Change to Defensive War Slots

[KindaEpicMoah]

I'm sure there is some way to make this work, but it would require many additional fundamental changes to how war mechanics work and there's likely a more intuitive approach that makes individual play stronger while also not rewarding people who don't declare wars. 

[Sketchy]

13 minutes ago, Shiho Nishizumi said:

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.

Yes, and he called it a small change.

Which like....bruh

100 ideas for retention improvement and we go with this.

How about inbuilt game loans? So larger nations can invest in smaller ones with automatic transfers and less risk.

Private corporations, run by players, so they can make their news and banking and merc and gambling etc companies.

Or better onboarding with alliance tags etc so new players can find better fits for themselves alliance wise.

[Velyni Vas]

7 minutes ago, Sketchy said:

Yes, and he called it a small change.

Which like....bruh

100 ideas for retention improvement and we go with this.

How about inbuilt game loans? So larger nations can invest in smaller ones with automatic transfers and less risk.

Private corporations, run by players, so they can make their news and banking and merc and gambling etc companies.

Or better onboarding with alliance tags etc so new players can find better fits for themselves alliance wise.

These are solid ideas.

[Kastor]

I don’t think the 2 slot idea is bad, I just think the cap should be 3 or 4. Blitzers already have an advantage, this would make wars more dynamic, but you just need a cap at 3 or 4. I think it should be 3. But I think 2 defensives would be a good change, wars should be harder and closer, and allow for coordination to win over mass numbers. 

Also yes, Alliance Tags are so needed. 

[Changeup]

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.

Is this meant to be a response to Sam's post?

On 5/13/2024 at 2:09 PM, Sam Cooper said:

The Solution
Give the power back to the individual. A c30 should have a fair chance at any other ~c30 in the game, a group of 10 should be able to take on a group of ~10 around same tiering even if they happen to be part of the largest alliance or the largest bloc. Curb the extremely unreasonable incentive to be in a 200 man alliance.

Because if so, it accomplishes the exact opposite. This further encourages the consolidation of power in a handful of 200-man alliances, by ensuring that any small KT-esque group trying to suicide into a larger alliance will be unable to do anything without a significant numerical advantage to compensate for the increased vulnerability to counter-attacks.

[Kihansi Haley]

It seems more ideal for this:

Minimum of 2 slots

Maximum of 4 slots

0 - 2

1 - 2

2 - 2

3 - 2

4 - 3

5 - 3

6 - 4

7 - 4

8 - 4

9 - 4

Perhaps 1-3 (Min-Max) is the best way to go. We want to prevent people with no wars from being dogpiled, but we don't want to dis-incentivize war and dog-pile raiders. This seems to just be reversing the dogpile from the defender to the attacker.

[MrBeast6000]

3 hours 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 )

 

Edited May 20, 2024 by darkblade

[Shiho Nishizumi]

10 minutes ago, Sketchy said:

Yes, and he called it a small change.

Which like....bruh

100 ideas for retention improvement and we go with this.

How about inbuilt game loans? So larger nations can invest in smaller ones with automatic transfers and less risk.

Private corporations, run by players, so they can make their news and banking and merc and gambling etc companies.

Or better onboarding with alliance tags etc so new players can find better fits for themselves alliance wise.

On the loans thing, an automatic transfer of resources (or cash) between nations done every turn/day change seems like it'd be a pretty neat idea as a way of promoting cooperation. An in-game mechanic for people to sell/buy to/from the alliance bank itself would also be an intriguing and potentially useful one.

I'd quip about not being able to import templates to specific cities, but I think that I saw Putmir say something in RON about that being a WIP, so I'll leave that one out.

There are dozens of ways by which day-to-day interactions could be improved to aid in retention. Messing with the war system has hardly if ever helped based on precedent.

[Kihansi Haley]

31 minutes ago, Shiho Nishizumi said:

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.

I think you're mistaken by grouping "nerf aggression" and "things shouldn't be decided day one". There is a real need to make wars last longer and to give defending nations a fighting chance. Albeit, Alex is effectively doing the same thing here, and this change is just going to make it so raiders and blitzers can get dogpiled whilst farmers can just sit back and pick off a few raiders with the help of their friends. It's going to make having large blocs and large alliance even more essential to being powerful in wars.

