6/10/2015 - Approval Rating

[Phiney]

You are correct about the bug, but looting alliance banks hasn't really been a top concern for anyone so far, it seems. If you guys want it back, I'll fix the bug and bring it back, but I think it's a separate conversation we need to have as a community first.

 

As for the Approval Rating, I'm tending to lean towards agreeing with you on keeping it purely cosmetic. And I also think removing the upper cap is a good idea, presuming it's staying cosmetic, as people love Leaderboards things. It might mean folks embargoing the high-ups on the Leaderboards for S+Gs, though, not that that's necessarily a big deal.

I'd say that's because the bug was worse than not having bank looting. It received a lot of support when you first implemented it so would be good to have back.

 

Maybe remove embargoing from having an effect, then the best way to increase your satisfaction would be winning wars or growing a lot in a short period of time.

[ELPINCHAZO]

I'm not intending to be rude, and yes I am aware that I am rather frustrated with some of the reactions to this post. I feel much of the criticism was undeserved at this time, and people are severely overreacting to a meaningless feature in terms of gameplay. You'd think Approval Rating was the new Commerce by the way some people reacted. 

 

 

This, I thought specifically was completely unwarranted.

 

 

I actually agree with you, and I think it comes down to one of two things: 

 

1) Removing embargoes from the list of things that affect your AR. 2) Keeping AR completely cosmetic. Either of these options is a fine solution, imo.

 

 

A bug that was resolved a couple of months ago is relevant? I disagree. I also disagree about this change - I think it does add depth to gameplay, in terms of roleplay. I appreciate your concern for the game and the community.

 

I disagree with how you're going about it. You literally just posted, "I have to be honest,I hate this. If I wanted Nation States,I'd play Nation States." There was no explanation, just the fact that you hated the change. I responded, "I don't understand, it literally has no effect on you. You don't like other people having fun through roleplaying? If you didn't want to play a nation simulation game, why are you here?" You responded to that with, "Well,I'm glad to see you're spending time on aspects of the game that have entirely no effect." 

 

You didn't respond to my question, you didn't tell me why you disliked the change, you just told me that you hated it and that I was wasting my time. And you're right, I took a jab at you when I said the whole world doesn't revolve around you, but you can't hold this double standard where I have to have thick skin and you don't. Ever since you've deflected this issue from the actual announcement and change to accusing me of attacking you and bringing up a whole host of other concerns completely unrelated to this topic. I imagine you'll continue to do so. 

 

Be critical, like I said I respond to criticism well. Your initial responses to this thread, however, we just rude, and so far you can't come to terms with that or accept the fact that I've called you out on it. 

 

You are right, however, I shouldn't have bothered to respond to you to begin with. I should respond to posts that actually are critiques of changes, and not waste my time with someone that just wants to bicker.

YOU HAVE NOT RESPONDED WELL TO CRITICISM HERE. Please just start being honest for one second.

 

I responded to your question several times over. YOU clearly just wanted to bicker but instead you started this discourse under the pretense of 'calling me out'. It started out where I said I hate the change,I'm sorry that wasn't rude even if it was indelicate. Your response is where the rudeness and personal attacks started. I in fact think you owe me an apology. 

[Valakias]

Wow peoples, take some chill pills

 

At a first glance, i like this change. Anything that adds to experience, also when at peace, gets a +1 from me. But i do agree that the embargo might be abused a bit, i'd personally remove the penalty off it and see how this change fares whitout it.

 

And i really like the perks, law, system idea

 

And to address the drama here, cricitism has to be constructive, or you get into pointless arguing ;C

[Peace and War]

Hey I like the idea of an approval rating and I really like the idea of passing laws.

 

I would actually think it was cool to have a congress of sorts that have to pass the laws, that's just me I like that stuff.

 

I can't really see what everyone's freaking out about though, its not like this approval rating is changing the game at all.

[TellUrGrlThx]

#AttackSheepy2015 #WeCanDoIt

[Bored now Leafing]

Based on the way it works at this moment then players who get regularly attacked by raiders will find themselves with a zero approval rating in time and if it has a function beyond role play then it will end up slowing down thous players, while i like the general idea of more detailed nation development i dislike that it would act as a punishment for anyone who chooses to avoid war in the only cost effective manner there is, that being to let them loot you and protect your goods in whatever way you can find.

Myself if no changes in my 3 raids a week situation will have a zero or near zero approval by the middle of next month. so for the moment i don't mind the cosmetic angle as i can learn to ignore the big old goose egg that will come but i fear it will hurt my nation if it is given a function beyond cosmetic because i do not play the same way of many people play, of course this is only true based how the point penalty system is posed as is.

[Atzuya]

If you get raided constantly, there are things far worse to worry than mere approval ratings.

