Filthy Fifths Posted January 15, 2015 Share Posted January 15, 2015 Reduce the cost of war. Easier than implementing more mechanics into the game. 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...
Dwynn Posted January 15, 2015 Share Posted January 15, 2015 (edited) Is it me? Or would this be a perfect time to bring up nation perks? Nations engaging in war gain experience that can be applied to perks. These perks as they're "leveled up" provide greater benefits. Nations winning a war (sending an opponent to beige) get a chunk of experience. Nations losing the war, still get experience, but a lesser chunk. Each level of the perk requires some sort of increase factor, and then can cap out. The perks can affect things like efficiency in government (gov bonuses), efficiency in battle (various perks for various battle bonuses), efficiency in production (various bonuses for production), commerce (etc). Not only does this allow nations to have some form of REASON to war, it can outweigh the costs of the war if in the long-run it benefits the nation. Of course, as with every sort of thing like this, there will have to be some sort of policing to make sure alliances aren't dropping aa, declaring war, beiging their own members, etc. For more details on this suggestion that has been made and discussed multiple times: http://politicsandwar.com/forums/index.php?/topic/2893-nation-perks/ http://politicsandwar.com/forums/index.php?/topic/3033-nation-perks/ Edited January 15, 2015 by Micheal Malone 1 Quote He's right, I'm such a stinker. Play my exceptional game! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phiney Posted January 15, 2015 Share Posted January 15, 2015 Sheepy did say nation perks are on his to do list so this might be a good way to implement them. Good way for smaller folk to catch up too since there is obviously a lot less wars going on up top Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ashland Posted January 15, 2015 Share Posted January 15, 2015 Is it me? Or would this be a perfect time to bring up nation perks? Nations engaging in war gain experience that can be applied to perks. These perks as they're "leveled up" provide greater benefits. Nations winning a war (sending an opponent to beige) get a chunk of experience. Nations losing the war, still get experience, but a lesser chunk. Each level of the perk requires some sort of increase factor, and then can cap out. The perks can affect things like efficiency in government (gov bonuses), efficiency in battle (various perks for various battle bonuses), efficiency in production (various bonuses for production), commerce (etc). Not only does this allow nations to have some form of REASON to war, it can outweigh the costs of the war if in the long-run it benefits the nation. Of course, as with every sort of thing like this, there will have to be some sort of policing to make sure alliances aren't dropping aa, declaring war, beiging their own members, etc. For more details on this suggestion that has been made and discussed multiple times: http://politicsandwar.com/forums/index.php?/topic/2893-nation-perks/ http://politicsandwar.com/forums/index.php?/topic/3033-nation-perks/ It sounds a lot like what Ranoik said, also. Quote ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ [10:47] you used to be the voice of irc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keegoz Posted January 15, 2015 Share Posted January 15, 2015 Well GPA are starting to lose a few nations so perhaps they won't last? 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...
Magicboyd25 Posted January 15, 2015 Share Posted January 15, 2015 Well GPA are starting to lose a few nations so perhaps they won't last? I dont know, GPA love time, as they have a lot of it being neutral. I dont expect them to fail or crumble. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Niklaus Posted January 15, 2015 Share Posted January 15, 2015 They will come back on the right track. Atleast I hope so. We don't want future Orbisians to know about neutrality through wiki history, do we? Quote Blood of a king. Heart of a lion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Memph Posted January 15, 2015 Share Posted January 15, 2015 (edited) One alternative that no-one's brought up is to just make it more expensive to grow for big cities. That means alliances won't benefit as much from sitting out on a war, especially alliances with high avg score, that goes for neutral or just alliances that don't want to be involved in that particular conflict. Alliances that are looking to fight will be able to get a leg up on their opponents (assuming they win) without falling behind as much. Another added benefit is that big cities will have a stronger incentive to provide low interest loans to small cities, or even aid in the case of alliance mates. And it would be pretty simple to implement, it could just mean raising the cost of 10th, 11th, 12th etc cities which no-one has yet, so it would also not retroactively punish anyone. The current system makes it such that alliances are going to be rather reluctant to go to war unless they can drag the whole of orbis to war and are quite confident they can win. Edited January 15, 2015 by Memph Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phiney Posted January 15, 2015 Share Posted January 15, 2015 Its already pretty expensive, if you want to grow infra between cities at the top its still a good 25 days between new cities. Although it could definitely be more tbf Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fox Fire Posted January 15, 2015 Share Posted January 15, 2015 This breed of games is dying in general. Quote _________________________________________________________________ <Jroc> I heard \ is an anagram of cocaine<\> I can't be rearranged into a line, I already am a line. --Foxburo Wiki-- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aisha Greyjoy Posted January 15, 2015 Share Posted January 15, 2015 Getting an enhanced html5 mobile interface that can be packaged as an app on the app stores(android, iphone) and uses the same back-end databases will help the game grow. 1 Quote Duke of House Greyjoy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keegoz Posted January 16, 2015 Share Posted January 16, 2015 This breed of games is dying in general. Not really, it's more of what you do with it. Making it into an app as well as a browser game would probably boost the game a bit, especially if it got popular. 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...
