Jump to content

Game Development - October


Prefontaine
 Share

Recommended Posts

I was about to go on a long explanation on why I think that nerfing a project that costs upwards of 700 millions (with space program) was a kick in the shins, but it seems the point was already raised.

Either tune your numbers so spy sat doesn't get neutered, or refund spy sats to those who request it.

Edited by Exalts
Incomplete sentence
  • Upvote 3

Wag a pot of coffee in my immediate vicinity and I'm all yours.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the spy reduction kills are honestly a bit on the high end. I think 50 and 40% would be a little more balanced. I think the increase in chances of being found/failing the op should be 5% increased in general. Spy sat kill rates should be a 1/3 increase or so.

Increasing the plane-tank kills is a good change, though I think the cut to tank-plane kills should only be 25 or 30% rather than 40 given how much you're increasing the inverse.

City/Project timers is a good change.

My idea for the project name: National Construction Initiative

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I overall like the changes, but I'd suggest rebalancing the costs of the Spy Satellite and perhaps recouping costs to anyone who invested in it.  It's pretty expensive, and its ability to control a spy war just got significantly nerfed.  I can still see the value in having them, but it's lower than what it was.  I imagine there's also some derived demand for space program because of spy satellite, so that also got weaker.
 

Suggestion: 25% cut in money and resource costs, and a refund of that amount of to players who have space program.  A corresponding 10% cut in costs for space program.

 

Edited by Cooper_
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Forgot to mention it before, but we should probably nerf ship infra damage. 3 ship attacks with any decent will always out damage a nuke because the damage is spread amongst cities

Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, Prefontaine said:

The numbers aren’t set in stone. Suggest changes to spy sat kill rates if that’s your point of contention. 

 

46 minutes ago, Roberts said:

We've run a lot of scenarios on the dev team with spy casualties specifically. The spy satellite has been a massive thorn in the side of the discussion on how to balance them.

The tl;dr is that even without the spy satellite, spy v. spy attacks can either completely zero or near-zero an enemy's spy count in a single day change. As I'm sure everyone knows. The spy satellite can effectively make it so you can lose your entire (effective or literal) spy count in a single barrage of attacks.

The whole mechanic is wildly broken. That being said, I think most of us agree that spy satellites should simply be refunded for those who bought it. As it is a very expensive project and those who bought it did so under the impression it was stupidly OP.

You're talking about nerfing everything else on spies already. If those go through, there's no reason for nerf Spy Sat. Don't over-correct everything in one go.

 

18 minutes ago, Akuryo said:

Also the spy changes seem like way too much tinkering at once. The spy kill reduction alone is massive and is more than likely enough on its own. The last time we tinkered too many variables score range was completely borked.

^ This

Edited by Adrienne
  • Upvote 2

BrOQBND.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Roberts said:

I personally don't think ground units need to take any additional casualties from any source other than planes versus tanks. All these buffs to killing soldiers seems like it would disproportionately harm raiders and literally do nothing to the overall war system for everyone else.

Ships probably need more than a 10% bump, they are incredibly bad right now. My navy can't hit another boat to save their lives.

Otherwise the big numbers in this post like 40% boost to planes vs tanks or 40% reduction in planes vs tanks should probably be toned down. 40% nerfs/buffs usually just lead to a correction down the line... again.

New Project name: Manifest Destiny.

We've run a lot of scenarios on the dev team with spy casualties specifically. The spy satellite has been a massive thorn in the side of the discussion on how to balance them.

The tl;dr is that even without the spy satellite, spy v. spy attacks can either completely zero or near-zero an enemy's spy count in a single day change. As I'm sure everyone knows. The spy satellite can effectively make it so you can lose your entire (effective or literal) spy count in a single barrage of attacks.

The whole mechanic is wildly broken. That being said, I think most of us agree that spy satellites should simply be refunded for those who bought it. As it is a very expensive project and those who bought it did so under the impression it was stupidly OP.

 

The problem is as of right now the spy satellite justifies the price or at least is worth the price. It is one of the most expensive projects and also one of the most effective. I agree with you that there should be a refund if it gets changed as it hasn't had a chance to be used much and was bought with current expectations. I don't recall another project that has got a nerf like the proposal

gg-fu-banner.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's a lot of good changes here, but I really disagree with nerfing Spy Satellite. I think it's in a good place now, considering how expensive it is to build. 

Echoing what everyone else said, it'd be best to wait for a proper war to see if the current version of it ends up being problematic, rather than severely nerfing it before its seen any real action. 

