lightside
-
Posts
268 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Posts posted by lightside
-
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
ty09/04 10:39 am An unknown nation has committed an act of terrorism against your country. They successfully detonated an explosive in your city, City 5, terrorizing civillians and destroying 1.00 infrastructure. 09/04 10:38 am An unknown nation has committed an act of terrorism against your country. They successfully detonated an explosive in your city, City 4, terrorizing civillians and destroying 1.00 infrastructure Seems abit weak might need a buff/change lol
-
1
-
1
-
6
-
Yes to seperateing them. I'm unsure about changing duration/ credit cost
-
1
-
-
Tanks are too strong now i think. tanks can kill more aircraft then aircraft can kill aircraft. Which shouldn't be the case at all. Also aircraft damage to other aircraft and tanks should be buffed. It was overnerfed i think.
-
1
-
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
No. If a new player wants to create their own alliance we shouldn't stop them. Let others play the game as they want to play it.
-
1
-
15
-
7
-
This needs to get added. The button is annoying on my phone and covers up my resources.
-
1
-
-
Ya it won't balance at all. As spys will still easily get wiped and then take 20 days to refill. We really should just fix the problem directly by reducing spy deaths and increasing recruitment.
-
2 minutes ago, Cjfly said:
@lightside In the Political system you talk about you actually mean the war system since there is no actual real politics implemented within P&W's game mechanics????
Yes there are... the political system of this game is the entire alliance system
-
33 minutes ago, Cjfly said:
Although I do like most (if not all) of your ideas, in these suggestions. How are we to play a game that labels itself POLITICS & WAR when all politics based with inside this game is cosmetic & or you need to use 3rd party to even pretend it exists, all wars won is granted to the aggressor??? Are we to just turn a blind eye to the actual intent of this game and intent i mean by the actual name of the game, Or are they just false advertising???. This isn't simnation or even sim city and there was a lot of thought put into this game, just the implementation has fallen apart. Shouldn't we suggest and request that they at least implement a workable/usable/balanced and fair game play based on Politics and War before we start suggesting Nations content and turning it into another Sim City. Don't get me wrong, Nations right now are at a balanced/fair playing field unlike the politics and war aspects of this game and shouldn't we all be more focused on trying to balance them out before we start tweaking nation aspects.??? Everyone wants more projects/domestic policies/war policies etc,etc but we have yet to achieve a balanced POLITICS &WAR.
Aggressors don't always win lol. For example in Dial up BK got blitzed but was able to turn it around thanks to politics and war. There is nothing wrong with this games political system. The war mechanics are simple but this is a browser game.
-
Honestly I don't see the point of complicated work arounds when we can see the problem and just fix the problem directly . The first problem with spy's is that they insta die, reducing causality's helps with that but that is only half the problem. The other problem is that spy's take 20 days to rebuild. 4x longer then other military units. Halving that to 10-15 days depending on projects would help alot.
Also on a side note the spy sat project probably should be changed. It should provide an extra spy action instead of +50% damage like it is now.
-
Yep this isn't calculating it based of anything visible. It was 100% accurate and not a estimate. Conisdering hidden expenses(like the spy op mentioned above) it must be an exploit of some kind
-
2 hours ago, Cjfly said:
I do like the idea of Alliance improvements but I think an initial cost + daily upkeep cost would be more effective as an alliance would pull together and build then would have to stick around and pay a % of taxes/resources in order to keep it from deteriorating. this would also help with alliance banks and minimize off-shore accounts in times of war due to daily improvement requirements and also forcing higher taxes to keep projects especially during times of war and of course a bonus to the opponent if they are able to reduce an alliances funds/resources to a point where they cant afford the improvement and it/they get destroyed.
For example: Project #1 initial cost + 2% nation taxes daily + Set amount of Alliance funds daily
#2 Initial cost + 5% nation taxes daily + Set amount of Alliance funds daily
#3 Initial cost + 10% nation taxes daily + Set amount of Alliance funds daily
So if you had all 3 projects you would need to pay initial cost plus 17% taxes for every nation in alliance & the set amount of alliance funds daily. This is just an example and #'s aren't balanced but would allow even smaller alliances to use these as all they would need to worry about is initial costs and of course getting your members to accept the extra tax rates needed to keep the projects and alliance going.
No one would build them if that was the case. The cost wouldn’t be worth the benefit. Not to mention with the death of IQ most alliances in this game don’t have high communist tax policy’s. Which is good as over control like that makes the game less fun I think. This is another reason why I suggested these projects be built in nations and not some alliance interface. Having more endgame possibility’s for nations is good in my opinion
-
14 minutes ago, Sir Scarfalot said:
Alliance-scale projects are a good idea, really they are.
It'd be important to limit their impact however; something like one of these per 100 players in an alliance for their benefits to be active. So you'd need two development projects after the 100th player in that alliance.
It's not even like that'd be particularly problematic, considering how much economy 100 players really represents.
Ya I can possible see it being scaled that way. Also one of the reasons i suggested these projects be built in nations rather in some kind of alliance interface is because that way new alliances can get the same bonus's as older alliances as long as they recruit the right players. At the same time is gives more for old players to do while they are also helping newer players though these projects.
-
1
-
-
15 minutes ago, Dryad said:
You mean multiple of the same project wouldn't stack I assume? Or could there only be one alliance bonus in total?
