1/22/2015 - Treasures

[Roger Campbell]

I do think adding a few more bonuses for some will add more competitiveness to them. I mean a bonus is nice for income but i think like suggested before having some uniqueness for a few of them would be nice.

I also reckon it would increase the likelihood of starting larger wars. If they all have the same bonus, then the most logical thing to do would be to attack the weakest. However, if there was only one or two that gave a particular bonus, you'd be compelled to attack that particular person, even if they might be stronger, or backed by a strong alliance.

 

Of course, for that to be feasible, you'd also have to make seizing treasures a serious temptation to alliance leaderships. Any war between the upper tiers would be an alliance war, so it has to be worth their while to authorize an attack.

[Magicboyd25]

I also reckon it would increase the likelihood of starting larger wars. If they all have the same bonus, then the most logical thing to do would be to attack the weakest. However, if there was only one or two that gave a particular bonus, you'd be compelled to attack that particular person, even if they might be stronger, or backed by a strong alliance.

 

Of course, for that to be feasible, you'd also have to make seizing treasures a serious temptation to alliance leaderships. Any war between the upper tiers would be an alliance war, so it has to be worth their while to authorize an attack.

 

Yeah that would go with the politics and war part as there would be a lot of that with these extra bonuses. It would sure add a lot to the game to have these conflicts so honestly i think this might make the politics and war of the game a lot better by increasing the bonus for a select few.

[Dark Specter]

if i log in when i wake up one day to see that a teeasure spawned into my nation follwed by 1-3 people attacking for that treasure and cause me millions in damages then im not gonna waste my time logging back in just to fix the damages knowing that another treasure will spawn in my nation before i even finsih rebuilding followed by being attacked again..... It will just be a waste of my time and wont be worth logging back in.

[naTia]

Requesting a Chest of the Jolly Roger so I can steal it in the name of pirating.

[Ayayay]

Stupid, stupid, stupid

Edited January 22, 2015 by underlordgc

[George Clooney]

This appears also appears to attempt to incentivize people to actually go for a victory rather than sitting back and bombing someone to rubble.  I look forward to see its effect on the game and what tweaks may happen as a result.

Edited January 22, 2015 by George Clooney

[Phiney]

if i log in when i wake up one day to see that a teeasure spawned into my nation follwed by 1-3 people attacking for that treasure and cause me millions in damages then im not gonna waste my time logging back in just to fix the damages knowing that another treasure will spawn in my nation before i even finsih rebuilding followed by being attacked again..... It will just be a waste of my time and wont be worth logging back in.

The theory is they wouldn't be looking to cause you damage, they'd just be looking for 6 ground triumphs, so not as much damage.

[vonnorman]

I sure hope it incentivizes war the politics are worthless withiut war. When theres serious threats of war then there can be serious politics.

[SoS]

The theory is they wouldn't be looking to cause you damage, they'd just be looking for 6 ground triumphs, so not as much damage.

Ya, that's not a lot of damage. It'd be wise to agree to no missiles/aircraft in these situations.

[Magicboyd25]

Ya, that's not a lot of damage. It'd be wise to agree to no missiles/aircraft in these situations.

 

And that is where the politics comes more into play Hence making the reasons for this proposal more vivid.

[Tim Armstrong]

If the goal is to encourage alliance wars the treasures need to have more staying power. Princess Bubblegum's proposal to respawn based on probabilities is a good middle ground and my preference.

 

However, if you are set on having the treasures spawn every 30 days please consider starting the clock when a treasure is taken by a new nation, rather than from when it spawned the last time. 

 

Thanks for everything, Sheepy. 

[Dalinar]

I really like this idea, and agree with the tweaks brought forward by PB and others in the thread.

 

- Add an alliance stacking bonus/incentive

- Longer time or random time between spawns

- Unique bonuses

 

Thoughts on some sort treasure stacking bonuses based on color in addition to alliances (just to throw in another element to the political side of things with color based treaties or something idk)

 

[elsuper]

I love this idea in principle but his line disturbs me "Yes, you can have as many treasures as you can capture at once, but if you are defeated in a war you will lose them all."

 

This means over time one nation will end up with all of the treasures. Every defeat will equal an amalgamation.

One nation can't capture all of the treasures. Its impossible.

