Pax
-
Posts
514 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Posts posted by Pax
-
-
There are 2 other things that would need to be changed for this to work as intended:
1.) Spies would have to not contribute to score (they're negligible right now, so I don't see this as a big deal).
2.) The number of defending spies can be somewhat inferred from the odds of a successful attack. You'd need to make spy success odds opaque as well if you really wanted to have no idea how many spies someone has.
Exactly. I wouldn't be surprised to be a Malone tool made for calculating number of spies within a week of this change.
-
I made that suggestion here: http://politicsandwar.com/forums/index.php?/topic/5646-finite-quantities-of-raw-resources/page-2#entry91008
It would let you use up 100% of your improvement slots if you so chose and would help keep the desired dynamic of large nations being mostly importers of raw resources from small nations.
The 100% level economic bonus could probably be made to have a higher cap on citizen income than it currently has to compensate for such a change.
The real question is how we would get a system in-place that makes this still fair to smaller nations.
I know they're supposed to sell resources for their money, but they *do* need money to maintain everything they've got going. Sustaining your nation off of sales is a pain, and if there's some slight market problems then all of a sudden every small nation is upset at their losses. I'm not saying that it couldn't be fun to have the market be that important, but the problem is that the difficult part of it is for all the new guys. New players will be stuck trying to figure out exactly how/when to sell their resources, and upkeep could devastate them without the income bucks.
really, I think it just makes the game more complicated. It's a cool idea but it would be difficult to implement properly and offer fairly limited benefit.
-
Right now do we have pollution from vehicles? How can this project reduce 150 pollution points in each city?
The idea behind that one was in-character, meaning citizens that drive gas-guzzling trucks, etc. would now ride a bus, metro, or other form of public transport.
I wasn't sure exactly how much pollution to suggest removing - I didn't want to reduce a tiny amount and essentially just make it into a national recycling center rehash. I eventually ended up just aiming high to see how that went.
-
Also
You could even throw in non economic related things, like "Gun Control" that might have some varying effect on crime based on your nation size, etc.
That could actually work with this idea from harminator: http://politicsandwar.com/forums/index.php?/topic/5721-arming-your-populance/
-
1
-
-
Exactly what I was thinking of. I considered making them government policies or something, but the problem I had with that was that costs couldn't be attached to a policy, so there would be no deterrent from just using the "right" policy for the time 24/7 rather than doing what works best in your opinion and situation.
For example, people would change to all military focused policies the second they got into war, and change back after war, with no consequence. When you associate a cost to changing that policy / making it a service, it actually makes things pretty interesting.-
1
-
-
So, right now we have two types of 'improvements'. One is actual improvements, available 1 per 50 infrastructure in a city, and they directly affect the city. The other are National Projects, and they're government-mandated things that provide direct benefits to the government alone.
I suggest something like Public Works, Public Services, etc. that are national government productions that provide some benefits to the citizens, and some tradeoffs at a midrange cost between Improvements and Projects. They won't be tied to infra amounts, but can be detrimental in some ways and are situationally effective. Upon destruction, you get no refund - you can build the service again, but it'll cost you again.
Example:
Public Service: National Transportation
Small description: Provides free transportation to your citizens, reducing the need for pollution-producing vehicles but increasing power needs
Project effect: Reduces pollution by 150 in each city, but cities require 20% more resources to maintain power.
Resource cost:
500
500
500Cash cost:
$2,000,000Public Service: Public Universities
Small description: Provides improved education to your citizens, increasing your ability to produce materials but at a high cost.
Project effect: Improves resource production by 15%, reduces income by 15%.
Resource cost:
500Cash cost:
$3,000,000Public Service: Welfare System
Small description: Allows your poorer citizens and large families to cope better, increasing population growth
Project effect: Increases your population growth by 50%, but citizens require 25% more food per turn.
Resource cost:
3,000Cash cost:
$2,500,000Public Service: Veteran Benefits
Small description: Provides your military veterans with proper retirement, convincing more people to join your military but with high costs
Project effect: Increases unit capacities by 15%, reduces citizen income by 10%.
Cash cost:
$3,000,000Obviously there's a lot of things that can be done with this, but it could be interesting to see the different methods nations take towards growing.
TL;DR: They're like Projects, but they aren't as good and you don't need to have ridiculous amounts of infra for them.
-
5
-
-
Why? What are these one-man alliances doing? Is there a major problem caused by 1-man alliances existing? Or have we at some point arbitrarily decided what amount of alliances was too many, and what point an alliance needs to be at to exist, and who should run any alliance?
