PDA

View Full Version : A whole new style of attacking



Mr President
03-10-2010, 22:10
This is long, but it is an important read as this can really change everything and spice things up.

So a while back I was doing what I always do, thinking about changes and improvements to the game and I was thinking about attacking and how certain units are just to hard make needed. Like tanks for instance. The only way to make tanks useful is to create it's own attack. But the problem is we can't really make it kill anything that isn't already killed.. And we have the same problem with Bombers.. We do have the bomb run but nobody uses it and tweaking it more isn't going to change that.. I also was thinking we can't really keep adding in all sorts of attacks cause well then we would have more attacks doing the same things.. Then a wild hair blew up my arse and i started thinking on how we could change the whole attack feature and styles. As it stands the game is the same.. And it's kinda boring. Each set i start out the same way, upgrade the same things and purchase the same units.. Why is that? Well cause the game is limited and way to protective of states. I know right now those of you who say it's too easy to kill a top state already and getting a little worried.. Well my question is, why should a top state have to only purchase 300B inf and 100B ships and a few Billion SAMS and win the set? I'm tired of seeing the same people win set after set doing the same thing and having the same units. You can tell who will win a set by the end of the first few days (as long as there are no wars of course) So i got to thinking why not mix it up a bit.. Instead of having more and more attacks, why not limit them but change the focus of the attacks... Ok here is my idea.. Read it all, think about it some and then give some feedback.

There will be 4 attacks:

Regular Attack- This is the same as Standard Attack just a new name. (needed to change the abbreviation so the name changed) This attack will be for land grabs. Just like it is now.

Ground Attack- Infantry and Tanks vs Infantry and Tanks.

Air Attack- Jets and Bombers vs Jets and Bombers.

Sea Attack- Ships vs Ships.

Now your thinking that is what we have now.. Well here is the twist.. We also have a drop down menu to target our attacks against.

-Ground Units
-Airfields
-Naval Bases
-SAM's
-Food Supply
-Infrastructure
-Population
-Land
-Readiness

You can use any attack (other then regular) to attack any of these focus points. Depending on the attack you select, certain units mentioned above would defend.

So if i decide to do a Sea Attack against The White House(#2) and select population then my ships would attack and destroy a % of population and The White House's ships would defend. The same would work if i selected Ground Attack, then my Inf and Tanks would attack the population while the defending states Inf and Tanks defend.

Nothing changes on attacking units and defending units... All that changes is what we can use them for to attack.. Instead of having Inf and Tanks kill the enemies Inf and Tanks, now we can select it to kill something else instead. This makes a use for ALL units and it also makes it so states have to really do more things to protect itself.

Why should Jets destroy land?(not to mention jets killing land is... well.... weird! Why can't a Ground attack with Inf and Tanks destroy land too?

Why should just ships lower readiness? Why can't an Air Attack lower readiness too?

With this new way, this is all possible. Not to mention it would now increase the difficulty of the game a lot.. Which also brings new life into the game. Which we really could use.

Now i know some of you who are set in your ways are not going to like this. The first thing you will say is, it will be too hard to defend against all those available ways to be hit. Well your right it will.. But why shouldn't it? Just cause it's always been that way doesn't mean it's the right way. This solves a ton of our attacking issues as well as unit issues. Now each and every unit could, and should be used.

Think this all over and give me some feedback.. Please don't just shoot it down. yes this will change the game completely, but isn't that a good thing? :) We want change..

oh and just so you know, i already have it coded and working on one of my test servers and personally i think it's bloody sweet.. Works perfectly and really makes things interesting.. But there is always room for improvement so let me know what you think and we will go from there.

thanks and sorry so long..

-Z-
03-10-2010, 22:28
I'm definatley down for a test set.

Z

Bright
03-10-2010, 22:30
YES, YES, and did I mention, YES???

I like this new style, its precision attacking, and makes the playing field more level- even your largest states will have a hard time staying up if they don't have anyone to back them. Feeding is harder now that any state who doesn't cheat will have vulnerabilities to exploit. Sure, you still have suiciders, but just as the big guys are easy to squash, so are the suiciders.

War becomes far more complex now, about the only negative I see to this is how spies would be a bit dulled since the other units can now infringe on their territory. However, spies still have their unique uses. Roll out the bank freeze in the normal server, Pres.

Brilliant all around though man, this is the kind of development that gets the old bones fired up again, haha.

Disorder
03-10-2010, 23:10
Im very displeased with this........





