Ending Powerblocks :(

[fred]

When Azzer left Astroempires. Many of us tried bushtarion for the first time, this round. Of the 7 people from my AE alliance that tried it, I'm the only one who stayed.

My Alliance gets mauled badly. I get 0'd every other night because it's hard to have night cover, and being a working person with a family, I can't stay up all night. Heh, the wife wasn't too pleased when I brought the netbook and phone into the bedroom and got texted 3 times that night. Heh. Sleep mode seems like a good idea, but the use of it is discouraged in my alliance. So I continue to get 0'd every other night, and learn that any BCs i spend on game cash (which is also looked down on) is basically wasted...because I get 0'd again soon after. But I buy bush cash because I can afford it, and it allows me to help my alliance in defends and attacks..which is where the fun and entertainment lie. I also bought BCs so I could buy purchase units for other folks in my guild who could not afford it.

The stigma around BCs and sleep mode...make me feel dirty and disingenuous...and I've now been zeored enough that I resolve not to spend BCs on game cash anymore. It's not worth it.

I can say that we recently got into a war. We tried to get help from a loose NAP that we had with another allaince...whichi didn't work out to well. And the Alliance that we were at war with had help from at least 3 other alliances. That's good for the folks who get 0'd by the "helper" alliances (they get insurance). But bad for folks who get 0'd by the actual warring alliance (like me). I'm still sorting out my feelings on this..like any war, there are allies, and this is understandable..but I think that once war is declared, 30-45% attacks shouldn't be allowed by alliances that are not directly declared in the war. I spent 30 bucks last week (because war was declared) and got zeroe'd that night lol. (No insurance either). And 70% of the attackers were not in the alliance that declared..and many were attacking with HUGE armies at 30-35% range. There is something flawed about the way war is handled.

So I've basically had to start over. This being my first round, it's still fun to learn. I don't really know anything different than the powerblocks. I don't get all the names that refer to the lack of "Of" in this round, quite frankly they annoy me.:mrgreen:

One thign that might be cool... is that if you get 0'd by someone from an alliance that you are at war with, you can choose to come back with as a different route, and keep whatever land you had at the time of your zeroing and being able to choose some researches that you would liek to transfer to the new route. We were very vulnerable to RPGs, for example...and it would be nice to come back as a different route, with a little head start (i.e. having the land and all your research done). You could sstill make it so that the purchase unit would have to be bought..then perhaps you would have another avenue of cashflow besides BCs for game cash.

AS this is my first round, take everything I've said with a grain of salt, but I figured I might as well put a brain dump on here, since it seems like Azzer would read it.

Thanks for reading!

Edit; Regardign sleep mode...perhaps the use of it should be restricted during war time (i.e. durign war you can only go into sleep mode for 24 hours or more). This might help reduce the stigma of using it for folks... like for getting a good night's sleep before a big presentation at work or something.

A VERY good post from a new player.
True about BCs being a waste of money and no more will I be spending while the game is like it is (private me and I will tell you how much I have spent on this game trying to grow and defend ally members).
The game is dying from:
Powerblock (and I have been in some).
Cheaters (and I have been in some and he who shall not be named turns a blind eye).
Lack of morals.

1. Get rid of eta+2 for top 200 players.
2. Bring back A-NAPs for alliances being bashed.
3. Balance the routes. Robos now rule. Spec Ops is useless. Bikers back to ETA 4.

 

[f0xx]

Your suggestions make no sense fred and the info which you included in it is very innacurate.

 

[CFalcon]

I started out in Inimical, and to be honest I can't really blame jj/steve/twigs for the initial concept. I got the impression that it would be 60 players having a laugh together, a few un-organised joint attacks, probably not win, and if we did win then there could be some competition for the top, but all in good fun.

And it was just the last part (or the lack thereof) that made me have to leave. Alliance's working together to take out other threats, then dueling each other for the win is nothing new. However the complete unwillingness to attack each other is ridiculous.

