12/16/2016 - Coming Winter Update

[Ryleh]

Sheepy, when will you ever make planes NOT op?

[WISD0MTREE]

I would be more happy if having the ships with some air defenses on them was put in. I mean we have been doing that since the World Wars.

I wouldn't have said anything if you didn't try to tie it to real ships. 

Random ship air defense: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RIM-7_Sea_Sparrow- 10 nmi range

Random anti-ship missile: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-84H/K_SLAM-ER -155 nmi range

 

I agree planes shouldn't be invincible, but don't back up your argument with realism. Gameplay > Realism

Feel free to try to prove me wrong. 

[Tywin Lannister]

Directed to Alex. 

 

 

Following Alex's chart given, I'm drawing up a hypothetical situation between two 21 city nations. Both start with maximum army and the attacks are ran by the simulator (tanks casualties are halved from sim.).

 

Nation X: Soldiers: 315,000 (Rebuild 105,000), Tanks: 26,250 (Rebuild 5,250) Aircraft: 1890 (Rebuild: 315), Ships: 315, Nukes: 0

Nation Y: Soldiers: 315,000 (Rebuild 105,000), Tanks: 26,250 (Rebuild 5,250) Aircraft: 1890 (Rebuild: 315), Ships: 315, Nukes: 0

*(Rebuild: MEANS THE REBUILD LEFT)

 

Nation X ground attacks Nation Y: You ordered a ground attack upon the nation of SIMULATED NATION led by SIMULATED LEADER. The attack was a Pyrrhic victory. Your forces lost 126,809 soldiers and 2248 tanks, while SIMULATED LEADER's defenders lost 115,810 soldiers and 2045 tanks.

 

Nation X and Y both build back up. 

 

Nation X: Soldiers: 293,191 (Rebuild 0), Tanks: 26,250 (Rebuild 3,002) Aircraft: 1890 (Rebuild: 315), Ships: 315, Nukes: 0, MAP: 3 Resistance: 100

Nation Y: Soldiers: 304,190 (Rebuild 0), Tanks: 26,250 (Rebuild 3,205) Aircraft: 1890 (Rebuild: 315), Ships: 315, Nukes: 0, MAP: 6 Resistance: 96

 

Nation X builds back up and attacks Nation Y again via ground again: You ordered a ground attack upon the nation of SIMULATED NATION led by SIMULATED LEADER. The attack was a Pyrrhic victory. Your forces lost 130,730 soldiers and 2,353 tanks, while SIMULATED LEADER's defenders lost 131,779 soldiers and 2,365 tanks.

 

Both nations rebuild.

 

Nation X: Soldiers: 162,461 (Rebuild 0), Tanks: 26,250 (Rebuild 649) Aircraft: 1890 (Rebuild: 315), Ships: 315, Nukes: 0, MAP: 0 Resistance: 100

Nation Y: Soldiers: 172,411 (Rebuild 0), Tanks: 26,250 (Rebuild 840) Aircraft: 1890 (Rebuild: 315), Ships: 315, Nukes: 0, MAP: 6 Resistance: 92

 

Nation X waits to get 3 more MAPs, and then hits on ground again. Y is only rebuilding: The attack was a Pyrrhic victory. Your forces lost 152,331 soldiers and 2860 tanks, while SIMULATED LEADER's defenders lost 105,820 soldiers and 1912 tanks. 

 

Nation X: Soldiers: 10,130 (Rebuild 0), Tanks: 24,039 (Rebuild 0) Aircraft: 1890 (Rebuild: 315), Ships: 315, Nukes: 0, MAP: 0 Resistance: 100

Nation Y: Soldiers: 66,591 (Rebuild 0), Tanks: 25,178 (Rebuild 0) Aircraft: 1890 (Rebuild: 315), Ships: 315, Nukes: 0, MAP: 9 Resistance: 88

 

Nation X waits to get 3 more MAPs, and then hits on ground again. Y still only rebuilds and makes a nuke to which X can do nothing but stare at: You ordered a ground attack upon the nation of SIMULATED NATION led by SIMULATED LEADER. The attack was a Pyrrhic victory. Your forces lost 10,000 soldiers and 2,082 tanks, while SIMULATED LEADER's defenders lost 66,591 soldiers and 1,551 tanks.

