Jump to content

1/22/2015 - Treasures


Alex
 Share

Recommended Posts

I believe that the number of tiered (non-unique, team/continent-locked) treasures should go up and down depending on how many nations there are in the game, if you want to keep Treasures relevant as the game grows. Once there are enough nations, it won't be worth for alliances to go after them because they can just recruit nations without Treasures and out-grow without having Treasure bonuses.

3tOmgwx.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe there would be more incentive to go after these treasures if the bonuses were high and affected not just the individual nation who obtained them, but the alliance as well?  There could be an individual bonus for the person who holds the treasure and a minor bonus that affects the alliance they are in?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe there would be more incentive to go after these treasures if the bonuses were high and affected not just the individual nation who obtained them, but the alliance as well?  There could be an individual bonus for the person who holds the treasure and a minor bonus that affects the alliance they are in?

 

I agree i think these bonuses should be larger in order to cause major conflicts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Holy !@#$ Sheepy, your voice is sexy as hell.

 

Also, yay for features!

Yes. Yes he does. His face is pretty dreamy too @_@

 

Game over guys. Pack it up.

 

RIGGED. 

On a more serious note. On the Treasures Leaderboard it would be helpful if you added a <td> with the description of what the treasure does for those on mobile since currently the only way to get info is by hovering the image for the title info.

I agree. Could we also have something on the side that shows which color/continent/alliance currently holds the most treasures? Purely for shots and giggles. 

 

I approve. I will begin purging nations of treasures shortly.

You won't. 

 

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

I second this and fully support any pirating Nao does to get this Chest. 

  • Upvote 1

yVHTSLQ.png

(TEst lives on but I'm in BK stronk now and too lazy to change the image)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How can treasures be real if our nations aren't real?

  • Upvote 2

YkvbNCA.jpg

You're no longer protecting the II? We have still teamed with II and TAC (and others) to rival The Covenants. This is getting complex.

#FA_Problems

Big problems for TSG. Really, not kidding.

If Casey and Cyradis are King and Queen does that mean they're married?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I seem to be the odd one out, save for here and there.

 

(1) This was implemented faster than anything else I have yet seen in my time with P&W. This was suggested less than 24 hours ago, giving the community little time to respond.

 

(2) This is by no means helping the "neutral" problem. This is just promoting opportunistic aggression.

 

(3) I like Politics & War because I find it comparable to real life. I have heard multiple users refer to P&W as a political simulator and not a game, and this implementation weens us from where we used to be - a general consensus that P&W is great.

 

I say no to much of anything that could drastically change outlook.

Edited by TsarNicholasII

His Imperial Majesty, Tsar Nicholas II

The Emperor and Autocrat of All the Russias

politicsandwar.com/nation/id=4918

ehhEjM9.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators

You mentioned them spawning randomly every 30 days, does this mean they're removed from their current holders, or new duplicates appear?

 

Another question, what if a player is in possession of a colour or continent specific treasure and they change colours or continents, do they keep or lose the treasure they hold?

 

I also noticed that the treasures are not present in their assumed continents, is this a glitch or have those nations changed continents?

 

Examples:

 

El Dorado - Jugoslavija - Europe (Should be South America)

Rosetta Stone - Exodas - South America (Should be Africa)

Honjo Masamune - Malonia - Africa (Should be Asia)

 

Also, same for colours:

 

Examples:

 

Smoky Quartz - Resvernas - Beige (Should be Brown)

Tourmaline - Ennatria - Yellow (Should be Pink)

Ruby - Imperial Soviet Union - Green (Should be Red)

Emerald - Yuktobanian Republics - Yellow (Should be Green)

 

The treasures are only restricted in where they spawn, not who owns them. You can be on any color and continent and win any treasure, but for example the Honjo Masamune will only spawn in Asian nations.

 

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.

 

No, the treasures respawn over time in new nations, so this is impossible.

