Jump to content

Prefontaine

Members
  • Posts

    4114
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    140

Everything posted by Prefontaine

  1. We're working on a modifier to reduce down declares effectiveness. I'd rather not get into it right now and derail the thread, but it's high on the priority list and will get its own thread.
  2. I got tired of listing example options. This is an option I'm fine with.
  3. If a party chooses to fight back, yes it may make things longer on the war front. There is a point in wars where it's not longer really worth fighting a target, they have no infra of real value to destroy. Basically the bullets and gas cost more than the infra killed. This is typically around the time most global's start focusing on peace talks/ending the war. This change won't really change that gap from low infra -> peace talks. If the damage rate increases the speed at which nations get to those points it will reduce the amount of time nations are missile/nuke turretting, which I don't think is a hugely negative thing. I don't think advocating turret playstyle is something we should be trying to extend.
  4. What I'm saying there's no change on how the current loot / infra destruction mechanics tied to war victories is being changed. I'm open to discussing what should and shouldn't change in regards to that. -No Loot happens, both parties lose (100 - remaining infra)/100 * Damage roll. [If someone had 2 resistance left they would take 98% of what the normal damage to infra in each city. If someone had 40 resistance left they would take 60%, etc..) -No Loot happens, party with lower resistance (tie goes to defender) gets infra damanged. -Loot and damage happens to the party with lower resistance. All scenarios that can be implemented -- Part of this post is to discuss things like this. If we get a few options people like I'll make a poll.
  5. Overextensions happen in regards to offensive wars, which result in lesser beige times. Incentivizing winners to win their wars quickly is a good thing. It limits people sitting on nations doing nothing but sponging missiles/nukes with their face to beige them. That's the problem it solves. It removes beige cycling - which is the goal. It benefits the defending party much greater than the offensive party because it doesn't being reducing until after defensive wars expire.
  6. Scratch that. Misread the question. The defending party gets the beige from expiration wars, the winner is considered to be the attacking party. Nothing's currently changing to the looting/infra destruction win mechanic. If someone gets beige, they are considered the loser of the war. If someone doesn't get beige they are considered the winner of the war for these mechanics.
  7. Currently, yes. Scratch that. Misread the question. The defending party gets the beige from expiration wars, the winner is considered to be the attacking party. Nothing's currently changing to the looting/infra destruction win mechanic. If someone gets beige, they are considered the loser of the war. If someone doesn't get beige they are considered the winner of the war for these mechanics.
  8. Fornite. Expiration goes to defender, thus the defender clause, 2.5 days (30 turns). The feedback on beige rebuild levels and such favored a non-100% rebuild. While this amount provides the chance to rebuild units to max, the come out of beige without a rebuy. Increasing the amount limits this. I'm in favor of increasing the cap, but the team decided on 5.
  9. Beige changes have been discussed ad nauseam but we're ready for the public discussion phase. If all things go well, we will run a test server tournament with some in game cosmetic rewards to hopefully increase participation. The goal of these beiges is to create a window for defeated nations to rebuild, even during large scale wars. This will provide alliances with the option of coordinating a counter blitz and try to turn the tide of a war. This will allow for the possibility of wars to not be decided in the first round, or first hours, or a war. Changes: Every player defeated in a defensive war results in 2.5 days (30 turns) of beige. Every player defeated in an offensive war results in 0.5 days (6 turns) of beige. All wars that end from expiration result in beige for the defending party. Beige accruals are capped at 5 days (60 turns). Beige accruals do not begin reducing down until all defensive wars end. Clarifications: Points 1 and 2 mean that if I declare a war on Alex, and I, as the attacking party lose the war, I gain 0.5 days of beige. If I attack Alex and he loses, he gains 2.5 days of beige.
  10. I'm trying to coordinate with @Alex and @Village for it to go live before Wednesday. I don't control that and as usual, cannot make promises.
  11. I take one vacation and Alex changes the live server during a war in a manner that touches the war system. I deeply apologize for taking time off.
  12. It's being worked on. I'll hopefully have something for public consumption this or next week depending on how long the design team discussion takes. I was out of town for several days, but am back now are working on it.
  13. What Keegoz said is largely correct. We typically do not release updates during a war unless it's a bug fix. There have been some exceptions in the past with respect to extremely log wars, but the general MO has been to not change the game during a conflict. This poll is to see if people are okay with breaking from that now that the war is relatively decided. We had a fair bit of content to roll out a couple days after this war stated but put it on hold. With respect to the idea that we should make sure things are rigorously coded and bug proofed before it rolls out, efforts are made to do that. Everything that comes through my group hits the test server before going live. The QA group is very active and very helpful. Even Triple A studios released bugged content and we're a tiny little team of largely armatures in this respect. Bugs and mistakes will happen. We don't want to see them happen in a war where a roll back may be needed and really screw things up politically/tactically. This is why we don't want to take the chance. I take this seriously, I know Village and Alex do as well. Most people in the volunteer teams do as well. We've taken steps to improve the processes of new content and changes all around, and continue to. Part of that is community polls like this one.
