Nations Forum

Poll: Regarding Missiles 31 replies

IronSinew (Admin) said on: 2006-11-17 12:43 am
4049 Days, 57 Minutes, 49 Seconds ago
Poll-

Q1: What do you think the cooldown time between missile strikes on a single target should be? Example: User 1 missile strikes User 2, User 2 cannot be missiled for another x hours.

1. 4 hours
2. 8 hours
3. 12 hours
4. None of the above (Write your answer and why)

Q2: Should users be able to bypass the cooldown on missile strike on a recently striked nation at a risk? If User 1 decides to risk missile strike against User 2 before cooldown, User 1 risks a chance to receive punishment Nations Restriction Conglomerate (NRC). NRC punishments can be anything from Fund Loss, troop / market purchase restrictions, land loss or any various other penalty.

1. Yes
2. No
3. Maybe
4. I like that idea.. but what about .. (Explain your idea)

Q3: Should missiles be VIP only?

1. Yes, completely VIP only
2. No, no restricted access
3. No, but some access restricted

Q4: What the heck, I'm confused about this poll, what should I do?
1. Not post
2. Not even think about posting
3. Introduce an idea that is completely far fetched in the forums and wonder why I got a reply not to post ever again after.

~Tarsonis21
LagunaCid said on: 2006-11-17 12:47 am
4049 Days, 54 Minutes, 18 Seconds ago
Shouldnt the countdown be on the attacker? Being able to handle a clan XX big by yourself isnt exactly a feature wanted.....
...
...
*cough*WARBEAST*cough*
Communist said on: 2006-11-17 01:07 am
4049 Days, 33 Minutes, 24 Seconds ago
Q1: (4) 3 hours

Q2: (3)

Q3: (2)

Q4: (1)
Ayanami said on: 2006-11-17 01:08 am
4049 Days, 33 Minutes, 15 Seconds ago
Q1: What do you think the cooldown time between missile strikes on a single target should be?

something like 8 hours is enough time to prevent active players from being cumutively missled..

Q2: Should users be able to bypass the cooldown on missile strike on a recently striked nation at a risk?

Yes, something like "OMFG MISSLES BACKFIRED" which has a chance of destroying stored missles and own military etc.. you dont want kamikaze nations from being able to trash you without some sort of downside..

Q3: Should missiles be VIP only?

maybe the max number of missles stored could be less restrictive for VIPs..

Q4: What the heck, I'm confused about this poll, what should I do?

Dont post. -_-
Abolisher said on: 2006-11-17 01:10 am
4049 Days, 31 Minutes, 12 Seconds ago
does this mean that missiles are still not working?
Korgrath (Mod) said on: 2006-11-17 02:16 am
4048 Days, 23 Hrs, 24 Min, 29 Sec ago
Q1: What do you think the cooldown time between missile strikes on a single target should be? Example: User 1 missile strikes User 2, User 2 cannot be missiled for another x hours.

1. 4 hours
2. 8 hours
3. 12 hours
4. None of the above (Write your answer and why)

I think 8 hours is a good cooldown for missiles, so that they can play an important but not overpowered role in clan warfare, but not so uncommon that people almost forget about it.

Q2: Should users be able to bypass the cooldown on missile strike on a recently striked nation at a risk? If User 1 decides to risk missile strike against User 2 before cooldown, User 1 risks a chance to receive punishment Nations Restriction Conglomerate (NRC). NRC punishments can be anything from Fund Loss, troop / market purchase restrictions, land loss or any various other penalty.

1. Yes
2. No
3. Maybe
4. I like that idea.. but what about .. (Explain your idea)

1. I like this idea, especially if the reprecussions are scaling for the number of attacks done. eg: one extra attack is merely a handslap, while 2+ can start to really drain your resources and cause some damage to your nation.

Q3: Should missiles be VIP only?

1. Yes, completely VIP only
2. No, no restricted access
3. No, but some access restricted

3. I think everyone should have access to missiles or it'll just be unfair to those who aren't VIP. If you do have the NRC restrictions however, maybe those penalites could be mildly reduced.