Because its not setup in the test server yet.. :thumbup:




I say we start testing this concept asap! :wimp:



p.s. We need a smiley with a "try this" sign!

kitoy
03-10-2010, 23:11
dam, this is sweet.. :thumbup:

northbabylon
03-10-2010, 23:25
like the idea a lot, maybe open the test server to everyone for a set or two? This way we can get a lot of people testing it. Its a big change and if it doesn't work as planned we could lose a lot of people.

Devil
03-10-2010, 23:27
Im very displeased with this........





Because its not setup in the test server yet.. :thumbup:




I say we start testing this concept asap! :wimp:



p.s. We need a smiley with a "try this" sign!

Ok heres what i see with it.

It really doesnt change the netting aspect... I'd be assuming regular attacks are going to stay the same as SA's so the same top states will still win reguardless, they will just be a bit easier to kill in the early stages of the set.

Also your taking sams out of the equation for air raids? that doesnt make since to me or did you just forget to make its jets,and bombers vs, jets, bombers, and sams? Also i dont see how bombers can defend in Air attacks.


Other than that i like it, however your making it to where breakers wont be as important so wars will be easier to kill states. And i remember how people liked to complain it was already to easy to kill a state.

However, my personal opinion is i like this :) i think this along with a few other changes would perk the game up a nice bit

Lord Burch
03-11-2010, 00:26
Love it, hands down. However, I can see many glitches and bugs within the game that could cause problems. In fact, that's probably why we haven't gotten to test it yet, so Mr. P can do his best to keep it running smoothly. Good luck in creating this, Mr. P! I hope this works! It sounds like it is so much fun!

ooga booga
03-11-2010, 01:51
Ok heres what i see with it.

It really doesnt change the netting aspect... I'd be assuming regular attacks are going to stay the same as SA's so the same top states will still win reguardless, they will just be a bit easier to kill in the early stages of the set.

Also your taking sams out of the equation for air raids? that doesnt make since to me or did you just forget to make its jets,and bombers vs, jets, bombers, and sams? Also i dont see how bombers can defend in Air attacks.


Other than that i like it, however your making it to where breakers wont be as important so wars will be easier to kill states. And i remember how people liked to complain it was already to easy to kill a state.

However, my personal opinion is i like this :) i think this along with a few other changes would perk the game up a nice bit

lol You practically said the same thing I was going to say. I felt bad because everyone here is saying how great these changes are... and I don't want to be the debby downer here.

But Mr P you want my feedback so I will give it to you honestly. These changes... will only affect warring. Think it over. You changed the name of a SA to RA. Ok.... and.... that's it. :P The rest is killing other units and land and readiness which people will only use in wars. So yeah the top states aren't safe, and warring will be affected/changed and that is exciting and the idea seems to have good intentions there... but how will this affect the way we play the game when you net (which face it a lot of the same people net all the time on here and more than war)? Doesn't seem like it will. That's my 2 cents on it... don't mean to criticize but you wanted our opinion. :)

Xavior
03-11-2010, 05:13
I like where this is going, will PM you on the weekend Pres

totte
03-11-2010, 06:02
implant imidetly ;)

Soviet Russia
03-11-2010, 06:56
Nice idea :)

But won't there be SAMs anymore? I love those units and they are good for passive / defending states.

And bombers defending jets would be weird :)

Also, maybe there should be some restrictions on the drop-down menu. Eg, attacking air bases with ships would be weird; also killing a state only by ships via land killing would be weird too, ships aren't able to do that kind of things.

But change is good :)

Also here is another fantastic :P suggestion (remember the special zones? :P) May there be some special units such as King Class Battleships or 007 spies :P that would be produced randomly (eg randomly 1 for each 1m production) with extra strong specialities? That'd bring some little more action :P

SkyCat
03-11-2010, 09:40
NO-NO-NO! pls don't change this game even more :( better fix this stupid nation menu

btw, Bombers is not weapons of defence

Max Logan
03-11-2010, 10:02
dunno, leaves a lot of space for suicider wannabes.

as now even top state can be suicided by just selecting a certain unit.

might change the gameplay but in the next few sets there`s gonna be some angry people.

-Z-
03-11-2010, 13:09
dunno, leaves a lot of space for suicider wannabes.

as now even top state can be suicided by just selecting a certain unit.

might change the gameplay but in the next few sets there`s gonna be some angry people.

there is always angry people, In fact you yourself max are usually angry.

It would def. be interesting.