Honestly, the idea that you can't attack each other because you're 'friends' is pathetic. If you can't attack your friends and then have a laugh about it afterwards, I really do pity you. Sure, you use the word 'backstab' and it suddenly seems evil and mean, but really, why can't you backstab in good fun? The argument that you can't attack each other because you're friends isn't water tight, which either you don't understand, or is just cover for not having the balls to do so.

I also know that a large number, although not a majority, of players in the original TBA wanted to get warring with each other, but that the leadership wouldn't allow it. Congrats to all those who left.

As to the idea that ranks 4-6 are somehow contributing by repeatedly bashing lower than usual, or by their not willing to plant; oh please! Chance have had ONE organised alliance attack in the 5 weeks that I've been with them. I can't speak for WH or TDL, but they generally look to be in the same boat. And you honestly believe that we could plant and have a go at TBA, but are just choosing not to?

It's also true that there has been almost no warring between ranks 4-10, because, as IoF says, as soon as we send we get jumped by the lower ranked TBA noobs. I would personally love to have some proper warring between Chance, WH, TDL/TDT, Affliction etc. but we can't, firstly because we get jumped by TBA, and also because we have a certain amount of respect for the alliances around us that are having to deal with the same crap from TBA.

So I would ask TBA to do ONE decent thing this round, plant up and let the rest of us enjoy the last couple of weeks. You've succeded in making this round boring as hell, which you justify by saying its all fair to gain ranks. So have your damned ranks, and seeing as you obviously don't care about boredom, plant and let the rest of us have some fun.

 

[Tombi]

If enough people think it acceptable to have a EULA against powerblocking, I will seriously consider it. It would have to be clear and concise so that people couldn't abuse the rule by getting people in to trouble who are not powerblocking - eg 5 alliances working together to take down a rank 1 top ally who are only working together as a "resistance", is not the same as 3 allys agreeing to work together permanently. Defining what is a powerblock, and what is not a powerblock, in clear cut manners that cannot be mis-interpreted against innocent people and cannot be "evaded" by naughty/bad people who find a way around the rules, would need to be done, so I'd welcome some feedback on having a stab at writing a clear-cut definition. Also it'd have to be "provable" - eg what if the current powerblock never mentioned eachothers allies anywhere in-game, in-forums, or in IRC - they pretended to be enemies too scared to attack eachother just to evade the rules, while in private (invisible to anyone including admin), they agreed not to attack eachother.

With or without a rule - I will still be working on game mechanics and features to help keep the game interesting when fighting against the odds against large powerblocks etc., and also systems to help limit "bottomfeeding".

it would be difficult to word it so that all angles are covered and even then someone would probably find a loophole and exploit it, another thing to consider maybe would be to implement some kind of peacekeeping force on the supposed 'powerblocking' allys somewhat like the UN peacekeepers/ AR but entirely made up of blockers

just another idea, not very well thought out yet but it could work in future?

 

[pinpower]

Just a quick post on this rounds situation, i personally didnt realise it would be that big a deal when we got together with twigs and JJ before the round. I just thought it would be a good way to play with a load of mates, have a bit of fun and maybe get one up on some of the "usual winners". Alot of SG were new/fairly unknown so it was just a way for us to tip the odds in our favour a bit.

Firstly i never envisaged there being this much unrest amongst the rest of the playerbase and i certainly didnt foresee an impact on Azzers direct income. And thats the truth, nobody sat down before and said "oo, we're really going to screw up their round!".

Im not sure if an actual rule could be worked out (EULA) against powerblocking. As its very subjective. If an alliance has 3 wings but is rank 4,5,6 is that okay? But if they actually start winning its suddenly wrong? What about a 2 winged ally that is rank 1,3?
I would be for some sort of ingame mechanic which makes this situation alot harder, maybe boosted resistance possibilities/benefits if there is a powerblocking situation. It could be manually enabled by Azzer so he could look at the current situation and decide when its neccesary.

