Jump to content

Blatantly Self-Serving War suggestion Volume 2


Sweeeeet Ronny D
 Share

Recommended Posts

On 7/12/2019 at 5:41 PM, Alex said:

I fundamentally disagree (which is why the war ranges are set the way they are, and also why you can always declare on the next 10 ranks above you.) Allowing you to down declare an equal range as up declare makes it too easy to stay on top. 

The game is perpetual, and no one should be able to remain at the top forever. This aspect of the system is designed intentionally to prevent people from being on top for too long.

 

 

As for increasing the score from aircraft, I think that's fine.

Fighting in wars isn't what keeps the big nations on top, it's how they are run during peace that keeps them on top.  I would say a large amount of the top tier nations in the game have been in the top tier close to their entire time in PnW.  I know I have, and I have both won and lost plenty of wars. 

The only way to knock me out of the top tier is by deleting 20 of my cities, or keeping me in perma war for like 2-3 years, to prevent me from growing.  Even then, I would still probably be in the top 85% of the game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/5/2019 at 10:56 PM, Micchan said:

About planes I noticed that whales now have a crazy number of planes killed with a single attack, like 600+

I think there should be a cap or a reduction

In general I think units die too fast except for tanks in ground battles, the first 24-48 hours are for killing units, the rest of the war is more boring and slow

The existing mechanics are fine. People still use naval attacks to blockade and ground attacks to limit potential airstrikes. There's no need to change game mechanics for entirely arbitrary reasons like this.

On 7/8/2019 at 11:48 AM, durmij said:

The greater problem is the disproportionate amount of damage planes do and their slow rebuild speed. Damage should be over all nerfed, hitting planes a little harder than others, and the rebuild timers should be changed to 3-4-4-4 instead of 3-5-6-5 days. We can't just keep fiddling with the war ranges when their are far deeper issues in the war system.

Why change? People use al units, there's nothing wrong with the mechanics (depending on whether your alliance understands them) and there's no need to dumb the mechanics down because one group's strategy is more effective than another's. These settings (aside from the massive increase in damage from Assassinate Spies attacks) have been around for a while, each of the sides that tend to gather together understand them and do what they can to maximize their advantage.

You don't see the NBA changing the value of baskets vs three point shots just because three point shots have three points.

GICjEwp.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ComradeMilton said:

You don't see the NBA changing the value of baskets vs three point shots just because three point shots have three points.

But they are thinking to move back the three point line

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, ComradeMilton said:

They don't. To be a game you don't need to constantly change basic aspects of it.

To be a perpetual game that's balanced, you indeed always need to constantly change basic aspects of it. Otherwise, optimization efforts will cause the game to stagnate, or end.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Sir Scarfalot said:

To be a perpetual game that's balanced, you indeed always need to constantly change basic aspects of it. Otherwise, optimization efforts will cause the game to stagnate, or end.

No, you don't.  I've never heard of a game changing drastic elements so often as this one.  It's unnecessary, alienating to established players, and only serves one group over another as detailed in the title.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

GICjEwp.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, ComradeMilton said:

No, you don't.  I've never heard of a game changing drastic elements so often as this one.  It's unnecessary, alienating to established players, and only serves one group over another as detailed in the title.

1st off, that title is tongue-in-cheek. Second, it is absolutely necessary for a perpetual game, as perpetual games constantly evolve in terms of tactics and player politics, thus exposing different balance issues on a constant basis.

Third, you must never have heard of Overwatch, League of Legends, Fortnite, Starcraft 2, World of Warcraft, Rust, Minecraft, Team Fortress 2, Kenshi, Cybernations, World of Warships, World of Tanks, Totally Accurate Battle Simulator, Darkest Dungeon.... Out of curiousity, what games are you even familiar with, since I actually can't think of very many games made this decade that don't have update changelogs a mile long each (in some cases quite literally)?

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

Tribes, Quake 2: Rocket Arena, Starcraft, CN off the top of my head. Oh, and I've been playing this for about its entire run.  They do not need to be changed to continue. Please name a game that didn't change anything substantial to the gameplay and had to end.

