Jump to content
Alex

2/22/2016 - Military Caps & Donation Changes

Recommended Posts

Guess this time infra bombing actually works. Time to make people rage quit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a 2 city nation running 1000 infra in these cities and 1500 land, I'm a bit pissed with this. According to your mediocre update I can't cap my soldiers and I will get less tanks than I was already getting which is annoying because I could not reach my 2500 cap and was stopped at 1788 which will be less now I'm sure. Nations like mine or pb intend to stay small and you basically screw us over with this update. Not impressed and I am strongly considering packing up and leaving this game. 

Edited by Al Capone
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a 2 city nation running 1000 infra in these cities and 1500 land, I'm a bit pissed with this. According to your mediocre update I can't cap my soldiers and I will get less tanks than I was already getting which is annoying because I could not reach my 2500 cap and was stopped at 1788 which will be less now I'm sure. Nations like mine or pb intend to stay small and you basically screw us over with this update. Not impressed and I am strongly considering packing up and leaving this game. 

 

And there's every chance a nation with higher infra will be along to destroy you before too long.  Great change for new players eh?!

 

Players can now even declare war and then buy up infra, increasing their caps.

 

Don't worry though, you can always fight back.  Oh, you can't actually because you'll be able to build even less army and will probably have negative income.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The "minor" change Sheepy made did even more than he told us. The cap that comes on soldiers and so does work also for your rebuild rate.

My rebuild rate for soldiers went from 62k per day to 33k per day (my max soldiers only went down by 25%, my max planes only by 33%). I am sure many players will like it.

I always play a game for interesting things. I do not mind being smashed by good tactics of my opponents (cheers for Mensa and co), but I do mind being crippled by changes.

I play a game for interesting and difficult choices I have to make. That gives me fun. These minor change will bring more boredom. I know I can adept, the problem is why should I?

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And there's every chance a nation with higher infra will be along to destroy you before too long.  Great change for new players eh?!

 

Players can now even declare war and then buy up infra, increasing their caps.

 

Don't worry though, you can always fight back.  Oh, you can't actually because you'll be able to build even less army and will probably have negative income.

It's going to cause a large portion of active members to leave.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The "minor" change Sheepy made did even more than he told us. The cap that comes on soldiers and so does work also for your rebuild rate.

My rebuild rate for soldiers went from 62k per day to 33k per day (my max soldiers only went down by 25%, my max planes only by 33%). I am sure many players will like it.

I always play a game for interesting things. I do not mind being smashed by good tactics of my opponents (cheers for Mensa and co), but I do mind being crippled by changes.

I play a game for interesting and difficult choices I have to make. That gives me fun. These minor change will bring more boredom. I know I can adept, the problem is why should I?

 

Your rebuild rate is also reduced? If so hasn't that just rendered the Propaganda Bureau completely useless pretty much? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think there should be caps on aircraft like soldiers and tanks, but I'm not sure about these figures if I'm being honest.

 

I hate the change to credits. I thought we'd warned you against making RL cash more influential, but I guess you need to plan this years vacation or something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First off, I want to say how incredibly disappointed I am in this change. It was brought to heart by people who truly did not understand the framework of the game and how the entire thing operated. I know Hooves and Hao Hulyu where huge backers for a point score change after being raided. I would also like to specify how a lot of them had similar infra levels to the nations raiding them, which under these new terms "makes sense" in reality, Infra on orbis is incredibly fleeting. This will actually hurt nations like this more then others. I normally buy credits for ads and my VIP but will not be doing so this month. 

 

Mensa managed to knock me down to 400 infra per city in the first round, You're telling me that I cant turn around and fight back round 2? With proposed changes you will be forcing nations to sit down and lose, driving a HUGE amount of your player base away, far worse then any other outcome and forcing the community to adapt to problems on there own. 

 

One nuke on a 2k infra city will knock that city out of play, If you have 12 cities @ 1.5K infra your losses will be lower then 8 cities at 2k infra. Allowing your caps to stay higher longer. This will still continue to favor the low infra:city people. 

 

A lot of the problems people are complaining about are build related. Most folks go with a hyper economic build to allow for "profit" many of us have built our nations differently FOR MONTHS to have a slight advantage during war. 

 

 

Just because it's often done doesn't mean it should continue to be done. There are plenty of MMOs that are not pay-to-win.

 

This is true with this update, and the fact you whined because someone attacked you. Mind you it wasnt like you had max military in the first place, so just complain because someone with a few more cities hit you?

 

I think there should be caps on aircraft like soldiers and tanks, but I'm not sure about these figures if I'm being honest.

 

I hate the change to credits. I thought we'd warned you against making RL cash more influential, but I guess you need to plan this years vacation or something.

