Jump to content

Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 11/13/18 in all areas

  1. 8 points
    Atleast when i make suggestions that are blatantly biased to helping me, I admit it.
  2. 6 points
    Then don't hold them down for 5 days in a blockade and hit them when they rebuy once a day? The whole point of attrition straight from the mouth of IQ leadership back during Git Gud Friday was that attrition warfare was done with express goal of boring people out of their minds to make it unpleasant for anyone to fight IQ. If you want to have fun, try beiging your opponent and waiting for them to come back after you so you can fight them properly again. If you don't want to challenge yourself or take any risks, don't be surprised when its not as enjoyable. Also don't change resistance per war type sheepy that is stupid.
  3. 6 points
    What? No no no no NO no noNO no. No. What possible thing do you imagine that will solve? Sure, if you want to think purely conventionally then it would make certain wars last longer, but more critically to my view is that it would mean that ordinary and attrition wars cannot be won by unconventional weapons. This would make the victor of a dogpile merely need to declare ordinary wars, and then they can pin their opponents even worse then they already can! 5 day blockades with the opponent being able to do very little is bad enough, but to remove what few options they have to force a beige in the other direction? And to increase the amount of airstrikes they can potentially be hit by before the pin finally has to weigh the options of one last airstrike but causing a beige in the process? JUST NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO For the love of everything, just rework the beige/loot/defeat/victory condition from being first-to-zero to being first-to-zero OR lowest-resistance-at-expiration. And for goodness' sake keep it at 5 days so both nukes and missiles can still potentially force a beige themselves. This will solve the problem of 5 day blockade pins with airstrikes keeping the underdogs down, without compounding it a hundredfold. Bear in mind which alliances are suggesting and endorsing this change, also. I'm not saying it's politically or selfishly motivated necessarily, but the suggestion is mostly being encouraged by one particular side in the current conflict.
  4. 4 points
    Also, just one other point. This isn't even true. You could have fully militarised and hit their upper tier this time around since you have a legion of other alliances supporting you. You'd likely have had more fun and you'd have done better as a coalition too. Oh and the war would be shorter. You instead chose the option that best protected your bloc from damages, and let your upper tier support take all the damage instead. Pragmatic and in your self interests? Yes. Fun, fast and effective? Not so much.
  5. 4 points
    You are saying that to someone who co-founded an alliance built on the idea of doing things against our economic self interest in the pursuit of our personal enjoyment of the game. Alliances have different priorities, and those priorities come with different sacrifices. You are asking the game developer to offset the downsides of your particular strategy, to cater to your own subjective version of what constitutes fun. Pragmatism has a cost. If your foremost priority was fun, this wouldn't be a problem, because you'd adapt your strategy to maximize that at the expense of other priorities. You can't be ultra pragmatic, plan wars to the extent at which losing is not a possibility as many alliances do, and then blame the game for not being suitably "competitive". If people want competitive wars, take risks, don't be ultra pragmatic. Perhaps you might be in the wrong alliance?
  6. 4 points
    Exactly, so we agree, it is a result of your actions. Case closed...?
  7. 4 points
    Believe me, there will be no winners ever under such a stupid system. Yes, the point is to grind your opponent down. You really don't need any more mechanics beyond the 3 defense slots to make that any easier, and you damn well shouldn't GET anything that makes that more painful for the losing party than it already is! And I'm speaking from experience on both sides of dogpiles. Now, sure, it's "punishing" to "win" a war. Well, I'm sorry that loot and extra damage in your favor is such a burden to you, but this isn't the kind of game that should EVER be "won" in the way that every damn dogpiler has been trying to since war was implemented. Not ever. You should not have a lasting, complete, game-ending victory, because this isn't a tournament or a match or even a game in the strictest sense; rather it's a multiplayer political sandbox and must remain balanced so that even after "losing", everyone still has the chance to win again at a later time. Otherwise, we might as well have our cities destroyed, our infrastructure captured or our accounts fricking banned as soon as we lose a war, since there's no possible gameplay to be done after getting rolled even once. I've seen multiplayer sandbox games like this one bow to suggestions like yours wherein the dominant faction could permanently and forever annihilate their rivals beyond all possibility of competition, and it's never fun for anyone. Not even the supposed "victors", since guess what: They succeeded in removing all possibility of actual gameplay! They had no opponents! It ends up just as a stupid circlejerk where there's no possibility of anything happening! Once a temporary game like TF2 or chess is won, the game is over and can begin again from square one, but here the game persists, whether anyone is playing