Best fix ever for low level raiders

[Kastor]

Low level raiders are becoming more and more of a problem these days. We must do something to protect our younger players. I have the perfect solution:

 

 

LET THE PLAYERS ADAPT TO THE NEW GAMEPLAY STYLE. STOP TRYING TO APPEASE A FEW PEOPLE ALL THE DAMN TIME.

 

idk about you guys but I think this will work. Thoughts?

[Stormrideron]

#RevertChanges #GameWorkingFineBeforeChange #eRepSucks #Crybabies #Whiners #PixelHuggers

[Alex]

Yeah! Because who cares if people get frustrated and quit, Politics and War will be fun when there's 50 people left playing! It's not like the game is more fun with more players and alliances, right?

[Stormrideron]

Yeah! Because who cares if people get frustrated and quit, Politics and War will be fun when there's 50 people left playing! It's not like the game is more fun with more players and alliances, right?

There are a reason why alliances exists. To protect players from threats.

[Kim Jong-Il]

Yeah! Because who cares if people get frustrated and quit, Politics and War will be fun when there's 50 people left playing! It's not like the game is more fun with more players and alliances, right?

 

#bestroast2016

[Bezzers]

Yeah! Because who cares if people get frustrated and quit, Politics and War will be fun when there's 50 people left playing! It's not like the game is more fun with more players and alliances, right?

Savage xD

[Kastor]

Yeah! Because who cares if people get frustrated and quit, Politics and War will be fun when there's 50 people left playing! It's not like the game is more fun with more players and alliances, right?

Prove to me that players are getting "frustrated" and "quitting." You're taking a narrative that isn't true. Just because people say something doesn't mean it's true at all. I think we have the most nations we've ever had right now, and its been on the increase for awhile. So please, show me that it's hurting the game. If anything its making your game more active because the players they hit are inactives who come back after they see their nation getting beat down.

[Licorice]

You try came up with something else that prevent low level newbies from being gang-banged by three 140000 soldiers, 8000 tanks, 600 aircrafts, 500 score Arrgh guys repeatedly for the entire month then : P

[Dan77]

Yeah! Because who cares if people get frustrated and quit, Politics and War will be fun when there's 50 people left playing! It's not like the game is more fun with more players and alliances, right?

 

Well oddly, not you by the looks of it.  People are quitting because of the changes.

 

It's also easier to hurt new players post changes.  You've only made it worse.

[seabasstion]

Prove to me that players are getting "frustrated" and "quitting." You're taking a narrative that isn't true. Just because people say something doesn't mean it's true at all. I think we have the most nations we've ever had right now, and its been on the increase for awhile. So please, show me that it's hurting the game. If anything its making your game more active because the players they hit are inactives who come back after they see their nation getting beat down.

 

im not arguing one way or another about the issue of raiding will be the collapse of PnW but here are some figures

 

01/26/2016: 1695 nations were 10080 minutes inactive (7 full days) out of 4054 (41.8% of the game) with an average age of 54.96 days

02/26/2016: 1823 nations were 10080 minutes inactive (7 full days) out of 4326 (42.1% of the game) with an average age of 55.85 days

 

so even though there was 30 days increase between these timepoints the avg age only increased by less then a day with a slight increase in inactive rate.

 

if we look at it from a different angle, here are the number of nations <30 days old that are either active in 7 days or inactive in 7 days

 

01/26/2016: 1339 total ; 724 inactive (54.0%)

02/26/2016: 1552 total ; 815 inactive (52.5%)

 

its only 2 datapoints so the conclusion isn't that strong, but we actually saw a decrease in sub 30 day member inactivity rates but saw an increase in the overall game inactivity rate. it's hard to say if that is a blip or if there is a trend in there, but in the last month there was an observed increase 30+ day old members going inactive. i suppose people getting beat down in wars and rage quitting may be a likely source but unfortunately i dont have data dating back any longer :/

 

if there is a cause of raiders making players quit i can't say, but these inactivity rates were a little higher then i expected.

[Alex]

There are a reason why alliances exists. To protect players from threats.

