lightside
-
Posts
268 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Posts posted by lightside
-
-
2 hours ago, Krampus said:
Thats also a reason why the price is relatively high insofar project prices go. It is clear cut intended to be an expensive, that only a fraction of people will buy.
Consider this: what you are proposing will not be implemented in this decade. You're asking for a big, meta changing update, whereas the most we can do is wait months to code some light commerce / project rework in. However, it is true that due to the "R1-and-done" nature of wars you mentioned, the biggest whales get out of wars with very little damage received, on the winning side. The war score change went some way in terms of fixing this (as seen in the last global), but when you account for inflation, it's more like a band-aid fix and not a real long term fix to the core problem. Speaking bluntly, this nuke project is also basically a band-aid. We can't fix the core gameplay mechanics, so this is the best we will get.
In my view, this is the best middle-ground. The project won't be cheap enough where people mass buy it (like NRF) while also allowing increased damage for the losing side of a conflict. 1bn for a project is on the expensive side, such that not even alliances will be able to mass buy it.It wouldn't take decades. While I would like a major war revamp I do agree we probably wont get one as it will be hard to get the community to agree. That doesn't mean we should add more things to encourage nuke turreting, it also doesn't mean we can't make small changes to the war system to encourage fighting back more rather then just nuke turreting.
To give an easy example, just look at how the war system handles RNG and casualty's. While I don't know how the code handles it, from what I can tell the game handles RNG and then from that hands out either immense victory's, normal victory's, or failures. Those victory's then effect the causality rate. The problem with this is discourages come backs, as once someone is winning a war and always getting immense victory's it means they 1. Have a larger military and 2. Are getting the bonus causality's that comes with immense victory's. This double effect discourages come backs. A better way to handle this would be to remove the causality effect from the victory type and just add it back into the initial RNG. This would be mean that the initial battles at the start of a war would play out exactly the same with little change, however when one side is losing they would have a slightly better ability to come back, this is because while they would be taking more loses as they have a smaller army, they wouldn't be getting directly punished by the rng system like how it currently works with the victory types.
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
I am very much agasint the nuke projects. We need changes to push the meta away from nuke turreting. Having every global war end up with 1 side nuke turreting after 1 round is just flat out boring. We shouldn't add things thats just going to encourage that more.
-
7
-
Just now, Lord Tyrion said:
Can we finally allow alliance banks to conduct buy/sell trades rather than continually making it go through members to execute?
Forget the tariffs lets get this added instead
-
1
-
-
I dislike this idea. People will just temporally leave/join alliances to minmax and avoid them. This would make trading annoying because of that...
-
2
-
-
Overall a good update.
That being said I am disappointed that all suggestions to make the mars project do something useful were ignored. -
The current moon project and the suggested Mars project should provide a project slot. As much as I would want to get them for the achievement, as a project it does nothings but debuffs my nation by consuming a project slot I can't consider getting them in their current state. They should provide some tangible benefit or at the very least not take up a project slot if they don't do anything.
-
2
-
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
Don't change the city score... Everyone hated it being 100 per city. Literally no one wants it back to 100.
-
10
-
1
-
The Data Visualization page has stopped updating resource values. It looks like its been almost a month for most things since they last got updated/ had a data point added.
https://politicsandwar.com/world-graphs/graphID=11-
2
-
-
Nation Link: https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=97917
Ruler Name: Monica Republic
Nature of Violation: Automated Tradeing
I noticed early today that there appears to be an account that is accepting misstrades constantly at almost every hour of the day. While misstrade notification bots do exist it is simple impossible for an account to be as active as this account is being. For example looking at their trade history they were accepting miss-trades within a minute multiple times an hour for almost 2 days straight between 10/28 5am and 10/26 am. All these trades were being accepted right after they were made. It is not humanly possible for someone to to do this as they need too sleep. -
Litterily nothing is broken with the war range so why try to fix it?
This change does nothing but penalize the losing side in a war and also harms pirates. Both of these things we shouldn't do...
-
2
-
1
-
-
Either make scrapping the count impossible or make spy counts public. I prefer the first option honestly. Though I agree the current system where ever single major alliance has access to spy counts via lagging the server needs to be fixed.
