Biggest complaints regarding gameplay.

[Prefontaine]

1 hour ago, Hodor said:

Where can we see the "in the works" items. Does this exist? Can it?

It's not public as far as I know. I don't know if Alex plans on releasing any sort of quarterly announcement sort of thing again. I'm currently working on a list for Alex to review that I hope to have finished this weekend. My goal is to prioritize some things that the community is seeking, however with the low responses to this thread it's kinda hard to see where to put a hard emphasis on. 

What I can say, is I intent to release my list of content I'm developing. It's not just my ideas, it's other suggestions which have been made, ideas Alex has mentioned in the past, as well as some of my ideas. It's not just stuff I'm making by any means. How much of, if any of that list getting implemented is entirely Alex's call.

 

Some of the stuff on the list are as follows:

• Projects which focus on new players (cheaper at small city counts, more expensive at higher)
• More ways to get project slots as a new player
• Ways for non-air units to damage air units.
• New project which allows for the creation of a new missile type that can be used out-side of the MAP system. It would function like spies, be limited to being fired at nations which you are currently in an active war with, and damage units.
• Damage roll-over. When nations are perpetually fighting at low infra, the damage they receive is minimal due to the damage caps, when the damage caps are activated, a portion of the damage rounded off will move towards non-military/power improvement destruction
• Improvement rundown. When operating at more improvements than infrastructure can support, non-military/power improvements will degrade every X days (1 improvement every 5 days sort of pace)
• New Day/rebuy reset customization so not everyone hits that point at the same time. 
• Additional Space-based projects.
• Project designed to impact pollution. 
• Quality of Life improvements (see: Adrienne thread)
• Ways to destroy land.

There might be more, but I don't have my list on this computer. 

[Zim]

50 minutes ago, Prefontaine said:

• Damage roll-over. When nations are perpetually fighting at low infra, the damage they receive is minimal due to the damage caps, when the damage caps are activated, a portion of the damage rounded off will move towards non-military/power improvement destruction
• Improvement rundown. When operating at more improvements than infrastructure can support, non-military/power improvements will degrade every X days (1 improvement every 5 days sort of pace)

Does sounds terrible. 
Increasing punishment for people with low infra is really not the way to go, if you want to fixs at war system. The global war didn't go on for 8 months, because the destroyed side didn't want to peace, it was the side doing the destroying that didn't want peace. 


 

[Who Me]

1 hour ago, Prefontaine said:

It's not public as far as I know. I don't know if Alex plans on releasing any sort of quarterly announcement sort of thing again. I'm currently working on a list for Alex to review that I hope to have finished this weekend. My goal is to prioritize some things that the community is seeking, however with the low responses to this thread it's kinda hard to see where to put a hard emphasis on. 

What I can say, is I intent to release my list of content I'm developing. It's not just my ideas, it's other suggestions which have been made, ideas Alex has mentioned in the past, as well as some of my ideas. It's not just stuff I'm making by any means. How much of, if any of that list getting implemented is entirely Alex's call.

 

Some of the stuff on the list are as follows:

• Projects which focus on new players (cheaper at small city counts, more expensive at higher)
• More ways to get project slots as a new player
• Ways for non-air units to damage air units.
• New project which allows for the creation of a new missile type that can be used out-side of the MAP system. It would function like spies, be limited to being fired at nations which you are currently in an active war with, and damage units.
• Damage roll-over. When nations are perpetually fighting at low infra, the damage they receive is minimal due to the damage caps, when the damage caps are activated, a portion of the damage rounded off will move towards non-military/power improvement destruction
• Improvement rundown. When operating at more improvements than infrastructure can support, non-military/power improvements will degrade every X days (1 improvement every 5 days sort of pace)
• New Day/rebuy reset customization so not everyone hits that point at the same time. 
• Additional Space-based projects.
• Project designed to impact pollution. 
• Quality of Life improvements (see: Adrienne thread)
• Ways to destroy land.

There might be more, but I don't have my list on this computer. 

You do understand that having even more ways to destroy even more stuff will just drive more people out of the game during beatdown wars? By allowing more improvements and land to be destroyed when you are already getting crushed is not an incentive to keep playing the game. For new or old players. You don't balance or improve the game by making it harder for the losers of a beatdown war to recover.

