Jump to content

There is no real incentive for war


Kastor
 Share

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Kastor said:

Something needs a buff, or resources need a cap or to expire over time through degradation or something, to make alliances feel urged to do things. 

All you need to do to fix the problem is fix the exploit that allows offshore banks to be unraidable. 

  • Upvote 3
  • Downvote 1

Hey Krampus, the signature edit is under account settings. Actually, here's the link.

https://forum.politicsandwar.com/index.php?/settings/signature/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, zigbigadorlou said:

All you need to do to fix the problem is fix the exploit that allows offshore banks to be unraidable. 

If you go with "solutions" that were suggesting in the past, it won't change anything really. You'll still have e.g. Yarr. Or bigger alliances where shuffling funds around isn't an issue. So it'd shift a lot of wealth to whales, and make it a lot harder on micros, and all the companies/banks in Orbis.
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/17/2021 at 10:35 AM, Sweeeeet Ronny D said:

It's the politics part of politics and war that ignite war.

wars are too expensive to go to war over a mechanics issue

 

But there should be a game reason. 
 

for example, in real life, nations would fight over positioning or military balance of power. This may be too difficult with the current premise of the game, however the real issue is Treasures and resources.

 

Treasures aren’t enough of a buff to go to war over, and resources are unlimited. 
 

Treasures should supplement the cost of war, so nations will want to fight over them, or buy them to avoid war. Perhaps a LONGER guaranteed buff(60 to 90-120 days, and more per day to make it worth the war it will cause.

 

If a buff will give out $15.5b over the course of 120 days, that’s enough to start a big war. 
 

Resources shouldn’t be unlimited, you should have a finite number before they start to deteriorate. For example, the base hold is 1,000 per city per nation, a 20 city nation would be able to hold 20,000 steel, after, they would lose 3.5 a turn everyday until it went back to 20,000.

 

this is just spitballing numbers/ideas, obviously it’ll have to be a number that is reachable easily, and need to be defined.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

IMG_2989.png?ex=65e9efa9&is=65d77aa9&hm=

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Kastor said:

If a buff will give out $15.5b over the course of 120 days, that’s enough to start a big war.

That is not enough to start a large war, you are in rose, ask your gov if 15 billion spread out over 4 months is enough to go to war for?

Just look at the war damage numbers, they can easily reach 1 trillion dollars.   For me personally to consider starting a war over some sort of treasure, it would have to add something like 50 percent bonus income in order to try to obtain it.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Kastor said:

But there should be a game reason. 
 

for example, in real life, nations would fight over positioning or military balance of power. This may be too difficult with the current premise of the game, however the real issue is Treasures and resources.

Why do you think the last global war was fought?

  • Upvote 1

Hey Krampus, the signature edit is under account settings. Actually, here's the link.

https://forum.politicsandwar.com/index.php?/settings/signature/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators
23 hours ago, Kastor said:

But there should be a game reason. 
 

for example, in real life, nations would fight over positioning or military balance of power. This may be too difficult with the current premise of the game, however the real issue is Treasures and resources.

 

Treasures aren’t enough of a buff to go to war over, and resources are unlimited. 
 

Treasures should supplement the cost of war, so nations will want to fight over them, or buy them to avoid war. Perhaps a LONGER guaranteed buff(60 to 90-120 days, and more per day to make it worth the war it will cause.

 

If a buff will give out $15.5b over the course of 120 days, that’s enough to start a big war. 
 

Resources shouldn’t be unlimited, you should have a finite number before they start to deteriorate. For example, the base hold is 1,000 per city per nation, a 20 city nation would be able to hold 20,000 steel, after, they would lose 3.5 a turn everyday until it went back to 20,000.

 

this is just spitballing numbers/ideas, obviously it’ll have to be a number that is reachable easily, and need to be defined.

I agree with you, but Treasures *were* way more powerful in the past. Instead of war, we just got collusion where everyone teamed up to reap the bonus and it was way OP.