 

Nation X: Soldiers: 130 (Rebuild 0), Tanks: 21,957 (Rebuild 0) Aircraft: 1890 (Rebuild: 315), Ships: 315, Nukes: 0, MAP: 0 Resistance: 100

Nation Y: Soldiers: 0 (Rebuild 0), Tanks: 23,627 (Rebuild 0) Aircraft: 1890 (Rebuild: 315), Ships: 315, Nukes: 1, MAP: 12 Resistance: 84

 

Nation Y launches a nuclear weapon. 

 

Nation X: Soldiers: 130 (Rebuild 0), Tanks: 21,957 (Rebuild 0) Aircraft: 1890 (Rebuild: 315), Ships: 315, Nukes: 0, MAP: 0 Resistance: 75

Nation Y: Soldiers: 0 (Rebuild 0), Tanks: 23,627 (Rebuild 0) Aircraft: 1890 (Rebuild: 315), Ships: 315, Nukes: 0, MAP: 0 Resistance: 84

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Without even talking about the infra issue here, as Pyrrhic victory was getting ~30 infra taken out, which means X took out around 120 infra, and Y blasted his nuke taking out like majority of the infra which could even be 1800 infra, we see usage of conventional military and just rebuilding results in sitting with 75 points. (Less army was maybe RNG bad luck but I'm focusing on points.) The man who sat on and just fired a nuke is at 84.

 

Point being, what type of a game-play is this going to promote?  I haven't played it out forward but this is just a very stupid advantage going with. Even if nation X gets a moderate to go with it, so Y has 81 points, and X is still behind 6 points? 

 

Sure, Y might use conventional means to end the war as it goes, but why on earth is a nuclear weapon having a better effect in war? They were annoying as it is and very destructive but now people could actually win wars just because they fire nukes? I don't get this. This makes nukes too OP, especially since a bye bye at beige too. 

 

If you reply that I'm just complaining and not giving a solution, for this situation above, my solution is stop nukes being relevant here or drastically reduce their resistance score because otherwise it's actually a viable way to just sit and nuke to begin with and sprinkle with a few conventional attacks to get the victory. 

 

P.S I'm royally bad with maths and numbers, so please if I made a mistake, let me know. 

Edited December 17, 2016 by Tywin Lannister

[vonnorman]

Boost conventional damage!!!

[Dr Rush]

Sheepy this change doesn't make wars shorter, it makes them drastically longer, more expensive, & boring. Also stacking biege is an absolutely terrible idea.

[DragonK]

You can't delete your nation if you're in any offensive wars. If you're in a defensive war, you can delete your nation. The nations and all of its wars are removed from the game. The nation is not looted.

 

Nation should be looted in that case. It's waste of game resources otherwise. If he decideds to delete to spite you or if he gets removed for 45 days inactivity, there is no reason that an ACTIVE player who plays the game should suffer the consiquences of other players inactivity/quitting. He already loses enough resources in terms of losing soldiers/tanks for doing ground attacks even if the other guy has only population, then deleting to deny the victor any sort of compensation is a cheap way out. Also roleplay wise, what is deleting a nation? A country and all it's population and resources just vanish in thin air? Doubt it, leader dies and anarchy ensues, but resources that the country had would end up being looted by besieging army (attacking nation) as well as being stolen by anarhical population of country destoryed (nation deleted). I can think of serveral other reasons why this is a good idea, and I don't see a single valid reson why it would be a bad idea.

 

Also while we're at it, add offer surrender option next to offer peace? That way wars can end up more quickly with one side still loosing infra and loot whithout any further unecessary losses from attack if they both agree to it. (Like offering peace the other side should get accept surrender option too) And if you implement the surrendering option, then you can just make the deleteing nation force offer/accpet surrenders in chronological order of active wars.

Edited December 17, 2016 by DragonK

[yaakopu]

Pls no sheepy

[Jessica Rabbit]

Resolving the wars of deleted nations as defeats in ascending order by resistance then by declare datetime makes sense to me. No need to frustrate the players who stay and keep playing imo.

[hydraik]

I personally don't like that the war disappears from your timeline also, because you did fight the war even if it says war vs [deleted nation] instead of the nation name I'd be fine with that.