it or not. Whether anyone CAN play it or not. There's no fun to be had in a TF2 match wherein one side spawncamps the other forever without actually completing the match. Anyway, yes, beige is indeed a mechanic set up to allow the losing party to recover and potentially compete despite being outmatched in resources and available nations/cities. That still doesn't mean that either the dogpiler or the dogpiled are "forced" to sit around and do nothing. You're just doing that because you're exploiting (in the sense of utilizing, not necessarily in the sense of cheating) the fact that wars that end without either side technically reducing the opponent to 0 end in a forced peace, which allows an immediate replacement attacker to continue blockading and pinning the defeated and depleted nation. Your opponents aren't doing that at all, since they have nothing whatsoever to lose by hitting you back until you cough up loot and infra damage for their team. Sure, another nation from your side will just jump right back into their defense slot, but that was going to happen anyway since you weren't going to beige them in the first place regardless. This is absolutely true. You really do have to think what's better for the actual fundamental game balance long-term, not about what'll help you out right now... which is exactly why you really need to THINK about these things before you suggest them! Your suggestion would enable dogpilers to declare wars wherein they get even more airstrikes than they already do, allowing them to do more damage to potential rebuys and to infrastructure, and even more easily prolong the stupid 5 day blockades that you're already complaining about. Despite your team abusing the crap out of them. There's absolutely NOTHING about what you're saying that would do ANYTHING but double down on the problems you're complaining about. No, if you want something that will actually solve the problems you're having, and will really help the "OOC game longterm"... then ask Alex to change war expiration to result in war victory/defeat/loot/beige based on who has the highest resistance at the end of the war rather than a simple forced peace. If you truly want something that's better, on an OOC level, even when it objectively prevents your team from abusing the mechanics that your team is right now abusing to your benefit, then that change is something you will not disagree with. Yes, it will harm NPO's war effort in this war, which you are winning and will win even if the change goes through as I've described. It will also help NPO's war effort when you guys aren't winning, which is a thing that has happened to your alliance before and will happen again in the future. And this is how it should be; both victory and defeat must each be mitigated and forced to be temporary in nature in order to to keep the game playable at all! As for buffing unconventional weapons, that particular thread had absolute nonsense in it about cutting the damage of unconventional weapons but increasing how often they could be produced and fired, which I really didn't like and certainly wasn't a buff. They don't really need a buff (as much as I would like a buff to muh missiles, that'd be admittedly a self-serving suggestion), they just need to remain as powerful and as useful as they already are. By which I mean able to win a war, on their own, even in a dogpile/zero military situation. Because that is how we can prevent the game from being forever won and lost, never to be played by anyone again.
  8. 3 points
    Mixed feelings on this. I like the fact that the 5 day period ends up being a defacto beige towards the end if someone just doesn't want to beige the other person but sits on MAPS. It adds more strategy and tactics, which I think is generally good. But I can also see how that is boring and a weird incentive. Maybe one way to approach this isn't to reduce resistance damage but to make successful attacks restore resistance to the attacking nation, to the tune of 50% of the normal resistance destroyed. So if people are actually slogging it out, the war will go longer, but if it's completely one-sided it will end quicker. I also like the idea of the nation with the higher resistance winning if the war expires. In any case, I'd encourage people to look at this outside of the current war. I'm pretty sure Alex would wait till there was no war going on to implement a major war change.
  9. 2 points
    Alex, When the game started 100k was a fine lower limit on the reserved amount of cash a nation had safe from looting, now that we have nations nearing 40 cities, upkeeps etc are high enough that this limit no longer makes sense. I'd like to propose that you get 100k of unlootable cash for each city you have. e.g. I have 16 cities, the last 1.6m would not be lootable. Someone with 32 cities would not be able to have the last 3.2m looted.
  10. 2 points
    Honestly, this is the only statement that matters.
  11. 2 points
    Its impressive how many things wrong you were able to pack into such a small post. > Complains strategy his alliance is using is boring and the game should be changed to make it more fun > I suggest perhaps instead of trying to change the entire game, you should pick a more enjoyable strategy > "The fact some alliances follow a strategy you don't like doesn't change that its a good strategy" You truly redefine the limits of ones ability to completely lack self awareness. Bravo Also, just because you call your strategy good, doesn't mean it is. It obviously isn't in fact, given your coalition has such a narrow lead in the largest dogpile in the games history. I'd suggest you let the grown ups talk buddy.