[Prefontaine]

2 minutes ago, Who Me said:

You do understand that having even more ways to destroy even more stuff will just drive more people out of the game during beatdown wars? By allowing more improvements and land to be destroyed when you are already getting crushed is not an incentive to keep playing the game. For new or old players. You don't balance or improve the game by making it harder for the losers of a beatdown war to recover.

Cities should not be able to operate at massive improvement imbalances. Running around with 40 improvements and 500 infra which only supports 10 improvements is very flawed. 

 

Land destruction is along the lines of a nuke destroys 10% of the land in a city. 

[Wendell Williams]

1 hour ago, Prefontaine said:

New Day/rebuy reset customization so not everyone hits that point at the same time. 

Like this one,but make it so a nation can only do it once.

 

1 hour ago, Prefontaine said:

New project which allows for the creation of a new missile type that can be used out-side of the MAP system. It would function like spies, be limited to being fired at nations which you are currently in an active war with, and damage units.

What about an attack that seriously weakens chosen military units without actually damaging them.

[Who Me]

10 minutes ago, Prefontaine said:

Cities should not be able to operate at massive improvement imbalances. Running around with 40 improvements and 500 infra which only supports 10 improvements is very flawed. 

 

Land destruction is along the lines of a nuke destroys 10% of the land in a city. 

Again, destroying even more stuff is not going to help with balancing the game or improve player retention. The spy and planes situations need to be fixed before we start implementing ways to destroy even more stuff.

[Wendell Williams]

1 hour ago, Prefontaine said:

Ways to destroy land.

Why?

[Prefontaine]

22 minutes ago, Deulos said:

Why?

Been requested/suggested in the past. 

[Zim]

28 minutes ago, Prefontaine said:

Cities should not be able to operate at massive improvement imbalances. Running around with 40 improvements and 500 infra which only supports 10 improvements is very flawed. 

 

Land destruction is along the lines of a nuke destroys 10% of the land in a city. 

It a genuine strategi to overload with improvement, at the cost of military strength over time, as one can't replace destroyed improvement without building up infra, that is the balance that excist. 

It risk and reward situation that offer some diverse ways to play a game, that is already fairly limited in options for different ways one can play.
You need to consider the consequence of these changes, beside the effect on the games economic. 

And i rather prefer not to see changes that only benefit neutral whales. As does activily playing the game, like going to war, will suffer and depend higher on buying ressource, from the before mentioned neutral whales. 



 

[Prefontaine]

45 minutes ago, Zim said:

It a genuine strategi to overload with improvement, at the cost of military strength over time, as one can't replace destroyed improvement without building up infra, that is the balance that excist. 

It risk and reward situation that offer some diverse ways to play a game, that is already fairly limited in options for different ways one can play.
You need to consider the consequence of these changes, beside the effect on the games economic. 

And i rather prefer not to see changes that only benefit neutral whales. As does activily playing the game, like going to war, will suffer and depend higher on buying ressource, from the before mentioned neutral whales. 



 

Not sure if I can explain this more simply. Infra is require to support improvement slots. Having more improvement slots than your infra can support is flawed. 

 

If you try to power something with only a quarter of the power needed, it’s not going to work.

Edited February 18, 2020 by Prefontaine

[Primetime637]

Allowing credits to be used while under blockade bypasses the entire purpose of a blockade

[RyanK]

I think it's very annoying how like 300k soldiers gets an utter failure or even phryic victory against someone with  100k soldiers (for example). I think that needs to be sorted. I'd also suggest anti aircraft/anti tank soldiers 

[Viselli]

More options when at war so it isnt cookie cutter builds and strategies. A rock paper scissors type thing where strat A beats Strat B, B beats C, C beats A. Expanding the perks system thats in game but not implemented can help people specialize in one type of strategy forcing alliances to be made up of nations with a variety of builds to keep a balanced attack.

This would help with the current problems of planes being overpowered and people getting held down constantly

 

[Samuel Bates]

New layers to the economy and war systems. Especially war. Rn war seems to have little to no strategy and is more how many planes do you have. Make espionage more powerful and add new abilities to it or other units. Maybe have the ability to sabotage specific building types in exchange for a much lower success rate? It would also be nice to have some alliance declaration of war in game. 

[Vein]

Being able to fully max your military in 3 days rather than having to wait a whole week to max.

