Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Prefontaine

  1. I am looking at things from your point of view. I'm also asking you to try to look at things from mine. I explained the current thread, we're not looking to make changes to it as there is an alternative waiting in the wings. Once both threads are out we'll review further there. We've talked a little bit about the thread, removing the upswing buff and how an alternative are hard caps. If you'd like some examples of me going against what I think should be done, I'll snag some of those for you. I don't think people in beige should be spied at all. That didn't happen. I think there should be a hard bottom declare cap, we don't have it. I think land should be destroyable. It isn't. You're asking me to show times where my mind was changed, all you need is look at all the times changes don't happen. What I'm getting at is I don't overtly interact with the feedback in the manner you're looking for, but what I'm saying is I am doing what the core of what you're looking for is. I understand wanting the vocalization, I get what you're asking for, but I'm sorry, that's not me. All I'd do is feel fake, and like I'm giving everyone a cookie. Sometimes what I'll do is reach out to people on discord for a back and forth to hammer out their changes in more detail. This is more how I operate. This is why I say you need to meet somewhere in the middle I can tell you what currently happens, typically a member of a the dev team links a post and says "what about this?" and then it gets discussed. I also do things like have credits rewarded to nations for quality feedback from time to time, especially when they're someone who doesn't contribute too often to help encourage them. Telling someone that "good point, we'll review it" sets up an expectation. If we change it, great, if we don't "they didn't listen to me" still exists because we reviewed it and didn't agree. Are we understanding one another a little better now?
  2. And what would go a long way towards that sort of feedback is what I described in the OP. Much of the feedback given when someone is against something to the effect of "This sucks, you're dumb". I wouldn't make these threads if I didn't want to have other points of view involved. Here's the thing with this current thread, it's one of two options we're looking at for the change the modifier and score adjustments. Once both are out there and we look at things that's when the review process really starts. For threads that have updated OP changes, what you're asking for does happen.
  3. The feedback gets discussed by the team, changes typically get made in the threads OP or in the next version of the thread depending on the level of changes. Final draft change threads typically look like these:
  4. The discussion threads are the transparency. Polls and the general topic threads are where the community becomes involved with the process. All content that comes through the design team goes through this process to include the community. Actual feedback is listened to. Not all is agreed with, though. It's how the process works. I would argue this statement is bias. We've had and have various leadership of alliances through the history of the team. I/We know how the game is played. What goes into planning and fighting wars. Where there are issues in the system. For your example, spy changes have just been on the back burner for a long time. Simple as that. Nothing's being snuck through. If it was trying to be, there wouldn't be so many threads about it.
  5. I'm not sure how many people here work a job that requires you to be on-call, but sometimes when you get that 2AM call, you can't get back to sleep. Oddly, I find I do some of my best thinking after that happens. First, I want to start with saying, this is my fault. I've not policed this section of the forum very strictly. I don't like moderation of speech. We, however, have reached a tipping point. For most content changes/update discussions I receive some number of private messages on the matter, some in favor, some not. What's been happening more frequently is that people are doing so to avoid reprisal, or going against the mob, so to speak. Hearing people telling me that they want to express their opinion but are afraid to do so because they were directed to support an opposite opinion in the thread, and don't want to be yelled at by their alliance for not sharing that opinion is unacceptable. That they're afraid of being retaliated against in game for supporting a change their political rival is against. Before you ask, no, I'm not giving you their names or copies of their messages. When people come to me in confidence, I keep it that way even if outing it would benefit me. For those who remember me as a player, that was one of my core principals. Second, this toxicity has stifled proactive discussion. People don't want to come in to the conversation when it's name calling and insults. There have been multiple times where we've had to ask for feedback because the post was simply "this is garbage, you're all idiots". The point of these threads is to provide feedback, come up with new ideas. If all you're going to add is name calling and a tantrum, you're no longer going to be welcome at the table. I don't want people afraid to speak up because of the bullying, political or in-game retaliation. I've been attacked and mass denounced in game for posting discussion threads, which is fine for me, but other players care about their nation and still play the game. It's the reason other members of the team largely don't want to post threads because of the toxic responses given. Third, something to remember, the point of this section of the forum is to make the game better. We all have different ideas on what that means, but we're all working towards the same goal. Remember that when making a post. I'll be starting this process with the most recent thread and hiding the toxic un-productive posts. Going forward I'll simply be hiding similar posts and begin issuing warns for those who habitually fail to play nice. You may see some edits in other players thread with my name on it. That's me removing quotes from those hidden posts. tl;dr If you want to participate in the discussion forum, take the insults out of your post. Otherwise your posts will be removed.
