Jump to content

Game Development - February 2021


Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, Shiho Nishizumi said:

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.

Added to the OP.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 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?

10 minutes ago, MBaku said:

I think a minimum number of ships could work, but 50% 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. 

Eh, the 75% he mentioned tied to city count is good enough. Make it too cheap and it's just overpowered due to the value of the improvements being destroyed. Especially considering that currently, best case scenario is a 60% chance if you have tactician and the other guy has pirate.

Considering that the loss of military improvements would force a beat down nation to respec to something lower and lose it's economic improvements, it's only fair that it costs the winning party a fair bit to cause such destruction in the first place. Especially since I suspect a bunch of it would be done as nations go down and are in the process of losing their infra either way. And you already would have an avenue to maximize imps destroyed while minimizing infra damage dealt right there if the requirement was any lower.

Edited by Shiho Nishizumi
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Shiho Nishizumi said:

Eh, the 75% he mentioned tied to city count is good enough. Make it too cheap and it's just overpowered due to the value of the improvements being destroyed. Especially considering that currently, best case scenario is a 60% chance if you have tactician and the other guy has pirate.

Considering that the loss of military improvements would force a beat down nation to respec to something lower and lose it's economic improvements, it's only fair that it costs the winning party a fair bit to cause such destruction in the first place. Especially since I suspect a bunch of it would be done as nations go down and are in the process of losing their infra either way. And you already would have an avenue to maximize imps destroyed while minimizing infra damage dealt right there if the requirement was any lower.

 

I think if it's tied to city count, folks can lose the ability to field 75% quickly with the ability to destroy improvements increasing. It also doesn't divide easily since there's only 3 drydocks per city. 66% should be the highest considered, or 2 drydocks per city. If you get knocked down below that, you'll need to rebuild something to get back the bombardment ability. 

I don't think the ability to destroy improvements don't need to be super expensive. The improvements themselves are super cheap to replace. And missiles don't cost nearly that much. That's why i'm more in favor of something more like 1/6 or even 1/3 of max ships based on city counts. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Prefontaine said:

New Projects

  1. Logistics Center
    • Effect:  Opens an additional trade route for Commodities
    • Cost
      • Cash: $5,000,000
      • Food: 25,000
      • Uranium: 5,000
      • Aluminum: 5,000
  2. World Trade Organization
    • Effect: Opens an additional trade route for Commodities
    • Requirements: International Trade Center, Logistics Center, Space Program
    • Cost
      • Cash: $20,000,000
      • Food: 250,000
      • Uranium: 15,000
      • Aluminum: 10,000
      • Gasoline: 10,000

I don't see the point of these projects? Trade is currently unrestricted except for embargos. What is the benefit of the additional trade routes? What is the first trade route?

Edited by LukeTP
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, LukeTP said:

I don't see the point of these projects? Trade is currently unrestricted except for embargos. What is the benefit of the additional trade routes? What is the first trade route?

please refer to this thread. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, MBaku said:

 

I think if it's tied to city count, folks can lose the ability to field 75% quickly with the ability to destroy improvements increasing. It also doesn't divide easily since there's only 3 drydocks per city. 66% should be the highest considered, or 2 drydocks per city. If you get knocked down below that, you'll need to rebuild something to get back the bombardment ability. 

I don't think the ability to destroy improvements don't need to be super expensive. The improvements themselves are super cheap to replace. And missiles don't cost nearly that much. That's why i'm more in favor of something more like 1/6 or even 1/3 of max ships based on city counts. 

People who are bombarding are very well capable of fielding such, because if you're spending MAP's bombarding you've already got it in the bag. Meaning, the ships aren't actually at risk of being sunk. 

I don't see a problem with it not being perfectly round, since it could just be rounded up or down. Much the same way how PB works (you aren't recruiting 1.1 ships, for example). It'd also be going off the value of 15 ships rather than 3 drydocks.

You'd be surprised at the value of having to reslot the improvements time and again (me knowing that because they make for good nuke cash in a pinch). And the response also doesn't address the loss of output in cases where you need to refit cities to something 800 infra spec or something of sorts. Which definitely ought to be factored in when balancing this since it's a long term productivity loss being incurred.

