PDA

View Full Version : Nation-Wars 2010 Plans



Mr President
12-29-2009, 12:18
In the coming sets 3 new units and 3 new attacks will be released. Missiles, SDI's and Subs are the units and Missiles and Subs have there own attacks. The missiles will have 2 different attacks and the subs will have just 1. The game has needed another sea unit and the subs fit it perfectly..

I am not going to go into detail at this time about what they will destroy in the attacks. I am still working on the missile unit trying to get it separated from the main attack. I would like the missile to be it's own attack only. The subs WILL attack in a SA.. Missiles Won't.

Now as i was thinking of upgrade names for the subs i came up with what i think is a cool idea. We will name the subs after certain HOF members. Like one upgrade would be called the USS Svenneman or the USS Tnova ect ect. I think it would be cool to have units named after certain members who have helped the game in many ways over the years. From time to time as the game upgrades we will change out the names as there will be more HOF members than upgrades..

Now i do have a question that i would like your opinions on. We can leave all attacks as they are and just add in 3 more

OR

We can remove 1 or 2 attacks that nobody uses and replace them with the 3 new ones. Bombing Run (BR) has been a flop and Ground Attack (GR) is also a dead attack. I did have plans to tweak up the GA but i'm not sure it would do any good. So please give me some feedback on what you think we should do.

The 2 Missile attacks will be a reg missile attack and then a Nuclear Missile attack which will require lvl 12 missiles which will be given at random.

SDI's will be the only thing that will defend against a Missile Attack. Regular SAM's will only protect against jets and bombers.

Also please note that this is still in beta stage. NOTHING is final. I'm still working on it and almost have it finished and then we will test it and then implement it in the game. I am only posting this up so you all know what some of my plans are for the coming year.

Also one of my top plans is to get the game on Face Book. It's going to be a huge pain in the butt and take me some time but it is doable and i think it will effectly help our member base. The new units and attacks will happen first as i'm 90% done with that and then i will focus on getting us on FB. Also, this way we have a chance to get use to the new units and attacks before we have to train a lot of other people :)

So there you have it....... discuss :)


Also i forgot to mention our status. Currently we are still headed in the right direction. Each set we increase memberships and also our returning rates are still at a all time high. Our budget is still very small and at the moment we have enough money to keep us up and running for 7 more months. I am going to remove one of our advertising spots as it's not worth the money so that will save us some money. There is an emergancy reserve fund that i have been building since the start of last year. That would keep us going a full year if needed.

Our only revenue is premium accounts. I took almost all of the google ads off in the game. I just didn't like them and they didn't really pay out enough so they were not worth the trouble. I lowered the amount of free premiums to the winners from 3 months to 1 month. We just can't kep giving them away as it's costing us greatly. What i would like to do is come up with a new thing for winners and remove free premiums totally. But i have nothing in mind at the moment.

VB has released a new forum and new plan to go along with it. At this time we are not switching over to the new one. I did go ahead and buy the new forum cause the intro price was 200.00 cheaper now then if you waited.. So i used my own money to buy it now (don't tell the First Lady)
and am testing it on a test account to see what's it's like. It is pretty cool and has some good features but the bad part is NONE of our features we have now will work with it (casino, credits, bookie ect ect). There is a new credit system being made for VB4 but i don't know if it will erase all that we have now.

We can keep what we have cause i actually bought this forum outright. The problem is we will never get any updates for it or support for it. One of the good things about the new forums is that once you pay for it then it's lifetime free support and upgrades. We would not have to spend anymore money on upgrades like we do now...

The game has advance nicely over the past year. OUr biggest gains were at the end of the year when all the changes were made. So i am hoping to continue the growth or the community and the game. So please the best thing you can do is use the hell out of the invitation system and also tell all your friends about this game and work hard at getting more and more members.

Thanks and have a great New Year!!!!!!!

Divine Intervention
12-29-2009, 12:30
sounds exciting but i hope this isnt for January :p?

btw instead of having HOF members how about we have Alien events renamed to players (we can have a massive list not limited to HOF)?

