Joel James Posted July 31, 2018 Share Posted July 31, 2018 (edited) Would raising the cap to 200k-300k make the system better? It would make cultivating a strong upper tier good for alliances, but the raised cap would be negligible for large nations, but better for smaller ones. EDIT: Nvmd, I thought it was 75k PER DAY, not PER TURN. Edited July 31, 2018 by Joel James Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roq Posted July 31, 2018 Share Posted July 31, 2018 I really want this to happen. But I don't really want to wait. I guess I can't get everything lmao. Thank you Alex for the changes in advance. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrators Alex Posted July 31, 2018 Author Administrators Share Posted July 31, 2018 Just now, Mikey said: One thing I didn't think of was the fact that higher tier AA's can't actually kick out the small guys even if they wanted to. 75k per turn though is 900k per day. Sure, its only 6% of revenue for a 10 city, but its free money, and as a percentage of profit it will be much higher. At 20mil in daily profit it still represents a treasures worth of income increase, not as important sure, but even just at 10mil profit its a 10% bonus to that. But still, higher tier AA's cant declare war on lower ones, so if they banded together to keep a color, they couldn't actually prevent lower guys coming in. Thus necessitating their own lower tier allies to help police across all the tiers. So having thought a bit more, I think this does solve most of the issues I remember from the color stock in 2013. I did have my numbers wrong initially, and I went back and revised them. Another statistic you may find interesting is that if we take the average net income of each nation (not in VM, not on Beige or Gray) each nation would get a turn bonus of $1,319 and a daily bonus of $15,832, pretty trivial numbers. Of course right now there's no reason for nations to be spread out in a perfectly even manner between the 14 colors, and likely they never will be, but I think the new equilibrium post-update will be a lot lower than the status-quo numbers might indicate. 1 minute ago, CitrusK said: I really want this to happen. But I don't really want to wait. I guess I can't get everything lmao. Thank you Alex for the changes in advance. The good news is, you don't have to wait long. Also, if you're interested, you can create a nation on the test server and play with the mechanics right now. http://test.politicsandwar.com 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...
Joel James Posted July 31, 2018 Share Posted July 31, 2018 Aight team, let's beige all the 1 and 2 city inactives to improve numbers. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sketchy Posted July 31, 2018 Share Posted July 31, 2018 @Alex Just a thought, but have you considered scaling voting power based on income? Also, perhaps the ability to embargo alliances off the color by vote would make things more interesting. Reducing the number of nations and altering the average income bonus in the process. It would certainly lead to more conflicts. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrators Alex Posted July 31, 2018 Author Administrators Share Posted July 31, 2018 Just now, Sketchy said: @Alex Just a thought, but have you considered scaling voting power based on income? Also, perhaps the ability to embargo alliances off the color by vote would make things more interesting. Reducing the number of nations and altering the average income bonus in the process. It would certainly lead to more conflicts. I don't think I want to scale voting power by income, but I am hoping to do more with voting in the future. Either letting nations on a color as a whole vote on things like embargoes, etc. or allowing them to elect some sort of representatives who can unilaterally impose embargoes and whatnot. In any case, right now we've got the framework for voting systems in-game, and that foundation is likely to be the most time-intensive piece of any future voting-related updates. 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...
Waffle Posted July 31, 2018 Share Posted July 31, 2018 13 minutes ago, Alex said: Nations at 10 cities average over $44,000,000 in monetary net revenue daily, and $900K/day is only about a 20% income increase for them How do I get my revenue to 44 million daily? I am at 12 cities but only make 300 thousand a day. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joel James Posted July 31, 2018 Share Posted July 31, 2018 TBH, when I first read the trade sphere title, I thought a tariff was going to be implemented on trading with non-team members. Maybe someday, but this works too Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrators Alex Posted July 31, 2018 Author Administrators Share Posted July 31, 2018 3 minutes ago, Waffle said: How do I get my revenue to 44 million daily? I am at 12 cities but only make 300 thousand a day. Sorry, I believe that's a typo from an earlier figure I had entered, that should read for 15 city nations. And it should be $4,400,000; not $44m. Note, however, that you are making more than double $300K/day, monetary net income factors in the value of resources you produce as well. The average monetary net income for nations with 10 cities is $1,140,082. 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...