Missiles don't cost as much, but they also can be ID blocked, kill less imps given the same MAP's, can be spied to be removed, etc. It's nonetheless a massive increase w.r.t. imp killing compared to the previous value; especially at higher infra values.

  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours 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

 

Add this one first

Link to post
Share on other sites

I just want to use a heavy GIF on my nation desc without both breaking the GIF and the custom description edit page.

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

please refer to this thread. 

Still don't see the point of commodities, just seems like CN-lite.

But most of the other things are nice.

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Majima Goro said:

Plus, all these things MUST BE TESTED on the TEST SERVER.

 

PLEASE DO NOT PUSH THEM LIVE WITHOUT TESTING FIRST.

 

I can't think of a single update ever to ever happen in the history of updates from the development of the ASCII standard to the final spec design of the newest wifi v12 AI brain waves, that would not benefit from testing on a test server first. Don't get me started on the test server itself, but small incremental steps towards a proper & good SOP for new feature introduction would make my doki doki go very heart.

  • Upvote 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Cooper_ said:

Suggestion here to change the 50% chance to block to a 50% reduction in damage

This would be a huge buff to missiles but not for people getting sat on.

An infra damage reduction is so insignificant in an actual war especially against people who are sitting on you, who are presumably your defensive slots. If you are getting sat on I’m going to assume they are declaring ord or raid wars. 50% infra dmg reduction here is literally a joke, plus as you mentioned this would actually buff the infra dmg done.

by making this change you are implementing a mechanic which would guarantee 18 resistance worth of damage with 0 counter play.

Anyone who is good at fighting in dogpiles or is a good pirate will tell you how many times a guaranteed 18 resistance dmg would’ve gotten them a beige or a significant chance at a beige. 

This change wouldn’t majorily benefit people being sat on honestly If you are having trouble while being sat on and cycled, you are suggesting to be able to force a beige through damaging resistance? However you’ll have to focus 3 missiles on one defensive to even pressure him to beige, at that point he’ll simply be the one to beige you first to cycle regardless. I will say it will probably help vs people who don’t know what their doing by a lot, however the problem isn’t vs people who are incompetent but vs people who can efficiently sit on you.

its guaranteeing the 18 Resistance dmg every time. So it is just a huge buff offensively to get beiges, Whilst not really impacting being sat on that much since people who are sitting on you are likely to be more active, and competent if they are actually giving you trouble, meanwhile targets you pick out for missile beiges are more inactive. Plus adding a mechanic where an unpreventable 18 resistance damage is stupid regardless of all of this.

 

I think with Missiles and MLP getting a buff they are fine as is with how cheap they are.

11 hours ago, Cooper_ said:

Currently you can only expect 4 resistance reduction per missile hit with ID.  

Also it wouldn’t it be a 9 resistance reduction.

i think this shows a good point as well, although I don’t think looking at average resistance dmg for missiles/nukes is completely accurate for their effectiveness. But this is essentially a 9 resistance dmg buff to missiles on average vs ID. i think for actual effectiveness it would be worth more than 9 resistance worth of damage, which says a lot since buffing literally any attack by 9 resistance would be literally broken as is.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

How about bringing Missile and Nukes out of the current MAP system replaced with their separate point system, and let them kill enemy military units rather than infra since once an inferior force gets pinned down by a superior force they are forced to use Nukes/Missiles and have to wait all day and the effort seems not rewarding to the defender, in any case, considering we have VDS, ID in the game already and building Nukes/Missiles while being sat on under blockade is already a pain. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

A poll has been created with regards to if missiles should reduce damage by 50% or continue in the current method of reducing 100% of the damage 50% of the time.

Please vote.

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Aqua-Corpsman said:

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.

But nukes are supposed to be devastating. Actually I think they are too kind in this game. You have to wait 24 hours and then pay 5-7 million.

Also, they can get yeeted by multiple spy attacks. So it isn't so much of an ultimatum. 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Deulos said:

But nukes are supposed to be devastating. Actually I think they are too kind in this game. You have to wait 24 hours and then pay 5-7 million.

Also, they can get yeeted by multiple spy attacks. So it isn't so much of an ultimatum. 

That's fair. Idk, if they do get buffed warfare is going to revolve around nukes in the future.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"Even if the VDS blocks out the nuke, allow for the nation to experience "nuclear fallout".