Z

totte
03-11-2010, 13:15
there is always angry people, In fact you yourself max are usually angry.

It would def. be interesting.

Z


i´m agree with z ;)

Mr President
03-11-2010, 14:57
No SAM's would not be removed.. Simply forgot to mention them. They will defend as normal.

Blowing up airbases from ships is weird? why can a ship do costal pounding now, but blowing up airbases is weird? lol..

I will talk more about some of the neg stuff mentioned by some when i get home from work tonight. Till then, keep the comments flowing. Even if they are bad ones.. I would still like to hear them.. :)

Missionary
03-11-2010, 15:18
its not the warring aspect of the game that needs to be changed. its the netting side of the game. very intresting but i think it will only be used as an easier way to kill top states, which is something most people already get peed off with.

Mr President
03-11-2010, 16:45
its not the warring aspect of the game that needs to be changed. its the netting side of the game. very intresting but i think it will only be used as an easier way to kill top states, which is something most people already get peed off with.

Why should top states get special treatment? Are we saying that unless your a top state you don't matter?

This changes the netting side of the game. It now makes it so you can't simply net with Infantry only. You will be forced to protect yourself in all areas.

Why should jets be the only way to kill land?
Why should ships be the only way to lower readiness?
Why should bombers be the only way to blow up buildings?

why why why why why why... :)

States should be able to attack any part of another state they want too without having to use special attacks or units designed for that attack. I am well aware that this does increase the vulnerability of our top states, but not as much as you think it will. If the top state still has lots of jets and sams and i try to do an Air Attack against his/her buildings, I will still fail. But now, top states have to cover up areas a little more then in the past.

I am not saying this is the answers to all our problems. I am saying this is a new twist that i really like and think would work out well.


lol You practically said the same thing I was going to say. I felt bad because everyone here is saying how great these changes are... and I don't want to be the debby downer here.

But Mr P you want my feedback so I will give it to you honestly. These changes... will only affect warring. Think it over. You changed the name of a SA to RA. Ok.... and.... that's it. :P The rest is killing other units and land and readiness which people will only use in wars. So yeah the top states aren't safe, and warring will be affected/changed and that is exciting and the idea seems to have good intentions there... but how will this affect the way we play the game when you net (which face it a lot of the same people net all the time on here and more than war)? Doesn't seem like it will. That's my 2 cents on it... don't mean to criticize but you wanted our opinion. :)

Yes warring will be effected the most with this change. It will now mean that you don't have to have breakers and jet heavy states. You will have more balanced states. Right now with so few active members, having states run special units is hard. This way, it's easier to keep a nations networth up as well as balanced states who can attack with anything.

Does the US just send jets in when they attack a nation? No they use all sorts of attacks. So why should we limit ourself?

The only reason Standard Attacks name is changing is cause the new attack (Sea Attack) will have SA.. Amphibious Assault is a weird name to me.. Never did like that lol..

Don't feel bad for giving your opinion Ooga.. It's what i asked for. I knew there would be a few who didn't like it or didn't agree with it.. That's cool. It doesn't mean your opinion is less valid.. :)

I planned on setting up a test server for everyone to test out. A change like this really needs a full scale test before it's implemented into the game.

totte
03-11-2010, 16:58
how about an spy op that could steal land? ;)

nosejam
03-11-2010, 17:32
how about an spy op that could steal land? ;)

How about a spy op that disables some land, say a 10% reduction in output for an hour? Not really the point of this thread though.

@Mr P I'm not sure how much this would affect netting, as others have pointed out, if anything the regular grab should be removed altogether, and just add "land grab" to that list of other things. Or keep the regular attack and add land grab to the options for the others, but have it only give 25% of the land. That would really keep things competitive at the top and stop people running away with top spot.

Mr President
03-11-2010, 21:05
Test server has been set up. Anyone who wants to try things out is welcome to. But there are a couple of things i want to point out.

1) Do not go on a killing spree. Testing takes longer when states have to start over and over and over. Those who do go on a killing spree will be removed from both games. JUST TEST WHAT WE NEED.. Each state created will begin with more land, turns and money to help test with. You can also make up to 5 states.

2) There is another feature that is being tested by a group of other testers on a different server. I have also loaded it on this server. I'll explain a little bit about it and feel free to mess with it, but that is not what we are really testing for right now, so any questions you have about it i will NOT answer. I just figured i would let you all mess with it some and see what you think.