*you have been visited by Aliens. You now have Lvl 12 Hyper Devil Fighter planes*

or

*you have been visited by Aliens. You now have lvl 1 Max Logan Scouts*

Mr President
12-29-2009, 12:36
added more to my original post. lol silly me i forgot to add it before i posted it... lol silly boy.

Trigger
12-29-2009, 12:46
I think you are trying too much too quickly---which is a compliment not a criticism. Most game mods don't ever respond to the responses.

I suggest you make the changes first to the Capture the Flag server, and reduce the costs from 1m to something more reasonable that newbs can afford.


Regarding the actual changes with the missles, the killing of population is a good idea---but its not powerful enough. If you remove that completely, then you just reduce the need for troops.


The true need is to have every military force to do something very effective. Troops should kill equal population than jets/bomber. Jets/bombers should kill same populations as they do but perhaps take 1 more turn.

Really what has been a flop is the useless attacks.


If you care to indulge me for a minute

Make the units independent of each other. Troops should attack troops, not troops versus troops vs tanks... its the same with tanks vs troops versus troops verus tanks. Right now tanks are useless...but could be valuable if you make them independent of each other.



This isn't the only thing i've seen. I like the idea of increase bomber's attack efficacy. Make it so that bombers only face SAMs. Which would make more sense. Bombers fly much higher than jets and it would make people who are at war more likely to buy SAMs.


The missles are okay--but I'd prefer if you gave SDI a different name since SDI is what Earth uses and would seem like a rip off.

Trigger
12-29-2009, 12:51
I didn't see the updated post but regarding money to help pay for the server costs:

Do a twice a year NPR drive where you ask for donations--its much easier and people feel as if they are helping this specific game rather than just buying credits which they can use on ****. I'd much rather donate to the game twice a year than buying my support.

Divine Intervention
12-29-2009, 12:52
@ Trigger RE: CTF costs:

http://forums.nation-wars.com/showthread.php?p=86458#post86458

-Z-
12-29-2009, 12:58
I hate FB and will not use it anymore.


But it might be interesting if it adds people...

As long as I didnt have to goto facebook to use the game, god I hate FB.

the new units are a big step, I'm deeply interested.

I do like the idea of naming the upgrades after HOF members, but I'm not sure how it would fare with new members who have no idea about these people and would simply think the names are dumb and make no sense.

Perhaps using HOF members in some other aspect of the game would be better.

thats just my opinion.

CONCERNING GA***

GA is not a Dead attack Mr P.
if u are warring anyone except cashers its an option, if u look over the last 3 sets u will see dozens of GA kills. (at least 10-20 in the last 3 sets I thhink)

I agree with beefing up GA killing, however u would do it..... Im not sure.

or adding in a whole new way top kill a state would also be fun.

I would not get rid of it.

Just my opinion again.
SDI ... an earth Unit.

could seen like a rip off... but could also bring people in, having somthing they are familier with.

Mr. P I plan to buy another Premium soon, hopefully a longer one than B4.

Im glad u are working on all this for us.

Z

Trigger
12-29-2009, 12:59
@ Trigger RE: CTF costs:

http://forums.nation-wars.com/showthread.php?p=86458#post86458

Well that's exactly my point. The newbs like me who are inactive don't know about the wonderful souls like you. I was lucky and was donated 5m credits, so I paid it forward to blade---but peeps who are inactive in the forums aren't as knowledgeable.

If payments are made so that it is known to support the game and server in a NPR type of drive i think it would be more profitable and we would understand that the money goes to pay the costs of the game not just what it takes to buy credits.

Trigger
12-29-2009, 13:11
Sorry for the multiple posts but regarding income from the game I would just like to elaborate on other types of forums I particpate in.


I'm a huge Colbert fan and the site nofactzone.com was needing income for hosting and DB (the owner of the site) posted a statement stating the financials that would be needed to keep the site up and running. It was very open and transparant and if you do the same asking for xyz money for the year or divide it by month donations i'm sure that 50% of us will kick in that money to help.


