Jump to content

Delayed Superiorities


Prefontaine
 Share

Should Ground/Air superiority be gained at a slower rate?  

144 members have voted

  1. 1. Should Superiorities be gained after more than one IT

    • No, no change.
    • Yes, after 2 IT's you gain Superiority
    • Yes, after 3 IT's you gain Superiority
    • Yes, after 4 IT's you gain Superiority
      0
    • Something Different, you gain partial superiorities with each attack. After some number you'll gain the full benefit.

This poll is closed to new votes

  • Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.
  • Poll closed on 09/14/22 at 05:17 PM

Recommended Posts

An idea to delay the "Wars being decided in the blitz" the idea to make ground superiority and air superiority to be gained after multiple Immense Triumphs instead of just one.

Please vote in the poll. Thank you.

 

This is specifically vague for a reason as to how it works as we're looking to see if the way superiorities work needs some tweaking.

Edited by Prefontaine
  • Upvote 5
  • Downvote 5

scSqPGJ.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Prefontaine said:

An idea to delay the "Wars being decided in the blitz" the idea to make ground superiority and air superiority to be gained after multiple Immense Triumphs instead of just one.

Please vote in the poll. Thank you.

Alternatively how would you guys feel about a 12 turn timer, IT's will work but no superiorities until after a full 12 turns has passed? Or perhaps 6 instead. Might be worth considering.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, SleepingNinja said:

Alternatively how would you guys feel about a 12 turn timer, IT's will work but no superiorities until after a full 12 turns has passed? Or perhaps 6 instead. Might be worth considering.

I'm open to any ideas. The downside of yours is that lets say your side blitzes, uses its MAPs and the other side waits and tries to get Sup's after the 6 hour timer sort of thing now with extra MAPs.

  • Upvote 1

scSqPGJ.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Prefontaine said:

So does needing extra ITs to get the sup. 

I'm a fool like I said. I'm just curious. 

Out of all the options I think the gradual increase of the strength of Sup is better than 1,2, or 3 IT before getting. What were you thinking about %? 25% for 1 or something?

FORMER LEADER OF COTL. PLEASE GROW INTERNALLY

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Leftbehind said:

I'm just a humble fool but wouldn't delaying superiority hurt updeclaring? 

I dunno. I didn't really think that through to be honest. I'm prepared to eat the mass downvote, it's probably a bad idea.

@Prefontaine yeah your right. Probably one of my worst ideas. please ignore my foolishness lol

Edited by SleepingNinja
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that delaying superiorities at all wouldn't be great. There have been times where I've had to barely get together enough aircraft to get an immense triumph, and getting air superiority was the only reason I was able to win the war. Delaying superiority would basically mean that I'd lose those wars, and if others have had similar experiences, I think that it'd be best to leave it as it is.

This is a signature.

That's all I have to say.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Dryad said:

How would breaking superiorities work? Would it need more than one successful attack to break a superiority to balance that it now takes more than one IT to gain it, or would it still be broken with one attack?

I think this is an interesting idea tbh, not entirely sure yet how it'd effect things.

Either options work. Could even do something cheeky to make naval useful, you need multiple non-utter failures to break Sup, or one Moderate/IT naval to break any Sup.

7 minutes ago, SleepingNinja said:

I dunno. I didn't really think that through to be honest. I'm prepared to eat the mass downvote, it's probably a bad idea.

@Prefontaine yeah your right. Probably one of my worst ideas. please ignore my foolishness lol

Not a bad idea, appreciate the thoughts. 

  • Like 1

scSqPGJ.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Alcyr said:

There's a lot of questions here. Do the ITs need to be consecutive, or does IT, Moderate, IT work? What happens if the enemy gets a victory in between ITs?

Off the cuff, it seems like out of these changes (assuming there is a change, so eliminating the no change option for this discussion), the most intuitive way of doing it would be some variation of partial superiority. A very basic sketch of the type of mechanic I'm thinking of:

  • Two step function for superiority, first IT gives 50% second gives 100%
  • Someone getting a pyrrhic or moderate success vs superiority only drops this by 1 point (so 50% -> 0% or 100% -> 50%)
  • Someone getting an immense vs superiority drops this by 2 points, going 1 in their favor if you only had 1 point (100% -> 0%, 50% in defender's favor -> 50% in attacker's favor).
  • Getting an immense also drops superiority by 1 point in all other wars the target is a part of (representing the shatter superiority mechanic that currently exists).

