Fox Fire Posted March 22, 2016 Share Posted March 22, 2016 Nothing is perfect. I personally think it's exciting to see new things added to the game. So you enjoy the war mechanics being changed in the middle of your wars? Oh wait, I'm talking to a GPA member..... 2 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...
Fox Fire Posted March 22, 2016 Share Posted March 22, 2016 (edited) I want to proof Sheepy that game mechanics is not broken at all. I attacked S.O.S recently because he was chanting so much shit on this forum. At that time he had no military at all, consider it a good lesson for him since he does deserved it. So today, I received a message from him, and to my surprise... Please read this carefully and do take a note the word militarize. He actively took this action to prevent me from looting him and that follows with this message. My reaction: What is this? A defender actually taking action to stop me? Well, Sheepy, you see 90% of these whiners on the forums either have no military or a very tiny military. They got attacked because they don't have a large standing military to protect them. Totally not our fault, it is their choice to go that path. S.O.S actually showed that his actions defies the whiners perspective of current game mechanics. Current game mechanics is working as intended and it is running healthy and fine. Your score change will not help because it will further encourage the rich nation to continue to expand their infra and stay well protected, making it even harder to achieve collaborative teamwork. I hope you will reconsider this change because S.O.S shows that game mechanics is fine, as proven in-game message and his actions. You also wanted to have less in-game money so more people will purchase credits and I am doing you a great service by destroying $25 million a day. You should be thanking us for it. The biggest proof that this isn't a problem is that literally anyone can do what Arrgh does. But because Arrgh has figured out the best strategy, it's somehow a problem just because nobody else has picked up on it. They would rather build pixels as fast as they can to compete with everyone else doing the same thing, than take an approach that would protect their members. If that's anyone fault at all, it's theirs.... [iC: The !@#$ are you all embargoing me for? Do you think I actually trade with anyone at all?] Edited March 22, 2016 by Fox Fire 1 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...
Linus Vulp Posted March 22, 2016 Share Posted March 22, 2016 The War Policies are just cheap imo. I dont see them as a feature i need, they change absolute nothing other than a few numbers. When the perks were announced i was quite happy and thought that they would make wars more interesting since you dont know your opponents perks, but War policies are simply boring! 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrators Alex Posted March 22, 2016 Author Administrators Share Posted March 22, 2016 So, uh, any information actually relevant to this topic about testing out the war policies on the test server? 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...
Dimitri Valko Posted March 22, 2016 Share Posted March 22, 2016 So, uh, any information actually relevant to this topic about testing out the war policies on the test server? Yeah, this thread gives you all the information that you need. The neutrals and cowards love it, while the rest of us hate it. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrators Alex Posted March 22, 2016 Author Administrators Share Posted March 22, 2016 This is less about your opinions, and about testing the features to make sure they're working properly, and if there are any balance tweaks that need to be made. 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...
Dan77 Posted March 22, 2016 Share Posted March 22, 2016 This is less about your opinions, and about testing the features to make sure they're working properly, and if there are any balance tweaks that need to be made. Look at my figures. It needs more than a tweak from what you're proposing. The war policies, however, have a negligible effect. They don't drastically alter the outcome of a war and they don't change scores. The important issue is the score ranges. You will kill off new players with these changes and your new player retention will be next to non existant. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buorhann Posted March 22, 2016 Share Posted March 22, 2016 I like the idea. I'd like something to break the staleness of the war module. So even if the changes are "bad" ( In regards to balancing ), it'll be something to liven things up. From a glance, I can see that Fortress, Guardian, and Covert will be the best policies overall. Especially Fortress. Anything that affects the Military AP is too good, but there's also Blitzkrieg. So it'll be interesting to see who does what in this game of Rock, Paper, Scissors. 1 1 Quote Warrior of Dio https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mfPCFQfOnLg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diocletian Posted March 23, 2016 Share Posted March 23, 2016 Covert has been working great for me. I murdered 38 of Aeon's spies pretty much as soon as you implemented the change on the test server sheeps. I'm digging it so far, will have to update this 'review' once he and I duke it out again. Quote "The happiness of the people, and the peace of the empire, and the glory of the reign are linked with the fortune of the Army." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrators Alex Posted March 23, 2016 Author Administrators Share Posted March 23, 2016 Covert has been working great for me. I murdered 38 of Aeon's spies pretty much as soon as you implemented the change on the test server sheeps. I'm digging it so far, will have to update this 'review' once he and I duke it out again. I should point out that it doesn't let you do more damage, it just decreases your chance of failing 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...
