Jump to content

Game Development - February 2021


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 73
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

The following is a combination of old updates that were never put in, changes based on feedback/suggestions. Please feel free to provide feedback and suggestions to alternative options. Try to limit a

Suggestion here to change the 50% chance to block to a 50% reduction in damage (keeping the improvement damage reduction above).  Missiles are a great way people getting sat on can fight back and dest

What would this change mean for Space Program? 3 missiles or 4?

Idk, I feel like nukes and missiles will be a little overpowered. Especially if you get dogpiled. Imagine 6 sets of 2 nukes, destroying 4 improvements each, that's 48 improvements down the drain.

Other than that, nothing negative to say about any of these changes other than this game gets more complicated by the day and I love it. 

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

For tanks versus planes: I think a reduction in the damage tanks can do to planes is positive, but I would propose to use the same mechanism for this as is used for planes which target soldiers, tanks or ships. The way it works for planes is (attackers_planes - 0.5 * defenders_planes) * a factor that differs for each type of unit. I would propose to not do a strict reduction of 33%, but rather have defending tanks mean something and be able to reduce the amount of lost planes. So the formula becomes (attackers_tanks - 0.5 *defenders_tanks) * a factor. I would propose to use this formula instead of a 33% reduction rate, regardless of defending tanks. If the defender has just as much tanks as you do, there will be a 50% reduction in destroyed planes and if the defender has no tanks, the damage done by tanks will be the same as it is currently. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Prefontaine said:

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

What does "view member caches" mean? Member warchests?

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Concerned about the nerf to ground control, 33% seems harsh. 25% might be more balanced. Agreed it was a little OP, but it does need to be a viable alternative to fighting a superior Airforce, 

  • Upvote 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Prefontaine said:

Quality of Life

  • Alliances can only have 1 treaty between them.
  • Alliances have the ability to create up to 8 alliance positions, 5 more than the default 3.
  • 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
  • Alliance Trades offers also show in the global trades.
    • These trades will show in a different color
  • Expand leaderboards
    • Increase the leaderboards from top 10 to top 100. Alternatively, include all nations in the leaderboards (suggested filters, upon talking more with Roberts: active, non-VM players, perhaps also with a filter to exclude the brand new nations that only logged in once/haven't built up anything).

All of this makes me happy.

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Adrienne said:

What would this change mean for Space Program? 3 missiles or 4?

With MLP and SP you can build 3 missiles a day.

 

7 minutes ago, BigMorf said:

Concerned about the nerf to ground control, 33% seems harsh. 25% might be more balanced. Agreed it was a little OP, but it does need to be a viable alternative to fighting a superior Airforce, 

One thing to factor in is that GA's cost 3 MAPs versus AS costing 4 MAPs. I'm not against changing the number from 33%. Original pitches were 40-50% and I opted for 33%.

 

8 minutes ago, Havgle said:

When’s the ETA?

Alex usually rolls things out a couple at a time. Implementation is between him and his coder.

  • Upvote 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

Uh. 50% less or more rss usage and less infra killed is meaningless if one ship can destroy those two improvements just fine. It'd completely [email protected]#$ over raiders and people fighting uphill since hundreds of improvements could be destroyed at the cost of pennies.

 

  • Upvote 6
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Cooper_ said:

Suggestion here to change the 50% chance to block to a 50% reduction in damage (keeping the improvement damage reduction above).  Missiles are a great way people getting sat on can fight back and destroy improvements, but ID nerfs them a lot since half of the time they won't work.

I have suggested this before, projects that defend against nukes/missiles doing flat reduction percentages instead of chances to block. Typically I hear back that players like the chance aspect of the all or nothing.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

12 minutes ago, Cooper_ said:

Suggestion here to change the 50% chance to block to a 50% reduction in damage (plus improvement damage reduction).  Missiles are a great way people getting sat on can fight back and destroy improvements, but ID nerfs them a lot since half of the time they won't work.

It's already hard enough being able to buy them without them getting destroy by spies (which is now getting stronger) if you don't have them stockpiled, so a weaker missile is a good tradeoff for being able to more frequently attrition the enemy.  This is especially true with the other changes that allow stronger opponents to do even more damage to improvements now.  

We're seeing a lot of changes that'll make it easier for the winning side to easily force a victory by sitting on their opponents.  This would be a small tweak that gives the losing side some more space to fight back and have little ways to do some more damage.

I agree with the 50% damage reduction, the 50% miss makes ID really strong and since it's random, you can get unlucky and miss 4 missiles in a row. I've done it lol 

https://politicsandwar.com/nation/war/timeline/war=847047

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Shiho Nishizumi said:

Uh. 50% less or more rss usage and less infra killed is meaningless if one ship can destroy those two improvements just fine. It'd completely [email protected]#$ over raiders and people fighting uphill since hundreds of improvements could be destroyed at the cost of pennies.

 

The attack can have the restriction that you have to use at least 75% of the max navy your nation can field. If you could have 100 ships in a nation with the number of cities you have, then you must use at east 75 ships in the attack.

