TheNG Posted February 24, 2015 Share Posted February 24, 2015 Regardless of damage or anything else, the score missiles provide should definitely be reduced. A $150,000 missile provides 10 score, which means most of the top nations have 200-300 score just from missiles, which is ridiculous. Back in alpha, before the big tank nerf tanks provided way more score and you saw the top people building thousands of tanks just to boost their score. Missiles have become the new tanks in this regard, and I would suggest chopping missiles down from 10 to 5 score. It's a more balanced amount that justifies the cost but isn't way too much like it is now. 1 Quote "They say the secret to success is being at the right place at the right time. But since you never know when the right time is going to be, I figure the trick is to find the right place and just hang around!" ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- <Kastor> He left and my !@#$ nation is !@#$ed up. And the Finance guy refuses to help. He just writes his !@#$ plays. <Kastor> And laughs and shit. <Kastor> And gives out !@#$ huge loans to Arthur James, that !@#$ bastard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phiney Posted February 24, 2015 Share Posted February 24, 2015 If you don't want to reduce missile score, just up the upkeep, which is way too low as me and placentica brought up when we first got missiles. Triple it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prefontaine Posted February 24, 2015 Author Share Posted February 24, 2015 I still think removing missiles from the MAP equation is a good thing. This frees up the use of other military actions. Otherwise the vast majority of your action points are spent on missiles. When you're only using 1 attack type a majority of the time, something is flawed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shellhound Posted February 24, 2015 Share Posted February 24, 2015 (edited) I like the idea of removing it from the MAP. As it stands if say Guardian and GPA (Top 2 alliances in terms of missiles) were to go to war, the people that could fight in that war would almost all have missiles; do you think we'll be using anything else? No. Declare, save up MAP's, launch missiles, repeat. That's boring, there's no strategy to it, it's just waiting a couple hours for you to hit your enemy. One could argue you could just choose NOT to use missiles, which puts you at a massive disadvantage. Missiles as they stand make war boring, but to not use them means to lose the war. Edited February 24, 2015 by Shellhound 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
naTia Posted February 24, 2015 Share Posted February 24, 2015 I think we should just make missiles less of a focus in war. Lower the MAP's used, but lower their damage. Make it so that using them is like launching an expensive airstrike with nice perks. Quote Resident DJ @ Club Orbis Founder of The Warehouse Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shellhound Posted February 24, 2015 Share Posted February 24, 2015 (edited) They're not really over powered, lets look at the facts 2) You can spy missiles away and destroy them 3) You can blockade your opponent to make it difficult for them to purchase missiles The two biggest issues with this is stockpiling. I have 45 spies, and 16 missiles, most other people with missiles have somewhat similar units. If someone had 4 spies against my 45 it would cost me 2.3M to for sure destroy a missile. That's with 4 spies, there's not too many people who are going to own missiles who don't have about 20 spies at least (for 99% on 20 spies you'd need 200 spies and about 10M, in case you're wondering). Stockpiles completely destroy that argument. Edited February 24, 2015 by Shellhound 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shellhound Posted February 24, 2015 Share Posted February 24, 2015 I think we should just make missiles less of a focus in war. Lower the MAP's used, but lower their damage. Make it so that using them is like launching an expensive airstrike with nice perks. The issue with that is that makes it a damn near worthless project. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ashland Posted February 24, 2015 Share Posted February 24, 2015 Correction, Phiney HAD a valid point until he edited his post down and removed all the good points. Wtf, Phiney? Quote ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ [10:47] you used to be the voice of irc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
naTia Posted February 24, 2015 Share Posted February 24, 2015 The issue with that is that makes it a damn near worthless project. Yeah I understand this concern, but people would still get this over the others. The other projects are arguably about as worthless as this would become. Quote Resident DJ @ Club Orbis Founder of The Warehouse Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George W. Bush Posted February 24, 2015 Share Posted February 24, 2015 The problem with wars in their current state are that they are too expensive and you don't get much out of them. Missiles only amplify this at higher levels. Sure, missiles are bit OP, but come on. Are you going to start fight more if they get nerfed? Probably not. I'd say the bigger problem is wars itself. There is no incentive to war. Treasures do !@#$ all as far I'm concerned, and you lose them eventually. The only way to fix this is to add something that you can only get from war. It can be anything, for all I care, but something. I could give examples of this if you want, but IMO that's the problem and why this game is stagnant. 1 Quote 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 More sharing options...
