Popular Post Tom Riddle Posted September 21, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted September 21, 2019 As we all know there a quite a few changes we would like to see made to the game. I’d like to address changes that could rather easily be made, as the game mechanics already exist. These changes are points that the community has either spoken about or things I’ve compiled from a large amount of people in the community through my Discord DM’s and numerous Voice Chat conversations one of which being with yourself. This is meant to be a proposal made in good faith to you Alex so that we may be able to enjoy the game a little more while at the same time helping you to improve your product. First off I would like to talk about the effects of Nuclear Weapons on a Nation. Generally Initial food production would be affected in the surrounding area (The City that the Nuke hit). After this The Fallout would affect the rest of the countries population, similar to how Japan’s Cancer Rates rose significantly post-bombing. This being said, I would like to propose that when a Nuclear Weapon goes off in a nation that the rest of the Nations Cities Populations be affected. This effect would stack if more Nuclear Weapons were launched at the same nation. This would help to balance how Nuclear Weapons effect nations of different sizes. “Whales” would be affected by a Nuclear Weapon in the same way that a smaller nation might be affected, but as we all know “Whales” are much juicer targets for Nuclear Weapons and will most likely be hit more often than smaller nations. Clarification and Outline of What is Proposed: Keep the initial Population and Infrastructure hit to the city affected by the Nuke. Add or modify a mechanic that reduces the population of all the nations cities (or nation as a whole) by 0.5% to 1% stacking for every Nuke but the half-life of which is much longer than the initial blast. Possibly 1 to 5 years in Orbis Time. This helps to represent the potential die off from Fallout related illness/Cancer. Global Radiation should affect food production less but instead effect global population by 0.10% for every Full Point of “Global Nuclear Radiation Index”. This represents possible birth defects, miscarriages, and infant mortality rate due to Parental Radiation exposure. Ex: GNRI = 149.55, Global Population would be affected by a 14.9% Reduction Worldwide until the Radiation dissipates with time; slowly increasing Global Population again. A possible minimum population mechanic could be added so someones nation does not drop below a certain point with these mechanics in place. On a Similar Subject to the Proposal above I believe that a good deal of the community would like to see Nuclear Weapons being used outside of a “War-Time Environment”. As we know the threat of all out Nuclear War was prominent during the “Cold-War” Era here on earth. Firing or Dropping a Nuclear weapon on another country did not require Nations to declare war on one another all it required was a misstep/mishap or the press of a button. The use of a Nuclear Weapon on another Nation could spark a localized war between two nations or an all out war between Political Blocs; this realistic use of nuclear weapons on Orbis would not only raise the strategic value of having Nuclear Capabilities but would add a Political dynamic to the game in which nuclear weapons counts become relevant to alliances and nations as a whole when negotiating or dealing with one another. This being said, the use of Nuclear Weapons in this manner would not require a nation to be a certain size or score range in order to hit another nation; meaning that smaller nations acquiring Nuclear capabilities could help to even the playing field when smaller nations are Down Declared on. This would also give the ability for “Micros” as we call them to have more political weight when dealing with Larger Nations and Alliances. Overall this would increase the value of having Nuclear Weapons outside of War and create a push for the Project to be bought by smaller nations, making Nuclear Proliferation an actual threat to the world at large, especially when combined with the proposal above. Clarification and Outline of What is Proposed: The Ability to Fire 1 Nuclear Weapon at a designated city once a day. Similar to how Espionage Actions can be taken once a day. The Message would read who launched the Nuclear Weapon and the Alliance they are associated with, along with The Population and Infrastructure lost in the designated target. A chance could be added that you do not hit your designated target as well; either missing entirely and having no effect, detonation before it hits the target (having no effect except for adding to Global Radiation), or hitting the wrong target entirely in the Targeted Nation. Target designation does not have to be added but it would be a nice touch to Realism. The Ability for Nuclear Weapons to be fired without a “War Range”. Allowing Smaller Nations to fight more effectively against Larger Ones who “Down Declare” or have the Potential to “Down Declare” on them. Find an acceptable limit that a Nation can have Nuclear Weapons launched at it; The suggested limit being 3 Attacks a day, similar to how espionage attempts can be made 3 times a day on a single nation. Stepping away from the Topic of Nuclear weapons and delving into the Economic and Political