-
2
-
-
7 hours ago, Alex said:
Can you elaborate a bit more, maybe with a screenshot? I'm not sure I understand what the bug is exactly
When I post a new food trade offer as selling it will then switch your search settings from "Sold" to "Bought or Sold". Any other time you post a trade offer with any other resource it keeps the search setting you have(aka Sold stays as Sold and Bought stays as Bought). Its just selling food that switch's it randomly. I have almost mistraded a few times in the past because of this bug as I didn't expect it to suddenly start showing buy offers when I went to sell other resources after selling food. (Note that it still sorting as normal Sold with food after posting the sell offers, you only see the effect of it being "Bought or Sold" when you go to another resource right after. )
-
Can this get fixed?
-
11 hours ago, Prefontaine said:
I agree it's not a big problem, but it is a problem. If a nation wants to run a muck in the low tiers with high levels of activity and 10M a day in extra, unpreventable revenue to fund raiding this is where the issue would become.
Market interaction is a core concept of the game, nations being active and being able to make sums of money is by design.
Raiding/War profiting is also a core concept of the game.
Baseball is a fringe element of the game. Small nations being able to increase their income to this extent not something that is to be designed.You wouldn't say that if you were a smaller player constantly being raiding by someone who is also gaining tons of money and ability to rebuy units through baseball. And as for your claim about fixing stuff that's actually broken, this IS something that is actually broken. It's being used in a way that is not intended. This is intended to be a compromise versus the removal of the mechanic.
As to your point about this taking away from other content. This is a simple change that requires minimal effort and won't take away from coming changes. As far no one wanting this change, I can promise you that you are entirely incorrect on that.No your wrong. This isn't a problem at all. That amount of revenue is pitiful for amount of time it would require to get it. So it really isn't an issue in the slightest
11 hours ago, Prefontaine said:Maintaining the status quo is not an option currently on the table.
Actually it is. Maybe you should add that option to the poll and get real results? Though I think you have your answer in the likes/ dislikes lol
-
3
-
-
I noticed that after you place a food sell offer, when the page reloads it will changes your search setting from sold to bought/sold. This makes selling food followed by selling other things afterwards annoying as you always have to change your search setting back to normal after putting in a food sell offer as it will display the smallest buy price at the top. Selling food is the only thing that seems to do this. Every other trade option keeps you on sold or on bought after you have summited the trade offer.
-
4 minutes ago, Zephyr said:
The poll is more like, "Vote 'no' if you think land is perfect 👨🍳👌 just the way it is. Vote 'yes' if there's something, anything, land related that you think could be changed". Sounds like you just voted against yourself.
If you look at the changes Prefontaine is suggesting it is clear they are considering nerfing land and not the other way around. Nerfing land is pointless as it takes years to pay for itself and thus isn't an issue.
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
-
Considering land has a ROI in years it shouldn't be destroyed. Doing so would be unfair to the people who have invested in it. I would like to see it effect your nation more then just farms/ minor pollution so more people have a reason to get it however(like maybe have it give a bonus to other production sources or have it perhaps give building slots every 500 or so, or something else completely new ). So overall I would like to see it changed so it its more useful. However all the changes suggested above seem just plain stupid and aimed at making it even more useless when it already is a generally bad investment so I must vote no.
-
1
-
-
Lol cant even respect a decent fair fight, have to make it a dogpile.
I dub the mystery block the "Dogpile Block" as apparently that's all they can do
-
5
-
-
Honestly I like the idea of infra being cheaper to rebuild. It will make wars happen more often which makes the game alot more fun in my opinion.
-
I just noticed the screen for spy ops doesn't factor in the effect of the spy sat when it shows the cost. It showed me a cost of 1mil, but the actually cost that was displayed after running the op was 800k. So it looks like it isn't factoring in the effect of the spy sat in the cost projection.
-
1
-
-
Bombard will only be used by alliances already winning and idont think it should be added. It will also harm raiders alot
-
The issue isn't that we don't have an incentive for war its that wars are just too costly and it can take months after one to recover. If you wanted to fix that then you would need to change mechanics drastically to reduce war cost. For example you would need to do something like make infra cheaper to rebuild then to build. Though I doubt anyone would want that.
-
its not a random choice. The continent you are at determines which resources you can make. So if you want to make differen't things then move. We also have the market for a reason. If you need raws to make something then buy it or just buy the manufactured good directly.
-
1
-
1
-
-
Bounty are fine. Sure they don't get used much but they are still a nice feature to have in the game.
Game Development Discussion: Update & Feedback
in Game Discussion
Posted
Ya as I said above I doubt we will ever do a complete war rework and that's fine I guess. Though as I mentioned above small changes like I suggested would hardly be time consuming and would be possible. In any case if time is an issue then that is even more of a reason to not waste time on adding projects/changes that encourage nuke turtling.