[Epic]

@AlexMaybe consider hosting a tournament on the test server for this idea

[Sam Cooper]

Very expectedly being mass downvoted, surely we can come up with better solutions 😛
This again creates more problems than it solves (and it barely solves any in the first place).

I still appreciate the intent and I also appreciate that people disagree with solution proposed not the problem it aims to address.

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. 

Then how come you are not in Arrgh to enjoy the buffs? Apply today!

1 hour ago, Sketchy said:

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.

That is the reality yes, but this reality has given us MDP between 2 largest spheres and 6 month NAPs so can we not try to experiment a little for a reality where it may be possible for individuals to survive in a team based game?

Edited May 20, 2024 by Sam Cooper

[MrBeast6000]

3 hours 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 )

To sum up what I know will happen if this change goes through.

1. Raiding will die. Anyone with a brain will know why.

2. We will have a lot less wars outside of dogpiles. Because this change will force alliances to dogpile or take their chances on the chaos that is this proposal (assuming this gets implemented).

3. Half of the people who do milcom will step down immediately. Because how do you manage a alliance war when you constantly have to counter counters or watch members get rolled because you can't spare members without getting into 3+ defensive slots.

Edited May 20, 2024 by darkblade

[Sketchy]

9 minutes ago, Sam Cooper said:

 

That is the reality yes, but this reality has given us MDP between 2 largest spheres and 6 month NAPs so can we not try to experiment a little for a reality where it may be possible for individuals to survive in a team based game?

If the last 8 years of game development is anything to go by, no. It always comes back to this whenever war changes come up.

The only solution to the raiding vs fighting mechanics issue would be to completely divorce the two mechanics. Raiding should be a seperate mechanic from fighting.

Many of the issues are simply baked into the foundation of the games core mechanics.

[Shiho Nishizumi]

18 minutes ago, Kihansi Haley said:

I think you're mistaken by grouping "nerf aggression" and "things shouldn't be decided day one". There is a real need to make wars last longer and to give defending nations a fighting chance. Albeit, Alex is effectively doing the same thing here, and this change is just going to make it so raiders and blitzers can get dogpiled whilst farmers can just sit back and pick off a few raiders with the help of their friends. It's going to make having large blocs and large alliance even more essential to being powerful in wars.

They're one and the same thing. Blitzes are what they are because they can quickly secure a war. Trying to nerf the potency of blitzes, usually by making them grindier in some way or the other, is inherently nerfing aggression because it's diluting the effect of blitzes.

Wars are often waged for a reason, and that reason has to outweigh the risks and costs involved (nothing to say of being viable). Diminishing the returns or increasing risks by design make aggression less worthwhile. It's not complicated.

All of the changes that come to mind (Mid 2020 balance change, change to casualties and victory odds, etc) which were implemented to try and curtail this have failed at doing what they intended to do, while also bringing downsides. The former specifically but both in general have gutted conventional guerrilla, while the victory odds chances nerf has simply made it more RNG beholden which is never pleasant.

This design intent is flawed simply because it runs counter to the people actually playing (and more specifically shotcalling) the game, who have the means (and incentive) to basically nullify the intent of the changes by further hedging bets to ensure that they win. Alex's consistently gone up against human nature, and the track record of his changes don't avail him.

[John M Keynes]

2 hours ago, Kyubnyan said:

Maybe a more logarithmic increase to defensive slots? Scaling linearly after 3 seems a bit excessive.

Would be nice to see a logarithmic increase on defensive wars getting proposed and tested out on the Test Server. This could work if you scale it based on how much offensive wars you have while also a cap of 3 after accounting for the Pirate Economy and Advanced Pirate Economy projects.  

For example, I was thinking the following: 

• 0 off war, 1 def war
• 1 off war, 1 def war
• 2 off wars, 2 def war
• 3 off wars, 2 def wars
• 4 off wars, 2 def wars
• 5 off wars, 3 def wars 
• 6 off wars, 3 def wars 
• 7 off wars, 3 def wars

This would be close to what the current war mechanics are, but defensive wars will be more manageable the more offensive wars you declare. It will also prevent raiders from being completely crushed by counters if 6 or 7 offensive wars are declared. Having defensive scaled linearly with offensive wars declared would bring the opposite outcome towards achieving a more balanced gamewide war system. 

[Kyubnyan]

12 minutes ago, John M Keynes said:

Would be nice to see a logarithmic increase on defensive wars getting proposed and tested out on the Test Server. This could work if you scale it based on how much offensive wars you have while also a cap of 3 after accounting for the Pirate Economy and Advanced Pirate Economy projects.  