 

Because for example yoso does war stats every war, but if you're unlucky enough to fight 5 nations who all delete in the first round then the first round it counts as if you did nothing because he can't track anything that you did from wars that simply no longer exist, fact of the matter is the war did happen and shouldn't be deleted with the nation.

[Insert Name Here]

Sheepy, please make naval attacks cost 5 MAPs instead of 4.    C'mon, you know it makes sense, seen as naval attacks reduce more resistance than planes.

[Alex]

Sheepy, please make naval attacks cost 5 MAPs instead of 4.    C'mon, you know it makes sense, seen as naval attacks reduce more resistance than planes.

 

In the current meta, no one uses ships. When these changes are implemented, ships will matter - naval battles will be used if your goal is to win a war as fast as possible. Making naval battles cost 5 MAPs would make them even more useless post-update than they are now.

 

I really quite fond of the delicate balance being struck, that with ships you can win a war in 29 turns, vs. 30 turns with only ground battles. I think that'll create a much better rock/paper/scissors type gameplay in wars, where strategies actually have a counter involving different units.

[ComradeMilton]

Honestly Alex, you're a nice guy and all, but there's just 2 possible outcomes after these war chamges:

 

1) our side manages to retain its current dominance regardless of the incentive to braindead gameplay such as lobbing missiles and nukes;

2) we lose the upper hand due to the decreased power of conventional warfare, strategy, coordination.

He's probably trying to fix the imbalances put into the current game by one side.

 

Sheepy this change doesn't make wars shorter, it makes them drastically longer, more expensive, & boring. Also stacking biege is an absolutely terrible idea.

That's the best part!

[Insert Name Here]

He's probably trying to fix the imbalances put into the current game by one side.

 

 

We apologize for not sucking. :3

[Alex]

Sheepy this change doesn't make wars shorter, it makes them drastically longer, more expensive, & boring. Also stacking biege is an absolutely terrible idea.

 

It does make wars shorter. As I pointed out, wars can be won in 29 turns, minus the 6 MAPs you start with, that's 23 turns (just under 2 days' time) vs. the existing 5 days of war. I'm not talking about macro-wars here, I'm talking about the experience of the individual player.

 

Stacking beige makes sense - if you lose one war, why would you get the same time to rebuild as if you lose multiple wars? The more wars you lose, the more of an advantage you get. That's how you give losing players a shot to come back.

 

Nation should be looted in that case. It's waste of game resources otherwise. If he decideds to delete to spite you or if he gets removed for 45 days inactivity, there is no reason that an ACTIVE player who plays the game should suffer the consiquences of other players inactivity/quitting. He already loses enough resources in terms of losing soldiers/tanks for doing ground attacks even if the other guy has only population, then deleting to deny the victor any sort of compensation is a cheap way out. Also roleplay wise, what is deleting a nation? A country and all it's population and resources just vanish in thin air? Doubt it, leader dies and anarchy ensues, but resources that the country had would end up being looted by besieging army (attacking nation) as well as being stolen by anarhical population of country destoryed (nation deleted). I can think of serveral other reasons why this is a good idea, and I don't see a single valid reson why it would be a bad idea.

 

Also while we're at it, add offer surrender option next to offer peace? That way wars can end up more quickly with one side still loosing infra and loot whithout any further unecessary losses from attack if they both agree to it. (Like offering peace the other side should get accept surrender option too) And if you implement the surrendering option, then you can just make the deleteing nation force offer/accpet surrenders in chronological order of active wars.

 

I don't disagree with you, I think it's a good idea.

 

Resolving the wars of deleted nations as defeats in ascending order by resistance then by declare datetime makes sense to me. No need to frustrate the players who stay and keep playing imo.

 

Seems reasonable.

[Buorhann]

He's probably trying to fix the imbalances put into the current game by one side.

 

 

Welp, we won guys.  If we got the Creator of the game to change it around because we're too dominant, we won.

[Tywin Lannister]

Welp, we won guys.  If we got the Creator of the game to change it around because we're too dominant, we won.

 

Congratulations on joining ranks of Arrgh and PP in such winning.

[Alex]

Welp, we won guys.  If we got the Creator of the game to change it around because we're too dominant, we won.

