12/16/2016 - Coming Winter Update

[InternationWar]

This might the other side to win the war! 

[Redarmy]

Is this the death of the whales?

[Beatrix]

 

The check for whether you can successfully spy or not is if they've built one today, and if they have one.

 

 

I assume this doesn't mean that building 1 nuke/missle protects all your other nukes, yes?

[Bollocks]

Wait, are nukes and missiles still able to reduce your resistance by a lot? I remember nukes being -50? If so, that just encourages some terribad gameplay. 

[Gnilraps]

The reason for not giving any exact details is that it has come to my attention that there may be some strategizing related to how the update is rolled out, and I'd like to disrupt as much of that as possible.

 

I do not understand why you want to intentionally disrupt strategizing. You create a game that invites strategy, then you intentionally disrupt the players who are attempting to strategize?

 

Do you WANT us to play?

 

smh

[William of Cobden]

The war changes sound like they are for the better.  Resistance meter and additional wars adding an additional 2 days to beige are welcome changes.  Thank.s

[Lyre]

so...many...captchas

 

I LOVE CAPTCHAS

I, FOR ONE, WELCOME OUR NEW ROBOT-SEEKING OVERLORDS

[Inconnu]

Let's wait to see further details, but it seems to me that on a large scale, the losing side will still get major damage while the winning side will get nuked. Will it change who will win or the strategies to win ? Not really. It will only change how Nations get damaged.

 

Also : Cheaters should pe prevented by other means than Captchas...

Edited December 16, 2016 by Inconnu

[Insert Name Here]

Is this update to the war system gonna be the one Sheepy given break our scrub enemies will finally capitalize on? Find out on the next episode of Dragon Ball Z!

Edited December 16, 2016 by Insert Name Here

[Vanek26]

It appears all these changes are bad. 

Jesus I just agreed with Clarke. 

 

At least I can delete my baseball team that I accidentally clicked on once. 

[Buorhann]

If players didn't learn the current war system, what makes you think this one will make it any better?  Don't get me wrong, I'm ok with some of the changes, I just think you're going to deal with a lot more whiny players once they realize they lose even more loot and infrastructure in wars to those who are actively perfecting the war module.

[Rozalia]

I'll be able to create and then disable the baseball team and finally finish the tutorial? Sounds good.

[Mageofpie]

It appears all these changes are bad. 

 

Super constructive.

[Tywin Lannister]

Changes aren't exciting me in theory and I feel disappointed really with the way the game is going. Perhaps they turn out to be better or in case they do suck in practice too, i hope you will be willing to improve them as required.  

 

 

Sheepy, most importnat question, if nation gets deleted or deletes/resets on his own, does war count as victory for everyone and do they get the loot? Waiting for this one for half a year now.

 

You could've asked me a long while back. I once was raiding this one guy and next day I came online to having no record of that war. Not in notifications, no where. It was that old Pantheon guy called Rapture I think. Aka it all disappeared.  

[japan77]

Liking most of these changes.

Although, I must say I dislike the concept of invulnerable missiles or nukes. Honestly, if I want to win a war with these mechanics, here's the simple solution: build and nuke. 

That's not very constructive. While it is nice that the shift in mechanics makes ships, missiles, and nukes more effective weapons, the resistance removed by nukes/missiles is way overpowered atm.

[Azaghul]

I like these changes.  Thanks Alex!

[Lank]

I think this'll be good. I'm worried about the increased looting and 10% infra damage but other than that I like it all.

[PackAnimal]

New changes look great, thanks for the new upcoming update Alex

[Alex]

Sheepy, most importnat question, if nation gets deleted or deletes/resets on his own, does war count as victory for everyone and do they get the loot? Waiting for this one for half a year now.

 

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.

 

I assume this doesn't mean that building 1 nuke/missle protects all your other nukes, yes?

 

That is correct. Your nukes/missiles can still be spied away. The only time it is restricted is if you have one missile/nuke and you built one that same day.

 

Wait, are nukes and missiles still able to reduce your resistance by a lot? I remember nukes being -50? If so, that just encourages some terribad gameplay. 

 

No. They have never been able to reduce resistance that much. Nuclear weapons reduce resistance by 25 - meaning it would take 48 MAPs to win a war. On the contrary, you could win a war in 29 MAPs with Naval Battles and Ground Battles.

 

I do not understand why you want to intentionally disrupt strategizing. You create a game that invites strategy, then you intentionally disrupt the players who are attempting to strategize?

 

Do you WANT us to play?

 

smh

 

I am disrupting any attempt at getting an unfair advantage related to when and how the update is rolled out.

 

The war changes sound like they are for the better.  Resistance meter and additional wars adding an additional 2 days to beige are welcome changes.  Thank.s

 

Just to clarify as it sounds like you might be a little confused - beige has been reduced from 5 days to 2 days, but it's now cumulative.

 

Also : Cheaters should pe prevented by other means than Captchas...

 

If you've got any good suggestions, I'm all ears. I hate captchas too, but I don't know of any other ways to stop scripts.

 

Liking most of these changes.

Although, I must say I dislike the concept of invulnerable missiles or nukes. Honestly, if I want to win a war with these mechanics, here's the simple solution: build and nuke. 

That's not very constructive. While it is nice that the shift in mechanics makes ships, missiles, and nukes more effective weapons, the resistance removed by nukes/missiles is way overpowered atm.

 

They're not invulernable - there's still the Iron Dome, the Vital Defense System, and you can spy away almost all of your opponents missiles/nukes.

[Insert Name Here]

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.

