Best fix ever for low level raiders

[LordRahl2]

We did yes, but that is only after the war to rebuild, but we told the members to stay militarised but anyway

 

Still doesnt stop the fact some large nations are attacking much smaller ones (in terms of city numbers)

 

I did not say militarization, I said your build strategy.

 

So that actually kinda does influence the ability of high city count raiders to hit you.  Your city build strategy rendered you incapable of dealing with the threat.  So while you could have selected a lower growth path you decided on a higher growth one with less security.  Had you selected higher security and slower growth you could have defeated the strategy currently employed against you.  Another upside to your strategy should be that your taller cities should be able to help those raided recover faster.

 

The raiders you face are also operating under some constraints and have made trade offs.

 

Anyway, choices.  Costs and benefits.  That is how it should be.

Edited February 28, 2016 by LordRahl2

[Spooner]

We did yes, but that is only after the war to rebuild, but we told the members to stay militarised but anyway

 

Still doesnt stop the fact some large nations are attacking much smaller ones (in terms of city numbers)

 

The "smaller city number" nations are being beaten because they adopted an economic strategy instead of a militaristic one. That's the choice they made. This doesn't need to be so hard to understand.

[Fasolt]

Ok - there are still very large nations taking advantage of smaller ones though, albeit I may have over stated facts, but from the wars that have happened in my alliance it has been quite a lot of larger nations taking on smaller ones

Who... What... Where?

 

Larger how and how many? You seem to base this claim only on a single figure that fits your complaint, but you leave out many other factors, along with the consequences (and benefits) of choices that youve made.

 

You have 2,500 - 2,700 infra in each of your cities... which to me is crazy, but that is your choice. You benefit from excellent economic value in terms of high commerce and production, along with a large population to support it.

 

I have 900 infra in each of mine... which is perfectly "legal" and costs me in terms of - a lower military cap due to a smaller population... a lack of any commerce or production buildings... and a near $900,000 daily operating/upkeep cost (which I have to spend time every day earning through raiding, trade, baseball, foreign dealings, defense contracts, etc.). But that is my choice.

 

There are others in your alliance with the same city count as me, and roughly the same point total. They chose to add a lot more infra so they could construct more commerce and production buildings, increasing the economic value of their cities, but also leaving them with a much weaker military than what I have (at current point total). Thats their choice.

 

There are some in Arrgh who have their per city infra at 800 (a very few have higher building counts than that infra total normally allows, this due to them being nuked or infra bombed in wars)...

The vast majority in Arrgh have their infra at 1,000 or higher.

 

The new changes required me to add infra to my cities (because I had to raise my population)... The end result added quite a bit of points to my total, but it also negated the big weakness of a low infra raider build - my ground army is much stronger now than it was. Funny, I remember people celebrating this change when it was first announced, and some even laughing at us. (Id still rather the old way though, since there was more variety then in terms of build style).

 

All that extra infra is your choice and it makes your individual cities larger than ours, both in terms of profit/production and population (which is even more needed now for a large military). You can also build far more projects.

 

If you built powerful militaries to defend your cities, you would not only be protected, your point totals would drive you up higher and out of reach of many of us. But of course most of you dont want to do that because you dont want to use up build slots for extra military, and dont want to pay the cost of maintaining a large army like we do.

 

And that is your choice too.

 

 

Its ridiculous and wrong to sit here wanting everyone to have to build their nations like yours, just to fit your play style and make things easier on you.

 

 

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

 

 

Oh, and to further illustrate part of my point...

 

I just attacked someone in your alliance... He has 2 more cities than me, and "was" 460 points higher.

I already have both ground control and air control.

 

Thats not a "very large nation taking advantage of a smaller one".

Its a smaller nation with a larger military taking advantage of a economically stronger, but poorly defended larger one.

 

 

Eh... Slot freed up so attacked another one... Same number of cities as me this time.

Edited February 29, 2016 by Fasolt

[SoS]

I've actually been on both sides of this problem. I was damaged, but undefeated by VE in our first war. And I damaged, but left Arrgh/PP undefeated.

 

Problem as I see it is there is no real way to defeat a nation. If they choose to continue warring or especially raiding, there's nothing you can do to stop them. There's no better strategy or game play to get around this.