  6. The problem is that a C40 vs C30 would get a 12.5% reduction to kill rates against the C30, with their unit and rebuy advantage that's not going to turn the tide of the war, just slow the death rate of the C30 so that there may be time to find backup. Watering down to 5% or something of that effect has no real impact. To the second point, the current score rework discussion has a logarithmic growth curve capping out at 2500 infra. Sort of like how missiles/nukes stop providing score at some point. The idea is a 2:1:1 ratio of Mil : City : infra in terms of score.
  7. Reminding people to be civil in your disagreements. Flame me all you want, I'm used to it. Be nice to one another though.
  8. You're in the almost exclusively whale alliance sphere, yes?
  9. The modifier only goes one way, so it's almost like it's at 25% already, the attacker gets the buff/debuff not the defending party. Lets say we use the C20 v C15 example, the 20 attacking the 15. Currently the attacker would kill 12.5% less units in battle. Unit wise: C20 300,000 soldiers 25,000 tanks vs C15 225,000 soldiers 18,750 tanks Simulating 20 times: Simulations: 20 Average Attacking Soldiers Lost: 425954 21297.69 Defending Soldiers Killed: 551095 27554.76 Attacking Tanks Lost: 28097 1404.85 Defending Tanks Destroyed: 37607 1880.35 The new total would be 24,109 soldiers killed, a difference of 3,444. And 1645 tanks, a difference of 235 tanks. Reducing that by half isn't very impactful. The game wanted the city score change, look in the thread I linked when quoting you before. See above link comment.
  10. Yes, it does both of those things. That is the point of the change. It does not strengthen or weaken them beyond the benefit of having more cities. The only thing being reduced is the rate of kills/deaths being inflicted. If someone does up declare, the higher city nation gets no reduction against the nation attacking them, the attacker only gets the buff. If the nation down declares it only receives the reduction, the smaller nation does not get the buff. Victory rolls, unit sizes, all of these things stay intact.
  11. Limiting declare ranges with a hard bottom declare range was discussed in the past:
  12. You need to be more specific than "the winning side", what makes the winning side the winning side is very much important to the core of this change. If the winning side is simply winning because they have more high tiered nations this will impact how easy it is for them to be the winning side. Your "scrape back some ground" reference doesn't really exist in wars as it stands, it becomes a turtle nuke/missile war which this change doesn't really impact. If you're only argument is effectively a scenario that doesn't really happen, you may want to reconsider your view point. This change doesn't take place until above C10. Additionally the modifier is calculated before each attack.
  13. They do get a defensive modifier if they're declared on. Attacker getting a % reduction in damage is the same as the defender getting a % reduction in units lost.
  14. They will still get their overwhelming number of units advantage, still get the same chance for victory rolls in the IT -> UT range, they just kill a percentage less of the units they would kill.
  15. A simplification, but yes. The justification is in the OP. Massive down declares have been a long standing problem.
  16. 50% is not nullifying. It also does not impact the roll success rates.
  17. The third and final area of the war system up for rework is the declare ranges, huge down declares have long been an issue. A hard limit on down declares would solve the issue but is widely disliked, thus a modifier will be present for up and down swings in war. This modifier will impact infra damage dealt and unit damage dealt but units (not missiles/nukes). When attacking a nation that has more cities than you, you receive a positive modifier of 50% of the difference in cities from your nation. When attacking a nation that has less cities than you, you receive a negative modifier of 50% of the different in cities from your nation. These modifiers only take place above City 10 Some examples: A C15 attacks a C20, being a 33% difference in cities, the C15 receives a 16.5% modifier to their kills/infra damage in the war. A C20 attacks a C15, being a 25% difference in cities, the C20 receives a -12.5% modifier to their kills/infra damage in the war. As you can see the percentage calculated is based off of the attacking nations city count. This modifier will be calculated before each attack, thus if someone buys more cities mid war, the modifier will change. More examples: A C20 declares on a C19, 5% difference in cities, -2.5% modifier A C40 declares on a C30, 25% difference, -12.5% modifier A C35 declares on a C50, 43% difference, 21.5% modifier These changes will tie in to a score rework for military units more aligned with the results from this thread.
  18. Because you could spy on them to fill their defensive slots to prevent enemies from spying them in a meaningful way.
  19. Locking thread. Positive feedback does not compute.
  20. Redundant thread for the current poll. Locking. You can still vote if you want though.
  21. I am curious to the reasons people are voting yes or no as well, feel free to provide opinions.
  22. Feedback collected, updated change suggestions will be posted in the coming week.
  23. If you could only have one unit maxed going into a fight, and the rest simply on rebuy levels which would you choose? If you could have a second, which would you add?
  24. Simple question, should the number of spies a player has be viewable like other unit types? This used to be the case, but was changed to add increased secrecy to spies. Due to data collection and bots though, most of this information is accessible to those players with access to that data collection.
  • Create New...

Important Information

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