Biggest complaints regarding gameplay.

[James II]

3 minutes ago, Leo said:

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/resources as rewards. With challenges changed daily/weekly/monthly depending on the scale of given challenge.

There is already an abundance of resources, I don't think adding them will help. The alliances should be user defined not Alex designed, challenges wouldn't accommodate player design and things might get cookie cutter like in idle tap games. 

[Breadbeard]

The attacker in a war should not get beige time for losing. It doesn’t make sense that the attacker gets to have time to rebuild, he/she should accept the risks of engaging in a war.

[James II]

2 minutes ago, Breadbeard said:

The attacker in a war should not get beige time for losing. It doesn’t make sense that the attacker gets to have time to rebuild, he/she should accept the risks of engaging in a war.

I'd like to add they still get penalties of losing i.e. infra damage and loot and bank loot. But they should not be protected.

[Vali]

What if resource production was like food, and had a radiation factor, maybe not named that, but like as conflicts rise, % of resources made drops, instead of hurting resource production of nations that need the resources to fight. Hurt everyone in the game, making sitting wars out less advantageous, and fighting wars less alliance destroying...    Along with this idea:

11 minutes ago, Leo said:

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/resources as rewards. With challenges changed daily/weekly/monthly depending on the scale of given challenge.

Maybe give certain bonuses for fighting wars, like xp boast to nations who fight a lot, or even just money/resource bonus for hitting certain kills per city goals, further disencentivising sitting wars out

 

Id also like to add, winning wars should be the goal.  It is counter intuitive to have to train players to lose wars, someone should be able to join the game and enjoy winning instead of having to lose "cause milcom said so" Plus, it makes the game less of a chore for gov leaders organizing war efforts. 

Edited February 18, 2020 by Di Vali

[Justin076]

Destroying land makes no sense. Instead may I suggest making a % of land non-arable after attacks for x amount of time. The details can be worked out. Land cannot be destroyed, however it’s use for farming can be.

[Guest Epi]

1

Edited February 18, 2021 by Epi

[Vali]

3 minutes ago, Epi said:

We need to get the average player more involved.

possibility a corporate version of baseball? a lot of people like the idea of playing with stocks, running companies, you see it on discord. maybe make in game possibilities to do this, except they would actually have impact on game, instead of being a discord kiosk.  It would also allow newer players to grow faster if it was set up well, cause old players dont tend to spend as much time on stuff like baseball, trading etc.

Edited February 18, 2020 by Di Vali

[jack3top]

12 minutes ago, Epi said:

We need to get the average player more involved.

Perhaps alex can create an advertisement ingame about this thread to get more responses. 

 

Anyway, for me, this game needs to evolve into more than a clicking game. More complex economic system. Individual special unit perks with downsides and upsides. Being able to upgrade troops as well. And something to do when you are being curbstomped ingame aside from gambling would be great.  Also, IDK but maybe make it such that cities with less infra also have special perks to fight cities with bigger infra? Otherwise all AA guides are too predictable 

Edited February 18, 2020 by jack3top
added in city with less infra can fight city with more infra

[Guest Elijah Mikaelson]

2 hours 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. 

Can understand nukes making 10% of the land unsuitable for use, but it do not make it vanish, maybe cost to having it cleaned up would be better.

[BelgiumFury]

Back when Goons and NPO were still a thing, people tought my reason to nerf baseball was politically motivated, I hope that we right now, can find a way to nerf baseball, without people seeing it as politics. I still think it's unfair. 

[Lord Tyrion]

I was just about to type the same, but Breadbeard covered it.  No beige for offensive wars you declare.  Additionally, the game mechanics right now encourage you to not win a war so you can keep an opponent down. Somehow an overhaul needs to be made to encourage people to finish and win wars - it's an odd mechanic to purposely not win.

Planes are too OP as others mentioned.  I would like some AA gun capacity in cities that would help if you're defending against an air attack.  Additionally ground troops and ships should be able to destroy planes a bit more when attacked, not just sitting ducks.  Maybe not significant damage, but some defense.

