Jump to content

Keegoz

VIP
  • Posts

    2196
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    55

Posts posted by Keegoz

  1. 9 hours ago, Hoffy said:

    I notice you mention the New Player Expirence, Perspective and Retention. Can I ask, have you actually spoken to new players, outside of your own alliance or coalition, to see what the vast majority of them would like?


    I understand the desire to make changes, but the vast amount of new players are not on the forums and won’t see these discussions. Asking only those within a single or coalition alliance, may provide the answers you are looking for because of your position. 
     

    I’ve not seen cross alliance new player consultation, or consultation with those without an alliance, so I can only assume that this hasn’t been conducted

     

    Finally, what exactly are you classing as new player? 1 weeks, 1 months, 1 year?

     

    I don’t know the best way for you to gather this information, but posting a forum discussion and not informing new players of said discussion but stating it’s in their best interests, seems a little sketchy, pardon the pun

    I do speak to players around the game, I did consult people on this. No I cannot consult everyone on every change. I actually didn't talk to the new players in my alliance to try and cut out any potential bias.

    You are correct that newer players usually do not come on the forums, but I have had quite a few DM me on discord and I will keep publicising this threads existance on there. Currently the new players asking me questions have a positive outlook on these changes.

  2. 7 minutes ago, Vein said:

    I wouldn't mind a city cap, for instance the max city as of now being 65 and as the game progress we could move it up to 70 in the future depending on how many c65s we'd have in the game, however, I don't like the idea of making lower cities cheaper than what they'd usually be, same for the higher up cities being more expensive that what it should be, I understand the idea of wanting to make it more friendly to the new players joining the game, but i think thats the least of our concern atm, the biggest concern is the lack of new players itself and i don't believe that would fix that problem.

    The cap is basically the alternative option here, yeah. It's what Alex originally asked for.

    However, it isn't really a solution long-term, and I cannot guarantee that updates keep coming out for people who hit the end-game of c65. I am worried we'll see a nose-dive in retention on the upper end if things stall, like they have in the past.

    • Like 2
    • Upvote 2
  3. Some discussion around issues with the current city formula:

    Introduction
    We are at a point in the game where the current city cost formula has proven to be ineffective at balancing the growth of the game. Even though city costs are exponential, so are the increases of revenue per each added city, and thus the added time it takes to purchase the next city remains linear forever, regardless of city size.

    This means that a city 32 nation and a city 49 nation will grow at almost the exact same rate in the following year, with the gap between them only shrinking by 1 city over all of 2025. Meaning for the average player, the game currently doesn’t support their catchup and we are at risk of playing two or three separate games, where a new player won’t even be able to become a part of the mid tier anymore, as the current mid tier will grow into the c35s and 40s over the next year and a half, way past a point where the current support systems (urban planning projects and new nation bonuses) will become too outdated to aid them.

    Growth keeps up with costs - which creates a problem
    Firstly, when covering the median revenue for a nation in each city tier, we will notice off the bat that each city doesn’t increase our revenue linearly, but exponentially.

    AD_4nXdpBDoE97s9PC94ZrRNi4yVDX-QmwCFDeBW5W9VM-dpKEgCcbGMK6BfrbDUMC7j18LGQTd_AAAS8phIa-JDPOmhqFkyj7PMoGVxo59vOoWfjB9O4JK33-sP7STU3dmiwRpQVrSpVg?key=XZO8vrlK7QVanuQ8JH90TX2h

    Now, this isn’t anything new and the result isn’t surprising at all. This is due to larger nations having projects which increase revenue, city age bonuses and having a higher concentration of land - which allows them to produce food, which is far more profitable per slot than raw or manufactured resources. However this also means that for each subsequent city bought, previous cities earn more revenue as well on average.

