Placentica Posted February 26, 2016 Share Posted February 26, 2016 My suggestion: Don't allow any nation to run negative net income. If they run a negative net income for that turn - they cannot perform any attacks until their income is positive. This is an easy fix that would prevent situations where a 1350 score nation with 1260 planes and low infra/huge negative net income can fight wars. WoT that is only somewhat related: The truth is, as much fun as low tier raiding is - it's going to run a lot of players out of the game. "Just build up your military" isn't the solution obviously. How can you grow out of the lower tier if you have no income due to a huge military all the time? How can you grow with a normal level of military - but then get raided and lose all your cash and infra to raids? This rinse and repeat process, unless they are in a huge alliance who can just boost you through those levels - investing $200m+ into your nation - will lead to players leaving. Unable to break out of this tier - why bother playing? If you can't see progress, there is no point. It's like playing a level in a game you can't beat because it's too hard, so you just quit. Contrast this with bigger alliance wars - in between wars you have time to regrow, buy another city or two - and keep your progression. Alliance wars are great for the game from that standpoint. As long as you can keep buying cities, you feel you are progressing, even if you lose some wars, lose a lot of infra. But if you are never allowed to even buy that next city without a huge loan - why bother playing? Quote Hello! If you don't like this post please go here: https://politicsandwar.com/forums/index.php?app=core&module=usercp&tab=core&area=ignoredusers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fox Fire Posted February 26, 2016 Share Posted February 26, 2016 My suggestion: Don't allow any nation to run negative net income. If they run a negative net income for that turn - they cannot perform any attacks until their income is positive. This is an easy fix that would prevent situations where a 1350 score nation with 1260 planes and low infra/huge negative net income can fight wars. I've literally never ran a negative income. I'm not sure how people manage that. "Just build up your military" isn't the solution obviously. How can you grow out of the lower tier if you have no income due to a huge military all the time? How can you grow with a normal level of military - but then get raided and lose all your cash and infra to raids? This rinse and repeat process, unless they are in a huge alliance who can just boost you through those levels - investing $200m+ into your nation - will lead to players leaving. Unable to break out of this tier - why bother playing? If you can't see progress, there is no point. It's like playing a level in a game you can't beat because it's too hard, so you just quit. This is a good point however. I completely agree with this. It's quite difficult to really break out of the lower tiers without either massive financial aid or no threat of being raided. Conclusion: I have no idea. I have no idea if this is a good idea or not. It seems like it could potentially be harmful to newer nations wanting to break out of the bottom tier. I have no idea what effect it might have on the top tier or how it would play out with the recent military changes. Quote _________________________________________________________________ <Jroc> I heard \ is an anagram of cocaine<\> I can't be rearranged into a line, I already am a line. --Foxburo Wiki-- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Phiney Posted February 26, 2016 Popular Post Share Posted February 26, 2016 Enough with the hard caps. It's not difficult to run a negative income. I wouldn't be apposed to harsher penalties for negative income though but straight out stopping attacks is stupid and over the top. 10 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wayne Posted February 26, 2016 Share Posted February 26, 2016 I'd say the dog shit game would be more to blame for the shitty player retention then a handful of raiders preying on those mostly inactive anyway... This seems to be a problem people have invented. Can't Sheepy just buff the plane scores? Quote ☾☆ Warrior of Dio Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stormrideron Posted February 26, 2016 Share Posted February 26, 2016 (edited) OP is a pixel hugger, confirmed. No wonder why Alpha was dropped on the head when they were a baby. Edited February 26, 2016 by Stormrideron Quote Commander-in-Chief of Svalbard Island Badassery Rating: 100% / Popularity Rating: 100% Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrators Alex Posted February 26, 2016 Administrators Share Posted February 26, 2016 My suggestion: Don't allow any nation to run negative net income. If they run a negative net income for that turn - they cannot perform any attacks until their income is positive. This is an easy fix that would prevent situations where a 1350 score nation with 1260 planes and low infra/huge negative net income can fight wars. WoT that is only somewhat related: The truth is, as much fun as low tier raiding is - it's going to run a lot of players out of the game. "Just build up your military" isn't the solution obviously. How can you grow out of the lower tier if you have no income due to a huge military all the time? How can you grow with a normal level of military - but then get raided and lose all your cash and infra to raids? This rinse and repeat process, unless they are in a huge alliance who can just boost you through those levels - investing $200m+ into your nation - will lead to players leaving. Unable to break out of this tier - why bother playing? If you can't see progress, there is no point. It's like playing a level in a game you can't beat because it's too hard, so you just quit. Contrast this with bigger alliance wars - in between wars you have time to regrow, buy another city or two - and keep your progression. Alliance wars are great for the game from that standpoint. As long as you can keep buying cities, you feel you are progressing, even if you lose some wars, lose a lot of infra. But if you are never allowed to even buy that next city without a huge loan - why bother playing? Something similar exists - if you run out of money and can't pay your negative income, you trigger a "debt" switch that doesn't let you buy military or do attacks, among other things. I don't think that running a negative income should be penalized if you have the money to pay for that negative income. OP is a pixel hugger, confirmed. No wonder why Alpha was dropped on the head when they were a baby. Keep this out of the suggestion forum. This is not a place to discuss alliance politics. Quote Is there a bug? Report It | Not understanding game mechanics? Ask About It | Got a good idea? Suggest ItForums Rules | Game Link Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prefontaine Posted February 26, 2016 Share Posted February 26, 2016 (edited) OP is a pixel hugger, confirmed. No wonder why Alpha was dropped on the head when they were a baby. Coming from GPA? But to be on topic. It's definitely over the top. Edited February 26, 2016 by Prefontaine Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Placentica Posted February 26, 2016 Author Share Posted February 26, 2016 Maybe it's a bit extreme, but I also think it would curb the extremes of 14 cities/1260 planes at 1350 score. Something similar exists - if you run out of money and can't pay your negative income, you trigger a "debt" switch that doesn't let you buy military or do attacks, among other things. I don't think that running a negative income should be penalized if you have the money to pay for that negative income. Keep this out of the suggestion forum. This is not a place to discuss alliance politics. And I think that's good, but you won't run out of money if you keep raiding, stealing money or are funded by your bank. It would make wars more strategic as well. We had a guy in Alpha that ran into that problem last war from being nuked a bunch of times and I thought it would be actually pretty good tactically to try to achieve - on the losing or winning side really. Of course we just sent him some cash and then that problem was gone - but if he had to get out of negative net income per turn - say by having to buy infra, decomm military - it would make nukes a bit more tactical or missiles targetting econ improvements, etc. Just a thought, too many players are just ragequtting over this issue and I've gotten so many messages about how stupid it is for some of these guys to have that kind of military at that score level. Combined with not being able to have even our low infra guys hit them b/c they are just out of range despite much smaller militaries, ummm. Cities being 100 score each would prob. fix the issue too since cities are so much more strategic than infra. Quote Hello! If you don't like this post please go here: https://politicsandwar.com/forums/index.php?app=core&module=usercp&tab=core&area=ignoredusers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordRahl2 Posted February 26, 2016 Share Posted February 26, 2016 Define "exploit" for me OP. Quote -signature removed for rules violation- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.