Edit: I believe she raised 1500 in just a week---so I think its worth considering.

Dogma
12-29-2009, 14:26
**** good posts Trigger.

Bright
12-29-2009, 14:28
*you have been visited by Aliens. You now have lvl 1 Max Logan Scouts*

Argh, your spies devolve because of a random? That would be pretty rage-worthy, haha.

I like the changes, personally I wouldn't mind leaving in all the attacks and adding in the new ones- having an array of options is always fun, even if some see lesser uses than others.

I'm in agreement with Z about the GA- its pretty easy to dogpile a state and kill them within minutes- add in the freeze banks spy op and you effectively have an indy/farmer that can't move unless they want to BM. Probably the easiest way to beef up GA would be to nerf the population recovery rate and/or have it destroy a small amount of infrastructure (wasn't there a tank attack in the works)?

BR was fun the set we used it in TTG- unfortunately, bombers lost the ability to AR as well, making it useless (isn't a bombing run technically part of an air raid too?). Right now bombers are too weak relative to what defends against them (jets are fine, but SAMS are very strong). Bombers could be beefed up, or have jets participate in the raid too (bomber escort). Trigger's suggestion also makes a lot of sense too. Definitely put the bomber military strength back at its old level.

I've also mentioned it from time to time, but have sabotage airbases also destroy SAMs too.

I'm looking forward to the subs for sure... :tongue::

pcgluva
12-29-2009, 14:42
quickly before i head to work ill and more later but i am against taking away GA... if a indy has no inf defence or low defence they are easily taken down by GA due to low population

pron
12-29-2009, 14:45
1. I agree with Z that GA's are not dead--but they are usually a last resort to killing someone. Decreasing the turn usage (ie, it takes 400 turns to kill someone regardless of population) would make it a lot more like AR. Or adding a destruction of buildings to the GA would make it similar to BR attack, and then getting rid of BR wouldn't be too bad. It's far too easy right now to recoup GA attacks as Population returns quickly, but if you destroy buildings too--it's a whole other ball game and the attack becomes worthwhile as a way to kill states.

2. I have no problem using SDI--Earth may use it, but it fits with the game as we're in modern warfare type of units. Also, there are probably a billion games out there that have "jets" as a unit, but we don't feel like we're ripping them off ^^ Could also just call it "LMI--Laser Missile Interceptor". Same concept, different name.

3. I don't like the Unit on Unit attacks. Right now, a state can put up a decent defense--but if you do unit on unit attacks, there will no way to have a semi defensive state (stockers and suiciders always win).

4. Give top states of the set access to a private "elite" status game. Could be on the forums, or it's own server. Add people who have killed the most people in a set, and people who did the most war attacks in the set, and you have a recipe for a good game :) 3 months access for 1st place, 2 months access for 2nd, 3rd, and individual achievements. Let these pro states have 3 or 4 states on this server to keep the population up.

Devil
12-29-2009, 15:02
Subs - Great idea so much could be done with these

Missles - always been weary of these but are we talking about for nations or states? Either way i think they could be fun if done right.

SDI- I dont see why this would have to be a seperate unit, could be a tech ( we could try to make techer a viable all set strat) or even a new building (aslo tigger is right it was an earth term)

Facebook - Sounds like a great recruiting technique

Units name after HOF members - Im baised but i def like it

BR - Its still a new attack and hasnt really had any large scale wars to show its worth

GA - I have an idea that could make it more effective and give it more use in wars. But most netters are inf heavy and very little AR defense heavy, not to mention instant pop regeneration... like i said i have an idea though ;)

VB4 - dont now anyting about it, i think we will all trust your judgement

lv12 nuke attack - Its sounds kinda scary to me that its just randomly given out...

Anyways i think this could make the game a good amount more interesting other than AA then AR = win

nosejam
12-29-2009, 15:42
Sounding good, I'll see if I can pull some new players in after my exams.

-Z-
12-29-2009, 15:44
Yes these improvements/changes will make thr game better IMO.

