Saru Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 So in the last few days I have been talking a lot to UPN'ers about it, and have had quite interesting chats, in regards to their confidence in P&W and how long they believe this game will last. Do you see it ever getting to the size of (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) in it's prime? Or lasting as long as (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) did, with a relatively active userbase? If you had to guess the amount of years that you think P&W will be around, what would it be? Quote Second in Command of UPN Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jodo Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 With the plague of multi's and the mega alliances? 1 year. Tops. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saru Posted January 14, 2015 Author Share Posted January 14, 2015 (edited) With the plague of multi's and the mega alliances? 1 year. Tops. I don't see multi's as being such a massive problem. And don't really see why you believe mega alliances hurt the game -- mega alliances engaged in playing the game would make the game really interesting, but the problem lies deeper. The biggest issue is that war is so damaging for alliances in relation to the others who sit out. My point about GPA nations already being near to invincible due to the game mechanics, and the last war wiping out any sort of upper tier that could compete. The relative advantage gained by people sitting out of war is way too much, and this game will be even worse than (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) with people/alliances being more conservative. Game mechanics just simply don't support the long term picture, or give any incentive for people to act. 1-2 years is what I would give it too. Edited January 14, 2015 by Saru Quote Second in Command of UPN Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clarke Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 I don't think super alliances are a big problem, remove their legs and then make them bleed until their head falls off. Sitting out of the war isn't a big advantage when you stun your growth by keeping huge military forces. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phiney Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 Whilst I don't think its true GPA are currently uncatchable, should there be another big war they sit out of they most definitely will be. War is incredibly damaging in this game. An extra 500k in military upkeep per day doesn't stunt you enough if one war can do 40 mil in damages. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inquisitor Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 this game as the potienal and the community to last a long time. I really believe that. I think that even while we all may drop some bombs on eachother in game, we can enjoy eachother a community outside of the heat the of the game. There are pot holes in the road right now, ofcourse. You may forget, all the big nation sims started with more than a few potholes though. As long as we stand against the cheating pratices of the few, we have the ability to keep the game clean and enjoy this place for years to come. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saru Posted January 14, 2015 Author Share Posted January 14, 2015 this game as the potienal and the community to last a long time. I really believe that. I think that even while we all may drop some bombs on eachother in game, we can enjoy eachother a community outside of the heat the of the game. There are pot holes in the road right now, ofcourse. You may forget, all the big nation sims started with more than a few potholes though. As long as we stand against the cheating pratices of the few, we have the ability to keep the game clean and enjoy this place for years to come. Except the game mechanics are fundamentally flawed, and reward inaction even moreso than in other realms. And that's a worry, given that inaction has been the primary cause of stagnation of those other communities. Quote Second in Command of UPN Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inquisitor Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 i'm pretty amature, so i'll take your word on imbalances and rewards for the inactive. To me, if these are issues, and i'm sure you guys know better than me, due to time investment, experince, etc. But surely these are things we can fix as a community instead of putting a year to live on this place like some lazy doc diagnosing a patient without prime healthcare. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phiney Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 i'm pretty amature, so i'll take your word on imbalances and rewards for the inactive. To me, if these are issues, and i'm sure you guys know better than me, due to time investment, experince, etc. But surely these are things we can fix as a community instead of putting a year to live on this place like some lazy doc diagnosing a patient without prime healthcare. The main issue is war is not rewarded at all at a higher level and can be catastrophically damaging. This would require a large mechancic change to fix and not something I can see ever happening. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Niklaus Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 Add neutrality as an option in-game? Put in added costs to revenues of neutrals, whatever seems fair, in exchange of limiting their ability to fight wars and to be declared upon. Seems like a fair trade. Haven't really though this through. It just popped into my mind. Quote Blood of a king. Heart of a lion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grillick Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 Add neutrality as an option in-game? Put in added costs to revenues of neutrals, whatever seems fair, in exchange of limiting their ability to fight wars and to be declared upon. Seems like a fair trade. Haven't really though this through. It just popped into my mind. This is a terrible idea. Peace Mode is definitely not something that should be added. 1 Quote "It's hard to be a team player when you're omnipotent." - Q Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Niklaus Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 (edited) This is a terrible idea. Peace Mode is definitely not something that should be added. I meant it as an alliance option, not on individual nation level with a time restriction, say 25-30 days to change it and cooldown period of 30 days when the nations would not be able to engage in wars even after the alliance switches to normal. It helps to avoid a special kind of scenario where a neutral alliance violates its neutrality to declare on the world. And that is, if it is implemented without any income cuts. If it is implemented with the income cuts, it also slows the neutrals down. Again, as I said, not a very well thought out idea. Just wanted to lay it out there. Maybe a better solution would come out of it. Edited January 14, 2015 by Niklaus Quote Blood of a king. Heart of a lion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phiney Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 Any kind of peace mode or restrictions is bad because it limits players. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Niklaus Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 (edited) Any kind of peace mode or restrictions is bad because it limits players. What solution would you propose to solve the aforementioned problem of super alliances which don't fight? Either let neutrals grow in peace, as they do now or impose restrictions. I don't have any vested interest in supporting either method. Punishing neutrals for their style of gameplay is kinda harsh but I just did not see any other way to avoid the problem mentioned in this thread except just to learn to live with it. Maybe we should just do that; let it be as they are right now and see where it takes it game, hopefully, towards a brighter future not its end. Edited January 14, 2015 by Niklaus Quote Blood of a king. Heart of a lion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grillick Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 If a neutral alliance violates its neutrality to declare on the world, it's very likely that it'll lose a substantial chunk of it's members while doing so. Those members will have benefitted just as much from the alliance's neutrality as the ones who stay behind, and the inevitable civil war would undoubtedly drag all of them back down to the level of the rest of the game. And that's just if you assume that they will be substantially ahead of the rest of the game. And if they're able to fool the entire community long enough to let them get far enough ahead that they can't be brought down, that's not a failure of game mechanics. Your solution solves a problem that doesn't exist. The only way a neutral alliance could really grow large enough to be unstoppable is by actually being a neutral, no aggressive alliance that is no threat to anyone. And if they're no threat to anyone, who cares if their stays are higher? 3 Quote "It's hard to be a team player when you're omnipotent." - Q Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inquisitor Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 peace mode is covered by beige. it gives the defeated more than enough time to recover, unless an alliance just orgnizinies a zi on em. so i agree, peace mode isn't needed because it already exists. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saru Posted January 14, 2015 Author Share Posted January 14, 2015 The problem isn't limited to just GPA, they are just the most obvious example to use. It goes beyond that -- being an active player in politics just doesn't have any incentives, and being conservative in your decisions is the most logical thing to do in most circumstances. 2 Quote Second in Command of UPN Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Niklaus Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 If a neutral alliance violates its neutrality to declare on the world, it's very likely that it'll lose a substantial chunk of it's members while doing so. Those members will have benefitted just as much from the alliance's neutrality as the ones who stay behind, and the inevitable civil war would undoubtedly drag all of them back down to the level of the rest of the game. And that's just if you assume that they will be substantially ahead of the rest of the game. And if they're able to fool the entire community long enough to let them get far enough ahead that they can't be brought down, that's not a failure of game mechanics. Your solution solves a problem that doesn't exist. The only way a neutral alliance could really grow large enough to be unstoppable is by actually being a neutral, no aggressive alliance that is no threat to anyone. And if they're no threat to anyone, who cares if their stays are higher? A problem was mentioned - neutrals growing to the point of being unchangeable. I proposed a solution that also takes care of the paranoia of some. Not the best solution, I will admit but that's why I am not vehemently supporting it and making an actual suggestion thread about it. Also, if a threat does not exist now, doesn't mean it may not exist in the future. it might or it might not. Civil war or not, a few crazy super tier nations are more than enough to be a huge pain in the neck. Quote Blood of a king. Heart of a lion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Niklaus Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 (edited) The problem isn't limited to just GPA, they are just the most obvious example to use. It goes beyond that -- being an active player in politics just doesn't have any incentives, and being conservative in your decisions is the most logical thing to do in most circumstances. That would be a failure of the treaty web/politicians not of the game. Neutrals have advantage through game. I did not realize GPA was used as an example. I thought they were used as an actual and sole case. I retract my suggestion then. Edited January 14, 2015 by Niklaus Quote Blood of a king. Heart of a lion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grillick Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 Also, if a threat does not exist now, doesn't mean it may not exist in the future. it might or it might not. Civil war or not, a few crazy super tier nations are more than enough to be a huge pain in the neck. How is a few crazy nations being a huge pain in the neck bad for the long-term enjoyment of the game? 1 Quote "It's hard to be a team player when you're omnipotent." - Q Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saru Posted January 14, 2015 Author Share Posted January 14, 2015 That would be a failure of the treaty web/politicians not of the game. Neutrals have advantage through game. There is no distinction -- they are only treated as neutrals, if the community accepts them as neutrals. The point is it's not a failure of the web. It's directly the game mechanics that provide no incentives for people to be proactive, and offer a massive relative advantage to those being conservative/sitting out. Even moreso than in (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways). Quote Second in Command of UPN Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ren Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 Something else to consider is that Sheepy graduates high school soon. He may have ambitions of actively managing the game when he's off to college, but anyone who's been there knows that you barely have time for a proper poo. Responding to hundreds of whiners and requests and game reports every week may not be feasible with all of the homework and kegstands he'll be doing. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saru Posted January 14, 2015 Author Share Posted January 14, 2015 (edited) How is a few crazy nations being a huge pain in the neck bad for the long-term enjoyment of the game? I've been the #1 nation in the last two rounds, and I am sure other people who were high up can testify the amount of power a single nation can hold, when others in relation to you are tiny. A DBDC type scenario would be even more awful for this game -- just because there is no aid caps. The amount of power huge nations will have is vastly amplified. Which just further the problems of people wanting to sit out and do nothing more and more. Edited January 14, 2015 by Saru Quote Second in Command of UPN Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Niklaus Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 How is a few crazy nations being a huge pain in the neck bad for the long-term enjoyment of the game? By using that logic almost any unjust action can be justified. Say I am #1 nation. I have grown as an independent. Promising non-interference in others affairs while they leave me in peace. I choose to change that one day and attack random high tier people Ofcourse I may be eventually rolled by overwhelming force but that kind of enjoyment by others derived would not be result of political game, it'd be sort of enjoyment you get through usual raiding activities. But as I said, I focused only on the example used. The problem was something bigger. So my solution does not work. Quote Blood of a king. Heart of a lion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Niklaus Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 (edited) There is no distinction -- they are only treated as neutrals, if the community accepts them as neutrals. The point is it's not a failure of the web. It's directly the game mechanics that provide no incentives for people to be proactive, and offer a massive relative advantage to those being conservative/sitting out. Even moreso than in (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways). Sorry I lost you there. Elaborate for me plz? Particularly the bolded part. Edited January 14, 2015 by Niklaus Quote Blood of a king. Heart of a lion. 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.