As I made him do most of it
[ 15:58:29 ] < Azzer >  And what he says may well affect what others say ^^
[ 15:58:30 ] < Azzer >  So, Darryl!
[ 15:58:59 ] < Azzer >  (remember to PM me if you missed raising your hand but really want a chance to talk, I may still be able to squash you in)
[ 15:59:01 ] < Darryl >  I have little preference regarding whether it should be a manual or wiki setup, the main popints I think are, it's far too word intensive. We need a tutorial to finally be implemented, with links in there to more in depth text from the manual or wiki
[ 15:59:23 ] < Darryl >  Secondly, regardless of which setup is used, the decision needs to be made, at the moment ones out of date badly, one isn't used
[ 15:59:43 ] < Darryl >  Either update the manual, or fully make the transformation, we've had a "no mans land" situation for 3 or 4 rounds now
[ 16:00:04 ] < Azzer >  The decision is definitely wiki. I think it does need doing as a priority too.
[ 16:00:25 ] < Azzer >  I'll make a couple of standalone pages for the live unit list and live tech list, that can be linked to from the wiki.
[ 16:00:32 ] < Darryl >  Well I don't mind working on it, but I've not really done much since the initial updates and page creations, as I wasn't sure exactly what more you want from it
[ 16:00:51 ] < Azzer >  what you did so far was great, I think the menu options are right, but maybe others have some input on that.
[ 16:01:09 ] < Azzer >  I definitely want the transformation finalised, and then I'll remove manual links and really promote the wiki more.
[ 16:01:12 ] < Darryl >  At the moment the unit/tech list is just linked to the current pages, which I don't think is a big problem, unless you want it to look more like the wiki so that it matches
[ 16:01:50 ] < Azzer >  It'd be nice but I couldn't find an easy way to integrate my own page within the wiki headers etc. (maybe anybody here that's gone in depth with media-wiki's code has some pointers I didn't pickup on)
[ 16:02:09 ] < Darryl >  Yeah, there seems to be no sort of "frames" for wiki, unfortunately
[ 16:02:18 ] < Azzer >  No, I couldn't find anything like that, which would have been ideal.
[ 16:02:39 ] < Azzer >  But maybe writing a script that "includes" media wiki's header and footer files can be done, but it's all pretty tightly coded and complex, not a simple "insert header here" that I could see.
[ 16:03:00 ] < Azzer >  So atm we'll say not technically viable so independant pages, but with a view to integrate them in the future if possible.
[ 16:03:06 ] < Darryl >  Anyway, I could discuss this for hours, but if you have time for a chat after this, I'll get to work on finishing it so the wiki can be pushed instead ot the manual, except for the unit pages as I have no more coding knowledge than <b> :p
[ 16:03:16 ] < Azzer >  Hehe sure we'll have a private chat later on about it ;)
[ 16:03:18 ] < Azzer >  Ok...
3.1.2: Banned_Again.
[ 16:03:26 ] < Azzer >  Banned! :)
[ 16:03:59 ] * < Azzer >  prods banned_again.
[ 16:04:15 ] < banned_again >  aha
[ 16:04:16 ] < banned_again >  me
[ 16:04:21 ] < banned_again >  i agree with darryl
[ 16:04:25 ] < banned_again >  it's a little bit wordy
[ 16:04:27 ] < banned_again >  on the manual
[ 16:04:38 ] < banned_again >  mayb pictures or sth. that teach player to play?
[ 16:04:59 ] < banned_again >  i kno my idea is kinda plain ><
[ 16:05:18 ] < Azzer >  Well I said a while ago that I think some images would be good as part of a tutorial page
[ 16:05:31 ] < Azzer >  Actually, Meneldil was in the middle of writing one sometime ago, and I think we talked about getting images in to it
[ 16:05:37 ] < Azzer >  I'm not entirely sure what ever happened to that
[ 16:05:42 ] < banned_again >  how bout the
[ 16:05:44 ] < banned_again >  tutorial word
[ 16:05:46 ] < banned_again >  *world
[ 16:05:58 ] < banned_again >  i read it along long time agooo
[ 16:06:01 ] < Azzer >  I decided against that, an independant world for tutorials
[ 16:06:28 ] < Azzer >  A manual tutorial page (well wiki page), and "some-time" possibly some sort of in-game mechanisms to help people out, but we'll talk about the in-game helper stuff in another topic later on.
[ 16:06:44 ] < banned_again >  aha how bout vdo teaching how toplay
[ 16:06:52 ] < Azzer >  Hehe video is toooo cheesy, and will always look tacky.
[ 16:06:55 ] < banned_again >  step by step?
[ 16:07:04 ] < Azzer >  Or I think so. Tim mentioned one once :p
[ 16:07:06 ] < banned_again >  ohh ok ahah u can change to other now :D
[ 16:07:20 ] < banned_again >  thnx for letting me speak sth. :P
[ 16:07:21 ] < Azzer >  Maybe Tim can make one for us to see an example, I think he offered to do the voice-over on it
[ 16:07:23 ] < Azzer >  Ok thanks for the input banned!
3.1.3: TheTallOne.
[ 16:07:43 ] < TheTallOne >  Yay
[ 16:08:01 ] < TheTallOne >  I think that the wiki was very successful when it started
[ 16:08:12 ] < Azzer >  it did start out very well with lots of stuff being done very regularly
[ 16:08:17 ] < TheTallOne >  I helped to create a few templates, etc. and then after a while the novalty died
[ 16:08:24 ] < Azzer >  I remember, you did a lot for it
[ 16:08:46 ] < TheTallOne >  We need a new spark - some of the units still haven't been finish yet
[ 16:08:54 ] < Azzer >  When the old manual is totally gone and we just have the wiki, I'll definitely be promoting it a lot again
[ 16:09:07 ] < Azzer >  Yeah I noticed some units are still blank :P :$
[ 16:09:25 ] < Azzer >  You agree that wiki is the way to go though>?
[ 16:09:33 ] < TheTallOne >  I think it can be a good resource (such as tips and tactics) however more people need to contribute.
[ 16:09:43 ] < TheTallOne >  Yes I think the wiki is the right way.
[ 16:09:47 ] < Azzer >  Just think it needs much more promotion? Any idea for how to actually "push" people in to going ahead and editing/adding to it?
[ 16:10:14 ] < TheTallOne >  seeds in the game?
[ 16:10:25 ] < Azzer >  Hehe, I didn't mean in-game rewards, how would you automate that :P
[ 16:10:29 ] < TheTallOne >  After a lengthy contribution, not just a simple edit
[ 16:10:36 ] < Azzer >  People might fix typos, add tiny sections, or add huge chunks of pages.
[ 16:10:53 ] < Azzer >  I wouldn't like an actual *reward* - like in-game seeds or anything for adding to the wiki
[ 16:11:04 ] < Azzer >  But maybe some... hmmm... publicity isn't the word
[ 16:11:10 ] < Azzer >  Credit
[ 16:11:13 ] < Azzer >  Some credit for your work
[ 16:11:20 ] < TheTallOne >  Profile award?
[ 16:11:23 ] < Azzer >  Ah
[ 16:11:25 ] < Azzer >  That could be a good idea
[ 16:11:43 ] < Azzer >  That could work, actually. It'd have to be manually decided by me, which is unusual for portal wards (they are all automated)
[ 16:11:53 ] < Azzer >  But it might work. Otherwise a "Chief Contributors" page within the wiki itself.
[ 16:12:01 ] < Azzer >  Editable only by wiki admin, and they can add people that they see do a lot.
[ 16:12:04 ] < TheTallOne >  Yes - thats all from me.
[ 16:12:09 ] < Azzer >  Ok thanks :)
3.1.4: Martin.
[ 16:12:20 ] < Azzer >  [R]Martin, you have the floor!
[ 16:12:28 ] * < [R]Martin >  moonwalks to the centre
[ 16:12:41 ] < [R]Martin >  I am sceptical about a 100% players posting wiki/manual
[ 16:13:04 ] < Azzer >  The manual pages can only be edited by admin
[ 16:13:15 ] < [R]Martin >  Just in my ally pols someone asked what PoMs were good against, and someone said don't make them fight Harriers - without being arrogant most people don't know what they are talking about
[ 16:13:15 ] < Azzer >  It was something me and Darryl discussed - the "official" wiki manual pages should not be open to everyone
[ 16:13:21 ] < Azzer >  And then just general wiki topics/subjects are
[ 16:13:30 ] < [R]Martin >  ah, yeah I was going to say a seperate manual *-in* the wiki
[ 16:13:32 ] < Azzer >  And wiki admin can see all changes to any page and easily "rollback" bad edits etc.
[ 16:13:37 ] < [R]Martin >  and then a "player's opinions' part
[ 16:14:06 ] < Azzer >  Wiki's tend to work quite well at filtering "bad" opinion from good, and actually putting in fact
[ 16:14:09 ] < [R]Martin >  I just think for the start-up/manual stuff we need to take a step back and remember how we felt when we started
[ 16:14:24 ] < [R]Martin >  I didn't notice I got less seeds at night because I kept buying land
[ 16:14:32 ] < [R]Martin >  Do you remember in PA ages ago they had a beginners bit?
[ 16:14:32 ] < Azzer >  Well the "in-wiki manual" will all be marked at the top headers as "official pages/official material", and can only be edited by admin
[ 16:14:44 ] < Darryl >  (and already are)
[ 16:14:49 ] < Azzer >  :D
[ 16:15:04 ] < [R]Martin >  but in PA there was a bit where you had to do simple missions
[ 16:15:10 ] < Azzer >  [R]Martin - You think a new manual page like "General hints & tips"
[ 16:15:10 ] < Markb >  quests?
[ 16:15:13 ] < Azzer >  A list of random facts?
[ 16:15:14 ] < [R]Martin >  To learn basically what each link was for
[ 16:15:21 ] < [R]Martin >  Nah, reading sucks
[ 16:15:34 ] < [R]Martin >  Who actually reads stuff comprehensivly when starting a new game?
[ 16:15:39 ] < [R]Martin >  You need to see if it's interesting first
[ 16:16:02 ] < Azzer >  that's very true
[ 16:16:03 ] < [R]Martin >  e.g. - cultivate your first acre receive £50,000
[ 16:16:05 ] < Azzer >  I always play/try *FIRST*
[ 16:16:10 ] < [R]Martin >  Yip
[ 16:16:11 ] < Azzer >  Then read a manual after when I get stuck/want to learn more
[ 16:16:27 ] < [R]Martin >  and I think that's a must
[ 16:16:36 ] < [R]Martin >  In PA it was very good, you learn to use the links
[ 16:16:53 ] < [R]Martin >  and for normal players it just takes 2-3 ticks to do them all and you get mini-rewards to get max-starting funds
[ 16:16:58 ] < [R]Martin >  Much like voting in the lead-up week
[ 16:17:06 ] < Azzer >  i've had a lot of input from players past and present for their ideas of an "in-game tutorial" sort of like your "quest" system, but I've never been given a good list of quests. Your ideas sounds like they might be good, perhaps after this you can come up with a list and we'll put it on a forum thread (we're making a new forum section for topics of his discussion)?
[ 16:17:19 ] < Azzer >  Like your idea of quests, whether or not they need to appear in a certain order etc., all that stuff
[ 16:17:25 ] < [R]Martin >  Sure
[ 16:17:30 ] < Azzer >  I'd like to hear more on that, sounds good
[ 16:17:32 ] < [R]Martin >  Just one last thing while I draw up a list:
[ 16:17:41 ] < [R]Martin >  Can they be done non-dependant of ticks?
[ 16:17:55 ] < [R]Martin >  So if you are a seasoned player, you can do most before the ticks start, for max-startup funds?
[ 16:18:11 ] < Azzer >  Yeah, well unless you NEED a tick - like to "steal land" obviously
[ 16:18:26 ] < Azzer >  But for things like buy your first acre - stuff that doesn't need a tick for it to happen, it can be done (completed) "live"
[ 16:18:35 ] < [R]Martin >  but I am already diagressing, I think the wiki and the manual need to be as one but with a real obvious 'this is what is fact' and 'this is what the players think' so people know what to try for themselves
[ 16:18:40 ] < [R]Martin >  okies
[ 16:18:47 ] < Azzer >  Right, thanks for the input matey!
[ 16:18:49 ] < [R]Martin >  np
3.1.5: Mattheus.
[ 16:19:02 ] < Azzer >  Mattheus :D
[ 16:19:03 ] < Mattheus >  hi
[ 16:19:12 ] < Azzer >  Harro
[ 16:19:14 ] < Mattheus >  right, I'm gonna have to disagree on the wiki a little
[ 16:19:28 ] < Mattheus >  I personally believe that one single up-to-date point of reference is a hell of a lot better then 2 which are both half-finished and outdated
[ 16:19:34 ] < Mattheus >  the wiki started well but kinda fizzled out, and the manual isn't updated nearly often enough.
[ 16:19:44 ] < Mattheus >  So I think someone needs to be given an official role of keeping the manual up to date, we could just leave it to the masses wiki style but I think its already been proven that that doesn't work.
[ 16:20:19 ] < Mattheus >  why not use the wiki and the manual for different things? The wiki more for bushtarion history as it were. Previous rounds, previous alliances etc. And stick with actual game mechanic type stuff to the manual where its tightly controlled.
[ 16:20:20 ] < Azzer >  I'd be tempted to give it to helpers, not all helpers, but those that are an official helper *and* are prepared to keep the wiki up to date
[ 16:20:36 ] < Azzer >  Tbh, Darryl's always done a LOT for the wiki (along with Markb thetallone and a list of others)
[ 16:20:49 ] < Mattheus >  yes but theres not exactly been a whole lot of activity on it recently?
[ 16:20:52 ] < Azzer >  So if he'd be up for it he'd certainly be someone I'd like to keep on as "official wiki maintainer" :p
[ 16:21:01 ] < Mattheus >  wikipedia is all well and good but it works because theres thousands of people keeping control
[ 16:21:07 ] < Mattheus >  making it hard for wrong info to get in
[ 16:21:10 ] < Azzer >  No but it's not been promoted and it's been split between wiki and manual
[ 16:21:14 ] < Mattheus >  but the bush plkayerbase isnt big enough
[ 16:21:22 ] < Azzer >  Once manual is gone and we are on pure wiki, I'll really be promoting it and pushing people on working on it
[ 16:21:40 ] < Markb >  I've not done much on it, I just helped to get things started and the occasional admin things - rolling back pages. Darryls done a lot more than me :P
[ 16:21:44 ] < Mattheus >  well like I've said I disagree on it being a wiki, also for the reasons Martin touched upon
[ 16:21:58 ] < Mattheus >  it may be elitist but some players have no clue what they're talking about
[ 16:22:05 ] < Azzer >  Fair enough, appreciate the feedback, and I know a few people are concerned with how wiki's work/don't trust them
[ 16:22:21 ] < Azzer >  But I personally think, and from what i've seen of the content that *has* gone in to the wiki, it does work.
[ 16:22:35 ] < Mattheus >  shrug, you're the boss I suppose :P
[ 16:22:38 ] < Azzer >  Hehehe
[ 16:22:45 ] < Azzer >  Ok thanks for the input Mattheus, appreciate differing opinions!
[ 16:22:48 ] < [R]Martin >  tbh, I know it's Mattheus' floor but I'll just say this: A locked wiki page, which is still linked as the 'manual' from the main game? Of the facts
[ 16:23:06 ] < Azzer >  Maybe :P
3.1.6: Sordes.
[ 16:23:17 ] < Azzer >  Swords :P
[ 16:23:25 ] < Sordes >  Did that get posted up all of it ? :P
[ 16:23:26 ] < Azzer >  (thanks Matt)
[ 16:23:37 ] < Azzer >  Did what get posted up?
[ 16:23:44 ] < Sordes >  Thank you Azzer, Well my first issue is about the games learning curve, while this isent the place to go into depth but i belive that as soon as the game "near future" is decided that one should start prepare basics needed for a wiki Tutorial. But make sure not only to focus on this, but improve on the general learning curve of the game
[ 16:23:48 ] < Sordes >  The easier it is to start, the sooner people will get hooked, the new wiki should be a helping hand but the game also needs to be sure not to be to difficult to start so one becommes dependant on it since most like to experiment on their own.
[ 16:23:51 ] < Sordes >  that should be up.
[ 16:23:53 ] < Azzer >  Is now :P
[ 16:23:56 ] * < Azzer >  reads.
[ 16:24:53 ] < Azzer >  I think you're starting to touch on general game mechanics there, which we'll talk about later. So just on the wiki side atm, I think an "independant" tutorial-wiki page is good
[ 16:25:06 ] < Sordes >  I agree there
[ 16:25:07 ] < Azzer >  Kidna like the "quick start" we had in the manual, but more of a full fledged tutorial thing, in wiki format.
[ 16:25:19 ] < Sordes >  Just feel its important topic to make sure people stay long enough to make the manual or wiki usefull
[ 16:25:25 ] < Sordes >  to many drop out today before they even get to read them
[ 16:25:50 ] < Azzer >  Step by step - from the first thing you should do after logging on (first time someone looks at overview - what the hell do they do? How do they know to go buy land, plant, grow, hire staff, sell extra plants, buy more land etc.)
[ 16:26:06 ] < Sordes >  Thats why i brought it up now. But overall else i agree alot with Martin, quests would be a good way to forward
[ 16:26:13 ] < Azzer >  And have some system in-game that auto throws a link to the tutorial at the top of every page the first time a newbie logs on?
[ 16:26:24 ] < Azzer >  (eg for the first day or two, with an option to 'hide' it)
[ 16:26:39 ] < Sordes >  That could be a good idea. Everyone here knows Bushtarion is addictive
[ 16:27:03 ] < Sordes >  If we can help guide players to the points most enjoy game would be going strong. Wiki is the center of knowlage
[ 16:27:07 ] < Azzer >  It's just getting people hooked is the hard part.
[ 16:27:12 ] < Azzer >  That first few steps in to the game
[ 16:27:33 ] < Sordes >  Yes the game has to high learning curve at the first few ticks. So most drop out before realising it or reading the wiki etc
[ 16:27:42 ] < Sordes >  I just belive the game needs to support the wiki more
[ 16:27:53 ] < Azzer >  Ok going to open this up for everyone now, the manual/wiki system is the main point here, but a little about quest/tutorial ideas too ^^
[ 16:27:56 ] < Azzer >  Thanks for the input Sordes
[ 16:28:04 ] < Sordes >  Thank you for letting me give it.
3.2.0: Open Floor Discussion.
[ 16:28:07 ] < Darryl >  Regarding the manual-> wiki, someone's just mentioned to me, and it's not the first time, that they prefer the manual setup, and it certainly does look a bit more professional than the wiki...The main advantage of the wiki over the manual as I see it is that we can update the changes live, so you don't need to update it every round, helpers can. Would it be possible to give helpers access to the manual, perhaps? Keep the current setup, but al
[ 16:28:15 ] < Darryl >  Not sure how workable it is ;P
[ 16:28:20 ] < RichardM >  I would like to see an expansion of the route section as, for a new player its key info to know what routes are best for what style of play. Nothing more guaranteed to put people off a new game than to pick a sucky route, Further the "round start" section needs more examples -like in the manual - to help new players with their start.
[ 16:28:25 ] < pinpower >  did my point actually go up?
[ 16:28:30 ] < Mattheus >  <[R]Martin> tbh, I know it's Mattheus' floor but I'll just say this: A locked wiki page, which is still linked as the 'manual' from the main game? Of the facts << well then whats the point in the first place of a wiki if the pages are locked?
[ 16:28:30 ] < Kelsey >  I like the quest's idea.
[ 16:28:31 ] < pinpower >  or was i to trigger happy..
[ 16:28:36 ] < Dennis >  trigger happy
[ 16:28:37 ] < RichardM >  I agree with Martin that having to read a manual before playing a game is offputting. What about in game tips such as a message like "you do not have enough harvesters for the acreage you have you need xxx harvesters"
[ 16:28:37 ] < Darryl >  I didn't see it, pinpower
[ 16:28:39 ] < Tim >  I like the Wiki idea however I feel it should have more of a menu system like the current manual. I wouldn't like to have to go to the "Wiki/manual" and have to search for a specific page each time.
[ 16:28:41 ] < Azzer >  Darryl - that would be possible, yes....
[ 16:28:54 ] < Azzer >  I would be able to set up a system that let helpers edit the HTML of each manual page.
[ 16:28:56 ] < Willymchilybily >  i find the wiki layout not as easy to follow as the manual but i cant place why
[ 16:29:07 ] < Caranthir >  Manual is much more professionale and right now is much easier to read
[ 16:29:13 ] < Willymchilybily >  agreed
[ 16:29:19 ] < IoF >  Wiki needs ALOT more promotion, been here 20 rounds ive logged on it twice...
[ 16:29:23 ] < Tree` >  rofl
[ 16:29:28 ] < Freddy >  Right, in my opinion, the Wiki is a very good idea, especially giving the ability to search, but it looks a bit naff. The manual is a link that gives the user a feel that it's still related to the game. While it is another page, it still has the background/colour schemes etc. And It is a lot sleeker
[ 16:29:29 ] < Chezz >  AFAIK, there's a template for units in the wiki but not one for techs....isn't that strange
[ 16:29:29 ] < Monk >  Manual and Wiki? The example we had the other day in helper sections is a good point. Even though the said player gave the manual a good look, which most will not to be frank, they did not understand the technology trees to well. And required a lengthy explanation from me
[ 16:29:32 ] < Gooner^ >  Ive never been on Wiki
[ 16:29:33 ] < Azzer >  pinpower - too trigger happy
[ 16:29:34 ] < Mattheus >  like I already said, wikipedia works because it has enough people keeping an eye on it for bad edits not to last long. The playerbase activity on our wiki has already shown we don't have that
[ 16:29:35 ] < Darryl >  IoF, that'd change if the manual was removed though :P
[ 16:29:35 ] < Bunion >  Having a page of the wiki devoted to various starting strategies (similar to the thread on the forums) though this may not have the best strats, as people are greedy and don't like sharing. There could also be the ability to rate eachs strat, so people can see what is generally accepted as the best.
[ 16:29:37 ] < Willymchilybily >  also i still use manual all the tiome to see the full unit list etas init etc etc
[ 16:29:41 ] < Freddy >  Maybe, a good way of promoting Wiki use would be to improve it's look.
[ 16:29:46 ] < Chezz >  can admin please create tremplate for techs
[ 16:29:47 ] < Iamsmart >  Hola Crumpet!
[ 16:29:50 ] < Crumpet >  heya
[ 16:29:51 ] < [R]Martin >  Mattheus - the one page of 'facts' in a real 'manual' without being flooded by opinions should be locked so it can just be refered to
[ 16:30:09 ] < Monk >  In all fairness ... its a bit anoying, as you will probaly take the cheapest development, as that is easiet. . then go "o shit, doesnt suit my playstyle, or its boring" then the players leave
[ 16:30:14 ] < TNick >  Being a newbie to this game (joined day 11 of current round) I would like a better tutorial....especialy in attacking. I have attacked several people some 50% my range, some 200% my range, and have had the government called in to help protect. What I don't understand is how could someone twice my value get help?
[ 16:30:15 ] < Willymchilybily >  also within manual wiki. can the unit have the same tooltips that they have ingame?
[ 16:30:16 ] < Monk >  need more focus on Routes/Techs tbh
[ 16:30:21 ] < IoF >  Of course Darryl, but MIRC bots makes Manuel out dated IMO - Well not for new players etc but for myself
[ 16:30:22 ] < Mattheus >  I don't see the point of having a 'manual' with facts AND opinions, use the forums if you want personal opinion
[ 16:30:29 ] < Freddy >  Also, we all know Bushtarion is addictive, so what better way to get them addicted to it than a Private World based tutorial?
[ 16:30:40 ] < Darryl >  Iof, you're not who the manual is aimed at though :p
[ 16:30:45 ] < Freddy >  Not only does it give older players a chance to refreshen their memory as to game mechanics
[ 16:30:47 ] < [R]Martin >  TNick - tbh you're probably one of the most important people in the room atm with that perspective
[ 16:30:49 ] * < Azzer >  nips to the toilet a mo :P
[ 16:30:54 ] < Caranthir >  I started a few rounds ago and got most of my info from friends that recruited me, then looked at the manual for quick answers :P
[ 16:31:05 ] < Tree` >  Newbs need to learn the game too, TNick - can't have the game play itself for you. If you have questions, there's a helper request link.
[ 16:31:08 ] < Monk >  Tnick made a very valued point .. and that also needs to be adressed
[ 16:31:09 ] < Iamsmart >  Yeah you did Caranthir!
[ 16:31:09 ] < Freddy >  Also, it gives new players the chance to get the basics of the game.
[ 16:31:10 ] < IoF >  i know, i just think Wiki needs more Promotion Darryl, thats my point.
[ 16:31:28 ] < Darryl >  It's not been promoted so far due to the manual not being removed, but yeah, you're right
[ 16:31:53 ] < Darryl >  The wiki is already better than the manual in terms of up to date info, so players should really use that instead ( http://bushtarion.com/wiki/index.php?title=Manual_Index )
[ 16:32:11 ] < Freddy >  It doesn't need to be exactly long, what, a day, maybe a day and a half at most. And reduce tech costs etc, so units get developed fast, gives them a taster as to the p-unit, encouraging them to actually buy the p-unit in w1.
[ 16:32:14 ] < Iamsmart >  Cant we just update the manual and leave it at that
[ 16:32:16 ] < Tim >  See, I wasn't even aware that page existed Darryl
[ 16:32:18 ] < TNick >  I'm doing very well right now, but only due to someone telling me to do this and that....I want to learn, I'm not asking for something to do it for me, I'm just asking for a guide in how to decide whether or not AR will kick in or not...I have not yet understood that
[ 16:32:19 ] < Iamsmart >  I dont see why we have to move it to the Wiki
[ 16:32:21 ] < Caranthir >  the routes page on the maunal is a bit complex for someone just starting and choosing. ie the flakking concepts mentioned and all that fun stuff
[ 16:32:22 ] < Iamsmart >  It really doesnt make sense
[ 16:32:23 ] < Iamsmart >  :/
[ 16:32:35 ] < Darryl >  Tim, I imported all of it to the wiki and updated it in...December-ish
[ 16:32:44 ] < IoF >  Make it clearer to the newer member what Wiki is there for, they will be confused and looking towards manuel and Help request. Wiki needs more input here, with good player base advise/tips
[ 16:32:44 ] < Darryl >  I reckon about 10 people have used it :p
[ 16:32:45 ] < Kelsey >  I think a "noobie world" Where if you want you can start there, say have a land limit, then once the player feels they are ready for the real world, they can opt in.
[ 16:32:45 ] < Tim >  Aye, it wasn't publicised anywhere though
[ 16:32:53 ] < Chezz >  The thing is, Azzer 101% prefers the wiki to the manual
[ 16:33:04 ] < Caranthir >  yeah, but no one cares what azzer thinks :S
[ 16:33:05 ] < Monk >  Already turned down kelsey
[ 16:33:11 ] < Kelsey >  Ah
[ 16:33:12 ] < Dennis >  hahaha
[ 16:33:14 ] < Kelsey >  I joined rather late
[ 16:33:15 ] < Darryl >   Cant we just update the manual and leave it at that - We could, but the same would happen again
[ 16:33:20 ] < Willymchilybily >   I think a "noobie world" Where if you want you can start there, say have a land limit, then once the player feels they are ready for the real world, they can opt in.<--- or maybe have an id in both worlds if they desire
[ 16:33:25 ] < Willymchilybily >  practice what they learn
[ 16:33:25 ] < Kelsey >  Yeah willy
[ 16:33:26 ] < Chezz >  isn't that the point of this debate...lolz
[ 16:33:29 ] < Darryl >  The wiki is favoured due to helpers being able to save Azzer some work and update it
[ 16:33:30 ] < Iamsmart >  Then give smoeone the job to constantly update it, Darryl
[ 16:33:30 ] < Iamsmart >  :;
[ 16:33:31 ] < Iamsmart >  :/
[ 16:33:43 ] < Monk >  The game is constantly changing .. requires a constant Manual update .. alot of work for one man who is also managing the game
[ 16:33:44 ] < Caranthir >  just update it once a round with changes
[ 16:33:44 ] < Hiuey >  k
[ 16:33:46 ] < Mattheus >  Darryl thats the problem, imo azzer needs to take responsibility for the manual upkeep
[ 16:33:47 ] < Azzer >  Plus I want people, when they hit the "manual" (wiki)
[ 16:33:52 ] < IoF >  only needs updating once a round!
[ 16:33:54 ] < Chezz >  Manual--> Needs admin to work all day to update
[ 16:33:54 ] < Tree` >  Next topic :)
[ 16:33:56 ] < Azzer >  To be able to quickly and immediately access all the player-written advice there too
[ 16:34:03 ] < Freddy >  Change the Manual link to link to the Wiki page
[ 16:34:03 ] < Chezz >  Wiki--> 1000 players to help
[ 16:34:04 ] < Azzer >  There's a *LOT* of advice, guides, info in the general wiki pages
[ 16:34:10 ] < Tim >  Maybe then it needs to be ordered better then
[ 16:34:12 ] < Azzer >  Stuff that is really VERY helpful, and is nothing to do with what's in the manual
[ 16:34:12 ] < Darryl >  Mattheus, a helper can do it really, if they have access, it's not that much work if it's done regularly
[ 16:34:16 ] < Tim >  Rather than just being "there"
[ 16:34:18 ] < Twigley >  Give a new option - add to wiki ... when they submit it on there ... it gets sent to Helpers pols like it does with New Help request. Helper then goes over the info / edits it as they see. There you go.
[ 16:34:19 ] < Twigley >  :)
[ 16:34:20 ] < Mattheus >  sounds good Darryl
[ 16:34:21 ] < Caranthir >  the wiki really throws me for a loop. :P
[ 16:34:27 ] < Azzer >  Anyoen that spends some time browsing through the sections of the wiki can learn a lot of new stuff throughout various wiki articles.
[ 16:34:28 ] < Tim >  Nice idea Twigley
[ 16:34:47 ] < Freddy >  Also, I have no idea how many helpers you have on the Wiki, but it may be beneficial to have more, as well as increasing the incentive to actually post there. I myself do not believe a profile award will encourage a person enough to post on Wiki.
[ 16:34:52 ] < Darryl >  Sounds very nice, if it could be done, Twig
[ 16:34:57 ] < Twigley >  You dont need any more helpers
[ 16:34:59 ] < Twigley >  We are active
[ 16:35:03 ] < Dennis >  *cough*
[ 16:35:04 ] < Chezz >  Wiki, even currently, is still roughly useful for stuff like uses of some units, good and bad against wat routes, etx
[ 16:35:05 ] < Twigley >  Help requests get answered nearly instant
[ 16:35:06 ] < Freddy >  Wiki specific Twigley
[ 16:35:06 ] < Iamsmart >  We need more contributers
[ 16:35:07 ] < Iamsmart >  I think
[ 16:35:08 ] < Iamsmart >  :P
[ 16:35:12 ] < Freddy >  Wiki specific Twigley
[ 16:35:13 ] < Twigley >  Just use Official helpers
[ 16:35:15 ] < Twigley >  Like i said
[ 16:35:18 ] < Azzer >  Anyone is free to be a contributor.
[ 16:35:19 ] < Darryl >  Freddy, helpers would be active on the wiki if it was used
[ 16:35:31 ] < Freddy >  Like I said, I have no idea how many helpers you have =P
[ 16:35:32 ] < Azzer >  Anyone can make a wiki account and make wiki articles or edit wiki articles. You don't need an official wiki admin hat from me.
[ 16:35:35 ] < Darryl >  Right now, I check it for abuse about once a week, because it's very rare for it to be changed
[ 16:35:36 ] < Iamsmart >  Making an account is way too time consuming though
[ 16:35:37 ] < Iamsmart >  :]
[ 16:35:53 ] < Chezz >  it is?
[ 16:35:53 ] < Darryl >  If it was used properly, I'd check it regularly, and I imagine other helpers would too
[ 16:35:58 ] < Azzer >  Likewise myself
[ 16:35:59 ] < Darryl >  We don't want to waste our time though :p
[ 16:36:00 ] < Tim >  Populate the wiki username/passwd database with the details from the main Bush database then
[ 16:36:03 ] < Tim >  ^^
[ 16:36:06 ] < Twigley >  Azzer im saying that instead of people being able to edit it instant, when they edit it gets sent to helpers to "accept / edit" the info
[ 16:36:06 ] < Fubu >  yes
[ 16:36:10 ] < Tree` >  There's a circular problem here. No one uses the wiki because it's no good. It's no good because no one uses it. The problem to solve is getting people to use it in the first place. Once you sort that out, problems will begin to sort themselves out.
[ 16:36:19 ] < Azzer >  Aye maybe TIm - integrate those accounts, not much reason for them to be seperate I suppose.
[ 16:36:34 ] < Fubu >  and may get people helpin more
[ 16:36:44 ] < Freddy >  I also feel strongly that the look of it should be changed a little. At the moment, it looks a little....plain.
[ 16:36:45 ] < Darryl >  I *think* there's a built in option to allow wiki mods to approve all new changes
[ 16:36:46 ] < SadYear >  active wiki : http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/Main_Page
[ 16:36:51 ] < Markb >  integration is needed
[ 16:37:00 ] < Freddy >  And as opposed to the current Manual, it does not look like a part of the game.
[ 16:37:03 ] < Azzer >  Twigley - while possible I don't think it a necessary step. Wiki admin can very easily browse a summarised list of all changes to every article made in the last X days, and rollback bad edits or check them
[ 16:37:09 ] < Darryl >  Thanks for reminding me of that game, SadYear
[ 16:37:15 ] < Azzer >  So helpers will already have that but in a "retoractive" manner, rather than a "Proactive" manner.
[ 16:37:22 ] < Azzer >  *retroactive
[ 16:37:23 ] < SadYear >  np Darryl ?
[ 16:37:24 ] < Twigley >  Lies Azzer ... i want more power
[ 16:37:28 ] < Twigley >  :>
[ 16:37:54 ] < Azzer >  That's quite a nice wiki front page
[ 16:38:02 ] < Azzer >  Done with media wiki, same software Bush wiki is on
[ 16:38:12 ] < Grey >  I agree with freddy - any way to make the wiki look a bit nicer? - more like the manual with user styles etc..?
[ 16:38:18 ] < Tim >  Indeed, looks very organised Azzer
[ 16:38:24 ] < Caranthir >  grawr, no matter where you put it the information is still going to be the same and have to updated. so I still think the basics should be in the manaul format
[ 16:38:31 ] < Azzer >  Thanks for the link SadYear - just for the official logs: http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/Main_Page <- get Bushtarion wiki like that ;)
[ 16:38:32 ] < Tree` >  Visual appeal is the least pressing concern with the wiki :S
[ 16:38:34 ] < Caranthir >  with more advanced/strategy stuff in wiki/forums
[ 16:38:37 ] < Caranthir >  :P
[ 16:38:40 ] * < Iamsmart >  agreed
[ 16:38:43 ] < SadYear >  lol
[ 16:38:44 ] < Azzer >  Tree` - you'd be suprised :P
[ 16:38:45 ] < SadYear >  indeed Tree
[ 16:38:51 ] < Chezz >  u know
[ 16:38:55 ] < SadYear >  but the fact it looks good helps a lot too
[ 16:38:56 ] < Chezz >  the wiki is SO OLD
[ 16:38:57 ] < Azzer >  If it's not easy to navigate or appealing to see, people won't use it :P
[ 16:38:58 ] < Fubu >  its both tree
[ 16:38:59 ] < Freddy >  I look at it, and I don't want to use it. But it's a personal opinion.
[ 16:39:00 ] < SadYear >  people have personal pages
[ 16:39:01 ] < Chezz >  that it says round 26
[ 16:39:02 ] < SadYear >  alliances
[ 16:39:04 ] < SadYear >  random stuff
[ 16:39:05 ] < Caranthir >  the manual has a much better layout than wiki
[ 16:39:06 ] < Tree` >  I don't care how good it looks, if it's shit, I'll say, "oh, that's a nice page" *clicks X*
[ 16:39:07 ] < SadYear >  etc.
[ 16:39:18 ] < Azzer >  You might not Tree` but I assure you many do
[ 16:39:28 ] < Tree` >  I suppose that's probably true, sadly :)
[ 16:39:33 ] < Willymchilybily >  i disagree with tree i think
[ 16:39:38 ] < Willymchilybily >  i think layout is important

4.0.0: Ingame Layout / Menu Options.

[ 16:39:42 ] < Azzer >  Ok
[ 16:39:55 ] < Azzer >  Next topic up for discussion is "Ingame Layout / Menu options" <- i HOPE this is going to be a quick topic, it seems pretty simple :P
[ 16:40:06 ] < Azzer >  The order of the menu items in-game when logged in, the nature of them
[ 16:40:18 ] < Azzer >  The general game layout is unlikely to receive any major overhauls at all
[ 16:40:29 ] < Azzer >  Maybe little additions, nice little touches here or there to make things cooler
[ 16:40:38 ] < Azzer >  But the actual core design will likely be staying for a very long time.
[ 16:40:44 ] < Azzer >  Ok, hands up for talkers :)
4.1.0: One-on-ones.
4.1.1: Polo.
[ 16:42:05 ] < Azzer >  Polio!
[ 16:42:09 ] < Polo >  ok
[ 16:42:14 ] < Azzer >  I hope you're sober now ^^
[ 16:42:17 ] < Polo >  I think there's way too many links in game atm
[ 16:42:19 ] < Polo >  indeed :P
[ 16:42:34 ] < Polo >  on my laptop I even have to scroll down to get the forum link as there're so many
[ 16:43:01 ] < Polo >  I'm sure it's confusing to new players as they will have no idea which link to follow to start with
[ 16:43:30 ] < Azzer >  Well confusion to new players I'd hope could be more fixed with a tutorial... I'd rather not change the menu structure *just* for newbies as you can access each and every main page from the menu in one click atm
[ 16:43:41 ] < Azzer >  And as there's a lot of different pages in-game, I like that fact.
[ 16:43:47 ] < Polo >  bah :P
[ 16:43:58 ] < Azzer >  (rather than have a single "alliances" link, and from there having to click "manage my alliance" "List alliance ranks" "Global pols" etc.)
[ 16:44:09 ] < Polo >  ok
[ 16:44:12 ] < Polo >  also, I don't see the need for the world tables page
[ 16:44:23 ] < Polo >  it has 3 things on it which can just be put under statistics
[ 16:44:31 ] < Azzer >  It's a sort of... "lesser mans rankings"? ;P
[ 16:44:41 ] < Polo >  :-/
[ 16:44:55 ] < Polo >  bounty...ok, but fearsome and stealer are pretty much statistics
[ 16:44:59 ] < Azzer >  But there *could* be a bit more of a merging between stats and world tables
[ 16:45:12 ] < Polo >  and now that it's so hard to bounty hunt, you can hardly cal that a rank either
[ 16:45:13 ] < Polo >  call*
[ 16:45:45 ] < Polo >  alsoooo, I mentioned this to you before, I don't see why you need to choose between either gov value or eff
[ 16:45:52 ] < Polo >  just stick an extra column in and show them both
[ 16:45:59 ] < Azzer >  Hehehe
[ 16:46:07 ] < Azzer >  Still needs to order by one of them ;)
[ 16:46:09 ] < Polo >  and allow people to click the column headers to order by one or the other
[ 16:46:11 ] < Polo >  ^^
[ 16:46:20 ] < Azzer >  Well it is like that already
[ 16:46:21 ] < Polo >  and they could click the land header to sort by that
[ 16:46:30 ] < Azzer >  I click my ranks and it is ordered by eff. I click a link and can order it by value.
[ 16:46:41 ] < Polo >  yeah, but then you can't see them both at the same time :P
[ 16:46:52 ] < Polo >  what if I want to see how much eff the people around my gov value you?
[ 16:46:54 ] < Polo >  or vice versa
[ 16:47:13 ] < Azzer >  Aye possibly, though the page is already quite squashed width wise I think?
[ 16:47:24 ] < Polo >  well
[ 16:47:29 ] < Polo >  only if someone has a really long name :P
[ 16:47:31 ] < Azzer >  If you have two wide columns (big numbers in value and eff), it could really stretch it
[ 16:47:35 ] < Polo >  there's plenty of space on my rankings page atm
[ 16:47:47 ] < Azzer >  Likewise but I'm on 1920 screen width ;P
[ 16:47:58 ] < Azzer >  Or 1980 or whatever it is, something like that
[ 16:48:02 ] < Polo >  the gov values take up half the column
[ 16:48:06 ] < Polo >  and I'm on 1280
[ 16:48:31 ] < Azzer >  Right well I'm going to pull another talker in now, thanks for the input polo! :D
[ 16:48:33 ] < Polo >  np
4.1.2: Markb.
[ 16:48:43 ] < Azzer >  Markb!
[ 16:48:50 ] < Markb >  woo :)
[ 16:49:18 ] < Markb >  I've no objections to the current layout, but I would like an interface for those of us with ipod touches / iphones
[ 16:49:43 ] * < Azzer >  glares at and blames Tim for planting this seed of an idea.
[ 16:50:02 ] < Markb >  really simple interface, for the basic tasks. You'd be able to serve the tiny interface by looking at the user-agent and giving them a different layout
[ 16:50:05 ] < Azzer >  I wouldn't have a clue how to make an interface so (small?) that it could fit on an ipod.
[ 16:50:17 ] < Azzer >  Or do you mean actually basically a cut down game
[ 16:50:29 ] < Azzer >  Well accessing the same game data ofc
[ 16:50:40 ] < Markb >  I'm thinking it would be a simple front page, with like a menu page to go off to the other pages
[ 16:50:41 ] < Azzer >  But... www.bushtarion.com/lite/ <- Limited game pages, limited abilities etc.
[ 16:51:24 ] < Markb >  I've not done any web app stuff for it yet, but I'll have a look at it and see what can be done
[ 16:51:42 ] < Azzer >  Ok yeah sure, I don't have an ipod or anything like that myself so have no idea to see what it's like atm or what changes could be done/worked on
[ 16:51:49 ] < Markb >  (prob best to get tim onstage now :))
[ 16:51:51 ] < Azzer >  Get back to me on that :P
[ 16:52:01 ] < Azzer >  Was just about to ;P
4.1.3: Tim.
[ 16:52:15 ] < Azzer >  Ok TIm, we all know you want to talk about phone interfaces! ;0
[ 16:52:19 ] < Tim >  Indeed
[ 16:52:21 ] < Azzer >  Thanks Markb
[ 16:52:28 ] < Tim >  I have prepared - mind if I c+p ?
[ 16:52:32 ] < Azzer >  Sure
[ 16:52:35 ] < Tim >  I'd actually go as far as to suggest a lite-version of the game for all mobile browsers - e.g. mobile phones, PSPs, iPhones etc - anything with a smaller screen and no mouse/"proper" keyboard.
[ 16:52:35 ] < Tim >  It should not be so different to the main interface, but should specifically focus on the game's key features that people are using - e.g. an easier menu system for this format which removes lots of the more superfluous pages, such as ID Settings, Account Settings, etc etc.
[ 16:52:35 ] < Tim >  Designing for mobile browsers is easy, I have an iPod Touch and access to a lot of mobile phones for testing purposes and I would be gladly happy to assist in such a development.
[ 16:53:01 ] < Azzer >  I'd definitely need help with it as I have no access to any of it.
[ 16:53:20 ] < Azzer >  But essentially a seperate set of scripts for interfacing with the game especially for a phone, right?
[ 16:53:21 ] < Markb >  I think there are a few iphone simulators out there
[ 16:53:38 ] < Tim >  Well, it's really much the same as designing for a smaller resolution, as that is all these devices are - just things with a smaller resolution
[ 16:53:39 ] < Azzer >  Like only 6 main menu items or something, limited what data shows on each page compared to normal pages, something like that?
[ 16:53:46 ] < Tim >  Possibly yes - the "key" things
[ 16:53:50 ] < Tim >  But access to more should you need it
[ 16:53:58 ] < Tim >  And the actual php scripts remain the same
[ 16:54:01 ] < Tim >  Just the HTML changes
[ 16:54:44 ] < Azzer >  It's something I'll look in to, it could be a good bit of marketing (we'll get on to that later)
[ 16:54:45 ] < Tim >  Another thing to consider is that it isn't just how the page appears - you need to think of how the users use these types of devices and work out a good way for them to use bushtarion pages via them
[ 16:54:52 ] < Azzer >  A game with coded exclusively for use on small devices
[ 16:54:59 ] < Tim >  Aye ^^
[ 16:55:00 ] < Azzer >  "Bushtarion: The game you can play on the move!" :p
[ 16:55:38 ] < Azzer >  Most modern ones are touch screen (stylus) I think, with older ones just having a box drawn around all links it finds on screen you scroll through 1 by 1
[ 16:55:45 ] < Azzer >  But you'd know more than me ;P
[ 16:55:54 ] < Tim >  You would need compatibility for both really
[ 16:56:05 ] < Tim >  But that again isn't an issue
[ 16:56:35 ] < Tim >  Users tend to interact with the touch screens and non-touch screens in a similar way for the most part
[ 16:56:56 ] < Azzer >  Ok, this is definitely a topic on it's own that needs further thought, so I'll move us on from this now, one more talker on the general subject of the current game's normal layout/menu systems if I can.
[ 16:57:23 ] < Azzer >  Cheers for the input Tim, unless you had anything on the standard menu/interface/layout too?
[ 16:57:34 ] < Tim >  Only had one small thought on that
[ 16:57:53 ] < Tim >  And that was the possibility of an option to put the menu at the top (as well as left/right hand side)
[ 16:58:06 ] * < Azzer >  shudders.
[ 16:58:14 ] < Tim >  I'll take that as a no then :P
[ 16:58:16 ] < Azzer >  I hate top menus :P
[ 16:58:36 ] < Azzer >  Ok right thanks for the feedback Tim!
[ 16:58:46 ] < Azzer >  We'll talk more later about mobile devices, in private/forums/whenever
[ 16:58:49 ] < Tim >  :)
4.1.4: Fubu.
[ 16:59:01 ] < Fubu >  howdy
[ 16:59:07 ] < Azzer >  Hallo
[ 16:59:20 ] < Fubu >  ok, i agree with polo, that maybe some of the links ingame should be moved
[ 16:59:28 ] < Fubu >  things that could be put into the portal
[ 16:59:42 ] < Fubu >  and more appropriate their, as a station before you are "in-game"
[ 17:00:04 ] < Azzer >  You refer mainly to the "other" section of the menu?
[ 17:00:05 ] < Fubu >  it is very confusing as people say to noobs
[ 17:00:14 ] < Azzer >  And "your account"
[ 17:00:20 ] < Fubu >  yeh mainly
[ 17:00:23 ] < Fubu >  jst needs a few less
[ 17:00:29 ] < Fubu >  so people dont get distracted on them
[ 17:00:50 ] < Fubu >  obviously we need most
[ 17:00:56 ] < Azzer >  Well you can minimise menu sections don't forget, try and minimise every section and just open two of them, it looks kinda cute ;P
[ 17:01:03 ] < Fubu >  yeh true
[ 17:01:17 ] < Fubu >  bt then to get back to the option u have to re-open the part
[ 17:01:20 ] < Azzer >  So players can have their "Your account" menu section perma minimised, and just open it if they really need to
[ 17:01:28 ] < Fubu >  i jst think the actual ingame part needs to be jst that
[ 17:01:32 ] < Fubu >  the game, where u play
[ 17:01:42 ] < Fubu >  and the other out of game parts should be portal orientated
[ 17:01:48 ] < Azzer >  Hmm perhaps, I'll have a think on it. There could be a few of those links that might be able to disappear.
[ 17:01:49 ] < Fubu >  i dunno jst my thoughts lol
[ 17:01:59 ] < Azzer >  Ok thanks for your input :)
[ 17:02:02 ] < Fubu >  np
4.1.5: Twigley.
[ 17:02:05 ] < Azzer >  Twigley
[ 17:02:08 ] < Azzer >  If you will!
[ 17:02:12 ] < Azzer >  Then we'll open it up to all
[ 17:02:12 ] < Twigley >  Ok
[ 17:02:28 ] < Twigley >  First ... i dont want to encourage logging on from wireless devices etc
[ 17:02:35 ] < Twigley >  Zaheen had a nice title of
[ 17:02:39 ] < Twigley >  "Phone call wars"
[ 17:02:52 ] < Twigley >  But that can be debated in the forums i guess.
[ 17:02:57 ] < Twigley >  Second point - i agree with polo
[ 17:03:04 ] < Twigley >  World tables ... i dont like it in general also
[ 17:03:05 ] < Azzer >  I think from a business and modern day perspective - there is no longer any choice but to actively embrace the modern mobile browser user.
[ 17:03:47 ] < Twigley >  Possibly, but i still dont think its right ... i use a mobile aswell so im a hypocrite ;D Just dont think it should be any easier
[ 17:03:54 ] < Twigley >  Ok second point - @ World tables ...
[ 17:04:06 ] < Twigley >  Imo get rid of the link, put it in statistics
[ 17:04:17 ] < Twigley >  You said they are lesser ranks
[ 17:04:25 ] < Azzer >  yeah, it's a fair comment, I can't really argue with it.
[ 17:04:27 ] < Twigley >  But imo one rank should be all there is
[ 17:04:34 ] < Azzer >  We'll talk about ranks later ^^
[ 17:04:36 ] < Twigley >  Idd.
[ 17:04:41 ] < Twigley >  Ok and a suggestion from me
[ 17:04:48 ] < Twigley >  About global pols interface
[ 17:04:59 ] < Twigley >  Imo its a failure
[ 17:05:06 ] < Twigley >  And it needs a relift
[ 17:05:19 ] < Twigley >  If ... you would all click on "portal" on your left hand side menu
[ 17:05:22 ] < Twigley >  And look at that layout
[ 17:05:25 ] < Twigley >  How its all "one post"
[ 17:05:52 ] < Twigley >  My suggestion is that ally officers would mail helpers or someone allocated what they want to express
[ 17:06:03 ] < Twigley >  It gets put into some newsletter almost
[ 17:06:12 ] < Twigley >  Informing people, showing what leaders have to say
[ 17:06:19 ] < Twigley >  Atm its either spam, flaming or nothing
[ 17:06:28 ] < Twigley >  Get some BR's on there, some fighting talk
[ 17:06:30 ] < Twigley >  -
[ 17:06:39 ] < Azzer >  You mean more like portal news?
[ 17:06:42 ] < Twigley >  Yes
[ 17:06:44 ] < Azzer >  As opposed to politics
[ 17:06:48 ] < Twigley >  Yes
[ 17:07:01 ] < Twigley >  That interface would work better, imo
[ 17:07:02 ] < Azzer >  We actually have a specific global politics subject area later for the mechanics of how it will work, so we'll cover that more and maybe get you to chat early on in that
[ 17:07:17 ] < Azzer >  Since I think changing it from a "threads" system to a "wall" system would change the nature of it altogether
[ 17:07:20 ] < Twigley >  Ok
[ 17:07:28 ] < Twigley >  Ive told you about this one briefly
[ 17:07:39 ] < Azzer >  Yeah, and I like it, and agree with it, but say it again for the logs/everyone else
[ 17:07:50 ] < Twigley >  Development page - When a new player clicks on it ... what route do they pick?
[ 17:07:55 ] < Twigley >  You all say that a player plays the game first
[ 17:07:56 ] < Twigley >  Then reads
[ 17:08:04 ] < Twigley >  So what if a player see's that they have a bad solo route
[ 17:08:14 ] < Twigley >  Or a route more specified to a more exp player
[ 17:08:40 ] < Twigley >  So my suggestion is that when you create an id, before you start a tech there is a page like from wiki where people can see pro's cons and advise
[ 17:08:49 ] < Twigley >  When you click on "Development"
[ 17:08:54 ] < Twigley >  As soon as you start a tech
[ 17:08:58 ] < Azzer >  But within the development page itself - clicking the "first tech" of a route gives some info about that route, the playstyle etc.
[ 17:09:13 ] < Azzer >  Whether it's hard/easy/solo/allied/whatever... so people know what they are getting themselves into
[ 17:09:15 ] < Twigley >  I think before you can even press "start" or what ever
[ 17:09:34 ] < Twigley >  And then when you start one .. that page can be hidden like help links
[ 17:10:04 ] < Twigley >  Thats pretty much it on the interface from me that aint already been said
[ 17:10:05 ] < Twigley >  ^^
[ 17:10:12 ] < Azzer >  Ok cheers for the input Twigs
[ 17:10:22 ] < Azzer >  Opening the floor to everyone now :)
4.2.0: Open Floor Discussion.
[ 17:10:24 ] < Willymchilybily >  i would like the ability to have the player tooltips when on the statistics page. as you can just check the player out on world view anyway. this is the only use i have for world view atm, if your that desperate i go to world view and look up a player so i can hover over them. but atm i cant hover over some one who holds a specific statistic and get his info. id also like allies if public to be included in the toolti
[ 17:10:24 ] < Bunion >  I would like to see "Search" moved to the "Intel & Combat" submenu as it is part of "intel". Also merging "World View" into Search. Also an addition of a system similar to Starsphere, whereby in teh search, there were 4 options next to each ID with [D/F/H/S] and you click one and it takes you to the Intelligence screen having drive-by/fly-over/hax0r/spiy the target.
[ 17:10:30 ] < Tim >  I find Twigley's concerns about logging on from mobile devices curious and a little old-fashioned. Mobile Devices and tablet computers are the way forward, like it or not. I myself play Bushtarion on my iPod Touch from the comfort of my own couch, so that I don't have to be cooped up in front of the computer all the time - hardly "phone call wars", is it ;)
[ 17:10:31 ] < Netherdragon >  lol
[ 17:10:33 ] < IoF >  Twigs idea on development could come down to self opnion (whether a route comes up as hard, easy allied etc) not everyone would agree, how would u get an overal opinion?
[ 17:10:35 ] < Freddy >  I think, if you ease logging on from wireless devices, it allows for a wider and increased playerbase that can play (which is always good), and also, I know I can't be bothered to carry a laptop with me around the house if I can carry my Ipod Touch, it just encourages people to be online a little more =P
[ 17:10:46 ] < TNick >  I would like to be able to change the font size in IE like I am in FireFox. There are times where my eyes don't want to focus so need to make text font a little bigger....wondering if there would be a way to code the font size to allow to me adjust the font size if need be? (at work I am forced to use IE)
[ 17:11:04 ] < [R]Martin >  TNick - Hold ctrl and scroll, it will zoom in and out
[ 17:11:11 ] < DarkSider >  Well i hope my points are on the subject so here they come :
[ 17:11:11 ] < [R]Martin >  *scroll on your mouse
[ 17:11:16 ] < DarkSider >  - Make everything easy to find. Once you are logged on your ID, in "Your account" you should have stuff related to your ID only and a link back to Portal page. In the portal page (where it asks to select an id) you should have a menu only for account options. So once you are in your id you can see only ID related links/options, if you want to see account mail/account options/ user profile etc you should have access to them from your account.
[ 17:11:17 ] < DarkSider >  - Have id's in alliances when pressing "Your alliance" displayed in same order as when you press on a public alliance on the alliances page.
[ 17:11:17 ] < DarkSider >  - Remove world view - can't see the point of it.
[ 17:11:18 ] < DarkSider >  - Search page - If possible make it on "Not id list" to enter many id's, even over 100 if you need. Also add a total acres, valuation and real score for the currently displayed id's ?
[ 17:11:20 ] < DarkSider >  - Improve tooltips use. Add easy mass intel forwarding, or enable alliance leader/officers edit the alliance tooltip for selected id's. Allow players to add to their own tooltip info that can be seen only by their alliance mates (offline messages etc).
[ 17:11:29 ] < DarkSider >  - Messages: Add an option to hide messages from your own alliance ? I had to find some mails before from ppl outside and had to browse through many pages :p
[ 17:11:30 ] < DarkSider >  - developement page: Make new players more aware they are choosing a route from the very first developement they start. So maybe ahve all routes displayed, then they select one and they get to see only generic devs + own route devs only. This way ppl won't accidentally start the wrong devs either.
[ 17:11:32 ] < TNick >  I do do that, RMartin...but doesn't incrase the size
[ 17:11:32 ] < DarkSider >  Also just as view only you should have access to all other techs to see their eta/cost and get an ideea
[ 17:11:33 ] < hippie >  make the menu so you can move it to the right ------->
[ 17:11:34 ] < DarkSider >  - Allow all members to see online times of alliance members, all members to see the "A-mail" on alliances page, all members to see all stats from all members in their alliance.
[ 17:11:40 ] < hippie >  would make life easier for me :P
[ 17:11:42 ] < Willymchilybily >  as i want to make sure its read
[ 17:11:47 ] < DarkSider >  - Add a planning page ? For attacks it might be nice to have an easy to fill a form that outputs a simple graphical page. You pick your target(s) and input what you want to send, everybody can do same and the elader/officers can also edit what they want the plan to look like. The planning page for defence can be on the current "Your alliance" page where Leader/officers can require certain troops for certain defences.
[ 17:11:47 ] < DarkSider >  - Global politics: I think the action should go back in forums. IN gpols only a couple members post and personally i miss all the debates and forum action, arguing, propaganda, dirt fights too.
[ 17:11:47 ] < DarkSider >  - Add a reset id option with options to keep current id/name/generic techs developed.
[ 17:11:48 ] < Willymchilybily >  at some point
[ 17:11:48 ] < Azzer >  Bunion and Willymchilybily - Both good ideas and comments (what you both said just as I opened it)
[ 17:11:56 ] < Willymchilybily >  ty
[ 17:11:57 ] < Caranthir >  The format on iPod touch is fine
[ 17:11:57 ] < Bunion >  :)
[ 17:11:58 ] < Bunion >  ty
[ 17:12:06 ] < Caranthir >  its easy enough to scroll on that where you dont need a "lite" version
[ 17:12:07 ] < Caranthir >  tbh
[ 17:12:29 ] < Tim >  Caranthir - it could be better. I use it a lot and it is like many pages designed for pc browsers; good, but could be better.
[ 17:12:42 ] < Tim >  The current format is certainly not great for "lesser" devices like mobile phones
[ 17:13:09 ] < IoF >  sorry im IT retarded...by an interface you mean...
[ 17:13:15 ] < [R]Martin >  Screen
[ 17:13:19 ] < Freddy >  A good example is how Facebook is dampened down on iPhones and iPod touches
[ 17:13:19 ] < Tim >  Interface = The way it looks
[ 17:13:23 ] < Darryl >  I like the idea of the top menu, really, it'd also help with what Azzer mentioned earlier about limited width space
[ 17:13:26 ] < IoF >  ok thanks
[ 17:13:30 ] < Azzer >  DarkSider - a lot of ideas to read there, but the majority of them actually sound good.
[ 17:13:30 ] < Tim >  Exactly Freddy, something like that would be good for Bushtarion
[ 17:13:31 ] < Iamsmart >  Ingame Layout / Menu options
[ 17:13:41 ] < DR4545 >  Willy said it first, but I agree 100% that if a player is in a public ally it should show on their tooltip
[ 17:13:56 ] < Azzer >  Hippie - you should be able to move the menu to the right with a custom scheme, but it looks hideous
[ 17:13:58 ] < Dennis >  what is a top menu?
[ 17:13:59 ] < Grey >  Small suggestion - maybe make (disableable) hovvering javascript tooltip thingies for each link on the lefthand menu with brief explanations on what each does so its not quite as confusing for newer players.
[ 17:14:04 ] < DR4545 >  I don't like the idea of menu at top, you would then have to scroll down your page every time to see what you want
[ 17:14:07 ] < Azzer >  Menu at the top, horizontally, Dennis.
[ 17:14:11 ] < Azzer >  Instead of along the left, vertically.
[ 17:14:11 ] < Dennis >  Ohh
[ 17:14:12 ] < Dennis >  bleh :S
[ 17:14:16 ] < Tim >  Only as an option though DR4545
[ 17:14:29 ] < Tim >  Some people might prefer it, those with text-based browsers such as Lynx for example?
[ 17:14:30 ] < Willymchilybily >  like on peoples custom layouts
[ 17:14:30 ] < DR4545 >  ok, as option (for mobile?) that sounds good
[ 17:14:44 ] < Azzer >  yeah top menu would definitely be considered for mobile devices
[ 17:14:46 ] < Caranthir >  kinda like ESPN's wouldnt be horrible... with the main menus and it drops down when you scroll over
[ 17:14:51 ] < Azzer >  Just not for the in-game menu system we have for the "main game".
[ 17:15:07 ] < Darryl >  It could just be a fine bar with the section headers, then a drop down menu or something so it doesn't take up much space at the top?
[ 17:15:09 ] < Azzer >  As there is too much menu items to "work" in a top menu environment, without annoying "popup" menus.
[ 17:15:20 ] < Darryl >  Bah :p
[ 17:15:23 ] < Azzer >  (but in a browser environ where there's limited menu options, it could be workable)
[ 17:15:23 ] < Dennis >  hahahaha
[ 17:15:24 ] < Dennis >  :P
[ 17:15:35 ] < Dennis >  darryl @ pwnd :>
[ 17:15:35 ] < Azzer >  Darryl got pwned within a second.
[ 17:15:48 ] < Darryl >  Quite :(
[ 17:16:07 ] < Dennis >  2 seconds to be exact
[ 17:16:10 ] < Azzer >  Ok thanks for everyone's inputt, eher's a lot to hink about in general, and I think the MAIN thing is a mobile/ipod type version. But some general layout stuff, and I'd like to go over DarkSider's ideas in detail "sometime".