 

You may play the game your way, but you also have to remember that everyone else also play their own ways, and some simply chose the 'attack those who wronged us in the past' or 'hell with that noise we war now' path

[Alice Lune]

It's close enough to my belligerence idea, so I'm happy Thanks for adding stuff that promotes RP, Sheepy.

 

EDIT: I don't care that people say it's not needed. It's RP stuff, I understand some people can't be bothered and just wants to smash everything, but you got Half Life for that, or Total War series. In games such as these, the war aspect draws people in, but without the RP, players will bleed out as wars cause them to lose much progress. At some point they will think "This is a total waste of time, I have better things to do with my life". Roleplay makes this process a lot slower.

 

In my other game, Pardus, the war aspect is not very expanded, but even after 11 years and outdated graphics the same peoples still play it. The only reason it's on the decline is that the devs put in a feature that makes it disadvantageous to be part of the creative group, the small alliances, where the feature made joining a giant alliance to be most efficient. Personally I think the devs are tired of maintaining the game and just wanted the player-base to decrease to the most minimal threshold so that they can cut it without offending people.

 

Comparably, another game I play with similar aspect, Tiberium Alliances have great war system. Unfortunately, it puts no weight on roleplay and full weight on having the biggest alliances. As such after the smaller alliances are beaten up, there is absolutely no reason to stay, so most players left after two weeks. Players you would see in that game are generally multi accounts.

 

Let's not talk about Travian or Tribal Wars, where it's all about war, little of the politics and none of roleplays. Sure, people still play it, but only because it's fun. Once you got rolled, you quit, no reason to stay.

Edited June 11, 2015 by Alice Lune

[Odin]

For real? Approval ratings is an excellent feature!

But it has to be combined with a law system(perks).

Additionally you could remove the manual edit of your economic and social policies, and let them change based on decisions during laws and/or events. Most questions from the policies area are so or so already 'laws'.

[Dwemyrn]

That embargo bit seems ripe for abuse to me... but the idea seems good in itself to expand the game.

 

It would definitely be abusable, people could easily just embargo you to !@#$ with you or because they don't like you and I'm actually laughing because people wouldn't be against doing that to henry/kastor as far as I've seen.

If I may make a small suggestion: Losing approval by having war declared on you doesn't make much sense in the grand scheme of things.... In most nations throughout history the citizens rally around their leaders when attacked, not the opposite as this somewhat implies. So, in my opinion, having war declared on you should increase your approval by a decent amount.

Losing approval by war declarations seem !@#$, if you're the one declaring understandable, if someone decides to raid someone else it would be an extremely abusable vantage point for raiders.

 

Abusable, how?

 

 

While that's a reasonable opinion, it would create an abusable reality where you could declare war on someone just to increase their approval rating. You can think of this as, "Someone declared war on us, why didn't our leader do enough to prevent this from happening?"

 

Winning a war, on the other hand, does give you a significant boost.

Sheepy, you've seen that people can be asses on here, someone could declare war on your just because they're being an ass, and you can't prevent them from being an ass because that's who they are. XD

 

Your approval rating will generally go up by a small amount every turn, unless you've got a really high population density or a lot of pollution. Also, you must take into consideration the fact that everyone starts at a very high approval rating.

 I personally think approval ratings if they have to be here should no get implemented into a nation until have at least 3 cities.

 

It'll make it so that during wars, people embargo individual nations and not alliances. Good add imo.

 This could very well bite you in the ass because if everyone embargoes you because you're kastor/henry, you could end up with the approval rating of zero which I'm sure would devastate your nation down the road based on what the approval rating will end up doing.

 

I don't understand, it literally has no effect on you. You don't like other people having fun through roleplaying? If you didn't want to play a nation simulation game, why are you here?

 My points are referring to if it can be harmful to you later because you said in the future it very well could be.

I've added an Approval Rating to nations. The purpose of this rating is twofold. First, it's a neat little roleplay statistic; you can think of it as something like the "Happiness" of your citizens. Second, it's going to have a more mechanical purpose later on. Nothing major, but having a higher approval rating will be favorable for you, when you want to pass a law. Everyone starts with a 99.99% approval rating.

 

Now, to tell you about the mechanics of this new feature. I've put together a nice wiki page illustrating just what increases and decrease your approval rating. See that, here: http://politicsandwar.wikia.com/wiki/Approval_Rating

 

Since I know most of you are too lazy to click that link, here's a table (from the wiki page) detailing what actions will increase/decrease your approval rating.

 

All of the things on here about war, are abusable for raiders, all the embargo things can devastate a nation if everyone decided to embargo them for the sake of not liking them, being an ass, or trolling. Espionage things makes sense I suppose, national security would be an important factor, having someone come into your nation and successfully blow something up would be very unsafe because people would see it as terrorism and freak the hell out. Other than the specifics I pointed out, anything else could be deemed appropriate for the circumstances of this update.

