Nation Wars Redemption V2.0

[blaa]

Maybe it's time to open the debate on where we are going again? Now that the biggest advocates for the changes(besides maggio) have left the game (DEAD) it seems reasonable.

Current situation, in my opinion:
Maggio-Wars.
Sure, it still takes skill to win, but I'm afraid nobody wanted this outcome. Biggest nation/most active nation wins, nothing wrong with that, but look at last set. Was it fun for anybody else besides RO (and wank - we did get to win one war, although lost another)? USA didn't participate in a single war. How fun was that? TOP10 had 200k land, you guys had like 50k max. So the only way to win = kill others. Not a difficult task ask you can have 400 turns in hand and you can easily kill one state with that much. I think it would work much better if there were more equal nations in the game, so maybe I'm being too harsh.
Units are better now? Better than the old ingenius way the units were logically balanced? Where's the logic now? If enemy can break you in one of four attack (hoard basically) then you can be killed. I don't see an improvement.
Why I call it maggio wars because it reminds me of a post maggio did some time ago, and its not meant as an insult. He explained that grabbing was taking too many clicks. Now we have lost some clicks, you don't need to click on global events anymore, just spy and attack with GA.

In my opinion the old game did not have any faults or misfunctions in it. Hoarding - not a problem. DEAD dealt with it good. They didn't like it, they warred. But hoarding was not a programming error. The units interacted with one another in a way that using too much money on upgrading early on didn't give you much chance to win the game.
The only programming error there was, was that the rounds were usually decided within the first week. The problem worsened when the land expanding was increased (1.5 years ago ?). Now the jumps took place at 3-5 days in to the set.

I suggest:
*Go back to old game
*Shorten round length, because shorter game equals less tension if wars happen. Now you have to wait weeks before you could have a normal set, but with like 14 day sets you would only have to wait days.
*Lose unneeded stuff that just 'are there':
-tanks, no point with low playerbase. Looking at the numbers you can see that they are better than infantry. But with this low playerbase there aren't enough players to buy them.
-State tax. You always have it at 50%. It's just there to confuse the newbies, plus it doesn't offer much of a strategical advantage for those who like to spend time on the game.
-lose 5 upgrade levels, so you have 3 levels left (weak, medium, strong). weak would = level 1, medium = something like 4 or 6 and strong = 8. Make sure we DON'T lose the fact that upgrading should take place when you have 0 units and having units while upgrading = pay more. Because I think it offers a significant strategical factor.
-lose 2 types of casher buildings. Casher zone is enough. No strategical advantage involved, it's just there to confuse the newbies.
*tweak LG formula so having lots of land wouldn't equal to losing a lot of land to low land states automatically

We can't just be going around and creating new game all the time and hoping a lot of new players will join in a day. We can't be saying that our old game was bad because player numbers dropped. When there was that old players reunion set, I think we had 80+ active states, plus years ago there were hundreds and even thousands of players. Maybe the problem why we have 30+ states now isn't the game? Maybe its the players? Invite your old buddies to play again. But how plausible is that scenario now that there isn't much left from the old game?

[Dogma]

I have to say, I TOTALLY agree with this post. What we have now is no where near the game we all got addicted to so many years ago. Personally, I don't like what we have now and wouldn't even play it if I just happened to find it online now.

[Devil]

Maybe it's time to open the debate on where we are going again? Now that the biggest advocates for the changes(besides maggio) have left the game (DEAD) it seems reasonable.

Current situation, in my opinion:
Maggio-Wars.
Sure, it still takes skill to win, but I'm afraid nobody wanted this outcome. Biggest nation/most active nation wins, nothing wrong with that, but look at last set. Was it fun for anybody else besides RO (and wank - we did get to win one war, although lost another)? USA didn't participate in a single war. How fun was that? TOP10 had 200k land, you guys had like 50k max. So the only way to win = kill others. Not a difficult task ask you can have 400 turns in hand and you can easily kill one state with that much. I think it would work much better if there were more equal nations in the game, so maybe I'm being too harsh.
Units are better now? Better than the old ingenius way the units were logically balanced? Where's the logic now? If enemy can break you in one of four attack (hoard basically) then you can be killed. I don't see an improvement.
Why I call it maggio wars because it reminds me of a post maggio did some time ago, and its not meant as an insult. He explained that grabbing was taking too many clicks. Now we have lost some clicks, you don't need to click on global events anymore, just spy and attack with GA.

In my opinion the old game did not have any faults or misfunctions in it. Hoarding - not a problem. DEAD dealt with it good. They didn't like it, they warred. But hoarding was not a programming error. The units interacted with one another in a way that using too much money on upgrading early on didn't give you much chance to win the game.
The only programming error there was, was that the rounds were usually decided within the first week. The problem worsened when the land expanding was increased (1.5 years ago ?). Now the jumps took place at 3-5 days in to the set.