5.0.0: Tech tree and Unit balances / Dynamics.

[ 17:16:25 ] < Azzer >  Next topic, things might start hotting up a bit now.
[ 17:16:27 ] < Azzer >  "Tech tree and Unit balances / Dynamics"
[ 17:16:49 ] < Azzer >  How tech trees work, the process of developing techs. The dynamics of those tech trees with eachother (playstyles/strategies)
[ 17:16:59 ] < Azzer >  And the units - imbalanced units, balanced units, etc.
[ 17:17:08 ] < Azzer >  Hands up those that have something to say, I expect a lot of you do.
5.1.0: One-on-ones.
5.1.1: Martin.
[ 17:18:47 ] < Azzer >  [R]Martin - I'd like to start with you please :)
[ 17:18:53 ] < [R]Martin >  Righto
[ 17:19:01 ] < [R]Martin >  To be blunt, start it again with the routes
[ 17:19:06 ] * < Azzer >  winces.
[ 17:19:15 ] < Azzer >  What? :P
[ 17:19:25 ] < [R]Martin >  'New face of Bushtarion'
[ 17:19:34 ] < [R]Martin >  The most fun part is trying everything
[ 17:19:39 ] < Azzer >  But why? You can't have new purely for the sake of new?
[ 17:19:49 ] < [R]Martin >  I'm not finished!
[ 17:20:06 ] < Azzer >  It's a discussion with me ;)
[ 17:20:13 ] < [R]Martin >  At the moment it's lots of add ons for countering, anti-countering the percentage bonuses
[ 17:20:21 ] < [R]Martin >  It's too complex, and it gives us older players far too much of an edge
[ 17:20:32 ] < [R]Martin >  Put me, DS, Polo, Twigs on parr with everyone else and start again
[ 17:20:48 ] < [R]Martin >  and forgot the ally points system, there is one rank, and one rank only
[ 17:20:56 ] < [R]Martin >  tbh, go back to age 2
[ 17:21:20 ] < [R]Martin >  It's got too complex with the game telling you *how* to play
[ 17:21:28 ] < [R]Martin >  Learn for yourself again
[ 17:22:05 ] < Azzer >  Considering how far we've got with the unit balances and systems, I will say I am heavily, heavily opposed to the idea of simply scratching everything done with routes and units altogether and just "starting again".
[ 17:22:19 ] < Azzer >  Mainly because of how many rounds it takes to get balances right between routes.
[ 17:22:23 ] < [R]Martin >  Well, how about going back to the basics and working everything around it again
[ 17:22:24 ] < Azzer >  I don't want two more years of balancing.
[ 17:22:35 ] < [R]Martin >  I appreciate that
[ 17:22:50 ] < [R]Martin >  but the most exciting part of new ages for me is trying new routes/units
[ 17:23:04 ] < [R]Martin >  Fresh start
[ 17:23:13 ] < [R]Martin >  and I am heavily against multiple ranking systems
[ 17:23:39 ] < Azzer >  We'll discuss the ranking systems on another topic
[ 17:23:41 ] < [R]Martin >  and I liked LF and the Bounty system
[ 17:23:48 ] < Azzer >  Likewise game mechanics etc.
[ 17:23:56 ] < [R]Martin >  Dynamics and Mechanics are different?
[ 17:23:57 ] < [R]Martin >  :P
[ 17:23:57 ] < Azzer >  Just the tech tree/units/balances atm
[ 17:24:14 ] < Azzer >  Big enough subject on it's own ;)
[ 17:24:17 ] < [R]Martin >  okies
[ 17:24:26 ] < [R]Martin >  Well I'd like to change a lot of the units and routes
[ 17:24:35 ] < [R]Martin >  Not sure in what/which direction
[ 17:24:39 ] < [R]Martin >  but it's become too stagnent
[ 17:24:47 ] < Azzer >  Just so things are "fresh"? Or... so there are less routes? More "specific roles" for each route?
[ 17:25:08 ] < Azzer >  "straight line" tech trees just seperate routes? One single tech tree but that branches very complexely later on?
[ 17:25:11 ] < [R]Martin >  More fresh than anything, we have enough routes at the moment
[ 17:25:17 ] < [R]Martin >  Nah, the branches idea is very good
[ 17:25:21 ] < Azzer >  (eg one "route" but how you develop down it slowly turns you in to a certain route)
[ 17:25:48 ] < [R]Martin >  The development side of Bushtarion is unique to any other online game and it's brilliant how you have started it
[ 17:26:01 ] < [R]Martin >  I think it just needs a bit of a clean slate with the same design/frame
[ 17:26:29 ] < Azzer >  Well as youc an imagine that'd be VERY painful for me, and the playerbase as a whole - you'd all be re-learning the routes... and at the same time every round be having things unlearned as they changed.
[ 17:26:40 ] < [R]Martin >  because at the moment the reason I don't want to play is because it's all too samey
[ 17:26:40 ] < Azzer >  Remember when sorcs were way OP'ed, everyone massed them one round, I balanced them, everyone hated me.
[ 17:26:45 ] < Azzer >  Likewise most imbalanced units/routes.
[ 17:26:54 ] < Azzer >  (RPG's way back, strikers, all sorts of units over the ages)
[ 17:26:55 ] < [R]Martin >  and with the addons and stuff it's too complex to come in to it new for new players
[ 17:26:58 ] < [R]Martin >  Yeah I remember
[ 17:27:07 ] < [R]Martin >  PAs targetting all etc,
[ 17:27:21 ] < Azzer >  yeah... it'd all start over again, we'd have literally years of re-balancing efforts I think
[ 17:27:40 ] < [R]Martin >  and in them years lots of players will want to re-sign up for the next round to try the changes
[ 17:27:40 ] < [R]Martin >  ;)
[ 17:28:01 ] < Azzer >  hehe maybe, well we'll see what others have to say on the subject, going to grab another talker now, thanks for your input :D
[ 17:28:05 ] < [R]Martin >  np
5.1.2: Nopjes.
[ 17:28:16 ] < Azzer >  Nopjes :)
[ 17:28:23 ] * < Nopjes >  walks to the center
[ 17:28:28 ] < Nopjes >  2 things:)
[ 17:28:39 ] < Nopjes >  harriers are currently weak
[ 17:28:53 ] < Nopjes >  the route has a bad survivability
[ 17:29:15 ] < Nopjes >  and harriers barely deal dmg
[ 17:29:19 ] < Azzer >  Harriers? Really? I always think of that route is very survivable.
[ 17:29:30 ] < Nopjes >  nope:P
[ 17:29:50 ] < Nopjes >  my suggestion is give them a bonus vs strikers or something
[ 17:30:00 ] < Nopjes >  as there currently barely is anything that kills strikers
[ 17:30:40 ] < Azzer >  Well I think the unit is pretty balanced, but perhaps others speaking up will agree and make me see what I am missing!
[ 17:30:53 ] < Nopjes >  k:)
[ 17:30:54 ] < Nopjes >  second
[ 17:30:57 ] < Nopjes >  armour vs health
[ 17:31:02 ] < Nopjes >  armour >health
[ 17:31:19 ] < Nopjes >  health can't dmg an armour unit
[ 17:31:53 ] < Nopjes >  lets say stikers vs snipers
[ 17:32:04 ] < Nopjes >  armour based armour dmg vs health based health dmg
[ 17:32:25 ] < Nopjes >  ehm
[ 17:32:39 ] < Nopjes >  strikers would get about 1:10 or so
[ 17:32:46 ] < Nopjes >  snipers would get about 1:100
[ 17:32:58 ] < Azzer >  The health and armour system is designed to require strategies... if somebody is a heavily armoured route, you want units that do heavy armour damage. If a route has both, you need a clever strategy of armour "strippers", and then health hitters.
[ 17:33:00 ] < Nopjes >  armour is in an advantage in any br imo
[ 17:33:19 ] < Azzer >  You have to think of it as it sounds - health is your "life", armour is your body armour around you. Armour must be stripped before you can get to the person underneath.
[ 17:33:46 ] < Azzer >  There are units with little to no armour and very high health - and these units are vital in battles or you get torn to shreds by high armour hitters that do little health damage.
[ 17:34:02 ] < Azzer >  Anyway, thanks for the input, am going to move on to the next talker now! :D
[ 17:34:09 ] < Nopjes >  oke;)
5.1.3: Netherdragon.
[ 17:34:21 ] < Azzer >  Hello Netherdragon
[ 17:34:24 ] < Netherdragon >  hey
[ 17:34:32 ] < Netherdragon >  i really only have one thing to put in
[ 17:34:47 ] < Netherdragon >  i strongly beleive unit specific units are a bad idea
[ 17:35:01 ] < Netherdragon >  bunker busters and emps being the 2 main ones
[ 17:35:03 ] < Azzer >  "specialist" units you mean, like EMP, Bunker BUster?
[ 17:35:10 ] < Azzer >  Why do you think they are a bad idea?
[ 17:36:15 ] < Netherdragon >  emps do almost nothing against anything but pas and bunker busters are the same against anythign other than bunkers/ sentries as u know and this makes them confusing to new players and usless the majority of the time
[ 17:36:15 ] * < Azzer >  pokes.
[ 17:36:24 ] < Netherdragon >  sorry dog being nuicence
[ 17:36:58 ] < Azzer >  Well that is their point - they can absolutely tear a special/specific unit apart, and do amazingly well at it... but can really hinder a route setup against other people/people attacking you, as they are only good against specifics.
[ 17:37:07 ] < Azzer >  Sort of "glass cannon" in a vague sense.
[ 17:37:26 ] < Azzer >  I think points about them being confusing to new players related more to player advice/wiki/manual system/tutorial and experience.
[ 17:37:29 ] < Netherdragon >  this makes them bad for new players
[ 17:37:45 ] < Azzer >  I don't think all the units/routes in the game need to be simplified just to help new players get in to the game, else they won't have a very deep game to get in to.
[ 17:38:07 ] < Netherdragon >  i get the generall idea behind them but its not one i tend to agree with, and seeing some forum posts im not the only one
[ 17:38:27 ] < Azzer >  Well that can go in the hand of telling new players "These are specialist units, don't get them unless you want to specifically target  units!"
[ 17:38:29 ] < Netherdragon >  maybe if they were slightly more usefull against other units it may help
[ 17:38:34 ] < Azzer >  I think simply removing it just for beginners would be a bad idea.
[ 17:38:50 ] < Azzer >  I like having a deep/complex game to get in to, just as long as we can teach players correctly in the first place.
[ 17:39:21 ] < Netherdragon >  fair point, but maybe if they could actually be a bit usefull in other circumstances it would be a good compromise
[ 17:39:37 ] < Azzer >  Hehe maybe, but they'd have to lose some specialist edge probably, which means they might end up not being so specialist!
[ 17:39:58 ] < Azzer >  Ok need to move on to the next talker, this is going to be a long topic altogether I think, so thanks for your input! :D
[ 17:40:01 ] < Netherdragon >  kk
5.1.4: f0xx.
[ 17:40:17 ] < Azzer >  f0xxy
[ 17:40:22 ] < f0xx >  Lol, already :)
[ 17:40:24 ] < f0xx >  alright
[ 17:40:34 ] < f0xx >  firstly, I will begin with most have mentioned already
[ 17:40:43 ] < f0xx >  Specialist units have no place in the game.
[ 17:40:50 ] < f0xx >  A route should have an idea behind it
[ 17:41:04 ] < f0xx >  not to exist just to be a counter to another route
[ 17:41:10 ] < f0xx >  the same goes with units
[ 17:41:43 ] < f0xx >  creating units just for the sake of countering other units is lazy balancing
[ 17:41:49 ] < f0xx >  it is not quality
[ 17:42:01 ] < Azzer >  Routes do have ideas, the specialist units aren't in place of these concepts, they are "optional" units (both core specialist units have an 'alternative unit' you can develop to remain more general)
[ 17:42:24 ] < f0xx >  I know "most" routes have ideas behind
[ 17:42:31 ] < Azzer >  it's about offering more strategic choice. A unit that is ace at certain enemies but rubbish elsewhere, or go a bit more "general" with your route.
[ 17:43:09 ] < f0xx >  As I sait, I believe balancing in other ways will be better
[ 17:43:15 ] < f0xx >  than just to create a unit to counter another
[ 17:43:20 ] < f0xx >  also
[ 17:43:39 ] < f0xx >  different unit classes should be removed
[ 17:43:48 ] < f0xx >  unit bonuses as well
[ 17:44:11 ] < Azzer >  By classes you mean "living" "Vehicle" "Robot", or... Let/Inn/NLT/NLD? :P
[ 17:44:19 ] < f0xx >  living etc...
[ 17:44:50 ] < f0xx >  Also as martin said I think most of the routes should be re-designed
[ 17:44:53 ] < Azzer >  Most of the unit bonuses and types etc. are all part of the complex balance of the game, part of that "Lots behind the scenes you can learn and master".
[ 17:44:55 ] < f0xx >  especially the newer routes
[ 17:45:19 ] < Azzer >  You *can* ignore the unit bonuses and just play - really you can... but if you pickup on these special abilities and bonuses, you can have tactical edges over others, but likewise tactical weaknesses.
[ 17:46:04 ] < Azzer >  I really think with the units, simplicity *isn't* good - as long as you actually have the ability to develop a route ignore the specialist side of things and still play your route (which you can)... that's great... with the facility for people to study things in more depth and become masters
[ 17:46:14 ] < Azzer >  if everything was the same type, no specialist units, no specialist bonuses...
[ 17:46:29 ] < Azzer >  Everything would be fairly "generic"/"general"... just a vague idea of "this one does armour" "This one does health".
[ 17:46:57 ] < f0xx >  as I said more thought should be put behind the main idea behind the route
[ 17:47:04 ] < f0xx >  not about adding bonuses to certain units
[ 17:47:19 ] < Azzer >  There's only so much you can do to a main rotue, with so many routes/units, without being able to use special abilities, bonuses, and other stats.
[ 17:47:23 ] < Azzer >  *route
[ 17:47:38 ] < Azzer >  It's why the bonuses were added - I'd reached the limit of how much fine tuning, balancing, or unique ideas could be introduced.
[ 17:47:53 ] < f0xx >  there are a lot of unique ideas out there
[ 17:48:02 ] < f0xx >  they just need to be worked on a bit
[ 17:48:08 ] < Azzer >  I was approaching points where a unit that had high initiative would either pwn too much, or suck too much... unless I could give other units a special edge on it without making these other units overpowered against everything.
[ 17:48:53 ] < f0xx >  There ARE ideas out there
[ 17:49:04 ] < f0xx >  just look for them :)
[ 17:49:06 ] < Azzer >  hehe I do.
[ 17:49:13 ] < f0xx >  I am done now.
[ 17:49:16 ] < Azzer >  Ok thanks for the input anyway, going to have to move this along to the next speaker now ^^
[ 17:49:19 ] < f0xx >  Other can have the word.
5.1.5: Monk.
[ 17:49:38 ] < Azzer >  Monk :)
[ 17:49:39 ] < Monk >  :o
[ 17:49:44 ] < Monk >  Going to hate me
[ 17:49:57 ] < Monk >  But i am going to touch on these "specialist" abilities :D
[ 17:50:16 ] < Monk >  I also agree with what has been said before, and i do not like the idea of them.
[ 17:50:18 ] < Azzer >  Well bear in mind what I've said above
[ 17:50:21 ] < Azzer >  Just to save me repeating ^^
[ 17:50:23 ] < Monk >  i do and will
[ 17:50:58 ] < Monk >  I agree, that you said there was a limit to that you have reached in terms of tweaking, but some of these abilities i see .. i feel there wasnt a need for a tweak
[ 17:51:17 ] < Monk >  I'll take the Secret Agent and the SO side
[ 17:51:36 ] < Monk >  Was a very good route back in, round 10? Did too much AD, fair enough, nerf.
[ 17:51:58 ] < Monk >  Still a good route, but then people started to learn about TLs, not bad vs SO, a good counter, with XP
[ 17:52:36 ] < Monk >  Then, we saw the introduction of Rangers, no .. they do counter the SA route well, if SA heavy .. and if Assas heavy ... TLs handle that .. so do snipers and the like
[ 17:52:40 ] < Monk >  etc etc.
[ 17:52:52 ] < Monk >  The thing i didn't get ... is why Vamps needed the boost etc
[ 17:53:25 ] < Azzer >  You think the undead bonuses against special ops units needs removing?
[ 17:53:36 ] < Monk >  along those lines yea
[ 17:53:43 ] < Monk >  take a look at the bonuses as a whole
[ 17:53:47 ] < Azzer >  Perhaps they do, I'm not certain, but SA is taking a decline atm.
[ 17:53:48 ] < Monk >  and re-evaluate them
[ 17:53:54 ] < Monk >  aye, sa suck tbh
[ 17:54:09 ] < Monk >  but i get the just of bonuses, and what you said to f0xx
[ 17:54:10 ] < Azzer >  I'm happy to re-balance and re-do bonuses, I'm just not going to "scrap them all and abandon them", because they are essentially to tweaking & balancing a complex game.
[ 17:54:18 ] < Azzer >  *essential.
[ 17:54:47 ] < Monk >  thats about it realy ... mechanics where later i heard :D
[ 17:54:59 ] < Azzer >  Hehe yes, ok great, that's good feedback thanks :)
5.1.6: Turnip.
[ 17:55:23 ] < Azzer >  Parsnip, you've always got a view on unit balances.
[ 17:55:25 ] < Azzer >  What's your say?
[ 17:55:31 ] < Turnip >  hey
[ 17:55:33 ] < Turnip >  sorry
[ 17:55:46 ] < Turnip >  well...several things niggle me about the unit balances
[ 17:55:56 ] < Turnip >  particularly with the sorc route as a whole
[ 17:56:06 ] < Turnip >  i just dont feel like it has a place in the game
[ 17:56:14 ] < Turnip >  it doesnt add anything new
[ 17:56:48 ] < Azzer >  Do you feel it's *imbalanced*... or just pointless... or both?
[ 17:57:20 ] < Turnip >  well, more in the fact that there isnt anything it can do that other routes dont do better
[ 17:57:33 ] < Azzer >  Eg does it just get pwned by everything, if so then it's imbalanced... if it just "plods along" with no specialties but no deficits, then it works well as a "general route" (so could be good for people that don't have a concept of how they want to play yet)
[ 17:57:50 ] < Turnip >  it doesnt get ripped on by everything, it is a survivable route in most cases
[ 17:58:12 ] < Turnip >  but when taken into account with what it can kill, what it can provide an ally defensively / offensively in a tactical sense
[ 17:58:17 ] < Turnip >  there isnt a whole lot to be said
[ 17:58:33 ] < Azzer >  So perhaps it's role (which would need a bit more focus since this wasn't the original focus) could be to actually have a role of being... just... general. A few tricks, a few downsides, but mostly a "general route"
[ 17:59:01 ] < Turnip >  generic routes go against this whole balancing issue though
[ 17:59:17 ] < Turnip >  each route needs to have strengths and weaknesses or it hasnt got anything to add
[ 17:59:29 ] < Azzer >  Well if doesn't get pwned by everything, and doesn't pwn everything, then it does have a balance.
[ 17:59:41 ] < Turnip >  balance and place in the game are seperate things
[ 17:59:42 ] < Azzer >  It offers a place for those that don't want to study stuff to play casually. New players, casual players.
[ 18:00:16 ] < Turnip >  it doesnt give them any ability to attack with great success
[ 18:00:17 ] < Azzer >  (btw the Sorc route never did have a specific aim in my mind other than a bit of general targetting against prots, but not to biker levels)
[ 18:00:40 ] < Azzer >  It always was a fairly "general" one, with a couple of nice tricks (sirens used teamed up with puppet masters etc.)
[ 18:00:51 ] < Turnip >  the sorc unit as a whole was nerfed a bit too much too imo - it needs some more HP / AP
[ 18:01:11 ] < Turnip >  sorry, i just feel like the game would do better with the route being geared towards an aim
[ 18:01:20 ] < Turnip >  and one last thing before i have to go, which will be soon
[ 18:01:22 ] < Azzer >  Is there any particular aims we need a route to fill atm?
[ 18:01:39 ] < Turnip >  bribing converion rates need to be altered
[ 18:01:59 ] < Azzer >  Conversion rates, or bribing rates, or both?
[ 18:02:01 ] < Turnip >  bribers are suffering, and gargantuans in particular are going to be totally nerfed by this
[ 18:02:17 ] < Turnip >  gargantuans are incredibly hard and expensive to get in 99% of cases
[ 18:02:24 ] < Turnip >  and getting no injuries on them is quite horrific
[ 18:02:34 ] < Azzer >  So perhaps scrap bots conversion rate wants upping drastically then, especially in light of no injuries on them
[ 18:02:39 ] < Turnip >  especially with some units getting a 100% bonus on them
[ 18:02:47 ] < Turnip >  the 100% bonus needs removing definately
[ 18:02:50 ] < Azzer >  And even maybe up the gargantuans survivability even more (o_O)
[ 18:03:01 ] < Azzer >  Aye the 100% bonus is likely not needed at all, especially now
[ 18:03:08 ] < Turnip >  maybe let scraps target HV / tractors partialls?
[ 18:03:14 ] < Turnip >  and up conversion rates
[ 18:03:18 ] < Turnip >  partially*
[ 18:03:34 ] < Turnip >  but yeah, the 100% needs to go
[ 18:03:38 ] < Turnip >  I apologise
[ 18:03:39 ] < Azzer >  Give scraps secondary INN? So they can hit tractors/combines?
[ 18:03:51 ] < Turnip >  LET / NLD / INN
[ 18:03:52 ] < Turnip >  maybe
[ 18:03:54 ] < Azzer >  And convert them to gargs
[ 18:03:56 ] < Azzer >  Hmm perhaps
[ 18:04:00 ] < Turnip >  ok, i must leave
[ 18:04:03 ] < Azzer >  It's a good idea, will look in to it
[ 18:04:05 ] < Azzer >  Thanks for your time :)
[ 18:04:07 ] < Turnip >  there is much i wanted to say - but gotta go
[ 18:04:08 ] < Turnip >  cheers
5.1.7: DarkSider.
[ 18:04:25 ] < Azzer >  Ok DS, fire away
[ 18:04:32 ] < DarkSider >  oh
[ 18:04:43 ] < DarkSider >  RPG: Improve slightly rpg route or nerf marines. Striker are more used lately as they are not as unsafe to play as rpg and in alliance BR's they don't sufer anywhere close to the damage an rpg gets. So i'd say either boost rpg's survability or their AD, if not work a bit on shocks.
[ 18:04:44 ] < DarkSider >  Striker: Give grenadiers/apache an armour bonus vs INN. - so solo's do decent damage vs tractor inc. Make HW eta 5.
[ 18:04:53 ] < DarkSider >  Make arsonist and chem sprayers decent units, valuable in your army instead beeing just a delay to your next developement.
[ 18:04:53 ] < DarkSider >  Robotics: Buff shields, their high armor for current price it's not worth it over PA. If you are to be picked as robotic victim you are more likely to be a target if you play the shield route since first tick your tyrants are almost as well flaked as on the PA route (not big diference in price & ratio) and on second tick it doesn't matter your subroute anymore as you don't get to fire.
[ 18:04:53 ] < DarkSider >  Undead: make gargs fire after TL's or somehow weaken the route against thugs. Having to fire with vamps and gargs before tl's is a bit overkill.
[ 18:05:06 ] < DarkSider >  Magic: Remove bunker buster (or at very least make them fire after bunkers so a player with a new account can't demolish a round of efforts of a high ranked bunker player just because he want to suicide before end) and make the route good against another, atm it's just good to throw it in defence to absorb some damage and do some random damage back. I'd sugest to improve sorcs against prot route or to edit them back to what they where first time just
[ 18:07:42 ] < DarkSider >  It's not that much :p
[ 18:07:44 ] < Azzer >  Ok read all that, a lot of that sounds good
[ 18:07:49 ] < Azzer >  Nothing too dramatic or out of order
[ 18:08:09 ] < Azzer >  That the lot? I don't have much to say since I can't really disagree with it, and some of it I need to look in to for myself to check the "claims".
[ 18:08:21 ] < DarkSider >  Yeah that's all from me
[ 18:08:29 ] < Azzer >  Ok cool, nice and quick but good stuff, thanks! :)
[ 18:08:32 ] < DarkSider >  :]
5.1.8: Sordes.
[ 18:08:44 ] < Sordes >  I got way to many views on this to fit in this short convo or the open later. So i hope that the debate on this will continue activly on the forums later. But i will stick to what i see as the main concern of mine. New Routes, An new more effective targeting system that would render bonus's unneeded. And an effective and fast way to ballance it compared to today.
[ 18:09:10 ] < Sordes >  The first issue is i stand for new routes, and i got a base for it on the forums currently found here: http://www.bushtarion.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=1257 that is open for use.
[ 18:09:21 ] < Azzer >  I'd prefer to just talk here, not head to forum directions please.
[ 18:09:29 ] < Sordes >  In that topic there is also a new targeting system that would make ballance much easier.
[ 18:09:50 ] < Azzer >  I'll have another read through your targetting ideas, my first run throguh I just thought "no, I much prefer what we have now, more interesting">
[ 18:10:01 ] < Sordes >  Just using it as a referance. My general views on the issue is all collected and explained in that topic.
[ 18:10:19 ] < Azzer >  Ok well, I'll grab another talker up that wants to chat then, hehe ;) Rest assured I have read your forum ideas :P
5.1.9: Bunion.
[ 18:10:48 ] < Bunion >  oh hai
[ 18:11:01 ] < Bunion >  right i have issues with so called "useless units"
[ 18:11:04 ] < Azzer >  One more person after Bunion then I'll open this topic for 5 mins and will take 10 minute break for food.
[ 18:11:17 ] < Bunion >  units that tend to have little or no use at one stage or another in a round
[ 18:11:27 ] < Azzer >  For example?
[ 18:11:47 ] < Bunion >  examples being serfs, cyborg soldiers, heavy weapons (with their current eta 6), arsonists chemical sprayers
[ 18:12:20 ] < Azzer >  It's fairly hard to give them uses without making an "early unit" be overpowered, for a couple of those.
[ 18:12:26 ] < Azzer >  (serfs in particular)
[ 18:12:28 ] < Bunion >  well take the serf
[ 18:12:32 ] < Bunion >  nlt/let
[ 18:12:44 ] < Bunion >  (paras too, thanks cal)
[ 18:12:44 ] < Azzer >  Arsonists & Chem sprayers I'm not sure what to do with other than just making them good at flak, have more power, or be cheaper, or whatever.
[ 18:12:58 ] < Bunion >  at the stage of the game that a serf comes out
[ 18:13:09 ] < Bunion >  spies are not out, it's flak wars
[ 18:13:33 ] < Bunion >  you wouldn't send a serf along in case of SAS, and what use have you of killing NLT in defense?
[ 18:13:53 ] < Bunion >  heavy weapons you've agreed already with DS to make eta5 (or have you? :P)
[ 18:14:10 ] < Bunion >  and cyborg soldiers
[ 18:14:12 ] < Azzer >  So either make serfs a defensive first unit rather than offensive, or make them NLT?
[ 18:14:34 ] < Azzer >  yeah probably at HW.
[ 18:14:37 ] < Azzer >  very likely
[ 18:14:44 ] < Bunion >  well it's up to you what to do with the serfs
[ 18:15:03 ] < Bunion >  i'm relatively new to the game and don't quite ahve the eye for precise adjustments
[ 18:15:18 ] < Bunion >  but they are "wrong" for their palce in the tree
[ 18:15:21 ] < Bunion >  CS too
[ 18:15:26 ] < Azzer >  I'll certainly have a look in to them, all the units you've mentioned...
[ 18:15:46 ] < Bunion >  the idea of health based "flak" at that price in an armour based route
[ 18:15:51 ] < Azzer >  And see what can be done to tidy up the "useless" units a bit
[ 18:15:54 ] < Bunion >  was a nice idea, just failed in practice
[ 18:16:19 ] < Azzer >  Mmm well I have an idea for that sub-route altogether, but it may get shot down in flames, I'm undecided on it.
[ 18:16:34 ] < Bunion >  ok fair enough :)
[ 18:16:36 ] < Bunion >  also
[ 18:16:37 ] < Bunion >  hooligans
[ 18:16:39 ] < Bunion >  great unit
[ 18:16:42 ] < Azzer >  Remove cyborg soldier. Move stun bot up a ladder. Introduced a "borg" unit, a briber for robots...
[ 18:16:44 ] < Bunion >  wrong place in the tree imo
[ 18:16:48 ] < Bunion >  ohhhhhhh
[ 18:16:49 ] < Bunion >  yay
[ 18:17:02 ] < Bunion >  i made that type of idea with CS on the forums
[ 18:17:04 ] < Azzer >  It's only a concept idea atm, but it's a possibility.
[ 18:17:05 ] < Bunion >  got shot down though
[ 18:17:08 ] * < Bunion >  glares at people
[ 18:17:20 ] < Azzer >  I've thought about a "borg" type unit since the introduction of robot route back in Age 2
[ 18:17:38 ] < Bunion >  well if no one else supports you, at least i will ^_^
[ 18:17:40 ] < Azzer >  hehe
[ 18:17:45 ] < Azzer >  Ok thanks for your time, one more talker now.
[ 18:17:51 ] < Bunion >  kk ty
5.1.10: Fubu.
[ 18:18:02 ] < Fubu >  yay
[ 18:18:03 ] < Azzer >  Ladies & gentlemen, Fubu on bribers ;)
[ 18:18:17 ] < Fubu >  well for me the most interestin part of the game
[ 18:18:22 ] < Fubu >  always play a route with em in
[ 18:18:26 ] < Fubu >  first off the puppets
[ 18:18:39 ] < Fubu >  with the new injury it means the route will always loose more score than other route
[ 18:18:51 ] < Fubu >  fair enough the aim of the route is to bribe, and build that way
[ 18:18:52 ] < Azzer >  But they can also take more score than any other route in theory remember
[ 18:19:03 ] < Fubu >  yeh, bt then a unit change within the route
[ 18:19:06 ] < Fubu >  steelies
[ 18:19:10 ] < Fubu >  yeh theyre great for solo
[ 18:19:19 ] < Fubu >  bt if u use puppets in an alli, theyres no point in em
[ 18:19:32 ] < Fubu >  maybe changing for a moveable unit
[ 18:19:41 ] < Fubu >  sort of siren like, with the stun idea
[ 18:19:43 ] < Azzer >  Mobile steel walls might be a bit OP'ed?
[ 18:19:47 ] < Fubu >  yeh
[ 18:19:51 ] < Azzer >  If allies could get loads of steel walls out in their joint attacks
[ 18:19:58 ] < Fubu >  yeh
[ 18:20:05 ] < Fubu >  im not sayin for a moveable steel wall
[ 18:20:13 ] < Azzer >  And without steel walls, solo puppet players might really struggle... but in honesty I don't know just how valuable or not steel walls are to solo puppet players.
[ 18:20:16 ] < Fubu >  bt an option for a dif unit instead
[ 18:20:26 ] < Fubu >  ie, two options, one geared for solo one for alli
[ 18:20:49 ] < Fubu >  puppets can be v useful in allies, bt are overlooked, because of their "generic" weakness
[ 18:21:07 ] < Fubu >  ive come round to the idea of not gaining injury for ur bribed troops
[ 18:21:09 ] < Fubu >  fair enough
[ 18:21:11 ] < Azzer >  Ah an alternate to the steel walls then
[ 18:21:14 ] < Fubu >  yes
[ 18:21:20 ] < Fubu >  like either u pick walls or "x"
[ 18:21:31 ] < Azzer >  But what sort of x, if you've put any thought in to it?
[ 18:21:37 ] < Fubu >  kinda
[ 18:21:45 ] < Fubu >  id think of somehtin like a stun unit
[ 18:21:49 ] < Fubu >  bt fairly weak
[ 18:21:59 ] < Fubu >  therefore it doesnt help too much wen walls come out
[ 18:22:05 ] < Fubu >  bt later on could be sueful
[ 18:22:17 ] < Fubu >  a weak siren type
[ 18:22:27 ] < Fubu >  even if its only to boost cloning from cloners
[ 18:22:29 ] < Fubu >  ie last tick
[ 18:22:38 ] < Dematto >  I played Puppets last round, NEVER thought about getting steel walls.. they are rather useless mainly because of the Immobility. You already have a weak firepower, having a part of your troops Immobile at home only makes things harder. Then again I was allied so didn't need to survive at home on my own
[ 18:22:41 ] < Azzer >  Possibly, it'd have to be pretty weak in that case if it was actively stunning, else it'd be too OP'ed.
[ 18:22:47 ] < Fubu >  yeh i agree
[ 18:22:53 ] * < Azzer >  pokes Dematto in to waiting for the open chat :P
[ 18:23:12 ] < Fubu >  bt it would possible give more options, and a lil more secuirity to puppets
[ 18:23:22 ] < Fubu >  the other bribing routes, i think are fairly balance
[ 18:23:28 ] < Fubu >  like hypnos, and RO's
[ 18:23:30 ] < Azzer >  What about the borg robot briber I mentioned above?
[ 18:23:43 ] < Fubu >  yeh i like the idea, and then with the scraps would be nice
[ 18:23:51 ] < Fubu >  again a fairly weak-ish unit
[ 18:24:03 ] < Fubu >  bt the whole bribing aspect adds more dimentions to the game
[ 18:24:04 ] < Azzer >  Ok well I think it's time to open this up for debate, this is going to be a busy topic I think.
[ 18:24:10 ] < Fubu >  lol
[ 18:24:25 ] < Azzer >  Thanks for your input on the bribers Fubu, I'll have a think on a steel alternative
[ 18:24:32 ] < Fubu >  kk np
[ 18:24:37 ] < Azzer >  Before I open it
[ 18:25:01 ] < Azzer >  Just want to say I'm going to take a 10 minute break to eat, while it's open. Everything's being logged and I'll read it all back in my free time so don't worry about me missing anything.
[ 18:25:24 ] < Azzer >  And the next topic after my 10 mins break will be "Rankings / Ranking System"
[ 18:25:28 ] < Azzer >  So hold on for that one :)
5.2.0: Open Floor Discussion
[ 18:25:32 ] < rooney >  im scared of this topic without +m!!!
[ 18:25:32 ] < Fubu >  jeez, 3 n a half hrs already :P
[ 18:25:32 ] < Iamsmart >  SPAM...START!
[ 18:25:33 ] < Tree` >  Paratroopers are completely worthless. And Steel Walls should fire [close], or be useful in some other way. And Mummys suck too - maybe think of them as earlier in the tree, since they're so bad. And Sirens should fire [all] - there is nothing worthwhile that fires [close] in that branch. And the Theif/Arsonist route is just bad :)
[ 18:25:34 ] < Darryl >  One thing i'd like to know - and I'm not too keen on suiciding to find out - have vampires been fixed yet? :p
[ 18:25:38 ] < pyromaniac >  i agree
[ 18:25:39 ] < Longinus >  since i got skipped after raising my hand over an hour ago.. My view on 2 things. First of Harrier I have to agree with nopjes. I think its attack isnt that great and it can do better on the defence side.. Other then that its a good unit.
[ 18:25:40 ] < Jorizz >  My idea on Serfs was to make them NLT - that way they can still be useful as an early buffer to take out Yobs but are not likely to trigger SAS.
[ 18:25:45 ] < Grey >  More of a clarification really. Units that have dmg bonuses vs route:thug - do they have these bonuses against Terrors and TLs developed thru the Prot route as well? (basically, what route classification are Terrors and TLs?)
[ 18:25:47 ] < Bunion >  tree
[ 18:25:48 ] < Longinus >  2nd things the F117. Used it be4 And think its a very nice unit with great attack however i find it lacking on the defence side. And its soooo slow. It can't be used for defence on others unless the eta is 6+. Lower the ETA to @ least 7 so it can be used for defence or lower it to 6 and raise the unit cost to make up for it.
[ 18:25:51 ] < Bunion >  forgot about mummies
[ 18:25:56 ] < Bunion >  gj i said "etc"
[ 18:25:57 ] < Bunion >  :P
[ 18:26:01 ] * < Lupie >  thinks tis copious amounts of spam
[ 18:26:09 ] < Sordes >  I belive that you make ballance alot more difficult then it needs to be when it comes to creating new routes. Compared to when Current Structure was made, the skills of many in the community etc has increased alot so it is possible to add a strong and rather ballanced base.
[ 18:26:24 ] < Fubu >  i agree sordes
[ 18:26:24 ] < Willymchilybily >  my opinion on this topic is, that at present all these routes are very nice. but it still seems far to much variety for the beginner. It is to complex. maybe the idea that was mention of a starting world for beguiners. should be used. with only limited routes to get the conecept. the original military thug protestor robo. and then you can work up to the others when you join the main stream game. and have got hooked.
[ 18:26:26 ] < Sordes >  Also i belive the game stagnation and the difficulty of introducing new content aint taken seriusly enough.
[ 18:26:27 ] < Lupie >  steel walls should bribe!!!
[ 18:26:38 ] < Fubu >  u need the strong basis/fairly even general units for each route
[ 18:26:40 ] < harvey >  harriers are weak and do need imporving!! maby more health are lower init...
[ 18:26:51 ] < Fubu >  bt with the ability to specialise to a different style of gameplay within them
[ 18:26:52 ] < Azzer >  Grey - terrorist/TL's count as "thug", let me just check that one sec.
[ 18:27:05 ] < Azzer >  (so whether or not you dev it on the prot route, things that get a thug bonus still hit terrors/TL's)
[ 18:27:08 ] < Iamsmart >   One thing i'd like to know - and I'm not too keen on suiciding to find out - have vampires been fixed yet? :p
[ 18:27:08 ] < Grey >  Also - These unintuitive unit bonuses do my head in. If a unit has a bonus, a) Give a reason for it on the unit info page to help remember and also b) highlight the bonuses that units have against them on their info pages. I hate starting a route, only to look at the manual and find out that some unique bonus is going to kick my ass later on
[ 18:27:08 ] < pyromaniac >  most the vamp route is bad so garg and vamp and ww have to make up for it
[ 18:27:11 ] < Willymchilybily >  end of unit balances
[ 18:27:16 ] < Jorizz >  Nitrous| - almost halfway :p
[ 18:27:17 ] < Longinus >  Ya dont see alot of those gargantuans around so i dont rly see why F117 has a bonus against it. Also compared to other purchase units i find the F117 lacking alot.
[ 18:27:21 ] < Lupie >  too far nitrous
[ 18:27:22 ] < Lupie >  :D
[ 18:27:31 ] < Azzer >  Iamsmart - They should be, but conversion in general needs a re-working behind the scenes relating to injury, so they're still a bit weird with injury.
[ 18:27:37 ] < Tree` >  The adjusted injury system **** Vamps - they need the injured lessers.
[ 18:27:39 ] < Tree` >  oops
[ 18:27:40 ] < Tree` >  :S
[ 18:27:43 ] < Tree` >  "messed up vamps"
[ 18:27:46 ] < Fubu >  lol
[ 18:27:55 ] < Fubu >  it messes all the bribing aspects tree
[ 18:28:00 ] < Freddy >  Sorcs, I find currently are very balanced and average; If you want to do a little damage on some routes and take back more damage in return. I think they need a definite looking at purely because a sufficient amount of LET and flak will kill the units enough for a second person to flak through, if the person isn't 0ed. With an aim or use, maybe the Bunker Buster will prove to even it out, but I still find that Sorcs have become
[ 18:28:02 ] < Azzer >  And I think the bonuses things get against gargantuans will be removed, and scrap bots be made to be able to hit/convert tractors/combines too.
[ 18:28:08 ] < Iamsmart >  Also
[ 18:28:09 ] < Mattheus >  Grey, units with a unit bonus have a star next to their name in the staff/units page in the manual
[ 18:28:10 ] < Fubu >  bt on the other hand works fairly well with the normal units
[ 18:28:12 ] < Twigley >  * Strikers get killed by Assasins, Rpg, TL, Other Strikers, Flakked my Poms. Dont agree with the nerfing. Harriers are eta 3 and Rangers are damn good. F117 also nice for tractor incs (Monkeh used in Rede last round). * Me, Martin and Polo agree with Sordes that there is some stagnicity with the routes and units.
[ 18:28:13 ] < Iamsmart >  Making HW's ETA 5=bad
[ 18:28:20 ] < Freddy >  Plus, Sorcs imo, are very easily killed.
[ 18:28:32 ] < Fubu >  yep strikers dont need nerfing
[ 18:28:37 ] < Jorizz >  Honestly - Strikers are the strongest route ingame
[ 18:28:42 ] < Turnip >  Sorcs are too weak for 40k
[ 18:28:43 ] < Freddy >  I agree
[ 18:28:45 ] < Turnip >  cut their cost
[ 18:28:47 ] < Tim >  I also agree that the current units/routes are on their last legs. I don't think we should cling to them just because there is a very complex balance to them
[ 18:28:47 ] < Freddy >  With both
[ 18:28:48 ] < Turnip >  or make them harder to kill
[ 18:28:55 ] < Twigley >  Me and smurf Pomed strikers with ease r25
[ 18:28:58 ] < Mattheus >  I once tried sorcs and I got owned by officers in an attack :(
[ 18:28:59 ] < Twigley >  Was our first target
[ 18:29:01 ] < Turnip >  Also, I have an idea for thieves
[ 18:29:02 ] < Tree` >  Leave sorcs - the people who go that route just mass them anyway.
[ 18:29:04 ] < Twigley >  Oh look a striker!
[ 18:29:06 ] < Twigley >  Flak :)
[ 18:29:07 ] < Grey >  do units that get dmg bonuses vs 'thug' units deserve to get bonuses vs units teched through the prot branches too? Prot VD is essentially a different beast compared to thug PB
[ 18:29:07 ] < Freddy >  Turnip and Jorizz's opinions
[ 18:29:16 ] < Monk >  [18:28:22]  yep strikers dont need nerfing << -- definately not
[ 18:29:16 ] < Tim >  And to the person who said that nothing kills strikers - Assassins kill them pretty well!
[ 18:29:18 ] < Turnip >  sooy
[ 18:29:19 ] < Azzer >  Striker's are pretty easy to flak again.
[ 18:29:20 ] < Turnip >  sorry
[ 18:29:22 ] < Freddy >  Yeah, but a route can't be good against everything Twigley
[ 18:29:23 ] < Freddy >  =P
[ 18:29:23 ] < Turnip >  and idea for arsonists
[ 18:29:36 ] < Turnip >  make arsonists a unit that steals cash / plants and seeds
[ 18:29:36 ] < Monk >  yeah .. strikers are easy to flack .. and suffer from routes quite well
[ 18:29:37 ] < Turnip >  all at once
[ 18:29:38 ] < Azzer >  I played strikers last round. People flakking me was painful even with going quite apache heavy.
[ 18:29:39 ] < Willymchilybily >  tractors flack strikers a beast
[ 18:29:41 ] < Monk >  its a good PoMs route
[ 18:29:45 ] < Turnip >  with far better results that the generic stealers
[ 18:29:47 ] < SadYear >  oh and btw Azzer
[ 18:29:53 ] < Meneldil >  [18:28:12]  Honestly - Strikers are the strongest route ingame <-- I'm not going to despite this assertion, but merely wish to point out that at any stage there will be one route that is the 'strongest'. Even with the current stats etc, strikers are quite beatable, given the right set up of another route.
[ 18:29:54 ] < SadYear >  make it clear whether or not a unit has a bonus
[ 18:30:00 ] < Turnip >  that will add to the whole 'steal more from people' aspect of the arsonist route
[ 18:30:00 ] < Fubu >  monk>> strikers are strong and yes a good route, bt overall its a fair route, they can get hit by numerous other units, bt also hold their own against the rest
[ 18:30:01 ] < SadYear >  I mean Sorcs & Vamps especially
[ 18:30:02 ] < Tree` >  Just eliminate the arsonist/theif route. It's useless.
[ 18:30:03 ] < Lupie >  vamps
[ 18:30:04 ] < Lupie >  idd
[ 18:30:09 ] < SadYear >  Vamps at night ?
[ 18:30:13 ] < Lupie >  eliminate tree
[ 18:30:14 ] < Lupie >  :D
[ 18:30:15 ] < Azzer >  Strikers are far from unbeatable or uber, I think they are very well balanced ;P
[ 18:30:16 ] < Meneldil >  Tree`: then why bother eliminating it?
[ 18:30:16 ] < SadYear >  Sorcs special time in the year ?
[ 18:30:17 ] < Caranthir >  Harriers get can get flakked like no ones business also
[ 18:30:22 ] < Bunion >  �18:29:33� <@Azzer> I played strikers last round. People flakking me was painful even with going quite apache heavy. <- i take full responsibilty!
[ 18:30:23 ] < Tim >  Tree` - not useless, just underused
[ 18:30:26 ] < Caranthir >  and arent nearly as powerful against other routes as strikers
[ 18:30:26 ] < Tree` >  Helping the noobs :)
[ 18:30:30 ] < Lupie >  hehe
[ 18:30:41 ] < Turnip >  rpgs need boosting
[ 18:30:43 ] < Tree` >  Underused because who in their right mind would take arsonists/thieves over PB/Jeep?
[ 18:30:44 ] < Willymchilybily >  oh yeah tahst a point the rhumours vamps work better at night?
[ 18:30:48 ] < Willymchilybily >  is it true for sure
[ 18:30:50 ] < Grey >  <3 Thiefs. Arsonists not the most useful unit - no idea how good they are as inn flak these days, but possible a slight AR boost?
[ 18:31:00 ] < Freddy >  Excuse me, but Thieves RULE.
[ 18:31:01 ] < Azzer >  Ok I am going to go eat my pasta and garlic bread, back in 10 minutes and will be moving the discussion on, I've got the main gists of units and stuff and will be working on a few balances for next round for sure.
[ 18:31:03 ] < SadYear >  no idea Willy but it needs clarification
[ 18:31:04 ] < Willymchilybily >  and is there other units that have little bnonuses
[ 18:31:05 ] * < Azzer >  disappears for 5-10 mins.
[ 18:31:05 ] < Monk >  Ive never had a complaint abotu strikers .. what they lack in Flack abilities they gain in LET abilities. Ive been against and played them, dont have a complaint
[ 18:31:07 ] < Meneldil >  Tree - do you eliminate the weak units from each route for the same reason?
[ 18:31:11 ] < Willymchilybily >  lol
[ 18:31:11 ] < Jorizz >  With the land cap - Thiefs became useless
[ 18:31:12 ] < Netherdragon >  reduse harriers innit so they hit b4 assasins pls, they are killed by them and other fast firing armour killers tooo easily, maybe give them some health so that some of them survive, and make paras usefull later i the game, they are eta 3 fair enuf so if u get them quick they are usefull early but they are useless later onm, officers make better flack(which is saying somehtuing) and they are too week at killing stuff to be a worthwhile unit
[ 18:31:23 ] < Freddy >  You still gain more Jorizz?
[ 18:31:27 ] < Freddy >  Than if you send with normal geos
[ 18:31:29 ] < banned_again >  lower the cost of harrier
[ 18:31:32 ] < banned_again >  tooo expensive!
[ 18:31:34 ] < banned_again >  imo
[ 18:31:35 ] < banned_again >  i dunno
[ 18:31:37 ] < Jorizz >  Before you could rush thiefs and get that 18% - now you can rush them and get 15% whereas you can just develop geos for that
[ 18:31:38 ] < Grey >  jorizz? how are thiefs useless with the land cap?
[ 18:31:38 ] < Meneldil >  o.O
[ 18:31:42 ] < Jorizz >  Because
[ 18:31:43 ] < banned_again >  not worth for 80k compare to assassin
[ 18:31:48 ] < Tree` >  Mene - it'd be fine if that branch had a decent unit. But it doesn't. Jeeps/PBs are solid. Dogs are great LETflak. thieves are just... great piggiers.
[ 18:31:49 ] < Jorizz >  they are most valuable in the early stages
[ 18:31:53 ] < Monk >  Netherdragon .. some units are meant for JUST early game ...
[ 18:31:55 ] < Meneldil >  Don't you think, banned_again, that they're rather powerful as it is?
[ 18:31:59 ] < Darryl >  Rangers already kill SO, harriers shouldn't be boosted against them too :P
[ 18:32:11 ] < Netherdragon >  harrier cost fine case they are the best armour killer out their damage wise, but they dont last long enuf to fire and do any decent damage most of the time
[ 18:32:13 ] < banned_again >  maybe reduce price to like 6.5k?
[ 18:32:13 ] < Tim >  Assassins do die easily with the right units
[ 18:32:18 ] < Willymchilybily >  jolrizz i think thiefs are good cos of eta and increased % grab whether its capped or not they still steal more
[ 18:32:20 ] < Lupie >  rangers get pwned by SO if balanced well
[ 18:32:21 ] < Willymchilybily >  and are fast
[ 18:32:22 ] < Longinus >  So to add to my point. Change the way F117 works and improve its eta.. all units should be able to be used to defend others OR if eta cant be shortend make it fire close to.. IM of to eat again thx for skipping me >_< my diner is cold for 45 mins now ...
[ 18:32:23 ] < banned_again >  cuz u see assassin rpg cheaper
[ 18:32:25 ] < banned_again >  works better
[ 18:32:28 ] < Fubu >  anyone think the dev time needs stretching out again...it takes like a week n a half to complete a route, and thats without being fairly active
[ 18:32:29 ] < Meneldil >  Tree` - they're a useful addition to an alliance. I think that an alliance capable of launching devastating eta 3 attacks would be quite interesting.
[ 18:32:30 ] < Fubu >  ??
[ 18:32:37 ] < Mattheus >  the problem with the harrier route is what its good at there are other routes that do it better. Plus its easily killed AND easily flakked
[ 18:32:40 ] < Tim >  Yes Fubu, but I'm sure that will come up under mechanics
[ 18:32:43 ] < Meneldil >  (Sure, they're not a solo route - that doesn't mean that they're not a good addition to the game)
[ 18:32:44 ] < Fubu >  aye
[ 18:32:45 ] < Grey >  i can still flak targets and get the whole grab - an eta 3 attack like that is mint
[ 18:32:46 ] < Fubu >  :P
[ 18:32:51 ] < Jorizz >  Yes Willymchilybily - but you can no longer tech really quick and go on a sick stealing spree to help you finish TL's
[ 18:32:53 ] < banned_again >  agree mattheus
[ 18:32:55 ] < Turnip >  how about a crazy suggestion
[ 18:32:56 ] < Ogluk >  thief works as it is atm
[ 18:32:59 ] < Turnip >  f117's eta 5?
[ 18:33:00 ] < Tree` >  It's just impractical. I have not seen a SINGLE thief/arsonist this round.
[ 18:33:10 ] < Caranthir >  thats too fast for F117
[ 18:33:13 ] < Ogluk >  yer arsonists dont have much of a purpose but they have one
[ 18:33:15 ] < Caranthir >  7 would work
[ 18:33:16 ] < Tree` >  Either rework it or get rid of it.
[ 18:33:19 ] < Caranthir >  8 is ridiculous
[ 18:33:20 ] < Caranthir >  :P
[ 18:33:24 ] < Ogluk >  Tree` im thief :P
[ 18:33:24 ] < Netherdragon >  rangers dont really pwn so in my opinion, all ive come up against iod sa's killing the rangers quick and assains killing off the harriers and fuck all lives to do any real damage, rangers done get good enuf ratios with wats left
[ 18:33:26 ] < Mattheus >  it used to be 9 :o
[ 18:33:26 ] < Tim >  F117s eta 5 only if geos are made eta 3 :P
[ 18:33:27 ] < Meneldil >  Mattheus: I've never liked trying to flak past flamerthrowers (except with tractors/CGs)
[ 18:33:32 ] < Monk >  F-117s are a defensve route
[ 18:33:36 ] < Tree` >  Gimme your ID then - becaues you're not good against anything :)
[ 18:33:38 ] < Monk >  unit*
[ 18:33:41 ] < Twigley >  Tell Mateens 45m ranger last round that they didnt have power
[ 18:33:43 ] < Twigley >  :\
[ 18:33:44 ] < Grey >  actually thats a good point tree. whilst i like the idea of it the route, I prefer several other routes that I know i can play
[ 18:33:44 ] < Ogluk >  lol Tree`
[ 18:33:45 ] < Mattheus >  Meneldil, most dont have many flamers seeing as they die ridiculously easy
[ 18:33:54 ] < Longi[eating] >  F117 is eta 8 atm wich is slowest eta unit ingame
[ 18:33:58 ] < Caranthir >  45m of anything has power
[ 18:34:00 ] < Willymchilybily >  fubu i dont think stretching the dev time out will be that beneficial. as the expensive routes still dont have thier p unit and its a good few weaks in. not to mention if your late starting or noob then its gonna take even longer
[ 18:34:06 ] < Monk >  Long .. thats because its a defensive unit
[ 18:34:09 ] < Mattheus >  you just have to fart in the vage direction of a flamer 10 miles away and they die
[ 18:34:11 ] < Lupie >  increase all eta's by 50%
[ 18:34:13 ] < Mattheus >  *vague
[ 18:34:15 ] < Meneldil >  That then, surely, is not the fault of the route but how it's used. If you're in danger of being flakked, there is a unit there. If you're in an alliance, perhaps you don't need them.
[ 18:34:19 ] < Lupie >  means ppl can be less active
[ 18:34:21 ] < Caranthir >  but only defensive for you
[ 18:34:21 ] < Caranthir >  :P
[ 18:34:23 ] < Fubu >  i agree, theifs arent used. only thing is actually make them a THIEF route, so u have the ability to steal someone elses acres from under their noses, like the old stealth geo piggying technique, but in return the units within the thief route stay pretty much as they are..basically a route where u can land quite easily, bt keeping it for long times is a lil harder
[ 18:34:25 ] < Longi[eating] >  not counting the combine
[ 18:34:33 ] < Tree` >  You know what - even if arsonists could, you know, burn LETs or something, that would be helpful...
[ 18:34:42 ] < Mattheus >  Meneldil are you really suggesting to mass flamers as a viable strategy for a solo?
[ 18:34:53 ] < Meneldil >  I think it would be quite good fun to shuffle the Nutter unit to replace the Arsonist (in the thief branch), and make a new unit to go with Dogs.
[ 18:34:59 ] < Darryl >  you don't need to mass them, they get about 1:25 :p
[ 18:35:05 ] < Meneldil >  Mattheus: no...
[ 18:35:06 ] < Caranthir >  like... remove dogs
[ 18:35:07 ] < Caranthir >  :D
[ 18:35:08 ] < Meneldil >  What Darryl said
[ 18:35:09 ] < Meneldil >  ;)
[ 18:35:18 ] < Ogluk >  Meneldil i like that idea :)
[ 18:35:19 ] < Willymchilybily >  you just need the flammers to live
[ 18:35:24 ] < Ogluk >  nutters and thieves :)
[ 18:35:27 ] < Willymchilybily >  and not be tractor flacked
[ 18:35:30 ] * < Ogluk >  is in heaven
[ 18:35:33 ] < Meneldil >  That would certainly make it more viable, Ogluk
[ 18:35:40 ] < Meneldil >  I'd like to play that route, but it may be overpowered �_�
[ 18:35:51 ] < Ogluk >  i'm playing it now as pure solo as well
[ 18:35:52 ] < Darryl >  Flamers could do with a little HP boost though, in my opinion, EXP made them worth having, now, not so much
[ 18:35:53 ] < Netherdragon >  even if u buy up flamers last tick they fire too late to survive given their weakness
[ 18:35:59 ] < Mattheus >  1:25, great but with a lack of a decent sweeper its useless
[ 18:36:10 ] < Twigley >  Flamers do have a sweeper
[ 18:36:16 ] < Jorizz >  2
[ 18:36:16 ] < Freddy >  Privates and Officers..
[ 18:36:18 ] < Netherdragon >  privates an officers
[ 18:36:19 ] < Twigley >  Idd
[ 18:36:22 ] < Twigley >  So annyoing
[ 18:36:22 ] < Freddy >  And they aren't useless
[ 18:36:22 ] < Turnip >  yeah, H/Y get you past flamer route really easy
[ 18:36:23 ] < Twigley >  :P
[ 18:36:24 ] < Mattheus >  they dont target in directly
[ 18:36:24 ] < Meneldil >  (mm, a small buff to flamers would appeal better than a buff to the other units on the harrier branch)
[ 18:36:24 ] < Freddy >  As some suggest
[ 18:36:27 ] < Mattheus >  *INN
[ 18:36:53 ] < Mattheus >  hence why I said "decent sweeper"
[ 18:36:54 ] < Darryl >  Good?
[ 18:37:07 ] < Darryl >  If Flamers get a sweeper, so should news vans ;P
[ 18:37:17 ] < Twigley|bf2142 >  bf time
[ 18:37:22 ] < Mattheus >  I'm not suggesting they get a decent sweeper
[ 18:37:25 ] < Willymchilybily >  lol darryl
[ 18:37:26 ] < Dematto >  start using Privs as LET-flak, problem solved :P
[ 18:37:28 ] < Willymchilybily >  but news vans dont die
[ 18:37:29 ] < Willymchilybily >  flammers do
[ 18:37:32 ] < Mattheus >  but I'm merely saying why its an easy route to flak
[ 18:37:37 ] < Meneldil >  but flamers kill the flak, willy
[ 18:37:42 ] < Willymchilybily >  true true
[ 18:37:43 ] * < MomSmack >  gives up tryin to read all that
[ 18:37:45 ] < Willymchilybily >  fair point
[ 18:38:00 ] < Netherdragon >  just make harriers fire a bit quicker and maybe make emps slightly better against veihicles,(not but much just a bit, then il be happy
[ 18:38:05 ] < Azzer >  I'm a quick eater. And eating my pudding right now :P
[ 18:38:19 ] < Turnip >  make the aronist into a unit which steals cash / seeds / plants very effectively
[ 18:38:37 ] < Mattheus >  Meneldil go harriers as a solo route and see how easy you'll be flakked
[ 18:38:40 ] < Turnip >  that will add a unit to the route that also fits into the general scheme of what the route is there for
[ 18:38:43 ] < Meneldil >  *Again suggests replacing the Arsonist by the Nutter, and making another unit to go with Dogs*
[ 18:39:06 ] * < Tree` >  again dislikes Meneldil's idea :)
[ 18:39:16 ] < Meneldil >  Mattheus - I have no doubt it's possible, but most routes are flakkable.
[ 18:39:32 ] < Mattheus >  robo is flakkable Meneldil, but its a whole world of pain
[ 18:39:34 ] < Turnip >  Disagree on the arsonist --> stealer unit then?
[ 18:39:37 ] < Meneldil >  Perhaps the harrier route is more flakkable than most
[ 18:39:41 ] < Mattheus >  but when you also take into account harriers also die easily
[ 18:39:45 ] < Meneldil >  but what would the interest if all the route were easily flakked?
[ 18:39:51 ] < Tree` >  I think the Dog route is great how it is - no real reason to mess with that to fix a different route.
[ 18:39:52 ] < Mattheus >  easily flakkable and easily killed. Great.
[ 18:39:55 ] < Meneldil >  Rangers *really* don't die easily, though
[ 18:39:55 ] < Iamsmart >  F-117's are flakkable?
[ 18:40:00 ] < Tim >  indeed
[ 18:40:08 ] < Iamsmart >  I must have missed the nerf
[ 18:40:09 ] < Iamsmart >  :(
[ 18:40:14 ] < Monk >  [18:39:08] <@Meneldil> Mattheus - I have no doubt it's possible, but most routes are flakkable. < -- ALL!
[ 18:40:26 ] < Meneldil >  Sorry Monk, that's what I meant :)
[ 18:40:29 ] < Mattheus >  thats not really the point Monk :P
[ 18:40:40 ] < Tree` >  Also, TLs should be cheaper :)
[ 18:40:48 ] < Mattheus >  its not *if* a route can be flakked, its how easily a route can be flakked
[ 18:41:01 ] < Turnip >  Azzer - I was thinking that scraps targeting inn wouldnt do much good since tractor flak tends to avoid CD's
[ 18:41:03 ] < Jorizz >  Could I say like - I wish to speak on that one but only in 15 mins since im going to grab some food myself?
[ 18:41:06 ] < Meneldil >  Ah, units, cool :)
[ 18:41:15 ] < Turnip >  better off targeting NLD and hippy vans
[ 18:41:15 ] < Mattheus >  but I digress, its not necessarily how easily the route is flakked, its more that in combination with it (imo) being rather easy to kill
[ 18:41:21 ] < Iamsmart >  I have an important idea
[ 18:41:29 ] < Iamsmart >  Stealth harvesters need to be changed to CD's
[ 18:41:29 ] < Iamsmart >  plz
[ 18:41:30 ] < Iamsmart >  :)
[ 18:41:32 ] < Alcibiades >  [14:40:39]  Azzer - I was thinking that scraps targeting inn wouldnt do much good since tractor flak tends to avoid CD's<-- but almost everyone has tractors/combines and who doesn't go attacking as s robo? :P
[ 18:41:35 ] < Mattheus >  and the fact that other routes own SO/robo better or just as well
[ 18:41:37 ] < Tree` >  Maybe we should mess with the TL-firing. I propose changing the TL from LET/INN to LET/ALL.
[ 18:41:40 ] < Meneldil >  Have Bikers been under discussion already?
[ 18:41:45 ] < Iamsmart >  No Meneldil
[ 18:41:46 ] < Meneldil >  Or can I bring up that sore point?
[ 18:41:47 ] < Iamsmart >  Not that ive seen
[ 18:41:47 ] < Tim >  Bikers should be eta 4
[ 18:41:53 ] < birdgame >  make bikers target only let!
[ 18:41:55 ] < Jorizz >  Iamsmart = give Bunkers crazed droids? Get lost :P
[ 18:41:56 ] < Tim >  Or do 100% less damage vs POMs
[ 18:42:00 ] < Alcibiades >  birdgame: no.
[ 18:42:01 ] < Alcibiades >  :P
[ 18:42:02 ] < Tim >  Which would mean they could be killed easier
[ 18:42:04 ] < birdgame >  as if i was serious :p
[ 18:42:04 ] < Willymchilybily >  btw ive been waiting to ask azzer about why cant you read ingame mails in sleep mode.... but i missed the first hour fo this thing. so i havent missed my window have i?
[ 18:42:04 ] < Meneldil >  Bikers should fire after PoMs, but receive an AR bonus against them,
[ 18:42:17 ] < Turnip >  Alcibiades - if a robo doesnt kill tractors and combines with CW and TD, then they are pretty crazily heavy on them :p
[ 18:42:18 ] < harvey >  can we move on?? this is going to take all week
[ 18:42:24 ] < Meneldil >  I think Polo has been suggesting doing this for a long time, and I have to say, it seems the most balanced solution.
[ 18:42:24 ] < Jorizz >  Willymchilybily - so you can organise def etc in sleep mode
[ 18:42:27 ] < Tim >  harvey - Azzer is having a cuppa tea
[ 18:42:28 ] < Darryl >  I hope the topic changes before next tick, or I think I might have to rant about how RPGs should fire on the last tick >:(
[ 18:42:31 ] < FeR >  Yea, so everyone is pom and dont die
[ 18:42:36 ] < Netherdragon >  willy say it anyway, its a really small point and is pretty poor u cant :P
[ 18:42:37 ] < Willymchilybily >  jorizz defence for who?
[ 18:42:40 ] < Alcibiades >  aye Turnip, but you can send PAs/scraps etc.... not send a huge whole force
[ 18:42:44 ] < birdgame >  rpg to fire 50% on last tick
[ 18:42:56 ] < Turnip >  Right
[ 18:42:57 ] < Willymchilybily >  you sleeping you cant send surely you can only talk
[ 18:42:59 ] < Alcibiades >  but it just makes it oodles easier to pick up gargants if you can hit tractors
[ 18:42:59 ] < Meneldil >  FeR - more so that a rank 1000 biker can't do 'safe' damage against a rank 100 PoM
[ 18:43:02 ] < Willymchilybily >  which is what were doin in irc
[ 18:43:03 ] < Turnip >  and you end up hitting pure gards
[ 18:43:03 ] < BeakY >  and damage ur own foot birdgame
[ 18:43:04 ] < Turnip >  fun :)
[ 18:43:10 ] < Tree` >  RPG is astonishingly bad last tick. ROs should fire faster to make them worth getting for RPGs.
[ 18:43:18 ] < Bunion >  �18:42:40�  rpg to fire 50% on last tick <- pb, tl, sniper too etc
[ 18:43:19 ] < Alcibiades >  no
[ 18:43:23 ] < BigBoss >  lower dmg from biker against a POM?!, bikers are the only units that can actually do dmg against a POM.. and as you cant have a pure biker its kinda useless to lower the dmg from a biker imo
[ 18:43:25 ] < Meneldil >  Bikers would have to receive a bonus to damage and survivability, obviously
[ 18:43:27 ] < Enrico >  OK: Have the following subject been up? Bribed units not having injuries?
[ 18:43:33 ] < Meneldil >  BigBoss: who said lower damage? :-/
[ 18:43:33 ] < Bunion >  yes Enrico
[ 18:43:38 ] < Alcibiades >  [14:42:56]  �18:42:40�  rpg to fire 50% on last tick <- pb, tl, sniper too etc<-- don't forget about grens Bunion ;)
[ 18:43:39 ] < Fubu >  to an extent enrico
[ 18:43:43 ] < Bunion >  sorry alci
[ 18:43:44 ] < BigBoss >   Or do 100% less damage vs POMs
[ 18:43:44 ] < Bunion >  my bad
[ 18:43:47 ] < Bunion >  :P
[ 18:43:51 ] < Alcibiades >  :P
[ 18:43:52 ] < Enrico >  Okay.
[ 18:43:55 ] < Willymchilybily >  enrico its not come bup but unit balances are have been discusse
[ 18:43:56 ] < Willymchilybily >  d
[ 18:43:57 ] < Tree` >  Also, extremist blows as a self-sufficient route.
[ 18:44:04 ] * < Meneldil >  believes there should be some injury system for bribed units
[ 18:44:06 ] < Alcibiades >  yo momma blew last night
[ 18:44:07 ] < Tree` >  I recognize that's not really the point, but give it a chance :)
[ 18:44:09 ] < Jorizz >  they are not ment to Tree`
[ 18:44:11 ] * < Azzer >  is back again.
[ 18:44:13 ] < Tim >  Well, it isn't meant to be self-sufficient
[ 18:44:15 ] < Lupie >  \o/
[ 18:44:16 ] < Meneldil >  Tree`: need all routes be solo-playable?
[ 18:44:21 ] < Bunion >  willy kicked arse as extremist last round
[ 18:44:21 ] < Enrico >  I think I made my position clear in the forum thread so I dont think I need to repeat that.
[ 18:44:21 ] < Alcibiades >  YES Meneldil
[ 18:44:21 ] < Lupie >  no
[ 18:44:23 ] < Bunion >  didn't you will?
[ 18:44:24 ] < Tim >  It is meant to be an ally support route
[ 18:44:26 ] < Bunion >  :P
[ 18:44:26 ] < Alcibiades >  and unflakkable, and unkillable Meneldil
[ 18:44:27 ] < Tree` >  I'm not a solo player, mind you. I'm an ally player.
[ 18:44:27 ] < Willymchilybily >  yeah
[ 18:44:28 ] < birdgame >  i think we should all have the same units
[ 18:44:29 ] < Darryl >  I think bribers should give injury, and bribed units should get injury too :P
[ 18:44:29 ] < Alcibiades >  this game isn't about war.
[ 18:44:30 ] < Willymchilybily >  but wasnt solo :P
[ 18:44:33 ] < Tree` >  But it's not even that good as an ally supporter.
[ 18:44:34 ] < Lupie >  this is an alliance game!! or should be!!
[ 18:44:36 ] < Bunion >  lol
[ 18:44:37 ] < Lupie >  imo
[ 18:44:40 ] < Tree` >  Unless your ally habitually last ticks.
[ 18:44:41 ] < Azzer >  Darryl - create new units out of thin air? Nah :P
[ 18:44:43 ] < Alcibiades >  [14:44:06]  I think bribers should give injury, and bribed units should get injury too :P<---- seems to be the best/simplest solution really :P
[ 18:44:43 ] < Bunion >  who the hell would go solo extremist?!
[ 18:44:47 ] < Bunion >  also
[ 18:44:49 ] < Darryl >  Azzer, read the unit description?
[ 18:44:50 ] < Bunion >  the VD route
[ 18:44:57 ] < Bunion >  seems kinda pointless to me
[ 18:44:57 ] < Bunion >  :/
[ 18:45:02 ] < Jorizz >  awsome route
[ 18:45:03 ] < Darryl >  Description: The cloner will attempt to duplicate the enemy by utilising gene-splicing technology. Unfortunately for the victim, while the cloning is often successful, the original subject is always killed in the process.
[ 18:45:04 ] < birdgame >  vd are fun
[ 18:45:05 ] < Willymchilybily >  tree if your allie is active cointactable extremists rock
[ 18:45:08 ] < birdgame >  but need some hd
[ 18:45:09 ] < Darryl >  The units "die" when bribed?
[ 18:45:13 ] < Bunion >  possibly THE most underused route in the game?
[ 18:45:13 ] < Willymchilybily >  you can lt and quite cheap route
[ 18:45:14 ] < Darryl >  Why can't they be injured too?
[ 18:45:15 ] < Willymchilybily >  looks scary
[ 18:45:19 ] < Bunion >  i've seen more arsonists than VDs
[ 18:45:21 ] < Tree` >  Willymchilybily - how many allies are active and contactable?
[ 18:45:24 ] < Alcibiades >  3
[ 18:45:25 ] < Meneldil >  o.O
[ 18:45:25 ] < Tree` >  Three this round.
[ 18:45:32 ] < Tim >  It has a point to it, VD and Extremeist route are both for players who want to be support players and go attacking with others (not alone)
[ 18:45:35 ] < birdgame >  the non bribed bit of the bribed units should return in like 36 ticks
[ 18:45:35 ] < Azzer >  Darryl - description is just a description you know that's a weak argument.
[ 18:45:35 ] < Willymchilybily >  meh.
[ 18:45:36 ] < Meneldil >  I remember a time when there were loads of VD players �_�
[ 18:45:36 ] < Iamsmart >  20 minutes, Azzman
[ 18:45:37 ] < Iamsmart >  :P
[ 18:45:40 ] < Tree` >  That's sixty-ish people. Leaving the possibility for, what, maybe 3 extremist players?
[ 18:45:44 ] < BeakY >  Azzer what was the bribe style u thought of for ur borg lot? conventional briber or zombie-esque?
[ 18:45:47 ] < Meneldil >  Also Darryl - not all bribers are cloners.
[ 18:45:49 ] < Azzer >  From a technical standpoint, producing two copies of units (1 bribed for attacker, 1 injured for owner), would be bad.
[ 18:46:00 ] < Darryl >  Something similar can be worked in, Mene :P
[ 18:46:04 ] < Tree` >  We need to promotive diversity in routes for the players to make this more interesting.
[ 18:46:04 ] < Willymchilybily >  tree i dont deniy the route needs a buff
[ 18:46:05 ] < Azzer >  Not as in hard to code or unstable or buggy - but as in abusable.
[ 18:46:09 ] < FeR >  Tim, Rebels wons
[ 18:46:10 ] < Willymchilybily >  but its just got one since i played it
[ 18:46:11 ] < FeR >  owns
[ 18:46:19 ] < Willymchilybily >  so now its better i cant say much till i try it again
[ 18:46:22 ] < Darryl >  this round, puppets just seem unusable to me, I think that is the best compromise
[ 18:46:23 ] < Oxi >  o0
[ 18:46:30 ] < Meneldil >  Azzer, could bribing units attack as normal, and then a % of the units they 'bribe' aren't bribed at all, but injured under the control of the original player?
[ 18:46:30 ] < Azzer >  Ok anyway we're moving on :D
[ 18:46:31 ] < Tim >  Yes FeR - there is a player this round who has an excessive amount of rebels

