Jump to content
Alex

11/1/2019 - Quarterly Report

Recommended Posts

like how players arrange losing wars to reach 6 days beige to rebuild planes?

 

 

and yea, that may be a good idea. ill do it tom.

Share this post


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

Please leave your feedback on last quarter’s progress and your thoughts on next quarter’s plans below. If you have suggestions for the game, please don’t post them as responses here, but start your own new thread in the Game Suggestions subforum here: https://forum.politicsandwar.com/index.php?/forum/52-game-suggestions

Reminder.

  • Like 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I usually bash a lot of stuff Alex does becuz I am big meanie, but these space projects look legitimately interesting and a massive step in the right direction. I'm eager to see them put in effect and REALLY wanna get to the moon first!

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is awesome, keep up the good work. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

A new mobile navbar was added to improve the UI experience of our mobile users (which is around 50% of all players.)

image.thumb.png.0996fa37f4e5f2b3831e386a3fdd6805.png

:v

Please consider these minor changes to the navbar that could immensely improve QoL of mobile users.

 

7 hours ago, Chute Mi said:

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

image.png.08ca771e0dfca3d9c460372566137b98.png

Edited by Theomer

Share this post


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

Based on number of satellites controlled by entire alliance, creates a 1% -> 5% bonus in all military battles for all nations in alliance from 4 -> 24 GPS satellites following formula:

Military Unit Battle Bonus =  [(x-24)^2 / 100] + 5

PDVhdgU.jpg

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I appreciate the effort you just did Alex! Please continue being competent, this update makes the game a lot more interesting! (for me)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Having seen other game admins squander their opportunities it makes me happy to see you are committed to the community you've built. Features come and go, some changes will be well received, others not. 

Simply knowing that you are thinking ahead gives me and others confidence in the future of PW. 

Thank you for sharing this update. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Micchan said:

-snip about GPS Satellites-

For more information about the GPS Satellites plan, it's loosely based on existing GPS satellites. In the real world, you need at least 4 satellites to get GPS coordinates and 24 is the current best number for optimal coverage globally.

Having each nation be able to only build 1 satellite will require coordinate and teamwork, which I think is an important part of the game. By working together, nations can build a GPS network for their alliance, requiring at least 4 to active (produce any GPS coordinates) and 24 for maximum coverage, but with diminishing returns to each satellite, so that each additional satellite after 4 has a lower marginal return than previous satellites.

Some initial feedback I had gotten on this suggestion was that it would favor large alliances too heavily, whom already have an advantage. I concede that yes, this does benefit alliances that can support more GPS satellites more, because of the way the bonus formula is written it won't be especially punitive to nations that can field less than the maximum 24 GPS satellites. Furthermore, the bonus itself is relatively small to begin with. This project is more of a money and resource sink for alliances with nothing to do with their money, rather than something that is going to really change the meta-game.

Here's a graph of the bonus curve for satellites (x-axis) between 4 - 24. The % bonus is on the Y-axis.

image.png

You can see that at 14 satellites, an alliance gets a 4% bonus, meaning that the last 10 satellites only contribute 1% of the total 5% bonus. As an alliance, you will have the choice to decide how much of an investment this is worth, it won't be a "I need all 24 satellites to be competitive" type of thing.

Plus, because these projects are nation-based, if you could poach a nation from another alliance that already has a GPS satellite, that would be very beneficial. Scenarios like that ought to cause some rifts between alliances, drama, and excitement politically.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Here's a graph of the bonus curve for satellites (x-axis) between 4 - 24. The % bonus is on the Y-axis.

image.png

You can see that at 14 satellites, an alliance gets a 4% bonus, meaning that the last 10 satellites only contribute 1% of the total 5% bonus. As an alliance, you will have the choice to decide how much of an investment this is worth, it won't be a "I need all 24 satellites to be competitive" type of thing.

I can also see that the first 4 satellites give 1% and then the next 4, bringing you up to 8, give like 1.4% which is actually more than the first 4, and then the next 4 up to 12 give 1.2% which is still more than the first 4 satellites. Then at 14 you have 4% so thats 1% for 3.5 satellites. Whyyy are the first 4 so inefficient if its supposed to be efficient with the first satellites and then decline. Like, the relevant decline really only happens after like 18 satellites. To me this just completely invalidates your argument.

 

Generally though, even if better balanced I still don't see the point of giving micro alliances a harder time even by like 5%, they are already getting destroyed in conflicts, why make it even worse even if it isn't a lot.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Still waiting for water

  • Upvote 3
  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/31/2019 at 8:18 PM, Alex said:

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

Out of the things listed on that list, I think this one is one of the easiest and benefits the most people. I would prioritize that, the projects, and maybe lowering the amount of infra needed per project for the first 5 projects.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/1/2019 at 1:38 AM, Khris Kruel said:

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

Give up, Alex isn't making war changes during this war lol. Always trying to milk the system...