As you know we have been testing various missiles and nuke stuff for the game. The first batch of testing was states having the nukes and launching them and now we are testing the other idea in which nations have the nukes and can launch them at other nations.

There are 2 new nation techs. One is called Nuclear Technology and the other is called Missile Defense. Once you get enough tech in either, you can begin building them. Launching them requires a certain amount of the specified tech. Once launched they destroy a % of the enemies national army.

If you build a Missile Defense, they 100% protect you from incoming nukes. Each time it shoots one down, 50% of it is used. So as you build them you will see .5 which is actually 1 defense system. When a nuke it launched it shows on your nations news, global news and enemy news.

tech info is found in the technology page and to build and launch a nuke, that is found in the foreign relations section.

again, i only opened this server to test the new attack feature.. So that is all i will discuss at this time. Feel free to mess with the nuke feature, just don't ask me about it.

http://www.nation-wars.com/test_index.php

MAGGIO
03-11-2010, 23:38
I think it also is one of the best suggestions to make a smaller/looser knit nation have a chance against a larger enemy. more so than strike delays/preparedness.

More blood with reason will help imo. giving a smaller nation a sense of presence and chance always will promote more playing.

It seems sometimes NW is in a bad rutt. change it up mr. p.

totte
03-12-2010, 05:36
I think it also is one of the best suggestions to make a smaller/looser knit nation have a chance against a larger enemy. more so than strike delays/preparedness.

More blood with reason will help imo. giving a smaller nation a sense of presence and chance always will promote more playing.

It seems sometimes NW is in a bad rutt. change it up mr. p.

goes to test things out ;)

northbabylon
03-12-2010, 06:10
pres, is it possible to have all new nations created start off with some money in the bank? I don't wanna have to play 3-4 days to get the tech to try out the new science features.


noticed when lowering readiness i got 9% off two times in a row with GA and than i got 7%(maybe luck?). And with AR attacking readiness i got 5% 1% 9%. Not sure if its supposed to be that much of a random. I always thought it was 3-7.

BladeEWG
03-12-2010, 07:35
the fact that you care about this game enuf to make and try changes with players input is a reason I stick around. :)

I've only been here a wee bit but I see the patterns already also. predictability is a bad thing in games like this.
I know no one ikes me bring ing up that "other" game but its good to have something to add ideas from.
One very cool thing they had was guerrilla attacks (troops only) that fought othe troops, killed civilians AND came back with food. was an awesome thing to spy and find "farmers" sitting on a buttload of fod with little protection.

Spies also had the ability to burn food and steal some to bring back.

One thing I really miss to is steling from the dead. Such a shame seeing dead guys laying around with wasted stocks ;)


Love missiles, and wait until MU comes aound and sees this thread, hes a missileholic ;)

Soviet Russia
03-12-2010, 12:55
No SAM's would not be removed.. Simply forgot to mention them. They will defend as normal.

Blowing up airbases from ships is weird? why can a ship do costal pounding now, but blowing up airbases is weird? lol..

love SAMs:thumbup:

and I thought that air bases might be far far away from the coast:drool:

Soviet Russia
03-12-2010, 12:56
How about a spy op that disables some land, say a 10% reduction in output for an hour? Not really the point of this thread though.

@Mr P I'm not sure how much this would affect netting, as others have pointed out, if anything the regular grab should be removed altogether, and just add "land grab" to that list of other things. Or keep the regular attack and add land grab to the options for the others, but have it only give 25% of the land. That would really keep things competitive at the top and stop people running away with top spot.

sounds like an uprising :) maybe based on the population

Mr President
03-12-2010, 14:02
pres, is it possible to have all new nations created start off with some money in the bank? I don't wanna have to play 3-4 days to get the tech to try out the new science features.


noticed when lowering readiness i got 9% off two times in a row with GA and than i got 7%(maybe luck?). And with AR attacking readiness i got 5% 1% 9%. Not sure if its supposed to be that much of a random. I always thought it was 3-7.

nations now start with some science and money. I also made it so current nations had the same amount so you don't have to make new ones.

Sad thing is, not many are testing.. Those who do not test have no room to complain later on :)

Mr President
03-12-2010, 14:04
also just so you all know, normally it will take 8hrs to build a nuke or a defense. right now it's set to instant for testing. once you select build, simply refresh the page and you'll see it go from cancel to accept.. After you build a nuke or defense you must first accept it before you can use it..

