Wayward_Son
Major
Reged: 07/05/02
Posts: 1287
|
SOI: Update Part II with MANY CHANGES
#128879 - 04/18/06 05:13 PM (216.19.47.80)
|
|
|
OK. First I would like to thank EVERYONE who gave constructive comments and feedback, proposed alternative ideas or supported our changes. Your positive energy into the further development of the game is very welcome, needed and appreciated.
After reading tons of player comments, looking at map models, discussing outcomes and much deliberation we have decided to make the following changes to yesterday's proposal, as well as add some new changes. THERE IS CURRENTLY NO TIMETABLE FOR THESE CHANGES!! This is a proposal only, made so that we can all discuss their ramifications and be prepared.
Sphere of Influence: The SOI will go into effect, however it will ONLY be used to calculate your ability to defend your zones (more on this below). The concept of Subversion has been completely scrapped because it did not meet our goals and did not aid us in meeting them.
Zone Garrison Limits: The SOI from a city will branch out up to 4 zones in every direction creating at a 9X9 box in which that city is considered to be influencing. If there are enemy cities or friendly cities also influencing any those 81 zones, the size and proximity of those cities will determine which zones are influenced by who. You will only be able to keep 4 units in the city at the center of that 9x9 box per zone that you OWN inside that city's SOI, or 216 whichever is less.
Example: Joe has a city by itself in the middle of nowhere. He owns all the zones in the 9x9 box that is that city's SOI. He can keep 216 units in that city.
Example 2: Sarah builds 2 large cities nearby Joe's city and cuts into his SOI. While Joe still OWNS the zones near Sarah, he no longer has influence over some of the zones closest to Sarah and so instead of 81 zones counting towards his unit garrison, he now has, say 30 zones and can only keep 120 units in that city. Sarah can't count those zones towards her total either, since she doesn't own them.
Example 3: Sarah decides that Joe's time has come and attacks him. Joe repels the attack but Sarah manages to maintain OWNERSHIP of some of the zones inside Joe's SOI. Sarah owns the zones, but Joe has influence over them, and thus they aren't counted toward anybody's garrison totals. If Joe attacks them then they will count for him, or if Sarah is able to build more/larger/closer cities then she will encroach further onto Joe's SOI and thus have influence over the zones that she owns.
Exception: MOBILIZED UNITS ARE EXEMPT FROM THIS RULE!! Mobilized units can be anywhere
and will NOT count against the total units garrisoned in that zone.
Penalties: Exceeding the garrison caps will simply prevent you from creating new units in that zone and from moving units to that zone.
Result: The result will be to encourage players to keep signficant buffers around their cities, and if they don't they will not be able to defend these cities well at all. This should effectively eliminate the "One Zone Defense" that has cropped up over the past two years. A single city surrounded by zones that your empire doesn't own will be able to garrison a whopping 4 unmobilized units. You could keep 1,000 units there if you wanted, but 996 of them would need to be mobilized. Also, it lays the very important groundwork for the following change:
Attacks Based on Empire Level: After many player comments and much discussion here in the office we are sticking with the idea that you can only make attacks on those who you DOW, and only DOW those your level or 1 level above you. As always, you will still be able to attack zones that you owned in the past 30 Nevdays. We believe that this simply makes for a much more 'fair' game and one that will appeal more broadly to players. Some players have said that you can't make something 'completely fair' and we agree and we are't trying to. This change is not 'splitting hairs,' we are going from a system in which a level 12 can attack a level 6 with battalions of uber-mechs for a relatively small cost to one in which you need to fight at around your own level. That is a HUGE step towards protecting smaller empires and making this a game about skill between players, not who has the biggest friends. You still have MANY ways that you can assist your factionmates, the most important of which is PILOTING for them.
Very Important:
Optional Mini-Surrender: We have been batting this idea around for a long time and we believe it's time has come. Everyone will have the OPTION to set a Mini-Surrender so long as you have not fought in the past Nevday. This Mini-Surrender will go off up to 3 times before you hit whatever your chosen Surrender rate is. It's effect will be to stop new attacks from being made for between 12-36 hours (defender's choice). Current battles WILL FINISH, however zones will NOT CHANGE HANDS after the mini-surrender is hit. Plunder code WILL BE RUN and cash will be awarded to the attacker. The defender can then not attack or be attacked until the Mini-Surrender has lapsed, which will be a specific time that the defender has chosen, between 12-36 hours away.
