Wartime updates

[Guest Epi]

1

Edited February 18, 2021 by Epi

[Roq]

24 minutes ago, Epi said:

Recently Sheepy added some (not all) of the space projects and increased the cost of soldiers and planes. 

Do you guys think he'll be introducing more changes during the war? Do you think its unfair to the warring parties? Or more unfair not to improve the game for those not fighting?

Expanding on the changes. Do you think they'll affect this war? And what impact will they have on the post war.

And on the space projects, are they a new must buy for mid tier or something only available for bored whales etc.

I think the next space project should be added already.

I also think that it's the fault of the people in the war for the update... Alex shouldn't be allowed to not update the game for 8 months because of a "war." We complained when he went months without updating, why justify it with a war that went longer than invited?

 

[Thalmor]

Given the drawn out status of the war, I think it's fine for Alex to update things. In a normal global that would only be a month or two, yeah it might be ehhh but in this case it's fine.

[Guest Epi]

1

Edited February 18, 2021 by Epi

[Leopold von Habsburg]

Yeah I mean when you have Roquentin going around the forums screeching eternal warfare one can't really blame Alex for saying screw it and pushing through these changes.

[Zei-Sakura Alsainn]

Ain't like the playerbase is leaving him with much choice, I would've just dumped out 9 months of updates instead of only some of them, tbh. 

 

[Lossi]

Quote

Should Alex update the game during a war?  Isn't that unfair.

I mean, he tried to wait till it ended.  Not really his fault the game is still at war.

[Avakael]

Considering that max aluminium refineries with the associated project will actually produce aluminium faster than you can spend it on jets when it was only at 3 aluminium per jet, I'd say that the change makes sense.

[Keegoz]

Maybe he is trying to end the war.

[Prefontaine]

The war system rework will probably need a 5 day war freeze like last time, so implementing that during the war is a little more difficult. New attack types and such. The GPS satellite project takes a little more impact on the code as well, so that’s on the back burner at the moment. 

 

Also at this point, screw your war. 

Edited February 3, 2020 by Prefontaine

[Roquentin]

4 hours ago, Epi said:

Recently Sheepy added some (not all) of the space projects and increased the cost of soldiers and planes. 

Do you guys think he'll be introducing more changes during the war? Do you think its unfair to the warring parties? Or more unfair not to improve the game for those not fighting?

Expanding on the changes. Do you think they'll affect this war? And what impact will they have on the post war.

And on the space projects, are they a new must buy for mid tier or something only available for bored whales etc.

The changes are problematic because 1. there was no tutorial overhaul/no UI overhaul/etc. The changes that only benefit established players were implemented. The model of discouraging endless growth that Statekraft would have had is missed here. 2. The issue is even if it's intentionally to affect things; there's just no basis as there is no alliance war mechanism in the game. Prefontaine said something along the lines of him wanting shorter wars, but there's no basis for doing it via material costs. The premise has also been that short wars are good for retention and this has never been the case as the losing sides earlier on would hemmorhage players regardless of war length, because losing a war isn't fun especially when you guaranteed to be at a competitive disadvantage, so shorter wars only benefit people who win or have greater reserves as they can increase the gap. If the desire was to normalize shorter wars, objective goals or some benefit to both parties would be different. Wars are mostly fueled by vendettas and personal enmity, so we can't really find any basis for material regulation to mean much as it simply benefits those better off. It just means whoever gets frustrated first or is poorer will be gone. This is mainly why I was saying there would have to be  a way to encourage cooperation and friendly competition between factions where people can excel in different metrics rather than enmity, which is currently encouraged by the way the system works as is. "I get to stay on top and keep these guys poor and I don't want them to ever be well off so we'll hit them when the time comes." The system as it stands encourages crippling opponents economically by hitting when vulnerable.

Some of them would be a must buy but the issue is that will just hurt people who have less stuff as is, and that's an unfortunate effect that adding new projects has is it doesn't really hurt people who have a lot.