 

Oh, yes, I forgot that once you join an alliance you can't be attacked anymore. I guess I forgot about the change to the game where that was implemented.

 

Prove to me that players are getting "frustrated" and "quitting." You're taking a narrative that isn't true. Just because people say something doesn't mean it's true at all. I think we have the most nations we've ever had right now, and its been on the increase for awhile. So please, show me that it's hurting the game. If anything its making your game more active because the players they hit are inactives who come back after they see their nation getting beat down.

 

You're so smart Kastor, I'm sure whenever someone is upset about something they message you about it, don't they? Why would they ever message me, the administrator and game creator? That would just be illogical. I probably don't ever get messages from anyone, ever, right? You're just so, so smart, you know everything about this game, it's a wonder how anything ever gets done without your consent or guidance. I mean, you did create the game after all, you know the coding inside and out, you deal with all the players on a daily basis, and you have over 6,000 posts on these forums! I can't believe anyone could think you don't know more than most about the game.

[Jacob Hanson]

Sheepy. I understand the frustration you are going through. You have attempted to balanace the game with this change, and I see your logic, I really do. This was ment to balance out the amount of units a nation can have in its point range. 

 

With these changes though, Nations have to way to get back up and fight. 

 

#1 Even after basic rebuilding; Nations my size would have to rebuild out of the "cheap infra zone" which with the update was already changed from 500 to 800 due to nessecity. I would have to rack it up to at least 900 per city to achieve this, Thats a few million. Now if you are expecting nations to donate for that dosh, then you have truly made the game pay to win. 

 

#2 Small amounts of infra damage quickly push nations under the cap of other nations in there exact point range. Yesterday I noticed my Cap was actually LOWER then most nationsi n my range at the same size, thus hurting my nation. Especially with how powerful airforce is here, capping it was a death sentence to anyone trying o get back up o fight.

 

#3 Arrgh and Mensa dont agree on a lot of things, but I would like to believe both alliances are good with numbers and strategy. If we are warning you how this can be abused, 

 

Yeah! Because who cares if people get frustrated and quit, Politics and War will be fun when there's 50 people left playing! It's not like the game is more fun with more players and alliances, right?

 

Yeah some of my best friends quit because of your update, and the fact that you arnt giving the losing nations in a war a standing chance.

 

I would also like to say that niemand was a top player on the test server for months, and contributed quite a bit. Had you asked for our help and input on the subject, we probably could have helped better balance the situation. 

 

Also there was no to little communication going on about this update, and most where blindsided by it.

 

Niemand also single handled made baseball a thing >.> He'll be a huge loss to our community and the Orbis Community. 

 

Oh, yes, I forgot that once you join an alliance you can't be attacked anymore. I guess I forgot about the change to the game where that was implemented.

 

 

You're so smart Kastor, I'm sure whenever someone is upset about something they message you about it, don't they? Why would they ever message me, the administrator and game creator? That would just be illogical. I probably don't ever get messages from anyone, ever, right? You're just so, so smart, you know everything about this game, it's a wonder how anything ever gets done without your consent or guidance. I mean, you did create the game after all, you know the coding inside and out, you deal with all the players on a daily basis, and you have over 6,000 posts on these forums! I can't believe anyone could think you don't know more than most about the game.

 

The whole part of an alliance is defense, what makes an alliance soviergn is them being able to defend there soil. If people are messaging you angry about raiders etc, you need to look at there nations and the levels they started with. 

 

I havnt raided a single person who had a max airforce through all of this. I think that says a lot. 

 

I really wish you had come to a few of the most active players in the game for input. 

[Moreau]

Arrgh?

 

 

Arrgh!!

>angryshitpost.exe

Vac ban incomming?

[Beowulf the Second]

Well, this stopped being constructive somewhere around Post 1

[Clarke]

I can't help but feel people are making a big deal about nothing.

These changes are only beneficial to newer players so that can only be a good thing.

They can be negative for older nations but generally a war is won in the first round making it a mostly useless argument. 