I'll explain it here.

Since we assume the nuke is blocked mid-air, all the radiation and such should still affect pollution levels. 

This can be realized by polluting the city as if an actual nuke were to fall on the city."

Uh, no, no it can't. This is easily explicable as not how things actually work by anyone with the vaguest understanding of how these actual systems work.

Even before before we explain GMD, the US new fangled anti-ICBM system that shoots down missiles mid course in atmosphere, your more traditional less awesome systems don't shoot them down right above the city. If your nuke is getting shot down it's miles and miles into the sky and still hundreds or thousands more form it's target. They don't shoot AIM-9s at these things. At worst they shoot the kind of long range ballistic missiles an MLP would produce, and in the case of GMD they counter your icbm with an icbm. 

They're actually, fun fact too, more accurate than the VDS in game is. GMD in particular is about 56% accurate.

If you're going to couch your suggestion in realism because it sounds like how it works in your head, check to see that reality upholds that. Or, just, don't make suggestions with realism as the base. Realism is nice to have, not a requirement.

 

As for the OP it's, a thing, I guess. Still don't understand why we're changing multiple numbers for multiple things to fix a balance issue solved by a single number changing. 

The ships definitely need to require some # of ships to do, or it will be completely and utterly the most broken thing I have ever seen. 

Still don't really get the point of commodities as is or at all, even, really. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Prefontaine said:
  • 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

I beg of you! Please! This would be so amazing!!!

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Overall, I like the ideas for the most part. 

I do agree with an earlier poster about the nukes, sjips and missles. Not sure about that in the grand scheme of it.

As for the alliances sectIon, I like that we can designate roles and have more slots for the roles. But, the part I dislike is that alliances can have only 1 treaty. I'm not keen on that. 

Alliances should have at least 2-3 slots available. 1 of those slots for a protectorate (if they have 1), an then 1-2 for that alliances major ally(allies). 

Otherwise, the update will be fine for now.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/19/2021 at 5:00 PM, Prefontaine said:

When a nation is blockaded naval units can bombard a city instead of performing a naval battle.

Does this stand for nations that haven’t blockaded? IE if Nation A is blockaded by Nation B, and Nation C declares war, can Nation C bombard without personally blockading?

8 minutes ago, Toutatis said:

Overall, I like the ideas for the most part. 

I do agree with an earlier poster about the nukes, sjips and missles. Not sure about that in the grand scheme of it.

As for the alliances sectIon, I like that we can designate roles and have more slots for the roles. But, the part I dislike is that alliances can have only 1 treaty. I'm not keen on that. 

Alliances should have at least 2-3 slots available. 1 of those slots for a protectorate (if they have 1), an then 1-2 for that alliances major ally(allies). 

Otherwise, the update will be fine for now.

I believe he meant alliances can only sign 1 treaty with each other. IE an alliance must pick between PIAT, MDP, MDoAP, etc., with a potential treaty partner; not alliances are only allowed one total treaty. I think it’s meant to prevent treaty spam, like what recently happened with Liberty and also KT.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think these are good changes overall.  Some of this will help newer players catch up faster (shorter timer resets) which is good since more and more of the game is city 30+.  The war mechanic changes look good too.  My only critique would be the missiles and nukes getting stronger, even if they do less resistance damage (that just means you eat more sitting on somebody).  I personally feel like they are already overpowered, if not for being able to block some of them.  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Lord Tyrion said:

I think these are good changes overall.  Some of this will help newer players catch up faster (shorter timer resets) which is good since more and more of the game is city 30+.  The war mechanic changes look good too.  My only critique would be the missiles and nukes getting stronger, even if they do less resistance damage (that just means you eat more sitting on somebody).  I personally feel like they are already overpowered, if not for being able to block some of them.  

Part of the idea is to not make it great to sit on someone forever. The cost of the improvement destroyed is virtually non-existent the real cost comes from lost revenue if that improvement isn't replaced with infra-rebuilds.

The losing side typically loses more of its revenue from income with the destruction of their infra. They have a hard time doing any meaningful income loss to the winning side, this gives a small bit of that. It can also be used against the losing side in blowing up their improvements too, though you'll more likely want to use the new Bombardment attack for that.

Edited by Prefontaine
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.