2nd World for FTW allies

[Yang]

IMO once the round has been decided by a FTW alliance the game becomes pretty dull, so I've thought of something...

There could be a 2nd world running specially catered for competitive alliance play, i.e all the players in the world are either in an arranged alliance, or after an X amount of ticks being solo, are assorted into a random alliance chosen based on some score/ticks online sorting algorithm, which puts the player into an alliance most suitable for them.

Idea of this world is that if Rank 1 alliance is A times greater in score than the Rank 2 alliance, they will win the round after B ticks. This will help resistances get organised if people want the round to carry on, and if the resistances fail and the Rank 1 alliance has held on after some time, the round has then been won and the world resets.

Things like P-Units in this world can be made much cheaper, as the round will be much shorter than World 1.

 

[Twigley]

There are 1, 2 at a push alliances per round who go ftw.
A world of 40 players doesn't sound to me like it would work, nor would the people want to play it.
The problem lies with the playerbase, not the game.
Maybe people will *actually* have to stop being lazy every round and fight each other.

 

[Davs]

There are 1, 2 at a push alliances per round who go ftw.
A world of 40 players doesn't sound to me like it would work, nor would the people want to play it.
The problem lies with the playerbase, not the game.
Maybe people will *actually* have to stop being lazy every round and fight each other.

Or more people could become sufficiently lazy that no one pulls ahead early on so there may be more (albeit small-scale) fighting throughout the round. Although your way sounds more likely.

 

[moorer]

The playerbase is dwindling. There is a limited number of active players willing to put in the hours to win the game. Every winning alliance comes from within that limited group.

As the playerbase continues to dwindle the "active player" alliances will win the round quicker and quicker. This will, in turn, force more of the less active players to leave the game and so on and so on.

To make the game more competitive will require one (or more ) of the following (not exhaustive) list:

i) A bigger player base. This is the best way to make the game better. More players more targets, less bashing etc.

ii) A change in the way active players play the game. They must realise that if they all group together in the same groups round after round then there ain't gonna be much competition. If they spread their activity across more alliances maybe there will be more competition. I accept that players want to be in alliances alongside their friends, I accept an active player would not want to be allied with less actives as it would put him at more risk of being hit when offline. But if active players were more spread around alliances it would lead to more competitive rounds. If you get hit then your score drops and you have more targets and thus more fun!!

iii) More bash/farming protection for less active players to keep them interested in the game. Perhaps a higher seed output linked to their AR levels, the higher the AR the more seeds they get to help rebuild.

iv) I would like to see the return of alliance naps but with limitations imposed on higher rank alliances on how much defence could be sent to/received from their naps. I am no coding expert but I suspect this could be done but would require fairly complex coding.

v) You could consider a limit on how many hours a player can be logged in in any 24 hr period.

vi) Maybe a limit on how many mobs can be sent on attacks. For example a movement allowance of say 100 points with each attack using up 5 movement points. the points could replenish slowly over time.

Just a few random thoughts, not saying they will necessarily work but if the game goes on as it is its going to die completely before much longer.

 

[GooDGoodBye]

didn't read anything before, but an extreme cut in members can mean that activity & contactability is not everything about the game anymore. There comes to a point where it is not worth it to put in 24/7 to the game and be contactable as you can just get raped by lots of people. There will be more politics and tempory teaming up (note not noobblocking) and crying and moaning = more interesting.

You can say it could put too much stress on the top alliance, yeah if they want to be active for 70 days...but people that burn out can easily take a week or two off, come back, and it is still fair game for all to fight for the number 1 spot again.


There needs to be significant weakening on solo though. Probably no Pnaps allowed.

Support!

This was taken from another topic but I think this is very well said and true.

This is why the game needs smaller alliances and how the game should be played.

 

[willymchilybily]

please as much as you may genuinely feel smaller alliances will help. this debate has been had in another thread. (another 2 or 3 infact) so please dont drag it into this thread which is looking at a second world to play in.