6.0.0: Rankings / Ranking System.

[ 18:46:46 ] < Azzer >  Hot topic them units ;)
[ 18:46:53 ] < Azzer >  Anyway next topic may be hotter
[ 18:46:55 ] < Azzer >  "Rankings / Ranking System"
[ 18:47:01 ] < Azzer >  I was talking to Twigley about this the other day
[ 18:47:07 ] < Azzer >  And... I'm now going back on what I thought a few rounds ago.
[ 18:47:19 ] < Azzer >  I'm starting to think having a single, decisive ranking system is more "fun" afterall
[ 18:47:33 ] < Azzer >  And that that ranking should just be valuation. Score-queening doesn't really exist atm, it's not a term we hear anymore.
[ 18:47:46 ] < Azzer >  And this might be because that concept has been "fixed" through unit balances and other changes.
[ 18:47:56 ] < Azzer >  So pending opinion, and some serious though...
[ 18:48:07 ] < Azzer >  I'm thinking about going back to just valuation again, and calling it "score" once more.
[ 18:48:25 ] < Azzer >  But this topic is for the ranking systems altogether - the portal ranks, rankings, how they work, and EFF of course.
[ 18:48:39 ] < Azzer >  So put your hands up if you want to talk and I'll pick randomly again as usual :)
6.1.0: One-on-ones.
6.1.1: Lupie.
[ 18:50:38 ] < Azzer >  Hi Lupie :)
[ 18:50:38 ] < Lupie >  yay
[ 18:50:41 ] < Lupie >  hi
[ 18:50:47 ] < Lupie >  well i would like to see 1 rank
[ 18:50:59 ] < Lupie >  one made from val eff etc
[ 18:51:12 ] < Lupie >  similar to ally points atm
[ 18:51:24 ] < Lupie >  would stop score queening etc
[ 18:51:31 ] < Lupie >  as imo sq still happens
[ 18:51:57 ] < Azzer >  So one score system, but not valuation.. a sort of mesh of your eff and valuation
[ 18:52:14 ] < Lupie >  yeah and maybe other ranks like stealer and how many techs done
[ 18:52:22 ] < Azzer >  Score queening used to actually be a genuine *problem* before.
[ 18:52:25 ] < Lupie >  but mainly eff and val
[ 18:52:36 ] < Azzer >  It still happens, some players stills core queen up, but I don't think it's actually a problem at all anymore, is it?
[ 18:53:15 ] < Lupie >  there are still ppl that will just run away at the slightest defence and not fight
[ 18:53:21 ] < Lupie >  lose so troops
[ 18:53:23 ] < Lupie >  etc
[ 18:53:45 ] < Lupie >  but thats my input one joint points system
[ 18:53:47 ] < Lupie >  ta
[ 18:54:00 ] < Azzer >  Hmm perhaps, but either way one score system is probably needed, a decisive rank, as a game to be fun (provide that real challenge) possibly needs to just say "Look, this guy here, he's the winner, try and beat him!"
[ 18:54:10 ] < Azzer >  Not "That guys a winner of that, this guys a winner of this, beat whoever you want :P"
[ 18:54:18 ] < Lupie >  idd
[ 18:54:21 ] < Azzer >  I always thought that was a good thing before
[ 18:54:29 ] < Azzer >  But now I think it actually somehow takes from some of the raw "fun"
[ 18:54:34 ] < Lupie >  but just val will bring back sq im
[ 18:54:35 ] < Lupie >  o
[ 18:54:48 ] < Azzer >  Could be, could be, it's definitely something that needs a lot of thought.
[ 18:54:52 ] < Lupie >  :)
[ 18:54:58 ] < Azzer >  Ok thanks for your input :)
6.1.2: Tim
[ 18:55:24 ] < Azzer >  Tim! :D
[ 18:55:26 ] < Tim >  Hi Azzer
[ 18:55:38 ] < Tim >  Ok, I must agree with you and Lupie
[ 18:55:42 ] < Tim >  One ranking is needed
[ 18:55:50 ] < Tim >  However, I don't believe that ranking should be Valuation
[ 18:56:04 ] < Tim >  Valuation is not an indication of how "good" a player actually is
[ 18:56:17 ] < Tim >  With the right group of players, even the worst player can finish top 20 valuation
[ 18:56:38 ] < Tim >  I think the ranking system should reward good, positive, and outstanding play - like something perhaps called "Battle Points" or similar
[ 18:57:03 ] < Tim >  Maybe linked to the current EFF formula, but vastly improved and designed to take into account how well someone has actually played during the round
[ 18:57:19 ] < Azzer >  It's hard to automatically gauge a player being "good" at playing.
[ 18:57:37 ] < Azzer >  Eff has been my best stab at it so far I think, I'll be the first to admit not perfect, but the best "single value figure"
[ 18:57:58 ] < Tim >  Eff is good but not perfect - it's a better gauge than value at how good a player is I feel
[ 18:58:18 ] < Tim >  Valuation should ofc remain for calculations etc but not as an actual ranking
[ 18:58:30 ] < Azzer >  But so many players rate valuation as vital for a ranking, because of how vital it is in all calculations
[ 18:58:45 ] < Azzer >  And most people that get big value, *are* good players... you can get high value with luck and good allies sure...
[ 18:59:00 ] < Azzer >  But a lot of the time the people who come out top on valuation, are players you cannot dispute being good players.
[ 18:59:16 ] < Tim >  I know, and it is a "simple" ranking - but it is really the best indicator of how well someone has played over the 75 days?
[ 19:00:17 ] < Azzer >  Well true, you can be knocked from a full round of value in a single attack
[ 19:00:39 ] < Azzer >  Which with eff you can't, since eff can only ever go up, not down
[ 19:01:04 ] < Azzer >  What if valuation did have a bit of impact on eff directly, eg each tick, you gained eff points equal to your vlaue *rank*?
[ 19:01:12 ] < Azzer >  And eff was renamed to "score", or something.
[ 19:01:21 ] < Azzer >  *value rank
[ 19:01:54 ] < Tim >  I think it should, but Value shouldn't be *that* important to it - maybe a specific impact, maybe even more for Ally Ranks (the sum of the parts...)
[ 19:02:10 ] < Tim >  But the actual Score should gauge how good someone really is
[ 19:02:18 ] < Tim >  (if that indeed is possible for a computer script to calculate)
[ 19:02:28 ] < Azzer >  I think holding valuation for a long time (eg gaining eff for each and every tick you've been at a high value rank), does have some indication of skill
[ 19:02:33 ] < Azzer >  Not complete, but some impact
[ 19:02:54 ] < Azzer >  We'll never be able to say how "Good" a player is since everyone has different opinions on "good", of course.
[ 19:03:02 ] < Azzer >  Some say finish rank 1 with the most staff/land in the game is skill.
[ 19:03:16 ] < Tim >  That's a fair point - but with such a system it should maybe be possible for a lesser valued player to gain a high ranking position based on his deeds
[ 19:03:22 ] < Azzer >  Other say wiping out that player is skill, leading alliance is, whatever... but players just have to accept whatever the game (and ultimately the game creator) designated as "the win".
[ 19:03:44 ] < Azzer >  Well if eff kept as the main bulk, but valuation, especially at a high rank, gave a nice boost to it
[ 19:03:51 ] < Azzer >  It could also fix some people who "outgrow targets" at rank 1 value
[ 19:03:59 ] < Tim >  Indeed
[ 19:04:00 ] < Azzer >  As at rank 1 value if they are naturally gaining eff for their rank each tick anyway...
[ 19:04:07 ] < Tim >  And Valuation does have other advantages too ofc
[ 19:04:14 ] < Tim >  More units, more land to rebuild with, etc
[ 19:04:23 ] < Azzer >  Aye
[ 19:04:34 ] < Azzer >  Well it's an interesting idea, and think we've just come up with a new idea there ^^
[ 19:05:07 ] < Tim >  Hopefully you will come up with a viable solution which suits both Value and Effective players ;)
[ 19:05:09 ] < Azzer >  Ok going to move on to another speaker now
[ 19:05:10 ] < Azzer >  Thanks Tim
6.1.3: Analyzer.
[ 19:05:35 ] < Azzer >  Analyzer :)
[ 19:05:42 ] < analyzer >  Cheers Azzer
[ 19:05:56 ] < analyzer >  I'm with Tim and Lupie on this
[ 19:06:18 ] < Azzer >  A single rank system? But not valuation?
[ 19:06:28 ] < analyzer >  but the score should be taken from a wider aspect with weightings
[ 19:07:05 ] < Azzer >  Do you have some ideas for where you'd like to see it come from?
[ 19:07:06 ] < analyzer >  such as eff 50% bounty hunting 5% value 10% that type of thing
[ 19:07:41 ] < analyzer >  Personal bounty you introduced could be a good idea since that introduces revenge
[ 19:08:25 ] < Azzer >  Yeah possibly
[ 19:08:28 ] < analyzer >  This would also introduce a personal aspect to the game for everybody
[ 19:08:54 ] < Azzer >  Well it does need some planning and input, but people seem to be agreeing on one rank so far
[ 19:09:07 ] < Azzer >  Let's hear from some others and see if anyone has points for multiple ranks staying :P
[ 19:09:12 ] < Azzer >  Thanks for your input Analyzer!
[ 19:09:19 ] < analyzer >  thanks for hearing
6.1.4: Tree`.
[ 19:10:12 ] < Tree` >  I think this discussion all depends on what you're trying to do. Are you trying to serve the high ranks or everyone?
[ 19:10:24 ] < Azzer >  Well what do you mean by "server"
[ 19:10:25 ] < Azzer >  *serve
[ 19:10:31 ] < Azzer >  The ranks are for everyone, of course.
[ 19:10:38 ] < Tree` >  I know when I played in my crap ally, I kept playing because I had a chance at portalling in eff, whereby I had no chance in portaling in value.
[ 19:10:47 ] < Azzer >  Something to aim for, chase, feel like the true "winner" (or loser)
[ 19:11:11 ] < Tree` >  I worry, then about the amount of alliances dwindling even further.
[ 19:11:45 ] < Azzer >  Because you think people won't want to play if there's only one "true" goal?
[ 19:11:52 ] < Azzer >  (and it's a goal they can't achieve)
[ 19:12:06 ] < Tree` >  I think the Eff hybrid system is a good idea, and I don't necessarily mind the idea of one rank, but remember, a large part of your playerbase won't be able to bat an eyelash at that rank. If we go back to a single ranking system, then we need to do something for the majority of the playerbase that can't get there.
[ 19:12:39 ] < Tree` >  Personally I liked the idea of Honor/Fame back in the day, and I think that could play an interesting element in a proposed single-value system.
[ 19:12:57 ] < Azzer >  Well a total newbie shouldn't feel the need to achieve rank 1 the first round they play in a games main "score"
[ 19:13:04 ] < Azzer >  But they should feel it *can* be achieved with practise and skill
[ 19:13:34 ] < Tree` >  Well, the amount of skill this game takes - that's another debate.
[ 19:13:44 ] < Tree` >  My two cents. Also, bring back the white units.
[ 19:13:46 ] < Tree` >  That's all from me :)
[ 19:14:07 ] < Tree` >  (white knights/wizards)
[ 19:14:22 ] < Azzer >  Hehe ok, thanks for the input!
6.1.5: Meneldil.
[ 19:14:32 ] < Azzer >  Meneldil :)
[ 19:14:47 ] < Meneldil >  Ooh, thanks :)
[ 19:15:33 ] < Meneldil >  The main point I want to make is that I think that whatever the scoring system is/becomes, I'd like to see it being transparent
[ 19:15:34 ] < Azzer >  Wasn't inviting you to talk Mene, just liked saying your name.
[ 19:15:38 ] * < Azzer >  grins.
[ 19:15:39 ] < Meneldil >  :P
[ 19:15:59 ] < Azzer >  You mean explicit clear cut
[ 19:16:00 ] < Meneldil >  Well, now I've started can I be rude enough to continue?
[ 19:16:10 ] < Azzer >  "you will get X eff if you do Y damage on a player at Z of your size"
[ 19:16:11 ] < Meneldil >  Indeed - open and understandable by all
[ 19:16:35 ] < Meneldil >  Currently the Alliance points - and to a degree - the effectiveness ranks, feel a bit like playing Darts without being able to see the dartboard
[ 19:16:50 ] < Meneldil >  There can be educated guesses to where it is, but no one (except you) is really quite sure.
[ 19:16:52 ] < Azzer >  I'm against it being TOTALLY explicit - in the same way I am with unit stats, for hopefully understandable reasons... but I do want to let people know a direction, and for ranks be a bit more clear than ally points.
[ 19:17:15 ] < Meneldil >  Sorry, perhaps not totally explicit, but at least an idea of the factors that affect it
[ 19:17:34 ] < Azzer >  Aye, well certainly it'd be cleared than all ypoints, player ranks would be/is the main, core element.
[ 19:17:41 ] < Meneldil >  If you can't see what you're aiming for, then the fun is - in my mind, reduced
[ 19:17:43 ] < Azzer >  So people would have to know how exactly they earn it.
[ 19:18:01 ] < Azzer >  So they know what to do rather than just be told "play the game honourably and see how you do :D" :p
[ 19:18:06 ] < Meneldil >  Indeed - blind fumbling in the dark just gives (to me) the impression of a game not quite thought out fully
[ 19:18:16 ] < Meneldil >  Exactly :D
[ 19:18:38 ] < Meneldil >  I'd also like to raise the question of how activity-dependent ranks should be
[ 19:18:52 ] < Azzer >  I think fairly.
[ 19:19:05 ] < Meneldil >  Currently, both valuation and effectiveness (especially effectiveness) are very activity dependent
[ 19:19:15 ] < Azzer >  I don't want casual players being rules out of even bothering playing the game - but a casual gamer should be playing for fun, not to win.
[ 19:19:22 ] < Azzer >  A player that plays for the win should be an active player.
[ 19:19:41 ] < Azzer >  So it's a case of giving the less active a game that's fun to simply play and take part in.
[ 19:19:53 ] < Azzer >  And giving those that want to really *PLAY*, a chance to win, with clear cut ideas of how to do that.
[ 19:19:55 ] < Meneldil >  That seems reasonable
[ 19:20:09 ] < Meneldil >  but I've somewhat felt that the name effectiveness seems misleading, in that sense
[ 19:20:29 ] < Meneldil >  (What's more effective of 1,000,000 vs 1,000,000 than 1,000 vs 1,000?)
[ 19:20:34 ] < Azzer >  It's never been a totally clear name, it's probably better suited "battle lust" or something, it was a tricky one to name without it sounding stupid.
[ 19:20:41 ] < Azzer >  Effectiveness seemed most appropriate without sounding crap :P
[ 19:20:48 ] < Meneldil >  In any case - personally I'd like to see it being not so score-dependent
[ 19:20:54 ] < Meneldil >  (Ah damn, drifted onto a different point here)
[ 19:20:55 ] < Azzer >  Score as in valuation?
[ 19:21:00 ] < Meneldil >  Indeed
[ 19:21:27 ] < Meneldil >  As it is, being high in valuation seems to give higher effectiveness
[ 19:21:27 ] < Azzer >  Well higher valuation will ALWAYS have higher rewards - units, land, tech, speed to replace things, how many people are above or below you as potential enemies, that's just natural.
[ 19:21:38 ] < Meneldil >  So why need it give more EFF as well?
[ 19:21:40 ] < Azzer >  If rank 1000 could earn eff as fast as rank 10
[ 19:21:49 ] < Azzer >  Then you'd be better off staying rank 1000 and constantly picking on newbies
[ 19:22:05 ] < Meneldil >  Not if that didn't prove you to be effective
[ 19:22:15 ] < Azzer >  By giving less eff in smaller battles? ;)
[ 19:22:24 ] < Meneldil >  Could effectiveness not, in fact, be partially calculated from the EFF of the other player?
[ 19:22:33 ] < Meneldil >  (and result of the battle, too)
[ 19:22:37 ] < Azzer >  Killing an effective player got you more eff? :P
[ 19:22:41 ] < Meneldil >  Indeed
[ 19:22:45 ] < Azzer >  Well it *COULD*, sure...
[ 19:22:46 ] < Meneldil >  That seems fairly reasonable, doesn't it?
[ 19:22:56 ] < Meneldil >  Killing a good player requires more skill than a less good player?
[ 19:22:59 ] < Azzer >  But I'm not sure how reasonable that really is, nor how much of a "bonus" to get based on the other persons eff
[ 19:23:05 ] < Azzer >  Fair argument.
[ 19:23:24 ] < Meneldil >  Moving on again, as I know other people want to speak
[ 19:23:26 ] < Azzer >  Could work out well actually, I'll need to think about that one more deeply.
[ 19:23:35 ] < Azzer >  Ok going to move on to the next talker now
[ 19:23:37 ] < Azzer >  Thanks Mene :)
[ 19:23:41 ] < Meneldil >  Ah ok, thanks for listening :)
6.1.6: Twigley.
[ 19:23:43 ] * < Azzer >  pokes Twigley
[ 19:23:48 ] < Azzer >  All yours Twigs :P
[ 19:23:57 ] < Twigley >  Ok
[ 19:24:01 ] < Twigley >  Right
[ 19:24:12 ] < Twigley >  My personal view as you know is opposite to whats been suggested
[ 19:24:18 ] < Twigley >  Im all for pure valuation
[ 19:24:20 ] < Twigley >  How it was.
[ 19:24:28 ] < Azzer >  Aye I know
[ 19:24:32 ] < Twigley >  Players AND alliances
[ 19:24:44 ] < Twigley >  And first would like to pick on mene's points
[ 19:24:49 ] < Twigley >  Why i dont think the other way works
[ 19:24:55 ] < Twigley >  <@Meneldil> Currently, both valuation and effectiveness (especially effectiveness) are very activity dependent
[ 19:25:03 ] < Twigley >  First off, i totally agree with that
[ 19:25:11 ] < Twigley >  To a certain extent
[ 19:25:20 ] < Twigley >  <@Azzer> Killing an effective player got you more eff? :P
[ 19:25:31 ] < Twigley >  Dont agree with this
[ 19:25:42 ] < Twigley >  Some players who do nothing but sit there and be flakked get high Eff
[ 19:25:46 ] < Twigley >  How would you work it
[ 19:25:53 ] < Twigley >  Attacking eff / Defensive eff?
[ 19:25:59 ] < Twigley >  Eurh complex
[ 19:26:04 ] < Twigley >  -
[ 19:26:15 ] < Twigley >  I dont like the profile awards, i dont like the eff, i dont like word tables
[ 19:26:24 ] < Twigley >  im personally for 100% valuation - one focus - one purpose
[ 19:26:27 ] < Azzer >  Aye you just want one, single, pure goal in the entire game, I know.
[ 19:26:41 ] < Twigley >  If you are playing for fun what does it matter what rank eff you are or what ever
[ 19:26:57 ] < Twigley >  People who keep this game going are the active people (Aka "the top")
[ 19:27:17 ] < Twigley >  And it seems alot of the people i talked to want value
[ 19:27:25 ] < Twigley >  Not eff, which is how i see a "lower ally" thing
[ 19:27:38 ] < Azzer >  What about score-queening, could it not come back horribly with pure valuation?
[ 19:28:10 ] < Twigley >  Improve seed thief / arsonists / money launders etc?
[ 19:28:18 ] < Twigley >  Other topic but i think they are useless atm
[ 19:28:27 ] < Twigley >  Can stop SQ'ing
[ 19:28:38 ] < Azzer >  True
[ 19:28:39 ] < Twigley >  One drive, one focus, kiss!
[ 19:28:42 ] < Twigley >  :)
[ 19:29:03 ] < Azzer >  What about;
[ 19:29:04 ] < Azzer >  [18:56:11] <+Tim> With the right group of players, even the worst player can finish top 20 valuation
[ 19:29:14 ] < Azzer >  And his point that i"is valuation really an indication of a player being good"?
[ 19:29:16 ] < Twigley >  Show me some bad players that have come top 20
[ 19:29:18 ] < Azzer >  I argued that it generally does
[ 19:29:35 ] < Azzer >  mmm, I do agree, I rarely see a top player in valuation, that i know isn't a skilled player
[ 19:30:06 ] < Azzer >  Interesting topic, difficult one too.
[ 19:30:12 ] < Twigley >  Also i hate how there are no wars anymore
[ 19:30:21 ] < Twigley >  Just a wave or so
[ 19:30:23 ] < Azzer >  There's a few different camps that wills tick to their sides no matter what, in what is a "good player" score/rank wise, and what isn't.
[ 19:30:31 ] < Twigley >  Because people know they can get eff
[ 19:30:48 ] < Twigley >  And dont have to war about alot in mass to get better ally rankings / personal
[ 19:31:03 ] < Azzer >  Well we can't say whether that's the reason or not :P Overall dynamics of what people do in the game round through round is difficult (probably not possible) to pin entirely on any one thing
[ 19:31:24 ] < Azzer >  But you think pure value as score, would mean more warring?
[ 19:31:36 ] < Azzer >  More "true hatred" between two allies going at it like hell, than currently happens?
[ 19:31:42 ] < Twigley >  Yup
[ 19:31:49 ] < Azzer >  Why's that, briefly?
[ 19:32:20 ] < Twigley >  Atm ... i dont care if Monotony are rank 2 and my alliance is rank 3 ... we have gone onto trying to win ally points and eff
[ 19:32:23 ] < Twigley >  So we wont war them
[ 19:32:28 ] < Twigley >  We dont care Hell is on top
[ 19:32:35 ] < Twigley >  Because we can get more targets from getting eff on lower allies
[ 19:32:50 ] < Twigley >  If its there, and everyone else is doing it
[ 19:33:04 ] < Twigley >  Then i cba fighting if nobody else is
[ 19:33:16 ] < Twigley >  So stagnant all the rankings
[ 19:33:29 ] < Azzer >  Hmmmm, well tough points but well made. I'm going to have to move on though else I'm going to be here until midnight tonight ^^
[ 19:33:35 ] < Twigley >  \o/
[ 19:33:39 ] < Azzer >  Thanks for the input Twigs :)
[ 19:33:40 ] < Twigley >  okok
6.1.7: Mattheus.
[ 19:33:59 ] < Azzer >  Ok Mattheus :)
[ 19:34:01 ] < Mattheus >  lo again
[ 19:34:04 ] < Azzer >  And I'll have one more after this then open it up
[ 19:34:12 ] < Mattheus >  right gonna have to do a little copy/pasting as ive got dinner on the go
[ 19:34:17 ] < Mattheus >  hope thats ok
[ 19:34:21 ] < Azzer >  Sure
[ 19:34:24 ] < Mattheus >  well I did have just the 1 point but seeing what some people have said now its 2
[ 19:34:34 ] < Mattheus >  I like the idea of 1 ranking, but I'm vehemently opposed to that single rankingbeing a 'hybrid' similar to alliance points like people have been describing. Theres no way in hell you can come up with a fair formula which will take all factors into account on how 'well he/she has played'
[ 19:34:46 ] < Mattheus >  its also bad for the less active. Soemone may not attack for a while and drop down the rankings like a stone - even if they didn't get any inc
[ 19:34:46 ] < Mattheus >  At the end of the day valuation is the only rank which can work in a single ranking system. Anything else becomes a balancing nightmare. Let people war for vauation purposes (because they want more land) or for fun etc, don't force it into the system with a ranking like that
[ 19:34:52 ] < Mattheus >  it also goes against all the things a lot of people have been saying about making the game more simplistic. This would just be another unintuitive thing which would be a complete mystery for newbies
[ 19:35:06 ] < Mattheus >  (as you can probs guess im anti-alliance points also ;) )
[ 19:35:08 ] < Mattheus >  ---
[ 19:35:09 ] < Mattheus >  as for your concern about score queening returning if it went back to pure evaluation
[ 19:35:14 ] < Mattheus >  imo the best change that you implemented in age 4 was the change of the score formula for cash and plants. The main reason so many players used the 'sit and save cash all round and spend it all last tick for portal' strategy was because if they spent they would get in range of the top alliance and be owned to kingdom come.
[ 19:35:18 ] < Mattheus >  Now that thats not an issue anymore (with saved cash and bought units giving the same score) it immediately stopped a vast majority of the score queening that was rife in age 3
[ 19:35:22 ] < Azzer >  Just to comment on it being bad for the less active - if you're not active you can be wiped out while offline and drop down the rankings like an even heavier stone.
[ 19:35:24 ] < Mattheus >  So if you *did* wanna go back to the 1 ranking again (and I assume it would be value if you did like age 3?) then I don't think we would have nearly as much score queening as age 3.
[ 19:35:30 ] < Azzer >  (for pure value)
[ 19:36:26 ] < Mattheus >  those are my main points
[ 19:36:31 ] < Mattheus >  had to write them pretty sharpish
[ 19:36:32 ] < Azzer >  Hmmm with score queening, you could be right, that change may well be why a lot of it seemed to spot. And like Twigley said, could increase money launderers/seed thieves/chem sprayers/arsonists etc. etc. (utility units)
[ 19:36:43 ] < Azzer >  *stop not spot.
[ 19:36:51 ] < Mattheus >  so for once, i pretty much agree with twigs :P
[ 19:37:01 ] < Mattheus >  (escept for profile awards, they rule)
[ 19:37:11 ] < Azzer >  Hehehe yeah I love profile awards
[ 19:37:13 ] < Azzer >  THey aren't going ;)
[ 19:37:18 ] < Mattheus >  and yeah, the activity point I made was a minor one azzer
[ 19:37:24 ] < Azzer >  Ok well don't have anything new to add myself in reply to what you've said, so I'll thank you for the input there and throw another speaker up
[ 19:37:30 ] < Mattheus >  thanks
6.1.8: Sordes.
[ 19:37:46 ] < Azzer >  Sordes :) No forum links please ;P
[ 19:37:50 ] < Sordes >  There wont be this time
[ 19:37:53 ] < Azzer >  Lol
[ 19:38:37 ] < Sordes >  But, i also argue for Pure Score as the "Fighting Ranking". The reason is its simple, and its been proved to work in the past. You mentioned wars, back when it was pure score. Can anyone remember the Hatred between Virus and Core fighting for the top ? Or Core vs the Dutchies ?
[ 19:38:46 ] < Sordes >  after the ranking changed little of that old rivalry is stil in the game
[ 19:38:59 ] < Azzer >  Sorry by pure score, just confirm - you mean "valuation" right?
[ 19:39:02 ] < Sordes >  Alot of the reason for that is people are fighting now for different things.
[ 19:39:03 ] < Sordes >  Yes
[ 19:39:11 ] < Sordes >  Sorry im a old player and stil think of valuation as score
[ 19:39:18 ] < Azzer >  hehe I know, just making it clear to all ^^
[ 19:39:30 ] < Sordes >  But i also agree on some of the other aspects that there needs to be something else aswell. I remember when statistics where introduced
[ 19:39:37 ] < Sordes >  fighting for Serial Killer and Most Dangerous was a blast
[ 19:39:55 ] < Sordes >  Perhaps a revamp of Statistics into say Battle Points that goes more of a valuation between Killed and Lost troops
[ 19:40:05 ] < Sordes >  Thief poitns to replace master thief or something like that
[ 19:40:15 ] < Sordes >  basicly a "new statistics" of minor ranks to fight for fun
[ 19:40:16 ] < Azzer >  So you'd say... not trying to put words in to your mouth just seeing I understand... one single rank, valuation, like old days. But keep statistics (just as statistics) just as fun, meaningless (but interesting for most) reasons?
[ 19:40:18 ] < Sordes >  where only top 3 gets in portal
[ 19:40:40 ] < Sordes >  Make a top 3 portal, but remove alot of the statistics making them fewer
[ 19:40:45 ] < Sordes >  Like say you get 100 Points for 1 stolen acre
[ 19:40:51 ] < Sordes >  and lose 40 points each time a acre is stolen
[ 19:40:56 ] < Sordes >  and get 20 points for each acre bought
[ 19:41:14 ] < Sordes >  And at the end of the round the top 3 of these get rewarded with portal
[ 19:41:17 ] < Sordes >  or even just the top 1
[ 19:41:24 ] < Sordes >  As a "Honurable mention"
[ 19:41:37 ] < Sordes >  Helps give something to fight for all round should you lose the war for rank 1 allie
[ 19:41:37 ] < Azzer >  Hmm perhaps, but nothing to do with the "world rankings"
[ 19:41:44 ] < Sordes >  yes nothing to do with those
[ 19:41:51 ] < Sordes >  Pure Fun Statistic rankings on the side
[ 19:41:56 ] < Sordes >  Serial Killer and Master Thief etc
[ 19:42:01 ] < Sordes >  is stil things many people value even now
[ 19:42:10 ] < Azzer >  True, I know a lot still talk about them a lot
[ 19:42:11 ] < Sordes >  why not expand and make some fun rankings of those to replace current statistics ?
[ 19:42:20 ] < Azzer >  Well replacing things tends to upset people ;)
[ 19:42:23 ] < Azzer >  If people talk about them a lot
[ 19:42:26 ] < Azzer >  "why change them" :P
[ 19:42:52 ] < Sordes >  well i guess the fresh element comes to mind
[ 19:43:07 ] < Sordes >  Pluss alot of statistics today are flawed. Like the top wins most of them by default
[ 19:43:31 ] < Sordes >  While say the Thief Ranking is benefical for all since lower end gets acess to more targets and therefore can build up more points
[ 19:43:32 ] < Azzer >  Well that's not necessarily a flaw
[ 19:43:35 ] < Sordes >  even if they lose alot.
[ 19:43:41 ] < Azzer >  Are you saying stats should only be achievable by the "losers" :P
[ 19:43:48 ] < Sordes >  No, not exactly
[ 19:43:58 ] < Sordes >  But "Fun rankings" should be fightable for outside of the rank of Score
[ 19:44:07 ] < Sordes >  Basicly be more of a "All Round Event"
[ 19:44:22 ] < Sordes >  Top players will always have advantage
[ 19:44:24 ] < Sordes >  That wont change
[ 19:44:43 ] < Sordes >  Just feel Score + Some fun elements for others to fight for
[ 19:44:47 ] < Sordes >  would be the good way to go
[ 19:44:55 ] < Azzer >  Ok well we'll have to see what comes of this all
[ 19:45:00 ] < Azzer >  Thanks for your input as usual Sordes :)
[ 19:45:06 ] < Sordes >  Well i thank you again for being allowed to input
[ 19:45:16 ] < Azzer >  Ok one last person before I open it
6.1.9: Polo.
[ 19:45:24 ] < Polo >  woo
[ 19:45:28 ] < Azzer >  Welcome back Polio ;)
[ 19:45:31 ] < Polo >  ta
[ 19:45:48 ] < Polo >  Personally, I'm unsure about gov value v effectiveness (or a variant of it)
[ 19:45:56 ] < Polo >  both have really good points
[ 19:46:05 ] < Polo >  but having both at the same time doesn't really work
[ 19:46:11 ] < Polo >  as we have seen in the past few rounds
[ 19:46:41 ] < Polo >  I did have one thought though...how about removing gov value completely. base attack limits etc. on land only
[ 19:46:51 ] < Polo >  so you can attack someone who has say 25% of your land or more
[ 19:47:06 ] < Polo >  then the damage you do etc gives you effectiveness/score
[ 19:47:40 ] < Polo >  that way you won't have any arguements from people who still think gov value is the best rank
[ 19:47:43 ] < Azzer >  Hmmmmmmm.... you could have loads of land and no troops as you just got wiped out
[ 19:47:43 ] < Polo >  as it won't exist :P
[ 19:47:54 ] < Azzer >  And be totally raped by someone with the same land and a huge army?
[ 19:48:02 ] < Polo >  yeah, but how is that different to how it is now?
[ 19:48:10 ] < Polo >  land gives you so much score anyway
[ 19:48:20 ] < Polo >  that a zeroed player still tends to have a lot of score
[ 19:48:23 ] < Azzer >  Well now if you lose all your troops youd rop the rankings, and those big guys can't attack you, people more around your size can instead
[ 19:48:34 ] < Polo >  ^
[ 19:48:50 ] < Azzer >  I think that'd be a dangerous one to play with, but we'll talk about it more in the "game mechanics" side of things, rather than rankings.
[ 19:48:57 ] < Polo >  mmk
[ 19:49:09 ] < Polo >  I think it would encourage more fighting
[ 19:49:11 ] < Azzer >  So would you say valuation, eff, or a merge of both, or something new?
[ 19:49:17 ] < Polo >  as you'd have no "value" to protect :P
[ 19:49:30 ] < Polo >  eff as a main rank and limits based on land only
[ 19:49:41 ] < Azzer >  I admit a lot of games base your "size" purely on your resources not your army and it tends to work.
[ 19:49:53 ] < Azzer >  And base everything attack-limit wise on that "size" difference, not army difference.
[ 19:50:09 ] < Polo >  although as Mene said, it should be more obvious how you gain eff :P
[ 19:50:14 ] < Polo >  indeed, Azzer
[ 19:50:25 ] < Azzer >  But you might then be able to get a "friend" to "accidentally hit you when your troops happened to be out"
[ 19:50:31 ] < Azzer >  And keep a huge army but get down to next to no land
[ 19:50:38 ] < Azzer >  And be unattackable/able to attack everyone else
[ 19:50:49 ] < Azzer >  With a massive army
[ 19:50:52 ] < Polo >  hmm, true
[ 19:51:12 ] < Azzer >  (and that genuinely could happen by natural processes too)
[ 19:51:13 ] < Polo >  although, you still have the same problem now
[ 19:51:21 ] < Polo >  what with land being so much of someone's score
[ 19:51:23 ] < Azzer >  Well not to such an abusable degree
[ 19:51:26 ] < Polo >  aye
[ 19:51:36 ] < Polo >  but that would be land farming anyway
[ 19:51:39 ] < Polo >  so illegal :P
[ 19:51:46 ] < Azzer >  It could happen anyway
[ 19:51:52 ] < Azzer >  I've lost land while my troops were out a number of times
[ 19:52:00 ] < Azzer >  it only has to happen a few times. Hell I could do it on purpose.
[ 19:52:02 ] < Azzer >  Wait for people to attack me
[ 19:52:07 ] < Azzer >  And keep running my troops and let them get easy land
[ 19:52:23 ] < Polo >  yeah
[ 19:52:31 ] < Azzer >  So I think that would just be too easily abused, really
[ 19:52:34 ] < Polo >  :(
[ 19:52:49 ] < Polo >  well in that case
[ 19:52:54 ] < Polo >  value :P
[ 19:53:07 ] < Polo >  as I wouldn't want to see eff in the game when we still have value
[ 19:53:17 ] < Polo >  even if it wasn't technically a ranking
[ 19:53:31 ] < Azzer >  Hehe
[ 19:53:31 ] < Azzer >  Ok opening the talk on this to everyone now... hold your breath everyone ;)
6.2.0: Open Floor Discussion.
[ 19:53:31 ] < Dematto >  sorry to interupt, but if I understand Pol correctly, land would be the only thing your rank is decided by. So why would you want to lose that land and drop ranks? you need acres again to get a good rank?
[ 19:53:31 ] < Azzer >  Dematto - to be a git.
[ 19:53:32 ] < Willymchilybily >  im happy to hav what ever system to govern rankings and one scoring & 1 rank is best also i think 1 portaling rank is best. but i also think this ranking therefore should allow more people to portal. eg not top 25 but top 50 as half the portal places will go. allie rankings too shud stay as portal. bounty ranking removed. i think with the current system the fact the person you get bounty on is an enemy is reward enou
[ 19:53:32 ] < Willymchilybily >  in addition i dont want to lose the enemies page even if bounty changes because i like seeing who stole what which route and how they did it. and have it logged so i knwo at some stage if i get the chance i can go grab my land back and maybe even get paid for it, as a bonus, i see no need to gauge how well you killed your enemies relative to others in short so no need for a bounty ranking or portal
[ 19:53:32 ] < Dematto >  This probably overlaps more Topics and most will likely skip this lengty reply till they read the logs :p
[ 19:53:32 ] < Dematto >  Adding FUN back into the game would help a lot in increasing the size of the playerbase, people would tend to stick around longer I think. This would also increase the amount of targets for 'the top' part of the playerbase, increasing their fun aswell.
[ 19:53:47 ] < Sordes >  Want to just remind everyone what the game is about: Your running a Gardening Company and have many rivals, its all about crushing your enemies and raise to the top of the market. Be it using excessive force or clever tactics
[ 19:53:50 ] < SadYear >  erm I raised a hand but nvm
[ 19:53:54 ] < Tree` >  :)
[ 19:53:59 ] < Speedy >  increse portal rankings
[ 19:54:00 ] < Darryl|Away >  Azzer, can you start putting the next topic in the main topic? :P
[ 19:54:03 ] < SadYear >  just wanted to point out that eff is total crap
[ 19:54:08 ] < Lupie|FOOOTIEEE >  haha
[ 19:54:09 ] < DarkSider >  here comes my spam :
[ 19:54:12 ] < SadYear >  eff doesn't show how good one is
[ 19:54:13 ] < Tim >  :)
[ 19:54:13 ] < Lupie|FOOOTIEEE >  yay
[ 19:54:14 ] < Pearly|afk >  lol
[ 19:54:17 ] < DarkSider >  Instead the so old fashioned valuation, size, acre rankings i'd like to see the game going heavy on effectiveness and wars. Imo alliance points are a big soup with many ingredients and a random cook comes and tastes them all and decides his order from best to poorest.
[ 19:54:17 ] < DarkSider >  So improve the war system, make it a really exciting experience, give incentives for active playing instead hoarding acres and sitting bored on them until round end. Effectiveness is currently the best and most accurate ranking of an alliance, you have to be as high as possible and fight as much as possible to finish a good rank in it.
[ 19:54:17 ] < DarkSider >  So for the moment i'd say remove alliance points and leave the 2 rankings separate and if wars become really popular we can have a war related ranking aswell.
[ 19:54:20 ] < SadYear >  but only how active one is
[ 19:54:27 ] < DarkSider >  After you wrote you want to get back to just valuation :
[ 19:54:32 ] < SadYear >  eff can be farmed (and is)
[ 19:54:39 ] < Tim >  Yes it does SadYear - Rank 1 eff is probably best player in the game
[ 19:54:40 ] < SadYear >  so that's the perfect SQing ranking
[ 19:54:53 ] < Speedy >  new players dont stand a chance at winning so they quit so incresing player bass is hared
[ 19:54:55 ] < Pearly|afk >  lol i only miss 2 things in bush :p getting a % of funds back after getting killed and because of eff get a rank again like it use to do before
[ 19:54:59 ] < DarkSider >  You might work on a simple formula to contain both valuation and effectiveness, but it must be really simple and with alot emphasis on getting effectiveness. Maybe use effectiveness as main number and a figure related to valuation as a bonus on top of it.
[ 19:55:07 ] < SadYear >  and also, L/F rankings would be nice to have again
[ 19:55:12 ] < SadYear >  even if there's no bounty or anything
[ 19:55:14 ] < DarkSider >  So to end, don't reward pasivity, diplomacy, fear of loosing, fear of trying, but make it all to promote spilling blood, fighting to death, reborn and jumping right back in battle ! :D
[ 19:55:14 ] < DarkSider >  And about twigley's comment that only top players are in top 20 valuation. - That's not true. Over many rounds bad players sometimes with known names finished in top 20 valuation. All you need is favorable circumstances. Good alliance or beeing solo while all other alliances fight eachother.
[ 19:55:20 ] < SadYear >  it would add some more info into the game
[ 19:55:24 ] < DarkSider >  I do agree about some players getting too much effectiveness from self defending against flak attacks - the formula should be changed to reward less defending and more attacking. Attacking must be promoted over defending as the game would stagnate and be terrible booring with everybody having a good defence and inviting eachothers to give it a try.
[ 19:55:26 ] < DarkSider >  There :D
[ 19:55:35 ] * < Tim >  goes up and reads.
[ 19:55:39 ] < Silence >  I agree with Darksider!
[ 19:55:41 ] < Willymchilybily >  isnt also effectiveness favoured to poms?
[ 19:55:41 ] < Azzer >  Darryl - next topic, or current topic?
[ 19:55:42 ] < DarkSider >  ahahaha
[ 19:55:56 ] < Willymchilybily >  so bit biased as it is anyway if this is the case
[ 19:55:57 ] < Silence >  Seriously, I agree with Darryl|Away
[ 19:56:00 ] < Silence >  *darksider
[ 19:56:10 ] < DarkSider >  <3 Silence
[ 19:56:49 ] < Dematto >  Both Azzer :p Current topic: x, Next topic: y, starting in q minutes
[ 19:56:58 ] < Sordes >  Well i think most tend to forget Wars where plenty in the past with just Score ranking
[ 19:57:06 ] < Fubu >  aye
[ 19:57:12 ] < Azzer >  Well it starts when I think a topic has been "done" usually :P Or if time is pushing up just too much (which it really is)
[ 19:57:13 ] < Iamsmart >  I have a question
[ 19:57:16 ] < Iamsmart >  When there was just 'score'
[ 19:57:19 ] < Iamsmart >  Was that valuation?
[ 19:57:22 ] < Sordes >  Yes
[ 19:57:34 ] < Fubu >  in the old days people wanted to war with other allies, now theyre happy giving it to the first alliance to get the biggest/most dev'd
[ 19:57:39 ] < Sordes >  The discussions will continue on forums later anyway
[ 19:57:44 ] < Iamsmart >  And when you guys want this combined score with eff+value+BH+w/e
[ 19:57:45 ] < AzLev >  Uh, sorry to look idiotic but which topic is this? (Just woke up)
[ 19:57:45 ] < Sordes >  So im sure most can come to some agreements then
[ 19:57:49 ] < Fubu >  another reason maybe though that it takes 1 week pretty much to fully tech
[ 19:57:51 ] < Azzer >  Aye, valuation was renamed valuation from "score", to stop people thinking "score" was so important (because the very word itself is a very important word... your "score"... high score... etc.)
[ 19:57:58 ] < Iamsmart >  Is 30% range considered from the all combined score, or from valuation?
[ 19:57:58 ] < zazemen >  As it seems Azzer wont respond to my PM :S
[ 19:57:59 ] < rooney|afk >  how long has this been going now? 6 hours?
[ 19:58:03 ] < Tim >  Even more recent wars when we only had Valuation as a rank weren't really anything special to talk about. Most of the more recent ones were simply Massing on other players, is that really what we want to go back to?
[ 19:58:13 ] < Darryl|Away >  Next, azzer, it's obvious what the curreny one is by reading the channel, I want to know when I should pay attention ;p
[ 19:58:42 ] < Azzer >  The "wars" did seem to be who massed on who first. Take down enemy ally players on by one by massing on them, recal if they defend, else hit.
[ 19:58:48 ] < Azzer >  With a bit of trickery with fake defences/fake attacks.
[ 19:59:00 ] < Sordes >  Yes. But it was active warfare
[ 19:59:02 ] < rooney|topgear >  i suggest pausing this convo and restarting next sunday since top gear is starting :D
[ 19:59:05 ] < Chewie >  imo there needs to be a single direction for this game to be in. Whether it be valuation, effectiveness or bounty hunting some loose ends need to be tied so that the game is much more focused as opposed to a very general game. Some time needs to be put in developing a single system which can be effective in the sense that it allows both fun and competition throughout any rank not multiple systems which shroud the idea of the ga
[ 19:59:07 ] < Sordes >  And back then, resistance wasent as active as it is today.
[ 19:59:28 ] < Iamsmart >   And back then, resistance wasent as active as it is today.<-- What?
[ 19:59:28 ] < Iamsmart >  :/
[ 19:59:34 ] < Tim >  This round, due to Eff, a few players have been waging guerilla warfare on certain alliances and gaining lots of Eff for it. Those same circumstances would probably not happen just with Valuation
[ 19:59:39 ] < Fubu >  resistances were more active back in the day
[ 19:59:42 ] < Twigley >   Yes it does SadYear - Rank 1 eff is probably best player in the game
[ 19:59:45 ] < Sordes >  Back in rounds 6-12 there where barly any resistances at all
[ 19:59:46 ] < Twigley >  Total BS.
[ 19:59:57 ] < Sordes >  In today's situation resistance is far more common and effective then in the past
[ 20:00:02 ] < Chewie >  at this moment in time there isn't a clear goal. There needs to be something for everyone to aim for and what is potentially accessible for everyone.
[ 20:00:03 ] < Iamsmart >  I think Tim meant the best PoM eff whorer in the game
[ 20:00:03 ] < Iamsmart >  :P
[ 20:00:04 ] < Azzer >  Darryl - well topics still to come, and in order, are: Alliances, Solo Play, Anti - Rape, Misc Mechanics - Land cap, Injury etc, Global Politics, Forums, helper Section, Purchases/Purchase System, User Profile / Points, Marketing/Advertising/Promotion, Next Bush Meet.
[ 20:00:12 ] < Azzer >  And a "Anything Else" at the end
[ 20:00:14 ] < Twigley >  You call yourself good Tim because you can send marines along with PA against someone that is uncontactable and their alliance cant defend?
[ 20:00:23 ] < Twigley >  I wouldnt say that makes rank 1 (you atm) best ingame
[ 20:00:28 ] < Fubu >  more effective, bt common i wouldnt agree with, a few rounds back everyone would join to take out an evil top alli, or at least try
[ 20:00:31 ] < DarkSider >  Sordes in the past ppl score queened as they had *nothing* to win from killing top alliance. Their valluation was everything.
[ 20:00:41 ] < Sordes >  Since then Score Formula changed