For example, I was thinking the following: 

• 0 off war, 1 def war
• 1 off war, 1 def war
• 2 off wars, 2 def war
• 3 off wars, 2 def wars
• 4 off wars, 2 def wars
• 5 off wars, 3 def wars 
• 6 off wars, 3 def wars 
• 7 off wars, 3 def wars

This would be close to what the current war mechanics are, but defensive wars will be more manageable the more offensive wars you declare. It will also prevent raiders from being completely crushed by counters if 6 or 7 offensive wars are declared. Having defensive scaled linearly with offensive wars declared would bring the opposite outcome towards achieving a more balanced gamewide war system. 

Truth be told I don’t like the idea of this change at all. Was just making a suggestion within the lines of what is being proposed. Minimum of 2 defensives is already unbalanced imo and making it one would legitimately kill the game. 
 

Edit: idea to make this one marginally better was start at 3 and maybe open up more after like 5. But that also punishes raiders which I don’t really like.

Edited May 20, 2024 by Kyubnyan

[Ayayay]

Make it one defensive war per two offensive wars then make it unlimited offensive wars. Let a 2nd fraggle be born and turn the entire game to nuclear ash after 3 years of nuclear stockpiling

[MBaku]

I love it, it should just scale up infinitely so I can war the entire game, farm 300 days of beige and then go mega whale with 5k infra 

[John M Keynes]

22 minutes ago, Kyubnyan said:

Truth be told I don’t like the idea of this change at all. Was just making a suggestion within the lines of what is being proposed. Minimum of 2 defensives is already unbalanced imo and making it one would legitimately kill the game. 
 

Edit: idea to make this one marginally better was start at 3 and maybe open up more after like 5. But that also punishes raiders which I don’t really like.

That is what a logarithmic setup scale would look like if proposed while having the cap at a maximum of 3 defensive wars.

Edited May 20, 2024 by John M Keynes

[MasterChief]

Should also make it so resources can get raided also in ground battles, not just money. 

[Panky]

Pirates about to have 18 wars every day, it's kind of funny how the proposed change is so bad that even farmers are generally acknowledging that its a horrible idea that kills raiding... and with that game activity and war dynamics.

Edited May 20, 2024 by Panky

[SleepingNinja]

59 minutes ago, John M Keynes said:

Would be nice to see a logarithmic increase on defensive wars getting proposed and tested out on the Test Server. This could work if you scale it based on how much offensive wars you have while also a cap of 3 after accounting for the Pirate Economy and Advanced Pirate Economy projects.  

For example, I was thinking the following: 

• 0 off war, 1 def war
• 1 off war, 1 def war
• 2 off wars, 2 def war
• 3 off wars, 2 def wars
• 4 off wars, 2 def wars
• 5 off wars, 3 def wars 
• 6 off wars, 3 def wars 
• 7 off wars, 3 def wars

This would be close to what the current war mechanics are, but defensive wars will be more manageable the more offensive wars you declare. It will also prevent raiders from being completely crushed by counters if 6 or 7 offensive wars are declared. Having defensive scaled linearly with offensive wars declared would bring the opposite outcome towards achieving a more balanced gamewide war system. 

This actually will end up becoming a whole new problem, while I want to like the idea I can just imagine how globals will start to go in the future where it'll be 100% dogpiles with one side having a majority of whales and the other getting slapped by the majority of whales, otherwise nobody will start wars and the game will become all backroom politics and complaining about the said dogpiles that do end up emerging when a war does happen. It would have to be a minimum of 2 slots to prevent this.

[Talus]

If you do this, let us refund the now double edged sword projects that increase offensive war slots.

[Kohai Ky]

might as well remove war all together because this is gonna be farming simulator

[John M Keynes]

25 minutes ago, SleepingNinja said:

This actually will end up becoming a whole new problem, while I want to like the idea I can just imagine how globals will start to go in the future where it'll be 100% dogpiles with one side having a majority of whales and the other getting slapped by the majority of whales, otherwise nobody will start wars and the game will become all backroom politics and complaining about the said dogpiles that do end up emerging when a war does happen. It would have to be a minimum of 2 slots to prevent this.

Exactly, which is why I presented this to point out that a logarithmic change to offensives and defensives would still be a terrible proposal.