Jump to content

PvP Overhaul


Holton
 Share

Recommended Posts

To clarify, I say PVP because this won't solely encompass conventional warfare. I will try to keep this super brief though.

I'm writing this up to open a dialogue about the state of warfare in the game. As I see it, there are a few items that we can address right off the bat:

 

 

1. Any war system tweaks need to allow for both raiders and people that only fight during large-scale conflicts (hereafter called alliances) to effectively be able to leverage it without significant negative impact to one or the other.

 

2. The war system needs to allow for more of a "comeback". As it stands, without significant coordination and reliance on outside entities, once someone gets a jump on you in war you're effectively down until beiged (which has resulted in people intentionally avoiding beiging nations during war) or until the war expires. This has lead to larger implications on the games political game where groups avoid fighting because there's little chance to actually sway the outcome of fights without numbers on your side. Perhaps even a debuff when 3 nations are attacking the same nation their combat effectiveness is reduced by 10% in those wars due to confusion caused by military coordination between multiple nations.

 

3. The cost of units doesn't accurately reflect their value. This is the bottom line of the economy of this game and reflects in uneven prices of resources. Personally, I think everything should be cheap to reproduce to encourage conflict and mitigate fear of loss.

 

4. I would suggest that any city about #15 should be destructible via war, but it should be a difficult combination of military operations not simply dropping a nuke. ie. ground control, air control, and blockaded before you can begin destroying cities.

 

5. Espionage overhaul. A lot of other threads have touched on this, but I'd just like to reiterate an expanded espionage system would be really cool. Added options for economic warfare (reduction of production for a limited time not just destroying an improvement), reduced spy casualties, CIA makes operations harder to detect, maybe even the ability to set off a dirty bomb (like a missile's worth of damage but with radiation effects) in a city. Basically allowing an entire

 

 

 

The tl;dr - PVP in a nationsim exists as the most significant player-controlled check to nation growth and after multiple years into the game I am of the opinion that we need expanded options in a meaningful way, not simply tweaks to the established numbers.

Edited by Holton

Superbia


vuSNqof.jpg


 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're right that we absolutely must expand the options of PvP engagements.

#2 though? That's called fortification, as it stands today. In the short term, sure, it increases the damage done to your infrastructure and military, but in the long term, it means that as long as you stay active and dedicated, you can keep war from being profitable for your attacker. That means that you have an option other than being permafarmed, joining a consolidated blob, or bank hiding.

If we're going to get rid of fortification, then we need something to replace it that mimics its' effect. There has to be a viable option for dedicated and active groups to compete against superior forces, otherwise those superior forces will be completely safe outside of internal collapse.

Also, #4: How can we avoid that mechanic resulting in top players being completely out of the score range of those that regularly get their cities destroyed? It'd very quickly result in a much worse unstable equilibrium problem.

Why not instead, there be a softcap to the number of useful cities? Not necessarily a cost to run cities (though that could work) but more like it taking longer to build up to max military as cities increase, or each new city reduces the maximum capacity of military improvements? In order to fairly implement that kind of thing though, there would need to be refunds available for cities and/or a game reset.

Edited by Sir Scarfalot
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would prefer 2 and 4 to be elaborated on. I don't like number 4 if no new mechanics/formulas were changed. The defense mechanisms against nukes and ect would need to be changed.  I wouldn't mind if nation x with 15+ cities could lose a city to the enemy with a signifant ground victory. (as long as neither nation share a network)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
On 1/22/2018 at 11:52 PM, Holton said:

To clarify, I say PVP because this won't solely encompass conventional warfare. I will try to keep this super brief though.

I'm writing this up to open a dialogue about the state of warfare in the game. As I see it, there are a few items that we can address right off the bat:

 

 

1. Any war system tweaks need to allow for both raiders and people that only fight during large-scale conflicts (hereafter called alliances) to effectively be able to leverage it without significant negative impact to one or the other.