On 11/1/2019 at 1:18 AM, Alex said:

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

Unfair to all the people who worked hard to get that first national project slot...

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Dryad said:

I can also see that the first 4 satellites give 1% and then the next 4, bringing you up to 8, give like 1.4% which is actually more than the first 4, and then the next 4 up to 12 give 1.2% which is still more than the first 4 satellites. Then at 14 you have 4% so thats 1% for 3.5 satellites. Whyyy are the first 4 so inefficient if its supposed to be efficient with the first satellites and then decline. Like, the relevant decline really only happens after like 18 satellites. To me this just completely invalidates your argument.

 

Generally though, even if better balanced I still don't see the point of giving micro alliances a harder time even by like 5%, they are already getting destroyed in conflicts, why make it even worse even if it isn't a lot.

You need 4 GPS satellites to triangulate a position. With less than 4, they're worthless. Once you have established the GPS (min. 4 satellites) it's diminishing returns from that point.

I don't think this is punishing micro alliances. If you're saying it's not fair for a micro to go up against a macro alliance that has a full GPS system, I'd argue regardless of the GPS they're going to lose due to the sheer numbers involved (macro alliance has more fighters, deeper pockets, etc.)

For the micro tier, it's a way to get a competitive advantage over other micros, if they're willing to invest the money and resources to get it.

7 hours ago, Deulos said:

Unfair to all the people who worked hard to get that first national project slot...

That's not true. They still get to keep that slot, plus get an extra slot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Echoing what someone else said, can alliance-wide projects please give diminishing returns from the first project going forward? It's not just a "micro" problem if the bonus is only attainable for larger member alliances.

24 of the top 50 alliances right now have ~30 members or less, quite a few don't even have 24 members. So almost half of the top 50, including one in the top 10.

5% doesn't seem like a huge buff but the Propaganda project is basically a must-have in wars at this point and it only offers a 10% recruiting bonus. I think it's a cool idea, but maybe concede realism for game mechanic functionality in this instance?

Or utilize realism in a different way, 4 satellites gives you like 2.5% of the bonus and it descends from there capping out at 24?

 

If the propaganda department makes a difference in the meta, the 5% bonus to battles will as well.

Edited by Bartholomew Roberts
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Changeup said:

Out of the things listed on that list, I think this one is one of the easiest and benefits the most people. I would prioritize that, the projects, and maybe lowering the amount of infra needed per project for the first 5 projects.

I don't know about lowering the cost for the first five project slots, but I think rewarding in game actions. Winning a war gives you one, or building your 5th city, etc.. I do agree making a few more project slots more accessible to lower city count nations is a good thing. I also have some smaller nation focused projects that we can hopefully do in the next quarter. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/31/2019 at 5:18 PM, Alex said:

When a nation deletes during a war, they are automatically looted / treasures transferred to opponents prioritized by resistance remaining

Oh yes! :D 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good work!

Edited by BN2
Nevermind

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/2/2019 at 4:06 PM, Bartholomew Roberts said:

Echoing what someone else said, can alliance-wide projects please give diminishing returns from the first project going forward? It's not just a "micro" problem if the bonus is only attainable for larger member alliances.

24 of the top 50 alliances right now have ~30 members or less, quite a few don't even have 24 members. So almost half of the top 50, including one in the top 10.

5% doesn't seem like a huge buff but the Propaganda project is basically a must-have in wars at this point and it only offers a 10% recruiting bonus. I think it's a cool idea, but maybe concede realism for game mechanic functionality in this instance?

Or utilize realism in a different way, 4 satellites gives you like 2.5% of the bonus and it descends from there capping out at 24?

 

If the propaganda department makes a difference in the meta, the 5% bonus to battles will as well.

If you look at the bonus as it's structured, it already gives diminishing returns. Did you see this post where I addressed this?

 

Share this post


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

If you look at the bonus as it's structured, it already gives diminishing returns. Did you see this post where I addressed this?

 

Yes, but did you read my whole post?

The project begins its benefit at 4 satellites and maxes out at 24, with diminishing returns. The halfway point is roughly at 9 or 10 satellites.

24 nations with GPS is a drop in the bucket for 100+ member alliances like TKR or NPO. However, half of the top 50 has 30 or less members in their alliance. Assuming not all of them are perfectly active, trustworthy, have enough project slots, etc. - half of the top 50 right now couldn't max out the bonus.

 

Recognizing that fact: I suggest forgoing the "realism" of 4 satellites being the minimum requirement and just start the bonus off at the first satellite constructed.

 

Selective realism doesn't make for great game balancing, in my opinion.

 

 

Basically you may not think 5% is a big deal, but your propaganda project only gives 10% recruitment and many alliances consider it a meta-defining aspect of the war system.

Edited by Bartholomew Roberts
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

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.