Saru Posted January 14, 2015 Author Share Posted January 14, 2015 Sorry I lost you there. Elaborate for me plz? Particularly the bolded part. Â 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 !@#$. Quote Second in Command of UPN Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Niklaus Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 There is absolutely no reason for alliances to go to war, unless it's guaranteed to be a massive curbstomp. Making the game boring as !@#$.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). 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 Also depends on what you consider it to be proactive. Â Some alliance will consider maneuvering their way out of a conflict as being proactive. Or initiating indirect wars. 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 On deeper thought, incentivizing warring would be a lot better than penalizing peaceful alliance. Any thoughts on this? Â Grillick, Saru? Others? 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 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 its a huge change to make to a live game. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saru Posted January 14, 2015 Author Share Posted January 14, 2015 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 its a huge change to make to a live game. Â Aye. Â 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. Quote Second in Command of UPN Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ashland Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 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 its a huge change to make to a live game. I agree with point sunglasses. 2 Quote ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ [10:47] you used to be the voice of irc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inquisitor Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keegoz Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 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. Â So either Sheepy changes it or this game could last less than a year in my view. Quote [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 More sharing options...
Saru Posted January 14, 2015 Author Share Posted January 14, 2015 Taking over entire cities would of been cool, if the balance was right. Quote Second in Command of UPN Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ashland Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 (edited) 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. Â Â HMMMMmmmmmm. Â Well, nothing seems suspicious about that. Edited January 14, 2015 by Ashland 3 Quote ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ [10:47] you used to be the voice of irc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saru Posted January 14, 2015 Author Share Posted January 14, 2015 (edited) 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. Â So either Sheepy changes it or this game could last less than a year in my view. Â 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. Â In any case, the reset was far too soon. 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 (edited) 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 January 14, 2015 by Diabolos Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Impero Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 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. 6 Quote Lord of the Viridian Entente Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saru Posted January 14, 2015 Author Share Posted January 14, 2015 (edited) 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. Â 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. Â 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 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 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. Â 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. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Niklaus Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 If it ensures longevity of the game, why not make the gamble? Â Reduce the damage for defenders perhaps. To take out some of the immediate sting. Â A system could be worked out tbh Quote Blood of a king. Heart of a lion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saru Posted January 14, 2015 Author Share Posted January 14, 2015 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.) Quote Second in Command of UPN Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aisha Greyjoy 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. 500k of unneeded mil expenses = 40m in 80 days. Quote Duke of House Greyjoy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aphelion Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 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. 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) 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. 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? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Niklaus Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 Idk. The problem you are stating exists in almost every nation sim. All that can be done is minimize it a little. It's gonna stay there. 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 To be honest I'd be all for missiles doing half the damage they do currently. But that solves nothing really. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ashland Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 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 Quote ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ [10:47] you used to be the voice of irc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Niklaus Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 That was in response to saru btw 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 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. Quote 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.