Example: At 12 noon on Day 1 Joe attacks Sarah while she is offline. Joe declares war, buys a drop-zone and begins his attacks. Sarah has her surrender rate set for 20% and Joe makes quick work of her units, captures 1 city and is working on a second when he brings her down 5% and sets off a Mini-Surrender. He is able to continue his attack and finish the city, though the zone will not change hands. He gets cash and morale for winning the city, and holds onto all the other zones he took plus the first city captured. Joe flies his units home and calls it a day. It is 3 pm.
Sarah had set her Mini-Surrender to begin at 4 pm since she knows that she will get of work at 3 and if she were attacked she could easily begin fighting at 4. She gets home at 4 pm to find that she has been attacked and her Mini-Surrender went off. Since she set her Mini-Surrender for 4 pm, but it has not yet been 12 hours, she can not attack or be attacked. She surveys the damage, contacts her friends and gets ready for retaliation the next day at 4. Joe, who was notified of exactly when the Mini-Surrender would lapse, also is getting pilots and supplies ready. Unfortunately, Joe will not be able to be online at that time and so is putting his faith in a factionmate to defend his empire with permissions he set for him.
Day 2, 4 pm: Sarah gets home from work and is unsurrendered. She mobilizes her units and heads out to take her city back and then flies units to Joe's area to begin a counterattack. Joe's factionmate isn't worth a whole lot in the pilot's seat, and Sarah is able to dispatch her enemy with only a few losses. Joe, who is a frequent warrior, has his surrender set at 50% meaning that Sarah would need to take him down to about 13% below what he started at to set off his mini-surrender. She does this by 6.30 pm and goes home, sure that she made her point and that Joe won't be back. Joe's surrender time was set for 10 am, which is more than 12 hours away, so the next morning Joe and sarah will have the option to be back at it.
Day 3, 10 am: With Sarah at work Joe is back with a vengeance. This time he has 2 other empires with him and they are determined to take Sarah down. Sarah, up about 10% from the time the war started, will need to drop to 10% BELOW where she was when the war started to set off her next mini-surrender. Joe begins taking back his zones from Sarah while Joe's two friends declare war and begin attacking Sarah's main zones. The two of them run into some serious trouble, because Sarah's factionmates are pioting for her, and one even declares war himself and comes to her aid. Still, they are able to bring her down to her next mini-surrender point, earn some cash for themselves and call it a day. Sarah's mini-surrender is still set at 4pm, so she'll again have to wait until 4 pm on the FOLLOWING day to attack.
You get the idea....they can keep going back and forth even while one another is offline making progress towards a REAL surrender, but both protected from harsh losses and both fully aware when the next time that fighting will be able to take place. Please note that all surrender levels will be based off of when the first DOW was declared, as is done with faction war.
Result: This increases the likelyhood of you being able to protect your empire, but also increases the chances of having what everyone wants: real player vs player battles. It also decreases the effectiveness of gangbanging, since there is only so much that you can get from an empire in a certain period of time. Since you also have to get like-leveled empires with the previously discussed DOW/Attack rules, this reduces the chances of gangbanging even further. MOST IMPORTANTLY it reduces the need for tedious things like 'speedbumps' and 'sensor towers' as tools of delay to help draw out war until a defender can get help or get online.
This brings us too......
Forced ABR: If you have 20 times your opponent's BV you may FORCE ABR to run in any non-city zone even if the unit is piloted! This effectively reduces the time it takes to move through a zone with a gecko or sensor tower from 30 minutes to 1-2 minutes. As an attacker you will easily be able move through poorly defended zones and get real battles. If the opposing units total 500 BV or is a mech, Forced ABR will NOT be an option.
Free War Costs: All attack costs will now be $0 for ALL zones. You will still need to pay for and declare war.
Reduced Transit Costs: With the new Mini-Surrender rules, attackers will be doing a whole lot more flying around and so we will slash LC costs by at least 50% and perhaps no LC costs at all. Combined with free attack costs the profits from war will be greatly increased due to this.
Total Units Cap: With a reduced need for 'speedbump' units and a constantly growing number of units the time has long since passed when unit caps are needed. We are setting the initial unit cap at 20,000 units, a rediculously high number that we expect the largest empires to easily be able to comply with. If you exceed this cap you will not be able to make or produce new units until you are back under it. This number will drop at a rate of 1,000 units per month every month after it is put into place, which will of course be announced. This will effectively limit the size that empires can grow to be that at which the players who play them have time, energy and skill to maintain. Large empires need to be actively defended instead of making thousands of units that attackers would need to wade through. Active and successful players will easily be able to use a relatively small number of units to defend a large amount of infrastructure. There is no good reason that the largest empire in the game should have the same number of units as the smallest 4,000 empires in the game.
Empires affected by the unit caps will be given tools and time to easily scrap/decommission excess units.