ATM certain people have gotten quite good at netting and taking top 5 spots

ie Devil, some sky states, Itty, Beeno, and a handful of others.

adding in big changes like this (as opposed to tiny ones like we have been doing) will make na more level playing field for alot of the newer players, as we will all have to learn the ins and out together.

It sound like good fun.


Z

-Z-
12-29-2009, 15:50
1. I agree with Z that GA's are not dead--but they are usually a last resort to killing someone. Decreasing the turn usage (ie, it takes 400 turns to kill someone regardless of population) would make it a lot more like AR. Or adding a destruction of buildings to the GA would make it similar to BR attack, and then getting rid of BR wouldn't be too bad. It's far too easy right now to recoup GA attacks as Population returns quickly, but if you destroy buildings too--it's a whole other ball game and the attack becomes worthwhile as a way to kill states.





I agree. we need to even out the feild for GAs to make it a viable attack Vs Cashers, and if u added in destroying buildings ( small %) and also increased the % of population that was killed for cashers, hat would be fun.

Z

-Z-
12-29-2009, 15:55
BR - Its still a new attack and hasnt really had any large scale wars to show its worth

GA - I have an idea that could make it more effective and give it more use in wars. But most netters are inf heavy and very little AR defense heavy, not to mention instant pop regeneration... like i said i have an idea though ;)


I agree with keeping all attacks in for now.

and what is your Idea Devil, about GAs?

Z

L P
12-29-2009, 16:23
One of the things I hated about Earth was the missiles.

I assume you could buy and sell them like other units and their cost would be high. My alternative would be to have a special attack for the subs. A "Missile Strike" from the subs to target a specific type of unit or buildings.

Just don't mimic Earth too much as it won't work long term and I will probably have to type stuff in pink and florescent yellow again. :D

Bright
12-29-2009, 16:54
Missiles makes me wonder if there should be a separate category of nation-level units- high strength, very high damage/defense, high upkeep that comes from the national coffers. But they would need to be limited, and perhaps upgrades could be proportionate to tech levels and nation size?

IMO missiles may be too complicated at this stage of the game. But I would love to see LP doing florescent text again. Neon yellow and magenta FTW.

Dogma
12-29-2009, 17:48
Uh oh, LP has never warned us before about his Neon yellow or Pink Typings. A new day looms.

As far as the SDI, Maybe have something like Space bound lasers or something like that. There needs to be something that protyects from the missles. If it is something like an artillary unit, I could get behind it, but not some all out destroyer. I see too many opportunities for abuse.

Mr President
12-29-2009, 18:16
I think you are trying too much too quickly---which is a compliment not a criticism. Most game mods don't ever respond to the responses.

I suggest you make the changes first to the Capture the Flag server, and reduce the costs from 1m to something more reasonable that newbs can afford.


Regarding the actual changes with the missles, the killing of population is a good idea---but its not powerful enough. If you remove that completely, then you just reduce the need for troops.


The true need is to have every military force to do something very effective. Troops should kill equal population than jets/bomber. Jets/bombers should kill same populations as they do but perhaps take 1 more turn.

Really what has been a flop is the useless attacks.


If you care to indulge me for a minute

Make the units independent of each other. Troops should attack troops, not troops versus troops vs tanks... its the same with tanks vs troops versus troops verus tanks. Right now tanks are useless...but could be valuable if you make them independent of each other.



This isn't the only thing i've seen. I like the idea of increase bomber's attack efficacy. Make it so that bombers only face SAMs. Which would make more sense. Bombers fly much higher than jets and it would make people who are at war more likely to buy SAMs.


The missles are okay--but I'd prefer if you gave SDI a different name since SDI is what Earth uses and would seem like a rip off.

Actually i got SDI from NukeZone and a couple other games i played. I didn't even think about earth using it :( As for the cost of CTF, that can come down. 1M was just a starting point.


I hate FB and will not use it anymore.


But it might be interesting if it adds people...