Q4: What the heck, I'm confused about this poll, what should I do?
1. Not post
2. Not even think about posting
3. Introduce an idea that is completely far fetched in the forums and wonder why I got a reply not to post ever again after.

3. I like the idea of missiles but I personally like the idea of flying exploding chickens more. I believe when you send a missile that it should have "splash damage" that does damage to everyone else in the clan as well. Also, if your nation is set as a "dictatorship" you should be awarded a trophy of +1 damage from tanks whenever you fire a missle.
WARBEAST said on: 2006-11-17 03:08 am
4048 Days, 22 Hrs, 33 Min, 0 Sec ago
no restrictions WARFARE is SUPPOSE to be UGLY.....make NEGOTIATIONS all the MORE IMPORTANT
Entity-Neo said on: 2006-11-17 04:33 am
4048 Days, 21 Hrs, 7 Min, 43 Sec ago
Maybe the cooldown varies on VIP accounts. (I cant be bothered answering quesiton atm, ill do it later)
Stormbringer said on: 2006-11-17 06:43 am
4048 Days, 18 Hrs, 57 Min, 24 Sec ago
Q1: What do you think the cooldown time between missile strikes on a single target should be? Example: User 1 missile strikes User 2, User 2 cannot be missiled for another x hours.

1. 4 hours
2. 8 hours
3. 12 hours
4. None of the above (Write your answer and why)

A1: 4. I think the time between user 1 can missle strike user 2 should be 12 hours. However say the time between user 1 attacks and any other player can strike should be only 8 hours. This would allow the target in question for time to recover and yet allow for coordination of clan / alliance attacks.



Q2: Should users be able to bypass the cooldown on missile strike on a recently striked nation at a risk? If User 1 decides to risk missile strike against User 2 before cooldown, User 1 risks a chance to receive punishment Nations Restriction Conglomerate (NRC). NRC punishments can be anything from Fund Loss, troop / market purchase restrictions, land loss or any various other penalty.

1. Yes
2. No
3. Maybe
4. I like that idea.. but what about .. (Explain your idea)

A2: 4. I think that VIP's only can bypass once every 24 hours without penalty. After the second bypass in 24 hours the VIP should face a stiff penalty. Hit VIP's where it hurts by making it a large fund loss to reflect an increased demands on their economy. Non-VIP's would face penalties by bypassing the first time by a fund penalty but at a reduced rate compared to VIP's. Only one bypass in a 24 hour period for all nations. Each bypass would also cost an additional 20 turns. Also make the penalty accumulative. Say the second time in the round a player would lose funds and other military. Third time would be loss of funds, loss of military and loss of turns as well. This also ties into next question.



Q3: Should missiles be VIP only?

1. Yes, completely VIP only
2. No, no restricted access
3. No, but some access restricted

A3: 3. As stated above VIP's could bypass once every 24 hours.



Q4: What the heck, I'm confused about this poll, what should I do?
1. Not post
2. Not even think about posting
3. Introduce an idea that is completely far fetched in the forums and wonder why I got a reply not to post ever again after.

A4: Sounds like BS to me! = p
JEBStuart said on: 2006-11-17 07:16 am
4048 Days, 18 Hrs, 25 Min, 5 Sec ago
1. 12 hours
2. No by-pass
3. Missiles for everybody
4. Enough with the changes already!
Red (Tester) said on: 2006-11-17 10:01 am
4048 Days, 15 Hrs, 40 Min, 19 Sec ago
Q1: What do you think the cooldown time between missile strikes on a single target should be? Example: User 1 missile strikes User 2, User 2 cannot be missiled for another x hours.

1. 4 hours
2. 8 hours
3. 12 hours
4. None of the above (Write your answer and why)

A1: 2. 8 hours is a good amount of time for a person to be able to recover from a loss of whatever a missle makes you lose. xD Plus turns will be compiled well after that. I mean, it really depends on the kind of damage a missle does.