Diocletian Posted March 23, 2016 Share Posted March 23, 2016 (edited) I should point out that it doesn't let you do more damage, it just decreases your chance of failing Roger that boss, I know that. But the fact he also had 60 spies prior to me launching those ops, with the war policy percentage tacked on, brought my chance of assassinating spies up to 90% on EC. those are gorgeous odds:p Edited March 23, 2016 by Thomas Meagher 1 Quote "The happiness of the people, and the peace of the empire, and the glory of the reign are linked with the fortune of the Army." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woot Posted March 23, 2016 Share Posted March 23, 2016 (edited) So far I've been liking the policies, but the score changes seem like too much. Why are tanks worth 100x as much score as soldiers, isn't their military power only about 25x more? I'm also noticing that rebuy rate is more powerful than before, now that a small standing army can bring a small nation into range of a huge nation with no standing army. Edited March 23, 2016 by Woot 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arthur James Posted March 23, 2016 Share Posted March 23, 2016 (edited) war policy???? Me hate pirates option Shouldn't the fortress provide some sort of defensive bonus? Edited March 23, 2016 by Arthur James Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magnanimus Posted March 23, 2016 Share Posted March 23, 2016 Pirates option is not good overall. I was able to loot a way more than in normal case, while most of my raid targets had no means to strike back so was not able to test the -ve aspect of "Pirates" policy. When I was being raided by a larger nation, in 15 Ground attack Immense Triumph that they had against me, and improvement was destroyed only once. That is equivalent to around 7% chance of destroying an improvement. So overall I think Pirate option is heavily loaded on the +ve side. You might want to look into it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woot Posted March 23, 2016 Share Posted March 23, 2016 Pirates option is not good overall. I was able to loot a way more than in normal case, while most of my raid targets had no means to strike back so was not able to test the -ve aspect of "Pirates" policy. When I was being raided by a larger nation, in 15 Ground attack Immense Triumph that they had against me, and improvement was destroyed only once. That is equivalent to around 7% chance of destroying an improvement. So overall I think Pirate option is heavily loaded on the +ve side. You might want to look into it. I think the normal improvement destruction chance is 1 in 6 (16%), so a pirate policy users should lose improvements 1 in 3 (33%) of the time. Against a tactician this would increase to what, 1/2, or 2/3rds chance depending on how it stacks? That's more than enough. Pirate looting is pretty easy in a world where there's so many inactives, things move 4 times as fast, there's not much of an alliance system, so many people using the default turtle policy, and the server hands of massive piles of lootable resources to everyone. It's a lot harder in the real game. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Memph Posted March 23, 2016 Share Posted March 23, 2016 So far I've been liking the policies, but the score changes seem like too much. Why are tanks worth 100x as much score as soldiers, isn't their military power only about 25x more? I'm also noticing that rebuy rate is more powerful than before, now that a small standing army can bring a small nation into range of a huge nation with no standing army. Officially, yes, but in reality, not really. One tank can kill about 25x more soldiers than a soldier can. However, tanks kill a lot more than 25x as many tanks as soldiers can. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Rozalia Posted March 23, 2016 Popular Post Share Posted March 23, 2016 We all know the game can`t be in perfect balance.. If you want a perfect game, go play some keno and have fun with purely luck based. Right now the balance is shifting the gameplay and style, to where you build up your nation then get it destroyed and wreck havoc on lower nations, These lower nations in turn struggle to play the game. This style of nation is a very small number but impacts are very large portion of the community (roughly 5% a week, and typically in a negative manner). Untouchable nations are non-interactive in wars, and only effect each other. They can hand other people money or maybe effect the global economy. The nations don`t really negatively effect other nations (getting 10 mill from one of these nations doesn`t effect things in a negative way, to the nation interacting.) Moving an issue to effect less players does make things better. As well raiders, can still do what they are currently doing and punish people not having a military and relying heavily on treaties. I`ve become a fan of nations like fasolt and I`m excited to see what he will do with his larger raiding range. Issues may arise in the lower tier with raiding, if a larger nation pays a smaller nation up to raid everyone else but this score range is quite small and is already its own balance nightmare. Did you seriously just argue that having untouchable big players isn't a problem? Especially when they congregate on one side so even when they get thrashed in wars they still "win" because they had a whole group of untouchables. Make the top 50 declarable on by X amount of ranks (100-200) below them and those people would tumble quickly enough balancing the game a bit as there will be less cash floating about. Such people however are the ones supporting this. They make a big deal of people who admittedly you got to go to some effort to take down, but can be... but ignore the issue of people who can't be taken down, not because they're any good (most are horrible) but because they're practically untouchable. 