------------------------------------------
We feel strongly that these changes in unison go a very long way towards reconsiling the feedback that we have gotten from players in recent months. There is something in these changes for everyone, attackers, defenders, people who hate lag, people who hate gangbangs and people who think war should be more profitable while other want more of a fighting chance to defend themselves. AS ALWAYS FEEDBACK IS WELCOME. We make ourselves incredibly available to our players but it is very draining when people do not read the information that is put out, or are simply reading it looking for ways to make us wrong. If you are one of these people, you feedback is NOT welcome and we will NOT respond to you. To everyone else: fire away! We know there is a lot to read here, but in practice these changes close a lot of loopholes and level a lot of playing fields.
Thank you all and happy gaming!
WS
|
Chetter
Sergeant Major
Reged: 08/20/02
Posts: 392
Loc: New Hampshire
|
Re: SOI: Update Part II with MANY CHANGES
[Re: Wayward_Son]
#128880 - 04/18/06 05:24 PM (64.222.189.37)
|
|
|
I like it all except for the unit cap. Im sure you kn ow and understand why. Also we still need Fwar peniltys addressed as there damage is VERY VERY destructive and has resulted in the loss of alot of players and activeness. removing the 30% min. Mant. rate would be a good first step and reducing the loss of vecs for lost fwar to the fl is also helpful. Of course Im all for an increase in defectors. 5 or even 10% defectors instead of the 25% loss of units out of the game is much better. The reason is The FL still gets kicked in the nuts but the lost units are gained by players not just disappearing. I think it would add more fun and be less destructive. Please consider it and thank you for your time.
|
mattbuck
Eeyore
Reged: 02/13/04
Posts: 2914
Loc: UK
|
Re: SOI: Update Part II with MANY CHANGES
[Re: Wayward_Son]
#128881 - 04/18/06 05:25 PM (84.67.41.159)
|
|
|
OK, The mini-surrender stuff, attack costs and removal of sensor towers has me a bit scared, but the changes to SoI and DoW make sense.
--------------------
Haha, you people think admins still look at these forums.
Visit the Platonian blog!
|
DireMage
Sergeant Major
Reged: 02/17/03
Posts: 264
Loc: Imperium Of Man
|
Re: SOI: Update Part II with MANY CHANGES
[Re: Wayward_Son]
#128884 - 04/18/06 05:29 PM (66.229.193.94)
|
|
|
Scrapping subversion goes a long way to alleviating my reservations about the idea. Good job, wayward. My only concern now is, what if someone sets their empire up for infinite mini-surrender? Decommission a couple units, have someone friendly (possibly a secondary empire of the same player) hit, recommission them, and repeat. It's easily worth the cost of a couple vehicles and the 15-gun pilots in them to be unhittable forever.
--------------------
- Live for honor
- Die for battle.
- Strive for light.
Edited by DireMage (04/18/06 05:32 PM)
|
Pimpslap
Sergeant Major
Reged: 03/13/03
Posts: 295
|
Re: SOI: Update Part II with MANY CHANGES
[Re: Wayward_Son]
#128885 - 04/18/06 05:32 PM (68.229.251.70)
|
|
|
Next proposal please
--------------------
Harbingers of Chaos
COME WAR WITH US!!
|
Tobias_Moon
Corporal
Reged: 04/17/06
Posts: 64
Loc: Alpena, MI
|
Re: SOI: Update Part II with MANY CHANGES
[Re: Pimpslap]
#128886 - 04/18/06 05:38 PM (24.231.175.66)
|
|
|
Looks substantially better than the first one, but I share the same concern that Diremage does..it looks like it will be very easy to remain essentially un-hittable except for a small number of presumed-to-be-taken zones with lightweight easy to replace vehicles in them. (It's not that hard to come up with 5-6 AIV-W3's at skill 2, which easily exceeds the 500bv min)..perhaps the mini surrender should be rethought..off the top of my head I dont have something that sounds better..but I'll think about it and I'm sure others will toss in their 2 nev-cents.
--------------------
"Something moves within the night that is not good and is not right" (book of counted sorrows, Dean Koontz)
{Tobias Moon is AKA Michael Scirocco for some of you older timers}
|
ReLoad
Sergeant Major
Reged: 11/04/03
Posts: 359
Loc: Melbourne, Australia
|
Re: SOI: Update Part II with MANY CHANGES
[Re: Pimpslap]
#128887 - 04/18/06 05:40 PM (210.15.225.130)
|
|
|
Well interesting stuff on the mini surrenders, its very hard to find a balance between payoff for the attacker and not total destruction for the defender. To me the 10% surrender rate is just that a mini surrender, i.e u dont lose much at all. im not sure if these mini surrenders are going to make attacking as much fun, after all i know how hard it is to get several days straight to play neveron, let along attck for an hour or threee then have to do the same the next night etc etc.
