Zevari
-
Posts
124 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Posts posted by Zevari
-
-
3 hours ago, Alex said:
o Military Salvage
§ Effect: When you declare an attack and are victorious, recover 5% of lost steel/aluminum from units in that attack.
Cost:
Does this only affect your troops? Or will you get salvage from all units that died in the battle?
-
1
-
-
2 minutes ago, Sweeeeet Ronny D said:
oh you are right, i misread that, if the war expires, the attacker gets the win? or does the defender get the win?
I thought it was meant to be who-ever had lower resistance.
But the wording makes it seem like the defender gets 2.5 days beige and loots/infra breaks the attacker -
6 minutes ago, JadenStar10 said:
Thats the point. This overhaul is supposed to make it harder for those who have won the conventional warfare and easier for those who have lost it to make a come back.
So we changed from allowing some degree of strategy to making it whoever is richer/has more nations wins?
-
3
-
-
52 minutes ago, Who Me said:
Ah yes, but pirates are after loot and stats so attacking zeroed out nations that give out zero loot is a losing proposition for them is it not? They are just wasting their time and effort that could be used elsewhere for better profit. You can say a lot of things about the pirates in this game but saying they are stupid is not one of them.
That's assuming the zeroed out people are not being stupid and keeping a decent amount of loot on their nations.
Warchests and player stupidity make alliance nations very juicy targets at times. -
5 hours ago, Zei-Sakura Alsainn said:
After a cursory by-hand glimpse at the HoF wars page since the start of the war on June 29th, 2022, I have found a grand total of:
7, wars against Hollywood nations. I think one or two of these were within 48 hours of the blitz.
Hundreds, against Celestial, including near a hundred, maybe beyond, I don't have sheets and I'm sure as shit not counting all of these by hand, on the day of the blitz.
But yeah no they totally blitzed both sides! They're totally fighting both Actively! You can tell because while fighting a victorious militarized sphere outnumbering them 12:1 they're getting bored and clubbing Polaris and random micros while having full military!
Not to say that they slotfilled, but this rhetoric implies they've been even close to evenly hitting both sides and therefore it's ridiculous for Ro$e to target them. This is what HC has been trying to claim.
Yeah, no. Please stop reiterating this total and complete nonsense. It is blatantly and patently false, let's not contribute to it spreading.
To be fair, If I was a pirate I would much rather go after the person that got zeroed out and is barely putting up a fight.
You guys offer far more profit and easier hits than any other alliance or sphere right now. Sure they could hit Hollywood, and some of them tried, but having a sphere of basically max militarised players actively hunting for more wars is never a good choice for a pirate, pretty much a one way ticket to being zeroed and beiged.-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Horsecock said:
I don't believe for a second that a single Ro$e member with 0 military would declare attrition wars on multiple max military 700 infra HoF (who they're not even at war with) members with the honest intention of doing damage. Even the ones who did attacks only did so specifically to AVOID slot filling moderation. And yes, I'm arguing against my own benefit here, since having our slots filled massively helps us.
I honestly agree with that, I've seen a few people declare on HoF and Arrrgh people while they have zero military and clearly no intention to missile/nuke a pirate.
Personally I think beige fishing against people you are in a global with is perfectly fine, but the second you start looking for outside sources (pirates and raiders in this scenario) it should be a breach of the rules.
Beige fishing the enemy is reasonable, you are basically testing their beige disciple and overall co-ordination.
-
5
-
1
-
-
9 hours ago, Jason said:
If you install docs script it will take 20 minutes a day and will make you 4m a day (with paying tips) if you have max stats if you want extra you can play aways and make some extra cash not as much and fast as the first 250 home games but good money (like 50m if you play for a whole day)
it costs 44m to max your team and you make it back in 11 daystrue, but with the upcoming nerfs odds are baseball will be hardly worth the effort
-
6 hours ago, SleepingNinja said:
Care to comment why TI's always selling down their peacetime infra builds before yall go to war? Yall are that desperate to appear competent huh. Some of us notice your C30's dropping from 3k peacetime infra builds to 2k/1.65k. Very impressive strategy.
Care to provide some evidence to back your claims up?
The only major case of infra selling I have ever seen was from your own alliance and that one is quite well documented in many news servers, not to mention leaks showing attempts to suppress the news getting out.