  12. 2 points
    -spoilered for scarfposting-
  13. 2 points
    Sure, sitting on your opponent and doing things indistinguishable from slot-filling is valid... but it's also boring, unfun for them and you, and is absolutely "constant cyclical nonsense of cookie cutter tactics". You know that. The pattern is dogpile, airstrike, gain control, blockade, and cycle airstrikes to always maintain the blockade forever. If that's not boring bullshit cookie cutter tactics then seriously, what is? You're being really disingenuous right here. Downdeclaring is fair, fun, and only a bit unbalanced due to being able to instantly rebuild their military units. Updeclaring is fair, fun, and balanced. Doublebuying is fair, fun, and balanced. Missile/nuke spam is fair, fun, and balanced. Dogpiling is less so on all counts, but not entirely outside the bounds of fair/fun/balanced; and since it's mostly a product of the meta and politics, that strategy shouldn't be denied. Hiding your bank in a spare alliance and/or a beige nation is kind of unfair, but provides a critical balancing mechanic and is certainly not unfun. None of these are game-breaking cheese. However, letting wars expire without actually fighting them in order to maintain the war permanently with no recovery nor even victory? Just sitting on your bored ass for a week and then making another set of guys sit on their bored ass for another week after that, and so on and so on without actually fighting nor claiming any victory at all? That's game-breaking cheese since you're not freakin playing at all! So yes, THAT is abusing game mechanics, since it is unfair, unfun, and unbalanced. Just because the administration doesn't issue nation strikes for it doesn't mean that it's in any way fun or fair for anyone, yourself included. This is called a "maladaptive behavior" because you're choosing to do things against your own best interest. For Dio's sake you have 4 times their number; just beige them and counter them as they pop out. That's what we're doing against TRF and because of it both sides are having tons of fun (or at least we are), and we're not doing any worse for our beiging tactics. It's more fun this way. For reference we outnumber them by about the same proportion as you outnumber TKRsphere, so seriously, just give up on the cheese and fight properly.
  14. 2 points
    Some people just have no class.
  15. 2 points
    This seems like a more elegant solution. I'm not opposed to this by any means, but I would really like to see a lot of feedback before making such a significant change.
  16. 2 points
    Either wars need to be shorter or Res damage needs to change, ever since fortify was nerfed 5 day war lengths have become incredibly braindead and boring. Holding someone under a 5 day blockade and hitting their rebuys once a day is enjoyable for precisely nobody in that interaction.
  17. 2 points
  18. 1 point
    So the present system is a three rank system of Leader/Heir/Member Title. While it's great, I was wondering if there could be a means to edit those titles to include subtitles, or unique member titles. While its mostly cosmetic in nature, it would be interesting to be allowed to customise our own member ranks and the like from an overall alliance point of view. Moreover, in larger alliances, having different titles is quite common, and this just allows for greater alliance customisation and the like. The folks who can do this of course will be the Officers or those given the rights by the alliance leader/leaders. Also I was wondering with this addition, if you could also add individual officer masks, rather than across the board? It makes it difficult to have a set of folks at the same rank having the same access, when they could be different departments and the like, so it'd just make things easier if that could be added? This would work better with having greater control of the titles/ranks/powers. Thanks for considering the suggestion!
  19. 1 point
    Seriously, why isn't "Total land area" a leaderboard? Pls add.
  20. 1 point
    When Pre came to me and asked: "Hey, would you like to do even more thankless work and become the one who has the deal with each and every dumpster fire that comes TEst's way, thereby taking full responsibility for everything that goes wrong with the alliance?", my immediate response was: "Oh boy, would I!!. Don't worry though. Even though Pre no longer has any gov role, he's offered to make OWF announcements, which is good coz I suck at it. Pre will keep his leadership duties till the end of the current war, peace talks included. However, after that he'll become a grunt like he wanted. Pre has managed to accomplish his goal which made him return to this game we all still play for some reason. We thank him for his services and his toes. As for the new gov structure, Mayor is now Primarch. Please join me in congratulating him for losing the freedom that comes with being a regular member, to do stuff he probably won't enjoy most of the time. Bambino will retain his current duties and Odin will remain that guy we force to do econ, which as we all know is a lot of fun. Sorry to have distracted you from all the carnage and the smell of burning pixels. Blood for the Blood God Skulls for the Skull Throne Khorne for the Khorne Flakes
  21. 1 point
    It takes not even 30 seconds to vote. There was plenty of time to vote.
  22. 1 point
    If you can't spare 3 minutes out of a 5 day period to vote on a forum thread then that's on you.
  23. 1 point
    We suppressed them enough. Also, they got too low for us to attack anymore so eh
  24. 1 point
    Somehow this guy thinks Infinity War and Knightfall (Which both are very relevant to this war) is cheesier than Sock War (Where the hell did this come from?)
  25. 1 point
×

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and the Guidelines of the game and community.