Can you also expand on the SOI and the number of defenders for things like islands and tc zones which are out on thier own? during the implementation do we have a chance to move them? now that all of a sudden my city right next to kliens core means i can only have 4 defenders in it? :P
Looking forward to more player feedback and a refinement of this proposal.
ReLoad
|
ReLoad
Sergeant Major
Reged: 11/04/03
Posts: 359
Loc: Melbourne, Australia
|
Re: SOI: Update Part II with MANY CHANGES
[Re: ReLoad]
#128888 - 04/18/06 05:42 PM (210.15.225.130)
|
|
|
with a unit cap can you finally remove forced faction wars and defectors? and at risk of being stoned to death by other players how about a unit cap per level?
ReLoad
|
Sintares
Captain
Reged: 07/07/02
Posts: 922
|
Re: SOI: Update Part II with MANY CHANGES
[Re: Pimpslap]
#128889 - 04/18/06 05:42 PM (84.69.66.163)
|
|
|
Great ...
The last 2 Fwars my faction lost resulted in my last 2 cities being totally surrounded, and I now have large, unfriendly "mega cities" surrounding mine 2 to 3 hexes away on all sides..
So its looking good that I can have around 4 defenders in each of my cities ... fantastic...
|
Tobias_Moon
Corporal
Reged: 04/17/06
Posts: 64
Loc: Alpena, MI
|
Re: SOI: Update Part II with MANY CHANGES
[Re: ReLoad]
#128890 - 04/18/06 05:45 PM (24.231.175.66)
|
|
|
On further thought (and on reading ReLoad's post) I think mini-surrender would draw war out to a massive extent..and why do we need it when 10 percent losses are something easily replaced by most any empire? Mini-surrender sounds ok, IF a method can be figured out to avoid people setting themseves up to be mini-surrendered before they take any notable damage..and by setting it up to stay mini-surrendered for awhile. Also, Like reload, I find it difficult to be online for several days for a long enough period of time each day to fight a couple of battles...still thinking, and looking forward to more posts on this one.
--------------------
"Something moves within the night that is not good and is not right" (book of counted sorrows, Dean Koontz)
{Tobias Moon is AKA Michael Scirocco for some of you older timers}
|
Cecil
Lieutenant
Reged: 07/09/02
Posts: 467
|
Re: SOI: Update Part II with MANY CHANGES
[Re: mattbuck]
#128891 - 04/18/06 05:55 PM (65.219.8.30)
|
|
|
Where does it say that sensor towers are being scrapped?
|
ReLoad
Sergeant Major
Reged: 11/04/03
Posts: 359
Loc: Melbourne, Australia
|
Re: SOI: Update Part II with MANY CHANGES
[Re: Tobias_Moon]
#128892 - 04/18/06 05:58 PM (210.15.225.130)
|
|
|
Whilst i should have stuck all my thoughts together in one post, one thing still really concerns me about this proposed change:
Team work, teamwork, teamwork. do you know why i play this game, its to be a part of a team, its to help out the little guys, its to be involved in massive military campaigns its all the things we do now.
And whilst i fear thier example of a lvl 12 hitting a level 6 is due to my actions, (sorry about that Lid, but u did deserve it.)
The fact of the matter is when one of my little guys is in troyble of course im going to drop in and help out, its far far far more effective than piloting. which of course we all do anyways.
Realistically the only way around this proposed rule is to make like level factions, have a lvl 12 FL and then say 20 lvl 6's in it. then they can all mutually defend each other.
WWS you have some great penalties in place as it is to stop the big guys hitting the little guys, heck when did a lvl 12 attack a lvl 6's city? simply doenst happen thanks to the huge costs. but it does mean that effective teams work more effectively by letting them express thier solidarity and use thier own empires. after all how often do i get to use my 20k units?
ReLoad
|
HateNDiscontent
Sergeant
Reged: 01/09/06
Posts: 164
Loc: Border of Heaven and Hell
|
Re: SOI: Update Part II with MANY CHANGES
[Re: Tobias_Moon]
#128893 - 04/18/06 06:00 PM (68.77.34.211)
|
|
|
So now, I can not come to the aid of my faction mate when he is under attack...other than the glorious battleplayer. Unless he gives his bp login to everyone in the faction, to help that way...
So when a level 6 gets attacked...a level 7 can not drop down and protect.
When a level 3 gets attacked..a leve 4 can not come down and help out.
