Jump to content

12/16/2016 - Coming Winter Update


Alex
 Share

Recommended Posts

Well, to be quite honest, I'd definitely prefer that all my side went paperless and we started fighting each other to having this new war system. Because I think we'll all lose with its implementation. The game may become more balanced, yes, since these new war mechanics cater immensely to some of our enemies' gamestyle. Alliances like Alpha, Fark, NK or SK come to mind.

 

That was basically what I've been telling Sheepy in this thread. And don't mind me, just listen to guys like Pre or Tywin, who know WAAAY more than me. Plus they're in TEst, who don't belong to OO/Mensynd's side or to NPO's side. I understood Sheepy's arguments and I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt by sticking around.

 

It actually makes me really uncomfortable to criticize Sheepy, since he's a good admin who cares about the game and puts in the effort. Even if he's just subconciously trying to even out the playing field because some players managed to be better at his game and almost all of them are on the same side (which isn't completely true), I really do believe this is the wrong way to go about things. And I'm not even criticizing Sheepy if that's his goal with this update. 

 

Even tho I occasionally troll you guys, I respect you a lot for being resilient and not giving up. Honestly, I wouldn't mind that you guys beat us just to boost your morale and make you believe a bit more in yourselves. We're not unbeatable, no one is. I'm pretty sure a bunch of people on my side would prefer the likes of BK, TKR, t$ and Mensa fighting each other to having a war system that encourages bad and strategically rudimentary gameplay. Again, sorry for being critical, Sheepy! :(  I know you've put a lot of effort into this update and I wish it works out in the end. I'm not even trying to convince you anymore, so hey, just roll out these new war mechanics!  :P

 

Ha strategic warfare. I play a lot of strategy games, and would consider myself reltively good at it. But having strategic gameplay here is like having GPA do politics. I mean, no matter how good your strategy is it all depends if your teamamtes are willing and able to follow it and pull it trough. Sure the veteran side has it easy, but add more than a few new players and you got your recepy for disaster. I had planned and prepared quite a few master plans for lower tier affairs, only for it to come down crumbling becasue one noob tought he knew better. And you could argue that it was my fault for not predicting it, wich is entirely true. So now I either stay out of low tier bussiness or plan a backup plan for a backup plan and handpick people to execute it very carefully. Trust, leaders job is the hardest one, where you have to organize and unwilling and unobidient rabble into a flawless war machine is where are wars are won and lost. No amount of game mechanics can change people's cometence at adapting to situation and leader's ability to gain trust and ispire their members. But yeah having other side win 1 war would definetley boost their confidence and maybe even make a shred of trust in their leader's abilitys to coordinate and wage wars. But meh, we'll see what happens and how it goes. I'll leave tommorw's problems to tommorw's me so to say :D

Edited by DragonK
  • Upvote 4

tvPWtuA.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Wiki Mod

It does make wars shorter. As I pointed out, wars can be won in 29 turns, minus the 6 MAPs you start with, that's 23 turns (just under 2 days' time) vs. the existing 5 days of war. I'm not talking about macro-wars here, I'm talking about the experience of the individual player.

 

Stacking beige makes sense - if you lose one war, why would you get the same time to rebuild as if you lose multiple wars? The more wars you lose, the more of an advantage you get. That's how you give losing players a shot to come back.

 

You are confusing individual wars with alliance wars. I am talking about the latter, which your completely !@#$ up.

 

Stacking beige completely negates the point of reducing beige time. You've actually made it longer, generally 6 days but up to 16, which will just make globals that much longer & more costly. You also seem to be under the mistaken impression that someone who has been completely & totally beaten should be able to come back into the fight. If you expect wars to be won or for that matter even declared it needs to be possible to completely & totally beat your opponent into submission.

 

Additionally, the tank change is not a tweak it is a massive rebalance to something that was already working to fix something else being broken. The complaint you are addressing is that tanks eat shit tons of steel. Your solution to this was not to adjust steel cost but to !@#$ with wars by changing casualties which were just fine.

Edited by Dr Rush

 

 

23:38 Skable that's why we don't want Rose involved, so we can take the m all for ourselves

23:39 [] but Mensa is the cute girl at the school dance and she's only dancing with us right now to get our friend jealous

23:39 [] If Rose comes in and gives Mensa what she wants, she'll just toss us aside and forget we ever existed

23:39 zombie_lanae yeah I do hope we can keep having them all to ourselves

23:40 zombie_lanae I know it's selfish but I want all their love

 

 

6:55 PM <+Isolatar> Praise Dio

Pubstomper|BNC [20:01:55] Rose wouldn't plan a hit on Mensa because it would be &#33;@#&#036;ing stupid

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators

Just to re-iterate - again - these changes have nothing to do with any particular side being better at the game than another. I think you'd be very surprised if you realized how much I actually followed in-game politics, what alliances exist, and who's in what alliances. When I'm not actively developing something and discussing the implications with players here or on Discord, I generally only login once a day to check messages, but reports, and game reports.

