Jump to content

Players specialize in war


Micchan
 Share

Recommended Posts

4 types of abilities:

-Attacker, the effect of ground control on this player is reduced to 30% and the effect of air superiority on this player is reduced to 45% so can use a bit more planes and tanks if affected by ground or air control

-Defender, always fortified at the start of the war

-Destroyer, reduces the chances of VDS to 10% and ID to 30% so more chances to hit with nukes and missiles

-Strategic, quick and dirty spy operations have the same effect of extremely covert

The alliance leader or high gov can set these abilities and change them every 7 days

Max of 20 players can recive these abilities (5 attacker, 5 defender, 5 destroyer, 5 strategic)

Enemy alliances can spy the players to see wich players have the abilities

Abilities only work if you have your alliance color

  • Upvote 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my opinion if we are going to cap the number of players that can be given it then it needs to be a percentage and not a hard figure. With a 20 player cap I am already envisioning larger alliances splitting into 20man AAs for war and at that point it makes the cap meaningless. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Elijah Mikaelson
44 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

In my opinion if we are going to cap the number of players that can be given it then it needs to be a percentage and not a hard figure. With a 20 player cap I am already envisioning larger alliances splitting into 20man AAs for war and at that point it makes the cap meaningless. 

but then having is % based would just add more power to an alliance who already out number the ones they hit, such as when NPO hit weebunism you know 130 nations vs 18

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Bjorn Ironside said:

but then having is % based would just add more power to an alliance who already out number the ones they hit, such as when NPO hit weebunism you know 130 nations vs 18

Okay seeing as the post you quoted was somehow invisible to you. I'll give an example:

Meerkat Empire has 120 Nations. They are planning to go to war with Lion Kingdom who has 20 Nations. Meerkat Empire splits into 6 alliances of 20 Nations so that all 120 Nations will get the bonus. 

  • Upvote 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Elijah Mikaelson
1 hour ago, Tiberius said:

Okay seeing as the post you quoted was somehow invisible to you. I'll give an example:

Meerkat Empire has 120 Nations. They are planning to go to war with Lion Kingdom who has 20 Nations. Meerkat Empire splits into 6 alliances of 20 Nations so that all 120 Nations will get the bonus. 

again that's not better than a having a percentage base when NPO 130 nations hit Weebs with 18 nations as if its even 10% NPO has 13 nations and weebs have 1 so good game,.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Bjorn Ironside said:

again that's not better than a having a percentage base when NPO 130 nations hit Weebs with 18 nations as if its even 10% NPO has 13 nations and weebs have 1 so good game,.

So we go the 20 Nation cap route. Alliances split at war time to groups of 20, now everyone has the buff. Nothing is improved. The larger alliance if anything gets an advantage because they are able to beige cycle. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Elijah Mikaelson
2 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

So we go the 20 Nation cap route. Alliances split at war time to groups of 20, now everyone has the buff. Nothing is improved. The larger alliance if anything gets an advantage because they are able to beige cycle. 

Totally as that worked out well for you guys in CN with NpO, NPO and NSO you will turn on each other when most of your members get a taste of freedom and not forced to be your tax farms

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Bjorn Ironside said:

Totally as that worked out well for you guys in CN with NpO, NPO and NSO you will turn on each other when most of your members get a taste of freedom and not forced to be your tax farms

Can we stick to the topic. CN and your own P&W political bias has no bearing on this suggestion. 

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This seems like a clunky mechanic that's more or less redundant with war policies. I'm not in favor.

If it were to be implemented, the disruption to a nation's color from switching between beige and an original color would need to be addressed. There would also need to be a clear, user-friendly way of determining which nations on an alliance get the bonus.

Finally, and for the umpteenth time, you cannot utilize static alliance affiliations when designing mechanics. There are no meaningful restrictions on joining, leaving or creating alliances, so trying to restrict the use of a mechanic by referencing a nation's alliance affiliation makes no sense. Also, again for the umpteenth time, large alliance memberships are not a balance issue. It is not "unfair" that mass member alliances have more players than small alliances.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Tiberius said:

So we go the 20 Nation cap route. Alliances split at war time to groups of 20, now everyone has the buff. Nothing is improved. The larger alliance if anything gets an advantage because they are able to beige cycle. 

 

8 hours ago, Bjorn Ironside said:

again that's not better than a having a percentage base when NPO 130 nations hit Weebs with 18 nations as if its even 10% NPO has 13 nations and weebs have 1 so good game,.

You're both missing that those aren't mutually exclusive. Try 25% have the option to be specialists, with diminishing returns down to 10% at 100 members. If you've got less than a 4 nation alliance then you flatly don't deserve the title of 'specialization'.

Still, though,

2 hours ago, Edward I said:

This seems like a clunky mechanic that's more or less redundant with war policies. I'm not in favor.

 

35 minutes ago, lightside said:

We already have war policies. I think that is sufficient. There is no reason to have such things on an alliance level.  

This.

That said,

2 hours ago, Edward I said:

large alliance memberships are not a balance issue. It is not "unfair" that mass member alliances have more players than small alliances.

