• 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.

If I were to start bushtarion from scratch I would...

CFalcon

Official Helper
Joined
Dec 14, 2007
Messages
680
Location
Kent UK
If the game had been random alliances from the very start, back in Age 1, then it could have worked. People would have accepted that that's how it is and the people who liked that system would have stuck around.

But we're at a stage now where the vast majority of people are only still here to play with friends and because they, to a certain extent, like the current setup.
 

Alcibiades

Plant Geneticist
Joined
Dec 13, 2007
Messages
4,267
Location
Canada
If who I was allied with was controlled by the server, and the ability to go solo was removed, I would definitely quit. Random alliances just would not work, and solo is such a great way to play when you can't, or don't want to, commit to an alliance.

Take away the freedom to choose how we want to play, and where, and I guarantee the remaining playerbase will dissolve overnight.

This. We tried random alliances in a PW iirc, and it was an unmitigated disaster.
 

Iamsmart

Landscape Designer
Joined
Apr 26, 2008
Messages
1,668
Can you guys not read?

a) the thread says 'if I can start Bushtarion from scratch'
b) I already posted it would have had to be done from the start, and it is nowhere near possible to do now
c) ty CF for thinking
d) LuckyFool, I can't say any of your points have any logic behind them. You don't need guaranteed 100% balanced random alliances, it'd be a hell of a lot more balanced and competitive than it is now. Currently the game is balanced around the idea 'oh, an alliance is winning, herp derp we all need to team up and kill them' which is just stupid (but necessary because of how poorly the game was designed in that sense).
 

Garrett2

Landscape Designer
Joined
Jan 19, 2012
Messages
1,703
to start from scratch would entail banning every last one of you in search of a better and brighter future.

that's what i'd do.
 

LuckySports

Landscape Designer
Joined
Jul 7, 2008
Messages
1,243
Location
Nonya
If any of you have played utopia- the format for random alliances there is the only way it would ever work.

I've played Utopia.. :p It works there because it is a VASTLY different game. You can login once a day and do really well, You don't lose ALL your troops to a single attack..

And even then, most of the Top kingdoms aren't quite as random as you think.. I was in one of them a long time ago.. They will have someone defect until they land in the kingdom, or convince the new guy to give up his spot for their own player. (Gives out his login details, their player will play from a proxy so it looks like the same person) It has been ages since I've played that game though.

All attacks take place instantly, but takes time for your troops to come back from it. You KNOW the numbers associated with your troops so you can calculate with 100% certainty that you will win a fight if you have all the intel. Its such a different game that, whilst I understand where you could make the comparison, it still fails to justify it.

This is probably going to haunt me for the rest of my life, but.. I agree with Toby (Gasp!) If you removed my ability to play with my friends, I would almost certainly quit. I'm sure many others would, so you WOULD end up starting completely from scratch, including a new player-base.
 

willymchilybily

Landscape Designer
Joined
Dec 14, 2007
Messages
1,418
Location
uk
i have an hq system ive been musing over for some time now. Ill post when i cba but that would be part of my main change, more useful hq.

id agree random alliances wud be fine if it had always been random. the culture in bush is different and i think it would lead to more loss in player base initially, but who knows overall new players feeling more welcome and being part of something could help keep players and get more players.

theres also a ton of good suggestions in the suggestion thread, Id probably start there and pick out the best ones.
 

Polo

Garden Designer
Super Moderator
Joined
Dec 14, 2007
Messages
1,005
Unlimited ally sizes. Or, no allies but you can defend whoever you want.
 

Elderveld

Official Helper
Joined
Dec 14, 2007
Messages
552
Location
Arnhem
Have all eta 4-5 units recude it by 1. Max eta = 4.
Have, when u create an ID, let you pick a 'region' say id 2~999. (randomly generates an ID in that).
Let only alliances join members in the same 'region'

then when u want to hit another ID in a different 'region' you automaticly get a +1 ETA. When u hit an ID whit +4 regions have +2 eta. (even whitout score gaps. the 30%)
so having an ID of 5, hitting someone at 31% range whit id 550 will get u an eta of 8.

Changing regions will cost 90% of your seed production for 1 day.
Second time 2 day's
Third time 4 day's
can only change 3 times;)
 

willymchilybily

Landscape Designer
Joined
Dec 14, 2007
Messages
1,418
Location
uk
Have all eta 4-5 units recude it by 1. Max eta = 4.
Have, when u create an ID, let you pick a 'region' say id 2~999. (randomly generates an ID in that).
Let only alliances join members in the same 'region'

then when u want to hit another ID in a different 'region' you automaticly get a +1 ETA. When u hit an ID whit +4 regions have +2 eta. (even whitout score gaps. the 30%)
so having an ID of 5, hitting someone at 31% range whit id 550 will get u an eta of 8.

Changing regions will cost 90% of your seed production for 1 day.
Second time 2 day's
Third time 4 day's
can only change 3 times;)

i know its more of a voice your opinion thread than debate. but i think limiting peoples ranges/eta would only be a bad thing, giving a smaller section of attractive targets, or making alliance wars harder is the wrong direction to my mind.
 

Your_Mum

Weeder
Joined
Apr 19, 2012
Messages
14
An interesting discussion.

I would definitely remove the farming and weather system. Indeed, it is part of what makes Bushtarion unique, but as far as I'm aware this discussion is about making a completely new game and what we would like to include. For many of the Bushtarion players, sentiments may have them favour a decision to keep it, but as was previously mentioned it probably costs the game many players. Also, anyone who hasn't played Bushtarion before wouldn't miss it, and they sure wouldn't miss the many frustrating instances of planting into bad weather.

But I would keep the land based income, and the ability to steal land (or resources, or similar). Perhaps you could still gain seeds but planting and selling was instantaneous and independent of the weather of number of gardeners.

The battle system I would keep exactly as it is. It keeps the game interesting and allows many play styles.

I would probably change the rate of recovery after being zeroed (or remove the ability to be zeroed). A pretty frustrating aspect of the game is working hard to get somewhere, and then getting hit back to square one while you sleep. Again, the sentiments of many Bushtarion players would prefer to be able to kill an opponent swiftly. Ideally, a change in this regard would make everyone happy, but we don't live in an ideal world, and in the end this is a business and any decision is a compromise with the intention of maximising the players of the game and profit.

I saw a few suggestions to remove solo. For a highly elitist game this may be appropriate to even the playing field, or where it is not possible for solo to exist, but it would cost the game many players. The casual gamer doesn't want the responsibility of being allied. The fact is, bush actually works quite well with solo, and removing it is hardly necessary.

Polo suggested unlimited alliances or no alliances and the ability to defend anyone. I think they both have potential, but real application might not be so easy. That being said, it would be definitely interesting to see how they would work. Although the second idea would probably limit the amount of social interaction you get, usually a great part of for the fun alliances.

Of course these are just some of my opinions, and not necessarily accurate.
 

Dax

Hydroponics Developer
Joined
Apr 22, 2009
Messages
3,126
Location
Northants, UK

what-you-did-there-i-see-it.thumbnail.jpg
 

bluehen55

Harvester
Joined
Nov 12, 2008
Messages
114
Okay, who is this guy?

Does it matter? Judge him on what he says rather than his name. I think his post was fairly sensible.

Seriously, why on earth does it matter if you've heard his name before. It's good if we have people who don't often come into the forums and don't have a recognizable name come here to give their input, we need a new perspective around here sometimes. This is exactly why people say the community isn't welcoming to new players.
 
Top