side of things. A good deal of the community would like to see the ability for their alliance to embargo another alliance as a whole. This mimics Earth’s economics, where a Bloc of nations Sanctions Embargoes against another Similar to The Allies Embargoing and Blockading the Axis Powers or Nato sanctioning the Warsaw Pact. This simple mechanic that already exists, albeit at a smaller scale in the game would help to create to trade blocs. The ability to create insular trade between alliances would either eliminate the need for “Alliance Market Agreements” which are rarely used in this day and age, and make that mechanic a secondary one to the aforementioned Embargo mechanic. Overall it would give alliances the ability to stop trading entirely with enemy political/economic blocs while at the same time using the Alliance Market agreements to potentially lower the cost of goods traded between them without putting them on the Global Market. In addition the existing mechanic of Color Trade blocs could be reinforced; if an alliance could embargo an entire Trade Bloc Color. Clarification and Outline of What is Proposed: The ability for an Alliance to Embargo another Alliance as a whole. Potentially creating Insular Economic Blocs on Orbis. Similar to the initial idea of having Color Trade Blocs. Keep Alliance Trade/Market Agreements, in order to add another layer of realism to the mechanic mentioned above. The possible ability to Embargo an entire Color as an Alliance. This next one is also rather simple, and involves alliance membership rosters/lists. Many Members of the community would like to be able to have a button to press on The Alliance Membership Page that gives them the ability to only see Vacation Mode Nations. This would expedite a good deal of alliance operations in game and would be a nice touch, considering the current way of seeing which nations in your alliance are on vacation mode is making a list of those who are not in vacation mode clicking the button “Show Vacation Mode Nations” and cross referencing your written/typed list against the new list generated by the game. Doing all this takes quite a bit of time for larger alliances when doing Membership Audits and I feel the community at large would appreciate this small change so we can have more time to enjoy your game and less time trying to work out logistical problems. It may also potentially lower the use of API to audit membership via “sheets”, and gives the ability for smaller alliances with less experience to audit their alliances effectively if they do not have anyone proficient in making “sheets”. Clarification and Outline of What is Proposed: Add a Button that says “Show Only Vacation Mode Nations”. And only shows members of an alliance that are in Vacation Mode. Staying on the topic of potential additions to Alliance oriented content. Members of the community would like to see the addition of another “Title” in alliances. Many Alliances large and smaller utilize something called “Lower Gov”, people who take care of smaller jobs in alliances. These jobs include things such as audits, minor “milcom” related incidents, and other important jobs that help to keep an alliance running. Adding another “Title” to alliances such another “Officer” slot would help to stream-line internal structures of alliances, giving Leaders the ability to grant permissions to Upper level officers that should not be granted to “Low Gov” or potentially less trusted members of Alliance governments. Meaning that a Leader could Grants his Heir all the permissions he has, Officers being given less so, and then the new position whatever it being named has some minor abilities/permissions; giving them more power to affect the alliance then membership but not enough that they should be given a full fledged Officer Title. This would help to eliminate alliances being destroyed by either coups, bank heists, and general tom-foolery; potentially decreasing membership lost due to investments of time and money being lost to another person’s greed of apathy. It may also increase Nation retention as people are acknowledged for their time investment into this game you’ve created and the alliances they’ve helped to form and/or support. Clarification and Outline of What is Proposed: The addition of another Title to the “Edit Alliance” Tab and the “Alliance Info” Page that can be used for internal affairs and the possible betterment of membership retention in the game as a whole. Along the lines of Streamlining Alliances. We have a proposal that would improve the aesthetics of the Alliance “Control Panel” Tab and help many people who play this game on a mobile interface. The community would like to see the “Alliance Treaties” Widget modified; as we know many older alliances/alliances that have changed blocs multiple times have an inordinate amount of expired or cancelled treaties. When on the “Control Panel” Tab/Page this creates a very long list that one has to scroll through. We would like to see this modified so that it can either work like the “Nations” Page, where people can choose how many they can see at one time and page through them at their leisure; or the modifying of said Widget into a drop down menu. This would help people navigate the “Control Panel” Page and allow people to more readily see the “Warchest & Military Information”. Clarification and Outline of What is Proposed: Modify the “Alliance Treaties” Widget to that it is either a “Page by Page” affair or a drop down menu similar to how Build Slots is a “Drop Down” Menu. The same could be done for “Warchest & Military Information”. Moving on to a minor War/Project addition to the game. A good deal of the Community would like to see a change to the current “War-Meta” of the game. Airplanes are cool and all but let us not forget that here on earth things other than Air Planes can destroy Air Planes. One of them is Anti-Aircraft Batteries/Cannons/Networks/Guns; the ability to shoot down enemy aircraft from the ground is paramount to defending a nation, especially when you have little to no aircraft yourself. Of course just like all weapons they do not have a 100% success rate, so a miss chance could be incorporated in it, similar to how you currently do so with the Vital Defense System and the Iron Dome Projects. An Anti-Aircraft Battery Project could shoot down a percentage of incoming Air Planes, to help lessen the blow of an attack, a modest amount of aircraft could be destroyed; anywhere from 0 to 10% (or even 20% with a Critical Success). I feel this would help to eliminate if not help to mitigate an Air Plane dominated “Meta” in the game. Clarification and Outline of What is Proposed: Add an “Anti-Aircraft Project” of some sort to help shift the Meta of the war system away from Aircraft dominated Warfare. Such a System would be less expensive than a Anti-Missile or Anti-Nuclear Projects seeing as the technology is far more simple Point Defense system then the aforementioned ones. If adding this as a project(or Levels of the same Project) is not off the table (I think it’s the simplest way to implement it), then possibly adding it as a type of “Military Improvement” so that depending on how many you purchase in a city you might be able to increase your chances of shooting down more aircraft. A Flat Percentage is merely a suggestion and could potentially be overpowered when facing a militarily superior nation. Such a project would have to be discussed for balance issues and tested before official release. Other Decently Notable Changes that could be made that are Relatively simple but received Little attention: Minor Bank Screen Change: https://forum.politicsandwar.com/index.php?/topic/21091-small-banking-change/ Some Sort of Changed to the Beige system that’s currently in place. Chances are small that this will happen but it’s worth bringing up in an open dialog seeing as there are a good deal of people who would like to talk about this in detail. 1 14 7 Quote ^ NO LONGER^ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nerfed_Bred Posted September 21, 2019 Share Posted September 21, 2019 (edited) The AA guns idea I think would be the best because how strong planes are, I always had this idea but it's kinda big. Kinda of like a research tree where you can get different upgrades for your Nation, because atm 1v1 War is really predictable, normal the Nation with the most cities is going to win unless they got caught with their pants down. So if there was like a research tree it would make war feel unique and be abwl to say your good at war would actually mean something. TLDR That probably didn't make any sense and I think a skill tree would be cool Edited September 21, 2019 by Nerfed_Bred 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrators Alex Posted September 22, 2019 Administrators Share Posted September 22, 2019 I'm not inherently opposed to any of these things, but none of them are very high priority for me. My current top priorities, in no particular order are: Fix all of the issues on the test server so that we can upgrade the main server to the latest versions of PHP and MySQL to ensure the integrity of the server going forward. I don't know if you've used the test server lately, but there are a lot of game-breaking bugs with the software upgrades that are critical to fix. A new (and greatly improved) version of the API A complete refactoring of the tutorial/objectives system to as to improve player retention A site re-design to make things prettier and more functional/modern 2 4 2 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...
Kevanovia Posted September 22, 2019 Share Posted September 22, 2019 26 minutes ago, Alex said: I'm not inherently opposed to any of these things, but none of them are very high priority for me. My current top priorities, in no particular order are: Fix all of the issues on the test server so that we can upgrade the main server to the latest versions of PHP and MySQL to ensure the integrity of the server going forward. I don't know if you've used the test server lately, but there are a lot of game-breaking bugs with the software upgrades that are critical to fix. A new (and greatly improved) version of the API A complete refactoring of the tutorial/objectives system to as to improve player retention A site re-design to make things prettier and more functional/modern I hope you use @Mad Max‘s design 1 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Riddle Posted September 22, 2019 Author Share Posted September 22, 2019 24 minutes ago, Alex said: I'm not inherently opposed to any of these things, but none of them are very high priority for me. My current top priorities, in no particular order are: Fix all of the issues on the test server so that we can upgrade the main server to the