[ 20:00:42 ] < Fubu >  now i dont see them doin much, and hoping like rank 2/3 allies will do the job
[ 20:00:47 ] < Tree` >  I meant to say when I had the floor - I disagreed with everything Tim said.
[ 20:00:48 ] < Terrakan >  thats a big list
[ 20:00:49 ] < Sordes >  and SQing became alot more difficult to compare
[ 20:00:53 ] < Twigley >  Also i biker rushed last round to get to rank 1 and does that mean i was best player ...
[ 20:00:53 ] < Terrakan >  how much did i miss then
[ 20:01:00 ] < Terrakan >  5 hours
[ 20:01:04 ] < Terrakan >  crikey
[ 20:01:08 ] < Fubu >  lol
[ 20:01:11 ] < Fubu >  and we're still goin
[ 20:01:11 ] < Fubu >  :p
[ 20:01:15 ] < Terrakan >  idd Fubu
[ 20:01:20 ] < Azzer >  Taking a LITTLE longer than I thought ;)
[ 20:01:20 ] < Tree` >  "Goodness" is retarded. Like what Mene said - the rankings should be largely clear cut.
[ 20:01:21 ] < Terrakan >  so i didnt miss much
[ 20:01:29 ] < Fubu >  tbh tho, its things like this which got me addicted to the game
[ 20:01:32 ] < Fubu >  the communtiy
[ 20:01:34 ] * < Enrico|Forums >  posted suggestions/solutions to bribinginjury/arsonistroute/unified score on the forums.
[ 20:01:36 ] < Silence >  [20:00]  Sordes in the past ppl score queened as they had *nothing* to win from killing top alliance. Their valluation was everything. <---Therefore I propose a score based upon how much of the enemy you killed and your targets are people within a certain amount of your current acres
[ 20:01:38 ] < Fubu >  and thats what has been lost...
[ 20:01:41 ] < Jorizz >  Enrico
[ 20:01:44 ] < Tree` >  Is you want to measure goodness - honor/fame, baby!
[ 20:01:49 ] < Jorizz >  a unified score of diffrent factors DOES NOT WORK
[ 20:01:51 ] < Jorizz >  look at AP
[ 20:01:57 ] < Tree` >  And don't ever call it lawfulness. Lawfulness is gay too.
[ 20:02:09 ] < Tree` >  WE FIGHT FOR HONOR! NOT... LAWFULNESS!
[ 20:02:16 ] < Chewie >  Jorizz what happened to holland winning the Euro 2008?
[ 20:02:19 ] < Enrico|Forums >  well if you want a unified score must be gained on activity
[ 20:02:19 ] < Azzer >  Tree` - can I have less of the "gay" and "retarded" please, and more constructiveness :)
[ 20:02:23 ] < Wakkoz >  btw Discussion continue ?
[ 20:02:26 ] < Tree` >  YES!
[ 20:02:28 ] < Twigley >  *Honour
[ 20:02:29 ] < Twigley >  �_�
[ 20:02:30 ] < Wakkoz >  lol
[ 20:02:49 ] < Tree` >  Who do you know who has ever went to battle for lawfulness. It's silly. Breaks the theme of the game.
[ 20:02:50 ] < Enrico|Forums >  so that a small active player gains more scorepoints than a large inactive
[ 20:02:55 ] < Polo >  �20:01:30� {Silence} [20:00]  Sordes in the past ppl score queened as they had *nothing* to win from killing top alliance. Their valluation was everything. <---Therefore I propose a score based upon how much of the enemy you killed and your targets are people within a certain amount of your current acres
[ 20:03:01 ] < Polo >  that's exactly what I said, Silence :P
[ 20:03:02 ] < LuckySports >  I'd like to point out something. When valuation was score, it is true that many top players just horded their score, but there was a lot of fighting between the lower ranks. round 8 comes to mind. If you'll remember, there was a lot of fighting between the lower ranks, the only thing that ruins it was the top ally defending their "friend" in another ally, which is much less possible now..
[ 20:03:09 ] < Iamsmart >  Twigley, the American spelling is honor.
[ 20:03:12 ] < Silence >  Sorry polo I was AFK when you were talking :(
[ 20:03:15 ] < Polo >  :P
[ 20:03:15 ] < Chewie >  i think there should be a ranking called "the awesomeness" ranking
[ 20:03:21 ] < Twigley >  I'm aware of that Iamsmart, English only in here please ;P
[ 20:03:22 ] < Polo >  at least someone agrees with me, Silence :P
[ 20:03:23 ] < Silence >  Then I agree with a mixture of polo and darksider
[ 20:03:28 ] < Polo >  ^^
[ 20:03:32 ] < Chewie >  and basically what happens is the more you masturbate the more points you get. meaning the more awesome you are.
[ 20:03:34 ] < Iamsmart >  It is a correct English word.
[ 20:03:34 ] < DarkSider >  Yeah, we make a good sandwich :p
[ 20:03:38 ] < Silence >  I think score should be based upon fighting
[ 20:03:50 ] < Azzer >  Chewie...
[ 20:03:51 ] < Chewie >  it should be based upon AWESOMENESS
[ 20:03:52 ] < Enrico|Forums >  all activity..
[ 20:04:10 ] < Sordes >  Besides pure valuation is easier to adapt to for new players aswell. Something the game needs alot of
[ 20:04:22 ] < Enrico|Forums >  fighting, developing, doing what ypu set out to do (steal, stop landloss, bribe units)
[ 20:04:22 ] < Silence >  The "valuation" rank could exsist but a score rank should exsist based upon killing
[ 20:04:24 ] < Sordes >  So it has that sort of advantages to it aswell as being easy.
[ 20:04:33 ] < Sordes >  Silence, and what does prots do then ?
[ 20:04:37 ] < Sordes >  fall totaly outside the rankings ?
[ 20:04:38 ] < Azzer >  Silence - so you think keep two ranks?
[ 20:04:46 ] < Silence >  Effectivly yes
[ 20:04:54 ] < Twigley >  :<
[ 20:04:59 ] < Nopjes >  Azzer can you put the current issue in the topic?
[ 20:05:00 ] < Chewie >  i think 2 but not the 15,000 which we have now.
[ 20:05:01 ] < harvey >  omg lol
[ 20:05:02 ] < Silence >  Sordes I dont think the protesters should exsist within the game tbh
[ 20:05:09 ] < harvey >  5 hours!!
[ 20:05:11 ] < Polo >  same
[ 20:05:12 ] < Azzer >  Nopjes - Scoring/Ranking System
[ 20:05:15 ] < DarkSider >  DIE POMS ! :P
[ 20:05:18 ] < Silence >  hehe
[ 20:05:19 ] < Twigley >  OMG SILENCE. Get out!
[ 20:05:20 ] < Twigley >  :(
[ 20:05:23 ] < Silence >  Sorry :(
[ 20:05:27 ] < Dematto >  (5 hours and we're not even halfway the list of topics)
[ 20:05:28 ] < Fubu >  lol nah we need the poms
[ 20:05:29 ] < Twigley >  tunnel vissioner
[ 20:05:34 ] < Azzer >  Ok interesting subject
[ 20:05:44 ] < Azzer >  People on both sides of the camp there, but *most* agree on a single rank system
[ 20:06:01 ] < Azzer >  Whether "valuation", "eff", or a mesh of the two. This is a topic to continue on forums when I make the new forum section for all these topics.

7.0.0: Alliances.

[ 20:06:12 ] < Azzer >  Next topic is "alliances".
[ 20:06:31 ] < Azzer >  Alliance member limits, what involvement should they have in the game
[ 20:06:36 ] < Azzer >  Anything specifically relating to alliances
[ 20:06:41 ] < Azzer >  "Solo play" is a seperate topic to cover after
[ 20:06:46 ] < Azzer >  Hand raising time please :)
7.1.0: One-on-ones.
7.1.1: AzLev.
[ 20:07:58 ] < Azzer >  Go ahead AzLev!
[ 20:08:04 ] < AzLev >  Whoa. Ok
[ 20:08:05 ] < AzLev >  THanks
[ 20:08:14 ] < AzLev >  I just wanted to make one input on this
[ 20:08:24 ] < AzLev >  There should be 3 added officer spots
[ 20:08:33 ] < AzLev >  Co's to everything
[ 20:08:54 ] < AzLev >  In case the others aren't around to do something when it needs to be done.
[ 20:09:14 ] < Azzer >  By 3 added officer spots, do you mean on top of the MO & CO spots?
[ 20:09:21 ] < Azzer >  (so 5 officers)
[ 20:09:35 ] < AzLev >  Yeah, co-MO and co-CO
[ 20:09:48 ] < Azzer >  Oh co as in co like co-pilot, not co as in Comms Officer.
[ 20:09:49 ] < AzLev >  Or Co-Leader and Co-MO
[ 20:09:51 ] < AzLev >  Yeah
[ 20:10:12 ] < Azzer >  Well I think that would be a bit over-the top, when you think of an alliances overall size.
[ 20:10:33 ] < AzLev >  Well, add one co-leader spot at least
[ 20:10:59 ] < Azzer >  Just another player that can do everything the leader can?
[ 20:11:29 ] < AzLev >  Yes. In case the leader isn't around, or something happens where the leader can't switch off to another person.
[ 20:11:30 ] < Azzer >  Including disband the alliance? Kick members? Set new officers?
[ 20:11:37 ] < AzLev >  Yes,
[ 20:11:55 ] < AzLev >  Well, not disbanding. But kicking and setting yes.
[ 20:12:07 ] < Azzer >  Perhaps, alliances would have to be positive they trusted whoever they set as co-leader, as much as they trust a leader
[ 20:12:17 ] < Azzer >  Two opportunities for somebody to screw an alliance up rather horribly :P
[ 20:12:43 ] < Azzer >  And, do you have anything to say about locked members in alliances and the inability to kick them, per chance?
[ 20:12:52 ] < Azzer >  Just... totally thinking of something entirely random there, of course...
[ 20:12:56 ] < AzLev >  Agreed. But from personal experience, there is always a second person that the alliance goes to talk about things if the ldear isn't around.
[ 20:13:09 ] < AzLev >  Yes, completely random.
[ 20:13:29 ] < Azzer >  is it time to give ally leaders the ability to kick locked members?
[ 20:13:32 ] < AzLev >  There should be a time limit where after x anmount of hours if the accout is still locked the leader can kick
[ 20:13:38 ] < AzLev >  Most definately.
[ 20:13:40 ] < Azzer >  I don't think there's any purpose to an ally having to "keep" a locked member in anymore
[ 20:14:13 ] < AzLev >  No. And it hurts the ally for something someone did that the rest of the ally had no clue.
[ 20:14:17 ] < Azzer >  Ok well anything else to add about alliances? :D
[ 20:14:28 ] < AzLev >  Yes, they suck.
[ 20:14:34 ] < AzLev >  No, I take that back.
[ 20:14:38 ] * < [R]Martin >  raises a hand (a bit late)
[ 20:15:03 ] < Azzer >  Hehe ok well thanks for the input
[ 20:15:08 ] < AzLev >  Maybe adjusting the allowed memeber size to 25 for pub and 23 for priv
[ 20:15:12 ] < Azzer >  Will have a think about a *limited* co-leader slot.
[ 20:15:19 ] < AzLev >  Thank you
[ 20:15:25 ] < Azzer >  Disbanding the ally should definitely be leader only, and I think kicking members should be too for the same reason.
[ 20:15:39 ] < AzLev >  Starting devs tho
[ 20:16:23 ] < Azzer >  Cheers AzLev, would-be-namethief.
7.1.2: Jorizz.
[ 20:16:26 ] < Azzer >  Jorizz :)
[ 20:16:27 ] < Jorizz >  Hiya
[ 20:16:41 ] < Jorizz >  Well personally I'd like to see the focus back on alliance play
[ 20:16:59 ] < Jorizz >  I don't know how the war system is coming along but it did look promising
[ 20:17:25 ] < Jorizz >  I'd be for an increase in alliance size as well
[ 20:17:40 ] < Jorizz >  mainly because of activity reasons that are need to play alied
[ 20:17:50 ] < Jorizz >  needed
[ 20:18:03 ] < Jorizz >  Along the lines of 20/21 privates 25 public
[ 20:18:23 ] < Jorizz >  Furthermore - the open alliances
[ 20:18:34 ] < Azzer >  n0c0n - If you missed the chance to raise your hand earlier, PM me and I *MAY* be able to fit you in, but please don't use nick changes to talk to the room.
[ 20:18:54 ] < Jorizz >  I would really like to see this issue debated again
[ 20:19:03 ] < Azzer >  Open alliances I decided there was really no way to work them in. Every idea thought of had at least one hole somewhere that just couldn't be corrected/prevented.
[ 20:19:07 ] < Jorizz >  It has a great range of potential
[ 20:19:28 ] < Jorizz >  Well the main holes were is that they would need a lot of moderation(manual that is)
[ 20:19:39 ] < Azzer >  Great concept but every time I've ever brought them up with anyone, there's always been one hole or another - abuse, needs manual management by players/myself rather than automated game features, main issues that affected most ideas.
[ 20:20:33 ] < Azzer >  Ok well I'm going to try and rush us through people a bit now, so thanks for the input there Jorizz, no idea about alliance sizes atm, some say smaller some say bigger, so I'm tempted to keep them as they are ;P
[ 20:20:43 ] < Jorizz >  ok sure :)
7.1.3: Harvey.
[ 20:21:02 ] < Azzer >  Hi harvey :)
[ 20:21:10 ] < harvey >  hey
[ 20:21:23 ] < harvey >  just a quick one duno if its teh rigth topic
[ 20:21:27 ] < Azzer >  Alliances
[ 20:21:33 ] < harvey >  sort of
[ 20:21:34 ] < harvey >  i dont know if this is in the right topic but i find that when playing in an aliance you get massed and attacked by people 2 or 3 times ur value and it is really hard to defend against.. i think that you shouldnt be able to attack people 30% ur size and it could be changed to.. 40% - 45% = ETA 2... and 45% - 50% ETA 1.. it would make the game slighty more chalenging and fairer on the lower value players and the lower aliances
[ 20:21:54 ] < Azzer >  Well I think that falls more in to alliances than anything else
[ 20:22:00 ] < harvey >  :)
[ 20:22:16 ] < Azzer >  Although
[ 20:22:22 ] < Azzer >  Only if you refer to big alliances attacking small players
[ 20:22:28 ] < Azzer >  If you mean any big player attacking a small player
[ 20:22:36 ] < harvey >  just to make it fairer.. becoz solo cant really get attacked by people way above them coz of AR
[ 20:22:36 ] < Azzer >  Then that wants to go to general game mechanics coming up in about 2 topics time ;)
[ 20:23:03 ] < Azzer >  Ok well you might want to come back in a couple of topics then harvey :D
[ 20:23:08 ] < harvey >  k
[ 20:23:10 ] < Azzer >  I'll move along to someone else now
7.1.4: LuckySports.
[ 20:23:36 ] < Azzer >  Hey Lucky :)
[ 20:23:38 ] < LuckySports >  hey.. :)
[ 20:24:01 ] < LuckySports >  I've got an idea to encourage resistance to the all-powerful round ruling alliance
[ 20:24:08 ] < Azzer >  Oh yes?
[ 20:24:11 ] < LuckySports >  won't change mechanics, but can make the game more fun..
[ 20:24:50 ] < LuckySports >  i was thinking allowing a few alliances to be able to create a shared-politics to talk in, when an alliance gets so much bigger than the next ranking ally
[ 20:25:07 ] < LuckySports >  no other benefits, other than to be able to talk to one another, and coordinate
[ 20:25:39 ] < Azzer >  Liiiike global politics, but "private areas" for alliances
[ 20:25:39 ] < LuckySports >  would make fighting against the top ally more fun, and would give them something to fight against..
[ 20:25:43 ] < LuckySports >  right.. :)
[ 20:26:24 ] < Azzer >  Perhaps, that was one of my vague aims with global pols itself, but global pols is a topic unto itself later on so I'll cover that a bit more then
[ 20:26:29 ] < LuckySports >  It'd be kinda-like ally-naps several rounds back, except instead of defending each other, they can talk to each other..
[ 20:26:41 ] < Azzer >  Well
[ 20:26:44 ] < Azzer >  They have alliance mails?
[ 20:26:46 ] < LuckySports >  okay.. although, talking strategy in global pol would probably be suicidal.. :P
[ 20:26:47 ] < Azzer >  Is that not sufficient?
[ 20:26:53 ] < LuckySports >  thats leader-leader..
[ 20:26:57 ] < Azzer >  And CO
[ 20:27:04 ] < Azzer >  You mean every member of an ally?
[ 20:27:06 ] < LuckySports >  i'm thinking allowing all the members to talk to each other
[ 20:27:09 ] < LuckySports >  yea
[ 20:27:25 ] < Azzer >  That would just be a joint ally then I think "I've got incoming here, can anyone counter this player?" sort of thing
[ 20:27:51 ] < Azzer >  So not sure that would really work
[ 20:28:05 ] < LuckySports >  alrighty
[ 20:28:05 ] < Azzer >  Or do much towards it's intended goal of increasing resistances
[ 20:28:13 ] < Azzer >  I think it'd just be used by allies watning to work together in general
[ 20:28:22 ] < Azzer >  Ok well thanks for the ideas! I'll shuffle on to the next person now!
7.1.5: Dematto.
[ 20:28:40 ] < Azzer >  Dematto :D
[ 20:28:44 ] < Dematto >  yeah
[ 20:28:47 ] < Azzer >  Go ahead
[ 20:29:20 ] < Dematto >  first of, I think Alliances are the future of the game. People that play together are often much more reluctant to leave the game and more easily pursuaded by ex-allies to come back
[ 20:29:33 ] < Dematto >  and thus would more easy make the playerbase grow
[ 20:29:43 ] < Azzer >  I agree with that
[ 20:29:51 ] < Dematto >  so, I'd suggest focussing the game on Alliances more, which currently isn't being done
[ 20:30:01 ] < Dematto >  it's not worthwhile to be in a   I'm also torn between 2 options: increasing or decreasing alliance sizes
[ 20:30:31 ] < Dematto >  increasing would mean more members, more alliance play, tougher defence and harder/less fun to attack
[ 20:31:05 ] < Azzer >  And more socialising
[ 20:31:11 ] < Azzer >  (larger social group = more fun?)
[ 20:31:15 ] < Dematto >  I'm personally either for a small increase or the same amount of members per alliance
[ 20:31:16 ] < Dematto >  yes
[ 20:31:41 ] < Dematto >  I'd also like to shoot down the multiple-officer suggestion (sorry!) rotate your leaderspot if you want to have officers online
[ 20:31:56 ] < Dematto >  but perhaps give the leader the ability to mass-mail
[ 20:32:09 ] < Dematto >  currently it's mostly the leaderpasting something to the CO to mass-mail
[ 20:32:15 ] < Dematto >  rather than begin able to do it himself
[ 20:32:30 ] < Dematto >  atother times you want to assign your CO the task of keeping people up-to-date himself
[ 20:32:34 ] < Dematto >  so the CO would not be useless
[ 20:32:37 ] < Azzer >  Mmm though that's more just to encourage a bit of teamwork and give the impression (even if a bit of an illusion) of needing officers etc.
[ 20:32:50 ] < Dematto >  screw giving an impression tbh
[ 20:32:54 ] < Azzer >  Hehe :P
[ 20:33:25 ] < Dematto >  I'd just like to see Alliances becoming more worth it in general
[ 20:33:29 ] < Azzer >  Ok well going to move on to someone else now, thanks for the input Dem, particularly about alliances being key and the social aspects of them
[ 20:33:30 ] < Dematto >  especially to lower people
[ 20:33:37 ] < Dematto >  np
7.1.6: Enrico.
[ 20:33:48 ] < Azzer >  Enrico :)
[ 20:33:50 ] < Enrico|Forums >  Hi. :)
[ 20:33:58 ] < Enrico|Forums >  Well I have a few points
[ 20:34:02 ] < Azzer >  You talk a moment while I nip off for a nature calling a couple of mins ^^
[ 20:34:09 ] < Enrico|Forums >  okay
[ 20:35:16 ] < Enrico|Forums >  First of all, I think wars between alliances should be more important. Successfully beating an alliance of the same size = more alliance points (and the idea of a allywar-ranking is good I think)
[ 20:36:43 ] * < Azzer >  is back.
[ 20:36:50 ] < Enrico|Forums >  secondly, to alliances at war should be in some way protected against "interference" from other alliances and solos. To not be abusable a "draw" after X ticks as well as not being able to war with the same allys in a short timespan
[ 20:36:56 ] < Enrico|Forums >  *two
[ 20:38:03 ] < Enrico|Forums >  But thats not what I really wanted to talk about. I just mentioned it as alliancewar was mentioned earlier
[ 20:38:11 ] < Azzer >  Ok well I do have some vagueries for ally wars but so far every way has been abusable in tests
[ 20:38:20 ] < Azzer >  But it's not an abandoned idea
[ 20:38:20 ] < Enrico|Forums >  OK. :)
[ 20:38:44 ] < Azzer >  Just... one that needs to be solid, last thing I want is something people can abuse openly/easily and undermine the entire point of a "war" :P
[ 20:38:45 ] < Enrico|Forums >  But what I wanted to say, is that I think ally leaders shoul be able to set targets for their members
[ 20:38:52 ] < Enrico|Forums >  not targets as in IDs to attack
[ 20:39:02 ] < Azzer >  What do you mean exactly then?
[ 20:39:09 ] < Enrico|Forums >  but say: "Gain 1000 acres by tuesday"
[ 20:39:24 ] < Enrico|Forums >  start 3 new devs within 1 week from now
[ 20:39:51 ] < Azzer >  In theory you can do that - it's not something I'd like to automate I think that would cause problems and promote very lazy dictatorship leaders
[ 20:40:02 ] < Enrico|Forums >  secondly
[ 20:40:05 ] < Azzer >  But you could look at your members, see if they get 1000 acres by tuesday, and kick them if not atm ^^
[ 20:40:37 ] < Enrico|Forums >  I think all members of an ally should be able to se all members of the alliance ranked on statistics
[ 20:40:57 ] < Azzer >  Hmmm I think you can, if you mean the ally stats ranks?
[ 20:41:14 ] < Azzer >  I'm going to bring DarkSider up in a sec he'll be able to tell me :P
[ 20:41:37 ] < Azzer >  Ok right will move on to DS now actually, thanks for the ideas Enrico :)
[ 20:41:46 ] < Enrico|Forums >  and officers should see the increase in each stat last 24 hours. for smaller allys, its not always that easy to see if all members pull their weight,
[ 20:41:52 ] < Enrico|Forums >  Okay
7.1.7: Darksider.
[ 20:42:01 ] < DarkSider >  \o/
[ 20:42:05 ] < DarkSider >  (ofc solo's need weakening if that's changed but that's on another topic).
[ 20:42:14 ] < Azzer >  I know you have a few nice ideas related to allies DS, like "notes" on incoming page etc.
[ 20:42:15 ] < DarkSider >  And from there we need alot of alliance teamwork .. wars wars and more wars :P I remember i had a radical suggestion in the past for alliances to be able to attack only in a state of war .. it's a scary concept at first look but i don't find it ridiculous :P
[ 20:42:35 ] < DarkSider >  yeah i told you about that in a previous topic :p
[ 20:42:50 ] < Azzer >  Did I miss the first paste from you? First thing you said was;
[ 20:42:56 ] < Azzer >  [20:41:59] <+DarkSider> (ofc solo's need weakening if that's changed but that's on another topic).
[ 20:43:13 ] < DarkSider >  got it ?
[ 20:43:33 ] < Azzer >  I got that line, followed by "[20:42:09] <+DarkSider> And from there we need alot of alliance teamwork .. "
[ 20:43:41 ] < Azzer >  Just looks like something is missing? :P
[ 20:43:51 ] < DarkSider >   Only thing i have to say about alliances is they should be slightly smaller. Maybe 15-17, we had 15 member alliances in the past. The current playerbase it's not big enough to support large alliances. Defence is becoming stronger with each player leaving. It's less likely to get attacked having less players in the game so you have more troops availeble for defence.
[ 20:43:55 ] < DarkSider >  Which means attacks will fail more often, everybody recalls and get bored. Attacking must be slightly advantaged over defending so we have active game and alot of player interaction. Atm it's quite hard to be on decent valuation and succesfully attack an alliance member by yourself so it's very usual to hunt solo's or get several members of your alliance in an attack.
[ 20:43:59 ] < DarkSider >  now ?
[ 20:44:00 ] < Azzer >  Ah that's what was missing ^^
[ 20:44:05 ] < DarkSider >  was all one line
[ 20:44:12 ] < DarkSider >  Guess it didn't liked
[ 20:44:47 ] < Azzer >  true that attacking does always need more of an edge than defence
[ 20:44:58 ] < Azzer >  If defence was the best thing it would stagnate rapidly
[ 20:45:02 ] < DarkSider >  yup
[ 20:45:23 ] < Azzer >  But does it really necessite a lowering of ally sizes just yet?
[ 20:45:26 ] < DarkSider >  We had 15 man alliances in the past that worked fine
[ 20:45:30 ] < DarkSider >  so i don't see the problem
[ 20:45:35 ] < Azzer >  Could this not ruin the "social aspect" of allies a bit Enrico mentioned? I don't know, I guess 15 is still sociable.
[ 20:46:03 ] < DarkSider >  Well 3 members less won't ruin much of the social aspect i think
[ 20:46:08 ] < Azzer >  Ok well I will seriously think about 15 members
[ 20:46:16 ] < DarkSider >  There are many alliances which have more than 3 members not too active
[ 20:46:17 ] < Azzer >  But understandable I do want to be careful with that
[ 20:46:45 ] < Azzer >  Anything else you wanted to bring up here atm? I want to move on to one more person before opening this one up for 5 mins
[ 20:47:20 ] < DarkSider >  Not really, alliance wars need alot of brain storming to make them as good as possible.
[ 20:47:26 ] < DarkSider >  And that's about it :P
[ 20:47:33 ] < Azzer >  Yeah, well me and you can do some of that as we often do sometime ^^
[ 20:47:35 ] < Azzer >  Ok thanks DS! :D
[ 20:47:38 ] < DarkSider >  np
7.1.8: Polo.
[ 20:47:49 ] < Azzer >  Last one now, Polio agaaaaain :P
[ 20:47:53 ] < Polo >  :)
[ 20:47:57 ] < Polo >  I'll be quick anyway
[ 20:48:03 ] < Polo >  I think allies should be unlimited
[ 20:48:16 ] < Polo >  I don't really see the need for a size limits
[ 20:48:17 ] < Polo >  limit*
[ 20:48:27 ] < Azzer >  Hmmm
[ 20:48:33 ] < Polo >  I want to play with my friends, why should I be restricted to only playing with 19 others?
[ 20:48:45 ] < Azzer >  To prevent the rank 1 ally continuing to recruit everyone mid or low ranks, protecting them with uber defence and making a powerblock with as many members as they want
[ 20:48:54 ] < Polo >  rankings would have to be done on "average" size also
[ 20:49:01 ] < Azzer >  I think the ally limit should reflect the playerbase... ideally we want a much larger playerbase to support larger member bases
[ 20:49:20 ] < Azzer >  (which I'll be aiming for with front page redesign, tutorial/manual, and marketing promotion which we'll talk about later)
[ 20:49:24 ] < Polo >  well, powerblocking can happen now as allies can just work together, sure they don't get defence from the others though
[ 20:49:35 ] < Azzer >  Defence is the key thing in a powerblock
[ 20:49:46 ] < Polo >  and as rankings will be done on average size, people won't want to recruit loads of small players
[ 20:49:52 ] < Polo >  as their average will go down
[ 20:49:52 ] < Azzer >  Simply "not attacking eachother" or "attacking the same target", isn't as bad as 60 members all defending any target hit
[ 20:50:02 ] < Polo >  aye
[ 20:50:27 ] < Polo >  but if people did make a huge ally, the rest of the player base could join an ally together to pwn them :P
[ 20:50:42 ] < Azzer >  Ok well I'm afraid unlimited members is really ruled out in my books, without a *lot* more people in the game
[ 20:50:51 ] < Azzer >  It doesn't work well, from past experience in Bush and other games vgauely related
[ 20:50:55 ] < Polo >  and I don't think people would anyway. I'd rather play with 10 active and skilled players than 50 not-so-active or skilled players
[ 20:51:00 ] < Polo >  ok
[ 20:51:13 ] < Azzer >  Cheers anyway Polio old chap, let's open this one up until just before 21:00 ^^
[ 20:51:17 ] < Polo >  ok
7.2.0: Open Floor Discussion.
[ 20:51:22 ] < Iamsmart >  8 topics through 10 to go
[ 20:51:23 ] < Iamsmart >  :|
[ 20:51:29 ] < n0c0ntr0l >  Okay about alliances
[ 20:51:37 ] < n0c0ntr0l >  And the top one in particular
[ 20:51:40 ] < Caranthir >  its hard enough for lower allies to find good players
[ 20:51:40 ] < Azzer >  Some will be quicker Iamsmart - and people can alwyas go to bed, I can't though ;)
[ 20:51:44 ] < Silence >  Aww I didnt get time, I had a few ideas :(
[ 20:51:51 ] < Azzer >  Now's your chance Silence ;P
[ 20:51:59 ] < Caranthir >  increasing the size would make it nigh impossible
[ 20:51:59 ] < Silence >  Ill list them =P
[ 20:52:07 ] < Caranthir >  and filling slots with spies will become an even bigger issue
[ 20:52:09 ] < n0c0ntr0l >  If the top alliance gets to like 200% of the other ones
[ 20:52:10 ] < Meneldil >  I think the main point to be realised is that *any* change to alliances has to be accompanied by a re-evaluation of solo's benefits
[ 20:52:18 ] < Grey >  I'm in favour of a complete rework of the alliance HQ.
[ 20:52:19 ] < Meneldil >  And to try and equal these
[ 20:52:20 ] < Tim >  I don't see much of a probem wtih Alliances at the moment. Size will probably be the biggest topic and I think how they are just now is good personally. Maybe 3 fewer members for private alliances but that is about it
[ 20:52:21 ] < Silence >  More power for MO's, CO-leader, ability to kick locked members and improvements for HQ units
[ 20:52:22 ] < Sordes >  Alliances is the game future. Their the source of the main community, and the talk of alot of the chats around. Without alot of support for alliances the community will die out and currently the community is the strongest part of the game.
[ 20:52:23 ] < FeR >  Yeah, if u increase the size of alliances, you ruin the game :P
[ 20:52:25 ] < Pearly|afk >  hey azzer what is wrong with the weather pic :P
[ 20:52:26 ] < n0c0ntr0l >  Could we have robo monstrosity mobs launchd at them
[ 20:52:30 ] < Grey >  (Pure) Solo play has been given more and more benifits since introduction, whereas ally hqs have been pretty much the same as far as i can remember. Fair enough, it makes solos more competitive, but alliance play is where the future of the game lies, otherwise the playerbase will continue to shrink. Whilst im not in favour of forcing anyone to play any particular way, i would advocate incentives to players playing in a way t
[ 20:52:31 ] < Polo >  Caranthir, if allies are bigger then the smaller allies can just join together :P
[ 20:52:37 ] < Polo >  or join bigger allies who have more space
[ 20:52:38 ] < n0c0ntr0l >  Pearly|afk: thats not azze
[ 20:52:44 ] < Tim >  It doesn't work that way all the time
[ 20:52:47 ] < Pearly|afk >  lol
[ 20:52:48 ] < SadYear >  Every alliance member should be able to see when a mate last refreshed
[ 20:52:53 ] < Nameless >  agreed with SY
[ 20:52:54 ] < harvey >  everyone knoes solo play is so much eaiser!! AR makes it so hard for allaince memebers to attack
[ 20:52:56 ] < tom >  I've missed most everything so far, but is there a list of topics still to be talked about anyone?
[ 20:52:56 ] < SadYear >  'tis painful asking your leader everytime
[ 20:52:59 ] < Polo >  agreed SadYear
[ 20:53:03 ] < SadYear >  even when the leader's very active
[ 20:53:12 ] < AzLev >  Uh, leaders can't see outgoings.
[ 20:53:15 ] < Enrico|Forums >  Hmm
[ 20:53:20 ] < Turnip >  Harvey - if allies dont war anymore, who do you think they attack the most?
[ 20:53:27 ] < AzLev >  Be nice to see outgoings as a leader.
[ 20:53:30 ] < Tree` >  [14:52:23]  Every alliance member should be able to see when a mate last refreshed <-- disagree. Makes spying even easier.
[ 20:53:32 ] < Turnip >  Raids on allies take time to organise they they are reasonably active
[ 20:53:40 ] < Terrakan >  damn i knew there was summit about alliances i was thinking of
[ 20:53:41 ] < Enrico|Forums >  I still think leaders/officers should have access to more info on the progress of their members
[ 20:53:42 ] < Podunk| >  hmmm
[ 20:53:44 ] < Koeniej >  im not following anyone atm :P
[ 20:53:48 ] < Terrakan >  nvm
[ 20:53:50 ] < Podunk| >  I just throught about an interesting idea
[ 20:53:50 ] * < Meneldil >  puts forward the idea of Open alliances
[ 20:53:52 ] < Turnip >  solos may be easier to play in some cases, but they are the PRIME targets for everyone
[ 20:53:52 ] < Pearly|afk >  i think leaders have to be able to do and see what a CO and MO can do and/or see also
[ 20:53:58 ] < Tim >  What are Open Alliances ?
[ 20:54:00 ] < Turnip >  people always want to attack a solo over an ally member
[ 20:54:01 ] < n0c0ntr0l >  Meneldil: I dont like open allies
[ 20:54:04 ] * < Silence >  thinks HQ units should be changed
[ 20:54:04 ] < Podunk| >  How about the round starts at 20 member limit
[ 20:54:09 ] < harvey >  yeah but i mean solo players find it easy.. solo players can still mass allainces but allaince cant mass solo players hence they have a advantage
[ 20:54:09 ] < Podunk| >  then 1 month in
[ 20:54:11 ] < Meneldil >  Many people have noticed the shrinking numbers of alliances, and an easy way of joining alliances should be an effective way of opening the realms of alliances to more players: especially to new players, who then have some (hopefully) friendly-contacts in the game, to help them out, and to work with!
[ 20:54:14 ] < n0c0ntr0l >  Meneldil: the game is too small
[ 20:54:18 ] < DarkSider >  As i posted several time in forums .. we have to advantage attacking over defence until getting killed/alliance getting destroyed and from there rebuilding and killing other allies of same strenght is usual and fun. With good alliance defence it really sucks this days to get killed and you'll get depressed if it happens to you :)
[ 20:54:19 ] < Sordes >  The game should have its own "Training Alliance's" to help support alliances that work around the idea of teaching new or inexperienced players
[ 20:54:20 ] < Podunk| >  all alliances below the top ranked alliance
[ 20:54:22 ] < Dematto >  [21:53:21]  [14:52:23]  Every alliance member should be able to see when a mate last refreshed <-- disagree. Makes spying even easier.<-- perhaps an option for the leader to give certain/all/no members the ability to see this?
[ 20:54:25 ] < Podunk| >  get an extra few members
[ 20:54:28 ] < Meneldil >  n0c0ntr0l - open alliances is not unlimited member limits
[ 20:54:33 ] < Tree` >  I could accept that Dematto.
[ 20:54:35 ] < Polo >  �20:53:46� {Pearly|afk} i think leaders have to be able to do and see what a CO and MO can do and/or see also <-- agreed
[ 20:54:36 ] < Twigley >  Smaller allies (15 man imo) = More alliances = More competition for ranks = Less stagnant middle alliances (imo). I also think players can find 14 others they can play with ... an extra 5 worthwhile imo is hard to fill and end up getting people you dont really want (from my exp)
[ 20:54:37 ] < Enrico|Forums >  And maybe the leader should be able to "program" who is MO/CO at set times of the day?
[ 20:54:39 ] < Tree` >  That's a good compromise.
[ 20:54:42 ] < Azzer >  Podunk - what if one of them goes up a rank, they lose a few random members? ;P
[ 20:54:44 ] < SadYear >  yeah why not
[ 20:54:50 ] < FeR >  [16:53:21]  [14:52:23]  Every alliance member should be able to see when a mate last refreshed <-- disagree. Makes spying even easier. <--- You could get an option to disable/enable that from leader.
[ 20:54:55 ] < SadYear >  kinda complicated for such a simple feature but meh
[ 20:54:56 ] < Podunk| >  no then thats the new member limit
[ 20:55:02 ] < Podunk| >  for all alliances
[ 20:55:05 ] < Enrico|Forums >  I think many small allys diband because the leaders can't be online enough
[ 20:55:10 ] < Tree` >  I know when I led, there were definitely people that I didn't want to see things. But there were people I trusted implicitly that I wouldn't have minded at all.
[ 20:55:22 ] < harvey >  all players should be able to see when allaince members were last active within their allaince
[ 20:55:25 ] < Tree` >  Leader's choice - I like it.
[ 20:55:27 ] < Podunk| >  would help to get that first resistance started I would think
[ 20:55:37 ] < Podunk| >  and then keep a level playing field afterwords
[ 20:55:38 ] < Twigley >  r25 you saw resistence podunk
[ 20:55:42 ] < Twigley >  about 6 times
[ 20:55:51 ] < Twigley >  :p
[ 20:55:53 ] < Podunk| >  I know Twigley did you see the rest of my suggestions? ;)
[ 20:55:54 ] < n0c0ntr0l >  I still think there needs to be a way of making sure that one ally doesn't just coast after the first 2 weeks
[ 20:56:02 ] < Podunk| >  this would be pretty much to get somthing like that going
[ 20:56:04 ] < AzLev >  Podunk: Does that mean that when the resistance is a success then the old rank 1 gains members?
[ 20:56:13 ] < Enrico|Forums >  I do hope alliance wars become a more pronounced part of bush though
[ 20:56:15 ] < Azzer >  One vague idea I've had about allies and officers: No officers. Instead the leader can tick boxes on each member giving "permissions" for certain things. Eg see activity time. Ability to kick. Ability to post mass mail. Ability to see outgoings. And leaders just design their own "officer roles" like that.
[ 20:56:18 ] < Podunk| >  well yes
[ 20:56:28 ] < Podunk| >  they get set to that new member cap as well
[ 20:56:30 ] < Dematto >  Great idea Azzer
[ 20:56:31 ] < Azzer >  (and have as many as they want)
[ 20:56:31 ] < Nameless >  interesting thought Azzer
[ 20:56:32 ] < AzLev >  ooooo I like that idea better Azzer
[ 20:56:32 ] < Iamsmart >  FTW Azzer
[ 20:56:33 ] < Enrico|Forums >  Azzer: I like the idea
[ 20:56:35 ] < Enrico|Forums >  :)
[ 20:56:35 ] < Iamsmart >  Fantastic
[ 20:56:37 ] < n0c0ntr0l >  nice idea azzer
[ 20:56:37 ] < Dematto >  that one would really work
[ 20:56:37 ] < harvey >  that would ne nice
[ 20:56:39 ] < Sordes >  Azzer that works if say there are limits to how many of each tick a leader can give out
[ 20:56:47 ] * < Tim >  thumbs up.
[ 20:56:47 ] < Azzer >  Wow, I've never seen such a positive response to one of my own ideas :P
[ 20:56:48 ] * < Nameless >  likes Azzer so much more when he actually interacts with us
[ 20:56:50 ] < Sordes >  Say sending mass mail
[ 20:56:50 ] < tom >  i agree that an alliance should not be allowed to get into a 'comfortable' position at rank 1, its less fun for the alliance, and less fun for people in their attacking range imo
[ 20:56:52 ] < Twigley >  I dont like it Azzer.
[ 20:56:56 ] < Azzer >  Thanks Twigs ;)
[ 20:56:56 ] < Twigley >  Ill explain wy
[ 20:56:59 ] < Twigley >  No serious
[ 20:57:00 ] < Nameless >  ofc you don't Twigs lol
[ 20:57:01 ] < Azzer >  I needed SOMEONE to disagree :P
[ 20:57:06 ] < harvey >  very negitive
[ 20:57:06 ] < Azzer >  It was too weird for me
[ 20:57:08 ] < Polo >  �20:56:09� {@Azzer} One vague idea I've had about allies and officers: No officers. Instead the leader can tick boxes on each member giving "permissions" for certain things. Eg see activity time. Ability to kick. Ability to post mass mail. Ability to see outgoings. And leaders just design their own "officer roles" like that. <-- awesome idea
[ 20:57:09 ] < Iamsmart >  Shht Twigley
[ 20:57:12 ] < Iamsmart >  :P
[ 20:57:14 ] < Dematto >  If the leader would want to, every member should have the ability to do everything imo, it's up to the leader to decide who gets what
[ 20:57:25 ] < harvey >  you need to turn this game into an alliance based game and focus on the team play
[ 20:57:35 ] < Caranthir >  its up to the leader to deny Twigley all priviledges, i like it
[ 20:57:36 ] < Azzer >  3 mins and I'm going to move to next topic btw, going to try to keep to tim elimits on topics a bit more now ^^
[ 20:57:41 ] < Enrico|Forums >  and it makes a alliance with say 9-10 members more viable
[ 20:57:54 ] < n0c0ntr0l >  IMO i Half agree with harvey
[ 20:57:55 ] < harvey >  personally it is so much more rewarding to succed in an allaince as u feel a part of somthing
[ 20:57:55 ] < Twigley >  When organising def ... the MO does it if the leader isnt around. If nobody knows who is 'in charge' to organise that defence then who does it?
[ 20:57:57 ] < Nameless >  Also, the Alliance Leader should be able to see the amount of ticks online for each alliance member. Right now anyone in the alliance can see the top 5 most active, and that's it. Leader should be able to see them all.
[ 20:58:05 ] < Nameless >  at least the Leader, if not more people
[ 20:58:08 ] < harvey >  solo is boring
[ 20:58:12 ] < Enrico|Forums >  agree nameless
[ 20:58:12 ] < Wouter >  YEAAAAAH
[ 20:58:15 ] < Wouter >  I can finally speak
[ 20:58:16 ] < Yeadon >  Reduce the alliance sizes
[ 20:58:16 ] < n0c0ntr0l >  I think MO and CO ticks wshould only have certain amounts
[ 20:58:22 ] < Yeadon >  impossible to break through these days
[ 20:58:28 ] < harvey >  you could have no AR forcing players to join an allaince and have an increase in allaice members
[ 20:58:28 ] < Iamsmart >  Reduce alliance sizes to 3
[ 20:58:30 ] < Iamsmart >  Oh wait...
[ 20:58:30 ] < n0c0ntr0l >  like only 2 -3 three people can have mo capabilities
[ 20:58:36 ] < Dematto >  Twigley, you could make it visible for anyone to see who has certain options, such as 'alliance outgoings' and 'alliance military' and this who are MO's
[ 20:58:38 ] < Caranthir >  hate to disagree with you twigley, but usually whoever is on with the most "game" knowledge organizes, or just the one who doesn't have anything else to do
[ 20:58:39 ] < Wouter >  I wanna say something about alliance play and solo out of my experience of playing from round 1-16 and back now
[ 20:58:41 ] < Wouter >  lots has changed
[ 20:58:43 ] < n0c0ntr0l >  and only 2-3 co, and they cannot interchange
[ 20:58:52 ] < Enrico|Forums >  and leader/MO should be able to haxx all members at once
[ 20:58:54 ] < AzLev >  I want to see what Twigs has to say in disagreement
[ 20:58:54 ] < Polo >  �20:57:49� {+Twigley} When organising def ... the MO does it if the leader isnt around. If nobody knows who is 'in charge' to organise that defence then who does it? <-- Twigley, the leader can tell everyone who is second in charge... Plus I've rarely been in an ally where the MO organised defence :P
[ 20:58:56 ] < Caranthir >  I've organized enough defenses from non officer positions to be pissed at the MO for not doing it ;)
[ 20:59:00 ] < Enrico|Forums >  at normal cost off course
[ 20:59:04 ] < Azzer >  Twigley - a leader could still have clearly defined roles. They could put on their alliance overview message "Officers:" or "Military commander:" - they could actually invent their own roles, their own titles.
[ 20:59:05 ] < Azzer >  In fact
[ 20:59:08 ] < Twigley >  I already said it AzLev
[ 20:59:10 ] < Azzer >  Maybe leaders can give titles to members?
[ 20:59:16 ] < Meneldil >  That'd be fun :)
[ 20:59:17 ] < AzLev >  Oh.. that was it?
[ 20:59:17 ] < n0c0ntr0l >  Yes
[ 20:59:19 ] < Azzer >  I could have you in my ally and give you title "MIlitary Commander" which all members could see?
[ 20:59:22 ] < n0c0ntr0l >  Like tribal wars
[ 20:59:25 ] < Enrico|Forums >  nice fluff!
[ 20:59:28 ] * < n0c0ntr0l >  ducks
[ 20:59:28 ] < Azzer >  So there was still clearly defined roles, but roles the leader invented?
[ 20:59:36 ] < Tim >  I could be given the title of Chief Dunce perhaps
[ 20:59:39 ] < Twigley >  So like what "options" could you give them?
[ 20:59:39 ] < Meneldil >  Much more freedom, I like it.
[ 20:59:48 ] < FeR >  Azzer, that will rock
[ 20:59:56 ] < Enrico|Forums >  "Lord Protector" to the guy with most defensive mobs sent
[ 20:59:57 ] < Caranthir >  not everyone should have access to ally units
[ 20:59:58 ] < Enrico|Forums >  :P
[ 20:59:58 ] < Yeadon >  Sounds good
[ 20:59:59 ] < harvey >  yeah leader should determind what abilities to give out etc
[ 21:00:00 ] < Azzer >  I'd give him the abiilty to see outgoings, the ability to mass mail, post stickies, and add "notes" to incomings (an upcoming feature)
[ 21:00:03 ] < Caranthir >  that would be ridonculous!
[ 21:00:04 ] < Caranthir >  :)
[ 21:00:06 ] < Azzer >  And that would be my military commander
[ 21:00:12 ] < Twigley >  Or you could make them MO
[ 21:00:16 ] < Meneldil >  Then, give the alliance decent troops, and you could have a communist alliance full of publically-owned troops ;)
[ 21:00:30 ] < Azzer >  In the current system yes, but I'm talking about a new system, just saying you could still have clearly defined roles
[ 21:00:31 ] < AzLev >  Nice. We get to see outgoings!
[ 21:00:34 ] < Azzer >  It'd be up to the leader to have roles or not :P
[ 21:00:39 ] < Twigley >  I dont see a need for a new system at all
[ 21:00:43 ] < Azzer >  Anyway!
[ 21:00:44 ] < Caranthir >  i like it
[ 21:00:45 ] < Twigley >  :P
[ 21:00:45 ] < n0c0ntr0l >  I do
[ 21:00:53 ] < Azzer >  Some interesting ideas there on allies ^^