-
10 minutes ago, Prefontaine said:
Updates will be on hold to go live until the war settles down, however many rounds that takes. Once things are a little more stable in that regard we will work on pushing live updates that don't impact war directly, like the Naval tweaks.
Baseball lives for another week!
-
1
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Prefontaine said:
During wars it was more than 5 people. I'm sure the idea for GPWC started with a few people and then ballooned into the 1k+ that it was.
Who ever is inflating this balloon should be fired, been years and it's still empty...
-
On 6/11/2022 at 1:00 AM, Prefontaine said:
The Goal:
- Reduce the global wars are won in the first day (barring many alliances joining later)
-
Reduce the amount of times players have to sit on a nation effectively doing nothing but absorbing missiles/nukes
- Thus promoting players who win the war, actually winning wars.
Summary:
- No Change allows for blitzes to determine the whole war as nations can sit upon the defeated party. This promotes stagnate wars in game, but more politically decisive wars. The aggressor is often the victor unless they perform poorly or are attacking sizable outnumbered odds.
- Something in the middle allows for partial rebuilds. This will guarantee a break from the war, getting out of blockade, but only a partial rebuild of units. Players will come out of beige status with less than full fighting power and likely no rebuilds. Risks being tactically pointless. If your side lost of the opening wave coming out coordinated as a weaker version of yourself likely does nothing
- Full rebuild. Allows for the possibility of the side who wins the first round not winning the whole war. Allows alliances to coordinate meaningful second or further rounds of warfare. Sitting on nations stops becoming a predominate strategy. Risks becoming a "who has more" resources or members battle. Risks wars being longer as nations may continue to fight back as they can no longer be held down.
While at first glance these seem okay I feel like they have a much worse impact for the game than the current system does. Namely that any sort of rebuild will directly buff the higher tiers and nerf the low tiers making it significantly harder to up-declare and much easier to down-declare. I do have a suggestion for this though (but it isn't amazing if i'm honest)
- The size of the rebuild depends on who hit them, this will be calculated off of the largest nation currently attacking them. E.g A c20 is hit by two c30s and a c20, they will get a full rebuild opportunity. c30 is hit by three c20s hence the c30 gets no rebuild. If a c30 was hit by two c20s and a c30 they would get a partial rebuild.
- Your biege time is calculated according to rebuild time, hence no rebuild would mean extremely short or even no biege (punishing for down declares).
The idea is to reward people for punching above their weight and punish them for taking easier hits. This would give players the ability to strategically hit targets to pull them down and keep them down while allowing the fight to be more contested even during the event of a blitz.
I just don't see a world where a basic biege change will help, it seems like a more complex system is needed otherwise we will be stuck in a constant cycle. -
43 minutes ago, katashimon13 said:
20 whole players oh no
the horror
no really if u want us to have an actual discussion give numbers
rawr
Yeah... But there are also another 200 people in said server. Plus those 20 people are arguably the ones this change should be discussed with.
@Prefontaine made this post to because in his word a change must happen, so why are we discussing the change with the people it doesn't affect?
You realize the stupidity of this right? Letting people who would never even interact with this part of the game decide what is best and balanced.
You know what would have made this processes a lot smoother? Getting in that server that has a large baseball community (including many of the top earners) discussing a change with them and then making a post about it on the forums. The best of both worlds with way less backlash from the community being affected. -
Honestly what annoys me the most with this post and many others of similar nature is after the first page or two of discussion the dev team just goes radio silent and seemingly ignores everything else that happens. It feels like at times they take one or two suggestions, implement them as a "Hey we totally considered your opinion" and then changed it to what they desired...
Want my honest suggestion? Go join Doc's baseball server and start some dialogue with the real people who play the game. There are probably over 20 players with max teams there and even more without who still play. It would serve as the perfect way to negotiate a change that players can accept while still achieving your goals.-
3
-
-
6 minutes ago, Isjaki said:
Yes. Time is money. Politics and War is neither a p2w nor a t2w game. One might put in hours trading, but can't really prevent that since it's a market inefficiency they are taking advantage of. Can nerf a game mechanic though.
At this point the game is arguably both pay to win and play to win. With 400 million worth in redeemable credits a month and mechanics like raiding, trading and baseball which all offer higher yields depending on the time invested.
