Jon Snow Posted August 29, 2015 Share Posted August 29, 2015 Currently, while nukes are moderately expensive, they can be bought within a month depending on prioritization by an alliance. Additionally, unless we plan on there being a nation strength cap, we are going to see nations getting these projects between 500-1700NS. At the moment we are seeing how this is becoming an issue. While this is considered low/mid-tier at the moment how do you expect the average NS of the world will be in six months' time? How about in one year's time? As such I believe that we should have the requirements for many projects reevaluated. Do we want to have nations with max military wonders by the time they hit 2k NS and then try to figure out how to change game mechanics in the future to address the bloating of NS that is bound to happen? This honestly should have been addressed sooner. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caecus Posted August 29, 2015 Share Posted August 29, 2015 What is the problem here? 1 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...
Administrators Alex Posted August 29, 2015 Administrators Share Posted August 29, 2015 I'm not sure I see a real issue either. 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...
MRBOOTY Posted August 29, 2015 Share Posted August 29, 2015 What he's basically saying is that we're like a year into the game and already everyone and their brother has nukes. He's wondering if this is really a good idea, or if military wonders should've been more elusive/more expensive to begin with. It is a bit late to discuss this though, unless we want to nerf Placentica again Quote MR BOOTY IN DA HOUSE http://i.imgur.com/R5WWAB1.jpg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan77 Posted August 29, 2015 Share Posted August 29, 2015 Nukes discourage war, which is rather annoying. Generally I'm in the don't change anything camp but in this case, I'm really not a fan of them. The main reason I don't like them (and this applies to missiles too, although to a lesser extent) is that you can be completely outmanouvered and beaten in conventional warfare and still able to inflict huge amounts of damage on your opponent. The amount of nukes flying around makes a mockery of the war system. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Snow Posted August 29, 2015 Author Share Posted August 29, 2015 What he's basically saying is that we're like a year into the game and already everyone and their brother has nukes. He's wondering if this is really a good idea, or if military wonders should've been more elusive/more expensive to begin with. It is a bit late to discuss this though, unless we want to nerf Placentica again Ding ding ding. Probably worded it pretty poorly but the point still stands. This is not going to be healthy for gameplay once people starting hitting say 20k+ NS Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spooner Posted September 1, 2015 Share Posted September 1, 2015 It may be worthwhile to make expensive "upgrades" for national projects. Super bonus points, Sheepy, if you have branching upgrade paths. For example: -Build 1 Nuclear Project Upgrade: Nukes cost half the amount of resources to build, Nukes cost 3 less AP to fire, or Nukes destroy 30% more infrastructure -Build 1 MLP Upgrade: Missiles cost half the amount of resources to build, Missiles cost 2 less AP to fire, or Stealth Ability - Missiles now have a 75% chance to hit a nation with an Iron Dome -Build 1 CIA Upgrade: You can now build 4 spies per day (up from 2/day), 1 spy per day can be enlisted for free & spies no longer cost upkeep, or the "Quick & Easy" spy operation (the shittiest one) can be conducted free of charge. Obviously the different options must be balanced. However, I think this keeps the game interesting through customization (all of us currently have "cookie cutter" builds for the most part) along with addressing the problem of mid-late game money sinks. 1 Quote ☾☆ High Priest of Dio Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Boss Posted September 1, 2015 Share Posted September 1, 2015 It may be worthwhile to make expensive "upgrades" for national projects. Super bonus points, Sheepy, if you have branching upgrade paths. For example: -Build 1 Nuclear Project Upgrade: Nukes cost half the amount of resources to build, Nukes cost 3 less AP to fire, or Nukes destroy 30% more infrastructure -Build 1 MLP Upgrade: Missiles cost half the amount of resources to build, Missiles cost 2 less AP to fire, or Stealth Ability - Missiles now have a 75% chance to hit a nation with an Iron Dome -Build 1 CIA Upgrade: You can now build 4 spies per day (up from 2/day), 1 spy per day can be enlisted for free & spies no longer cost upkeep, or the "Quick & Easy" spy operation (the shittiest one) can be conducted free of charge. Obviously the different options must be balanced. However, I think this keeps the game interesting through customization (all of us currently have "cookie cutter" builds for the most part) along with addressing the problem of mid-late game money sinks. What would be really cool is branching tech paths based on your nation score and infrastructure as well as military improvements, and how long you've had them. Quote "We pull in money, new recruits, all just to combat cipher, rubbing our noses in bloody battlefield dirt, all for revenge." "Why are we still here? Just to suffer? Every night i can feel my leg, and my arm, even my fingers. The body i've lost, The comrades i've lost, won't stop hurting... it's like they're all still there... You feel it too, don't you?