Ill post further later

Edit: Just to add, im not saying im against adding a rule against poweblocks. Im just saying i think it would be very hard to implement such a rule because of all the possible variables. I think if possible a good way would be to add more ingame mechanics, plus then it puts it to the rest of the playerbase to step in (with this added help) to put a stop to any sort of powerblock. Which i think would be even more fair! But something should be done i agree!!!
x

 

[cb1202]

As we have been saying, I see nothing wrong with ranks 4,5,6 all being winged together. It is just when they achieve the goal of rank 1 then the only respectable thing to do is war it out instead of using their mates as a block for the allies below them

 

[fred]

Firstly i never envisaged there being this much unrest amongst the rest of the playerbase and i certainly didnt foresee an impact on Azzers direct income. And thats the truth, nobody sat down before and said "oo, we're really going to screw up their round!".

and here it is people ... it's all down to Azzer's INCOME ...
Stop spending ... play the FREE game

 

[Commy 64]

Also, in war, double bounty, for both defenders and attackers would be sweet. Keep the no insurance rule.

 

[Commy 64]

and here it is people ... it's all down to Azzer's INCOME ...
Stop spending ... play the FREE game

But if less people play the game, it is less fun for all of us...

 

[pinpower]

Firstly i never envisaged there being this much unrest amongst the rest of the playerbase and i certainly didnt foresee an impact on Azzers direct income. And thats the truth, nobody sat down before and said "oo, we're really going to screw up their round!".

and here it is people ... it's all down to Azzer's INCOME ...
Stop spending ... play the FREE game

What do you mean?

 

[fred]

Firstly i never envisaged there being this much unrest amongst the rest of the playerbase and i certainly didnt foresee an impact on Azzers direct income. And thats the truth, nobody sat down before and said "oo, we're really going to screw up their round!".

and here it is people ... it's all down to Azzer's INCOME ...
Stop spending ... play the FREE game

What do you mean?

no punits
no game cash ...
game is advertised as "free"
so don't spend money ...
(see how long it lasts lol)

Also, in war, double bounty, for both defenders and attackers would be sweet. Keep the no insurance rule.

Insurance when defending only
Bribed players need to be replaced (as there is no insurance, injury etc) at say 50% after 30 ticks

 

[Tombi]

Yes the game is advertised as 'free' because it is free, it requires no money whatsoever to play the game but there are things to spend money on to somewhat improve your gameplay, and that would be one of the stupidest suggestions ever removing p-units and gamecash

 

[Azzer]

no punits
no game cash ...
game is advertised as "free"
so don't spend money ...
(see how long it lasts lol)

Wait, weren't you one of the players that hated powerblocks and said it ruins the game? (and also said robos were overpowered and ruined the game, special ops were underpowered and ruined the game, bikers were ridiculous and ruined the game, cheaters rule the game and ruin the game, and a few other messages I recall throughout the round that "ruin the game"). But at the same time you want to ruin the game anyway? Or are you being sarcastic to try and point out how ridiculous powerblocks are? Maybe I miss understood the point of your post.

 

[Martin]

If enough people think it acceptable to have a EULA against powerblocking, I will seriously consider it. It would have to be clear and concise so that people couldn't abuse the rule by getting people in to trouble who are not powerblocking - eg 5 alliances working together to take down a rank 1 top ally who are only working together as a "resistance", is not the same as 3 allys agreeing to work together permanently. Defining what is a powerblock, and what is not a powerblock, in clear cut manners that cannot be mis-interpreted against innocent people and cannot be "evaded" by naughty/bad people who find a way around the rules, would need to be done, so I'd welcome some feedback on having a stab at writing a clear-cut definition. Also it'd have to be "provable" - eg what if the current powerblock never mentioned eachothers allies anywhere in-game, in-forums, or in IRC - they pretended to be enemies too scared to attack eachother just to evade the rules, while in private (invisible to anyone including admin), they agreed not to attack eachother.

With or without a rule - I will still be working on game mechanics and features to help keep the game interesting when fighting against the odds against large powerblocks etc., and also systems to help limit "bottomfeeding".

I think it would have to be left open, as you will not have a clear cut definition. The admin reserves all right to intervene non-beneficial powerblocks for the game. Warnings will be given and actions not instant to give those resposible the chance to rectify, BUT if the situation continues the admin of Bushtarion is able to use other means, other than ingame mechanics to resolve the situation as the admin sees best.