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

The current spy sat would be equqtable to nerfing the CP and ACP because the advantage is too big and throwing away everyones recoup plan.

Milcom projects can only be recouped during a war, and the point where a spy project recoups 700M worth, takes, a really long time, certainly if that time is spend at peace.

Edited by BelgiumFury
  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just like private banks should not be bailed out for making terrible decisions on loans, I would be against bailing out players who invested in projects like Spy Satellite. There is a really bad road ahead with doing things like that. Projects like ITC take a long time to recoup the investment on, as do some others. All the people who bought land ahead of the reductions in land cost will want their money back, and have a justification to ask for it if projects like Spy Satellite are refunded. I even spent hundreds of millions myself on it, and while it is disheartening to see that money be blown up, it is a decision I made and one that should be dealt with. The meta of the game changes constantly, which is probably what it needs to stay somewhat balanced overall.

Project slots should be a difficult choice for nations to make. It would encourage diversification in playing styles. I do not really like the bonus project suggestion, but most of the other tweaks here are okay enough I would think. The real thing in the meta is that aircraft do not have a viable counter from another unit directly, whereas aircraft themselves can hurt other units. Until that is addressed somehow, there is not much overall that will change.

  • Upvote 6
  • Downvote 7

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

2 hours ago, Prefontaine said:

Tanks

  • Tanks ability to kill planes after gaining ground superiority reduced by 40%
  • 15% increase in casualties to soldiers by tanks
  • 5% increase in casualties to tanks by tanks.

Planes

  • 40% increase in tanks killed by bombing runs.
  • 10% increase in soldiers killed by bombing runs.
  • 10% increase in ships killed by bombing runs.

Some changes to the current metrics are definitely needed.    Under the current system, tank destruction of planes is too high, especially when considering how you can ground attack 4x per day.  Plane destruction of tanks, maybe a little low.  But changing to 40% increase/decrease ratios from the current system is just giving us a planes are God system again.   It was actually nice having a stronger ground and ship style of warfare, especially with tanks now only costing .5 steel each and a ridiculously small amount to manufacture.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Prefontaine said:
  • Effect: This project provides two project slots.
  • Cost:
    • Cash: $50,000,000
    • Food: 100,000
    • Aluminum: 5,000

Technological revolution? 

  • Downvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Prefontaine said:
  • Spy Casualties reduced by 60% from spy attacks. Losses from failing an offensive spy op are also reduced by 50%
  • Spy Satellite only increases damages from spy vs spy attacks by 20% instead of the base 50%.
  • Spy vs spy attacks are 5% more difficult. If your odds of success were 75%, they are now 70%
  • Spy vs spy attacks are 5% more likely to have the identify of the attacker identified. If your odds of being identified were 70% they are now 75%

All of these look good. Arguably spy sat should be high damage, but as long as it hurts other units by 50% it should be fine.

 

1 hour ago, Prefontaine said:

Soldiers

  • 33% reduction in tanks killed by soldiers.
    • Soldier only attacks/defends kill too many tanks.

Tanks

  • 15% increase in casualties to soldiers by tanks
  • 5% increase in casualties to tanks by tanks.

I'm not a big fan of this one. Everyone maxes both tanks and soldiers in war. Pirates and losing parties max only soldiers. This becomes a pirate/losing party nerf.

Quote

Tanks ability to kill planes after gaining ground superiority reduced by 40%

Currently GC vs AS, AS wins hands down. There used to be two Nash equilibria - you either dump ground, take the skies and get beiged or take ground and lose out long term. Now there's only one - win air and your enemy will never overcome the half tank disadvantage.

There's no need to reduce tanks ability to kill planes. If you want to do this, I'd recommend bringing back 2/3 of effective air on GC.

1 hour ago, Prefontaine said:

Planes

  • 40% increase in tanks killed by bombing runs.
  • 10% increase in soldiers killed by bombing runs.

This sounds like a noob trap, so I'm okay with this.

1 hour ago, Prefontaine said:

10% increase in ships killed by bombing runs.

No. Air dominance is way OP.

Quote

10% increase in ships killed by other ships.

Depends if you're trying to make ship v ship another nash equlibrium. Would be good if so.

 

1 hour ago, Prefontaine said:

Treasures

  • Treasures can be directly traded between players.
    • Treasures cannot be traded while either nation has an active offensive or defensive war.
    • A nation with a treasure already in it cannot trade for another treasure.