latest versions of PHP and MySQL to ensure the integrity of the server going forward. I don't know if you've used the test server lately, but there are a lot of game-breaking bugs with the software upgrades that are critical to fix. A new (and greatly improved) version of the API A complete refactoring of the tutorial/objectives system to as to improve player retention A site re-design to make things prettier and more functional/modern Thanks for the speedy reply, it's nice to know you're listening and working on a good deal of problems at hand. Can't wait to see the games improved interface. And can't wat for test server to be back in working order; I've been wondering whats going on with that. 1 1 Quote ^ NO LONGER^ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leonard J Crabs Posted September 22, 2019 Share Posted September 22, 2019 10 hours ago, Alex said: I'm not inherently opposed to any of these things, but none of them are very high priority for me. My current top priorities, in no particular order are: Fix all of the issues on the test server so that we can upgrade the main server to the latest versions of PHP and MySQL to ensure the integrity of the server going forward. I don't know if you've used the test server lately, but there are a lot of game-breaking bugs with the software upgrades that are critical to fix. A new (and greatly improved) version of the API A complete refactoring of the tutorial/objectives system to as to improve player retention A site re-design to make things prettier and more functional/modern Hello, thank you for these updates. Specifically towards the API, There is almost no official documentation on what is in the API. The wiki is outdated, and things like the Bank API literally doesn't have any documentation on what the bank api gives. Is it possible to get official documentation that isn't touchable by players in the game? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrators Alex Posted September 22, 2019 Administrators Share Posted September 22, 2019 1 hour ago, Khris Kruel said: Hello, thank you for these updates. Specifically towards the API, There is almost no official documentation on what is in the API. The wiki is outdated, and things like the Bank API literally doesn't have any documentation on what the bank api gives. Is it possible to get official documentation that isn't touchable by players in the game? Every API endpoint in v2 is going to have an /info/ endpoint that will be official documentation for that endpoint. 3 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...
Wendell Posted September 22, 2019 Share Posted September 22, 2019 13 hours ago, Alex said: A site re-design to make things prettier and more functional/modern I think I remember that,but you made into an April's Fool joke. Why was that funny to you? @Alex @Alex 1 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrators Alex Posted September 22, 2019 Administrators Share Posted September 22, 2019 14 minutes ago, Deulos said: I think I remember that,but you made into an April's Fool joke. Why was that funny to you? @Alex @Alex @Mad Max Did the entire design and setup for the April Fool's joke. 2 1 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...
Verin Posted September 23, 2019 Share Posted September 23, 2019 7 hours ago, Deulos said: I think I remember that,but you made into an April's Fool joke. Why was that funny to you? @Alex @Alex why wasn't it funny to you? 2 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wendell Posted September 23, 2019 Share Posted September 23, 2019 15 hours ago, Verin said: why wasn't it funny to you? I didn't get it. Still don't. That change could have been implemented but it was just laughed off, why put so much work into an April fool's joke. 1 1 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Viselli Posted September 24, 2019 Share Posted September 24, 2019 On 9/23/2019 at 11:51 AM, Deulos said: I didn't get it. Still don't. That change could have been implemented but it was just laughed off, why put so much work into an April fool's joke. He didnt put in any work. A player did and Alex let him play the joke on the rest of the player base 2 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Verin Posted September 25, 2019 Share Posted September 25, 2019 On 9/23/2019 at 12:51 PM, Deulos said: I didn't get it. Still don't. That change could have been implemented but it was just laughed off, why put so much work into an April fool's joke. On 9/24/2019 at 1:04 PM, Viselli said: He didnt put in any work. A player did and Alex let him play the joke on the rest of the player base exactly, no work was put in. Was ,likely all photoshop. Why would somebody put in that much work to make an april fools joke they wouldn't. You could answer the question for yourself if you took a minute to think before speaking. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wendell Posted September 26, 2019 Share Posted September 26, 2019 1 hour ago, Verin said: exactly, no work was put in. Was ,likely all photoshop. Why would somebody put in that much work to make an april fools joke they wouldn't. You could answer the question for yourself if you took a minute to think before speaking. Why are you being mean? I was just asking. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Sketchy Posted September 26, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted September 26, 2019 On 9/22/2019 at 8:06 AM, Tom Riddle said: On a Similar Subject to the Proposal above I believe that a good deal of the community would like to see Nuclear Weapons being used outside of a “War-Time Environment”. Nuclear weapons are strong enough in the right hands, given that the require no strategy past a press of a button, buffing them seems unbalanced. Turning them into a weapon that can attack people at any war range, outside of combat, is overkill. On 9/22/2019 at 8:06 AM, Tom Riddle said: Moving on to a minor War/Project addition to the game. A good deal of the Community would like to see a change to the current “War-Meta” of the game. Airplanes are cool and all but let us not forget that here on earth things other than Air Planes can destroy Air Planes Planes don't need a counternerf. Planes should remain the dominant unit. I'm hesistant to propose changes to the meta since sheepy has a tendency to take ideas and warp them into something worse, but tanks need a cost reduction, and the score ranges need to be adjusted. That is about it. Game balance is more important than realism. On 9/22/2019 at 8:06 AM, Tom Riddle said: The ability for an Alliance to Embargo another Alliance as a whole. Potentially creating Insular Economic Blocs on Orbis. Similar to the initial idea of having Color Trade Blocs. Seems reasonable. This game has too many nation centric mechanics despite its design forcing alliances to be the obvious meta. More flexibility for alliance leaders is better than less afaic. On 9/22/2019 at 8:06 AM, Tom Riddle said: Staying on the topic of potential additions to Alliance oriented content. Members of the community would like to see the addition of another “Title” in alliances. This has been requested for ages. Would again be good for alliance administration and flexibility. 7 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pasky Darkfire Posted September 26, 2019 Share Posted September 26, 2019 14 hours ago, CandyShi said: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Modest_Proposal for those who were fortunate enough to not have to recreate one of these in school. You know. I had forgotten all about A Modest Proposal until now and I feel both enriched and the early onset of Nam Flashbacks settling in. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aksel Posted September 28, 2019 Share Posted September 28, 2019 On 9/24/2019 at 12:04 PM, Viselli said: He didnt put in any work. A player did and Alex let him play the joke on the rest of the player base On 9/25/2019 at 5:43 PM, Verin said: exactly, no work was put in. Was ,likely all photoshop. Why would somebody put in that much work to make an april fools joke they wouldn't. You could answer the question for yourself if you took a minute to think before speaking. I mean whoa whoa - there was 'work' involved. It was all Photoshop though, just a mock design which was meant to be funny and inspire creativity through the community and push Alex to see some ideas on what it could be or what it could look like in the future. I don't expect deulos to understand much of anything - he just downvotes everything anyway. @uncle tom great job on your OP - glad you got Alex's attention 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buorhann Posted September 28, 2019 Share Posted September 28, 2019 (edited) On 9/25/2019 at 7:11 PM, Sketchy said: Planes don't need a counternerf. Planes should remain the dominant unit. Why? They're literally already the dominant unit by their mechanics alone. You could nerf the damage to almost nil, but the fact that they can hit any target without repercussions AND apply a 50% debuff to Tanks is insane. They're way too strong in multiple ways, and have been ever since this game existed. Edited September 28, 2019 by Buorhann 1 Quote Warrior of Dio https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mfPCFQfOnLg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sketchy Posted September 28, 2019 Share Posted September 28, 2019 (edited) 15 minutes ago, Buorhann said: Why? They're literally already the dominant unit by their mechanics alone. You could nerf the damage to almost nil, but the fact that they can hit any target without repercussions AND apply a 50% debuff to Tanks is insane. They're way too strong in multiple ways, and have been ever since this game existed. Because if all units were evenly balanced counters to eachother war would essentially be a game of rock paper scissors. If tanks were cheaper and score values were adjusted so that planes were better represented based on their relative power, then a counternerf would not be necessary. An example of what I'm talking about: Edited September 28, 2019 by Sketchy 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Elijah Mikaelson Posted September 28, 2019 Share Posted September 28, 2019 On 9/26/2019 at 2:11 AM, Sketchy said: Planes don't need a counternerf. Planes should remain the dominant unit. I'm hesistant to propose changes to the meta since sheepy has a tendency to take ideas and warp them into something worse, but tanks need a cost reduction, and the score ranges need to be adjusted. That is about it. Game balance is more important than realism. I agree planes are fine, however I believe troops and Tanks and ships should be able to shoot planes on some scale. Quote 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.