Test Tournament Feedback Thread

[Keegoz]

Hi all,

Thanks to those who are currently testing out the many new features on the test server. This thread is designed to provide feedback on any of these features, please ensure it is constructive and if possible offers potential solutions. The design team and the development team will then discuss the feedback before looking to implement them in the live server.

You can find most of the changes in this thread: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1z2jPtbMLOuFZR6ZQlu3qwr5cySfwLsh_Cvq9U6RGReo/edit?tab=t.0

In addition to the above there are a lot of new UI designs that have been added to the game, we are also asking for feedback on those as well.

Please note this thread is not to report bugs, any bugs should be done via the normal channels.

To make this easier to sort through, please use the below format:

Feature/s: (insert feature you wish to give feedback about)

Feedback:

Potential Solutions:

Edited March 1 by Keegoz

[Kylian Mbappe]

aight

 

Edited March 1 by Kylian Mbappe
wrong place

[KindaEpicMoah]

47 minutes ago, Kylian Mbappe said:

aight

 

Wow is this the real Kylian Mbappe

[Danzek]

Issue #1
Alliance disbandment seems broken. Submitting with incorrect password and everything else blank/unchecked disbands the alliance

 

Issue #2

Upkeep is incorrect, and cost for soldiers is incorrect. 

 

Other feedback:

The buy/sell is a bit janky, in that select all likes to sell units if you cant purchase any (e.g. lack of resources). 
I think it would also be nice to have a select all button thats just for conventional units (not projectiles)

The tables are a bit messy compared to the previous tables that had alternating row colors/borders and full descriptions. I also think the lack of detailed descriptions / link to wiki is worse for new player useability.

[Sketchy]

I'll make a post later with specific feedback, but I will say, 2 turns was a terrible idea and should have been changed lol.

Bit hard to test mechanics and give feedback when we are basically rushing out 100s of wars. It's more fun that way I guess, but for testing purposes this was dumb lol.

Should have been a day or two.

[George Clooney]

If mil buys reset every 12 hours, then why are missile purchases limited to 1 per 12 hours?  If you have Space Program, can you buy 2 missiles per 12 hours or are you limited to 3 missiles total for the day as on the Production server?

Mil buys seemed buggy initially, I was able to buy more than my max for the day of soldiers, tanks, planes, and ships.  Not sure if there is a legit issue here, will see how things work going forward.

I agree with Sketchy, in that Beige turns to start should have been at least 24, not 2.

[Keegoz]

1 hour ago, George Clooney said:

Mil buys seemed buggy initially, I was able to buy more than my max for the day of soldiers, tanks, planes, and ships.  Not sure if there is a legit issue here, will see how things work going forward.

If you were in beige, with no wars. You should be able to buy 15% more than your max.

Edited March 1 by Keegoz

[DragonKnight]

#1: Add buttons that lead to Military Research either in the top of the screen or in the bottom alongside the other big buttons (screenshots 1 and 2)

#2: There needs to be a text describing the details of what military research does and how it functions in the research page. Are the two trees (cost vs capacity) mutually exclusive?


Those are all nitpicky, I know, but good UI is good UI. More to come soon.

[Sketchy]

Alright. I'm going to bullet point the issues I have spotted.

#1 ----- 4 maps is too few to remove Ground/Air superiority with Naval.

That seems very skewed towards defenders/larger nations. You can allow attacks to hit you, and then simply remove superiorities with Navy, making it more difficult for your opponent to continue attacking you with ground/air. I feel like removing superiorities should be more of a comeback strategy than a turtle strategy.

 

#2 ----- Capacity Upgrades for Military Research increase rebuy. They shouldn't.

Currently the capacity upgrades increase the amount you can rebuy daily. In my opinion, they should only increase your capacity. As it stands right now, it's difficult to justify investing in cost when having increased rebuy is such a significant advantage in the early stages of a war.

 

#3 ----- Beige rebuy buff overconsumes daily rebuy.

This has caused some buggy situations where increasing city count has not increased peoples buys, and also where pressing select all has caused the game to attempt to delete mil. I would suggest remaking it so that beige bonus buy is tracked seperately from normal buy, and even displayed as such.

An example of how bonus beige buy could be displayed.

 

#4 ----- The reset button on the Military Research page is too large and intrusive.

The button should be smaller and off in the top right corner somewhere. This is a small criticism.

 

#5 ----- Military Research page looks ugly and lacks information.

The Military Research upgrades could deal with more information. It should show the current buff, and the buff for the next upgrade. The actual tooltips, especially on Ground Cost Buff, are weirdly formatted and spaced and just look bad. 

 

Edited March 1 by Sketchy

[Nintendo]

War Timeline | Politics & War

I had Ground and Air Superiority, then was offered peace. The peace offer appears to have taken away the ground and air superiority. I had to launch a new ground attack to get ground superiority.

