| Scarlet (Little Upsilon) | Thursday, September 16, 2010 - 12:18 am 
This is aside from the issues of War Protection. Don't bring it up.
This is probably unorganized as hell, but I'd like to offer this for consideration as these are just my opinions. I don't care if my specific points are ignored so long as the general point is considered: namely, more simplicity and less unnecessary features is better.
Point 1: Economic Game
This is clean, simple, playable. I like it. If you don't know what you're doing, you won't profit. If you somewhat know what you're doing, you can make good profits. If you REALLY know what you're doing, you can make very good profits. This is how things should be. The learning curve should be structured so that if you're somewhat decent you'll do well and if your REALLY good, you'll do better. The distinction here is that the net benefit of increased skill should taper off as skill increases: almost like the graph of a square root function (or the hospital index function). You'll get remarkable profits moving from poor to decent and better, but not ridiculously so, from moving from decent to amazing. I can easily manage a decent economy with simple settings. If I wanted to I could micromanage the engine to produce a slightly better economy, but the difference isn't as great as if I moved from a poor economy to a decent. I'm not sure whether my sentiment is shared by other players, but I believe that the economic game is currently structured in a manner that makes this possible. I live in fear of the day you folks mess this up.
Regardless of whether or not the economic engine conforms exactly to what I've stated, my main point lies in the following premises:
1. Poor players should do poorly.
2. Decent players should do well.
3. Great players should do slightly better.
4. It should not be difficult learn enough to be considered decent.
5. The game should, at it's core, be simple to learn... and more complex options requiring much greater skill should give a modestly noticeable, but not massive, advantage.
Point 2: Application to War Engine
If these premises are applied to the war engine, this means that it should be simple to become decent and being great shouldn't give a player a massive advantage over everyone. However, this is the case as it stands right now. I know that you realize this and are doing what you can to reduce the advantage of great war players, but I would like to offer an alternative solution:
Simplify the war game: reduce or eliminate unnecessary features.
Unnecessary features is a subjective term, but let me elaborate. An unnecessary feature is any feature that increases the amount of micromanagement needed to be decent at the war game. An unnecessary feature is any feature that increases the amount of work and effort required to reach a minimum skill level necessitated by the engine.
Specifically, I'd like to talk about Fighting Levels.
Fighting Levels add another dimension of micromanagement that increases the amount of difficulty required to attack and defend. It affects both parties equally, it may be admitted, but it increases the learning curve applied to war. The reason being is that it adds yet another concept to the engine that isn't as simple as buying units. Understanding the War Index and which Weapons should be used against which weapons is an ordeal in and of itself, as is moving and managing your forces and countries in a war, but you've added this feature to INCREASE the workload of players. This increases micromanagement at little increase to the fun level of the game.
Elimination is the first best option.
If elimination is not an option, I would propose (1) REDUCING the maximum fighting level back to 120 so that choosing to invest time and energy into this feature pays off, but does not give anyone a decided advantage over those that don't have the time or inclination. I would also propose that (2) Quality become a direct measure of fighting level rather than that 240Q => 120 Fighting Level nonsense that's going on in garrisons. This makes the minimum 100 and the maximum 120. The reasons for this are simple: Once I am attacked, I want any new forces that I buy to be available for defense. I want any new forces that I buy offensively to be available for offense.
The main players that this feature benefits are those of surprise attackers as odds are they will be prepared and the defender will not be. If someone is not expecting a war and war suddenly comes upon them, they shouldn't be punished more than they will be already by ADDING the disadvantage of Fighting levels. The more preparation is factored into the war engine, the less likely it is that newer players will stand a chance over older players. A noob with loads of military assets is already massively outclassed by a player with the correct military assets... who is further outclassed by a player with the active, correct and upgraded military assets. Honestly, I believe that players of equal assets (provided these assets aren't garbage weapons) should be relatively evenly matched... with preparation time playing a smaller role than it currently does. I mean you ALREADY need to have enough ammunition, have the right weapons, have your weapons activated, have them organized in units and deployed, have supply units ready, and have air transport units ready... isn't this enough?
Additionally, this line of reasoning could be extended to argue against Air Force Spotters and the whole logistics system in general. However, these don't confer as massive a disadvantage to more skilled players as Fighting Levels will.
