Administrators Popular Post Alex Posted May 14, 2020 Author Administrators Popular Post Share Posted May 14, 2020 11 minutes ago, Deulos said: You don't want our feedback. You just went ahead and did it without a care. I get you can do whatever you like with your game but what happens when people don't like it and leave? You'll have no game. Why did you change ground control? Shouldn't soldiers should still get ground control as 1/3 with no tanks. This is not what anyone agreed on (this is the stuff I'm talking about ?). I know you didn't hear that from anyone because nobody suggested ground control should cease grounding a 1/3 aircraft. That's not true - these changes have been on the test server and we even did a brief tournament with many of them. I've also ran polls, there have been suggestion threads, etc. The change to ground control was proposed and tested on the test server around 2 years ago. It's not a brand new thing that I just threw in randomly. You and many others have been crying "this update will kill the game!" at about every update since the game came out. Well, we're still here and in fact we're doing as well as we've ever done. (Obviously the recent spike is because of a YouTube video about the game, but we weren't doing poorly before then either.) 2 6 Quote Is there a bug? Report It | Not understanding game mechanics? Ask About It | Got a good idea? Suggest ItForums Rules | Game Link Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wendell Posted May 14, 2020 Share Posted May 14, 2020 5 minutes ago, Alex said: The change to ground control was proposed and tested on the test server around 2 years ago. It's not a brand new thing that I just threw in randomly. Well, my mistake I did not play on the test until 6 months ago. 5 minutes ago, Alex said: You and many others have been crying "this update will kill the game!" at about every update since the game came out. Well, we're still here and in fact we're doing as well as we've ever done. (Obviously the recent spike is because of a YouTube video about the game, but we weren't doing poorly before then either.) Don't project on me. I never said the game was doing poorly nor that this will kill the game. I've seen the graph, I'm not that stupid to just outright lie despite the evidence. I am aware of the YouTube video. 1 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Hodor Posted May 14, 2020 Popular Post Share Posted May 14, 2020 (edited) 2 hours ago, Alex said: Airstrikes on Units Tanks Killed Airstrike: 43% -> 14% Aircraft Killed by Tanks in a Ground Battle: 0% -> 42% (only after Ground Control has been established) I'll just add one more voice for this one. If someone sees something I don't, please explain how this isn't just a flip in the other direction. I think you're on the right path, if for no other reason then to force a strategy shift in the game. The strategy shift just should not be moving from one OP unit to another. Edited May 14, 2020 by Hodor 7 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zei-Sakura Alsainn Posted May 14, 2020 Share Posted May 14, 2020 Good to see having more than 20 cities has now been reaffirmed as pointless and laughably stupid by the admin himself. @Alex of that 4000 before the spike, less than half were actually a relevant participatory party of the game. Even including garbage micros that had no chance of going anywhere, it topped out at around 1500. The rest were, generally, quickly added to the pool of inactives or are those occasional, rare random city 2s or 1s that stay allianceless and just do whatever it is they're doing. So yeah, it was doing pretty badly actually. Also, you nerfed planes way too hard for the score buff they got, and made tanks practically worthless in score while being able to club as many planes as an IT with a bad kill roll, and all with 1 less MAP required. Oh, and thanks to the plane reduction, harpooning upper tier whales is even easier. "Ah but proportionally you have the same amount more as before!" War mechanics don't know proportions unfortunately, they know raw numbers. I went from having 450 planes on a c20 to 375. It was already very possible for c20s to take me down anyway, you just went and made it easier. Infact, city 15/16 could probably do it now, whereas before most MA departments wouldn't even try with anything less than 18s. Oh, and because my score minus my overnax planes actually went down, it's actually not anymore difficult nor even close to impossible for those theoretical c15/16s to get to me. And steel prices are going to skyrocket because a massive stockpile will be necessary. Particularly for people like me who are now easier than ever no matter what I do to take down. If I want to be relevant after that I should definitely consider 100k+ steel as my warchest. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avatar Patrick Posted May 14, 2020 Share Posted May 14, 2020 I have mixed feelings about this. On the one hand, if the goal is to make the game more accessible to casuals, then I'd say you succeeded. However, the timing of this sucks for me because I just started using some KT soldiers only raiding strats and this makes those op strats unfeasible. You did throw us raiders a bone with the "pirate economy" project but it seems like a lot of these changes were actively designed to hurt the most active players of the game which is raiders. Also, you made it virtually impossible to stop nukes by capping unraidable money to 1 mil because the only surefire way to stop them is to bankrupt the player. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Shiho Nishizumi Posted May 14, 2020 Popular Post Share Posted May 14, 2020 3 hours ago, Alex said: That's only for Ground Control. When you have Ground Control, subsequent ground battles will destroy some of your enemy's planes, based on the number of tanks you send in. It makes real life sense - you're rolling your tanks into your enemy's airfields and blowing up the aircraft. It's not unbalanced either, it just offers a new way to counter a superior airforce besides having more planes yourself. I told it to Frawley back in the day when he made the realism argument, and I'll tell it to you now. Arguing based on real life logic is asinine, when you have so many factors in this game that throw realism right out of the window. Such as being able to basically double your population overnight, loot being able to be delivered through a blockade via a beige you got with a missile/nuke (even if you had no other conventional force whatsoever), being able to play baseball with nations on opposing warring alliances through blockades, etc. Does realism only matter for X but not for Y? Make up your mind. Furthermore, real life is very often inherently unbalanced. It is preferable to have as many stacked advantages as possible. For instance, one of the changes you made here was to make tiering more rigid by inflating city NS and devaluating military score. The purpose of this, per you, was to minimize the amount of ludicrous downdeclares which led to an unbalanced match up due to the downdeclaring nation potentially having a greater than 2:1 ratio in city count, compared to the defender. All well and good. That sure as shit doesn't make any real life sense. Do you think that, for instance, the Soviets cared that they outnumbered the Finnish by magnitudes of hundreds, specifically in terms of materiel such as tanks and aircraft (the former, ironically enough, being one of the main things that inflated NS previous to the changes)? Of course not. They rolled into Finland anyways, because that's what "real life sense" actually is. It's about making things as unbalanced as possible in order to gain as much of an advantage as possible. The focus gameplay should be one of making things actually balanced, rather than try to justify them on "real life sense"/realism. The latter can be a thing if it enhances it, rather than just be added for the sake of it. Rather than implementing various small changes to see how things changed, you simply read "Planes OP" and "Tanks UP" and went balls to the wall with nerfing one and buffing the other, not caring for how these interacted in conjunction. That's not how balancing should be done. It should be done by taking baby steps to see how it affects the overall dynamic. Honestly, it's possible that it'd have been mostly fine if you had just made it so that tanks could kill planes per GA (albeit not at these rates). But the way you implemented it, you just threw it the opposite direction. The silver lining is that there's still a fair bit of time to test things out in order to balance it properly. 19 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wendell Posted May 14, 2020 Share Posted May 14, 2020 9 minutes ago, Shiho Nishizumi said: Rather than implementing various small changes to see how things changed, you simply read "Planes OP" and "Tanks UP" and went balls to the wall with nerfing one and buffing the other, not caring for how these interacted in conjunction. That's not how balancing should be done. It should be done by taking baby steps to see how it affects the overall dynamic. Honestly, it's possible that it'd have been mostly fine if you had just made it so that tanks could kill planes per GA (albeit not at these rates). But the way you implemented it, you just threw it the opposite direction. The thing about planes is that it just an abused mechanic. People buy them and use them thinking they have wion the game, yet it does nothing but take up money. When people just ignore that fact and just build and use planes for every attack, you have to wonder who is behind the keyboard. Are they cheating and using resource exploits like GOONS with their planes? What is really going on where alliances suggest only plane builds when it's the most expensive? Surely , econ and milcom are highly unqualified. Like I always say, you have to think in strategy games not just build max military and sit. No strategy game should encourage this because then it wouldn't be called strategy but just a casual simulation. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
katashimon13 Posted May 15, 2020 Share Posted May 15, 2020 (edited) 5 hours ago, Alex said: Score from Missiles and Nuclear Weapons are capped at 50 each (the 51st Missile or Nuclear Weapon will not add to your nation score.) My next priority is refactoring some of the domestic aspect of the game. Specifically, I have some new mechanics I’d like to introduce, including Average Life Expectancy, Unemployment, Environment, Culture, Science, Tourism, and more. But more on that later, it’s just a teaser for the future! ty for buffing baby alliances treasure chances xP by domestic aspect do u mean RP wise or mechanic wise? rawr p.s. take the pollution reduction for farms off green tech please... there is 0 gameplay purpose for that ? rawr Edited May 15, 2020 by katashimon13 triple rawr Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avakael Posted May 15, 2020 Share Posted May 15, 2020 There's a hell of a lot to unpack here, and a lot of changes to moving parts that affect other moving parts around them that are also simultaneously being changed. I don't think we'll know how it really all fits until we spend a lot of time playing with it ourselves. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Majima Goro Posted May 15, 2020 Share Posted May 15, 2020 How do you consistently continue to frick the game up with each of your new updates? 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sweeeeet Ronny D Posted May 15, 2020 Share Posted May 15, 2020 (edited) the worst part about this change, is grumpy just lost all shot at getting more treasures... it was a nice few months tho, when fraggle was big enough so we could get them, and we were actually not stuck in an unending war. That being said, I reserve judgement on the changes, even if a bunch of you have already declared these changes the end of the game just like every time sheeps makes any changes. Edited May 15, 2020 by Sweeeeet Ronny D 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Epi Posted May 15, 2020 Share Posted May 15, 2020 (edited) 1 Edited February 18, 2021 by Epi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
