Jump to content

Addressing the "invincibility" of improvements


Prefontaine
 Share

Recommended Posts

I'd say a no on the reducing military improvements operating efficiency. If your infra is bombed that much you're already struggling with slashed buy limits. People already build their infra up to avoid this anyway, or at I certainly did.

The rest of it seems alright. Commerce is usually considered the income one uses to keep fighting the war so having that cut down would be interesting.

Doesn't seem to unintentionally benefit on tier either. Whales already can rebuild their infra to max rebuy longer than most people so it doesn't change much, especially as I doubt they'd go high enough to use their inprovements.

 

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Akuryo said:

I'd say a no on the reducing military improvements operating efficiency. If your infra is bombed that much you're already struggling with slashed buy limits. People already build their infra up to avoid this anyway, or at I certainly did.

The rest of it seems alright. Commerce is usually considered the income one uses to keep fighting the war so having that cut down would be interesting.

Doesn't seem to unintentionally benefit on tier either. Whales already can rebuild their infra to max rebuy longer than most people so it doesn't change much, especially as I doubt they'd go high enough to use their inprovements.

 

The original idea isn't to reduce the efficiency, but merely a possible addition to it which is why its listed in the "area to consider" part. I look at it as you've got at least some infrastructure working, and you're at war so you prioritize supporting your military buildings. I don't personally like the idea of it gimping production levels, but I wanted to put the idea out there to see if it got traction. Sometimes ideas you don't like personally get support, that's why I try to include them when I can. 

2 hours ago, ShadyAssassin said:

You are asking sheepy to do too much

Sheepy stated he was going to be putting far more time and effort into the game in the coming weeks/months. Upwards of 40 hours a week. The purpose of these suggestions are to give focus to that time and work on things that will improve problem areas in the game, rather than something like baseball. Perhaps you should put more effort into your replies other than "no", then people might respect your opinion and give your point of view thought. The only reason I replied to you here is because you added more to your original post of "no". State why you don't like it, propose alternatives, use your brain and contribute. 

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 1

scSqPGJ.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like this. Though I think the detriment should be to economic buildings not military.

A possibility could be the five days is a peace time number, and if that nation is at war it is every 2 to 3.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, The Mad Titan said:

detriment should be to economic buildings not military.

there is already detriment to commerce buildings as well as military buildings because population depends on infra

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, ShadyAssassin said:

there is already detriment to commerce buildings as well as military buildings because population depends on infra

 

Yes but I am saying military buildings shouldn't decay, only resource and commerce ones.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Alex said:

One concern I have about this idea is that I think it may drastically increase the necessary warchests for alliances to be willing to go to war. If you need to have enough cash on hand to rebuy your infra to stay in a war for more than a short while, that suddenly becomes a ton of cash necessary. Such massive increases in necessary warchests may seriously prolong the periods of "peace" between global wars in the game.

Its already part of the war meta to rebuild to 700-1000 infra at points in the fight. this would actually shorten wars since there's less incentive to staying at war with no improvements which fund during a war.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It may well increase warchest size but it'd be an offshore warchest. Like how TEst always kept half its warchest off their nations in the event of a blitz so that the enemy couldnt loot and expend half of it. 

It would then decentivize long wars because those warchests won't last particularly long, especially if the bank gets hit.

  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators
1 hour ago, Akuryo said:

It would then decentivize long wars because those warchests won't last particularly long, especially if the bank gets hit.

What makes you think wars would be shorter instead of being the same length and the gaps between global wars longer?

In theory, wars can be as long or short as players want. We could have shorter wars now with smaller warchests, but we don't. Unless players fundamentally change the length of time they want or expect to fight wars, they will require warchests to cover the same length of time. And if wars are more expensive, that means larger warchests, which requires longer periods of peace to rebuild between wars. This has been a problem in the past, which is why I bring it up again now to make sure we don't repeat old mistakes.

