Design Directions Concepts & Ideas

[Azzer]

Before I start I'd like to say direction can always change based on players input, feedback and opinions. Otherwise the game would simply only ever be what I want without any thought at all given to player input - and despite what some players like to believe, I do take on board a hell of a lot from players, and even when not directly, player suggestions help inspire or give rise to other, altered improvements/changes. Direction can change, as can priorities of "what needs fixing first". Also whole new ideas can spring up that can change "long-term plans", and other things can affect "long-term plans" and make them no longer viable, less desirable, or more desirable.

That being said, here are some of my current goals I am working towards, design wise, or things that I am experimenting with, getting player feedback on, or simply helping brainstorm ideas with. This isn't a timeline, an exact timeline simply isn't possible, because of the evolutionary nature of the game and the playerbase, but this might interest some people. I'm not doing this to satisfy "grumbling players", because I've come to live with the fact nothing will ever satisfy those that like to complain, I'm doing this for those that are interested in such information:

Law & Fame:
I want to bring back "Law & fame" (or "honour & fame", call it what you will), along with the abolishment of "base bounty", and the re-introduction of "bounty for red titles". Perhaps even the old "special units" for achieving the top and bottom most titles.

Training Alliances/More Newbie Aid:
I want to create *SOME* sort of official "training alliance system" or "open alliance system" - eg an alliance that new ID's can join, which has a couple of helpers who don't mind about not "playing properly/ftw" and can cope with being pwned from not getting AR or being in a good ally to train them. Perhaps once you hit a certain score, you are "forced out" of the training ally and sent an automated mail on "next steps/advice", and given instant solo classification. There's various ideas and directions these could take, but the new alliance recruitment systems and set up brought in with age 5 help make this easier, and has been a step towards this goal.

Expanded Tutorial/In-Game Help:
Improved user friendliness for new players. In-game tutorial system was introduced but probably needs expansions to cover attacks better. I'm after player help on this one, being the "typical coder", I'm no good at writing manuals or teaching people how to use the things I create (not all coders are like this, but this is "atypical" of programmers - make the programs, useless at writing manuals/instructions).

Bots:
Bots - I want to make bots that cap themselves at a certain score/land/troop count so they stay in range of new ID's, and don't develop further (so they aren't easy farms for mid-ranked players, only new players). I also want to make them run away less.

Alliance Wars:
Alliance wars system - alliance wars have taken short but steady steps towards what the intended aim is. However with the new "combat stat tracking" for alliances introduced last round, and with it's expansion next round to also cover defensive actions, I aim to bring in an official "won lost drawn" stat for how many wars can be won/lost by allies etc., and introduce this at some stage, at first perhaps purely for "fun" (how many wars can your ally "win"), but it may have potential for further expansion.

Alliance Techs/HQ's:
Alliance tech-tree/developments. I would like, as has been discussed elsewhere, some sort of multiple-route idea for alliances so alliances can have some different core tactics/purposes, rather than all alliances being identical. While there has been some good suggestions, I don't think any final solution was found that everyone thought was a "great idea", and it's currently a stagnant "backburner" idea, but one that I'd love to be able to do some day.

Prioritise Land Not Troops:
Wars/fights are sometimes stagnating, and being too much about troops not land. Bushtarion was always about the land before, and people would do anything to try and save their land, and steal enemy land. Now it's all about the killing. I believe there are a combination of factors causing this - base bounty, land-score, score from cash-seeds-plants, player attitudes/tactics have changed, and perhaps other unknown reasons. I believe making land more important than it currently is in fights, will improve the game. Limiting bots to be for very low ranked/new ID's only, altering land-score to the old system, increasing the price of land, perhaps even *slightly* slightly increasing the power of basics, could all be potential ways of doing this, but I'm open to feedback.

Injuries/Insurance:
Injuries/insurance. I think these are good things to have in general, and the alliance wars system allowing people to "not get insurance or injury", covers both aspects of play. I currently have no plans to alter this (beyond perhaps nudging actual figures returned).

Anti-Rape:
Anti-rape - still no clear decision has been made from my end regarding whether anti-rape needs to be "more powerful", "less powerful", ranges changed, modifier changed, etc. - largely because player feedback has been so divided and had so many angles that it's hard to judge both what the game needs/would improve it, and what players would actually enjoy and find improve the game they play rather than worsen it. A way of preventing people intentionally triggering AR is needed and something I seek to employ when law/fame is re-introduced (the person that causes the trigger of AR, not the original sender, will receive "punishments" relating to his law/fame... so if you send and don't trigger, and somebody else sends 1 hippy or a mob which causes your combined forces to trigger... the other sender is the triggerer, so he gets the "Punishment", not you - AR will still come up against you, but people that trigger frequently will get "bad things" happening).

Routes, Units, Balancing::
Routes/units - I want to continue working towards balancing all units and routes to be enjoyable, useful, have both alliance and solo ways to play, and for the majority to be accessible to all players. Long-term, I want a third branch in the "Fantasy" route, most likely based on an alien theme, but atm no purpose for such a branch exists - eg what sort of units/tactics/pros/cons/enemies/targets it would have etc., which is why no third and final branch for fantasy has been done yet. Perhaps after the latest big set of balance changes have been played for a round or two, players will spot something I have not, and come up with a perfect concept for 6 new units for a new branch.

Manual/Wiki:
Manual/Wiki. Wiki will stay. It has it's place, and it's uses. But I agree that the old manual was easier to navigate and more helpful to new players. A new manual will be created that takes live data from the equivalent wiki pages, so that wiki sysops can edit the wiki pages, and the manual will in turn be updated "Live", allowing players to do something I openly confess to being rubbish at - writing and maintaining user manuals.

Create More Socialising & Community:
Improving community aspects of the game. I am open to suggestions and ideas for integrating community and social building tools within the game interface itself. Integration of profiles in to ID's was a step towards this, as was improving alliance recruitment, and adding ally and ID "profiles" and avatars. I want to expand on this further, as players that get involved with the community and make friends, stay playing for longer. This is good for business, and likewise good for the game. I have no *immediate* ideas here, but am always lookoing out for and trying to think of improvements.

