Micchan Posted January 26, 2020 Share Posted January 26, 2020 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 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted January 26, 2020 Share Posted January 26, 2020 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. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Elijah Mikaelson Posted January 26, 2020 Share Posted January 26, 2020 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted January 26, 2020 Share Posted January 26, 2020 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. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Elijah Mikaelson Posted January 26, 2020 Share Posted January 26, 2020 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,. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted January 26, 2020 Share Posted January 26, 2020 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. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Elijah Mikaelson Posted January 26, 2020 Share Posted January 26, 2020 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted January 26, 2020 Share Posted January 26, 2020 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. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edward I Posted January 26, 2020 Share Posted January 26, 2020 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lightside Posted January 26, 2020 Share Posted January 26, 2020 We already have war policies. I think that is sufficient. There is no reason to have such things on an alliance level. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Scarfalot Posted January 26, 2020 Share Posted January 26, 2020 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted January 26, 2020 Share Posted January 26, 2020 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). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles Bolivar Posted January 27, 2020 Share Posted January 27, 2020 (edited) 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 January 27, 2020 by Charles the Tyrant 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Elijah Mikaelson Posted January 27, 2020 Share Posted January 27, 2020 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted January 27, 2020 Share Posted January 27, 2020 (edited) 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 January 27, 2020 by Tiberius Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azaghul Posted January 27, 2020 Share Posted January 27, 2020 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted January 28, 2020 Share Posted January 28, 2020 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. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles Bolivar Posted January 28, 2020 Share Posted January 28, 2020 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lightside Posted January 29, 2020 Share Posted January 29, 2020 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. 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.