Edited February 3, 2020 by Roquentin

[Prefontaine]

5 minutes ago, Roquentin said:

The changes are problematic because 1. there was no tutorial overhaul/no UI overhaul/etc. The changes that only benefit established players were implemented. The model of discouraging endless growth that Statekraft would have had is missed here. 2. The issue is even if it's intentionally to affect things; there's just no basis as there is no alliance war mechanism in the game. Prefontaine said something along the lines of him wanting shorter wars, but there's no basis for doing it via material costs. The premise has also been that short wars are good for retention and this has never been the case as the losing sides earlier on would hemmorhage players regardless of war length, because losing a war isn't fun especially when you guaranteed to be at a competitive disadvantage, so shorter wars only benefit people who win or have greater reserves as they can increase the gap. If the desire was to normalize shorter wars, objective goals or some benefit to both parties would be different. Wars are mostly fueled by vendettas and personal enmity, so we can't really find any basis for material regulation to mean much. It just means whoever gets frustrated first will be gone. This is mainly why I was saying there would have to be  a way to encourage cooperation and friendly competition between factions where people can excel in different metrics rather than enmity, which is currently encouraged by the way the system works as is. "I get to stay on top and keep these guys poor and I don't want them to ever be well off so we'll hit them when the time comes." The system as it stands encourages crippling opponents economically by hitting when vulnerable.

Some of them would be a must buy but the issue is that will just hurt people who have less stuff as is, and that's an unfortunate effect that adding new projects has is doesn't really hurt people who a lot.

The cost change was suggested by an NPO member. My suggestion was to nerf tank costs. 

[Roquentin]

1 minute ago, Prefontaine said:

The cost change was suggested by an NPO member. My suggestion was to nerf tank costs. 

Oh I wasn't saying you suggested this particular one. I was citing that you said Alex wanted shorter wars. It's more if it's an intentional decision to affect alliance wars especially the current one via material costs without any accompanying change, then it will just have the impact of making people leery of fighting and just do very short spurts once a year.

[namukara]

1 hour ago, Roquentin said:

Oh I wasn't saying you suggested this particular one. I was citing that you said Alex wanted shorter wars. It's more if it's an intentional decision to affect alliance wars especially the current one via material costs without any accompanying change, then it will just have the impact of making people leery of fighting and just do very short spurts once a year.

Perhaps it's not about keeping long-term players in the game?

Think of how ridiculously long wars affect the newest players. We've literally had people join, and get hit by the other side 2 days later, while having no understanding of game politics. I'm sure your side will have had the same issue, although to a lesser extent as you own low tier at the moment. He's probably trying to increase new player retention by discouraging long, drawn out wars like this.

[Roquentin]

15 minutes ago, namukara said:

Perhaps it's not about keeping long-term players in the game?

Think of how ridiculously long wars affect the newest players. We've literally had people join, and get hit by the other side 2 days later, while having no understanding of game politics. I'm sure your side will have had the same issue, although to a lesser extent as you own low tier at the moment. He's probably trying to increase new player retention by discouraging long, drawn out wars like this.

It is about keeping long-term players as that's what most of the complaints have been about.  The lack of tutorial upgrade should indicate that as well.

New players aren't affected by alliance wars more than random hits in peace time. The damage is minimal to them.  Immortals has barely been at war.  Most alliances in the war do not actively recruit. If you leave beige early even in peace time any random  person can declare on you since you're not in range of most alliancemates as a new nation. Alliance wars are actually quite good for new players as they can scavenge quite a lot. It's a treasure trove. There's way more of a draw to getting to endlessly raid all the abandoned nations since it takes months to get VMed/deleted.

Edited February 3, 2020 by Roquentin

[namukara]

6 minutes ago, Roquentin said:

It is about keeping long-term players as that's what most of the complaints have been about. 

New players aren't affected by alliance wars more than random hits in peace time. The damage is minimal to them.  Immortals has barely been at war.  Most alliances in the war do not actively recruit. If you leave beige early even in peace time any random  person can declare on you since you're not in range of most alliancemates as a new nation. Alliance wars are actually quite good for new players as they can scavenge quite a lot. It's a treasure trove. There's way more of a draw to getting to endlessly raid all the abandoned nations since it takes months to get VMed/deleted.

idk, TI gov have just had to field a lot of 'Why do I suddenly have 3 goons on me?' type questions. Was just a theory.

