Jump to content

State of the game, including updates


Prefontaine
 Share

Recommended Posts

Updates to the OP:

Quote

New Spy “Attack” - Blockade Breaking

 

  1. Nations can send spies into another nation which is blockaded and supply that nation with up to $1,000,000 per city and up to 1,000 resources per city. These resources may be more than one resource type, but are limited to a maximum totaling 1,000 per city.

  2. This spy attack only uses an offensive spy action of the "attacking" nation. It does not impact daily spy use in either the blockaded, or blockading nation.

  3. The difficulty of the mission is determined by the number of blockades against the nation as well as the attacking nation having adequate spies (45+). Odds will become worse below 45 spies. The more you have above may provide a bonus to the odds.

    1. If the nation is blockaded by 1 nation, the odds of success are 90%

    2. If the nation is blockaded by 2 nations, the odds of success are 80%

    3. If the nation is blockaded by 3 nations, the odds of success are 70%

    4. If the nation is blockaded by 4+ nations, the odds of success are 55%

  4. If the mission fails, 

    1. there is a high chance the nation sending the attack is revealed. 

    2. There is a chance that spies are killed in the nation sending the attack

    3. Each nation blockaded receives 5% of the resources/money which were lost.

  5. If the mission succeeds, there is 10% chance all blockades are broken against this nation.

  6. If no resources are sent, then the attack is to attempt to lift the blockades against the target nation.

    1. If there is only 1 nation blockading the odds are 20%

    2. If there are 2 nations blockading the odds are 15%

    3. If there are 3+ nations blockading the odds are 10%

 

Changes to Blockades

  1. Once a war expires where a nation was blockaded at the expiration, that nation will not be able to be blockaded again for 5 days, or 60 turns.
  2. Attacks that would have initiated a blockaded during these 60 turns instead of blockading, destroy an improvement. The improvement destroyed is restricted to Manufacturing, Civil, and Commerce. If there are no improvements left in either of these sections, then Raw Resources are targeted next. If there are no Raw Resources left, Military is targeted last. Power Plants cannot be destroyed in this way. 
  3. This timer does not stack, however it does reset if another war expires that had a blockade during this time.

 

Edited by Prefontaine
  • Downvote 2

scSqPGJ.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure what is worst. That beige was just removed or that Sheepy is such a lazy administrator that he can't even take the heat for his decision himself and just goes through Pre who - to my knowledge - is in no official capacity within this game even though Sheepy obviously likes his input while ignoring everyone else.

@Alex Do your shit yourself. Stop going through Pre for game changes. Like seriously wtf. That's so sad.

Edited by Mitsuru
  • Upvote 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Mitsuru said:

I'm not sure what is worst. That beige was just removed or that Sheepy is such a lazy administrator that he can't even take the heat for his decision himself and just goes through Pre who - to my knowledge - is in no official capacity within this game even though Sheepy obviously likes his input while ignoring everyone else.

The latter, for the simple reason that he's also getting paid whilst behaving in this manner.

  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 1
 
G3.gif.d8066d8dc749ad2d0835fe69095fa73b.gif
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I mean, on one hand he’s doing what we’ve been asking for a while. (Using the community, IE: Pre) Unfortunately, I feel like these poorly fleshed out ideas are getting rushed through. They would benefit through having an open conversation for members to poke holes in and then deciding if it’s worth implementing.

image.gif.d80770bf646703bba00c14ad52088af9.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Kevanovia said:

I mean, on one hand he’s doing what we’ve been asking for a while.

It's the constant disappearing Alex does after he does changes, that kind of defeats the purpose of reasonable discussion. I do comend Pre for taking the role but he isn't the only person that plays the game. Other voices have similar or sometimes better ideas and they get ignored for a plethora of reasons. I won't list them here though because it'll take all day.

Edited by Deulos
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Kevanovia said:

I mean, on one hand he’s doing what we’ve been asking for a while. (Using the community, IE: Pre) Unfortunately, I feel like these poorly fleshed out ideas are getting rushed through. They would benefit through having an open conversation for members to poke holes in and then deciding if it’s worth implementing.