 

2. The war system needs to allow for more of a "comeback". As it stands, without significant coordination and reliance on outside entities, once someone gets a jump on you in war you're effectively down until beiged (which has resulted in people intentionally avoiding beiging nations during war) or until the war expires. This has lead to larger implications on the games political game where groups avoid fighting because there's little chance to actually sway the outcome of fights without numbers on your side. Perhaps even a debuff when 3 nations are attacking the same nation their combat effectiveness is reduced by 10% in those wars due to confusion caused by military coordination between multiple nations.

 

3. The cost of units doesn't accurately reflect their value. This is the bottom line of the economy of this game and reflects in uneven prices of resources. Personally, I think everything should be cheap to reproduce to encourage conflict and mitigate fear of loss.

 

4. I would suggest that any city about #15 should be destructible via war, but it should be a difficult combination of military operations not simply dropping a nuke. ie. ground control, air control, and blockaded before you can begin destroying cities.

 

5. Espionage overhaul. A lot of other threads have touched on this, but I'd just like to reiterate an expanded espionage system would be really cool. Added options for economic warfare (reduction of production for a limited time not just destroying an improvement), reduced spy casualties, CIA makes operations harder to detect, maybe even the ability to set off a dirty bomb (like a missile's worth of damage but with radiation effects) in a city. Basically allowing an entire

 

 

 

The tl;dr - PVP in a nationsim exists as the most significant player-controlled check to nation growth and after multiple years into the game I am of the opinion that we need expanded options in a meaningful way, not simply tweaks to the established numbers.

1) there is a big difference between a raid and a war, A raid is resource based A war is about doing max amount of damage, the new war system on the test server i feel fixes the Raid aspect.

2) 3 v 1 with the new fort you will find this will fix a few issues, however I think if it is three on one, (as the nation on his own has not attacked anyone, as you know during a war a nation could easy have up to eight wars) I think like in a real war the attacking nation should only be able to use say 80% of their force.

3) I disagree, I think troops, tanks, ships and planes do not cost enough and should have a higher value, right now as someone posted a while back you can have i think something like 500 infra, have loads of milcon improvements and a few coms and its enough to maintain them, infra should be more important than it is right now.

4) I do not think you should lose a city, but i think if a city loses more than 30% of its infra then it should take a week to rebuild and have a nnegative effect on your over all income, how else you pay for repairs. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, MoonShadow said:

1) there is a big difference between a raid and a war, A raid is resource based A war is about doing max amount of damage, the new war system on the test server i feel fixes the Raid aspect.

2) 3 v 1 with the new fort you will find this will fix a few issues, however I think if it is three on one, (as the nation on his own has not attacked anyone, as you know during a war a nation could easy have up to eight wars) I think like in a real war the attacking nation should only be able to use say 80% of their force.

3) I disagree, I think troops, tanks, ships and planes do not cost enough and should have a higher value, right now as someone posted a while back you can have i think something like 500 infra, have loads of milcon improvements and a few coms and its enough to maintain them, infra should be more important than it is right now.

4) I do not think you should lose a city, but i think if a city loses more than 30% of its infra then it should take a week to rebuild and have a negative effect on your over all income, how else you pay for repairs. 

1. Agreed, mostly

2. Heck no; new fortification alone fixes nothing and introduces a number of huge problems that will result in a massive and devastating level of player exodus. If the fortification change is to be implemented, then it must be paired with another mechanic that allows players to choose to not be looted, even if it's at great cost to them (see https://politicsandwar.com/forums/index.php?/topic/22270-scorched-earth-war-policy/  and https://politicsandwar.com/forums/index.php?/topic/22296-simple-balance-suggestion/ for possibilities)

3. What he's saying is that currently, military units cost more than they're worth on the battlefield, and I agree in the case of tanks especially. (With the price of steel, each one costs the same as 1500 soldiers, while being only worth forty in battle effectiveness. I never build factories anymore.) It's fine to disagree on which direction you think the fix should take, but honestly, 1500 infrastructure is how much you need at theoretical minimum to max out military per city right now. 500 infra is enough for a bit, but you can at best have 1/3 of your maximum fleet. You can have your full set of military improvements and a power plant, but you have exactly ONE remaining improvement slot. Unless you want to run at a deficit, you have to have that be a resource improvement for your power plant, which means you have pollution and crime, or you can set it up as two wind power plants to eliminate pollution... but you still have crime.

