Jump to content

Planes or death


Sam Cooper
 Share

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Sam Cooper said:

3 steps like a ritual, find as many people as possible for your blitz (activate those secret treaties), blitz and zero planes and eventually all other units, eat nukes for a month and peace out

Flawless

Here is one thing most people don’t understand. The dev team don’t implement shit, they just periodically come up with new ideas that will never be implemented to justify their existence. Even if the dev team came up with the best ideas this side of 2018, alex won’t implement them until 2024. (Bearbeitet)
 

I have nothing to say against your suggestions in principle, though.

  • Upvote 5

dano1.png.023c902fef58a39120e15c08e580cb65.png

Inform Zigbir I have forgotten how to edit the signature field
Please remind me how to do it post haste!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your a hero Sam. Bring back the old meta, reverse all these garbage score changes, reverse the lowered airstrikes against tanks. Rebuff soldiers vs tanks. Bring back 33% aircraft reduction at ground control. The old meta required some semblance of skill. What we have today is undynamic and boring wars and frankly it's what's going to end up being the real death of PnW at this point.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I actually disagree, planes are definitely more balanced now, at least compared to what they were before.

And yes, having more people at update should be a big deal since that's a great factor determining how active an alliance is.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Honestly I think there's better ways to approach this then taking a step back 33% plane nerf with gc, doesn't mean anything when you get blitzed just means if your not on fortress you've loss the fight and prepare to be held down and maybe lob some nukes

Some perk access which has been mentioned, or a defensive buff could work but both have their issues, be it balancing or encouraging people to let the fight come to them

 

I'm all in favor for going back to old dynamics, would make my strat of not having tanks even more op.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I totally agree, I've been saying that planes are broken since TLR. I think the other problems are the massive effect of blitz advantage and the inability win a military war when outnumbered. The broken war meta has a secondary effect. It is cheaper to not fight. If you lost the initial stage of the war, there is no incentive to spend money building troops.  

If we want changes, I think we need to agree on what the problems are and what we want our user experience to be like - or else we will disagree on the necessary changes. 

What I want to see: 

Competitive wars that reward fighting, encourage activity, and are competitive after the initial blitz. War should reward activity, planning, teamwork, knowledge of game mechanics, and the will to fight. 

How do we achieve that? Here are a few proposed changes: 

1. Begin wars with 4 MAPs instead of 6. 

Removes the possibility of the double ground, gives the defense more time to react. Fortress would drop it to 3, making you wait a turn to open with airstrikes.  Wars are still 5 days. This will make the overall war maps 64/63 instead of 66/65. 

2. No war expiry. 

This removes the need for a beige rework. When turns are exhausted, the combatant with the highest resistance left is the winner. Equal resistance becomes a truce. It also creates some additional game theory around how wars should finish - last minute attacks with stacked MAPs can snatch victories. 

3. Increase the rebuy rate for tanks, planes, and ships by 5% of max troops. 

6.25% with PB (I think). Which brings me to a second idea - what about a new project that builds on PB? Conscription - When your overall militarization is under 10% of max possible military you get an additional 5% (of max troops) rebuy boost. 

4. Nerf Air and ground superiority. 

Space superiority just creates a bigger gap between winners and losers and that is contrary to the user experience that people want in war. Superiority should provide a small strategic advantage. We want competition not domination. I would nerf AS and GS by half as a starting point. 

5. Rework Fortify

The current fortify is useless. A useful defensive option will help wars be competitive after/during the blitz and rewards defenders that are on during the blitz and are fast enough to defend before they're hit. Proposed rework - 50% chance of reducing the victory type when attacked. (still doesn't stack). Fortify is effective for one attack each time its used. If successful, an IT becomes MS, MS becomes PV, PV becomes UF. 

The problem with a defensive option is that the benefits have to outweigh the benefits of using those MAPs for offense. For that reason, I think Fortify should either cost less of maybe even be 100% for reducing attack success. 

Edited by MBaku
  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Dusty said:

Honestly I think there's better ways to approach this then taking a step back 33% plane nerf with gc, doesn't mean anything when you get blitzed just means if your not on fortress you've loss the fight and prepare to be held down and maybe lob some nukes

Some perk access which has been mentioned, or a defensive buff could work but both have their issues, be it balancing or encouraging people to let the fight come to them

 

But that's the key issue we have now. Alex doesn't want to take the time to actually code anything so regardless of the good or even great ideas some of us come up with to provide alternative solutions simply falls on deaf ears. Going back to the old meta is something he wouldn't have to 'work' on since it's already been coded. And that's the thing, with the old meta skill could trump this. Sure you personally wouldn't be effected since your smart enough not to carry tanks but the losing side with the old meta could still fish those 6-8 day beige times and build back up, down declare and drop those old devastating airstrikes against maxed mil nations half their size and immediately go into airstriking tanks destroying 2-4k tanks per airstrike. During NPOLT it was incredibly effective and at least gave the losers something to do. Alternatively it gives the winners a better reason to actually cycle then the fear of someone nuking a member once a day & brings aircraft kill counts up for them. We can all agree that killing off more units not called soldiers is a good thing regardless of being on the winning or losing side.