 

These ideas are your own and have never been explicitly or implicitly stated by me. I have already addressed the fact that these changes are to improve the gameplay experience to a more logical process and one that is more visual to improve player retention. Along with general tweaks like reducing tank casualties as a result of player feedback on what is and isn't balanced.

[Alex]

Directed to Alex. 

 

 

Following Alex's chart given, I'm drawing up a hypothetical situation between two 21 city nations. Both start with maximum army and the attacks are ran by the simulator (tanks casualties are halved from sim.).

 

Nation X: Soldiers: 315,000 (Rebuild 105,000), Tanks: 26,250 (Rebuild 5,250) Aircraft: 1890 (Rebuild: 315), Ships: 315, Nukes: 0

Nation Y: Soldiers: 315,000 (Rebuild 105,000), Tanks: 26,250 (Rebuild 5,250) Aircraft: 1890 (Rebuild: 315), Ships: 315, Nukes: 0

*(Rebuild: MEANS THE REBUILD LEFT)

 

Nation X ground attacks Nation Y: You ordered a ground attack upon the nation of SIMULATED NATION led by SIMULATED LEADER. The attack was a Pyrrhic victory. Your forces lost 126,809 soldiers and 2248 tanks, while SIMULATED LEADER's defenders lost 115,810 soldiers and 2045 tanks.

 

Nation X and Y both build back up. 

 

Nation X: Soldiers: 293,191 (Rebuild 0), Tanks: 26,250 (Rebuild 3,002) Aircraft: 1890 (Rebuild: 315), Ships: 315, Nukes: 0, MAP: 3 Resistance: 100

Nation Y: Soldiers: 304,190 (Rebuild 0), Tanks: 26,250 (Rebuild 3,205) Aircraft: 1890 (Rebuild: 315), Ships: 315, Nukes: 0, MAP: 6 Resistance: 96

 

Nation X builds back up and attacks Nation Y again via ground again: You ordered a ground attack upon the nation of SIMULATED NATION led by SIMULATED LEADER. The attack was a Pyrrhic victory. Your forces lost 130,730 soldiers and 2,353 tanks, while SIMULATED LEADER's defenders lost 131,779 soldiers and 2,365 tanks.

 

Both nations rebuild.

 

Nation X: Soldiers: 162,461 (Rebuild 0), Tanks: 26,250 (Rebuild 649) Aircraft: 1890 (Rebuild: 315), Ships: 315, Nukes: 0, MAP: 0 Resistance: 100

Nation Y: Soldiers: 172,411 (Rebuild 0), Tanks: 26,250 (Rebuild 840) Aircraft: 1890 (Rebuild: 315), Ships: 315, Nukes: 0, MAP: 6 Resistance: 92

 

Nation X waits to get 3 more MAPs, and then hits on ground again. Y is only rebuilding: The attack was a Pyrrhic victory. Your forces lost 152,331 soldiers and 2860 tanks, while SIMULATED LEADER's defenders lost 105,820 soldiers and 1912 tanks. 

 

Nation X: Soldiers: 10,130 (Rebuild 0), Tanks: 24,039 (Rebuild 0) Aircraft: 1890 (Rebuild: 315), Ships: 315, Nukes: 0, MAP: 0 Resistance: 100

Nation Y: Soldiers: 66,591 (Rebuild 0), Tanks: 25,178 (Rebuild 0) Aircraft: 1890 (Rebuild: 315), Ships: 315, Nukes: 0, MAP: 9 Resistance: 88

 

Nation X waits to get 3 more MAPs, and then hits on ground again. Y still only rebuilds and makes a nuke to which X can do nothing but stare at: You ordered a ground attack upon the nation of SIMULATED NATION led by SIMULATED LEADER. The attack was a Pyrrhic victory. Your forces lost 10,000 soldiers and 2,082 tanks, while SIMULATED LEADER's defenders lost 66,591 soldiers and 1,551 tanks.

 

Nation X: Soldiers: 130 (Rebuild 0), Tanks: 21,957 (Rebuild 0) Aircraft: 1890 (Rebuild: 315), Ships: 315, Nukes: 0, MAP: 0 Resistance: 100

Nation Y: Soldiers: 0 (Rebuild 0), Tanks: 23,627 (Rebuild 0) Aircraft: 1890 (Rebuild: 315), Ships: 315, Nukes: 1, MAP: 12 Resistance: 84

 

Nation Y launches a nuclear weapon. 