Edited February 26, 2016 by Clarke

[Ogaden]

I've got an idea, how about you can't declare war anymore and instead Orbis is declared a safe space. Noone will ever get upset again!

[Glorton]

Yeah! Because who cares if people get frustrated and quit, Politics and War will be fun when there's 50 people left playing! It's not like the game is more fun with more players and alliances, right?

 

and this update wont get people frustrated and quit?

[Fasolt]

Yeah! Because who cares if people get frustrated and quit, Politics and War will be fun when there's 50 people left playing! It's not like the game is more fun with more players and alliances, right?

 

What keeps people involved over the long term in any MMO is interaction. The more people have to work together as a team, the more they bond together as friends, becoming involved to a greater degree and staying around for longer.

 

The less activity, action, and need for interaction there is... the greater the chance people leave before they ever get the chance to become frustrated with anything.

 

Nothing forges bonds of teamwork and involvement more than war.

 

Look at the people playing right now. A sizeable portion, if not majority in some alliance cases, dont even have armies (which, by the way, is the real reason they become victims). They sit and wait and collect whatever day after day. No real need to work together... minimal if any need to communicate with one another. They build little if any army since that would just decrease their daily profits. They want a fast, safe way to max income and build up, but leave themselves unsafe as they do so. And then they get frustrated and complain when an attacker finally arrives to tear through their fat, weak nation. But of course its everyone elses fault but their own... and "something has to be done to stop this!"

 

And that "they" applies not only to the individual, but often enough the entire alliance.

 

Challenges are what make a game fun and entertaining... figuring out ways to face and defeat those challenges, especially within a group like an alliance, is what further drives that enjoyment in an MMO. The process through which that challenge is defeated, is what makes a group of players into an actual team... one that looks forward to new challenges and wants to continue playing together.

 

The more lazy and coddled the player base becomes... the more a game turns stale and uninteresting. Sure the forum vocal people, and those with leadership positions, may stay a steady base - but thats because they are occupied by things other than just the core game itself. The general player base comes and goes without really growing all that much, because the safe, stale routine is just that. Most never get to whatever "frustrating" mechanic / "exploit" is being worried about... most never even realize its there.

 

There are always people who will cry they want things easier for them... or dont want to lose "all that they worked for"... or want to be protected and sheltered (except for when they themselves want to attack someone, of course). But thats the whole point of the risk in a wargame. You can lose. You can get your butt kicked. You have to take chances and pay the consequences. Some people simply cant handle losing. But everyone knows how much more fun it is when you really earn your victory. And thats only shared and intensified when its as a team.

 

Every degree of risk and challenge that is taken away... every bit less of a need to work together as an active team... works to the detriment of getting people more actively involved in the game, and with one another within an alliance.

 

A sizeable portion of the player base has minimal or no military at all at the moment. What does that say of any need these people have to really be involved and work together against theats on a regular basis. What does that say of the level of risk or challenge many feel they face. These are the people who will become frustrated and quit due to being attacked? Who is really to blame if they are.

 

And if you have no military and your alliance is incapable of stopping a normal raider... how do the recent changes really equate to anything other than the same outcome - them being victims to raiders of whatever form should raiders decide to attack them... followed by cries of "this isnt fair!" and "do you know how long it will take me to rebuild now!" and "its your fault I dont want to play anymore!"... and a flood of other things mailed to us daily.. yes, we hear it all the time. The only people really impacted by the changes are the raiders and militarily active, whose build options were made more limited along with opportunity for creativity / uniqueness.

 

As for the "noobs"... Every one of these games has a high turnaround rate. Most who start, dont stay long.

 

Every game that involves war and attacking / raiding also involves noobs being punching bags... unless they are experienced enough from playing other games like this to know they need to protect themselves and get into a group before the target on their head starts flashing red. And if the group they join cant protect them, and they choose to build a weak military (if anything), then that target is going to get hit. They can only be protected so far, before a game turns into a long hand-holding tutorial.

 

These changes are not going to protect new players.

 

 

 

One more thing...

Before someone replies with something brilliant like - "the reason so many have so little military is that they are recovering from a war"

 

LoL please... My alliance was in a longer war(s) and has never stopped fighting.