Prefontaine pointed out that people would be unwilling to use the aluminum but that's just not realistic, this isn't the old days where the meta whale tier was between C20-25 (pre-NPOLT, Knightfall) the whale tier is C40+, arguably 45+ or at the very least closing in on that. There are more resources to go around then ever before. The way things stand if an alliance or sphere finds themselves losing 3-4 wars in a row outside of that initial 1st round your not using much at all in terms of manu's which is resulting in all the games manu's being bloated up more and more. Plus factor in we've dropped total aircraft counts since NPOLT, halved steel cost on tanks etc there's no reason old and established alliances can't afford to put up a decent fight using the old meta formula for the 4-5 weeks globel's last. At least with the old meta whether your winning or losing you could look forward to killing off some steel/aluminum units in subsequent rounds. As it stands now it's just will your ID or VDS block those incoming missiles/nukes or cycle the nations to stop the losers from even doing that. I'd wager anyone that likes to fight would rather actually fight than do this dance we currently have now.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I generally disagree with the consensus that soldiers are a useless unit. They are cheap, you can buy over 1/3rd of your total maximum a day with PB project, and they supplement tanks nicely. how many soldiers you have greatly affects the odds of getting an immense triumph in ground battles. In terms of the balancing change of removing the 33% airforce reduction from ground control, it does force you to wait longer after a war begins to really start countering air in any meaningful way so I can see why people think of it as a problem. However, reverting things to how they were would just make air overpowered again so I really would prefer something else. Right now opening with ground attacks is really only crazy good when you catch someone who is not at full ground since dogfight kills lean much more reliably to the attacker than kills from ground battles. Before this change, opening with ground attacks by the aggressor wasn't viable at all so it's nice that it is at least an option now. When it came to ground attacking at the offset of a war to debuff planes I pretty much always considered it the sub-optimal move due to the sheer power of dogfights even when outnumbered in the air. The only time it wasn't a really bad idea was when you outgunned your opponent in terms of ground forces by a wide margin.

Edited by Kyubnyan
added some more reasoning

Humans cannot create anything out of nothingness. Humans cannot accomplish anything without holding onto something. After all, humans are not gods.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Worcestershire said:

At a certain point one begins to wonder why people still bother to type up game suggestions. Every last one of them falls on deaf ears. Even if they didn’t it would take 2 years to implement any meaningful changes. Anyways I’ll probably get a strike on my account now for daring to question the work ethic of the dev team. I’m sure they’re working very hard to get us another two national projects out in the next year. I only pray that these won’t be designed to be useless and only exist as a poor justification for there being a dev team like military salvage or fallout shelter.

You do realise we do not code right? War changes are almost universally disliked by everyone. Only thing that unites the community is that the current system is shit and then whenever you float an idea, we get people who cannot agree on how to change the system. Even this thread has people divided.

For what it is worth I have always agreed that the older war system was a better template to tweak from than what we ended up with. Point is, the game owner has no desire to ever back track on it afaik. 

  • Upvote 4

[11:52 PM] Prefontaine: But Keegoz is actually bad. [11:52 PM] Prefontaine: He's my favorite bad leader though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/21/2022 at 10:38 PM, Hwan said:

I actually disagree, planes are definitely more balanced now, at least compared to what they were before.

And yes, having more people at update should be a big deal since that's a great factor determining how active an alliance is.

 

balanced in what way? from my pov the meta is even more plane centric than it used to be now that ground is completely useless, the victory depends entirely on the blitz round when you can just drag down planes and forget about everything else for first round and finish rest of the units in your leisure time once you have got the planes in control because your target literally can't do anything without planes unless they all magically manage to go 100% which won't be possible from the second day of the war if it's a blitz.
"find as many people as possible for your blitz" wasn't about internal alliance activity and that isn't really the point of the post anyway.

Edited by Sam Cooper
typos
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/22/2022 at 2:17 AM, Kyubnyan said:

I generally disagree with the consensus that soldiers are a useless unit. They are cheap, you can buy over 1/3rd of your total maximum a day with PB project, and they supplement tanks nicely. how many soldiers you have greatly affects the odds of getting an immense triumph in ground battles. In terms of the balancing change of removing the 33% airforce reduction from ground control, it does force you to wait longer after a war begins to really start countering air in any meaningful way so I can see why people think of it as a problem. However, reverting things to how they were would just make air overpowered again so I really would prefer something else. Right now opening with ground attacks is really only crazy good when you catch someone who is not at full ground since dogfight kills lean much more reliably to the attacker than kills from ground battles. Before this change, opening with ground attacks by the aggressor wasn't viable at all so it's nice that it is at least an option now. When it came to ground attacking at the offset of a war to debuff planes I pretty much always considered it the sub-optimal move due to the sheer power of dogfights even when outnumbered in the air. The only time it wasn't a really bad idea was when you outgunned your opponent in terms of ground forces by a wide margin.

