Jump to content

Game Development - October


Prefontaine
 Share

Recommended Posts

It's good that proposed changes to spy satellite have been removed. Planes killing soldiers shouldn't be raised either. Like many others have suggested, this revision would serve little purpose in the wider scheme of things except disproportionately hurt raiders.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Incremental changes are your friend, @Prefontaine. Your most recent comment is welcomed (adjusting the post to what people are concerned about), but your logic of "we can see if it needs a little more or little less down the road" is exactly the issue with what you are proposing. Walking back changes that are made is expensive and reduces trust in the admin/development team.

Which is basically the point here - the last round of war mechanic changes have not been tested thoroughly yet, spare some light raiding and a mini-war. Before making another round of changes, let's see how the current system actually works in a drawn out conflict. As usual, I'll note concern above from a variety of spheres and political powers. Same as our conversation regarding spy changes, please note that there is a massive effort toward de-politicization of suggested changes, except for a few holdout parties. The collective we are working to improve the game together; however, one of the parties that you are taking significant input from is @Prefontaine, who is not part of that crowd.

  • Upvote 3
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is the air - ground casualty change the result of pre not able to kill mythic soldiers fast enough...?

Anyways, ground casualty rate to air is increased despite there being no objections over it. On the other hand what's the point of having ground control if we cant even kill 30 planes with our 5 k or so tanks..? I mean, ground control shouldn't be a thing now as far as the updates goes (ps: i rarely use tanks and i am talking for the general).

Looks like the numbers are made off the top of the head.

 

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Benfro said:

Your most recent comment is welcomed (adjusting the post to what people are concerned about), but your logic of "we can see if it needs a little more or little less down the road" is exactly the issue with what you are proposing. Walking back changes that are made is expensive and reduces trust in the admin/development team.

I wholeheartedly disagree with you. The problem with your statement is that few changes are universally liked. Some people might feel no change is necessary, some people might want a 50% change in something, some people may want 100%, and so on. My comments are more to the idea that just because a change is made regarding this does not mean it won't be evaluated further. The people who feel the changes don't line up with what they want will know that this change which could do more, or do less of what they think it should be doing, might be proved right down the road. They might also find out the change they wanted wasn't the right route and are happy with the way things went. Reevaluating changes and a willingness to make further adjustments is a good thing. Not a bad thing. 

To your other point. You can have a non partisan group developing ideas, but excluding me from that process, for whatever your reasons, does a disservice to your goal. Like it or not, like me or not, I am someone who does work on changes for the game. If you want to make improvements to the game you should be working with me. I'm willing to work with most people. 

Edited by Prefontaine

scSqPGJ.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Prefontaine said:

OP has been updated with two changes.

  • Removal of changes to Spy Sat.
  • Reduction in bombing of tanks from 40% increase to 25%. 

With the bombing, if your bombing run was going to kill about 1000 tanks it would kill 1250 instead. This number does need to go up according to feedback I've gotten well before this thread was created. Most suggestions were of a higher nature which is why I used 40% as a starting point, I honestly feel like 25% is a better number anyway. With this it is still a significant buff where we can see if it needs a little more or little less down the road. 

EDIT: Also for the project name I'm leaning towards Research and Development facility that was suggested on page one. Feel free to keep posting ideas.

Just to echo because my post might've gotten lost in the sauce:

Please do not increase casualty rates of soldiers from any source. They die fast enough and are countered easily enough with tanks.

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Roberts said:

Just to echo because my post might've gotten lost in the sauce:

Please do not increase casualty rates of soldiers from any source. They die fast enough and are countered easily enough with tanks.

Don’t worry, it wasn’t lost. I just dealt with the biggest complaints first. 

  • Thanks 1

scSqPGJ.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is it possible to get these numbers in the context of the current formulas and what the new formulas would be?  That would make it easier to evaluate what the actual impact is here.