Mobile/PDA/"Lite" Version:
"Lite" version of the game, basically a cut-down version of the game - allowing essentials such as mail, politics, basic alliance functionality, military/hiring/supply/maintenance/land - and cut those down to be more basic. Aiming for something that's a lot easier to use on very small devices, while not limiting your ability to play.

In-Game Menu/Layout:
In-game layout/design. In the future I would like to look towards somebody helping with a whole new layout/design for the in-game system of Bushtarion, that looks more sleek/modern (and thus appealing to newer generations of players), while maintaining much of the simplicity and functionality of the old. I'd like to keep the old layout available to allow those who like the old layout to keep it (much like many Windows users like classic windows, not all this "Aero" stuff), thus ideally it would be done through clever use of .CSS - any expert (or skilled amateur) web designers who know this field, and want to work on this, please approach me!

Less Private, More Public:
Making the private, more public. I really want to push towards public allies, public ID's, more and more - this does mainly go hand in hand with the community points above, but for allies, I've always though it silly that somebody can be playing, have set up an ally with their mates, have received 5 attacks, and not have a clue what alliance attacked them or who exactly they are meant to be fighting back against.

News Bulletins:
"News Bulletins" - big "news bulletins" automated based on in-game events, viewable somewhere in-game, to give people who aren't in the top ranks or really actively involved in the community, to know what's happening. This could be things such as when a unit is first developed (eg the first time PA's get developed, so they have "just come out") to giving a short bulletin within 12 hours of it (not revealing any ID ofc, just the fact PA's are out for example), and taking information updating through the ally combat tracking system to announce things using ally names and round figures such as "GITK recently took over 5,000 land from PureEvil!" or similar.

Simplify The Un-Necessary:
Simplifying aspects of the game that bring no enjoyment to players, or have no purpose at all, other than to bring entirely un-necessary complications. These would relate to core aspects of the game - the "game date/time" system, the weather system, the land system. There is nothing specific planned here, but I'm open to suggestions. Combining "owner" and "company" in to a single game name is a simplified example of this, as was removing username and just having email address, in Age 5. Removing "constructions" and simply having "Developments" might be a positive step.

Advertising, Promotion, Voting:
Advertising: It will involve Google Ads and Google AdWords, a press launch to any free gaming websites/MMO sites, perhaps a couple of ads on some of the larger "MMO voting websites", and a specialist advertising company that deals exclusively in online games to throw a Bush advert out to the many other web games out there that have adverts on their own sites. I might have a little flutter with Facebook ads but I've never experimented with them before and am not sure about return-of-investment, though as far as I could discover when researching, it operates similar to the way google adwords do. The budget will be small initially as I'll be testing new advert grounds/wordings, using a few different types in different areas, and based on initial responses (clickthrough & signup rates) from those, I'll expand on the better areas and shrink/remove the "useless" ones". I'll also be expanding the "Free" advertising systems through referals, and encouragement of fans to post links/have forum sigs on any forums they are willing to have at around the same time. Timescale wise - As it stands there is work to be done on the community and newbie-friendly aspects of the game and I see this as a priority before pumping money in to advertising, my timescale atm will be this following Christmas - a period I have always found in the past to reap maximum returns for advertising. Admittedly I could in theory "keep improving forever", and keep saying "No point advertising now, I have X or Y feature to come!", but the intention is to do it once we have a system of training allies, the new manual, and the core L/F changes back in place, which is all planned in the coming 3 months. I'd also like to make use of free advertising and promotion, like back to decent voting sites.

Please check back every now and then for any updated, additions, or removals.

[harriergirl]

Advertisement ? This has been promised for rounds now, you won't be getting much of a new playerbase without it ....

otherwise, thanks for the update.

[Alcibiades]

Originally Posted by Azzer

* I want to bring back "Law & fame" (or "honour & fame", call it what you will), along with the abolishment of "base bounty", and the re-introduction of "bounty for red titles". Perhaps even the old "special units" for achieving the top and bottom most titles.

Awesome. I always enjoyed the idea of L/F and i just mourn the fact that i was too crap to take advantage of, and really enjoy the L/F system. Kudos to working on bringing that back, i assume the fairness calc is the first step towards that?

Originally Posted by Azzer

* I want to create *SOME* sort of official "training alliance system" or "open alliance system" - eg an alliance that new ID's can join, which has a couple of helpers who don't mind about not "playing properly/ftw" and can cope with being pwned from not getting AR or being in a good ally to train them. Perhaps once you hit a certain score, you are "forced out" of the training ally and sent an automated mail on "next steps/advice", and given instant solo classification. There's various ideas and directions these could take, but the new alliance recruitment systems and set up brought in with age 5 help make this easier, and has been a step towards this goal.

I like the idea of 'official' training allies. Some sort of AR protection for those alliance members in a training alliance would be excellent as well, so while not being totally invulnerable, they aren't reliant entirely on their ally members? Sure it might not train them for exactly what the 'real gameplay' is like but it'll keep them safe til they get on their feet.

I don't think it should be a score cap that 'kicks' players out of a training alliance. but as it stands atm i'm not sure what the key should be, however I think if it's strictly score based we might be in a spot of trouble. Perhaps a combination of land score/troop score and valuation? So that they are capable of defending themselves and have enough land to keep themselves in good 'stock' of troops? More thoughts required here.

Originally Posted by Azzer

* Improved user friendliness for new players. In-game tutorial system was introduced but probably needs expansions to cover attacks better. I'm after player help on this one, being the "typical coder", I'm no good at writing manuals or teaching people how to use the things I create (not all coders are like this, but this is "atypical" of programmers - make the programs, useless at writing manuals/instructions).

I'll certainly help edit/write manuals or manual blurbs for players who are willing to work it through. I'm not great with some of the game mechanics but i'm pretty literate and would happily volunteer my editing skills to the game.

Originally Posted by Azzer

* Bots - I want to make bots that cap themselves at a certain score/land/troop count so they stay in range of new ID's, and don't develop further (so they aren't easy farms for mid-ranked players, only new players).

