AR system suggestion

[Kali]

Let AR stay for the times the Solo is 'offline', but not for the complete offline period:

The minute he logs in, he looses his AR to a normal player level. This way he has to play the game with his pNaps, like an alliance. When he has incommings, he can mail them, call them, whatever, to defend his acres.

When he is afk, a bit more protection might come in handy. To make sure they are active: Even in the AFK situation: Build of AR after a certain period:"

f.e.: Player has stopped playing, logs off (and there are no attacks current): No AR. After 3 ticks: AR Appears. Player is not playing for 8hours: AR starts building off until zero.

Player logs in: AR stays at zero.
Player logs off etc etc.

This way you keep Solos active and you push them towards active PNAPS (beginning of an Alliance).

Alliances are with this system more capable of attacking solos, but have a harder time raping them whilst they are AFK (and not sleeping).

Kill pure solo.


Does this make sense?

[timtadams]

I like the idea of the varying AR. Though i think it stay off longer once the player logs off, maybe an hour? Because if it is off for only three ticks, whenever an incoming mob appears, the user could log off and the AR would be back before the incoming hostiles reach them.

Personally, I think the AR should be reduced. It triggers too easy, way too easy. But not eliminated. You still need some protection for noobs as well as those who cant be on all that often. If these people keep getting owned then they probably will get sick of playing and not come back.

[00micbro1998]

He is talking about 30 mins

If a mob comes in that time, no AR is triggered.

But if any mobs are launced after 30 mins they get triggerd

[timtadams]

AR is calculated before each tick off being attacked, not from when the mob is launched. This is why after one tick of an attacking hostile mob being owned by SAS the government may withdraw for the next couple of ticks.

And 3 ticks is 30mins, i know, and 6 ticks is one hour. Generally a mob is 5+ ticks away due to land stealing units ect. So, they arrive in 50 minutes. Thats more than 30 mins. So a user logs off, and AR is back in 30 minutes, and incoming hostiles are still 20 minutes away.

Understand now?

[vlad]

But in general why make a Player rely on his Pnaps. As i see it, Solo is being mis-understood. The Word Solo, is Alone, no Pnaps in my eyes.
Something that would thus fourth encourage the use of Pnaps i am Against.

O, and for the recorcd, i do perfectly well as a solo with no Pnap or external help whatsoever. :D

[timtadams]

werent we talking about the AR mod, not pNAPs?

The point is that solos have it too easy, and we need to give those in an alliance greater power, thats how its supposed to work. I know alliance play is more fun, but if everyone can do just as well as a solo, whats the point of an alliance, and then there goes some of the fun

PS i am pure solo

[Augustus]

And 3 ticks is 30mins, i know, and 6 ticks is one hour. Generally a mob is 5+ ticks away due to land stealing units ect. So, they arrive in 50 minutes. Thats more than 30 mins. So a user logs off, and AR is back in 30 minutes, and incoming hostiles are still 20 minutes away.

f.e.: Player has stopped playing, logs off (and there are no attacks current): No AR. After 3 ticks: AR Appears. Player is not playing for 8hours: AR starts building off until zero.

timtadams if you re-read the sentence Kali wrote, he does state that if there are no attacks incoming, then 3 ticks later AR kicks in. In other words, if there is an attack in progress AR will not be activated until it finishes. However this is the flaw in the system IMO. I can predict, with this system, alliances would hunt for someone who is online, send an attack that will easily zero them and then get the rest of the alliance to send a continuous wave of attacks. This continuous wave would in theory, stop AR from ever being activated for the solo, as there would be a continuous stream of attackers to prevent the 3 tick rule from kicking in. If this interpritation is incorrect, or if there is a solution, then maybe Kali can clarify :)

[WildDisease]

What a joke lol.
The game would suck for solo's..

[timtadams]

Sorry, missed that part :oops:

[Twigley]

How would you keep solos active if you punished them for logging in?

:P

[timthetyrant]

[quote="vlad"]But in general why make a Player rely on his Pnaps. As i see it, Solo is being mis-understood. The Word Solo, is Alone, no Pnaps in my eyes.
Something that would thus fourth encourage the use of Pnaps i am Against.

What if we change the name of "solo" to something like "wannabe" cause all the solos are doin with thier Pnaps is creating miniture "wannabe" alliances. Calling them a wannabe might even encourage them to join an alliance.

Did i spell miniture right? it looks wrong

[Alcibiades]

miniature

[timtadams]

What if we change the name of "solo" to something like "wannabe" cause all the solos are doin with thier Pnaps is creating miniture "wannabe" alliances.

lol, i like it

[Augustus]

call it wannabe, n00b, loser, whatever you like really. Realistically if the play style of solo suites more of the playerbase, then I doubt changing the name will alter things.

