• 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.

Mass route/unit balancing/make-more-interesting-ing

Polo

Garden Designer
Super Moderator
Joined
Dec 14, 2007
Messages
1,005
Edit: Upon reflection of feedback, some changes have been changed again. Read http://www.bushtarion.com/forums/showpost.php?p=34009&postcount=27 to see these changes.

Note: This is a long read but hopefully a worthwhile one. If you really cba to read it all, at least scan the suggested Thug route changes as those are the one I personally like the most. :p

Edit: Azzer asked me to put in a "summary" of each route so people can get a general idea of what the changes will do without having to analyse each unit individually:
- Fantasy - Removed from the game. Some units/concepts reused in other routes.
- Prot - Last Tick - Keeps its core idea of being a last tick route but increased strength and more survivability at range.
- Prot - VD - Still a prot/thug hybrid but with its own unique units and strong non-let killing.
- Prot - Pom - Increased strength versus health but reduced strength versus health/armour combo units. Non-let anti health.
- Spec Ops - Bunkers - Reduced cost and power to reduce effectiveness of Ninja/Spike flak. Introduced new punit to allow actual playing rather than sitting around flakking. Strong let defence.
- Spec Ops - SA - No major changes. Strong anti health and reasonable anti armour.
- Spec Ops - Puppets - General buffs to improve overall strength and allied play. Briber.
- Thug - Bikes balanced versus prots.
- Thug - Thief - Change to arsonist to provide quick and strong land grabs against prots. Support/anti prot.
- Thug - Dogs - Dogs come out early to provide early flak slaughtering. Buff to Nutters to allow a stronger last tick. Support.
- Thug - PB - No major changes. Support/anti non let.
- Military - Slightly easier to play during flak wars.
- Military - Striker - Weaker versus health. Slightly stronger versus tractors. Anti armour.
- Military - Harrier - Remains a balanced/support route but with LET flak and lower Harrier init to increase its overall strength. Strong anti armour, reasonable anti health.
- Military - RPG - No major changes. Anti armour.
- Robotics - No major changes. Anti health.

This thread is related to the discussion here: http://www.bushtarion.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2111

Note: I originally intended to rebalance all development ETAs and costs but decided that would be unnecessary without first deciding what routes/units would be in the game so I've left that out for now.

In this post, I want to suggest a major overhaul of all routes - units and technologies. The reasoning for this is as follows:
-The game is not balanced. Some routes are far superior/inferior to others
-Some routes seem to be trying to achieve the same thing as others, rather than have their own identity
-It will make it more interesting for experienced players to have to relearn some things as well as discover new ways to play, etc.
-I'd like to extend/improve the “early game” period (when people are still teching) which should make early decisions a lot more important and interesting
-I'd like there to be a bit more variation/personalisation in the routes, such as the Spike Trap, Stealth Thief, Chemical Sprayer choice in the Special Ops route
-I just don't “like” some of the routes/units in the game, personally
-Some routes are very hard to play solo – it would be more interesting for the game as a whole if each route could be played well solo.
-I want to remove as many of the “bonuses” certain units have against certain other units as possible. I'm not entirely against bonuses as some can be useful in balancing routes but at the moment there are far too many, imo.

Note: All names, stats, etc. are subject to change. They're just there to give an idea of the change.

Generic Changes

New research: Packet Analysing available after Airfield
ETA: 60
Cost: £5,000,000,000
:: Enables Intelligence 'Packet Analysis'.

'Packet Analysis' is effectively a spy report, but it cuts off any news which occurred more than x ticks ago (where x is around 2-3). A Packet Analysis should cost around £50,000,000-£100,000,000. This provides a much earlier ability to “spy” so that it will be not so risky (suicidal if you trigger SAS) to send lethals out on attacks before Spy School is finished. This will allow wars to be waged earlier on as well as lethals to be used in normal attacks (this is a main part of extending/improving the early game period). Note: This is a research, as is Hacking, so players would need to make the choice whether to do Hacking and then Spy School or this early on, allowing more flexibility in playstyle.

Fantasy Changes

Completely remove the Fantasy route. The reasoning for this comes under the “I just don't like it”, as well as it not having it's own identity. The Fantasy route as a whole just seems to be a slightly altered version of Thugs. Sure, it could be completely rebalanced, but there doesn't seem to be an identity we can give it that other routes don't have. I also want to “use” some of the units from the Fantasy route within other routes. The Fantasy route seems to have been implemented just to show off what the new (at the time) battle engine could do, with it's weird bonuses, firing ranges, etc.