(plus the fact your nation link leads to a deleted page tells me all I need to know) -
13 hours ago, Isjaki said:
This game is based on skill, and by keeping baseball as a viable cash generator, me and other players who don't have enough time to invest into baseball are being left behind by those who do.
For a catch up mechanic to be viable, it needs to be accessible to players who have time as well as who don't. Rewarded ads runs in our backgrounds with a script while we are busy doing other things, so no one complains about it, naturally. Baseball is a much more significant time and cash investment.
This is probably one of the worst opinions I have ever read...
So you are telling me that players who can't dedicate time to a game deserve to be equally progressed as those who can? Are you flipping insane buddy? Have you somehow never played games outside of P&W before?
The core of games is meant to be time = progress and even 'idle' games follow this logic...
17 hours ago, Prefontaine said:For those unaware, baseball has several issues in terms of balancing with respect to the game. When used casually it is not disruptive, however there are some who do not use baseball casually. Here are the main talking points
- There are players bringing in over 8M a day playing baseball (240M per month)
- These high end players largely use bot assisted tools
- Recent game disruption (serve crashing) was a result of these tools.
So I'm just going to break this down
So first and foremost, If you know the top players are running rule breaking bots then use your Alex gifted powers to ban or punish them. In regards to this, baseball ON AVERAGE even when filtered for only the active players has been show to not even make a 2x return.... For the time invested and the fact that alternative and far more profitable methods exist makes this number look laughably low.
Where did I get this 2x return? From Alex himself!It doesn't take much to see the GLOBAL average return is just over 40% of the invest cash... This holds true on the individual averages even when filtered by activity. (Not to mention the data is actually heavily skewed because it includes Pre-nerf baseball income)
The final point is somewhat valid, but I feel the fault here is the backwards UI design of baseball and how easily exploitable that makes it.
I've got some easy solutions
1. Improve the UI to the level of scripts Doc makes. (this raises accessibility and limits the ability of players to break things)
2. Money for each game is pooled then split 30-70 (30 to the away, 70 to the home) by default, reduces server impact by minimizing the need to track games, request trades and message players.
3. Make the 250 home games a hard cap and separate that counter from aways (so away games are infinite and don't affect number of home games played) This directly makes it so players can only make money if people haven't done their games yet. Prevents the spam of low profit home games that some players do.
What does this result in? Well now we have a soft cap on the daily revenue (entirely dependent on how many players exist since home games are capped) and top earners and indirectly nerfed by the "increased" profits of away games. (more players will do them due to the decreased hassle of tracking and requesting tips).17 hours ago, Prefontaine said:Some other points to note:
- Baseball is heavily used by some alliances as part of the military strategy for funding nations in blockade, or otherwise down and out in a war. I expect them to have a heavy protesting presence here.
- Baseball is not intended to be a core, or necessary mechanic in the game.
In our solutions to how to address Baseball problems is that we don't want to burden the players who want nothing to do with baseball to have be essential to growth. An early solution to this was a proposed daily 5M cap that was much easier to reach. 5M per day is 10x the normal max login bonus, 10% of a whales income, over double a newish players income, and would be the largest single source of revenue outside of lucky raids. Anyone who didn't play baseball for this 5M would fall behind easily.
Baseball is proposed to have the following changes:
- Daily revenue from baseball is capped at $1M
- Players age rate is reduced by 25% (retire more slowly)
- Revenue from baseball is increased 25% (makes getting to the $1M easier)
1. Baseball is unavailable during blockades (It's a for of cash flow, blockade should block that)
2. Baseball is an option not a requirement. Nobody is forcing people to spend time playing it, but it is an option to help people accelerate growth or supplement their income. (it also proportionality helps new nations far more than older ones)
3. It isn't essential to growth, just like how raiding, trading and running businesses are not essential to growth. Also there really isn't such thing as a "lucky" raid. You can easily find high value targets using bots or manual searches rather than blindly declaring war. It also isn't particularly difficult to learn how to do so either, go ask @The Whalehow much they were making from raiding alone in their first two weeks of playing the game.