[Aqua-Corpsman]

I've been thinking about this for a while, I think the political aspect (the policies) should effect gameplay. I think it should be more in depth. For example, stronger military means better troops but less taxes. Or left wing means more taxes but less production. And vice versa.

[Cincinnatus]

I was going to post about planes being overpowered or other units being underpowered against planes due to lacking AA capability but that seems to be covered.

The only thing I can an add is something akin to the old perks idea to help individualise nation builds. Also, would it be possible if projects were instead of being a mostly buy as you please decision but more based around trees where most of the other projects require prerequisite project/s bought before hand with a few different trees with varying focuses ( commerce, raw production , war, refined production etc could all be differing examples of the build pathways). Nations right now in both peace time and war are overly similar and follow general cookie cutter builds so having a bit of individual character to how nations perform could really add to the overall meta of the game.

[James II]

I think before we add more to the game we need to improve server performance. I.e. politics and snore. The game is down 2hrs total (5 min before and after turn change) on a good day.

Edited February 18, 2020 by James II

[Guest Elijah Mikaelson]

3 hours ago, Prefontaine said:

• Ways to destroy land.

There might be more, but I don't have my list on this computer. 

Unless land is made a lot cheaper this would be a bad idea on many fronts, as the RoI on land as it is, is very long, so unless land becomes more important or much cheaper this would be a bad move.

[Vali]

On the topic of soldiers, if you attack 400k vs 150k, you do not kill that many soldiers, but if you get airstuke, they all die. Maybe balance this better, or like, I saw people suggesting different tactics for units, maybe make spreading out forces to lower airstrike damage a tactic. Cause really, units being able to fight back is irrelevant, cause by the time they are airstriking your units it’s gg. 

[James II]

1 minute ago, Bjorn Ironside said:

Unless land is made a lot cheaper this would be a bad idea on many fronts, as the RoI on land as it is, is very long, so unless land becomes more important or much cheaper this would be a bad move.

Destroying land makes no sense. You can't destroy land. If a nation is bombed their land doesn't disappear into the ether.

[ErwinKrieger]

No real politics to the game. Make an official ticker in regards to politics. And maybe a an official treaty template thats editable amd displayed as forum posts on alliance page.

[Zim]

4 minutes ago, Prefontaine said:

Not sure if I can explain this more simply. Infra is require to support improvement slots. Having more improvement slots than your infra can support is flawed. 

 

If you try to power something with only a quarter of the power needed, it’s not going to work.

I know this would benefit you, at the cost of the rest of us. So it not your intreast to see why this is bad thing to do. 

But i try to explain it yet again, first there is a different between not having the infra in the first place, and having it, but it being destroyed. You can see that in real life, when you compare devolved and developing nations that have hit by natural disasters with one another. 

For a devolved nation it is far easier to get aid out, to remote regions that been hit, even when the infrastructure is destroyed, compared to a nation not having any infrastrucute to send aid out from.
Do you know why?  Because broken infrastructure is still better then no infrastructure. Just because you blew up a road to a mine, dosen't mean that the mine would stop operating. Because a broken road can still be used. Comparing that to place were there is no road, and there is no mine, is flawed.  
infrastructure is not a finite resource, like electricity. 

But we not here about realisme, we are here about gameplay and destroying ways one can play the game, because it "flawed" is not the way to go. 
I would rather prefer, that this game won't make it so that being a bloated whale isen't the only way to play. 
But please explain to me why it is flawed? 
What benefit does this have for the game play?

[Leo]

Alliances are very one-dimensional.

Alliance Challenges could change that. Random challenges that are assigned to each alliance with a goal to achieve by a specific date/time, e.g: Your alliance challenge is to declare X amount of wars today....something along those lines, with achievements/resource boost (think treasures) as rewards. With challenges changed daily/weekly/monthly depending on the scale of given challenge.

 

tl;dr:
alliance challenges + treasures as rewards = fun

Edited February 19, 2020 by Leo

[Grave]

Make it so planes can only hit ships, ships can hit ground and ground can hit planes, easy peasy. 

 

 

Make  alliance war  declarations an in game mechanic, set a damage limit (500k/infra at start is good) , first alliance to reach that limit wins 

Edited February 18, 2020 by Canada2
Added in stuff