Popular Post naTia Posted May 13, 2015 Popular Post Share Posted May 13, 2015 (edited) It is my opinion that this game is losing its incentive to play. Color bonuses haven't worked, treasures haven't worked, balancing hasn't worked. Half of this game, war, is broken and is poorly incentivized. I think drastic changes are needed to 1) get Sheepy involved 2) make people fight and 3) fix the war system. I think that winning a war should be necessary to expand quickly and efficiently. What I am thinking is that infrastructure should be made cheaper the more land you have and that land should be made cheaper when you win a war. As of now, nations can do much more in damage than they are worth. After a certain score, war is not worth it for the winner or the loser. What would this fix? Here is what I think it will fix: 1. people have an incentive to win wars through ground battles 2. people have an incentive to go to war 3. military strength directly ties into nation strength I admit there are a lot of kinks but I'm not sure I can play this game for much more without drastic changes to the mentality of the game. What will neutral alliances do? I don't know, I haven't thought that far, but I am willing to work on it. Many of you have played this game much longer than I have, well into alpha, but I think even you can agree that something needs to change. What I fear is that this game will fade into oblivion and all of the great people I have met will go away. tl;dr: We need to do something about the game now, and I think having to go to war to get land and in turn infrastructure is the way to do it. I appreciate any responses in advance Edited May 13, 2015 by The Captain Nao 7 Quote Resident DJ @ Club Orbis Founder of The Warehouse Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ayayay Posted May 13, 2015 Share Posted May 13, 2015 (edited) I think the war range system is broken. It was changed from -33%/+66% to -25%/+75% simply due to saru using some of the abbas exploit money back in the alpha and no one being able to do anything about it. Since then war damages have increased drastically and no one can rebuild the lost infra like they could back then. In addition, it was an isolated case and we've never had a problem since so it should either be lowered to reasonable levels (I'd say drop it down to max of +50%) or have score ranges as a whole opened up. I'm talking about having the largest nation at least doubling their score and spreading nations out so they aren't to clustered. Project and nuke scores need to be seriously re-evaluated as well. Also, we should be able to steal land, losing nations should missile or nuke, not spend their cash on land. Edited May 13, 2015 by underlordgc Quote Orbis Wars | CSI: UPN | B I G O O F | PW Expert Has Nerve To Tell You How To Run Your Own Goddamn Alliance | Occupy Wall Street | Sheepy Sings TheNG - My favorite part is when Steve suggests DEIC might have done something remotely successful, then gets massively shit on for proposing such a stupid idea. On 1/4/2016 at 6:37 PM, Sheepy said: This was !@#$ing gold. 10/10 possibly my favorite post on these forums yet. Sheepy said: I'm retarded, you win Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
naTia Posted May 13, 2015 Author Share Posted May 13, 2015 (edited) I think the war range system is broken. It was changed from -33%/+66% to -25%/+75% simply due to saru using some of the abbas exploit money back in the alpha and no one being able to do anything about it. Since then war damages have increased drastically and no one can rebuild the lost infra like they could back then. In addition, it was an isolated case and we've never had a problem since so it should either be lowered to reasonable levels (I'd say drop it down to max of +50%) or have score ranges as a whole opened up. I'm talking about having the largest nation at least doubling their score and spreading nations out so they aren't to clustered. Project and nuke scores need to be seriously re-evaluated as well. Also, we should be able to steal land, losing nations should missile or nuke, not spend their cash on land. Honestly, I think just fixing the war ranges and scoring wouldn't be enough. What would be the point of going to war anyways? Currently in wars, you are giving up growth in order to impede someone else's growth. Considering the current way the game is scored, the goal seems obviously to have the largest nation. Right now, anybody could go on for an infinite amount of time without going to war and theoretically end up on top somewhere along the line. The only way I see going to war being of any use is for it to aid in building your nation. Any other bonuses (stock bonus, treasures) are minimal amounts that really do not affect anything. We need it to go farther. Edited May 13, 2015 by The Captain Nao 1 Quote Resident DJ @ Club Orbis Founder of The Warehouse Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fistofdoom Posted May 13, 2015 Share Posted May 13, 2015 Spice it up. Quote 01:05:55 <%fistofdoom> im out of wine 01:06:03 <%fistofdoom> i winsih i had port 01:06:39 <@JoshF{BoC}> fistofdoom: is the snowman drunk with you 01:07:32 <%fistofdoom> i knet i forgot somehnt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stagger Lee Posted May 13, 2015 Share Posted May 13, 2015 I haven't been to war yet. Do you receive anything for winning a war against another nation? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fistofdoom Posted May 13, 2015 Share Posted May 13, 2015 I haven't been to war yet. Do you receive anything for winning a war against another nation? glory sometimes Quote 01:05:55 <%fistofdoom> im out of wine 01:06:03 <%fistofdoom> i winsih i had port 01:06:39 <@JoshF{BoC}> fistofdoom: is the snowman drunk with you 01:07:32 <%fistofdoom> i knet i forgot somehnt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanek26 Posted May 13, 2015 Share Posted May 13, 2015 One of the easiest changes is to make ground attacks steal infra rather than destroy it. Obviously this could lead to issues with power consumption, but it would incentivize war as something that can grow your nation/alliance rather than stagnate/shrink your nation/alliance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stagger Lee Posted May 13, 2015 Share Posted May 13, 2015 (edited) glory sometimes Can't a way to provide less of a loss for winning a war against someone simply be to install a bonus you receive for winning one? X%+ production of resources/income for Y amount of days? Obviously there are issues with rebuilding fast enough to actually make use of it, but providing some in-game bonus for winning a war would fix the alleged problem. Of course, I'm sure one of the chief reasons for not having a system like this already in place is the reality that if one alliance/group of alliances wins wars continuously to reap this benefit, they can quickly grow out of control and make the game unwinnable for anyone else. Edited May 13, 2015 by Stagger Lee Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
naTia Posted May 13, 2015 Author Share Posted May 13, 2015 (edited) One of the easiest changes is to make ground attacks steal infra rather than destroy it. Obviously this could lead to issues with power consumption, but it would incentivize war as something that can grow your nation/alliance rather than stagnate/shrink your nation/alliance. My problem with this is that you would probably take more damage than you can steal (Edit: if you just want to win). Still, nobody would go to war and take the time to build up to risk this. The benefit of limiting land unless you win wars, then requiring infrastructure to be limited by land, is that you have to go to war for you alliance to grow and gain score. Edited May 13, 2015 by The Captain Nao Quote Resident DJ @ Club Orbis Founder of The Warehouse Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George W. Bush Posted May 13, 2015 Share Posted May 13, 2015 It is my opinion that this game is losing its incentive to play. Color bonuses haven't worked, treasures haven't worked, balancing hasn't worked. Half of this game, war, is broken and is poorly incentivized. I think drastic changes are needed to 1) get Sheepy involved 2) make people fight and 3) fix the war system. I think that winning a war should be necessary to expand quickly and efficiently. What I am thinking is that infrastructure should be made cheaper the more land you have and that land should be made cheaper when you win a war. As of now, nations can do much more in damage than they are worth. After a certain score, war is not worth it for the winner or the loser. What would this fix? Here is what I think it will fix: 1. people have an incentive to win wars through ground battles 2. people have an incentive to go to war 3. military strength directly ties into nation strength I admit there are a lot of kinks but I'm not sure I can play this game for much more without drastic changes to the mentality of the game. What will neutral alliances do? I don't know, I haven't thought that far, but I am willing to work on it. Many of you have played this game much longer than I have, well into alpha, but I think even you can agree that something needs to change. What I fear is that this game will fade into oblivion and all of the great people I have met will go away. tl;dr: We need to do something about the game now, and I think having to go to war to get land and in turn infrastructure is the way to do it. I appreciate any responses in advance Just a though but maybe for x amount of infra you destroy in a war you get x amount of land. 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...
