there will never be enough unless you flood in thousands and thousands.

if the goal is for new people not to get farmed why not do thousands

anyway start with whatever amount is reasonable and just create more if its not how you want it

the other reason to have a lot is if you dont then its still all about camping DR times

ideally netting and warring would both be changed to be more once a day casual friendly requiring a change to walling and dr

or if you want to leave dr the same just crank up the bots until it doesnt matter

no to bots

Hell yes to bots. MOar landfarms plz

no to bots

add 1000 bots - some linked tog that will suicide on a set number of grabs - like on #30 ss it goes ape fluff on the clan . make it be known that there are 20 sucide AI countries and see who can kill the most before they kill your clan's set.

How about don't make any? This has got to be the dumbest idea ever. You can not get enough people to play, or keep playing, so you decide to invent some? How sad is that?

^LOL, how old are you that you haven't gotten past your stage of being nothing but contrary?

if we're adding bots to provide more bottom feeding fodder, then it's a mistake. If we're adding bots to give new players an environment to play in and maintain inactive accounts, it's a plus.

Bottom feeding < exploring in my opinion - the idea for both is to obtain land without risk, but bottom feeding is destructive to players. I believe that the game is more fun if you increase the risk, and encourage mid-feeding. If we keep the current bottom feeding culture, the game is doomed. Adding bots to relieve the bottom feeding bottle neck is a band aid, not a solution.

Decrease the returns on bottom feeding to explore return levels, and increase ghost acres on mid-feeds, and suddenly we have a server that is playable and fun for both earth:2025 refuges and new players. If we maintain the status quo, the game will die - most of the sustained growth is former earth:2025 people finding this game, and that is not a bottomless well. Quite frankly, I do not see how this server can be fun for a new player.

The admins talk about steering new players away from alliance, but the down side is the heart of this game, what makes it fun, are p2p interactions, and the alliance server is the apex of that. If alliance could sustain both new and veteran, it would go a long towards the growth of this game, especially if it hits the facebook app wave.

If we're looking to become a facebook game, we need to address the gap between established players and newbies. Other facebook apps address this through leveling systems that don't allow advanced players to hit new players unless they are hit first. However, since those games are perpetual, there is no way to close that gap, and this is where we can succeed and where they fail. Thanks to our finite reset system, players are given a new chance to apply what they've learned and compete every couple of months, and compete. But that is worthless if the established players are able to pound on the new players.

There is nothing more frustrating than trying to pick up a new game while some ass that you can't damage bullies you. Even if it's reduced to a few hits a day, bottom feeding is enough to cost us any new players that our game attracts. It needs to change, and trying to guilt people into not doing it is not and will not work. The mechanics of the game need to change - either to reduce the returns or increase the risk of bottom feeding.

Adding bots so netgaining clans can DR them instead of new players. hmmm, I think that the bots should be all explore no military countries :O I think that will help netters best.

Hmmm. The problem is the current way policies have evolved thanks to various influences.

Now many clans DR neutrals into the ground with no fear of reprisal because if a neutral sends a missile or an AB that country will be killed. Totally friendly towards new players.

If there are bots then they would need to be easily identifiable and a reason for the bots to be hit vs. an untagged player.

1. the bot should not lose land
2. the bot should not experience DR's
3. the bot should not be hard to break
4. the bot does not attack back
5. there should be a random point where the bot can be captured by an alliance wherein it becomes their own personal land farm for 48-72 hours.
6. make it so the bot returns more land then bottom feeding i.e. 20(20) and a captured bot returns 40(40). This is to give netters and different method or separate target to grind on to get their land.

the challenge above would be to capture the bot for your alliance and get the bonus land. perhaps give the alliance leader a link to tag the bot up when it has been captured ;)

anyone else trying to hit it would get a message stating this country has been captured by Alliance "ABC"

we would not need a lot of bots with the above and it would add a new angle to the game too ;)

Yes. Bots would be better for this game.

Bots = land = good things. The game as a whole has always been much better with a "alliances are 20-40% of the countries, the rest are run by ?" situation.

IMHO the bots should all play market-friendly strats. The market (and thereby the game) will be better off if it actually has more mil units, more tech, more of everything. One of the current market weaknesses is.. low player count therefore buyouts are easy.

Also, the reflexive "It's a bot, it must be EEVIL!" reaction puzzles me. Pang plays in an alliance now - and despite what you may want to believe, the fact is that he hasn't used that position to influence anything. So why, now, would anyone entertain the notion that this time his contribution will be nefarious?

Unsympathetic, I thought Pang had finished playing the game.

Anyways I'm of the opinion that more land available is not a bad thing and could well encourage newer players to stay for longer. Thus I'm not against AI countries, so long as the scripting in the end is controlled by the admins. IMO they are the only ones who could be trusted to impartially implement and run the system..... it is their game and if they abuse that power then bye bye players (and game).