8.0.0: Solo Play.

[ 21:01:04 ] < Azzer >  Let's see what people have to say about solo play. Please note: Anti-rape has it's own topic coming up.
[ 21:01:11 ] < Azzer >  So focus on other stuff other than anti-rape itself please :)
[ 21:01:19 ] < Azzer >  Hands up those interested in talking....
8.1.0: One-on-ones.
8.1.1: Tom.
[ 21:02:44 ] < Azzer >  Tom, solo play!
[ 21:03:32 ] < tom >  well, its definately harder this round than last, with lower ar modifyer, i just kinda feel right now that my survival as a solo is more in the hands of Hell, which is not good
[ 21:04:37 ] < Azzer >  What specifically do you think has made it harder for you as a solo
[ 21:04:45 ] < Azzer >  And what could be changed to fix it, without overpowering solo play?
[ 21:04:51 ] < tom >  i am not sure if this is relevant, but i would really like a small injury rate on bribed units too, and also i think that gargantua getting no injuries totally discourages everybody to go that route
[ 21:05:04 ] < Azzer >  Units were talked about earlier ^^ It applies to everyone not just solos that ;)
[ 21:05:48 ] < tom >  ok well possibly a slightly faster decreasing ar modifyer, but a lower amount neeed to trigger ar
[ 21:06:07 ] < Azzer >  So AR mod isn't as powerful as it is, but a higher chance to get AR to offset that
[ 21:06:08 ] < tom >  instead of 1.45x, maybe something more like 1.1x, and with faster decreasing ar modifyer,
[ 21:06:26 ] < tom >  this would allow solos to get a bit more of a fair fight
[ 21:07:06 ] < tom >  as a solo robo last round it was ok with high injury, and i know robo isn't ideal as a robo, but rpg can easily wipe you out whatever unit setup and landfat without actually firing
[ 21:07:10 ] < Azzer >  Perhaps, there's a lot of ways/things that can affect solo difficulty/ease/balance
[ 21:07:35 ] < tom >  let someone else talk :-)
[ 21:07:40 ] < tom >  thnx
[ 21:07:43 ] < Azzer >  Hehe ok, thanks for the input! :D
8.1.2: DarkSider.
[ 21:08:13 ] < Azzer >  Ta Mene, Hey DS :P
[ 21:08:18 ] < DarkSider >  Bah didn't got to write all my post :P
[ 21:08:21 ] < DarkSider >  Hey
[ 21:08:26 ] < DarkSider >  First of all, solos are not overpowered. They are abusable and there are plenty solo's who are abusing the current ar system. If anything solo's are uderpowered atm since except maybe bunkers any route can be killed with *minimal* looses at 0 ar mod.
[ 21:08:26 ] < DarkSider >  However if alliance members get reduced i think solo's should be made a bit weaker too just to prevent everybody going for a comfy solo play. So i'd sugest to lower the maximum score able to send at a solo at 0 ar mod to give them a chance to inflict damage back.
[ 21:08:48 ] < DarkSider >  I think i saw tom saying pretty much same thing
[ 21:08:57 ] < DarkSider >  Reduce the maximum mob that can be sent at 0 ar mod
[ 21:09:01 ] < DarkSider >  but faster ar drop
[ 21:09:38 ] < Azzer >  Hmm interesting, wonder if this same suggestion will be agreed upon by others, if it's general consensus I could do it, I personally can't think of any downside to it myself having a quick think on it.
[ 21:09:53 ] < DarkSider >  Either lower the land score or don't count it at all in calcs, or reduce the 1.45 multiplier
[ 21:10:03 ] < Azzer >  I think the multiplier would be the main
[ 21:10:24 ] < Azzer >  Anything else to add on general solo play?
[ 21:10:37 ] < DarkSider >  Hmm not really :P
[ 21:10:45 ] < Azzer >  hehe, short and sweet, ok cheers DS
[ 21:10:47 ] < DarkSider >  np
8.1.3: Silence.
[ 21:11:32 ] < Azzer >  Silence :D
[ 21:11:37 ] < Silence >  Hmz
[ 21:11:39 ] < Silence >  Ok
[ 21:11:45 ] < Silence >  First - [21:08]  Reduce the maximum mob that can be sent at 0 ar mod
[ 21:11:46 ] < Silence >  [21:08]  but faster ar drop
[ 21:11:49 ] < Silence >  Love that idea
[ 21:12:06 ] < Silence >  Next - imo pNAPs should be removed
[ 21:12:08 ] < Azzer >  So again - easier to receive AR, but quicker AR modifier drop?
[ 21:12:13 ] < Silence >  Solo should be *solo*
[ 21:12:23 ] < Silence >  [21:11]  So again - easier to receive AR, but quicker AR modifier drop? <-- Yes
[ 21:12:27 ] < Azzer >  Remove pnaps altogether, everyone is "pure solo" (in nap terms, not in locking to solo play terms)
[ 21:12:32 ] < Silence >  Yes
[ 21:12:44 ] < Silence >  I think solo is easy enough to play without pNAPs
[ 21:12:50 ] < Silence >  pNAPs makes it too easy
[ 21:12:52 ] < Azzer >  Well it's been suggested a few times before
[ 21:13:13 ] < Silence >  Finally, the last thing I could think of if the injury rate for solo
[ 21:13:14 ] < Azzer >  I'm not averse to the idea of removing all forms of NAPs from the game altogether
[ 21:13:33 ] < Silence >  [21:13]  I'm not averse to the idea of removing all forms of NAPs from the game altogether <--- pNAPs imo dont belong
[ 21:13:43 ] < Silence >  I dont understand why solos get extra injury
[ 21:14:04 ] < Silence >  Solos have their AR mod to replace alliance members so why should a solo get extra injury?
[ 21:14:18 ] < Azzer >  Little bonus for the pure solos
[ 21:14:30 ] < Azzer >  People who say "I have never am never and now can never join an ally with this ID"
[ 21:14:37 ] < Silence >  Well I really disagree =P
[ 21:14:39 ] < Azzer >  Else why have pure solos if there's no little bonuses :P
[ 21:14:50 ] < Silence >  I am playing solo and feel that Im too strong =P
[ 21:15:05 ] < Silence >  I felt far far more more vulnerable as a allianced player
[ 21:15:12 ] < Silence >  Well anyways thats all from me
[ 21:15:30 ] < Azzer >  hehe, a solo that says he's too strong
[ 21:15:33 ] < Azzer >  Someone pwn him quick!
[ 21:15:35 ] < Azzer >  Ok thanks Silence ;)
[ 21:15:37 ] < Silence >  I did =P
[ 21:15:43 ] < Silence >  Ok :D
8.1.4: f0xx.
[ 21:15:54 ] < f0xx >  :D
[ 21:15:59 ] < Azzer >  F0xxy boy you sexy Bulgarian
[ 21:16:00 ] < Azzer >  Speak away
[ 21:16:10 ] < f0xx >  Alright, firstly I will say that I have some quite radical ideas
[ 21:16:22 ] < Azzer >  I'll bet you do :P
[ 21:16:34 ] < f0xx >  I am not much into solo play, I think that solo in its current and in its suggested forms are making solo play extremely easy
[ 21:16:39 ] < f0xx >  and that should not be
[ 21:16:47 ] < f0xx >  so what is my idea
[ 21:16:54 ] < f0xx >  Remove AR completely
[ 21:17:01 ] < f0xx >  but let solos have as many pnaps as they want
[ 21:17:04 ] < f0xx >  or
[ 21:17:13 ] < f0xx >  let solos defend whoever other solo they want
[ 21:17:16 ] < Azzer >  (I'll just interrupt to say McFlurry's are really quite nice ^^)
[ 21:17:56 ] < Azzer >  No AR, unlimited naps... isn't that like an alliance? Or a "solo alliance"? :P
[ 21:18:15 ] < f0xx >  it is not an alliance as people will not be able to see each-others incomings
[ 21:18:23 ] < f0xx >  they also wont share their mobile numbers and so on
[ 21:18:29 ] < f0xx >  I belive that solo choice
[ 21:18:34 ] < Azzer >  How do you know they won't do that with the mobiles? :P
[ 21:18:47 ] < f0xx >  should not come because of the fact that it is more beneficial for a player to be solo
[ 21:18:51 ] < Azzer >  Although there will be less point admittedly, since they can't see eachothers incoming without spying
[ 21:19:10 ] < f0xx >  and that is how it is at the moment
[ 21:19:22 ] < f0xx >  people prefer solo because it is more beneficial for them than ally play
[ 21:19:27 ] < f0xx >  and I understand them
[ 21:19:31 ] < f0xx >  i would do the same thing on their place
[ 21:19:36 ] < f0xx >  but that is not the way it should be
[ 21:20:02 ] < Azzer >  Well I think the ability for any solo to defend any solo would make it beneficial for *some* styles of alliance players to make a "solo ally" instead of a real ally
[ 21:20:09 ] < Azzer >  Set up a joint chat room to report incomings etc.
[ 21:20:20 ] < Azzer >  It's been done before and would only get worse if solos could defend any other solos again
[ 21:20:37 ] < f0xx >  I don't really see the problem with that
[ 21:20:40 ] < f0xx >  as there wont be AR
[ 21:20:48 ] < f0xx >  and people would be able to attack all the solo players
[ 21:20:52 ] < f0xx >  that are defending certain solo
[ 21:20:56 ] < Azzer >  No, so it'll just be an alliance, with unlimited membership limit but no "official/easy" incomings page.
[ 21:21:30 ] < f0xx >  unlimited membership sounds a bit of overreacting
[ 21:21:35 ] < Azzer >  Well I'm afraid I strongly disagree with solos defending anyone else/any other solos! I've seen similar in the past of Bushtarion and I never liked where the game went with it.
[ 21:22:01 ] < f0xx >  alright then, make so that they can have a lot of NAPs
[ 21:22:11 ] < f0xx >  but AR is just too strong
[ 21:22:25 ] < f0xx >  no matter how you tweak it
[ 21:22:28 ] < Azzer >  Well maybe AR is the thing that needs working on but we'll discuss that itself in the next topic ^^
[ 21:22:38 ] < f0xx >  no no
[ 21:22:39 ] < f0xx >  I mean
[ 21:22:45 ] < f0xx >  there should be a psychologica part
[ 21:22:49 ] < f0xx >  not just some mechanism
[ 21:22:55 ] < f0xx >  which will defend you 100%
[ 21:23:01 ] < f0xx >  if someone crosses over certain point
[ 21:23:29 ] < f0xx >  That really is not fair
[ 21:24:01 ] < f0xx >  SadYear please stop notifying me you sieze my stream of thoughts :P
[ 21:24:01 ] < Azzer >  Well we'll discuss AR more in a bit, maybe a more balanced AR more like another player deffing than some uber bot deffing
[ 21:24:09 ] < Azzer >  SadYear - no notifications please.
[ 21:24:18 ] < Azzer >  I'll move on to the next speaker now anyway, thanks for the input f0xx!
[ 21:24:24 ] < f0xx >  wait :P
[ 21:24:27 ] < f0xx >  I am not finished
[ 21:24:28 ] < Azzer >  Quick ;)
[ 21:24:30 ] < f0xx >  I just want to add
[ 21:24:38 ] < f0xx >  that I don't think that that game should defend solos
[ 21:24:44 ] < f0xx >  this is just not right
[ 21:24:48 ] < f0xx >  alright
[ 21:24:49 ] < Azzer >  Fair enough :P
[ 21:24:51 ] < f0xx >  I am done now
8.1.5: Turnip.
[ 21:25:05 ] < Azzer >  Parsnip again :)
[ 21:25:09 ] < Turnip >  hey
[ 21:25:34 ] < Turnip >  I was just wondering why people seem to want to make solos weaker rather than alliance play a bit more secure?
[ 21:26:09 ] < Turnip >  I mean the big thing with allies is that they can have as many mobs incoming as people want to send, and as a result have no definate safety barrier from incomings
[ 21:26:39 ] < Turnip >  Solos are quite tough to kill IF they have an AR mod, but if they dont, then they are the best target for anyone to attack
[ 21:26:52 ] < Azzer >  But they can all see eachothers incomings, so you can have 19 other people (or 14 if it changes) all defending on one target, to offset the vast majority of attacks
[ 21:27:00 ] < Turnip >  how many people search for targets, and look specifically for solos first
[ 21:27:08 ] < Turnip >  i would say quite a few
[ 21:27:11 ] < Azzer >  Most I should imagine
[ 21:27:22 ] < Azzer >  (at anything other than the very top ranks)
[ 21:27:33 ] < Azzer >  I think the top ranks target lower ranked ally players more, but that would probably be the exception
[ 21:27:44 ] < Turnip >  so solos may be strong and in the right hands quite a pain to attack, but they add targets to the game for the majority of people
[ 21:27:53 ] < Turnip >  they are easy kills and easy land, espeically in the lower ranks
[ 21:28:04 ] < Azzer >  Anyway do you think solos are fine as they are, need more power, or less?
[ 21:28:24 ] < Turnip >  faster mod drop and lower base trigger
[ 21:28:27 ] < Turnip >  i totally agree with
[ 21:28:29 ] < Azzer >  So same as before
[ 21:28:32 ] < Azzer >  Righto
[ 21:28:33 ] < Turnip >  IF you want to remove pnaps
[ 21:28:39 ] < Turnip >  then give them somthing back in return
[ 21:28:50 ] < Turnip >  but thats about it :)
[ 21:28:51 ] < Turnip >  ta
[ 21:28:54 ] < Azzer >  Hehe :P I probably won't remove the 2 pnaps when all is said and done
[ 21:28:59 ] < Azzer >  Ok cheers!
8.1.6: Fubu.
[ 21:29:18 ] < Azzer >  Fubu :)
[ 21:29:20 ] < Fubu >  hey
[ 21:29:21 ] < Fubu >  :)
[ 21:29:42 ] < Fubu >  ok agree with the AR dropping quicker, and the less score bein able to sent when u have 0% AR
[ 21:29:51 ] < Fubu >  wat f0xx said i disagree with
[ 21:29:59 ] < Fubu >  tbh if anything the solo part works fine
[ 21:30:04 ] < Fubu >  as in u dont need to be too active
[ 21:30:15 ] < Fubu >  and the whole point of gov def is cos u dont have any alli members.
[ 21:30:28 ] < Fubu >  but hey ur still a sitting duck wen it gets to 0%
[ 21:30:50 ] < Fubu >  only other thing id quite like is when u click the option to go p-solo, u can then have a link to like a global pol thread
[ 21:30:56 ] < Fubu >  bt for only p-solos
[ 21:31:00 ] < Fubu >  only they can view
[ 21:31:16 ] < Fubu >  it would give a bit more of help/teamwork for solo'ers
[ 21:31:20 ] < Azzer >  What would the point be? Surely the only reason would be people share targets etc.?
[ 21:31:24 ] < Fubu >  yes
[ 21:31:26 ] < Fubu >  bt like now
[ 21:31:27 ] < Azzer >  "hey solos let's take down this alliance"
[ 21:31:33 ] < Azzer >  I don't think that'd be good, it'd encourage "solo alliances"
[ 21:31:35 ] < Fubu >  a single solo has no chance of taking on an alli
[ 21:31:46 ] < Fubu >  so they stick to solo attacks
[ 21:31:46 ] < Azzer >  And nor should they without their own organisations external to the game ;P
[ 21:32:00 ] < Fubu >  yeh true but why not have the thread in the game
[ 21:32:16 ] < Fubu >  unless all solo's shudnt work together
[ 21:32:19 ] < Fubu >  and have no pnaps
[ 21:32:27 ] < Azzer >  I don't think solos should have the ability to have their own "joint mass solo only area". I don't like "solo alliances", and I think it'd only serve to do that.
[ 21:32:44 ] < Fubu >  hmmm maybe so
[ 21:32:48 ] < Azzer >  The meaning of solo play is in the name itself ^^
[ 21:32:56 ] < Fubu >  yes by ones self
[ 21:33:08 ] < Fubu >  bt that also reduces who u can attack
[ 21:33:22 ] < Fubu >  as in its near impossible to successfully attack a half decent alli
[ 21:33:23 ] < Azzer >  It does, but then it should! :P You get AR to offset the difficulty
[ 21:33:35 ] < Azzer >  try a stealth route, it becomes a lot easier ;P
[ 21:33:38 ] < Fubu >  yeh
[ 21:33:42 ] < Fubu >  bt i dont play them :P
[ 21:33:43 ] < Fubu >  lol
[ 21:33:50 ] < Azzer >  Hehehe, well that's your own difficulty setting there!
[ 21:33:59 ] < Azzer >  Right going to move on to another talker now, thanks for the input again fubu
[ 21:34:01 ] < Fubu >  ah well, jst me thoughts, let someone else have a blast
8.1.7: n0contr0l.
[ 21:34:19 ] < Azzer >  Hello :)
[ 21:34:23 ] < n0c0ntr0l >  Hey
[ 21:34:27 ] < n0c0ntr0l >  :)
[ 21:34:41 ] < n0c0ntr0l >  K, first point, I think NAP's are making Solo's too powerful
[ 21:35:20 ] < Azzer >  Well they only get 2
[ 21:35:26 ] < n0c0ntr0l >  But
[ 21:35:36 ] < n0c0ntr0l >  you only need two good players of opposite routes
[ 21:35:54 ] < n0c0ntr0l >  I played solo for a bit last round
[ 21:36:06 ] < n0c0ntr0l >  I had a striker NAP when I was SA
[ 21:36:14 ] < Azzer >  But it needs activity from both them and yourself at the same time to cover stuff, and you can only cover it up to a maximum size. I don't think it overpowers them, just offers a *BIT* of group play to solos without cutting them off entirely to the world.
[ 21:36:37 ] < Azzer >  It's not like it suddenly means they can take on alliance together or anything, just adds a bit of "socialising" more than anything
[ 21:36:42 ] < n0c0ntr0l >  True, but if you have the right route set up, you become impenetrable almost
[ 21:36:44 ] < Azzer >  (eg 2 or 3 RL friends working together)
[ 21:36:49 ] < n0c0ntr0l >  Because if the incoming is too big
[ 21:36:55 ] < n0c0ntr0l >  It trips AR
[ 21:36:58 ] < Azzer >  Only as long as you are both online and active, one of you has to sleep :P
[ 21:37:21 ] < Azzer >  Unlike an alliance where lots of people can be online at once, easily see their incs, and mobile call eachother too in some cases
[ 21:37:21 ] < n0c0ntr0l >  Yeh, which is the reason I think they should never be able to see NAP incomings
[ 21:37:32 ] < Azzer >  Well I agree with that, except by actively spying
[ 21:37:39 ] < Azzer >  Which takes effort time and is easily forgotten
[ 21:37:44 ] < Azzer >  And stealth can get past ;D
[ 21:37:52 ] < Azzer >  (until too late!)
[ 21:38:03 ] < n0c0ntr0l >  I still feel its too strong
[ 21:38:15 ] < Azzer >  Well fair enough, I personally think not but we'll move it on to another talker now anyway!
[ 21:38:18 ] < Azzer >  Thanks for your input :D
[ 21:38:21 ] < n0c0ntr0l >  k
8.1.8: Dematto.
[ 21:39:51 ] < Dematto >  only a quick thing
[ 21:39:56 ] < Dematto >  If being Solo was made harder/less inviting to play, more people would choose to become allied. And as just discussed, Alliances should be the focus and people should be incouraged to play in Alliances. This could be one way. Make solo for playable for those that want to put the effort into doing well and not so much as safer-than-being-in-a-mediocre-alliance option.
[ 21:39:57 ] < Dematto >  Only things to add: 1) Remove PNaP's, perhaps give something in return for this. 2) lower base-trigger and faster AR drop sounds like a solid suggestion.
[ 21:40:13 ] < Dematto >  just trying to provide a few options to discuss over
[ 21:40:38 ] < Dematto >  although the arguement that pnaps == more socializing between solo's is a strong one too
[ 21:40:53 ] < Dematto >  that's it, so unless you have anything to ask :)
[ 21:40:54 ] < Azzer >  I think the ability to play with just 1 or 2 mates is important
[ 21:41:01 ] < Azzer >  I've played a LOT of online games with just 1, sometimes 2, RL mates
[ 21:41:11 ] < Azzer >  And playing as a sort of "Lonewolf" - half solo, half together, has been important
[ 21:41:19 ] < Dematto >  that is a very valid point
[ 21:41:21 ] < Azzer >  Any more than that we've gone to guilds/alliances/whatever the game has
[ 21:41:28 ] < Azzer >  (any more than 2 or 3 of us)
[ 21:41:43 ] < Dematto >  in my experience, I've had those mates join me in an alliance
[ 21:41:46 ] < Dematto >  and get to know even more people
[ 21:41:51 ] < Dematto >  but that might be personal preference
[ 21:41:53 ] < Azzer >  Which is one reason I'd really like to keep a couple of naps, no less no more.
[ 21:42:01 ] < Azzer >  I think it probably is a personal preference thing
[ 21:42:21 ] < Dematto >  if the triggering-cap is reduces, however, pnaps might become (even) stronger
[ 21:42:53 ] < Azzer >  Perhaps... it'd be something to keep a close eye on, as all balancing stuff is
[ 21:43:13 ] < Dematto >  time to move on I think :)

9.0.0: Anti-Rape.