I like the discussion here, and I'm open to new ideas on this as I agree, it is a bit of an issue.

In the past, I had pitched a system for "Control Points" which were kind of like bounties. They were an in-game mechanic where each nation has an amount of Control Points (starts with 0) and over time, when you are at peace, your Control Points increase. Control Points themselves offer some sort of a bonus to your nation. When you defeat another nation in war, you take their control points (or perhaps some portion.)

The result is that over time, nations that stay at relative peace build up a large swath of these Control Points that make them juicier and juicier targets for other nations.

The difficulty with anything like this though is figuring out how to balance things and prevent people from abusing the system.

  • Like 1
  • 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

30 minutes ago, Alex said:

I agree with you, but Treasures *were* way more powerful in the past. Instead of war, we just got collusion where everyone teamed up to reap the bonus and it was way OP.

I like the discussion here, and I'm open to new ideas on this as I agree, it is a bit of an issue.

In the past, I had pitched a system for "Control Points" which were kind of like bounties. They were an in-game mechanic where each nation has an amount of Control Points (starts with 0) and over time, when you are at peace, your Control Points increase. Control Points themselves offer some sort of a bonus to your nation. When you defeat another nation in war, you take their control points (or perhaps some portion.)

The result is that over time, nations that stay at relative peace build up a large swath of these Control Points that make them juicier and juicier targets for other nations.

The difficulty with anything like this though is figuring out how to balance things and prevent people from abusing the system.

Or you could do the infinity stones idea...

*snaps Polaris out of existence*

  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The issue isn't that we don't have an incentive for war its that wars are just too costly and it can take months after one to recover. If you wanted to fix that then you would need to change mechanics drastically to reduce war cost. For example you would need to do something like make infra cheaper to rebuild then to build. Though I doubt anyone would want that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators
5 hours ago, lightside said:

The issue isn't that we don't have an incentive for war its that wars are just too costly and it can take months after one to recover. If you wanted to fix that then you would need to change mechanics drastically to reduce war cost. For example you would need to do something like make infra cheaper to rebuild then to build. Though I doubt anyone would want that.

I think the problem with that is just that people will fight for longer. Everyone seems to want to pummel their opponents down to X level, and it doesn't seem to matter how long that takes. Fore example, I think that if wars did 2x damage, war frequency wouldn't change but wars would be shorter.

  • Upvote 2

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

Perhaps drastically speeding up rebuild will allow for more frequent wars like in the old days instead of this predictable cycle. But like Borg said I think a lot of the problem is a cultural mentality of pixel hugging and no mechanics are going to change that.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Avatar Patrick said:

Perhaps drastically speeding up rebuild will allow for more frequent wars like in the old days instead of this predictable cycle. But like Borg said I think a lot of the problem is a cultural mentality of pixel hugging and no mechanics are going to change that.

There is no cultural mentality of pixel hugging. Every time we have this conversation, everyone literally screams that they want more wars and more fighting, the reason that we don't is because its too expensive.

 

Also, this comment irks me, you insinuate that doing anything would not cause any change because its the way players are, if that's the case, why even comment? You just slow down productive conversations when you come in here and say absolutely nothing. Kindly, please stop doing things like this, you give nothing for the conversation.

  • Upvote 1

IMG_2989.png?ex=65e9efa9&is=65d77aa9&hm=

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/19/2021 at 12:04 PM, Alex said:

I agree with you, but Treasures *were* way more powerful in the past. Instead of war, we just got collusion where everyone teamed up to reap the bonus and it was way OP.

I like the discussion here, and I'm open to new ideas on this as I agree, it is a bit of an issue.

In the past, I had pitched a system for "Control Points" which were kind of like bounties. They were an in-game mechanic where each nation has an amount of Control Points (starts with 0) and over time, when you are at peace, your Control Points increase. Control Points themselves offer some sort of a bonus to your nation. When you defeat another nation in war, you take their control points (or perhaps some portion.)