Mr President
03-12-2010, 14:07
noticed when lowering readiness i got 9% off two times in a row with GA and than i got 7%(maybe luck?). And with AR attacking readiness i got 5% 1% 9%. Not sure if its supposed to be that much of a random. I always thought it was 3-7.

right now it's 1-9 random

pron
03-12-2010, 14:41
If you want to change the netting aspect, you could try do a % land grab formula using the special attacks.

For instance, if you do "regular attack", then you would get 100% of whatever the formula is.

However, if you were to do "ground, air, or sea attack", you could get 50,60, or 70% of the normal landgrab formula.

This would change netting a little bit, but states that did most of their landgrabbing by regular attack would still have an edge, but couldn't run away with the set with all INF.

Just a thought.

nosejam
03-12-2010, 15:07
If you want to change the netting aspect, you could try do a % land grab formula using the special attacks.

For instance, if you do "regular attack", then you would get 100% of whatever the formula is.

However, if you were to do "ground, air, or sea attack", you could get 50,60, or 70% of the normal landgrab formula.

This would change netting a little bit, but states that did most of their landgrabbing by regular attack would still have an edge, but couldn't run away with the set with all INF.

Just a thought.


Pretty much what I said, but you spent more time writing it out :p

pron
03-12-2010, 18:39
Pretty much what I said, but you spent more time writing it out :p

Yea--it looks like it might have been overlooked, and we both know two voices are better than one!

PS--great idea Nosejam :)

northbabylon
03-12-2010, 23:42
so i built a Missle and the tech was taken out of my tech. 800k.
then i went to build a sat with the 1m i had their, and it said i needed atleast 500k to be able to build one. It says that i need 500k tech points in missle production to build it. So i add another million to missle pro. And i am able to build the two sats. And it deducted it from the md tech.

and pres, is it possible for you to have an NA. It's hard to see how well the nuke works when the other nation has none.

also, my states don't recieve turns? so after you use all 1k thats it?

also, i maybe wrong, but i thought i read somewhere that you can only have 1 of each at a given time? i was able to have 5 missles on hand before i stopped producing them.

Mr President
03-13-2010, 00:15
so i built a Missle and the tech was taken out of my tech. 800k.
then i went to build a sat with the 1m i had their, and it said i needed atleast 500k to be able to build one. It says that i need 500k tech points in missle production to build it. So i add another million to missle pro. And i am able to build the two sats. And it deducted it from the md tech.

and pres, is it possible for you to have an NA. It's hard to see how well the nuke works when the other nation has none.

also, my states don't recieve turns? so after you use all 1k thats it?

also, i maybe wrong, but i thought i read somewhere that you can only have 1 of each at a given time? i was able to have 5 missles on hand before i stopped producing them.

no you do not get more turns. I didn't set this servers crons up.. no point really. I did increase the amount of turns you get on startup though. So anymore states you make will get lots more turns.

You can build as many missiles as you want.. You just need to buy the tech for them. What you can't do is build a nuke and a missile defense at the same time. you have to pick one or the other first..

Soviet Russia
03-13-2010, 11:47
i've no idea where the test server is::oops:

Mr President
03-13-2010, 12:10
http://www.nation-wars.com/test_index.php

pron
03-13-2010, 17:34
Hey Mr. P, you going to reply to Nosejam and I's idea?

Mr President
03-13-2010, 19:03
yea.. Once I think about it some more. :)

Mr President
03-13-2010, 23:04
If you want to change the netting aspect, you could try do a % land grab formula using the special attacks.

For instance, if you do "regular attack", then you would get 100% of whatever the formula is.

However, if you were to do "ground, air, or sea attack", you could get 50,60, or 70% of the normal landgrab formula.

This would change netting a little bit, but states that did most of their landgrabbing by regular attack would still have an edge, but couldn't run away with the set with all INF.

Just a thought.

ok so what your saying is, keep the Regular Attack and add in another land grab attack in the drop down menu, but make it so you don't gain as much land as you would in the regular attack. And while doing that, then the only thing that would defend is what defends on the attack used.. Instead of all units vs all units like in the Regular Attack.

This would make things interesting..... Let's get some more feedback on this first.

Will
03-13-2010, 23:04
Interesting concept, though it's going to take a lot of getting used to.

however, I would argue that theoretically it is possible for bombers to defend against jets, though they wouldn't be very good at it. I wouldn't mind seeing modifiers applied to combat between units if possible, for example bombers defend in AR at say 30% (vs jets) strength, inf in GA at a penalty vs tanks. As good as this idea is, it won't make tanks or bombers any more useful when you can just use jets and inf in their place. With modifiers it would force a rethink on what units to use. Suddenly that top state with a ton of infantry isn't invulnerable to GA anymore.

