Possible Game Updates Currently Being Tested

[Hysteria]

I'm writing up a quick thread to give you all (the community) that does not use the test server a quick overview of what I've been working on on the test server. What we're likely to see in the next two-three weeks is a large war system update, along with a couple of other minor changes. Here's a quick overview of what's currently on the test server that I'd like to move live before December 20th.

 

 

• Wars now have a system called 'resistance'. Each sides starts the war with 100 resistance, and resistance is reduced through every attack. When your opponent's resistance reaches 0, you take 25% of their money, 10% of each of their resources, and automatically destroys 10% of the infrastructure in each of their cities. They are sent to Beige, but for only 3 days. This is to add a more visual component to wars, and encourage people to want to win wars.
• Tank casualties have been reduced by half in Ground Battles. This is to help make wars less expensive.
• Sabotage operations (espionage) are no longer limited by improvement caps. You instead destroy between 2-15% of the target's units that you are sabotaging. This gives you a more effective way to kill aircraft aside from other aircraft.
• Loot amounts are listed in Timelines.
• Nuclear weapons no longer send the opponent immediately to beige
• When winning a war and sending an opponent to beige, if they are already beige you will not reset them back to 3 days, you will instead add 3 days to their beige time. This is a buff to players who are losing multiple wars.
• Espionage operations targeting enemy spies have reduced enemy spies killed by 30%

Non-related war changes:

• Read receipts added to messages
• Link to Discord channel added to the sidebar

 

This is mostly to serve as a heads-up for what may be coming, and to offer you a chance to jump in on the test server and try out these features for yourself. When implemented, I'll be enforcing a 5-day or so peace period where no one can declare new wars, and implementing these changes at the end of that when all existing wars have expired.

 

Can you please sell the game to someone who knows what their actually doing?

[Auctor]

There are plenty of flaws with the proposed update, but if you'd address those flaws constructively here and use the entire rest of these forums to !@#$ without a real content about it, that'd be cool too.

[Hysteria]

- removed for rule violations -

Edited December 5, 2016 by Four

[Ivan the Red]

Nuclear Weapons should be removed from the game, rather than encouraged.

[Charles Bolivar]

Planes will still be able to inflict the same rate of tank casualties in ground strikes I presume?

[Samwise]

• Wars now have a system called 'resistance'. Each sides starts the war with 100 resistance, and resistance is reduced through every attack. When your opponent's resistance reaches 0, you take 25% of their money, 10% of each of their resources, and automatically destroys 10% of the infrastructure in each of their cities. They are sent to Beige, but for only 3 days. This is to add a more visual component to wars, and encourage people to want to win wars.

lol Because having to pay a billion in reps wasn't incentive enough.

[Spooner]

The main thing that needs changing, imo, is that consecutive victories shouldn't keep adding 3 days onto the beige timer. If you get hit three times, that's 9 days on beige. If you lose all 8 wars (worst case scenario), that's 24 days of beige.

 

Each consecutive victory, while in beige, should only add an additional 1 day of beige instead of three.

 

Just a small change that I think would benefit the new system.

 

Edit: Nukes not giving *any* beige is a bit silly though, imo. If you don't give any beige, nuclear weapons should have their infra damage nerfed.

Edited December 4, 2016 by Spooner

[durmij]

The main thing that needs changing, imo, is that consecutive victories shouldn't keep adding 3 days onto the beige timer. If you get hit three times, that's 9 days on beige. If you lose all 8 wars (worst case scenario), that's 24 days of beige.

 

Each consecutive victory, while in beige, should only add an additional 1 day of beige instead of three.

 

Just a small change that I think would benefit the new system.

 

Edit: Nukes not giving *any* beige is a bit silly though, imo. If you don't give any beige, nuclear weapons should have their infra damage nerfed.

My change would be let every defeat increase by 3, but hard cap it at 3 to 4 days max. So you have some time after you are through your last defeat, but you can't stack it.

 

Also reduce the time to build planes. Only being able to hit 50 percent planes from being beiged is terrible.

[Erland]

The 10% infrastructure damage from each city is very excessive and completely unnecessary, especially in raids where the objective is to loot instead of completely destroy an enemy.

 

If someone is fighting 6 wars and loses all of them, they might end up losing approximately 30% infrastructure from attacks, then another 50% gets added on top of that? The fact that almost the entirety of someone's infrastructure can be destroyed in the space of only 3 days is very disconcerting, since it takes months to build up. At least with the current system it takes at least a few weeks to completely destroy.