Protestor Changes

Last Tick Protestor

Whilst the Extremist sub-route is a nice idea, it just doesn't work. There are too many flaws. Nobody can, or even should be, active enough to really make full use of the route. It's impossible to attack alone, something which every route should be able to do, imo (excluding flakking). It doesn't even do what it does very effectively. So, my suggestion is to remove the 3 units from this sub-route and replace them with the following units in order (note, the names are being reused to show what the unit is modelled on and can/should be altered):

Name: Extremist [£54,000]
Unit Type: Living
Unit Class: LET
Attack type: Kills [close]
Targets: LET / NLD
Stats: **** / * / * / ******
ETA: 3
Initiative: 65
Route(s): Protestor
This unit is very similar to the current Extremist unit. However, it fires slightly earlier to armour-strip before Protestor Leaders fire, as well as firing before Bunkers to ever so slightly increase their strength against that sub-route. It is also ETA 3 to allow more efficient last-ticking, along with other Protestor units such as Gurus and Leaders. Finally, the unit does a lot more armour damage than it currently does. The unit should have about a 1:2 ratio on killing Psychopathic Androids, imo.

Name: Siren/Rebel [£47,500]
Unit Type: Living
Unit Class: LET
Attack type: Stuns [r/m]
Targets: LET
Stats: *** / * / *** / **
ETA: 5
Initiative: 235
Route(s): Protestor
This unit effectively replaces the role of the Rebel – attempting to keep the route alive at range – and fills the role much more appropriately. The main aim of the route is to be a very powerful force last tick. A strong r/m killer defeats this aim. However, without a r/m killer, the route just gets walked over and requires too much activity. By replacing it with a Stunning unit (very similar to the original Siren unit), the route can survive much better at range without being overpowered itself.

Finally, the route has a choice of 2 purchase units, allowing slightly different playstyles:

Name: Fanatic [£42,000]
Unit Type: Living
Unit Class: LET
Attack type: Kills [close]
Targets: LET / INN
Stats: **** / * / ***** / *
ETA: 4
Initiative: 234
Route(s): Protestor
Almost exactly the same as the current Fanatic unit. Damage wise, it should kill Secret Agents about 1:1.4. With this purchase unit, the route is extremely similar to what it currently is but does much more damage last tick and has more survivability at range.

OR

Name: Dragon [£87,500]
Unit Type: Living
Unit Class: LET
Attack type: Kills [r/c]
Targets: LET / INN
Stats: **** / ** / **** / **
ETA: 5
Initiative: 515
Route(s): Fantasy
The Dragon unit is the perfect replacement for the Fanatic in this route, imo. With its unusual r/c firing range, the route fits in with the last tick principle of the route as well as providing it with more survivability at range without being overpowered by losing a lot of last tick anti-health.

Violent Demonstrators

The aim of the VD sub-route seems to be a Prot-Thug hybrid. Which is definitely a nice idea. However, it's just far too similar to Thug and doesn't offer anything really special whilst missing out on some key areas from both routes and not gaining much in return. What I suggest is to remove the T/TL units from this route and replace them with the two units outlined below as well as a small modification to the VD unit. This should allow for the Prot-Thug hybrid whilst still providing something a bit “special” compared to the other sub-routes in those routes.

Name: Violent Demonstrator [£15,000]
Unit Type: Living
Unit Class: LET
Attack type: Kills [close]
Targets: NLD / NLT / LET
Stats: *** / * / * / ***
ETA: 2
Initiative: 160
Route(s): Protestor
Improved health allows the unit to be better LET flak. Altered targeting provides slightly greater anti-pom damage as well as an early counter to mass Gurus, SGT and Small Droids.

Name: Sorcerer [£56,000]
Unit Type: Living
Unit Class: LET
Attack type: Kills [r/m]
Targets: ALL
Stats: *** / ** / ** / ****
ETA: 4
Initiative: 265
Route(s): Protestor
Very similar to the current Sorcerer unit. This unit is exceptionally good against non-LET units. Coupled with VDs for flak and damage last tick, these units provide a great anti-prot combination. The altered initiative allows them to fire before Prot Gurus which could be very useful in a wave attack.

Name: Gargoyle [£36,500]
Unit Type: Machine/Vehicle
Unit Class: LET
Attack type: Kills [r/m]
Targets: LET
Stats: ** / ** / ** / **
ETA: 4
Initiative: 330
Route(s): Protestor
Again, very similar to its original unit. This unit provides the anti-LET that the route is missing with its non-let targeting.

So overall, these units keep the general theme of being a Prot-Thug hybrid (as Sorcs and Gargs are both Thugish units and have similarities to units in the Thug route) whilst still having its own identity and something a bit “special”.

