2/8/2015 - Peek at Future Updates

[Alex]

Hello, everyone! I'm officially back from my ~10 day absence, where I only had limited computer access. I did my best to keep up with the vital stuff like donations, but I apologize for not being around as much as normal.

 

That said, I'm excited to give you guys a heads up on the things I'll be working on next. I might have quite a bit of time this evening to do some work, so it's possible you'll get two updates today, but in case not I'll outline what my immediate plans are.

 

1) Treasures

 

These were rolled out without much flavor recently. There hasn't been anything tragically gamebreaking about them so far, which is good, and I think it's time for the next step in modifying how the treasures work.

 

I'd like to change the length of time the treasures last from 30 days to 60 days. That would mean one treasure respawning every other day instead of every day, but I'm also considering the idea of having multiple treasures respawn at once. 

I think that perhaps having all 30 treasure be randomly redistributed at the same time every 60 days would be a little to hectic, but what about half the treasures every 30 days (and they last for 60). That might create more of a dynamic shift, alliances could scramble to reclaim newly spawned treasures every 30 days when 15 of them respawned. This would also, in my opinion, be beneficial for those nations that don't want to be recipients of treasures, as there would only be one time a month when they could potentially receive a treasure, and they could prepare for it ahead of time accordingly.

 

Lastly, with treasures, I'd like to add a stacking alliance bonus, probably for every 3 treasures that an alliance has. Something like a 25% gross income bonus for every 3 treasures an alliance has, which would stack as in if you had 6 treasures your alliance would enjoy a 50% gross income bonus.

 

2) Nation Perks

 

This is probably the most sought after update, and it's one I'd like to roll out soon. The main setback has been trying to determine appropriate perks that could be balanced and promote more specialization, not everyone just having the same perks. But we're closer to having nation perks now than we have been at any other point, so keep your fingers crossed.

 

3) Moon Colonies

 

This idea is the farthest out, but it's becoming apparent that the game is highly inflated with cash and resources. I think we need more ways to blow money and resources aside from wars, and so one of my thoughts was adding an entirely new mechanic to the game, something like the ability to establish Moon Colonies. I'm undecided on what they might do, yet, but I'd like there to me more "resource sinks" so that the game doesn't ever get broken from too much resource inflation.

 

4) Natural Disasters

 

We've got about 1,000,001 bonuses in the game. Riding on the coat tails of suggestion #3, I don't think that some natural disasters would hurt the game any. I'm thinking regional disasters (continent based) that would provide small penalties, like reductions in resource production or income or population.

 

Example: "A massive typhoon has swept across the continent of Australia, leaving devastation in its wake. All Australian nations receive a -5% population count for the next 5 days (60 game days/turns)."

 

---

 

I hope that you guys are as excited for the future of Politics & War as I am. The game has been doing amazingly well, even with my absence, we officially hit over 1600 nations logging in per week, and 1300 nations logging in per day not long ago. How awesome is that?

[Niklaus]

Sounds great but if I may be so blunt, I think instead of adding new features like those, you should work on adding the suggestions which got the green light or approval from you. Many of them are just lying there, even after they got acceptance from the community. If I were you, I'd add a few of those first - particularly those with least resistance before moving into these. Then again, you are the coder and owner, it is upto you to judge what's best route to take. Wanted to give my 2 cents, nonetheless.

Edited February 8, 2015 by Niklaus

[Arthur James]

3) Moon Colonies

 

This idea is the farthest out, but it's becoming apparent that the game is highly inflated with cash and resources. I think we need more ways to blow money and resources aside from wars, and so one of my thoughts was adding an entirely new mechanic to the game, something like the ability to establish Moon Colonies. I'm undecided on what they might do, yet, but I'd like there to me more "resource sinks" so that the game doesn't ever get broken from too much resource inflation

 

Would star war happen? hmm, I felt like the colonize the existing nations then an empty space like moon is more dynamical.

[King Wally]

Looking good Admin, been playing just a couple days but already impressed.

 

Cheers!

[Aksel]

Looking good Admin, been playing just a couple days but already impressed.

 

Cheers!

King Wally from NpO?

 

Also, I'm looking forward to these rollouts. I think the treasure idea is a lot better than the initial launch (even tho I have a treasure) I think what you're planning will be a lot cooler and offer a greater dynamic to the addition.

[King Wally]

Yah, that'd be me mate

[Aksel]

Yah, that'd be me mate

Welcome to PW! (I was akatosh over there in NpO, then shortly changed to The Speaker)

[King Wally]

I do remember you mate, thanks for the warm welcome!

[Rustikus]

It might have been discussed already but it would from my point of view be nice if the social and economy policy of a nation would impact the game.

[WISD0MTREE]

It might have been discussed already but it would from my point of view be nice if the social and economy policy of a nation would impact the game.

It doesn't because there would be basically a "right" answer to get the best benefit as opposed to individuality. 

