Popular Post stetonic Posted July 10, 2015 Popular Post Share Posted July 10, 2015 So we are getting another game change. I have been playing this game for nearly a year now and game changes are becoming a regular thing.The problem is the changes seem to be happening on the advice of a certain element of the players within the game.They seem to have a influence over the way the game is now played. Instead of keep changing the system.Players should learn how to get around it.They complained about planes killing to many ships.Well thats easy to sort out BUILD MORE PLANES.To defend your ships.They complained about missiles and now spies. So once again things will be changed.To make it better for the few.If i want to have a million spies and get zero income and never gain a single bit of infra ever again and spy the crap out of everyone.That should be my choice.Military is already capped within the limits of buildings and the amount you can recruit a day.If you want to change something REMOVE military limits and let a nation have as much military as it rss and income can support, That would be a game changing update that would enable death and destruction on a massive scale. Thanks for reading and now let all the negative comments come rolling in. 8 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saruman Posted July 10, 2015 Share Posted July 10, 2015 I stand by Sheepy, but you do have a point. Quote º¤ø„¤¤º°¨ ø„¸¸„¨ ø„¸¸„ø¤º°¨¨°º¤ø„¸¸„ø¤º°¨¨°º¤ø„¸ ¨°º¤ø„¸ GOD EMPEROR BIO DRANDO¨°º¤ø„¸ ¨°º¤ø„¸ BIO DRANDO GOD EMPEROR¨°º¤ø„¸ ¨°º¤ø„¤¤º°¨ ø„¸¸„¨ ø„¸¸„ø¤º°¨¨°º¤ø„¸¸„ø¤º°¨¨°º¤ø„¸ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stetonic Posted July 10, 2015 Author Share Posted July 10, 2015 I am not trying to go agianst Sheepy choices.Its his game .He can remove tanks and replace them with unicorns if he wants.The point is the players with the most influence are mainly players who played the beta and speed rounds.Why did they not get the changes made then.Instead of a year after the game went live. If you where playing COD on PS4 and they took away your guns because a dozen players didnt like it anymore.you would be really pissed off. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isolatar Posted July 10, 2015 Share Posted July 10, 2015 PnW:TE Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hooves Posted July 10, 2015 Share Posted July 10, 2015 Well you were already expecting negative comments. So I won't even bother to post my critique. I do consider one thing you've said, and that's this little circle of players Sheepy listens to is very questionable. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phiney Posted July 10, 2015 Share Posted July 10, 2015 So we are getting another game change. I have been playing this game for nearly a year now and game changes are becoming a regular thing.The problem is the changes seem to be happening on the advice of a certain element of the players within the game.They seem to have a influence over the way the game is now played. Instead of keep changing the system.Players should learn how to get around it.They complained about planes killing to many ships.Well thats easy to sort out BUILD MORE PLANES.To defend your ships.They complained about missiles and now spies. So once again things will be changed.To make it better for the few.If i want to have a million spies and get zero income and never gain a single bit of infra ever again and spy the crap out of everyone.That should be my choice.Military is already capped within the limits of buildings and the amount you can recruit a day.If you want to change something REMOVE military limits and let a nation have as much military as it rss and income can support, That would be a game changing update that would enable death and destruction on a massive scale. Thanks for reading and now let all the negative comments come rolling in. I'll say whats been said in the other thread, it's sheepys decisions 100%, we are just consultants and use our knowledge of using the game that sheepy doesnt have to assist him when he asks us. In regards to the AF nerf VS ships, it's just been brought more inline with how everything else works in the military system. You cant take out someones tanks in 2 attacks with planes if they have near the max their nation is capable of having, same with AF and the same should be with ships. I did attacks that would take out 60+ ships in one go with aircraft, that's just ridiculous and incredibly costly (I think I actually did an attack vs ships that was worth about 10 million in damage from 4 MAPs once) and made ships pretty worthless even with a decent amount of planes. Planes take a good couple of days to take out, ships should be the same, and now are. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caecus Posted July 10, 2015 Share Posted July 10, 2015 Just please, for the love of god, once you make this change, stop screwing with the system. It's hard enough as it is to predict in-game politics and the possibility for conflict, adding on a random game-changing update every month is just going to screw with all of us. The BoC ate 11 nukes and 13 missiles because there was an update that screwed with spies. This update isn't anywhere near ideal, and throwing my personal feelings with it, I hate it. BUT! IF IT KEEPS YOU GUYS FROM F#$%^ING WITH THE SYSTEM ANYMORE, I'LL F#%^ING CASH OUT NOW AND BE HAPPY WITH IT. 2 Quote It's a useful mental exercise. Through the years, many thinkers have been fascinated by it. But I don't enjoy playing. It was a game that was born during a brutal age when life counted for little. Everyone believed that some people were worth more than others. Kings. Pawns. I don't think that anyone is worth more than anyone else. Chess is just a game. Real people are not pieces. You can't assign more value to some