 

The main force behind adding Resistance to the game has nothing to do with the current meta game, it's about analyzing how and why new players who sign up (and many, many players do) don't stick around. Adding more visual components to the game is one way to do that. Resistance is a metric that is both straightforward logically and easily represented visually. You'll also notice that on the test server the wars page has received a makeover, from attacker/defender statuses to the fact that there's rotating war-related images, and war related quotes. All things that I believe will help capture and hold the attention of new players.

 

I get a lot of complaints from the hardcore, veteran players of the game because my interests and not directly aligned with theirs. That's not to say I don't consider or even factor in their interests; there's just a larger picture that they tend to miss.

 

I think if they (you) start to consider that there is a bigger picture, greater than yourselves and your play styles and who's top dog, the reasoning behind the changes I make may be more easily understood.

  • 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

Just to re-iterate - again - these changes have nothing to do with any particular side being better at the game than another. I think you'd be very surprised if you realized how much I actually followed in-game politics, what alliances exist, and who's in what alliances. When I'm not actively developing something and discussing the implications with players here or on Discord, I generally only login once a day to check messages, but reports, and game reports.

 

The main force behind adding Resistance to the game has nothing to do with the current meta game, it's about analyzing how and why new players who sign up (and many, many players do) don't stick around. Adding more visual components to the game is one way to do that. Resistance is a metric that is both straightforward logically and easily represented visually. You'll also notice that on the test server the wars page has received a makeover, from attacker/defender statuses to the fact that there's rotating war-related images, and war related quotes. All things that I believe will help capture and hold the attention of new players.

 

I get a lot of complaints from the hardcore, veteran players of the game because my interests and not directly aligned with theirs. That's not to say I don't consider or even factor in their interests; there's just a larger picture that they tend to miss.

 

I think if they (you) start to consider that there is a bigger picture, greater than yourselves and your play styles and who's top dog, the reasoning behind the changes I make may be more easily understood.

I'm complaining about effects of nukes though. How is that relevant at all to a new player coming in?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When I'm not actively developing something and discussing the implications with players here or on Discord, I generally only login once a day to check messages, but reports, and game reports.

 

hehehe you said you check butt reports. 

 

))><((

yVHTSLQ.png

(TEst lives on but I'm in BK stronk now and too lazy to change the image)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wouldn't have said anything if you didn't try to tie it to real ships. 

Random ship air defense: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RIM-7_Sea_Sparrow- 10 nmi range

Random anti-ship missile: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-84H/K_SLAM-ER -155 nmi range

 

I agree planes shouldn't be invincible, but don't back up your argument with realism. Gameplay > Realism

Feel free to try to prove me wrong. 

I... what? Please tell me you're joking.

 

You're comparing a short range missile made in the 70s with a long range missile made in 2000. The RIM-174, made in 2009, has a range of up to 460km.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I... what? Please tell me you're joking.

 

You're comparing a short range missile made in the 70s with a long range missile made in 2000. The RIM-174, made in 2009, has a range of up to 460km.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-158_JASSM

Made in 1998 and has a range of "1000+ km."

And a new version coming to a theater near you, with a range of 560 km. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-158C_LRASM

NODOLsmall.png.a7aa9c0a05fa266425cd7e83d8ccb3dd.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Part of the Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense. Not surface to air missile designed for planes. Unless you are for moving goalposts, in that case... 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R-36_(missile)

16,000 km

NODOLsmall.png.a7aa9c0a05fa266425cd7e83d8ccb3dd.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1) Just to re-iterate - again - these changes have nothing to do with any particular side being better at the game than another. I think you'd be very surprised if you realized how much I actually followed in-game politics, what alliances exist, and who's in what alliances. When I'm not actively developing something and discussing the implications with players here or on Discord, I generally only login once a day to check messages, but reports, and game reports.

 

The main force behind adding Resistance to the game has nothing to do with the current meta game, it's about analyzing how and why 2) new players who sign up (and many, many players do) don't stick around. Adding more visual components to the game is one way to do that. 3) Resistance is a metric that is both straightforward logically and easily represented visually. You'll also notice that on the test server the wars page has received a makeover, from attacker/defender statuses to the fact that there's rotating war-related images, and war related quotes. All things that I believe will help capture and hold the attention of new players.

 

I get a lot of complaints from the hardcore, veteran players of the game because my interests and not directly aligned with theirs. That's not to say I don't consider or even factor in their interests; there's just a larger picture that they tend to miss.

