Thoughts on new Updates/Improvements.

[Bilrow]

Post your opinions.

 

Keep it constructive.

 

2013-2014 2011-2012 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006

5-26-2014
Six new improvements have been added to Cyber Nations standard (three offensive and three defensive) as discussed in this thread. 
The improvement purchase page has also been updated to work similar to the way the wonder purchase page now works to show all improvements (even if you are unable to purchase some) so that you can see the full descriptions without having to go to the information index to find the reference.
The bill avoidance fee has been changed from 20 days to 30 days as suggested here.

Edited May 26, 2014 by Bilrow

[Bilrow]

I think they are actually good.

 

 

I challenge every alliance to internally discuss these changes and other ideas.

 

Let's get ideas posted up in the Suggestion Box and revitalize this game.

Edited May 26, 2014 by Bilrow

[CubaQuerida]

If you don't actively go to war, you aren't going to notice them.  When you do though...

[Krzyzewskiville]

I am not a fan of them. I understand why Admin did them - the largest nations are the most consistent donors to the game, and giving them more to work with helps his bottom line. However, I question how good it really is for game health. Already we see in wars that smaller/newer nations get beaten to a pulp when larger nations with lots of wonders/improvements are WRC nuked down to their level. By giving those nations an even greater advantage, this will only make it harder to close the gap. I am glad that there is no economic effect, that might be worse, but I can't help but shake the feeling that this is one step forward and two steps back.

[Bilrow]

I challenge every alliance to internally discuss these changes and other ideas.

 

Let's get ideas posted up in the Suggestion Box and revitalize this game.

 

 

NPO is brainstorming internally as well and will be posting up the best ideas in the Suggestion Box.

Edited May 26, 2014 by Bilrow

[Elegarth]

I think it is interesting that the improvements are mutually exclusive.

 

I remember many years ago there was a suggestion for nations to become either banking nations or fighting nations by creating a system that allowed one path to be chosen, but not the other, very similar to what it is being done here at a smaller offensive vs defensive level

[Geerland]

Rather faffy, also going to hurt a tonne for little guys when people with full military improvements get knocked down to the low levels.

[Auctor]

Rather faffy, also going to hurt a tonne for little guys when people with full military improvements get knocked down to the low levels.

little guys don't have tons to get hurt?

[Unknown Smurf]

Why didn't you just post in the 4 page thread that is already discussing these specific changes? 

[commanderragnar]

little guys don't have tons to get hurt?

More than enough for them to hurt. Not everyone gets buttrushed high up or has played he game for years so they have most if not all the wonders.

[Bilrow]

Why didn't you just post in the 4 page thread that is already discussing these specific changes? 

 

 

Because this is a poll. Not the suggestion box. I am just trying to get the feel of the community on the changes and also to issue a challenge to each alliance to internally come up with ideas for admin to use and post them up in the Suggestion Box area.

[Auctor]

More than enough for them to hurt. Not everyone gets buttrushed high up or has played he game for years so they have most if not all the wonders.

The extra damage these improvements cause to someone below say, 15k NS, could probably be wiped out in an aid packet or two.

[ChairmanHal]

I am not a fan of them. I understand why Admin did them - the largest nations are the most consistent donors to the game, and giving them more to work with helps his bottom line. However, I question how good it really is for game health. Already we see in wars that smaller/newer nations get beaten to a pulp when larger nations with lots of wonders/improvements are WRC nuked down to their level. By giving those nations an even greater advantage, this will only make it harder to close the gap. I am glad that there is no economic effect, that might be worse, but I can't help but shake the feeling that this is one step forward and two steps back.

I had a few quibbles with the defensive oriented improvements, but other than that this is a couple of steps forward over all. This moves us beyond simple Guerrilla Camps to actually having to think a bit more about tactics, especially for smaller nations. FYI: radical down declares and nations getting nuked into lower tiers has been and will always be a problem unless you have some magic cure to prevent it.

[Chimaera]

I think if you're going to make a collection required to delete these, you'd better make one required to delete GCs, too.  That way there's at least some strategic consideration between them all.

[Unknown Smurf]

I think if you're going to make a collection required to delete these, you'd better make one required to delete GCs, too.  That way there's at least some strategic consideration between them all.

 

Damn. That would suck for WCs (since I personally was able to collect outside of anarchy a few times I imagine others have as well), but I have to admit it's a good idea. 

[Ogaden]

The extra damage from munitions factories is only to infra, and bunkers only protect from infra damage, so these are a bit useless but whatever

 

The Forward Operating Base could be valuable to raiders, since it effectively increases their loot by 25% with all 5, especially combined with the propaganda office which makes it easier to get past soldiers.

Edited May 26, 2014 by Ogaden

[Auctor]

The Forward Operating Base could be valuable to raiders, since it effectively increases their loot by 25%.

there's a limit of 2. Edited May 26, 2014 by Auctor

[Ogaden]

there's a limit of 2.

 

Well there goes the one reason to have offensive improvements

[JohnGulager]

These improvements are pointless (well, almost).

 

Make more wonders with expiration dates, and tailor them towards younger nations. Thats what we need.

[Saxplayer]

The thing is, it's not hard to build up a nation from scratch these days (If you pick the right alliance) It's just that it's tedious and many newcomers only ever log into the game once, and then forget about it.

[Bilrow]

The thing is, it's not hard to build up a nation from scratch these days (If you pick the right alliance) It's just that it's tedious and many newcomers only ever log into the game once, and then forget about it.

What?

It's two clicks a day.

Pay Bills
Collect Tax


Damn very tedious.

[Kzoppistan]

I think they're awesome. I like defensive/offensive options.

[Teeters]

While I am still new, I find the idea of "specializing" your nation quite intriguing as it has the potential to add a whole new dynamic to the game. It would add strategy, not only for the individual, but for alliances as a whole. I would like to see more improvements/wonders etc. that add this bit of decision making to the fold.

Edited May 27, 2014 by Operative

[D34th]

I more surprised that you still play than with the improvements, who are more of the same and don't fix the game mechanic problem. 

[Starfox101]

I am not a fan of them. I understand why Admin did them - the largest nations are the most consistent donors to the game, and giving them more to work with helps his bottom line. However, I question how good it really is for game health. Already we see in wars that smaller/newer nations get beaten to a pulp when larger nations with lots of wonders/improvements are WRC nuked down to their level. By giving those nations an even greater advantage, this will only make it harder to close the gap. I am glad that there is no economic effect, that might be worse, but I can't help but shake the feeling that this is one step forward and two steps back.

Pretty much agree with this assessment.