---

Q2: Should users be able to bypass the cooldown on missile strike on a recently striked nation at a risk? If User 1 decides to risk missile strike against User 2 before cooldown, User 1 risks a chance to receive punishment Nations Restriction Conglomerate (NRC). NRC punishments can be anything from Fund Loss, troop / market purchase restrictions, land loss or any various other penalty.

1. Yes
2. No
3. Maybe
4. I like that idea.. but what about .. (Explain your idea)

A2: 3. Maybe

---

Q3: Should missiles be VIP only?

1. Yes, completely VIP only
2. No, no restricted access
3. No, but some access restricted

A3: 3. No, but some access restricted. VIPs pay real money to support the site and gain benefits. Sure give them benefits, but if you give missles to VIPs only, then the game would basically be VIP top 50 the entire time. Well, on most occassions.

---

Q4: What the heck, I'm confused about this poll, what should I do?
1. Not post
2. Not even think about posting
3. Introduce an idea that is completely far fetched in the forums and wonder why I got a reply not to post ever again after.

A4: 4. Submit a help ticket and/or make sure the admin never introduces an idea that is completely new without expalaing. :) Love you Tars ^_^

---
Jing said on: 2006-11-17 10:09 am
4048 Days, 15 Hrs, 32 Min, 11 Sec ago
Q1: What do you think the cooldown time between missile strikes on a single target should be? Example: User 1 missile strikes User 2, User 2 cannot be missiled for another x hours.

1. 4 hours
2. 8 hours
3. 12 hours
4. None of the above (Write your answer and why)

Q2: Should users be able to bypass the cooldown on missile strike on a recently striked nation at a risk? If User 1 decides to risk missile strike against User 2 before cooldown, User 1 risks a chance to receive punishment Nations Restriction Conglomerate (NRC). NRC punishments can be anything from Fund Loss, troop / market purchase restrictions, land loss or any various other penalty.

1. Yes
2. No
3. Maybe
4. I like that idea.. but what about .. (Explain your idea)

Q3: Should missiles be VIP only?

1. Yes, completely VIP only
2. No, no restricted access
3. No, but some access restricted

Q4: What the heck, I'm confused about this poll, what should I do?
1. Not post
2. Not even think about posting
3. Introduce an idea that is completely far fetched in the forums and wonder why I got a reply not to post ever again after.


Q1.i think 4. like you can use a missile once every day or something.

Q2.i think it should just be like attacking, losing only readyness, but losing food and oil won't hurt i suppose

Q3. i say give everyone missiles but give some restrictions for the non vips

Q4.hmmm...i ain't confused, but would you mind answering the question whether a missle attack can hurt base tech?
Ilidan said on: 2006-11-17 12:22 pm
4048 Days, 13 Hrs, 19 Min, 8 Sec ago
Q1: What do you think the cooldown time between missile strikes on a single target should be? Example: User 1 missile strikes User 2, User 2 cannot be missiled for another x hours.

1. 4 hours
2. 8 hours
3. 12 hours
4. None of the above (Write your answer and why)


If we're looking for "realism", then no cooldown. However, each subsequent missile attack will cause a small fraction of the previous on after a certain period. So rather than *no* missile attacks, just set it up so that they're relatively useless, but still available.

The cool-down time in this situation should be measure in TURNS USED, not time, since this is, after all, a turn-based game. I think 40 turns is plenty enough. Sort of a "Missile Protection" idea, where you have 40 turns to re-build your army before missiles become fully effect against you again. Of course, if a missile attack comes in before then, the counter is reset.




Q2: Should users be able to bypass the cooldown on missile strike on a recently striked nation at a risk? If User 1 decides to risk missile strike against User 2 before cooldown, User 1 risks a chance to receive punishment Nations Restriction Conglomerate (NRC). NRC punishments can be anything from Fund Loss, troop / market purchase restrictions, land loss or any various other penalty.