 

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 agree, that the current listed bonuses may not be enough incentive to create the types of alliance wars we're looking for. I really like the alliance suggestion, however, and I think that having 3 treasures give you a 10% gross income bonus to everyone in the entire alliance is going to be huge. Imagine if you got 6 treasures, that would double the bonus to 20%. If your rival alliance has a 20% gross income bonus, you're either going to have to fight them for their treasures, or you're going to watch them outgrow you.

 

Good stuff. Thanks Sheepy :)

 

Is there an easy way to find who has them?

 

Yes, there's a leaderboards page listing the treasures. See: https://politicsandwar.com/leaderboards/display=treasures

 

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.

 

To win a war, you just need ground battles. These don't do that much damage. The next fact of the matter is that there's 30 treasures and over 2,000 nations. The odds are a 0.05% chance (1/2000) of you being the one who receives a treasure every day. You state in your post that you think you'll get one on day, lose a bunch of infra after being attacked, and then the next day the same thing will happen. This is entirely an incorrect misconception.

Is there a bug? Report It | Not understanding game mechanics? Ask About It | Got a good idea? Suggest It

Forums Rules | Game Link

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators

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.

 

Again, as I pointed out in my last point, the odds of a nation receiving one of the treasures is astronomically small. 0.05% chance.

 

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.

 

It is an award to aggression, and it is already limited based on nation score and beiges/greys aren't eligible to receive them. 

 

I believe that the number of tiered (non-unique, team/continent-locked) treasures should go up and down depending on how many nations there are in the game, if you want to keep Treasures relevant as the game grows. Once there are enough nations, it won't be worth for alliances to go after them because they can just recruit nations without Treasures and out-grow without having Treasure bonuses.

 

The infrastructure for this system is set so that I can add more treasures very easily. I would fully expect to intermittently add more as time goes on.

 

So basically RNG decides If I lose of bunch of Infrastructure? I would just let them beige me ASAP.

 

Would you not defend yourself from attackers? If you have a strong military, very few nations are going to want to attack you for (even a 9%) income bonus. 

Is there a bug? Report It | Not understanding game mechanics? Ask About It | Got a good idea? Suggest It

Forums Rules | Game Link

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To win a war, you just need ground battles. These don't do that much damage. The next fact of the matter is that there's 30 treasures and over 2,000 nations. The odds are a 0.05% chance (1/2000) of you being the one who receives a treasure every day. You state in your post that you think you'll get one on day, lose a bunch of infra after being attacked, and then the next day the same thing will happen. This is entirely an incorrect misconception.

if 1-3 people attack me while im sleeping because of my nation having a treasure then my military will have been wiped out and i wont be able to replace them fast enough to get the upper hand due to the military purchases being limited to the improvements so i would have already lost the war along with the trophy. Depending on how much damage they do and if i happen to get on to delay myself getting beige then i will end up recieving more damage that could cost me millions that could take close to a month or longer to replace. I am completely against the idea of being forced to fight or being forced to prepare to fight because a trophy decided to magically appear in my nation.

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

if 1-3 people attack me while im sleeping because of my nation having a treasure then my military will have been wiped out and i wont be able to replace them fast enough to get the upper hand due to the military purchases being limited to the improvements so i would have already lost the war along with the trophy. Depending on how much damage they do and if i happen to get on to delay myself getting beige then i will end up recieving more damage that could cost me millions that could take close to a month or longer to replace. I am completely against the idea of being forced to fight or being forced to prepare to fight because a trophy decided to magically appear in my nation.

Your alliance should immediately react and begin defensive maneuvers. 

  • Upvote 3

yVHTSLQ.png

(TEst lives on but I'm in BK stronk now and too lazy to change the image)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tier 1 - 3 Treasures

There are 3 treasures that offer a 9% gross income bonus.

 

Tier 2 - 5 Treasures

There are 5 treasures that offer a 6% gross income bonus.

 

Tier 3 - 6 Treasures

There are 6 treasures that offer a 3% gross income bonus.

 

Sheepy how about adding a minor alliance bonus to the treasures, but have the regular bonus for the individual nation.   The alliance bonus is not added to the nation who holds the treasure. 