[nopjes]

Right now the majority of the players is playing solo, wich is - to a war game imo especially one like Bushtarion.
so here comes my suggestion on changing AR.
why not give all solo's a 90% AR mod that doesnt drop?
and make it so that there is no news in the spy report when AR comes
make their injuries return in 3 ticks and an -2 eta on returning mobs!
im sure it would satisfy the majority :roll:

[timthetyrant]

I'm a solo and i wouldn't vote for that, AR hurts us a bit to (although it's saved my skin many times) and i tend not to attack alliances so I hit the solos and then they get AR and i get nothing. And overpowering the solos like that would:
A)Allow the solos to get more defense than an alliance, meaning no-one would make an alliance unless they had a single digit IQ,
B)Destroy the entire game as not even solos would want to attack another solo, and the would be literally ZERO offensive mobs sent out.

Do You really want to destroy the entire game? :arrow: :evil:

Thats rhetorical, and i know you were joking :)

[f0xx]

Do You really want to destroy the entire game? :arrow: :evil:


Ha, that is already happening, a war game in which 75% of the players are solos... are you joking me? I think I will go and play some sim city instead....

[BlackWolf]

If I want to play solo game, I have nice amount of games to decide from.
Like: CS, CSs, BF2142, all half-lifes, NFS, etc. etc.
I get nice graphics and sounds, I can decide when I want to play those and no matter if I die, I can restart in matter of minutes. Also people playing those games are much nicer and I get everything do much faster.
So why I would keep playing game where 90% is playing solo, when it loses 100 - 0 to 99999999999999999999999 games out there?

[septimus]

Why not change the defensive units they get to maybe randomly chosen based on actual routes in game?
Then people have the option of staying on the attack, as it is I don't know anyone that would by choice fight SAS or Bios hoping to win.

You can keep the police and riot police as is, but for Lethal triggering some kind of randomly chosen units from real routes might be better, I'd think, keeps things fair, in that an ally can't get defense from a unit that can't be beaten like a solo can.

[yoyo]

Let AR stay for the times the Solo is 'offline', but not for the complete offline period:

The minute he logs in, he looses his AR to a normal player level. This way he has to play the game with his pNaps, like an alliance. When he has incommings, he can mail them, call them, whatever, to defend his acres.

When he is afk, a bit more protection might come in handy. To make sure they are active: Even in the AFK situation: Build of AR after a certain period:"

f.e.: Player has stopped playing, logs off (and there are no attacks current): No AR. After 3 ticks: AR Appears. Player is not playing for 8hours: AR starts building off until zero.

Player logs in: AR stays at zero.
Player logs off etc etc.

This way you keep Solos active and you push them towards active PNAPS (beginning of an Alliance).

Alliances are with this system more capable of attacking solos, but have a harder time raping them whilst they are AFK (and not sleeping).

Kill pure solo.


Does this make sense?

we would not even have this discussion if all these alliances would not require seventy days of 24/7 activity and your personal phone number so they can wake you up in the middle of the night.

i would be in an alliance right now if this were not the case

i guarantee that if these alliances were a bit more into playing for fun instead of making it seem like work, more people would would switch back from solo to alliance. it is just insane the seventy day commitment these alliances want from someone just to play a game...

that is the problem!

[BlackWolf]

That is not the problem yoyo, it never has been and never will be.
That is outcome of the problem. Not reason of it.

[yoyo]

That is not the problem yoyo, it never has been and never will be.
That is outcome of the problem. Not reason of it.


errr thats funny because i apllied to numerous alliances and they all wanted my phone number and at least eight hours a day for seventy days online..

i am real sorry BW, but the reality is i went solo many rounds ago because people wanted my phone number so they can call me while i am sleeping to log on and defend. many people did exactly what i just descibed above.

you want more alliances? less solos? SO DO I !

just have azzer force everyone into an alliance upon creation.

well thanks for the reply BW

[f0xx]

That's silly... only the alliances who play for the win will want your phone number.

Even so, if you say that ALL alliances want your number (which is not true), make one in which you wouldn't want people's numbers.

People play solos because currently, solos get better defence (much better). In order for alliances to compete with those solos, they raise their expectations, activity and contactability wise which eventually drives people away from alliances and we are stuck in a circle. Remove ALL benefits from solos (not the option to play as one) so players will again want to play in alliances and everything will be normal because those solos who work as alliances will not be getting AR every time a mediocore alliance with not-so-experienced attack organiser launches a coordinated strike on them.

[willymchilybily]

How would you keep solos active if you punished them for logging in?

:P
yup
first point i thought of.
your giving them reduced advantage to be online. infact the more active you are the less protection you get. lol

let alone accounting for just having been raped and wanting high ar. or the fact not all pnaps are online when you are
originially i thought reasonable idea. in reality its unfeasible and wouldnt work. (ps.why is this in bushtarion discussion and not suggestions....*prods the mods)

pps.lol just seen yoyo post then bw post then yoyo repost hillarious how black wolfs valid point is just disregarded. hahahahah even the newer people ignore him :P

[BlackWolf]

Thank you willy, It is funny how f0xx still understands my point where you dont.
If you dont have brains to see anything else than what you want to see then maybe you shouldnt even post on forums where people are trying to share thoughts and ideas and comunicate, not try to make fun of others.

[philipd12]

i went solo many rounds ago because people wanted my phone number so they can call me while i am sleeping to log on and defend

Just give them a fake mobile number :P

[atsanjose]

i went solo many rounds ago because people wanted my phone number so they can call me while i am sleeping to log on and defend

Just give them a fake mobile number :P

now thats even more sad phil :P

[jerky413]

Being this is a war game, how about making the Solos have to employ some form of strategy.