The logistics system in place almost necessitates C3 Warfare. How else can I attack that guy I don't like across the world? My navy can't break an 800 Interceptor response. I really want to fight that guy, though. What am I to do? Right, I'll take C3s near his empire to get my Land/Landing/Air Forces in range.
I sincerely believe that all problems with the war engine (that don't result from War Protection abuse) result from a large learning curve. Assuming that you go ahead with everything you plan (including double federation wing response)--if I were to suggest ONE other thing that would save the war engine, it would be allowing 1000 NFP attacks with a 20% decrease in the attack power of NFPs. This opens a simple, yet expensive method, of fighting war and grants the ability to attack far away countries--this assumes 1200 and 800 Interceptor response. It is easy to teach, easy to learn, easy to understand, easy to build, etc.
Inevitably, I suppose you guys don't want to see massive fleets, why not get around to creating Navy Units like LRDs and eliminating the current fleet system. 4,000-5,000 weapons per fleet sounds fair doesn't it?
If you want to prevent asset raiding, the general solution is to make warfare simple (more players can defend themselves) and attacking expensive (raiding becomes less profitable). Currently, you're making warfare much more complex and difficult to learn and attacking only slightly more expensive. |
| Psycho_Honey (Little Upsilon) | Thursday, September 16, 2010 - 12:27 am
Yeah I'd like to talk about more than one person logging into a single account in order to fight.
Not sure if you saw it on the drowned out threads Tom, but in case you didn't.
What needs to be talked about Whiteboy is you logging into EO's account to fight, which is a real deterrence to the war game because people have always known it was happening, but you (WB) saved everyone the trouble of the accusation/proof cycle by admitting to it yourself.
Tom, can we stop this already. EO was involved in this nonsense before that triggered you to announce it being forbidden in the first place. Seems to be far more of a problem than c3s. I know personally Jack Jones has since left the game since they were both logged into EO's account during that war. It has to stop. I'm not even asking for a harsh reaction just another warning, that EO needs to fight from his own account, and WB needs to fight from his account. Thanks.
whiteboy
Wednesday, September 15, 2010 - 04:12 am Click here to edit this post
No I mean my brother has been logging in for him from the same IP address as me. Watch, right now my brother is going to destroy your latest worthless dec in a matter of minutes...it's gonna be great...I think I'll watch.
What is clear is that my brother has to log in for 15 minutes every couple of days to destroy your worthless decs, he was unavailable at the beginning of your BS wars because like me and unlike you, he has a life...good times, b*tch. How does it feel to be owned? |
| Scarlet (Little Upsilon) | Thursday, September 16, 2010 - 12:38 am
Please... stay on topic. That is a completely different issue that has nothing to do with actual game mechanics. I'm here to discuss game mechanics. I don't want a flame war, especially one that is irrelevant to the point I'm trying to raise. |
| Psycho_Honey (Little Upsilon) | Thursday, September 16, 2010 - 12:41 am
I'm not flame warring. I just know Tom Barely has time to read the forums, I'd rather him take time and view all pertinent information on one thread. Alternatively Scarlet, you and I could just email him if you really want 'just him' to read it. I have a more important issue anyway Scarlet, settle down and cooperate. |
| Scarlet (Little Upsilon) | Thursday, September 16, 2010 - 12:51 am
Anyway, I considered e-mailing, but thought the opportunity of having others contribute might lend some credence to my observation.
Alternatively, I also realize that by posting on the forums there is a chance that nothing will be done simply because the GMs don't want to cave into criticism because it could open up a whole mess of: Why did you listen to that guy and not me? Either way, I've decided that I'd rather publicly state my opinion and risk it being ignored by that virtue rather than privately e-mailing and risk it appearing to be simply an individual's demand. If nobody else agrees, I don't have a chance anyway. |
| whiteboy (White Giant) | Thursday, September 16, 2010 - 04:50 am
Scarlet - Some good points, I think there are many issues with the current quality/fighting level system. However I also do think there should be some reason to have higher quality weapons and I think that in general, it is actually more econ players who focus on quality in their military's because they will take the time to upgrade their defense and quality on the offensive side is pretty unimportant as people are not pre-building their attack wings and LRD's to upgrade them.