Do not support. Even if there are a lot of 1-man alliances that aren't doing anything, they aren't causing any harm. Let them burn themselves out - it's not like they're causing any problems.
-
Hey, it's not something you have to pay for, nor is it something pay-to-win. Even if you don't like the idea, there's nothing wrong with implementing it.
-
4
-
-
Are you planning on removing the extra income from people who got it? Should we report it if it happened to us?
I don't entirely want to give away my free money (who does?
) but I think I received a good bit more than I should have yesterday - and my revenue log looks all weird, it's showing incorrect times and only a few turns' revenue. -
I may or may not have had it, I'm not 100% sure. I didn't realize this was a thing so I wasn't keeping very good tabs on it (it may just be that I'm not used to the higher income from my recent infra jump)
-
Isn't Eve also one of thous games that you can take money back out of? this game is most definitely not at that level.
Yes. Some of the very highest-level players even make their living off of EVE. Which is another reason that we shouldn't assume that what works there will work here.
-
This isn't EVE. You can't log out and never have to worry about someone taking your credits while you're sleeping.
Ding ding ding.
It works in EVE because you can store them in safe places, can't lose them while you're offline and can actually fight to protect them if someone attacks you for them - because you're guaranteed to be online. Not so much in PNW
Also, just because it works in one game does not mean it's necessarily a good idea in another. Having pandas worked for WoW and I'm not going to sit here talking about how great an idea it is for P&W to allow you to build up a gigantic nation with pandas instead of cities and bamboo instead of infra.
-
There should be a tab on the "Trade" page so you can view all of your created & open offers.
If you have a trade offer that's up for several weeks, you have to do a ton of digging to find it -
The way I always treated it was that reps are more of a payment for peace than they are a payment for damages involved.
If you attack someone for no reason, you have caused them damage that is now owed. Your options are to either deal with the consequences of losing that war, or pay for the damage you've dealt (or, obviously, to win - but I've always done my best to make sure that those who raid don't manage that option)
If peace hadn't been reached and Jodo had just had his guys curbstomp Gigantasaur, I would view that as a fair payment for the guy having raided. As it is, though, peace was reached and Equaria (and by extension, Noir) has suffered a loss for no good reason at the hands of your member. There's no reason Jodo shouldn't be able to ask that his member catch up to where he was before.
Also, the total cost of the war to Equaria is $67,111.03 infra in Nakarev, $44,153.32 infra in Ibiersk, $13,396 in soldiers, $327,700 in tanks, $8437 in aircraft. Assuming you're only counting the damages dealt by your nation, and not the aircraft (which is the only loss he suffered by his own attacks), the total I would have charged for reps would have been $452,360.35. 250k seems fair.-
1
-
-
DHE is that one alliance that existed since like November but nobody knew because they sat just outside the top 20
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
http://captiongenerator.com/32780/DoW
Actually no, we thought there was a chance we would so I made the video but it never happened.
Instead, Uranicus Socialitas poached half our members after we turned down a merger, and then had those members try and talk the rest of us into leaving. Regardless of how much I want to be with my guys, I'm not a fan of that move and I'm not joining them for any reason.So, DHE is now disbanded. None of ya'll knew who we were anyways, so it's not a big deal, but I wanted to post that video and make an announcement about us disbanding.
-
9
-
It's not winning a war, it's forcing your open to beige and looting them and their alliances bank in the process. To think or act like it means otherwise is a waste of time. Only raiders and losers are incentivised to beige their opponents, no one else (although the latter group could be debated).
The beige system is not designed for, nor should it be used(or changed to be used), in an alliance war.
I don't see why your post and mine need to contradict (sans the part where you directly said it shouldn't be changed to be used in alliance wars - obviously that's a direct contradiction)
The current beige system is not useful in alliance wars, at all. I've said that much.
Right now wars are not very beneficial in any way, and people talk a decent amount about ways to promote war (as well as making ground battles more useful). Using a system that promotes alliance wars by providing benefits to the victors while providing some actual detriment to the losers could do that, as well as making the beige mechanic not so useless on a scale of anything that isn't raiding.
In other words, just because the beige mechanic is currently only useful for raiders doesn't mean it always needs to be only useful for raiders - and in my opinion, it really shouldn't be. Some people might feel the same way, and some might not.
-
Disclaimer: I suggest some solutions to the problems I see. Just because you don't agree with the solutions does not mean that the problems don't need addressed, so please at least comment alternatives if you feel they're necessary.