Of course having some soldiers would always be preferable over having none so their value is not absolute zero but if you're being rolled you can't really hope for an IT with them, not even with tanks because that 50% tank modifier is always there. So they do work in favorable conditions but then they only work in those conditions and that's the disappointing thing about them for someone like me who usually fights outnumbered wars. I don't think old system was perfect and any other change that fixes this is equally welcome but for now I still believe ground is useless in any situation where you aren't already winning.
There is a limit to how far up you can suicide planes, if you are sitting at 2400 planes on someone with a doubly buy of ~1000 you can safely use grounds to kill their daily buys, and it's in a scenario when you have established control in the war, which implies you do have a huge advantage with ground.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree that the warchanges should be reverted. Though I disagree with the statement that ground is useless now. I also don't think the game is more plane-centric than it was before the changes.

Couple arguments in favor of reverting the changes that I haven't heard yet:

Pre-war militarization: Defenders currently get destroyed hard, partly because the aggressors have a militarization advantage in terms of tanks (defenders being offline is the other reason). This I believe used to be less of an issue before 2020 because ground was mostly optional before the warchanges and everyone was always on 0050 mmr which was basically ready to war due to ground not having been required. Therefore the militarization advantage is now a much more relevant phenomenon than it used to be. At least that would be my reasoning, I was either a noob or not yet playing for all blitzes that happened before the second half of 2019 lol.

Score compression strats: Max mil is now the only setup that is viable to run in the fight for military control. Prior to the war changes max mil was an option and only having planes was also an option. The latter provided a way to hide from downdeclares at lower score ranges to the losing side which typically has less score due to being rolled. In a lot of wars with tiering differences one coalition dominates the upper tier while the other dominates the lower tier and typically the one dominating the upper tier wins at the end. In all these scenarios it would help the losing party in the lower tier a lot if their members could use score compression strats to hide within the lower score ranges dominated by their own coalition.

Score changes: Sam shrugged this off as being less relevant than the changes to tanks. I disagree. These changes are actually so bad lol. Military needs to give way more score compared to cities and infra than is currently the case. Veins military right now gives him 30% of his score. 70% of his score are cities, infra and projects, but for what? The only thing cities and infra provide are revenue and military rebuy. Revenue isn't decisive to the outcome of a war ever. Military rebuy is relevant of course but not so much that cities and infra should give close to 70% of the score of a nation with max mil. On the other hand the military someone has defines most of their firepower, 30% of score is not nearly enough to represent that. These score changes also tie in to the score compression strats: tanks used to bloat score super hard, even if we went back on the tank mechanics now, without also changing score the planes only strat probably wouldn't work. There is so much to say about the score topic, I could write a 5 page mini-paper about it.

Raiding: Soldiers only strats were much more viable when not everyone was using tanks and when you actually lost a large chunk of your score by not having tanks and planes.

  • Upvote 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Dryad said:

~snip~

thank you.
post was mostly about after blitz situation when defender has been zeroed, that's the context where I say "ground is useless" and I still stand by that, using ground in occasional downdeclares after your infra goes down is not being useful, that's more like using whatever options you have left and that's not how it should be, and even that doesn't really work because tanks (and score). This is also the reason score changes (and many other things) don't fit in my post, scope is too narrow and those changes deserve posts of their own, maybe someday.

I could totally try to be collected and more coherent if I just had slightly more hope, but I don't.
also, shouldn't have mentioned raiding, they'll definitely do the opposite now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/21/2022 at 10:03 AM, Worcestershire said:

At a certain point one begins to wonder why people still bother to type up game suggestions. Every last one of them falls on deaf ears. Even if they didn’t it would take 2 years to implement any meaningful changes. Anyways I’ll probably get a strike on my account now for daring to question the work ethic of the dev team. I’m sure they’re working very hard to get us another two national projects out in the next year. I only pray that these won’t be designed to be useless and only exist as a poor justification for there being a dev team like military salvage or fallout shelter.

This is honestly the truth of the matter.

 

We may see small tweaks or QoL updates, but we will likely not being seeing any major changes for years if ever. A large portion of the changes including the two you've mentioned as useless or unbalanced projects have come directly from Prefontaine, the dev team is effectively a sounding board for his ideas and he may or may not barely tweak his original thought based on feedback.

Alex is effectively AFK for development processes right now. 95% of his time is spent on moderation issues when he logs in.

 

 

re: Sam Cooper's suggestions - I think the old meta was shit as well. If you dislike planes now, wait til you realize planes-only was a viable meta before these changes.

 

I personally think the blitz advantage just needs to be nerfed across the board and beige needs to be given after every loss or expiry. It'll make wars a longer grind but it'll also make wars competitive rather than a slog. People arguing that it'll make numbers matter too much, they already do. I'd rather be able to fight back a little rather than just get swarmed and have to nuke.

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.