  • Upvote 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Prefontaine said:

Ships

  • 10% increase in ships killed by ships.
  • New Attack Type: Bombardment
    • When a nation is blockaded naval units can bombard a city instead of performing a naval battle.
    • This attack destroys 33% less infrastructure
    • This attack destroys 2 non-power plant improvements in that city
    • This attack costs 50% less gas to perform.
    • This attack costs 50% more munitions to perform
    • If a bombardment attack happens while the defending nation has defending ships, the casualties caused by those defending ships is increased 25%.
      • Example: If you attack with 200 ships and they have 50 ships defending and those 50 ships were going to kill 20 attacking ships, in a bombardment attack they instead would kill 25 ships.

 

I like this, ships actually serve a purpose in global wars now. 

 

Are the improvements random or targeted? also, i imagine this attack is still 4 maps and 14 resistance. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, MBaku said:

Are the improvements random or targeted? also, i imagine this attack is still 4 maps and 14 resistance. 

Yes, Random but cannot get power plants with their randomness. Still 4 maps and still the same resistance results. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Prefontaine said:

The attack can have the restriction that you have to use at least 75% of the max navy your nation can field. If you could have 100 ships in a nation with the number of cities you have, then you must use at east 75 ships in the attack.

Is this decided yet? Seems pretty OP to bombard with one ship and destroy two improvements against enemies with no navy. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Adrienne said:

What does "view member caches" mean? Member warchests?

Resources/money on hand. This ability would be useful for an econ officer. 

2 minutes ago, MBaku said:

Is this decided yet? Seems pretty OP to bombard with one ship and destroy two improvements against enemies with no navy. 

Nothing is decided yet. This thread will help in making decisions. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Prefontaine said:

I have suggested this before, projects that defend against nukes/missiles doing flat reduction percentages instead of chances to block. Typically I hear back that players like the chance aspect of the all or nothing.

Three things here:

1. A flat reduction of 50% would actually make missiles a tiny bit stronger given that infra costs increase exponentially.  i.e. two 2k cities losing 100 infra is more damage than a single 2k city losing 200 with a miss on the other

2. The damage reduction would still allow for resistance to decrease, so people can bait beiges and make it harder to get cycled.  Currently you can only expect 4 resistance reduction per missile hit with ID.  

3. I haven't heard that about ID before although I have heard people wanting to keep VDS as chance instead of flat reduction.  I have discussed the ID idea externally with pretty decent responses.  The nuke and missile military meta should not be looked at the same way.  Nukes are useful in fewer situations, have less versatility, are riskier to use (saving up resources and MAPs isn't always easy), and have much greater destructive power.  Having missiles as a guaranteed source of attrition you can afford with your daily bonus is pretty necessary here to balance the many buffs stronger opponents are getting to improvement attrition (requiring expensive infra rebuilding to counter).  

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Prefontaine said:

The attack can have the restriction that you have to use at least 75% of the max navy your nation can field. If you could have 100 ships in a nation with the number of cities you have, then you must use at east 75 ships in the attack.

It certainly should, if it is to go through. And yes, it should be pinned to city count rather than navy possessed or drydocks possessed at hand because otherwise it'd be easily gamed.

  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Cooper_ said:

Three things here:

1. A flat reduction of 50% would actually make missiles a tiny bit stronger given that infra costs increase exponentially.  i.e. two 2k cities losing 100 infra is more damage than a single 2k city losing 200 with a miss on the other

2. The damage reduction would still allow for resistance to decrease, so people can bait beiges and make it harder to get cycled.  Currently you can only expect 4 resistance reduction per missile hit with ID.  

3. I haven't heard that about ID before although I have heard people wanting to keep VDS as chance instead of flat reduction.  I have discussed the ID idea externally with pretty decent responses.  The nuke and missile military meta should not be looked at the same way.  Nukes are useful in fewer situations, have less versatility, are riskier to use (saving up resources and MAPs isn't always easy), and have much greater destructive power.  Having missiles as a guaranteed source of attrition you can afford with your daily bonus is pretty necessary here to balance the many buffs stronger opponents are getting to improvement attrition (requiring expensive infra rebuilding to counter).  

I'll create a poll thread to have a vote on the change. If the game votes for a damage reduction versus all or nothing block chance, I'm fine going that route.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Prefontaine said:

Nothing is decided yet. This thread will help in making decisions. 

I think a minimum number of ships could work, but 75% is pretty big - I'd like to see something more like 1/6 or half your ships if you're running 1 drydock each city. But also, lots of folks just run no ships at all, especially last global. This would make ships important and necessary all the time and could make the meta shift towards aquiring naval superiority in globals - if that's the goal.

I think the problem is that it's too hard to get naval superiority if you're losing because whoever can keep air superiority can also dominate navy. It's pretty much impossible to win in the air if you're dogpiled. Losing 16 improvements per war or 42 per cycle will speed up large conflicts a lot. 

 

Also, how guaranteed are the improvement destruction for non-IT hits? I think a moderate success could be one improvement and the rest should be none. 

Edited by MBaku
  • Downvote 1
Link to post
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...
  • 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.