Jump to content

Confidence in P&W


Saru
 Share

Recommended Posts

Sorry I lost you there. Elaborate for me plz? Particularly the bolded part.

 

There is absolutely no reason for alliances to go to war, unless it's guaranteed to be a massive curbstomp. Making the game boring as !@#$.

200px-UPN.svg.png

Second in Command of UPN

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is absolutely no reason for alliances to go to war, unless it's guaranteed to be a massive curbstomp. Making the game boring as !@#$.

Oh well that is kinda part and parcel of pol sims. It would not be a problem in a tournament or war edition of the game. Here people have to think long term.

 

Only incentive is some economic gain through war. Has to be substantial, say large loot amounts or some sort of xp system they have in (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways).

Blood of a king. Heart of a lion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is absolutely no reason for alliances to go to war, unless it's guaranteed to be a massive curbstomp. Making the game boring as !@#$.

This is exactly the point I'm making. To fix it you'd need to do something like make a portion of infra stealable, but a change like this will never happen as a) sheepy listens to a majority vote and the majority would never be behind it and B) its a huge change to make to a live game.

T7Vrilp.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is exactly the point I'm making. To fix it you'd need to do something like make a portion of infra stealable, but a change like this will never happen as a) sheepy listens to a majority vote and the majority would never be behind it and B) its a huge change to make to a live game.

 

Aye.

 

I always thought the game was released too early. And am not a fan of drastic changes to stable versions that alter the political climate.

200px-UPN.svg.png

Second in Command of UPN

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is exactly the point I'm making. To fix it you'd need to do something like make a portion of infra stealable, but a change like this will never happen as a) sheepy listens to a majority vote and the majority would never be behind it and B) its a huge change to make to a live game.

I agree with point sunglasses.

  • Upvote 2

aUel2fG.png

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[10:47] you used to be the voice of irc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that maybe land steal, which was brought up on another thread, and plz forgive me for not digging it up, was a good idea. Stealing infra doesn't make sense. I can't steal your buildings, well, i could if i aquire the land too...hmm..anyways, obvious writing off the cuff, but yeah, there should be some point in profitable war, and tech would be a good way of that.Plus spies could be used to steal tech, whiich is as real world as it gets, so it would be welcome to this sim,imho.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pretty sure I called out these flaws when I was around the top nations in Alpha or whatever. The war system generally needed to be scrapped then and it is still around.

 

So either Sheepy changes it or this game could last less than a year in my view.

[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

Saru posts doctored logs that implicate GPA in becoming some sort of domineering superpower and then posts a thread about how PnW is dying and "nations sitting back" are the cause of it.

 

 

HMMMMmmmmmm.  Well, nothing seems suspicious about that.

Edited by Ashland
  • Upvote 3

aUel2fG.png

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[10:47] you used to be the voice of irc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pretty sure I called out these flaws when I was around the top nations in Alpha or whatever. The war system generally needed to be scrapped then and it is still around.

 

So either Sheepy changes it or this game could last less than a year in my view.

 

I think it was clear to any top nations in the last rounds. But I guess a lot of people just didn't have the same perspective.

 

In any case, the reset was far too soon.

Edited by Saru

200px-UPN.svg.png

Second in Command of UPN

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Taking over entire cities would of been cool, if the balance was right.

That would only help what we're trying to stop, i.e nations dominating the game. 

Edited by Diabolos

IpHGyGc.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most of the things mentioned in this thread will have zero bearing on long term viability of the game. It will do fine if its adiquately advertised and spreads well via word of mouth. Personal gripes in regards to politics and whatnot don't really effect things as much as we like to think. All in all I think it will do fine with such an engaged admin.

  • Upvote 6

Lord of the Viridian Entente


imperosig.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most of the things mentioned in this thread will have zero bearing on long term viability of the game. It will do fine if its adiquately advertised and spreads well via word of mouth. Personal gripes in regards to politics and whatnot don't really effect things as much as we like to think. All in all I think it will do fine with such an engaged admin.

 

Again, you lack the perspective of being involved in the previous rounds. Look at the stronghold DBDC hold over (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) -- now imagine that being amplified atleast 20 times.

 

I'm not sure if you read the thread, but we're not alluding to personal gripes. It's the ingame mechanics that are flawed. If you think (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) is bad with it's pre-determined war outcomes, then you will see that P&W will become many times worse -- just because that big nations are way overpowered and can have too much influence on the game.

Edited by Saru

200px-UPN.svg.png

Second in Command of UPN

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again, you lack the perspective of being involved in the previous rounds. Look at the stronghold DBDC hold over (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) -- now imagine that being amplified atleast 20 times.

 

I'm not sure if you read the thread, but we're not alluding to personal gripes. It's the ingame mechanics that are flawed. If you think (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) is bad with it's pre-determined war outcomes, then you will see that P&W will become many times worse.

Difference is we have the important war restriction.

  • Upvote 1

IpHGyGc.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If it ensures longevity of the game, why not make the gamble?

 

Reduce the damage for defenders perhaps. To take out some of the immediate sting.

 

A system could be worked out tbh

 

Just further stops alliances from being proactive and such. (And I am not the warmongering type, but it's an important dynamic to a game like this.)

200px-UPN.svg.png

Second in Command of UPN

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

500k of unneeded mil expenses = 40m in 80 days.

Duke of House Greyjoy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know this is not a suggestion thread but I still think it is relevant to the topic. Here are a few things that I think should be fixed/revised/added in the game mechanics to make P&W more balanced, stable, and dynamic.

  1. Limit market slots/add aid caps. So that the power of aid bombs are reduced (e.g. a max of $10 million per transaction and 3 slots a day)
  2. Remove the up-declare range. This way a 100 man alliance with a 100 avg. score can cause a headache challenge a 10 man alliance with 10,000 avg. score. The 100 avg. score alliance may not deal much damage but the DBDC type alliance will have to deal with the threat of constant war.
  3. As mentioned before, make war more attractive. For instance a national project that can only be created by meeting a casualty level requirement. Heck, make every offensive national project only accessible by a casualty requirement. This way warring nations will get nukes and missiles before non-warring nations.

Thoughts?

aphelion3_zpsonpnqy10.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  1. Limit market slots/add aid caps. So that the power of aid bombs are reduced (e.g. a max of $10 million per transaction and 3 slots a day)

Thoughts?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0cgbZqR2AGI

aUel2fG.png

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[10:47] you used to be the voice of irc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

500k of unneeded mil expenses = 40m in 80 days.

Correct, and that is from a single 1v1 war at the current top of the game. At 2k infra per city its a lot more and if you're In 3 wars its a lot more. That's very destructive for 5 days.

T7Vrilp.png

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.