Ace Posted September 7, 2016 Share Posted September 7, 2016 (edited) Ultimately, this is a suggestion for Game Balance #1 Unfair less-members to more-members fight We all see how much damage NK can do to GPA. (Or Alpha to tS if you count numbers) Counting the numbers it is much harder to coordinate many people as opposed to coordinating less members. Altho the people not using nukes are in a complete helplessness to defend themselves against nuke-spamming opponents. There is about no-way to coordinate against 1 or a few nuke-spamming opponents. Isn't really a fair fight, of who can coordinate members better. Just who has more buttons and bullets to spam. #2 Ease of implement I'm sure with Alex's approval this is very easy to implement. There is a set limit of how much spies a nation can have = 60. Doing the same for nukes shouldn't be a problem. Same as how Iron Dome was buffed to 50%. #3 Overall destructive balance As if the destructive capabilities in this game are not great enough. (compared to other nation sims) #4 Realism If anyone would care. But I'll scratch this reason off since it's not reality. #5 Nerfing of Missiles was a great idea. No difference here, is it? I would propose to limit the ability to stockpile nukes to "infinite". To say a more "reasonable" number, like 10-20. As well as buffing the protection given by VDS, to 40% (even if it's not 50%). Still means a lot difference to the helplessness of a whole alliance being bombarded by a few nuke-spammers. OOT: Despite all that's going on (and past history nuke-wars by NK or Alpha). I hope everyone can think of this Game Balance suggestion objectively. Edited September 7, 2016 by Ace Quote ~ " Fighting through the Storm " ~ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Odin Posted September 7, 2016 Share Posted September 7, 2016 (edited) Indeed, less nukes and higher VDS chances would make aggressive wars far more comfortable Edited September 7, 2016 by Odin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prefontaine Posted September 7, 2016 Share Posted September 7, 2016 Missiles weren't really nerfed, Iron dome was just buffed. I'll try to take this suggestion seriously and offer some ideas. -If you're going to limit nuke stockpiles, have it be based off of city count, something like 1.5x or 2.0x the number of cities you have. -Sheepy was going to make VDS 33%, but I forget why he didn't. Nukes are supposed to be a way for someone who has lost to still do damage, so good luck convincing Sheepy they're unfair for less numbers versus more. If you didn't have such obscenely high infra, the nukes wouldn't be so damaging. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ayayay Posted September 7, 2016 Share Posted September 7, 2016 (edited) Ace always !@#$ and whines, that's all he's good for. !@#$ useless player. Also, VDS doesn't need to be buffed. You only need to lock a few nukes (probably just 1 at your level) to save more money in infracost than you spent to buy the VDS. More than fair. Edited September 7, 2016 by Malal 1 Quote Orbis Wars | CSI: UPN | B I G O O F | PW Expert Has Nerve To Tell You How To Run Your Own Goddamn Alliance | Occupy Wall Street | Sheepy Sings TheNG - My favorite part is when Steve suggests DEIC might have done something remotely successful, then gets massively shit on for proposing such a stupid idea. On 1/4/2016 at 6:37 PM, Sheepy said: This was !@#$ing gold. 10/10 possibly my favorite post on these forums yet. Sheepy said: I'm retarded, you win Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dalinar Posted September 7, 2016 Share Posted September 7, 2016 Nukes could be changed sure, but limiting them is not the way to go. If NK or Seabass want to spend the resources and time buying a huge number of nukes so they can maximize damage, it should be hard to take them down. Seabass has been stockpiling for 83 days at least, his nuke stockpile will be diminished far quicker than that due to firing them off/some being spied away, and that's ok imo. 1 Quote I will take responsibility for what I have done, if I must fall, I will rise each time a better man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apeman Posted September 7, 2016 Share Posted September 7, 2016 Leave nukes alone. Cap your infra if my nuke hurts to much. That or cap military units. Or just leave the game alone you bunch of panty wearing vaginas. Game is great sheepy. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sailor Jerry Posted September 7, 2016 Share Posted September 7, 2016 Is it just me or is it every time someone is getting their ass handed to them is when they finally decide to come and visit the boards and !@#$ and moan how they feel there should be changes made for this reason or that reason. Suck it up butter-cup and just play the game! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sketchy Posted September 7, 2016 Share Posted September 7, 2016 I think the real lesson to be learnt here is don't build so tall. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ace Posted September 7, 2016 Author Share Posted September 7, 2016 Is it just me or is it every time someone is getting their ass handed to them is when they finally decide to come and visit the boards and !@#$ and moan how they feel there should be changes made for this reason or that reason. Suck it up butter-cup and just play the game! Lol bud, I'm sure I would get a response, I won't even try to hide it such as this as opposed as if it came from someone else. Anyways just trying to be objectively speaking, it's kinda fail that 1-person can do this much damage to a "collective" group of people. The biggest difference in conventional war and nuke/spy war. You can coordinate in an conventional war (3 aggressors) and attack multiple times. In a nuke/spy war. You can't even spy 1 person more than 3x a day. Al tho you can just as easily land 6 nukes on a "collective" groups of people. There's just no-response for 100 guys to 1 guy with that capability. Missiles weren't really nerfed, Iron dome was just buffed. I'll try to take this suggestion seriously and offer some ideas. -If you're going to limit nuke stockpiles, have it be based off of city count, something like 1.5x or 2.0x the number of cities you have. -Sheepy was going to make VDS 33%, but I forget why he didn't. Nukes are supposed to be a way for someone who has lost to still do damage, so good luck convincing Sheepy they're unfair for less numbers versus more. If you didn't have such obscenely high infra, the nukes wouldn't be so damaging. Pre has some very good suggestions here. Both of them would turn out fine. - Just objectively speaking. What would be a good pre-empt defense against nuke-hording? Would you suggest going to https://politicsandwar.com/leaderboards/nuk And secretly destroying spies+nukes count of nations with outstanding nuke countes? Really isn't a feasible solution in my opinion. It'll just make more tension to the already high-destructive capabilities in this game. Quote ~ " Fighting through the Storm " ~ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foltest Posted September 7, 2016 Share Posted September 7, 2016 For realism, the only cap on nukes should be upkeep. For balance, I would base it the same way we base all military units so that larger nations can have more. tbh not sure why spies have a hard cap. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spaceman Thrax Posted September 7, 2016 Share Posted September 7, 2016 I do think the upkeep costs are kinda low. Changing that could be an indirect way of limiting stockpiles. But really my problem with nukes is that they are boring. Once a day you press button and do damage, no interplay with the other war mechanics (aside from some limited interaction with the spy system and the fact that they beige). I could try and comment here but anything I say would be me basically trying to put a spin on my gut feeling that nukes are just not a fun way to play. Quote Slaughter the shits of the world. They poison the air you breathe. ~ William S. Burroughs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sailor Jerry Posted September 7, 2016 Share Posted September 7, 2016 I'm all for increasing nuke defenses. Maybe leave the VDS as is and set up a new Project called Star Wars or some other stupid name, with one of the requirements being (beside the usual resources and cash) The Missile Launch Pad and VDS. At this point, the defender would be able to select using Star Wars (which would require the use of a missile from the defenders inventory) and give say a 50-75% of successfully shooting down the incoming nuke. Obviously this would be for high level nations since they would be able to have enough Project slots available. If the defending nation selects to use Star Wars and runs out of missiles during the war, or doesn't have any to start with, then they are stuck with only the VDS. Just some thoughts......or just buff up VDS to 33% like Pre said. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Callum Posted September 7, 2016 Share Posted September 7, 2016 I'm all for increasing nuke defenses. Maybe leave the VDS as is and set up a new Project called Star Wars or some other stupid name, with one of the requirements being (beside the usual resources and cash) The Missile Launch Pad and VDS. At this point, the defender would be able to select using Star Wars (which would require the use of a missile from the defenders inventory) and give say a 50-75% of successfully shooting down the incoming nuke. Obviously this would be for high level nations since they would be able to have enough Project slots available. If the defending nation selects to use Star Wars and runs out of missiles during the war, or doesn't have any to start with, then they are stuck with only the VDS. Just some thoughts......or just buff up VDS to 33% like Pre said. thats a pretty interesting idea. i like the idea of a "Shield" that lasts only as long as you feed it. Would give missiles a use outside of being a poor mans nuke. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tywin Lannister Posted September 7, 2016 Share Posted September 7, 2016 Don't touch nukes if people want them so bad but at least give more/better ways to work against nukes. The protection against nukes right now is simply terrible. Maybe have a way to use conventional military to limit nukes or something. Just throwing ideas. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Placentica Posted September 8, 2016 Share Posted September 8, 2016 On behalf of The Syndicate and GPA I'd like to agree with Ace and call for an even bigger nerf to nukes. But in all seriousness, the upkeep of nukes is fine just as it is. Only people without nuclear stockpiles think their upkeep is too low. It's actually quite high as is. Seabasstion's upkeep is insane and supported by his high income. It was a choice he made and the ease of killing spies and then spying nukes away is really the hedge against it. 2 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...
greatkitteh Posted September 9, 2016 Share Posted September 9, 2016 Alright, I'll post. Firstly, my stance is that nukes should be harder to get/upkeep but also buffed up. Nukes do add to the war game in a game where warfare is extremely unbalanced. Usually, aircraft is all that matterss in a war and you literally win wars by sucking at getting points to hit low tiers with more planes. Once you lose air superiority, you effectively lose the war. You can have more ships, more tanks, a better general, whatever - but it's impossible to beat aircraft. This is where the nuke (or missiles for UPN) comes in. The nuclear bomb dishes out huge damage to your enemies in exchange for beiging the opponent. Usually, nuking someone is a terrible idea because of this beige and historically, it really didn't work out. NK did it against UPN GPA, Rose tried on TS, but the simple fact is that nukes are more of "get off my lawn" than a "I burned your house" weapon. To date, the only alliance that used nukes successfuly is Alpha, and that was because Alpha was not concerned about pixels and had balls to keep fighting. (Hi BOC) "Conventional" alliances such as NPO, UPN, TS, or GPA simply can't to do that, making nukes useless for the majority of the minority that has nukes. However, nuclear rouges are a different story. Fraggle doesn't care if you hit 0.1 infra. Nuke upkeep is difficult but possible especially since Fraggle wont care if you hit her commerce or something. Thus, I think we should make nukes more useful but at the same time harder to get. There should be more damage than cost, more infra lost, and more pollution caused. On the other hand, upkeep should be more expensive. We can also buff Vital defense and make Nukes cost more things. In my opinion, one should be forced to use a missile as well if the person cannot have air/sea control; since it's difficult to nuke someone otherwise. Lastly, I think Fraggle and Steve deserves $100 million if nukes do get more expensive. Quote :sheepy: :sheepy: Greatkitteh was here.- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boony Posted September 9, 2016 Share Posted September 9, 2016 On behalf of Alpha I'd like an feature where my nation drops nukes on all my opponents automatically so I don't have to log in and play the gane. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordRahl2 Posted September 9, 2016 Share Posted September 9, 2016 Well Sheepy just did buff nukes a tiny bit in a round about way. What he did was make the CIA project allow a 3 spy a day build vs 2. So he effectively buffed spy defense of nukes a bit. The numbers should allow more instances of nuke hoarders having an extra nuke at the 48 hr mark. Quote -signature removed for rules violation- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greatkitteh Posted September 10, 2016 Share Posted September 10, 2016 Well Sheepy just did buff nukes a tiny bit in a round about way. What he did was make the CIA project allow a 3 spy a day build vs 2. So he effectively buffed spy defense of nukes a bit. The numbers should allow more instances of nuke hoarders having an extra nuke at the 48 hr mark. You can use 3 spies for offense. Quote :sheepy: :sheepy: Greatkitteh was here.- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordRahl2 Posted September 10, 2016 Share Posted September 10, 2016 You can use 3 spies for offense. You can use 1 spy for offense. You will fail but you CAN. If you are implying that the extra spy a day makes a meaningful offensive improvement in counter nuke ops then you are wrong. Quote -signature removed for rules violation- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diocletian Posted September 10, 2016 Share Posted September 10, 2016 I kinda want to build an NRF just for the chance to nuke another of your cities. 4k+ infra + pouting about nuke damage = lmao 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...