of them and not others. Not to me. Not to anyone. People are not a thing that you can sacrifice. The lesson is, if anyone who looks on to the world as if it was a game of chess, deserves to lose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordRahl2 Posted July 10, 2015 Share Posted July 10, 2015 I'll say whats been said in the other thread, it's sheepys decisions 100%, we are just consultants and use our knowledge of using the game that sheepy doesnt have to assist him when he asks us. In regards to the AF nerf VS ships, it's just been brought more inline with how everything else works in the military system. You cant take out someones tanks in 2 attacks with planes if they have near the max their nation is capable of having, same with AF and the same should be with ships. I did attacks that would take out 60+ ships in one go with aircraft, that's just ridiculous and incredibly costly (I think I actually did an attack vs ships that was worth about 10 million in damage from 4 MAPs once) and made ships pretty worthless even with a decent amount of planes. Planes take a good couple of days to take out, ships should be the same, and now are. We've been doing a lot of discussion about spy changes lately, and I think we've come up with an appropriate fix to everyone's woes. Here is outlined a list of changes that are to be in the near future. This thread is for asking questions about the incoming spy changes, and so that you can be aware of them before they hit. It is not for you to make your own suggestions. Hard cap on spies for every nation at 50 - This will level the playing field for spies across the board, from big nations to small, and make espionage a unique part of the game Refund all spies over 50 at $135,200 each - This is to account for the cost of the spy itself and the large upkeep you pay per day on your spies Remove spies from counting toward nation score - 50 spies is only 5 points, so there's no reason for it to count toward your nation score Hide spies killed/captured on nation pages and in APIs (but still show # of spies) - This will help with scrapers being used to identify assailants Change Spy Assassination formula to be capped at 25% of enemy spies + 4 - With lower spy numbers, we don't need as high of damages CIA Project Buff, allows an increase to your spy cap of +10 for 60 spies total - This will make the CIA project a little more useful, and provide a small advantage to your nation in Espionage Remove spy ranges from the game - I think these are a failed idea, and with the new spy cap unnecessary That's it. Anything else you'd like to see we can potentially add later. I'm not looking for new suggestions here, I'm making sure there's nothing horrifically wrong with any of these changes before I make them, and giving you (the community) some time to swallow these (rather large) changes before they're rolled out. We've been working on this for weeks, and have been honing and finely tuning these changes into what most out our little dev group thinks is acceptable across the board. These should all be benevolent changes that improve the game and will making spying a unique and less war-like facet of the game. 1 Quote -signature removed for rules violation- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caecus Posted July 10, 2015 Share Posted July 10, 2015 You guys said this would be a long-term solution. Stick to your words. Quote It's a useful mental exercise. Through the years, many thinkers have been fascinated by it. But I don't enjoy playing. It was a game that was born during a brutal age when life counted for little. Everyone believed that some people were worth more than others. Kings. Pawns. I don't think that anyone is worth more than anyone else. Chess is just a game. Real people are not pieces. You can't assign more value to some of them and not others. Not to me. Not to anyone. People are not a thing that you can sacrifice. The lesson is, if anyone who looks on to the world as if it was a game of chess, deserves to lose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stetonic Posted July 10, 2015 Author Share Posted July 10, 2015 Yeah but know i have to take several attempts to take out your ships to lift a blockade.While you do massive damage to my infra with your naval attacks.Like i said build planes to defend your ships dont get the game changed to suit your needs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phiney Posted July 10, 2015 Share Posted July 10, 2015 Yeah but know i have to take several attempts to take out your ships to lift a blockade.While you do massive damage to my infra with your naval attacks.Like i said build planes to defend your ships dont get the game changed to suit your needs. So you're saying change it to suit YOUR needs? YOU don't want to build ships, only AF, so YOU want to be able to destroy anyone's ships quickly with your max airforce you can have by not filling slots with docks? C'mon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phiney Posted July 10, 2015 Share Posted July 10, 2015 Phiney, on 10 Jul 2015 - 10:39 PM, said: I'll say whats been said in the other thread, it's sheepys decisions 100%, we are just consultants and use our knowledge of using the game that sheepy doesnt have to assist him when he asks us. In regards to the AF nerf VS ships, it's just been brought more inline with how everything else works in the military system. You cant take out someones tanks in 2 attacks with planes if they have near the max their nation is capable of having, same with AF and the same should be with ships. I did attacks that would take out 60+ ships in one go with aircraft, that's just ridiculous and incredibly costly (I think I actually did an attack vs ships that was worth about 10 million in damage from 4 MAPs once) and made ships pretty worthless even