Yeah, they shouldn't be farmable for mid ranked players, they should exist solely to introduce land to the lower portion/segment of the game. The land will trickle upwards anyways, but not at an excessive rate.

Originally Posted by Azzer

* Alliance wars system - alliance wars have taken short but steady steps towards what the intended aim is. However with the new "combat stat tracking" for alliances introduced last round, and with it's expansion next round to also cover defensive actions, I aim to bring in an official "won lost drawn" stat for how many wars can be won/lost by allies etc., and introduce this at some stage, at first perhaps purely for "fun" (how many wars can your ally "win"), but it may have potential for further expansion.

Anything to create/increase competition between allies for something other than rank 1. Since the only wars we tend to hear about are those for rank 1 between the main 'ftw' allies it'd be nice to give stats for those who aren't rank 1. The public allies push would also (hopefully) greatly increase that. I don't want a return of the Global Pols since we have a perfectly usable Alliance Wars section in forums for that; and perhaps some sort of statistic denoting their alliance activity would encourage such a thing. You could add something to the User Awards stat that is more for alliances: War Victors (for those who won the most wars throughout the round, which wouldn't necessarily be rank 1) and then add user awards for the most valuable 'soldier' (i.e. ID) in a war: for example who did the most damage in attacks, who did the most damage in defence etc etc. There are a whole host of User related Awards you could add in that would encourage alliances to declare war to increase their user profile points.

Originally Posted by Azzer

* Alliance tech-tree/developments. I would like, as has been discussed elsewhere, some sort of multiple-route idea for alliances so alliances can have some different core tactics/purposes, rather than all alliances being identical. While there has been some good suggestions, I don't think any final solution was found that everyone thought was a "great idea", and it's currently a stagnant "backburner" idea, but one that I'd love to be able to do some day.

Garrett started off a few rounds ago with some truly wicked ideas, and very detailed too that was a good step in this sort of direction. It needs a concerted effort on the part of testers, coders and general brainstorming to make it work tho. It shouldn't have to be a one man effort.

Originally Posted by Azzer

* Wars/fights stagnating, and being about troops not land. Bushtarion was always about the land before, and people would do anything to try and save their land, and steal enemy land. Now it's all about the killing. I believe there are a combination of factors causing this - base bounty, land-score, score from cash-seeds-plants, player attitudes/tactics have changed, and perhaps other unknown reasons. I believe making land more important than it currently is in fights, will improve the game. Limiting bots to be for very low ranked/new ID's only, altering land-score to the old system, increasing the price of land, perhaps even *slightly* slightly increasing the power of basics, could all be potential ways of doing this, but I'm open to feedback.

Supported. People are happy to lose land, but not troops. It should be the other way around if you ask me. Base insurance and base bounty tho seem to have had a negative effect. I'll think more on the subject and see what I can come up with but i'm not renowned for gameplay related ideas

Originally Posted by Azzer

* Injuries/insurance. I think these are good things to have in general, and the alliance wars system allowing people to "not get insurance or injury", covers both aspects of play. I currently have no plans to alter this (beyond perhaps nudging actual figures returned).

I like the way it is now with injuries for basics and insurance for devved units. I don't think that should change. Also the war declaration no insurance/no injuries is a great idea since it makes war actually worthwhile. However, my problem with this is that once a war is over and the losers have no troops/no land they then become insta targets for everyone and get thoroughly demolished. For alliances that aren't 'ftw' this could potentially lead to disbanding since they'd get thoroughly land raped by the whole game, since we all know that the 'sharks smelling blood in the water' syndrome is very prevalent in the game.

I would hope for some sort of government related protection after a war. This could be very overpowered but perhaps 24 hours of protection or something could be used. This was suggested some time ago, and i'm pretty sure i argued vociferously against it's implementation then, but I have since recanted and figure that perhaps this idea isn't so bad at all. They wouldn't necessarily have to be invincible, but perhaps greatly increased insurance/injuries to compensate for being raped by anyone who hasn't declared war on them. More thought required here.

Originally Posted by Azzer

* Anti-rape - still no clear decision has been made from my end regarding whether anti-rape needs to be "more powerful", "less powerful", ranges changed, modifier changed, etc. - largely because player feedback has been so divided and had so many angles that it's hard to judge both what the game needs/would improve it, and what players would actually enjoy and find improve the game they play rather than worsen it. A way of preventing people intentionally triggering AR is needed and something I seek to employ when law/fame is re-introduced (the person that causes the trigger of AR, not the original sender, will receive "punishments" relating to his law/fame... so if you send and don't trigger, and somebody else sends 1 hippy or a mob which causes your combined forces to trigger... the other sender is the triggerer, so he gets the "Punishment", not you - AR will still come up against you, but people that trigger frequently will get "bad things" happening).

not my area of expertise but i like the idea of a solution for the deliberate triggerers to get targeted. Some other more mechanic inclined people should be able to help here.

Originally Posted by Azzer

* Routes/units - I want to continue working towards balancing all units and routes to be enjoyable, useful, have both alliance and solo ways to play, and for the majority to be accessible to all players. Long-term, I want a third branch in the "Fantasy" route, most likely based on an alien theme, but atm no purpose for such a branch exists - eg what sort of units/tactics/pros/cons/enemies/targets it would have etc., which is why no third and final branch for fantasy has been done yet. Perhaps after the latest big set of balance changes have been played for a round or two, players will spot something I have not, and come up with a perfect concept for 6 new units for a new branch.

It seems to me that a third branch is, currently, unnecessary and might provide more confusion than advantage. As you say, perhaps in forthcoming rounds we'll see a need for another route, as it stands, backburner project imo.

Originally Posted by Azzer

* Manual/Wiki. Wiki will stay. It has it's place, and it's uses. But I agree that the old manual was easier to navigate and more helpful to new players. A new manual will be created that takes live data from the equivalent wiki pages, so that wiki sysops can edit the wiki pages, and the manual will in turn be updated "Live", allowing players to do something I openly confess to being rubbish at - writing and maintaining user manuals.

That would be fantastic since i personally find the wiki to be impossibly hard to navigate. It's a good resource if you have the time/willpower to read through the entire damn thing looking for no information in particular, if you're looking to check up on something specific i've spent far too long having to just click through all the potentially relevant threads. I'll happily volunteer time/effort to help create the new 'Live updated' Manual.

