Jump to content

Krameleon

Members
  • Posts

    12
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Posts posted by Krameleon

  1. 1 hour ago, Alastor said:

    I was going to type up my thoughts but I think you highlighted it for me.

    Either way I'm pleased to see Rose engaging on the forums for the first time in probably years outside of a post about Cake. Though some may deride public FA (really it's just PR), I think it takes courage to lay out your opinion for others to usually swarm as the game is very content-starved.

    Hope Rose is enjoying some activity, win or lose. :) 

    50 minutes ago, Danzek said:

    2093825474_Screenshot2024-12-22120812.png.881fd142c03d575ee2f6cb8cb458936e.png

    1341808908_Screenshot2024-12-22120840.png.ed95604e8f8b6f8b4af5e850014fee7e.png

    Feels like a good place to see if anyone wants to add to this, but it seems like a reasonable list of spheres to me (the second list) - aside from a few cross-sphere M level treaties, like TSC-WAP. 

    Then we could do a real tiering comparison between the spheres. 

    Not me trying to wrap my head around Roberts' completely unexplained and incoherent take, only to realize he's trying to present as fact my obviously exaggerated analogy that I was using to show Kan he was making the mistake of selectively conflating coalitions and spheres.

    1 hour ago, Kan0601 said:

    Ok but you agree that you guys are big and it did technically take 2 sphere to actually manage to hit you guys. (Only reason this war was over so fast was because of the surprise hit no one expected and the double but advantage) or this war would have been a very hard and even fight. 

    Also on the topic of links I didn’t know eclipse was linked to house but ok. 

    Spec yes would be in the eclipse sphere but we weren’t invited to the hit, we launched on penta because of our other allies asking us to help. 

    Which, it doesn't look like the analogy clicked.

    • Upvote 3
    • Downvote 1
  2. 7 hours ago, Kan0601 said:

    I won’t lie you guys do have a lot of numbers too lmao. Penta TGH sphere plus Penta ties to TFP Sing. Didn’t you guys like work with all of them to hit T$ sphere which was 1/5 then added in EVH after Penta wanted to hit them while promising you wouldn’t behind close doors? 

    Kind of sure you guys have also been coasting under the radar and doing this nap thing. You got 6 month nap with T$ then 4 month with EVH. 

    My point is why so mad when others do to you what you did to them lol? 

    I don't really agree with your line of thinking on our connection to other alliances, but if I tunnel down that perspective then Eclipsphere would surely now include TKR (really all of House) and definitely Spectre and others. Further inflating their numbers.

    With respect to Rose participating in the NAP cycle meta. This goes to further reinforce my point about Eclipse fundamentally shaping the meta we live in now, as they not only initiated this meta but continues to push it both directly and indirectly. Rose and several others have since followed that lead for the same reasons others have followed not speaking all that publicly as of late.

    4 hours ago, Danzek said:

    CITYVALUEbyturn.png?ex=676863b3&is=67671233&hm=56ad6e9712cbe57ab6b7d3bff01f39413ef4b7069a44aed7144736c9386bed92&
    I was interested in checking, to see city value over time of the alliances. Add about 120B in your head for E$ INFRAAVGbyturn.png?ex=6768621c&is=6767109c&hm=9d4b9847fa767f672fd7260ed3596e41815a936ad56c28f0601124f7ea75dba4&

    And here, avg infra over time, to visualize # wars, and how much those wars inflicted. 

     

    "Paragon,Shuba99M,Fumo,MCXA,Shuba10KM,Terminus Est,Penguin Party"
    is what I have on the stats site. Don't think it makes a difference, maybe the eclipse ones do since they are all mega whales (but you've also missed a bunch of extensions on Rose's side). Not sure on the logic of including TFP/Yarr and all the Penta (Tetra?) alliances and avoiding doing similar for Eclipse, but I don't do FA. 
    (I did initially think the spectre war was part of the same conflict, until it got peaced lol). 
     

    Thanks for the data, Borg. Definitely fascinating to see the numbers, they paint a good picture. 

    2 hours ago, Sketchy said:

    People complaining about other people not engaging in public FA.

    Does anyone engage in public FA? 

    Since I've been back I've seen like what 6-7 wars and usually the winning side posts a half assed DoW, and the losing side says like 2 words and that's the sum of all drama in the war.

    Even in other areas like RON it's all fricking quiet. Hell the most active political response to this post right now is from @Shiho Nishizumiwho isn't even FA and isn't even in any of the alliances fighting.

    Public FA is dead lmfao

    Um, Sketchy. You're taking things too far. This is clearly a meme post, serious discussion will not be tolerated.

    • Haha 1
    • Upvote 3
    • Downvote 1
  3. Include an option in the Bulk Improvement Template Importer to be able to toggle which cities you want the Improvement Template to be Imported to, rather than it be all cities or one-by-one. It wouldn't be useful all the time for most, but would relieve a lot of headache in the few situations where it is useful.

    (Noticed this in the original post in 2019 after commenting this suggestion. I stand by my inability to read)

    • Like 2
  4. This is just a few thoughts I have in regards to this change. Take them with a grain of salt because I only 40% know what I'm talking about.

    If the point of this change is to solve the issue of massive down-declares, why is it also helping up-declares? I understand how a larger city nation declaring on a lower city nation puts the smaller one at a disadvantage, and to what degree that advantage is fair can be a discussion. If fully milled C40s can really regularly down-declare on C20s and create an unfair war environment, then maybe some change is necessary.

    However, if someone is up-declaring, they are at some level of a disadvantage and they are accepting that disadvantage by declaring the war themselves. By declaring that war they are accepting that by city-count they are at a disadvantage and they still believe they can effectively achieve their goals despite that. I don't think that up-declaring is in trouble, and therefore don't see why it needs to also be buffed with a change such as this. If a smaller nation decides to attack a larger one, they shouldn't be rewarded any extra for doing so. They should accept the disadvantage they are putting themselves in.

    The purpose of the war range mechanic is to limit a nation's ability to down- or up-declare based on nation score. If down-declaring is really a problem, why is the proposed change not looking at this system instead? Possibly increase the score each city provides, so people with more cities are more quickly pushed out of war range from those with less.

    Or, if C40-C20 down declares are a huge issue and we're looking specifically at city count, why not implement a downward-only restriction based on number of cities? Like you can only down-declare on nation that have a LEAST a certain portion of your cities, say 3/5 or 3/4. Then have no upside limit, so anyone can up-declare C20-C40 if they want to take on that challenge, so long as they are in war range.

    • Like 1
  5. This is an interesting idea. It would add a little more nuance to war, and could make going to war a larger decision. I, however, think this would work a lot better if wars were fought by cities and not by nations. If the wars were city-by-city, you could add these improvements to a city to make a battle at that city more difficult for the attacker.

    To do it that way would require some fairly large adjustments to the war system. It might work if you got to target a specific city with every attack. But then I feel like some additional changes would need to be made in order to make attacks hold more weight (especially in higher-city count wars).

    I personally think I would enjoy a major rehaul of the war system, and this would be a change I'd be willing to see. However, many people are probably content with the current war system and don't want it to change. Plus, a rehaul of the war system would take a lot of time and effort that would take Alex and the rest of the dev team's attention away from other stuff that also needs worked on.

    Overall interesting, but I think it's unlikely to be implemented anytime soon with the current state of the game (and, more specifically, the war system).

    • Like 1
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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