 

For example:

 

Tier 1 - 3 Treasures

There are 3 treasures that offer a 9% gross income bonus to the nation that holds it and a 3% income bonus to their alliance.

 

Tier 2 - 5 Treasures

There are 5 treasures that offer a 6% gross income bonus to the nation that holds it and a 2% income bonus to their alliance.

 

Tier 3 - 6 Treasures

There are 6 treasures that offer a 3% gross income bonus to the nation that holds it and a 1% income bonus to their alliance.

Edited by LadyHawke
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators

Sheepy how about adding a minor alliance bonus to the treasures, but have the regular bonus for the individual nation.   The alliance bonus is not added to the nation who holds the treasure. 

 

For example:

 

Tier 1 - 3 Treasures

There are 3 treasures that offer a 9% gross income bonus to the nation that holds it and a 3% income bonus to their alliance.

 

Tier 2 - 5 Treasures

There are 5 treasures that offer a 6% gross income bonus to the nation that holds it and a 2% income bonus to their alliance.

 

Tier 3 - 6 Treasures

There are 6 treasures that offer a 3% gross income bonus to the nation that holds it and a 1% income bonus to their alliance.

 

I actually like this idea, though I'd suggest even higher alliance bonuses. Maybe Tier 1 is 15%, Tier 2 is 10%, and Tier 3 is 5%, and to expand on it even a bit further:

 

If you're alliance's HQ is in, for example, Europe, and someone in your alliance gets the Mona Lisa treasure, your alliance gets a 5% bonus. You only get it if you control the treasure for your continent, though. Same thing could go for colors, which would be fun to see alliances on the same color politicking or even fighting to see who gets the treasure for that color.

  • Upvote 1

Is there a bug? Report It | Not understanding game mechanics? Ask About It | Got a good idea? Suggest It

Forums Rules | Game Link

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally I foresee an alliance wide increase as high as 15% being a bit high and favoring of strong AA's that will only get stronger. I would scale it back to a small amount even if it is restricted to color and continent.

Resident DJ @ Club Orbis

Founder of The Warehouse

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Higher the bonus the better, means it will be fought over

This man says it right here.

 

As has been said time and again. War at the upper levels is expensive. If the whole purpose of this project is to incentivize war, it needs to have some hefty pull to make it worth the cost of actually waging the war.

duskhornexceptional.png.d9e24adf7f0945530780eee694428f27.png

 

He's right, I'm such a stinker. Play my exceptional game!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again, as I pointed out in my last point, the odds of a nation receiving one of the treasures is astronomically small. 0.05% chance.

 

Understood, I still do not like the possibility of being forced to have something that might pose a threat to my nation.

 

Especially if I have paid $30 or close to $30 for a month or even more, to help build my Nation up, if I'm spending money on a game to help grow my nation, and choose to be neutral to maintain the growth of my Nation, and to enjoy the game in my own way, wouldn't you think it'd be kind of nasty for the game creator to pretty much ruin that by setting up a system that could pose a threat to such gameplay?

 

Let's be honest, this update is meant to tackle the issue of neutrality. (Thats made pretty clear.) However, it should be the players who choose whether to be aggressive or not. Users in P&W are free to start wars on alliances or nations who are neutral, no ones stopping them, they just choose not to. So I do not see what the issue is. We shouldn't be practically forced into a situation if we normally wouldn't do it.

 

To sum my concern up. If I'm a paying consumer, which I have paid in the past, and probably will pay more in the future as long as I'm here, then my nation's safety shouldn't be placed at risk with an update (something that wasn't added to the game when I first started) just because I choose to be neutral and not engage in war. There's many of other alliances and nations who enjoy a confrontation, allow them to battle it out if they choose.

 

However, it is your game to begin with Sheepy, so it's yours to do whatever you wish with it. If this update is implanted I will stick around to test it out and see if I like it or not. If I don't then theres always the option of leaving.

 

Thanks! <3 :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Understood, I still do not like the possibility of being forced to have something that might pose a threat to my nation.