And when alliance A attacks alliance B's level 5, with 3 level 5's...Alliance B may not have a level 5 that is war ready (due to a prior beating or just at work/school). Alliance B is force to sit back and watch the fireworks.
Fun Game.
I agree with Pimp....next proposal please.
--------------------
If being evil to Evil is evil...I guess I am Evil.
|
wonko
Sergeant Major
Reged: 03/08/06
Posts: 217
Loc: alpena MI
|
Re: SOI: Update Part II with MANY CHANGES
[Re: Pimpslap]
#128894 - 04/18/06 06:01 PM (198.108.228.183)
|
|
|
my biggest question is this
with free attacks, cheaper transits, and forced abr what is the point of my warrior class levels?
i like having cheaper attacks because i designed my empire to fight, but some schmuck should'nt be able to hit me as easily if he's specialized in reaserch for example.
are we now going to scrap the warrior, defender, and merc classes? i for one think all the levels should be finished, keep costs the way they are, or mabey tweak them a little.
i love the idea of the mini-, i'm tired of wading thru ai units with my low level raider, would love to see a real enemy once in awhile, but again his class levels would be useless.
the soi thing is still a little scary, am with-holding opinion till i hear more about it
--------------------
IN THE LAND OF THE BLIND, EVEN UGLY CHICKS CAN GET LAID
|
Dzurath
Sergeant
Reged: 04/12/04
Posts: 150
|
Re: SOI: Update Part II with MANY CHANGES
[Re: wonko]
#128899 - 04/18/06 06:22 PM (68.219.167.244)
|
|
|
Responding to the points of the latest proposal in order:
Sphere of Influence:
I like the removal of subversion, that makes the whole SOI idea a lot more solid.
Zone Garrison Limits:
An interesting concept, that has some appeal. I would propose there should be some core number of units that a city can support. Perhaps rework the numbers so that a city can support 36 + 3xzones controlled. So a single zone city surrounded by bigger zones has 39 units, barely more than an attacking force can bring into the fray. This will also cover a lot of the concerns about the 'island' cities and the isolated TC locations that are usually small isolated cities that won't have much SOI control.
Attacks Based on Empire Level:
I really don't like this idea, it's highly disruptive to the concept of real faction mutual protection. Faction unity is the social glue that holds this game together and encourages a lot of people to keep playing. Fwars are already wearing this down far more than it should be, so I strongly suggest that we don't introduce new ways to break up the social mechanisms that make the game strong.
Optional Mini-Surrender:
From the sounds of the description, this requires setting up a calendar and planning to fight any serious engagement over a period of days. While there are some pros to this system, I think that drawing out the war for days on end is going to strain even the most active of players. You can no longer sit down and say 'I have four hours, let's LW'. It'll have to be, I don't have anything pressing this week, let's LW.
Forced ABR:
Not a bad suggestion, but it is predicated on the optional mini-surrender being a good idea. You really can't have this without some other mechanism to avoid the offline blitz.
Free War Costs:
Good way to encourage more war with no real downside. I like this one.
Reduced Transit Costs:
This is another good way to encourage more war with no real downside. I like this one too.
Total Units Cap:
This really contradicts with having a SOI enforced cap on units in a zone. If you have one, you shouldn't need this one as well. Otherwise you're really saying that the largest empires in the game should be able to get away with less defenses in any large city zone than smaller empires that have the same SOI controlled, but aren't up against the hard unit limit cap. That's not a logical position to take. The unit limits created by the SOI situation is already enough of a control on unit numbers.
|
Kit_fox
Colonel
Reged: 09/16/02
Posts: 3054
|
Re: SOI: Update Part II with MANY CHANGES
[Re: Wayward_Son]
#128900 - 04/18/06 06:25 PM (129.138.30.190)
|
|
|
Again, I am going to start at the top and work my way down on my thoughts of the post.
Quote:
Sphere of Influence/Zone Garrison Limits
I like this change rather than what was previously proposed. The previous proposal was too unsure, but this is now much more 'clean' and easy to understand. Also, it has a clear point and would impact the game in a very positive way, I think. The 1 zone level 5's are just too numerous right now.
I have a question though. Lets say that someone has a bunch of units in a single zone. I attack and capture all the zones around that city. He now is way over the limit of number of units he can have in the zone. What happens when I attack that city now? Do only the top units defend (unless there are moblized units there too)? Do they all defend? Seems like it would be an interesting way to incapacitate the invincabilly fortified cities, though I am not sure how it would work. Maybe have there be a timer before the units able to defend gets knocked down.
Also, would the unit limit apply to empty non city zones as well, or would there be just a lower non moblized limit for those as a base (say 12 units per zone unmoblized for non city)?
