Jump to content
Alex

11/1/2019 - Quarterly Report

Recommended Posts

Really love your ideas and hope more ppl donate 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

These seem great, can’t wait to see them!

 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can’t wait to see the new space research and who gets to the moon first!

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Those National Projects sound really awesome and can't wait to get in the future.

Edited by Madden8021

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Alex said:

    Give all nations by default 1 project slot. Everyone benefits, primary benefit is to new players

*laughs maniacly*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Alex said:

 

  •     Considering changes to the war system for testing on the test server. Nothing will be implemented during the current global conflict
     

Please for the love of god, make winning a war the optimal outcome of a war. It's not currently.

  • Upvote 5
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sound great. And I like that one project requires other to build up. In future you could create a trees system (war, economic trees etc.) Nations could become more unique by using different tree options and wars could be more fun with it.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Maia said:

Sound great. And I like that one project requires other to build up. In future you could create a trees system (war, economic trees etc.) Nations could become more unique by using different tree options and wars could be more fun with it.

That's part of the plan. It's kind of a hybrid between perks and alliance projects. This way it's a project in the members city so even if they leave an alliance the resources spent aren't wasted. There will be more to come, and more satellites and such.

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Alex said:

 

  • Give all nations by default 1 project slot. Everyone benefits, primary benefit is to new players

Will nations that build a project before reaching city 10 still have to wait ten days between cities?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Prefontaine said:

That's part of the plan. It's kind of a hybrid between perks and alliance projects. This way it's a project in the members city so even if they leave an alliance the resources spent aren't wasted. There will be more to come, and more satellites and such.

I wish that gov could build projects/perks for alliance. So alliance could set up their own unique doctrine of war. I mean nation projects are ok but it's time consuming to set up all nations in the alliance. I would like to see more option for gov. Too much things we do outside game to keep alliance going - bots, spreadsheets etc.  For example tax implementation was great to improve it but I want to see more features like this.

Edited by Maia

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Khris Kruel said:

Please for the love of god, make winning a war the optimal outcome of a war. It's not currently.

Yea, this would solve a good amount of the current war system's problems. It would not tip the scale too hard in one direction(soldier or drone), leaving the door open for better coordination to reign supreme. 

Currently, drone believes winning the individual wars is not necessary to win the overall war, as long as you have more planes you're winning.

 

Currently soldier believes winning the individual war is not necessary to win the overall war, as long as you do more damage you win.

 

Make the individual war the deciding factor. You lose the war, your enemy captures x% of your military units, as well as part of your unit building capacity. So beating a city 30 would be bigger than defeating a city 20. You lose the war, you lose 1 improvement per city. You lose the war, Your capacity to build new units is decreased by x% for two days. Alex is thinking about adding perks, generals could also be a rout he goes down. Winning a war could give your generals a bonus or negative effects for x turns. 

 

Battlefield should be a place of constant motion, not of certain tiers caught in the mud, unable to do anything for half a year. Its killing the game. By doing this, you allow pockets to work together to bring themselves back up if their enemy beiges them, or build themselves back up by defeating the enemy and capturing units and capacities. @Alex

 

In conclusion, you win the individual war, you win net damage as well as units. Ultimate Victory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Maia said:

I wish that gov could build projects/perks for alliance. So alliance could set up their own unique doctrine of war. I mean nation projects are ok but it's time consuming to set up all nations in the alliance. I would like to see more option for gov. Too much things we do outside game to keep alliance going - bots, spreadsheets etc.  For example tax implementation was great to improve it but I want to see more features like this.

I think that implementation of in-game optimal, or at least competitive, playstyles is going to be key to the long-term health of the game.

There is quite an imbalance right now between the people who don't have coders on retainer and those who do.

Edited by Vivec
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Alex said:

Nothing will be implemented during the current global conflict

And rip all hope of updates

 

Also, that GPS project idea... that's one of the worst ideas possible. Forcing a consolidation of power like that is the exact opposite of what would help with the natural unstable equilibrium of these persistent strategy games.

Edited by Sir Scarfalot
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Di Vali said:

Make the individual war the deciding factor. You lose the war, your enemy captures x% of your military units, as well as part of your unit building capacity. So beating a city 30 would be bigger than defeating a city 20. You lose the war, you lose 1 improvement per city. You lose the war, Your capacity to build new units is decreased by x% for two days. Alex is thinking about adding perks, generals could also be a rout he goes down. Winning a war could give your generals a bonus or negative effects for x turns.

When you say 'capture', do you mean the winner gains them and assimilates the loser's military into their own or does the loser simply lose a % of their military? If it's the former I'd imagine it could simply encourage combatants to decommission units when a loss is imminent or expected in order to deny their opponent the benefit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, they would gain the units. By decoming, you lose more than you would by letting your opponent take a percentage of them. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Di Vali said:

Yes, they would gain the units. By decoming, you lose more than you would by letting your opponent take a percentage of them.

I suppose it depends how decisive the victory is, but the other factor is the military boost it gives your opponent potentially against your allies they are already engaged with. It's an interesting idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, it makes the whole war more dynamic, could posibly have a soft cap as well as a hard cap on units. So say you can build 1000 planes, and you beige a nation while you have a max 1000 planes. You could have say 1000 x 1.2 as a hard cap, so the stolen planes boast your total count, but you cannot build to that point, but by winning wars you can maintain a plane count of 1000-1200.  

 

So in a real game situation, a 30 city kerchtog nation has to try to get as close to their hard cap as possibly to prevent 3 20 cities at their hard cap from dragging him down, vice versa. Makes it more strategy intensive. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Di Vali said:

Yes, it makes the whole war more dynamic, could posibly have a soft cap as well as a hard cap on units. So say you can build 1000 planes, and you beige a nation while you have a max 1000 planes. You could have say 1000 x 1.2 as a hard cap, so the stolen planes boast your total count, but you cannot build to that point, but by winning wars you can maintain a plane count of 1000-1200.  

 

So in a real game situation, a 30 city kerchtog nation has to try to get as close to their hard cap as possibly to prevent 3 20 cities at their hard cap from dragging him down, vice versa. Makes it more strategy intensive. 

Another scenario occurs to me then, what about players arranging war losses to help boost a specific nation to their hard cap? Also, perhaps you should make a suggestion thread where this can be discussed thoroughly.

Share this post


Link to post
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...

  • 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.