as for the original suggestion. i dont see it holding enough interest to have two worlds one ftw and one not. because people in the not ftw world will even if they play it right, see that they could win and suddenly get spurred on. the opportunity to potentially win even if you dont care can drive even the least active/concerned alliance

and people in ftw alliance that lose or start to lose go one of two ways. ahhh! we are losing/will lose - rage quit/mass suicide/dont care go inactive log in when can be arsed no longer ftw. and if its between two alliances or so as atm it seems to be with a dwindling player base....then they instantly know the id's of all other alliances.
(which solo in thier right mind would play in an allaince ftw world instead of a world filled of ftf alliances that they can have fun with)

finally on topic. if the dwindling player base is the main cause of every single issue with bushtarion (which many including myself believe) then why have two worlds and further splitt the player base by half

moorer:
i) - every one agrees with this
ii) - you cant force people to play in a certain way even through game mechanics
iii) - potentially if balanced right, butmost anti bash concepts actually just mean more are needed in order to be able to bash
iv) - A-naps for smaller alliances. potentially. but ive seen alliances with players on to scared to defend against a big guy attacking because they dont want to die. at the other extreme ive seen 8-9 men attacking the alliance below them all on the same tick to make sure they overcome any defence that is sent. (it may just make things far far worse)
v) - you should not limit peoples activity because other members of the playerbase are less active it is inherently unfair, but also discouraging for people who try hard play actively and likely buy punits.
vi) - i can go days without attacking but at the weekend i like to smash it and send out all the time between playing call of duty. To limit that to prevent me, and others like me, growing to fast would be frustrating and not beneficial to what you want to achieve

 

[alwaysnumb]

Bush is close to dying completely, currently theres 3 functioning alliances. Its taken only 2 weeks to decide the winner. Looking at player list theres about 90 people who are actually trying to play the game. Almost time to wind up the servers and switch off bush theres just no other solution because it simply has become unplayable.

 

[Max]

OR setup a solo world again!

*Loves solo PWs*

 

[Davs]

Bush is close to dying completely, currently theres 3 functioning alliances. Its taken only 2 weeks to decide the winner. Looking at player list theres about 90 people who are actually trying to play the game. Almost time to wind up the servers and switch off bush theres just no other solution because it simply has become unplayable.

Just because only ~90 people are playing with any sense of activity doesn't mean that there aren't others who are enjoying the game at a lower tempo...

That being said, I don't see the point in taking the active players away and putting them in a different world as there aren't enough of them to make it worthwhile for them.

 

[LuckySports]

Gonna knock down a few suggestions here..

First - Do not lower alliance member count.. this has been beaten to death, it will only hurt the game more.

Second - Solos are powerful enough in a game meant for alliance play, if you choose to play solo, you can do so with the current mechanics, there's no need to make solos even more difficult to take out. (an active solo right now can be a pain to kill)

Third - a 2nd world wouldn't work, because people in the first world would STILL play FTW, you'd just have them doing it in 2 places instead of one.

And on a final note - Players move around alliances plenty.. I'm in an alliance right now with only about 3 other people I've ever been allied with, A few of the top players right now haven't been in the top 2/3 alliance in a few rounds, and there are several I have never heard of. People only ASSUME its the same people winning every round, its not, I'm not saying this because I'm FTW and worried about it being made hard for me (I'm definitely not trying to win) I'm saying it because almost any change that is suggested with changing the way the TOP players have to play would kill the game for more than just them.. You should look at the ripples of affect a change will have within the game and consider if it will help or kill the game. There aren't a lot of people left, I think the best change suggested has been an increase in insurance/bounty (so people can stay in the fight for longer)

 

[InSoMnIaC20]

F uck it, abolish alliances together and just have solo's with maybe 3 p naps.

90 active and trying players, able to be killed if timed right, no alliance defences to worry about, no -1 defence boosts, and 1 very real fight for rank 1.

(this IS a serious suggestion)

 

[InSoMnIaC20]

There are not enough willing and active players to make allied play viable any more so flip the game on it's head and dedicate it to solo play.

 

[InSoMnIaC20]

Oh,and extend flack wars by setting Dev mod to *10


(not a serious suggestion)

 

[Ogluk]

F uck it, abolish alliances together and just have solo's with maybe 3 p naps.

90 active and trying players, able to be killed if timed right, no alliance defences to worry about, no -1 defence boosts, and 1 very real fight for rank 1.

(this IS a serious suggestion)

would only be worthwhile if changes to sleep mode were made (timer on usage, removal of 8 hour SM, something like that)

 

[InSoMnIaC20]

I can't see much coding needed to remove 8 hour sleep mode and removing alliances Tbf.

 

[tobapopalos]

Edit button is your friend.

 

[InSoMnIaC20]

I know. That requires effort and rewording, we all know words are not my friend.

 

[LAFiN]

I know. That requires effort and rewording, we all know words are not my friend.

That's because you don't have ANY friends. Hahahah!

Seriously though, activity cap ftw! Allies are the way to go, just have a mandatory sleep mode or something.

I didn't think out my suggestion because I'm drunk, but it sounds good.

 

[Max]

A suggestion from a drunk LAFiN? What could possibly go wrong? I love it \o/