Jump to content

Nintendo

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    166

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

 Content Type 

Posts posted by Nintendo

    3/29/2016 - War Policies, Score Formula Change, Naval Battles Have 15% Chance to Destroy Improvements

    in Announcements & Updates

    Posted · Edited by Nintendo

    So, my thoughts now that this is live:

     

    I think military is a bit over emphasized in the change. Take my nation for example, 1,188.50NS. Over 700 of that is based on military. If I got attacked and lost all military, I would drop to around 450NS. That is a bit insane in my opinion and will result in some pretty crazy roller coast rides in terms of NS when it comes to war.

     

    Instead, it would probably have been better to leave military and infrastructure calculations alone and just give cities and projects a far greater boost. (I didn't provide this feedback when you were beta testing, conveniently like any good player ;)  )

     

    I actually like the War Policies. I love new additions. In my opinion, the more options and combos you can create and experiment with in a game, the better! Will be interesting to see how they are used!

     

    Not really sure what I think about ships being able to destroy infrastructure. I would have probably just increased the damage they could do to infrastructure instead. If you wanted to make more improvements disappear, I would have cut back the damage an airstrike does (both infrastructure and targeted units) and replaced it with the chance to knock out an improvement.

     

    For a future update, would love to see the ability to completely destroy a city! You could make it hard to do and a long shot, but that option should be available! 

    • Upvote 3

    Seeking Testers - War Policies + Score Formula Change

    in Game Discussion

    Posted

    Just how many of these low infra/high city accounts do you think there is?  At a rough guess...

     

    I'd say just a small percentage (1-2% of players). BUT, the point is these people shouldn't be able to attack someone with half the number of cities. The only reason there are high city/low infrastructure nations is because those once large nations where beaten down during the last war and they found a sort of haven for raiding. These are established nations that have just a jack ton of military improvement compared to the nations at that level (and I'm even assuming all parties involved have full military). Sure, these nations are limited by their max units because of population now, but they can build a military to equal the smaller, fully military stocked nation in just 1 day (because of all those military improvements). This makes it impossible to fight back, even with coordination.

     

    This is an exploit that Sheepy clearly didn't account for and what this potential fix is attempted to help limit. This update won't stop these type of things from happening either, but it will help give some more breathing room at the lower levels and give them a far chance to establish a sizeable military/cities before entering what has become a death zone for growth.

    • Upvote 1

    Seeking Testers - War Policies + Score Formula Change

    in Game Discussion

    Posted

    I'll admit I was against the change before, but now I see just how much some players have taken a flaw and exploited it greatly (and that number of players growing). As a result, I approve of the formula change. After looking it over, it just boost the score of high military low infrastructure nations, while lowing the score of low military high infrastructure nations. I think this brings about a great balance. The current system forces everyone to just build 100% military and hope for the best, which isn't a big deal if you're a large nation. The problem is large nations are attacking small nations that can't possibly adopt a 100% military model unless they want to become raiders themselves (or just not grow and be happy with their 5 cities and 1000 infrastructure). This is what is forcing one play style.

     

    To be honest, I'm not sure why Arrgh has all this hate about it. They lose lower tier targets, but gain upper tier targets. There are a lot of large nations with a ton of infrastructure and practically no military that will drop score and make them more in reach of raiders. This seems like a fare trade off to me. Helps reduce large nations (high cities) from attacking/raiding/picking on smaller nations (less cities).

     

    The Military Policies are interesting and l look forward to seeing how they are utilized. While I think there are to many, I think in the end they will be a solid addition. I see myself utilizing several of them.

    • Upvote 3

    Expand Embargoes to Include Baseball

    in Game Suggestions

    Posted

    Currently, when you embargo a nation it simply means you can not trade with them (yes, I know that's the standard definition of an embargo). I'd like to expand this out to include baseball games. If you have embargoed someone, it generally means you wish not to interact with them if at all possible. I find many of my baseball games are against nations that I have embargoed and I really wish I could avoid playing them, because it's basically giving them money.

     

    If expanding the affects of an embargo is not liked, perhaps there should be a separate option to avoid playing baseball games with certain nations?

     

    Cheers to my first suggestion! If you all hate it, well...I suppose I'll go drink a beer and get over it.  :D

    • Upvote 2

    vastly increase improvement damage from nukes

    in Game Suggestions

    Posted

     

    3:51 PM <•Sheepy> Another idea that I had previously was that ground battles, airstrikes, and naval battles would all have a 30% chance of destroying a random (non power plant) improvement
    3:51 PM <•Sheepy> Missiles would destroy 2 (non power plant) improvements
    3:52 PM <•Sheepy> Nukes would destroy 5 (power plant included) improvements

     

     

    I don't agree with the first point, but the Missile and Nukes suggestion actually sounds good to me.

    Changing the Score Formula

    in Game Discussion

    Posted · Edited by Nintendo

    Considering my last city alone cost me 106m to buy, not including infra.

     

    No.

     

    The cost is relative to your size, so 106m is much less to you than to someone like me. Would a city be costly to lose, yes? But it's the cost of war. Also, keep in mind my proposal about losing a city makes it hard to do so, especially if your active and keep buy back lost infrastructure and your enemies aren't well coordinated. My proposal introduces a way to simply add more strategy to the war game and give a nice reward to those who work together. Destroying a city would be almost impossible in a 1 v 1 battle according to my proposal.

     

    Also, I worry this game is less than a year away from people maxing out on everything the game has to offer. Look at your nation Vosunda. Your nation is not even a year old yet and you already have 15 cities and half the available projects. In less than a year, you'll literally have everything this game has to offer. Then what?

     

    And you won't be alone either. The top quarter of all the nations in Orbis will be in the same boat. Every nation will be exactly the same.

    Changing the Score Formula

    in Game Discussion

    Posted

    I'm not so sure I like the change to be honest. The NS scoring system is fine as it is.

     

    A better option to counter this would be to introduce a method to destroy cities. The fact that a city can't be completely destroyed is what helped lead to all these low NS nations with high city counts.

     

    What would destroy a city?

     

    I think a cool improvement to the game would be the ability to target the city an attack is launched on. This goes for all attacks. Ground. Air. Naval. Missiles. Nukes.The city is destroyed if it's infrastructure is reduced to less than 100 infrastructure. However, a city is only eligible to be completely destroyed if it's infrastructure was, at some point in the cities life, at or above 1000 infrastructure (this is more to help protect the smaller/younger nations from losing cities).

    When a nation goes to war with someone, they have to decide if they want to focus on one city to try an destroy it OR if they want to take the default option of destroying the highest infrastructure levels. Obviously if they focus on 1 city, but fail, they did less damage then they would have shaving off infrastructure in each city (higher infrastructure cost more to rebuild). Adds a lot of strategy to the game.

    Couldn't a nation just keep buying back infrastructure in the targeted city? Sure, they are trying to keep it from being destroyed. This is where teamwork and strategy pay off from the aggressor.

     

    Anyway, just my two cents. Add a way to destroy cities > changing the scoring formula.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and the Guidelines of the game and community.

  I accept