[ 21:43:17 ] < Azzer >  Ok I'm not going to open the floor yet, I'm going to move straight on to anti-rape as the next topic, volunteers that want to talk about it, do the same we've just done, *THEN* have an open data on solo play and anti-rape combined.
[ 21:43:30 ] < Azzer >  So... anti-rape... how it works, when it works, lethal anti-rape, non-lethal anti-rape
[ 21:43:43 ] < Azzer >  AR that pwns an attack, AR that does not a lot at all... any aspects of it at all
[ 21:43:56 ] < Azzer >  Hands up those that want to have an opinion/voice on this subject specifically :)
9.1.0: One-on-ones.
9.1.1: FeR
[ 21:45:06 ] < Azzer >  FeR :)
[ 21:45:08 ] < FeR >  :D
[ 21:45:11 ] < FeR >  Hi Azzer
[ 21:45:22 ] < FeR >  Well, i dont have lot to say
[ 21:45:26 ] < FeR >  Just something quick
[ 21:45:43 ] < FeR >  AR trigerring
[ 21:46:05 ] < FeR >  It just sucks :P
[ 21:46:09 ] < Azzer >  It does
[ 21:46:16 ] < FeR >  But i mean
[ 21:46:37 ] < FeR >  not if i attack a solo alone, just if someone wants to get in my tick, sending eta 1 to trigger on me
[ 21:46:58 ] < FeR >  I hate when it happens, and think that it has to be changed :P
[ 21:47:11 ] < Azzer >  Well something does sure
[ 21:47:26 ] < FeR >  You entirely kill a solo in 1 tick, then his friend send 1 hippy and u die last tick :P
[ 21:47:28 ] < Azzer >  An automated "punishment/downside" for the player responsible for a trigger (the 2nd attacker)
[ 21:47:40 ] < Azzer >  Or an AR system that automatically only hits the triggerer not a player that didn't trigger
[ 21:47:48 ] < Azzer >  Or a balance of the two, I'm unsure, it's a tough one to work in correctly
[ 21:47:51 ] < FeR >  Yea
[ 21:47:56 ] < FeR >  That should be cool
[ 21:48:21 ] < FeR >  If someone wants to send 1 hippy to make me trigger, SAS should not kill me, but kill him :P
[ 21:48:27 ] < Azzer >  true enough
[ 21:48:36 ] < Azzer >  It's something I want to work on and hope others have something to talk about soon
[ 21:48:43 ] < FeR >  heh
[ 21:48:49 ] < FeR >  OK, thats all for me
[ 21:48:53 ] < Azzer >  Ok cheers! :)
[ 21:48:55 ] < FeR >  thanks
9.1.2: Caranthir.
[ 21:49:06 ] < Azzer >  Carrot
[ 21:49:08 ] < Caranthir >  :)
[ 21:49:12 ] < Caranthir >  2 things
[ 21:49:37 ] < Caranthir >  1. I think it should take into account if the player has Pnaps or doesnt (p-solo is already) or just doesnt know ppl
[ 21:49:48 ] < Caranthir >  2. I'm not sure if it takes incoming friendly value into account
[ 21:50:04 ] < Azzer >  It doesn't count incoming def
[ 21:50:05 ] < Caranthir >  i've sent on ppl to not trigger and they get defense, then i resend to beat the defense and trigger cuz they dont
[ 21:50:09 ] < Caranthir >  and back and forth it goes
[ 21:50:12 ] < Caranthir >  its quite annoying
[ 21:50:16 ] < Caranthir >  and that is really all
[ 21:50:28 ] * < Azzer >  wants to quickly point out - if people want to talk about alliance anti-rape, this is the time - this doesn't have to be specifically *solo* anti-rape ;P
[ 21:50:34 ] < Caranthir >  oh
[ 21:50:35 ] < Caranthir >  then that too
[ 21:50:36 ] < Caranthir >  :)
[ 21:50:49 ] < Caranthir >  some form taking into account total value/total land/total incoming
[ 21:50:58 ] < Caranthir >  but thats tricky and I havent thought of it too much
[ 21:51:14 ] < Caranthir >  I'm done now :)
[ 21:51:24 ] < Azzer >  Hehe ok, short and sweet, thanks for the input!
9.1.3: Bengy.
[ 21:51:39 ] < Azzer >  Bengy :)
[ 21:52:15 ] < Bengy >  hey
[ 21:52:18 ] < Azzer >  Hi
[ 21:52:28 ] < Bengy >  just about the whole LET / non LET defence
[ 21:52:36 ] < Bengy >  AR should be addition units to the route you are.
[ 21:52:48 ] < Bengy >  so its not unfair on the attacker,
[ 21:52:50 ] < Azzer >  Like, if you are puppets
[ 21:52:54 ] < Azzer >  You get Puppet AR?
[ 21:53:03 ] < Bengy >  getting raped by pure LET mobs but just more units that you have.
[ 21:53:04 ] < Azzer >  And if you're a PoM, PoM units come to AR defend you? :S
[ 21:53:21 ] < Bengy >  yeah well, could be worked through a bit.
[ 21:53:22 ] < Azzer >  But if somebody is raping, say, a PoM solo player with a mass army of bikers
[ 21:53:27 ] < Azzer >  And anti-rape comes with more PoM units
[ 21:53:28 ] < Bengy >  yeah there will be problems
[ 21:53:30 ] < Azzer >  It's not going to help much
[ 21:53:44 ] < Bengy >  but it seems more appropriate way of getting defence.
[ 21:53:55 ] < Azzer >  I don't know. Maybe something other than the current simple 4 units
[ 21:54:05 ] < Azzer >  But I don't think simply matching what units the victim has or anything will work either
[ 21:54:05 ] < Bengy >  or you choose a route that can help you IF your attacker triggers AR. Yeah an expansion
[ 21:54:21 ] < Bengy >  give more flexability to the units that are defending you
[ 21:54:36 ] < Azzer >  Yeah it's a possibility, less of a "AR pwn units, and AR NLT units"
[ 21:54:38 ] < Azzer >  More of a balance
[ 21:54:56 ] < Bengy >  yes thats about it.
[ 21:55:00 ] < Azzer >  Ok cheers Bengy :)
[ 21:55:04 ] < Bengy >  and i think alliances dont deserve antirape
[ 21:55:12 ] < Bengy >  they've got 19 other people to help them
[ 21:55:13 ] < Azzer >  hehe, likewise, but it's a possible idea out there ;)
[ 21:55:21 ] < Bengy >  cool thanks :)
[ 21:55:25 ] < Bengy >  thats all
9.1.4: Nameless.
[ 21:55:54 ] < Nameless >  well thank you sir
[ 21:56:03 ] < Nameless >  i have two main points
[ 21:56:07 ] < Nameless >  As has been brought up but not discussed in detail, I really like the idea of changing AR to something that *helps* the defender win the battle, rather than showing up and either forcing the attacker to recall or wtfpwning the attacker outright. The AR should be supplementary.
[ 21:56:30 ] < Nameless >  ^first point
[ 21:57:06 ] * < Nameless >  awaits response
[ 21:57:15 ] < Azzer >  Oh i was waiting for both :p
[ 21:57:29 ] < Nameless >  well then i shall throw #2 out there
[ 21:57:34 ] < Nameless >  Also, I don't like that now, the attacker has no idea how much SAS has showed up. The attacker almost always has to recall, because if he doesn't, he is most likely to get pwned. The attacker should be able to see what showed up, and then make the decision whether or not to stay and fight, without the odds nearly always being against the attacker.
[ 21:57:46 ] < Stats >  [3 Hour Status] 104 active users, talking 1292 lines (21.88% of global lines: 5906) - rank #1 of 316 - 90% of activity came from the top 16 channels.
[ 21:58:03 ] < Azzer >  Supplementary AR is desirable, but difficult in concept/design. how do you code something that always suppllements whatever good or bad units a defender has to help them fight an attacker on a "fair" level, balanced against how much the attacker is raping or equally fighting.
[ 21:59:09 ] < Nameless >  i'm not sure i have the answer for that, but i bet something could come from the Bush community putting its heads together
[ 21:59:24 ] < Nameless >  i'm not sure SAS as the only real LET AR is a good thing
[ 21:59:29 ] < Azzer >  I think if AR units are being re-designed then "anonymous SAs amounts" is an irrelevant point, but with the current system, I don't know whether it's overall good or bad.
[ 21:59:44 ] < Azzer >  Part of it was to stop attackers engineering clever attacks that could bypass what little SAS actually turned up
[ 22:00:17 ] < Nameless >  well as it stands, SAS generally pwns anything in its path, and i'm not sure that's the best way to be
[ 22:00:45 ] < Azzer >  Higher injury on units killed by AR?
[ 22:00:53 ] < Azzer >  So you do get pwned, you are disabled/crippled for a few hours
[ 22:00:57 ] < Azzer >  But you get the units back after?
[ 22:01:05 ] < Nameless >  an interesting thought
[ 22:01:06 ] < Nameless >  but
[ 22:01:22 ] < Nameless >  unless it is incredibly high, i still don't see attackers staying if they don't know how many SAS they're facing
[ 22:01:31 ] < Azzer >  Well I mean something like 80%
[ 22:01:35 ] < Azzer >  On units lost to SAS
[ 22:01:54 ] < Nameless >  i think that warrants further discussion
[ 22:01:58 ] < Azzer >  Or maybe even 90
[ 22:02:01 ] < Azzer >  So it's like a "long term disablement of your troops"
[ 22:02:07 ] < Azzer >  Rather than a total rear-end raping :P
[ 22:02:25 ] < Nameless >  definitely worth at least considering, and some more discussion
[ 22:02:26 ] < Azzer >  Well something to think on further later on then
[ 22:02:38 ] < Azzer >  Ok cheers for you rinput there Nameless, it's generated a possibly novel idea if anything
[ 22:02:45 ] < Nameless >  :)
[ 22:02:47 ] * < Nameless >  goes away
9.1.5: DarkSider.
[ 22:02:59 ] < DarkSider >  :o
[ 22:03:02 ] * < Azzer >  runs off to the toilet again while DS talks :P
[ 22:03:14 ] < DarkSider >  You drink too much tea
[ 22:03:14 ] < DarkSider >  :D
[ 22:03:17 ] < DarkSider >  As i said before, make it easyer to trigger at 0 ar mod but lower ar faster. Maybe 25%/day instead of about 15% atm for someting close to x1 multiplier so you only have route and setup advantage over them (and their land score).
[ 22:03:31 ] < DarkSider >  If you keep pnaps for solo's i think their valuation should be used (somehow) in calculation of victim maximum triggering value, regardless if those are defending or not. It's very hard to pass an active solo with 2 active pnaps atm and should at least be one downside from it.
[ 22:03:31 ] < DarkSider >  Also you have to work on automatically downgrading a lethal government help automatically to nonlet if there are no lethals left. Maybe also if there are few left ? Sometimes there is a nonlet mob that could trigger alone and same tick somebody with lethals sends, he recalls but SAS will stay there against your nonlet which not sure if it's right.
[ 22:03:40 ] < DarkSider >  And since you liked to open that subject small solo alliances with AR mod should be fun. Maybe something like 5 members up to 10 if you keep the curent size 18/20 for other allies. But the limits should be thought into more depth, lower maximum AR mod than solo's and how much alliance AR they should get from score drop.
[ 22:05:12 ] < Azzer >  I drink far too much tea, and tea is a diuretic ^^ :P Anyway *reads back*
[ 22:06:27 ] < Azzer >  Maybe a really "Minor" sort of AR for allies up to 5 members or something. Random thought but have to confess I am unlikely to implement it.
[ 22:06:37 ] < DarkSider >  ahah
[ 22:06:50 ] < Azzer >  AR downgrading as well as upgrading, agree, this does need working on but it's complex code so will need a bit of time and effort, so would likely go hand in hand with any other major changes of AR.
[ 22:07:18 ] < DarkSider >  Yeah, you have to first think of all the aspects
[ 22:07:21 ] < Azzer >  PNaps valuation for your AR limits... perhaps a percentage of their valuation, 20% at most per pnap or something.
[ 22:07:21 ] < DarkSider >  and then start coding
[ 22:07:35 ] < DarkSider >  Yeah that's what i was thinking
[ 22:08:14 ] < Azzer >  Ok well I'll move on to someone else, lots of data again thanks DS :)
[ 22:08:15 ] < DarkSider >  You can add that and even another bit if they are actually defending
[ 22:08:23 ] < DarkSider >  nps
9.1.6: beeker.
[ 22:09:06 ] < Azzer >  You about new beeker? :)
[ 22:09:10 ] < beeker >  Darksider said: And since you liked to open that subject small solo alliances with AR mod should be fun. Maybe something like 5 members up to 10 if you keep the curent size 18/20 for other allies. But the limits should be thought into more depth, lower maximum AR mod than solo's and how much alliance AR they should get from score drop.
[ 22:09:17 ] < beeker >  I agree, but call them a LLC
[ 22:09:23 ] < beeker >  Limited Liability Corp :P
[ 22:09:32 ] < beeker >  or some such
[ 22:10:15 ] < beeker >  Beyond that I don't have too much to say about AR that hasn't been said other than I agree with FeR and others about not being punished for others triggering on you
[ 22:10:20 ] < Azzer >  I'm not sure I like the idea of ally AR at all tbh, just one of those crazy random thoughts out there
[ 22:10:37 ] < Azzer >  Aye, it is something that needs working on, but there's a few ways to go about it each with upsides & downsides
[ 22:10:49 ] < Azzer >  Some ways fix it but make AR easy to potentially abuse by the attackers then, rather than defenders
[ 22:11:05 ] < Azzer >  But if AR can't wtf-pwn you anymore (eg high injury), maybe it won't matter *as* much....
[ 22:11:06 ] < beeker >  Yea, I'm not sure either, it would take a lot of tweaking to be done right, but it would be nice if something were done to help the situation when every alliance in the game dogpiles on the alliance that just dropped in ranks
[ 22:11:30 ] < beeker >  Alliance AR should never be lethal IMHO if implemented
[ 22:11:52 ] < Azzer >  Likely not
[ 22:12:00 ] < beeker >  it should only minimize the dramatic land losses in those situations
[ 22:12:00 ] < Azzer >  Ok well going to quickly move on to one last speaker now then open it for general discussion on both solo play in general and AR.
[ 22:12:03 ] < beeker >  ok, thanks
[ 22:12:05 ] < beeker >  done
[ 22:12:07 ] < Azzer >  Thanks beeker
9.1.7: AzLev.
[ 22:12:19 ] < Azzer >  Hi again AzLev :)
[ 22:12:25 ] < AzLev >  Lo again Azzer.
[ 22:12:52 ] < AzLev >  I propose a nonlet ar mod for alliances based on the ranking system.
[ 22:13:19 ] < Azzer >  As in, like, pure riot-police and police only?
[ 22:13:20 ] < AzLev >  Only proposing due to cases of when most alliances have been massed to the point of lil to no troops to defend with.
[ 22:13:23 ] < AzLev >  Yes.
[ 22:13:38 ] < Azzer >  And based on ally ranks? Points? Valuation? Individual members own ranks?
[ 22:13:45 ] < AzLev >  To prevent land loss and alliance disbandonment
[ 22:13:52 ] < AzLev >  Valuation.
[ 22:14:42 ] < Azzer >  Ally's valuation rank or individual's valuation rank?
[ 22:14:57 ] < AzLev >  Ally valuation rank.
[ 22:15:08 ] < AzLev >  It would help to stablize the midranks.
[ 22:15:27 ] < AzLev >  Cause frankly, if rank 1 had this there would be no resistances.
[ 22:15:44 ] < Azzer >  Possibly... but you'd have to strike a balance between just being pointless fluff, and ruining wars between two different mid-rank alliances
[ 22:15:45 ] < AzLev >  But ranks 15 and under... or 10 and under.
[ 22:15:55 ] < Azzer >  When one masses another (but fairly since both allies were the same size)
[ 22:16:09 ] < AzLev >  Oh that's easy
[ 22:16:11 ] < AzLev >  War.
[ 22:16:23 ] < AzLev >  You declare war and the AR dissappears.
[ 22:16:42 ] < AzLev >  Between the two alliances.
[ 22:16:59 ] < AzLev >  But others attacking would trigger, if that is possible in coding.
[ 22:17:23 ] < AzLev >  It would help the Wars take off.
[ 22:17:29 ] < Azzer >  With a re-work of AR if I can successfully get AR hitting some attackers and not others
[ 22:17:38 ] < Azzer >  Which I might not be able to do in a workable fashion
[ 22:17:49 ] < AzLev >  It's only an idea.
[ 22:18:18 ] < Azzer >  Ok well thanks for your input :)
[ 22:18:24 ] < AzLev >  Anytime
9.2.0: Open Floor Discussion.
[ 22:18:46 ] < Enrico >  I do think pnaps should be removed, at least for pure-solos, but as that would leave some routes a bit weak against certain tactics I have a suggestion:
[ 22:18:46 ] < Enrico >  I would suggest that pure solos can develop one of three "p-solo unit" designed to support their main route of choice.
[ 22:18:46 ] < Enrico >  MAYBE Either 1 weak LET (think privates or similar) one strong immobile NLD (think SGTs, but "much" more expenssive and not stealth) or one NLT (like loudspeakers, but targeting LET/ALL)
[ 22:18:46 ] < Enrico >  The P-solo-units would be open for development after the first two "normal" unit developments in a route (i.e. hool+heavy thugs for thugs)
[ 22:18:47 ] < Iamsmart >  Spam begin!
[ 22:18:51 ] < Azzer >  Next topic is "Misc Mechanics - Land cap, Injury etc"
[ 22:19:16 ] < Polo >  I think psolos should be removed
[ 22:19:19 ] < Enrico >  SAS should be replaced to something more in the form of units like the HQ units. The total sum, and composition of which is hidden. Enough to really hurt, but not complete massacre of the guy attacking.
[ 22:19:20 ] < Bengy >  nahh
[ 22:19:23 ] < analyzer >  I think solos should be left alone, the amount of alliance people complaining indicates their about right
[ 22:19:26 ] < Iamsmart >  I think you should be removed Polo -.-
[ 22:19:28 ] < Turnip >  Assuming you can fix AR triggering (as this suggestion would make that even worse), I think that AR recalling from defense is not cool.
[ 22:19:28 ] < Turnip >  If the incoming was big enough to 'trigger' the defense, then no matter how much of the incoming dies, it was still too big to begin with.
[ 22:19:28 ] < Turnip >  This is a problem when dealing with flak mobs especially, since you can easily trigger AR initally, but ensure enough
[ 22:19:28 ] < Turnip >  flak dies in the first two ticks to make AR recall on the last and land.
[ 22:19:28 ] < Bengy >  psolo doesnt give much to people
[ 22:19:41 ] < Bengy >  being able to send AR home would be fun :P
[ 22:19:43 ] < Polo >  lol
[ 22:19:49 ] < Enrico >  Maybe solos could "buy" extra AR-mod. This would give half the ar-mod the same sum in losses would give. This would be visible in the spyreport naturally. "XXXX donated about 100 billions to the Police officers retirement fund". In the cases where a solo is going off line for a longer period but don't want to hit sleep?
[ 22:19:51 ] < n0c0ntr0l >  ar trigger should depend on the amount of defense sent from NAP's
[ 22:19:52 ] < Bengy >  foxx still hates me?
[ 22:19:53 ] < analyzer >  AR is too agressive, maybe allow riot police to distract LETSs?
[ 22:19:56 ] < Bengy >  darn xD
[ 22:19:57 ] < yayspain >  :S
[ 22:20:03 ] < harvey >  a good and fun idea would be to have the solo players on your enemies list not have AR when u attack them making revenge more possible and fun!!
[ 22:20:06 ] < f0xx >  Azzer Polo wants to ask you to stop ignoring him :P
[ 22:20:14 ] < Polo >  why should someone make a decision about whether to play allied or solo for 3 months at the start of the round? (assuming they don't delete ofc)
[ 22:21:51 ] < Azzer >  Maybe Polo
[ 22:22:00 ] < Azzer >  I tmight be time to "merge" pure solo with normal solo...
[ 22:22:04 ] < Polo >  aye
[ 22:22:07 ] < Azzer >  Things have changed a bit since pure solo first came in
[ 22:22:10 ] < Polo >  I think there should be a few benefits
[ 22:22:17 ] < Iamsmart >  Azzer
[ 22:22:22 ] < tom >  Ok well anti-rape is more effective against some routes than others - SAS is most common unit you are going to be up against and currently it kills health based units better than armour (i think?), and i don't see why that should be the case.
[ 22:22:25 ] < Caranthir >  congrats to all you spaniards btw
[ 22:22:30 ] < Tim >  Pure solo has become a bit too strong vs Alliance play I think
[ 22:22:35 ] < Iamsmart >  By that do you mean if you want to be solo you have to stay in it all round?
[ 22:22:41 ] < tom >  I have only thought about this now, i don't actually know if this is the case...but i think thug route (particularily nutter) might be at a little disadvantage to other routes because anything that survives past the Anti-rape will fire at the nutters because they outflak the government units more than other units? For example and f-117 getting through would still do lots of damage.
[ 22:22:44 ] < Tim >  It is right that there is an even-ing of the situation
[ 22:23:07 ] < Polo >  also, psolo just detracts from the number of people playing in allies. I remember in the past you could easily start an ally mid round by recruiting some solos etc...now you can't do that
[ 22:23:13 ] < Wouter >  I think something has to be done against bikerrushes against POM players :)
[ 22:23:20 ] < Sordes >  agreed Polo
[ 22:23:32 ] < Polo >  :)
[ 22:23:32 ] < Wouter >  *against SOLO pom players*
[ 22:23:43 ] < Iamsmart >  Arent you a solo pom player Wouter?
[ 22:23:46 ] < Willymchilybily >  wouter you can by hippy vans
[ 22:23:47 ] < Iamsmart >  :/
[ 22:23:47 ] < Wouter >  hm
[ 22:23:48 ] < Wouter >  meaby...
[ 22:23:49 ] < Wouter >  :P
[ 22:23:51 ] < Polo >  Wouter, that's a route/unit change, not a solo change
[ 22:24:03 ] < Willymchilybily >  they reduce the damage they can do cos of the biker reduction bonus against machine vehicle
[ 22:24:04 ] < Bengy >  haha Psolo pom ftw xD
[ 22:24:12 ] < Turnip >  I dont like the on/off nature of AR
[ 22:24:19 ] < Bengy >  yeah get heavy on HV and bikers shouldnt look twice at you
[ 22:24:23 ] < jeff54321 >  jsut bribe some PA's
[ 22:24:25 ] < jeff54321 >  and you'll be fine
[ 22:24:33 ] < Bengy >  expcially if youve got some hypnos to pick them off too.
[ 22:24:34 ] < Turnip >  the fact that 1 gardie score can effectively mean the difference between you killing a solo and AR wiping the floor with you is slightly stupid
[ 22:24:50 ] < n0c0|SpainFTW >  but]
[ 22:24:51 ] < Turnip >  there needs to be more of a middle ground
[ 22:24:52 ] < Iamsmart >  6 minutes past the '5 minutes max' btw
[ 22:24:57 ] < n0c0|SpainFTW >  the amount sent depends on how much over
[ 22:25:01 ] < Willymchilybily >  lol
[ 22:25:11 ] < Wouter >  sorry was distracted for a little
[ 22:25:12 ] < Polo >  also Azzer, I suggested this to you before and you said you liked it: SAS/Bios to fire range only so people can't trigger on your second or last tick with 1 gard
[ 22:25:17 ] < Wouter >  about the biker rushing against solo poms
[ 22:25:21 ] < Wouter >  isn't unit based
[ 22:25:30 ] < Polo >  ...yes it is
[ 22:25:31 ] < Wouter >  because it is against SOLO pom :D
[ 22:25:35 ] < Polo >  ...
[ 22:25:38 ] < Wouter >  in an ally
[ 22:25:43 ] < Twigley >  o_O
[ 22:25:43 ] < Azzer >  It's definitely unit based ^^ :P
[ 22:25:44 ] < Wouter >  you can get rpg defence
[ 22:25:45 ] < Wouter >  pa defence
[ 22:25:46 ] < Azzer >  Anyway
[ 22:25:49 ] < Wouter >  and other stuff
[ 22:25:52 ] < Polo >  no you can't
[ 22:25:54 ] < Wouter >  as a solo you cant
[ 22:25:54 ] < Polo >  Bikers are eta 3
[ 22:25:56 ] < jeff54321 >  well PAs wont make it
[ 22:25:58 ] < Dematto >  2nd/3rd tick Wouter
[ 22:26:02 ] < Caranthir >  biker rushes are stupid now anyway. you dont get bounty, the kill value isnt very good
[ 22:26:07 ] < jeff54321 >  just bribe some PA's and youll be fine
[ 22:26:08 ] < Caranthir >  and all you do is raise their AR
[ 22:26:12 ] < Azzer >  Polo - I don't know. What do others think about what Polo just said, SAS/Bios to fire range only so people can't trigger on your second or last tick? Would this make AR too weak?
[ 22:26:14 ] < Podunk| >  PB rush is where its at tbh
[ 22:26:15 ] < Caranthir >  so a real attack is harder to get past
[ 22:26:25 ] < Turnip >  @ azzer
[ 22:26:27 ] < Twigley >  It wouldnt change a thing
[ 22:26:31 ] < Dematto >  Azzer, you'd have to further increase the power of AR
[ 22:26:33 ] < Turnip >  it would make it too easy to get past AR
[ 22:26:40 ] < Dematto >  and I don't think that's where AR should be headed
[ 22:26:40 ] < Turnip >  you could flak your lets with somthing cheap
[ 22:26:45 ] < Turnip >  get a mate to send Attack dogs
[ 22:26:51 ] < Turnip >  outnumber your lets 5:1
[ 22:26:56 ] < goku >  and everyone has attack dogs
[ 22:26:57 ] < BigBoss >  i agree on that @ polo, coz now a days ppl know when they got incs, and try to get SAS for last tick
[ 22:26:58 ] < Turnip >  the SAS wouldnt scratch your real lets
[ 22:27:02 ] < Turnip >  or somthing similar
[ 22:27:03 ] < Turnip >  PB's
[ 22:27:04 ] < Turnip >  rebels
[ 22:27:07 ] < Turnip >  privates
[ 22:27:08 ] < Turnip >  anything
[ 22:27:23 ] < Polo >  Turnip, that's retarded...just send less so you don't trigger :P
[ 22:27:24 ] < Twigley >  He said trigger at the attacking for 3 ... who says they have to stop targetting any other tick
[ 22:27:36 ] < Turnip >  if he has a high mod
[ 22:27:41 ] < Caranthir >  he said fire range
[ 22:27:42 ] < n0c0|SpainFTW >  if there is trigger, and someone recalls
[ 22:27:44 ] < Turnip >  and you have a mate with lots of lets he doesnt like
[ 22:27:45 ] < Caranthir >  not trigger range
[ 22:27:48 ] < Turnip >  may be worth it :P
[ 22:27:53 ] < Fubu >  i think AR shud be removed, as ive jst suicided a bils score
[ 22:27:56 ] < n0c0|SpainFTW >  the gov should leave
[ 22:27:59 ] < Dematto >  AR firing at the person that triggered > AR on range only imo
[ 22:28:01 ] < Fubu >  stupid bloody system :P
[ 22:28:04 ] < beeker >  Azzer, I agree with the range only SAS thing, but it should shift to riots or close-range SAS variants for the triggerer's last tick if they aren't killed by the first tick.
[ 22:28:21 ] < Polo >  aye Dematto, but range only is a MUCH easier change with effectively the same result
[ 22:28:24 ] < Sanjuro >  increase the power of riots/police
[ 22:28:35 ] < Sanjuro >  ^^
[ 22:28:40 ] < Azzer >  hmmm
[ 22:28:40 ] < n0c0|SpainFTW >  i thjink range only sas is stupid
[ 22:28:42 ] < n0c0|SpainFTW >  cauise then
[ 22:28:45 ] < n0c0|SpainFTW >  you could flak
[ 22:28:47 ] < Dematto >  not at all Polo, it would stop the obvious flaws of flakking etc.
[ 22:28:50 ] < Azzer >  Time to move on anyway, tough topic
[ 22:28:51 ] < Turnip >  maybe introduce a let targeting version of riots for the middle / close ticks then?
[ 22:28:53 ] < n0c0|SpainFTW >  send 1 let
[ 22:28:54 ] < Caranthir >  not if you kill on range
[ 22:28:55 ] < Turnip >  ythat would be fine
[ 22:28:58 ] < n0c0|SpainFTW >  and get through
[ 22:28:59 ] < Caranthir >  then just distract/disable on m/c
[ 22:29:01 ] < n0c0|SpainFTW >  easy
[ 22:29:04 ] < Polo >  what, Dematto?
[ 22:29:07 ] < Caranthir >  in greater numbers
[ 22:29:16 ] < DR4545 >  I think range SAS is pointless, just implement the idea of making SAS target whatever tick the person triggering it was on
[ 22:29:18 ] < Fubu >  7 n a half hours now
[ 22:29:18 ] < Fubu >  :P
[ 22:29:21 ] < Dematto >  Solo's are going to lose land if AR is there for one tick
[ 22:29:23 ] < Fubu >  how many topics left???
[ 22:29:27 ] < Dematto >  and I just don't like the idea :p

10.0.0: Misc Mechanics.

[ 22:29:29 ] < Azzer >  Well next topic now :P
[ 22:29:42 ] < Azzer >  Probably the last "major" topic
[ 22:29:44 ] < Azzer >  Misc Mechanics - Land cap, Injury etc
[ 22:30:03 ] < Azzer >  Anything o do with general mechanics of the game, other than those that have already been explicitly talked about (eg anti-rape, alliances, solo play)
[ 22:30:14 ] < Azzer >  Land cap and injury are the main things I can think of here
[ 22:30:19 ] < Azzer >  Anyway, hands up those that want to talk :)
10.1.0: One-on-ones.
10.1.1: Tim.
[ 22:31:50 ] < Azzer >  The Timster :)
[ 22:31:57 ] < Tim >  Hi :)
[ 22:31:59 ] < Tim >  Just one quick one
[ 22:32:34 ] < Tim >  When losing score, e.g. due to a BR or land loss, I think that the score loss should happen the same tick rather than one tick later
[ 22:33:00 ] < Azzer >  So... calculate score changes after BR's (as well as before for trigger purposes)
[ 22:33:12 ] < Azzer >  Calc score, do battles, calc score again, then update ranks.
[ 22:33:22 ] < Tim >  Yeah, I think so. To give a more accurate picture
[ 22:33:31 ] < Tim >  Otherwise you get a situation where someone who has recently been zeroed
[ 22:33:35 ] < Azzer >  That could be an easy change and I see absolutely no reason not to implement it.
[ 22:33:46 ] < Tim >  And is suddenly 40%/30% of my score without units
[ 22:33:49 ] < Azzer >  Aye
[ 22:34:02 ] < Azzer >  Well thought that man! :P
[ 22:34:07 ] < Tim >  :)
[ 22:34:11 ] < Azzer >  That the lot? :D
[ 22:34:25 ] < Tim >  Yep - dunno if there are downsides to that though - maybe others will suggest if there are :)
[ 22:34:34 ] < Azzer >  hehe I'm sure we'll here, but I don't think there is
[ 22:34:36 ] < Azzer >  Cheers for that Timster
[ 22:34:44 ] < Azzer >  here=hear
10.1.2: Sordes.
[ 22:34:57 ] < Azzer >  Hey Swords!
[ 22:35:09 ] < Sordes >  Well to start it out, if SAS etc are made range. then there is no real downside to what Tim Suggested
[ 22:35:26 ] < Azzer >  What does the SAS being made range have to do with it? :O
[ 22:35:34 ] < Sordes >  Its related to how AR trigger
[ 22:36:02 ] < Sordes >  A sudden score drop after first tick, and the tick after if a other attacker AR triggers much easier. But if SAS is range etc, it wont affect the first attacker
[ 22:36:24 ] < Sordes >  But it will protect against waves more for solo's so its a even trade
[ 22:36:53 ] < Sordes >  But other then that there are 2 points i want to adress. First is ETA Mods, i think they should be replaced with heavy cap penalties instead (half cap at least)
[ 22:37:04 ] < Azzer >  As in the land cap?
[ 22:37:16 ] < Sordes >  Yes. Make it like down to 7% or so at worst
[ 22:37:22 ] < Sordes >  it will be more effective also then eta penalty
[ 22:37:37 ] < Sordes >  Since most down attacks are for land.
[ 22:37:45 ] < Sordes >  And if they get less land, they will look higher
[ 22:38:00 ] < Sordes >  Then be willing to wait a little extra for "easy land"
[ 22:38:15 ] < Azzer >  true
[ 22:38:41 ] < Sordes >  The second point is the start of the game. I belive that starting acres, troops etc should be increased quite a bit.
[ 22:38:42 ] < Azzer >  Can't argue with that one much
[ 22:38:49 ] < Azzer >  Hmmm
[ 22:38:54 ] < Azzer >  RIGHt at the start?
[ 22:38:56 ] < Sordes >  And that players need to start with some acres already planted
[ 22:38:57 ] < Azzer >  As in the 5 land etc.?
[ 22:39:04 ] < Azzer >  Or the bonus to late starters?
[ 22:39:04 ] < Sordes >  Yes, new players make alot of mistakes
[ 22:39:10 ] < Sordes >  from the start
[ 22:39:18 ] < Sordes >  Like all players start with 20 planted acres
[ 22:39:25 ] < Sordes >  they got enough harvestors for them and everything
[ 22:39:33 ] < Sordes >  But they get extra uncultivated ontop of that
[ 22:39:39 ] < Sordes >  to make the "start simular" til today
[ 22:39:52 ] < Azzer >  Well, possibly, it'd certainly make it easier for newbies at round starts, but it might ruin a lot of the absolutely technically details round starts people have perfected?
[ 22:39:53 ] < Sordes >  but for new players that often make alot of mistakes on their first round. They will stil get some incomme of the original 20
[ 22:40:20 ] < Sordes >  Well if say everyone started with 20, and there where 40 Uncultivated and a larger starting funds
[ 22:40:25 ] < Sordes >  it would just be a matter of finding a new one
[ 22:40:28 ] < Sordes >  the prinsiple would be the same
[ 22:40:30 ] < Azzer >  I guess so :)
[ 22:40:33 ] < Sordes >  as it is today
[ 22:40:38 ] < Sordes >  It would just be more newbie friendly
[ 22:40:51 ] < Azzer >  yeah, well two things definitely worth thinking about there
[ 22:40:56 ] < Sordes >  And as a hidden bonus, it would mean new players could reach the addictive parts faster
[ 22:41:00 ] < Azzer >  Hehehe
[ 22:41:01 ] < Azzer >  Yes
[ 22:41:04 ] < Sordes >  since for a new player the first few houers of bush is a real drag
[ 22:41:10 ] < Azzer >  I'll think on them, they sound good though at first though ^^
[ 22:41:16 ] < Azzer >  *first thought
[ 22:41:33 ] < Azzer >  Well cheers for your input Sordes
[ 22:41:38 ] < Sordes >  Well that was all really from me. Except all game mechanics should be keept as few as needed
10.1.3: Iamsmart.
[ 22:42:18 ] < Azzer >  *I* am smart! Hello :D
[ 22:42:29 ] < Iamsmart >  Hello!
[ 22:42:55 ] < Iamsmart >  First of all i'd like to say good idea by Tim, I never understood why it wasnt like that in the first place, and i'm glad to hear it would be easily implemented!
[ 22:43:14 ] < Iamsmart >  What I wanted to talk about though is about attacking at 30-40% range
[ 22:43:21 ] < Azzer >  Sure
[ 22:43:44 ] < Iamsmart >  As we have discussed before, it is easy to kill a solo with 0% AR
[ 22:44:09 ] < Iamsmart >  And the dynamic land cap really isnt enough to stop people from attacking at a 30-40% range
[ 22:44:33 ] < Iamsmart >  Becaues landing 9/10 times with 10% land is better then landing 1/10 times with 15% land
[ 22:44:34 ] < Iamsmart >  :/
[ 22:45:01 ] < Iamsmart >  Now some people thing that raising the maximum attack range to 50% or something would be good, but that really lowers targets and could make alliance wars tough
[ 22:45:13 ] < Iamsmart >  So I dont really agree with that
[ 22:45:37 ] < Iamsmart >  And believe it or not, the only valid thing I could think of that really was a LARGE reprecussion for attacking at lower ranges was what L/F and bounty hunting was
[ 22:46:32 ] < Azzer >  Hmmm
[ 22:46:38 ] < Azzer >  I expect L/F will never come back in
[ 22:46:49 ] < Iamsmart >  I figured as much, but I thought i'd bring it up anyways
[ 22:46:53 ] < Iamsmart >  Moving back usualy isnt an option
[ 22:46:59 ] < Iamsmart >  You could make land cap more severe I guess...but I don't think that is really the best option either
[ 22:47:00 ] < Azzer >  I liked it, I always said I liked it... but I admitted it was never really workable to what it should have been, and was too hard to make totally fair, and caused so much confusiona nd complaints.
[ 22:47:22 ] < Azzer >  if land cap is severe enough (eg 0.01% at lowest range ;P) it could be a big enough deterrant.
[ 22:47:39 ] < Iamsmart >  It could I suppose...
[ 22:48:10 ] < Azzer >  Ok well I'll move on now, if you have nothing else? :D
[ 22:48:13 ] < Iamsmart >  Aye, go ahead
[ 22:48:17 ] < Azzer >  THanks for feedback!
10.1.4: CFalcon.
[ 22:48:31 ] < Azzer >  Yellow.
[ 22:48:35 ] < CFalcon >  bonjour
[ 22:48:42 ] < CFalcon >  to start i think a move back to dynamic rather than static injury would be good. the possibility to get 70-80% injuries was really good for keeping people interested in the game. maybe not go back to quite those rates, but at least 50%.
[ 22:49:01 ] < CFalcon >  the dynamic part would have to be changed with regards to alliance wars and AR mod though. when alliances are at war they shouldn't have to go through killing each other 5 times over. and AR mod should drop sharply when injuries return. doesn't make sense having 75% troops back and a 90% AR mod.
[ 22:49:44 ] < CFalcon >  and finally, why do we have injury and not insurance? i've always thought insurance to be much more useful. its just much more flexible. you can actually get rid of unwanted units. if you get zeroed and want to try a new tactic, you can start on that rather than being stuck with your old setup. you can't get repeatedly wiped while offline
[ 22:50:46 ] < Azzer >  Well that was one reason for injury over insurance - to prevent that
[ 22:50:53 ] < Azzer >  "restarting" from an attack with "free money to do it"
[ 22:51:03 ] < Azzer >  If people want to restart their tactics, they should have to do it at their own expense
[ 22:51:36 ] < Azzer >  Never really thought too much about injuries and the AR mod, but people have commented a lot on AR mod drop rates and AR rates so that'd be played with again anyway with the anti-rape stuff.
[ 22:52:08 ] < CFalcon >  again, i think it might at least keep oldies in the game if they don't have to play for weeks to do their tinkering with ratios
[ 22:52:12 ] < Azzer >  70-80% injuries was way too high... 50% as an absolute *maximum* and not during ally wars is probably the most it should be at again. I'm not sure about dynamic being better than static, as I said in the announce, the change this round is a bit of an experiment
[ 22:52:25 ] < Azzer >  So it may go back to dynamic again, it may stay static, I'm really not too sure at this point
[ 22:53:11 ] < CFalcon >  perhaps not the same kind of dynamic
[ 22:53:19 ] < CFalcon >  but i really did like being able to carry on playing
[ 22:53:23 ] < CFalcon >  after a heavy beating
[ 22:53:28 ] < Azzer >  Anyway I don't think being wiped out and then injured/insured should be a chance to just restart :P Plus insurance let you eep buying back "during an attack" each tick, which was slightly abused
[ 22:53:54 ] < Azzer >  Ok going to move it on again, trying to keep to around 5 minutes per person at most now where possible!
[ 22:54:01 ] < CFalcon >  kk cheers
[ 22:54:02 ] < Azzer >  Thanks for you rinput CFalcon, everything taken onboard :)
10.1.5:DarkSider.
[ 22:54:15 ] < Azzer >  I know you were raising your hand really DS.
[ 22:54:22 ] < DarkSider >  Land cap- I can't say i like it alot in the current form, it's as abusable as injury was when it was dynamic last round. However the impact it's not as dramatic, acres take time to give that extra income.
[ 22:54:47 ] < DarkSider >  You can keep it as it is, i just wanted to change on it to make geos steal as normal, 10 geos/acre
[ 22:54:55 ] < DarkSider >  instead applling the cap after they steal
[ 22:55:16 ] < Azzer >  What's the difference? :P
[ 22:55:36 ] < DarkSider >  well atm if we send 1000 geos for 100 acres we steal less :p
[ 22:55:49 ] < DarkSider >  And some wants to get a certain amount of acres
[ 22:55:53 ] < DarkSider >  Not max everytime
[ 22:55:57 ] < Azzer >  You want to steal more land than you currently do if you send 1000 geos? :P
[ 22:56:13 ] < DarkSider >  No, i want to steal exactly 100 acres even if the target was 10k
[ 22:56:28 ] < Azzer >  Hmmm
[ 22:56:33 ] < DarkSider >  If he is 30% now the geos would stel 66 or so
[ 22:57:00 ] < DarkSider >  And about injury, i think it should remain static or very low dynamic
[ 22:57:02 ] < Azzer >  But that helps stop you sending 5 smaller attacks out to solos low down in score, and getting "full" land (for the geos you send, not 15%)
[ 22:57:05 ] < Azzer >  And still avoiding AR
[ 22:57:21 ] < Azzer >  Your way would mean you could send 5 smaller attacks out on newbies, bypass AR and get the max land for the geos you sent too
[ 22:57:30 ] < Azzer >  Rather than the land cap applying to the max land the amount of geos you sent could steal
[ 22:57:35 ] < DarkSider >  no
[ 22:58:01 ] < DarkSider >  If i send on a low guy, i get capped from his 1k acres to 100 max acres to steal
[ 22:58:10 ] < DarkSider >  so no matter how many geos i sent i can't get over that
[ 22:58:20 ] < DarkSider >  And then i can get 1 acre for each 10 geos
[ 22:58:32 ] < DarkSider >  Since in manual 10 geos steal 1 acre
[ 22:59:05 ] < Azzer >  Hmmm maybe, I don't know, I'll think on that one, I'm dubious though. I'll have to look in to the engine again too and figure out what's the best way to limit the land stolen, at a technical level.
[ 22:59:10 ] < DarkSider >  So first apply the maximum cap and then steal as normal but without getting over
[ 22:59:35 ] < DarkSider >  Atm you steal and then the grab is reduced with 33%
[ 22:59:47 ] < Azzer >  Ok going to move on to someone else now for 5 mins! Sorry to cut you short there if you had much else to add ^^
[ 22:59:52 ] < DarkSider >  :<
[ 22:59:57 ] < Azzer >  One more then open it up to chat
10.1.6: Turnip.
[ 23:00:22 ] < Azzer >  Turnip :)
[ 23:00:29 ] < Turnip >  hey
[ 23:00:31 ] < Turnip >  sorry
[ 23:00:43 ] < Turnip >  ok, I was going to chat about land caps but most of it has been said
[ 23:00:52 ] < Turnip >  i just think they should be a bit more severe
[ 23:00:53 ] < Azzer >  Hehehe
[ 23:00:56 ] < Azzer >  yeah
[ 23:00:59 ] < Turnip >  thats all
[ 23:01:01 ] < Azzer >  They probably do
[ 23:01:05 ] < Turnip >  one niggle though
[ 23:01:06 ] < Azzer >  Ok well let's open this baby up then ;)
[ 23:01:08 ] < Azzer >  Oh?
[ 23:01:11 ] < Turnip >  the enemies list
[ 23:01:46 ] < Azzer >  Go on...
[ 23:01:47 ] < Turnip >  sorry for the C+P, but saves time for everyone
[ 23:02:39 ] * < Azzer >  pokes Turnip.
[ 23:02:41 ] < Turnip >  just some thoughts - probably flawed horifically, but may as well crack it open
[ 23:02:44 ] < Turnip >  thats it
[ 23:02:48 ] < Turnip >  basically, enemies lists
[ 23:02:49 ] < Azzer >  Didn't see anything
[ 23:02:52 ] < Turnip >  what?
[ 23:02:55 ] < Turnip >  ah
[ 23:02:56 ] < Azzer >  [23:01:40] <+Turnip> sorry for the C+P, but saves time for everyone
[ 23:02:57 ] < Azzer >  [23:02:35] <+Turnip> just some thoughts - probably flawed horifically, but may as well crack it open
[ 23:02:57 ] < Azzer >  [23:02:38] <+Turnip> thats it
[ 23:02:58 ] < Turnip >  hang on
[ 23:03:03 ] < Turnip >  The enemies list, outside of the first week and a bit, it pretty much totally pointless. The list becomes entirely occupied with your counter routes and people in alliances that you can't even touch.
[ 23:03:05 ] < Turnip >  see that?
[ 23:03:19 ] < Turnip >  The fact you have a bounty on them means nothing as you can never actually claim it. As we were discussing before, it adds to the complexity of the game and makes more links on the LHS of the page.
[ 23:03:24 ] < Azzer >  Yeah saw 2 lines now ^^
[ 23:03:32 ] < Turnip >  Unless you have an idea to make it into something useful, it is best to probably remove it altogether.
[ 23:03:41 ] < Azzer >  Hmm well I can see a lot of people claiming a lot of bounties atm...
[ 23:04:00 ] < Turnip >  residuals from teching
[ 23:04:08 ] < Turnip >  people hit their counter route in early stages
[ 23:04:19 ] < Turnip >  as people tech, its going to become more and more redundant
[ 23:04:22 ] < Azzer >  I don't know, they seem to be people very high in Eff ranks too
[ 23:04:29 ] < Azzer >  And the ranks do change for BH a bit
[ 23:04:47 ] < Azzer >  I think people that are able to hit routes tactically are able to BH well, and the rest give in and resign it as "too hard for them to do"
[ 23:04:59 ] < Azzer >  I BH'ed successfully as my striker route last round :)
[ 23:05:03 ] < Turnip >  in almost all normal cases, enemies arent rouchable
[ 23:05:08 ] < Turnip >  i was a robo last round
[ 23:05:13 ] < Turnip >  all my bounties were RPG's and strikers
[ 23:05:21 ] < Turnip >  theres not a whole lot you can do
[ 23:05:26 ] < Azzer >  I had a wide range of bounty targets as a striker route
[ 23:05:41 ] < Azzer >  Only the heavily assassin based guys did I avoid, which were only a small handful :P
[ 23:05:51 ] < Turnip >  striker is a powerful route though
[ 23:06:00 ] < Turnip >  it has good survivability against a great deal
[ 23:06:13 ] < Turnip >  some routes have counter routes so severe that they die without even firing
[ 23:06:25 ] < Turnip >  and in that case, enemies become pretty pointless
[ 23:06:29 ] < Azzer >  Well I think it's a decent system, I don't think it should be open bounties or easily accessible, I think its' good that it will take some clever tactics and planning to get bounty from your largest enemies
[ 23:06:40 ] < Azzer >  And the rest are smaller enemies that just flakked you for land from any old route, which could be hittable
[ 23:06:52 ] < Turnip >  once the big hits come
[ 23:06:53 ] < Turnip >  the zeroings
[ 23:07:01 ] < Turnip >  the odd flakking doesnt have any bounty value
[ 23:07:04 ] < Azzer >  Anyway going to have to move this on now ^^ TIme and all!
[ 23:07:07 ] < Turnip >  sure
[ 23:07:08 ] < Turnip >  ta
[ 23:07:11 ] < Azzer >  So thanks for your input here, and we'll open this up to all now :)
10.2.0: Open Floor Discussion.
[ 23:07:32 ] < tom >  azzer :P you can't use your own id as an example of bounty hunting
[ 23:07:35 ] < Iamsmart >  Game mechanics
[ 23:07:37 ] < tom >  you have biased incomings :P
[ 23:07:44 ] < harvey >  you should only be able to hit people 50% of ur value
[ 23:07:45 ] < Turnip >  ye
[ 23:07:47 ] < harvey >  makes it fairer
[ 23:07:52 ] < Caranthir >  i know plenty of ppl high on the bounty list that just suicide for bounty to try and get that rank
[ 23:07:53 ] < Turnip >  enemies list doesnt do alot for the majority
[ 23:07:57 ] < Ahead >  also, i agree with what Turnip said about enemies list..
[ 23:07:57 ] < Turnip >  especially late game
[ 23:07:59 ] < Azzer >  Tom - Lol :P
[ 23:08:01 ] < Fubu >  well agree with the land cap should be dynamic, and alot harsher, so reduced to say 3% if ur atatcking at 30% range, also agree with removing the eta mods from this, as tbh it doesnt really put people off enough
[ 23:08:12 ] < Tim >  I disagree harvey, that would just increase massing on one player by players afraid to lose a few units
[ 23:08:19 ] < Mattheus >  agreed 100% turnip. The enemies list becomes vastly populated by routes that own yours
[ 23:08:47 ] < Fubu >  injury system is ok-ish imo, bt theyre needs to be a dynamic one, maybe nt to the same values as last round, bt i dont see how its fair when if ur attacking someone at 30% u get 35% OF UR INJURED MEN BACK AND SO DO THEY...
[ 23:08:48 ] < Dematto >  imo, chance your setup and wtfpwn those enemies :p
[ 23:09:11 ] < Dematto >  change* even
[ 23:09:20 ] < Ahead >  yeh but some routes just cant..
[ 23:09:24 ] < Jorizz >  whats still on the agenda?
[ 23:09:25 ] < tom >  i do not think limiting further the number of possible targets is a good idea either, especially with decreasing playerbase size, making the people getting hit survive better is a better option...i think we should seek ways to make the game easier for everybody, rather than just make it harder for some
[ 23:09:26 ] < Caranthir >  the problem with the dynamic injury last round was that it promoted SQing really. i mean, so you have a big battle, but the attacker got 10% injury while the attackee got 60-70%
[ 23:09:29 ] < Ahead >  a robo can NEVER kill a good RPG bigger than them..
[ 23:09:32 ] < Ahead >  for example..
[ 23:09:40 ] < Caranthir >  really killed a realistic resistance
[ 23:09:47 ] < Ahead >  and a thug cant really touch a SA heavy SO bigger than them..
[ 23:09:55 ] < DarkSider >  Land cap can't be dinamic until Azzer codes the formula to take into consideration all scenarios .. as fake boosts to give high injury to defenders and low to attackers. Once those are fixed the level must be just a bit dinamic something like 30-40 % imo, or at most 30-50%
[ 23:10:20 ] < Mattheus >  thats always the problem with those type of systems though DarkSider, its impossible to code for every concievable scenario.
[ 23:10:31 ] < Caranthir >  yep. thats the problem with some of these suggestion, the coding will have to be a real piece of work
[ 23:10:32 ] < Mattheus >  which is why I generally don't like them :P
[ 23:10:35 ] < DarkSider >  Yeah but it's too easy to exploit
[ 23:10:41 ] < DarkSider >  Must be harder
[ 23:10:53 ] < Azzer >  Simple but strong rules are better than complex mechanics that have to have special scenarios coded for lots of things
[ 23:10:56 ] < Azzer >  Wherever possible.
[ 23:11:03 ] < DarkSider >  69 hippy and from 60% injury you drop to 10% .. that was before
[ 23:11:30 ] < Mattheus >  Azzer sorry a little off topic but will you open these debates up on forums too? A lot of us couldn't stick around the whole 8 hours of this and missed some topics they wanted to comment on
[ 23:11:30 ] < Dematto >  so you're openly admitting that the personal bonusses on units is bad Azzer? :p
[ 23:11:33 ] < Caranthir >  really? thats why it was so buggy
[ 23:11:33 ] < Caranthir >  :P
[ 23:11:40 ] < tom >  I did think of an idea for smaller alliances on limiting the number of incomings to the alliance to reduce bashing, although that will have surely been said before
[ 23:11:55 ] < Jorizz >  too abusable tom
[ 23:11:58 ] < Darryl >  Mattheus, I'm uploading logs to the forum
[ 23:11:59 ] < Jorizz >  been shot down many times before
[ 23:12:04 ] < Caranthir >  what?
[ 23:12:08 ] < Darryl >  Will do so as soon as the last topic is drawn to a close
[ 23:12:09 ] < Mattheus >  yeah logs arent the problem Darryl
[ 23:12:10 ] < Caranthir >  oh right
[ 23:12:12 ] < Caranthir >  way too abusable
[ 23:12:23 ] < Caranthir >  get friends to send hostile incomings of 1 hippy nonstop
[ 23:12:32 ] < tom >  yeah ok agreed
[ 23:12:33 ] < Tim >  Mattheus I think the debates are going to be opened up on forums, some topics anyway
[ 23:12:35 ] < Darryl >  Well people can comment on the topic after seeing the points that were raised? :P
[ 23:12:36 ] < Dematto >  1 tractor is far easier :p
[ 23:12:39 ] < Polo >  �23:11:23� {Mattheus} Azzer sorry a little off topic but will you open these debates up on forums too? A lot of us couldn't stick around the whole 8 hours of this and missed some topics they wanted to comment on <-- and Azzer wouldn't let some of us talk :P
[ 23:12:42 ] < Azzer >  Dematto - Nah, nits/routes are one of the few exceptions, where depth really matters.
[ 23:12:45 ] < Azzer >  *units
[ 23:12:46 ] < Iamsmart >  Caranthir, wasnt I the one who just told you that a few hours ago?
[ 23:12:51 ] < Caranthir >  no
[ 23:12:54 ] < Caranthir >  i realized it for meself!
[ 23:12:57 ] < Iamsmart >  Sure
[ 23:12:57 ] < Iamsmart >  :P
[ 23:13:09 ] < Caranthir >  its true
[ 23:13:22 ] < Azzer >  Ok let's rush this along to the next topic now!
[ 23:13:23 ] < Mattheus >  yeah Polo, that too :p
[ 23:13:23 ] < Caranthir >  you said, too abusable, and i said, oh right, ppl could just send fake incoming hostiles forever
[ 23:13:24 ] < Iamsmart >  Dont make me pull out the logs! (Which I am far too lazy to scroll for)
[ 23:13:25 ] < tom >  i missed the discussion on tractor (i really hope there was 1) :'(

11.0.0: Global Politics.

[ 23:13:38 ] < Azzer >  Short & sweet one, hopefully
[ 23:13:39 ] < Azzer >  Global Politics
[ 23:13:43 ] < Azzer >  Hands up ;)
11.1.0: One-on-ones.
11.1.1: Mattheus.
[ 23:15:05 ] < Mattheus >  right ok, as you may know I'm not a big fan of global pols
[ 23:15:10 ] < Azzer >  Aye I do know ;)
[ 23:15:12 ] < Mattheus >  my main gripe with global pols is actually a similar underlining issue to the wiki/manual I talked about earlier.
[ 23:15:19 ] < Mattheus >  I don't see the point of spreading one area over two different mediums.
[ 23:15:29 ] < Mattheus >  Gone are the days when a 30+ page war thread was the norm. Granted you can attribute that partly to a declined memberbase but I think a large part is due to global politics.I just don't see the need for a sub-par ingame forum-clone which only a tiny percentage of the playerbase are allowed to actually post in. Why not have any war discussions back on one common ground, where anyone can chip in?
[ 23:15:53 ] < Azzer >  Perhaps
[ 23:16:03 ] < Mattheus >  please don't take that as an insult to your coding skills Azzer, when I say sub-par. But cmpared to the forums it is :P
[ 23:16:13 ] < Azzer >  Lol, no no I understand :P
[ 23:16:40 ] < Azzer >  Well I'll think about outright removal if no good suggestions come instead
[ 23:16:45 ] < Azzer >  Anything else? :P
[ 23:16:54 ] < Mattheus >  not really
[ 23:16:55 ] < Mattheus >  thanks
[ 23:16:58 ] < Azzer >  hehe np!
11.1.2: Intense.
[ 23:17:09 ] < Azzer >  Intense :)
[ 23:17:10 ] < Intense >  gud evening hun ;)
[ 23:17:18 ] < Intense >  I'm one of fewer pleople who actually like global pols, I guess. People want to get rid of it, mostly because there are lots of officers who tend to use it to insult eachother, or just to spam.
[ 23:17:29 ] < Intense >  But I love gpols, it gives me (& other people ofc) the opportunity to write "fantasised warstories" about ongoing battles. It's like a live report about what's going on between alliances, rather than just read it in "War & Alliance Stories" on forums at the end of the round
[ 23:17:36 ] < Intense >  as for me, I'm not going to bother getting active on forums -which I am not atm- just to discuss or write stories...
[ 23:17:45 ] < Intense >  I disagree with what Twigs said earlier. He talked about mailing helpers or someone allocated telling them what you want to express on Gpols. imho that would just make it even less popular as it is today.
[ 23:17:55 ] < Intense >  I'd say keep gpols, allow them to create a fun "chat" topic (or other topics) to make it more popular, but get more moderators/helpers to keep it decent.
[ 23:18:07 ] < Azzer >  Well helpers can already edit and delete
[ 23:18:31 ] < Azzer >  The main point to people that dislike gpols
[ 23:18:38 ] < Azzer >  is if there are at least *enough* people that like to use it
[ 23:18:45 ] < Azzer >  Then the rest can just ignore it, it's one link not to click on.
[ 23:19:00 ] < Azzer >  But ofc if only 10 people use it, then it does seem a wasted resource
[ 23:19:14 ] < Intense >  true, but they mainly avoid it because of the flaming going on
[ 23:19:30 ] < Azzer >  People tend to only ever flame, if we delete everything slightly flamey, there's only be 2 posts.
[ 23:19:38 ] < Azzer >  There don't seem to be that many mature people leading alliances.
[ 23:19:44 ] < Intense >  It would be nice to see a "chat" topic of some sord, as I think it's not allowed atm?
[ 23:19:45 ] < Azzer >  (flamey or spammy)
[ 23:19:58 ] < Azzer >  Atm it's not, technically.
[ 23:20:16 ] < Azzer >  Because I wanted people more to use it for war stories, and friendly in-game sort of "We're going to wipe you out you took land from us how dare you!" type stuff
[ 23:20:17 ] < Intense >  It *might* get more people to use it though
[ 23:20:39 ] < Intense >  Yah that would still be it's main goal
[ 23:20:58 ] < Azzer >  Maybe with the new alliance leader can set permissions, if posting in g-pol was a permission one could set, an alliance could have 10 people able to post in gpols (but using the alliances global daily message limit)
[ 23:21:05 ] < Azzer >  Which might increase it's use a lot
[ 23:21:30 ] < Intense >  good suggestion
[ 23:21:37 ] < Azzer >  Ok well I'm going to move on to the last person that put their hand up, Peter, have 3 mins of open, then straight to next topic :)
[ 23:21:41 ] < Intense >  anyways, those were my two cents :D
[ 23:21:46 ] < Azzer >  Thanks for your input Intense, good to get a side that likes G-pols
11.1.3: Peter.
[ 23:21:58 ] < Azzer >  Peter :)
[ 23:22:00 ] < Peter >  ooo its me :)
[ 23:22:17 ] < Peter >  yeah i was guna say what Mattheus said and now i feel silly for putting my hand up :)
[ 23:22:28 ] < Azzer >  Hehehe, ok nothing to add? :D
[ 23:22:33 ] < Peter >  not really :D
[ 23:22:36 ] < Azzer >  No change of opinion after seeing my convo with Intense? :P
[ 23:22:49 ] < Peter >  if anyone in the ally could use it then maybe
[ 23:22:52 ] < Azzer >  hehe
[ 23:22:59 ] < Azzer >  Ok well let's just open this short one up for 3 mins or so then move on
[ 23:23:00 ] < Peter >  but just officers seems like a waste of space
[ 23:23:05 ] < Peter >  ok cheers
[ 23:23:06 ] < Peter >  :)
11.2.0: Open Floor Discussion.
[ 23:23:17 ] < Polo >  As Matt said, we have the forums...I don't see the point
[ 23:23:18 ] < Iamsmart >  I thought next topic?
[ 23:23:19 ] < Azzer >  Any other opinions on G-pols? :)
[ 23:23:23 ] < Caranthir >  I just want to say that if Ally Wars is changed to promote them, I think gpols will be used more as well
[ 23:23:23 ] < Dematto >  [00:20:49] <@Azzer> Maybe with the new alliance leader can set permissions, if posting in g-pol was a permission one could set, an alliance could have 10 people able to post in gpols (but using the alliances global daily message limit) <-- it's either that or removal of g-pols imo, right now it's rather useless (a smashing 6 threads right now.. most way old too)
[ 23:23:38 ] < Caranthir >  Kind of a quick place to go to see who is warring who
[ 23:23:43 ] < tom >  Ok azzer, i think we all agree that 3 mins on this is 3 minutes too many, next topic plz? :P
[ 23:23:46 ] < Caranthir >  so no one "accidentally" vultures
[ 23:23:57 ] < Azzer >  tom - leave that to me cheeky monkey ;P
[ 23:24:01 ] < Dematto >  get a public showing of War Declarations imo
[ 23:24:02 ] < tom >  :D
[ 23:24:05 ] < monkie >  can land get to you when your men return?
[ 23:24:08 ] < Caranthir >  with just waves having a place to post "war battles" is pointless
[ 23:24:13 ] < Caranthir >  but I like Intense's stories
[ 23:24:18 ] < Intense >  :D
[ 23:24:21 ] < Caranthir >  they give me something to look forward to on a rainy day
[ 23:24:21 ] < Azzer >  monkie - we're talking about global politics now! :) Keep to topic please
[ 23:24:24 ] < n0c0ntr0l >  I like intense and twigley's stories
[ 23:24:28 ] < Fubu >  get rid of global pols
[ 23:24:32 ] < Fubu >  keep it back in the forums
[ 23:24:37 ] < Fubu >  where everyone can have a say
[ 23:24:39 ] < monkie >  sorry :s
[ 23:24:43 ] < Caranthir >  pssh. i dont use the silly forums
[ 23:24:43 ] < Caranthir >  :)
[ 23:24:48 ] < Caranthir >  even more flaming there
[ 23:24:49 ] < Caranthir >  :P
[ 23:24:50 ] < Azzer >  Ok so maybe one last chance to "up" global pols, otherwise if it fails, consider condemming it to the graveyard of tried but failed ideas.
[ 23:24:52 ] < Intense >  neither do I
[ 23:25:02 ] < Ahead >  remove all the spam from lower allies and gpols may be vaguely readable
[ 23:25:02 ] < Azzer >  Seems most peoples opinion
[ 23:25:05 ] < Iamsmart >  KILL IT!
[ 23:25:06 ] < Fubu >  anything then interestin from forums could be copied to a global pol type thing, bt not so it can be edited ingame, well without admin/mods
[ 23:25:14 ] < Dematto >  I'm personally a bigger fan of 'forcing' people to use Forums.. people get 'sucked in' to the community more that way, plus they might more easily post suggestions etc. aswell

12.0.0: Forums.