Political Masterminds

This route is pretty balanced and has a good purpose. However, it's very imbalanced against the Biker unit and the Pom unit is slightly overpowered. So, I suggest the following alteration to the Pom unit as well as a change to Bikers (see later):

Name: Political Mastermind [£40,500]
Unit Type: Living
Unit Class: NLD
Attack type: Distracts [all]
Targets: LET
Stats: ** / **** / ***** / *
ETA: 4
Initiative: 180
Route(s): Protestor
The route is currently far too strong against health based units, armoured units as well as units that have a bit of both. Poms can counter health and health/armour hybrids and HV can counter armour. This change makes poms stronger against health only whilst keeping HV's strength against armour but removes the dominance it has over health/armour hybrid units. The removal of INN targeting means players will have to make more use of Protestor Gurus and can't just mass this single unit. Note: the removal of INN targeting isn't a necessary change but should make the route more interesting.

Special Ops

A replacement for Chemical Sprayers isn't necessarily needed because Spike Traps and Stealth Thieves are fine as they are, but making them useful would allow more variety in what unit Special Ops players pick:

Name: Stealth Gardener [£10,000]
Unit Type: Living
Unit Class: INN
Attack type: Gardens [close]
Stats: * / * / 1000 plants.
ETA: 5 {reveal eta 2}
Initiative: 890
Stealth.
Route(s): Special Operations
The flakking effectiveness of this unit would need to be very low (ie. Only have 2-3 times the strength of a normal gardener) because they would allow for a vast amount of tactics for Special Ops players, especially early on.

Bunkers

I would suggest that both Bunkers and Sentries have the cost and all stats halved. They are currently too hard to kill, especially in the hands of a good player. And especially with the next change I will suggest, an alternative purchase unit to Sentries:

Name: Vampire [£72,000] OR [£92,000]
Unit Type: Living
Unit Class: LET
Attack type: Converts [r/c] OR Converts [all]
Converts Unit Type(s): Living
Converts To: Lesser Vampire
Targets: LET / ALL
Stats: *** / *** / *** / **
ETA: 5 {reveal eta 3}
Initiative: 240
Stealth.
Route(s): Special Ops
The Vampire unit as it is fits in very nicely with the whole Special Ops setup. Having this as an alternative to Sentries (in fact, I'd considering making it a replacement) would allow the route to actually attack rather than just flak and do nothing else. It also means if someone had gone Bunkers and then decided to join an alliance, they could do so without restarting as they'd have a decent unit to benefit the alliance.

Secret Agents

Just because of the removal of Fantasy and the change to the Vampire unit, both SAs and Assassins should be changed to:
* Does 50% less Health Damage against unit: Vampire.
* Does 50% less Armour Damage against unit: Vampire.

Puppet Masters

Imo, in an alliance, Puppets don't really have any advantage over using a Pom player with mass Hypnos. Hypnos fire earlier than Puppets, are eta 4 and have the benefit of also having Gurus and Poms in the route. Puppets are only better because they fire all 3 ticks and target ALL/LET (although a Hypno player can use Poms to block INN anyway). Puppets are good as a solo due to SGT and Steel Walls, although this is only in defence. Thus, I'd suggest the following changes to Steel Walls and Puppets:

Name: Steel Wall [£35,000]
Unit Type: Machine/Vehicle
Unit Class: LET
Attack type: Kills [close]
Targets: ALL
Stats: * / ***** / * / *
ETA: 5
Initiative: 40
Route(s): Special Operations
This puts them in the same vein as Jeeps, Humvees and Shields. They will be able to more effectively bribe in attacks, as well as provide a solid armoured flak unit in an alliance. The ETA makes them not too powerful. Their initiative and damage may need to be reconsidered too though.

Name: Puppet Master [£90,000]
Unit Type: Living
Unit Class: LET
Attack type: Bribes [all]
Targets: ALL / LET
Stats: *** / ** / *** / ***
ETA: 4
Initiative: 665
Route(s): Special Operations
The improved initiative makes them slightly more effective, especially against some of the “early” round units. Their improved ETA also means they'll be much more useful in alliance play.

Thug

Change to Bikers coupled with the Pom change:

Name: Biker [£38,000]
Unit Type: Living
Unit Class: LET
Attack type: Kills [all]
Targets: NLD
Stats: ** / *** / ** / ***
ETA: 4
Initiative: 195
Route(s): Thug
This change prevents very small Biker players constantly rushing big Pom players and taking no losses. This should not be happening in the game and is one of the biggest unit/route flaws, imo. However, with Poms reduced AD and Bikers increased AR, Bikers will still be able to take on Poms fairly easily (even Poms bigger than them). Bikers also won't be as squishy as they currently are.

I also think Terrorist Leaders should be changed back to £37,500, I never understood the reasoning behind upping their cost to £40,000.

The problem with both Thief and Attack Dog sub-routes is that it's rarely worth the trade-off of losing a Petrol player, unless the player playing Thieves/Dogs is exceptionally good (although having an exceptionally good player go Petrols tends to be more beneficial). Petrols are extremely useful for flak killing as well as killing blockers in wave attacks. However, hopefully the changes to other routes as well as buffs to Thief and Attack Dog will make the reliance on Petrols slightly less.