Something along these lines, I think. You could play with the values to have a more complex tug-of-war too, like increasing the number of steps but having ITs count for 2 and Moderates count for 1 (and if you're attacking into superiority, 3/2/1 for immense/moderate/pyrrhic). Something like that, though the specifics could use some work.

All things that can be discussed on how the finer points work if people are in favor of the general concept, or at least some form of a change. 

scSqPGJ.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Prefontaine said:

All things that can be discussed on how the finer points work if people are in favor of the general concept, or at least some form of a change. 

Ah ok - might be good to clarify that point on the OP (that how superiority is broken would be decided in further discussions if the poll supports a change) since it seems there's already been a couple questions about it. Which it doesn't hurt to discuss anyway, but knowing that it will be discussed in further detail before any changes happens will help.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Alcyr said:

Ah ok - might be good to clarify that point on the OP (that how superiority is broken would be decided in further discussions if the poll supports a change) since it seems there's already been a couple questions about it. Which it doesn't hurt to discuss anyway, but knowing that it will be discussed in further detail before any changes happens will help.

It's why I stick around for a bit after posting the threads to answer questions. The problem with having something very in depth, is that we basically need to fully design it just about before going to public for feedback. I'll add a blurb in the next thread like this. 

scSqPGJ.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I discussed this at length in DM's with some people today after my own thread recently bombed, but you guys really should start democratizing the development process. It's very clear that the dev team has no direction and the leadership is entirely inactive (Prefontaine, Alex) from an input perspective.

 

I would rather let this subforum be a direction-giving tool than have every random thought be pitched as a new potential update and mass-downvoted repeatedly.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some notes:

  • For more evenly matched coalitions, this would extend round one (which is good)
  • Ground control is already only useful after two attacks (the first one gains ground control, only the second attack destroys aircraft)
  • Gaining superiority in a war will break the enemy's superiority in other wars, but getting a non utter failure will only break enemy control it for yourself. 
    • It is counter productive to make it more difficult to break enemy superiority, since that generally disadvantages the losing side. 
  • Blitz advantage is useful to allow a potentially weaker coalition to punch above its weight.
    • Making starting a war less viable may lead to less war, and thus a less engaging meta
    • The issue is fundamentally wars often being decided after round one. This change does not solve that, and may be irrelevant if other changes to solve it are implemented.
    • Blitz advantage is only a problem because war mechanics in general mean the winning side usually snowballs until the gap in military is insurmountable. 
  • It is harder to get superiority on updeclares, given the higher chance of moderates against a stronger enemy.
    • Making it more difficult to drag down whales may be detrimental to game balance.
    • This will widen the advantage of any enemies with higher tiering 
Edited by Borg
  • Upvote 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't mind the thought of staggered benefits - after all, I hate RNG, and when some prick gets an IT on equally matched planes in a blitz it's frankly stupid. As someone else mentioned, it would more depend on how to achieve the full benefits of superiority. Consecutive IT's? MS & up?

But the war system does need a change - it needs a lot more variety & intrigue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Prefontaine said:

It's why I stick around for a bit after posting the threads to answer questions. The problem with having something very in depth, is that we basically need to fully design it just about before going to public for feedback. I'll add a blurb in the next thread like this. 

Ah, ok. Being as clear as possible about what stage the ideas are in is always a good thing. A bit off topic, but I'd consider making the poll either (a) combine the "after 2/3/4 ITs" options into one (it isn't an important detail for determining community acceptance of an idea in general) or (b) have two questions, one a yes/no for overall willingness to discuss changes and another a multiple choice poll for which ideas would be acceptable (the people who voted for 2 ITs may also support the partial superiority option, for example).

 

 

Since I don't want to be entirely off topic, I'll just say why I voted the way I did since my original post didn't actually say anything about how I voted. I can see myself liking a more variable way of superiority being gained, lost, and applied, even compared to how it behaves now. It's probably a bit more of a change than the other proposals, but the other options regardless of how they're implemented seem like they would end up being more unintuitive and messy, and I don't think I'd be likely to get behind any of those options.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Alcyr said:

Ah, ok. Being as clear as possible about what stage the ideas are in is always a good thing. A bit off topic, but I'd consider making the poll either (a) combine the "after 2/3/4 ITs" options into one (it isn't an important detail for determining community acceptance of an idea in general) or (b) have two questions, one a yes/no for overall willingness to discuss changes and another a multiple choice poll for which ideas would be acceptable (the people who voted for 2 ITs may also support the partial superiority option, for example).