    AD_4nXfDpnD8aNus2pIK0ys3h0gFPSbtpYvn4RU5dSzVhAYeYi7Bpexp6lZPHFrAL2rhS9DjZXd29ZuVJ4xs33juFlveHRB1Is25BPAzbcolS0gu0k2s7kOhEbFcwRPNsaiDwjlu7ZZD?key=XZO8vrlK7QVanuQ8JH90TX2h

    We have seen that on average, nations will see larger and larger increases in their revenue for each subsequent city bought as they progress through the game. When a nation in the C21-C30 tier purchases a new city, their revenue will increase by about $1,800,000, whilst nations in the C41-C50 tier will see an increase of $3,700,000 for each new city bought due to the aforementioned factors.

    AD_4nXeybWMy7vsXXxg3Tirxl8N66zmqcyGf9NKu6bFrU-30XOWkwWWJlYfO0m8BkarjcXisjGrNnr_PLKnZMuNu9BLPV0HzQkHzn8aS9iEVmXMriaPj0qluyTTr_N0rw6opAs6oCHeYHw?key=XZO8vrlK7QVanuQ8JH90TX2h

    This difference in revenue earned for each subsequent city bought will keep growing forever, and thus create a reality where large nations will definitely not only reach city 70, and then city 80, and then city 90 etc, but they’ll do so relatively quickly, a lot quicker than people think. Fundamentally, their growth will slow down very gradually. In fact, the rate at which growth slows down in the upper tier actually goes down for each subsequent city bought.

    AD_4nXcVwmRe-AtsZsA5WBdvaOUgIWgTYNMSrswJwh2g09o8jdDEIk9pkTphJmuWwt52l456bHA8VSleAbYbEDITeirQ5RhEgvgYsGjAG9iLeOAzivHJjccx6WOvU5gRpxvem6oE7WjE?key=XZO8vrlK7QVanuQ8JH90TX2h

    If you take the median amount each tier earns per day, and then (for the sake of fair evaluation) assume they won’t fight next year, you can quite easily estimate the amount of growth each nation can afford next year with just their revenue. The gap between C32 and C49 will only shrink by 1 city next year, as will the gap between C50 and C62.

    The result of this is that once the current support systems run out of road and the high tier moves closer to C50, the mid tier will follow suit, lagging behind at around C40. This will create a scenario where new players will create a new tiering altogether, and won’t be able to participate in mid tier fighting, or have any prospects of catching up for years and years to come. Another urban planning project would act as just a band aid fix, and we need a more thorough way to solve this issue for good.

    • Upvote 1
  4. On 2/4/2025 at 2:42 AM, hidude45454 said:

    As someone in an elite alliance, I think the experience we bring to the table is still very valuable, but because the stupid ass meta of the game is completely optimized for tiering and high tier cities now, it is very correct by definition that mass member alliances will achieve this growth far easier than small alliances given sufficient econ gov. Is it killing the game because everyone optimizes toward the same lame meta? Yes. Is anything ever going to be done about it? No.

    I'm getting to it, dw

    • Like 1
  5. Ngl, if you asked me 10 years ago if this would be one of the alliances to survive a decade down the line. My answer would have been a hard 'no'.

    I do admire the way TFP has managed to defy expectations, re-imagine themselves and continued to produce high quality individuals to this community.

    So congrats on 10 years and proving me wrong!

    • Upvote 4
  6. I do think Rose is going through growing pains with quite a number of government changes. Let's be real though, Rose has never been a massive military alliance and has always struggled on the back foot. I think enough combinations of things going on has caused kinda the perfect storm, I wouldn't write them off entirely but they definately have some work to do. They still have a better hand than anyone who had the lead them from 2013-2019 had.

    I appreciate the use of the forums btw

    • Upvote 1
  7. 38 minutes ago, Kalo the First said:

    @Coolossusif I ask for an audit, they will give me money and resources for a build like what? A power plant or bigger? Also, can you recommend functional alliances which don’t use discord? I am already in NATO

    Antartica Alliance seems to be the largest one that doesn't require discord. That said, most decent alliances do use discord.

    • Like 1
  8. 17 hours ago, Stanko1987 said:

    I know I been advocating for a change in spy/espionage game mechanics for quite a while now, but this is the last time i am going to create a post about this topic, i do however feel we need to discuss more about changing the Spy mechanics to balance out the game and keep things fair in terms of spy warfare. 

