Public allies ?

[lillie]

am i missing something....though some of the fun was working out who what where and when.....

seems like everything is being made too easy.

What is the percentage of solo players to alliance members ? please

 

[Iamsmart]

31.5 % allied 68.5% solo.

Perhaps Bushtarion needs to move towards being alliance based, war based.

I can't believe you said that

 

[lillie]

Thank you Iamsmart

So preference would be to convince the 68.5% to play allied. Why ?

 

[tobapopalos]

Thank you Iamsmart

So preference would be to convince the 68.5% to play allied. Why ?

Because although the majority of IDs are solo, the majority of active players are allied. And those are the ones more likely to buy BCs.

 

[lillie]

Fair enough comment ...I can understand that one.

Obviously the majority have along to go before they become the minority then.

 

[Sir Drumalot]

I agree that alliances should be made public and look forward to the wars that would be had, but perhaps instead of fully publicizing every ally even the small ones straight away, we could come to a medium and ease the community into public alliances.. I like the idea of private alliances changing to a max of 10 members while public doubles the capacity of the alliance.

 

[willymchilybily]

personally during the flak wars i was thinking like steve_god no public allies. so you cant bash solos.

but then again. if 68.5% of the player base is solo. there is so many targets and all known to you. your hardly going to be bashing the same one over again and again. unless your a bit of a meanie.

perhaps test it out one round? see how people feel after having tried it

 

[tobapopalos]

Maybe private at the start of the round, but all allies go public the same time alliance stats come out?

 

[Alcibiades]

Maybe private at the start of the round, but all allies go public the same time alliance stats come out?

Agreed with that tbh. I don't like the idea of making them public too soon, but by the time ally stats are out should be fair enough.

 

[Polo]

Maybe private at the start of the round, but all allies go public the same time alliance stats come out?

Agreed with that tbh. I don't like the idea of making them public too soon, but by the time ally stats are out should be fair enough.

Agreed. Although I'd reduce that time from 15% of the round to 10%.

 

[Alcibiades]

Maybe private at the start of the round, but all allies go public the same time alliance stats come out?

Agreed with that tbh. I don't like the idea of making them public too soon, but by the time ally stats are out should be fair enough.

Agreed. Although I'd reduce that time from 15% of the round to 10%.

I'd be fine with that too.

 

[pinpower]

Maybe private at the start of the round, but all allies go public the same time alliance stats come out?

Thumbs up from me on this idea. Same alci i dont like the thought of them being forced public from the very start...but a week or 2 in seems like a good time!

 

[Steve_God]

...[snip]... A solution could be to have public allies come in at the same time through the round as alliance stats?

Was I invisible when I wrote that? Hello? :wave:
lol

 

[antisback]

perhaps once an ally has passed beyond a certain value they're forced to go public, when they fall below it again they return to private.

This stops lower ally's losing their anonimoty and stops lower ranked solo's having their id's discovered.

As for where that limit would be i'm not sure - maybe 50bil or maybe more?

 

[pinpower]

Nah, personally i think it should be all or none if its forced at all.

Plus for the reasons azzer said (think it was in this thread) it'd be good for newer players...

I've wanted pure public only alliances for a long time, to bring it more in-line with other games and because frankly it makes the game more accessible - atm if a group of new players from another game came to Bushtarion and made an alliance, and got incoming - they wouldn't have a clue who was attacking them. Which alliance has just declared war on them? How on earth do they fight back against this alliance? Etc. - kind of what Kuda mentioned too regarding the "mid-ranked" alliances - if they all know eachother's ID lists, then hopefully they'll have more politiccing and warrings going on between themselves, as they can't hide behind anonimity.

yeah...that bit is what sounds good to me. More of a group feel. Top allies know pretty much who is who but lower down it might not be the same...

 

[Alcibiades]

...[snip]... A solution could be to have public allies come in at the same time through the round as alliance stats?

Was I invisible when I wrote that? Hello? :wave:
lol

I generally avoid reading the multiple pages of forum threads these days since they almost invariably make me want to tear my eyes out. Good suggestion nevertheless

perhaps once an ally has passed beyond a certain value they're forced to go public, when they fall below it again they return to private.