 

The reason you dont have a military is your own choice to try to maximize profits and minimize costs.

But minimizing costs in one way, often comes with another more violent cost - when leaving yourself exposed results in you being attacked.

 

Taking the faster, impatient route raises your risk level during the time you are exposed.

Its nothing you "have" to do... Its a choice.

 

And it reflects a certain play style common to the player base which is the real problem here.

Edited February 27, 2016 by Fasolt

[Wayne]

It's my belief that you have tied a rod for your back with the war mechanics you created.  They sucked dick from the start and no amount of band-aids are going to fix it.  The only way to balance them and make them interesting is to start afresh with brand new mechanics.  Which would cause even more outrage, butthurts and ragequits but it's the only way to breathe life into your stale, shitty boring ass mechanics.

[Kastor]

Oh, yes, I forgot that once you join an alliance you can't be attacked anymore. I guess I forgot about the change to the game where that was implemented.

 

 

 

You're so smart Kastor, I'm sure whenever someone is upset about something they message you about it, don't they? Why would they ever message me, the administrator and game creator? That would just be illogical. I probably don't ever get messages from anyone, ever, right? You're just so, so smart, you know everything about this game, it's a wonder how anything ever gets done without your consent or guidance. I mean, you did create the game after all, you know the coding inside and out, you deal with all the players on a daily basis, and you have over 6,000 posts on these forums! I can't believe anyone could think you don't know more than most about the game.

There is no reason to be a dick. I'm just trying to tackle an issue about this.

 

Wwill adapt. We have too. Please stop trying to make the game easier. We will adapt to this style of gameplay. Let the players do it. It isn't game breaking.

[Fox Fire]

I can't help but feel people are making a big deal about nothing.

These changes are only beneficial to newer players so that can only be a good thing.

They can be negative for older nations but generally a war is won in the first round making it a mostly useless argument. 

Sure as !@#$ hasn't helped my small nation. In fact, I haven't made an in game action since. I sold my military because who cares?

 

 

Oh, yes, I forgot that once you join an alliance you can't be attacked anymore. I guess I forgot about the change to the game where that was implemented.

 

 

You're so smart Kastor, I'm sure whenever someone is upset about something they message you about it, don't they? Why would they ever message me, the administrator and game creator? That would just be illogical. I probably don't ever get messages from anyone, ever, right? You're just so, so smart, you know everything about this game, it's a wonder how anything ever gets done without your consent or guidance. I mean, you did create the game after all, you know the coding inside and out, you deal with all the players on a daily basis, and you have over 6,000 posts on these forums! I can't believe anyone could think you don't know more than most about the game.

Grealind owned a game once and he certainly had no !@#$ clue what was best for it. That's a bad argument, Sheep.

 

 

What keeps people involved over the long term in any mmo is interaction. The more people have to work together as a team, the more they bond together as friends, becoming involved to a greater degree and staying around for longer.

 

The less activity, action, and need for interaction there is... the greater the chance people leave before they ever get the chance to become frustrated with anything.

 

Nothing forges bonds of teamwork and involvement more than war.

 

Look at the people playing right now. A sizeable portion, if not majority in some alliance cases, dont even have armies (which, by the way, is the real reason they become victims). They sit and wait and collect whatever day after day. No real need to work together... minimal if any need to communicate with one another. And then get frustrated and complain when a challenge or threat is thrown in front of them... instead of reacting to that challenge in game, working together, and defeating it (which is one of the most fun parts of any game... with the process through which that challenege is defeated, being what makes a group of players into an actual team... one that looks forward to new challenges and wants to continue playing together).

 

The more lazy and coddled the player base becomes... the more a game turns stale and uninteresting. Sure the forum vocal people, and those with leadership positions may stay a steady base - but thats because they are occupied by things other than just the core game itself. The general player base comes and goes without really growing all that much, because the safe, stale routine is just that. Most never get to whatever "frustrating" mechanic / "exploit" is being worried about... most never even realize its there.