    So therefore i propose the following,

    1. Halve the maximum number of spies needed to build from 60 to 30 spies per nation (This is to allow nations to maximize their spies a lot quicker giving them a better opportunity to rebuild after having their spies wiped out from espionage attacks)

    2. Double the cost of building of building spies from $50,000 to $100,000 per spy (In order to balance out the cost, keeping the cost the same it takes to maximize your spies)

    3. Double the strength of each spy (So the spies are neither nerfed nor buffed) 

    4. Nations in beige protection bloc are protected from espionage attacks while being in beige. Excluding Intel Gathering (To allow the player the opportunity to rebuild without having their spies constantly being wiped out and also to allow the player the opportunity to rebuild to max or close to max)

    5. Nations in beige performing espionage attacks end up forfeiting protection from incoming espionage attacks, if the nation in beige conducts an espionage attack excluding intel gathering. But they still remain in Beige Protection Bloc and remain protected from being declared upon (Since the beige nation is protected from espionage attacks, it is only fair to prevent them from performing espionage attacks on others who are not in beige protection, however, the player may forfeit the espionage protection if the player chooses to perform espionage attacks against other players)

    Another argument I'll like to add is the current lay out and set up of Espionage/Spy mechanics is pretty unbalanced since you lose almost half of your max spies in just three espionage attacks, the next following day you build 4 Spies only to get another 20-25 spies wiped out, within three days all your spies have been wiped out. It takes roughly 15 days to build to max if you have the projects, whereas an average player takes 21 days to rebuild and maximize their spies. Also, it is almost near impossible to maximize since you can never catch up with constant spy wiping, which is why the espionage/spy mechanic at its current form is very unbalanced and favorable to one side only. I do believe with my proposal; the problem will be partially fixed, or at least become fairer and more balanced in future spy warfare's. 

    @Alex@Keegoz#Dev-Team 

     

    I apologize for the pinging. I thought I'll bring this to your attention and i thank you all in advance for taking the time to read my proposal and taking my proposal into consideration. 

     

    I'll keep some of these ideas in mind when the next update presents itself. I agree with a lot of the points presented.

    • Like 2
  9. Hey all,

    I thought I would make this public in the interest of transparency in what the development team will be coding for the next game update, which is a military one. Given the limited formatting options on this forum, it is in a google doc:

    https://docs.google.com/document/d/1z2jPtbMLOuFZR6ZQlu3qwr5cySfwLsh_Cvq9U6RGReo/edit?usp=sharing

    This is a consolidation of a few threads and discussions around the place. Please note, there is a lot here and we're aware people have voiced some scepticism at certain aspects but we are keen to push through and have this tested. If we find things need changing from that testing, then we'll take feedback and tweak from there.

    Going forward, I am keen to get some QoL updates going and a econ update. This will likely go a similar way as our military one, with an update/change to a current mechanic and ideally a new mechanic. I know I want to personally see a few more community event type things in the game, such as what we saw with arrgh's recent bidding thread.

    • Like 5
    • Upvote 1
  10. It's something I am open to do, and I do think is logical. However people will see it as nerfing spies further, as the benefit of winning the spy battle becomes even less important.

    I agree spies need a rework but it's a difficult topic when so many vested interests exist. I'll put it onto my list for the next milcom update, but that might be a way off for now.

  11. 18 hours ago, Majima Goro said:

    Yes, I would be more in favor of a system which helps you while at war rather than when you are off war. 

    The idea is that if you have already lost all your wars, you have enough time to rebuild as is. A faster rate of recruitment just means you get out faster. And if people were to just cycle you, then such an advantage has no significance. 

    Rather, my proposal helps to "bait beige" or at best, turn the tides with a higher recruitment ratio. For example, a 50% faster recruitment rate would mean a c20 would have the same buying power as a c30, helping them buy and smack around harder, esp if they are fighting people at their city count or lower. 

     

     

     

    Would this not make dragging whales down as smaller nations incredibly difficult?