GICjEwp.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Sir Scarfalot said:

To be a perpetual game that's balanced, you indeed always need to constantly change basic aspects of it. Otherwise, optimization efforts will cause the game to stagnate, or end.

The game itself is balanced. It;s the players that make things unbalanced. Alliances, friendships, different strategies etc If you want things to be completely balanced then everyone gets a Nation pre-built that they can't grow. The playerbase is split 50/50 and you are forced on one side or the other.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, ComradeMilton said:

Tribes, Quake 2: Rocket Arena, Starcraft, CN off the top of my head. Oh, and I've been playing this for about its entire run.  They do not need to be changed to continue. Please name a game that didn't change anything substantial to the gameplay and had to end.

>Bloc, Worlds at War, Dying Horizon, >Clop, Compounds, POST, >Bloc TRW, Bloodcoded, City of Heroes, and Star Wars Galaxies off the top of my head. Each of those lived as long as they changed things, but ultimately died, partly due to poor administrative decisions but also because gameplay stagnated due to the realized potential of utter victory destroying balance entirely.

Also, literally every single-player game in existence.

13 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

The game itself is balanced. It;s the players that make things unbalanced. Alliances, friendships, different strategies etc If you want things to be completely balanced then everyone gets a Nation pre-built that they can't grow. The playerbase is split 50/50 and you are forced on one side or the other.

Do you even see the contradictions in your post? The players are part of the game and their actions are based entirely on game mechanics, because player actions are game mechanics. And therefore, if their actions are potentially unbalancing (treaty blobbing, tiering, avoiding beige), then mechanical factors to rebalance them (changes to beige, score range changes) are necessary to maintain game balance. Which is what I said; optimization efforts are naturally what self-interested players (which is all rational players) should be doing in-game. Their efforts simply need to be compensated for, including by the players themselves out of game.

Edited by Sir Scarfalot
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Sir Scarfalot said:

Do you even read the contradictions in that post? The players are part of the game and their actions are based entirely on game mechanics, because player actions *are* game mechanics. And therefore, if their actions are potentially unbalancing (treaty blobbing, tiering, avoiding beige), then mechanical factors to rebalance them (changes to beige, score range changes) are necessary to maintain game balance.

My point is that players actions will always unbalance the game. Constant changes that affect the majority of the players negatively will simply drive players away. At what point do we remove all strategy and creativity from the game and all play the same way?

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

12 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

My point is that players actions will always unbalance the game. Constant changes that affect the majority of the players negatively will simply drive players away. At what point do we remove all strategy and creativity from the game and all play the same way?

No, changes that affect a player group negatively in-game but maintain balance to the game as a whole affects all players positively and to a greater degree. This includes the player group that got nerfed, since while in-game they may have lost an advantage... they still have a balanced game to play. Anyone that's so immature and entitled as to hold their playership hostage in the interest of maintaining imbalance in their favor absolutely should be driven away, since such behavior harms everyone, including themselves, since the logical conclusion of that mindset is a victorious and concluded game, or a broken balance mess like Dawn of War: Soulstorm. Both scenarios are an inferior gameplay environment to a perpetual game, and that's what really drives players away: the game ending.

And no, strategy and creativity is never removed from the game, it simply must be compensated for. Creativity needs to be compensated for by creativity, that's called balance. Otherwise, the optimal gameplay strategy will remove all other strategy and creativity from the game, and then we're all playing the same way anyway. That's also why it's so important to report and not abuse major exploits.

Edited by Sir Scarfalot
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Sir Scarfalot said:

No, changes that affect a player group negatively in-game but maintain balance to the game as a whole affects all players positively and to a greater degree. This includes the player group that got nerfed, since while in-game they may have lost an advantage... they still have a balanced game to play. Anyone that's so immature and entitled as to hold their playership hostage in the interest of maintaining imbalance in their favor absolutely should be driven away, since such behavior harms everyone, including themselves, since the logical conclusion of that mindset is a victorious and concluded game, or a broken balance mess like Dawn of War: Soulstorm. Both scenarios are an inferior gameplay environment to a perpetual game, and that's what really drives players away: the game ending.

