Jump to content

Change to Defensive War Slots


Alex
 Share

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, John M Keynes said:

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

Erm I think there might have been something lost in translation. I meant more like it starts at 3 and could go up logarithmically. In the post I was referring to the linear scaling after 3 offensives = 3 defensives.

Say:

1-3 - 3

4-5 - 4

6-9 - 5

 

Again, don’t like this change conceptually but this would make it less breaking to the war system.

  • Upvote 1

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

This would absolutely destroy inactive raiding. You're beating a dead horse. If you do this, you need to do something to make raiding more profitable.

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It really has no benefits for mid level players. It only benefits the solo players and higher level players. 

Most of the players don't have much city cout. So it would be really disadvantageous for them. The reasons are all talked in other replies. 

The biggest concern is that raiding and blitzing is useless. Just think of blitzing with 2-1 people and raiding 2-3 people because you don't wanna get countered by 4 or 5 people.

How insane are you to think this type of things? Are you alright in the head?🤨

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Outside of what has mostly been said, another negative effect would be that this would put a stop to using slotfills to go on the offensive in the opening round of a losing war. At least with the current system, if you save a few people by decimating their attackers, they get a few days of free reign with conventional warfare before their defensive slots open up again.

6 hours ago, Sketchy said:

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.

This definitely is the main cause of a lot of the issues affecting game balance conversations on here. P&W is like a game with a competitive-casual split or different competitive formats. Attempting to cater to one will at best have unintended effects on the other, or at worst negatively impact other formats. Personally, I don't see the appeal of solo play and find war at its most boring when you aren't interacting much with alliance mates, but that's just me and my own priorities.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Kyubnyan said:

Erm I think there might have been something lost in translation. I meant more like it starts at 3 and could go up logarithmically. In the post I was referring to the linear scaling after 3 offensives = 3 defensives.

Say:

1-3 - 3

4-5 - 4

6-9 - 5

 

Again, don’t like this change conceptually but this would make it less breaking to the war system.

I mean what's the point in this to punish people for buying war projects lmao i personally think the war system is fine as it is with the people being able to declare 5 offensives and getting attacked by a maximum of 3 defensives

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours 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.

While Alex fails to do this, another developing Natsim either has done these or already has the infrastructure in place to easily expand to it. 

 

I've considered PW to be slowly dying for years now, clinging on with it's ability to barely function, no endgame, incredibly boring stale one dimensional complexity at every level, purely because there was no functioning competitor.

I'm not so sure that last bit is true anymore.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This makes no sense. It would be extremely damaging to gameplay and costly to nations overall.

Solve core issues — extend beige timers to allow active nations to militarize between wars, auto-renew colors based on activity (no “hiding in gray” which pulls raider attention to attack), and consider allowing nations to opt into “peace mode” for a period of time that just penalizes their revenue in exchange for avoiding conflict.

Similar to a CyberNations mechanic, that could allow for some choice of play style but isn’t free of consequence so nations can’t just evade war permanently and make excessive revenues. Treat it like VM for example — a nation has to spend a minimum of 7-14 days in the mode, can’t use it again for X-time, and revenue progressive declines by a % per day. 

  • Upvote 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

yoo, 9 defense war slots for what?? You expect a group of solo players to charge 9 raider defensive wars of a major alliance? (very bad idea, they plays solo, not in alliance).  who will fill defensive slots of the raider? random solo player? definitely not players in major alliance.

Edited by Rainforest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is a bad idea and it would definitely kill the game if this change is actually implemented, it would effectively kill off raiding and piracy and put a stop it effective immediate, the only viable thing would be to just be farming which is kinda boring, let's say that you are raiding 5 inactive targets or 5 none alliance member targets, what is stopping people from slotting that person and filling up 5 defensive slots, effectively destroying the gaming experience for those looking to raid and even for people that just created an account and is raiding at C3. I only see this benefitting the larger alliances in the top 5, everybody else would effectively be screwed and dogpilled, also imagine having a beige last for a whole month if you have 9 offensive wars and defensive wars at the same time and losing all 19 wars? If something is not broken, why fix it? Should be 5 offensive war slots and 3 defensive war slots, with the pirate economy and advance pirate economy, 7/3 offensive and defensive slots. What is to stop bigger alliances from bullying smaller alliances who are actually raiding inactives and have 5 inactive raid wars happening, and than you have 5 active players dogpiling on one player. I am totally against this change and i hope it doesn't get implemented or else it would ruin the gaming experience for many of us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Stanko1987 said:

It is a bad idea and it would definitely kill the game if this change is actually implemented, it would effectively kill off raiding and piracy and put a stop it effective immediate, the only viable thing would be to just be farming which is kinda boring, let's say that you are raiding 5 inactive targets or 5 none alliance member targets, what is stopping people from slotting that person and filling up 5 defensive slots, effectively destroying the gaming experience for those looking to raid and even for people that just created an account and is raiding at C3. I only see this benefitting the larger alliances in the top 5, everybody else would effectively be screwed and dogpilled, also imagine having a beige last for a whole month if you have 9 offensive wars and defensive wars at the same time and losing all 19 wars? If something is not broken, why fix it? Should be 5 offensive war slots and 3 defensive war slots, with the pirate economy and advance pirate economy, 7/3 offensive and defensive slots. What is to stop bigger alliances from bullying smaller alliances who are actually raiding inactives and have 5 inactive raid wars happening, and than you have 5 active players dogpiling on one player. I am totally against this change and i hope it doesn't get implemented or else it would ruin the gaming experience for many of us.

It's not even a "top 5 alliance" benefit.

If you're a bigger nation, talking c50+, you will literally never be beaten by updeclares if you just declare 1-2 wars. Literal PnW gods of the upper tier. The rest of the members of any alliance who aren't mega whales would just get !@#$ed as well lol

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dryad made a really good suggestion about this a while back: 

 

The idea is that your defensive war slots is based on cities / score. For example, if defensive war slots = 2x cities then if you have 40 cities 2 c40s can hit you, 4 c20s ect. For the score version, if you have say 10k score, 4 5k score people can hit you. 
 

I think this idea is great because not only does it mean that downdeclares are made fair by the fact they use up more slots, it also makes a numbers advantage less advantageous (its the biggest factor right now) as big alliances with bigger nations (*cough* my own) cant just swamp smaller bands of raiders with 3 massive nations each. 

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, John M Keynes said:

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. 

with 1Bn reward

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Tartarus said:

It's not even a "top 5 alliance" benefit.

If you're a bigger nation, talking c50+, you will literally never be beaten by updeclares if you just declare 1-2 wars. Literal PnW gods of the upper tier. The rest of the members of any alliance who aren't mega whales would just get !@#$ed as well lol

Anecdotal of course, but I'm reminded of when I was updeclaring on two Grumpys back in Brawly. One of them just sat there and couldn't be 0'd because he didn't burn his military on attacks. Meanwhile I ran out of plane buys on first day post blitz.

Imagine now, with the casualty/victory odds changes, alongside the one less defensive slot were this change to go through.
 

1 hour ago, Cino said:

Dryad made a really good suggestion about this a while back: 

 

The idea is that your defensive war slots is based on cities / score. For example, if defensive war slots = 2x cities then if you have 40 cities 2 c40s can hit you, 4 c20s ect. For the score version, if you have say 10k score, 4 5k score people can hit you. 
 

I think this idea is great because not only does it mean that downdeclares are made fair by the fact they use up more slots, it also makes a numbers advantage less advantageous (its the biggest factor right now) as big alliances with bigger nations (*cough* my own) cant just swamp smaller bands of raiders with 3 massive nations each. 

I think that it'd be more of a pain than it is worth, and two times the city count would just circle back to the current issue. It'd only be worth considering at three times the city count.

Edited by Shiho Nishizumi
  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 1
 
G3.gif.d8066d8dc749ad2d0835fe69095fa73b.gif
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, MinesomeMC said:

18 wars isn’t enough I need to overextended by a lot

At this point infinite offensive and defensive war slots.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Cino said:

Dryad made a really good suggestion about this a while back: 

 

The idea is that your defensive war slots is based on cities / score. For example, if defensive war slots = 2x cities then if you have 40 cities 2 c40s can hit you, 4 c20s ect. For the score version, if you have say 10k score, 4 5k score people can hit you. 
 

I think this idea is great because not only does it mean that downdeclares are made fair by the fact they use up more slots, it also makes a numbers advantage less advantageous (its the biggest factor right now) as big alliances with bigger nations (*cough* my own) cant just swamp smaller bands of raiders with 3 massive nations each. 

I would like a war range to be limited by city count and not score:

 

C30 can declare/be declared on by a C30 +/- X

X can whatever variable or equation works, but I think it would help with a lot of the issues regarding blitzes and getting hit by 3 whales. And because it reduces downdeclare, then the 2 defensive war slots idea could be viable.

 

Another idea I was thinking about is regarding beige. Here's a not-well thought out idea:

Defender always gets beige. Beige time = war length. Theoretically (I actually have a life and didn't spend 6 hours to code an Xcel sheet to run sims for this), this would reduce viability of sitting on someone and would encourage you to win a war asap to reduce enemy beige time. Would also give more time to rebuild for ppl who get zeroed and sat on for 5 days. 

 

 

Just bombed a quiz on Renal Patho-phys, so their are prob a lot of holes in these ideas, please feel free to downvote and mention @Krampus to annoy him about his dumb members.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/20/2024 at 12:22 PM, Alex said:

snip

I think this was a potentially good idea but the execution you proposed sounds like it would create new issues worse than problems it solved.

  • Upvote 2
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.