W - Shut up, go look at the other thread. You have no legs to stand on and stop flaming people's threads when they're trying to information seek. |
| HORDO | Thursday, September 16, 2010 - 05:13 am
... |
| Psycho_Honey | Thursday, September 16, 2010 - 05:16 am
FLAME WAR!!!!!!!!!
OH YEAH come out of War Protection you FAIRY! Yeah your talkin real big from WP little boy. You're soft little boy and you know it. Keep hiding I'll wait til you get out of unversity punk. |
| SuperSoldierRCP (Little Upsilon) | Thursday, September 16, 2010 - 05:25 am
I agree Scarlet you have my support. I have made a self suffient empire. I buy 90% + of my goods from my CM and empire less then 10% of the stuff i buy comes from international markets. All my corporations make 296Q i have the cash flow, ability to make more goods but i see little rewards what i do think is if im buying higher Q goods not only should i make higher Q but what about using less? |
| HORDO | Thursday, September 16, 2010 - 05:32 am
WhiteBoy I don't need to do any research I saw the whole war I know you like to tell people what they can or cannot think but I have two eyes to see and I report what I saw. You are selfish andself centered enough to think what you have to say is the only thing that matters but Keto was nuked more than 50 times, it is funny how you and your crew have selective memory, nukes are pretty useless if you nuke c3s but I counted as all ketos countries that were unprotected shed more than 10 million population each I would not call that a a useless part of the game. I know what I saw I don't need some big mouth telling me different mind your business I was not talking to you. I didnt really trust the advice given me but I should have wendy was telling me the whole time to take down the air defense first I thought it was impossible waste of time but she did it all by herslef more than 140K interceptors. so it was my fault for not listening. The only tperson that is ridiculous is you I hope the gms do something about you loggin in to fight from two accounts from 1 ip address. It doesn't matter if you have a brother or not who is to say it is not you? I can provide info for up to 10 people does that mean I should be logging on to someone elses account to fight? No Tom says it has to stop I wouldn't be so proud and loud mouth you may just have a surprise coming yet. Making someones identity does not prove anything except that 1 IP is using the accounts. Clearly against the rules. I don't think the whole game should be held accountable to a set of rules while you get away with breaking them. Your IP should be banned from EO's account that is bad for the game to continue letting you do that. I can make 10 more accounts and say my cousins want to play but will it not be obvious that I only want to multi?
You call people multi player yet break the rules and that is bad for the game becuase no one can know if it is you or not. Even if you have a brother it proves nothing the obvious is that your ip is governing two accounts and tom clearly expresses that it has to stop. |
| HORDO | Thursday, September 16, 2010 - 05:38 am
I remember Jonni telling Wendy to keep the forums clean for saying "bitching" which is only decribing an action, but you keep calling her bitch and I have not witnessed a gm or moderator warn you about your language. Are there two sets of rules that apply to everyone else and Whiteboy gets to break them and live by his own? Is he exempt? |
| whiteboy (White Giant) | Thursday, September 16, 2010 - 06:02 am
Hordo - Try posting in the thread where I actually made the post...this has nothing to do with this thread. |
| Scarlet (Little Upsilon) | Thursday, September 16, 2010 - 07:04 am
I could have predicted the above... anyway, another reason I posted on the forums is that I thought the title was pretty clever... in a lame, punny way.
Anyway, I trust that the GMs will act in the best interests of promoting the game... even if that doesn't conform precisely to my opinions.
Quote:Scarlet - Some good points, I think there are many issues with the current quality/fighting level system. However I also do think there should be some reason to have higher quality weapons and I think that in general, it is actually more econ players who focus on quality in their military's because they will take the time to upgrade their defense and quality on the offensive side is pretty unimportant as people are not pre-building their attack wings and LRD's to upgrade them.
If quality did not deteriorate over time OR start at a 50% fighting level for garrisons and oddly not for units just created, there wouldn't be much of an issue. However, I anticipate that eventually quality will start at 50% fighting level for everything. This will become a greater issue at that point.
However, I must point out that Quality was designed for use by the economic engine and not the military engine. For realism, it makes sense for quality to have an effect on military. For ease of play, it makes sense for quality not to have an effect.