-Z-
03-14-2010, 01:43
Prons Idea is GREAT!

I have been bothered for years by the fact that people can just INF ***** and take top spot, while the rest of us run balanced states.

Now if you added these special unit vs unit SA's, it would be AWESOME!

It would be a lot harder for the top to run away, because instead of just 1 point of attack to worry about for losing their land, they would have several to defend.

I love this idea... I can not explain how awesome I think this is.

No more top states sitting pretty all set, it would really ramp up the competition!

certain INF whoring players may not like it, but the same rules would apply for everyone.

It would add a new element of strategy to the game, without making any big changes, or adding anything too new or scary to the old players, its pretty simple really to understand.

It would essentially make netting states require war ready states to properly defend their land!

Z

totte
03-14-2010, 06:50
yeah i agree and i also like wills point ;)

Soviet Russia
03-14-2010, 06:51
Hey also do not forget the newbies. Let the game to be somewhat easy for them to be adopted into.

Calvin74
03-14-2010, 09:45
Mr p i sent you some feedback in the game not sure if you checked it or not:P I can have more feedback if you want it.


As far as pron's suggestion, that has been brought up many times in the past and imo (and maybe I am just too old and set in my ways) it makes many aspects of the game unfeasable. Netgaining really is dead when you do that b/c there is already no way to defend against a semi decent suicider but when you have everyone in the game that can grab you i would predict that it will drop the top nw at the end of the set to a 1/10 of what it is now. There won't really be a way to distinguish talent from everyone else and hence there won't be to much talent that sticks around.

That is one reason in the past there have been mass exoduses of the top players. When you put so much time and effort into the game only to see it changed so that everyone can do what it took your years to figure out then it gets old:P

but once again that is just my input and i'm sure others think differently than I do.

pron
03-14-2010, 11:55
Yes, Mr. P you've got it. I think the tweaking would be in finding the right percentage of land to gain (50,60, or 70%)

@ Calvin--I think the reduced percentage on the landgrab for the special unit land grabs will still allow people to net like they used to. If a top state has no gb, and normally loses 2k land to a grab, it would only lose 1k to a special unit land grab, and gain a little GB protection. And it is not impossible for people to develop defenses once they get the #1 spot. All it really requires is the people with "talent" to have more skill in how they develop their state. Instead of 90mil INF, they'll need 70mil inf, 1mil agm, and 1mil ships. Just require them to learn more balance.

Ultimately, you'll have some players that don't like it (most of the old netters who have been netting the same for 7 years) and you'll find some players who like it (newer players who can't beat the older players at netting). The question I have is--where are all the old players that you want to cater to? I don't see many of them around. Hell, even I can make on run on top spot, and I suck at netting! I say it is a good time to make some changes without a mass player exodus (since all the old netters have left for the most part).

Calvin74
03-14-2010, 12:21
Yes, Mr. P you've got it. I think the tweaking would be in finding the right percentage of land to gain (50,60, or 70%)

@ Calvin--I think the reduced percentage on the landgrab for the special unit land grabs will still allow people to net like they used to. If a top state has no gb, and normally loses 2k land to a grab, it would only lose 1k to a special unit land grab, and gain a little GB protection. And it is not impossible for people to develop defenses once they get the #1 spot. All it really requires is the people with "talent" to have more skill in how they develop their state. Instead of 90mil INF, they'll need 70mil inf, 1mil agm, and 1mil ships. Just require them to learn more balance.

Ultimately, you'll have some players that don't like it (most of the old netters who have been netting the same for 7 years) and you'll find some players who like it (newer players who can't beat the older players at netting). The question I have is--where are all the old players that you want to cater to? I don't see many of them around. Hell, even I can make on run on top spot, and I suck at netting! I say it is a good time to make some changes without a mass player exodus (since all the old netters have left for the most part).


I am all for top states having a well balanced state but with the way the current formulas are setup you can't achieve your full potential as a netter if you have to worry about someone warring you for stupid reasons. We have already shown that you can't stop a halfway decent suicider from hitting the #1 state.

You have a very valid point that there just aren't that many old players around and it is time for a change. I have noticed over the last few years people have started claiming to play this game more and more:). I will state for the record that outside of myself and i believe totte (maybe BB) there are no players from 2001 that are currently around:P. Very few players from 2002 or 2003 as well.