Baseball should also be part of a blockade - your team shouldn't be able to get out of the city or others in to play against you.

More options should be available for alliance administration, including more tiers of rights/access.  For example, able to limit who can add/remove members, who has bank access and with a transfer limit perhaps, who can coup a leader or other transition of power elements (More tiers than just "officer").  Better reporting capabilities in-game in terms of tax revenues and tracking financial activities (financial statements).

Less ability to play a shell game with funds and the ability to create offshores the way you can.  Creating a new AA should cost something or have a timer.  

Infra is too big of a factor in nation score.  Your attack range should be more in-line with your city count.  Maybe you could down-declare on 25% of your score OR city count equal or greater than you.  Likewise, to counteract small nations from just nuking people with high infra as a result of that change, perhaps part of ground control is seizing their ability to produce new missiles or nukes.

Just some random thoughts/ideas.

 

 

[Guest Elijah Mikaelson]

32 minutes ago, Primetime637 said:

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

but the reason Alex makes more money during war time

[zigbigadorlou]

The mass infra purchase option is the reason I spend credits. That being said, my gripe is that I often couldn't use it during war due to income or infra-differential levels. I wish it had more options. For instance, a select all versus select individuals. Either way, its really annoying to have it say "error, one can't work so we didn't even try the others". 

Likewise for bulk improvements; it'd be great to be able to select which cities rather than an all city or individual city import. 

[Guest Epi]

1

Edited February 18, 2021 by Epi

[Guest Elijah Mikaelson]

I would like to see a Nerf on production of Manufactured goods and farming/mining raws as you can make a huge amounts so quickly or the cost of units, and the amount of food needed increased, would also like to see a little bit more real life, like the fact cities need repairs and that cost. 

1 minute ago, Epi said:

We could facilitate this with a 'tech tree,' every day you login you get a certain amount of 'progress' if you miss a login the amount drops. Just like the daily-bonus. This would prevent the current whales from abusing it.

In the tech tree are manufactured resources, more military units, perhaps 'components' for certain projects or units etc.

whales log in every day

[Guest Epi]

1

Edited February 18, 2021 by Epi

[Guest Elijah Mikaelson]

Just now, Epi said:

I meant it wouldn't scale by city count or material investment. They'd improve at the same rate as everyone else was capable of.

think it should have some ingame cost as well not simply logging in 

 

[Guest Epi]

1

Edited February 18, 2021 by Epi

[Dwight k Schrute]

On 2/17/2020 at 7:10 PM, Polar Bear ArcticExplorer said:

Some Suggestions I Have In Mind:-

1. Start making the Moon and Space more important in the game (keep doing moon/space related things).

2. New military technology. It would be nice to add new units, and possibly make it possible to have military research allowing for better and more improved weapons.

3. New events. I would like to see some competitions or sports that could make the game more entertaining. (How about an Olympics?)

 

Great suggestions ?

[Danzek]

Projects which focus on new players.
There are already things to do as a new player, so this shouldn't be a priority.

More ways to get project slots as a new player.
Have more cities / infra? It's not that hard.

Ways for non-air units to damage air units. 
Allow ground to target improvements.
Have a small amount of air losses when enemy has ground control or blockade

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.
Just make the first nuke/missile strike free in terms of MAP

Damage roll-over.
As mentioned, players got tired of the war because e.g. they were being perma zeroed, not because they couldn't zero a nation even further.
Allowing ground to target improvements would be fine though.

New Day/rebuy reset customization so not everyone hits that point at the same time. 
Instead of having rebuys be daily, do it turn based. e.g. You can rebuy 1/60th of your planes every turn. This accumulates every turn up to 12 turns. 
Having custom day timers per player makes it confusing / unpredictable - which isn't generally what you want in a strategy game (though I guess if this is a clicker game, unpredictability is good)

Additional Space-based projects.
Spaceports
      - Expensive improvement if you have the moon landing project.
      - allows building 1 outpost on the moon.
      - Outposts are destroyed if the spaceport is destroyed. 
      - Moon outposts are like cities, but can't build military. (or wind farm I guess)

Project designed to impact pollution. 
    - Aren't there e.g. recycling centers for this?