Originally Posted by Azzer

* Improving community aspects of the game. I am open to suggestions and ideas for integrating community and social building tools within the game interface itself. Integration of profiles in to ID's was a step towards this, as was improving alliance recruitment, and adding ally and ID "profiles" and avatars. I want to expand on this further, as players that get involved with the community and make friends, stay playing for longer. This is good for business, and likewise good for the game. I have no *immediate* ideas here, but am always lookoing out for and trying to think of improvements.

hotlinked IDs is fantastic, 'nuff said atm. If i can think of anything more to integrate players/community i'll post/PM them to you.

Originally Posted by Azzer

* In-game layout/design. In the future I would like to look towards somebody helping with a whole new layout/design for the in-game system of Bushtarion, that looks more sleek/modern (and thus appealing to newer generations of players), while maintaining much of the simplicity and functionality of the old. I'd like to keep the old layout available to allow those who like the old layout to keep it (much like many Windows users like classic windows, not all this "Aero" stuff), thus ideally it would be done through clever use of .CSS - any expert (or skilled amateur) web designers who know this field, and want to work on this, please approach me!

I'm rubbish at design but since the Age 2 code PW, i've had to say the evolution towards sleek and modern is amazing. Continue in this vein and we're onto a good thing.

Originally Posted by Azzer

* Making the private, more public. I really want to push towards public allies, public ID's, more and more - this does mainly go hand in hand with the community points above, but for allies, I've always though it silly that somebody can be playing, have set up an ally with their mates, have received 5 attacks, and not have a clue what alliance attacked them or who exactly they are meant to be fighting back against.

player attitudes are a big thing here. Public Allies tend to get bashed relentlessly due to being public. If everyone was forced public this might, perhaps, be mitigated somewhat but i could be overly optimistic. The average player's attitude seems to be hit the weak when they're down, kick 'em, kick 'em again. The only way to fix this is a wholesale improvement/change of player attitude. That i'm at a loss to fix since people's attitudes/opinions are notoriously hard to change.

Originally Posted by Azzer

* "News Bulletins" - big "news bulletins" automated based on in-game events, viewable somewhere in-game, to give people who aren't in the top ranks or really actively involved in the community, to know what's happening. This could be things such as when a unit is first developed (eg the first time PA's get developed, so they have "just come out") to giving a short bulletin within 12 hours of it (not revealing any ID ofc, just the fact PA's are out for example), and taking information updating through the ally combat tracking system to announce things using ally names and round figures such as "GITK recently took over 5,000 land from PureEvil!" or similar.

Yep. Some sort of public announcement system would be fantastic, linked in with the combat stats tracking implemented last round, and with an increase in public IDs/Allies this could be invaluable for creating a more entertaining and interesting community.

Originally Posted by Azzer

* Simplifying aspects of the game that bring no enjoyment to players, or have no purpose at all, other than to bring entirely un-necessary complications. These would relate to core aspects of the game - the "game date/time" system, the weather system, the land system. There is nothing specific planned here, but I'm open to suggestions. Combining "owner" and "company" in to a single game name is a simplified example of this, as was removing username and just having email address, in Age 5.

Yes. Simpler is better, but no need to dumb it down too much. The weather system could do with being a bit more reliable, but having experienced Age 2 weather, i'd say we've come a long way from that randomness and are on the right track, if not a perfect track atm. I like the game date/time system but that's probably due to being used to it for a long time. Something a little simpler would, possibly, be better. Can't say for sure til it's implemented. Land score seems to be preferred as it was in Age 2/early 3 by those who know such things. Sounds good to me?

Last but not least, as tana says, advertisement is necessary. Although prolonging it until you have a gameplay/mechanic system you like is an admirable attempt, you may never be completely satisfied so perhaps you should just go ahead and set it up?


As i stated in PM, it's nice to have this sort of thread that shows future intentions, perhaps link it to the Player Overview so everyone has a chance to see what you/we are planning and give them a taste of the future. Not to mention it might increase the number of suggestions players would have to go in these general directions you've laid out. Hell we might even see an increase in forum signups. Kudos to the work!

[LAFiN]

Originally Posted by Azzer

* I want to bring back "Law & fame" (or "honour & fame", call it what you will), along with the abolishment of "base bounty", and the re-introduction of "bounty for red titles". Perhaps even the old "special units" for achieving the top and bottom most titles.

Absolutely love this idea. I found playing lawfully the most interesting part of this game for some time, and felt that only the "evil-doers" should have a bounty against them.

Originally Posted by Azzer

* Wars/fights stagnating, and being about troops not land. Bushtarion was always about the land before, and people would do anything to try and save their land, and steal enemy land. Now it's all about the killing. I believe there are a combination of factors causing this - base bounty, land-score, score from cash-seeds-plants, player attitudes/tactics have changed, and perhaps other unknown reasons. I believe making land more important than it currently is in fights, will improve the game. Limiting bots to be for very low ranked/new ID's only, altering land-score to the old system, increasing the price of land, perhaps even *slightly* slightly increasing the power of basics, could all be potential ways of doing this, but I'm open to feedback.

Personally I find the game to be pretty good right now. Sure there could be some tweaks to it, and I'd maybe like to try the Age 2 land values in a mini round on the Age 5 code, but overall I'm pretty satisfied by the way the game is going now.

Originally Posted by Azzer

* Improving community aspects of the game. I am open to suggestions and ideas for integrating community and social building tools within the game interface itself. Integration of profiles in to ID's was a step towards this, as was improving alliance recruitment, and adding ally and ID "profiles" and avatars. I want to expand on this further, as players that get involved with the community and make friends, stay playing for longer. This is good for business, and likewise good for the game. I have no *immediate* ideas here, but am always lookoing out for and trying to think of improvements.

I could not agree more. The main reason I still play this game is because of the community. It's sad to see so many people leaving, but I know as long as there is an active IRC channel I'll likely be found every now and then.

