Jump to content

IRON DOME rework poll  

243 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

RNG is not inherently a bad thing.... Finding the balance of it can be. I think small incremental changes are the best way to work towards a happy medium. I would prefer to have ID stay at a % chance to land and increasing the amount of missiles one can make each day or reducing ID from 50% to 40% and then evaluate it from there.

Also, for those of you in approval of the major change, this would prevent the quicker wars which some of you have asked for. When the losers run out of options, resolution is reached much quicker. I get you want losing side to be engaged but sitting back giving no incentive of resolution because you can just missile the winning side doesnt seem like an expedient means to an end. Please think about how you want the core game to work and feel rather how ID works by itself. Isolated the ID may seem dumb but how it affects the way wars play out is a bigger role. Do you want every war to destroy infra on both sides making who wins almost irrelevant? If so make the change.

  • Upvote 3
  • Downvote 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Vice said:

 Do you want every war to destroy infra on both sides making who wins almost irrelevant? If so make the change.

Yes I don't want dogpilers to be given even more incentive to dogpile because they know their infra is safe. As Isjaki said somewhere stats don't mean anything wars are fought for different reasons with different goals in mind rather than stats. 

  • Like 5
  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Liberty said:

Yes I don't want dogpilers to be given even more incentive to dogpile because they know their infra is safe. As Isjaki said somewhere stats don't mean anything wars are fought for different reasons with different goals in mind rather than stats. 

That is a valid point but it seems like a reactive change rather than being proactive about tackling that problem with an end game in mind (to how wars play out). I was just bringing what i said up because there have been recent posts claiming there is no "reason to go to war in orbis" as there really isnt a huge reason to end one either if both sides can just grind themselves down to nothing. What percentage to stop a missile would be fair if they were to keep the core mechanics the same? 20% like VDS?

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Vice said:

That is a valid point but it seems like a reactive change rather than being proactive about tackling that problem with an end game in mind (to how wars play out). I was just bringing what i said up because there have been recent posts claiming there is no "reason to go to war in orbis" as there really isnt a huge reason to end one either if both sides can just grind themselves down to nothing. What percentage to stop a missile would be fair if they were to keep the core mechanics the same? 20% like VDS?

I mean I don't want something like VDS but like if we changed the iron dome to do 50% infra damage instead a compromise could be a chance to lower the amount of resistance damage it does.

Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Vice said:

Also, for those of you in approval of the major change, this would prevent the quicker wars which some of you have asked for. When the losers run out of options, resolution is reached much quicker. I get you want losing side to be engaged but sitting back giving no incentive of resolution because you can just missile the winning side doesnt seem like an expedient means to an end. Please think about how you want the core game to work and feel rather how ID works by itself. Isolated the ID may seem dumb but how it affects the way wars play out is a bigger role. Do you want every war to destroy infra on both sides making who wins almost irrelevant? If so make the change.

Having the tools at hand doesn't mean that they'll be used. E.G. TCW during that 10 day skirmish. It mainly boils down to whether the leaderships deem it worthwhile and viable to continue. Of which the mechanical viability of it isn't the sole, and sometimes, even the main reason for such a decision.

Either way, deliberately crippling the tools so that a conclusion to a war is forced isn't the way to go. It's much better for said tools to be available and for the people that'd be resorting to them to decide whether it's worthwhile to go with, than just shaft them from them altogether.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/20/2021 at 9:41 AM, Prefontaine said:

Please vote in poll.

Resistance lost will have to be reworked if all missiles hit but reduce damage. This poll is not to handle that aspect, but if this poll decides to go the re-work route we will discuss what impact missiles will have on resistance moving forward.

So what you are saying is every missile will still destroy an improvement but do 50% less damage and do less resistance damage, of which you haven't figured out yet?

Personally, if I'm using missiles, i dont care about the infra damage, I care about being able to target improvements.  Or as an owner of an Iron Dome, I want to have a 50 percent chance to prevent someone from targeting my military improvements, or save the resistance damage.  In terms of the 3 things Missiles hurt, the infra damage part is trivial.

11 minutes ago, Shiho Nishizumi said:

TCW during that 10 day skirmish.

Real talk, Sphinx didnt want to take another round of war, so he was eager to end it asap before he took more extremely expensive damage.

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

This game needs more RNG, and less people who think it needs less RNG. 

Why is RNG good? Too much RNG and you're just all playing separate instances of a lottery. So obviously pure RNG is bad. And no RNG would be chess. Given the spectrum, I would err to the side of chess with other human players, than a lottery.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Shiho Nishizumi said:

Having the tools at hand doesn't mean that they'll be used. E.G. TCW during that 10 day skirmish. It mainly boils down to whether the leaderships deem it worthwhile and viable to continue. Of which the mechanical viability of it isn't the sole, and sometimes, even the main reason for such a decision.

Either way, deliberately crippling the tools so that a conclusion to a war is forced isn't the way to go. It's much better for said tools to be available and for the people that'd be resorting to them to decide whether it's worthwhile to go with, than just shaft them from them altogether.