This stops lower ally's losing their anonimoty and stops lower ranked solo's having their id's discovered.

As for where that limit would be i'm not sure - maybe 50bil or maybe more?

Intriguing. I'm not sure how i feel about this. I'd prefer just to use Steve/Toby's solution.

It's not like people don't keep ID lists anyways. And while it might prevent disbanded allies from being eaten alive instantly, i just don't see the necessity for a more complicated solution when such an easy one presents itself.

Nah, personally i think it should be all or none if its forced at all.

Plus for the reasons azzer said (think it was in this thread) it'd be good for newer players...

I've wanted pure public only alliances for a long time, to bring it more in-line with other games and because frankly it makes the game more accessible - atm if a group of new players from another game came to Bushtarion and made an alliance, and got incoming - they wouldn't have a clue who was attacking them. Which alliance has just declared war on them? How on earth do they fight back against this alliance? Etc. - kind of what Kuda mentioned too regarding the "mid-ranked" alliances - if they all know eachother's ID lists, then hopefully they'll have more politiccing and warrings going on between themselves, as they can't hide behind anonimity.

yeah...that bit is what sounds good to me. More of a group feel. Top allies know pretty much who is who but lower down it might not be the same...

Bingo.

 

[Iamsmart]

I really like the idea of setting alliances public after alliance stats come out, nice one toby

 

[Matt]

im game for Steves id and tobys idea,

great suggestion i think it gives the fairest solution for all players starting it in the bush round and a platform they can build on when everyone goes public.

 

[Stass]

atm if a group of new players from another game came to Bushtarion and made an alliance, and got incoming - they wouldn't have a clue who was attacking them. Which alliance has just declared war on them? How on earth do they fight back against this alliance? Etc. - kind of what Kuda mentioned too regarding the "mid-ranked" alliances - if they all know eachother's ID lists, then hopefully they'll have more politiccing and warrings going on between themselves, as they can't hide behind anonimity.

But the biggest issue for me is - solo players, and simply "revealing" them all to the world in one fell swoop like that. Perhaps that's simply needed now. Perhaps Bushtarion needs to move towards being alliance based, war based, and encouraging people that while they can play solo, it really isn't recommended and it'll be tough as hell - almost every other game requires you to join the equivalent of a guild, alliance, clan etc. to survive.

I believe a new group of players starting bush would be hurt more than helped by being public. As far as not having a clue who was attacking them etc. i thought the ids that were incoming might be enough, doesn't the name of the alliance that has declared war come up in war declarations? and a less experienced group are likely to have less skills so would be more likely to be picked on/overwhelmed by the higher alliances if the alliance was public.

I also think that the value gap between the top alliances and middle alliances would grow much faster than it already does. It becomes a hell of alot easier to pick the weaker middle alliances if their ids are public. I know alot of the time i havent bothered to organise hits when in top allies as i can't be arsed spying out all ids, if all alliances were public I'd happily destroy many alliances (especially those with low nightcover ) and i'm no great organiser so i wouldnt be organising a hit on any alliances near my alliances size. So basically i think this would just encourage more lower alliance bashing by the top alliances.

Perhaps Insomniacs idea only the top 5 allies being public may combat this... but as said by others top alliances will just keep the lists :/

As i've said before if i ever do play again it will be as a reasonably inactive solo so I really don't like the push towards alliance play this would create. The ability to play this game solo is what drew me in to bush in the first place (although i did get distracted and play allied for most of my rounds ).

Do we really want a game that's like almost every other game?

31.5 % allied 68.5% solo.

I feel this statistic proves that many do not want a game like almost every other.

 

[Khris]

I think that public allies could also hurt the game.


The small allies already have a hellacious time surviving as it is... the top 5 allies (if even that many) are like 3-4x the size of the rest of the allies before too far into the round.

Maybe have top 10 allies be public? i dont see how public allies is "going to start more low level warring" it just means they are going to get bashed harder by the big allies and lose all interest...