This might be the change that is needed for this game to undergo radical strategy changes it needs. There haven't been big changes in the strats in at least 7 years (long enough that most people only remember one way). I still miss the days of agms/bombers:).

I would say this change is drastic enough that it needs to be well tested to see the correct percentages b/c you will get a lot of new strat changes. Like it might be worth it for the top state to still play the same way as he does now and just stay in gangbang:P

pron
03-14-2010, 13:25
I would say this change is drastic enough that it needs to be well tested to see the correct percentages b/c you will get a lot of new strat changes. Like it might be worth it for the top state to still play the same way as he does now and just stay in gangbang:P

I agree it needs to be tested well. I think that even with the 50% landgrab from special units, you can still easily win the set because as an all INF state, you will still have more land than everyone else through regular attacks. However, if you want to get the best net possible, you will have to run a balanced state--which could be a new challenge for netters :)

-Z-
03-14-2010, 16:13
lowering the % of land gained from the special attacks is Key.

This way a top state can still keep their land to some degree.

IMO this would not eliminate the need for talent/skill.

it would simply create the need for top states to be talented/skillful the whole set, instead of just the 1st week or two.

Z

totte
03-14-2010, 16:55
I am all for top states having a well balanced state but with the way the current formulas are setup you can't achieve your full potential as a netter if you have to worry about someone warring you for stupid reasons. We have already shown that you can't stop a halfway decent suicider from hitting the #1 state.

You have a very valid point that there just aren't that many old players around and it is time for a change. I have noticed over the last few years people have started claiming to play this game more and more:). I will state for the record that outside of myself and i believe totte (maybe BB) there are no players from 2001 that are currently around:P. Very few players from 2002 or 2003 as well.

This might be the change that is needed for this game to undergo radical strategy changes it needs. There haven't been big changes in the strats in at least 7 years (long enough that most people only remember one way). I still miss the days of agms/bombers:).

I would say this change is drastic enough that it needs to be well tested to see the correct percentages b/c you will get a lot of new strat changes. Like it might be worth it for the top state to still play the same way as he does now and just stay in gangbang:P

piker as well :P oh and calvin you need to make a state and join me :P

Calvin74
03-14-2010, 17:44
piker as well :P oh and calvin you need to make a state and join me :P

i have a state
i always have a state:P

totte
03-14-2010, 17:47
hehe well yeah but you know what i mean oh and get on msn you bum :P
and as for mods sorry for being of topic :)

KelpKris
03-14-2010, 18:51
I have been bothered for years by the fact that people can just INF ***** and take top spot, while the rest of us run balanced states.

The way I see it, the idea pron suggested has nothing to do with balanced states.

pron
03-14-2010, 19:03
If you don't run a balanced state, then you leave yourself vulnerable to being grabbed by a much lower state for a lot of land...

Will
03-14-2010, 19:13
do we still have land droppers? if so then they will be vastly strengthened under the new system. (or I'm hopelessly out of date with what's happening ingame:P)

pron
03-14-2010, 21:14
land dropping was fixed a few sets ago

Mr President
03-15-2010, 20:47
Only 8 people testing???

I set it up so everyone can test it out and only 8 show up to test? There hasn't been one attack in the last 36hrs.. Come on people these are major changes to the game and we need as many inputs as we can get.

I understand life is busy.. but a quick state and some attacks to test things out won't take that long.. We need more testers and we need more testing done by the testers currently there.

Please keep states in range so you can be attacked. Doesn't help much if nobody can attack you.

BeeNo
03-16-2010, 15:12
well, does this mean my tank start-up i've been working on for next set was a waste ;)

Max Logan
03-16-2010, 16:31
*points fingers*

Calvin74
03-16-2010, 17:30
Only 8 people testing???

I set it up so everyone can test it out and only 8 show up to test? There hasn't been one attack in the last 36hrs.. Come on people these are major changes to the game and we need as many inputs as we can get.

I understand life is busy.. but a quick state and some attacks to test things out won't take that long.. We need more testers and we need more testing done by the testers currently there.

Please keep states in range so you can be attacked. Doesn't help much if nobody can attack you.


If I can make the time to test it others should be able to as well. Shame on all of you!

totte
03-16-2010, 18:13
werent we supose to be able to grab land thru ga ar and such or was that me misunderstanding?

pron
03-16-2010, 19:58
If I can make the time to test it others should be able to as well. Shame on all of you!