Currently, players attacking solo players have to calculate and research an attack (to avoid AR), whereas when attacking allied players, you just send pretty much everything since government won't intervene.

Of course, they have to check for defenders etc... but many ally players are too scared to defend anything but last tick so they don't lose their staff (but they expect the others to fully defend them) at which the solo guy just range,middle, recalls after inflicting much damage. Allied player now pissed that everyday he is 1 step forward, 2 steps back. This also is killing allied play.

With all the develepments allys do just to get search lights, why can't there be something in there that aids in the defense as a result of some of those developments? Sort of like a defensive bonus multiplier or something.

While i know i'm wasting my time with ideas that most likely will get dissected, quoted, misquoted etc.. I just wanted to throw them out there in hopes adequate changes are made and/or considered before this game completely dies.

[Augustus]

we would not even have this discussion if all these alliances would not require seventy days of 24/7 activity and your personal phone number so they can wake you up in the middle of the night.

i would be in an alliance right now if this were not the case

I agree that more and more alliances are expecting contactability and decent activity, but to say all of them are I find hard to believe(especially after checking recruitment messages and only spotting one Alliance that requests a contact No). Its not just being woken up thats a problem, it's having to send txt messages/pranking people that is also a problem. I play the game to have fun, not waste money on txt messages.

eople play solos because currently, solos get better defence (much better). In order for alliances to compete with those solos, they raise their expectations, activity and contactability wise which eventually drives people away from alliances and we are stuck in a circle.

To totally point the finger at solos is unfair IMO. Resistances are a major reason for phone numbers being a necessity, not the occasional solo wave. Personally I think that the competitiveness of Alliances is a major reason for people moving to solo play, as round by round the expectations of Alliance members becomes more demanding. This is my personal reason for going solo this round. My last round in an Alliance was at times more stressful than enjoyable, as I tried to franticly get people online to defend massive incomings.

So the problem we face is that Alliance play doesn't have the flexibility that most people need to make it an enticing option. This, IMO, is a direct result of Alliances becoming more and more competitive, which in turn makes solo play the easier/more enjoyable option.

[septimus]

Well, I mean, if you were frantically trying to get defense then maybe that's on you, Im not saying that as an insult, I never worry too much about it, I make it known that I can't contact overseas, if that's a problem for the ally then I don't join, I also let them know that while I give a number it's not a guarantee of anything, if I'm able to get on then sure, I've never once been awakened by a call, not because they haven't tried, it just doesn't wake me, if that's a problem for them then so be it.

My point is, if you're a good player, more often then not the ally will overlook your reluctance to give a number, and if they won't then find another ally, there's definitely allies out there that will take you in regardless. People go solo because the defense is more reliable, and better then it is for allies very often.

[f0xx]

eople play solos because currently, solos get better defence (much better). In order for alliances to compete with those solos, they raise their expectations, activity and contactability wise which eventually drives people away from alliances and we are stuck in a circle.

To totally point the finger at solos is unfair IMO. Resistances are a major reason for phone numbers being a necessity, not the occasional solo wave. Personally I think that the competitiveness of Alliances is a major reason for people moving to solo play, as round by round the expectations of Alliance members becomes more demanding. This is my personal reason for going solo this round. My last round in an Alliance was at times more stressful than enjoyable, as I tried to franticly get people online to defend massive incomings.

So the problem we face is that Alliance play doesn't have the flexibility that most people need to make it an enticing option. This, IMO, is a direct result of Alliances becoming more and more competitive, which in turn makes solo play the easier/more enjoyable option.

No, that is the problem with you solo lovers. When you are a solo, you are not afraid to attack alliances becuase they just cannot bash you back, if they do they will trigger AR (we are talking about mediocore players here). If everyone is allied though, then everyone will first THINK before they attack becuase they know that if they are not good enough they will be retalled and mashed. That is when solo play destroys alliance politics and that is where the game gats boring and fails. That is where solo play is better than alliance play.

When I am solo, I am invincible to bashes, especially if I have two active naps. How are you going to argue with this adequately?

[roger rabbit]

eople play solos because currently, solos get better defence (much better). In order for alliances to compete with those solos, they raise their expectations, activity and contactability wise which eventually drives people away from alliances and we are stuck in a circle.

To totally point the finger at solos is unfair IMO. Resistances are a major reason for phone numbers being a necessity, not the occasional solo wave. Personally I think that the competitiveness of Alliances is a major reason for people moving to solo play, as round by round the expectations of Alliance members becomes more demanding. This is my personal reason for going solo this round. My last round in an Alliance was at times more stressful than enjoyable, as I tried to franticly get people online to defend massive incomings.

So the problem we face is that Alliance play doesn't have the flexibility that most people need to make it an enticing option. This, IMO, is a direct result of Alliances becoming more and more competitive, which in turn makes solo play the easier/more enjoyable option.