  12. 5 hours ago, Majima Goro said:

    Is it possible to scale the % military buff with the number of losing wars one has while beiged. 

    If one has say 5 people sitting on them while beiged, a +25% buff isn't going to help. Instead, if the buff was scaled with wars to a +100% cap, that would let one at least fight back harder, forcing either more beiges or winning some wars. 

    Scaling could work as a flat +20% modifier per defensive war and a +10% per offensive war, capped at +100%(including PB buff). Note that the percentages are used for example only and can be varied as needed.

    Losing war = Where you have 30 less resistance than your opponent, irrespective of whether it is a defensive or offensive war.

    The current proposal is that you get a buff whilst in beige with 0 wars. Your proposal seems to be around wars in which you're still engaged with.

  13. 7 hours ago, Lucianus said:

    Keegoz, out of curiosity, what is the goal behind these changes? What meta are you trying to affect/change/add and what kind of playstyle do you want to incentivize? 

    Also on this, good to know, but where is/was that listed? No problem for now as it's just a proposal, but it would be nice to see the full changes. Are other prices changing too?

    I meant to put it in the spoiler, ships are a little cheaper but that was outlined in the previous thread. I rounded their upkeep a bit as well. Nukes are becoming slightly more expensive based on feedback.

    Aluminium is an issue, we barely see much get consumed even during wars. To the extent where major alliances could fund an entire coalitions worth of Aluminium for an entire global.

    Planes simply are too cheap for their power level, which becomes problematic with upgrade paths like this as well. 

  14. 11 hours ago, Alastor said:

    I frankly disagree with you and @Keegoz. Raiding is the only mechanic that has served the community in being a loud minority keeping away bad updates.

     

    Raiding is not just playing to loot money, it's a style of play where you can be at war more frequently than the average player. On the surface this may seem like a loophole that requires fixing, I think at this point the playerbase as a whole enjoys the "style" of PnW. Most of us just want more content and meat -- stuff like adding Generals or Perks.

     

    Rebalancing the game over and over again with extremely minor, yet inconvenient, tweaks is what has held up development in my years of playing PnW and being involved in the development process.

     

    Stop trying to tweak the game mechanics that everyone already uses and has for years, add new stuff we're begging.

     

     

     

     

    What I mean by style is that in PnW while you may go down, you have options. Raiding, soldiers-only, ground-only, tank flashing, missiles, and nukes. There's no true "out" as long as you're willing. Most war suggestions that interfere with raiding inevitably interfere with the overall style of PnW's mechanical play.

    The same mechanic which incentivizes aggressive play (blitzes being ridiculously strong) is also the same mechanic which gives raiders a chance in many wars.

    Quite frankly, I am tired of you electing yourself the one and only voice of the community.

    You are not the only person in the room believe it or not.

    If you have an opinion voice it but stop trying to act as the communities unelected voice. These discussions exist for people to voice their own opinions and ideas.

    • Upvote 5
  15. 11 hours ago, Daveth said:

    I actually wholeheartedly agree - so I'll piggyback Krampus taking the time to write this.

    ---

    Reading through the thread, I'm not sure what's the point in increasing the costs marginally? To my understanding, it's a resource production and availability problem - macroeconomic, and a microeconomic change wouldn't impact it significantly?

    Also, I've run into people being demotivated due to not being able to afford nukes or missiles for one reason or the other, so I'm not positive this would be clever considering they'd get further demotivated and otherwise need to make due even further. Thinking of game experience, the real headline is figuring out how to make the game more fun even if you are on the losing side of the dogpile, not what appears to be the opposite? 

    Fixing resources isn't a one change fix all thing. I will increase costs in multiple areas.

    My next proposal will also be introducing another resource sink.

  16. I'll add this idea as a counter:

    Ships lean more into their current damage schtick. When you attack with ships you can target any city & an improvement type (same as missiles are).

    Ships have a 50% chance to destroy 2 improvements on each IT attack and 1 improvement for a PV/MS attack. If you take the tactician policy, this would go to 100% chance.

    • Like 1
    • Upvote 1
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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