Quote:
Attacks Based on Empire Level/No Non-DOW Attacks
Attacks based on empire level have me feeling skittish since I do see how this could be a very bad change. As already pointed out, if a faction only has a single guy at level 5, he is basically on his own against every other level 5 in the game should he be attacked, even assuming he has people BPing for him. BPers only go so far, and even with them you can be taken out if you are fighting 4 or 5 guys without other empires helping. This could be especially deadly in Fwars.
In addition, I suppose I don't see how SOI sets the groundwork for this change. Perhaps if you would explain how SOI would impact this no attack w/o DOW change I would understand.
Quote:
Optional Mini-Surrender
This is another change that has me being skitish and I am not 100% sure I understand how it works. Let me outline how I think it works and you can tell me if I am right or not.
I set my mini-surrender to go off at 4pm... I assume this means that the 12-36h timer doesn't start counting down until that time? Then after the timer runs out I am unrestricted again. Now, would this restriction be to just the person I am fighting with or to everyone?
Also, you say it goes off up to 3 times. Does this mean 3 times total before I am fully surrendered, or it will go off 3 times assuming I am not able to recover stuff I have lost (thus if I am mini-surrendered once, if I gain my stuff back after I will be back where I started and still have 3 mini surrenders to go through)?
Quote:
Forced ABR
This is something I like very much. However if it were put in the mini-surrender would need to work well, so I will reserve judgement on it until I hear exactly how mini-surrender works in response to my questions.
I do have one concern here: This kind of encroaches on the Warrior Class's advantages. How will this be made up for them?
Quote:
Free War Costs/Reduced Transit Costs
This is another change I am a bit skittish about. Firstly, like the last change, it encroaches on the Warrior Class's abilities. More importaintly it makes war probably TOO proffitable.
As war is right now, I think it is a nice ballance between proffit and risk for the most part. You stand the chance to lose a lot, but you can gain cities (which you can raze to the ground for huge cash), get surrender income, and then there is the salvage.
Quote:
Total Units Cap
This is another change that sort of frightens me, but after thinking I do suppose it is a very good change. At the very least, it is a change that adds in the sort of 'soft size cap' I have been looking for where most people will be able to maintain an empire of size X, while people who are better at the game can maintain a much larger one.
That said, I have a bit of a worry here when it comes to towers. Will towers count toward this limit? If so how heavily weighted will this be (seeing as how towers are sort of special) and if not, how will you prevent people from having billions of the damn things?
--------------------
_____
The RNG mugged me in a dark street, killed my dog, and cancled Christmas.
When the winds of change blow hard enough the most trivial of things can become deadly projectials.
Knowledge is power. Power corrupts. Study hard. Be evil.
|
Gunner
Sergeant Major
Reged: 07/11/04
Posts: 263
Loc: Hurricane Capital of the World
|
Re: SOI: Update Part II with MANY CHANGES *DELETED* *DELETED*
[Re: Tobias_Moon]
#128901 - 04/18/06 06:27 PM (70.127.178.247)
|
|
|
Gunner your posts will stop being deleted when you remove your offensive signature and start contributing positively. It sounds like you have some good ideas and concerns but you are to busy dressing them up as insults and diatribe to be paid attention to.
WS
Edited by Wayward_Son (04/19/06 12:54 PM)
|
Sente
Private
Reged: 10/13/05
Posts: 32
|
Re: SOI: Update Part II with MANY CHANGES
[Re: Gunner]
#128905 - 04/18/06 06:51 PM (82.181.23.107)
|
|
|
Overall this looks like an OK change
Things I like:
SOI and Zone garrison limits, forced ABR, cheaper/free landingcraft. esp the LC, sucks to fly around the lvl 4s attack comp at 16mil per go.
One thing I'd like to know about the possibly free LC... will hotdrops still cost? I'd say they should cost the normal amount
Things I dislike:
the dow range. it can be limited a bit, but not as harsly as same or one level higher. make it 3 levels higher (if someone really wants to hit a lvl 12 with a lvl 9, go ahead) or at max 2 levels and its ok.
Things I hate:
No cost to attack zones. that is just silly. I see no point in that, yes it saves some cash but it, paired with possibly free LC, makes it possible for empires with no or very little money to fight a war. that really shouldnt happen. never. ever.
Mini-surrender. I agree with alot of previous posts, some LWs take too long as is. this just slows down LW especially at lower levels. it is ridicilous to drag a lvl 4 LW to 3 days. or any low/mid level LW for that matter.