Originally Posted by Azzer

* In-game layout/design. In the future I would like to look towards somebody helping with a whole new layout/design for the in-game system of Bushtarion, that looks more sleek/modern (and thus appealing to newer generations of players), while maintaining much of the simplicity and functionality of the old. I'd like to keep the old layout available to allow those who like the old layout to keep it (much like many Windows users like classic windows, not all this "Aero" stuff), thus ideally it would be done through clever use of .CSS - any expert (or skilled amateur) web designers who know this field, and want to work on this, please approach me!

As I think I've said before, I'd love to work on something like this. The only thing that's really stopped me is the concept being too vague. Given a bit of guidance as to what you'd like it to look like I'd happily set out to re-design the menus, etc.

[Madmeater]

As a player that has only just started the game (This being my first full round, as I started last round for the first time about 2 months in) I may not be able to speak about route or unit changes, as I donot yet have a full working knowldge of the balance of the game. By which I mean the fact that one unit compliments, counters and is countered by many other units, and a change to one such unit will bring about a shift in the whole game.

I can, however speak as a new player, with a fresh look on how the game is presented.


DISCLAIMER: READ ON AT YOUR OWN PERIL, YOU MAY FIND SOME IDEAS LAUGHABLE OR OFFENSIVE, PLEASE, DON'T PANIC! MOST OF MY IDEAS ARE MEANT AS A CATALYST TO GET CREATIVE JUICES FLOWING, PLEASE DONT JUST SKIM OVER MY POST AND FLAME IT, I AM AWARE THAT ALOT OF MY IDEAS ARE ECCENTRIC


[QUOTE=Azzer;46630]
* I want to create *SOME* sort of official "training alliance system" or "open alliance system" - eg an alliance that new ID's can join, which has a couple of helpers who don't mind about not "playing properly/ftw" and can cope with being pwned from not getting AR or being in a good ally to train them. Perhaps once you hit a certain score, you are "forced out" of the training ally and sent an automated mail on "next steps/advice", and given instant solo classification. There's various ideas and directions these could take, but the new alliance recruitment systems and set up brought in with age 5 help make this easier, and has been a step towards this goal.

************************

Originally Posted by Azzer

* Improved user friendliness for new players. In-game tutorial system was introduced but probably needs expansions to cover attacks better. I'm after player help on this one, being the "typical coder", I'm no good at writing manuals or teaching people how to use the things I create (not all coders are like this, but this is "atypical" of programmers - make the programs, useless at writing manuals/instructions).

An idea that I had was some sort of government boot camp, which would be an automated system, much like the tutorial, but simulates some ingame scenarios.

For example, the new player, if they choose to enroll, would be faced with certain tasks. The new player would also be sent mobs from the government to attack them.

Now, this would all happen within the tutorial, where the tutorial would say something like "Enemy units have been sighted approaching our base!"
It would then go into depth about things such as basic combat with generics:

"You have been given 1000 hippies 1000 yobs in order to protect yourself from this threat!"

The player would then witness a controlled battle, and be familiarised with the news page.

"Head to the news page and see how our boys did..."

"Victory! as you can see from this battle report, our troops managed to fend off the opposing force. Be warned, however, not all foes will crumble beneath your might as easily as this one..."

A brief about how the units attack one another, particularly init, targeting, attack range etc

Originally Posted by Azzer

* Alliance wars system - alliance wars have taken short but steady steps towards what the intended aim is. However with the new "combat stat tracking" for alliances introduced last round, and with it's expansion next round to also cover defensive actions, I aim to bring in an official "won lost drawn" stat for how many wars can be won/lost by allies etc., and introduce this at some stage, at first perhaps purely for "fun" (how many wars can your ally "win"), but it may have potential for further expansion.

**********************************

* Wars/fights stagnating, and being about troops not land. Bushtarion was always about the land before, and people would do anything to try and save their land, and steal enemy land. Now it's all about the killing. I believe there are a combination of factors causing this - base bounty, land-score, score from cash-seeds-plants, player attitudes/tactics have changed, and perhaps other unknown reasons. I believe making land more important than it currently is in fights, will improve the game. Limiting bots to be for very low ranked/new ID's only, altering land-score to the old system, increasing the price of land, perhaps even *slightly* slightly increasing the power of basics, could all be potential ways of doing this, but I'm open to feedback.

Now I may get my head chewed off for this, but how about giving alliances a reason to attack each other's HQ?
For example, each structure would provide a layer of protection from foes, having monster stats and requiring huge forces to take down.

this would give a huge feat for an alliance to accomplish, and if it could be controlled regarding the number of foes that are attacking, perhaps making each HQ attacking skirmish unique between each alliance. For example:
Old Farts are raiding the Second to none HQ, challenger tanks are rippping units apart, concrete bunkers can be heard echoing in the distance (Close your eyes and imagine the opening scenes of saving private ryan)

The attacking forces would have to break through the different units and achieve a task of destroying the HQ.

If some form of balance could be achieved, such as unit count scaling with incoming mob size, similar to the way AR is calculated, the fight would be fair despite the incoming size, the only difference being, it would be more epic
The granted units would be separate from the actual unit count of the HQ troops, obviously, but the HQ can still be defended by it's members and it's own troops, to tip the balance of the war.

This idea is purely a rambling of mine (as many of you have already witnessed in the suggestions forum ) But my intentions are to get brains thinking about creative ways to push huge wars other than the old, "Mass/wave them at 6am when thy have 3 people online"

Originally Posted by Azzer

* Alliance tech-tree/developments. I would like, as has been discussed elsewhere, some sort of multiple-route idea for alliances so alliances can have some different core tactics/purposes, rather than all alliances being identical. While there has been some good suggestions, I don't think any final solution was found that everyone thought was a "great idea", and it's currently a stagnant "backburner" idea, but one that I'd love to be able to do some day.

*****************************************8

* Routes/units - I want to continue working towards balancing all units and routes to be enjoyable, useful, have both alliance and solo ways to play, and for the majority to be accessible to all players. Long-term, I want a third branch in the "Fantasy" route, most likely based on an alien theme, but atm no purpose for such a branch exists - eg what sort of units/tactics/pros/cons/enemies/targets it would have etc., which is why no third and final branch for fantasy has been done yet. Perhaps after the latest big set of balance changes have been played for a round or two, players will spot something I have not, and come up with a perfect concept for 6 new units for a new branch.

