• Those wishing to contribute to the game by making suggestions (both small and large) should read the following before doing so.

    Bushtarion largely runs completely automatically, and has been designed intentionally to be as self-maintaining as possible, with mechanics and balance considered at a completed point.

    Please do not spend large amounts of time coming up with complex suggestions in the hope that they will be read and possibly implemented in the future, unless you just enjoy the discussion, theory-craft, and such.

    The most likely changes will be rules-changes, specific number-tweaks to units, techs, and similar sorts of changes, and only if a large community consensus is reached as "proof" that a change would, overall, be an improvement, and are more likely to be done in batches, occassionally, not as a regular thing.

Honour/Fame & Bounty Suggestion

Zaheen

BANNED
Joined
Feb 20, 2009
Messages
802
Location
The Clouds
Bounty on players was supposed to be a deterrent measure, and also to provide smaller players with enough motivation to fight back.

Round after round you see alliances racing away with red titles, and who claims the bounty on any of them? Even if on the off-chance somebody or some group of players are lucky enough to catch these players offline, what difference does it make to the overall rankings of the round? There is no correlation between rankings and skill in this game anymore and there should be.

Bushtarion is more of a cat and mouse type game chase to catch players offline now, and even when you do they are contacted, highlighted, text, and to be honest people could easily account share to prevent a death with very little chance of getting caught using smart phones.

I would really love to see some sort of permanent addition being added

- Negative honour/fame should have a positive correlation with "negative" seed growth.
- A reduction in targets, by maybe increasing the smallest target score for red titled players (which should encourage honourable attacks).
- Some sort of negative bonus on their firepower of troops to prevent these bashers from well bashing?
- Possible bounty collections from people defending against red titled players.

If any/all of these were implemented, would the game be more fun for the player base? Would people try and refrain from becoming red titled?
And yes, I do know how annoying it is to be stuck with no targets, but you only have yourselves to blame.

Experience was removed because it was OP/easy to get and too difficult to balance.

The above suggestions may be a little "too much" for you red titled novices to handle, but nobody is forcing you to bash next round, or the round after that.

Let's see if anybody can give some positive feedback to this, instead of the usual negativity and drivel from people who can't think of any suggestions of their own.

If you can't think of anything nice to say, then don't say anything - I'll take the silence of players as a bad suggestion, no problem.
 
Last edited:

LuckySports

Landscape Designer
Joined
Jul 7, 2008
Messages
1,243
Location
Nonya
Zaheen said:
- Negative honour/fame should have a positive correlation with seed growth.

What do you actually mean by this?

Pretty sure he's saying that the worse your title, the fewer seeds you get, and the weaker your troops.


These suggestions are always shot down for the same reason, it discourages attacking (limiting targets) and stagnates the game.

I don't really see too much issue from collecting bounty from attackers by defending, other than the potential for abuse. It would have to be watched closely..
 

Zaheen

BANNED
Joined
Feb 20, 2009
Messages
802
Location
The Clouds
I don't really see too much issue from collecting bounty from attackers by defending, other than the potential for abuse. It would have to be watched closely..
Everything will be abused if not watched closely.

As for stagnating the game, is it not already this way for the top group of players after a couple of weeks? I just don't think the current red title puts the majority of the playerbase off becoming red titled, which implies something else needs to be added to try and prevent this - just my thoughts!
 

tobapopalos

Hydroponics Developer
Joined
Dec 14, 2007
Messages
2,759
Location
Manchester
I know you asked for no negative feedback, but it's impossible for you to get an accurate reading on how successful your suggestion is when the only replies you get are ones saying how wonderful it is, so I'm going to ignore your request.

I do not like this idea.

Firstly, I think we have enough game mechanics in place to discourage dishonourable play. If people aren't playing honourably now, they never will, unless you make it practically impossible for them not to do so. And, in my opinion, that is just wrong.

Secondly, a lot of people don't have a choice about playing dishonourably. The top alliance have no honourable targets, and solo puppets and bunkers can hardly ever hit at 70%. To then hit these people with even more restrictions and penalties is not fair. You're basically punishing them for winning the round, or for their route choice. I don't think going solo puppets is a crime.

Changing the attack range of dishonourable players would not make them change their ways. They would just attack 2 on 1, or worse.

Changing their firepower is also a bad idea. It would make BRs much harder to calculate for everyone involved and would affect some routes worse than others, ruining route balance.

I don't like the idea of players gaining bounty for defending. Why should they earn money for defending against one guy and not another? Bounty is something you earn by attacking dishonourable players and catching them out, not by simply doing your duty as an allied player and defending an incoming.
 
Last edited:

Elderveld

Official Helper
Joined
Dec 14, 2007
Messages
552
Location
Arnhem
I do agree, people whit bounty's are walking away whit it waaaay to easy!

I'd like to add some idea's popping to mind!

- Government troops attacking top player's.
These should not be the immortal gov land farmers like we all knew them. Targetted id can still sent out troops. And the incomming force should not be overwelming.

