Jump to content

New Content discussion


Prefontaine
 Share

Recommended Posts

15 hours ago, Dryad said:

Can you get rid of terraforming after getting advanced engineering or do you have to keep the requirement fulfilled? i assume almost everyone will want a 5% reduction in infra cost but won't care much about land if at all.

what is this?!?! land is the best part

 

2 hours ago, im317 said:

the vast majority of the wars i fought predate the wars won and wars lost stats being added. did those wars get saved anywhere or are they gone forever? losing out on project slots because my fighting was done before the game kept track of them would be annoying.  and at my infra levels it would be cheaper to buy more infra to open up project slots then to fight new wars to open slots and then rebuy infra. especially since losing infra would reduce the number of project slots available to me.

well the advantage of not fighting for the last few years, is now you have so much infra, you dont need the extra project slots.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The names for the projects aren't good. Projects need to be institutions, not events. Police Training is fine, but National Policing Academy is better. Medical Breakthroughs is bad, try something like Medical Research Center. Other than than, solid ideas all around.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's some good stuff here. I did have a few thoughts.

 

Alliances have the ability to create up to 8 alliance positions
Who in the hell actually needs this level of detail? I struggle to even think of how people could pass 5 of these given the mechanics and general roles in most alliances (hardly anyone here is big enough for super bureaucracy), let alone have as many as 8.

 

Alliance leaders (with appropriate access levels) can see the time zones for members.
Is this going to be something players input into the game? I'd feel a little queasy about this one myself, even if most of my alliance knows roughly where I am in the world.

 

Rapid Expansion - 5% discount to land purchased
Is land going to actually going to get some buffs, or something to make it play more of a role besides farming and maybe a disease cap for old nations?

 

New Projects writ large
There seem to be a number of items of code or style that are not implemented in respect to the city improvements. It would appear that things have been planned for awhile on some of them, but it never has happened. I suppose these projects are a bit of a start to continuing that trend?

 

Spy Reserve System
I think spies probably need more of a total rework, but this is a step in the right direction overall.

In paradisum deducant te Angeli; in tuo adventu suscipiant te martyres, et perducant te in civitatem sanctam Ierusalem.
Chorus angelorum te suscipiat, et cüm Lazaro quondam paupere æternam habeas requiem.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/16/2020 at 8:09 PM, Sri Lanka 001 said:

I don't think we want new projects... 

Maybe fix how the game looks???

No we do want new projects. Ideally we should have so many projects that no one can get them all and it allows us to specialzie our nation abit by what projects we choose

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Prefontaine thanks for putting these together! 

Many of these make sense and having more projects at varying cost levels adds more variation to the game, which is good.

one counter thought on extra project slots: Having more project slots allows many players to build several projects, without the need to think which ones to prioritize, evaluate trade-offs. Especially with larger alliances, these projects will be granted with nations having more slots. In exchange every nation will start to look the same, kind of boring.

Alternatively, having more project but not more slots drive the need for nations to specialize, which makes the game more fun for many. , 

Edited by Ketya
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

To give a quick update:

 

With the war I will not be pushing for the spies changes to be implemented til AFTER this war. The other changes being largely new content which does not impact warfare will still be pushed for release depending on Alex's availability. 

  • Thanks 2

scSqPGJ.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/16/2020 at 10:09 PM, Sri Lanka 001 said:

I don't think we want new projects... 

Maybe fix how the game looks???

That's where I come in - I'll be engaging with the community on game aesthetics fairly soon. :)

Will leave this thread for OP discussion tho, if you do have ideas/etc - feel free to hit me up on discord.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/17/2020 at 11:07 AM, im317 said:

the vast majority of the wars i fought predate the wars won and wars lost stats being added. did those wars get saved anywhere or are they gone forever? losing out on project slots because my fighting was done before the game kept track of them would be annoying.  and at my infra levels it would be cheaper to buy more infra to open up project slots then to fight new wars to open slots and then rebuy infra. especially since losing infra would reduce the number of project slots available to me.