Thief

Replacement for Arsonists which are, quite frankly, rubbish:

Name: Arsonist [£35,000]
Unit Type: Living
Unit Class: NLT
Attack type: Disables [all]
Targets: NLD / ALL
Stats: ** / * / ** / ****
ETA: 3
Initiative: 179
Route(s): Thug
Thief isn't supposed to be a strong LET route, hence the introduction of a new NLT unit. This unit provides many bonuses to the Thief sub-route. It allows ETA 3 attacks on prots again (which now isn't possible with ETA 4 Bikers). It provides a decent early counter to Gurus as well as providing a unit to stop NLD before they fire (as Bikers would fire after NLD again). It also means that the Thief route is useful to an alliance before Terrorists come out and means the route can survive as a solo slightly easier early on. Also, it provides an anti-Biker rush unit (not quite as necessary now, but useful nonetheless).

Attack Dogs

Nutters and Attack Dogs should be switched in the tech tree (along with a slight reduction in Attack Dogs damage). This will allow Dogs to be used as a early flak killer along with Petrols and thus provide more variety in the Thug route people play. I also suggest a change to Nutters are they're utterly pointless at the moment:

Name: Nutter [£10,000]
Unit Type: Living
Unit Class: NLT
Attack type: Disables [close]
Targets: LET / ALL
Stats: * / *** / * / **
ETA: 2
Initiative: 350
Route(s): Thug
This unit is basically a close range only version of a Hooligan. I'm sure everyone can see the benefits of that so I won't write a load of crap explaining why it's good. :p

Military

General

Military routes are overall pretty weak against flak attacks. This makes them pretty poor solo routes, especially overall. In an attempt to increase the number of routes playable as a solo, I'm going to suggest alternatives for both Privates and Officers:

Name: Military Police {Private alternative} [£12,500]
Unit Type: Living
Unit Class: NLT
Attack type: Disables [close]
Targets: ALL / INN
Stats: * / * / * / *
ETA: 5
Initiative: 701
Route(s): Military
Note: The development for this unit would be slightly more expensive than that of Privates.
This unit is designed to make the flak wars stage of the game slightly easier for solo Military players (although they can be useful in an alliance too but ETA 5 makes them difficult to use). I'm not going to point out why this unit would be so good but experienced players should see why.

Name: Military Barricades {Officer replacement} [£45,000]
Unit Type: Living
Unit Class: NLT
Attack type: Disables [m/c]
Targets: LET / ALL
Stats: * / ** / *** / **
Initiative: 354
Immobile.
Route(s): Military
Note: The development for this unit would be significantly more expensive and slightly longer than that of Officers.
This unit is, again, designed to make the flak wars stage of the game easier for solo Military players.

Striker

Overall, the Striker sub-route is one of the, if not the, strongest LET routes in the game. It has both huge survivability and high fire-power. However, I feel that it is too strong against both armour and health based units even as an anti-armour route. Thus, I suggest the following change to Apaches:

Name: Apache Longbow [£145,000]
Unit Type: Machine/Vehicle
Unit Class: LET
Attack type: Kills [all]
Targets: LET / INN
Stats: * / ****** / **** / **
ETA: 3
Initiative: 560
Route(s): Military
This change will increase the sub-routes weakness against health based routes as well as increase its chances against tractor flakking.

Harrier

The Harrier route is a bit of a jack of all traders, master of none. Harriers are decent AD And Rangers are decent HD but overall, you'd be much better off with pretty much any other route in an alliance. All the units in the route are very squishy too. The EMP unit should be removed, this has been mentioned so many times and I really cba to write out reasons, it's just an awful unit. Thus, the following change to Paratroopers and Harriers:

Name: Paratrooper [£32,000]
Unit Type: Living
Unit Class: LET
Attack type: Kills [all]
Targets: NLT / LET / ALL
Stats: * / *** / * / ***
ETA: 3
Initiative: 680
Route(s): Military
Basically a decent LET flak unit for Harriers to make up for Harriers' lack of armour as well as a decent NLT killer to counter some of the newly introduced units.

Name: Harrier [£80,000]
Unit Type: Machine/Vehicle
Unit Class: LET
Attack type: Kills [all]
Targets: LET / ALL
Stats: * / *** / ** / ***** (up their health slightly so that they're more likely to fire after RPGs/Striker)
ETA: 3
Initiative: 266
Route(s): Military
Init changed to before Assassins so the route isn't so weak against Spec Ops if you aren't mass Rangers. This changed definitely needs to be considered a lot as Harriers would fire before Hools and thus allow more successful rushes on Robots. May need to change their ETA to 4 or just not implement this change.