  • Like 2

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

3 minutes ago, Alex said:

What makes you think wars would be shorter instead of being the same length and the gaps between global wars longer?

In theory, wars can be as long or short as players want. We could have shorter wars now with smaller warchests, but we don't. Unless players fundamentally change the length of time they want or expect to fight wars, they will require warchests to cover the same length of time. And if wars are more expensive, that means larger warchests, which requires longer periods of peace to rebuild between wars. This has been a problem in the past, which is why I bring it up again now to make sure we don't repeat old mistakes.

Typically people don't go into a war thinking "This is going to go on for 3 months". From my experience global wars are typically game planned for ~1 month, if there are some super whales to grind down maybe a little longer. In the current meta you can effectively turtle forever, and lob nukes while maintaining resource production and some income from commerce. If you start to drop that it will push people for peace sooner. People will go into a war with effectively the same war chest, it will just get depleted eventually. Currently warchests never get depleted unless someone goes into a war with virtually nothing saved up.

  • Upvote 3

scSqPGJ.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
On 5/2/2019 at 10:02 AM, Prefontaine said:

lobbing nukes and such.

Problem there is that when you reach $0 you can't go below.

Nuclear Reserve 50     Nuclear Reserve 200     Nuclear Reserve 750     Nuclear Reserve 2000
Ura: 12500     Ura: 50000     Ura: 187500     Ura: 500000
Gas: 25000     Gas: 100000     Gas: 375000     Gas: 1000000
Alu: 37500     Alu: 150000     Alu: 562500     Alu: 1500000
Cash: 87500000     Cash: 350000000     Cash: 1312500000     Cash: 3500000000
Upkeep: 835550     Upkeep: 3342200     Upkeep: 12533250     Upkeep: 33422000
                           

 

32204241a4480364cfebb04c10bf72cfaeb4dce2x696.gif
Former Manager t$ and Director of R&D
Former Director of Finance, Security in e$
Founder of The Prate Syndicate(test server)
luffyt$forum.gif
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
Guest Frawley

I would be in favor of either:

Improvements being destroyed at a far greater rate than presently; or

Players can rank improvements in the order they turn off as infra drops off; or

The efficiency of each improvement becomes proportional to the slots in use at the time. Eg in a 20/40 setup, military recruitment is halved, as well as economic, power output etc. Upkeep on the other had should be the inverse, with upkeep going up as the infrastructure to support it disappears. This would necessitate larger nation war chests, for which a higher amount of protected look (curr: 100k) would be desirable.  I suggested a city based one a while ago that was well received. 

Obviously I prefer the last one. 

Edited by Frawley
Mobile Typing
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/2/2019 at 2:26 PM, Prefontaine said:

Typically people don't go into a war thinking "This is going to go on for 3 months". From my experience global wars are typically game planned for ~1 month, if there are some super whales to grind down maybe a little longer. In the current meta you can effectively turtle forever, and lob nukes while maintaining resource production and some income from commerce. If you start to drop that it will push people for peace sooner. People will go into a war with effectively the same war chest, it will just get depleted eventually. Currently warchests never get depleted unless someone goes into a war with virtually nothing saved up.

Really? because every war i fight against BK or IQ in general, the assumption is that its going to last a few months.

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Noctis Anarch Caelum said:

I don’t think they’re invincible at all when nukes can automatically take out 2 each time. It should be costly & not easy to wipe out someone’s improvements.

No building improvement depends on infras so it's only logical if we don't have infras those improvements should stop working. personally i'm in favour of turning cities off completely if the infra/improvement ratio is not adjusted within ~2days(Actual war length/fastest beige). Nuking is inefficient and costly.

Edited by Limbuwan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Limbuwan said:

No building improvement depends on infras so it's only logical if we don't have infras those improvements should stop working. personally i'm in favour of turning cities off if the infra/improvement ratio is not adjusted within ~2days(Actual war length/fastest beige). Nuking is inefficient and costly.