 

It's also way too punishing for larger nations who are already punished more from exponential infrastructure rebuild costs and larger infrastructure damage. In this regard I believe the current system is much more fair and realistic in terms of losses. The number and size of attacks should dictate losses, not the number and size of the opponent's cities.

If you want to shorten wars to 3 days but retain the damage that would be done over 5 days, increase damage values per attack, that way it will be spread out over some amount of cities based on damage and not a fixed amount per city regardless of how many cities there are. 

Furthermore, with this new system, there's no point in further incentivising victory with more losses because it will be a forced condition of depleting an enemy's resistance points during attacks anyway, and the loot gained is a good enough incentive to fight wars on its own.

 

I also think the minimum war time should be kept at 24 hours and not increased to 48 hours, since this will just inconvenience raids against inactives.

Another idea is to have resistance points transferred instead of depleted, so for example an attack transfers points from the defender to the attacker, and the war is won whenever the resistance difference between the two players reaches a certain amount (for example, if this amount is 100, a war would end when one side transfers 50 resistance points for a total of 150 and the other remains with 50, effectively halfing the minimum war time if one side doesn't fight back as is the case with inactives).

By having resistance points transferred, close wars between two players will last longer perhaps up until the usual expiration time of 5 days at which point a stalemate is declared if no one can break through and win. With the proposed system, close wars will still either end in a win or loss with the subsequent damage and looting not really indicative of how close the war actually was. At least with the current system to win requires 6 consecutive immense triumph ground victories which clearly shows a decisive victory for one side. With the new system, someone with a very low resistance could still defeat an opponent simply by winning the race to 0 despite their opponent almost beating them. To me, having to sustain such heavy losses as you've proposed after such a close fight is a major flaw of this new system.

Loot and damage should be based on the degree to which someone is winning, namely through successful attacks, not a binary win/loss scenario.

 

Changing the way wars are won with the new resistance points system is fine, but the current mechanics for damages and loot should remain the same.

Edited December 4, 2016 by Erland

[Alex]

Pretty sure some one will find a way to make the wars last the full three days to do as much damage as possible instead of aiming for victory and making the wars shorter sense the goal of war is to destroy your enemy. Basically someone will find a way to fight a war the same way we fight wars now, make them last 5 days and bomb infra and once they find out how to do it, everyone one will do it.

 

If you and I were in a war, and you were doing everything you could to not Beige me and keep the war going as long as possible to do the most damage (which would likely be attacking me with only Nuclear Weapons, which would take you 4 days to win the war) I would simply race to Beige you as fast as possible, ending the war, and then you'd take at least comparable damage from the 10% infrastructure penalty at the end of the war. Plus, I'd end up with any loot.

 

Planes will still be able to inflict the same rate of tank casualties in ground strikes I presume?

 

This is correct.

[Alex]

As a note to everyone else who's posted and I didn't directly respond to - I read your responses and there are some legitimate criticisms. In my opinion, there are also a few concerns which I believe are misplaced or have already been addressed, and likely just as a result of jumping into this thing halfway into it.

 

One of the issues here is the raid vs. alliance war scenario. Alliance war proponents believe the 10% infrastructure damage at the end is not enough, and it will make wars take too long, meaning players will have to stockpile even more resources, and that means wars will be more infrequent and thus the game less fun. On the other hand, I do understand that 10% of infrastructure damage is pretty penalizing, and less would seem fairer. One thing that I'm not sure everyone in this thread realizes is that, if you were in 5 wars, for example, and lost all of them, you would not lose 50% of your infrastructure in your cities.

 

Let's say you had 5 cities, each with 1,000 infrastructure. You lose war one, and so you lose 10% of the infra in each city, which is 100 infrastructure.

Now you have 5 cities with 900 infrastructure. You lose 10% of the infra in each city, which is 90 infrastructure.

Now you have 5 cities with 810 infrastructure. You lose 81 infra in the next war lost.

5 Cities with 729 infrastructure. You lose 72.9 infra in each city in the next war lost.

5 Cities with 656.1 infrastructure. You lose 65.6 infra in each city. Leaving you with 590.5 infrastructure in each city at the end of it. In the current test server conditions, you'd also have 15 days of Beige to rebuild. And you would've lost $8,330,574.75 in infrastructure from the 10% penalty. Which is significant, but all things considered, I do not think that it is game-ending for your nation.