Robotics

Shields

Overall, Shields are not worth losing PA for. PA are awesome early on and great all round for killing most health based units before they fire. The increase to Shields' AR was a decent idea to make the route better, but there's still one major advantage of PA over Shields. Their ETA. ETA 5 units are very rarely used on a large scale. With Shields being ETA 5, it makes the route quite weak in defence for an alliance. Often you don't want to send defence till incoming is ETA 3 so you can see what's needed where etc. Thus, I suggest making Shields ETA 4 and reducing their AR slightly (although still stronger than they were a couple of rounds back). This will make them much more useful.

Stunbots

The swap of Stunbots to the second tier of developments was great and has made this sub-route much more useable. Nanobots do seem better this round but a lot of people still prefered CS. So, I'm suggesting players get a choice between CS and Nanobots like the choice between Stealth Thieves and Spikes etc.

Crazed Droids

Everyone knows CDs are crap. Originally they killed flak but TDs killed flak better so they were useless then. Now they kill Tractors but CWs kill Tractors reasonably well as well as kill LET so it's just not worth justifying buying CDs over CWs. Thus, I'm going to suggest the following change to CDs:

Name: Crazed Droid [£65,000]
Unit Type: Robotic
Unit Class: LET
Attack type: Kills [close]
Targets: ALL
Stats: * / *****(*) / ** / *(*)
ETA: 4
Initiative: 176
This new unit will be very similar to PA's in stats but fire at close and target all instead. It is mainly designed to give Shields and Stunbots an early firing unit that they miss out on not having PA's.
 
Last edited:

Changer

Head Gardener
Joined
Dec 14, 2007
Messages
475
Location
London
The route changes seem overall very well thought out and workable. I like the use of the current fantasy route units within other (underused) routes as replacements or alternative. As for the 'Packet Analysis' maybe it has some use. But to me it would make more sense if it didn't show IDs defending (and possibly not ETA?). So it would show the last 3-4 ticks activity but not which IDs sent defence (Maybe some distinction between Gov defence and Other defence). Enabling ID lists to come out a little later but with the ability to check if your heading towards a suicide.
 

Polo

Garden Designer
Super Moderator
Joined
Dec 14, 2007
Messages
1,005
As for the 'Packet Analysis' maybe it has some use. But to me it would make more sense if it didn't show IDs defending (and possibly not ETA?). So it would show the last 3-4 ticks activity but not which IDs sent defence (Maybe some distinction between Gov defence and Other defence). Enabling ID lists to come out a little later but with the ability to check if your heading towards a suicide.

I like that idea a lot! (If people think it'd be too good as it is.)
 

Dark_Angel

Landscape Designer
Super Moderator
Community Operator
Joined
Jan 11, 2008
Messages
1,978
Location
UK
New research: Packet Analysing available after Airfield
ETA: 60
Cost: £5,000,000,000
:: Enables Intelligence 'Packet Analysis'.

'Packet Analysis' is effectively a spy report, but it cuts off any news which occurred more than x ticks ago (where x is around 2-3). A Packet Analysis should cost around £50,000,000-£100,000,000. This provides a much earlier ability to “spy” so that it will be not so risky (suicidal if you trigger SAS) to send lethals out on attacks before Spy School is finished. This will allow wars to be waged earlier on as well as lethals to be used in normal attacks (this is a main part of extending/improving the early game period). Note: This is a research, as is Hacking, so players would need to make the choice whether to do Hacking and then Spy School or this early on, allowing more flexibility in playstyle.

I like this. Particularly for newer players who encounter SAS by accident and might be disheartened at this stage, perhaps even give up altogether. (Talking about people who are starting their first round at the start of a new round).

-

I like the use of the current fantasy route units within other (underused) routes as replacements or alternative

QFT. Nicely done.

-

Haven't had a chance to think about everything yet. I'd make a note under Dragons - that you've lowered its stats a lot, as on first reading I thought "extremists AND dragons firing last tick?!" :p
 

Azzer

Administrator
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
Dec 13, 2007
Messages
1,215
The fantasy units that got re-integrated would have to be renamed. You can't have a "dragon" in a route themed as "protestors".

I also think that given the volume of players that enjoy playing the various fantasy branches, it seems a shame to just scrap it altogether because you don't "like" it - if they can't be given a specific theme (we seem to be lacking a "self-generating" army route, bribing a different army doesn't count... and I can't see any route themed hugely towards "anti-health/living units, rubbish against armour/vehicles" particularly... gaps?), then either invent a theme or keep them as a "generalised" route, and find a way to remove the bonuses without removing their purpose/functionality/strengths :p

People like zombies, vampires, dragons, fantasy - the route's there to satisfy those players. Must find a way to integrate/balance the route in rather than remove it. Not everyone likes them... not everyone likes robots, or army soldiers, or hippy type people... some people pick routes just because it fits their personality/they like the sound of it, not through pure number-crunching! Hence my feeling of improtance in keeping the fantasy routes, in one form or another.
 

f0xx

Landscape Designer
Joined
Dec 18, 2007
Messages
2,195
Location
Plovdiv/Bulgaria
The first adequate suggestion to improve the balance of the game. Very well thought out too.