Fraggle Posted September 10, 2016 Share Posted September 10, 2016 Alright, I'll post. Lastly, I think Fraggle and Steve deserves $100 million if nukes do get more expensive. Why does everyone forget about Aeon? Aeon had nukes way before Steve. Steve came to the nuke party way late. So late that we all thought he got lost while buying cheapest beer he could find. Then he showed up and Aeon said it was cool that he brought cheap beer. It made sense to buy the cheaper beer because Steve went to pick up a few dozen wings for the party. But I wasn't having any of that with Aeon. It was our party and we did invite Steve to it, but to assume that he could cheap out on the beer and be late? There's no excuse for that. Either come early and be cheap or show up late and make us giggles with the gifts. Sure the wings were top notch and the three person party was a night to never forget. We talked like old pals. Drank a bit. Ate some great food. Had a generally great time. Of course this all ended when others crashed our party later on and started to complain about said party that they crashed. Here's an idea...if you don't like the nuclear party that you more than likely were not invited to, then shut the heck up about it. Aeon and myself are cool with glowing apes running around the party only because that alone is worth the visual. If you don't have nukes, don't complain about the nuke party. If you have nukes and complain about them, you completely missed the entire point of having them and wasted your money. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greatkitteh Posted September 10, 2016 Share Posted September 10, 2016 Why does everyone forget about Aeon? Aeon had nukes way before Steve. Steve came to the nuke party way late. So late that we all thought he got lost while buying cheapest beer he could find. Then he showed up and Aeon said it was cool that he brought cheap beer. It made sense to buy the cheaper beer because Steve went to pick up a few dozen wings for the party. But I wasn't having any of that with Aeon. It was our party and we did invite Steve to it, but to assume that he could cheap out on the beer and be late? There's no excuse for that. Either come early and be cheap or show up late and make us giggles with the gifts. Sure the wings were top notch and the three person party was a night to never forget. We talked like old pals. Drank a bit. Ate some great food. Had a generally great time. Of course this all ended when others crashed our party later on and started to complain about said party that they crashed. Here's an idea...if you don't like the nuclear party that you more than likely were not invited to, then shut the heck up about it. Aeon and myself are cool with glowing apes running around the party only because that alone is worth the visual. If you don't have nukes, don't complain about the nuke party. If you have nukes and complain about them, you completely missed the entire point of having them and wasted your money. Why me Fraggle ;~; I said we should give you money ;~; Quote :sheepy: :sheepy: Greatkitteh was here.- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ayayay Posted September 10, 2016 Share Posted September 10, 2016 I kinda want to build an NRF just for the chance to nuke another of your cities. 4k+ infra + pouting about nuke damage = lmao He pouted about missile damage last April too. He cries until people take pity on him and cave, that's his strategy. Quote Orbis Wars | CSI: UPN | B I G O O F | PW Expert Has Nerve To Tell You How To Run Your Own Goddamn Alliance | Occupy Wall Street | Sheepy Sings TheNG - My favorite part is when Steve suggests DEIC might have done something remotely successful, then gets massively shit on for proposing such a stupid idea. On 1/4/2016 at 6:37 PM, Sheepy said: This was !@#$ing gold. 10/10 possibly my favorite post on these forums yet. Sheepy said: I'm retarded, you win Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greatkitteh Posted September 10, 2016 Share Posted September 10, 2016 He pouted about missile damage last April too. He cries until people take pity on him and cave, that's his strategy. Roll Under Quote :sheepy: :sheepy: Greatkitteh was here.- 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.