 

Nation X: Soldiers: 130 (Rebuild 0), Tanks: 21,957 (Rebuild 0) Aircraft: 1890 (Rebuild: 315), Ships: 315, Nukes: 0, MAP: 0 Resistance: 75

Nation Y: Soldiers: 0 (Rebuild 0), Tanks: 23,627 (Rebuild 0) Aircraft: 1890 (Rebuild: 315), Ships: 315, Nukes: 0, MAP: 0 Resistance: 84

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Without even talking about the infra issue here, as Pyrrhic victory was getting ~30 infra taken out, which means X took out around 120 infra, and Y blasted his nuke taking out like majority of the infra which could even be 1800 infra, we see usage of conventional military and just rebuilding results in sitting with 75 points. (Less army was maybe RNG bad luck but I'm focusing on points.) The man who sat on and just fired a nuke is at 84.

 

Point being, what type of a game-play is this going to promote?  I haven't played it out forward but this is just a very stupid advantage going with. Even if nation X gets a moderate to go with it, so Y has 81 points, and X is still behind 6 points? 

 

Sure, Y might use conventional means to end the war as it goes, but why on earth is a nuclear weapon having a better effect in war? They were annoying as it is and very destructive but now people could actually win wars just because they fire nukes? I don't get this. This makes nukes too OP, especially since a bye bye at beige too. 

 

If you reply that I'm just complaining and not giving a solution, for this situation above, my solution is stop nukes being relevant here or drastically reduce their resistance score because otherwise it's actually a viable way to just sit and nuke to begin with and sprinkle with a few conventional attacks to get the victory. 

 

P.S I'm royally bad with maths and numbers, so please if I made a mistake, let me know. 

 

I think your number crunching is flawed in a couple of ways.

 

First, the battle simulator has not been updated to match the new changes to the war system. That's a small issue though. I think the main oversight is that very rarely do nations fight 1v1 - you usually bring additional nations into the fray when possible. That means more Immense Triumph attacks, which reduce more resistance and do more damage.

 

Secondly, the fastest way to beige an opponent is through (primarily) naval battles, not ground battles. Naval Battles do the most infrastructure damage out of any attack type, and destroy more enemy resistance.

 

Assuming you get the fastest beige possible, 29 turns, your opponent can nuke you a maximum of 2 times. When you're nuked, you take a lot of infrastructure damage, but it's all in one city per nuke. When you're beiged, you lose 10% off the top in all cities. That's the most expensive infrastructure in each city, and generally far more damaging than a couple of nukes.

I should also point out that the image referenced is also outdated - utter failures don't reduce any resistance. But that's just a technical point.

[Tywin Lannister]

I think your number crunching is flawed in a couple of ways.

 

First, the battle simulator has not been updated to match the new changes to the war system. That's a small issue though. I think the main oversight is that very rarely do nations fight 1v1 - you usually bring additional nations into the fray when possible. That means more Immense Triumph attacks, which reduce more resistance and do more damage.

 

Secondly, the fastest way to beige an opponent is through (primarily) naval battles, not ground battles. Naval Battles do the most infrastructure damage out of any attack type, and destroy more enemy resistance.

 

Assuming you get the fastest beige possible, 29 turns, your opponent can nuke you a maximum of 2 times. When you're nuked, you take a lot of infrastructure damage, but it's all in one city per nuke. When you're beiged, you lose 10% off the top in all cities. That's the most expensive infrastructure in each city, and generally far more damaging than a couple of nukes.

I should also point out that the image referenced is also outdated - utter failures don't reduce any resistance. But that's just a technical point.

 

A lot of 1v1 happen though. Not in world wars but otherwise, they do tend to happen quite a bit. 

 

Also, if you mean battle simulator in regards to tanks, I already adjusted it to half tanks. 

 

My whole point to raise was that "nuclear weapons" shouldn't have equal or near to resistance as "conventional means", and ground is after all an conventional mean. My argument isn't in the post against the entire changes, "just" the nuke resistance points part which I feel needs a tweak to be lesser. 

[Kastor]

I think your number crunching is flawed in a couple of ways.