 

Either way, we'll all end up getting stuck with an abysmal war system. I totally agree with Tywin - I don't like the way the game is going. I'm just mad at myself for being way too addicted to this shit to quit. Hopefully when the new war system is implemented and I get to experience it on the main server, I won't find it so dull that I feel like quitting. That'd be no easy task, since (again) I really like P&W. You have a pretty entertaining game, Alex - I hope most of us still find it enjoyable enough after the war changes.

 

You can argue conventional warfare is still more effective than lobbing nukes or missiles. But that's if you manage to get superiority fast. The grinding needed to get the upper hand (mostly through coordination) can now be renderred useless by missiles and / or nukes. Now it's basically gonna be a race to beige,

 

Good luck, Alex, and may you come to your senses! Otherwise I can't see a bright future for this game. Even if the other side manages to compete now, that won't make these new war mechanics any better. Making the game simpler and lowering it to some people's level of mediocrity doesn't seem like the right approach to me.

 

Just the 2 cents from a guy who, regardless of being critical as far as this update is concerned, is not complaining because he enjoys it. Quite the contrary. I'd much rather just spam on the OWF, but I feel it's my duty to try to prevent you from ruining your game, even tho my opinion doesn't matter. But hey, don't listen to me. Listen to people like Pre or Tywin (who are even in an alliance that doesn't belong on any side of the treaty web and therefore can't be accused of bias), who know a shit ton about war.

 

Like someone else before me said, changes to the war system should never be this drastic. I mean, sure you could nerf planes a bit or implement stuff like perks. But this is way too big a change. I'm a firm believer in the "don't fix what ain't broken" philosophy. The war system didn't need significant changes, just maybe some tweaking imo. I do hope this all works out in the end.

Edited December 17, 2016 by Insert Name Here

[Alex]

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.

 

Either way, we'll all end up getting stuck with an abysmal war system. I totally agree with Tywin - I don't like the way the game is going. I'm just mad at myself for being way too addicted to this shit to quit. Hopefully when the new war system is implemented and I get to experience it on the main server, I won't find it so dull that I feel like quitting. That'd be no easy task, since (again) I really like P&W. You have a pretty entertaining game, Alex - I hope most of us still find it enjoyable enough after the war changes.

 

You can argue conventional warfare is still more effective than lobbing nukes or missiles. But that's if you manage to get superiority fast. The grinding needed to get the upper hand (mostly through coordination) can now be renderred useless by missiles and / or nukes. Now it's basically gonna be a race to beige,

 

Good luck, Alex, and may you come to your senses! Otherwise I can't see a bright future for this game. Even if the other side manages to compete now, that won't make these new war mechanics any better. Making the game simpler and lowering it to some people's level of mediocrity doesn't seem like the right approach to me.

 

Just the 2 cents from a guy who, regardless of being critical as far as this update is concerned, is not complaining because he enjoys it. Quite the contrary. I'd much rather just spam on the OWF, but I feel it's my duty to try to prevent you from ruining your game, even tho my opinion doesn't matter. But hey, don't listen to me. Listen to people like Pre or Tywin (who are even in an alliance that doesn't belong on any side of the treaty web and therefore can't be accused of bias), who know a shit ton about war.

 

Like someone else before me said, changes to the war system should never be this drastic. I mean, sure you could nerf planes a bit or implement stuff like perks. But this is way too big a change. I'm a firm believer in the "don't fix what ain't broken" philosophy. The war system didn't need significant changes, just maybe some tweaking imo. I do hope this all works out in the end.

 

Conventional warfare is more effective than lobbing nukes or missiles. Missiles and Nukes received a bit of a buff - it's possible that they'll be tweaked in the future if they're too powerful under the current settings. But I don't wish to salt my soup before I taste it, so to speak.

 

A race to beige is exactly the intention - currently, it's a race to not beige your opponent. To drag wars out for as long as possible. Don't you think the war system will be more fun if wars don't last as long, and you get to fight a variety of different opponents? For players on the losing end of a war - they don't have to sit around for 5 days and take a beating. The miserable part of war can end sooner for them, and they can try to turn things around fighting the next opponent. If they continue to get beaten down, they'll get an increasing length of time to rebuild - which seems fair and logical, imo.

 

Whether this is making war mechanics simpler or not is arguable. I've had plenty of people complain to me that I was making things more complex, that new players would never be able to learn the war system now. Personally, I don't think it's any simpler or more complex, just different and more logical. Winning wars = good, losing wars = bad. If your point here is that people will just use missiles and nukes which are simple weapons, refer to my first point, but also as I've pointed out before, conventional warfare will still be the lion's share of the fighting. With the 10% infra damage penalty, you should be able to out-damage (or come close depending on the exact situation) an opponent who is using those "simple" tactics.

 

I appreciate your feedback, and while I too dislike large changes like this (for a variety of reasons, first and foremost, it's a lot of work for me. And I have to listen to everyone's complaints about it) I think it's necessary to improve the game. Some people are happy with it as-is, but I know that a lack of change will create stagnation and boredom, and inevitably cause the death of the game. While this doesn't add anything too new, it does shake up the meta, which is important to do from time to time. Developing and testing new strategies makes the game way more interesting than following the same set of instructions every war, don't you think?

 

In any case, we'll all see how it pans out together. I am confident that this will be a successful update, and a good change for the game.

[Insert Name Here]

Fair enough Sheepy, thanks for your reply!   

[Callum]

"You cannot destroy Missiles and Nukes that have been built that day"

 

Oh boy, i can be bad without risk now.

Edited December 17, 2016 by Callum

[Rache Olderen]

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.

[Doktor Avalanche]

Castigat Ridendo Mores...