4. Woah there, think about it! 30% infra damage is much easier to attain in low infra cities than high infra cities, so this punishes lower tier alliances and players. 30% of 2000 is 600, but 30% of 1000 is 300, and that can be accomplished with a single missile. Actually, at 20+ cities, anyone with a decent airforce or fleet can just straight up KO cities in one attack, leaving the enemy out of the game entirely for a whole week after only a few attacks. At that point it's literally better for one's alliance to VM instead of take constant, devastating, and (with beige timers being what they are) potentially inescapable lockdown damage.

A better way to implement this is for ALL attacks to have a corresponding pollution increase against the defender, based on how many munitions or gas were spent in total in the battle, as well as how much infrastructure was destroyed. Even utter failures should increase pollution that way, since bullets and shell casings plus spilt fuel and craters are all over that city no matter how well the defender fought. Show me an environmentally friendly tank with zero emissions, and I'll reconsider.

 

Edited by Sir Scarfalot
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
On 23/01/2018 at 5:22 AM, Holton said:

2. The war system needs to allow for more of a "comeback". As it stands, without significant coordination and reliance on outside entities, once someone gets a jump on you in war you're effectively down until beiged (which has resulted in people intentionally avoiding beiging nations during war) or until the war expires. This has lead to larger implications on the games political game where groups avoid fighting because there's little chance to actually sway the outcome of fights without numbers on your side. Perhaps even a debuff when 3 nations are attacking the same nation their combat effectiveness is reduced by 10% in those wars due to confusion caused by military coordination between multiple nations.

A possible solution could be that a nation with full defensive slots can recruit 50% more units than normal per day. When a nation gets hit by 3 attackers, there is very little chance for the nation to fight back and usually it becomes a war of attrition. This could, theoretically, give those nations a fighting chance.

On 23/01/2018 at 5:22 AM, Holton said:

3. The cost of units doesn't accurately reflect their value. This is the bottom line of the economy of this game and reflects in uneven prices of resources. Personally, I think everything should be cheap to reproduce to encourage conflict and mitigate fear of loss.

 

This is definitely something that needs rebalancing. Tanks are stupidly overpriced to the point where destroying tanks is a good way to cause financial damage to an opponent. Soldiers on the other hand are way too cheap. All military units need a cost rebalance taking the new economic reality into account.

Edited by ForgotPants
a word
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/22/2018 at 11:52 PM, Holton said:

4. I would suggest that any city about #15 should be destructible via war, but it should be a difficult combination of military operations not simply dropping a nuke. ie. ground control, air control, and blockaded before you can begin destroying cities.

 

Nice idea but  it will really decrease the wars going on at large nations vs large nations with the threat that one of your cities might be destroyed

?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, ForgotPants said:

A possible solution could be that a nation with full defensive slots can recruit 50% more units than normal per day. When a nation gets hit by 3 attackers, there is very little chance for the nation to fight back and usually it becomes a war of attrition. This could, theoretically, give those nations a fighting chance.

This is definitely something that needs rebalancing. Tanks are stupidly overpriced to the point where destroying tanks is a good way to cause financial damage to an opponent. Soldiers on the other hand are way too cheap. All military units need a cost rebalance taking the new economic reality into account.

I would like to see military cost decreases across the board. Maybe like 10-15% cash cost reduction of planes and boats, but with a 50% resource cost reduction of anything using steel. Maybe even a 66-75% reduction in steel cost for tanks. They're just hugely expensive compared to other, more useful, units.

 

Cost, infra/military damage done, and unit production all need re-balancing. The current war system is painful. Cost/damage needs nerfing, production needs boosting. The system shouldn't make wars meaningless but right now people won't even fight when outright provoked because of the cost.

Edited by Holton

Superbia


vuSNqof.jpg


 

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.