Ways to destroy land.
    - Why? I mean I guess you could capture e.g. 4% land during a war (capped at 1000 or something), but again, I don't think a lack of destruction is what needs prioritizing rn.

Tweak NS algorithm:
 - Cap nuke/missile score at e.g. 10 per city. You could start at some high cap (e.g. 1000) and slowly decrease it, giving players *cough* fraggle *cough* time to adapt.
 - Tank and boat score is too high.

Fix perma blockade + zeroing by bigger alliances:
 - Give e.g. 1 day of beige for whoever takes more damage when a war times out, to prevent alliances perma zeroing / blockading weaker enemies. 

Make land actually useful:
 - Have some benefit to investing in land (e.g. increased food buff, or raw outputs)
 - the suggestion of having bonus fuel cost to attackers from land could work (e.g. bonus fuel used by attacker + defender = (sqrt(land) / (20 * cities)). (though idk if this is a good idea)
 - I don't think it makes sense to have more improvement slots from land, as infra already does that.

Captchas:
 - Decrement captcha accumulation on turn change or something. 
 - Captchas should really only be if you are doing e.g. mass baseball, trade, mailing.
 
Captchas on messages:
 - Don't let accounts <30 days send images in messages. Problem solved. People universally hate captchas, and it isn't the right solution to gore being sent. 
 - If you have the time google cloud could be used to screen images.
 - Sending recruitment messages to new players is a chore, it doesn't make the game more enjoyable to do this manually.
 - If you don't think people should be using bots, just add a mechanic like what is done with player advertisements.
 
Allow whales to engage more in the game:
Allow you to pay money to updeclare past your NS
Allow you to equip soldiers with harpoons.
The space stuff mentioned above.

Edited February 19, 2020 by Borg

[Koala]

Planes definitely need to be nerfed or we need a better counter to them

[Deja]

I agree that it makes no sense to destroy land. Land doesn't get destroyed. It could get captured, but where would it go when destroyed?

59 minutes ago, Zim said:

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?

This is ridiculous. You just want to be able to be able to war against nations that should be out of your nation score range but aren't because of a loophole. Further, you want to be able to war like high score nation against low score nations without having to risk high prices of war, which defeats the balance of risk and power of war.

You've been exploiting a loophole in the game. That loophole should be fixed. It shouldn't be easy to go to war and disregard counters because you can't be hurt because you have nothing to lose.

[Prezyan]

I think it would be interesting to have a technology system as others have mentioned previously, however; to add on I'd like to suggest some form of technology tier system. After a certain point based on technology + cities or something of the sort, advancements to technology provide debuffs in areas such as manufacturing. This is to represent how in many modern nations, the industrial power has slowly decayed since the 1960s. Perhaps eventually additional technologies/projects can be attempted to over come these issues such as automated manufacturing. Ideally though even that would have debuffs, for example if government approval actually mattered, that could be a consequence.

I personally think that would add a lot of depth and possiblity for further additions later on.

[Etat]

Maybe already suggested however I've a couple of preferences:

• Land should positively influence population.
• Ships v planes
• The number of military improvements to negatively influence population.
• Anti-aircraft improvements additionally to barracks etc (not a project).  Perhaps 1-5 improvs with an associated 20-100% chance of protecting infra and other improvs from plane attacks (aa improvs not protected).
• Ground-defense improvs (in a similar spirit to the above).  1-5 improvs with an associated influence on attacker attrition.
• The ability to capture land and cities in war to inspire war as a valid game mechanic in the face of greater odds (see above).
• Several tiered military research projects that positively influence military performance however declines in influence as city count rises so as to make down-declaring more challenging.

[Limbuwan]

6 hours ago, James II said:

I'd like to add they still get penalties of losing i.e. infra damage and loot and bank loot. But they should not be protected.

I’d like to add further so that a nation is not pinned down forever and be given beige whoever has lower resistance remaining.

 

What happened to that 12 turn cooldown stuff ? where we can buy troops every turn worth instead of having to wait for reset.

Edited February 19, 2020 by Limbuwan