     I agree. I also agree wtih Dryad. I dont think ID will change "dog piling" but my concern is more for the players who may quit because of a long drawn out war or feeling of losing such a great investment on either side but particularly the losing. I dont have the numbers but I would love to know if and how many players quit during GW16 because they were constantly zero'd out. People get pissed because they have a restart a level that took them 30 minutes of time in console games, let alone losing days/weeks/months worth of play time here.

 

     Personally, someone can come zero me and ill still find a way to have fun but not everyone is like me. I would love for there to be an incentive to make people build military no matter what round of the war they are in. For example, I recently had a war with someone in KT that came out of beige R2 with a full army and it was awesome. Constant infra from missiles is just "meh" from both sides. They do it because its the only option rather than what could be a fun alternative should it ever be thought of.

edited for sp and formatting

Edited by Vice
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Vice said:

but my concern is more for the players who may quit because of a long drawn out war or feeling of losing such a great investment on either side but particularly the losing

Well, I'm sure no player on any losing side ever will appreciate your concern for them as long as your solution to free them from suffering is to make the losing war a more devastating experience, leaving them no choice but to surrender more quickly in utter annihilation. I really shouldn't speak for them but if you talk to anyone who was on the side fighting NPO in GW14 and participated in that war from the beginning, they will tell you that it was the most devastating experience they have had with the game, yet they never surrendered until the very end. My point is: not only is the proposal to make wars more one sided garbage for obvious reasons, but it would probably not even cause shorter wars either, because people don't just surrender whenever they are losing. Instead you can push ideas that will make a winning side wanna end a war more quickly and have them potentially demand less ridiculous terms to push a fast surrender. Having them eat a lot of missiles sounds like something that would contribute towards that.

 

I do however agree that it would be cool if the side getting dogpiled had more ways of using conventional military, because only firing missiles and nukes is as a matter of fact not very interesting.

Edited by Dryad
  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

ID discourages missiles onto some nations, and they just focus it on some other nations. VDS doesn't quite have the same effect. Most people are happy to get a 80% roll when they can.

idk if any of these changes will alter that behaviour, but I like the emotional attrition damage with getting your missile blocked even if the damage is overall the same.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I like the idea of guaranteed damage. 50% is to high for Iron Dome anyways. It's not like 172 infra lost in 1 of 32 cities or whatever is going to break someone anyways.

 

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

I do think that the damage incurred by missiles is a good deterrent. Many players work hard to achieve their infra goals and that 3- 10 mil can be a lot to many of them, especially if multiplied. And for those at lower city levels, it can be especially frustrating. Eradicating the ID in its current form would put the advantage toward the larger and more powerful alliances who have many members in the lower city counts. As was noted by Tyrion's response, they would love to see it nerfed in any way possible. That would mean less damage for them and less chance of a outnumbered combatant being successful in imposing any real damage toward a larger aggressor. The result of that could very well be more bully-boy tactics by the larger alliances. The larger alliances have the manpower necessary to impose their agendas already, why make it more easy for them and harder to defend against? IMO, the ID offers a good defense for both sides. If one is worried about taking damage from missiles, then they should get it. If they would rather have a different project in that slot, that is their choice. As has also been noted, the damage isn't massive, just a deterrent. And that is a good thing.

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Vice said:

     I agree. I also agree wtih Dryad. I dont think ID will change "dog piling" but my concern is more for the players who may quit because of a long drawn out war or feeling of losing such a great investment on either side but particularly the losing. I dont have the numbers but I would love to know if and how many players quit during GW16 because they were constantly zero'd out. People get pissed because they have a restart a level that took them 30 minutes of time in console games, let alone losing days/weeks/months worth of play time here.

 

     Personally, someone can come zero me and ill still find a way to have fun but not everyone is like me. I would love for there to be an incentive to make people build military no matter what round of the war they are in. For example, I recently had a war with someone in KT that came out of beige R2 with a full army and it was awesome. Constant infra from missiles is just "meh" from both sides. They do it because its the only option rather than what could be a fun alternative should it ever be thought of.

edited for sp and formatting

There's always a number of people who leave every war due to the shock value of that sort of loss. It's unfortunate, but unavoidable. I doubt there was much (or any) of a loss of long standing members due to the war, specifically considering what Dryad alluded to; NPOLT, if nothing else, tempered a bunch of people. 

It's awesome for the one padding. The one being padded on? Not so much. Important distinction to be made. Whilst it'd be nice to have them be of more use on these sorts of situations, the problem is that it's a bit difficult to balance conventional military which is being used in unconventional ways, and still have the conventional aspect be balanced. As a matter of fact, when conventional got "rebalanced", it is exactly the unconventional aspect thereof that arguably got shafted the most. Probably unintentionally at that.

It's also not the only option. Unless if your foe is literally maxed on his 5553 (which is never the case), there are ways to go about in pretty much every war. It's mainly a matter of whether you know how to do it number one, and can be assed to do it number two. Though yes, turreting is obviously the most straightforward and foolproof of the options.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • 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.