Administrators Popular Post Alex Posted May 20 Administrators Popular Post Share Posted May 20 The context for this suggestion is covered well in: Basically, the goal being to make solo (or small group) play more viable. Obviously, alliances are at the core of gameplay, and the goal here is not to stop that. But, the thinking goes, that making solo (or small group) play more viable will make the game more fun for more people, encourage greater fragmentation of alliances, improve player retention, and overall make the game more fun. So, my proposal here is dynamic war slots based on how many offensive wars that you declare. My proposed formula for the number of defensive war slots available for any given nation is: Defensive War Slots = max(Offensive War Slots Used - 2, 0) + 2 What this means is that, at a minimum, you would always have 2 war slots available. This means any two nations could still attack you at any time, which is a decrease from the current 3. This would make immediate dog-piling / winning the blitz less viable, while still making it advantageous for attackers to strike first and gain a war slot advantage. This also means that by declaring only one or two wars, you are not making yourself more vulnerable than before. If you declare 1 or 2 wars, you still only have 2 defensive war slots open yourself. As you declare additional wars, the number of defensive war slots that open up for you increases. If you have 3 offensive wars ongoing, you would have 3 defensive war slots open, making you more vulnerable to counters, and so on. Here's a table of how it would work: I know this wouldn't be the biggest change in the world, but it would reduce the number of new players, unaligned nations, and nations in micro-alliances that get raided to death and give them more of a chance to fight back. It would also obviously impact alliance war dynamics, but I am sure everyone could adjust the new meta (even if you don't really want to ) 2 1 3 17 74 Quote Is there a bug? Report It | Not understanding game mechanics? Ask About It | Got a good idea? Suggest ItForums Rules | Game Link Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Jacob Knox Posted May 20 Popular Post Share Posted May 20 Give me 18 simultaneous wars!! Yesss!! 3 23 1 Quote Federation of Knox Enlightened of Chaos, Event Horizon QA Team and API Team Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John M Keynes Posted May 20 Share Posted May 20 (edited) 2 hours ago, Jacob Knox said: Give me 18 simultaneous wars!! Yesss!! Should create a new 18 wars achievement if the proposal manages to even get passed by the Design team. Because I will definetely need it once I manage to defeat all of them. Edited May 20 by John M Keynes 5 Quote My opinion may not reflect those of my alliance or its affiliates. Please read at your own discretion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Kyubnyan Posted May 20 Popular Post Share Posted May 20 Maybe a more logarithmic increase to defensive slots? Scaling linearly after 3 seems a bit excessive. 22 Quote 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 More sharing options...
Barbaros Posted May 20 Share Posted May 20 no. 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Black Oily Men Posted May 20 Popular Post Share Posted May 20 51 minutes ago, Alex said: The context for this suggestion is covered well in: Basically, the goal being to make solo (or small group) play more viable. Obviously, alliances are at the core of gameplay, and the goal here is not to stop that. But, the thinking goes, that making solo (or small group) play more viable will make the game more fun for more people, encourage greater fragmentation of alliances, improve player retention, and overall make the game more fun. So, my proposal here is dynamic war slots based on how many offensive wars that you declare. My proposed formula for the number of defensive war slots available for any given nation is: Defensive War Slots = max(Offensive War Slots Used - 2, 0) + 2 What this means is that, at a minimum, you would always have 2 war slots available. This means any two nations could still attack you at any time, which is a decrease from the current 3. This would make immediate dog-piling / winning the blitz less viable, while still making it advantageous for attackers to strike first and gain a war slot advantage. This also means that by declaring only one or two wars, you are not making yourself more vulnerable than before. If you declare 1 or 2 wars, you still only have 2 defensive war slots open yourself. As you declare additional wars, the number of defensive war slots that open up for you increases. If you have 3 offensive wars ongoing, you would have 3 defensive war slots open, making you more vulnerable to counters, and so on. Here's a table of how it would work: I know this wouldn't be the biggest change in the world, but it would reduce the number of new players, unaligned nations, and nations in micro-alliances that get raided to death and give them more of a chance to fight back. It would also obviously impact alliance war dynamics, but I am sure everyone could adjust the new meta (even if you don't really want to ) This is simultaneously the funniest and the dumbest thing ive read in my entire life. Thank you. 1 6 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Black Oily Men Posted May 20 Popular Post Share Posted May 20 "Basically, the goal being to make solo (or small group) play more viable." - suggests to let big aas to have 9 people countering a war instead of 3. This literally makes it worse. Not to mention, this kills piracy entirely, unless u want to raid up to 3 wars at a time. If i use my APE, imma get looted for more than i raid. This is absurd. 