Edited by Sente (04/18/06 07:05 PM)
|
Shinagami101
Private
Reged: 08/28/03
Posts: 27
|
Re: SOI: Update Part II with MANY CHANGES
[Re: Tobias_Moon]
#128906 - 04/18/06 07:05 PM (71.102.55.77)
|
|
|
I have a idea along the ideas of the Mini-Surrenders, what if you could set individual surrender rates for your cities?
For example you could set lets say your main to a 10% surrender rate (so you dont lose much of it) once you hit that percentage (CF Destroyed + BV? one or the other?) The City throws the white flag and the attackers are considered the owners of the zone and have control over it. Or perhaps they just take plunder back and pillage some buildings during the battle or on the way out (hehe) ?
And also let the player have a push-button surrender , like after a certain time has passed the main login can push a surrender button and the empire surrenders immediatly? .... now that i think of that thats abusable.... hmmm possibly a way to make it not so? or not at all? , just ideas is all.
|
KDH
Private
Reged: 02/24/06
Posts: 30
|
Re: SOI: Update Part II with MANY CHANGES
[Re: mattbuck]
#128907 - 04/18/06 07:07 PM (213.104.241.130)
|
|
|
Zone Garrison Limits
NO
I like SoI overall, or at least think it will break the current tedium, but this part is just ....
Edited by Wayward_Son (04/19/06 12:52 AM)
|
Mezzo
Newbie
Reged: 09/13/05
Posts: 6
|
Re: SOI: Update Part II with MANY CHANGES
[Re: Shinagami101]
#128908 - 04/18/06 07:12 PM (131.104.250.52)
|
|
|
My main problem with this is the zone garrison numbers. Currently many of my main citys have either friends or enemies very close meaning the total number of units in the main would be very small. I think that the number should be capped at 216 no matter how many zones around you, you own. I'm not looking forward to having to rebuild another city (very costly) where i can own all of the zones aroudn me. No offesne, but this whole idea is going to send away a lot of good and lw experience players.
|
Thoth
Newbie
Reged: 04/01/05
Posts: 22
Loc: Raleigh, N.C.
|
Re: SOI: Update Part II with MANY CHANGES
[Re: Wayward_Son]
#128910 - 04/18/06 07:24 PM (69.134.206.209)
|
|
|
I built my main city on next to water 2 sides. Now I am going to be punished for trying to pick a strategic spot for my city? I dont think water should count neagativly towards citys we it comes to garrison size.
|
Peel
Sergeant
Reged: 01/04/05
Posts: 145
Loc: Baildon, Bradford, Yorkshire, ...
|
Re: SOI: Update Part II with MANY CHANGES
[Re: Mezzo]
#128911 - 04/18/06 07:28 PM (212.159.57.111)
|
|
|
This mean I can surround my lvl 6s citys with my lvl 1/12
I think the idea of mini surrenders is absurd. Theres nothing better than spending a few hours looking for a lvl 3/4 target, hitting him, repping your lance of medium mechs, taking his cities and going to the pub. Now your telling me that I hvae to make my wars last in effect 24 times longer. No thankyou, I would rather not LW and just FWar instead. Honestly I would way rather have Forced FWars than these new changes.
I do like the ABR change, this is good and non city zones should be able to be attacked for free as well.
Looks like im gonna have to build a core area but hey, thats gonna cost me Billions and Billions to do.
Please listen to your playerbase this time before implementing changes
--------------------
Senior Precentor Peel,
WoB Director of Sales
|
Shinagami101
Private
Reged: 08/28/03
Posts: 27
|
Re: SOI: Update Part II with MANY CHANGES
[Re: Thoth]
#128913 - 04/18/06 07:30 PM (71.102.55.77)
|
|
|
For water it should make people more happy! and more influential because just look at the ocean! its cool looking! .... unless theres giant squid in there... then its dangerous and makes people worry.... that would be a funny roll or event....
"You lost 200 pop in zone xxx,yyy to Squids!"
|
Splurch
Corporal
Reged: 09/04/02
Posts: 60
|
Re: SOI: Update Part II with MANY CHANGES
[Re: Wayward_Son]
#128914 - 04/18/06 07:30 PM (69.109.164.87)
|
|
|
I like the idea of SOI, but combining it with Zone Garrison Limits seems like a very, very bad idea to me. From what I gather if an enemy takes your surrounding zones, the units in excess of the garrison in that city will simply not fight. This gives a massive advantage to the attacker. Nobody currently protects their empty space, at most they put gecko's stealths in those zones to slow people down. Those massive armies will just be transferred to the surrounding 4 zones as empty zones have no garrison limit. Unless Im misunderstanding, if this is implimented the common practice will be to just roll over the surrounding zones and then take the city that has only a few units defending it. While this may not be as big a deal on the lower levels higher levels will simply get shafted. If you really want to implement something like this maybe base it off of a cities combined cf, that would allow people to still heavy defend their TC's and isolated cities while not letting them put massive garrisons anywhere.