1. Yes
2. No
3. Maybe
4. I like that idea.. but what about .. (Explain your idea)



see my answer to number 1. That should cover both answers.



Q3: Should missiles be VIP only?

1. Yes, completely VIP only
2. No, no restricted access
3. No, but some access restricted


3 - Some restricted access. For example, allow users to only use conventional missiles while VIPs have the option for tactical nuclear weapons.



Q4: What the heck, I'm confused about this poll, what should I do?
1. Not post
2. Not even think about posting
3. Introduce an idea that is completely far fetched in the forums and wonder why I got a reply not to post ever again after.

stupid n00bs
Killer_MJ said on: 2006-11-17 01:06 pm
4048 Days, 12 Hrs, 35 Min, 15 Sec ago
Q1: What do you think the cooldown time between missile strikes on a single target should be? Example: User 1 missile strikes User 2, User 2 cannot be missiled for another x hours.

1. 4 hours


Q2: Should users be able to bypass the cooldown on missile strike on a recently striked nation at a risk? If User 1 decides to risk missile strike against User 2 before cooldown, User 1 risks a chance to receive punishment Nations Restriction Conglomerate (NRC). NRC punishments can be anything from Fund Loss, troop / market purchase restrictions, land loss or any various other penalty.

3. Maybe


Q3: Should missiles be VIP only?

2. No, no restricted access


Q4: What the heck, I'm confused about this poll, what should I do?

3. Introduce an idea that is completely far fetched in the forums and wonder why I got a reply not to post ever again after.
KiLLaStYLeS said on: 2006-11-17 01:17 pm
4048 Days, 12 Hrs, 23 Min, 56 Sec ago


1) should be 10 hours! but what will the missiles do? i suggest a complete wipe out of one's military.
2) yes, that way people dont abuse the missiles.
3) VIPs only (gives more to people who pay then just the market)
PinWizard said on: 2006-11-17 01:38 pm
4048 Days, 12 Hrs, 2 Min, 58 Sec ago
i think missiles should be for anyone and everyone and u should beable to send missiles and attack anyone


ex: ranked :87. Wulf of Sharakai 105.85 wants to missile "sal"
ranked: 1. Sal of Puppet Palace 212.41



he should be able 2 but run the chance of the missile missing its taget



_SANDMAN_ said on: 2006-11-17 04:32 pm
4048 Days, 9 Hrs, 8 Min, 41 Sec ago
missiles should be for anyone.....why should a vip that isnt very good...take out someone that is.
Space-Monkey said on: 2006-11-17 04:55 pm
4048 Days, 8 Hrs, 45 Min, 50 Sec ago
because without VIP there would be no NN, so they get some special features, i think that they should get something to do with missles to help them a bit
WeaponX (Mod) said on: 2006-11-17 05:43 pm
4048 Days, 7 Hrs, 57 Min, 36 Sec ago
Q1: What do you think the cooldown time between missile strikes on a single target should be? Example: User 1 missile strikes User 2, User 2 cannot be missiled for another x hours.

-4 hours

Q2: Should users be able to bypass the cooldown on missile strike on a recently striked nation at a risk? If User 1 decides to risk missile strike against User 2 before cooldown, User 1 risks a chance to receive punishment Nations Restriction Conglomerate (NRC). NRC punishments can be anything from Fund Loss, troop / market purchase restrictions, land loss or any various other penalty.


-Yes, but very very limited damage. It's not like they're going to go send another nuke off and have it blow up in their own facility :p


Q3: Should missiles be VIP only?