[ 23:25:20 ] < Azzer >  Next topic is a simple one again, hopefully.
[ 23:25:30 ] < Azzer >  The game forums - layout, forum areas, use, whatever
[ 23:25:40 ] < Azzer >  Hands up anyone with something to say on the game forums :)
12.1.0: One-on-ones.
12.1.1: Dematto.
[ 23:26:39 ] < Azzer >  Dematto, you may as well take the lead on this one
[ 23:26:42 ] < Dematto >  :)
[ 23:26:46 ] < Dematto >  only one small suggestion
[ 23:27:00 ] < Dematto >  is it possible to give people a forum account straight away when they sign up a new account?
[ 23:27:20 ] < Dematto >  I know of a lot of people that straightforward refuse to use forums because they don't want to go through the effort of creating an account
[ 23:27:22 ] < Azzer >  It is but it's something I've never liked
[ 23:27:37 ] < Dematto >  or at least do something to that direction
[ 23:27:46 ] < Dematto >  encourage people more to participate on the forums
[ 23:27:50 ] < Azzer >  Forums are always a "seperate part of a community/game", as odd as it sounds.
[ 23:28:06 ] < Azzer >  I don't know, maybe it's just me, because it's what I'm used to...
[ 23:28:09 ] < Dematto >  most games I've played, I played a lot longer and more if I was participating in the forums (and thus community) aswell
[ 23:28:25 ] < Azzer >  But I've always thought my forum account is my forum account... that I can make when I want to take part in forums... otherwise I just have a game account.
[ 23:28:46 ] < Dematto >  then people can choose not to use the forum account created for them?
[ 23:28:54 ] < Azzer >  Plus you have annoyances like on account signup picking your forum name "But I don't care about forums/yet!" or "Your forum name is taken, please try signing up for your game account again".
[ 23:29:08 ] < Azzer >  Things like that seem silly/minor, but can be really irritating to a game you're signing up to for the first time
[ 23:29:09 ] < Dematto >  that's sure to be solvable
[ 23:29:12 ] < Azzer >  "Oh forget it! :P"
[ 23:29:26 ] < Dematto >  o well, pass on the floor :)
[ 23:29:32 ] < Azzer >  hehe ok, thanks for the idea anyway Dems
12.1.2: Sordes.
[ 23:29:40 ] < Azzer >  Swordy
[ 23:29:54 ] < Sordes >  Well a few things. First, i feel the forums have been missing something for a while
[ 23:30:13 ] < Sordes >  A Brainstorming Subforum linked to Suggestions, alot of the idea's behind suggestions made are good, but the suggestions themselves are often poor
[ 23:30:42 ] < Sordes >  A Brainstorming subforum might be used say if you want something on AR as you posted on the forums, you could list it up there. If say someone wants to discuss ballance of a unit it would fit there
[ 23:30:57 ] < Sordes >  If someone wants to work together on a bigger suggestion it kinda now is no place to do it on the forums
[ 23:31:08 ] < Azzer >  I think suggestions forum works just fine for both myself, I don't see a need to seperate it, or cause a bit of "elitism"
[ 23:31:18 ] < Azzer >  "This person's idea is good enough for suggestions, yours sucks move it to brainstorming!"
[ 23:31:36 ] < Sordes >  Well then you need to be stricter on forum bashers, because today very few wants to comment constructivly
[ 23:31:46 ] < Sordes >  they just shoot down most suggestions because its not thought about enough.
[ 23:32:00 ] < Sordes >  Currently the forum is not very inviting to suggestion devolopment or suggestions as a whole.
[ 23:32:05 ] < Azzer >  It's true that there are a lot of people on the forums that love nothing more than to put people down because they've gotten tired of repeating themselves on "old ideas regurgitating"
[ 23:32:35 ] < Azzer >  I think that's a training issue with mods, and perhaps the mods we currently have and new mods being needed, and encourage them to use the forums built in warning system more and just edit posts without deleting/locking threads.
[ 23:32:36 ] < Sordes >  Thats why i wanted a brainstorming area, a place where directly suggestion related issues could be discussed before a "end product" would be made.
[ 23:32:57 ] < Azzer >  Well I disagree with the brainstorming idea but to agree on friendliness, I think the solution is focus on the moderation, not split the suggestions area though
[ 23:33:18 ] < Sordes >  very well.
[ 23:33:25 ] < Azzer >  Anything else on the forum side of things?
[ 23:33:31 ] < Sordes >  Well just belive the forums is way to unfriendly atm and it needs work fast
[ 23:33:44 ] < Sordes >  Since to many are of the "negative sort" right now
[ 23:33:50 ] < Azzer >  Aye, moderators... they do seem a bit mean, the forums... bad air...
[ 23:33:53 ] < Sordes >  And espeislay in suggestions
[ 23:34:02 ] < Azzer >  People that want the game to grow and don't like seeing the playerbase shrink
[ 23:34:06 ] < Azzer >  Being horrible to everyone on the forums
[ 23:34:08 ] < Sordes >  A suggestion that might have potensial if worked on some gets bashed down by bored forum users real fast
[ 23:34:13 ] < Azzer >  Seems very backwards, but people often are stupid like that :)
[ 23:34:27 ] < Sordes >  Even before they often have read it
[ 23:34:43 ] < Azzer >  Hehe yeah... maybe even a stricter guideline for replies on suggestions forum
[ 23:34:44 ] < Sordes >  Which i find a problem that needs to be adressed.
[ 23:34:50 ] < Sordes >  But thats really all.
[ 23:34:56 ] < Azzer >  Ok well thanks for the input! :)
[ 23:35:07 ] < Sordes >  your welcome
12.1.3: Jorizz.
[ 23:35:15 ] < Azzer >  Jorizz :)
[ 23:35:16 ] < Jorizz >  Hmmm hiya
[ 23:35:31 ] < Jorizz >  Well our forums need to look a tad more professional on the layout
[ 23:35:37 ] < Jorizz >  well maybe a bit more..."own"
[ 23:35:48 ] < Jorizz >  currently its really the same as everybody else has
[ 23:35:59 ] < Azzer >  I don't think that's a bad thing about forums
[ 23:36:09 ] < Azzer >  Forums should feel "comforting" to people who frequent a lot of forums...
[ 23:36:24 ] < Jorizz >  Hmmm fair point.
[ 23:36:35 ] < Jorizz >  Well than I should agree with Sordes about the negativism
[ 23:36:41 ] < Jorizz >  I suggest issueing warnings earlier
[ 23:36:51 ] < Azzer >  Yeah, few more mods, sort out old mods, and a bit of stricter guidelines
[ 23:36:56 ] < Jorizz >  Even making a sticky or so requestion people to be constructive or shut up
[ 23:37:01 ] < Azzer >  Yeah, more use of the built in forum warning system
[ 23:37:05 ] < Jorizz >  requesting
[ 23:37:15 ] < Jorizz >  furthermore
[ 23:37:23 ] < Jorizz >  Get rid of the hello goodbye thing
[ 23:37:29 ] < Jorizz >  and make it an introduction thing only
[ 23:37:46 ] < Jorizz >  Leaving a game should not need a grand salute :P
[ 23:37:53 ] < Jorizz >  it should be for new users only
[ 23:38:19 ] < Azzer >  Well without that section people will post "I Quit" and "Goodbyes" anyway
[ 23:38:20 ] < Jorizz >  and it only makes it more tempting, honourable - and an overall negative feeling
[ 23:38:22 ] < Azzer >  As they always have
[ 23:38:31 ] < Azzer >  I made that section to stop general forums being spammed with them
[ 23:38:34 ] < Jorizz >  well
[ 23:38:35 ] < Azzer >  So people could ignore them if they wanted
[ 23:38:38 ] < Jorizz >  dissallow them? :p
[ 23:38:46 ] < Azzer >  I didn't make the section, *THEN* people started psoting - a lot of people already posted anyway :P
[ 23:38:52 ] < Jorizz >  I know
[ 23:38:54 ] < Azzer >  Lol, ban people from saying "Farewell I'm leaving"?
[ 23:38:59 ] < Jorizz >  not ban
[ 23:39:03 ] < Jorizz >  just remove the topics
[ 23:39:04 ] < Azzer >  Well prevent it altogether
[ 23:39:14 ] < Azzer >  Just seems a bit too controlling, like I'm trying to "Hide" any negativity
[ 23:39:20 ] < Azzer >  Eg if somebody falls out with me over a locking or a new feature
[ 23:39:27 ] < Azzer >  And so quits and puts a big goodbye thread
[ 23:39:29 ] < Jorizz >  well when it was first introduced
[ 23:39:29 ] < Azzer >  And I'm deleting it...
[ 23:39:32 ] < Azzer >  It looks really dodgy.
[ 23:39:34 ] < Jorizz >  a lot of people made use of it
[ 23:39:41 ] < Jorizz >  and it was like - the entire community leaving
[ 23:39:56 ] < Jorizz >  it gave a really negative spiral imo
[ 23:40:10 ] < Jorizz >  No Azzer, it's fairly reasonable to argue them as spam :p
[ 23:40:26 ] < Jorizz >  and back than they contained, best moments, thanks to specific people etc
[ 23:40:37 ] < Jorizz >  nowadays it's just 'lutz im out cya all in 2 weeks."
[ 23:40:44 ] < Azzer >  Hehe true true
[ 23:40:49 ] < Azzer >  95% of quit threads
[ 23:40:53 ] < Azzer >  Are by people still actively playing
[ 23:40:54 ] < Jorizz >  posted 5 or 6 times in a time span of a year
[ 23:41:18 ] < Jorizz >  well thats all from me :)
[ 23:41:23 ] < Azzer >  Ok let's open this one up again to everyone for a few mins then move on then, cheers Jorizz
12.2.0: Open Floor Discussion.
[ 23:41:28 ] < Mattheus >  while your idea may be worth persuing Dematto I'm not sure theres much point. People who are too lazy to even sign up an account will almost certainly be too lazy to ever make some contributions :P
[ 23:41:47 ] < Mattheus >  and agreed about the goodbye section. Its a joke
[ 23:41:48 ] < Souls >  i second the motion for stricter moderation :P
[ 23:41:57 ] < TheOmaga >  The forums seem really unfriendly, and need to be made more friendly
[ 23:41:58 ] < Iamsmart >  I third it
[ 23:41:59 ] < Dematto >  You'd be surprised Mattheus, sure at least 80% will never actively participate
[ 23:42:00 ] < Iamsmart >  Can you third it?
[ 23:42:04 ] < Souls >  no!
[ 23:42:05 ] < Podunk| >  well
[ 23:42:06 ] < Fubu >  i kind of aree with jorizz, in that the goodbye threads r ridiculous, and many of them are held by people still playing
[ 23:42:08 ] < Caranthir >  On one game where they had their "own" forums, they got hacked and lost just about everything in them. this is much easier, more secure, and really isnt too horrible
[ 23:42:12 ] < Iamsmart >  Then I recommend that
[ 23:42:14 ] < Tim >  I think "goodbye" threads should be reassigned to the Spam section. "Oh wait, I got pwned. I'm quitting as leader and retiring from Bushtarion". Then said player is back a couple weeks later.
[ 23:42:16 ] < Iamsmart >  No pots in the forum can be made
[ 23:42:19 ] < Iamsmart >  *posts
[ 23:42:25 ] < Souls >  as is though, the people who are flaming and trolling everyone are getting a "shut up" and a slap on the wrist, then back to their own merry way
[ 23:42:29 ] < Fubu >  bt at the smae time, i do think its nice wen a member of the community who has been around a while etc, and made friends, really does leave and wants to say goodbye
[ 23:42:32 ] < Jorizz >  Nah Mattheus = I got minesweeper on default on my PC - tough I would have never downloaded it, I get great fun acting like a nerd on late nights :P
[ 23:42:33 ] < Mattheus >  I swear between Harbinger, Nightmare and Cheese they have 75% of the goodbye section covered
[ 23:42:34 ] < Podunk| >  theres no telling if it will be a serious goodbye or not
[ 23:42:49 ] < Podunk| >  I thought about quitting last fall
[ 23:43:03 ] < Souls >  i think Tim's right with the spam section :P
[ 23:43:04 ] < Podunk| >  and was going to post and have it be serious and not come back :p
[ 23:43:07 ] < n0c0ntr0l >  i wont make a song and dance about it
[ 23:43:09 ] < n0c0ntr0l >  if i do
[ 23:43:15 ] < n0c0ntr0l >  not in the forums
[ 23:43:21 ] < n0c0ntr0l >  who reads them anyway?
[ 23:43:23 ] < Podunk| >  but Idk I dont check the spam forum
[ 23:43:24 ] < Mattheus >  I'm actually surprised people still post in the goodbye section
[ 23:43:30 ] < Tim >  I posted one thread in there and I did actually leave for like 6-7 rounds before I came back
[ 23:43:35 ] < Podunk| >  well I do if it ssomeone I played with
[ 23:43:39 ] < Tim >  I wouldn't do it again though
[ 23:43:46 ] < Podunk| >  its*
[ 23:43:48 ] < Jorizz >  same and when I came back I felt stupid for posting :P
[ 23:43:52 ] < Fubu >  tim...same,although i only left for like 1-2months :/
[ 23:43:54 ] < Azzer >  Hmm maybe it would be good to designate all goodbye threadds as spam
[ 23:43:56 ] < Fubu >  its too bloody addictive
[ 23:43:56 ] < Azzer >  If it's done to ALL of them
[ 23:44:00 ] < Jorizz >  an introduction forum is nice tough
[ 23:44:03 ] < Jorizz >  that should be present
[ 23:44:06 ] < Azzer >  Nobody can claim they have been personally "silenced" by me as some personal thing
[ 23:44:09 ] < Tim >  I think it's just a place to boost egos right now Azzer
[ 23:44:11 ] < Mattheus >  maybe just have 1 big goodbye thread where people can post in Azzer ? :P
[ 23:44:19 ] < Souls >  Jorizz, it's easier to just disappear and come back ;P
[ 23:44:20 ] < Podunk| >  though maybe not spam that gets deleted at round end?
[ 23:44:20 ] < Fubu >  i think the bush slogan should be "Bushtarion...more addictive than smack!!"
[ 23:44:20 ] < Azzer >  Tim - Aye, it is for *most* people
[ 23:44:20 ] < Darryl >  Agreed Tim
[ 23:44:23 ] < Sordes >  whats the last topics ?
[ 23:44:26 ] < Darryl >  A "how many people will miss me" contest :p
[ 23:44:28 ] < n0c0ntr0l >  FOrums is mean
[ 23:44:29 ] < Mattheus >  100% agreed Tim
[ 23:44:32 ] < Podunk| >  what if you want to look back and go where did insert name here
[ 23:44:34 ] < Azzer >  Ok next topic, and I'll list the topics to come
[ 23:44:38 ] < Podunk| >  go?

13.0.0: Helper Section.

[ 23:45:32 ] < Azzer >  Right, so, Helper Section next :)
[ 23:45:39 ] < Azzer >  Any comments, ideas, feedback, whatever, hands up please.
13.1.0: One-on-ones.
13.1.1: Darryl.
[ 23:46:27 ] < Azzer >  Ok Darryl, if you will! :)
[ 23:46:44 ] < Darryl >  Just a few small things. Firstly helpers should not be able to see what day other helpers last logged in
[ 23:46:55 ] < Azzer >  Aye, that should be just me only really.
[ 23:47:22 ] < Darryl >  Secondly, I like the "ticket system" that WoW has, it shows a rough estimation of when you'll get a reply. Can't be done as well with volunteers, of course, but a "your request is now being handled" or something would be nice
[ 23:47:36 ] < Azzer >  How do you mean, exactly?
[ 23:47:38 ] < Darryl >  Or a rough guess based on number of topics waiting/number of active helpers
[ 23:48:00 ] < Azzer >  Just let people know how many "unanswered topics" there are altogether, and how many total helpers have been active in the last hour or so? :P
[ 23:48:06 ] < Azzer >  Let people have a vague idea
[ 23:48:12 ] < Darryl >  So they have a vague idea of when they'll get help
[ 23:48:17 ] < Darryl >  And...
[ 23:48:18 ] < Azzer >  Can't do much else other than totally random numbers when a question will be answered
[ 23:48:24 ] < Darryl >  This one is even more vague I'm afraid
[ 23:48:36 ] < Darryl >  Some way of making them "public" after they've been waiting so long
[ 23:48:48 ] < Darryl >  I've come on in the morning a few times and seen topics that have waited overnight
[ 23:48:50 ] < Azzer >  Public as in - everyone not just helpers see them?
[ 23:49:13 ] < Darryl >  Maybe respond, even. Make it clear they're not official helpers. Ideally we'd have 24/7 coverage, but as a last resort
[ 23:49:49 ] < Azzer >  I don't know, I think that's a dangerous/dodgy one myself, especially after a short period (12 hours isn't long at all)
[ 23:50:02 ] < Darryl >  Oh, and a "Helpers can not send you defence" notice would be nice :P
[ 23:50:02 ] < Azzer >  I'd rather keep it strictly helpers only, and the questions only seen by helpers
[ 23:50:18 ] < Azzer >  Hehehe, I'm sure that is mentioned, but maybe something a bit clearer/bolder on the request help page :P
[ 23:50:31 ] < Darryl >  I think that's all I had to say, anyway
[ 23:50:42 ] < Azzer >  Ok I'll move on to Dematto then now, cheers Darryl.
13.1.2: Dematto.
[ 23:50:55 ] < Dematto >  first off, I think Helper Section should be restricted to Helpers only
[ 23:51:04 ] < Dematto >  making requests public is an aweful idea imo
[ 23:51:35 ] < Dematto >  And the 'estimated time of replyage' (darryl's #2 suggesting) is possible, but is it worth it?
[ 23:51:40 ] < Dematto >  90% is answered within 10minutes anywya
[ 23:51:54 ] < Dematto >  My biggest suggestion however is..
[ 23:51:55 ] < Azzer >  Probably not, they are answered quick and those that aren't, well, it'd be an unpredictable time to respond given to them anyway
[ 23:53:00 ] < Dematto >  some sort of database for answered requests, for people to search through or something. Quite often the same questions come by, some of which would probably get an 'automated' reply, perhaps just a c/p of a prvious answer given by a helper
[ 23:53:16 ] < Dematto >  not sure how workable this is
[ 23:53:34 ] < Dematto >  I just have a feeling that there's something that can be done to the 'standard' questions
[ 23:53:44 ] < Azzer >  That could be possible. Move help threads to an archive after X period, that archive is searchable by a few key words. I don't know. MIght be a bit cruddy to search throguh - people often put bad subjects down if I wanted just subjects to be searchable :P
[ 23:53:56 ] < Azzer >  I do like personal replies though
[ 23:53:57 ] < Dematto >  but then again, that would take away about half our requests and rendering our jobs more useless :p
[ 23:54:03 ] < Azzer >  A bit of personalisation/emotion different to each individual helper
[ 23:54:10 ] < Azzer >  People feel they've been helped, not cookie-cuttered.
[ 23:54:15 ] < Dematto >  that was my biggest problem too azzer, topics and requests are often random
[ 23:54:23 ] < Azzer >  Help worded based on how the question was worded, etc.
[ 23:54:25 ] < Dematto >  and CAPS or hlf engls \o/
[ 23:54:32 ] < Azzer >  Hehe, can't do a lot about that :P
[ 23:54:42 ] < Dematto >  anyway, think about it :)
13.2.0: Open Floor Discussion.
[ 23:57:16 ] < Jorizz >  First of all maybe create a F.A.Q or have it link to Wiki as well before putting down a request - And maybe for an archive, let helpers 'tag' the requests before moving them to archive?
[ 23:57:18 ] < Mattheus >  Dematto's idea was awesome imo, thats the only thought I really have on this topic
[ 23:57:22 ] < Darryl >  I'm always happy to hear suggestions. *right-clicks Sordes' name*
[ 23:57:51 ] < Darryl >  The tag idea sounds quite good
[ 23:58:26 ] < Azzer >  Ok well short topic let's move on fast for this one! :D

14.0.0: Purchases / Purchase System.

[ 23:58:39 ] < Azzer >  Next topic might be a short one, don't know...
[ 23:58:40 ] < Azzer >  Purchases/Purchase System
[ 23:58:58 ] < Azzer >  I'm personally happy with it... game cash purchases, blueprints, ID's, whatever, the whole thing, I kinda like it, and business wise it's going well :)
[ 23:59:19 ] < Azzer >  Bushtarion is very sustainable, I'm happy with it all, and there's never been a need to have any adverts on my site to pay for anything, or sponsors, or anything like that.
[ 23:59:25 ] < Azzer >  But, let's see what people have to say on it.
14.1.0: One-on-ones.
14.1.1: Tim.
[ 00:00:31 ] < Azzer >  Tim's always good with purchases
[ 00:00:34 ] < Azzer >  So I'll start with you ^^ :)
[ 00:00:38 ] < Tim >  :)
[ 00:00:39 ] < Tim >  Ok
[ 00:00:52 ] < Tim >  One thing specifically I had noticed
[ 00:00:59 ] < Tim >  With all the extra Private World options
[ 00:01:13 ] < Tim >  The create PW page is too long and could probably be re-arranged to look a bit nicer
[ 00:01:17 ] < Tim >  Secondly
[ 00:02:21 ] < Tim >  I think someone (me?) should go through the entire purchase system to look for improvements to the "sales text" used in each page, as well as to look for more opportunities for upselling on specific pages and maybe changing things on other pages (I hear the game cash purchase bit on Supply Depot has caused a bit of confusion)
[ 00:02:24 ] < Tim >  And lastly,
[ 00:02:37 ] < Azzer >  You've always been good at that Tim, I'd welcome you to do that if you were willing to ^^
[ 00:02:54 ] < Tim >  Game Cash still has the "bug/feature" that if you buy 5BC and then another 5BC you don't get the max amount as if you had spent 10bc in one go
[ 00:03:05 ] < Azzer >  Are you positive about that?
[ 00:03:13 ] < Azzer >  I am really certain I fixed that some time ago
[ 00:03:25 ] < Azzer >  It bases it on credits already spent for that week
[ 00:03:39 ] < Tim >  Hmm there was a topic on Helper Section about that in the last week
[ 00:03:42 ] < Azzer >  In fact yeah it definitely works now
[ 00:03:46 ] < Azzer >  Hmmm
[ 00:03:54 ] < Tim >  Maybe I just misread it
[ 00:03:57 ] < Azzer >  I'll give it another check, but I was buying game cash on my ID last round (as everyone knows)
[ 00:04:08 ] < Azzer >  And a few times I did split my purchase as I didn't want my valuation shooting up too much as I devved
[ 00:04:19 ] < Azzer >  And I am certain I remember thinking "So glad I fixed that split issue"
[ 00:04:21 ] < Tim >  Ahh, fair enough. I'm probably wrong on that bit then
[ 00:04:39 ] < Azzer >  Ok anyway as for the text/layout - as you once did some time ago, I'd love you to go through it and give me feedback on the texts etc.
[ 00:04:40 ] < Tim >  Don't mind having a look at the other stuff at some point during the week, will let you know if I see anything which could be changed/improved
[ 00:04:46 ] < Azzer >  Yeah, thanks muchly, Ok cheers Tim!
14.1.2: Jorizz.
[ 00:05:09 ] < Azzer >  Jorizz :)
[ 00:05:13 ] < Jorizz >  Yeah
[ 00:05:20 ] < Jorizz >  Well for some odd reason - the dutch
[ 00:05:24 ] < Jorizz >  With the phone payment
[ 00:05:38 ] < Jorizz >  have to pay enourmus prizes
[ 00:06:07 ] < Jorizz >  I pay for a credit: 1.30(?) + additional text costs and than another 1.30 for the confirmation text
[ 00:06:15 ] < Azzer >  I'm afraid I have absolutely no control or say on that whatsoever. Phone payments are a really complicated level, and go down to government level in the countries involved, setting pcies for premium SMS's, then individual phone operators deciding how much to charge for premiums
[ 00:06:34 ] < Azzer >  And then the sales provider (SMS Kambi for Bush) taking their cut, but they do things as close as possible for each country same price
[ 00:06:52 ] < Jorizz >  Hmmm yeah I figured so - because the dutch are the only one that have to send a confirmation
[ 00:06:53 ] < Azzer >  So if you're being charged more than most for a premium SMS
[ 00:07:06 ] < Azzer >  It's entirely your phone provider, or your government/country as a whole making a decision on your SMS payments
[ 00:07:12 ] < Azzer >  Sorry I can't helpw ith that at all :(
[ 00:07:13 ] < Jorizz >  I would like to salute the system tough, it has helped me a lot.
[ 00:07:24 ] < Azzer >  Hehe good! It's certainly added to Bush income at the same time too
[ 00:07:32 ] < Azzer >  Win win for us all, even if the creds are more expensive via SMS for end users
[ 00:07:39 ] < Jorizz >  yeah
[ 00:07:44 ] < Jorizz >  Well thats all I had to add
[ 00:07:44 ] < Azzer >  (I get a bit less per cred via SMS in my pocket, but it is income I likely wouldn't have ever got otherwise)
[ 00:07:53 ] < Azzer >  Ok thanks Jorizz, sorry I can't help with your own SMS costs!
[ 00:08:00 ] < Jorizz >  nah its no problem
14.1.3: n0contr0l.
[ 00:09:01 ] < Azzer >  Meep :)
[ 00:09:05 ] < n0c0ntr0l >  I was thinking, because there is not as much incentive for those at the top to buy gamecash, seeing as spending �£50 for one days income is not really worthwhile, could there be some sort of multiplier system based of the amount of land you have. There would be a base amount of money set, then a multiplier with a upper limit as well, tis way the cash would be useful also for the people are...
[ 00:09:07 ] < n0c0ntr0l >  ...the top,
[ 00:09:33 ] < Azzer >  Noooo, I think once at the top, if your money got more than anyone elses...
[ 00:09:40 ] < Azzer >  That would cause a LOT of upset in the general playerbase.
[ 00:09:52 ] < Azzer >  I'd get a bit more money from more purchases, sure... but at the expense of players happiness in the mid-ranks.
[ 00:09:57 ] < Azzer >  An expense I wouldn't like to spare.
[ 00:10:09 ] < n0c0ntr0l >  just thinking, cause I like contributiong to the game, but if i have liek 7k land plus
[ 00:10:17 ] < n0c0ntr0l >  gamecash really looses its appeal to me
[ 00:10:26 ] < Azzer >  Hehe I'd love you to want to contribute more, I really would! :P But it'd just upset others too much in mid rankings.
[ 00:10:47 ] < n0c0ntr0l >  k, other than that
[ 00:10:50 ] < Azzer >  It's one of those decisions that pocket wise pains me to make, but playerbase wise, there's no choice in the matter!
[ 00:10:51 ] < n0c0ntr0l >  the system is really good
[ 00:11:08 ] < Azzer >  Ok cool, well sorry I can't help with that one either, and thanks :D
[ 00:11:14 ] < Azzer >  I'll open this to all just for a few mins now ^^
14.2.0: Open Floor Discussion.
[ 00:11:25 ] < Darryl >  It'd be nice if there was a way to find out how many credits buy how many funds, and how many credits one would need to buy so many funds, a bit like xe.com :p I know there's a confirmation screen showing you exactly how much you'll get, before you actually buy them, but 1) who wants to click the button to buy them if they're not sure there's a confirm screen and 2) It'd be nice to check without needing to buy credits first.
[ 00:11:33 ] < Jorizz >  And what about restarts n0c0ntr0l - I think a large part of the purchases is by that. Furthermore I would like to point out that I've excessivly tested the text payment and did not find a single bug or flaw.
[ 00:11:51 ] < Mattheus >  Darryl's idea is awesome, its often bothered me that
[ 00:11:55 ] < Jorizz >  indeed
[ 00:12:00 ] < n0c0ntr0l >  jorizz that why there is a base amont
[ 00:12:01 ] < Tim >  Same here Jorizz (it's great having a company-funded mobile phone with which to get my bush credits :P)
[ 00:12:01 ] < Azzer >  Darryl - I could certainly just give you the details to put on to a Wiki (manual) page? :P
[ 00:12:09 ] < Darryl >  Sure
[ 00:12:18 ] < Azzer >  It's a set amount per credit spent, rising exponentially, simple formula
[ 00:12:24 ] < Darryl >  they're currently in the manual, but they're way out now :P
[ 00:12:29 ] < tom >  just gotta say thnx for changing blueprints to £5 its a big difference and so much better to pay :-) thankies
[ 00:12:31 ] < Azzer >  Hehe ah right
[ 00:12:39 ] < Souls >  lmao Tim
[ 00:12:41 ] < Azzer >  Well be sure to remind me again on that one I'll get the figures to you
[ 00:12:47 ] < Darryl >  Will do
[ 00:12:49 ] < Koeniej >  isn't it possible to buy 5 creds with the texts
[ 00:12:51 ] < n0c0ntr0l >  �£5 blueprint is good
[ 00:12:51 ] < Twigley >  since when where blueprints not £5 tom?
[ 00:12:54 ] < Koeniej >  and make them more expensice
[ 00:13:00 ] < tom >  twigley they used to be £10 right
[ 00:13:01 ] < Jorizz >  Twigley - they used to be 10
[ 00:13:02 ] < Darryl >  About 10 rounds ago Twigley
[ 00:13:07 ] < Monk|Zzz >  tom .. one of Azzers best changes
[ 00:13:07 ] < Kelsey >  lol
[ 00:13:08 ] < Azzer >  yeah they were a tenner.
[ 00:13:08 ] < Chewie >  yh noob :P
[ 00:13:12 ] < Koeniej >  i hate sending 10 txts for 5 creds!
[ 00:13:12 ] < Kelsey >  i can remember then being £10
[ 00:13:14 ] < Twigley >  Fo real?
[ 00:13:15 ] < Kelsey >  back in t'ode day
[ 00:13:16 ] < Twigley >  :S
[ 00:13:16 ] < tom >  oh sorry, i didn't realise it was 10 rounds, i quit inbetween
[ 00:13:25 ] < n0c0ntr0l >  i remember
[ 00:13:28 ] < Monk|Zzz >  I used to pay the £10, but i do an alliance member at the same time
[ 00:13:29 ] < n0c0ntr0l >  cause back then
[ 00:13:30 ] < n0c0ntr0l >  i was 13
[ 00:13:32 ] < n0c0ntr0l >  and broke
[ 00:13:34 ] < Twigley >  I used to ust use hippy and yobs and pwn you all
[ 00:13:35 ] < Twigley >  I forgot
[ 00:13:36 ] < Twigley >  :<
[ 00:13:41 ] < Azzer >  Hehehe
[ 00:13:45 ] < tom >  yeah same, for young people £10 is like :O nty for now
[ 00:13:47 ] < Jorizz >  right next topic :P

15.0.0: User Profile / Points.

[ 00:14:03 ] < Azzer >  Next topic is;
[ 00:14:04 ] < Azzer >  User Profile / Points
[ 00:14:17 ] < Azzer >  The little profile awards, the profiles in general (pics, fields, search)... and profile award points.
[ 00:14:26 ] < Azzer >  I'm sure people have questions about some awards burning in their minds
[ 00:14:33 ] < Azzer >  But I won't reveal any *SECRETS*... or I don't intend to... ;)
[ 00:14:43 ] < Azzer >  Anyway... hands up those that want to talk about it :P
15.1.0: One-on-ones.
15.1.1: Mattheus.
[ 00:15:57 ] < Azzer >  Mattheus :)
[ 00:15:59 ] < Mattheus >  well I don't have too much to say really, I think this syatem is awesome
[ 00:16:01 ] < Mattheus >  however
[ 00:16:08 ] < Mattheus >  I think profile awards at the moment only work for IDs that were there at round end?
[ 00:16:13 ] < Mattheus >  Its a little annoying to lose out on a fair few points because you deleted for some reason
[ 00:16:20 ] < Mattheus >  especially the punit ones
[ 00:16:32 ] < Azzer >  Yeah they do... the P-Unit ones it must, as you say
[ 00:16:34 ] < Mattheus >  I feel like im being a little silly as it is only a bit of fun, but I want my points damnit :P
[ 00:16:39 ] < Azzer >  Rofl :P
[ 00:16:48 ] < Mattheus >  and I delete fairly often
[ 00:16:55 ] < Azzer >  A lot of the awards make sense to be on just one ID
[ 00:16:56 ] < Mattheus >  I have a short attention span
[ 00:17:03 ] < Azzer >  Especially technical wise, behind the scenes
[ 00:17:17 ] < Azzer >  But I'll see what I can do about transferring some across to account control level so they stay for any ID's that round ;)
[ 00:17:19 ] < Azzer >  No promises though :P
[ 00:17:24 ] < Mattheus >  thats all I had to say realy, but otherwise they're great
[ 00:17:29 ] < Azzer >  Righto, cool, glad you like them! :D
[ 00:17:37 ] < Azzer >  My brother draw all the graphics for them btw, bless 'im ;)
[ 00:17:44 ] < Azzer >  In MS Paint :D (really, MS Paint!)
[ 00:17:50 ] < Azzer >  Not that it doesn't show... anyway
15.1.2: Souls.
[ 00:18:03 ] < Azzer >  Souls!
[ 00:18:07 ] < Souls >  Azzer!
[ 00:18:25 ] < Souls >  my only suggestion/want is that the leaders in profile points get their due announcements at round starts
[ 00:18:35 ] < Souls >  i remember you doing that a few times, but it gives more incentive to play for fun, imo ;P
[ 00:18:49 ] < Azzer >  Ahhh, no you are totally right
[ 00:18:58 ] < Azzer >  I shouldn't have stopped doing that
[ 00:19:19 ] < Azzer >  I'll try my best, and strongly encourage players to slap my wrists/nudge me with a reminder at round start (during the week break) if I neglect stuff like that!
[ 00:19:27 ] < Souls >  :P ta
[ 00:19:32 ] < Souls >  that's all i really had ;)
[ 00:19:34 ] < Azzer >  I do have genuine memory problems I won't go in to :P But reminders where I'm concerned are ideal ;)
[ 00:19:40 ] < Azzer >  Ok thanks Souls!
[ 00:19:44 ] < Souls >  excellent :D
15.1.3: Emporer.
[ 00:19:54 ] < Azzer >  Emp! :)
[ 00:19:57 ] < Emperor >  hey
[ 00:20:16 ] < Emperor >  i dont see why how to get the profile awards have to be private
[ 00:20:25 ] < Emperor >  purely opinion but id prefer them to be public
[ 00:20:31 ] < Emperor >  so ppl have something for aim for
[ 00:20:34 ] < Azzer >  Fun :) I don't want people having a list of exactly what to do when to do it and chasing them all in one fell swoop.
[ 00:20:51 ] < Azzer >  Part of the fun of the awards is figuring out the clues spread throughout the game (and in the awards themselves), and trying to get them
[ 00:21:01 ] < Azzer >  It's like... an RPG game with quests in.
[ 00:21:08 ] < Azzer >  At the start quests are fun - you read the story, figure out how to do it.
[ 00:21:16 ] < Azzer >  Later on a "quest list" is released with details of exactly what to do
[ 00:21:25 ] < Azzer >  And you just run through it for the exp gains of the quest, not for the quest itself.
[ 00:21:33 ] < Emperor >  i see
[ 00:21:58 ] < Emperor >  yea, that was it pretty much :)
[ 00:22:00 ] < Azzer >  I like a few riddles and puzzles in the game, mind games, easter-eggy type things... and I like how the profile awards are fairly "puzzleish" and "obscure" :P
[ 00:22:08 ] < Azzer >  Ok well thanks Emp, hope that answers your Q! :D
15.1.4: Jorizz.
[ 00:22:34 ] < Jorizz >  hi :)
[ 00:22:51 ] < Jorizz >  The only change I would like to be made to the profile awards is making them 'live'
[ 00:23:02 ] < Jorizz >  I'm not sure if thats possible technical wise
[ 00:23:20 ] < Jorizz >  But it should be an all round thing - so you can really experience the 'quests' as you are playing
[ 00:23:32 ] < Jorizz >  not just 'lulz before havoc I haz 140 points'
[ 00:23:35 ] < Azzer >  No for the *vast* majority
[ 00:23:38 ] < Azzer >  It has to be a round end thing
[ 00:23:45 ] < Azzer >  So for ease of use and to make the code modular
[ 00:23:51 ] < Azzer >  They are all on round end
[ 00:24:11 ] < Jorizz >  hmm
[ 00:24:21 ] < Azzer >  Plus I think it's good - you KNOW at round end any awrads you or others gathered appear
[ 00:24:28 ] < Azzer >  So that's when you do your roundly hunt for new awards appearing etc.
[ 00:24:35 ] < Jorizz >  well seems im getting less than I hoped for :P
[ 00:24:42 ] < Azzer >  If they just appeared all the time any time on people, people might neglect them a bit - rather than that roundly "rush"
[ 00:25:19 ] < Azzer >  Ok well one more person then I'll open this one up, can't help you again there Jorizz ;)
[ 00:25:24 ] < Jorizz >  meh :(
15.1.5: Silence.
[ 00:27:43 ] < Silence >  Right simple Q
[ 00:28:13 ] < Silence >  If I was to delete my ID out of boredom of my route and continue to play PS with no pNAPs would I still recieve the purist award?
[ 00:28:45 ] < Azzer >  That's one I can't answer, but I'd be inclined to point to my past comments about ID's that get deleted, losing their awards :P
[ 00:28:56 ] < Silence >  Ok ty
[ 00:28:57 ] < Silence >  Shame
[ 00:29:01 ] < Azzer >  Right I'll open this one up ^^
[ 00:29:02 ] < Silence >  Thanks!
15.2.0: Open Floor Discussion.
[ 00:29:08 ] < TheOmaga >  about the points i've been leader of allys countless times but only got points for once is this because i leave at the end to come and save your sorry arse?
[ 00:29:23 ] < Caranthir >  you only get points once
[ 00:29:28 ] < Azzer >  Award points only get granted once per award, but the awards page does record how many times you earned a reward just for "show-offs" sake.
[ 00:29:30 ] < Caranthir >  no matter how many times you get the award
[ 00:29:42 ] < Azzer >  To stop people "farming" easier awards or anything
[ 00:29:44 ] < Souls >  i'm pretty sure it stops recording once havoc begins, too
[ 00:29:56 ] < Azzer >  Havoc awards exist, but they are seperate to normal awards.
[ 00:30:02 ] < Souls >  ah :P
[ 00:30:03 ] < TheOmaga >  i'm sure it only recorded once though, so i can't show off
[ 00:30:09 ] < Jorizz >  like the dictator killer
[ 00:30:18 ] < Jorizz >  :D
[ 00:30:21 ] < Twigley >   i live near a primary school  so i could hear 8year lds cheering  and fucking  then i went and sat in a bush  and masterbated
[ 00:30:26 ] < tom >  ok just to confirm who actually 'awards' the awards?
[ 00:30:28 ] < Twigley >  Ooops
[ 00:30:31 ] < Kelsey >  Rofl
[ 00:30:35 ] < Azzer >  TheOmaga - If you hover over an award on anyone's profile, you can see how many times they earned it, the first time they got it and the most recent time they got it.
[ 00:30:40 ] < Azzer >  Tom - the ticker.
[ 00:30:45 ] < Azzer >  It's all automated.
[ 00:30:53 ] < Jorizz >  Kelsey - what the HELL?
[ 00:30:54 ] < tom >  oh ok good, i was confused
[ 00:30:56 ] < Azzer >  No part of the awards system is based on me manually giving them/deciding who gets them.
[ 00:31:01 ] < Kelsey >  hahahaha
[ 00:31:24 ] < TheOmaga >  yeah i've just check and i was right says i've been awarded it once never mind anyway i was just intrested
[ 00:31:26 ] < Azzer >  Twigley - perhaps not appropriate for this room at all, least of all now? :)
[ 00:31:36 ] < Twigley >  <+Twigley> Ooops
[ 00:31:38 ] < Twigley >  ;P
[ 00:31:46 ] * < Azzer >  pokes Twigley for more than an ooops.
[ 00:31:48 ] < Ahead >  accidental c&p twigs? :P
[ 00:31:51 ] < Twigley >  Yarr
[ 00:32:01 ] < Twigley >  I know you want me Azzer but not here sheesh
[ 00:32:04 ] < Souls >  who remembers how to open the EQ for WMP? :P
[ 00:32:12 ] < Azzer >  Ok well next topic!

16.0.0: Marketing/Advertising/Promotion.

[ 00:32:22 ] < Azzer >  Marketing/Advertising/Promotion
[ 00:32:26 ] < Azzer >  I'll talk briefly a bit first
[ 00:32:33 ] * < Azzer >  finds a URL link first.
[ 00:33:04 ] < Azzer >  Right
[ 00:33:13 ] < Azzer >  Google AdWords. These are expensive but I get some success with them.
[ 00:33:18 ] < Azzer >  http://www.game-advertising-online.com/
[ 00:33:28 ] < Azzer >  That is a site I have never used but sounds perfect and they do a lot of advertising on a lot of web game sites
[ 00:33:39 ] < Azzer >  But I need some new banner ads designing/making for me, of a few different sizes.
[ 00:33:49 ] < Azzer >  perhaps hand in hand with a similar themed image for the new front page idea
[ 00:34:31 ] < Azzer >  I can also do "custom campaigns" on game directory websites for web games, like mpogd.com - two of their "common advert campaigns" come originally from custom ideas/requests for me - they have been good with me doing something totally custom
[ 00:34:45 ] < Azzer >  (eg rather than standard banner ad positions), but mpogd are pretty expensive
[ 00:35:08 ] < Azzer >  I have some money to invest in avertising, but this should not be "wasted" before a new front page, and anything else (tutorial/manual) is done to help people I get to come to the site, to stay in the site.
[ 00:35:30 ] < Azzer >  I welcome any ideas and comments on these issues, but also any new ideas people have for genuine, targetted marketing (people that play web games :P)
[ 00:35:41 ] < Azzer >  Also any ideas on how to encourage word of mouth spread, promotion by players etc.
[ 00:35:48 ] < Azzer >  So anyone with anything to say, hands up please :)
16.1.0: One-on-ones.
16.1.1: Tim.
[ 00:37:30 ] < Azzer >  Selective picking here like with purchases, I'd like TIm's opinion first on this subject :P
[ 00:38:24 ] < Tim >  Hehe... well Advertising isn't *really* my strongest point. On the topic of advertising, all I would say is once *everything* is read, set up a system to track where players are coming from (which sites etc), how long they play for and how much they spend - will help you determine the quality of customer from different sources.
[ 00:38:38 ] < Tim >  My main point however is going back to the Lite/Mobile version we talked about earlier.
[ 00:39:03 ] < Tim >  Mobile gaming is a big thing. Millions of pounds is spent on it yearly in the UK alone
[ 00:39:05 ] < Azzer >  Adverts targeted/promoting specifically a "mobile friendly game" (when done)?
[ 00:39:37 ] < Tim >  Yes - if you do one specifically according to the Apple guidelines, you can get it listed on a special iPhone Web Apps section which all iPhone users can see
[ 00:39:47 ] < Azzer >  Ah that's good to know
[ 00:39:54 ] < Tim >  And you might not know that these types of users use their devices 90% more than other mobile users
[ 00:39:58 ] < Tim >  So a large potential base there
[ 00:40:02 ] < Azzer >  I would have had no idea about that
[ 00:40:11 ] < Tim >  It's a huge market
[ 00:40:13 ] < Azzer >  Definitely need to talk to you specifically about Apple guidelines for it then
[ 00:40:45 ] < Tim >  That's really all I can say on the matter - get a Lite version and a iPhone-friendly version implemented and market it as a mobile game too
[ 00:40:51 ] < Azzer >  Right will keep that in mind, once that's done, a seperate advertising campaign really promoting the "mobile friendly version" and what not
[ 00:41:00 ] < Azzer >  Ok thanks Tim :)
16.1.2: Twigley.
[ 00:41:15 ] < Azzer >  Twigley :)
[ 00:41:21 ] < Twigley >  @ Banners
[ 00:41:45 ] < Twigley >  Just wanted to input that i know of a few people in the whole business thing (In hudders actually)
[ 00:42:05 ] < Azzer >  What that make/design banner ads? Or that sell ad-space to networks?
[ 00:42:10 ] < Twigley >  Ad space
[ 00:42:26 ] < Azzer >  Ok well we need to have a chat about that in private after then
[ 00:42:34 ] < Twigley >  And i just wanted to point at Jorizz for Banners
[ 00:42:37 ] < Twigley >  :D
[ 00:42:41 ] < Azzer >  Yeah I have my eye on his brain.
[ 00:42:49 ] * < Twigley >  strokes Jorizz
[ 00:42:54 ] < Twigley >  Aight pm some other day then
[ 00:43:00 ] < Azzer >  Ok cheers Twigs, we'll talk about whatever you know about any ad sell companies, especially if they're local to me
16.1.3: Sordes.
[ 00:43:15 ] < Azzer >  Swords :)
[ 00:43:32 ] < Sordes >  Well to start it off
[ 00:43:50 ] < Sordes >  I represent the type of player you want back. I read the forums alot, i cant seem to get away but i dont play seriusly at all anymore
[ 00:44:12 ] < Sordes >  Alot of us left when you changed towards Age 4, but your now making atlest discussing changes moving back to age 3 "likings" which will attract some older back
[ 00:44:24 ] < Azzer >  Aye
[ 00:44:30 ] < Sordes >  But i think if you would truely go towards new routes, it would mean the game would be interesting again to alot of the players thats already left the game
[ 00:44:36 ] < Sordes >  Everyone knows leaving bush is hard
[ 00:44:39 ] < Sordes >  its a very addictive game
[ 00:44:49 ] < Sordes >  But once you feel youve mastered most of it many find it easier
[ 00:44:57 ] < Sordes >  A new content in itself is big advertisement for bush
[ 00:45:07 ] < Azzer >  That might keep current players interested
[ 00:45:15 ] < Azzer >  But I'm more aiming this point about getting whole new players involved
[ 00:45:29 ] < Sordes >  True but in a bunisiss sense the more customers the better
[ 00:45:29 ] < Azzer >  And remember changes don't always keep current players interested - they sometimes also make old players annoyed :P
[ 00:45:37 ] < Sordes >  Well its not hard to test waters
[ 00:45:45 ] < Sordes >  ask community to present visable route related idea's
[ 00:45:55 ] < Azzer >  Hmm well I think this goes back to the route discussion in particular now
[ 00:45:56 ] < Sordes >  if any comes that are of intrest you can go in personaly and help devolop it further
[ 00:46:06 ] < Azzer >  So I'd like to sway this more towards advertising/marketing/promotion stuff ^^
[ 00:46:10 ] < Sordes >  It is advertisement related. YOu need to try to get old as much as new players into the game
[ 00:46:25 ] < Sordes >  And alot of us you currently make no money on but we stil linger
[ 00:46:32 ] < Azzer >  It's not advertising, it's just changing the game and letting players already here go "ooh, new things" ;)
[ 00:46:38 ] < Sordes >  Just wanted to remind on that.
[ 00:46:40 ] < Azzer >  And all new things have been covered in all the other topics :P
[ 00:46:44 ] < Azzer >  But yes, I appreciate that
[ 00:46:47 ] < Sordes >  Well keeping current market is as important as getting new
[ 00:46:50 ] < Azzer >  And I do know - shiny new things does keep people coming back
[ 00:46:59 ] < Azzer >  Part of why this entire discussion has taken place :D
[ 00:47:06 ] < Sordes >  Aye and we have enjoyed it so far
[ 00:47:11 ] < Azzer >  Ok will move on to another speaker now, thanks Sordes ^^
[ 00:47:13 ] < Sordes >  I only got one last thing for tonight
[ 00:47:18 ] < Sordes >  and it will be later
[ 00:47:20 ] < Azzer >  Hehe :)
16.1.4: Drifter.
[ 00:48:45 ] < Azzer >  Drifter? :)
[ 00:49:09 ] < Drifter >  hah, sweet
[ 00:49:13 ] < Drifter >  right, well ive not got a ton to say, dont play yet even to be fair
[ 00:49:14 ] < Drifter >  BUT
[ 00:49:24 ] < Drifter >  theres this site i frequent.....
[ 00:49:35 ] < Drifter >  www.onemorelevel.com <- flash games
[ 00:50:01 ] < Drifter >  before the game loads they have some sort of advert thing that comes up, i suppose on their side it keeps their site up?
[ 00:50:16 ] < Drifter >  you could poke around in a game and catch the name of the advert guys
[ 00:50:22 ] < Azzer >  Hmm I've always been curious about this point:
[ 00:50:41 ] < Drifter >  and get bushtarion to show up in the flash games ppl play
[ 00:50:42 ] < Drifter >  :D
[ 00:50:43 ] < Azzer >  Is advertising a browser based strategy game, on a site full of small mini-games (java/flash)... correct marketing, or hit & miss marketing?
[ 00:50:48 ] < Drifter >  all thats on there ive seen is other flash sites :S
[ 00:50:56 ] < Drifter >  no big tick based things like bush
[ 00:50:57 ] < Azzer >  In other words, are most people on these "flash sites" just looking for quick 5 min games
[ 00:50:58 ] < Azzer >  Or...
[ 00:51:22 ] < Azzer >  I tmight be inappropriate targetting to the majority that browse those sorts of sites you see
[ 00:51:28 ] < Drifter >  good point......
[ 00:51:48 ] < Drifter >  i would advise you to ask multiple opinions... however...
[ 00:51:52 ] < Azzer >  I'm sure somebody I know coded Onemorelevel... but that's digressing :P
[ 00:52:13 ] < Drifter >  i will at least add that its also very possibly a good thing
[ 00:52:18 ] < Drifter >  since you know at least that these people are inclined to games
[ 00:52:19 ] < Azzer >  yes, and do a bit more rsearch... but what I looked in to abotu 18 months ago on it
[ 00:52:23 ] < Azzer >  *most* (not all, but most) on flash based game sites like that
[ 00:52:32 ] < Azzer >  Are only ever interested in quick 5-20 minute blasts of "live" games
[ 00:52:54 ] < Azzer >  Not a commitment to a web game long term, least of all a customer that will actually be willing to give me their money :P
[ 00:52:59 ] < Drifter >  i see.... thats possible.
[ 00:53:01 ] < Drifter >  HOWEVER
[ 00:53:08 ] < Azzer >  (free customers are all well and good, but advertising costs, and if the gamers coming aren't people that pay for games either...!)
[ 00:53:28 ] < Drifter >  perhaps theres a nice sub-niche? personally i can say im into strategy. they have a whole strategy section and lots of tower defence type games in there
[ 00:53:45 ] < Drifter >  thats not a 5 minute thing!
[ 00:53:46 ] < Azzer >  Yeah possibly, would depend how targetted their own advertising network is
[ 00:53:54 ] < Azzer >  Tell me about it ;)
[ 00:54:07 ] < Drifter >  and alothugh its not an x month thing (dunno how long bush runs) .... you have a better chance with that then the site as a whole, if you can pick and choose
[ 00:54:07 ] < Azzer >  Ok well thanks for the input, I appreciate it. Going to move on to the next speaker now ^^
[ 00:54:30 ] < Drifter >  kk
[ 00:54:31 ] < Drifter >  thanks Azzer
[ 00:54:31 ] < Drifter >  :)
(Jorizz))
[ 00:54:38 ] < Jorizz >  heya
[ 00:54:39 ] < Azzer >  Yo
[ 00:54:44 ] < Jorizz >  well first of all
[ 00:54:56 ] < Jorizz >  I'm completly willing to be a part of all the design
[ 00:55:01 ] < Jorizz >  but thats stuff we've already discussed
[ 00:55:08 ] < Jorizz >  I would like to point out
[ 00:55:14 ] < Jorizz >  that we have to switch voting sites
[ 00:55:16 ] < Azzer >  hehe great, thanks :)
[ 00:55:31 ] < Jorizz >  we've drained all possible people from those to we've been on for ages now
[ 00:55:37 ] < Jorizz >  I think it's good to be on several
[ 00:55:45 ] < Azzer >  I think I need to find some entirely new voting sites, ones that aren't corrupt (topwebgames), aren't unreliable (directoryofgames), and allow more than once per 13 months (mpogd)
[ 00:55:58 ] < Jorizz >  it's free and it targets exactly the market we're looking for
[ 00:56:10 ] < Jorizz >  also advertisement on those would hit clear on the spot
[ 00:56:40 ] < Jorizz >  Furthermore for advertisement, I'd suggest indeed taking a company as the site you suggested
[ 00:57:00 ] < Jorizz >  I would leave that to professionals to make it most effective
[ 00:57:08 ] < Jorizz >  Furthermore
[ 00:57:09 ] < Azzer >  AYe, one that specialises in advertising on game sites, heavily marketed, professionals in the field
[ 00:57:24 ] < Jorizz >  give bigger bonuses for refearals
[ 00:57:30 ] < Jorizz >  to get people to play the game
[ 00:58:05 ] < Jorizz >  Its plain and simple but does give a good initiative to get friends playing
[ 00:58:31 ] < Jorizz >  and with the current account setup it wouldnt as abusable as it used to be back when refearals(for credits iirc) were introduced
[ 00:58:40 ] < Azzer >  I want some whole new ideas on encouraging referals/player promotion like that actually
[ 00:58:55 ] < Azzer >  Yous till get bonus creds on referal purchases
[ 00:59:00 ] < Jorizz >  yes
[ 00:59:07 ] < Jorizz >  but they are hardly used aren't they
[ 00:59:18 ] < Jorizz >  because you want your entire playerbase to get others to play
[ 00:59:23 ] < Jorizz >  not just those that buy credits
[ 00:59:27 ] < Azzer >  Aye hardly used at all, it's quite well hidden and obscure too
[ 01:00:02 ] < Jorizz >  I'd be thinking something in the sense of a double on your vote multiplier after getting a few people in
[ 01:00:07 ] < Jorizz >  a profile award
[ 01:00:16 ] < Azzer >  Could work
[ 01:00:23 ] < Jorizz >  along those lines
[ 01:00:24 ] < Azzer >  Somebody you refer signs up, reaches 100 land, you get a bonus
[ 01:00:39 ] < Jorizz >  preferbaly something which would really help yourself in-game as well
[ 01:00:45 ] < Azzer >  (or have played for a bit and reached some limit to prove they did at least try playing a bit, and to encourage you to make people try playing actively a bit)
[ 01:00:54 ] < Jorizz >  yeah
[ 01:01:03 ] < Jorizz >  it all has to be worked out in detail ofcourse
[ 01:01:16 ] < Jorizz >  but there are plenty of ways reducing abuse to a minimum
[ 01:01:19 ] < Azzer >  Aye, another one for forum to get general feedback, or now perhaps
[ 01:01:29 ] < Azzer >  Ok let's open this to everyone now, then pretty much fnal topic after :)
[ 01:01:36 ] < Azzer >  Thanks Jorizz, will be in touch about images/adverts this week
[ 01:01:41 ] < Jorizz >  Sure :)
16.2.0: Open Floor Discussion.
[ 01:01:49 ] < Dems|Sleep >  To comment on Drifter's suggestion: I visit onemorelevel.com quite regularly and I personally don't even look at the adds, I want to play a quick game to kill time, not sign up to a whole new game that takes a while to learn.
[ 01:01:51 ] < Emperor >  i dont think its good to be on several voting sites - bush players wont like to spend too much time voting and may just open the link up and close it without voting if they have to do too many. (i did it on a different game where they had 6 =/). Also giving 1/2/3 bc to someone who refers a friend would be good as it would mean they were more likely to get the punit as it would only cost them 3 more bc. profile award for dedicated voters
[ 01:02:02 ] < Mattheus >  just one thing Azzer, and maybe we're entering dubious waters but would you consider a mass email to all email addresses in your databases letting them know about any big new developments. A lot of accounts exist for people who haven't played in a long time...may remind them we exist :P
[ 01:02:10 ] < Drifter >  ouch, zing :p
[ 01:02:14 ] < Azzer >  Dems - a lot of gamers don't look at ads. But also a lot do. I've used banner ads in the past and I've gotten pretty good success rates from it.
[ 01:02:15 ] < Drifter >  <3 Dems|Sleep
[ 01:02:27 ] < Dems|Sleep >  <3
[ 01:02:28 ] < Dems|Sleep >  sleep
[ 01:02:29 ] < Bobbin >  [ 01:02:02 ] < Mattheus > just one thing Azzer, and maybe we're entering dubious waters but would you consider a mass email to all email addresses in your databases letting them know about any big new developments. A lot of accounts exist for people who haven't played in a long time...may remind them we exist :P <-- that happens.
[ 01:02:30 ] < Dems|Sleep >  gl all
[ 01:02:36 ] < Mattheus >  it does Bobbin ?
[ 01:02:37 ] < Mattheus >  ace
[ 01:02:47 ] < Tim >  Why don't we give the game like 13 different names so that we can be on MPOGD every month?
[ 01:02:53 ] < Dems|Sleep >  xD
[ 01:02:56 ] < Drifter >  i DO look at the ads. whether i click them or not? its all flash sites and onemorelevel is the best imho, thats the only reason i dont click
[ 01:03:01 ] < Azzer >  Emperor - Maybe... 1 BC for every user you referred the first time they hit 500 land on an ID or something?
[ 01:03:03 ] < Polo >  How about 5 referrals (who get >100 land) gets someone 1 NT BC, Azzer? Might encourage more purchasing too as wtf can you do with just 1 credit? :P
[ 01:03:07 ] < Drifter >  bushtarion would be something new to the viewers <3
[ 01:03:11 ] < Azzer >  (encourage you to help them out and get them in to the game, and you get a BC)
[ 01:03:15 ] < Podunk| >  :O
[ 01:03:22 ] < Azzer >  Maybe not a BC, but - something good
[ 01:03:26 ] < Azzer >  :P
[ 01:03:30 ] < Jorizz >  Has to be something good indeed
[ 01:03:38 ] < Emperor >  yes azzer, that way they'd be less cheating aswell
[ 01:03:38 ] < Podunk| >  just hope someone doesn't make multi accounts to get the bonuses though >.>
[ 01:03:45 ] < Slav3s >  <@Azzer> Somebody you refer signs up, reaches 100 land, you get a bonus <---Or maybe their id has to have been active for a certain amount of ticks?
[ 01:03:51 ] < Azzer >  Mattheus - Well some bad news (and good in one way, morally)
[ 01:03:58 ] < Azzer >  I don't keep records of anyone's emails once their account is gone.
[ 01:04:04 ] < Azzer >  It's always been one of my founding principles for Bush.
[ 01:04:08 ] < Caranthir >  i'd say finishes a round and starts a round
[ 01:04:15 ] < Azzer >  A promise that once your account is gone, you need never hear from me or be spammed by me again
[ 01:04:16 ] < Caranthir >  and is active x amount
[ 01:04:20 ] < Chewie >  imo
[ 01:04:27 ] < Chewie >  this is abusable from multis
[ 01:04:29 ] < Jorizz >  Azzer - that fits with the game tbh
[ 01:04:35 ] < Mattheus >  Azzer , don't accounts last AGES before they're deleted for inactivity though? People may quit ages ago and still have a portal account
[ 01:04:36 ] < Caranthir >  everything is abusable by multis
[ 01:04:40 ] < Tim >  120 days ?
[ 01:04:41 ] < Azzer >  Chewie - if you create an account and play it to 500 land several times, you are SO going to get caught :P
[ 01:04:42 ] < Bobbin >  Azzer? inactive accounts get reminder emails though right?
[ 01:04:42 ] < Caranthir >  thats why they hunt down multis
[ 01:04:42 ] < Jorizz >  No lousy advertisement on the front page etc
[ 01:04:44 ] < Mattheus >  but yeah, I see what you're saying
[ 01:04:57 ] < Chewie >  yeah but imo game cash is a lot worse than anything for being abused by multis
[ 01:05:02 ] < Azzer >  Aye true
[ 01:05:12 ] < Azzer >  But some reward system is needed - rather encourage honest referals
[ 01:05:14 ] < Chewie >  [01:04]  Chewie - if you create an account and play it to 500 land several times, you are SO going to get caught :P
[ 01:05:14 ] < Jorizz >  game cash shouldnt be tbh
[ 01:05:16 ] < Bunion >  oh it's open
[ 01:05:16 ] < Azzer >  Than forget it altogether just for a few cheaters.
[ 01:05:18 ] < Chewie >  want to take that challenge?
[ 01:05:22 ] < Jorizz >  more along the lines of the vote multipliers
[ 01:05:26 ] < Bunion >  while i can talk i have a request from SadYear
[ 01:05:41 ] < Bunion >  He'd like that you post round changes a good 1-2 weeks in advance
[ 01:05:49 ] < Azzer >  Mattheus - Well since Age 4 it's been the case that account age is based on how many round ID's you have in your history
[ 01:05:51 ] < Bunion >  so it's not all last minute rush
[ 01:06:02 ] < Azzer >  Accounts can last about 4 years I think now, if you have like 12 seperate round's history in your IDs
[ 01:06:06 ] < Azzer >  Or something very long
[ 01:06:10 ] < Azzer >  And just a few months for only 1 round ID.
[ 01:06:35 ] < Tim >  I have 14 IDs recorded
[ 01:06:56 ] < Bobbin >  i got as many as is possible... so my account will last a LONG ass time lol
[ 01:07:50 ] < Azzer >  It sure should Bob!
[ 01:07:56 ] < Azzer >  Ok let's move to the final topic before the "anything else" period.