Optional Mini-Surrender: The idea behind the concept is nice, but this would just prolong fwars to an insane degree. This really wouldnt reduce gangbanging all that much as the gangbangers would just stick around for the cap to go away or keep the zones, move their forces out and come back when the cap is up, eliminating transit fees would just help encourage this behavior. People would also not scrap their speedbumps as just because you know your emp will mini-surrender at 10% losses doesnt mean you want to or are willing to take those losses.
A minor issue with Free War Costs, if people dont have to pay to attack then large empires will start attacking on multiple fronts at even more cities at the same time, partially turning war into a "whoever has the most bpers wins" as if your enemy is short on bpers and you can launch several seperate attacks, there is no reason not to.
Edited by Splurch (04/18/06 07:37 PM)
|
Xia
Lieutenant
Reged: 08/06/03
Posts: 694
Loc: Forgotton Palace, Xu Chang, Im...
|
Re: SOI: Update Part II with MANY CHANGES
[Re: Splurch]
#128915 - 04/18/06 07:42 PM (67.9.123.225)
|
|
|
I like to take the time to point out that some form of Faction Garrisoning should be implemented or what is the point of having a faction/factions if I can't call on my FL to save my qss when I have overreached...?
Still holding my piece. 
--------------------
I find that violence is a perfectly viable solution to most problems....
|
Yar
Sergeant
Reged: 08/07/04
Posts: 116
Loc: Seattle, WA
|
Re: SOI: Update Part II with MANY CHANGES
[Re: Wayward_Son]
#128916 - 04/18/06 07:49 PM (131.107.0.108)
|
|
|
Perhaps you should not add major features to solve problems before trying out smaller solutions. Things that only take small code changes. I think it would make many people, even some of the biggest whiners, a lot happier.
Want to see if you can bring in more noobs? Try giving new empires more money, or increase small empire subsidy. Change the number in the code, and try it for a bit. If it works, great. If people exploit it, fine them or delete them and set it back the way it was, or try some new value.
Want to make things less confusing? Hold a monthly contest for the best help articles. You will get a lot more of them, and new players will love it. It will only cost you a bit of DP (or even just nevcash).
The same is true for the current attack system. Want to make it harder for high level emps to attack small ones? Make the attack costs much higher! If is is not good enough, make it bigger still. If becomes too restrictive make it smaller.
Think speedbumps make war less fun? Reduce the time for ABR kicking in to 15 minutes. If that turns out poorly, it is easy to put back.
Even if you guys have no interest in changing your process (as in my Neveron 2.0 feedback) it would help if you tried more subtle solutions.
And please Please PLEASE -- make a repair log page!! Just because you took the link off of the tab does not mean people don’t want it
--------------------
Looking to buy a level 9 war empire? Send me a PM
|
Shinagami101
Private
Reged: 08/28/03
Posts: 27
|
Re: SOI: Update Part II with MANY CHANGES
[Re: Yar]
#128917 - 04/18/06 07:53 PM (71.102.55.77)
|
|
|
Yar brings up some good points, dont be afraid to experiment with different options and figures and if your afraid that it will make people mad take volunteers or have like betas or the such
|
wildger
Corporal
Reged: 02/17/05
Posts: 56
|
Re: SOI: Update Part II with MANY CHANGES
[Re: Wayward_Son]
#128922 - 04/18/06 09:33 PM (70.72.182.177)
|
|
|
I simply cannot push myself to read beyond what was said about the zone garrison limit. When I started playing this game two years ago, the maps were jammed. Then with the zone cost, other changes and the active registration, there is a vast amount of empty space there. Now, you are forcing us to expand and fill in the spots again.
The only change that is left to make is to reset the whole game again. Yes, many veteran players have contributed a lot of time and money into this game. However, they had the fun and they should move on and accept a start over and continue to play and have fun. 
|
wildger
Corporal
Reged: 02/17/05
Posts: 56
|
Re: SOI: Update Part II with MANY CHANGES
[Re: wildger]
#128923 - 04/18/06 09:42 PM (70.72.182.177)
|
|
|
The more I think about it. The worse it is. The maximun # of units you can keep in your city zone is 216. All your enemy needs to do is to find or create building space close to your city and establish more building and that automatically cut down your forces. You have no choice but either to attack or give up. This is one of the worse bullshit changes I heard.
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
Edit
Reply
Quote