1 1 17 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Tyrion Lannister Posted May 20 Popular Post Share Posted May 20 Yeah, this is a really bad change. 3 defensives should always be the minimum. This would be an end to wanting to put together a blitz. You could only get 2 attackers on a target in a blitz and if you go more, you have more defensive slots than your opponent, so the blitzer is at a disadvantage. Slots in the game is fine. The bigger issue is still the same challenge of there being no incentive to win wars to cycle. And I'm not sure how this deters nuke turrets either. If they get that many more people countering them it's just that many more targets for them to nuke. 15 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Oily Men Posted May 20 Share Posted May 20 8 minutes ago, Tyrion Lannister said: Yeah, this is a really bad change. 3 defensives should always be the minimum. This would be an end to wanting to put together a blitz. You could only get 2 attackers on a target in a blitz and if you go more, you have more defensive slots than your opponent, so the blitzer is at a disadvantage. Slots in the game is fine. The bigger issue is still the same challenge of there being no incentive to win wars to cycle. And I'm not sure how this deters nuke turrets either. If they get that many more people countering them it's just that many more targets for them to nuke. People nuke turret only because there is no other valid strategy to war as a solo player. This only makes it worse. Want the end of nuke turreting? Make an interesting war system, dont just change random values, hoping for the best. Also nuke turrets arent even an issue. Small nations dont get nuked, whales can afford to get nuked. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Hatebi Posted May 20 Popular Post Share Posted May 20 1 hour ago, Alex said: Basically, the goal being to make solo (or small group) play more viable. Obviously, alliances are at the core of gameplay, and the goal here is not to stop that. But, the thinking goes, that making solo (or small group) play more viable will make the game more fun for more people, encourage greater fragmentation of alliances, improve player retention, and overall make the game more fun. I dig the goal here, but this change would do the opposite. Would be a huge nerf to raiding, filling your slots opens you up to getting jumped by like 5 to 7 guys depending on your projects. 1 17 Quote rad Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tuxedo Posted May 20 Share Posted May 20 Yes to this. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pqnos Posted May 20 Share Posted May 20 (edited) There should be projects like Pirate Economy that give you more slots for defensive and offensive. Everyone would have the benefits of this post but seeing 9 low c tiers attacking me as a mid c tier would be hell.Also having 9 nations blockading you I can't imagine that Edited May 20 by pqnos Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Tuxedo Posted May 20 Popular Post Share Posted May 20 30 minutes ago, Hatebi said: I dig the goal here, but this change would do the opposite. Would be a huge nerf to raiding, filling your slots opens you up to getting jumped by like 5 to 7 guys depending on your projects. Raiding being buffed for a long time with the two pirate projects. This might even it out bit. I am for the idea but maybe the number can be adjusted. 5 2 15 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malichy Posted May 20 Share Posted May 20 (edited) While the idea that I can only get hit by two at a time in a blitz is slightly appealing, it also means almost no hope of winning up-declares against whale tiers. You need three coordinated offensives for some of those. Two isn't going to cut it at all for some of those. Also the idea that YOLO attacks, or even infra shaving endeavors, could have have 18 wars at time? That's a hard pass. Edit: But this would have been awesome way back in the day when I was interested in infra shaving to counter raiders. Edited May 20 by Malichy additional comment 5 Quote MofFA United Purple Nations Former Grosskomtur, FA Minister and Spitler (IA) -Teutonic Order. Former Reclusiarch (IA) - UPN. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Kyubnyan Posted May 20 Popular Post Share Posted May 20 17 minutes ago, Tuxedo said: Raiding being buffed for a long time with the two pirate projects. This might even it out bit. I am for the idea but maybe the number can be adjusted. Rose member spotted 20 Quote 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 More sharing options...