 

There are always people who will cry they want things easier for them... or dont want to lose "all that they worked for"... or want to be protected and sheltered (except for when they themselves want to attack someone, of course). But thats the whole point of the risk in a wargame. You can lose. You can get your butt kicked. You have to take chances and pay the consequences. Some people simply cant handle losing. But everyone knows how much more fun it is when you really earn your victory. And thats only shared and intensified when its as a team.

 

Every degree of risk and challenge that is taken away... every bit less of a need to work together as an active team... works to the detriment of getting people more actively involved in the game, and with one another within an alliance.

 

A sizeable portion of the player base has minimal or no military at all at the moment. What does that say of any need these people have to really be involved and work together against theats on a regular basis. What does that say of the level of risk or challenge many feel they face. These are the people who will become frustrated and quit due to being attacked? Who is really to blame if they are.

 

And if you have no military and your alliance is incapable of stopping a normal raider... how do the recent changes really equate to anything other than the same outcome - them being victims to raiders of whatever form should raiders decide to attack them... followed by cries of "this isnt fair!" and "do you know how long it will take me to rebuild now!" and "its your fault I dont want to play anymore!"... and a flood of other things mailed to us daily. The only people really impacted by the changes are the raiders and militarily active, whose build options were made more limited along with opportunity for creativity / uniqueness.

 

As for the "noobs"... Every one of these games has a high turnaround rate. Most who start, dont stay long.

 

Every game that involves war and attacking / raiding also involves noobs being punching bags... unless they are experienced enough from playing other games like this to know they need to protect themselves and get into a group before the target on their head starts flashing red. And if the group they join cant protect them, and they choose to build a weak military (if anything), then that target is going to get hit. They can only be protected so far, before a game turns into a long hand-holding tutorial.

 

These changes are not going to protect new players.

 

 

 

One more thing...

Before someone replies with something brilliant like - "the reason so many have so little military is that they are recovering from a war"

 

LoL please... My alliance was in a longer war(s) and has never stopped fighting.

 

The reason you dont have a military is your own choice to try to maximize profits and minimize costs.

But minimizing costs in one way, often comes with another more violent cost - when leaving yourself exposed results in you being attacked.

 

Taking the faster, impatient route raises your risk level during the time you are exposed.

Its nothing you "have" to do... Its a choice.

 

And it reflects a certain play style common to the player base which is the real problem here.

Brilliant post.

 

 

There is no reason to be a dick. I'm just trying to tackle an issue about this.

 

Wwill adapt. We have too. Please stop trying to make the game easier. We will adapt to this style of gameplay. Let the players do it. It isn't game breaking.

YES!!! For God !@#$ sake, please! Please try to retain some kind of !@#$ consistency. If you want to code some shit then go work on some perks ffs and stop changing the game every month!!! That type of shit makes me want to leave far, far, far more than anything anyone could possibly to to my pixels. 

Edited February 27, 2016 by Fox Fire

[Fox Fire]

Actually, looking at my current war, my nation can have about a max of 30 something thousand troops with this new change, under my already crushed condition. The nation that attacked me houses about 70 thousand and it doesn't look like he built up after declaring. 

 

Real helpful for small nations, I must say. Can I safely say this update did nothing to help anyone anywhere? It did go $2W though. 

[Samdoo]

What keeps people involved over the long term in any mmo is interaction. The more people have to work together as a team, the more they bond together as friends, becoming involved to a greater degree and staying around for longer.

 

A sizeable portion of the player base has minimal or no military at all at the moment. What does that say of any need these people have to really be involved and work together against theats on a regular basis. What does that say of the level of risk or challenge many feel they face. These are the people who will become frustrated and quit due to being attacked? Who is really to blame if they are. 

Actually MMO's are more so based on that players 1st day, even in P&W only 1/10th of the players make it past that point.