I suggest:
*Go back to old game
*Shorten round length, because shorter game equals less tension if wars happen. Now you have to wait weeks before you could have a normal set, but with like 14 day sets you would only have to wait days.
*Lose unneeded stuff that just 'are there':
-tanks, no point with low playerbase. Looking at the numbers you can see that they are better than infantry. But with this low playerbase there aren't enough players to buy them.
-State tax. You always have it at 50%. It's just there to confuse the newbies, plus it doesn't offer much of a strategical advantage for those who like to spend time on the game.
-lose 5 upgrade levels, so you have 3 levels left (weak, medium, strong). weak would = level 1, medium = something like 4 or 6 and strong = 8. Make sure we DON'T lose the fact that upgrading should take place when you have 0 units and having units while upgrading = pay more. Because I think it offers a significant strategical factor.
-lose 2 types of casher buildings. Casher zone is enough. No strategical advantage involved, it's just there to confuse the newbies.
*tweak LG formula so having lots of land wouldn't equal to losing a lot of land to low land states automatically

We can't just be going around and creating new game all the time and hoping a lot of new players will join in a day. We can't be saying that our old game was bad because player numbers dropped. When there was that old players reunion set, I think we had 80+ active states, plus years ago there were hundreds and even thousands of players. Maybe the problem why we have 30+ states now isn't the game? Maybe its the players? Invite your old buddies to play again. But how plausible is that scenario now that there isn't much left from the old game?

i pretty much agrree. I just say keep both casher buildings

[MellonColly]

i agree. I like blaa's suggestions

[MAGGIO]

I agree with the simplifications that blaa has suggested. I have made dozens of simplification suggestions. The GA update was not my idea as presented but I did want to try it out. I have long suggested the simplifications of units and upgrades as well as deadlinks, unused pages and needless processeses.

So if these suggestions get implemented and they work out can it still be Maggio-Wars?

[Dogma]

I am sorry, but look at the participation this set. what do we have 45 players? I don't think we can afford these "try it and see" sets as people have a very short attention span and too many of these that don't work and we lose the entire player base.

My suggestion to those who think there are too many clicks or functions, don't use the ones you don't want to use and leave the rest alone. This is killing us, literally.

[MAGGIO]

I thought the ideal was sound. We pretty much lost two whole nations Dead and Welfare State WS. WS cited bordom, and DEAD pretty much got sick of going back and forth with the hoarding issue and moved over to another game that is drastically different then NW. You cannot site the GA change as the main reason for both of those, but the face that WANK wiped DEAD out in one short strike certainly didnt help. After that leadership was lost in DEAD which made for a super long boring set. I think the FS change was a cherry on top for those who where getting bored with the game as a whole including the community. Just my two cents.

The only other option was to do a test server and that NEVER works since the activity is lame at best and very short lived on test servers.

[MAGGIO]

at the same point I think I recall Grim stating that if something was not done after the Nov Set that he was going inactive, so Dec brought change and DEAD got wiped out and they ended up going inactive.

[Dogma]

I thought the ideal was sound. We pretty much lost two whole nations Dead and Welfare State WS. WS cited bordom, and DEAD pretty much got sick of going back and forth with the hoarding issue and moved over to another game that is drastically different then NW. You cannot site the GA change as the main reason for both of those, but the face that WANK wiped DEAD out in one short strike certainly didnt help. After that leadership was lost in DEAD which made for a super long boring set. I think the FS change was a cherry on top for those who where getting bored with the game as a whole including the community. Just my two cents.

The only other option was to do a test server and that NEVER works since the activity is lame at best and very short lived on test servers.

I agree that changes could have helped, I. just think that what was done made the game so different it made things worse. I honestly think that Blaa should actually be listened to and maybe consulted on the balance. factor. This is no longer the game we played.

[Dogma]

I thought the ideal was sound. We pretty much lost two whole nations Dead and Welfare State WS. WS cited bordom, and DEAD pretty much got sick of going back and forth with the hoarding issue and moved over to another game that is drastically different then NW. You cannot site the GA change as the main reason for both of those, but the face that WANK wiped DEAD out in one short strike certainly didnt help. After that leadership was lost in DEAD which made for a super long boring set. I think the FS change was a cherry on top for those who where getting bored with the game as a whole including the community. Just my two cents.

The only other option was to do a test server and that NEVER works since the activity is lame at best and very short lived on test servers.

I agree that changes could have helped, I. just think that what was done made the game so different it made things worse. I honestly think that Blaa should actually be listened to and maybe consulted on the balance. factor. This is no longer the game we played.