 

In (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) (if I remember correctly) when you became bill locked you had serious problems. Your war options were limited. They gave you a chance to get back in the black, but not to be fully functional in war.

 

Imo, tweaking the bill lock mechanic is the only way to make sense of this world.

 

And it'd be nice if something could be done about the total preference to the attacker.

[LordRahl2]

Explain bill locked.

[Callum]

Explain bill locked.

found on an old (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) page

 

 

 

Bill-lock is a situation in which a nations finds that it's daily bills exceed daily income. This can either be temporary, as in the case of being the recipient of a nuclear missile, from which the nation will recover by itself in one to two weeks, or permanent.

 

The permanent bill-lock condition is generally suffered by large nations that have lost a significant percentage of their infrastructure due to war (the numbers vary, but around 60-80%) but have retained their wonders, improvements and military arsenals. The bills for these items can be in excess of half a million, per day. Nations with severely reduced infrastructure, particularly in the 1,000-1,150 region may not make enough per day in taxes to pay these bills in addition to their normal infrastructure bill.

 

As you can't pay bills, you can't (after 3 days) buy any infrastructure, therefore you can't increase your income to a level where you can pay your bills, hence "bill-locked".

 

The only way out of this situation is either through receiving sufficient aid to pay bills and boost infrastructure levels past the break-even point, or to sell-off improvements, nuclear weapons, cruise missiles etc. until your bills are reduced to such a level that you are able to pay them.

[SoS]

Explain bill locked.

When your expenses exceed your income. It causes some penalties. I'm not sure what those penalties are in pnw, because it's so hard to bill lock someone and so easy to recover from. From that I'm convinced that the bill lock mechanic is totally ineffective in forcing defeat.

[Wayne]

Why did some of you even come to PnW when it's painfully obvious that you just want to play !@#$ing (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways)...

[Jacob Hanson]

Why did some of you even come to PnW when it's painfully obvious that you just want to play !@#$ (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways)...

 

A lot of the culture does persist from (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways), but thats about where the line is drawn. 

 

found on an old (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) page

 

Bill lock happens in PnW too.

 

Explain bill locked.

 

You can also be bill locked in PnW. Its painfully obvious this @$@hats dont know that. It is comparable to your nations power not being kept up, negative income and not being able to use military etc. with this new update it will be much easier to send a nation into bill lock. Its also amazing how easy it is to just go negative with a max airforce at my build. Let alone tanks.

[LordRahl2]

Thanks Jacob. I was going to say this sounds almost exactly like what happens when you get hit and fall into negative income.

[Wayne]

A lot of the culture does persist from (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways), but thats about where the line is drawn. 

 

 

(That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) must be truly !@#$ing awful then!

[Jacob Hanson]

(That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) must be truly !@#$ awful then!

It is. Planet Bob is friken boring as all hell. 

 

 

I believe we need to challenge each other to be better; and in turn have more fun

[Peter Quill]

It is. Planet Bob is friken boring as all hell. 

 

 

I believe we need to challenge each other to be better; and in turn have more fun

In summary: MOAR WAR

[Wayne]

It is. Planet Bob is friken boring as all hell. 

 

 

I believe we need to challenge each other to be better; and in turn have more fun

 

Not everyone can play politics, but everyone of us can play war!  I suggest a name change to War and Politics!

[----]

Not everyone can play politics, but everyone of us can play war!  I suggest a name change to War and Politics!

'Not everyone can play politics.'

Well, then maybe not everybody should play the game. Or, perhaps the game should force the players to 'make politics' and act more intelligently and civilly. 

Edited March 4, 2016 by Klemens Hawicki

[Dark Specter]

'Not everyone can play politics.'

Well, then maybe not everybody should play the game. Or, perhaps the game should force the players to 'make politics' and act more intelligently and civilly.

 

This is the dumbest thing i have read. This is also a game... People can play this game and not get involved in its politics.

[Andrezj Kolarov]

This is the dumbest thing i have read. This is also a game... People can play this game and not get involved in its politics.

It's a nation simulation game.

Edited March 6, 2016 by Andrezj Kolarov

[Eric]

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.

 

Well damn son.

[Fasolt]

'Well, then maybe not everybody should play the game. Or, perhaps the game should force the players to 'make politics' and act more intelligently and civilly.