In the spirit of solution-oriented approach, an alternative solution would be for quality to have a direct relationship with ALL weapons and not deteriorate. This still makes it cheaper to upgrade than buy 200Q, but does not necessitate greater difficulty for either player. In any case, I still believe that this adds more micromanagement to a game aspect that definitely doesn't need it.
Even if I'm wrong and it favors neither side in any way (I fully acknowledge this possibility), it still contributes as one of many increases the learning curve. It took me quite a while to wrap my head around how to use Air Transport/Supply Units/Air Spotters/Foreign Airports and the implications that resulted from applying all this information in country military structure and potential war planning.
Anyway, I'd just be happy if they just gave us back the navy as a functional and useful aspect of the wargame, if only in a slightly weaker state than it used to be (as described earlier). The 20% reduction to NFP power with 1000 NFP attacks would be costlier than PB/FP wings in taking down 1200/800 Interceptor responses, but would allow for both long range warfare without C3s and offer an simple, yet expensive option, for fighting. I'm already sending out military treatises to describe the fundamentals of warfare to other players. I used to just say, "buy these in large amounts; these are good against those; don't forget these". Much of what I needed to know to fight a war when I started playing is still relevant (the old war engine), but with about 20 new features complicating things. And I thought learning military seemed daunting when I started.
The reason why I believe Navy to be so important in simplifying the game is that it doesn't require the same amount of effort and planning to use as the Air Force or Landing Forces or Land Forces or effective C3 usage. A more simple option at greater cost is definitely desirable in my mind.
Quote:I agree Scarlet you have my support. I have made a self suffient empire. I buy 90% + of my goods from my CM and empire less then 10% of the stuff i buy comes from international markets. All my corporations make 296Q i have the cash flow, ability to make more goods but i see little rewards what i do think is if im buying higher Q goods not only should i make higher Q but what about using less?
I think you've misunderstood my point. I'm arguing AGAINST quality effects on military. Besides that, the manipulation of quality is profitable. There is a place for CM contracts in good economic strategy, that strategy just happens to not be self-sufficiency. Changing the game to give self-sufficiency profitability as a strategy carries untold repercussions that would threaten to shatter the glass house that is the economic game on only a hairline fracture. The economic engine in place makes sense. I wouldn't change a thing. It's a thing of elegance in it's own right. |
| LisaJean (Little Upsilon) | Thursday, September 16, 2010 - 09:40 am
One Woman from another, Wendy ignore that word, I am shocked that no one has corrected the filthy behavior here. Calling a woman a *B* is very nasty and has no place in a make believe game. |
| Maestro2000 | Thursday, September 16, 2010 - 01:24 pm
Speaking of quality
I'd like to see more quality players join the game. |
| Border C | Thursday, September 16, 2010 - 02:07 pm
This game is make believe??????? Now it all makes sense!!! You're all just little voices/writings in my head!!!
I feel much better now. |
| Laguna | Thursday, September 16, 2010 - 02:17 pm
Shut up! >I'm< the real one! |
| SuperSoldierRCP (Little Upsilon) | Thursday, September 16, 2010 - 05:03 pm
BORDER C THIS IS THE VOICE OF GOD!!!! GIVE SUPERSOLDIERRCP ALL UR COOKIES AND BY THAT I MEAN GOLD COINS!!!!!!!!!!!!!! NOW!!!
In regards to scarlet's topic
In my opinion Q should have an effect on weapons. players should want to get 296Q weapons but they only effect them to a point it should be up to a player to upgrade them with Q upgrades and help them strive to build effective and high Q armies.
I do believe that something should be done for self sufficiency. I know i will never be self sufficient but i have 80state corps in melichor and 60% of the goods they need are traded locally and they all are 296Q, they all make a profit even with the high Q and 80% tax. I would like to see something happen to help the econ players. I really would like to see where corporations use less if they us higher Q goods maybe 10% per 100
370Q in stock - 100 ASQ = 270 move the decimal over one to the left = 27% less materials. Either on top of that or on its own let me set a common market and local price sell opinion being able to set what i sell them at is huge that what CM can help either out more.
Local-best price
Common-10 over Q
International- 44 over Q |