 

This is Pfeiffer and I agreeing on something. 

 

It's going to cause a large portion of active members to leave.

 

This. You will effectively drive away a large portion of membership. Especially those who cant handle a beat down. 

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------

 

Also under the linear growth model scaling infra vs cities, nations should not surpass 1.8k infra until city 11. Which is further making this invalid >.> Most nations on Orbis have hyper inflated infra levels.

Edited by Jacob Hanson
  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is true with this update, and the fact you whined because someone attacked you. Mind you it wasnt like you had max military in the first place, so just complain because someone with a few more cities hit you?

What are you on about? I backed the point score because people said how awful it would be without trying it. I haven't played for long enough to even know the difference between the two. Yes, I got raided. Here's how it went:

 

RXLKsvO.png

 

Don't try and paint me like the crying baby you seem to be, considering you're lashing out at random people now :rolleyes:

Edited by Hao Huiyu
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What are you on about? I backed the point score because people said how awful it would be without trying it. I haven't played for long enough to even know the difference between the two. Yes, I got raided. Here's how it went:

 

RXLKsvO.png

 

Don't try and paint me like the crying baby you seem to be, considering you're lashing out at random people now :rolleyes:

 

 

I'm not, I know that you guys where very mad about being raided by arrgh. I have logs of Hooves telling me how it only started after you both where raided. Mind you you got hit by most of us while we where almost back to our full builds, builds a lot of nations on orbis use. 

 

Im saying that your lack lust war stats demonstrate you havnt fought enough fights to try and be dictating how the games war mechanics work. 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not, I know that you guys where very mad about being raided by arrgh. I have logs of Hooves telling me how it only started after you both where raided. Mind you you got hit by most of us while we where almost back to our full builds, builds a lot of nations on orbis use. 

 

Im saying that your lack lust war stats demonstrate you havnt fought enough fights to try and be dictating how the games war mechanics work.

?????? What started? I'm not related to Hooves??? I haven't dictated how war mechanics should work??? None of you have ever hit me before??? Neither has Arrgh?? Is all your alliance as thick as you???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

?????? What started? I'm not related to Hooves??? I haven't dictated how war mechanics should work??? None of you have ever hit me before??? Neither has Arrgh?? Is all your alliance as thick as you???

 

LoL I will totally be remembering this,

 

Arrghs biggest mistake of 2016, protecting Pacifica. 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No prob; Hiding the fact that you're wrong with vague threats is very intimidating.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The change to recruitment rates is somewhat understandable, however the real effects this will have is ruin alliance wars, after round 1 it is viable that alot of nations who were below 1500 infra are now below the caps to recruit all their military. This counts them out for the war until they can build up. They are being pushed into lower tiers where usually round 1 there are less overall damage etc, so a nation that gets beaten down round 1 cant even defend against small nations the following round. A declaration range that involved city counts would have been a better solution that wouldn't have had such negative impact on the war system.

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 A declaration range that involved city counts would have been a better solution that wouldn't have had such negative impact on the war system.

it would have been even worse

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it would have been even worse

imo it would have solved the issue of high city nations with very low infra and high cities destroying nations with many fewer cities, but wouldn't have ruined the war system for everyone. Better yet would be to not edit the system tbh, it works and all changes will have bad effects, its just a case of which change would cause the least problems

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

?????? What started? I'm not related to Hooves???

He got the wrong person don't worry about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The change to recruitment rates is somewhat understandable, however the real effects this will have is ruin alliance wars, after round 1 it is viable that alot of nations who were below 1500 infra are now below the caps to recruit all their military. This counts them out for the war until they can build up. They are being pushed into lower tiers where usually round 1 there are less overall damage etc, so a nation that gets beaten down round 1 cant even defend against small nations the following round. A declaration range that involved city counts would have been a better solution that wouldn't have had such negative impact on the war system.

A beaten down nation not being able to defeat much smaller nations when knocked down into their range is actually the whole point of this update, since we did too well when that happened to us <_<

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

my nation is 54 days old, i have 5 cities all between 900 and 1k infra, and i'm hitting the cap just by having all 5 barracks

 

i could see if you had a cap so we can't have 500 airplanes and 4,000 tanks, but i really don't think 75k soldiers is too much

 

on my way up here, i already hit the previous cap numerous times, which i also didn't think was fair - i gave up resources and commerce to max out my barracks down there, my hungry army was the only thing i was good for

 

back when this game first started, not everybody started up and immediately had 2k infra in each city and sat around waiting on their city timer. the OP is exactly why: because you keep letting people buy tons of money every month and pour it right back into infra.

 

honestly, experiments like the baseball thing can be written off as amusing, but you're messing with the game in a lot of ways that are hurting it without actually providing a lot of the interesting and GOOD, USEFUL, PLAYER-WANTED suggestions that i've seen thrown around since beta. wtf are you doing man?