After a discussion in IRC about the advantages and disadvantages of the current war system, I think something needs addressed:
There is no incentive to 'win' a war. Period. We have a war system that includes winning as a factor, but we don't have a way to win. Every major alliance, etc. actually agrees that it's a detriment to 'win' unless it's in a very specific situation (the last possible moment of a war, normally, and even that is iffy)Basically, my thought is that if we're going to have a war system that actually includes a 'win' function, there needs to be an incentive to winning that war. Right now we get a small chunk of money, send the 'losing' nations to a tactically superior protective ground, and get a little 'you did it' sticker to put on our shirt.
On another but similar note, we've got very little incentive to war but a lot of damage done by it (build up for a month for it? you might actually have just a little bit of money left afterwards, if you're lucky). This ties in because the more penalties we impose for losing a war, the less incentive there is to actually war - at least, that's the opinion so far.
My suggestion is that we do the following two things:
1) Upon winning a war, your opponent goes onto forced beige until X time the war was declared.-I stress those points because combined, they mean that the faster you win the war, the longer your opponent is beiged - and the longer your opponent is beiged, the less damage they can do to your guys. Beige is not available as an option, ever, meaning that it's not tactically superior to be on beige.
2) For the duration of this forced beige, you as the victor gain X percent of your opponent's total resource and regular income (this amount taken out before both tax and consumption to prevent it from being nullified by high tax or high consumption)
-This not only provides a tangible benefit to the nation that wins, but to the alliance as well. It hinders the nation's ability to rebuild for a short time, and lets the attacker gain some money from their war that will probably all go towards warchest and nation rebuilding anyways.
I left both the time and the income stealing / occupation percentage as X because no matter what amount I say, half the people will whine about it being too much and half will whine about it being too little.
In my opinion, 10 days after war declaration is a good time for the forced beige - because it still gives them some protection past the war declaration, gives a few days of the occupation even if the win is late in the war, but doesn't go for an extremely long time if the war ends early (even in a fairly fast paced war it's probably like 1 week tops of losing some income)
As for the percentage taken, that's much harder to say and it's most likely the point that everyone is going to yell at me about. I would personally say ~35%, because that way the provided income isn't just hilariously low to the victor - but it also shouldn't entirely destroy your nation, even if you do have fairly high upkeep costs on your units/improvements/etc
As for why I think this is the best way to improve the war system, it's because I think that providing benefits for the victors is a much better way to promote war than the previous ideas of reducing penalties for everyone (I wouldn't argue with like a 1/3 reduction in all damage taken in wars, because I think they go way too quickly in PNW, but that's another topic for another day).
The people declaring normally plan to be the victor (whether it goes that way or not) and offering benefits for them doing so means that more people will want to declare war. Providing penalties for losers, however, means that the current victory system isn't a joke like it currently is, and that there's an incentive to fight hard and actually try and win. It also means that people might actually start to keep militaries and warchests instead of just spending all their money the second they get it, meaning that the wars might actually become meaningful and more long-term things
All that said, I'll open up the forum for everyone's comments about how horrible an idea this is and how I need to go die.
-
-
I really don't think we need three awards ceremonies but this one also looks to be the best set up of them all
-
swearing at people is normally not counted as 'nice'
-
Tanks are useful because if you have time to build them up to their max, they absolutely dominate compared to just having some stored up soldiers (by way of having about 2x the total strength per improvement slot). They may be high initial cost, but upkeep isn't as bad as elsuper is making it seem. Proportionally it is about 1.5x higher per strength, but soldier/tank upkeep is really next to nothing in the first place.
When you replace two barracks with a factory, your upkeep is going from:
6000 soldiers ($8524/day) to 250 tanks ($12500/day). That's $4,024/day. For reference, one bank (the lowest recommended commerce improvement) for me offers $10711 - and I'm a small nation by most standards, with only 1k infra per city.
But the real point is that in wartime, you need to have ground defense (unless you wanna get !@#$ed up badly or just missile turtle) and you need improvement slots for that. The less improvement slots you have to dedicate towards keeping your nation defended on the ground, the more you can put towards air and navy.
I do, however, agree that they definitely need their steel cost reduced. I may like tanks but they aren't feasible for a wide-scale war - replacing them will rack up more steel costs than your nation can probably handle.
-
Or just have a nomination phase that is actually full of nominations and not one person arbitrarily deciding who is in the running to be the best.
-
1
-
-
nomination stage: doesn't actually allow anyone to nominate people and is just picking off a preset list
k
-
1
-
Nation Compare
in Game Suggestions
Posted
It would make things a lot easier, yeah. Support.