17.0.0: Bushmeet.

[ 01:08:10 ] < Azzer >  Final topic - the next Bush meet ;) Ideas, comments, suggestions, volunteers for organising
[ 01:08:22 ] < Azzer >  The official meet I'll come to does have to be mainland UK though
[ 01:08:30 ] < Azzer >  :P
[ 01:08:39 ] < Azzer >  Ok, hands up talkers!
17.1.0: One-on-ones.
17.1.1: Elle.
[ 01:09:45 ] < Azzer >  Elle :)
[ 01:09:49 ] < Elle >  Yay I'm first!
[ 01:10:31 ] < Elle >  I only raised my Hand because AzLev told me to ask about this. His suggestion was having a bush meet in different areas around the same times.
[ 01:10:39 ] < Elle >  like one in the US, one in the UK etc.
[ 01:11:06 ] < Azzer >  Well one in the US would have to be entirely organised by US players etc. - I'd be happy to promote one throughout the game if it was organised "properly"
[ 01:11:15 ] < Azzer >  But I myself will only be able to attend a UK mainland Bush meet
[ 01:11:36 ] < Elle >  Ya I know :P
[ 01:11:40 ] < Azzer >  But sure - if somebody in the US can organise one - a hotel for a weekend happy to host people with an area for people to talk, things to do nearby, enough players able to get to that state/area for that weekend etc.
[ 01:11:55 ] < Azzer >  Then I'd certainly promote/push it however the organiser wanted in-game/mass-mails/forum announcements
[ 01:12:14 ] < Azzer >  But I'll only promote "proper" ones - not just some house party with 5 people who all know eachother anyway going sorta thing ;P
[ 01:12:15 ] < Elle >  I will certainly relay the message. :)
[ 01:12:28 ] < Elle >  That's all I have.
[ 01:12:34 ] < Azzer >  Ok, thanks Elle, hope that helped ^^ :)
[ 01:12:40 ] < Elle >  It sure did.
17.1.2: Bobbin.
[ 01:12:44 ] < Azzer >  Bobbin :)
[ 01:12:47 ] < Bobbin >  ah me
[ 01:13:04 ] < Bobbin >  Right, Well I'd be more than happy to put my name forward to organise a future meet
[ 01:13:47 ] < Bobbin >  Obviously, another Reading meet would be easiest for me to organise, but honestly, as long as it doesn't take ALL day on the train to get to, then it's cool
[ 01:13:53 ] < Azzer >  One for the end of this Autumn? :P
[ 01:14:04 ] < Azzer >  Or near Christmas time maybe
[ 01:14:09 ] < Bobbin >  I think any meets we do have should obviously be in a central location
[ 01:14:17 ] < Bobbin >  Autumn would be cool, or so would Winter
[ 01:14:20 ] < Azzer >  Aye, somewhere with good transport links
[ 01:14:31 ] < Bobbin >  quiet business around that time, so I have no issues with time off work ofc
[ 01:14:36 ] < Azzer >  And a time when people can come - bank holiday weekends ideally, don't think we have many of them near the end of the year though?
[ 01:14:54 ] < Bobbin >  next is August Bank hols, which is a no-no for me :P
[ 01:15:01 ] < Azzer >  I'd be happy with Reading again, Reading's been one of the best venues I think
[ 01:15:09 ] < Bobbin >  though, we could always do a fri-eve to sunday eve meet?
[ 01:15:19 ] < Azzer >  Yeah we could
[ 01:15:48 ] < Bobbin >  Yeah, i think Reading was the better of the two I went to personally, not just cause it was local, but there is ALOT to do around Reading, i mean some even day tripped into the smoke :P
[ 01:15:59 ] < Azzer >  Ok we'll see what others have to say on it, but if nobody else is forthcoming I may poke you to sort out a Reading meet, perhaps even the same hotel again if they'll have us, was right in the ehart of the place
[ 01:16:06 ] < Bobbin >  if not
[ 01:16:07 ] < Azzer >  *heart
[ 01:16:27 ] < Bobbin >  then we have two travel inns in Bracknell where i live, which is 20mins on the train from Reading
[ 01:16:38 ] < Bobbin >  and there are other travel inns in reading too i think
[ 01:16:46 ] < Bobbin >  which could possibly work out a touch cheaper
[ 01:16:55 ] < Azzer >  Aye, well we'll have a proper plan of that, let's get some other people to talk on it first though then ^^
[ 01:16:56 ] < Bobbin >  as I'm sure that cost is an issue for most people not just myself.
[ 01:17:03 ] < Bobbin >  sure :)
[ 01:17:06 ] < Azzer >  Cheers Bob
[ 01:17:10 ] < Bobbin >  anytime
17.1.3: TheOmega.
[ 01:17:15 ] < Azzer >  Yoho
[ 01:17:25 ] < TheOmaga >  hello
[ 01:17:40 ] < TheOmaga >  i have a few little things to suggest say..
[ 01:18:08 ] < TheOmaga >  first the idea of a bush meating is a great idea as it give you chance to meet who you've been playing the game with
[ 01:18:24 ] < Azzer >  Certainly builds some permanent bonds of genuine real life friendships between players ^^
[ 01:18:30 ] < Azzer >  Which is good for the players, and good for the game! :P
[ 01:18:42 ] < TheOmaga >  i believe they need to be able for every kinda of person to come to
[ 01:18:47 ] < TheOmaga >  something for everyone to do
[ 01:18:54 ] < Azzer >  Well with something like that there does HAVE to be an age limit really
[ 01:19:12 ] < Azzer >  Over 16's only, over 18's only to stay overnight (under 18's to stay with a guardian, under 16's attanding with a guardian)
[ 01:19:32 ] < TheOmaga >  well yes due to parent thing, but like everyone going out getting drunk, or sitting around on computers alday if you get me
[ 01:19:33 ] < Azzer >  That sort of thing, but we've done that every meet
[ 01:19:42 ] < Azzer >  Well to give you an idea of previous meets
[ 01:19:48 ] < Azzer >  We generally split in to groups on an evening
[ 01:19:57 ] < Azzer >  Those that wanted to stay indoors and all have a chat, going out for a meal
[ 01:20:02 ] < Azzer >  And the "clubber" types went off seperately at night
[ 01:20:09 ] < Azzer >  During the day we'd spend a lot of time socialising and talking
[ 01:20:12 ] < Azzer >  And often do random events
[ 01:20:21 ] < Azzer >  Bowling, cinema, laser-quest, shopping trips around a mall
[ 01:20:33 ] < Azzer >  Some of us went to watch the Gumball 3000 launc in london last time ;)
[ 01:20:40 ] < Azzer >  But it is a very social thing, with lot's of different things done
[ 01:20:47 ] < Azzer >  And there is *NONE* of this "everyone sat on their laptops" thing
[ 01:20:54 ] < TheOmaga >  sounds good i was gonna come to the last ages ago but didn't due to lack of funds,
[ 01:21:01 ] < Azzer >  A few bring laptops for Bush access or whatever - but the vast majority is socialising
[ 01:21:13 ] < TheOmaga >  i just wanted t see if the idea of lots of different things to do
[ 01:21:21 ] < TheOmaga >  to involove everyone
[ 01:21:26 ] < Azzer >  And I feel a responsibility, and try my best, to make sure everyone is always included in everything (as do most attendees if not all)
[ 01:21:29 ] < Azzer >  Eg if someone is a bit shy/quiet
[ 01:21:36 ] < Azzer >  They are brought in to the talks and talked to etc.
[ 01:21:46 ] < Azzer >  We look after everyone, make sure everyone has a say in what we do and nobody is too unhappy etc.
[ 01:22:19 ] < Azzer >  But yes we do do all sorts, but the main basis is socialising with eachother and talking/getting to know eachother in person
[ 01:22:25 ] < Azzer >  And seeing who kicks ass at bowling between me & Bobbin
[ 01:22:31 ] < TheOmaga >  well that sounds good, i'd be up for helping organise one and that as if my helps needed
[ 01:22:36 ] < Azzer >  Or who kicks ass at laser quest ;)
[ 01:22:42 ] < TheOmaga >  there needs to be one again though
[ 01:22:45 ] < Azzer >  Ok cool, well yes there does
[ 01:22:47 ] < Azzer >  And I want it this year
[ 01:23:01 ] < Azzer >  Ok hope that answers some of yours and other peoples questions/concerns for what a Bush meet is like :D
[ 01:23:07 ] < Azzer >  I'll move on to someone else now :)
[ 01:23:07 ] < TheOmaga >  cheers
17.1.4: Tim.
[ 01:25:31 ] < Azzer >  Timster!
[ 01:25:35 ] < Tim >  Hello
[ 01:25:43 ] < Tim >  I would love to come to a meet this year however
[ 01:26:10 ] < Tim >  I would say it has to be more central than Reading. Reading is 9 hours drive and at £1.20 per litre a serious amount of money away from Glasgow
[ 01:26:23 ] < Tim >  I know I am but one person, however it would be a shame to miss out
[ 01:26:29 ] < Azzer >  Haha true about bloody fuel costs these days :P
[ 01:26:37 ] < Tim >  Secondly, I think there should be two options;
[ 01:26:40 ] < Tim >  Friday - Sunday
[ 01:26:46 ] < Tim >  Saturday - Sunday
[ 01:26:53 ] < Tim >  Based on my past experiences of organising
[ 01:27:11 ] < Tim >  Allows for people to come on the Sat morning and leave on the Sunday at some point if needed
[ 01:27:36 ] < Azzer >  Yeah totally, shouldn't just be "Pay for the whole weekend or don't pay at all".
[ 01:27:54 ] < Tim >  It was one of the things people had concerns about in the past
[ 01:28:24 ] < Tim >  I think also that payment should be through Bushtarion so that people trust it more and aren't sending cheque/bank payments to random people from the internet
[ 01:28:28 ] < Tim >  That was another concern
[ 01:28:34 ] < Azzer >  Yeah
[ 01:28:38 ] < Tim >  Dunno if that would affect your tax stuff though
[ 01:28:42 ] < Azzer >  I want to make payemnts (for the UK one) to be official
[ 01:28:53 ] < Azzer >  Well it would, but I'll eat it up as business expense and just do it officially, it needs to be done
[ 01:29:00 ] < Azzer >  I'd need all invoices for hotel costs ofc though
[ 01:29:02 ] < Azzer >  But that's fine
[ 01:29:02 ] < Tim >  Ofc
[ 01:29:17 ] < Tim >  I would like to help organise it, but I think the organisational thing is something for 2-3 people
[ 01:29:24 ] < Tim >  Not just one person alone
[ 01:29:27 ] < Azzer >  But yes allow people to pay for it through Bush is a must now I think. Ability to pay through "official source", not send a cheque to a random Bush player
[ 01:29:40 ] < Tim >  People did it in the past
[ 01:29:52 ] < Tim >  But now we have a whole new playerbase and new potential attendees
[ 01:29:59 ] < Tim >  It needs to be above board
[ 01:30:22 ] < Tim >  What do you think about location Azzer?
[ 01:30:36 ] < Azzer >  I think down south near the southern Londonish airports - Reading was great.
[ 01:30:38 ] < Azzer >  Otherwise
[ 01:30:47 ] < Azzer >  Near Manchester airport, but no further north than that.
[ 01:31:05 ] < Azzer >  Manchester airport is a pretty good oen for Europeans to get to, generally, I think, and pretty central for all - easy access on trains
[ 01:31:31 ] < Azzer >  But I'd definitely not complain to Reading again
[ 01:31:45 ] < Tim >  I wouldn't mind Manchester or even Birmingham - the problem with London/Reading is that without a car and leaving early on the Friday, it's impossible to get to by plane/train to make it worth my while, and car would be just too expensive
[ 01:31:52 ] < Tim >  But as I say, I'm but one player
[ 01:32:00 ] < Azzer >  Aye, it would be a shame for you not to come
[ 01:32:06 ] < Azzer >  But realistically I think Reading or Manc is the best for all
[ 01:32:15 ] < Azzer >  And I think (think...) we have more UK players down south
[ 01:32:21 ] < Azzer >  So Reading would be naturally more "successful"
[ 01:32:25 ] < Tim >  meh
[ 01:32:40 ] < Azzer >  Ok let's see if Lukey is off the phone yet
[ 01:32:43 ] < Azzer >  Else we'll open this one up
[ 01:32:45 ] < Tim >  lol
[ 01:32:45 ] < Azzer >  Cheers again Tim
17.2.0: Open Floor Discussion.
[ 01:33:29 ] < Azzer >  Anyone? Bush meet? ;)
[ 01:33:33 ] < Bobbin >  To the 2/3 nights payments thing, i don't see it being a problem at all, it might work out that if you come for three you get it cheaper per night
[ 01:33:39 ] < Maxi- >  Azzer, still on topic of an official bushmeet, any idea how many non-uk players have said they'd be interested?
[ 01:33:47 ] < Jorizz >  Maxi-
[ 01:33:49 ] < Jorizz >  I need a ride
[ 01:33:55 ] < Koeniej >  when is landcap calced?
[ 01:33:57 ] < Azzer >  Maxi - not a clue, not many
[ 01:33:57 ] < Tim >  That was always the case in the past Azzer
[ 01:33:57 ] < Freddy >  Is it preferable for a meet in England then?
[ 01:33:59 ] < Polo >  I think we should have it in Bristol
[ 01:34:00 ] < Polo >  or Bath
[ 01:34:03 ] < Azzer >  I mean usually 20 or so say they are interested
[ 01:34:03 ] < Maxi- >  Any idea when the dates would be approx?
[ 01:34:06 ] < Bobbin >  and i think that either Mancs or Reading is the best idea
[ 01:34:06 ] < Emperor >  near xmas/easter ppl are likely to be away visiting relatives so less ppl would be able to go
[ 01:34:07 ] < Freddy >  Just cos you're around there Polo =p
[ 01:34:08 ] < Azzer >  And 2 or 3 can afford it/actually come
[ 01:34:08 ] < Mattheus >  Leamington spa ftw
[ 01:34:11 ] < Maxi- >  Jorizz, ride
[ 01:34:12 ] < Polo >  indeed Freddy
[ 01:34:12 ] < Maxi- >  ?
[ 01:34:12 ] < Mattheus >  :D
[ 01:34:13 ] < Bunion >  oxford > reading :P
[ 01:34:16 ] < Bobbin >  and possibly an ingame poll could be made to decide?
[ 01:34:16 ] < Jorizz >  To the bushmeet
[ 01:34:16 ] < Polo >  although Reading would be ok
[ 01:34:20 ] < Jorizz >  you told you got a car
[ 01:34:21 ] < Polo >  it's an hour away from bath
[ 01:34:21 ] < Tim >  Oxford is even harder to get to
[ 01:34:24 ] < Bobbin >  oxford is in the middle of no where.
[ 01:34:27 ] < Mattheus >  Leamington has ME there
[ 01:34:32 ] < Freddy >  Why Oxford? =S
[ 01:34:38 ] < Bunion >  Tonbridge Wells imo
[ 01:34:39 ] < Maxi- >  Jorizz I'm seriously considering hopping by the bushmeet, combining it with a trip to some friends
[ 01:34:42 ] < Freddy >  Lmao
[ 01:34:43 ] < Bunion >  bowlplex!
[ 01:34:44 ] < Freddy >  Tunbridge Wells
[ 01:34:46 ] < Freddy >  I can do
[ 01:34:49 ] < Freddy >  =P
[ 01:34:49 ] < Bunion >  and nice and southern
[ 01:34:50 ] < Bunion >  :P
[ 01:34:52 ] < Freddy >  Yeah
[ 01:34:56 ] < Jorizz >  Maxi-, where would you be getting a boat?
[ 01:34:59 ] < Azzer >  I think manchester or Reading for the next meet
[ 01:35:00 ] < Freddy >  I'm right on the South coast
[ 01:35:01 ] < Bunion >  not north like that Reading place
[ 01:35:01 ] < Sordes >  All Bushmeets should take a smal consideration into Internasjonal Travel.
[ 01:35:02 ] < Azzer >  Can let players vote
[ 01:35:04 ] < Polo >  btw, how much does the bushmeet tend to cost?
[ 01:35:10 ] < Bobbin >  thing with bushmeet. is it's all well and goodd suggesting random places
[ 01:35:11 ] < Bobbin >  erm
[ 01:35:15 ] < Bobbin >  £100ish i think
[ 01:35:16 ] < Maxi- >  Jorizz, easyjet is piss cheap nowadays
[ 01:35:17 ] < Bobbin >  was reading
[ 01:35:17 ] < Bunion >  TW is near(ish) gatwick
[ 01:35:18 ] < Mattheus >  surely the midlands would be best Azzer ? not too far north, not too south
[ 01:35:20 ] < Polo >  ouch :-/
[ 01:35:20 ] < Azzer >  And Reading means we have somebody able and willing to organise it with local knowledge
[ 01:35:28 ] < Jorizz >  Maxi-, hmm true
[ 01:35:30 ] < Bunion >  on a line from gatwick to tonbridge and change for TW!
[ 01:35:30 ] < Azzer >  Manc... I'd need someone that knows Manc to volunteer and find places etc.
[ 01:35:30 ] < Mattheus >  yeah ok
[ 01:35:32 ] < Bobbin >  I'd organise Mancs
[ 01:35:39 ] < Bobbin >  but i have NO local knowledge
[ 01:35:45 ] < Tim >  I can do Mancs, I have relatives there
[ 01:35:46 ] < Maxi- >  and I'm down south in france, so yeah, no way of driving ~2000km's
[ 01:35:46 ] < Bobbin >  I know Reading like the back of my hand
[ 01:35:55 ] < Jorizz >  Manc would be much easier to reach for us foreigners
[ 01:35:58 ] < Bunion >  maxi
[ 01:36:00 ] < Darryl >  That's because it's only about as big as the back of your hand, bobbin
[ 01:36:05 ] < Bobbin >  and have just been informed there is a new Travel Inn across from the Oracle
[ 01:36:05 ] < Jorizz >  Don't think Reading has a nearby airport(?)
[ 01:36:06 ] < Bunion >  if you and i left home at the same time
[ 01:36:12 ] < Bunion >  heading for manchester
[ 01:36:14 ] < Polo >  Jorizz, it's near london :P
[ 01:36:17 ] < Bunion >  you'd get tehre first
[ 01:36:18 ] < Bunion >  flying
[ 01:36:19 ] < Bunion >  :P
[ 01:36:20 ] < Bobbin >  Jorizz - Not at all, Reading is a 45 min train ride from Gatwick/Heathrow
[ 01:36:26 ] < Jorizz >  Hmm
[ 01:36:27 ] < Bobbin >  there is a shuttle train
[ 01:36:27 ] < Jorizz >  nvm
[ 01:36:31 ] < Azzer >  Reading is easy to get to internationally
[ 01:36:32 ] < Jorizz >  tought it was like Wales :P
[ 01:36:35 ] < Maxi- >  :p
[ 01:36:35 ] < Bobbin >  ol no
[ 01:36:37 ] < Koeniej >  when is landcap calced?
[ 01:36:39 ] < Rusteh >  manc is such a drive!
[ 01:36:46 ] < Maxi- >  Reading is 'near' gatwick with the train no?
[ 01:36:47 ] < Polo >  I might just go over for the saturday or something if it's in Reading
[ 01:36:51 ] < Polo >  as £100 is expensive
[ 01:36:52 ] < Bunion >  no maxi
[ 01:36:52 ] < Bobbin >  Koeniej - not the time and place to ask that
[ 01:36:54 ] < Bobbin >  but
[ 01:36:55 ] < Bunion >  Heathrow
[ 01:36:58 ] < Bobbin >  at the time of battle.
[ 01:37:02 ] < Azzer >  Ok well goingt move this on to last topic now as I really need to end this ;) We'll get some proper Bush meet stuff planned soon, I'll get Bob on the case.
[ 01:37:06 ] < Bunion >  gatwick is in sussex

18.0.0: Anything Else.

[ 01:37:13 ] < Azzer >  right final topic isn't really a topic
[ 01:37:28 ] < Azzer >  It's "anything else". Not a chance to go over stuff already covered. But a chance for stuff that didn't fit in elsewhere.
[ 01:37:38 ] < Azzer >  Be it about me personally, the game, the community.
[ 01:37:46 ] < Azzer >  Whatever :)
[ 01:37:57 ] < Azzer >  So hands up those that have something to ask me in this final stage.
18.1.0: One-on-ones.
18.1.1: Mattheus.
[ 01:39:09 ] < Azzer >  Mattheus :)
[ 01:39:13 ] < Mattheus >  right hello again
[ 01:39:23 ] < Azzer >  Hello :P
[ 01:39:25 ] < Mattheus >  its about you Azzer :P
[ 01:39:34 ] < Azzer >  Eek
[ 01:39:36 ] < Azzer >  Go ahead ;)
[ 01:39:49 ] < Mattheus >  don't take this personally, but one of the most common gripes I've seen recently is that you seem to be much more absent of late
[ 01:40:09 ] < Mattheus >  one of the best things about this game when I started playing was how active and in touch with the playerbase you were
[ 01:40:11 ] < Azzer >  It's a combination of things.
[ 01:40:31 ] < Azzer >  One, most recently, is I've swung back to my RPG for a while again - I've had these periods of several months at a time a number of times over the past few years
[ 01:40:36 ] < Mattheus >  Obviously and understandably I realise theres always rl issues. But in the last few months you've hardly been on IRC at all
[ 01:40:46 ] < Azzer >  RPG game is another web based game that is MASSIVE - the codeset is already... HUGELY bigger than Bushtarion's entire codeset, with lots more work to do
[ 01:40:55 ] < Azzer >  So I get stuck in to that and disappear from Bush for a while
[ 01:41:00 ] < Azzer >  Then when i know it's been too long
[ 01:41:02 ] < Mattheus >  yeah I realise that, hell even idling in #bushtarion would help I think
[ 01:41:04 ] < Azzer >  I reappear back here to work back on Bush
[ 01:41:08 ] < Azzer >  And abandon the RPG project for a while again
[ 01:41:16 ] < Mattheus >  to at least give the impression you're still around
[ 01:41:18 ] < Azzer >  Ummm but this year, and this is the first year in 4 years
[ 01:41:24 ] < Azzer >  I've had a few personal issues. I had a really bad month
[ 01:41:29 ] < Mattheus >  yeah thats understandable
[ 01:41:33 ] < Azzer >  Where I got depressed for the first time in my life :P
[ 01:41:42 ] < Azzer >  Deaths, family problems, all sorts, everything happened all at once.
[ 01:41:47 ] < Mattheus >  mhm
[ 01:42:00 ] < Azzer >  And then again quite recently some health issues that have flared up a couple of times, nothing life threatening at all
[ 01:42:00 ] < Mattheus >  wel I do feel like a bit of an arse to bring it up but I think someone had to :P
[ 01:42:08 ] < Azzer >  But it does knock me unavailable and very ill for periods of time
[ 01:42:19 ] < Mattheus >  I;m not saying 24/7 irc activity
[ 01:42:21 ] < Azzer >  I know players can't see it and often can't even sympathise with it - that's my personal life
[ 01:42:25 ] < Gadfly >  Murphy's Law has all to do with it Azzer. Everything happens in threes and more!
[ 01:42:25 ] < Azzer >  They just want their creator and their game
[ 01:42:27 ] < Mattheus >  just a few little things thats all!
[ 01:42:40 ] < Mattheus >  ut we all wish you well
[ 01:42:40 ] < Azzer >  But, it happens, and I am but one man. generally I think I'm pretty good, and pretty available
[ 01:42:42 ] < Mattheus >  *but
[ 01:42:53 ] < Azzer >  be it through MSN, forum PMs, emails, IRC, in-game, overall I'm pretty contactable even at bad times ;P
[ 01:43:01 ] < Mattheus >  mhm
[ 01:43:08 ] < Azzer >  But I'll certainly try to be on IRC more
[ 01:43:12 ] < Azzer >  If I disappear for like... a week
[ 01:43:15 ] < Azzer >  Just send me a poke
[ 01:43:24 ] < Azzer >  "Hey come and idle on IRC, we miss you xxx" or somethinf equally daft and cheesy
[ 01:43:29 ] < Mattheus >  hehe
[ 01:43:31 ] < Azzer >  It won't do any harm and sometimes I need these reminders
[ 01:43:39 ] < Azzer >  It sounds daft but honestly, things like that help me out
[ 01:43:56 ] < Mattheus >  ok
[ 01:44:05 ] < Azzer >  Ok I'll poke someone else, hope that answers some of your Q's, and a lot of other peoples
[ 01:44:07 ] < Mattheus >  hope you didn't mind me bringing ir up :P
[ 01:44:10 ] < Azzer >  And I am truly sorry for the times I disappear
[ 01:44:10 ] < Mattheus >  *it
18.1.2: Polo.
[ 01:44:34 ] < Azzer >  Polio :)
[ 01:44:37 ] < Polo >  ok
[ 01:45:01 ] < Polo >  firstly, something I mentioned to you before...the date before the game starts uses a different format to the date after the game starts ticking
[ 01:45:13 ] < Polo >  nothing major at all, but it does stop my extension working before the game starts :P
[ 01:45:14 ] < Azzer >  Ahhh god damn me.
[ 01:45:20 ] < Azzer >  Ok tomorrow
[ 01:45:20 ] < Polo >  lol
[ 01:45:24 ] < Polo >  and also
[ 01:45:26 ] < Azzer >  First thing tomorrow - or next time tomorrow anytime on MSN
[ 01:45:35 ] < Azzer >  Poke me specifically about that one thing :P
[ 01:45:41 ] < Polo >  alright :P
[ 01:46:04 ] < Polo >  along the same lines Mattheus here...it would be nice if you could try to code changes for the next round before the current one has ended
[ 01:46:12 ] < Polo >  or at least tell everyone what the changes will be
[ 01:46:20 ] < Polo >  so we don't have to wait until an hour before ticks start
[ 01:46:28 ] < Polo >  to finalise route setups and the like
[ 01:46:35 ] < Azzer >  Well hopefully in a week or a month or 10 years... basically the time it takes to process this log... ;)
[ 01:46:43 ] < Polo >  :P
[ 01:46:46 ] < Azzer >  I hope to give an official post "Things Azzer has definitely decided on doing" :P
[ 01:46:51 ] < Bobbin >  (gimme 5 hours ;))
[ 01:46:57 ] < Azzer >  Then get to work on them at quickest speed I can and introduce them in batches
[ 01:47:01 ] < Polo >  aye, you did that a couple of times before and it was really useful
[ 01:47:14 ] < Azzer >  Aye well I fully intend to do that for this ^^
[ 01:47:17 ] < Polo >  also allows you to get feedback before something is put in rather than afterwards as has been the case recently
[ 01:47:22 ] < Polo >  ok :)
[ 01:47:23 ] < Polo >  that's it
[ 01:47:28 ] < Azzer >  Aye, it's a bad habit putting things in as I do
[ 01:47:36 ] < Azzer >  It's just how I like to do things, even though it's bad and everyone hates it ;)
[ 01:47:43 ] * < Azzer >  grins cheekily.
[ 01:48:02 ] < Azzer >  Ok, next person I think, cheers Polo! :D
[ 01:48:06 ] < Polo >  np
[ 01:48:08 ] < Azzer >  And remember to poke me tomorrow
18.1.3: Elle.
[ 01:48:17 ] < Azzer >  Elle :)
[ 01:48:24 ] < Elle >  Hiiii
[ 01:49:33 ] < Elle >  Once again this is from AzLev. He was wondering if there was any way to make the game longer? He said something about it being 2 and a half months long. And was wondering why 2 and a half and not 3 months?
[ 01:49:44 ] < Azzer >  Well a lot of people argue for shorter rounds
[ 01:49:53 ] < Azzer >  We've had longer rounds before and things atgnate a bit *too* long in the middle
[ 01:50:01 ] < Azzer >  From... a lot of experience and a lot of rounds run at diff lengths
[ 01:50:16 ] < Azzer >  The current length has, for me, been the most ideal length - as a combination of business (money from purchases based on the length of a round)
[ 01:50:22 ] < Azzer >  And a combination of player interest/round stagnation
[ 01:50:37 ] < Azzer >  So - to answer - 75 days decision is from experience, and business decision.
[ 01:50:39 ] < Elle >  Ahh I see. :)
[ 01:50:50 ] < Azzer >  Anything else? :D
[ 01:50:53 ] < Elle >  Yes
[ 01:50:58 ] < Elle >  Will you bear my children! lmao
[ 01:51:06 ] < Elle >  lol kidding kidding...couldn't help myself
[ 01:51:13 ] < Elle >  I'm done.
[ 01:51:22 ] < Azzer >  I'll begin talks with AzLev immediately.
[ 01:51:31 ] < Azzer >  And arrange something.
18.1.4: Sordes.
[ 01:51:47 ] < Azzer >  Swords, final time tonight! :D
[ 01:51:50 ] < Sordes >  Well Azzer, id like to say i have huge respect for you as a coder and your general ability to create something like Bushtarion, but to say even how much i respect you youve had 3 weakness's i feel should be adressed since all of them can be solved leaving you almost flawless in terms of running the game is concerned.
[ 01:52:34 ] < Sordes >  The first one is, now Bushtarion has gone so long that your RPG is under heavy devolopment, i doubt anyone here want you to stop working on it. I atlest am looking forward to it alot, but i think the overall workload might be a little much. I think you should start thinking about something along the lines for a devolopment team for Bushtarion
[ 01:53:11 ] < Azzer >  There will never be any other developer for Bushtarion except me, unless I sell the business as a whole for a huge sum of money and 20 women all for myself.
[ 01:53:14 ] < Sordes >  people like Darksider would be ideal. He came now with alot of good suggestion to ballance in current situation, which would help easen your load even if little its a help. Also sutch a team could help answer suggestions activly on forums or help brainstorm for possible features your considering.
[ 01:53:35 ] < Azzer >  I'm happy with the format of things as they are, and happy to take on more volunteer helpers for management of forums, ideas, irc, whatever
[ 01:53:40 ] < Azzer >  But in terms of developer/coding
[ 01:53:43 ] < Sordes >  Im not talking about an offical devolopment team. More like a support staff i guess, since Ballance has always been one of your weakness
[ 01:53:48 ] < Azzer >  Ahhhh right
[ 01:53:59 ] < Maxi- >  (think he means a 'Brainstorm' group.)
[ 01:54:07 ] < Azzer >  hehe yeah I think so Maxi
[ 01:54:38 ] < Gadfly >  Well that would be me Maxi and Asmo then!
[ 01:54:39 ] < Sordes >  yehh, guess i explained it poorly. But basicly people to help list things that are a priority. because Ballance has been your only weakpoint as a creator of Bushtarion.
[ 01:55:28 ] < Azzer >  Well tbh I do have an unofficial brainstorm group already
[ 01:55:33 ] < Sordes >  Other then that. Youve been a having a habit of waiting a little to long to fix some issues that has been clear to be in harms way. Sutch a group would also be able to point it out good.
[ 01:55:45 ] < Azzer >  A group of players I go to heavily and listen to heavily for their expertise, particularly on unit balance
[ 01:55:49 ] < Azzer >  And DarkSider is one of those players
[ 01:55:53 ] < Sordes >  Well, youve always had. But it helps if there are some that the community can bring things to
[ 01:55:56 ] < Azzer >  Along with the likes of Polo, twigley, and a couple of other players.
[ 01:56:02 ] < Sordes >  it helps make the community feel more in tutch with you.
[ 01:56:15 ] < Azzer >  (people from different extremes and diff ends of the spectrum, but all with experience and knowledge)
[ 01:56:22 ] < Azzer >  Put it this way Swords...
[ 01:56:24 ] < Sordes >  Know you read all suggestions. But it helps if all feel their suggestions etc gets responded.
[ 01:56:29 ] < Azzer >  90% of all unit changes in the last 24 months
[ 01:56:36 ] < Azzer >  Have all come from players, not me randomly making stuff up :P
[ 01:56:40 ] < Sordes >  Probably older then that aswell
[ 01:56:46 ] < Azzer >  And I mean from the players you would include in a "brainstorm" group
[ 01:56:56 ] < Azzer >  I don't do everything they say, obviously - I filter it and pick - but the stuff comes from them mostly.
[ 01:57:02 ] < Azzer >  We have brainstorming sessions "In private"
[ 01:57:11 ] < Azzer >  So it is done already, just not to a public degree
[ 01:57:30 ] < Sordes >  Could be a idea to open up a "What needs to be ballanced for next round" kind of topic
[ 01:57:47 ] < Azzer >  People can and do already make such suggestions
[ 01:57:51 ] < Sordes >  Since often there are cases quite clear that takes to long to be solved. And it makes people feel you aint taking it seriusly.
[ 01:57:52 ] < Azzer >  And then that stirs thoughts, gets debate
[ 01:57:56 ] < Azzer >  And leads me to investigating
[ 01:58:01 ] < Azzer >  And my "private brainstorms"
[ 01:58:05 ] < Azzer >  With the "brainstorm crowd"
[ 01:58:12 ] < Azzer >  And then elads to a decision being made and a change or no change :P
[ 01:58:15 ] < Azzer >  *leads
[ 01:58:27 ] < Azzer >  Pretty much what you want is already done. You just don't see the process as it's largely behind the scenes
[ 01:58:35 ] < Sordes >  Well guess thats it for me. Aslong as things gets done thats the important element.
[ 01:58:37 ] < Sordes >  Oh i see it
[ 01:58:39 ] < Asmo|Beep >  just let me moderate global pols
[ 01:58:41 ] < Asmo|Beep >  \o/
[ 01:58:42 ] < Azzer >  You don't see me post on the thread, you don't see my chats with people in private
[ 01:58:45 ] < Sordes >  Been part of it in the past. Just feel it should be more public
[ 01:58:48 ] < Azzer >  So it looks like nothing happens then I randomly make up changes
[ 01:58:59 ] < Azzer >  But, there's nothing random about them! :D
[ 01:59:07 ] < Azzer >  Aye you know the process, but for the sake of logs and everyone here
[ 01:59:12 ] < Azzer >  I wanted that to be known ^^
[ 01:59:21 ] < Sordes >  Hehe :P Well i must say
[ 01:59:29 ] < Sordes >  this session is probably the most impressive thing ive ever seen you do
[ 01:59:38 ] < Sordes >  Perhaps hold a few more in future but more theme specific ?
[ 01:59:43 ] * < Azzer >  wants to publically point everyone to Twigley for suggesting this and making Azzer do it.
[ 01:59:47 ] < Sordes >  since 11 houers is a long time
[ 01:59:50 ] < Azzer >  And for coming up with most of the topic list.
[ 01:59:58 ] < Azzer >  I'd love to take credit for this
[ 02:00:01 ] < Azzer >  But it's Twigley's doing
[ 02:00:10 ] < Azzer >  :D
[ 02:00:13 ] < Azzer >  Ok thanks again Sordes
[ 02:00:15 ] < Sordes >  Aye. Credit well deserved. But you stil stuck with it for 11 houers
[ 02:00:18 ] < Sordes >  its impressive
[ 02:00:20 ] < Azzer >  Couple more people before I collapse in bed :P
[ 02:00:21 ] < Azzer >  Hehe
18.1.5: Bunion.
[ 02:00:41 ] < Azzer >  Bunion :)
[ 02:00:42 ] < Bunion >  :o
[ 02:01:06 ] < Bunion >  well i WAS going to ask about the update times, but polo beat me to it
[ 02:01:07 ] < Bunion >  THEN
[ 02:01:18 ] < Bunion >  i was going to congratulate you on 11 hours
[ 02:01:20 ] < Bunion >  but sordes got there first too
[ 02:01:21 ] < Bunion >  so erm
[ 02:01:23 ] < Bunion >  >_<
[ 02:01:38 ] * < Bunion >  kinda done :P
[ 02:01:45 ] < Azzer >  Lol
[ 02:01:46 ] < Maxi- >  Elle beat you too, baby-wise. :p
[ 02:01:47 ] * < Podunk| >  devoices Bunion
[ 02:01:48 ] < Azzer >  That was good then!
[ 02:01:49 ] < Azzer >  Thanks ;)
18.1.6: Jorizz.
[ 02:02:03 ] < Azzer >  Jorizz! :)
[ 02:02:10 ] < Jorizz >  hi :)
[ 02:02:24 ] < Jorizz >  I just wish to add if this sort of thing can continue
[ 02:02:33 ] < Jorizz >  tought today was intensive
[ 02:02:47 ] < Jorizz >  A lot of valid and productive stuff has been produced imo
[ 02:03:14 ] < Jorizz >  Maybe in a different channel next time so we dont hold up the spam, chit chat geeks all day
[ 02:03:27 ] < Jorizz >  But the setup worked much better than I tought it would have
[ 02:03:35 ] < Azzer >  yeah I'm pleased with how this has gone
[ 02:03:43 ] < Jorizz >  I would just like to see some continuation in this :)
[ 02:03:47 ] < Azzer >  It's not something I'd do regularly, especially the marathon this was
[ 02:03:53 ] < Azzer >  But maybe twice a year - some "major progress chat"
[ 02:04:04 ] < Jorizz >  Yeah, next times might be on specific topics
[ 02:04:20 ] < Jorizz >  would only take an hour or so
[ 02:04:44 ] < Azzer >  Hmm maybe, we'll see in future ;) Generally I come and chat here about anything anyway, time to time, and often one topic is brought up and talked abbout for hours on end :P
[ 02:05:23 ] < Azzer >  Ok cheers Jorizz
18.1.7: LaFin.
[ 02:07:22 ] < Azzer >  Lafin? :)
[ 02:07:23 ] < LAFiN >  Heyo
[ 02:07:26 ] < LAFiN >  Any chance of enabling CSS, so that themes can be slightly more modifiable? Or defining the element headings further, so they can each have a different image.
[ 02:07:50 ] < Azzer >  Custom CSS file?
[ 02:07:55 ] < LAFiN >  yea
[ 02:08:02 ] < Azzer >  Could do, but I wouldn't make them publically sharable in an official way
[ 02:08:03 ] < LAFiN >  more flexibility to themes
[ 02:08:08 ] < Azzer >  Just cos of abuse ability with that
[ 02:08:12 ] < LAFiN >  of course
[ 02:08:14 ] < Azzer >  Atm I can be quite controlling
[ 02:08:20 ] < LAFiN >  hehe
[ 02:08:26 ] < Azzer >  But certainly the ability for an individual to say "Hey, Bush, use my CSS file here"
[ 02:08:31 ] < Azzer >  Could do that sure :)
[ 02:08:38 ] < Azzer >  Anything else? :D
[ 02:08:45 ] < LAFiN >  that would be sort of copl
[ 02:08:55 ] < LAFiN >  just wanted to further improve the themes section
[ 02:08:59 ] < LAFiN >  nothing other though
[ 02:09:05 ] < Azzer >  Ok cool, well thanks for the idea! :)
18.1.8: Nameless.
[ 02:09:21 ] < Azzer >  Nameless, bots? :)
[ 02:09:33 ] < Nameless >  So, bots, are they meant to be entirely free land? I can understand easy land, but free? Because anyone in their range can very easily send geos with a handful of LETs, and get the acres without even having to battle past the hippies and yobs. One could easily go on runs sending 4 mobs and getting hundreds and hundreds of acres per, over and over until out of bot range, resulting in *thousands* of *free* acres.
[ 02:09:37 ] < Nameless >  I'm just wondering, are the bots meant to be easy land, or free land? Because right now they're free, to anyone who knows to send a few LETs along. And is this unfair to those who do not know the LET trick, and flak by instead?
[ 02:10:06 ] < Azzer >  Meant to be easy
[ 02:10:15 ] < Azzer >  Not meant to be outright free
[ 02:10:35 ] < Nameless >  well for anyone who knows to send some LETs, it's free
[ 02:11:06 ] < Nameless >  which i say as i'm farming them right now...
[ 02:11:11 ] < Azzer >  I need to work/check on that code for them fleeing to ID 1 then?
[ 02:11:31 ] < Nameless >  if they're meant to be easy rather than free, then yes
[ 02:11:39 ] < Nameless >  i've just been farming them like it's going out of style
[ 02:11:48 ] < Nameless >  1m gargs, 50k geos, 750k vamps = 4 land grabs
[ 02:11:49 ] < Azzer >  Lol
[ 02:11:53 ] < Nameless >  gards*
[ 02:11:55 ] < Azzer >  Ok that's something I'll look in to with the bots
[ 02:12:02 ] < Azzer >  Definitely aren't meant to simply flee every time with just a few lets
[ 02:12:03 ] < Nameless >  righto :)
[ 02:12:07 ] < Azzer >  Cheers for that! :)
18.1.9: Goddess.
[ 02:12:57 ] < Goddess >  Hi !!! 1st, congratulation being such a trooper and dealing w this for so long (about 11hrs now, aint it ?) I know there aint an easy solution to this :p but i have now to wait for this log to be able to say sumthg on almost all topics as i've been asleep :p yup, it was night time for me and RL stuff wont wait for bush :(
[ 02:13:02 ] < Goddess >  Wat i was wanting to ask really was if it is possible to get a different time for start and end of rounds as it kills us aussies :p (being up at 5 to 6 am after coming from work and b4 going to work doesnt really make it easy onr us :S)
[ 02:14:06 ] < Azzer >  I'm afraid start times will always be as they are. I know it's not good for International players, of which I have many, of which pay me money... but... it is a UK game, I'm in the UK, and the *majority* of players are UK based... also the start time will always affect someone.
[ 02:14:19 ] < Goddess >  true
[ 02:14:22 ] < Azzer >  So I focus the times of events based on my own home country, I'm afraid - and so start times are going to be sticking to 18:00 GMT for the forseeable future
[ 02:14:34 ] * < Goddess >  thought maybe one hr delay wouldnt hurt uk players
[ 02:14:39 ] < Goddess >  and would help aussies :)
[ 02:14:48 ] < Azzer >  But make it harder on Europeans
[ 02:14:56 ] < Azzer >  Who are already an hour or two ahead of the UK
[ 02:14:59 ] < Azzer >  It'll always affect someone
[ 02:15:10 ] < Goddess >  as i said, not easy
[ 02:15:11 ] < Azzer >  So I just picked the UK, my home country, as the basis, and stick to that.
[ 02:15:12 ] < Goddess >  ;p
[ 02:15:15 ] < Azzer >  Plus GMT is the "International timezone"
[ 02:15:19 ] < Azzer >  So what better timezone to pick ;)
[ 02:15:30 ] < Goddess >  rofl
[ 02:15:36 ] < Goddess >  u mean boy :(
[ 02:15:41 ] < Azzer >  Hehe
[ 02:15:43 ] < Azzer >  Ok
[ 02:15:50 ] < Azzer >  Well sorry I can't help but hope that answers it ;)
[ 02:15:53 ] < Goddess >  anyway
[ 02:16:10 ] < Goddess >  keep up the good work and make sure u get a good sleep now, u deserve it :)
[ 02:16:12 ] < Azzer >  Thanks :D