Popular Post SleepingNinja Posted May 20 Popular Post Share Posted May 20 Better idea would be to instead of defensive slots to offensive wars have defensive slots unlimited up to double a nations city count. IE : C50 would be subject to being in defensive wars with nations up to 100 cities max, so 3 C33's, 2 C50's, 5 C20's etc. Honestly I thought about this weeks ago too and didn't say anything since I felt my idea here was still stupid but Alex decided he was gonna go full chromo so I'm just putting it out there now as food for thought. 12 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Oily Men Posted May 20 Share Posted May 20 13 minutes ago, SleepingNinja said: Better idea would be to instead of defensive slots to offensive wars have defensive slots unlimited up to double a nations city count. IE : C50 would be subject to being in defensive wars with nations up to 100 cities max, so 3 C33's, 2 C50's, 5 C20's etc. Honestly I thought about this weeks ago too and didn't say anything since I felt my idea here was still stupid but Alex decided he was gonna go full chromo so I'm just putting it out there now as food for thought. Thats more work than they can handle. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shiho Nishizumi Posted May 20 Share Posted May 20 1 hour ago, Hatebi said: I dig the goal here, but this change would do the opposite. Would be a huge nerf to raiding, filling your slots opens you up to getting jumped by like 5 to 7 guys depending on your projects. And theoretical since it's not like it'll happen, but a smaller group trying to declare on a larger one would need to declare more than two offensives per person, thus opening up the third slot and opening them to a counterblitz. I'm not sure why someone who hardly interacts with the game beyond begging for donations and seemingly proposing stuff where the slightest amount of thinking shows that it'd do the opposite of what it intends to do keeps making these adjacent reality proposals. At this point it must be a social experiment of his. 6 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Sketchy Posted May 20 Popular Post Share Posted May 20 2 hours ago, Alex said: Basically, the goal being to make solo (or small group) play more viable. Obviously, alliances are at the core of gameplay, and the goal here is not to stop that. But, the thinking goes, that making solo (or small group) play more viable will make the game more fun for more people, encourage greater fragmentation of alliances, improve player retention, and overall make the game more fun. *Sighs* @Alex This game's entire issue from a design perspective is it can't decide if it wants to be an individual or group game. The reality is the meta over the last 10 years has developed this game into a team sport. We need more interplay and teamwork in the mechanics, not less. A big reason war changes constantly got stalled or band aid patched over the years is because we have two separate games being played out and they have fundamentally different priorities. I would address the specifics of the change, but fundamentally I dislike them, and that's a whole separate rant, and I expect more than a few people will respond to that specifically. I'd rather address the core premise of your post. I think you are attacking this from the wrong angle, and the premise for why you are proposing the changes is inherently detrimental. Also, what is the design team doing right now? Is this a design team proposal or an Alex one? The design team has been doing a bunch of work, and going through various changes and making some progress lately, I feel like it would better if we allowed that to continue and didn't get too many of these surprise meta shifts. 16 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kita Vas Posted May 20 Share Posted May 20 I can see this being the death of piracy, which I know some will be in favor of, however, piracy is what keeps the attention of a large amount of the player base. If a project could be made to off-set the amount of defensives if this goes into affect, I personally could see this working and be a fun way to shake up the game some, but scaled like this would basically end raiding entirely, or it would force raiders to target the micros without prots that this change is attempting to aid, since micros would be the only aas who might not have 5+ people in range to counter at a time. 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hoffy Posted May 20 Share Posted May 20 I get the idea and why it’s trying to be done. But it honestly would be a big nerf to raiding both in peace or war. It doesn’t give any incentive to use your max slots that you have (5-7) because the monetary reward wouldn’t be worth it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Sketchy Posted May 20 Popular Post Share Posted May 20 1 hour ago, Tuxedo said: Raiding being buffed for a long time with the two pirate projects. This might even it out bit. I am for the idea but maybe the number can be adjusted. Goddamn. I truly apologize for rolling House Stark all those months ago. It seems like it may have jolted your brain. 11 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zach Blaze Posted May 20 Share Posted May 20 This would hurt raiders and new players and just boost top alliances even further Raider alliances or players would have to fight fewer wars for less gain or risk the usual 5 raids and hope 5 counters don't come through. It also makes the pirate projects pretty useless besides the 5% bonus and should be changed if this is added Additionally A better idea would be to have member caps (100?) for alliances so member quality and relationships matter far more than just having a lot people which would in turn be allowed to fill all these new war slots coming about I'd consider myself new and this just confuses me as to where the idea came from or how it'd help the game. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Shiho Nishizumi Posted May 20 Popular Post Share Posted May 20 25 minutes ago, Sketchy said: We need more interplay and teamwork in the mechanics, not less. A big reason war changes constantly got stalled or band aid patched over the years is because we have two separate games being played out and they have fundamentally different priorities. Not just from the individual/group angle, but also this whole "Things shouldn't be decided day one, we need to nerf aggression etc". That's a fundamentally bad and misguided idea because it is war and aggression what serves as a vehicle to further drive events and politics. Trying to nerf it is a good way to stagnate things. And whenever some change under the reason listed at the top is done, the usual response by the shotcallers has been to adapt and find ways to accrue advantages. The intent of the change goes down the bin, alongside something else that probably also got (unintentionally) sacrificed along the way. Usually conventional guerrilla, in this case. 10 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sval Posted May 20 Share Posted May 20 I think it'll have the exact opposite effect you hope it will Alex. 1 1 Quote <~Sval[OWR]> I am your father.<+Curufinwe> Can confirm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.