Ofcourse those units which come from the fantasy routes should be renamed when/if they become part of the new routes.

[edit] Ops, posted before Azzer reply.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

harriergirl

Landscape Designer
Joined
Dec 14, 2007
Messages
1,200
Location
Hillsville VA, USA
The fantasy units that got re-integrated would have to be renamed. You can't have a "dragon" in a route themed as "protestors".

I also think that given the volume of players that enjoy playing the various fantasy branches, it seems a shame to just scrap it altogether because you don't "like" it - if they can't be given a specific theme (we seem to be lacking a "self-generating" army route, bribing a different army doesn't count... and I can't see any route themed hugely towards "anti-health/living units, rubbish against armour/vehicles" particularly... gaps?), then either invent a theme or keep them as a "generalised" route, and find a way to remove the bonuses without removing their purpose/functionality/strengths :p

People like zombies, vampires, dragons, fantasy - the route's there to satisfy those players. Must find a way to integrate/balance the route in rather than remove it. Not everyone likes them... not everyone likes robots, or army soldiers, or hippy type people... some people pick routes just because it fits their personality/they like the sound of it, not through pure number-crunching! Hence my feeling of improtance in keeping the fantasy routes, in one form or another.

Thank you Azzer, I think in this case you are spot on. I understand and have had it explained by so many good players, the weaknesses and problems with fantasy. But I thoroughly *enjoy* playing Vampires it would be sad to see the fantasy routes scrapped altogether
 

LAFiN

Tree Surgeon
Joined
Dec 15, 2007
Messages
746
It seems you're adding in a lot of NLT units, but nothing to counteract them. Overall I agree with removing the fantasy routes as they really don't do anything that other routes have already done.

I don't like the removal of INN targeting on POMs though. With the addition of so many other NLT units that fire before Gurus and target them, POMs would get run out of the game.

Harriers need an improvement, and I think your idea here hit the nail on the head. EMPs are completely worthless. Seemingly no one uses them. I don't really like the changes to the early military route developments, but something should be done to make these useful units. I just don't see how these help that much. I guess the Military Barricades are useful to solos, but I myself think they might be too powerful as they are cheap and still nothing really targets NLT.

I like the Packet Analysis and think it would really help improve the early game, assuming that early development times are increased. I think only the one or two most recent ticks should be shown, which would make people use this every other tick early on, which can be expensive. I'd also like to see it maybe scramble the IDs as it would give out alliance IDs too early IMO.
 

Dark_Angel

Landscape Designer
Super Moderator
Community Operator
Joined
Jan 11, 2008
Messages
1,978
Location
UK
This is true, a lot of people do like vamps.

I can see what you've tried to do here - You've used the idea of moving fantasy out to underused routes, because its easier to validate your choices because people know what each fantasy unit "does" and can see that working in these "underused" routes.

But its unlikely the whole route is going to go. Why not just keep the changes you've proposed, but rename all the fantasy units and say "this unit will have a similar role to "Dragon"/"Siren" etc?
 

f0xx

Landscape Designer
Joined
Dec 18, 2007
Messages
2,195
Location
Plovdiv/Bulgaria
But I thoroughly *enjoy* playing Vampires it would be sad to see the fantasy routes scrapped altogether

Can you give us some logical reason to why do you "enjoy" playing vamps Tana? The route's balance at the moment is stupid. It is hard as hell to play it. A skilled player who is playing the vamp route can do so much better with another route. Same goes with dragons.

PS. I got a strange feeling you like to play them just because of their name
:p
 
Last edited:

Azzer

Administrator
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
Dec 13, 2007
Messages
1,215
PS. I got a strange feeling you like to play them just because of their name :p

That's the point, some of the "number-chasers" that play Bushtarion simply can't get their head around this.

There are people who, when they play games, play for fun. They might "roleplay" a little bit. They might think "I kinda like vampires, so I'm gunna play the vampire route". They don't just go "Ok, which one pwns the most, pick that.". It might be escapism, living in your own little world, pretending you are somebody/something else... imagining the little fights that are taking place etc. etc.

By ignoring those players, you would be ignoring a huge portion of the playerbase. And those players are usually not very vocal - because, playing for fun, they don't tend to feel the need to post ideas on the mechanics or balances of the games, or study and number-crunch to find the best/worst units... usually the vocal players are the number-crunchers who when they discover number X isn't as good as number Z, they want to know why/want it fixing so they can continue their hardcore gaming their game of numbers/skill/effort, not a game of fun/feeling/escapism.