I mean multiple of the same type wouldn't stack. So if an alliance had 2 of a certain project they still get the same bonus as if they had 1 project. However the nation that has the second project would still get the additional nation bonus however so its still useful to have.
-
Currently alot of the nations in the game are reaching a point where there’s not much more they can do with projects. As such I would like to suggest adding “super” projects to the game. These projects are very expensive projects costing in the billions. They are unique in that they provide two different bonuses. They provide a unique bonus to the nation that builds them and they also provide a small bonus to the alliance that the nation is apart of. As these projects are very expensive it would require a nation saving for a long time to build them or an alliance working together to get them built.
Nations that build them would get both the alliance and host nation bonus applied to their nation. Additionally, the alliance effect would not stack if an alliance had multiple projects. They would be built and count as a project slots like any other project.
Here are some examples I thought off. I am not specially suggesting these as I didn’t put much thought into the numbers, they are just examples of how this could work.
Development Bank
Cost
500 Mil
3 mil FoodHost Nation Effect
- 5 % new city Cost
Alliance Effect
Nations under 20 city's get - 7.5% new city cost
International Space Station
Cost
750 mil
100000 Aluminium
100000 Steel
50000 Uranium
Host Nation Effect
-5% Project Cost
Alliance Effect
-5% Project CostModern Stock Exchange
Cost
1.5 billion
50000 Aluminum
50000 SteelHost Nation Effect
+3% Commerce
+3% Max CommerceAlliance Effect
+2% Commerce
+2% Max Commerce-
1
-
4
-
1
-
-
I’d rather project and city timers be separate then the timer decreased. The base 0roject cost are fine as they are. I don’t think changing the infra per project is a good idea right now. Ideally nations should be forced to choose how to specialize their nation through projects . Right now it’s fairly easy for the top nations to get every project. Ideally this shouldn’t be the case. In the future if dozens of more projects get added then maybe.
as for the project idea itself. The project name doesn’t really match the bonuses. Also I don’t think we should have a slowly increasing bonus like that. The more things that need to happen on a turn then the longer the turn time will take. As for the raw prod bonus I am against it. If we add projects that boost raw prod then it will harm new players as right now raw prod is the only thing new players can compete with old players. Likewise for the pollution reduction that seems abit much especially because we have a different project that reduces pollution.
for a project named institution of technogy I would recommend a different buff. For example you can make it reduce project cost by 5% and then keep the nuclear bonus.
-
1
-
-
On 8/16/2020 at 8:09 PM, Sri Lanka 001 said:
I don't think we want new projects...
Maybe fix how the game looks???
No we do want new projects. Ideally we should have so many projects that no one can get them all and it allows us to specialzie our nation abit by what projects we choose
-
1
-
-
I looked at 10+ nations over 6 months old and they all had the same issue. Though it looks like it is fixed now with what you did on the 15th so thanks.
-
1
-
-
I like most of the things here. Though I really do think spy recruitment should be buffed rather then more complicated work arounds. 3 week from 0 to 60 spy’s is just too long of a rebuild time.
-
If you look at the nation score graphs for older nations(anyone over 6 months) it seems that their nation score graphs have stopped adding new points. The last new data point for every nation i have looked at thats over 6 months old have their last nation score recorded at the end of may then a solid line with no new data points between that and their current score. Thats 2 1/2 months of no new data points at all.
-
I can see and agree with some of the arguments for leaving the timer in place. However I still think it would be best to separate city’s and projects onto separate timers
-
2
-
-
If nations go into vmode during a war then they can't rebuild or fight back. That will cause them to be in a worse situation where they leave vmode and not to mention they aren't helping their alliance. Also the people who would do this would be war Dodgers and would probably find other ways to avoid the war anyway. Not to mention changeling from 14 to 10 won't really affect that while letting vmode serve its purpose. So I see no reason not to change it.
-
1
-
-
45 minutes ago, Gojira75 said:
I've been a professional developer\database administrator since 1998. I know a thing or two about coding and maintenance. Code that has worked for years can begin to fail when the situations such as load size or customer demands change.
My point here is that the way Nuclear Power Plants are being implemented as the be-all-end-all, completely safe power plant is in itself a flaw. It ISN'T working now, and, IMHO, this code should be optimized.I really don't see the comparison. Nuclear plants in the game are fine as they are. Lorewise you must remember the game is in the 2050's so I assume the nuclear plants we are using are 4th or 5th generation plants not a 1st or second built in the 70s. In other words they are designed to be physically impossible to meltdown. That being said they could still turn into a dirty bomb if attacked militarily. But I would rather not have such an annoying mechanic in the game.
-
1
-
-
3 minutes ago, Sir Scarfalot said:
Guys... two weeks is already 14 days. That's really quite close to 10 as it is, let alone eleven, so where's the benefit that we'd get that compensates for moving the VM limitation closer to a cheeseable level?
Most people when they take vacations usually take 7-10 days. Too not be allowed back into the game for a week once that is over is just silly. As long as nations don't get income/ can't build military/ can't really do anything in VM then there really isn't any reason to not allow them back into the game. 10 days is just the perfect number as things considered.
-
1
-
-
Honestly it should be 1 week. Most vacations people take tend to be 1 week.
Treasure Trading
in Game Suggestions
Posted
We should just make them so you cant trade them while at war. Problem solved and you get the best of both mechanics