And no, strategy and creativity is never removed from the game, it simply must be compensated for. Creativity needs to be compensated for by creativity, that's called balance. Otherwise, the optimal gameplay strategy will remove all other strategy and creativity from the game, and then we're all playing the same way anyway. That's also why it's so important to report and not abuse major exploits.

We should just post in this subforum if we're no doing well and hope Sheepy changes things so they're more in our favor, I assume?

  • Upvote 1

GICjEwp.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Sir Scarfalot said:

>Bloc, Worlds at War, Dying Horizon, >Clop, Compounds, POST, >Bloc TRW, Bloodcoded, City of Heroes, and Star Wars Galaxies off the top of my head.

You forgot about Power and Attrition.

  • Haha 1

NODOLsmall.png.a7aa9c0a05fa266425cd7e83d8ccb3dd.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Sir Scarfalot said:

No, changes that affect a player group negatively in-game but maintain balance to the game as a whole affects all players positively and to a greater degree. This includes the player group that got nerfed, since while in-game they may have lost an advantage... they still have a balanced game to play. Anyone that's so immature and entitled as to hold their playership hostage in the interest of maintaining imbalance in their favor absolutely should be driven away, since such behavior harms everyone, including themselves, since the logical conclusion of that mindset is a victorious and concluded game, or a broken balance mess like Dawn of War: Soulstorm. Both scenarios are an inferior gameplay environment to a perpetual game, and that's what really drives players away: the game ending.

And no, strategy and creativity is never removed from the game, it simply must be compensated for. Creativity needs to be compensated for by creativity, that's called balance. Otherwise, the optimal gameplay strategy will remove all other strategy and creativity from the game, and then we're all playing the same way anyway. That's also why it's so important to report and not abuse major exploits.

What you are proposing unbalances the game into your coalitions favour. These are the same mechanics we have all played with and have never really been an issue, except now people you don't like are doing better with the same mechanics.

  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, WISD0MTREE said:

You forgot about Power and Attrition.

I did, my bad.

7 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

What you are proposing unbalances the game into your coalitions favour. These are the same mechanics we have all played with and have never really been an issue, except now people you don't like are doing better with the same mechanics.

No, what I personally am proposing and have always proposed, regardless of who was doing well with the alternative including myself and my team, and has genuinely been an issue ever since fortify was nerfed, is all wars result in beige. So, I'm going to (ineffectually) ask you again: Please stop being disingenuous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ComradeMilton said:

They don't. To be a game you don't need to constantly change basic aspects of it.

Hi there, World of Tanks and literally every successful MMO ever is calling. They say you're full of shit. 

 

Edited by Akuryo
  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ComradeMilton said:

We should just post in this subforum if we're no doing well and hope Sheepy changes things so they're more in our favor, I assume?

No, you should start being creative and looking for new ways to counter your opponents if you're not doing well. If there truly IS no way to do that, then that's when complaints about the genuine balance problem becomes warranted.

Ideal situation:

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Akuryo said:

Hi there, World of Tanks and literally every successful MMO ever is calling. They say you're full of shit.

Hi. So you found one example.  Out of thousands and thousands of text MMOs. I think you're the one who is full of shit.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 2

GICjEwp.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, ComradeMilton said:

Hi. So you found one example.  Out of thousands and thousands of text MMOs. I think you're the one who is full of shit.

Yes, because I didn't research literally every successful MMO to exist I'm full of shit. It's totally not that you're a disingenuous tard nugget who wants to promote an endless status quo that allows his side to effortlessly change nothing while slowly strangling the game through stagnate development and wars lasting 1/3 of a year.

I see you listed CN in an example above. You realize it died specifically because of a lack of change right? Sit your ass down and learn what you're talking about before you speak.