 

If there were no respawning, and defeating a nation gave you *all* of their treasures, then the distribution over time would wind up looking something like a tournament bracket, with fewer and fewer nations controlling the pool of treasures (though not limited to those who began with them), until eventually only one nation controlled all the treasures, and anyone who defeated that one nation would then control all the treasures.

 

To elaborate:

 

Imagine 30 nations all with treasures. One nation defeats another and now has 2 treasures. There are now 29 nations with treasures. Another nation with one treasure defeats another one with a treasure, and now has 2. There are now 28 nations with treasures...etc. If a nation without treasure defeats a nation with treasure, the number of nations with treasure stays the same;  however, if a nation that already has treasure defeats another nation that already has treasure, the number of nations with treasures decreases. There is no way to reverse this process under the current setup, except by respawning.

 

I think limiting the number that can be captured from a single target is a better solution to this than having them respawn, though. The bonuses will only provide a war incentive if they're permanent, or at least very long-term (think a year). Another solution would be allowing trade of treasures (I wouldn't mind this).

Edited January 22, 2015 by elsuper

[Impero]

30 days and they go away. This was supposed to help create war, because people will want these things. All these will do is sit in a nation for 30 days, then move someone else unless they're in a micro alliance with no treaties, an inactive, or an unaligned. No one is going risk an alliance war for a couple % bonuses here and there. I'd imagine 1 round of alliance wars will currently total over 100 million in damages at least. So risk that much damage to gain 9% for 30 days? This "feature" does zero towards what it was intended. Even if having 3 of them boosted the alliance revenue 10% it wouldn't be close to worth while.

 

What started as a good idea that actually had me excited to plot some wars to obtain these has now become pointless and worthless.

 

I have to agree with Prefontaine. I cannot see these treasures factoring into any plans I may come up with on an alliance wide or global scale, and honestly I believe the global community will most likely mock any alliance that actually tries to plot a war with these as their goal. It would really be beyond any kind of common sense on a cost/benefit scale. As the idea is currently implimented, it is a complete non-factor and will do absolutely nothing to further the stated goal. Beyond the short term where a few hyperactive kids with a grudge who don't really know how to play the game in the first place use these as an excuse to poke some neutrals in the eye, it's just not going to spur any global movment.

 

That being said, it is actually a good idea in principle, and there are a few things that could be done to salvage it. Alliance wide bonuses and non respawning treasure mainly, if the bonus gained is worth the money spent.

Edited January 22, 2015 by Impero

[last187]

I also reckon it would increase the likelihood of starting larger wars. If they all have the same bonus, then the most logical thing to do would be to attack the weakest. However, if there was only one or two that gave a particular bonus, you'd be compelled to attack that particular person, even if they might be stronger, or backed by a strong alliance.

 

Of course, for that to be feasible, you'd also have to make seizing treasures a serious temptation to alliance leaderships. Any war between the upper tiers would be an alliance war, so it has to be worth their while to authorize an attack.

you are wrong it wont increase the likelyhood mlool you arent gonna start a global war for a 30 day 10% increase on 1 nation mlol

[Hereno]

wow sheepy, you are somehow even whiter than i imagined you'd be

[Spyro]

if i log in when i wake up one day to see that a teeasure spawned into my nation follwed by 1-3 people attacking for that treasure and cause me millions in damages then im not gonna waste my time logging back in just to fix the damages knowing that another treasure will spawn in my nation before i even finsih rebuilding followed by being attacked again..... It will just be a waste of my time and wont be worth logging back in.

 

Agreed, I understand what Sheepys trying to do. Keeping us all active, and maintaining strength to make the game fair. But forcing a nation into a possible war scenerio with these treasures is not the best way to do so.

 

I too will leave the game if I come on here constantly having to rebuild infra and military units because of having people attacking my nation just for a treasure. It really stunts growth if you think about it.

[Impero]

Agreed, I understand what Sheepys trying to do. Keeping us all active, and maintaining strength to make the game fair. But forcing a nation into a possible war scenerio with these treasures is not the best way to do so.

 

I too will leave the game if I come on here constantly having to rebuild infra and military units because of having people attacking my nation just for a treasure. It really stunts growth if you think about it.

 

It's not adding a war seniero, its just another thing that can be taken. Your nation already has things that can be taken, the war seniero in question already exists, this is just a new thing that can be taken as spoils.

 

I think Sheepy is correctly assuming that the vast, vast majority of people aren't so absurdly nonconfrontational that they can't even stomach the thought of defending themselves and will have to literally leave, and would rather have action and intrigue.

Edited January 22, 2015 by Impero

[Spyro]

It's not adding a war seniero, its just another thing that can be taken. Your nation already has things that can be taken, the war seniero in question already exists, this is just a new thing that can be taken as spoils.

 

I think Sheepy is correctly assuming that the vast, vast majority of people aren't so absurdly nonconfrontational that they can't even stomach the thought of defending themselves and will have to literally leave, and would rather have action and intrigue.

 

I didn't say adding a war scenario, I said it would force nations into a war scenario if they have one of these treasures. You know someones going to push the button at one point of time just to get the bonus.

 

I agree with half of your last statement. I have seen some people who I feel are so paranoid about war that their not even willing to take measures to prepare for a possible attack. They rather stop the threat through diplomacy, ignoring that they could be hit at any given moment.

 

At least that's my take.

 

I for one keep my military at a decent sizes in case there is an attack on me. However, if I'm going to be attacked constantly over a treasure, and having to rebuild my units and infra, I might as well not even bother with the game.

[Filthy Fifths]

down with the neutral menace.

[Shavar]

I for one keep my military at a decent sizes in case there is an attack on me. However, if I'm going to be attacked constantly over a treasure, and having to rebuild my units and infra, I might as well not even bother with the game.

 

bye .. and take some of your freinds with ya    

 

 

edit: double post

Edited January 22, 2015 by odannyboy

[Lyrositor]

After a bit of reflection on the subject, I've come to the conclusion that I like the concept but not all of the implementation. Providing incentives for warfare is good: as a neutral, I'm in a good position to see how quickly the gap between neutral nations and non-neutral nations has widened (I think it would have widened even faster had GPA members not been some of the most heavily militarized nations in the game).

 

The way I see it, this solution doesn't punish neutrals, but rewards non-neutrals, which I think is the way to go. Neutrality, as it is, is its own reward, with little in the way of compensation for nations partaking in warfare. By giving out tangible rewards for warfare, the battlefield is levelled somewhat (I'm still not sure it's enough to do away with nearly all top nations being neutral, but it should shorten the gap).

 

What I'm more unsure about is the implementation: right now, I can't tell whether it's good or bad. I think it'd be best to launch it and see what happens. I would add a few preliminary checks, though: very new nations should not be able to receive treasure, as their focus should be on economic growth, not bulking up their defence against the hordes of Orbis (especially since, being new, they might not yet understand the whole treasure meta-game). Beige/grey nations shouldn't be able to receive them either. And as for the treasure respawn... I think it'll be counter-productive, as people will decide it won't be worth the effort to secure the treasure. Maybe it should respawn, but after a longer consecutive period of time spent in the hands of the same nation? Alternatively, make the bonus more significant.

 

Anyway, those are my two cents on the proposal.

 

EDIT: Also, I think there shouldn't be any individual nation boni from the treasures. A treasure, in my opinion, should benefit the whole alliance.

Edited January 22, 2015 by Lyrositor

[Princess Bubblegum]

I think respawning is a necessity. If we go with the probability option, the chance can be tinkered with. 1% is my suggestion, but it could be lowered to 0.5%. If someone is complaining about a 0.5% respawn rate, they're basically thinking that they can hold it for a very long length of time, in which case the treasure has not fulfilled its purpose in facilitating war (and to be transferred between parties). The bonus should be increased instead of making treasures permanent or near-permanent.

 

Having a probability is also preferable to a fixed time limit where it gets reset after trading hands. In the case where it resets upon trading hands, you'll have conspiracies to trade treasures between allies.

Edited January 22, 2015 by Princess Bubblegum

[Adama]

If the point is to increase war, and make it more of a reasonable exercise, then adding at least one alliance impacting treasure that does not respawn would likely do the trick. I think this addresses the balance issue as well, by only having one set piece, and the others following PB's respawn system.

 

http://politicsandwar.com/forums/index.php?/topic/4479-rings-of-power/?p=65785

[Xenodolf]

Cool, addition indeed