If you ask nicely, you can probably get Grumpy to roll you a few times. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Although I do like most (if not all) of your ideas, in these suggestions. How are we to play a game that labels itself POLITICS & WAR when all politics based with inside this game is cosmetic & or you need to use 3rd party to even pretend it exists,  all wars won is granted to the aggressor??? Are we to just turn a blind eye to the actual intent of this game and intent i mean by the actual name of the game, Or are they just false advertising???.  This isn't simnation or even sim city and there was a lot of thought put into this game, just the implementation has fallen apart. Shouldn't we suggest and request that they at least implement a workable/usable/balanced and fair game play based on Politics and War  before we start suggesting Nations content and turning it into another Sim City. Don't get me wrong, Nations right now are at a balanced/fair playing field unlike the politics and war aspects of this game and shouldn't we all be more focused on trying to balance them out before we start tweaking nation aspects.??? Everyone wants more projects/domestic policies/war policies etc,etc but we have yet to achieve a balanced POLITICS &WAR.

  • Downvote 1

lQwIisV.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Cjfly said:

Although I do like most (if not all) of your ideas, in these suggestions. How are we to play a game that labels itself POLITICS & WAR when all politics based with inside this game is cosmetic & or you need to use 3rd party to even pretend it exists,  all wars won is granted to the aggressor??? Are we to just turn a blind eye to the actual intent of this game and intent i mean by the actual name of the game, Or are they just false advertising???.  This isn't simnation or even sim city and there was a lot of thought put into this game, just the implementation has fallen apart. Shouldn't we suggest and request that they at least implement a workable/usable/balanced and fair game play based on Politics and War  before we start suggesting Nations content and turning it into another Sim City. Don't get me wrong, Nations right now are at a balanced/fair playing field unlike the politics and war aspects of this game and shouldn't we all be more focused on trying to balance them out before we start tweaking nation aspects.??? Everyone wants more projects/domestic policies/war policies etc,etc but we have yet to achieve a balanced POLITICS &WAR.

Aggressors don't always win lol. For example in Dial up BK got blitzed but was able to turn it around thanks to politics and war. There is nothing wrong with this games political system. The war mechanics are simple but this is a browser game.

Edited by lightside
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@lightside So you think just cause you say your part of something without any real consequences/game based mechanics then you must be part of that something. Hmmmmm, must be nice to still be in Grade 9. Just because you don't have real in-game consequences based on your so called system does that mean it actually exists????? NO, therefor the politics part of the game is non existent due to the lack of real in-game consequences for ones actions based on REAL POLITICS. This is what politics is all about, Placing a penalty for those that renig on a signed treaty/contract now if you cannot enforce those penalties then you have no politics. Hence the reason why we have the UN in RL as they enforce global law (what the masses agree to) and since with an in-game system we will never achieve such cooperation since there isnt any consequences to not achieving this goal (unless implemented with in-game mechanics) then one must implement an absolute in an in-game scenario thus enforcing the political system in place.

  • Downvote 1

lQwIisV.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, lightside said:

Aggressors don't always win lol. For example in Dial up BK got blitzed but was able to turn it around thanks to politics and war. There is nothing wrong with this games political system. The war mechanics are simple but this is a browser game.

So you prove my statement that 99% of all wars are won by aggressors as you could only point out the 1 war to make your point out of over 6 yrs of gameplay. So here is my point, I am still 100% correct while you are still 100% incorrect. Pls ohhh Pls tell me were i said Aggressors always win??? or did you take something outta context which i assume you did since i did say i was never an aggressor but somehow won 5 wars and since you love following my comments you would know for absolute that i stated 99% of aggressors win wars or are you just trying to troll me in several different discussions to get your point across that you favour unbalanced military combat to the aggressor so you can feel better about yourself at night while you stare at your parents basement walls????

  • Downvote 2

lQwIisV.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/28/2020 at 8:47 PM, Cjfly said:

So you prove my statement that 99% of all wars are won by aggressors as you could only point out the 1 war to make your point out of over 6 yrs of gameplay. So here is my point, I am still 100% correct while you are still 100% incorrect. Pls ohhh Pls tell me were i said Aggressors always win??? or did you take something outta context which i assume you did since i did say i was never an aggressor but somehow won 5 wars and since you love following my comments you would know for absolute that i stated 99% of aggressors win wars or are you just trying to troll me in several different discussions to get your point across that you favour unbalanced military combat to the aggressor so you can feel better about yourself at night while you stare at your parents basement walls????

No, there's more than just that once incident. Many more. BK blitzed KT in Ayyslamic Crusade, but it didn't really help BK there either.