  • Like 1
  • Downvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, ComradeMilton said:

Hi. So you found one example.  Out of thousands and thousands of text MMOs. I think you're the one who is full of shit.

Fella, we brought up half a dozen and that doesn't even scratch the surface, since there's thousands and thousands of examples in our favor and almost literally none in your favor. Game balance needs to be consistently tweaked since, as Tiberius accurately said,

6 hours ago, Tiberius said:

players actions will always unbalance the game.

Since that's true, the game must be constantly tweaked to compensate for those emergent imbalances, so that the game doesn't end up with all of us playing the same way with no creativity. Arguing that making changes drives people away is absolutely invalid; changes need to be made to keep pace with the meta in *all* successful perpetual multiplayer environments. That's not even questionable. The exact changes can be debated over and tested endlessly, but change is still a constant necessity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Sir Scarfalot said:

Fella, we brought up half a dozen and that doesn't even scratch the surface, since there's thousands and thousands of examples in our favor and almost literally none in your favor. Game balance needs to be consistently tweaked since, as Tiberius accurately said,

Since that's true, the game must be constantly tweaked to compensate for those emergent imbalances, so that the game doesn't end up with all of us playing the same way with no creativity. Arguing that making changes drives people away is absolutely invalid; changes need to be made to keep pace with the meta in *all* successful perpetual multiplayer environments. That's not even questionable. The exact changes can be debated over and tested endlessly, but change is still a constant necessity.

Thing is people are playing differently now depending on the situations they are in. You don't need to constantly change mechanics to compensate because one coalition didn't manage to do diplomacy better among other things. In wars you are looking at needing a 4-1 or better advantage to fully defeat the other coalition. Beige for all wars will only benefit the whale tier, because you will never be able to hold them down. After every war they will be able to rebuild and be out of range. Beige for all wars removes the plane only strat. Which leaves everyone playing the same way, and gives those who attack first an even better advantage. The success of games such as these is an active player base with active alliance govs who will get consistently replaced by active and competent people. When people start going inactive and don't get replaced that is when the game will start to die. 

You do have me intrigued though, how would beige in all wars affect the meta that the whale tier are pretty much untouchable and can perpetually stay as the whale tier? You also have the fact that the games meta caused the considerable tiering we have to counter the whale tier too. Safety in numbers etc. The thing you have to understand is these changes affect the vast majority of where the game is played, the mid tier and only a small amount of people even want any changes. Furthermore there will always be political bias when changes are suggested. The best suggestions invariably come from new players who are untainted by the games politics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Akuryo said:

I see you listed CN in an example above. You realize it died specifically because of a lack of change right? Sit your ass down and learn what you're talking about before you speak.

That's entirely subjective. CN is an example of a game where the admin completely didn't give a frick and it's still going now. The issue with CN is that active people left and the void never got replaced. I'd also argue the admin changing the game mechanics once it was established and made things worse.(changing the amount of tech that could be sent)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not about change or not having change in the game. It's about if it's possible to catch up for newer players. And it actually is.

There's no cap on how much money you can pass to someone. Updeclares work just fine, and everything about the way the growth curve works (IE: slowing as a nation gets larger) favours newer players. Same goes for the war declare ranges work.

And don't get me wrong. As an older player, I think that's great, and exactly how the game should be set up.

If the same whales are sitting around whaling it up, that's a political issue: there's nothing about the mechanics that dictates that that has to be. Even in the present war, the only thing that really stopped the largest whales from getting beaten down was in-game politics (and uhhh, I'd posit, poorly handled ones. :P).

 

  • Like 1

Slaughter the shits of the world. They poison the air you breathe.

 

~ William S. Burroughs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/12/2019 at 10:41 PM, Alex said:

The game is perpetual, and no one should be able to remain at the top forever. This aspect of the system is designed intentionally to prevent people from being on top for too long.

Not that it particularly matters, @Alex but it doesn't seem to me like Fraggle will be moving off the top nation score spot anytime too and even if someone tries to catch up they have very little chance unless the entire game throws money at their military, nation etc

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.