I like the idea that AI countries could retal - with chances of retals increasing as the number of hits increases. Additionally if the country cannot break the type of retal differes due to number of hits as well. It will act more like a newer player (ie get grabbed twice, respond with a couple of GS's or a missile etc if a SS or PS cant break).

As far as strats go, have them as a mix of market dependant and self sufficient strats, ranging from reasonably efficient to completely random. This would at least ensure that AI countries dont have a chance to compete for higher ranks.

The other thing we can look at is that more land in general means that smaller alliances have a chance to get fatter through grabbing. This also leads to improved midfeeding/landtrading gains. I vaguely remember the days of Vingthor and SoF being botted out of the swirve servers, there were a lot of fat (and somewhat crap) small alliances, and TeamHunters, LaF and some LCNers were midfeeding very successfully on them. It didn't matter that the smaller clans were losing land and couldn't retal as they were able to make up for lost land elsewhere.

I'd love to see them also respond with abusive messages as well lol.

I would like to see bots tagged as well, and that way, it would encourage people to leave the untags alone, new players would get a chance to learn to the game and get recruited.

sure, there will be assholes who'll grab untags too,

but i'm sure there are others who will view the same, just hit the bots.

I can't believe some people still think untagged players have rights in Alliance server.

how bout getting the fb app done?
How about trying to encourage clans to switch to pacts that allow for some decent land trading, rather than retarded inbred pact clauses?
How about mods looking for, and rewarding, players who play to the spirit of the game, rather than out and out rules lawyering?
Clans are too dependent on the letter of their pacts, and both the clans as a whole, and induvidual players need to start letting go of the strict letter in favour of a looser and more relaxed style of play. Once upon a time, if you grabbed someone, and they bounced or got less back, a simple "better luck next time" response was common, or a congratulatory message if the other country did better. There's a few people still playing with that sort of respect and courtesy, but not many.

i thought about 1/2 set pacts -or something like that. then both sides can grow and stock the last 1/2. limit it to 5 exchanges a day at 1:1, 2:1 after that
just an example -

pacts cause a lot of the problems as drow said.

the pacts and stuff are the FR's work to be done, nothing the Admins can enforce.

that is why PDM has all these missiles, ABs and harmful spy ops retals and there's nothing Admins can do about it.

you want the pacts to not be 10 pages long?

stop doing stupid fluff.

Land-trading pacts are the way of the future.

A mutual consent to not get pissed off when someone grabs you. A mutual agreement that, yes, we are going to grab you but since we acknowledged this fact before the set began, the malice component is somewhat removed.

I'm against. This is just asking for trouble. The admins have a particular bent they want for the game. Whatever that bent is, it is an outside and exploitable influence. The main bent currently is to feed more land into the game to 'take pressure from the newer players.' This will benefit netters mostly, putting pressure on war tags to keep up.

Currently, a large portion of the server plays allX, as it is a reasonably viable strategy that obtains respectable rankings. By introducing more land, had only by LGing, you will alter the mix of strats in the game.

This will only force the allX countries back into the LGing mix. Your thought for how much more land is likely greatly underestimated.

Actually, you alter everything. Markets, tags, wars; by this outside influence. Influence programed by the admins that decide what factors they want more or less of within the game. You can't balance the alteration perfectly to not provide an advantage to certain groups and, thus, a disadvantage to other groups.

How well made will the bots be? So well that they will not be identifiable, and thus exploitable? I doubt that. We can't have them assist established tags, correct? What constitutes an established tag? How is it fair to a small tag to have bots in their midst then? Does that leave us with the bots only being untaggeds? How good will they play? Won't their auto-responses have negative impact? The newbs need land too and will be hitting bots to get it. I imagine the newbs will have to farm the bots extensively, as the veteran plays will be farming the hell out of the bots already. This will increase admin programed sucides on the very newbs they are 'protecting,' the very class least able to absorb it...both country-wise and emtional-wise (i.e. quitting).

If you want to protect newbs, why not raise the cuts offs for what difference in net you can hit? 1/10th your net to 10 times? I don't see a point to an upper limit.

ponderer's comment about ghost acres and limiting bottom feeding returns are good!


Very true, I know of a few games I've left over this. It isn't fun to 'learn' a game that way.



You may find outside forced changes to the game to be a benefit. I don't agree, I want to play against humans, how I'd like to play, not being trained into the admin 'acceptable' limits of what they want to see. I don't want to have my set destroyed by some computer program be it run by cheater scumbags of old or by benevolent admins today.

there is a cutoff already, it's 1/12.

and i'm all for raising it to 1/10 or even 1/8

Bots can be a good or bad idea depending on how they are implemented. If bots are designed to strictly be land targets, it would be essentially the same as having a second explore option on the menu bar, as others have pointed out. Entire alliances building their strategies on bot farming would immensely take away from the interactivity which is the point of this game.

*Pros: Newer players get a break, player base expands
*Cons: Nothing interesting would ever happen, players leave

But on the other hand, if bot countries worked together and reacted to attacks in such a way that players would rather not risk attacking them, it would be not much different than having a new, immensely powerful alliance marked as "do not hit", and then we would be back to square one.