 

I`ll use an example were only farms and military exists in the game. 1 farm makes you 2 thousand extra a turn. A military building costs you 2 thousand extra a turn. Now currently this nation reaches 15 farms, cause they are trying to grow their nations. A nation now with 30 improvements 15 farms, an 15 militarily attacks you. You've been playing a for a month, and there is nothing you can do to defend yourself, you better hope your allies are full military or else they can't protect you... But these nations gave you money which means they don`t have military. so they have 30 farms, cause if they had 15 and 15, they would't have be able to introduce new players to the game with money.(inclusion is a great form of player retention.)  Now if the new nation has 8 military and 7 farms and someone with 15 military attacks they, cant fight back. 

 

There is no between in military, Either you have all military or not. If you have all military you have to be attacking people, if someone attacks you your military is worthless. I know this from attacking other players myself, once I attack them they can't fight back. If you have some military, and get attacked the same thing happens.(your NS is higher too, so its easier for another player to attack you). The thought with not having a military is you lose less when someone attacks you, since you don`t lose tanks, planes or soldiers and you don`t have to maintain to up-keep them. Since someone attacked you and did't get anything why attack them again? You re-build what you lost and move on. 

 

If a nation has some military, they become a bigger target, There is no incentive to defend your nation, or another for that matter. 

[Fox Fire]

Actually MMO's are more so based on that players 1st day, even in P&W only 1/10th of the players make it past that point.

 

I`ll use an example were only farms and military exists in the game. 1 farm makes you 2 thousand extra a turn. A military building costs you 2 thousand extra a turn. Now currently this nation reaches 15 farms, cause they are trying to grow their nations. A nation now with 30 improvements 15 farms, an 15 militarily attacks you. You've been playing a for a month, and there is nothing you can do to defend yourself, you better hope your allies are full military or else they can't protect you... But these nations gave you money which means they don`t have military. so they have 30 farms, cause if they had 15 and 15, they would't have be able to introduce new players to the game with money.(inclusion is a great form of player retention.)  Now if the new nation has 8 military and 7 farms and someone with 15 military attacks they, cant fight back. 

 

There is no between in military, Either you have all military or not. If you have all military you have to be attacking people, if someone attacks you your military is worthless. I know this from attacking other players myself, once I attack them they can't fight back. If you have some military, and get attacked the same thing happens.(your NS is higher too, so its easier for another player to attack you). The thought with not having a military is you lose less when someone attacks you, since you don`t lose tanks, planes or soldiers and you don`t have to maintain to up-keep them. Since someone attacked you and did't get anything why attack them again? You re-build what you lost and move on. 

 

If a nation has some military, they become a bigger target, There is no incentive to defend your nation, or another for that matter. 

Honestly, I agree that most people make their decision whether or not to stay at about day 1. However, a decision to quit on day 1 is not related to military at all. It's a simply disinterest in the game itself. It's just not for everyone. 

In regards to militaries and alliances, what is chump change to top nations is a fortune to small nations. So your assumption that aiding nations can't defend aided nations because they run out of money is just silly. Not to mention the fact that there is a war range. So aiding nations wouldn't be fighting for small nations anyway.

Edited February 27, 2016 by Fox Fire

[allilee]

Well instead of changing the formula of that many people are against it - I am for it

 

Would it be possible to introduce something where members of alliances can attack people that have attacked their alliance members.

So if someone with 12 cities attacked someone in my alliance with 8 cities then anyone in my alliance with 12 cities or less can counter that attack?

 

A bit like if Russia attacked Uganda in real life (obviously it wouldn't happen but bear with me) then the US and UK (similar size to russia) would step in and help Uganda - they wouldn't leave it to lets say Kenya (similar size to uganda) to defend Ghana against a much larger nation

(And yes I have made up the countries for this, but I feel it still makes my point)

 

As people keep going on about how alliances should protect their members - atm we can't because of the score range formula and the unfair advantage of nations with many more cities

 

Seem to be a lot of arrgh members and other raiders moaning about the change of formula as they could lose out

 

And people who have been on the other side of the attacks want change to protect their members (only natural)

 

Nobody will be happy with every change that Sheepy makes (that's life, move on)but I get the feeling from speaking to many alliances that they feel the current situation gives an unfair advantage to large nations with low infra but with still high military capacity against smaller nations who even if they were fully militarised wouldn't be able to defend themselves