Administrators Alex Posted March 22, 2018 Administrators Share Posted March 22, 2018 Okay, after seeing how things have shaken out so far in the new war system, I'm willing to give a little and let Fortify add resistance to wars again. My proposal is to keep Fortify at 3 MAPs, and have it add 5 Resistance. This is still nerfed from where it was, but I think is a middle ground that will make everyone (or no one) happy. In doing this I would also return the increased casualty count from 25% back to 10%. By my calculations, a nation doing only Fortify against a nation doing only IT Naval Attacks would still (barely) lose over the 5 days of a war. If the attacker screwed up any of the Naval Attacks (i.e. didn't get all ITs) the defender would be able to escape to war expiration. So it would not be possible to always use Fortify to avoid losing wars. But it would be possible to use it tactically, and if your opponent screwed up, or you did not commit completely, to use it to avoid being beiged. Now I don't plan on making any war updates while there's a big war going on, don't worry. I'm sure someone will still freak out about that in a comment below (we'll see, I'll probably come back and quote this little section in my response to them.) But I just want to hear some feedback on the idea before I get any more serious about it. So, thoughts? 6 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...
Micchan Posted March 22, 2018 Share Posted March 22, 2018 Put that on the test server and we see if it works, looks good on paper 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sweeeeet Ronny D Posted March 22, 2018 Share Posted March 22, 2018 you probably shouldn't openly mock your customers, even if they do deserve it. But yes fortify as it currently stands is worthless. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wiki Mod Dr Rush Posted March 22, 2018 Wiki Mod Share Posted March 22, 2018 How about add 15, BUT does nothing after the first use unless you do two other attacks one of which must be at least a Pyrrhic victory. 3 1 Quote 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 !@#$ing stupid Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reda Posted March 23, 2018 Share Posted March 23, 2018 I approve it. Here is an idea: I wonder how the war mechanics would work if we could choose between different types of 'Fortify', for example: - Increase 5 resistance points, or - Increase damage to the opponent (15% cumulative for every fortify, up to say 75%), or - Reduce loot from ground attacks (15% for every fortification, up to 75%), or - Increase own ground, air or navy efficiency by 25% (smaller nations could use it in a way to better resist down declares and create fairness - in exchange they lose 3 MAPs fortifying) ... and other options. I think it would create an interesting complexity to war and strategies. It would enable different strategies, defensive or offensive. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Revan Posted March 23, 2018 Share Posted March 23, 2018 3 hours ago, Dr Rush said: How about add 15, BUT does nothing after the first use unless you do two other attacks one of which must be at least a Pyrrhic victory. I like this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sketchy Posted March 24, 2018 Share Posted March 24, 2018 (edited) The casualty buff applies as long as you don't attack correct? An enemy immense triumph should "break" the fortify. Then you can make it 5 resistance increase each. That way it adds additional strategies for dealing with, like sending in an attack on control you've already won, scoring the immense, then using a follow up attack on the sections your weak on. It also makes it less of just a turtle move. EDIT: Also, the ability to stack fortify up to say 3 levels, allowing for multiple consecutive buff uses, would also be a cool feature. Edited March 24, 2018 by Sketchy 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azaghul Posted March 24, 2018 Share Posted March 24, 2018 I don't like the idea of making it so you have to win nearly attack to be able to beige someone who is fortifying. You shouldn't not be able to beige someone because it took a few attacks at the start of the war to get an overwhelming edge. 2 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wiki Mod Dr Rush Posted March 26, 2018 Wiki Mod Share Posted March 26, 2018 On 3/24/2018 at 4:00 AM, Azaghul said: I don't like the idea of making it so you have to win nearly attack to be able to beige someone who is fortifying. You shouldn't not be able to beige someone because it took a few attacks at the start of the war to get an overwhelming edge. This basically. This is what we had before with all the same issues. 1 Quote 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 !@#$ing stupid Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azaghul Posted March 26, 2018 Share Posted March 26, 2018 How about any attack that reduces your opponents resistance also boosts your resistance by half the amount that it lowers the opponents? So say, if I win a GA, it reduces my opponent's resistance by 10 and raises mine by 5. This would help not have beige arbitrarily ending wars that are actually competitive. And create more situations where someone can turn a war around and win after loosing in the initial attacks. Especially if the tactically want to do attacks that aren't necessarily going to be immense triumphs but could contribute towards taking someone down. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maverick0984 Posted March 26, 2018 Share Posted March 26, 2018 On the whole, nerfs and buffs should probably be more gradual and frequent with an aim towards balance. It's how every other game in existence does it. Drastic changes cause drastic reactions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Holton Posted March 27, 2018 Share Posted March 27, 2018 (edited) On 3/22/2018 at 1:12 PM, Alex said: Okay, after seeing how things have shaken out so far in the new war system, I'm willing to give a little and let Fortify add resistance to wars again. My proposal is to keep Fortify at 3 MAPs, and have it add 5 Resistance. This is still nerfed from where it was, but I think is a middle ground that will make everyone (or no one) happy. In doing this I would also return the increased casualty count from 25% back to 10%. By my calculations, a nation doing only Fortify against a nation doing only IT Naval Attacks would still (barely) lose over the 5 days of a war. If the attacker screwed up any of the Naval Attacks (i.e. didn't get all ITs) the defender would be able to escape to war expiration. So it would not be possible to always use Fortify to avoid losing wars. But it would be possible to use it tactically, and if your opponent screwed up, or you did not commit completely, to use it to avoid being beiged. Now I don't plan on making any war updates while there's a big war going on, don't worry. I'm sure someone will still freak out about that in a comment below (we'll see, I'll probably come back and quote this little section in my response to them.) But I just want to hear some feedback on the idea before I get any more serious about it. So, thoughts? Rather than making me waste MAP's on rebuilding resistance, why not simply have resistance regenerate a small amount per turn tick? If a defender is inactive and gets hit, he's screwed. Why do attackers get to pause the war until their next available loggin time? Edited March 27, 2018 by Holton 1 Quote Superbia 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.