[Guest Epi]

1

Edited February 18, 2021 by Epi

[Oh Tiniest Bird]

Considering how long the war has been going on, making changes is absolutely justified. At some point you just cannot keep waiting as a dev, even when you are doing your best to be courteous.

[Menhera]

4 hours ago, Roquentin said:

1. there was no tutorial overhaul/no UI overhaul/etc. The changes that only benefit established players were implemented. The model of discouraging endless growth that Statekraft would have had is missed here.

I don't think that is too much of a problem. The individual alliances already teach the players how to play the game aside from the basics. Many only do the tutorial for the 100'000$ in-game bonus. And i also believe since that won't be the last update, that a new one will come that benefits younger nations more. 

 

8 hours ago, Epi said:

Do you guys think he'll be introducing more changes during the war? Do you think its unfair to the warring parties? Or more unfair not to improve the game for those not fighting?

He already made other changes to the war system. Such as the new war screen etc. But i doubt that there is much else to change. And since war/raiding is still a 'part of the game, i don't think it's unfair towards the not fighting alliances. Meanwhile the Allies and IQ both have to pay a bit more for troops. This will of course mean a longer war will strain both sides more. Whether that is unfair or necessary or benefial i can't say. 

 

4 hours ago, Roquentin said:

If the desire was to normalize shorter wars, objective goals or some benefit to both parties would be different. Wars are mostly fueled by vendettas and personal enmity, so we can't really find any basis for material regulation to mean much as it simply benefits those better off.

I agree with that. But i don't think that this was really the goal. If i had to guess it was probably to lower total resource counts in the game or something similar.

 

8 hours ago, Epi said:

Expanding on the changes. Do you think they'll affect this war? And what impact will they have on the post war.

As for this, the by for most "dramatic" one is the spy sattelite. Since the war isn't only waged with military, but also with spies. But honestly, at this point with all the damage in infrastructure i doubt that it will have a significant impact anymore. The benefit is simply too small when looking at a full scale alliance war. especially since it doesn't increase the spy cap. You just have to kill someone's spies a bit more often and that's pretty much it. As for the others, the missile launching program is fine, especially since you can spy them. And the Moon landing project is simply a fun accessoire, that is more a joke than an actual advantage over anything or anyone. It simply brings more fun to the game and i sincerely hope sheepy will do more things like that. Especially since it's completely optional~

[Guest Elijah Mikaelson]

I personally think @Alex should make changes if we are at war or peace, the game needs updating and changing.

Remember these changes effect everyone not just one side, so not sure how it can be unfair?

If one side do not have the means to keep fighting due to the changes, then get a better war chest next time lol.

[Menhera]

small addition

The war has some paralleles to the cold war and adding the moonlanding is simply good humour ^.^

[Charles Bolivar]

2 hours ago, Epi said:

Camelot is living and breathing the war at this point. 50% of our high-government joined and learned the game this war. The head of the Academy, head of milcom and the head of Foreign Affairs. War is brilliant for retention, it provides a steady stream of new and interesting political developments, ideologies and precedents to argue about on the forums, actions/strategy when you login,  plenty of memes and challenges to overcome! 

Also does anyone have the statistics for how many resources are being consumed per week? The World Graph is useful, but not incredibly clear. It'd be interesting to know how long the war could feasibly go and if we've really dented the massive warchests. 

A better thing to consider is when this war finally does end...Just what the hell are we going to do with ourselves?

[Miller]

12 minutes ago, Charles the Tyrant said:

A better thing to consider is when this war finally does end...Just what the hell are we going to do with ourselves?

Twiddle our thumbs til the next global between the same people. 

[Tiberius]

20 minutes ago, Charles the Tyrant said:

A better thing to consider is when this war finally does end...Just what the hell are we going to do with ourselves?

This is exactly where game improvements/updates should come. The part of the game where all you do is log in daily and do nothing else. Making peace time more immersive. Realistically the only things to take up time in peace time is playing baseball or trading on the market. Everything else is done offsite. Content creation shouldn't solely be an alliance's responsibility.

[namukara]

1 hour ago, Charles the Tyrant said:

A better thing to consider is when this war finally does end...Just what the hell are we going to do with ourselves?

I'll give you a 1v1, see who can kill our infra the quickest.