Saru Posted January 14, 2015 Author Share Posted January 14, 2015 (edited) 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. If each nation sim is always based on others, then no !@#$ haha. My point is that the problem is even worse here than in (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) for example. 500k of unneeded mil expenses = 40m in 80 days. That's nothing compared to just 1 round of war where you could suffer from 15mill or so in lost infra, many millions in lost revenue and also keeping in mind the cost of resources -- which are pretty steep aswell... plus the fact that after the war you would be in a tough situation, and find it difficult to rebuild to prewar levels if you didn't set money aside. And that's conservative figures given the stage that we are currently in, when nations reach higher infra the losses will be even more drastic. Edited January 14, 2015 by Saru Quote Second in Command of UPN Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phiney Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 If each nation sim is always based on others, then no !@#$ haha. My point is that the problem is even worse here than in (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) for example. That's nothing compared to just 1 round of war where you could suffer from 15mill or so in lost infra, many millions in lost revenue and also keeping in mind the cost of resources -- which are pretty steep aswell... plus the fact that after the war you would be in a tough situation, and find it difficult to rebuild to prewar levels if you didn't set money aside. And that's conservative figures given the stage that we are currently in, when nations reach higher infra the losses will be even more drastic. 15 mil is an incredibly low ball estimate, more like 35-40 mil. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gregory House Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 (edited) Edited. Edited January 14, 2015 by Gregory House Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ELPINCHAZO 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? 1. that could help but bank transaction are a work around 2. NO. not unless you can fix the multi-issue 3. there needs to be some monetary incentive to war and some disincentive to being beiged 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saru Posted January 14, 2015 Author Share Posted January 14, 2015 1. that could help but bank transaction are a work around 2. NO. not unless you can fix the multi-issue 3. there needs to be some monetary incentive to war and some disincentive to being beiged So much this. Quote Second in Command of UPN Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vonnorman Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 We could always rebalance the power with a little good old fashioned world war. Spread out the alliance loyalties not on treaties but to make it as even as possible on both sides include EVERYONE and go to town Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vonnorman Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 About a week of that and we will all have equally destroyed alliances and nations Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Khestra Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 About a week of that and we will all have equally destroyed alliances and nations Doubtful. As has been shown numerous times, some are simply better than others on the battlefield. Invariably, the most skilled alliances and nations will come out far stronger than the defeated. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ELPINCHAZO 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. Maybe it would be good for Sheepy to address this before the next round of donations. I know he mentioned wishes to monetize this game and draw some type of income from it. So maybe he could speak to his plans for P&W and his projected level of support. This really might help give the community some level of confidence going forward. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vonnorman Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 (edited) Doubtful. As has been shown numerous times, some are simply better than others on the battlefield. Invariably, the most skilled alliances and nations will come out far stronger than the defeated. i know... Edited January 14, 2015 by vonnorman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kappa Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 I think the game allows for situations like DBDC to be resolved. I would think the lack of an aid cap would advocate for this, as long as there is a significant majority of the income made by opposing parties. Also, the war system is far more expensive than it should be. It's unfair that people who actually support/use the war mechanic, at least in the political spheres, are at such a disadvantage to neutral stances... especially when wars are declared for injustices to smaller alliances in the game, or for prevention of the abuse of power, ect, ect... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hirohito Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 Ultimately what is going to determine the longevity of this game is how people take it. If people form guilds solely for the "Lulz" factor, then I think it might detract from the game's more legitimate political and roleplaying aspects. Peole will be hesitant to take it seriously. Quote Grand Moff Hirohito of Dromund Kaas Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magicboyd25 Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 If i remember correctly way back (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) had an advertisement campaign drive that sought to get more nations. I think it brought in like 1k new nations iirc. Could be try to grow the game that way here? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dark Specter Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 (edited) im not worried about this, alliances cant last forever and if GPA remains neutral then at some point their members will slowly leave to change their play style and if they were to just out right become aggressive then this could anger a good portion of their member base possibly causing them to leave, and im sure this applies to any neutral alliance. Edited January 14, 2015 by Dark Specter Quote Amidst the eternal waves of time From a ripple of change shall the storm rise Out of the abyss peer the eyes of a demon Behold the razgriz, its wings of black sheath The demon soars through dark skies Fear and death trail its shadow beneath Until men united weild a hallowed sabre In final reckoning, the beast is slain As the demon sleeps, man turns on man His own blood and madness soon cover the earth From the depths of despair awaken the razgriz Its raven wings ablaze in majestic light Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phiney Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 im not worried about this, alliances cant last forever and if GPA remains neutral then at some point their members will slowly leave to change their play style and if they were to just out right become aggressive then this could anger a good portion of their member base possibly causing them to leave, and im sure this applies to any neutral alliance. Alliances definitely CAN last forever in games like this. For instance this week marks TEsts 8th year in browser games. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dark Specter Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 but thats 8 years across multiple browser games altogether and not 8 years in one game alone, so if test were to disband tomorrow but live on in other games then my point about alliances not lasting forever is true because your alliance will have died here. Quote Amidst the eternal waves of time From a ripple of change shall the storm rise Out of the abyss peer the eyes of a demon Behold the razgriz, its wings of black sheath The demon soars through dark skies Fear and death trail its shadow beneath Until men united weild a hallowed sabre In final reckoning, the beast is slain As the demon sleeps, man turns on man His own blood and madness soon cover the earth From the depths of despair awaken the razgriz Its raven wings ablaze in majestic light Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phiney Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 (edited) but thats 8 years across multiple browser games altogether and not 8 years in one game alone, so if test were to disband tomorrow but live on in other games then my point about alliances not lasting forever is true because your alliance will have died here. Correct, but often games shut down before alliances disband. We have seen many alliances in many different games live the full life of the game, it's not uncommon at all. Edited January 14, 2015 by Phiney Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dark Specter Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 Correct, but often games shut down before alliances disband. We have seen many alliances in many different games live the full life of the game, it's not uncommon at all. This is true Quote Amidst the eternal waves of time From a ripple of change shall the storm rise Out of the abyss peer the eyes of a demon Behold the razgriz, its wings of black sheath The demon soars through dark skies Fear and death trail its shadow beneath Until men united weild a hallowed sabre In final reckoning, the beast is slain As the demon sleeps, man turns on man His own blood and madness soon cover the earth From the depths of despair awaken the razgriz Its raven wings ablaze in majestic light Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Filthy Fifths Posted January 15, 2015 Share Posted January 15, 2015 Assumes GEA has the coordination skills to effectively fight in intra-alliance warfare. Quote "In an honest service there is thin commons, low wages, and hard labor; in this, plenty and satiety, pleasure and ease, liberty and power; and who would not balance creditor on this side, when all the hazard that is run for it, at worst, is only a sour look or two at choking. No, a merry life and a short one, shall be my motto." - Bartholomew "Black Bart" Roberts Green Enforcement Agency will rise again! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoS Posted January 15, 2015 Share Posted January 15, 2015 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). Bold is exactly what I was going to say. Any alliance can claim neutrality; doesn't mean a thing. Other than the fact that conservative play dictates don't make any unnecessary enemies. That's just politics. There was a suggestion to adjust taxes to war/peace that would reduce the conservative gameplay. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dalinar Posted January 15, 2015 Share Posted January 15, 2015 Keep track of max infra, and make rebuying infra a decreased amount (50% or more). Make land easily lootable such that you can get a major profit from warring/lose less in the terms of infra rebuying. 2 Quote I will take responsibility for what I have done, if I must fall, I will rise each time a better man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Princess Bubblegum Posted January 15, 2015 Share Posted January 15, 2015 (edited) I think another alternative is to have something that requires fighting over to benefit from, while simultaneously having the option to not fight over it, but not benefit from it. However, the benefits must be significant enough to outweigh the costs. Significant enough that conservative play/neutrality is the less attractive option from a cost/benefit standpoint. Colors offer too small a bonus at the moment to really fill that requirement. Perhaps, if colors don't want to be changed, some other aspect can be introduced to fill that role. Think of a "king of the hill" bonus. Edited January 15, 2015 by Princess Bubblegum 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ranoik Posted January 15, 2015 Share Posted January 15, 2015 Think of a "king of the hill" bonus. Every unit or infra you destroy gives you a small piece of in-game currency that you can exchange for donations! But if you don't want to wait, you can donate money to get some in-game currency, that you can then turn in for donations. We will call them Orbs. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ashland Posted January 15, 2015 Share Posted January 15, 2015 Every unit or infra you destroy gives you a small piece of in-game currency that you can exchange for donations! But if you don't want to wait, you can donate money to get some in-game currency, that you can then turn in for donations. We will call them Orbs. Ooooo. This is a good !@#$ing idea. You'd have to police arranged wars, though. Is the only problem. I love this idea, though. This is fantastic. Having your stuff destroyed should also give you some, but not as much. 1 Quote ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ [10:47] you used to be the voice of irc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Niklaus Posted January 15, 2015 Share Posted January 15, 2015 Instead of donation money we could have the "orbs" have some other benefit. Something that does not take away or reduce game's source of income. Say, for every 100 orbs, you get 1.5 % increase in revenue? Every victory (through immense triumphs) gives you 10 orbs. Fight 10 wars, get a 1.5% increase in revenue. Fight another 10. Your base income increases by 3%. Fight another 10, it goes to 4.5%, so on. Cap it at 20%. Basically another color bonus, just it'd be affected by war. Also on every defeat, you lose 5 orbs. (unless you are not at 0 already) Thoughts? 1 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.