Edited by Azaghul
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
GnWq7CW.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Genuinely the strong impression I get is these casualty adjustment threads are going to become a reoccurring theme every few months because the new war mechanics are inherently flawed 🤷‍♂️

In an optimal world would take the previous GC system (2/3rds planes) and make the adjustments which should have been made to that system rather than pressing ahead trying to fix a broken illogical system which (at least imo) shouldn't have been introduced in the first place.

Will any of this happen? No. But if you want feedback that it.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Azaghul said:

Is it possible to get these numbers in the context of the current formulas and what the new formulas would be?  That would make it easier to evaluate what the actual impact is here.

 Avakael posted them on the previous page.

 

scSqPGJ.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Murtaza said:

On the other hand what's the point of having ground control if we cant even kill 30 planes with our 5 k or so tanks..? I mean, ground control shouldn't be a thing now as far as the updates goes (ps: i rarely use tanks and i am talking for the general).

^ same here. Nerfing tanks takes us back to making planes overpowered. Has anyone complained about tanks killing planes?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Ketya said:

^ same here. Nerfing tanks takes us back to making planes overpowered. Has anyone complained about tanks killing planes?

They can kill roughly as many planes as planes do on a dogfight, given full complements. The issue is that they can do four attacks per the three that airstrikes can do (with 12 MAP's), kill tons of tanks in the process (which dogfights don't), and also can loot cash, which has the potential to negate part of the losses. And also have the occasional imp kill for the little extra on top. This is assuming you IT GA right away, which may or may not happen. But th same argument can be made the other way.

Airstrike tank kills were so bad that people unironically preferred to just GA them instead during the last global, given the option, because those killed more tanks, could also kill planes, and didn't have to deal with trying to grind the other guy's air down to have more than twice the planes than they did, because trying to airstrike any sooner incurs the same amount of planes losses to you as it does the other guy (if not more). Not to mention that the amount of tanks killed if attempted that early was also poor.

'Nerfing tanks = planes OP again' is an overreaction. It depends by how much it is tweaked. 

And since I'm already posting... If a spy nerf is taking place (which I think is a bad idea, but I quite frankly can't be fricked to waste time delving into it when it's already been elaborated to death), it'll also be necessary to readjust the cost of running ops. As is, it's already often the case that you're spending more on EC 60 spies than the value of spies killed, which is okay since the difference isn't that high, and the benefits you get in turn. However, the ratio will be much worse if more of your ops are failing and if you're killing less than half that you usually were. It'd also be necessary to revisit the defensive bonus to missiles and nukes sabotages in particular, given that it's taking longer to get to that stage in the first place.

And regarding soldiers, @Roberts they die quickly(ish) to airstrikes, which costs the guy airstriking millions to kill values which will seldom go above the 1m mark (or even the 500k one). It's a very cost inefficient exchange. They don't die that quickly (if it can be described as such) to tanks, and that's still a cost inefficient exchange if the other person doesn't have cash at hand (which is often the case with good raiders). Killing soldiers with soldiers is a pipedream and you'll never go anywhere with that, unless if you have a ridiculous ratio of like 10:1 or something.

While you're right in that it'd be largely inconsequential during a war, I think that you were exaggerating how quickly a quickly recruited meatshield unit dies, and had made no mention on the cost behind killing it in the first place, which is also a factor. I think that just reducing the amount of tanks they kill is good enough a nerf.

Edited by Shiho Nishizumi
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 3
 
G3.gif.d8066d8dc749ad2d0835fe69095fa73b.gif
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ketya said:

Has anyone complained about tanks killing planes?