As long as I didnt have to goto facebook to use the game, god I hate FB.

the new units are a big step, I'm deeply interested.

I do like the idea of naming the upgrades after HOF members, but I'm not sure how it would fare with new members who have no idea about these people and would simply think the names are dumb and make no sense.

Perhaps using HOF members in some other aspect of the game would be better.

thats just my opinion.

CONCERNING GA***

GA is not a Dead attack Mr P.
if u are warring anyone except cashers its an option, if u look over the last 3 sets u will see dozens of GA kills. (at least 10-20 in the last 3 sets I thhink)

I agree with beefing up GA killing, however u would do it..... Im not sure.

or adding in a whole new way top kill a state would also be fun.

I would not get rid of it.

Just my opinion again.
SDI ... an earth Unit.

could seen like a rip off... but could also bring people in, having somthing they are familier with.

Mr. P I plan to buy another Premium soon, hopefully a longer one than B4.

Im glad u are working on all this for us.

Z

First i mispoke when i said GA needs to go.. That needs to stay cause that would be 2 ground attacks. (SA & GA). I don't think GA should go, but i do think tanks need to be beefed up or as suggested by trigger have it's own attack. Infantry vs Tanks has always been picked on lol.

About FaceBook. You would still be able to access the game like you normally do. Being on FB would only offer another route to the game. But that route is very popular these days and we can also make certain things post up on FB users info that would give us free advertisement.. :)


Sorry for the multiple posts but regarding income from the game I would just like to elaborate on other types of forums I particpate in.


I'm a huge Colbert fan and the site nofactzone.com was needing income for hosting and DB (the owner of the site) posted a statement stating the financials that would be needed to keep the site up and running. It was very open and transparant and if you do the same asking for xyz money for the year or divide it by month donations i'm sure that 50% of us will kick in that money to help.


Edit: I believe she raised 1500 in just a week---so I think its worth considering.

1500.00 in a week? holy crap. That would set us for a long time lol.. My problem is i hate asking people straight out for money. I like offering some sort of reason (ie premiums or credits or other things). That way members are getting something other then just donating.. At one time credits were the number one funding source of the game. The problem is it got way out of hand and people got way to many credits with not enough to spend it all on.


Argh, your spies devolve because of a random? That would be pretty rage-worthy, haha.

I like the changes, personally I wouldn't mind leaving in all the attacks and adding in the new ones- having an array of options is always fun, even if some see lesser uses than others.

I'm in agreement with Z about the GA- its pretty easy to dogpile a state and kill them within minutes- add in the freeze banks spy op and you effectively have an indy/farmer that can't move unless they want to BM. Probably the easiest way to beef up GA would be to nerf the population recovery rate and/or have it destroy a small amount of infrastructure (wasn't there a tank attack in the works)?

BR was fun the set we used it in TTG- unfortunately, bombers lost the ability to AR as well, making it useless (isn't a bombing run technically part of an air raid too?). Right now bombers are too weak relative to what defends against them (jets are fine, but SAMS are very strong). Bombers could be beefed up, or have jets participate in the raid too (bomber escort). Trigger's suggestion also makes a lot of sense too. Definitely put the bomber military strength back at its old level.

I've also mentioned it from time to time, but have sabotage airbases also destroy SAMs too.

I'm looking forward to the subs for sure... :tongue::

Bombers were put back to there original strength the set after you spoke to me about it. And i too like the idea of having a lot of different attacks. Not a million to choose from but def more then 5.


Uh oh, LP has never warned us before about his Neon yellow or Pink Typings. A new day looms.

As far as the SDI, Maybe have something like Space bound lasers or something like that. There needs to be something that protyects from the missles. If it is something like an artillary unit, I could get behind it, but not some all out destroyer. I see too many opportunities for abuse.

lol on the colors.. thanks for reminding us about LP's posts..

Missiles will not be an all out destroyer. One Nuclear blast will NOT wipe out a whole state. The most powerful Missile Attack (Nuclear Attack) will be in par with most of our other attacks...