 

4) I think if they (you) start to consider that there is a bigger picture, greater than yourselves and your play styles and who's top dog, the reasoning behind the changes I make may be more easily understood.

 

1) Oh boy. You already conveniently changed the score formula almost at the exact same time Arrgh was at the peak of raiding with their brilliant lotsa cities, low infra strategy.

 

2) Stop pandering to new players. We were all new players at one point, and stuck around regardless of graphics, which ironically is one of the big things that makes your game so much more unique than most other empire fight-build games.

 

3) Your own new mechanic is already broken, as many others here have explained. Adding major mechanical changes just to make new players feel good and affect emotions is absolutely ridiculous.

 

4) Bigger picture? I thought the picture was how good the game was? But then again I never thought we'd be establishing safe spaces for new players on the war display page, so who knows?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just my 2 cents worth... take it as that

 

[1] You are incentivizing war which already happens more than it does in the real world, you should change the name of this game to War and politics

 

[2] NO military unit should ever be immune from destruction, that is just unrealistic

 

[3] I would have to see it in action to prove my theory, but with this update, it pays to be the 1st striker who always have the advantage anyhow.... this update just makes it that much harder to come back from someone initially attacking you. Further, this update will widen the gap between larger alliances and small to medium sized ones until the small and medium sized alliances are all gone and you are left with maybe 5-10 behemoth alliances

 

[4] as others have already pointed out, part of this game - a very important part - is strategizing, whether militarily or politically....  you then go and say you want to penalize us for strategizing when the whole game is based on it.... who is your allies,m who are your enemies, etc, who can help you grow and who can cause you unmentionable suffering politically AND / OR in battles

 

[5] finally, why bother with freezing new war declarations? that is just further penalty, not only for those involved in actual wars but those who raid as well

 

anyhow.... i had my say... what it comes down to is that it's your game, you can develop it any way you want to

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Welp, we won guys.  If we got the Creator of the game to change it around because we're too dominant, we won.

Yeah, I seen this happen before... on test server.... instead of any type of game balance you had one alliance rolling everyone ... dominance sucks because in the end, that alliance had to ask for volunteers to leave and start a new alliance to fight with... there were no enemies left

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[1] You are incentivizing war which already happens more than it does in the real world, you should change the name of this game to War and politics

What's your nation/leader name? You must be new here. 

  • Upvote 1

NODOLsmall.png.a7aa9c0a05fa266425cd7e83d8ccb3dd.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1) Oh boy. You already conveniently changed the score formula almost at the exact same time Arrgh was at the peak of raiding with their brilliant lotsa cities, low infra strategy.

 

2) Stop pandering to new players. We were all new players at one point, and stuck around regardless of graphics, which ironically is one of the big things that makes your game so much more unique than most other empire fight-build games.

 

3) Your own new mechanic is already broken, as many others here have explained. Adding major mechanical changes just to make new players feel good and affect emotions is absolutely ridiculous.

 

4) Bigger picture? I thought the picture was how good the game was? But then again I never thought we'd be establishing safe spaces for new players on the war display page, so who knows?

Getting new players and KEEPING new players is probably a good deal more difficult than you're thinking. If this doesn't work Sheepy can change other stuff. He's trying to balance it and given that's never going to happen from the players it's a good decision.

GICjEwp.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can you set it so that I can type multiple recipients into the alliance Bank's "Withdraw" bar?

 

We have some lame statutes in our alliance that require me to send everyone in the alliance X amount of cash/resource at one time and this would save me a lot of time. 

 

Also it would be cool if you had some tools that make it easier to see the amount of tax revenue coming in per turn. Again, it's easy to do already but it just takes a lot of time to count up all of the money everyone is putting in per turn and such. 

 

And as always, thanks for being an awesome admin Alex!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

The main force behind adding Resistance to the game has nothing to do with the current meta game, it's about analyzing how and why new players who sign up (and many, many players do) don't stick around.

 

instant stimulation would help attract people

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No update to allow ships to do at least some defense against air. Nothing has changed. I think that every 10 ships players have, they gain an "aircraft carrier" that can kill from 7-15 attacking aircraft.

 

Additionally there should be a minor defender defends bonus. In what place in the real world does home-field advantage not help? Blitzkrieg should allow it to bypass it in the first attack as well, with the same restrictions as it's current.

 

Overall, nothing really will change at all.

Edited by Valdoroth
  • Upvote 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've always been an advocate for Ships to have some minor air defense since all ships nowadays has anti-air guns on them.  It's only the real way for Ships to have some kind of use for the costs.

  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Jax locked this topic
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 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.