On 8/28/2020 at 6:48 PM, Cjfly said:

@lightside So you think just cause you say your part of something without any real consequences/game based mechanics then you must be part of that something. Hmmmmm, must be nice to still be in Grade 9. Just because you don't have real in-game consequences based on your so called system does that mean it actually exists????? NO, therefor the politics part of the game is non existent due to the lack of real in-game consequences for ones actions based on REAL POLITICS. This is what politics is all about, Placing a penalty for those that renig on a signed treaty/contract now if you cannot enforce those penalties then you have no politics. Hence the reason why we have the UN in RL as they enforce global law (what the masses agree to) and since with an in-game system we will never achieve such cooperation since there isnt any consequences to not achieving this goal (unless implemented with in-game mechanics) then one must implement an absolute in an in-game scenario thus enforcing the political system in place.

When's the last time someone broke a pact and didn't face severe consequences for that action? The last NAP lasted for months, and everyone involved 100% abided by their promises there, even though there were indeed very real mechanical benefits that could have been had by reneging. Know why that was? I'll tell you why: because political consequences exist, and they do have very real and measurable mechanical effects.

I've been playing these things for more than ten years now, and I've never seen anyone renege on a promise and get away with it unscathed. Victorious, sometimes, but always there were consequences that hurt the oathbreaker terribly.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Cjfly The majority of wars in the past 6 years, have ended in a white peace, with no officiel winners. And while it is true the aggressor often have the advantage (if this wasen't the case, we would have alot fewer wars) it not sure condition for victory. I have personally found "endurance" to me more important factor, the lenght of which an alliance is willing fight or is able to fight in some cases is what determined wars, more so then who attacks first. 
And is also the reason why most wars simply ends in a white peace. 

Another factor that have influence on who wins a war, are the politics part of the game. Like how able are alliances able to get help. Doing NPO last time, it was constant inflow of new alliance on both sides joining in, that would quickly change which alliances was being dominated. 
Politics is also what determind different alliances positions before the first attack is made, like the current ongoing war, it rather clear the victor was decided before the first blitz. Simply because one side was out maneuvered. 
But this is the top of the political aspect of this game. For most players the politics they will be dealing with is internal alliance politics. Stuff like your alliance goverment system,  manage relationships within your alliance, being able to stand out and maybe try to get selected for a low gov position yourself. 
Then you suddenly have real influence on the top politics of this game, that excist between alliances, and can influence route your alliance have to take. 
But all the while you still have to manage internal alliance politics. 
At the end of the day politics are just about making decisions as a group. 

And the consequences for playing this game of politics is the same as in real life politics. Like let go with your example: breaking treaties. This can both create bad and good will, often it will do both in different factions. But beside creating bad will, nations will often be able to get away with breaking previous agreements. It will just get harder to make new ones, And depending on the vitality of the agreement broken it might lead to actions taken. From embragoes, to war. 
The UN is powerless to actually stop a nation from violating an agreement, afterall so long one security council against it, nothing will happen from the UN side. 

Plus you welcome to try and create a form for UN in the game, but it will be as powerless as the real thing. 

  • Upvote 2

tenor (1).gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/17/2020 at 8:22 PM, durmij said:

The names for the projects aren't good. Projects need to be institutions, not events. Police Training is fine, but National Policing Academy is better. Medical Breakthroughs is bad, try something like Medical Research Center. Other than than, solid ideas all around.

Updated the OP with name changes.

scSqPGJ.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QoL changes are superb.

Any chance with the updated custom alliance positions you can add more alliance permissions?

For example:

1.) Permission to accept members to the alliance (good for Low IA Gov)

2.) Permission to look at nations caches. (Owners have the option to see this under "Control Panel")(Good for Low IA and Econ Gov)

3.) Permission to send alliance mail (good for IA, Econ)

 

  • Like 1

A game dies without a community.
Don't hate on the communities trying to grow.
Eat them instead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Young Guilo said:

QoL changes are superb.

Any chance with the updated custom alliance positions you can add more alliance permissions?

For example:

1.) Permission to accept members to the alliance (good for Low IA Gov)

2.) Permission to look at nations caches. (Owners have the option to see this under "Control Panel")(Good for Low IA and Econ Gov)

3.) Permission to send alliance mail (good for IA, Econ)

 

Added this, and other features to the OP. It will require a larger work around but overall is an improvement Alex and I both support. 