The result is that over time, nations that stay at relative peace build up a large swath of these Control Points that make them juicier and juicier targets for other nations.

The difficulty with anything like this though is figuring out how to balance things and prevent people from abusing the system.

Control points would be cool, it could be an extra 0.01% of your income for each control point that you have. The more you win, the bigger the boost. This could be interesting.

Treasures need a buff, I think we all know it we just don't know where it could be. 30 treasures are entirely too high.

 

We could do a resource cap, with a deteriorating number for each resources after that just gets lost after. OR a hard cap where resources don't go higher, if that was the case, the cap would have to be high enough that alliances could do long-term wars.

So if we go with the hard cap, we could do: (manufactured)

800 per city

500 per project

So if a city had 20 cities, and 6 projects. 

You would get 16,000 Resource space, and then GRANT your alliance 19,000 resource cap. You could then get projects that increase the resource size.

First Project- Add 500 to every resource cap per city.

It would increase your cap to 1,300. It would increase the cap to 29,500

2nd Project- Add 500 to every project cap. It would increase the cap to 34,000

3rd Project- Add 250 to each project and city. 11,250 for the project. 31,000 for the Cities. 42,250 total.

An alliance of 50, 20 city nations, with 6 projects each would base have 800,0000 from cities and 150,000 from project base. 950,000 total. 

 

Obviously these numbers would need to be buffed a bit, maybe doubled to allow enough to build up. The best play is to find the sweet spot where you have a lot of resources but want more to be fully comfortable.

 

WHAT WOULD THIS SOLVE:

-Bank hiding would cease to exist. The caps would be tied to cities and projects, meaning you could no longer hide your bank. 

-Wars would increase. There would no longer be any incentive to sit because your resources would be useless, you would use them to build, or fight, not sit and stockpile. 

-Nations become more important, now alliances need nations more to project power. This would mean more people in and more activity within alliances. Also it would potentially create more alliances with the renewed activity, which is always good within the game.

 

BAD/DOWNSIDES

-Potentially too many wars.

-Game would become get to cap and fight.

-More treaties and pacts to form together to protect 

-Resource prices would go higher.

 

Only things I can think of would be positives/negatives. However I think if we tested this would be more ideal than the stockpiling for months/years we see.

 

  • Upvote 3

IMG_2989.png?ex=65e9efa9&is=65d77aa9&hm=

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators
10 hours ago, Avatar Patrick said:

Perhaps drastically speeding up rebuild will allow for more frequent wars like in the old days instead of this predictable cycle. But like Borg said I think a lot of the problem is a cultural mentality of pixel hugging and no mechanics are going to change that.

We could reduce the cost of rebuilding previously built infrastructure.

  • Upvote 6

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

15 minutes ago, Alex said:

We could reduce the cost of rebuilding previously built infrastructure.

please

im tired of having to pay millions for the smallest wars.

  • Like 2

signature_1609462526.png.014e1286830a99c3d7652fe75198c389.png
To whom it may concern, I do not represent The Immortals unless explicitly stated (ergo, never.)
<--- I hardly use the forums anymore, add me on discord.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Avatar Patrick said:

Perhaps drastically speeding up rebuild will allow for more frequent wars like in the old days instead of this predictable cycle. But like Borg said I think a lot of the problem is a cultural mentality of pixel hugging and no mechanics are going to change that.

If it takes you longer than a week or two to rebuild post war, you are not prepared to fight in a war.  Honestly if it takes more than a few days to bounce back, you are not prepared to fight a war.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Sweeeeet Ronny D said:

If it takes you longer than a week or two to rebuild post war, you are not prepared to fight in a war.  Honestly if it takes more than a few days to bounce back, you are not prepared to fight a war.

people are still rebuild from the last GW. there is only so much money in orbis lmao.

signature_1609462526.png.014e1286830a99c3d7652fe75198c389.png
To whom it may concern, I do not represent The Immortals unless explicitly stated (ergo, never.)
<--- I hardly use the forums anymore, add me on discord.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Kastor said:

Control points would be cool, it could be an extra 0.01% of your income for each control point that you have. The more you win, the bigger the boost. This could be interesting.