Uh yes? Pretty much since the changes were introduced. Last war even swamp/hedge were saying the new mechanics were ridiculous as they were steamrolling TCW planes into dust.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thinking deeper on this, it wasnt the spy sat itself but that change being combined with the 60% reduction in spy kills. I agree that there exists a balance issue which increases damage by 50% and it should be adressed but with the pricing of it, not many people will actually have it for a while and I doubt alliances will grant them en-masse. I think  25% bonus instead of  50% for spy sat will be a good change in the future (along with a price reduction) but combining that with the 60% reduction in effectivness on spy v spy ops is an extreme overcorrection. the making spy ops harder is ok although it will make Arcane war policies a touch more OP. Could also increase the base amount of how many spies you can produce per day by +1, but im no expert here, just pitching alternatives.

forumsign.PNG

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Roberts said:

Just to echo because my post might've gotten lost in the sauce:

Please do not increase casualty rates of soldiers from any source. They die fast enough and are countered easily enough with tanks.

This is incorrect. As a c22 with max soldiers and 60% tanks, I kill between 20k-25k soldiers per GA, which is nothing compared to the cost of 1. gas and munitions, 2. construction of the tanks and soldiers, and 3. tanks lost from GAs. It also barely helps in counters against downdeclaring pirates.

Airstrikes are not much better; Mine kill 40k-60k per airstrike, averaging out to about 50k and costing ~400 munitions/gas.

Tank casualties in GAs should be reduced, and soldier casualties from tanks increased. Soldier casualties from soldiers are so low that a 5% increase can be done with or without and not matter. For planes, a 20% increase would be good, which in the context of the numbers I posted, makes 1650 planes kill between 48k-72k, averaging out to 60k.

Edit: 

I guess I'll tack this on too: the 10% increase to ships killed by planes is good, but the minimum ships killed needs to be increased by a lot; 1650 planes can kill as little as 14 ships in an airstrike which is just terrible.

Edited by Hime-sama

Look up to the sky above~

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Prefontaine said:

These changes are the results of threads like these, suggestions in the suggestion section (like treasure trading and project timers). In addition the new project is due to a desire for more project slots. 

What about the pirate slots. Is that still a thing?

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Hime-sama said:

This is incorrect. As a c22 with max soldiers and 60% tanks, I kill between 20k-25k soldiers per GA, which is nothing compared to the cost of 1. gas and munitions, 2. construction of the tanks and soldiers, and 3. tanks lost from GAs. It also barely helps in counters against downdeclaring pirates.

Airstrikes are not much better; Mine kill 40k-60k per airstrike, averaging out to about 50k and costing ~400 munitions/gas.

Tank casualties in GAs should be reduced, and soldier casualties from tanks increased. Soldier casualties from soldiers are so low that a 5% increase can be done with or without and not matter. For planes, a 20% increase would be good, which in the context of the numbers I posted, makes 1650 planes kill between 48k-72k, averaging out to 60k.

Edit: 

I guess I'll tack this on too: the 10% increase to ships killed by planes is good, but the minimum ships killed needs to be increased by a lot; 1650 planes can kill as little as 14 ships in an airstrike which is just terrible.

Killing 50k per airstrike means 2 counters zero out someone's soldier buys in the same range for the day. Doesn't sound exactly balanced, does it? The point of war changes isn't to match kills with gasoline and munitions invested, the point is to make sure that all the fighters are able to fight fairly and not lose all of their units in 5 minutes.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Isjaki said:

Killing 50k per airstrike means 2 counters zero out someone's soldier buys in the same range for the day. Doesn't sound exactly balanced, does it? The point of war changes isn't to match kills with gasoline and munitions invested, the point is to make sure that all the fighters are able to fight fairly and not lose all of their units in 5 minutes.

Very rarely are you countering pirates at your same city count or remotely close to it. 50k per airstrike means 2 airstrikes cost 3,600,000 in munitions/gas to kill 500,000 worth of soldiers. Additionally, if all the units you build are soldiers and are complaining that you lose all your units in 5 minutes, then that sounds like your own doing; Pirates are not the center of war changes, nor should they be. For those that build normal, diverse armies including planes, soldiers, tanks, and ships, it will take 2-3 defensive wars fought over several days to zero them out, even in harsh downdeclares, source: https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=177550&display=war