Edited by Hierophant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sheepy, the credit change was not a good idea at all. Now, if someone has a lot of money, and they're bad at the game, they can pretty much win a war that they're already losing. I get that you want money, but this is f**king pay-to-win.

 

I disagree, it's a small change that honestly won't do much other than increase the amount of flags/player ads you can get. If you think people were redeeming credits for $1,000,000 before to get $8,000,000 per month, you're wrong - people sell them on the market for even more than $2,000,000 a piece. Seriously go look at the market right now. Patient people will still be getting more than $40,000,000 per month, and honestly, that's not very much money. The top nations in the game are making almost $20,000,000 per day.

 

You just made running ads more expensive. We should get at least 12 days outta them now. >_>

 

I also increased the supply of credits too, so that ought to help a bit.

 

This update is pointless and stupid. Very unnecessary.

 

And also credits for resources now? I thought you were trying to not make this be a pay to win game? This is unacceptable.

 

Credits for a very limited number of resources - it may help alleviate some shortage concerns, or maybe nobody will use it. I'm inclined toward the latter.

 

I normally don't care about the update, except for that of when the spy cap was introduce (my spy program whyyyyy)

 

But this update wasn't the best, the 8mil possible difference in a month wasn't extravagant and it wasn't really a problem high tier, but now you've changed that to 20mil possible difference. I get the game growth may neutralize some of that but now anyone that wants to get to 1k strength in just a few minutes just has to donate. 

 

Also the 500 resource was a lazy adjustment.

 

Come on Sheepy, you could've done better.

 

dieraiderscum

 

The $8 million difference was more like at least $16,000,000, because credits sell for a hell of a lot more than the $1,000,000 you can redeem them for. And they're still very much capped.

500 resources for a credit is just another way to try and make them useful, because people are increasingly buying and using them less and less.

 

The military change is just a band-aid... Things won`t be as bad as they are currently but they are still a ways off

 

Yes there has been a hyper demand for manufactured resources in the game. This change seems a bit extreme. 1 city, can only make 270 steel in a month. one credit is 2 months of production.( I can`t keep up with a nation buying 20 cities worth of steel every month.)  Gas this is even worse...

 

This is a really direct nerf to the already pretty damn bad resource projects.  

 

You're right that this is a band-aid, but I have further adjustments in mind to make. As for resources, I again don't think that option will get used much, but having it available will help some of the shortage concerns.

 

Where's that pay 2 win? 500 whatever for 5$ ? We burn 50$ with 1 Airstrike.

 

You're absolutely right, the top nations in the game are producing as much as you can donate for in 2 days. This is still incredibly limited, and not much of an increase from before.

 

Just because it's often done doesn't mean it should continue to be done. There are plenty of MMOs that are not pay-to-win.

 

Politics & War is not pay to win, it's very limited. Seriously, the benefits you can get from a donation top nations get in 2 days of doing nothing.

 

 

 

 

Here are the limits:

Soldiers | 15.00% of Population
Tanks    |  1.50% of Population
Aircraft |  0.10% of Population
Ships    |  0.01% of Population

Again, the reasoning for this is that it values population (really, Infrastructure)

 

 

***Is the limit population or infrastructure?    If population things like police, recycling, hospitals, pollution from nukes, time in game matter .... if infrastructure it doesn't

 

 

Yes, it's a limit on population.

 

Your rebuild rate is also reduced? If so hasn't that just rendered the Propaganda Bureau completely useless pretty much? 

 

Yes, the rebuild rate is reduced (if your cap is reduced) however, the Propaganda Bureau is not affected by this (still gives a 10% increase to whatever your daily build rate is.)

 

I think there should be caps on aircraft like soldiers and tanks, but I'm not sure about these figures if I'm being honest.

 

I hate the change to credits. I thought we'd warned you against making RL cash more influential, but I guess you need to plan this years vacation or something.

 

Numbers could always be tweaked a bit later, but this is a good step forward. As for the Credits, I don't know why you think this is a big change - people were selling 8 credits/mo at over $2,000,000 each already. Another $4,000,000 or so isn't going to break the game, big nations produce almost $20,000,000 per day doing nothing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

my nation is 54 days old, i have 5 cities all between 900 and 1k infra, and i'm hitting the cap just by having all 5 barracks

 

i could see if you had a cap so we can't have 500 airplanes and 4,000 tanks, but i really don't think 75k soldiers is too much

 

on my way up here, i already hit the previous cap numerous times, which i also didn't think was fair - i gave up resources and commerce to max out my barracks down there, my hungry army was the only thing i was good for

 

back when this game first started, not everybody started up and immediately had 2k infra in each city and sat around waiting on their city timer. the OP is exactly why: because you keep letting people buy tons of money every month and pour it right back into infra.