No, that is the problem with you solo lovers. When you are a solo, you are not afraid to attack alliances becuase they just cannot bash you back, if they do they will trigger AR (we are talking about mediocore players here). If everyone is allied though, then everyone will first THINK before they attack becuase they know that if they are not good enough they will be retalled and mashed. That is when solo play destroys alliance politics and that is where the game gats boring and fails. That is where solo play is better than alliance play.

When I am solo, I am invincible to bashes, especially if I have two active naps. How are you going to argue with this adequately?


well you could have addressed the point he was making vs the one you made up to talk about. he was talking about his reason to go to solo play because he does not like the current state of allied play. respond to his point of why he does not like allied play...help him and the playerbase get back into allied play vs belittling his comments.

[BlackWolf]

I can answer to you without making 57lines of quotes and still talk of same matter.
Please learn to use quotes without spamming.

What f0xx is after is whole solo concept. He made it pretty clear that current way of solos doesnt work at all. He gave example of one situation which was then without even trying to think about things retaliated by multiple solo lovers how alliances are this and alliances are that.

If you dont have enought brains to understand that any mediocre player in this game is getting 10 times better defence as solo than they are in any alliance which they are able to join then you really should stop posting to threads like this.
Why alliances demands contacts? Because alliances dont get automatical goverment defence to stop 10 people massing on one. They must gather those 10 people to defend against that attack. If they dont they just die 1 by 1. I have seen solo groups (read alliances) massing on single alliance after alliance, something that couldnt ever happen on solo. So what possibility does those alliances have? They demand more from people playing in alliances and rest will get killed few times because of no defence and go solo.

Alliances have not caused situation to be like this! Situation is caused by massive advantage of solos vs. alliances. Your survivability as solo is so much bigger that it has pushed alliance players to be solos. This is never ending road. More solos = more solo groups = more masses on fewer alliances = more people going solo, and remaining alliances once again pick their members even more carefully and demand more of their members. Get it? It is going in circles and has gone for rounds now.

It is simply bullshit to say things like "alliance play doesnt have felxibility etc." I want to see the day when AR is removed from solos and we will finally get to retaliate you all solo lovers with the full force of our alliances. THATS FLEXIBILITY!

[f0xx]

well you could have addressed the point he was making vs the one you made up to talk about. he was talking about his reason to go to solo play because he does not like the current state of allied play. respond to his point of why he does not like allied play...help him and the playerbase get back into allied play vs belittling his comments.

The current state of allied play is only because of the power solos hold at the moment. If you are stupid enough not to undertand this, then I understand why you protect solos so zealously.

There you go, I responded to his comment, happy now?

[Harbinger]

As long as solo play is part of Bush then AR has to remain - those of you who are arguing that AR should be removed know very well that solo play would then be impossible. Take away PNaps, in some way use the code to stop triggering and massing by solos - but as long as solo play is allowed then AR must remain.

No AR - no solo play - so Bush then becomes an alliance only game. That's fine - but the only way that would work is that EVERYONE is randomly allocated an alliance when they sign-up. Let's say there are 20-25 alliances set up by the system - they are filled in rotation - if 1000 players sign up then that means 40-50 per alliance. You have no control over who you will be playing with. Alliances are locked for the entire round. The only way you can switch alliances is by deleting, waiting for that account to delete and then sign-up again and be randomly allocated for a second time (bad luck if you get the same alliance ;)) Or a halfway house - where let's say alliances are locked at 10 chosen members (so you can partly choose) and thereafter sign-ups are allocated.

Whatever way it was setup, there would have to be some way of people immediately joining an alliance if solo play is outlawed.

[moorer]

Couldn't agree more Harbie.

FTW alliances are guilty of bashing alliances lower in the food chain just as much if not more than the solo "groups".

Whilst we continue to allow hyperactive players to form their close knit alliances then we will never see a truly "competitive" alliance round.

Solos have little hope of damaging these alliance singly so must attack in groups if they hope to succeed same of any alliance really, a solo has little hope of landing attacking an allied target where the alliance has any sort of reasonable activity level.

[roger rabbit]

the reason i keep making these remarks/comments is because the reactionary nature that people have to solving the "solo problem." but you still wont fix as much as you want because you're not addressing the cause.

alci really put it nicely in another thread when he said that injuries is what is causing allied play to deteriorate. therein lies, imo, the reason why more people have abandoned allied play and have embraced solo.

i dont remember anyone complaining as much before injuries was introduced.

put your head around the cause of the problem vs trying to fix the effects it.

and everyone bashes, allied or solo. just that it seems worse now that more solos are around now.

[f0xx]

This thread is so full of **** I refuse to read it anymore.

People don't seem to understand that most of the people who are posting against solo play have no problem palying in alliances or as solos, because they just know what they are doing.

Solos don't bother me, neither they bother BW or Silence or whoever. The thing is, they are those who destroy the game and because we love we try to protect it, but some people will not give up their personal benefits...

[BlackWolf]

I so agree with f0xx.
I have played as solo and loved it, I have lead alliances and loved it, I currently play as mmber of alliance and I love it too.
I was the one who made post to old forums about how solo play is next to impossible something like 10+ rounds ago. I have always thought that solos are part of bushtarion as alliances are. I just at the current state of bushtarion dont see any other way to stop this down hill than to cut AR out. That is what I would do. You dont agree? Fine.