  • Upvote 3
  • Downvote 3

Look up to the sky above~

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Aircraft are used as fire support as a last resort when artillery is unavailable. They're expensive to keep in the air and are not effective at destroying soldiers, and shouldn't be so in game. In the Gulf War, in the Spanish Civil War, and in World War 2, aircraft were primarily used to destroy infrastructure or to destroy vehicles caught in the open. See: highway of death-- over 2000 vehicles were destroyed and 200-1000 soldiers were killed. Aircraft are currently the best unit in game to destroy infra with and it should stay that way, and perhaps they could use a buff to air vs tanks. But no one unit should be a jack of all trades in a balanced video game. It would be unbalanced and unrealistic to make aircraft so powerful against soldiers who can easily spread out and entrench. You might as well suggest tanks sink ships.

  • Downvote 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Hime-sama said:

Very rarely are you countering pirates at your same city count or remotely close to it. 50k per airstrike means 2 airstrikes cost 3,600,000 in munitions/gas to kill 500,000 worth of soldiers. Additionally, if all the units you build are soldiers and are complaining that you lose all your units in 5 minutes, then that sounds like your own doing; Pirates are not the center of war changes, nor should they be. For those that build normal, diverse armies including planes, soldiers, tanks, and ships, it will take 2-3 defensive wars fought over several days to zero them out, even in harsh downdeclares, source: https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=177550&display=war

If you're relying on airstrikes to zero soldiers then you are doing something wrong, and your lack of planning is your own doing.

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Hime-sama said:

Very rarely are you countering pirates at your same city count or remotely close to it. 50k per airstrike means 2 airstrikes cost 3,600,000 in munitions/gas to kill 500,000 worth of soldiers. Additionally, if all the units you build are soldiers and are complaining that you lose all your units in 5 minutes, then that sounds like your own doing; Pirates are not the center of war changes, nor should they be. For those that build normal, diverse armies including planes, soldiers, tanks, and ships, it will take 2-3 defensive wars fought over several days to zero them out, even in harsh downdeclares, source: https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=177550&display=war

If you're relying on airstrikes to zero soldiers then you are doing something wrong, and your lack of planning is your own doing (2)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, Jangles said:

Aircraft are used as fire support as a last resort when artillery is unavailable. They're expensive to keep in the air and are not effective at destroying soldiers, and shouldn't be so in game. In the Gulf War, in the Spanish Civil War, and in World War 2, aircraft were primarily used to destroy infrastructure or to destroy vehicles caught in the open. See: highway of death-- over 2000 vehicles were destroyed and 200-1000 soldiers were killed. Aircraft are currently the best unit in game to destroy infra with and it should stay that way, and perhaps they could use a buff to air vs tanks. But no one unit should be a jack of all trades in a balanced video game. It would be unbalanced and unrealistic to make aircraft so powerful against soldiers who can easily spread out and entrench. You might as well suggest tanks sink ships.

Game balance should not be centered around realism either, but even as a counter point: The AC-130 gunships "Angel of Death" are fantastic at destroying enemy soldiers

I honestly don't think you have a clue what you're talking about; "Aircraft are currently the best unit in game to destroy infra with and it should stay that way." This is simply wrong, firstly because naval units do the most infrastructure damage as mentioned earlier in the thread, and secondly because the primary use of aircraft in this game has never been to destroy infrastructure. Aircraft destroy units, always have, and although they have since been nerfed in that regard, they still serve that purpose, and should continue to serve that purpose, you would be an idiot to think otherwise.

Aircraft are not a jack of all trades unit anymore, ground forces kill tanks and aircraft better and faster than aircraft kill tanks and aircraft as mentioned earlier in the thread. Additionally, a buff to soldier casualties would hardly tip the scales to make planes unbalanced because soldiers serve the purpose of being a cost-effective, fast-conscription unit, and are not all that powerful when it comes to winning conventional warfare which is what matters.

1 hour ago, Jangles said:

If you're relying on airstrikes to zero soldiers then you are doing something wrong, and your lack of planning is your own doing.