I'm not looking to unbalance the game. Which is why we would have a lot of testing before ANYTHING is implemented. And a lot more bugging Tnova on MSN :)

Also, don't think that this is all happening in January or Feb. These are plans that will happen throughout 2010. I was just letting you guys know that i do have plans to continue upgrading the game. I was worried this past yr that i would have to pull the plug. (there is a post on that somewhere in here) but then i decided to give it one last chance and spent months researching and playing other games and then totally reworked this game. Since then new members have joined up and stuck around. Granted we are not a huge game yet, but having members come back and continue playing is where i am the happiest. So we are moving in the right direction.. Which means i will continue to work on the game and try to make it better.

One thing to all the newer members, in case you haven't noticed yet our community has a HUGE say in this game. I listen to every idea. Some make it some don't. Some are good ones just more advanced then we need or i can do lol.. I wish i didn't have to work cause we would have one kick *** game as all my time could be spent on making new things lol. So always feel free to post ideas. I may or may not comment back on some of them. But i always read them.. And then i also always go back and read them again when i'm looking for new things to add in.

Also i want to clear up is when i said we have 7 months worth of money left. That statement is worse case scenario where nobody from this day fwd purchased a premium account. And then we have the 1yr emergency fund which would cover us for an additional yr. And that is projected too. When i think all of this up in project new users and increased server costs. Now when we go to FB, if we get a crap load of new members well then we will be in need of money lol..

Mr President
12-29-2009, 19:33
oh and about the lvl 12 Missiles being random. I think that would be a bit more fun. This way the same states don't have them all the time and the game isn't loaded with states full of nukes. Not to mention if they fall into the hands of a crazy person.. What would nations do if say LoR was a Nuclear Nation? Would they war them sooner to get rid of the nukes or would diplomacy kick in even greater to ensure safety????? It will be interesting.. although using nukes will cost you more in readiness :)

I also forgot the mention that levels will play a key part in certain missile attacks that one can do. I will explain more later on :) I'm very excited about the new attacks as i'm sure you can tell.. I wish i could show you all what they do now but sadly it's just me and about 10 other of my multi states playing :)~

Clowntown
12-29-2009, 19:41
just a thought.. mabey put in unit weekneses

infentry and tanks have a low defence against bombers but bombers only have like a .000000001% chance of getting hit by infentry (random bullet spamming or the luckey guy with an rpg shooting at a stupid pilot)

tanks have a higer defence against infentry but much lower as some1 with a rpg at the right time could take out the tank.


ships have a super high defence against infentry.. unless you make them able 2 walk on water (lvl 50 jesus troupers????) but are weaker against other ships , jets and are super weak vs bombers (or missles soon)




mabey setup a "blitzkrieg" like war attack using all units (except spys) starts with escorted boombing runs (needs jets and bombers) followed by an artelery bombardment (ships and tanks) then a land invasion?(infentry) it would require additional turns compaired 2 other attacks however will reduce redyness destroy buildings and troups but the attacker would gain more land then he would with an SA. (as all the troups in the nearby area will have just been barmbarded )

it would also promote having the tanks and bombers at least during war if this attack is developed corrcetly


if it doesnt make since its prob because im hungry (been sick past 2 days and in that time have only eatten 1 apple and a bannana :/... i hate being sick)


and i tend 2 rant

L P
12-29-2009, 20:44
What if the nation had the missiles? Not the states.

Mr President
12-29-2009, 21:26
What if the nation had the missiles? Not the states.