Yes, they are, and yes it is. Large alliances (in terms of player teams, not 'alliances' in the mechanical sense) are absolutely a massive, easily game destroying balance issue that always needs to be mitigated in these games.

Which it is. That is why we have things like restricted defense slots, beige, score ranges, diminishing returns on infrastructure and cities. Those things exist to keep the game competitive between larger and smaller teams.

The fact that you hate those balancing factors doesn't make them unfair, it just makes you a disingenuous prat who desperately wants things to be unfair in your favor, since that's the only way to play games that you can concieve of.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Sir Scarfalot said:

 

You're both missing that those aren't mutually exclusive. Try 25% have the option to be specialists, with diminishing returns down to 10% at 100 members. If you've got less than a 4 nation alliance then you flatly don't deserve the title of 'specialization'.

Still, though,

 

This.

That said,

Yes, they are, and yes it is. Large alliances (in terms of player teams, not 'alliances' in the mechanical sense) are absolutely a massive, easily game destroying balance issue that always needs to be mitigated in these games.

Which it is. That is why we have things like restricted defense slots, beige, score ranges, diminishing returns on infrastructure and cities. Those things exist to keep the game competitive between larger and smaller teams.

The fact that you hate those balancing factors doesn't make them unfair, it just makes you a disingenuous prat who desperately wants things to be unfair in your favor, since that's the only way to play games that you can concieve of.

I mean my point was it would be better as a percentage rather than a solid cap. 

No, the balance regards to large alliance membership is everyone is free to recruit new people, even encouraged to do so to help grow the game. It would be unbalancing if only a select few alliances were allowed to recruit players. Smaller alliances in most cases either A. Purposely stay small or B. Suck at recruitment (for a myriad of reasons). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't believe I am saying this but I agree with Tiberius and Edward. Gasp.

Having a set cap or perecentage of an alliance able to pick a build for a few members is a bit clunky and not very effective as a gameplay device and won't add much.

It would be simply better off  if every nation could pick their own build from a varying list of specialisations much like the old perks idea which was once floated around. No doubt we would see a meta build emerge but if it was balanced right, we could see a meta build in turn countered by a build made specifically to do so and so on.

Greater nation customisation outside of projects and continent selection is probably the best thing which could happen to this game for gameplay reasons because right now, it is simply a question of one cookie cutter build vs another. 

Edited by Charles the Tyrant
  • Like 1

Untitled.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Elijah Mikaelson
On 1/26/2020 at 2:39 PM, Tiberius said:

Can we stick to the topic. CN and your own P&W political bias has no bearing on this suggestion. 

but your bias does lol, laughable how everything has to be about whats good for NPO and not the game

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Bjorn Ironside said:

but your bias does lol, laughable how everything has to be about whats good for NPO and not the game

Please point to the bias I have interjected into this thread? The only mention of NPO in this thread is by you. Grow up and keep IC politics to the relevant sub forums.

Edited by Tiberius
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Charles the Tyrant said:

I can't believe I am saying this but I agree with Tiberius and Edward. Gasp.

Having a set cap or perecentage of an alliance able to pick a build for a few members is a bit clunky and not very effective as a gameplay device and won't add much.

It would be simply better off  if every nation could pick their own build from a varying list of specialisations much like the old perks idea which was once floated around. No doubt we would see a meta build emerge but if it was balanced right, we could see a meta build in turn countered by a build made specifically to do so and so on.

Greater nation customisation outside of projects and continent selection is probably the best thing which could happen to this game for gameplay reasons because right now, it is simply a question of one cookie cutter build vs another. 

I agree.

One route that this could be done is that each one is a project and you can only have one of the four projects.

GnWq7CW.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Azaghul said:

I agree.

One route that this could be done is that each one is a project and you can only have one of the four projects.

A complete re-do of projects would be interesting. Military branch, Espionage Branch, Commerce Branch. You can only choose one. Then x amount of projects under each one. Alliances would then need to build Spy Nations, Banker Nations and Soldier Nations. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Azaghul said:

I agree.

One route that this could be done is that each one is a project and you can only have one of the four projects.

Aye, making players choose a project with the chosen project having a large impact on gameplay considerations would be admittedly easier to implement than perks.

 

8 hours ago, Tiberius said:

A complete re-do of projects would be interesting. Military branch, Espionage Branch, Commerce Branch. You can only choose one. Then x amount of projects under each one. Alliances would then need to build Spy Nations, Banker Nations and Soldier Nations. 

This too, like a sort of build path. It wouldn't be too hard to implement either since projects further down the path can just have previous projects on the path as a prerequisite. It would also make it impossible to quickly change over from one build to another given the cost of projects and the cooldown on project purchases. 

Untitled.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/27/2020 at 4:21 PM, Tiberius said:

A complete re-do of projects would be interesting. Military branch, Espionage Branch, Commerce Branch. You can only choose one. Then x amount of projects under each one. Alliances would then need to build Spy Nations, Banker Nations and Soldier Nations. 

Going to have to say a hard no too this. We do need more projects. However hard-locking your nation into project types would just be stupid and annoying. It might make sense for certain projects to require others as prerequisites however(such as the upcoming space projects). However most should not have such requirements.

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.