 

 

Since I don't want to be entirely off topic, I'll just say why I voted the way I did since my original post didn't actually say anything about how I voted. I can see myself liking a more variable way of superiority being gained, lost, and applied, even compared to how it behaves now. It's probably a bit more of a change than the other proposals, but the other options regardless of how they're implemented seem like they would end up being more unintuitive and messy, and I don't think I'd be likely to get behind any of those options.

I still look at basically all the "no change" vs all of the change options as totals in favor of some change or no change, but I get what you're saying. 

  • Downvote 1

scSqPGJ.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just gonna add this here since it was previously discussed somewhere.

But, is the thing where superiority is removed if it isn't upheld with an attack in that type after 12-24 turns still being considered or just been tossed in the trash? I thought it was a pretty solid idea to discourage sitting and letting maps stack forever.

  • Upvote 4

Downloads.jpg.f8cec0ed86ab61876072ab7847b52f92.jpg

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Prefontaine said:

I still look at basically all the "no change" vs all of the change options as totals in favor of some change or no change, but I get what you're saying. 

Yeah, I think the second suggestion is the more useful one here, mostly because it allows for better ability to vote on all the liked options rather than having to pick one. Theoretically all the people who voted for partial superiority could also support 2 ITs, but not the reverse - which would mean that 2 ITs actually has wider acceptance even though it has less votes. Though I highly doubt that's the case here, I think it's more likely that people who support 2 ITs would also be OK with the partial success than the other way around (but that may just be my own opinion on the options).

Edit: It also makes it a little bit clearer that it's more of a question of "is this something you think could be changed for the better, and if so, do any of these initial ideas sound good?" so that the initial yes/no is about the problem rather than any specific ideas, at least in my opinion.

10 minutes ago, Ramona said:

But, is the thing where superiority is removed if it isn't upheld with an attack in that type after 12-24 turns still being considered or just been tossed in the trash? I thought it was a pretty solid idea to discourage sitting and letting maps stack forever.

My two cents on this: if you're sitting on someone, then either you're accepting that you may lose in order to prevent giving them beige or they're basically zeroed already - in both cases, superiority isn't a hugely motivating factor I think. It'd probably be better to address that by changing beige so that sitting doesn't have a benefit in the first place, rather than punishing people for following the meta caused by other mechanics. I think it would also be a bit of a nerf to GC compared to AS again since you can still airstrike any unit no matter how long you sit, but GC would get lost.

Edited by Alcyr
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Ramona said:

Just gonna add this here since it was previously discussed somewhere.

But, is the thing where superiority is removed if it isn't upheld with an attack in that type after 12-24 turns still being considered or just been tossed in the trash? I thought it was a pretty solid idea to discourage sitting and letting maps stack forever.

The beige changes address the sitting/map stacking side of things more. But the idea is still rolling around the the idea box.

  • Thanks 1

scSqPGJ.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Alcyr said:

My two cents on this: if you're sitting on someone, then either you're accepting that you may lose in order to prevent giving them beige or they're basically zeroed already - in both cases, superiority isn't a hugely motivating factor I think. It'd probably be better to address that by changing beige so that sitting doesn't have a benefit in the first place, rather than punishing people for following the meta caused by other mechanics. I think it would also be a bit of a nerf to GC compared to AS again since you can still airstrike any unit no matter how long you sit, but GC would get lost.

Also note: It would positively benefit double buying and would make flash attacks deadlier.

  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Honestly the main reason I voted against this is purely because I feel like we have way to little resistance/maps to afford a change like this.

If getting a superiority cost several attacks, then you wouldn't realise the benefits until a certain number of attacks have passed. I feel like you would need to rework how much damage a single attack does or how long a war lasts to make this work well. I would certainly like to need a more dynamic superiority but the balance wire we stand on here is very thin.

Also would this affect naval superiorities? Ships are already in a bad spot, nerfing the ability to blockading by effectively delaying how long it takes to set up one would be quite bad.

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Village unpinned this topic

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.