I think the problem here is that you want to add the tree just for the sake of adding them, because it's something interesting to you. Please don't get me wrong, i'd love to see:

[close]2,000,000 face huggers latched onto 400,000 victims
[Death] 400,000 face huggers fall lifelessly to the ground
[raised] 400,000 alien larvae burst from the corpses of the fallen troops

and am now having daydreams of massing alien queens and predators
but as it has been said; there isn't a need for a new race

Originally Posted by Azzer

* Injuries/insurance. I think these are good things to have in general, and the alliance wars system allowing people to "not get insurance or injury", covers both aspects of play. I currently have no plans to alter this (beyond perhaps nudging actual figures returned).

I would love to see tractors/combines and geos get injured.

Originally Posted by Azzer

* Anti-rape - still no clear decision has been made from my end regarding whether anti-rape needs to be "more powerful", "less powerful", ranges changed, modifier changed, etc. - largely because player feedback has been so divided and had so many angles that it's hard to judge both what the game needs/would improve it, and what players would actually enjoy and find improve the game they play rather than worsen it. A way of preventing people intentionally triggering AR is needed and something I seek to employ when law/fame is re-introduced (the person that causes the trigger of AR, not the original sender, will receive "punishments" relating to his law/fame... so if you send and don't trigger, and somebody else sends 1 hippy or a mob which causes your combined forces to trigger... the other sender is the triggerer, so he gets the "Punishment", not you - AR will still come up against you, but people that trigger frequently will get "bad things" happening).

What if, instead of the government sending troops to defend, they send troops to attack the triggerer?

The sender of the triggering mob would receive a mail from ID 1 along the lines of:

CEASE AND DISSIST:
IF YOU DONOT RECALL YOUR FORCES FROM [XXXX] WE WILL USE DEADLY FORCE.
THIS IS YOUR FIRST AND ONLY WARNING.

The government would then send an attacking force to the player with the intention to kill unless they recall their troops.

The player would have to be locked out of sending defense during this period, in order to prevent them sending away.

This is a terrible idea but, as I said, this is more of a catalyst to create new ideas.

[QUOTE=Azzer;46630]

Originally Posted by Azzer

* Manual/Wiki. Wiki will stay. It has it's place, and it's uses. But I agree that the old manual was easier to navigate and more helpful to new players. A new manual will be created that takes live data from the equivalent wiki pages, so that wiki sysops can edit the wiki pages, and the manual will in turn be updated "Live", allowing players to do something I openly confess to being rubbish at - writing and maintaining user manuals.

I have a love/hat erelationship with the wiki. when i first started, it was an invaluable resource to my learning, moreso than the manual, but it's incompleteness/bias/outdatedness are it's downfall.

I, knowing how useful the wiki can be, spen alot of time browsing and correcting the wiki (I recently did alot of work regarding nutters/attack dogs)
but the manual has taken over as my main resource for reference, with the wiki being secondary as it is more opinion based, and draws from player experience.

something that is upto date, factual, while giving player tips , in a unified vessel would be the way forward, and I would love to help in the writing of manuals/player help, as I consider myself quite a good teacher/conveyor of ideas, whether or not those ideas are useful, are another matter

Originally Posted by Azzer

* Improving community aspects of the game. I am open to suggestions and ideas for integrating community and social building tools within the game interface itself. Integration of profiles in to ID's was a step towards this, as was improving alliance recruitment, and adding ally and ID "profiles" and avatars. I want to expand on this further, as players that get involved with the community and make friends, stay playing for longer. This is good for business, and likewise good for the game. I have no *immediate* ideas here, but am always lookoing out for and trying to think of improvements.

**********************************

* Making the private, more public. I really want to push towards public allies, public ID's, more and more - this does mainly go hand in hand with the community points above, but for allies, I've always though it silly that somebody can be playing, have set up an ally with their mates, have received 5 attacks, and not have a clue what alliance attacked them or who exactly they are meant to be fighting back against.

I use facebook alot, and i'm sure many other do.
Some form of networking tool, similar to the friends features here on the forums, could be of use. Players could chat in a friendlier (less clunky) interface than the message system, perhaps live chats one on one, choosing whether to talk as their ID or using their Public profile, which user could browse, add to friends, view stats (The visible stats would be selected by the user, such as the ability to hide your online times etc.)

This would bring the users together, rather than attacking faceless player #9541, they are attacking john smith, a 20 year old bank clerk from York.

"Oh man your petrol bombers just wiped out my flak, but get ready for this..."
*tick*
"OH ****, haha, your fanatics owned me, well played"

although the reality would be something based on some real messages I have received when interacting with players ingame:

"You f*ggot, go attack someone else f*cking noob"
"LOL @ your profile pic, you f*cking emo"

but we can all dream

[Madmeater]

I will prune my post tomorrow, it is full of spelling and grammar errors and I haven't articulated my thoughts as well as I had wanted to, but I am very tired and the scribblings above will have to do

[Hobo]

God job and letting us know some of the ideas, good to hear the game is moving forward.

I think a more modern interface would help, the first bite for new comers is with the eye and all that.

The titles are something i thought were a shame when they were removed and its good news they are planned to come back in some form.

looking ( ish) and i will be corrected if im wrong half or just under the player base appear to be playing solo. I know that its aimed to be an ally game but there are still many people playing solo, so some recognition of this gives something to play for for those players.
Other posts i hve read about this tend to say things along the line of its an ally game if you dont like it stop playing, not sure thats the best advice for a shrinking player base!

so something with bounty, ranking solos list ( at round end)


just a few thoughts as i woke up!

[Iamsmart]

Originally Posted by harriergirl

Advertisement ? This has been promised for rounds now, you won't be getting much of a new playerbase without it ....

otherwise, thanks for the update.

^ Ye.

* I want to bring back "Law & fame" (or "honour & fame", call it what you will), along with the abolishment of "base bounty", and the re-introduction of "bounty for red titles". Perhaps even the old "special units" for achieving the top and bottom most titles.