I don't want to outright ignore either group of players... it must always be a compromise between the two and allow them to both play the game and get their own enjoyment from it :)
 

harriergirl

Landscape Designer
Joined
Dec 14, 2007
Messages
1,200
Location
Hillsville VA, USA
But I thoroughly *enjoy* playing Vampires it would be sad to see the fantasy routes scrapped altogether

Can you give us some logical reason to why do you "enjoy" playing vamps Tana? The route's balance at the moment is stupid. It is hard as hell to play it. A skilled player who is playing the vamp route can do so much better with another route. Same goes with dragons.

PS. I got a strange feeling you like to play them just because of their name :p

first of all f0xxito, enjoyment is not logical, it is enjoyment :)
2ndly, just because you found it difficult to play doesnt mean that it is.
Yes I like vampires, because I like vampires, and zombies and all things undead. I've been a fan of undead powers since the first time I played "Master of Magic" and realised and could create zombie walls around my cities. I was absolutley thrilled when fantasy was introduced, Call me a girl, it's okay, I AM GIRL. Fantasy was the first route that made me interested in learning game mechanics. before that I was your typical female player - "Hey boys I don't know anything but tell me what to do and I'll hang out in your channel".

Like I said. I realise there is nothing that Vamps do that can't be accomplished with another route. Robos for instance kill SA and Thugs equally well, but they are limited in attacks. vampires I find are way more flexible and malleable than the other routes I've played. and more than that 'I LIKE THEM, I ENJOY PLAYING THEM AND MOSTLY THEY KEEP ME INTERESTED FOR A WHOLE ROUND"

hope that answered your question :)
 

f0xx

Landscape Designer
Joined
Dec 18, 2007
Messages
2,195
Location
Plovdiv/Bulgaria
PS. I got a strange feeling you like to play them just because of their name :p

That's the point, some of the "number-chasers" that play Bushtarion simply can't get their head around this.

There are people who, when they play games, play for fun. They might "roleplay" a little bit. They might think "I kinda like vampires, so I'm gunna play the vampire route". They don't just go "Ok, which one pwns the most, pick that.". It might be escapism, living in your own little world, pretending you are somebody/something else... imagining the little fights that are taking place etc. etc.

By ignoring those players, you would be ignoring a huge portion of the playerbase. And those players are usually not very vocal - because, playing for fun, they don't tend to feel the need to post ideas on the mechanics or balances of the games, or study and number-crunch to find the best/worst units... usually the vocal players are the number-crunchers who when they discover number X isn't as good as number Z, they want to know why/want it fixing so they can continue their hardcore gaming their game of numbers/skill/effort, not a game of fun/feeling/escapism.

I don't want to outright ignore either group of players... it must always be a compromise between the two and allow them to both play the game and get their own enjoyment from it :)

Alright then, you can always re-balance the vamp/dragon route. There are enough of people out there with skill/creativity/experience who will give the route an original purpose and will balance it quite nicely.

Keeping an unbalanced route just for the names though... come on.

The real problem I see here is that players like Tana (and there are a lot of them), when join a ftw ally and see the setup which their leader (an experienced and skillful one) has picked, will say, "Why don't we have vamps/dragons?", the leader will reply, "Because they suck and you can go a more useful route". Then the player will be like, "They can't suck, the game is balanced", then the leader will have to say, "It's not, Azzer keeps the vamps/dragons only because of their names". How cool is that?
 

Tombi

Harvester
Joined
Mar 7, 2009
Messages
172
Location
Suffolk
PS. I got a strange feeling you like to play them just because of their name :p

That's the point, some of the "number-chasers" that play Bushtarion simply can't get their head around this.

There are people who, when they play games, play for fun. They might "roleplay" a little bit. They might think "I kinda like vampires, so I'm gunna play the vampire route". They don't just go "Ok, which one pwns the most, pick that.". It might be escapism, living in your own little world, pretending you are somebody/something else... imagining the little fights that are taking place etc. etc.

By ignoring those players, you would be ignoring a huge portion of the playerbase. And those players are usually not very vocal - because, playing for fun, they don't tend to feel the need to post ideas on the mechanics or balances of the games, or study and number-crunch to find the best/worst units... usually the vocal players are the number-crunchers who when they discover number X isn't as good as number Z, they want to know why/want it fixing so they can continue their hardcore gaming their game of numbers/skill/effort, not a game of fun/feeling/escapism.

I don't want to outright ignore either group of players... it must always be a compromise between the two and allow them to both play the game and get their own enjoyment from it :)

Alright then, you can always re-balance the vamp/dragon route. There are enough of people out there with skill/creativity/experience who will give the route an original purpose and will balance it quite nicely.

Keeping an unbalanced route just for the names though... come on.

The real problem I see here is that players like Tana (and there are a lot of them), when join a ftw ally and see the setup which their leader (an experienced and skillful one) has picked, will say, "Why don't we have vamps/dragons?", the leader will reply, "Because they suck and you can go a more useful route". Then the player will be like, "They can't suck, the game is balanced", then the leader will have to say, "It's not, Azzer keeps the vamps/dragons only because of their names". How cool is that?

