mynamespat
Weeder
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2009
- Messages
- 11
Why not have increased bounty/insurance for attacking people with a higher score than oneself?
-
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.
ok I have an idea
- Thread starter mynamespat
- Start date
tobapopalos
Hydroponics Developer
You have a maximum bounty, which is reduced when attacking below 70%. That is good enough.
This will come back, with the coming of the new fairnesscalc and the law / fame coming back..
Dax
Hydroponics Developer
I remember the days... BRING BACK THE GOOD DAYS. I NEED NOSTALGIA.
Bruce666
Harvester
L/F was my favorite part of the game, bring back the sexeh times and ill stay playing
L/F was my favorite part of the game, bring back the sexeh times and ill stay playing
The more reason to not implement it yet..
Love ya Bruce
mynamespat
Weeder
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2009
- Messages
- 11
b/c as is, there is no motivation to organize attacks on larger foes...
Ofcourse there is.
You plan on attacking big guys, big guys die. you become the big guy, then the old big guys want to regain there big guy position and they plan an attack on you new big guys..
It's the way to play the game, take down those above you, and you gain in rankings..
Alcibiades
Plant Geneticist
I feel like that has a lot to do with the playerbase, rather than the game mechanics.
Thats because people are lazy and just want everything done for them.
tobapopalos
Hydroponics Developer
I agree with Twigley.
You get enough bounty as it is. In fact I'd rather get rid of bounty as it is altogether.
You get enough bounty as it is. In fact I'd rather get rid of bounty as it is altogether.
mynamespat
Weeder
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2009
- Messages
- 11
This is only my second round playing, but this is how I see it working...
Top alliance becomes top alliance w/n a few weeks of round...
the end.
Why don't we just play 3 week rounds then? The only jostling seems to be between the lower alliances. The top alliance just grows and grows to the point where is would be impossible for any of the smaller alliances to do any significant damage to them.
Top alliance becomes top alliance w/n a few weeks of round...
the end.
Why don't we just play 3 week rounds then? The only jostling seems to be between the lower alliances. The top alliance just grows and grows to the point where is would be impossible for any of the smaller alliances to do any significant damage to them.
tobapopalos
Hydroponics Developer
3 week rounds would be manic. For those trying to win the round start involves ridiculous activity and contactability for wars and resistances etc. With 3 week rounds that activity would be pretty much constant.
Or on the flip side, it might mean some players play one round actively, then have a round off, then play actively again. Which would reduce the level of competition per round because half the players would be having a rest.
Also, with 3 week rounds I feel the level of caring would greatly reduce. We'd be having 12 rounds a year, and nobody would really give a crap who won or lost each round since there are so many.
And the round isn't always over after 3 weeks. Some rounds the warring can go on for a lot longer. I'd be pretty pissed off if my alliance was in second place with a good chance of taking the lead and then the round ended.
Or on the flip side, it might mean some players play one round actively, then have a round off, then play actively again. Which would reduce the level of competition per round because half the players would be having a rest.
Also, with 3 week rounds I feel the level of caring would greatly reduce. We'd be having 12 rounds a year, and nobody would really give a crap who won or lost each round since there are so many.
And the round isn't always over after 3 weeks. Some rounds the warring can go on for a lot longer. I'd be pretty pissed off if my alliance was in second place with a good chance of taking the lead and then the round ended.