7 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Samdoo Posted March 23, 2016 Share Posted March 23, 2016 Fortress didn't work.. the nation attacking me started with 6 MAP as did I. Oh.. and there will be a massive steel shortage on the test server very soon. Since there is an iron shortage.. and well everyone isn't running full steel mills. Yea... that 2000 steel(i think) gone in about 8 days. Don't worry we all still have plenty of aluminum though. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrators Alex Posted March 23, 2016 Author Administrators Share Posted March 23, 2016 Fortress didn't work.. the nation attacking me started with 6 MAP as did I. Thanks, got that taken care of now. 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...
George Clooney Posted March 23, 2016 Share Posted March 23, 2016 Yeah, this thread gives you all the information that you need. The neutrals and cowards love it, while the rest of us hate it. More like a couple hundred players hate it, the vast majority don't understand the problem or don't have an opinion (until they are raided repeatedly), and a thousand or so would rather have large alliance wars and politics that actually matter. But I guess if you want to call people who disagree with you "neutrals and cowards", that is your opinion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hereno Posted March 23, 2016 Share Posted March 23, 2016 More like a couple hundred players hate it, the vast majority don't understand the problem or don't have an opinion (until they are raided repeatedly), and a thousand or so would rather have large alliance wars and politics that actually matter. But I guess if you want to call people who disagree with you "neutrals and cowards", that is your opinion. politics that actually matter like what? what should politics be over if not the game? who dislikes who in the private skype calls that 95% of the people here won't ever even know exist because they didn't play (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) 10 years ago? some of these dumbass sycophants would probably kill their own grandmothers IRL if it meant staying on top in a browser game Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wayne Posted March 24, 2016 Share Posted March 24, 2016 More like a couple hundred players hate it, the vast majority don't understand the problem or don't have an opinion (until they are raided repeatedly), and a thousand or so would rather have large alliance wars and politics that actually matter. But I guess if you want to call people who disagree with you "neutrals and cowards", that is your opinion. A thousand or so? You are overestimating the size and interest in this game! Quote ☾☆ Warrior of Dio Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hereno Posted March 25, 2016 Share Posted March 25, 2016 politics that actually matter like what? what should politics be over if not the game? who dislikes who in the private skype calls that 95% of the people here won't ever even know exist because they didn't play (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) 10 years ago? some of these dumbass sycophants would probably kill their own grandmothers IRL if it meant staying on top in a browser game there was nothing personal about this post; it wasn't directed at anyone in particular get better mods please Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrezj Kolarov Posted March 25, 2016 Share Posted March 25, 2016 (edited) A thousand or so? You are overestimating the size and interest in this game! PW has about 2000 active players (active as in log in at least once a month). Edited March 25, 2016 by Andrezj Kolarov Quote People's Republic of Velika: National Information Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrators Alex Posted March 25, 2016 Author Administrators Share Posted March 25, 2016 PW has about 2000 active players (active as in log in at least once a month). Per week, actually. There's stats on the homepage, currently: 35,622 nations have been simulated to date! 4,552 nations exist now, 1,962 nations have been active in the last week, and 554 nations have been active today. 477 new nations have been created this week, and 20 nations have been created today. It fluctuates frequently, with peaks around 2100 nations in the last week and lows of around 1850 or so. 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...
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.