I have been telling how this game is going straight to hell for how many? 10 rounds. Was I ever listened? No. Well here we are... Is anyone still listening? Well this time I must say yes. Some people who I wouldnt have ever thought to see things my way have turned their opinions around and started to agree with me. I am not genius, or I dont say I'm right. But hell yes I say that something must be done. And that something is not wrapping same **** to new paper and calling it age 5.

[Augustus]

What f0xx is after is whole solo concept. He made it pretty clear that current way of solos doesnt work at all. He gave example of one situation which was then without even trying to think about things retaliated by multiple solo lovers how alliances are this and alliances are that.

And my point is that currently Alliance play pushes people towards playing solo, because it is less demanding and more rewarding. Alliance play in its current form has issues and trying to push people from Solo play to Alliances will only serve to shrink the playerbase further IMO. We will have to wait and see how the playerbase changes over the next couple of rounds, if I am wrong, then I will gladly admit it.

[f0xx]

The current state of allied play is only because of the power solos hold at the moment.


And my point is that currently Alliance play pushes people towards playing solo, because it is less demanding and more rewarding.

Hm... did you just prove my point there?

While you Augustus are arguing just to prove that YOU are right and not me or BW or whoever, I on the other side do not care who is right.

I will tell you one fact. This fact is - at the moment, if you are not in the winning alliance it is not worthy to be in alliance at all and that is so NOT because alliances have high requirements (which is not true but I don't care). That is because solo offers more benefits which leads to more and more people playing solo rather than allied, which leads to players having less of contact with each other which leads to decay of the comunity, which leads to a dying game. This is because Bushtarion is a war game designed on the sole concept of alliance warfare.

The idea behind solo playstyle is that if you are a newbie you can have some sort of protection from being "raped". When active, skilled and contactable players start playing as solos rather than in alliances and work as an alliance in the mean time as well, then the whole concet of solo playstyle is broken. Just as bounty hunting was broken, just as law and fame was broken.

And the same people who were defending law and fame system + bounty hunting THEN, are now viciously defending the solos, JUST BECAUSE THEY DO NOT WISH TO GIVE UP THE INSANE BONUSES THEY HAVE!

The game started to fall at the moment when Azzer decided that it will be better to attempt to satisfy "everyone" and he introduced the different ranking system. People complained that they were being bashed and he introduced the bounty hunting and l/f system to promote "fair" playstyle (which combined with the already existing XP system was an extremely stupid move). More stupid unpdates followed, such as injuries, base bounty and so on and so on. Then was the time when the big groups started to get fed up with bush (the dutchies just ot mention one).

That is not the way to go in a game like this. The only possible way for Bushtarion to be successful and return to its former state is only one - to promote and encourage skilled alliances.

You think I want solos AR to be removed so I can bash solos? Hell no, I can do it now fairly easy. I even prefer attacking solo targets and I rarely attack alliances because alliance defence is unpredictable. Actually I feel in heaven at the moment because it is easier than ever to steal land. The point here is, that if something drastic isn't to be done soon, bushtarion will get to a point where it won't be profitable for Azzer to be running it anymore. The problem is, those new changes he has prepared (faster dropping AR but easier to trigger) will be just another extremely stupid change who will encourage even more solo play.

I don't know why you guys still keep your eyes wide closed. WildDesease says freedom of choise... noone wants to take away the option to play as solo, but solos who have more benefits than alliances is just plain stupid and the people who support the idea of solos having such benefits are selfish.

Bushtarion starts to remind of one of those browser games which have rules like "You cannot attack the same player more the 5 times per day". Now excuse me, I will go to puke somewhere.

[edit] And just to give you some brainfood. Do you really think it is fair that a solo can get better outside defence than an alliance with 20 members?

[Jimbo2189]

I still stand by the fact that AR should stay, BUT (and this is coming from a solo) Change the injury system. 40% is far too high for a solo, i loved it when there was no injury as it made the game so much more unstable and much much more fun in my opinion. If lets say you reduced the current injury to 5-10% then you 'shouldn't' have the problem of your land simply vanishing when you get zerod as a solo, but it obviosly still will happen more than currently. Yes i know this disadvantages alliances as well, but trust me if there was no injury, none what so ever, there would be none of these 'where have all the alliances gone' threads, simply because when you cant get online when your old school zeroed and your solo you can got from the top of the pile to the very bottom is hours!

[nopjes]

As long as solo play is part of Bush then AR has to remain - those of you who are arguing that AR should be removed know very well that solo play would then be impossible. Take away PNaps, in some way use the code to stop triggering and massing by solos - but as long as solo play is allowed then AR must remain.

No AR - no solo play - so Bush then becomes an alliance only game. That's fine - but the only way that would work is that EVERYONE is randomly allocated an alliance when they sign-up. Let's say there are 20-25 alliances set up by the system - they are filled in rotation - if 1000 players sign up then that means 40-50 per alliance. You have no control over who you will be playing with. Alliances are locked for the entire round. The only way you can switch alliances is by deleting, waiting for that account to delete and then sign-up again and be randomly allocated for a second time (bad luck if you get the same alliance ;)) Or a halfway house - where let's say alliances are locked at 10 chosen members (so you can partly choose) and thereafter sign-ups are allocated.