[Hoffy]

I don't believe the war timeline has what type of naval attack was done within it. I've checked several timelines where there clearly was air superiority but no more and a blockade by the other party, but I can't see anything.

IE: Naval to remove Air Superiority.

[Tuxedo]

@SketchyI disagree on your first point. 

I think the current MAP cost will make the wars more dynamic. If increase it will minimize the power of a counter offensive. We wanted to make wars more interesting here the answer! The way to counter this is having Naval. 

Let's say we increase the MAPs to 6. Scenario beginning of a blitz: Nation A has 12 MAPs, Nation B has has AS over Nation A, Nation A has more boats than Nation B, but the same amount of ground force as nation B. 

Nation A can do a naval and remove the AS. Cost 6 MAPs, 6 MAPs left. This allows Nation A to do only 2 ground attacks, when they have no advantage over Nation B on ground attacks. If we leave it at 4 this would allow nation A to try and do a third attack after TC. 

It be interesting to see counterattacks especially with double buys. 

There is one change I would make: You shouldn't be able to blockade if you remove GC or AS. 

Also in the Naval Attacks make it default to Target Ships, like it is with airstrike. 

Edited March 1 by Tuxedo

[Sketchy]

49 minutes ago, Tuxedo said:

@SketchyI disagree on your first point. 

I think the current MAP cost will make the wars more dynamic. If increase it will minimize the power of a counter offensive. We wanted to make wars more interesting here the answer! The way to counter this is having Naval. 

Let's say we increase the MAPs to 6. Scenario beginning of a blitz: Nation A has 12 MAPs, Nation B has has AS over Nation A, Nation A has more boats than Nation B, but the same amount of ground force as nation B. 

Nation A can do a naval and remove the AS. Cost 6 MAPs, 6 MAPs left. This allows Nation A to do only 2 ground attacks, when they have no advantage over Nation B on ground attacks. If we leave it at 4 this would allow nation A to try and do a third attack after TC. 

It be interesting to see counterattacks especially with double buys. 

I think in the test server rn it works fine. My concern is in an environment where we have to updeclare 5-10 cities in some cases, this will make it more difficult.

But yeah I'll concede that this is something I would like to see tested tbh. The issue with the test server is it's not a very good replication of the current environment in the live server.

[Tuxedo]

35 minutes ago, Sketchy said:

I think in the test server rn it works fine. My concern is in an environment where we have to updeclare 5-10 cities in some cases, this will make it more difficult.

But yeah I'll concede that this is something I would like to see tested tbh. The issue with the test server is it's not a very good replication of the current environment in the live server.

Hmm. Maybe there be a new tactic to zero ships then planes? 

Edited March 2 by Tuxedo

[Odium]

39 minutes ago, Tuxedo said:

Hmm. Maybe there be a new tactic to zero ships then planes? 

I see where you are coming from but I do disagree. I think the tactic will be to probably go planes > ships > then grounds rather than ships > planes > grounds. This is because ships are still not a major threat to the other nation, just a frustration that could potentially flip very close wars. In those very close wars the planes are still your biggest concern. The most interesting thing I can see this doing is allowing nations that have low planes but high grounds to make comebacks over enemies (use the ships to knock out AS then switch to grounds and flatten the enemy before they can reestablish it). That new tactic makes me excited.

I do agree with Penguin though, I think to blockade you should have to target ships or infra, allowing blockading and removal of AS or GC seems a bit overpowered.

I also think that Ship v Ships kill too few ships of the enemy. Currently I think I would still tell people to do air v ships if at all possible, which feels backwards.

14 hours ago, Sketchy said:

Alright. I'm going to bullet point the issues I have spotted.

#1 ----- 4 maps is too few to remove Ground/Air superiority with Naval.

That seems very skewed towards defenders/larger nations. You can allow attacks to hit you, and then simply remove superiorities with Navy, making it more difficult for your opponent to continue attacking you with ground/air. I feel like removing superiorities should be more of a comeback strategy than a turtle strategy.

 

#2 ----- Capacity Upgrades for Military Research increase rebuy. They shouldn't.

Currently the capacity upgrades increase the amount you can rebuy daily. In my opinion, they should only increase your capacity. As it stands right now, it's difficult to justify investing in cost when having increased rebuy is such a significant advantage in the early stages of a war.

 

#3 ----- Beige rebuy buff overconsumes daily rebuy.

This has caused some buggy situations where increasing city count has not increased peoples buys, and also where pressing select all has caused the game to attempt to delete mil. I would suggest remaking it so that beige bonus buy is tracked seperately from normal buy, and even displayed as such.

An example of how bonus beige buy could be displayed.

 

#4 ----- The reset button on the Military Research page is too large and intrusive.

The button should be smaller and off in the top right corner somewhere. This is a small criticism.

 

#5 ----- Military Research page looks ugly and lacks information.