The problem is pre is the *only* person he listens to *at all* and even then only sometimes. Pre is the equivalent of the guy who gives him the idea that alex can claim as his and say it was his vision, and his job is to just shovel them forward until he sees a shiny one.

If Alex is gonna burn the fields to the ground, he should face it himself, instead of tossing someone into the fire for him first.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Prefontaine said:

This is your chance to discuss. If you're rather use that time for unproductive posts then go ahead, but don't complain when features roll out which don't include your input because you failed to provide it during the opportunity to do so.

How dare you? I have offered constructive feedback for years. Which you constantly show complete ignorance of. Thus, you are telling us in no uncertain terms that you are entirely lying, and we have every right to complain when features roll out without our input... since our input isn't even noticed.

There has been NO discussion as to these updates, to the point that you straight up announced the spy change as a done deal in its very introduction. Nobody was consulted on or had opportunity to discuss the removal of beige, and all the suggestions about fixing it weren't looked at either before it was simply flatly done.

 

You want to know something funny? The reserve system actually existed at one point. During the last war, in fact. TGH discovered that there was indeed a way to "reserve" purchases of military and deploy them all at once.

We immediately reported it as the bullshit game-breaking exploit that it was, and it was patched. Now we're at the point where it's just going to be implemented as a feature??

  

9 hours ago, Theodosius said:

ROOK TO G8, YOUR MOVE SIR

Hol up how're you moving your rook in move 1 >_>

But seriously, even I'm 100% behind a protest NAP to prevent ''"testing'"' of the changes.

Edited by Sir Scarfalot
dubblepost
  • Upvote 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Kevanovia said:

I mean, on one hand he’s doing what we’ve been asking for a while. (Using the community, IE: Pre) 

Oh, he's using the community alright. Albeit just the unpaid labor and a middleman to take the heat for him.

4 hours ago, Kevanovia said:

Unfortunately, I feel like these poorly fleshed out ideas are getting rushed through.

Understatement of the month.

4 hours ago, Kevanovia said:

They would benefit through having an open conversation for members to poke holes in and then deciding if it’s worth implementing.

I mean; as was said above, it's getting implemented regardless. The reason being that Alex has an explicit, vested interest in *not* having a beige-like mechanic (because he cbf to properly moderate or hire someone to do it for him), so he's going to pick the more flawed, untested alternative to it simply due to that.

And yes, it's unsurprising that people likewise cbf to provide more feedback when the heaps of pre-existing ones were rejected out of hand (due to the aforementioned interest, among over things). Especially in the manner in which it happened.

  • Upvote 4
 
G3.gif.d8066d8dc749ad2d0835fe69095fa73b.gif
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/30/2020 at 8:08 PM, Prefontaine said:

these changes haven't shown what impact they'll have on alliance based warfare.


Yeah... admin who implements changes without having a clue what impact its going to have on AA warfare. Seriously.

Well since its pretty clear there is no point making any suggestions or commenting on anything: can I ask the community at large to give consideration to cancelling the global nap - two months is too long to wait before an inevitable curbstomp and the inherent flaws of recent changes become self-evident to Alex.

Sad state of affairs when the input/feedback from the community at large seems to be completely worthless, but there you have it. Global war now and maybe there is some vague hope for rollback to a semi-balanced war system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, Swedge said:


Yeah... admin who implements changes without having a clue what impact its going to have on AA warfare. Seriously.

Well since its pretty clear there is no point making any suggestions or commenting on anything: can I ask the community at large to give consideration to cancelling the global nap - two months is too long to wait before an inevitable curbstomp and the inherent flaws of recent changes become self-evident to Alex.

Sad state of affairs when the input/feedback from the community at large seems to be completely worthless, but there you have it. Global war now and maybe there is some vague hope for rollback to a semi-balanced war system.

Nah, better to extend the NAP in protest. The game can't be killed if we don't kill it after all :D

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Alex locked this topic
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and the Guidelines of the game and community.