That was actually one of my original ideas. But to implement that then there is a total rework of all the formulas and that is just to much work right now. It's not ruled out, but won't happen for a long time. :(

nosejam
12-30-2009, 06:31
just a thought.. mabey put in unit weekneses

infentry and tanks have a low defence against bombers but bombers only have like a .000000001% chance of getting hit by infentry (random bullet spamming or the luckey guy with an rpg shooting at a stupid pilot)

tanks have a higer defence against infentry but much lower as some1 with a rpg at the right time could take out the tank.


ships have a super high defence against infentry.. unless you make them able 2 walk on water (lvl 50 jesus troupers????) but are weaker against other ships , jets and are super weak vs bombers (or missles soon)




mabey setup a "blitzkrieg" like war attack using all units (except spys) starts with escorted boombing runs (needs jets and bombers) followed by an artelery bombardment (ships and tanks) then a land invasion?(infentry) it would require additional turns compaired 2 other attacks however will reduce redyness destroy buildings and troups but the attacker would gain more land then he would with an SA. (as all the troups in the nearby area will have just been barmbarded )

it would also promote having the tanks and bombers at least during war if this attack is developed corrcetly


if it doesnt make since its prob because im hungry (been sick past 2 days and in that time have only eatten 1 apple and a bannana :/... i hate being sick)


and i tend 2 rant

It's the new Rass lol

MAGGIO
12-30-2009, 08:52
I am sure all the ideas will work fine.

Unless you need to exchange one for the other, I would keep BR for a while and see how it plays out. Possibly many things would be much more successful with more players doing more things. If we are getting there then we will eventually find out.

Clowntown
12-30-2009, 11:18
It's the new Rass lol




hey dont comepare me 2 rass that arcade high score poacher.......


er wait.. back when i was killerclown that was me 0_o



nevermind fire insults at will


What if the nation had the missiles? Not the states.

an after though.. if the nations had missles would it not also make sence 2 setup a tech a a missle defence system that as your hit by millses its damages so your constantly using teck 4 the upkeep and set a spy attack 2 disable missle defence system (must be done on some1 with the proper privlages or will fail and has a lower chance of succeding but if it does it reduces the missle defence to 0 for 5 minutes

MAGGIO
12-30-2009, 11:38
I think some times we forget, but its much easier to adjust code than it is to re-write code.

trust in the fact that you wouldnt want the game code re-written to suite small needs because it would only cause a downward spiral of errors and downtime.

Clowntown
12-30-2009, 13:50
and how freekin annoying it is to find that **** missing . in 800+ lines of code.. *shutters*


thank god they invented debugging lol

Xavior
12-30-2009, 14:21
hey dont comepare me 2 rass that arcade high score poacher.......


er wait.. back when i was killerclown that was me 0_o



nevermind fire insults at will



an after though.. if the nations had missles would it not also make sence 2 setup a tech a a missle defence system that as your hit by millses its damages so your constantly using teck 4 the upkeep and set a spy attack 2 disable missle defence system (must be done on some1 with the proper privlages or will fail and has a lower chance of succeding but if it does it reduces the missle defence to 0 for 5 minutes

I would like to see missiles tied directly to nations through tech (if we were to implement missiles - I'm not so sure if its altogether necessary at this point) so that states can still use missiles as opposed to the nation using missiles.

If there was a missile tech, the closer it is to max, the higher accuracy the missile, or more damage it does. Then the state would be able to build missiles and fire them at will (maybe set a limit to missiles fired per 36 hours).

It would be nice if you could target which set of units the missile could destroy (a minor nation tech? ). eg: If you have this tech %, you can target units used in SA defense, if you have higher tech % you can target a particular unit like jets or spies. Destroying buildings seems unecessary because quite honestly, the only reason to do so would be to cripple a state and if you aren't at war thats pretty much a straight suicide. Not to mention BR does pretty much the same thing.

For missile defense, maybe have another tech, where if you have it maxed, you can shoot down 75% of missiles. And as the tech gets used up (per missile intercepted) like sanctions the % goes down, and you have to keep adding.

The one thing that would be affected is the tech strat. As it would be more viable to play the whole month, reduce the tech production per turn by 25% of something like that, or lower the price of tech on the market by 25%.

So my point is that missiles shouldn't be just something you can build up by yourself and destroy a state single handedly.

Bright
12-30-2009, 16:16
I suppose another approach would be packing upgrade levels and tech together with missiles- for example, with no tech invested, no missiles, 75% tech=level 1 missiles, and then goes up 1 level every 10 percent invested- above maybe level 4 or 5, you can start doing precision strikes on various units, otherwise the missile works much like a KE in that it just blows stuff up indiscriminately.