 

honestly, experiments like the baseball thing can be written off as amusing, but you're messing with the game in a lot of ways that are hurting it without actually providing a lot of the interesting and GOOD, USEFUL, PLAYER-WANTED suggestions that i've seen thrown around since beta. wtf are you doing man?

 

I understand that at an individual level this is concerning, but these rules apply to everyone. In that sense, it's all relative, and the nations you might be fighting against are going to impacted in the same way.

 

The important thing to note here is that score, and thus war ranges, is like 50% determined by infrastructure. Previously infrastructure had no real bearing on your military capabilities. Now, it has some impact (honestly not much) and it affects everyone. This is going to make it so that your war ranges actually reflect people that are more on par with you in terms of military capacity.

 

Seriously, give it a little while and see how it works. If it's this train wreck disaster that everyone thinks it's going to be, I'll revisit the change. But I suspect that other than wars being a little different in the sense that less units are built and used, the comparative impact will be small.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand that at an individual level this is concerning, but these rules apply to everyone. In that sense, it's all relative, and the nations you might be fighting against are going to impacted in the same way.

 

The important thing to note here is that score, and thus war ranges, is like 50% determined by infrastructure. Previously infrastructure had no real bearing on your military capabilities. Now, it has some impact (honestly not much) and it affects everyone. This is going to make it so that your war ranges actually reflect people that are more on par with you in terms of military capacity.

 

Seriously, give it a little while and see how it works. If it's this train wreck disaster that everyone thinks it's going to be, I'll revisit the change. But I suspect that other than wars being a little different in the sense that less units are built and used, the comparative impact will be small.

the main appeal of soldiers is that they're a lot cheaper to use and maintain. say you have someone at 700 infra in each city who wants a pure military build and you now have 12 extra improvement slots from useless barracks. you have 10 cities and a ton of money, you're going to go throw that into extra tanks and airplanes to augment your weaker ground forces and protect the tanks from the air. but that costs money. if you don't have that money, you're much more likely to invest in commerce for the money, or maybe civil improvements to boost up your population and give you more barracks back.

 

what you've done is taken the military build and stratified it moreso based on nation age and income than it was before. before, things were limited by improvement slots so you still didn't see too many people with ridiculous amounts of tanks and aircraft, but now you've opened up all of those slots and there are a limited number of uses for them. unless people just all default to the same max commerce/civil + military build, really all that's going to happen is an adaptation that exacerbates the problem you're trying to fix by making stronger military builds less available to more players in the lower tier.

 

how much or how little you choose to focus on military is supposed to be part of the fun. too much and you bankrupt yourself, too little and you end up getting robbed. that you have to give up one thing to get another is what makes it interesting, and that everybody plays it a bit different means that not everybody is doing the best thing against everybody. the more you try to pigeonhole us, the more your game becomes predictable regardless of who is playing which nation.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the main appeal of soldiers is that they're a lot cheaper to use and maintain. say you have someone at 700 infra in each city who wants a pure military build and you now have 12 extra improvement slots from useless barracks. you have 10 cities and a ton of money, you're going to go throw that into extra tanks and airplanes to augment your weaker ground forces and protect the tanks from the air. but that costs money. if you don't have that money, you're much more likely to invest in commerce for the money, or maybe civil improvements to boost up your population and give you more barracks back.

 

what you've done is taken the military build and stratified it moreso based on nation age and income than it was before. before, things were limited by improvement slots so you still didn't see too many people with ridiculous amounts of tanks and aircraft, but now you've opened up all of those slots and there are a limited number of uses for them. unless people just all default to the same max commerce/civil + military build, really all that's going to happen is an adaptation that exacerbates the problem you're trying to fix by making stronger military builds less available to more players in the lower tier.

 

how much or how little you choose to focus on military is supposed to be part of the fun. too much and you bankrupt yourself, too little and you end up getting robbed. that you have to give up one thing to get another is what makes it interesting, and that everybody plays it a bit different means that not everybody is doing the best thing against everybody. the more you try to pigeonhole us, the more your game becomes predictable regardless of who is playing which nation.

 

And the intent is not to take away from the strategy at all, the spirit behind this change is to give smaller nations an advantage against the much larger nations picking on them. I've received more complaints that I can count from players who have threatened to quit or have quit because someone with 7 more cities than them is attacking them and they can't do anything to stop them. A number of solutions were looked at, from changing the war range to a city based system, to completely changing the score formula. This is the smallest change that could be made to give those small nations a little bit of an advantage, and it doesn't even stop someone with 7 more cities from declaring war on them - it just gives them more of a chance to fight back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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