Shellhound Posted February 24, 2015 Share Posted February 24, 2015 Politics is what and always will start wars, but war is strategic, if your enemy has hundreds of missiles you're going to wait until you can try to catch up and then declare which then leads to one big war a year (because anything else would be too damaging) and we fall into the cycle that (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways)'s in. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clarke Posted February 24, 2015 Share Posted February 24, 2015 The two biggest issues with this is stockpiling. I have 45 spies, and 16 missiles, most other people with missiles have somewhat similar units. If someone had 4 spies against my 45 it would cost me 2.3M to for sure destroy a missile. That's with 4 spies, there's not too many people who are going to own missiles who don't have about 20 spies at least (for 99% on 20 spies you'd need 200 spies and about 10M, in case you're wondering). Stockpiles completely destroy that argument. If you ignore the spies then it is harder to destroy missiles obviously. I'm more talking about monetary funds to build missiles, that is where nations struggle to fire missiles each day which I know as I struggled in the past. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MRBOOTY Posted February 24, 2015 Share Posted February 24, 2015 Von Bismark, Kim Jong Il, and Phiney are right The damage done from ground attacks are wayyy too light If 105,000 troops square off against 90 thou-sand It should be a massive battle with (potentially) lots of destruct-tion The fact is that missiles being this powerful are unhealthy So I really advise increasing the power of everything else, or making missiles more stealthy (Don't question me about that second rhyme... ) 1 Quote MR BOOTY IN DA HOUSE http://i.imgur.com/R5WWAB1.jpg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aisha Greyjoy Posted February 24, 2015 Share Posted February 24, 2015 I don't think the game is stagnant, we've had 2 big wars so far, and a few small ones. Quote Duke of House Greyjoy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George W. Bush Posted February 25, 2015 Share Posted February 25, 2015 I don't think the game is stagnant, we've had 2 big wars so far, and a few small ones. I agree that the game isn't entirely stagnant. However, I feel as though Politics and War has a much higher potential than what we are getting out of it right now. 1 Quote 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 More sharing options...
Adama Posted February 25, 2015 Share Posted February 25, 2015 (edited) 1.) Take missiles out of the MAP system and limit the number that can be fired per war, limit that number to like three per war or something. 2.) Require that in order to launch a missile you must have control in ground, air and sea, or a combination of two or less. This will require that people fight in other ways in order to fire a missile. Do both of these things and I think you will see reduction in the amount of overall damage that is being dealt by missiles. Edited February 25, 2015 by Adama 6 Quote If you can dodge a wrench, you can dodge a roll. There is one you will follow. One who is the shining star, and he will lead you to beautiful places in the search of his own vanity. And when there is no more vanity to be found, he will leave you in darkness, as a fading memory of his own creation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kim Jong-Il Posted February 25, 2015 Share Posted February 25, 2015 1.) Take missiles out of the MAP system and limit the number that can be fired per war, limit that number to like three per war or something. 2.) Require that in order to launch a missile you must have control in ground, air and sea, or a combination of two or less. This will require that people fight in other ways in order to fire a missile. Do both of these things and I think you will see reduction in the amount of overall damage that is being dealt by missiles. Ooo, I actually love #2. Making 'em work for it But that still leaves us with the big "how to promote war" question. No treasure bull Quote The many forms of proof regarding Kastor's sexuality: - Kastor: I already came out the closet. - MaIone: I'm gay * MaIone is now known as Kastor - Henri: i'm a !@#$it Skable: the !@#$ is a codo? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hereno Posted February 25, 2015 Share Posted February 25, 2015 "i'm too scared to actually use any of my power because it's in my interests to keep growing forever so we can be the biggest nations forever" you guys are so !