 

EDIT: how to grammar 

Edited February 9, 2015 by WISD0MTREE

[Neo-Nexus]

If natural disasters are implemented I suggest allowing nations to have the ability to spend money on "preparing" for natural disasters. Maybe like upgrades such as "sea wall upgrade" to hold off tsunamis for idk $100/day and reduces damages caused by tsunamis by 10% etc.

 

I like the colony idea, but might I suggest having it "closer to earth" So like instead of moon colonies can we have colonies on Earth where we can place it as an addition, onto the global map, but still under our original nation name (or some variation like that)? The resource consumption rate can still be similar to a moon base or something if you want a good resource sink. 

[Chey]

Am I missing something, or did you actually suggest that every treasure an alliance controls boosts the entire alliance's income by 25%?

 

Because that sounds like an outrageous benefit.

[Alex]

Am I missing something, or did you actually suggest that every treasure an alliance controls boosts the entire alliance's income by 25%?

 

Because that sounds like an outrageous benefit.

 

That's the idea. Treasures would still be capturable by war, but it would be highly incentivized for alliances to capture treasures, and thus promote more war.

[Atzuya]

Just three treasures and that's assured 25%? Well... That might be overdoing it a bit

[Dr Rush]

If you want syncs I have a few ideas. You could for instance change the national projects around a bit. Instead of a flat bonus for a one time cost, you could make it a research type thing where you upgrade it a level. You could receive a linear increase in a specific bonus but each level costs an exponentially higher amount.

[Jodo]

GOING BACK TO THE MOON BABY

[Adama]

I think 25 percent for three treasures is too much, that should be closer to five I think, and 50 percent should be closer to ten treasures. It's a good idea but we don't want it to be that powerful.

[Ashland]

I'm excited that 1300 people are logging in every day.

 

I'd be more excited if you were one of them, Sheepy.

 

EDIT: And yeah, 25% is too much.

Edited February 11, 2015 by Ashland

[Ayayay]

I'm excited that 1300 people are logging in every day.

 

I'd be more excited if you were one of them, Sheepy.

[Alex]

 

That's how you get blisters. Throw some pickle slices on there, the vinegar absorbs the heat.

[Tim Armstrong]

 

Lastly, with treasures, I'd like to add a stacking alliance bonus, probably for every 3 treasures that an alliance has. Something like a 25% gross income bonus for every 3 treasures an alliance has, which would stack as in if you had 6 treasures your alliance would enjoy a 50% gross income bonus.

 

 

I think this is a reasonable bonus for what it would take to win three or six treasures in war. Hear me out.

 

The FAQ posted by Sheepy on 1.22.15 shows how/what size nations treasures will spawn in:

 

How exactly do treasures spawn?

10 of the 30 treasures spawn based on color. That is, there's one treasure that spawns exclusively on each color. 6 of the 30 treasures spawn based on continent. Like the color based treasures, they spawn exclusively on each continent. There is also a score range, which is anywhere from .015*Highest Score in Game - 0.65*Highest Score in Game. The reason for the score range is to keep new, potentially inactive nations from receiving the treasures and to promote war in higher tiers where it's less common.

 

So as of today only nations with scores between 197 and 855 would have a treasure spawn there. Then consider that 10 of the 30 will be on different colors. Currently only four alliances have more than THREE treasures. Therefore, if an alliance wanted to capture three treasures to get the 25% alliance bonus they could likely do it by defeating three nations in that alliance that have treasures. If an alliance wanted to capture six treasures to get the 50% alliance bonus they would not only have to beat the first alliance but they would have to take on a second alliance and beat at least three nations with treasures there.

 

In the case of a 1 v 1 war, and assuming that an attacking alliance had 40 members (each with an avg. score of about 500 and 6,000 infra) and for the sake of argument each one fought with 30,000 troops; 24 planes; and 1 ship. (This is likely low.) Fighting for two to three days with each nation replenishing troops/planes/ships and taking 200 infra damage (again this is likely low) the total cost per nation would be $1.3 million minimum or $52 million minimum in total for the alliance.  

 

If this alliance successfully captured the three treasures they would stand to make a 25% bonus on the alliance revenue. Let's estimate that the alliance revenue is $21 million per day based on the nation stats listed above. The alliance would receive an extra $5.25 million per day. It would take them a minimum of 10 days to make up for the costs of the war. Depending on how long those three treasures actually stay before spawning again it might actually be worth the effort to wage a war.

 

It gets even more risky, costly, and complicated if the same alliance were to DoW on a second alliance to gain another three treasures in order to garner another 25% bonus (for a total of 50% bonus). 

 

Tl;dr 25%/50% stackable alliance bonuses are a viable solution to making treasures worth it.

Edited February 11, 2015 by Tim Armstrong

[Phiney]

I think this is a reasonable bonus for what it would take to win three or six treasures in war. Hear me out.

 

The FAQ posted by Sheepy on 1.22.15 shows how/what size nations treasures will spawn in:

How exactly do treasures spawn?