durmij Posted May 15, 2020 Share Posted May 15, 2020 There's some good sprinkled in with the terrible. It's like a chocolate cookie but with bullshit instead of dough. 2 Quote https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mjI4ROuPyuY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JUUEHv8GHcE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avatar Patrick Posted May 15, 2020 Share Posted May 15, 2020 34 minutes ago, Epi said: These are some great and long time coming updates. but my down declare raids ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keegoz Posted May 15, 2020 Share Posted May 15, 2020 (edited) It's almost inevitable that you'll be winding some of these back. It's just staggering to me that we go with massive changes instead of small tweaks. How are you suppose to raid in the lower score ranges with the 1m cap? Wouldn't it have been more sensible to scale the cap with cities? Most nations between 1-5 don't even make 1m cash a day in their nation lol. Edited May 15, 2020 by Keegoz 5 Quote [11:52 PM] Prefontaine: But Keegoz is actually bad. [11:52 PM] Prefontaine: He's my favorite bad leader though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azaghul Posted May 15, 2020 Share Posted May 15, 2020 9 hours ago, Alex said: I removed excess oil wells and coal mines; I'm going to just let the Aircraft be. They'll end up being destroyed or sold eventually. The last player to have planes survive above the new limit should get a trophy. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Bird Shorten Posted May 15, 2020 Popular Post Share Posted May 15, 2020 A lot of people are complaining about how this affects the meta. Has anyone considered that maybe the real meta was the friends we made along the way? 7 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Vack Posted May 15, 2020 Popular Post Share Posted May 15, 2020 For years the downtrodden tanks have suffered under the aluminum fist of the planes. This grave injustice has been accepted by the Nations of Orbis as a fact of life for so long that even we have come to view the planes as our overlords. BUT NAY! FOR THE SHEEP MAN HAS COME, AS THE PROPHECY FORETOLD! HE HAS DELIVERED US FROM THE TYRANNY OF THE PLANES! Do you not see? Can you not understand? 42% is not imbalanced. It is reparations for EONS of injustice! How many tanks have been fed to the planes, how much steel has been lost to those winged monsters? The tanklatariat has been given a chance to rectify the years of punishment, so that they too may rise to power. That they may overthrow the crooked system of oppression and marginalisation imposed by the decadent planeoisie that has seen tank-kind squeezed out of the meta. Friends, I say we do not struggle against the march of history, for the sheep man has extended to us an opportunity, an opportunity for REAL CHANGE! Do not resist, for the spectre of tankunism hangs over Orbis. I say we embrace it. RISE UP TANKS! 4 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shiho Nishizumi Posted May 15, 2020 Share Posted May 15, 2020 7 hours ago, Epi said: These are some great and long time coming updates. Naturally, the guy who was party to losing 1/2 billion to a single raider thinks that this is good. 2 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles Bolivar Posted May 15, 2020 Share Posted May 15, 2020 I think we need to end the NAP in order allow "testing" of these new changes. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azaghul Posted May 15, 2020 Share Posted May 15, 2020 2 hours ago, Thorkell Hardrada said: I think we need to end the NAP in order allow "testing" of these new changes. Make a "test server" that starts with a copy of all nations as they are now. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
namukara Posted May 15, 2020 Share Posted May 15, 2020 Can we have a compremise on downvotes? As in, only have them for terrible updates like this? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Conspiracy Theorist Posted May 15, 2020 Share Posted May 15, 2020 19 hours ago, Alex said: That's only for Ground Control. When you have Ground Control, subsequent ground battles will destroy some of your enemy's planes, based on the number of tanks you send in. It makes real life sense - you're rolling your tanks into your enemy's airfields and blowing up the aircraft. It's not unbalanced either, it just offers a new way to counter a superior airforce besides having more planes yourself. Problem is, in real life, planes are seldom in the airfields by the time you get that far "inland" they are all in the air or destroyed... and tanks guns lack the elevation range to shoot down airplanes last I checked 19 hours ago, Kan0601 said: you need to build a project for that extra slot lol to get that extra 10% income you actually have to build 3 projects, missiles, the space one THEN the economy improving one, which kind of makes getting that extra 10% more expensive than the investment as it will take you real life YEARS to recoup the investment Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Conspiracy Theorist Posted May 15, 2020 Share Posted May 15, 2020 19 hours ago, KindaEpicMoah said: Can we get these changes on the test server so we can actually test how they impact gameplay? I don't want to have to wait until the next global war to find out whether it's worthwhile at all to invest in planes or not. or at least better plan your changes so everything in the game works around it... anyone tried the battle simulators yet? they still reflect the old mechanics... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Conspiracy Theorist Posted May 15, 2020 Share Posted May 15, 2020 15 hours ago, Deulos said: What is really going on where alliances suggest only plane builds when it's the most expensive? when ytou look at the complete picture planes are def NOT the moist expensive (when you factor in not just the cost of the planes but the materials as well) as compared to tanks and ships, those two far outpace planes and tanks by a longshot when you add in the cost of buying tens of thousands of units of steel at 4k+ ppu 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.