Hell yes. Pirates stealing treasures and selling it off were one of the fun bits of the game. It would be better if players could set the price right up front. Even better if treasures could be traded for credits heh.

1 hour ago, Prefontaine said:

City/Project Timers

  • New City timers are not effected by projects.
  • New Protects have their own timer of 10 days (120 turns)

I don't like it. I don't really see the point of this besides letting people get ahead a little faster with credits. Dealing with city-project timers were part of the game IMO.

  • Downvote 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Prefontaine said:

Someone give a good name for this project

  • Effect: This project provides two project slots.
  • Cost:
    • Cash: $50,000,000
    • Food: 100,000
    • Aluminum: 5,000

The cost/concept is focused on giving mid-tier nations an additional project slot. I'm highly open to the idea of changing costs to better reflect this. Whales might buy it, but whales have more project slots than the use in many cases. This one might get entirely shot down by Alex, I've not run it by him yet. Most of these other changes have the green light for Alex, but the numbers can be tweaked still. My plan is have this thread decided upon sometime around the first week of October, so please provide input during these next 10 days or so. 

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. Attention is being paid and other conversations are being had on discord. Please continue to provide feedback. Thank you.

1.  Civic Planning Commission 
2.  City Planning Commission
3.  Urban Planning Commission
4.  Industrial Fabrication Program
5.  Commercial Development Program

malakai_celestrial.png.9bf3bf134d45bf886b5408f36820fe20.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The spy sat seems to be largely opposed for these changes currently. If that continues to be the case I’ll remove it from the OP, just want to give people a chance to discuss a bit more. 

Edited by Prefontaine
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
  • Upvote 2

Always keep your foes confused. If they are never sure who you are or what you want, they cannot know what you are like to do next.
Sometimes the best way to baffle them is to make moves that have no purpose, or even seem to work against you.

scSqPGJ.gif

It's like I'm reading a book and it's a book I deeply love. I'm reading it slowly now so the words are really far apart and the spaces between the words are almost infinite. I can still feel the words of the story, but it's in this endless space between the words I find myself now It's a place that's not of the physical. It's where everything else is. This is where I am now, and who I am.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Rin you fundamentally misunderstand how the war system works, and given you've no experience with it while some here have already fought full scale, you should probably check the thread literally asking for that feedback.

Spoiler: Ground > air, RNG is the only thing that'd make air viable. However with the proposed changes, the opposite would likely be true. If even that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Avakael said:

Literally the day after Pre gets caught with his pants down for not having tanks, he announces that tanks are getting a nerf.

If you absolutely must go down this road, at least reach Alex's minimum standards and post proposed casualty rates. Despite scepticism, they proved to be accurate for those who were prepared to fish out a calculator in advance.

 

EDIT: Here's what I've got.

  Pre update Post update Pre's update
Troops > Ground 80% 25% ?
Tanks > Ground 30% 40% ?
Air >  Airgen 59% 29% 29%
Air > Dogfights 83% 53% 53%
Ships > Ships 120% 53% 58.3%
Air > Soldiers 43% 25% 27.5%
Air > Tanks 43% 14% 19.6%
Air > Ships 41% 34% 37.4%
Tanks > Air 0% 42% 25.2%

^ this table is much more helpful than the original post, thank you!

 

i think the tanks are getting nerfed way too much, maybe consider moving from 42% to mid 30%-ish

Edited by Ketya
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators
3 hours ago, Exalts said:

I was about to go on a long explanation on why I think that nerfing a project that costs upwards of 700 millions (with space program) was a kick in the shins, but it seems the point was already raised.

Either tune your numbers so spy sat doesn't get neutered, or refund spy sats to those who request it.

If we go ahead with a nerf to the Spy Satellite project, I'll offer anyone who's built it a full refund on it.

  • Upvote 5

Is there a bug? Report It | Not understanding game mechanics? Ask About It | Got a good idea? Suggest It

Forums Rules | Game Link

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Zed said:

Just like private banks should not be bailed out for making terrible decisions on loans, I would be against bailing out players who invested in projects like Spy Satellite. There is a really bad road ahead with doing things like that. Projects like ITC take a long time to recoup the investment on, as do some others. All the people who bought land ahead of the reductions in land cost will want their money back, and have a justification to ask for it if projects like Spy Satellite are refunded. I even spent hundreds of millions myself on it, and while it is disheartening to see that money be blown up, it is a decision I made and one that should be dealt with. The meta of the game changes constantly, which is probably what it needs to stay somewhat balanced overall.