-No, no restricted access
_SANDMAN_ said on: 2006-11-18 06:33 am
4047 Days, 19 Hrs, 7 Min, 52 Sec ago
Having only vips with the ability to uswe missiles would 100% kill this gamesite
XSquad said on: 2006-11-18 07:43 am
4047 Days, 17 Hrs, 57 Min, 56 Sec ago
im whit sandman totally... always vip who gets all the advantage ...bah i dont care its just boring when vips get the advantages.....
Entity-Neo said on: 2006-11-18 08:11 am
4047 Days, 17 Hrs, 29 Min, 35 Sec ago
What you want VIPS to pay for nothing? I guarntee you that not even 5 vips pay for vip just for 'donation'.
Jing said on: 2006-11-18 10:19 am
4047 Days, 15 Hrs, 21 Min, 33 Sec ago
i pay VIP for name change, icon change, and the right to use the market, amen..
btw, the beta testing inly sweeten the deal ^^

[Added at 11/18/2006 12:49:54 by Jing]
*only
ShadyKnight (Mod) said on: 2006-11-20 01:54 pm
4045 Days, 11 Hrs, 46 Min, 54 Sec ago
12 hours
yes
Make it so VIPs get more missiles
Don't Post
Beat said on: 2006-11-22 01:54 am
4043 Days, 23 Hrs, 46 Min, 23 Sec ago
Q1: What do you think the cooldown time between missile strikes on a single target should be? Example: User 1 missile strikes User 2, User 2 cannot be missiled for another x hours.

1. 4 hours
2. 8 hours
3. 12 hours
4. None of the above (Write your answer and why)

(1)4 hours.
IMO, this is a fair amount of time for a cooldown.


Q2: Should users be able to bypass the cooldown on missile strike on a recently striked nation at a risk? If User 1 decides to risk missile strike against User 2 before cooldown, User 1 risks a chance to receive punishment Nations Restriction Conglomerate (NRC). NRC punishments can be anything from Fund Loss, troop / market purchase restrictions, land loss or any various other penalty.

1. Yes
2. No
3. Maybe
4. I like that idea.. but what about .. (Explain your idea)

(1)Yes.
But please show warning somewhere before the missile strike about targeted player being recently striked.


Q3: Should missiles be VIP only?

1. Yes, completely VIP only
2. No, no restricted access
3. No, but some access restricted

(3)No, but some access restricted.
It'd really kill the game if VIP has been given too much advantages. As previously suggested, all players should be granted equal access to missles, but perhaps VIPs can have advantage over the damage the missles can cause (like, the difference between an ion cannon and an antiproton cannon :)


Q4: What the heck, I'm confused about this poll, what should I do?
1. Not post
2. Not even think about posting
3. Introduce an idea that is completely far fetched in the forums and wonder why I got a reply not to post ever again after.

(3)Introduce an idea that is completely ... blah blah ...
Read Illidan's idea again. That's actually kinda cool. Splash (chicken) damage to the entire clan. Perhaps such feature could be for VIPs?
Pipboy said on: 2006-12-03 10:33 pm
4032 Days, 3 Hrs, 7 Min, 23 Sec ago
1 - 4) There should not be a cool down time at all. If a nation wants to waste all his/her missiles in one shot that is their decidion. Missiles are the ultimate equilzier in this game before they were done away with. A small clan could stand up against a large clan if the missle strikes were coordinated just right. This use made attacking small clan a much more risky idea since a missile could not be destroyed.

Now if you wanted to counter the missile threat then have a espy option to be able to send spies in to take out a certin amount of missles like a bunker attack. This will force all players to boost their espy inorder to protect their missles.
These espy attacks could wipe out their ablility for a given time if the programers so choose to do so.

If a large clan was able to coordinate well enough they could criple a clans missles before hitting with their own.
Communist said on: 2006-12-04 01:05 am
4032 Days, 35 Minutes, 59 Seconds ago
You know whats another good idea?

option for "sabotage missiles" in espionage
Ilidan said on: 2006-12-04 11:29 am
4031 Days, 14 Hrs, 11 Min, 55 Sec ago
Pipboy-

What's the point in being a bigger clan if some n00b baby clan can wipe you out?!

Seriously?!