 

That being said I've spoken with Alex further regarding this list and there are a few changes. I've marked them in red in the OP and have bolded additions to the op. The reasons for some of the removals are as follows

  • Direct resource trades removed due to increased difficulty in tracking exploitation. Apparently resource to resource trades used to exist and almost no one used them. Between that an the possibility for exploitation difficulties this is not being added.
  • Additional project slot for wars fought. Alex, as I have mentioned, isn't the biggest fan on non-infra based project slots. Thus we've removed the two and created a single in the middle of the two. 1 slot at 100 total wars won/lost. Wars that expire do not currently add to this metric. 

There have been a few things added as well.

  • All alliance roles will come with a check list for which powers those positions have.
    • Bank Access
    • Changing Roles
    • Ability to see spy counts
    • Ability to see daily reset timers (time zones)
    • Editing Tax Brackets
    • Accept new members
    • View member caches
  • Notification when a war expires
  • Treaties can be extended rather than deleted and resent.

 

The changes in the OP are effectively finalized at this point. If anyone has permissions that gov will need that I can approve to add to this list please let me know, and quickly. I've been given word these changes will likely come out sooner rather than later in terms of the production time line, which is why I want to get any last minute additions finalized today.

scSqPGJ.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, Prefontaine said:

 

  • Additional project slot for wars fought. Alex, as I have mentioned, isn't the biggest fan on non-infra based project slots. Thus we've removed the two and created a single in the middle of the two. 1 slot at 100 total wars won/lost. Wars that expire do not currently add to this metric. 

An idea of unlocking further 2 project slots was good, albeit the means of procuring it being weird. If I'm not mistaken, recently there have been 9 (am I counting this right?) new projects added to the game. This update will bring that number up to 13. We have in turn seen only one free project slot awarded to the base limit. So maybe add another one, or two free slots to the base limit and keep this metric as well? People are struggling with slots as it is, and rarely anyone is fond of the idea to go 3000 infra just to unlock more slots.

 

Quote
  • Editing Tax Brackets

Does this include moving people off and on different brackets? Perhaps a level that allows editing the control panel permissions itself, or is this assumed to be in the top role (Leader)?

Everything else sounds fine on the permission list and I commend the QoL additions that will be added.

 

As far as the trading topic goes, I would like to remind everyone that the old way of treasure trading has been prohibited for a good while now (its been months, right?), and the supposed system that was gonna replace that has not been mentioned since the day treasure transfers by war have been banned. So I will quote a rather old suggestion from last year about this:

Quote

 

Personal trade offers for buying and selling treasures.

- Nation to nation treasure offers. One side gets the money, the other receives the treasure.

- 5 day cooldown on treasure movement

- If the treasure bearer is blockaded, the treasure can not be traded.

 

So perhaps something worth adding to the docket for the next update?

Edited by Theodosius
  • Upvote 1

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Theodosius said:

An idea of unlocking further 2 project slots was good, albeit the means for it being weird. If I'm not mistaken, recently there have been 9 (am I counting this right?) new projects added to the game. This update will bring that number up to 13. We have in turn seen only one free project slot awarded to the base limit. So maybe add another one, or two free slots to the base limit and keep this metric as well? People are struggling with slots as it is, and rarely anyone is fond of the idea to go 3000 infra just to unlock more slots.

 

Does this include moving people off and on different brackets? Perhaps a level that allows editing the control panel permissions itself, or is this assumed to be in the top role (Leader)?

Everything else sounds fine on the permission list and I commend the QoL additions that will be added.

 

As far as the trading topic goes, I would like to remind everyone that the old way of treasure trading has been prohibited for a good while now (its been months, right?), and the supposed system that was gonna replace that has not been mentioned since the day treasure transfers by war have been banned. So I will quote a rather old suggestion from last year about this:

So perhaps something worth adding to the docket for the next update?

You can see my post on the first page of the thread. I am for more ways of gaining project slots. Alex is not. I'm often advocating for such but when he decides one way or another on something it is what it is.

When the change rolls live what Alex and I discussed was every leadership role gets defaulted to no authority except any nations in the top spot. Those nations will have all boxes checked for what they can have the power to do. From there they can check boxes for different ranks as they see fit.

Treasure trading will not be added to this current update. It's been a while since I last talked to Alex about it and I don't remember his stance on it. I'll mention it next time we talk. 

scSqPGJ.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 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.