  14. Not 100% of that list is fully ready. but a decent chunk. I think when the war happened a "Ooo don't need to rush these out to meet the deadline" vibe happened 😛
  15. Please vote if you're okay with NON-NAVY changes being implemented, new projects, QoL, Embargoes, and Trades that are ready to go from Test Server to Live as they finish their testing phase. Now that the opening round(s) chaos of the global are toned down, updates run less of a risk impacting coordinated war efforts now.
  16. Would've been out by now, was going to go live but then war happened. Part of the delay is Alex's fault, but the continued delay is out of not changing things in the opening rounds of a war.
  17. Oh man.. We just approved making it so if you destroy a project it can never be rebought. Tough break.
  18. 1. The Hand of Fate: 69% similarity HoF is a powerful mid/high-tier alliance known for its independent streak, love for war, and politically incorrect culture. Most members are seasoned pirates and operate outside the box. Learn more about the alliance here! Heh.. 69%
  19. Updates will be on hold to go live until the war settles down, however many rounds that takes. Once things are a little more stable in that regard we will work on pushing live updates that don't impact war directly, like the Naval tweaks.
  20. During wars it was more than 5 people. I'm sure the idea for GPWC started with a few people and then ballooned into the 1k+ that it was.
  21. Waiting on Alex. I've not heard from him in a bit, so I don't have any update.
  22. It’s a non-choice, the illusion of choice. VDS is far more beneficial than the fallout shelter, if you force someone to chose between them there’s no actual choice to make. More in line to an actual choice would be being allowed to have just an iron dome or VDS.
  23. Locking this thread. I'll talk with Alex once he's back in town and we will announce coming changes to Baseball after that. Thanks
  24. To give some context, the focus will be on how this impacts alliance warfare. The Goal: Reduce the global wars are won in the first day (barring many alliances joining later) Reduce the amount of times players have to sit on a nation effectively doing nothing but absorbing missiles/nukes Thus promoting players who win the war, actually winning wars. Those are the main two elements of what we'd like to address with the beige system. Currently through tactics it's possible to blitz someone down to low military and the effectively sit on them so they can't rebuild. This results in the winning side of the war not being able to win many of the actual battles to avoid beige. Allowing enemy's to be beiged allows them a chance to rebuild military strength and risk causing some damage to the winning side. The concerns are that allowing rebuild mechanics makes it "purely a numbers game" and that the smaller side, or less wealthy side will never defeat the larger numbers. While the smaller side rarely beats the larger side regardless, it does allow for the fighting stage of war to be prolonged and more resources to be used if the alliance chooses a strategy that isn't selling off all units and soaking up damage until the enemy is tired of kicking them. There's no current mechanic to stop alliances from playing the refusal to fight card. The concerns of a partial rebuild are that it's effectively the same as no rebuild as having 50% of your army likely means you're just going to lose the resources needed to make those and will be unable to do any significant damage. The original plan is to have test server tournaments with these different concepts. This thread is for general feedback. Gauging the temperature. Summary: No Change allows for blitzes to determine the whole war as nations can sit upon the defeated party. This promotes stagnate wars in game, but more politically decisive wars. The aggressor is often the victor unless they perform poorly or are attacking sizable outnumbered odds. Something in the middle allows for partial rebuilds. This will guarantee a break from the war, getting out of blockade, but only a partial rebuild of units. Players will come out of beige status with less than full fighting power and likely no rebuilds. Risks being tactically pointless. If your side lost of the opening wave coming out coordinated as a weaker version of yourself likely does nothing Full rebuild. Allows for the possibility of the side who wins the first round not winning the whole war. Allows alliances to coordinate meaningful second or further rounds of warfare. Sitting on nations stops becoming a predominate strategy. Risks becoming a "who has more" resources or members battle. Risks wars being longer as nations may continue to fight back as they can no longer be held down.
  25. Can we all take a breath for a moment and try to let some of the emotions settle to give way to a more meaningful conversation? Speaking for myself I can assure you, the only grudge I hold against baseball is having to have conversations like these. Do I think it's a dumb mechanic in these games? Sure. Do I care that it exists? Not really. Do I care that it's abusable? That's where I care. The thread started with some ideas about how to allow for it to exist, and how to focus the benefits, and I was definitely receptive to it. Belgium and I are on board with the no changes for X days after announced changes to allow for ROI for recent investors. Rather than spitting venom at baseball users or at those proposing to change it, spend the energy on finding better solutions.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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