Joel James Posted July 31, 2018 Share Posted July 31, 2018 1 minute ago, Alex said: Sorry, I believe that's a typo from an earlier figure I had entered, that should read for 15 city nations. Note, however, that you are making more than double $300K/day, monetary net income factors in the value of resources you produce as well. How do you make $44 million a day at 15 cities? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sketchy Posted July 31, 2018 Share Posted July 31, 2018 1 minute ago, Alex said: I don't think I want to scale voting power by income, but I am hoping to do more with voting in the future. Either letting nations on a color as a whole vote on things like embargoes, etc. or allowing them to elect some sort of representatives who can unilaterally impose embargoes and whatnot. In any case, right now we've got the framework for voting systems in-game, and that foundation is likely to be the most time-intensive piece of any future voting-related updates. The main issue I see is people abusing multis in order to influence votes, especially if the votes become more powerful. I'd even make the case about micros, but that is probably more controversial. Perhaps a minimum cap on score for voters? Or a certain nation age? Some sort of minimum cap seems appropriate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joel James Posted July 31, 2018 Share Posted July 31, 2018 Just now, Sketchy said: The main issue I see is people abusing multis in order to influence votes, especially if the votes become more powerful. I'd even make the case about micros, but that is probably more controversial. Perhaps a minimum cap on score for voters? Or a certain nation age? Some sort of minimum cap seems appropriate. Maybe a soft voting weight with the number of cities? More cities == older nations == more income, generally. This would also calm down people with less infra builds. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrators Alex Posted July 31, 2018 Author Administrators Share Posted July 31, 2018 Just now, Sketchy said: The main issue I see is people abusing multis in order to influence votes, especially if the votes become more powerful. I'd even make the case about micros, but that is probably more controversial. Perhaps a minimum cap on score for voters? Or a certain nation age? Some sort of minimum cap seems appropriate. You are right about that, and I did consider the multi issue as well. It seems like a ridiculous thing to me to risk getting banned for, but I'm sure people will do it. I will likely institute a minimum then yes, based on age or score or something to discourage multi abuse. As for micros, I think they're welcome to try and brigade the votes as much as they want (just as large alliances will too, I'm sure.) 2 minutes ago, Joel James said: How do you make $44 million a day at 15 cities? It was also supposed to be $4.4m, not $44m. Sorry for the confusion. 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...
Mikey Posted July 31, 2018 Share Posted July 31, 2018 (edited) 17 minutes ago, Sketchy said: It will incentivize upper tier tiering, but not lower tier. If lower tier people pursue upper tier allies, some of them will likely accept, so in effect it reduces the incentive. Plus the bonus is capped at 900k per day per nation, which is decent on a large scale but nothing to stake yourself politically on. That number is more significant to lower tier nations, upper tier nations would scoff at it. This all assumes people adjust to the meta and change their group color to a single color, which some alliances will do, others have too much of a stake in their color to do it I expect. Maybe it depends on how you define upper tier. I don't think most upper-mid tier alliances would scoff at it anyways, where maybe CoS, TEst and Grumpy would. Based on some rough math from my own nation (I am not an econ guy and and willing to admit I may be doing this all wrong), 900k per day is as much profit as you would get from 2 cities at 2000 infra and 115% commerce at moderate militarization levels. Its not nearly as important, to be sure, as it is to mid and lower tier AAs. But its still nice. Certainly alliances with averages between 15-20 cities I could see wanting it. Even higher up, Guardian for example would get an extra 1.323 billion per month across all their members. Even they I'm sure could find uses for that money. But as I noted in a response to sheepy, war ranges prevent super tier consolidation for controlling colors. An upper tier economic bloc couldn't actually keep out the low tier AAs due to not being able to attack them, so it could never work in practice even if people wanted it. So in that regard you do actually need a mixed tiering to try and police a color. Edited July 31, 2018 by Mikey 4 Quote Archduke Tyrell, Lord of Highgarden, Lord Paramount of the Reach, Warden of the South, Breaker of Forums. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordStrum Posted July 31, 2018 Share Posted July 31, 2018 can't wait to set black to "Superchola-X and their Black Friends" good stuff Quote On 3/16/2016 at 9:54 PM, Lykos said: Our next move is obviously rolling LordStrum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dusty Posted July 31, 2018 Share Posted July 31, 2018 1 hour ago, Sir Scarfalot said: So, are you going to go forward with the war changes that have been tested and implemented on the test server as well, or are those going to be discarded? There weren't any war updates in the test server Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dusty Posted July 31, 2018 Share Posted July 31, 2018 @Alex how long till the changes are implemented Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kurdanak Posted July 31, 2018 Share Posted July 31, 2018 Said before, said again - colour stocks were one of the most exciting things about this game back in the day. I'm thrilled to see its return! Let the games begin. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flanderlion Posted July 31, 2018 Share Posted July 31, 2018 2 hours ago, Alex said: I am hoping to have this all implemented on August 5th for P&W's 4th birthday. As well, I'll hopefully have the 4th birthday award special offer figured out soon, which I imagine many of you remember from previous birthdays. 1 hour ago, Bluedart said: @Alex how long till the changes are implemented 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikey Posted July 31, 2018 Share Posted July 31, 2018 I assume the 4 year birthday is referring to stable PW, after it came out of beta. But does anyone remember when PW first started in alpha/beta whatever? I remember it being on the tail end of 2013 but not the specific month, just out of curiosity. Quote Archduke Tyrell, Lord of Highgarden, Lord Paramount of the Reach, Warden of the South, Breaker of Forums. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Scarfalot Posted July 31, 2018 Share Posted July 31, 2018 1 hour ago, Bluedart said: There weren't any war updates in the test server Yes, there were; fortification gives 5 resistance and costs 3 actions, but only increases casualties by 10% on the test server. Or at least that's how it had been at the conclusion of the 5th tournament; I don't know if that was reverted for the recent non-tournament thing. Either way, there were war changes on the test server, for sure and certain. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roq Posted July 31, 2018 Share Posted July 31, 2018 3 hours ago, Alex said: Color I didn't realize that Alex was American. Before now, if someone asked, I would have said that he was British, or just European. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azaghul Posted July 31, 2018 Share Posted July 31, 2018 2 hours ago, Alex said: Another thing that will become implemented is a new player bonus, which is a 100% gross income bonus for nations with 1 city, 90% bonus for nations with 2 cities, 80% for 3 cities, and so forth until 11 cities, at which no bonus is applied any longer. This extra income is just to make the game easier for new players, help them catch up, and hopefully, stick around. The revenue screen has been improved as well to make it clearer how all of these bonuses impact your income: This approach to "helping new players catch up" is fundamentally flawed. Previous changes have been justified by the same flawed logic, things that increase income and/or decrease costs for new nations. It's a short term solution because changes like this will eventually be overcome by natural increases in the age gap between old players and new players as the game ages. That's always going to be true when growth and wealth generation is in large part a function of time. New nations are never to "catch up" to old nations, because the age gap is almost always going to grow. If you think the gap is a problem (and it is), you need to make changes to the game that aren't trying to reduce that gap, but make the gap less important. Average nation sizes are almost always going to grow over time as average nation age goes up. Right now as the game is structured, big gaps reduce interaction between old and new players. That stratification leads to boring stalemates where parts of alliances fight to exhaustion and then are forced to keep fighting because overall their alliance isn't exhausted, and others don't get to fight much at all. An aging game right now also leads to bigger war-chests as people have had more time to accumulate resources. And higher average nation sizes and infra levels means that what people feel they need to "rebuild to" steadily increases, which increases the time between wars. How can this be done? I don't want to get bogged down in specific suggestions (I've made plenty before.) But just fundamentally: 1) Create war dynamics where larger and smaller nations are able to fight each other. A couple ways this can be balanced: make individual battles less dependent on always having more total units. Create a system where lots of small nations can 'take on' bigger nations. This is probably going to involve doing something where having one big nation functions more like having 2-3 small or mid sized nations. 2) Do something to limit warchest growth and rebuilding to some hard amount of time. That time should be designed to stay about the same even as nations get bigger and time passes. People like to blame stagnation on the players but it's really more of a game design issue. I don't like to be one of those players that is always complaining or critical, so I want to add that I like the new color system. There are some issues I have with the specifics of it, but overall I really like where it is going. 1 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Epi Posted July 31, 2018 Share Posted July 31, 2018 (edited) 681 Edited February 16, 2021 by Epi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James XVI Posted July 31, 2018 Share Posted July 31, 2018 If people on lime/green or whatever don't call themselves GPA, I'll be disappointed. Quote THE Definitive James: KastorCultist, Co-leading Roz Wei Empyrea The Wei, former TGH warrior, Assassin, and a few more. Player of this game for more time than I want to think about... 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.