 

First, the battle simulator has not been updated to match the new changes to the war system. That's a small issue though. I think the main oversight is that very rarely do nations fight 1v1 - you usually bring additional nations into the fray when possible. That means more Immense Triumph attacks, which reduce more resistance and do more damage.

 

Secondly, the fastest way to beige an opponent is through (primarily) naval battles, not ground battles. Naval Battles do the most infrastructure damage out of any attack type, and destroy more enemy resistance.

 

Assuming you get the fastest beige possible, 29 turns, your opponent can nuke you a maximum of 2 times. When you're nuked, you take a lot of infrastructure damage, but it's all in one city per nuke. When you're beiged, you lose 10% off the top in all cities. That's the most expensive infrastructure in each city, and generally far more damaging than a couple of nukes.I should also point out that the image referenced is also outdated - utter failures don't reduce any resistance. But that's just a technical point.

I just want to point out that no one in their right mind would go into the scenario using ships, even if the point is to beige, because you'd lose the other 2 advantages pretty quick and ships fall fast after a few airstrike.

 

But you don't play your game, you wouldn't know this.

 

 

EDIT: Also, we're not looking for a quick beige, we're looking to do as much damage as possible, this is a huge step backwards from what majority of your players want. They wanted tweaks to planes and something that could take planes down, not a huge change to the war system.

Edited December 17, 2016 by Kylo Ren

[ComradeMilton]

We apologize for not sucking. :3

We warned you guys that keeping it so imbalanced was likely to trigger a reaction to keep the game going.

[Critters]

We warned you guys that keeping it so imbalanced was likely to trigger a reaction to keep the game going.

So you are saying that NPO whining is the reason for this change?

[ComradeMilton]

No, I'm saying what I posted. I agree with Sheepy that the game is imbalanced and needs a correction. I was just pointing out we'd mentioned something like this happening.

Edited December 18, 2016 by ComradeMilton

[Roquentin]

So you are saying that NPO whining is the reason for this change?

 

Everything has to return to it being "whining". Objectively anyone in a system where wars are usually determined fairly quickly based on who can put out more wars in a short time frame and then it turns into just pinning down nations round after round wouldn't like it if they were to happen to lose since in terms of gameplay experience, it's not particularly fun under the current system and leaves people with few options. If anyone happened to be in a losing war where that happened or even just in a raid situation where you got zeroed out and weren't really able to make a comeback,  they wouldn't like it but in a raid it at least ends fairly quickly. I wouldn't say this change really addresses it but I think it's something that was picked up on and taken into consideration as far as the player retention concern.

Edited December 18, 2016 by Roquentin

[Insert Name Here]

We warned you guys that keeping it so imbalanced was likely to trigger a reaction to keep the game going.

 

 

Well, to be quite honest, I'd definitely prefer that all my side went paperless and we started fighting each other to having this new war system. Because I think we'll all lose with its implementation. The game may become more balanced, yes, since these new war mechanics cater immensely to some of our enemies' gamestyle. Alliances like Alpha, Fark, NK or SK come to mind.

 

That was basically what I've been telling Sheepy in this thread. And don't mind me, just listen to guys like Pre or Tywin, who know WAAAY more than me. Plus they're in TEst, who don't belong to OO/Mensynd's side or to NPO's side. I understood Sheepy's arguments and I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt by sticking around.

 

It actually makes me really uncomfortable to criticize Sheepy, since he's a good admin who cares about the game and puts in the effort. Even if he's just subconciously trying to even out the playing field because some players managed to be better at his game and almost all of them are on the same side (which isn't completely true), I really do believe this is the wrong way to go about things. And I'm not even criticizing Sheepy if that's his goal with this update. 

 

Even tho I occasionally troll you guys, I respect you a lot for being resilient and not giving up. Honestly, I wouldn't mind that you guys beat us just to boost your morale and make you believe a bit more in yourselves. We're not unbeatable, no one is. I'm pretty sure a bunch of people on my side would prefer the likes of BK, TKR, t$ and Mensa fighting each other to having a war system that encourages bad and strategically rudimentary gameplay. Again, sorry for being critical, Sheepy!   I know you've put a lot of effort into this update and I wish it works out in the end. I'm not even trying to convince you anymore, so hey, just roll out these new war mechanics! 

Edited December 18, 2016 by Insert Name Here