Project slots should be a difficult choice for nations to make. It would encourage diversification in playing styles. I do not really like the bonus project suggestion, but most of the other tweaks here are okay enough I would think. The real thing in the meta is that aircraft do not have a viable counter from another unit directly, whereas aircraft themselves can hurt other units. Until that is addressed somehow, there is not much overall that will change.

The difference is the spy satellite being changed means its not what we purchased. If it was just a price decrease/increase, I wouldnt have a problem with it. I bought the spy satellite specifically for the extra damage on spies, if that gets changed then the project is no longer what many of us purchased. Additionally, projects have rarely, if ever, been nerfed so people cant claim we should have been prepared.

  • Like 1

gg-fu-banner.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The project seems very niche but otherwise very well thought out changes, I think this would go the rest of the way to balance the game as well as it can be balanced

 

 Maybe plane v tanks could be brought down to 30% increase 

 

 

Also please don't nerf ship v infra damage.  Its already Barely cash positive to do to most nations. It shouldn't cost more to destroy infra than the  value of what's destroyed atleast down to 1000infra

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Prefontaine said:

 

 

Spies

  • Spy Casualties reduced by 60% from spy attacks. Losses from failing an offensive spy op are also reduced by 50%
  • Spy Satellite only increases damages from spy vs spy attacks by 20% instead of the base 50%.
  • Spy vs spy attacks are 5% more difficult. If your odds of success were 75%, they are now 70%
  • Spy vs spy attacks are 5% more likely to have the identify of the attacker identified. If your odds of being identified were 70% they are now 75%

 

Treasures

  • Treasures can be directly traded between players.
    • Treasures cannot be traded while either nation has an active offensive or defensive war.
    • A nation with a treasure already in it cannot trade for another treasure. 

Someone give a good name for this project

  • Effect: This project provides two project slots.
  • Cost:
    • Cash: $50,000,000
    • Food: 100,000
    • Aluminum: 5,000

>Spies

You're nerfing an endgame project. No bueno. Spies are fine as is.

>Treasures

Literally now a vanity item for whales. Expect some insane ass prices on them now. You guys killed raiding a long time ago, so it's not like they were gonna get stolen. Then removing treasure trading the Arrgh way sorta killed the fun in griefing shitty alliances like Polaris or RnR.

>2 slot for 1 project

Literally this

Image - 197408] | Troll Science / Troll Physics | Know Your Meme

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Zed said:

Just like private banks should not be bailed out for making terrible decisions on loans, I would be against bailing out players who invested in projects like Spy Satellite. There is a really bad road ahead with doing things like that. Projects like ITC take a long time to recoup the investment on, as do some others. All the people who bought land ahead of the reductions in land cost will want their money back, and have a justification to ask for it if projects like Spy Satellite are refunded. I even spent hundreds of millions myself on it, and while it is disheartening to see that money be blown up, it is a decision I made and one that should be dealt with. The meta of the game changes constantly, which is probably what it needs to stay somewhat balanced overall.

The entire reasoning behind making the informed decision to grab an expensive project is that you can anticipate how long it would take for it to pay off.

If the spy satellite gets degraded from where it currently is to where it'll be post-proposed changes, you're no longer making informed decisions, you're simply gambling.

  • Upvote 2

Wag a pot of coffee in my immediate vicinity and I'm all yours.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Exalts said:

The entire reasoning behind making the informed decision to grab an expensive project is that you can anticipate how long it would take for it to pay off.

If the spy satellite gets degraded from where it currently is to where it'll be post-proposed changes, you're no longer making informed decisions, you're simply gambling.

What exalts said. 

The bug diffrence is that a bank already charges intrest accounting for risk. And in usual situations a bank should not go bankrupt unless poorly managed. 

The only thing to compensate risk when building projects apparently seems to not buy them in your theory. Seem broken. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Edited by Prefontaine

Always keep your foes confused. If they are never sure who you are or what you want, they cannot know what you are like to do next.
Sometimes the best way to baffle them is to make moves that have no purpose, or even seem to work against you.

scSqPGJ.gif

It's like I'm reading a book and it's a book I deeply love. I'm reading it slowly now so the words are really far apart and the spaces between the words are almost infinite. I can still feel the words of the story, but it's in this endless space between the words I find myself now It's a place that's not of the physical. It's where everything else is. This is where I am now, and who I am.

 

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.