10 of the 30 treasures spawn based on color. That is, there's one treasure that spawns exclusively on each color. 6 of the 30 treasures spawn based on continent. Like the color based treasures, they spawn exclusively on each continent. There is also a score range, which is anywhere from .015*Highest Score in Game - 0.65*Highest Score in Game. The reason for the score range is to keep new, potentially inactive nations from receiving the treasures and to promote war in higher tiers where it's less common.

So as of today only nations with scores between 197 and 855 would have a treasure spawn there. Then consider that 10 of the 30 will be on different colors. Currently only four alliances have more than THREE treasures. Therefore, if an alliance wanted to capture three treasures to get the 25% alliance bonus they could likely do it by defeating three nations in that alliance that have treasures. If an alliance wanted to capture six treasures to get the 50% alliance bonus they would not only have to beat the first alliance but they would have to take on a second alliance and beat at least three nations with treasures there.

In the case of a 1 v 1 war, and assuming that an attacking alliance had 40 members (each with an avg. score of about 500 and 6,000 infra) and for the sake of argument each one fought with 30,000 troops; 24 planes; and 1 ship. (This is likely low.) Fighting for two to three days with each nation replenishing troops/planes/ships and taking 200 infra damage (again this is likely low) the total cost per nation would be $1.3 million minimum or $52 million minimum in total for the alliance.

If this alliance successfully captured the three treasures they would stand to make a 25% bonus on the alliance revenue. Let's estimate that the alliance revenue is $21 million per day based on the nation stats listed above. The alliance would receive an extra $5.25 million per day. It would take them a minimum of 10 days to make up for the costs of the war. Depending on how long those three treasures actually stay before spawning again it might actually be worth the effort to wage a war.

It gets even more risky, costly, and complicated if the same alliance were to DoW on a second alliance to gain another three treasures in order to garner another 25% bonus (for a total of 50% bonus).

Tl;dr 25%/50% stackable alliance bonuses are a viable solution to making treasures worth it.

Cheers Tim, this is exactly what I wanted to say without making the effort of doing the maths. Spot on. The only downside is big alliances can get 3 treasures without doing anything, but that just offsets the effort of organising and controlling a large alliance. And they will also be easier targets. Edited February 11, 2015 by Phiney

[Vanek26]

GOING BACK TO THE MOON BABY

GIVE ME ORBITAL FIGHTERS OR GIVE ME DEATH

[Chey]

While I like the idea of treasures adding to intrigue and wars, these kinds of huge bonuses would make them completely overtake genuine inter-alliance politics. I suggest scaling them down to a level where they are still beneficial and worth potentially going to war over, but not one where they completely change the nature of the game.

 

Otherwise we might as well call the game Treasures & War.

[Filthy Fifths]

I think this is a reasonable bonus for what it would take to win three or six treasures in war. Hear me out.

 

The FAQ posted by Sheepy on 1.22.15 shows how/what size nations treasures will spawn in:

 

How exactly do treasures spawn?

10 of the 30 treasures spawn based on color. That is, there's one treasure that spawns exclusively on each color. 6 of the 30 treasures spawn based on continent. Like the color based treasures, they spawn exclusively on each continent. There is also a score range, which is anywhere from .015*Highest Score in Game - 0.65*Highest Score in Game. The reason for the score range is to keep new, potentially inactive nations from receiving the treasures and to promote war in higher tiers where it's less common.

 

So as of today only nations with scores between 197 and 855 would have a treasure spawn there. Then consider that 10 of the 30 will be on different colors. Currently only four alliances have more than THREE treasures. Therefore, if an alliance wanted to capture three treasures to get the 25% alliance bonus they could likely do it by defeating three nations in that alliance that have treasures. If an alliance wanted to capture six treasures to get the 50% alliance bonus they would not only have to beat the first alliance but they would have to take on a second alliance and beat at least three nations with treasures there.

 

In the case of a 1 v 1 war, and assuming that an attacking alliance had 40 members (each with an avg. score of about 500 and 6,000 infra) and for the sake of argument each one fought with 30,000 troops; 24 planes; and 1 ship. (This is likely low.) Fighting for two to three days with each nation replenishing troops/planes/ships and taking 200 infra damage (again this is likely low) the total cost per nation would be $1.3 million minimum or $52 million minimum in total for the alliance.  

 

If this alliance successfully captured the three treasures they would stand to make a 25% bonus on the alliance revenue. Let's estimate that the alliance revenue is $21 million per day based on the nation stats listed above. The alliance would receive an extra $5.25 million per day. It would take them a minimum of 10 days to make up for the costs of the war. Depending on how long those three treasures actually stay before spawning again it might actually be worth the effort to wage a war.

 

It gets even more risky, costly, and complicated if the same alliance were to DoW on a second alliance to gain another three treasures in order to garner another 25% bonus (for a total of 50% bonus). 

 

Tl;dr 25%/50% stackable alliance bonuses are a viable solution to making treasures worth it.

 

Arrgh! Tim is bae.