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spooner Posted September 1, 2015 Share Posted September 1, 2015 What would be really cool is branching tech paths based on your nation score and infrastructure as well as military improvements, and how long you've had them. Yeah, the game seriously needs a branching tech tree of some description. The fact that basically all nations are the exact same is fairly stale for the players. I know you can customize how much military you have, but some sort of research would be an interesting addition. Seems like it solves OP's problem of high-end money sinks, and actual interesting gameplay mechanics. Quote ☾☆ High Priest of Dio Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ayayay Posted September 1, 2015 Share Posted September 1, 2015 (edited) It is a bit late to discuss this though, unless we want to nerf Placentica again He's use to it Missiles and Nukes are fine as is though and shouldn't be changed. But yea, people have been talking about perks for a long time which would def spruce up the game a bit. Edited September 1, 2015 by Metro 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...
Valdoroth Posted September 1, 2015 Share Posted September 1, 2015 What if the global nuke/NRF(the project) cost scaled by a small % each owned (say 0.05%)? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aisha Greyjoy Posted September 1, 2015 Share Posted September 1, 2015 Currently, while nukes are moderately expensive, they can be bought within a month depending on prioritization by an alliance. Additionally, unless we plan on there being a nation strength cap, we are going to see nations getting these projects between 500-1700NS. At the moment we are seeing how this is becoming an issue. While this is considered low/mid-tier at the moment how do you expect the average NS of the world will be in six months' time? How about in one year's time? As such I believe that we should have the requirements for many projects reevaluated. Do we want to have nations with max military wonders by the time they hit 2k NS and then try to figure out how to change game mechanics in the future to address the bloating of NS that is bound to happen? This honestly should have been addressed sooner. Nukes are efficient to use against top 5-10% nations only. As nations grow that % may increase, but after a few nukes, you're not worth nuking anymore. I wasn't worth nuking at the end of the Gangbang war. Nukes are a great killer to use on top tier nations. But not all nations are top tier. And not all top tier nations stay top tier after wars. Nukes help with that. As long as we don't make infra cheaper to rebuy(I've seen that suggested many times), a good war will take down everyone fighting in it. 1 Quote Duke of House Greyjoy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noctis Anarch Caelum Posted November 30, 2018 Share Posted November 30, 2018 Enough people already have nukes & missiles; would be unfair to newer players & just make catching up harder if requirements for projects are increased. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sweeeeet Ronny D Posted November 30, 2018 Share Posted November 30, 2018 sweet 3 year grave dig bro! 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Epi Posted December 1, 2018 Share Posted December 1, 2018 (edited) 840 Edited February 16, 2021 by Epi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sphinx Posted December 1, 2018 Share Posted December 1, 2018 When you Nercomancy a thread so badly you get booted from your alliance 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radoje Posted December 2, 2018 Share Posted December 2, 2018 I think the game change doesn't make sense, as when you're a small player that is trying to updeclare and get your alliance into positive damages during a prolonged war, the only way for you to do so if you're losing is if you spam missiles and nukes to launch at high infra targets. It's the only valuable way to fight back that's left after your military gets burned down. Restricting smaller players from participating in a crucial war mechanic just because they're small really doesn't make any sense. There's never been anything exclusive or rare about building nukes or missiles, it's simply another thing you add to your arsenal that you can use in specific situations. Not even to mention that smaller nations can barely afford nukes without help anyways. 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.