Improving Bushtarion End-Game

[Dark_Angel]

Not just the price of winning, but also the price of overpowering everyone who comes in your range. To be honest, it can't be that hard to keep people in your range (donate your entire income to HQ for example?).
Take Ashes in r22 for example, they didn't have a major resistance against them, and still they had quite a few targets even late in the round. Simply because they didn't send half their alliance on the few people in their range (after they won that is ). It's more fun for the lower alliances (they actually get incoming that is defendable, instead of the incoming where the total incoming mob represents more score than your entire alliance) and for the winning alliance.
So a big no against this suggestion.

Donating to get in range of targets is a debatably crap way of getting new targets. The required amount you need to donate/get rid of is often in the trillions, quite often between £1.5t-£2t. You've your actual losses in battle, which could be anything up to another £1.5t over three ticks. Worst case scenerio, as little as 800 land is costing you £3.5t.

800 acres will earn approximately £21bn a day. You do the math.

In short, donating to your alliance HQ = massively expensive, far from profitable land grabbing. I might also add that £3.5t is an estimate based on you actually landing, if you don't land that cost is lost in its entirity.

So no, that doesn't work

As for the game being more fun for lower-ranked alliances, as they're not having to deal with inc from the top. Yeah, that makes sense, "we don't need to think about the players at the top because with them out of the picture we don't have inc"

:/

 

[No-Dachi]

The players at the top usually consists of less than 5% of the player base. This round however, it is 10%, and if you are bored it is your problem as you created it.

However, spending time on creating solutions for the 5% of the players when 99% of those players will stick around any way, is just not worth it when you need solutions to keep the other 95% around for another round.

I assume this question comes from your experience this round, and yes, there will be a lot of bored players in the top this round, which is the cost of winning with a power block. Trust me, I know. However, this will hopefully be the last round in a while that is won in such a fashion, and in a normal round, the 20 players winning the round wont be half as bored as you guys are now. Hence this suggestion is a) not really needed b) not needed enough to spend time on as it is c) seems like a knee-jerk reaction to the situation the original poster has put himself in, without any thoughts of how rounds usually are played out, and what this game really needs to focus on at this time.


Sorry DA, thumbs down from me, re-suggest it in a few rounds if it's still a problem and bushtarions player base has tripled.

 

[Hobbezak]

Not just the price of winning, but also the price of overpowering everyone who comes in your range. To be honest, it can't be that hard to keep people in your range (donate your entire income to HQ for example?).
Take Ashes in r22 for example, they didn't have a major resistance against them, and still they had quite a few targets even late in the round. Simply because they didn't send half their alliance on the few people in their range (after they won that is ). It's more fun for the lower alliances (they actually get incoming that is defendable, instead of the incoming where the total incoming mob represents more score than your entire alliance) and for the winning alliance.
So a big no against this suggestion.

Donating to get in range of targets is a debatably crap way of getting new targets. The required amount you need to donate/get rid of is often in the trillions, quite often between £1.5t-£2t. You've your actual losses in battle, which could be anything up to another £1.5t over three ticks. Worst case scenerio, as little as 800 land is costing you £3.5t.

800 acres will earn approximately £21bn a day. You do the math.

In short, donating to your alliance HQ = massively expensive, far from profitable land grabbing. I might also add that £3.5t is an estimate based on you actually landing, if you don't land that cost is lost in its entirity.

So no, that doesn't work

As for the game being more fun for lower-ranked alliances, as they're not having to deal with inc from the top. Yeah, that makes sense, "we don't need to think about the players at the top because with them out of the picture we don't have inc"

:/

Please, reply to what I actually said, instead of picking a small part of it.
Ask Jorizz, who I think is in your alliance, for what Ashes did in r22. I heard Angela specifically asked her alliance to not mass attack alliances once they won, in order to keep targets in their range.
Also I hope that last part wasn't aimed at me, as that is not what I said. I said it is more fun to get incoming from the the top that is actually defendable (which is what Ashes did, even though I'm sure they still landed on many occasions), instead of the usual mass bashes like the ones we received from SG this round, where 3 people who almost equal your total alliance score send on you full force.

 

[Azzer]

i think effort would be better spent creating a viable resistance system. which also isn't needed. make being in an alliance worth it by having a better HQ and HQ/War system and maybe the top won't be so bored.
at least with a resistance system the top should always be challenged. this suggestion boarders on the inane, imo, because it would be pandering to a very small group of people and not really a benefit for the game as a whole.

I agree, empower the rest of the playerbase and give the rest of the playerbase a genuine facility to "entertain the top", while entertaining themselves. And by entertain I don't mean being constant victims to whoever the top is (whether the top is a powerblock or simply 1 solo-alliance who managed to pull away by themselves) the instant they get in to the 30% range.... by entertain I actually mean provide a challenge.

