S
Scarlet (Little Upsilon)
16 Sep 2010 00:18
Link
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.
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.