 

War is politics... in one of its many forms.

 

War (or the threat of) is a means by which to influence people, through the weilding of a particular form of power, both within a state and internationally.

 

War is also the foundation upon which a state is built.

 

I quoted von Clausewitz as something of a joke earlier in this thread...

"War is merely the continuation of policy by other means - We therefore see that war is not merely an act of policy but a true political instrument, a continuation of political intercourse carried on with other means. What remains peculiar to war is simply the peculiar nature of its means."

 

 

What Wayne was more specifically pointing out is that not everyone can be involved in the diplomatic or alliance governmental portion of "politics" but everyone can get involved in the "war" part. This is a valid point many in leadership forget - that while the game may have plenty of activity for them in all the organizing, discussing, negotiating and intriguing they do... the majority of non-leadership players just sit there waiting and waiting for "something to happen" as they collect their little pixels and yawn.

 

Hence his particular phrasing "play politics" which usually implies influencing and manipulating others for gain.

[Dark Specter]

It's a nation simulation game.

Its also just a game. People dont have to play it the way you want them to, if they dont want to get involved in the politics part then they dont have to. And you cant force them.

[George Clooney]

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 say that like you've taken a survey and didn't find anyone and the truth is you have taken no such survey and are talking out your ass.

 

The game is growing in numbers in spite of the raiding, not because of it.

 

That said, the current situation is player problem, not a problem that Sheepy can do too much more about without neutering the game.  If players are tired of all the raiding, then those that are need to do something about beyond complaining.  If nothing else, heck, last I checked, raiding alliances with full military improvements and negative incomes don't have much in the way of resource generation capability.  If everyone simply used the game mechanic in trades to boycott raiders and raiding alliances, the raiders would have a more difficult time staying in business.  There are also other tactics that can be employed to limit the income of raiders without firing shot, use those, be proactive.

[LordRahl2]

The game is growing in numbers in spite of the raiding, not because of it.

You say that like you've taken a survey and didn't find anyone and the truth is you have taken no such survey.  =)

 

The rest of your statement is correct though.

[George Clooney]

 

You say that like you've taken a survey and didn't find anyone and the truth is you have taken no such survey.  =)

 

The rest of your statement is correct though.

 

 

Qualitative data versus quantitative data, in this case interviews with actual players and observation.  To quote one of them, "our guys and myself are really getting tired of spending 50 real dollars a month on coins just to watch them get blown up."  Sample size isn't as large as I would like yet, but based on what I've gathered so far, I am confident in asserting that some things have to change around here or Sheepy's bottom line is going to suffer.  Pity.

 

What I don't get though is that we managed to go through an entire beta round, an entire speed round, and when we enter the 'production' environment we only made a year and a half before we started having a major issues.  

[Andrezj Kolarov]

Its also just a game. People dont have to play it the way you want them to, if they dont want to get involved in the politics part then they dont have to. And you cant force them.

Let me put it like this then; PW would be a much more fun and interesting game if most players actively RP'd like serious national leaders, than if most players behaved like 14 year old's spewing memes.

[LordRahl2]

Qualitative data versus quantitative data, in this case interviews with actual players and observation.  To quote one of them, "our guys and myself are really getting tired of spending 50 real dollars a month on coins just to watch them get blown up."  Sample size isn't as large as I would like yet, but based on what I've gathered so far, I am confident in asserting that some things have to change around here or Sheepy's bottom line is going to suffer.  Pity.

 

What I don't get though is that we managed to go through an entire beta round, an entire speed round, and when we enter the 'production' environment we only made a year and a half before we started having a major issues.  

 

Hmmm, I have not heard that.  What I heard was a frustration at some changes that Sheepy made.  I cannot actually quote the most colorful person because *language* but it boiled down to "Is this just going to be another game that Admin kills?"  I guess we run in different circles.  Regardless,any sample no matter how big is going to be self selecting in that they are available to be interviewed and are therefore not representative of the majority.  So its basically a waste of time to talk about as anything meaningful in a larger sense.

 

"Major issues"?  Really?  The major issue, as you pointed out, was one for the players to fix.  And while this thread was active someone came along and showed that it was an issue that could be fixed.  A "major issue"would be one that the players cannot address no?