I have been thinking about several things/possibilities. Some of these I hate and would never do, some I particularly like and am seriously contemplating. I mention them all purely to help in the possbility of inspiring other ideas:

* Force rank 1 public after a set amount of ticks (I dislike this).
* Some form of limits or restrictions for whoever is rank 1 after set amount of ticks/after their score gets a certain % higher than rank 2 (not only do I dislike 'restrictions' enforced on the top, but this can be abused by 2 alliances working together keeping similar scores to avoid a % check too).
* Some form of increased incentives for people to attack the top with much less risk for themselves, eg very high injury/insurance rates, very high bounty rates (perhaps with guaranteed max bounty every time regardless of if you do a rush attack or a joint mass wave resistance 'technically bash' attack)... (I like this the most as it's simple and clear in concept and requires the rest of the playerbase to still do something themselves, using nothing but normal combats).
* Some sort of in-game "resistance system" that can be activated once per round by "vote" from a certain number of other alliance leaders, activates for a certain period/specific situation, and empowers every other player with some special bonus (I don't really like this, I think resistances should be free form by the players talking among themselves, not some "official" resistance that the game recognises).

 

[BlackWolf]

Basic ingame resistance is pretty easy to arrange. I think you have old gpols code somewhere. So why not make it so that everyone else IN ALLIANCES but those in top alliance(s) could see it and top not.

It would only need small add of voting and monitoring system so certain alliances could be voted out of it if they obviously leak info to top alliance.

Having such board ingame would increase possibility of resistance to organize better. By making it alliance only would make sure it is used for its original purpose and by making voting system that would be monitored for example forum mods in not winning alliance for "lets vote this small stupid alliance out" and spam situations it might actually be easily added, simple start for such.

 

[DarkSider]

I dislike first 2 ideas with the exception that i think all alliances should be public from tick 1 (or at least alliances over x members).

3rd is nice, increased bounty on members of top alliance sounds kinky tho i don't know how would that entertain them aswell ^^

And i also dislike from 4th the 1 time resistance call especially as it's not that unusual at least first alliance to make it to top to get killed by an overwhelming resistance, then second too, third maybe and in the end ppl get bored resisting.
I also generally dislike ideas meant JUST to improve ways to attack the top alliance.
First make organizing your own alliance attacks easyer, faster and clearer by an easy to read graphical page with senders and targets and then i'd say allow leaders or members with permission to enable viewing of one of their plan by other alliances (which can be just the idea behind the plan not all the details).

If i think a bit what means organising a resistance it's pretty much 2 scenarios :

1. The plan is all on one target - you don't need anything fancy just one guy posting in each of the alliances target, LT and eta.
2. Each alliance attacks separate targets - again there's no need for a fancy multi alliance attack plan, each alliance gets 1 or more id's and organizes themselfs so they need just a "own alliance attack plan".

I can't think of any practical system to make organising of mass alliances much better because a) it's not needed b) as i said ^ it's not much to improve other than eliminating intermediars so the head organizer just posts target,LT and eta and all alliances can see in an instant or if this system would "help" by revealing detailed attack plan for each of the alliances which are temporary on the same side it just won't be used for obvious reasons.
When alliances are given targets they pick their real and fakes and often don't share this information with other allies in resistance. I can't blame them and tbh i don't see what would any ingame system would change there.


I personally loved the h/f and if i'm not mistaking it would cover all or most of the problems
Powerblock at top = they are desperate for targets = always attack at 30-40% = negative l/f all over = happy resistance = bad idea to make powerblock.
Incentive to attack top as i see that's what you want to improve.
Less mindless bashing and repeat attacks.
Other things to aim for as this round at least it's most about getting acres and holding them and as you can see when it's just about strength, players seek for solutions to have more pure muscles and we have 3 known groups which consist of more than 1 alliance and also other less official groups which are just not hostile to eachother.
It's too much about quantity and quality has been neglected

 

[Garrett]

azzer agreeing with me a few times in a week scares me..

 

[LostinNY]

Agree with Darksider. Bring back l/f and give l/f to alliances. make it so that the alliances that continually bash reawrd close to 90% bounty, people will definitely start attacking and resisting. I know it can be abused and has been, but don't reward portal rank for l/f. I know it's still in the code and jut hidden.

 

[pinpower]

Actually i agree, bring back L/F and the old bounty system. But only for players, not alliances as a whole. And not 90% lol.

But yeah bring back personal bounties if you go in the red, i always remember it working pretty well.
x

 

[[Ninja-7]]

what about creating an inter-alliance board system? By this I mean make it so that any alliance can create a forum similar to gpols with another alliance, in which all members of said alliances can post, and no others. The system would work so that any alliances could communicate very easily, and privately. You could even make it work for more that two alliances, if the thread creator can contact more than one alliance.... This would make resistances much, much easier to organise, and keep quiet from the top we could even call it inter-alliance politics

 

[f0xx]

what about creating an inter-alliance board system? By this I mean make it so that any alliance can create a forum similar to gpols with another alliance, in which all members of said alliances can post, and no others. The system would work so that any alliances could communicate very easily, and privately. You could even make it work for more that two alliances, if the thread creator can contact more than one alliance.... This would make resistances much, much easier to organise, and keep quiet from the top we could even call it inter-alliance politics

It would also make organisation in powerblocks better.

 

[Azzer]

It would also make organisation in powerblocks better.

Indeed, encouraging "wings"/"powerblocks" or "multi-alliance-alliances" is not a good thing.

 

[WildDisease]

I don't think the issue is alliance communication but the issue that not all 20 or even 10 of your players may be on at one time..

The "mother bots" suggestion is kinda.. er, weird..
It wouldn't hurt to buff out the bots AI though.. Especially considering their source of funding