Of course, these missiles should come from the nation's silo/stockpile, and only those with Central Command privileges would be allowed to fire them in war perhaps?

Tie in missiles with the subs while you're at it. To use the strongest missiles, you have to have the necessary tech, but also the necessary upgrades to the subs, and possibly even a number threshold to pass before being able to fire. It could create a new type of breaker in wars.

Devil
12-30-2009, 16:25
I would like to see missiles tied directly to nations through tech (if we were to implement missiles - I'm not so sure if its altogether necessary at this point) so that states can still use missiles as opposed to the nation using missiles.

If there was a missile tech, the closer it is to max, the higher accuracy the missile, or more damage it does. Then the state would be able to build missiles and fire them at will (maybe set a limit to missiles fired per 36 hours).

It would be nice if you could target which set of units the missile could destroy (a minor nation tech? ). eg: If you have this tech %, you can target units used in SA defense, if you have higher tech % you can target a particular unit like jets or spies. Destroying buildings seems unecessary because quite honestly, the only reason to do so would be to cripple a state and if you aren't at war thats pretty much a straight suicide. Not to mention BR does pretty much the same thing.

For missile defense, maybe have another tech, where if you have it maxed, you can shoot down 75% of missiles. And as the tech gets used up (per missile intercepted) like sanctions the % goes down, and you have to keep adding.

The one thing that would be affected is the tech strat. As it would be more viable to play the whole month, reduce the tech production per turn by 25% of something like that, or lower the price of tech on the market by 25%.

So my point is that missiles shouldn't be just something you can build up by yourself and destroy a state single handedly.

i agree with pretty much everything in this post

-Z-
12-31-2009, 11:06
i agree with pretty much everything in this post


I agree with most things in this post...

however...

I feel that it should take at least 2-3 people in the nation to use a missile attack...

if it is an attack dependent on a nation, then we should not have anyone able to use it.

there should be a key like mechanism, where say

-3 states need to be online and "declare" or "initiate" a missile attack, where all 3 must click a button, all within 5 mins of each other.

-After this point, the missiles are engaged, and active, ready to be fired.

-Any one of the 3 people who initiated the sequence can fire the missiles.

-After 20 or 30 mins. the missiles deactivate, and in order to use them, the process must happen again.

Clowntown
12-31-2009, 11:24
I agree with most things in this post...

however...

I feel that it should take at least 2-3 people in the nation to use a missile attack...



Keys and launch codes? kinda


could set time up 2 require a privlage 2 access
and if i spy could get in to 2 the missliles he could set them to detonate in place 0_o

Mr President
12-31-2009, 14:53
nice suggestions but they would be good if the missile attacks were going to be so large they destroyed a state in say 2-3 attacks.. The new missile attacks will not be anything like that. They will fall in line with our other attacks. We can't have certain attacks be so powerful cause then everyone would just use them and nothing else. Right now i'm just trying to add a couple other ways to kill instead of having to do the same AA then AR= kill.

Having a few ways to kill isn't a bad thing. Yes it will force states to have to cover more then one or 2 ways to protect themselves but perhaps now winning a set won't be as easy as having 50M SAMS and 300M Inf. :)

nosejam
12-31-2009, 15:10
nice suggestions but they would be good if the missile attacks were going to be so large they destroyed a state in say 2-3 attacks.. The new missile attacks will not be anything like that. They will fall in line with our other attacks. We can't have certain attacks be so powerful cause then everyone would just use them and nothing else. Right now i'm just trying to add a couple other ways to kill instead of having to do the same AA then AR= kill.

Having a few ways to kill isn't a bad thing. Yes it will force states to have to cover more then one or 2 ways to protect themselves but perhaps now winning a set won't be as easy as having 50M SAMS and 300M Inf. :)

I've been going really wrong with 80 mil Bombers and 100 mil Spies ::oops:

MAGGIO
12-31-2009, 18:18
oh ic your motives