Building them requiring makes it expensive enough to rebuild any which potentially gets destroyed; no reason to make people keep rebuying to the same infra level to keep them working. Would be a mechanic change which might help those rich enough to keep rebuying their infra longer than the enemy; but overall make war really annoying in this game & people less likely to keep playing when their infra gets wrecked if suddenly it makes all their improvements atop working & they need to destroy what’s left of their nation on their own to keep it working.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Noctis Anarch Caelum said:

Building them requiring makes it expensive enough to rebuild any which potentially gets destroyed; no reason to make people keep rebuying to the same infra level to keep them working. Would be a mechanic change which might help those rich enough to keep rebuying their infra longer than the enemy; but overall make war really annoying in this game & people less likely to keep playing when their infra gets wrecked if suddenly it makes all their improvements atop working & they need to destroy what’s left of their nation on their own to keep it working.

Sorry mate but when you can have your cities basically levelled in infra and only lose 12 improvements, in a nation that has over 500, they're practically invincible. The only things which kill them reliably do so very very slowly.

  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Akuryo said:

Sorry mate but when you can have your cities basically levelled in infra and only lose 12 improvements, in a nation that has over 500, they're practically invincible. The only things which kill them reliably do so very very slowly.

If you keep nuking them, eventually they’ll lose enough power plants & air fields; it’s necessary or better to reset the city.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Noctis Anarch Caelum said:

Building them requiring makes it expensive enough to rebuild any which potentially gets destroyed; no reason to make people keep rebuying to the same infra level to keep them working. Would be a mechanic change which might help those rich enough to keep rebuying their infra longer than the enemy; but overall make war really annoying in this game & people less likely to keep playing when their infra gets wrecked if suddenly it makes all their improvements atop working & they need to destroy what’s left of their nation on their own to keep it working.

The original thread says there is a five days wait period so plenty of time to keep doing what you want to and when our nation gets wrecked we generally only rebuild to sufficient infra level. if our military improvement gets destroyed then we tear down other improvements to make room for military so there should not be issue on rebuying. This will also keep dmgs low and end globals quickly but makes wars frequently given there is no long period of NAP.

  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Limbuwan said:

The original thread says there is a five days wait period so plenty of time to keep doing what you want to and when our nation gets wrecked we generally only rebuild to sufficient infra level. if our military improvement gets destroyed then we tear down other improvements to make room for military so there should not be issue on rebuying. This will also keep dmgs low and end globals quickly but makes wars frequently given there is no long period of NAP.

For anyone not in alliance which can afford to keep rebuilding to the needed infra levels for their strategy; it would be game breaking annoying though. People like Akuryo could have kept their improvements & made the enemy destroy it; its their own fault they chose to sell down rather than benefit from their peak infra level. Don’t think we should reward people for destroying their infra before the enemy can when in a war they assume it will be wrecked anyways.

Edited by Noctis Anarch Caelum
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Noctis Anarch Caelum said:

For anyone not in alliance which can afford to keep rebuilding to the needed infra levels for their strategy; it would be game breaking annoying though. People like Akuryo could have kept their improvements & made the enemy destroy it; its their own fault they chose to sell down rather than benefit from their peak infra level. Don’t think we should reward people for destroying their infra before the enemy can when in a war they assume it will be wrecked anyways.

Excuse me? I didn't sell down my infra you shit-spouting clown. Your friends in BK did that. You're gonna invoke my name, know what you're talking about.My infra got blown to ash, you can check how much i've lost on NPOwned. 

And no, they really shouldn't be rewarded for hiding from their own tier to kick people with 12 cities with their maxed plane c20s.

 

Furhtermore, you're talking 20 nukes for a SINGLE 2000 infra city. I don't need to explain why what you said is unimaginably moronic, i hope.

Edited by Akuryo
  • Downvote 1
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.