with a decent amount of planes. Planes take a good couple of days to take out, ships should be the same, and now are. Sheepy, on 10 Jul 2015 - 6:10 PM, said: We've been doing a lot of discussion about spy changes lately, and I think we've come up with an appropriate fix to everyone's woes. Here is outlined a list of changes that are to be in the near future. This thread is for asking questions about the incoming spy changes, and so that you can be aware of them before they hit. It is not for you to make your own suggestions. Hard cap on spies for every nation at 50 - This will level the playing field for spies across the board, from big nations to small, and make espionage a unique part of the game Refund all spies over 50 at $135,200 each - This is to account for the cost of the spy itself and the large upkeep you pay per day on your spies Remove spies from counting toward nation score - 50 spies is only 5 points, so there's no reason for it to count toward your nation score Hide spies killed/captured on nation pages and in APIs (but still show # of spies) - This will help with scrapers being used to identify assailants Change Spy Assassination formula to be capped at 25% of enemy spies + 4 - With lower spy numbers, we don't need as high of damages CIA Project Buff, allows an increase to your spy cap of +10 for 60 spies total - This will make the CIA project a little more useful, and provide a small advantage to your nation in Espionage Remove spy ranges from the game - I think these are a failed idea, and with the new spy cap unnecessary That's it. Anything else you'd like to see we can potentially add later. I'm not looking for new suggestions here, I'm making sure there's nothing horrifically wrong with any of these changes before I make them, and giving you (the community) some time to swallow these (rather large) changes before they're rolled out. We've been working on this for weeks, and have been honing and finely tuning these changes into what most out our little dev group thinks is acceptable across the board. These should all be benevolent changes that improve the game and will making spying a unique and less war-like facet of the game. Possibly poor wording on his part. We provided a range of different options and opinions, he made a decisions based off of these and then posed that decision back to us, and we discussed it more and then he again made another post with what he thought were final changes and we said sure we agree. He is in charge, we consult. are we really just gunna quote stuff here and repeat ourselves? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stetonic Posted July 10, 2015 Author Share Posted July 10, 2015 No i choose to not have ships.That should not stop my choice of tactic to be less worthwhile because the PW cartel have decided they do want ships Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phiney Posted July 10, 2015 Share Posted July 10, 2015 No i choose to not have ships.That should not stop my choice of tactic to be less worthwhile because the PW cartel have decided they do want ships you chose not to have ships because AF was OP against them. Now you are forced to stop and think about it and wonder if infact you DO need ships. Of course everyone gravitates towards the OP way of doing things. It wasnt balanced, so your "tactic" was obviously the best way to do things. Now it IS balanced and it makes you have to think about how to go. I was massively in favour of making AF not as effective against ships as it was clearly OP. take a look at my nation, how many ships and docks do I have compared to my AF? I have made the decision that for me I would still rather max out my AF than get ships. but it wasn't an easy decision to make, and I lost a lot of infra from naval attacks in my recent wars because of it. Oh look, one of the "PW cartel" made a suggestion that doesnt benefit him, but instead benefits the balance of the game, crazy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordRahl2 Posted July 10, 2015 Share Posted July 10, 2015 Phiney, on 10 Jul 2015 - 3:26 PM, said: Possibly poor wording on his part. We provided a range of different options and opinions, he made a decisions based off of these and then posed that decision back to us, and we discussed it more and then he again made another post with what he thought were final changes and we said sure we agree. He is in charge, we consult. That was not 'poor wording'. He clearly conveyed his message and it was clearly understood. Your attempts to obfuscate are pretty weak. 1 Quote -signature removed for rules violation- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phiney Posted July 10, 2015 Share Posted July 10, 2015 Phiney, on 10 Jul 2015 - 3:26 PM, said: That was not 'poor wording'. He clearly conveyed his message and it was clearly understood. Your attempts to obfuscate are pretty weak. OK, you win, I admit it, I have complete mind control over Sheepy. I make all his decisions for him. We've only just got to the stage where he runs his big change ideas past us before implementing them in case they break things or are a bit mental and detrimental to how the game actually works from a players perspective. Controlling him completely is just a ridiculous concept. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hooves Posted July 10, 2015 Share Posted July 10, 2015 No i choose to not have ships.That should not stop my choice of tactic to be less worthwhile because the PW cartel have decided they do want ships I mean, you can still destroy ships with your massive air force. It'll just take a bit longer. Which I honestly agree with because ships were made out of toilet paper before the change. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caecus Posted July 10, 2015 Share Posted July 10, 2015 OK, you win, I admit it, I have complete mind control over Sheepy. I make all his decisions for him. We've only just got to the stage where he runs his big change ideas past us before implementing them in case they break things or are a bit mental and detrimental to how the game actually works from a players perspective. Controlling him completely is just a ridiculous concept. There is a very interesting view on Chinese history. The Chinese are famous for autocracy and imperial rule. But interestingly enough, the most powerful people (and the people who have the most influence) are those next to the emperor whispering in his ears. Quote It's a useful mental exercise. Through the years, many thinkers have been fascinated by it. But I don't enjoy playing. It was a game that was born during a brutal age when life counted for little. Everyone believed that some people were worth more than others. Kings. Pawns. I don't think that anyone is worth more than anyone else. Chess is just a game. Real people are not pieces. You can't assign more value to some of them and not others. Not to me. Not to anyone. People are not a thing that you can sacrifice. The lesson is, if anyone who looks on to the world as if it was a game of chess, deserves to lose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isolatar Posted July 10, 2015 Share Posted July 10, 2015 (edited) Phiney, on 10 Jul 2015 - 3:26 PM, said: That was not 'poor wording'. He clearly conveyed his message and it was clearly understood. Your attempts to obfuscate are pretty weak. Can you not make every thread about you antagonising the dev group? Seriously, if you have any complaints about the diversity of the group, bring it up with Sheepy. Edited July 10, 2015 by Isolatar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stetonic Posted July 10, 2015 Author Share Posted July 10, 2015 There was a point in time when ships ruled the world.Until aircraft then planes ruled the world.If i have the ability to drop bombs on you from 30,000ft or even 60,000ft .Then ships ,soldiers and infra dont count for anything. If these game changes keep happening.Whats next.Tanks cant kill soldiers coz they are bullies.Or soldiers shoot down planes.Or even you cant blow up my infra coz i built it under a mountain. Either have a game mechanic where you expand the range of military units.As in you can build several sorts of ground units and planes to counter act certain sorts of attack.Or just keep it simple as it is now and stop messing with the game and fix and add the things everyone really wants. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordRahl2 Posted July 10, 2015 Share Posted July 10, 2015 OK, you win, I admit it, I have complete mind control over Sheepy. I make all his decisions for him. We've only just got to the stage where he runs his big change ideas past us before implementing them in case they break things or are a bit mental and detrimental to how the game actually works from a players perspective. Controlling him completely is just a ridiculous concept. You are so right. I have no idea how a group of advisers impacts the decision making of a leader. I have no concept of how a self selecting group would be predisposed to group think. I am clueless about how such a negative leader/advisory construct could impact the decision making process. I would tell you that I might have some idea about these things based on having an MBA, which included numerous classes on leadership and group dynamics, and that I have led groups ranging in size from 6 to 250 people. But, as you so adroitly pointed out, people can lie on the internet. 2 Quote -signature removed for rules violation- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordRahl2 Posted July 10, 2015 Share Posted July 10, 2015 Can you not make every thread about you antagonising the dev group? Seriously, if you have any complaints about the diversity of the group, bring it up with Sheepy. It appears to be the root cause of the problem to be honest. So it is applicable in all of two threads. Or, you know, 'every' one. Quote -signature removed for rules violation- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adama Posted July 10, 2015 Share Posted July 10, 2015 (edited) Phiney, on 10 Jul 2015 - 3:26 PM, said: That was not 'poor wording'. He clearly conveyed his message and it was clearly understood. Your attempts to obfuscate are pretty weak. The purpose of the closed development subforum is so Sheepy can get REAL feedback on ideas he wants to implement, and NOT have to wade through giant piles of unproductive posts. It exists to clear out some of the noise to have a readable and followable conversation with good input. The fact you have spent this and the other entire thread complaining about the dev group is exactly why it exists. Edited July 10, 2015 by Adama 2 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...
stetonic Posted July 10, 2015 Author Share Posted July 10, 2015 Changes to a game this far into it.Should be game altering as in adding new military.Not messing with the units already in play. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordRahl2 Posted July 10, 2015 Share Posted July 10, 2015 The purpose of the closed development subforum is so Sheepy can get REAL feedback on ideas he wants to implement, and NOT have to wade through giant piles of unproductive posts. It exists to clear out some of the noise to have a readable and followable conversation with good input. The fact you have spent this and the other entire thread complaining about the dev group is exactly why it exists. Or, perhaps, that it is a poorly designed group that is excluding outside opinions. The fact that this concept is so roundly rejected suggests something, not about me or my angst, but about that very group. 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.