[Arthur James]

my ratings are a bit low less than 60%...

[Charles Bolivar]

Would it be possible to implement a -1 on a daily basis for being at war and having 0 infantry, tanks, ships and aircraft?

[Alex]

 

It would definitely be abusable, people could easily just embargo you to !@#$ with you or because they don't like you and I'm actually laughing because people wouldn't be against doing that to henry/kastor as far as I've seen.

Losing approval by war declarations seem !@#$, if you're the one declaring understandable, if someone decides to raid someone else it would be an extremely abusable vantage point for raiders.

 

Sheepy, you've seen that people can be asses on here, someone could declare war on your just because they're being an ass, and you can't prevent them from being an ass because that's who they are. XD

 

 I personally think approval ratings if they have to be here should no get implemented into a nation until have at least 3 cities.

 

 This could very well bite you in the ass because if everyone embargoes you because you're kastor/henry, you could end up with the approval rating of zero which I'm sure would devastate your nation down the road based on what the approval rating will end up doing.

 

 My points are referring to if it can be harmful to you later because you said in the future it very well could be.

All of the things on here about war, are abusable for raiders, all the embargo things can devastate a nation if everyone decided to embargo them for the sake of not liking them, being an ass, or trolling. Espionage things makes sense I suppose, national security would be an important factor, having someone come into your nation and successfully blow something up would be very unsafe because people would see it as terrorism and freak the hell out. Other than the specifics I pointed out, anything else could be deemed appropriate for the circumstances of this update.

 

See: http://politicsandwar.com/forums/index.php?/topic/6959-6112015-small-changes-improvements/

 

Specifically:

 

 

 

• Approval Rating caps have been lifted on both ends. I've also added your raw point value to the nation page, next to your percentage (which can only fluctuate between 0-100).
• Approval Ratings have been added to the Leaderboards page. You can now see who has the highest and lowest Approval Ratings.
• Approval Ratings are officially a purely cosmetic update. They're for fun, and will have no bearing on anything in the game mechanics-wise.
• Approval Ratings can no longer be affected by embargoes. I've updated the wiki page to reflect that.

[Dwemyrn]

See: http://politicsandwar.com/forums/index.php?/topic/6959-6112015-small-changes-improvements/

 

Specifically:

I was writing this at 1:54 right before you posted the new update at 1:58. XD I saw though. gg

[Ace]

Honestly this is starting to look like an Star Citizen (true space-sim simulator) vs EVE ONLINE (true space-sim simulator into a space numbers game)

 

EVE ONLINE developers listened to the community and forced to sacrifice their original dream of becoming the best ever space sim Star Citizen in favor of pleasing the gaming community for more balance/optimization numbers games. It's not much of a space-sim anymore than it is a Starcraft strategy MMO game. (+ $$$)

[Dan77]

I don't like changes like these which are purely cosmetic, especially when there are numbers involved.  For me it just adds confusion, especially for new players who may get concerned about having a low approval rating when it means nothing in reality.  It can also contribute to making the game seem more complicated than it is and so many people quit games in the first day because they can't immediately understand everything.

 

I'm not suggesting dumbing down the game mechanics that have any meaning.  Personally I prefer a game that requires some knowledge and experience to be good at.  Cosmetic changes just add to the issue of not being able to see the wood for the trees though.

 

Having said all that, it's no problem for me to happily go along and just ignore the figure now I know it's irrelevant.

[saeton]

I'm sort of on the fence here. 

 

I like the idea of the approval rating but only if its purely cosmetic. 

 

Everyone wants change, but it takes a really long time in between major changes (just to make sure it's 99% bug free before being released) and people get antsy. 

 

It's nice to have small things here and there to keep people placated until the next major update. 

 

The raptor thing, while pissing people off, was absolutely hilarious. If there were a way to set it up so that you can only have a raptor war against other people who had raptors (just because it'd be too high a cost for anyone who couldn't afford them to defend themselves) then it would work a little better, as those of us who wanted a break from monotony could've done that. 

[Alex]

I'm sort of on the fence here. 

 

I like the idea of the approval rating but only if its purely cosmetic. 

 

Everyone wants change, but it takes a really long time in between major changes (just to make sure it's 99% bug free before being released) and people get antsy. 

 

It's nice to have small things here and there to keep people placated until the next major update. 

 

The raptor thing, while pissing people off, was absolutely hilarious. If there were a way to set it up so that you can only have a raptor war against other people who had raptors (just because it'd be too high a cost for anyone who couldn't afford them to defend themselves) then it would work a little better, as those of us who wanted a break from monotony could've done that. 

 

And it is just purely cosmetic, for the record.