How cool is that f0xx? that is cool. so what if the dragon and vampire route sucks in your opinion Tana plays vamps 'cos she likes them for the aforementioned reasons, the real problem is players like you taking this game too seriously and playing just so you can be better to be everyone else whereas Tana plays vamps because she enjoys it not because she wants to kill everyone else and people having fun in the game is much better than people being annoyed because the route they chose 'sucks' in the opinion of others :)
 

harriergirl

Landscape Designer
Joined
Dec 14, 2007
Messages
1,200
Location
Hillsville VA, USA
Pffft, F0xx I love your opinion of me. I did ask that question, but I did not follow it up with "but the routes are perfectly balanced, blah blah blah"

Vamps, dragons, sorcs all are useful and can be played well in an ally, whether you want to see that or not. I guess the question would be why does it bother you that badly?
 

Tombi

Harvester
Joined
Mar 7, 2009
Messages
172
Location
Suffolk
It bothers F0xx that badly because he considers himself to be one of the best player in the game and he strives to make it easier for himself to win by 'balancing the game'
 

InSoMnIaC20

Head Gardener
Joined
Nov 6, 2008
Messages
464
i think some very good ideas have been put forward here and hope azzer looks at some of them quite seriously, as a ranger/harrier player i couldn't agree more that harriers need tweaking with more armour and possibly slightly faster init so they fire before sins for the player who wants to hit armour units.

Not really a fan of the alternatives for officers and privates but do agree they are very week against flack and need some sort of modification to make solo play slightly easyer.

Is making flamers a medium/close firing unit but reducing fire power and increasing there health and armour stats viable? Or would this make them too strong?
 

LAFiN

Tree Surgeon
Joined
Dec 15, 2007
Messages
746
PS. I got a strange feeling you like to play them just because of their name :p

That's the point, some of the "number-chasers" that play Bushtarion simply can't get their head around this.

There are people who, when they play games, play for fun. They might "roleplay" a little bit. They might think "I kinda like vampires, so I'm gunna play the vampire route". They don't just go "Ok, which one pwns the most, pick that.". It might be escapism, living in your own little world, pretending you are somebody/something else... imagining the little fights that are taking place etc. etc.

By ignoring those players, you would be ignoring a huge portion of the playerbase. And those players are usually not very vocal - because, playing for fun, they don't tend to feel the need to post ideas on the mechanics or balances of the games, or study and number-crunch to find the best/worst units... usually the vocal players are the number-crunchers who when they discover number X isn't as good as number Z, they want to know why/want it fixing so they can continue their hardcore gaming their game of numbers/skill/effort, not a game of fun/feeling/escapism.

I don't want to outright ignore either group of players... it must always be a compromise between the two and allow them to both play the game and get their own enjoyment from it :)

I've had plenty of experience with people like this. I introduced one of my former roommates to bushtarion about 10 rounds ago, now, and he immediately decided to go Dragons, just for the sole purpose that they sounded cool. I'd never played them (I think this was the first round they had been available), so I had no idea how to help him, but he had fun, and that's what this game is all about.

For me, I've played every route except Dragons up to this point (at least for part of a round or in a PW), and I feel that overall most routes are fair to play. Extremists are really the ONLY route that doesn't have much of a chance to be fun. I've seen how fun Vamps can be. They do scare off SAs during def, and while I'm not arguing that they are the best route, they were definitely fun to play. Dragons also seemed to be a pretty decent route. Watching Darkmane pwn SGs last round after he left us was pretty impressive.

The fantasy branch isn't necessarily out of balance, but it is a bit repetitive to other routes that were already in the game. I still personally don't see what Dragons provide/take away, but Vampire is basically another Ranger route with a necessary p-unit. Overall, I'd like to see some changes, but I can definitely see where Azzer is coming from and how other people play this game. For me, that's not how I play, at least not this moment (but I do like to take rounds off and play different routes for a change of pace), and I feel everyone should be entitled to play how they want. This game is going to have its top players who mostly go off of numbers and then it's going to have its average players who don't so much as care for how awesome the route is, but how much fun they can have.
 

f0xx

Landscape Designer
Joined
Dec 18, 2007
Messages
2,195
Location
Plovdiv/Bulgaria
I used the word "suck" on purpose, while they don't suck, they are not well balanced, and experienced and skilled players can clearly see this. It is not just me Tombi (as you can see Polo in his original suggestion scrapped the two routes).

I very much enjoy your "go" at me, but what I want to do is not "make it easier for myself to win by 'balancing the game'". I want to make the routes actually worth being picked in FTW alliances, so that the people who actually enjoy them, and want to play in such alliances, can be given the opportunity to play them.
 
Top