so i think we can all agree that the endless snowball of AI's dogpiling you gets old really quickly, now i get it the orginal idea behind it was the assumption that most players would stay active meaning that the danger would only come from really minor countries, but this simply does not reflect reality, iam sure quite a few can relate to the sense of dread coming from playing HWW and being wedge between AI soviets and germans, or any major powers really, or suddenly having to scramble an army to a exposed border cuz your coalition mate just popped inactive so instead of crying "get rid of it please" like so many i got a few ideas:
- add a "dread" mechanic and i dont mean the most dreaded nations ranking i mean an actual meter next to popularity that balances the 2 out, basically "dread" would mean even when the AI hates you because of low popularity, they leave you the hell alone regardless if they imtimidated by you hoping you'd leave them alone
-the factors influencing dread would be:
1) overall militairy balance of power, pretty obvious really, your army being 20 times as big as theirs would be a major factor in them deciding not to mess with you, this obviously means that if you start fighting an actual player or a strong AI and your militiary might starts dropping it gradually starts increasing the chance of AI's jummping you
2) wether or not you have a nuclear monooly over the AI in qeustion
3) your overall perfomance in that match, if you've been outkilling everything you fight like 4 to 1 it also should factor into wether an AI is going to mess with you
4) being deterred to do the same, basically if 1 AI decides its go time cuz of low popularity being crushed by you should send a signal not to try the same thing for awhile to others (this factor being a temporary one)
and basically make how hated you are get balanced out by how how terrified they are of you to actually risk doing something about
also 1 thing, add an "allied" status now i get an AI revoking share maps and eventually going to war with you because you're not as nice as you were at the start of the game, totally get it, what does piss me off tho is a huge army pouring into my flank because my coalition mate just went inactive, hence any PLAYER you had a good relation with will get a "allied" status if and when they turn into a AI meaning that the relation you had with them as a player is secure basically they wont declare war on you no matter how low your popularity goes, the trade off being attacking a counrty with a "allied" status tag removes that status on ALL other countries you might have it with making you fair game again
8 Replies
16 Jul 2022, 10:18
I think you're missing the point on this one. The popularity was introduced specifically to HURT players who are attacking a lot of nations and expanding fast (usually resulting in great power). You are now suggesting to exempt those players from this setback (because AI's are "terrified" of them). No matter how realistic this may be, it doesn't align with the purpose of the mechanism.
If anything should be changed about this, it should be the ability to regain popularity which seems to be impossible now. Maybe some kind of "foreign aid": pay money or resource to particular countries, and they will think better of you.
16 Jul 2022, 16:22
I agree, this proposal misses the point. The feature doesn't need tweaking, it needs to be abolished.
All this does is make AI dominated maps, where one player or coalition are winning, take longer to finish. It does nothing to improve game play for the winning or the losing (human) players. It's an extension of the grind, which benefits nobody. Even Bytro loses money because bigger, older games are taking more server time.
So just turn this off. Please.
16 Jul 2022, 16:25
Proposal #2
If you really want a mechanism to discourage players picking on small AI countries, then create AI coalitions. For example, all the Baltic states are friends, so when you attack Latvia, then Lithuania and Estonia and Karelia all come to Latvia's aid.
This mechanism would kick in early in the game, when it still matters. Not after you've gobbled up half the map and just want to finish the damn game.
17 Jul 2022, 06:10 (edited)
K.Rokossovski wrote:
I think you're missing the point on this one. The popularity was introduced specifically to HURT players who are attacking a lot of nations and expanding fast (usually resulting in great power)
so basically people who just play the game? id get the point you were making if your populairty goes up after a few days of not doing anything, letting te tension die down so to speak, but that not reality there's only so much good will you can get by dealing out share maps like they are hotcakes and even with that, 6 countries tops before you're in a endless snowball of AI's jumping you, meaning you're no where near where you need to be to win, and even then atleast make it like i said a AI that used to be a player in your coalition leaves you the hell alone no matter how low your populairty gets
edit: also the point of a penalty is that there's a way to avoid it to deter you from incurring it, their is no way to avoid it besides doing NOTHING all game
17 Jul 2022, 11:15
I said it was the point of the system; I didn't say it works like it should. The fast, aggressive expander (as opposed to the slow-and-steady one) is rewarded in many ways; this is a tiny deterrant for him. But like I said above, I fully agree there should be a way to overcome it.
And just ONCE more: this issue isn't really so VERY important given the stupidity of the AI.
17 Jul 2022, 19:02
K.Rokossovski wrote:
And just ONCE more: this issue isn't really so VERY important given the stupidity of the AI.
Right, so let's review:
1. Fast expansion is not discouraged. You still win by killing everyone around you, as fast as you can.
2. The mechanic kicks in late, when the game is decided. We just get a few days of annoying mop-up work.
In summary, the feature does not produce the intended outcome, but it is annoying.
I can't think of a more clear-cut reason for scrapping a feature.
19 Jul 2022, 13:46
If it could somehow be tweaked so that AI was more likely to declare war on early-game fast expanders but less likely to declare war on late-game fast expanders do you think that'd be better? I kinda like that idea, but haven't thought through if or how it could be implemented. (and I mean more likely and less likely as in relative to their current probabilities, not as an absolute percentage)
20 Jul 2022, 13:48
The current system is indeed designed to be a counter weight to players who are conquering alot of nations, which usually means they are on a good path to win the game. Or in real life terms: If a nation is conquering everyone and about to achieve total world supremacy, the remaining nations would team up to prevent that nation from reaching it.
In game terms, this makes it easier for nations who are not on top of the ranking to have a comeback, because the leading nations have to deal with more wars & fronts.
So instead of abolishing the feature there should be some additions that make it more balanced. As was proposed, maybe more ways to increase reputation, such as by donating resources to AI.
And probably it should also be changed that players who become inactive drop out of coalitions, to prevent sudden wars from former coalition mates. I will push internally for the latter one being done as it shouldnt be too hard to implement hopefully.