Whatever way it was setup, there would have to be some way of people immediately joining an alliance if solo play is outlawed.

An other game i playED, star-fury got destroyed by implementing this change.
wich is pretty much why im against is, the only argument i make up, things get messy

[TaO]

Let AR stay for the times the Solo is 'offline', but not for the complete offline period:

The minute he logs in, he looses his AR to a normal player level. This way he has to play the game with his pNaps, like an alliance. When he has incommings, he can mail them, call them, whatever, to defend his acres.

When he is afk, a bit more protection might come in handy. To make sure they are active: Even in the AFK situation: Build of AR after a certain period:"

f.e.: Player has stopped playing, logs off (and there are no attacks current): No AR. After 3 ticks: AR Appears. Player is not playing for 8hours: AR starts building off until zero.

Player logs in: AR stays at zero.
Player logs off etc etc.




I like this idea, but its very easily to abuse imo, dont know if anyone else mentioned this before *didnt read all posts*.
example:
Im solo, i log on at 05:00 GMT * wake up for work *
06:00 GMT i leave house so i hig logoff
07:00 GMT, my AR trigger kicks in, most people wake up now so im safe for any attacks.
i work till 15:00 GMT, wont log on for the whole day till like 20:00 GMT, i log on for lets say an hour or 2, so i can attacks someone plant my stole acres e.t.c. i log off around 22:00 GMT, my AR kicks back in at 23:00 for a few more hours, i log back in the next day at 05:00 GMT, and do the above for the whole round.

In this case people only got like 5 hours a day to attack me at max!. Which 3 outta 5 hours im online so able to call in defences send troops out ed. so in fact its only 2 hours per day which people are able to bash me, imagine im a top 10 bunker player. it makes it rather impossible to take me down for the whole round.

i like the idea, but it just doesnt work this easy.

[Augustus]

And my point is that currently Alliance play pushes people towards playing solo, because it is less demanding and more rewarding.
Hm... did you just prove my point there?

While you Augustus are arguing just to prove that YOU are right and not me or BW or whoever, I on the other side do not care who is right.

Perhaps I could have phrased it differently, as it does appear to sound a lot like your arguement. What I am trying to say is that Alliance play in its current form is too demanding, changing solo play will not change this. People are moving from Alliance play to Solo play because it is too demanding or not as enjoyable. I firmly believe that if Solo play is nerfed then some players will go to Alliances, some will stay solo and the leftovers will quit. After a round of playing in an Alliance, a lot of people will be reminded why the chose solo play in the first place.....and either go back to playing solo or quit the game. Regardless, the change will cause the playerbase to shrink IMO.

My arguement f0xx is that Alliances need to be changed in some way so that it is just as fun for the less active Alliances as it is for the competitive Alliances. I wouldn't have a problem with Solo play being changed if there were changes made to Alliance play to compensate this.

[f0xx]

What I am trying to say is that Alliance play in its current form is too demanding, changing solo play will not change this.

This seems to be your main argument, an argument which you use to support the huge benefits solos get compared to alliances, but you are wrong. Saying this is like saying "The crysis in America affects only the American citizens", which is also not true.

Sometimes I wonder whether you trully believe in what you are saying or you just playing stupid and trying to win the argument because you love solo play too much...

[DarkSider]

Anybody can point out the "huge benefits" solo's get from previous rounds when their percentage was smaller ? As far as i know the only big benefit is the injury that helps an offline solo keep a good amount of his acres if there is no wave of geos organized to steal most acres before injuries return. That's all.
So before you had the alliance easly stoping the vultures after you are completly zeroed while solo's would login back to 500 acres and by the time they had their acres back the ar mod was low enough so they get killed again. Sorry if i'm wrong but i think most of those that say "huge advantages that solo's got now" without pointing them are just nostalgic about sending 10k geos to zeroed solo's.

[f0xx]

By "huge benefits" I mean sololy AR DarkSider and the formula which allows even easier triggering of AR for pure solos. That and the way AR is designed to not just help the solo, but to completely wipe out the attacker.

All the other small benefits I am not against, but AR (in its current form) must either go, or get dramatically changed.

[Augustus]

Sometimes I wonder whether you trully believe in what you are saying or you just playing stupid and trying to win the argument because you love solo play too much...

f0xx if you cannot understand my point then you are more stupid than I thought. Tell me why solos will suddenly start playing in Alliances, if they didn't like it to begin with?! Your argument for crippling solos doesn't address the issue of why so many people chose to go solo in the first place!

What you are suggesting is to basically force people into playing in Alliances. Look at it this way, if you only liked Alliance play and then Alliances were removed, why would you go solo?

[f0xx]

No Augustus, you don't understand because you were not here at the time when if you wanted to in top 100 you had to be in alliance (or affiliated to one). That was a rule. You can't view the game from mine or from BW's perspective, you say they won't start playing in alliance but they WILL.