 

31 minutes ago, Isjaki said:

If you're relying on airstrikes to zero soldiers then you are doing something wrong, and your lack of planning is your own doing (2)

There are times when you have to airstrike soldiers, that's what happens when pirates do harsh downdeclares at max soldier capacity. However yes, you don't rely on airstrikes to zero soldiers, but the soldier casualties from tanks should be increased to make airstriking them less necessary 😛

  • Upvote 2

Look up to the sky above~

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Shiho Nishizumi said:

And regarding soldiers, @Roberts they die quickly(ish) to airstrikes, which costs the guy airstriking millions to kill values which will seldom go above the 1m mark (or even the 500k one). It's a very cost inefficient exchange.

Without trying to be rude, why is that a problem? From my perspective:

1. Soldiers don't win wars.

You can achieve effective ground control on people relying mostly on soldiers very easily with a single daily rebuy or doublebuy of soldiers & tanks. I know this as a pirate, most people know it as counters. It takes very minimal coordination to ruin someone's ground control, the only barrier is tank cost (which literally just got cut in half in the last update.) and cost is a part of war. That's called a strategic decision - spend the resources to flip the ground war or save the steel. That is a good piece of gameplay. Leading me to...

2. Wars should be a resource sink.

As unpleasant as it sounds, resource efficiency is not the first consideration in war balancing. Airplanes should have a cost to use, wars shouldn't be exceedingly cheap. The economy of the game already struggles with resource/cash sinks as-is. We can agree to disagree on economics but the bottom line is that military units, casualty rates, and warfare needs to be balanced within itself as a priority. Resource efficiency is a secondary thought, at best.

3. These changes disproportionately target raiders.

Soldiers aren't a very "meta" unit. They're primarily utilized to bolster tanks in normal warfare. Tank count and plane count, even arguably ship count, are all much more important in warfare than soldier count. These changes seem to be actively targeting raiders because people are upset planes-only isn't enough to defend themselves with. See point 1 for why this isn't even true. Soldiers already net-die quickly enough to zero someone in a single round of wars, just like any other unit right now. It's disingenuous to try and mask an attack on raiders as an argument for better resource efficiency or worry about soldiers somehow being too strong when the same people are literally calling them "meat shield units."

 

Sorry if this isn't the most eloquent post, but I hope this gets my points across. At the end of the day, this feels like a spiteful addition due to Mythic's recent raid on Yarr. Changing soldiers only truly harms one group, the rest of the game may not even notice. I feel like affecting a group's gameplay experience negatively to a complete lack of benefit to anyone else is selfish and stupid.

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

5 hours ago, Swedge said:

Uh yes? Pretty much since the changes were introduced. Last war even swamp/hedge were saying the new mechanics were ridiculous as they were steamrolling TCW planes into dust.

Yes and they're also saying (hi I'm right here) that nerfing tanks is the wrong change. Infact I don't think I've heard anyone in the actual leadership of anybody I worked with during the war disagree that a buff to dogfight kill rates is preferable, as it's smaller change and because (we did extensive simulations btw) they're already pretty closely matched and a dogfight bonus with tank bombing casualty increase would make the two nearly dead even against each other.

It doesn't screw people over trying to be aggressive, but it also means a skilled and organized defender is very much still dangerous - without necessarily (as is required now) having to call extra alliances in.

20% increase to dogfight kills, go 30% if it makes you feel better because ground kills tanks and takes money. The two forms will be nigh perfect counters to each other, perfectly balanced as all things should be.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Roberts said:

 At the end of the day, this feels like a spiteful addition due to Mythic's recent raid on Yarr. Changing soldiers only truly harms one group, the rest of the game may not even notice. I feel like affecting a group's gameplay experience negatively to a complete lack of benefit to anyone else is selfish and stupid.

I actually discussed these changes with someone from Mythic. They were on board with the soldier kills, and in fact suggested they could be higher than the suggestions I put forward. 

Edited by Prefontaine

scSqPGJ.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.