[Alex]

Beige time for losing a war has been reduced to 2 days - still stacking. Loot from winning a war has been reduced from 25% to 20%.

[Alex]

The Fortify action has been added to the test server. It costs 3 MAPs, increases your resistance by 10, and causes your opponent to take +10% casualties when they attack you while you're fortified.

[Alex]

Not sure if I mentioned this here yet or not, but getting an Utter Failure attack will no longer take away any enemy resistance. I.E. You can't win a war with an utter failure attack.

[Sketchy]

As a note to everyone else who's posted and I didn't directly respond to - I read your responses and there are some legitimate criticisms. In my opinion, there are also a few concerns which I believe are misplaced or have already been addressed, and likely just as a result of jumping into this thing halfway into it.

 

One of the issues here is the raid vs. alliance war scenario. Alliance war proponents believe the 10% infrastructure damage at the end is not enough, and it will make wars take too long, meaning players will have to stockpile even more resources, and that means wars will be more infrequent and thus the game less fun. On the other hand, I do understand that 10% of infrastructure damage is pretty penalizing, and less would seem fairer. One thing that I'm not sure everyone in this thread realizes is that, if you were in 5 wars, for example, and lost all of them, you would not lose 50% of your infrastructure in your cities.

 

Let's say you had 5 cities, each with 1,000 infrastructure. You lose war one, and so you lose 10% of the infra in each city, which is 100 infrastructure.

Now you have 5 cities with 900 infrastructure. You lose 10% of the infra in each city, which is 90 infrastructure.

Now you have 5 cities with 810 infrastructure. You lose 81 infra in the next war lost.

5 Cities with 729 infrastructure. You lose 72.9 infra in each city in the next war lost.

5 Cities with 656.1 infrastructure. You lose 65.6 infra in each city. Leaving you with 590.5 infrastructure in each city at the end of it. In the current test server conditions, you'd also have 15 days of Beige to rebuild. And you would've lost $8,330,574.75 in infrastructure from the 10% penalty. Which is significant, but all things considered, I do not think that it is game-ending for your nation.

The issue is it really should be a flat amount. Infra is already scaled in value. So why further increase damage by also scaling by percentage? The cost of infra already deters building too tall.

[Alex]

The issue is it really should be a flat amount. Infra is already scaled in value. So why further increase damage by also scaling by percentage? The cost of infra already deters building too tall.

 

It shouldn't be a flat amount - bigger nations should take more in damage than smaller nations. Don't you agree?

[Auctor]

They do even if it's a flat amount. 100 infra for a 2k infra city v. 100 infra off a 1200 infra city has its own kind of scaling.

[Sketchy]

It shouldn't be a flat amount - bigger nations should take more in damage than smaller nations. Don't you agree?

*facepalms* 

 

The higher your infra, the more damage you take in VALUE. Higher infra costs more so its "more damage".

 

How do you not see that?

[Mageofpie]

It shouldn't be a flat amount - bigger nations should take more in damage than smaller nations. Don't you agree?

 

Are you set on having ALL resources looted? If so, how much time do I have before I'm boned?

[WISD0MTREE]

Are you set on having ALL resources looted? If so, how much time do I have before I'm boned?

IIRC, not Credits

[Mageofpie]

IIRC, not Credits

 

Credits no good with a 10/month limit unfortunately.

[WISD0MTREE]

Credits no good with a 10/month limit unfortunately.

$2.5 * 10 mil can really help rebuilding from war. 

[Mageofpie]

$2.5 * 10 mil can really help rebuilding from war

 

My circumstances are a little unique. I've never joined an alliance and rely on raiding for money. If all resources are looted then my defensive wars are going to hurt me a whole lot. That's why I ask, it might be time to settle down and join an alliance and become a semi-inactive player.

[Alex]

*facepalms* 

 

The higher your infra, the more damage you take in VALUE. Higher infra costs more so its "more damage".

 

How do you not see that?

 

I do see that - but I'm not convinced a flat amount is enough.

[Alex]

After further review of espionage numbers, I've reduced the amounts to 1-5%, from 2-15%. This means it would take 20 turns to spy you down to half of a given unit, assuming you were at your max to begin with and every espionage operation you were hit with was targeting that particular unit.