<3

* Anti-rape - still no clear decision has been made from my end regarding whether anti-rape needs to be "more powerful", "less powerful", ranges changed, modifier changed, etc. - largely because player feedback has been so divided and had so many angles that it's hard to judge both what the game needs/would improve it, and what players would actually enjoy and find improve the game they play rather than worsen it. A way of preventing people intentionally triggering AR is needed and something I seek to employ when law/fame is re-introduced (the person that causes the trigger of AR, not the original sender, will receive "punishments" relating to his law/fame... so if you send and don't trigger, and somebody else sends 1 hippy or a mob which causes your combined forces to trigger... the other sender is the triggerer, so he gets the "Punishment", not you - AR will still come up against you, but people that trigger frequently will get "bad things" happening).

You may notice the people who argue against balancing solo's more are the people who use the argument "this is an alliance game, solo's shouildn't have oppurtunities to compete at a high level." You have to determine if you agree with that or not.

[TheNamelessWonder]

I'll go point by point, but I'll skip the ones where I don't have something useful to say, or at least where I don't have an opinion.

Originally Posted by Azzer

* I want to bring back "Law & fame" (or "honour & fame", call it what you will), along with the abolishment of "base bounty", and the re-introduction of "bounty for red titles". Perhaps even the old "special units" for achieving the top and bottom most titles.

YES, yes, a thousand times yes. There was so much right with l/f, even if there were some problems with implementation. It provides an incentive to attack people your own size (or a deterrent to bottomfeed), something that has been searched for ever since l/f was removed, and something this game seriously needs. Also, the bounty hunting bit was fun! Way better than giving everyone a base bounty. We'll need to think of something new in place of XP for positive l/f, but that's easy enough.

Originally Posted by Azzer

* I want to create *SOME* sort of official "training alliance system" or "open alliance system" - eg an alliance that new ID's can join, which has a couple of helpers who don't mind about not "playing properly/ftw" and can cope with being pwned from not getting AR or being in a good ally to train them. Perhaps once you hit a certain score, you are "forced out" of the training ally and sent an automated mail on "next steps/advice", and given instant solo classification. There's various ideas and directions these could take, but the new alliance recruitment systems and set up brought in with age 5 help make this easier, and has been a step towards this goal.

Great idea, has to happen. I've said it before and I'll say it again: The problem isn't so much about getting people to join (though ofc this could be improved as well), the problem is with retention. It's not noob friendly, and this could go a long way to keeping them around.

Originally Posted by Azzer

* Bots - I want to make bots that cap themselves at a certain score/land/troop count so they stay in range of new ID's, and don't develop further (so they aren't easy farms for mid-ranked players, only new players).

Much as I like hitting bots, this is a good way to go. If I'm not mistaken you changed them a bit a little while back so they don't send out so easily - also a good way to go.

Originally Posted by Azzer

* Alliance wars system - alliance wars have taken short but steady steps towards what the intended aim is. However with the new "combat stat tracking" for alliances introduced last round, and with it's expansion next round to also cover defensive actions, I aim to bring in an official "won lost drawn" stat for how many wars can be won/lost by allies etc., and introduce this at some stage, at first perhaps purely for "fun" (how many wars can your ally "win"), but it may have potential for further expansion.

Very good, and necessary I think. Carry on!

Originally Posted by Azzer

* Alliance tech-tree/developments. I would like, as has been discussed elsewhere, some sort of multiple-route idea for alliances so alliances can have some different core tactics/purposes, rather than all alliances being identical. While there has been some good suggestions, I don't think any final solution was found that everyone thought was a "great idea", and it's currently a stagnant "backburner" idea, but one that I'd love to be able to do some day.

Yes, the entire alliance HQ system need a major overhaul. Searchlights are all but a necessity, but most everything is somewhere between a luxury and utterly worthless. Most HQ units aren't worth anything like what they cost, nevermind the developments as well.

Originally Posted by Azzer

* Wars/fights stagnating, and being about troops not land. Bushtarion was always about the land before, and people would do anything to try and save their land, and steal enemy land. Now it's all about the killing. I believe there are a combination of factors causing this - base bounty, land-score, score from cash-seeds-plants, player attitudes/tactics have changed, and perhaps other unknown reasons. I believe making land more important than it currently is in fights, will improve the game. Limiting bots to be for very low ranked/new ID's only, altering land-score to the old system, increasing the price of land, perhaps even *slightly* slightly increasing the power of basics, could all be potential ways of doing this, but I'm open to feedback.

While I have no solutions to offer at the moment, I absolutely agree with the points here. Land needs to be more important. Significantly, I think. It's very easy to just take a landhit instead of losings lots of troops defending it, and I don't like it. I feel it should be the other way around: troops exist to protect the land.

Originally Posted by Azzer

* Anti-rape - still no clear decision has been made from my end regarding whether anti-rape needs to be "more powerful", "less powerful", ranges changed, modifier changed, etc. - largely because player feedback has been so divided and had so many angles that it's hard to judge both what the game needs/would improve it, and what players would actually enjoy and find improve the game they play rather than worsen it. A way of preventing people intentionally triggering AR is needed and something I seek to employ when law/fame is re-introduced (the person that causes the trigger of AR, not the original sender, will receive "punishments" relating to his law/fame... so if you send and don't trigger, and somebody else sends 1 hippy or a mob which causes your combined forces to trigger... the other sender is the triggerer, so he gets the "Punishment", not you - AR will still come up against you, but people that trigger frequently will get "bad things" happening).

I'd like for it to be possible to fight AR, and maybe even win. The point of AR should be to support those who need it against overwhelming forces. But as it stands, if SAS shows up, 99 times out of 100 there's no fight. Either the attacker recalls, or the attacker gets wasted.

Originally Posted by Azzer

* Routes/units - I want to continue working towards balancing all units and routes to be enjoyable, useful, have both alliance and solo ways to play, and for the majority to be accessible to all players. Long-term, I want a third branch in the "Fantasy" route, most likely based on an alien theme, but atm no purpose for such a branch exists - eg what sort of units/tactics/pros/cons/enemies/targets it would have etc., which is why no third and final branch for fantasy has been done yet. Perhaps after the latest big set of balance changes have been played for a round or two, players will spot something I have not, and come up with a perfect concept for 6 new units for a new branch.