Planning a wedding, finals week, two part time jobs, and a fiance. Yea, NW testing not as high of a priority...lol

Still willing to offer my suggestions!!!

Mr President
03-16-2010, 21:11
werent we supose to be able to grab land thru ga ar and such or was that me misunderstanding?

At this time that isn't an option. Pron suggested it after i made it this way and i do like the idea so when we are done testing things this way then i am going to add in the idea pron had.. Which will then be able to grab land from any attack.


Planning a wedding, finals week, two part time jobs, and a fiance. Yea, NW testing not as high of a priority...lol

Still willing to offer my suggestions!!!

oh stop.. this isn't busy at all.. I see no reason why you can't play and do all the above at the same time.. In fact, I am expecting to see Nation-Wars advertisement on the wedding brochure. :)

Calvin74
03-16-2010, 22:10
Planning a wedding, finals week, two part time jobs, and a fiance. Yea, NW testing not as high of a priority...lol

Still willing to offer my suggestions!!!

lol
2 kids, just had finals, work 1 job full time (with extra military stuff), and a wife

i think i got you beat:P
but thats why i don't play much either...

pron
03-17-2010, 02:24
oh stop.. this isn't busy at all.. I see no reason why you can't play and do all the above at the same time.. In fact, I am expecting to see Nation-Wars advertisement on the wedding brochure. :)

If you wanna "donate" to the wedding cause, we could see about a little advertisement on the back of the wedding invitations and pamphlet :)

Mr President
03-18-2010, 14:59
ok so i am thinking and doing a little work on this new idea. I have a few questions. What do you plan to do about GB? Right now when you do a Standard Attack it counts the amount of Standard Attacks against you in the last 36hrs.. If we apply the landgrab formula but lower the settings some, what are we going to do about GB? Do we still have it check just attack #1 or have it check all attacks made that were successful?

If it checks all then grabs will be really low.

Do we take out the GB protection in the other land grab attacks and just keep it in attack 1 (SA)?

We need to think this out a little bit more and see what the feedback is. I do like this idea and would like to see it added in. But we have to work around the current GB system.

Max Logan
03-18-2010, 17:06
I`m probably blind and all, but where can I find the test server? :)

totte
03-18-2010, 17:09
max follow this very good link ;)
http://www.nation-wars.com/test_index.php

says this atm thou This is a restricted game server, joining here might require a special membership. Check out the Community Forums for further details.


maths isnt my good side mr p sorry :(

Mr President
03-18-2010, 19:39
I am currently making some changes to be tested on the test server. I will let you all know when it's open again..

But we need to discuss what I talked about in the other post.

northbabylon
03-18-2010, 22:58
ok so i am thinking and doing a little work on this new idea. I have a few questions. What do you plan to do about GB? Right now when you do a Standard Attack it counts the amount of Standard Attacks against you in the last 36hrs.. If we apply the landgrab formula but lower the settings some, what are we going to do about GB? Do we still have it check just attack #1 or have it check all attacks made that were successful?

If it checks all then grabs will be really low.

Do we take out the GB protection in the other land grab attacks and just keep it in attack 1 (SA)?

We need to think this out a little bit more and see what the feedback is. I do like this idea and would like to see it added in. But we have to work around the current GB system.

what if the other attacks came up as 1/2. so too 'GA' for land will equal 1gb.

pron
03-19-2010, 11:03
ok so i am thinking and doing a little work on this new idea. I have a few questions. What do you plan to do about GB? Right now when you do a Standard Attack it counts the amount of Standard Attacks against you in the last 36hrs.. If we apply the landgrab formula but lower the settings some, what are we going to do about GB? Do we still have it check just attack #1 or have it check all attacks made that were successful?

If it checks all then grabs will be really low.

Do we take out the GB protection in the other land grab attacks and just keep it in attack 1 (SA)?

We need to think this out a little bit more and see what the feedback is. I do like this idea and would like to see it added in. But we have to work around the current GB system.

It does need to be factored into the GB formula, otherwise someone will lose all of their land lol.

Is it possible to make the GB formula % based? If the percentage of land taken is 50%, it would seem logical that it would add 50% of a normal GB counter for a regular attack.

But if you want to retain a netting advantage for INF only states, then you may want to increase the GB counter to 60%, so that they lose less land, but gain more GB protection.

That make sense?

Clowntown
03-23-2010, 11:30
other than that i thought that the point of this change was to stop ppl from going inf only....


i cant see infantry doing much dmg 2 a bomber