If a small clan can take out a big clan, then what's to stop some group of n00bs from taking out all of Nirvana just because they're bored?!
Pipboy said on: 2006-12-04 11:54 am
4031 Days, 13 Hrs, 46 Min, 48 Sec ago
Well, it is like in real life. If a small group is orginzed then they can bring down a large clan. Ihate to bring it up again but BOS was able to crush clans three to four times our size in less than 225 turns because of our orginzation. Missles would figure into that orginzation so the larger clan would have to do as much damage as quickly as possible to stop their ablility to create their own missles after their use.

|This is suppose to be a stratgy game and if a large clan wants to stomp around with no rime or reason to their attacks go ahead and waste your turns. Even without missles a small 5 member clan can take down a large 20 member clan if done right missles or no missles.
Ayanami said on: 2006-12-04 12:31 pm
4031 Days, 13 Hrs, 9 Min, 50 Sec ago
if there's no restrictions, i'll look forward to sending 200 nukes to sal's 1 land and seeing how it miraculously can still support his agricultural output and refineries in addition to it's immunity from radioactive contamination lol

and how he can recruit 10,000s of guerillas from his 100 person population etc xD
SM-Lord_Cyric said on: 2006-12-06 02:50 pm
4029 Days, 10 Hrs, 50 Min, 20 Sec ago
Q1: What do you think the cooldown time between missile strikes on a single target should be? Example: User 1 missile strikes User 2, User 2 cannot be missiled for another x hours.

2. 8 hours



Q2: Should users be able to bypass the cooldown on missile strike on a recently striked nation at a risk? If User 1 decides to risk missile strike against User 2 before cooldown, User 1 risks a chance to receive punishment Nations Restriction Conglomerate (NRC). NRC punishments can be anything from Fund Loss, troop / market purchase restrictions, land loss or any various other penalty.

4. I like that idea.. but what about .. (Explain your idea)
I think there should be some serious risk of sending out missiles because of their massive destructive power. Somthing like on every 5 missiles, 1 blow up or crach on your land. In case you would fire when the colldown is not over ( your soldiers and techniciens havent had time to reset and replace the system ) then the risk of explosion should increase dramasticly, going up to 3-4 or even 5 out of five missiles blow up. It would make you think twice before firing to soon.

Q3: Should missiles be VIP only?


3. No, but some access restricted
Something like VIP get developpe some V2 rockets instead of V1. It would give then the folowing advantage: they could target accuralty the time of enemy units or building they want to destroy. So they could destroy :

Military
Weapons
Agricultures ( massives fields lost from burning )
Industrials
Medical
Refinery

The offence and defences are alliances and cannot be destroy
It near impossible to target an espionnage facility because most of time, they are in regular building. ( maybe a % of lost when attacking the military )



Q4: What the heck, I'm confused about this poll, what should I do?

3. Introduce an idea that is completely far fetched in the forums and wonder why I got a reply not to post ever again after:

Close your eyes and push the lauch button to see what missiles will do.

Pulk said on: 2006-12-06 08:07 pm
4029 Days, 5 Hrs, 33 Min, 38 Sec ago
Poll-

Q1: What do you think the cooldown time between missile strikes on a single target should be? Example: User 1 missile strikes User 2, User 2 cannot be missiled for another x hours.

4. I think there should be no wait time but a limit of one fire back. Since in real life the greatest deterrance to firing nuclear weapons is a second strike capablility which most nations have.

Q2: Should users be able to bypass the cooldown on missile strike on a recently striked nation at a risk? If User 1 decides to risk missile strike against User 2 before cooldown, User 1 risks a chance to receive punishment Nations Restriction Conglomerate (NRC). NRC punishments can be anything from Fund Loss, troop / market purchase restrictions, land loss or any various other penalty.

1. I think the overall use of missiles should force some loss of money/troops/food because in real life any nations that would fire a nuclear weapon would recieve international condemnation and sanctions.
Q3: Should missiles be VIP only?

3. No, but some access restricted, by restricted a possibility could be having to buy them for some large price, or forcing a person to forfeit a bunch of turns and only be allowed to get missiles based on a time limit, like twice a week.

Q4: What the heck, I'm confused about this poll,

3. Is it just me or is it extremely wierd when someone puts ketchup on their pasta.