Hang purposes, give me new units! NOW!

Originally Posted by Azzer

* Manual/Wiki. Wiki will stay. It has it's place, and it's uses. But I agree that the old manual was easier to navigate and more helpful to new players. A new manual will be created that takes live data from the equivalent wiki pages, so that wiki sysops can edit the wiki pages, and the manual will in turn be updated "Live", allowing players to do something I openly confess to being rubbish at - writing and maintaining user manuals.

Glad to hear. I think I'm with the majority in saying that the old manual beat what we have now.

Originally Posted by Azzer

* Making the private, more public. I really want to push towards public allies, public ID's, more and more - this does mainly go hand in hand with the community points above, but for allies, I've always though it silly that somebody can be playing, have set up an ally with their mates, have received 5 attacks, and not have a clue what alliance attacked them or who exactly they are meant to be fighting back against.

*adds seal of approval*

Originally Posted by Azzer

* "News Bulletins" - big "news bulletins" automated based on in-game events, viewable somewhere in-game, to give people who aren't in the top ranks or really actively involved in the community, to know what's happening. This could be things such as when a unit is first developed (eg the first time PA's get developed, so they have "just come out") to giving a short bulletin within 12 hours of it (not revealing any ID ofc, just the fact PA's are out for example), and taking information updating through the ally combat tracking system to announce things using ally names and round figures such as "GITK recently took over 5,000 land from PureEvil!" or similar.

Thumping idea

Originally Posted by Azzer

* Simplifying aspects of the game that bring no enjoyment to players, or have no purpose at all, other than to bring entirely un-necessary complications. These would relate to core aspects of the game - the "game date/time" system, the weather system, the land system. There is nothing specific planned here, but I'm open to suggestions. Combining "owner" and "company" in to a single game name is a simplified example of this, as was removing username and just having email address, in Age 5.

The bit about removing owner and company names was one of the worst things you've ever done to this game, next to removing l/f. There will be a reckoning for your misdeeds!

[atsanjose]

lf/honour:
great that you want to bring it back. but arent you working on a new effeciencycalculator or something however you wanted to call it?
i.e. its going to be lf/lh version 2 right?

simplyfying:

i kinda liked logging in with my username.
its 7 letters long instead of my email which 3 times aslong
but meh i use autofill now.

things you missed:

Youre vision on bushtarion as a only alliance game or the current solo/alliance version.

a ingame napping system. making it easier for ids to find eachother?

forums ingame communication. why not let people automaticly register to the forums when they register for the game.

what are youre current directions for advertising?


i will take part of debates about the different subjects.
i advise to do one thing at a time and move from one subject to another (i dont like multiple discussions in one thread)

[Garrett]

Originally Posted by Alcibiades

Garrett started off a few rounds ago with some truly wicked ideas, and very detailed too that was a good step in this sort of direction. It needs a concerted effort on the part of testers, coders and general brainstorming to make it work tho. It shouldn't have to be a one man effort.

I have more files saved for tech trees and the rest of my alliance vision. Most people seemed too intimidated by not 'knowing enough' of behind the scenes. (of which I admittedly know nothing, i just was putting a 'vision' up and it's up to the coder to fit it into the grand scheme). I also didn't see any other discussion about it so I've not shared any further my ideas for wars or the alliances or the tech trees.

So I didn't want something out there just collecting dust. If only there would have been some sort of interaction or indication that the rest was wanted.

The lack of push behind the HQ is appalling and tbh they should be removed if they are going to be forever stagnating on the backburner.

people just want new units. so just give them their official badge for a group of friends to replace 'alliances' and they will have access to a message board for all those with the 'same ally tag'. you would reduce confusion over having or needing any ideas for the HQ and it would be the same functionality as is in game now.

sigh, HQ's... no one ever knew you. thy name is obscurity.

[Twigley]

Originally Posted by harriergirl

Advertisement ? This has been promised for rounds now, you won't be getting much of a new playerbase without it ....

otherwise, thanks for the update.

QFT.
The game needs more players through advertisement.

Also thanks for the update but what we want and what we get doesn't seem to happen much lately Azzer.

I see more bad than good changes/decisions come from you lately.

[Azzer]

* Advertising: It will involve Google Ads and Google AdWords, a press launch to any free gaming websites/MMO sites, perhaps a couple of ads on some of the larger "MMO voting websites", and a specialist advertising company that deals exclusively in online games to throw a Bush advert out to the many other web games out there that have adverts on their own sites. I might have a little flutter with Facebook ads but I've never experimented with them before and am not sure about return-of-investment, though as far as I could discover when researching, it operates similar to the way google adwords do. The budget will be small initially as I'll be testing new advert grounds/wordings, using a few different types in different areas, and based on initial responses (clickthrough & signup rates) from those, I'll expand on the better areas and shrink/remove the "useless" ones". I'll also be expanding the "Free" advertising systems through referals, and encouragement of fans to post links/have forum sigs on any forums they are willing to have at around the same time. Timescale wise - As it stands there is work to be done on the community and newbie-friendly aspects of the game and I see this as a priority before pumping money in to advertising, my timescale atm will be this following Christmas - a period I have always found in the past to reap maximum returns for advertising. Admittedly I could in theory "keep improving forever", and keep saying "No point advertising now, I have X or Y feature to come!", but the intention is to do it once we have a system of training allies, the new manual, and the core L/F changes back in place, which is all planned in the coming 3 months.

I'll take any necessary debates up elsewhere so as not to clutter this thread.

[WackyJacky]

@Advertisting - Maybe make it more beneficial for players to bring new players into the game? Ie special units for fun, maybe a couple of BC's here or there (not the 1 BC you get for every 10, not sure on exact numbers, your friend buys.)

*shrug* would sure get me going around getting my friends involved

[rooney]

for making land more important, perhaps decrease seed output a bit so that yo have less troops for your land. or increase the cap from 15% to 20/25%. then taking a land hit is much more costly.