BUT!
They should defo need to be though, twice the t-rex health/armor. But about the half of the TLs firepower. And fire late. Rank 1 ally at this point should need atleast half the alliance troops to stop it. Fiiring Let/all, init verry low (land stealers verry late last tick).

They wont be able to completely kill but defo hurt them!
 

'Tiger'

Landscape Designer
Joined
Apr 27, 2012
Messages
1,285
Location
UK
You have some sort of grudge against the top players? ;)

If this was bought in, im pretty sure everyone would want the gov troops to be able to target everyone...not just people in the top alliance :/
 

LuckySports

Landscape Designer
Joined
Jul 7, 2008
Messages
1,243
Location
Nonya
This has been implemented before, and it was a disaster.

Don't punish players for winning.. Eventually, the only people left to win will be bots.
 

Garrett2

Landscape Designer
Joined
Jan 19, 2012
Messages
1,703
more than likely this suggestion is entirely a troll or entirely suggested to benefit zaheen's style of play
 

Zaheen

BANNED
Joined
Feb 20, 2009
Messages
802
Location
The Clouds
more than likely this suggestion is entirely a troll or entirely suggested to benefit zaheen's style of play
It really wasn't a troll, I don't intend to stay in the game for much longer.

I'm saying this for the greater good of the game, the Goverment units were funny as hell (and in case you overlooked my first post, I never re-suggested them because I know it would result in a shootdown), but it did in fact encourage newbies/others to attack with the units throughout the entire round, albeit they would send to their miserable deaths - but it was still fun.

I have no designated play style Garrett, I choose to play the way I do because I would be bored into deletion if I was ever stuck up there with no targets. I honestly don't know how you guys can do it round after round, and think it's skillful...complain about lack of targets...

And then repeat the process time and time again - it is truly beyond me.

Don't punish players for winning..
I have nothing against players "winning", although different types of players define winning differently, and getting it by bashing people senseless isn't one of them in my eyes.

This is against red titles Lucky, I can appreciate why people think it's just against the top players - but it's not this time.

Also toby, I never entirely meant I don't want any negative feedback, I mean even your feedback was positive in my eyes (excluding your 3 worded post), I'm fine with people disagreeing with what I suggested, but I just think people are too afraid to try new things.

Azzer was tired of changing/trying new things, in the end he just gave up because he was no longer able to please the current playerbase (that is all of you guys, shooting down every possible suggestion to try and improve things).

Anyway, it was just a suggestion - I do appreciate everyone who has posted so far, and I'm damn impressed with the good feedback. Makes a change!
 

'Tiger'

Landscape Designer
Joined
Apr 27, 2012
Messages
1,285
Location
UK
Its called fun Zaheen. If Garrett and others feel that the way they play offers them fun then let them get on with it?
 

Zaheen

BANNED
Joined
Feb 20, 2009
Messages
802
Location
The Clouds
Its called fun Zaheen. If Garrett and others feel that the way they play offers them fun then let them get on with it?
When have I ever stopped them? I never intentionally meant to suggest ALL of the above things to be implemented, but a few of them, and or some changes should be made so that people try harder to stay green titled.

I'm just saying, it's not very much fun for everybody who isn't winning. That red title has become more and more useless as the rounds have progressed. People don't even try to claim that bounty anymore and I think it's pretty sad.

This is what has killed the game in my eyes, the lack of skill required to win and the amount of time required to even be a challenger to win. I have said the same thing for almost 40 rounds, it still baffles me to this day why only a handful of players agree with me. Sadly, it's the ones who have quit.
 

flameharvester

Head Gardener
Joined
Dec 16, 2007
Messages
437
As a point only rank 1 ally has negative title at this time, this is great makes it harder and less profitable for them to hit us!
 

Zaheen

BANNED
Joined
Feb 20, 2009
Messages
802
Location
The Clouds
As a point only rank 1 ally has negative title at this time, this is great makes it harder and less profitable for them to hit us!
But them being red titled doesn't make it any harder to hit you? It doesn't really matter what title they have.

This honour/fame business needs to have a bigger impact on the game, for example:

Red title = diseased crops.

Even with something like this, there's a large chance it changes nothing - but what it changes it the possibility of the round lasting much longer, when players with half the land are getting a similar income.
 

flameharvester

Head Gardener
Joined
Dec 16, 2007
Messages
437
I see the appeal, I am merely stating that whst they make in suiciding on us is less then it has been as rank 2 last 2 rounds
 

CFalcon

Official Helper
Joined
Dec 14, 2007
Messages
680
Location
Kent UK
I do agree that bounty, as it stands, is useless in discouraging people from attacking dishonourably.

And I'd also agree that, alot of the time, attacking is simply a lottery of whether the target can get online.

However, I'm not sure that any of the specific suggestions so far would actually solve the problem. I'm also un-easy about forcing people to play in a specific way with overly restrictive deterrents.
 
Top