Donald Sterling Posted May 13, 2015 Share Posted May 13, 2015 (edited) you should not be able to fire a missile if the enemy has all the controls. Why this got voted away is beyond me because it actually makes war worth doing Edited May 13, 2015 by Sir Topham Hatt 1 Quote Genesis, best band NA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bilal the Great Posted May 13, 2015 Share Posted May 13, 2015 I haven't been to war yet. Do you receive anything for winning a war against another nation? If your opponent is in an alliance, you get to loot their alliance bank. Quote King Bilal the Great Mediocre The Average monarch of Billonesia Wikia page (if you're into roleplay things). We Tvtropes now. (down the rabbit hole!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atzuya Posted May 13, 2015 Share Posted May 13, 2015 The amount of money stolen by beiging your opponent should be greatly increased, and you should also be able to loot refined resources along with it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordRahl2 Posted May 14, 2015 Share Posted May 14, 2015 The amount of money stolen by beiging your opponent should be greatly increased, and you should also be able to loot refined resources along with it. And 'steal infra' Quote -signature removed for rules violation- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atzuya Posted May 14, 2015 Share Posted May 14, 2015 ^I'm not too sure about stealing infra, since the only units capable of 'stealing' right now are soldiers and tanks, they don't exactly do a lot of damage. I'd imagine the stolen infra from 6 GAs would be somewhere between 10-50 infra spread over your cities if this idea ever got to be implemented. That looks kinda ugly and uneven imo But if we can steal infra from missile strikes... now that's another story \o/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alataq Posted May 14, 2015 Share Posted May 14, 2015 I agree. Something needs to be changed. :/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vonnorman Posted May 14, 2015 Share Posted May 14, 2015 Yeah, people need to stop !@#$ing holding onto pixels. Limit the city numbers, lower infra cost so we can rebuild. Limit how much infra each city can have so our nations can max out and then our concern is war Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George W. Bush Posted May 14, 2015 Share Posted May 14, 2015 Limit the city numbers, lower infra cost so we can rebuild. And give a discount for infra that has to be rebuilt. 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...
Alataq Posted May 14, 2015 Share Posted May 14, 2015 (edited) True. I'd like that Edited May 14, 2015 by Alataq Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eviljak Posted May 14, 2015 Share Posted May 14, 2015 I disagree with limiting cities, unless the limit is 3k per city. I also disagree with stealing land...stealing infra might be a thing, but land should remain, however u could decrease the effectiveness of certain improvements for x amount of days Quote Esteemed janitor for Church of Cynic ~ may i clean the hearts of men with my blessed toilet brush. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Princess Bubblegum Posted May 14, 2015 Share Posted May 14, 2015 (edited) An alternative to stealing land/infra would be stealing income. A defeated nation gets -X% income for 15-30 days. The victorious nation gets +X% income for 15-30 days. Obviously this wouldn't be a 1:1 ratio. X% for the defeated might be less in $$$ quantity than X% for the victor. But at least it scales with range. You could also do something like -X% for the defeated and +(0.75)(X%) for the victor. Edited May 14, 2015 by Princess Bubblegum Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dolphman Posted May 14, 2015 Share Posted May 14, 2015 An alternative to stealing land/infra would be stealing income. A defeated nation gets -X% income for 15-30 days. The victorious nation gets +X% income for 15-30 days. Obviously this wouldn't be a 1:1 ratio. X% for the defeated might be less in $$$ quantity than X% for the victor. But at least it scales with range. You could also do something like -X% for the defeated and +(0.75)(X%) for the victor. Unless days means turns, that's absurd. 15 - 30 days is a long time in P&W Quote Leader of UPS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordRahl2 Posted May 14, 2015 Share Posted May 14, 2015 ^I'm not too sure about stealing infra, since the only units capable of 'stealing' right now are soldiers and tanks, they don't exactly do a lot of damage. I'd imagine the stolen infra from 6 GAs would be somewhere between 10-50 infra spread over your cities if this idea ever got to be implemented. That looks kinda ugly and uneven imo But if we can steal infra from missile strikes... now that's another story \o/ Missile strike stealing makes no sense. Upping the power of ground by trasferinf inra from defender to attacker makes those strikes better not worse. 50ish times 3 is 300 infra. 1 Quote -signature removed for rules violation- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atzuya Posted May 14, 2015 Share Posted May 14, 2015 (edited) Pretty much no mechanics in this game makes any sense Edited May 14, 2015 by Atzuya Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordRahl2 Posted May 14, 2015 Share Posted May 14, 2015 Fair enough. Still would be bad to make MSs more OP and GSs could use the help. Quote -signature removed for rules violation- 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.