Something like that. We had an 8 man resistance against us 24 hours into the round - that's fine, as we were stupid enough to give people clues to our IDs and we had a lead. The attacks then stopped for a day or so when we dropped.

The majority of people can look at things from a neutral/outsider's perspective and take it on the chin.

 

[Enrico]

Bah...

This should have happened a bit earlier, but meh, better ate than never.

Why not just add a paragraph to the EULA:

Any alliance which is in #1 spot more that 10 days running, or which is X times larger than the median of the top 10 alliances runs a cumulative risk of getting attacked by the Government in an anti-trust crack down.

This would:
a) make it very risky to try an pull ahead and/or set up a powerblock.
b) make the round more interesting for the top allies, as they would get action even if no resistance shows up.

To successfully pull through a win then would mean a lot more jockeying for position, making sure other allies would pull ahead for a it, and then killing them off etc.

Note: I'm not talking undefendable rapeage here, just the risk of getting a well set up bashing from government troops, which naturally can't be countered by any "wing-allies".

MAYBE it would be a bit unfair to do so now, but hey, Azzer is god after all...

Still not sure about the whole "oh but we are friends, this was set ut before round" etc, as arguments for not pulling a nasty backstab when least expected. It's even sweeter backstabbing and killing an ally which see you as no threat what so ever. But I'm just evil I guess.

 

[fred]

Yes the game is advertised as 'free' because it is free, it requires no money whatsoever to play the game but there are things to spend money on to somewhat improve your gameplay, and that would be one of the stupidest suggestions ever removing p-units and gamecash

/me sighs
i didn't say remove them
just don't buy them ....

 

[Martin]

Yes the game is advertised as 'free' because it is free, it requires no money whatsoever to play the game but there are things to spend money on to somewhat improve your gameplay, and that would be one of the stupidest suggestions ever removing p-units and gamecash

/me sighs
i didn't say remove them
just don't buy them ....

So your view is that if you don't want to buy BCs, then don't? Fair comment.
Unfortunatly that's the problem, people's lacking motivation to spend money on this business. How do we solve the issues that lower motivation, in this instance powerblocking.

Then re-read everyone's posts attempting to try and discuss a feasable option to do so.

 

[Tombi]

Yes the game is advertised as 'free' because it is free, it requires no money whatsoever to play the game but there are things to spend money on to somewhat improve your gameplay, and that would be one of the stupidest suggestions ever removing p-units and gamecash

/me sighs
i didn't say remove them
just don't buy them ....

but the p-units are what make some routes playable

 

[fred]

no punits
no game cash ...
game is advertised as "free"
so don't spend money ...
(see how long it lasts lol)

Wait, weren't you one of the players that hated powerblocks and said it ruins the game? (and also said robos were overpowered and ruined the game, special ops were underpowered and ruined the game, bikers were ridiculous and ruined the game, cheaters rule the game and ruin the game, and a few other messages I recall throughout the round that "ruin the game"). But at the same time you want to ruin the game anyway? Or are you being sarcastic to try and point out how ridiculous powerblocks are? Maybe I miss understood the point of your post.

how is posting "not spending money on a free game" ruining the game?
unless of course the whole idea of the game is to make you money???

 

[Martin]

no punits
no game cash ...
game is advertised as "free"
so don't spend money ...
(see how long it lasts lol)

Wait, weren't you one of the players that hated powerblocks and said it ruins the game? (and also said robos were overpowered and ruined the game, special ops were underpowered and ruined the game, bikers were ridiculous and ruined the game, cheaters rule the game and ruin the game, and a few other messages I recall throughout the round that "ruin the game"). But at the same time you want to ruin the game anyway? Or are you being sarcastic to try and point out how ridiculous powerblocks are? Maybe I miss understood the point of your post.

how is posting "not spending money on a free game" ruining the game?
unless of course the whole idea of the game is to make you money???

ofc it is.... it's his job, his business...