Politics and War 2

[zigbigadorlou]

Sir,

In reading some of the suggestions in other threads, I noticed a complaint that older players have an advantage over newer players in terms of money, cities, etc. At the same time, people have been quitting due to this war dragging on, politics being the same and stale, and not having much of a way to grow. Furthermore, the leaderboards are basically set until those players quit or they somehow get nerfed. Fraggle will almost certainly be #1 in NS due to Nukes, war stats are basically untouchable due to years of generating them, and the people with eg 40 cities will remain on top  and dominate the market. There are also complaints that the market is unbalanced.

One answer to this is a complete reset. I think that is a bad idea because people like to hold on to their nation they've worked so hard to make...

My suggestion is to make a second edition of Politics and War that can function alongside Orbis, but starts from a clean slate. 

Pros

-Allows people to play more

-Encourages old players to come back to a fresh start

-Clean slate means achievable goals means fresh competition for everything

-New and different political entities and treaties (I would hope...?)

-Possibly more donations as credits will mean a lot more in a reset

Cons

-Server size?

-Lag (probably partially solved by having different turn change/update times, such as an odd number of hours apart)

-Carry over politics, edition confusion (possibly solved by calling it a different name)

 

Cheers,

-zig

[Micchan]

There's the risk to split the userbase and kill both servers

[Guest Elijah Mikaelson]

1 hour ago, zigbigadorlou said:

 

-New and different political entities and treaties (I would hope...?)

 

BK, NPO and many others will remain with each other and stand by each other as most come from CN, the only groups you will effect are mostly those who formed within PnW, it will just make it easier for people to quit also, many still play due to the time they have put in, if thats wiped out they simply quit

[Charnel]

 

[True King]

Game would need a huge upgrade to justify another version. Although I think space travel upgrade could have new worlds linked to this one, which people could fight over.

[Tiberius]

Implementing variable based hard caps would be better to solve the above. Let's new players catch up quicker and slows down established player growth. However you invariably end up with everyone close together and the strategy just becomes who has the most numbers. These types of games are never designed with the long term in mind. 

[Marlboro lalo]

I think we should take cues from npo and recruit from other places. Reddit communities, big forums, other similar games. A larger player base would inevitably solve most problems. 

[Lu Xun]

Is this the server where NPO is allowed or the server where TKR is allowed?

[zigbigadorlou]

21 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

Implementing variable based hard caps would be better to solve the above. Let's new players catch up quicker and slows down established player growth. However you invariably end up with everyone close together and the strategy just becomes who has the most numbers. These types of games are never designed with the long term in mind. 

Not sure what you're proposing here, but as an established player, I don't want to slow down established player growth. 

6 minutes ago, Marlboro lalo said:

I think we should take cues from npo and recruit from other places. Reddit communities, big forums, other similar games. A larger player base would inevitably solve most problems. 

That makes for more players, not better gameplay or community. 

[Zei-Sakura Alsainn]

2 minutes ago, zigbigadorlou said:

Not sure what you're proposing here, but as an established player, I don't want to slow down established player growth. 

That makes for more players, not better gameplay or community. 

Not to mention it isn't particularly easy to do. NPO might've drug 1000 people over here but ask how exactly they did that and you learn it wasn't as easy as posting a link and asking. It's not a very intuitive or high activity game, in a niche market, that looks like dog crap on a plate. 

Here's hoping my smaller scale attempt doesn't fail horribly lol.

[Lossi]

8 hours ago, zigbigadorlou said:

Sir,

In reading some of the suggestions in other threads, I noticed a complaint that older players have an advantage over newer players in terms of money, cities, etc. At the same time, people have been quitting due to this war dragging on, politics being the same and stale, and not having much of a way to grow. Furthermore, the leaderboards are basically set until those players quit or they somehow get nerfed. Fraggle will almost certainly be #1 in NS due to Nukes, war stats are basically untouchable due to years of generating them, and the people with eg 40 cities will remain on top  and dominate the market. There are also complaints that the market is unbalanced.

One answer to this is a complete reset. I think that is a bad idea because people like to hold on to their nation they've worked so hard to make...

My suggestion is to make a second edition of Politics and War that can function alongside Orbis, but starts from a clean slate. 

Pros

-Allows people to play more

-Encourages old players to come back to a fresh start

-Clean slate means achievable goals means fresh competition for everything

-New and different political entities and treaties (I would hope...?)

-Possibly more donations as credits will mean a lot more in a reset

Cons

-Server size?

-Lag (probably partially solved by having different turn change/update times, such as an odd number of hours apart)

-Carry over politics, edition confusion (possibly solved by calling it a different name)

 

Cheers,

-zig

@Dr Rush Insert traumatic e-sim memories here

[Broke]

There could be resets for people within a certain range(e.g. 3k+) every month or so, like randomly take down stuff until they go back to a specific score.

This would give everybody equal chance and nobody will dominate the pnw server forever.

[Lossi]

3 minutes ago, Broke said:

There could be resets for people within a certain range(e.g. 3k+) every month or so, like randomly take down stuff until they go back to a specific score.

This would give everybody equal chance and nobody will dominate the pnw server forever.

You clearly don't know how NPO works then.

[Tiberius]

10 hours ago, Rosey Song said:

You clearly don't know how NPO works then.

Any change to game mechanics is likely to benefit those with the most manpower, if not immediately then long term. Every suggestion is shot down due to short term political thinking, and it happens on both sides. 

[Tiberius]

18 hours ago, zigbigadorlou said:

Not sure what you're proposing here, but as an established player, I don't want to slow down established player growth. 

Why?
In any successful long term game, everyone has an equal opportunity to reach the top.

[Changeup]

Although I like the idea of everyone starting back at zero, I agree that the politics will inevitably remain the same. 

[Tiberius]

1 minute ago, Changeup said:

Although I like the idea of everyone starting back at zero, I agree that the politics will inevitably remain the same. 

You wouldn't need to reset everyone to get a new dynamic. Set a hard cap on cities, make new cities cheaper, keep infra costs the same for a new city, but allow a project that reduces the cost to rebuild infra that was destroyed by 70%, allow cities to be destroyed in war. Aim for it to take a maximum of 1 year to reach max cities (preferably 6 months). In my opinion this would increase retention, increase wars, and shorten war duration. You could go further by increasing resistance, removing beige etc. 

[zigbigadorlou]

32 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

Why?
In any successful long term game, everyone has an equal opportunity to reach the top.

Because I'm an established player, and I'll quit if growth is any slower. 

1 minute ago, Tiberius said:

You wouldn't need to reset everyone to get a new dynamic. Set a hard cap on cities, make new cities cheaper, keep infra costs the same for a new city, but allow a project that reduces the cost to rebuild infra that was destroyed by 70%, allow cities to be destroyed in war. Aim for it to take a maximum of 1 year to reach max cities (preferably 6 months). In my opinion this would increase retention, increase wars, and shorten war duration. You could go further by increasing resistance, removing beige etc. 

I don't disagree with most of this, but that's a fundamentally different game than PnW. I wouldn't be shocked if 4th Gen nation sims have this.