Treasures need a buff, I think we all know it we just don't know where it could be. 30 treasures are entirely too high.

 

We could do a resource cap, with a deteriorating number for each resources after that just gets lost after. OR a hard cap where resources don't go higher, if that was the case, the cap would have to be high enough that alliances could do long-term wars.

So if we go with the hard cap, we could do: (manufactured)

800 per city

500 per project

So if a city had 20 cities, and 6 projects. 

You would get 16,000 Resource space, and then GRANT your alliance 19,000 resource cap. You could then get projects that increase the resource size.

First Project- Add 500 to every resource cap per city.

It would increase your cap to 1,300. It would increase the cap to 29,500

2nd Project- Add 500 to every project cap. It would increase the cap to 34,000

3rd Project- Add 250 to each project and city. 11,250 for the project. 31,000 for the Cities. 42,250 total.

An alliance of 50, 20 city nations, with 6 projects each would base have 800,0000 from cities and 150,000 from project base. 950,000 total. 

 

Obviously these numbers would need to be buffed a bit, maybe doubled to allow enough to build up. The best play is to find the sweet spot where you have a lot of resources but want more to be fully comfortable.

 

WHAT WOULD THIS SOLVE:

-Bank hiding would cease to exist. The caps would be tied to cities and projects, meaning you could no longer hide your bank. 

-Wars would increase. There would no longer be any incentive to sit because your resources would be useless, you would use them to build, or fight, not sit and stockpile. 

-Nations become more important, now alliances need nations more to project power. This would mean more people in and more activity within alliances. Also it would potentially create more alliances with the renewed activity, which is always good within the game.

 

BAD/DOWNSIDES

-Potentially too many wars.

-Game would become get to cap and fight.

-More treaties and pacts to form together to protect 

-Resource prices would go higher.

 

Only things I can think of would be positives/negatives. However I think if we tested this would be more ideal than the stockpiling for months/years we see.

 

How many wars is enough wars for you?  I know over the last 4 months Grumpy has been in two large scale wars, 6 months before that we were in 2 different wars for 9 months, 6 months before that we were in a war for 4 months.  If your alliance isn't declaring enough wars for you, why not join an alliance that fights more?

If you dont like the time between wars, &#33;@#&#036; at leadership that demands super long NAPs like the 6 month nap after IQ, or the 4 month nap after the last war.

5 minutes ago, Aqua-Corpsman said:

people are still rebuild from the last GW. there is only so much money in orbis lmao.

That is ridiculous, it's been over 2 months, if your alliance is still rebuilding after fighting for a month, you should rethink your continued membership in said alliance, because they are failing you. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Sweeeeet Ronny D said:

That is ridiculous, it's been over 2 months, if your alliance is still rebuilding after fighting for a month, you should rethink your continued membership in said alliance, because they are failing you. 

No no no no, the alliance I just left. The alliance I joined built me up just today. They had to take out a loan to do it.

signature_1609462526.png.014e1286830a99c3d7652fe75198c389.png
To whom it may concern, I do not represent The Immortals unless explicitly stated (ergo, never.)
<--- I hardly use the forums anymore, add me on discord.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Sweeeeet Ronny D said:

why are they taking out a loan to rebuild you? why aren't you taking out a loan to rebuild you?

Because I cannot get on discord at the moment and no banks will give me a loan unless im on discord.

Also, why does it matter?

signature_1609462526.png.014e1286830a99c3d7652fe75198c389.png
To whom it may concern, I do not represent The Immortals unless explicitly stated (ergo, never.)
<--- I hardly use the forums anymore, add me on discord.

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.