The Military Research upgrades could deal with more information. It should show the current buff, and the buff for the next upgrade. The actual tooltips, especially on Ground Cost Buff, are weirdly formatted and spaced and just look bad. 

 

I do agree with points 3, 4, and 5 here though, most definitely. The Research page needs a polish but I like the general format, if you put every type of research on its own page I have to load, I will be very sad lol. 

As to point 2 I am split to be honest. I think it could be a very interesting tactic for folks that are trying to get an edge over the enemy especially as low level raiders (eg you sell off your research, declare, then buy 3-4 levels and build over whoever you decced on that doesn't have the same resources. It is kind of a determination of how they want these researches to affect people imo, and I do think in the end Sketchy will be proven right here. 
 

[MrNukey]

Completely serious suggestion but custom vip pics for military should also be shown on the new military overview page. Gives people that do have them something nicer to look at instead of AI generated pictures lol.

Also maybe change the wording of the select all button to buy all. And maybe move those buttons for mass buying, selling, submitting etc to the top of the page instead of them sitting on the bottom just to like prevent any sort of confusion. I am embarrased to admit i was frustratingly clicking the arrows on the units themselves when buying units before i discovered the buttons at the bottom of the page. Other than that maybe some visual changes to the research page? It feels kinda barren right now.

Das all from me for now, mostly just some UI suggestions.

Also where nuke research smh

[Aaron JT]

The amount of missiles you can build per day is incorrect, and also the number of gas, ammo, and aluminum it requires

Edited March 2 by Aaron JT

[Keegoz]

Guys, the devs do not look at this thread for bugs. Stop posting clear bugs in this thread.

Edited March 2 by Keegoz

[Tuxedo]

3 hours ago, Odium said:

I see where you are coming from but I do disagree. I think the tactic will be to probably go planes > ships > then grounds rather than ships > planes > grounds. This is because ships are still not a major threat to the other nation, just a frustration that could potentially flip very close wars. In those very close wars the planes are still your biggest concern. The most interesting thing I can see this doing is allowing nations that have low planes but high grounds to make comebacks over enemies (use the ships to knock out AS then switch to grounds and flatten the enemy before they can reestablish it). That new tactic makes me excited.

I do agree with Penguin though, I think to blockade you should have to target ships or infra, allowing blockading and removal of AS or GC seems a bit overpowered.

I also think that Ship v Ships kill too few ships of the enemy. Currently I think I would still tell people to do air v ships if at all possible, which feels backwards.

I am no MA guru and it was just a shower thought. 

"planes > ships > grounds " - This is still  going to be hard to counter. the MAP to RES ratio still favours the aggressor. 

[hidude45454]

Feature/s: https://test.politicsandwar.com/nation/military/

Feedback: If you try and build an invalid amount of military (ex: more than the possible amount), it should still give you clear errors on why you're not allowed to, I like the old error messages of "you cannot build over X%" and stuff

Potential Solutions: Just copy over the older error messages xd

 

Feature/s: https://test.politicsandwar.com/nation/military/research/

Feedback: Some of the boxes are too crowded with dialogue:

Potential Solutions: Maybe at least put newlines between them, or indent into bullet points?

[Danzek]

To add to the above by hidude and others, maybe something like this could work better?

• Add info about consumption (though this could instead be part of the table)
• Add population needed
• Add war/peace upkeep info (and use correct prices)
• Add enlisted upkeep info
• Show purchase cost when entering an amount
• Add individual buttons for purchasing each unit

[Bookeida]

Wait what is the tournament even abt?

[Keegoz]

4 hours ago, Bookeida said:

Wait what is the tournament even abt?

Testing new game mechanics that may make their way to the actual game

[Stanko1987]

I love it so far, i think the only two issues i have is

1. Is it really necessary to make nukes become more expensive to build ? 😅 If that is going to be the case, it least buff the nukes up by it least 10% extra damage a nuke can do during attrition, ordinary and raid, like this less people will be inclined to complain about the price rise of building a single nuke.

2. The Military Research, i feel looks a little too messy and confusing, any chance we can tidy it up a little, simplify it a little better and with a description explaining the upgrade? 

Other than those two issues i have, everything looks pretty awesome and i am loving the new warfare mechanics. Great job and well done to the dev team  

[Link Costello]

Feedback for Mechanics- 

Research is cool. Great way to sink money for added benefits. More strategy involved in getting Ground/Air/Naval with this rock paper scissors approach. I like that.

(Now for the Bad) spoiler alert its not about any mechanics
there are like 4 alliances all banded together with 99.99% of the members in the server. They aren't even doing the wars they are just holding your nation down and letting the war timer run out. I hate to complain on such a trivial thing but man it sure makes the enjoyment of a tournament feel less like a fun approach and more of a personal spite for some unknown reason. 

All in all some feedback to the regular game I suppose, Great Game, not so great players.