 

Especially if I have paid $30 or close to $30 for a month or even more, to help build my Nation up, if I'm spending money on a game to help grow my nation, and choose to be neutral to maintain the growth of my Nation, and to enjoy the game in my own way, wouldn't you think it'd be kind of nasty for the game creator to pretty much ruin that by setting up a system that could pose a threat to such gameplay?

 

Let's be honest, this update is meant to tackle the issue of neutrality. (Thats made pretty clear.) However, it should be the players who choose whether to be aggressive or not. Users in P&W are free to start wars on alliances or nations who are neutral, no ones stopping them, they just choose not to. So I do not see what the issue is. We shouldn't be practically forced into a situation if we normally wouldn't do it.

 

To sum my concern up. If I'm a paying consumer, which I have paid in the past, and probably will pay more in the future as long as I'm here, then my nation's safety shouldn't be placed at risk with an update (something that wasn't added to the game when I first started) just because I choose to be neutral and not engage in war. There's many of other alliances and nations who enjoy a confrontation, allow them to battle it out if they choose.

 

However, it is your game to begin with Sheepy, so it's yours to do whatever you wish with it. If this update is implanted I will stick around to test it out and see if I like it or not. If I don't then theres always the option of leaving.

 

Thanks! <3 :)

1) Donations do not guarantee you anything... Sheepy has said this time and again. You donate because you want to support the game and the developer. It in no way entitles you to anything other than the rewards you're already given. You're not a customer, if you were it would be a subscription, and not a donation.

 

2) Your nation is already at risk.

duskhornexceptional.png.d9e24adf7f0945530780eee694428f27.png

 

He's right, I'm such a stinker. Play my exceptional game!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Understood, I still do not like the possibility of being forced to have something that might pose a threat to my nation.

 

Especially if I have paid $30 or close to $30 for a month or even more, to help build my Nation up, if I'm spending money on a game to help grow my nation, and choose to be neutral to maintain the growth of my Nation, and to enjoy the game in my own way, wouldn't you think it'd be kind of nasty for the game creator to pretty much ruin that by setting up a system that could pose a threat to such gameplay?

 

Let's be honest, this update is meant to tackle the issue of neutrality. (Thats made pretty clear.) However, it should be the players who choose whether to be aggressive or not. Users in P&W are free to start wars on alliances or nations who are neutral, no ones stopping them, they just choose not to. So I do not see what the issue is. We shouldn't be practically forced into a situation if we normally wouldn't do it.

 

To sum my concern up. If I'm a paying consumer, which I have paid in the past, and probably will pay more in the future as long as I'm here, then my nation's safety shouldn't be placed at risk with an update (something that wasn't added to the game when I first started) just because I choose to be neutral and not engage in war. There's many of other alliances and nations who enjoy a confrontation, allow them to battle it out if they choose.

 

However, it is your game to begin with Sheepy, so it's yours to do whatever you wish with it. If this update is implanted I will stick around to test it out and see if I like it or not. If I don't then theres always the option of leaving.

 

Thanks! <3 :)

You were never able to choose to not be attacked. You were always at risk of attack.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1) Donations do not guarantee you anything... Sheepy has said this time and again. You donate because you want to support the game and the developer. It in no way entitles you to anything other than the rewards you're already given. You're not a customer, if you were it would be a subscription, and not a donation.

 

2) Your nation is already at risk.

 

Ok!

 

1. Never said I was a customer, I said consumer, and yes, we are consumers because we're using the game.

 

2. Never said we we're entitled to anything, I said it would be nasty to set up a feature that would possibly force us into the threat of conflict. My point about the donations is that the creator should take in the thoughts of the supporters since that is where some of the income is coming from to keep the game available

 

3. Never once did I deny I was already at risk, I made that pretty clear that I was, however, people only attack nations if they want to not because they have to in order to obtaine something they want like the treasures. This update puts nations at a higher risk.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You were never able to choose to not be attacked. You were always at risk of attack.

 

Where did I say I was able to choose not to be attacked?

 

I said attackers could choose whether to attack a neutral nation or not.

 

Never denied being at risk!

Edited by Spyro F Dragon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 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.