Lets see how the game is at the moment for Joe, who plays 4 hour a day and cannot afford to be contactable. He joins an alliance, but with his activity/contactability he cannot find something very good so lets say everyone in Joe's alliance have the same activity/contactability. The alliance will be bashed by not only larger organised alliances, it will be bashed by organised solos, solo solos and piggiers. Every day.

Joe gets fed up. He restarts and goes pure solo.

Now as a solo, with the same activity/contactability he not only gets perm protection from any kind of bashes, but when someone with route designed to beat his, comes and zeroes him, he gets 90% AR and 40% of his troops back (no ally mates to defend so he doesn't lose troops defending ally mates too!).

Which of those two are you going to choose?

Now lets say EVERYONE in the game was allied. People wouldn't be bashing with such a light hand because they will know that the same can be thrown back at them, politics will play a large role, coalitions and unofficial naps will be formed to fight bigger alliances, basicly everything will be much more interesting. The requirements in the alliances will not be so strict, especially for the middle rank alliances, basicly every player will be getting an adequately skilled/active/contactable alliance. It won't be possible for someone with 5 hours/day activity to stay in top 10 for long, unless he has a really strong alliance and if that happens then it is a problem of the alliance itself.

Now tell me please, what is YOUR reason for which you want to keep solo play the way it is at the moment? Is it because you will not be able to find a better alliance (and therefore won't be able to get better rank) with your current activity/contactability?

You say that if solos lose AR the game will lose even more players, but this is just a guess of yours and if you look some of the most successful war games out there (Travian, TribalWars so on...) you will see that there is no such thing as solo play in those games. Now can you give me an example of a successful wargame which has some sort of solo gameplay in it? A wargame in which you can play from the start to the end and do REALLY well in it if you are not affiliated to any kind of organisation in any way?

[Augustus]

No Augustus, you don't understand because you were not here at the time when if you wanted to in top 100 you had to be in alliance (or affiliated to one). That was a rule. You can't view the game from mine or from BW's perspective I cannot disagree with this at all. I can only give my opinion based on the rounds I have been playing and my comments are only based on this experience. However what you speak of is in the past and IMO nerfing solo wont magically change things back to the way they were.

Now tell me please, what is YOUR reason for which you want to keep solo play the way it is at the moment?My reason is that nerfing solos is not the solution to the burnout that is caused by playing in an Alliance. By all means alter AR so that it drops faster and can't be mutually triggered, but anything more than that is tantamount to bullying people into playing in an Alliance.

Is it because you will not be able to find a better alliance (and therefore won't be able to get better rank) with your current activity/contactability?
No. It's because I think I can do better on my own and don't want the commitment of playing in an Alliance. FYI I have consistently put in 9+ hours a day for the last few rounds as both solo and in Alliances. When you put in that much activity it becomes clear that more often than not, you are putting in more effort than your team mates. And that is what pushed me towards solo this round, why pull the weight of others when I will probably be better off on my own?

[f0xx]

With that kind of activity you can easily get into the rank 1 alliance, even if you are not contactable all the time (noone is).

As I said above, I prefer attacking solos more than allied players, yet I am still suggesting the removal of AR which will force the people who want to do well to join alliances, therefore I am going against myself suggesting this, but if it the survival of the game compared to my own preferences then I would stand behind what is good for the game and what is good overall.

I gave you examples which include not only my 5 years experience within bush, but examples with other wargames. Actually I really have no idea why one would prefer to play a war game as a solo other than pure benefits he gets from being solo. You say that the high requirements alliances have drive you to play solo... well then make an alliance, lead it and we will see what requirements you will put for the people you want to be your alliance mates in order to deal with the heavy incomings, especially from solos because solos can be effectively killed only in defence since AR protects them from being bashed.

[DarkSider]

I agree with Augustus in this 1:1 war :D
If you want an alliance game make suggestions to reward the comitement needed to be in one instead throwing dirt to others so your **** won't stink much worse in comparison anymore.

And travian and tribal wars are more solo orientated than bush, they have sort of solo groups where a guy in alliance getting killed won't affect your good mood as much as in bush. I think that kind of system would work wonders here, cut the demandings and responsability to defend the entire alliance and make it more each with his own company and his own skill but if needed they can use their combined offensive force. You'd still have the comunity feel inside the group and also the relaxed play of a solo.

[Garrett]

to your point DS... nothing has been done with the alliance HQ in years.

we could probably have benefits as you say to ally play should azzer... oh i don't know... drastically improve the HQ and it's function(s)?

i mean it doesn't even support the same functionality as your standard hiring page... it still has the old slot for XP% on it's troops.

the HQ has been completely ignored. hopefully it won't be the case in age 5... but honestly if HQ isn't his first, biggest, and best update to alliance play... then yeah to hell with it.

[Augustus]

Thankyou Garrett, this is what I am asking for! Some sort of suggestion/s that will improve Alliance play to make up for any drastic changes to Solo play. F0xx, I can see your frustration and why you so badly want people to move back to Alliances. But you seem to be denying the point I am trying to make. I will try one last time to explain why I think that just nerfing Solo play is not the full solution.