Fox Fire Posted January 16, 2015 Share Posted January 16, 2015 (edited) Getting an enhanced html5 mobile interface that can be packaged as an app on the app stores(android, iphone) and uses the same back-end databases will help the game grow. Except there are apps with the same exact concept that are more visually pleasing. http://www.tap4fun.com/spartan-wars/ http://clashofclansbuilder.com/ Making apps for these games isn't going to expand the community. Didn't work in AH, and I doubt it will do anything here. But who am I to stop Sheepy? Go for it. Just saying, this same idea pops up in every game like this and never goes anywhere. Not really, it's more of what you do with it. Making it into an app as well as a browser game would probably boost the game a bit, especially if it got popular. But it's not going to get popular. That's my point. There are literally a billion other apps with the same exact nation building concept that actually have graphics, visual entertainment and are specifically built to be an app. Plenty of people have PCs, and the game in general is much easier to play on a PC. Do you ever wonder why the player base of these games in general is constantly decreasing? This is why. But hey, make an app. Why not? I'm just pointing out that it's not going to make a noticeable difference if any. Also this: Even if (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) were to "modernize" itself and join the flow of these modern games, it's a bit too late. There are too many choices out there right now. (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) will never be "the one" again. It can however, continue to be "one" of the many. Edited January 16, 2015 by Fox Fire 1 Quote _________________________________________________________________ <Jroc> I heard \ is an anagram of cocaine<\> I can't be rearranged into a line, I already am a line. --Foxburo Wiki-- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rapmanej Posted January 16, 2015 Share Posted January 16, 2015 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. 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. The biggest issue with posts like this is that they fail to grasp at a fundamental level what GPA is. Coming from other worlds that also have a GPA, they are neutral alliances. No matter how big neutral alliances get, they will never have the power to impose their will because they lack political power, and they gather so much animosity by being neutral that any perceived power play would automatically build a large coalition against them. There is no prize for being first place in the alliance rankings. Being the largest alliance in terms of score doesn't matter at all, unless you have the political influence to go along with it. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saru Posted January 16, 2015 Author Share Posted January 16, 2015 (edited) The biggest issue with posts like this is that they fail to grasp at a fundamental level what GPA is. Coming from other worlds that also have a GPA, they are neutral alliances. No matter how big neutral alliances get, they will never have the power to impose their will because they lack political power, and they gather so much animosity by being neutral that any perceived power play would automatically build a large coalition against them. There is no prize for being first place in the alliance rankings. Being the largest alliance in terms of score doesn't matter at all, unless you have the political influence to go along with it. Not to blow my own trumpet, but both Phiney and me have experience of being massive nations. People are underestimating the power big nations actually hold in this game, the fact that you can send out as much money as you want greatly amplifies their importance and influence. To give you an example, when I was #1 in both of the previous rounds, just my single nation was making more money than some alliances out of the top 10. And given that it looks like the upper nations will be dominated by GPA, it's likely these nations all together will pretty much rule the game, and be able to infuence any political outcome that favours them. Assuming that they stick together of course. Anyway the tl;dr of it is that posts like yours lack the perspective of how influential massive nations are in this game. And like I have said before, GPA isn't the sole problem. They are just the most obvious example to use. The problem for me is deeper, in the sense that given how powerful big nations are and how much money can be made by sitting out, it makes the prospect of war even less appealing. In the end we will end up with a political landscape where people are seeking power, but the best course of action is just not to engage or if you do engage make sure that the war is a massive curbstomp. And inaction is rewarded. Edited January 16, 2015 by Saru Quote Second in Command of UPN Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rapmanej Posted January 16, 2015 Share Posted January 16, 2015 Not to blow my own trumpet, but both Phiney and me have experience of being massive nations. People are underestimating the power big nations actually hold in this game, the fact that you can send out as much money as you want greatly amplifies their importance and influence. To give you an example, when I was #1 in both of the previous rounds, just my single nation was making more money than some alliances out of the top 10. And given that it looks like the upper nations will be dominated by GPA, it's likely these nations all together will pretty much rule the game, and be able to infuence any political outcome that favours them. Assuming that they stick together of course. Anyway the tl;dr of it is that posts like yours lack the perspective of how influential massive nations are in this game. And like I have said before, GPA isn't the sole problem. They are just the most obvious example to use. The problem for me is deeper, in the sense that given how powerful big nations are and how much money can be made by sitting out, it makes the prospect of war even less appealing. In the end we will end up with a political landscape where people are seeking power, but the best course of action is just not to engage or if you do engage make sure that the war is a massive curbstomp. And inaction is rewarded. But neutrals don't have any political outcomes that they favor. They are by definition neutral. Any meddling by a neutral alliance would create an instant coalition against them that cannot be ignored. btw, I don't see the unlimited aid lasting. Pixelnations tried this, and this was one of the factors that caused the need for the reset. A happy medium should be found between the absolute bore which is (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways), and the absolute wild west which was PN. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ranoik Posted January 16, 2015 Share Posted January 16, 2015 But neutrals don't have any political outcomes that they favor. They are by definition neutral. Any meddling by a neutral alliance would create an instant coalition against them that cannot be ignored. Yeah, but what Saru is saying that as long as these nations stick together, they produce more money than other top 10 alliances together, and if they direct the aid and flow of that, we can't stop them. As in GPA, if it wanted to, could probably beat the rest of Orbis as long as we can't touch their larger nations or defeat them in combat, because they would send millions and millions downward each day. The larger alliances together may make more money than these nations, but it would be damn near impossible to coordinate on the scale that a small group of ultra-powerful nations can. If GPA wants to is the qualifier of course, but if you take another non-neutral alliance that follows the principles of neutrality (feigned-neutrality), it would only take them perhaps a year to surpass everyone (assuming the normal distribution of global wars) and then they could impose their will on the rest of us. The only way to use missiles being completely honest, or nuclear weapons when they become available, since they are unblock-able damage, but don't think your entire alliance isn't going to get wrecked with the millions they can produce. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ashland Posted January 16, 2015 Share Posted January 16, 2015 (edited) It is true that you really only see wars that are massively one sided. Every war I've seen has been massively one sided. Edited January 16, 2015 by Ashland Quote ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ [10:47] you used to be the voice of irc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Khestra Posted January 16, 2015 Share Posted January 16, 2015 Prior planning from one side and lack of planning on the part of the other has generated that phenomenon. A prepared and capable victim won't make a war nearly so simple for the aggressor. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jroc Posted January 16, 2015 Share Posted January 16, 2015 (edited) Prior planning from one side and lack of planning on the part of the other has generated that phenomenon. A prepared and capable victim won't make a war nearly so simple for the aggressor. But yeah, I agree, when you blitz your enemy with them not knowing its war time then you catch them with their pants down usually. Attack, an alliance that knows what up and its another story. edit: clarification and stuff Edited January 16, 2015 by Jroc 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rapmanej Posted January 17, 2015 Share Posted January 17, 2015 Yeah, but what Saru is saying that as long as these nations stick together, they produce more money than other top 10 alliances together, and if they direct the aid and flow of that, we can't stop them. As in GPA, if it wanted to, could probably beat the rest of Orbis as long as we can't touch their larger nations or defeat them in combat, because they would send millions and millions downward each day. The larger alliances together may make more money than these nations, but it would be damn near impossible to coordinate on the scale that a small group of ultra-powerful nations can. If GPA wants to is the qualifier of course, but if you take another non-neutral alliance that follows the principles of neutrality (feigned-neutrality), it would only take them perhaps a year to surpass everyone (assuming the normal distribution of global wars) and then they could impose their will on the rest of us. The only way to use missiles being completely honest, or nuclear weapons when they become available, since they are unblock-able damage, but don't think your entire alliance isn't going to get wrecked with the millions they can produce. Again, this is why I have added this to game suggestions. The game can easily survive neutrals, however there is no way it can survive unlimited aid. There is a reason why PN tried it and eventually settled for a cap. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WISD0MTREE Posted January 17, 2015 Share Posted January 17, 2015 (edited) 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. Yeah, that is most likely one of the reasons Rummy doesn't care anymore. 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. *cough cough* Bloc *cough* 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? How many stayed? I'm guessing not many. This breed of games is dying in general. Actually, this is pretty true. Before Rummy abandoned Bloc, we were bleeding members. EDIT: We could get two rival communities (4chan and Tumblr) in and hope that some actually stay. Edited January 17, 2015 by WISD0MTREE Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ren Posted January 17, 2015 Share Posted January 17, 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? reddit advertising is dirt cheap. I believe you can target specific subreddits, which would allow Sheepy to direct ads towards his demographic. I found this game through reddit, so I'm sure that there are others who would love it if they knew about it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ELPINCHAZO Posted January 17, 2015 Share Posted January 17, 2015 reddit advertising is dirt cheap. I believe you can target specific subreddits, which would allow Sheepy to direct ads towards his demographic. I found this game through reddit, so I'm sure that there are others who would love it if they knew about it. before doing this,deal with the IP/multi issue or appoint some ingame mods to deal with this or it will just destroy everything. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dwynn Posted January 17, 2015 Share Posted January 17, 2015 before doing this,deal with the IP/multi issue or appoint some ingame mods to deal with this or it will just destroy everything. This. So much this. Again, this is why I have added this to game suggestions. The game can easily survive neutrals, however there is no way it can survive unlimited aid. There is a reason why PN tried it and eventually settled for a cap. I'm curious to think why you believe unlimited aid is such a detrimental factor to the game? To be fair, unlimited aid has been in place since I joined and the game has done nothing but grow. Also, for game of a dying breed, why simply emulate what other games are already doing? Why not think outside the box? Sometimes I forget that people are so ingrained with "(That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) DID THIS SO IT MUST BE RIGHT!" Taking a different approach to things and giving this game a fresh perspective to common problems I think is one of the many reasons why this game will continue to succeed and grow while others continue to bleed members. After all, so many of you familiar faces from Bob are here, so Sheepy has to be doing something right, right? Quote He's right, I'm such a stinker. Play my exceptional game! 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.