@#$ing pathetic, but then when some of you have probably spent over 100 bucks on your nations, i guess the idea of missiles, resets, and anything else that might actually destroy more than 10 infra a pop bothers you. stop taking this stupid game so seriously and treating it as a job and you might find yourself having fun. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrators Alex Posted February 25, 2015 Administrators Share Posted February 25, 2015 http://politicsandwar.com/forums/index.php?/topic/4868-2242015-missile-patch/ Here's what I've done to address these concerns. 1 Quote Is there a bug? Report It | Not understanding game mechanics? Ask About It | Got a good idea? Suggest ItForums Rules | Game Link Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jodo Posted February 25, 2015 Share Posted February 25, 2015 "i'm too scared to actually use any of my power because it's in my interests to keep growing forever so we can be the biggest nations forever" you guys are so !@#$ pathetic, but then when some of you have probably spent over 100 bucks on your nations, i guess the idea of missiles, resets, and anything else that might actually destroy more than 10 infra a pop bothers you. stop taking this stupid game so seriously and treating it as a job and you might find yourself having fun. Holy shit. We actually agree on a point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kim Jong-Il Posted February 25, 2015 Share Posted February 25, 2015 http://politicsandwar.com/forums/index.php?/topic/4868-2242015-missile-patch/ Here's what I've done to address these concerns. THE CONCH HATH SPOKEN! Quote The many forms of proof regarding Kastor's sexuality: - Kastor: I already came out the closet. - MaIone: I'm gay * MaIone is now known as Kastor - Henri: i'm a !@#$it Skable: the !@#$ is a codo? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P2K Posted February 25, 2015 Share Posted February 25, 2015 Maybe there could be multiple different kinds of missiles that do damage to different things. also I think there could maybe also be more defense improvements. Maybe defense improvements could be a little cheaper so smaller nations could defend themselves against the larger nations with all the missiles. I'm sure there is more thought that could be put into this to make it work a lot better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kim Jong-Il Posted February 25, 2015 Share Posted February 25, 2015 Maybe there could be multiple different kinds of missiles that do damage to different things. also I think there could maybe also be more defense improvements. Maybe defense improvements could be a little cheaper so smaller nations could defend themselves against the larger nations with all the missiles. I'm sure there is more thought that could be put into this to make it work a lot better. Tl;dr Too complex, and sheepy already implemented new things having to do with missiles, check it out in the changelog Quote The many forms of proof regarding Kastor's sexuality: - Kastor: I already came out the closet. - MaIone: I'm gay * MaIone is now known as Kastor - Henri: i'm a !@#$it Skable: the !@#$ is a codo? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shellhound Posted February 25, 2015 Share Posted February 25, 2015 "i'm too scared to actually use any of my power because it's in my interests to keep growing forever so we can be the biggest nations forever" you guys are so !@#$ pathetic, but then when some of you have probably spent over 100 bucks on your nations, i guess the idea of missiles, resets, and anything else that might actually destroy more than 10 infra a pop bothers you. stop taking this stupid game so seriously and treating it as a job and you might find yourself having fun. I agree with you, but for the guy who said he'd get revenge on TEst and still hasn't done shit I find it funny to be coming from you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hereno Posted February 25, 2015 Share Posted February 25, 2015 I agree with you, but for the guy who said he'd get revenge on TEst and still hasn't done !@#$ I find it funny to be coming from you. when did i say that? you know, because this thread is actually IC and about me and TEst then again, if pre can post a thread and in under a day get sheepy to jump and make all of those major changes to game mechanics during stable, i'm pretty sure he can throw in changing the topic and forum of the thread 3 pages in to suit you Quote 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.