To explain this from a business point of view may help clarify where I'm coming from. If a business has two products, but then chooses to remove the more popular product, it has to create some incentive for people to start buying the less preferable product. If this is not done then it is inevitable that a portion of the existing customers will disappear altogether, as they will decide that this business has nothing to offer them any more and go elsewhere.

Now I'm not suggesting that all solos will leave Bushtarion if the solo option is nerfed, but there will be a portion of the playerbase that will leave the game. Bearing in mind that 4/5ths of the playerbase is solo, this could potentially be catastrophic for the game.

[f0xx]

Now, first to reply to Augustus' post. Yes, you are right to some extent, if AR is to be removed, there will be SOME loss of players initially (just as there was loss of players when the different ranking system was implemented) but in the long term I do believe that is the right thing to do.

Garrett also opens a VERY VERY good point which can be largerly discussed and I would actually prefer tweaking with the HQ units and buildings rather than removing AR, because as I said, I don't mind solos at all. The fact at the moment though, is that solos simply get more benefits than allied players and something needs to be done about that so we can get the players back to playing in alliances rather than being solos, whether it will be nerfing solos or boosting alliances, I don't care personally as long as something adequatelly is done to solve the problem.

[timthetyrant]

I want to put my hand up to make a suggestion *puts hand up*

As the purpose of anti-rape is to stop players being overkilled by larger targets, why not remove the anti-rape or reduce its power dramatically, but instead increase the minimum range of attack from 30% of your valuation to 40%, or even 50% and then have the ETA increase over the next 10% as it does.

This would stop the solos from being protected so much, but still allow them some protection. Solos are meant to be loners and be free and the management of their account should be in their hands so they can take pride in their work. I'm a solo and its almost an insult to have the government to step-in when the main reason i'm solo is for the fighting and being free to pick a fight with who-eva. Its almost like WWII when the yanks stepped in. I've done all this work but i know, and so does every1 else, that i only got so far because of the help. I wanna say it was all me!

*This would mean less incentive to be solo and more incentive for alliance play as they can at least protect you from constant incoming.
*It means more teamwork would be required to attack someone, and thus alliances would be very useful, as your targets would be stronger due to the increase in minimum attack range, making it harder still for solos, but they can always message a mate, Pnap or not, and say "im attacking some random, you in?"

Now you can think about my suggestion or chop my hand off, but i do like the idea of exploring what can be done with the alliance HQs

[Harbinger]

As the purpose of anti-rape is to stop players being overkilled by larger targets, why not remove the anti-rape or reduce its power dramatically, but instead increase the minimum range of attack from 30% of your valuation to 40%, or even 50% and then have the ETA increase over the next 10% as it does.


What would stop 10 people all attacking the same 50% solo target - either on one tick or in a wave?

Believe it or not, there are some nasty people in this game who would willingly do such a disgraceful thing ;)

[Shyslywolf]

Personally, I think the AR should be reduced. It triggers too easy, way too easy. But not eliminated. You still need some protection for noobs as well as those who cant be on all that often. If these people keep getting owned then they probably will get sick of playing and not come back.

I 100% Agree. i am a psolo player. have played psolo all but one of the last 5 rounds. this round alone i have hit sas so many times that it is rediculous... 3 of the times were attacking tartets that were bigger than i was. (one of them was 14 bil gov valuation when i only had 4.2 bil.) Something really needs to change on this. he had a 75% bounty on his head for me also... you would think that if someone has a bounty, that the gov should not be able to defend or something. Especially when their net worth is around 3x higher than mine is. I say scrap the new system and bring back the old kill em all system. This new crap about a not being able to anialate someone sucks... I thought this was a war game.

[Shyslywolf]

once again... Yet another example of why the ar system rediculous at the moment...

Guy that i am attacking has:
Land: 13592
Gov Valuation: 9,875,976,663

My land: 4057
My Gov Valuation: 5,438,343,757

And of course the clincher:
Helicopters flew in overhead, dropping lines down around our land. Figures dressed in black, faces covered with balaclavas, dropped down the lines, assault rifles strapped to their backs. We couldn't be sure how many SAS there were.

yet another one that was on my enemie list... :(

[Alcibiades]

It's entirely possible the high ranked guy was just raped quite badly (in fact i can't think of many other reasons AR would be fairly high). Land/Score have very little to do with AR. It's troop value/troop score that trigger AR; so you have just sent too many LETs. Also if you sent just one single LET unit it will trigger AR even if the rest of your troops are flak/geos under the AR.

[Enrico]

Why try to fix a broken system? Just remove AR and up the injuries for solos.

For that matter let solos park their staff at ID1 if they like. (This would not show up in news, so an attacker would not know what, if anything, the solo has at home to defend)).

Sure, land would easily be lost, but hey, they could just steal it of some other solo, or join an ally.

I understand that this would make it very difficult to play solo, which is part of the plan. I see no problem in pushing people into allianceplay. Solo should be an option for the inactive gits mucking about down in the triple digit ranks, not anyone with more than 1 hour activity pr day. :D

[f0xx]

Why try to fix a broken system? Just remove AR and up the injuries for solos.


:winner: