Jump to content

Seeking Testers - War Policies + Score Formula Change


Alex
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Administrators

Let me outline what changes I've made that are currently available on the test server. For the next while (indefinite period of time) I'd like anyone interested to play around on the test server and see what they think. The test server can be found at http://test.politicsandwar.com/and you most likely will have to create a new account if you don't know 100% you have one already.

 

Score Change - Updated to the formula posted here

 

Naval Battles now have a 15% chance of destroying a (non-power plant) improvement

 

Espionage prices have been reduced 30%

 

War Policies have been added, I'll outline each of them below. These are publicly displayed on your nation page, and can only be changed every 60 turns (5 days)

 

Note: All looting applies to ground battles, winning wars, and stealing from alliance banks

* Does not include missiles or nuclear weapons

 

Attrition

Pro: 10% more infrastructure damage *

Con: Take 20% less loot

 

Turtle

Pro: 10% less infrastructure damage taken *

Con: Lose 20% more loot

 

Blitzkrieg

Pro: For the first 12 turns (24 hours) after switching to Blitzkrieg, do 10% more infrastructure damage * and casualties (does not apply to units targeted in airstrikes, with the exception of aircraft)

Con: When attacked, attackers start with 1 extra MAP

 

Fortress

Pro: Attackers start the war with 1 less MAP

Con: When attacked, start the war with 1 less MAP

 

Moneybags

Pro: Lose 40% less loot

Con: Take 5% more infrastructure damage *

 

Pirate

Pro: Take 40% more loot

Con: Double chance to lose improvements in ground and naval battles *

 

Tactician

Pro: Double chance to destroy improvements in ground and naval battles *

Con: Incoming spy ops 15% more effective

 

Guardian

Pro: Half chance to have improvements destroyed in ground and naval battles *

Con: Lose 20% more loot

 

Covert

Pro: Offensive spy ops are 15% more effective

Con: Take 5% more infrastructure damage *

 

Arcane

Pro: Incoming spy ops are 15% less effective

Con: Take 5% more infrastructure damage *

 


Also, you should know that nation scores get updated when you view nation pages, so some nations may display a score based on the old formula for a while until someone clicks on them. Not a major issue, just FYI that scores aren't all converted immediately on the test server.

  • Upvote 4

Is there a bug? Report It | Not understanding game mechanics? Ask About It | Got a good idea? Suggest It

Forums Rules | Game Link

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't need to test it to see how terrible these changes are.  The change to the score formula is a joke.  You're screwing us with the change to infra and the change to military units score.

 

Everything else is unnecessary but no real issue.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The war policies are completely unnecessary. The more factors you add to an equation, the more difficult it becomes to predict. Why are you adding things when what is already there is still broken? 

  • Upvote 3

Fox_Fire_Txt2.png

_________________________________________________________________

<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

  • Administrators

The war policies are completely unnecessary. The more factors you add to an equation, the more difficult it becomes to predict. Why are you adding things when what is already there is still broken? 

 

Aren't you one of those die-hard perks people? Maybe you don't realize that this is more or less the same thing, but actually less complex than 50 different tiered options? The point is specialization, and strategy, and this update adds more of both to the game in a way that isn't hard to understand. Aiming for "a minute to learn, a lifetime to master" here, which is a good goal imo.

  • Upvote 5

Is there a bug? Report It | Not understanding game mechanics? Ask About It | Got a good idea? Suggest It

Forums Rules | Game Link

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators

Two more notes for the Arrgh members (and others who oppose this because they think it may hurt them):

 

1) This change is a compromise. You get to take a much larger chunk of loot from attacking people, but in return you do less infrastructure damage to nations you attack (which is what most players care about anyway, so they win too) and while you're no longer undefeatable, you'll still be able to adapt and keep doing your thing.

 

2) Remember when I added military caps and half of you threatened to quit or did, and told me that I absolutely ruined the game for you? And then, like, 3 days later you were still doing everything you were doing before, and people were still upset about you? Well, I don't know if you're familiar with the boy who cried wolf, but I'm not apt to believe your cries about "we'll all leave, you're ruining the game" when I know that you didn't mean it the last time you said it.

  • Upvote 3

Is there a bug? Report It | Not understanding game mechanics? Ask About It | Got a good idea? Suggest It

Forums Rules | Game Link

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators

other than losing ~200 score when the change happens

 

I'm sure you're aware, but for others to note, this will obviously be relative. Everyone's score will (most likely) drop, unless you're heavily militarized, and that's okay. Scores will better reflect your capacity to fight, along with your economic capabilities, and that will help balance the game more than anything else will.

  • Upvote 1

Is there a bug? Report It | Not understanding game mechanics? Ask About It | Got a good idea? Suggest It

Forums Rules | Game Link

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sheepy, I have some concerns about Blitzkrieg.  You write that it gives a bonus during the first 12 turns after SWITCHING TO Blitzkrieg?  Not after declaring war?  That seems... extremely underwhelming, to put it very lightly.  You get a modest bonus for a day, and then you can't switch again for four more days?   If that were to be enticing, the day-long bonus would have to be much more significant.  That or make it for the first 12 turns after declaring a war, instead.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You ordered a ground attack upon the nation of Sheepy led by Baatopia. The attack was an immense triumph. Your forces lost 0 soldiers and 0 tanks, while Baatopia's defenders lost 0 soldiers and 0 tanks. You used 0.00 tons of munitions and 0.00 tons of gasoline executing the attack. The attack destroyed 0.00 infrastructure in the city of Baabados. You stole $0.00 in the attack and destroyed 0 improvements .

I tried to change my war policy from Turtle to Pirate and it didn't work yet I still got the timer?

Edited by Hooves
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1) This change is a compromise. You get to take a much larger chunk of loot from attacking people, but in return you do less infrastructure damage to nations you attack (which is what most players care about anyway, so they win too) and while you're no longer undefeatable, you'll still be able to adapt and keep doing your thing.

You assume thats the policy we will pick... LOL

 

 

2) Remember when I added military caps and half of you threatened to quit or did, and told me that I absolutely ruined the game for you? And then, like, 3 days later you were still doing everything you were doing before, and people were still upset about you? Well, I don't know if you're familiar with the boy who cried wolf, but I'm not apt to believe your cries about "we'll all leave, you're ruining the game" when I know that you didn't mean it the last time you said it.

And some did quit... but lets not get into that.

 

The complaints were valid and remain - the changes pushed people into having to alter their nation style / build, resulting in more similiarity and less diversity.

And we warned it would lead to more complaints from those attacked... As it did.

Dan77 even pointed out exactly what, right away - the shift in tank count led to an even wider difference in strength between those who fight regularly and those who dont focus on their military.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quality feedback guys, thanks for testing things out and contributing to the development of the game :)

You are welcome. I appreciated that you value my quality feedback.

 

Did you ever consider for once that this isn't about you? The overall playerbase is far more important than a handful of players flying a pirate flag. And you'd be surprised how nice that +40% loot is, in my tests that makes for a huge increase in plunder when you factor in winning wars (the increased alliance bank loot is quite significant.)

So you are saying I will be able to loot 40.00% of alliance bank? Is it addictive or multiplication? Only thing that makes this change shit is the new score forumla change because it was absolutely unnecessary. It is the players unwilling to adapt to changes only to cry until someone pop in lollipop in their blubbering mouths. The game mechanics is fine, really. I am appalled that you would considered doing that, it is going to drive new players away even more because they will face against higher military force. I will happily drive away new players from this game with this changes just to show you that your new score change formula is shit. :) Edited by Stormrideron
  • Upvote 1

 Commander-in-Chief of Svalbard Island


Badassery Rating: 100% / Popularity Rating: 100%

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators

Sheepy, I have some concerns about Blitzkrieg.  You write that it gives a bonus during the first 12 turns after SWITCHING TO Blitzkrieg?  Not after declaring war?  That seems... extremely underwhelming, to put it very lightly.  You get a modest bonus for a day, and then you can't switch again for four more days?   If that were to be enticing, the day-long bonus would have to be much more significant.  That or make it for the first 12 turns after declaring a war, instead.

 

It is after switching, which was a nerf to the policy itself, but is also developmentally a lot more sound. In any case, we'll be testing things to see if it needs tweaking or not.

 

Sheepy man you need some money.

 

Also I tried to change my war policy from Turtle to Pirate and it didn't work yet I still got the timer?

 

It does appear that there's a bug there, let me take a look.

 

You are welcome. I appreciated that you value my quality feedback.

 

So you are saying I will be able to loot 40.00% of alliance bank? Is it addictive or multiplication? Only thing that makes this change shit is the new score forumla change because it was absolutely unnecessary. It is the players unwilling to adapt to changes only to cry until someone pop in lollipop in their blubbering mouths. The game mechanics is fine, really. I am appalled that you would considered doing that, it is going to drive new players away even more because they will face against higher military force. I will happily drive away new players from your community with this changes just to show you that your new score change formula is shit. :)

 

It's 40% more, so multiplicative, not additive. And the score formula change is necessary, because what you're doing is forcing everyone to play your way (1 play style) versus the conventional way that the majority of the game plays (and the way it's intended to be played.)

 

I will say the score change does worry me. The policies are fine but can be adjusted to be more useful for some of them.

 

Why does it worry you? You overwhelmingly supported it the last time I suggested it:

 

 

YES! YES AND YES!

 

I've been waiting for Sheepy to bring up this argument for so long. I approve of this wholeheartedly.

Is there a bug? Report It | Not understanding game mechanics? Ask About It | Got a good idea? Suggest It

Forums Rules | Game Link

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why does it worry you? You overwhelmingly supported it the last time I suggested it:

Yes, I won't deny that I supported it like it was the dawn of a new age.

I've just been theory-crafting and doing my numerous amounts of testing with the score formula. As well as many other things to change my mind to a neutral stance, that's why I want to test it thoroughly to see if it's a healthy thing.

 

I just worry that it'll inflate/deflate scores way more then expected. Creating such a big change in the current formula.

Edited by Hooves
Link to comment
Share on other sites

BTW...

 

Planes should have not only a chance of destroying an improvement... but the best chance.

Ever heard of Stategic Bombing.

 

Having a navy able to but not planes is silly... Not only for the above reason but because it assumes all cities are ports.

(And if one tries to say - ship launched cruise missles, not counted as missles... again think of what planes are armed with and can do with them.)

 

If you dont want to give planes the best chance at least make them equal to.

Planes are the most effective at such in reality (ground forces are effective too but more limited in terms of interference, speed of mobility and range).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The change to the score formula just helps the rich high infra players. They'll get all the benefits of high infra with no downside.

 

I wonder how many of that type of player is advising Sheepy in the CDG.

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Attrition

Pro: 10% more infrastructure damage *

Con: Take 20% less loot

 

Turtle

Pro: 10% less infrastructure damage taken *

Con: Lose 20% more loot

 

Isn't a war of attrition more of a defensive thing? I would say to rename "turtle" to "attrition", and then call the one that destroys infra "total war".

 

Fortress

Pro: Attackers start the war with 1 less MAP

Con: When attacked, start the war with 1 less MAP

 

This is really strong because the "con" doesn't matter if you're being attacked - it prevents doing an air/ground near update or doing two grounds at once unless you time it around an update. I'm not sure how it could be balanced better but I do like the idea behind it.

 

Pirate

Pro: Take 40% more loot

Con: Double chance to lose improvements in ground and naval battles *

 

This is pretty obviously aimed at Arrgh... you even named it "pirate". And, like was already mentioned, it isn't the one I would be choosing. 2x chance to lose improvements is a serious drawback when all someone has to do is send their money to someone else and I can still get zero dosh for the entire war.

 

I like the idea behind Blitzkrieg, and your implementation, assuming the 12 hours thing isn't what you meant for it. Just let it be permanent. This and Guardian are probably the two that are best balanced, along with Attrition and Turtle.

 

I like the idea behind Moneybags, but the name is crap and I think you should increase the infra to 10% more damage.

 

Tactician is pretty OP because spies aren't that important to begin with.

 

Obviously you know I'm not going to like the score changes that favor people who choose not to keep a military on hand when it not only sucks but is a direct deviation from what you were doing in Beta which was trying to encourage people to keep military on hand. This might come back to bite me in the ass and make me look like a terrible hypocrite, but there is such a thing as listening too much to the player base. You *just* implemented something that was intended to mess with the war mechanics and you're already doing all of this? I like the idea behind what you're doing with the military strategies, I really do, but there's a lot of them and from what I listed above I don't think many of them are very good. At least it's being tested first, though.

Edited by Hereno
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators

BTW...

 

Planes should have not only a chance of destroying an improvement... but the best chance.

Ever heard of Stategic Bombing.

 

Having a navy able to but not planes is silly... Not only for the above reason but because it assumes all cities are ports.

(And if one tries to say - ship launched cruise missles, not counted as missles... again think of what planes are armed with and can do with them.)

 

If you dont want to give planes the best chance at least make them equal to.

Planes are the most effective at such in reality (ground forces are effective too but more limited in terms of interference, speed of mobility and range).

 

I disagree because aircraft already offer the most utility and are arguably the most important units in war. There's no reason to make them more powerful. Navies, on the other hand, are the least utilized (in higher levels) and giving them a boost is good for balance.

 

The change to the score formula just helps the rich high infra players. They'll get all the benefits of high infra with no downside.

 

I wonder how many of that type of player is advising Sheepy in the CDG.

 

High infra is supposed to be incentivized - otherwise when you have 30 cities with 1000 infra each it's way too hard to manage. Regardless, I invite players who I find constructive and helpful in discussing developmental changes into the private subforum, not any specific class of players, and it's my prerogative to do that.

Is there a bug? Report It | Not understanding game mechanics? Ask About It | Got a good idea? Suggest It

Forums Rules | Game Link

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And the score formula change is necessary, because what you're doing is forcing everyone to play your way (1 play style) versus the conventional way that the majority of the game plays (and the way it's intended to be played.)

 

 

Seeing as you won't answer my question on IRC, I'll try here.  As the creator of the game, how did you intend the game to be played?

☾☆

Warrior of Dio

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators

 

Isn't a war of attrition more of a defensive thing? I would say to rename "turtle" to "attrition", and then call the one that destroys infra "total war".

 

 

This is really strong because the "con" doesn't matter if you're being attacked - it prevents doing an air/ground near update or doing two grounds at once unless you time it around an update. I'm not sure how it could be balanced better but I do like the idea behind it.

 

 

This is pretty obviously aimed at Arrgh... you even named it "pirate". And, like was already mentioned, it isn't the one I would be choosing. 2x chance to lose improvements is a serious drawback when all someone has to do is send their money to someone else and I can still get zero dosh for the entire war.

 

I like the idea behind Blitzkrieg, and your implementation, assuming the 12 hours thing isn't what you meant for it. Just let it be permanent. This and Guardian are probably the two that are best balanced, along with Attrition and Turtle.

 

I like the idea behind Moneybags, but the name is crap and I think you should increase the infra to 10% more damage.

 

Tactician is pretty OP because spies aren't that important to begin with.

 

Obviously you know I'm not going to like the score changes that favor people who choose not to keep a military on hand when it not only sucks but is a direct deviation from what you were doing in Beta which was trying to encourage people to keep military on hand. This might come back to bite me in the ass and make me look like a terrible hypocrite, but there is such a thing as listening too much to the player base. You *just* implemented something that was intended to mess with the war mechanics and you're already doing all of this? I like the idea behind what you're doing with the military strategies, I really do, but there's a lot of them and from what I listed above I don't think many of them are very good. At least it's being tested first, though.

 

 

I think you make fair points, and other people have looked over the list of war policies and come to different conclusions (which is good, if someone finds different utility in different policies, then that's how we'll end up with multiple playstyles.)

 

As for "Attrition" I don't think there's anything inherently defensive about it - when I think of a war of attrition I think of General Sherman burning the south in the U.S. Civil War. But that's just my own personal connotation, I suppose. Looking at the definition I don't see anything "defensive" about it.

 

And as for listening to the community, I do my best, but the amount of negativity that is thrown at me over the simplest of changes is ridiculous, and ultimately there are loud voices for and against any change I make. At some point, you're just stuck with my intuition and what I think is best for the game, for better or for worse. But hey, we've come this far based on that, I don't think we're going to burn the game to the ground just yet.

  • Upvote 3

Is there a bug? Report It | Not understanding game mechanics? Ask About It | Got a good idea? Suggest It

Forums Rules | Game Link

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • 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.