*Pros: New strategies created to deal with difficult bot behavior
*Cons: Bots become too much to handle, then it's back to farming newbies

Finding a middle ground for bots to stand on would be difficult but not impossible. A lot of testing will be needed but I will be quite interested to see the results.

Forget the cut off, just get rid of the minimum return, and any ghost acres past 1/3. Square SS/PS DR for repeated hits by the same country on a country less than 1/2 it's size.

I like that idea as well ponderer.

Would make killing restarts in war harder though. =p

Is it just me or does the whole idea just seem like an admission of defeat regarding the viability of the FB campaingn and the infusionof new (real) blood into this game. The entire conversation sounds like a discussion about the pros and cons of life support.

I got dibs on the liver. I will probably need a spare someday.

(dibs can find his own fluffin liver)

With what this place has been through, and you want THIS liver?

Surely it is not possible to have abused your own to such a level!? You aren't Charlie Sheen, are you!?!

Good Luck EDge!

ONE YEAR BUMP

I like the idea, if it does not work, axe it - but nothing ventured nothing gained.

Can they be recruited?

Each player should have one bot randomly assigned to them when they make a country that mirrors their strat and start up, then the AI can take over at the OOP point (or when ever, first attack, 5th day etc.) and optimize the strat based on in-game environmental conditions.

i think i like the idea. I never have anything constructive to add to these discussions though...

dammit, I did not read the date and realize this was a necromancer thread

Arrrgh

But hey, you liked it!

I think every tag should have a couple additional countries % based on number of countries from previous sets.

Give alliance leaders power over choosing there strategies, or selecting an event. Set the countries to war with tags, specific countries.

Does this country go aggresive? Lg certain nw/l targets?

Does it farm untags?

does it have its own gdi farm?

Is like to see the bots as life like a possible, making human like decisions.

If basic retal policies were added into the game structure the bots could hit/retal as per pacts. Is it more beneficial to have an fdp with a bot tag? Maybe you would be better off with a nap or unap. Of course in game policy would be written and the bot tags/countries could only be played according to policy

lets have humans vs bots next set... if that works... =)

I think they could be good since it could shake things up a bit. Hell, you could possibly figure out a way to have them join wars to make them even(with alliances permission of course).

Make a bot alliance. 200-300 countries. It can be used for grabbing.

We can get back to warring for simply not liking an alliance or alliance leader and not over land. AT Earth.

I havent seen any wars over land disputes lately...

Was that sarcasm?

I mean really, all wars for years now.

Has anyone fought a war because of policy and forced a policy change?

Has anyone initialized war because of an FA dispute over land gained/retalled?

I am now confused

put them in a tag called vingthor :D

If we start killing bots for entertainment, will they organize and strike back? :3

Well. What the goal of bots?
I dont see the clear reason to add bots ingame. I dont see any fun of adding more farmland. And if they will answer on grabs, what will be difference between this bots and RD bots in earth2025?

Maybe we can put them in team and get them to suicide on TSO just to even things up and give them a taste of their own medicine?? Just an idea.

If you think the admins would add anything remotly close to what RDbots were you arent thinking straight, looking at how the game is build up there is one major issue, it isnt ment to be fair.
If you made it fair so that newer players would be on the same level as older players or even close that gap you are removing what the game is all about.
I think that if you add bots you arent closing this gap, you will be increaseing it, by allowing farming to go unpunished you would create monstercountries cause there are players in this game that are fiercly compeddetive and will walk over corpses to get ahead.
If you cant prevent this by giving bots "protection" from them you wont be adding anything healthy to the game.

I hate landgrabbing in its current state, it was much more fun when you did a country search and imidatly found a few targets, these days you plan your landgrabs 5-20 hours ahead to be able to get that sweet ghostacer bonus cause every country is 7-20 hits in DR.

But I dont think you are solving the issue at heart, untaggeds are lawless in alliance, I dont see why any country should be allowed to play untagged in alliance.

Give tagged countries benefits that promote people to tag up (like how the bonus system works now), have every country thats created to be added to the same tag, a starting tag that doesnt allow attacks, only retals, give them the choice to apply to an established alliance of their choice.
By playing in an established alliance they get rights to perform attacks and we the playerbase teach them the game.

So what issue are you trying to solve, the land issue or protecting newer players?

was not reading all the posts.

I agree with the bots as long as the pacts would be ingame and declare war would be ingame for clans ran by bots.

That would mean that AI will control their retal policy and will CS when FSd. Might also be programmed to FS if excessive hits for non pacted Alliance or pacted by is abusing Alliance.

Can the bots randomly suicide someone like 3 weeks in--lottery system of who hit them?

Personally, I'm fine with the idea on a limited scope. Particularly if they're coded different ways such as some attempting landgrabs, some retaling with missiles, etc.

make bots, 100-200? and let RD control them.