stagnating middle-low alliances

[Ezekiel]

I noticed last round how once the top few ally's break away and dominate, and sort of stop ******** on alliances just inside their range, that the middle alliance struggle to interact much. Does that seem a fair comment? In which case i was wondering...

Bot Alliances? Is that possible?

Right from the first tick, have say, two or 3 alliances, pure bot, that play out like alliances should (spread of routes, defending when needed etc). Have a cap on who can attack, based on how many alliances are out there that round. For example, if there are 50 alliances, the top 16 cant attack these bot alliances. Or in this rounds case, the top 10. Or something like that. Could they even have 'wars' and pick on an alliance and wave attack etc?

Idk, was just something I was pondering. Until the player base starts steadily increasing, I thought it may help the newer, and less ftw players enjoy the competition the keen players get.

 

[Madmeater]

i would assume that these bot alliances would get smashed, due to a lack of AR, as everyone would go for them at the same time with little risk.

 

[Dafydd]

They would certainly become the target of choice.

I'd agree that perhaps mid-table alliance war is something to be encouraged, but I'm not sure this is the idea that would be it. The bots getting destroyed over and over without AR is one thing, but imagine waking up to having been waved, and zeroed, by a bot alliance?

 

[Madmeater]

How about different leagues for alliances?
Instead of going rank 1 - however many alliances, how about:

Tree league - this would be the current top 5 alliances are atm.
1
2
3
4
5
Bush league - This would be where ranks 6 - 11 are atm
1
2
3
4
5
Flower league:Ranks 12-17
1
2
3
4
5
Grass league 18-22
1
2
3
4
5
Seed League
23+

This would give alliances something to aspire to, currently lower aliances know they aren't going to win the round and so they have no goals.
Give achievements for which league a player finished in, and the alliance would want to push from upper leagueB to lower LeagueT and beyond!

Tree league runners up:
Times awarded:
First awarded:
last awarded:

this gives the player some kind of record of progress in terms of league play

Also:Award the tree/bush/grass/flower trophies in an after round award?

Tree league cup winners:
Bush league cup winners:
etc. etc.


Something to spice up alliance wars.

 

[timtadams]

I like Madmeater's suggestion

But yeah, bot alliances would just get raped over and over

BUT, could this be a good thing?! So the lower alliances can get land really easy!!! and the higher alliances cant! so when your alliance gets land raped, no biggie, just go rape some bots.

 

[Ezekiel]

What about a sort of 'hidden AR'?

3 people attacking one guy, only 2 bot happen to be online.

20 people attacking, all 20 bots just HAPPEN to be online and all defend lol.

Make sense? Could even make the two bot alliances 30 bot's a piece, just to even it up.

Or maybe give them AR still, but just make it a lot harder to trigger?

Idk, that's the point of a thread, it's a discussion

 

[moorer]

Most "middleranking" alliances are stagnating as you put it because their members are, generally, inactive by choice.

Bush is a game where activity is fundamental. If your not active you get farmed and zeroed regularly. To those already inclined toward inactivity this simply increases the likelihood of less activity and even quitting altogether.

The suggest of introducing a bot Alliance is unlikely to encourage a significant return to activity perhaps a move towards less need for high activity would encourage an increase in the playerbase and persuade those on the verge of quitting to stay around for a little longer.

 

[Ezekiel]

maybe people we be more active if they partake in the alliance side of things more. and they'd be more inclined if there was something to do. since being in a middle-low alliance is boring, just getting shat on by the top 5-6.