4. Lets look at your proposed value changes (using Alex's data!) We will adjust global income to predict what this change would do to baseball. I'll even be generous and heavily favor the change by maximizing the decrease in investments and minimizing the decrease in revenue.Total invested into baseball all-time is: $69,020,062,694.96
Total earned from baseball all-time is: $113,750,636,412.21
Net value added to the game is: $44,730,573,717.25
So lets be generous and just half the total earned cash from baseball (realistically it's 1/5 since cap would be 1mil instead of about 5mil from 250 maxed games)
We are left with $56,875,318,206 earned.
Now lets reduce the total invested by the maximum of 25% (this accounts for the 25% slower aging and even then is generous because of other costs)
This leaves us with $51,765,047,020
Net value of around 5 Billion...
Well would you look at that even with the most generous ratio using your data this went from reasonably profitable to basically losing money on all standpoints.
As a matter of fact this change would essentially kill the profitability for casual players and only players who play baseball on a daily basis would stand to make money... It would be better off just deleting baseball than implementing this change because at least then newbies wouldn't waste money.-
4
-
9 hours ago, Thalmor said:
These just aren't mutually exclusive. I don't have to make up my mind about anything. Blocs forming MDPs with each other is something that can only occur within a multisphere world - which is more free - while also being bad for the game.
This is where I believe you and many others to be wrong. This treaty takes advantage of every aspect of a multisphere world, creates new situations (both politically and militarily) and prevents what I would argue is a far more boring option of twiddling our thumbs fully militarised waiting for clock to finish the war. The mere fact this thread has reached 14 pages long and record number of dislikes is a testimony of its entertainment value. I would put money on a DOW from HW or Celestial getting half the posts here (and even then about 3 pages would be due to CB complaints)
By condemning politics that don't lead to war you are basically strangling any unique creative freedom, plus stuff like this provides new CB options for alliances like Blocc to use on either Celestial/HW in the future (or to even jump on both when they are fighting each other).
Tldr: Anything that's unique is going to be 100x better than the same bullshit people pull every war, it refreshes the diplomatic scene and creates more interesting dialogue.-
2
-
-
On 5/31/2022 at 3:19 AM, HeroofTime55 said:
How is Clock "cowardly" for responding to an effort, fully admitted to, to orchestrate a curbstomp against them? It would be irresponsible to not punish the instigators of such a conspiracy. You're a funny dude, dude.
If i'm not mistaken it was proven pretty early on in this thread that Backrooms were looking for specifically whales to join them to make it an even fight. But then again I guess it's easier to divert blame to a temporary treaty than to admit BR had any chance of winning this war. And you call the non-belligerents cowards... Ironic.
32 minutes ago, Thalmor said:I also disagree that minispheres is dead. There's 6 distinct spheres. These past two years have had very organic, unpredictable, and fluid politics occur between the spheres. I mean, nobody saw this treaty coming. Nobody saw Mystery-Oasis happening. Nobody saw Guns and Rose happening (or ending) the way it did. Nobody saw Hollywood forming. Nobody saw Quack disbanding. The list goes on. We live in a multisphere world that is far different from the bipolarity of the early years of the game. It doesn't exist 'in theory,' it exists in practice in the present.
Ironically, it's moves like this treaty that are taking steps to end this multipolarity. Very ironic to see people from the same side sticking the knife in and say "oh yeah, crime is getting really bad these days."
How can you in one sentence praise this treaty as "fluid politics of minispheres" then call it "anti-minisphere" in the next? You need to make up your mind man, is this treaty (and Mystery-Oasis as extension) a dynamic part of mini-spheres or are they both counterproductive and damaging to the concept?
I mean personally by looking at the recent events and the history certain alliances have, the consolidation of spheres isn't going to happen because of a treaty that prevents chaining wars. Because at the end of the day, said treaty only works in an environment where mini-spheres exist.-
1
-
1
-
-
12 hours ago, Ducc Zucc said:
Yeah I'm arguing it's a good thing that it's becoming more common, stuff actually happening in game is much better than some agreement to let a few spheres farm slightly more efficiently. The only dialogue you're getting is people calling out this move for how !@#$ it looks. Sphere to sphere MDPs are just sad, even if its conditional, if you don't feel safe with your own sphere get a new one or just deal with it, not that hard,
For your last point, I can't speak for the spheres but any war we plan at HoF isn't going to be a dogpile. It's a shame that last winter Oasis and Mystery leaders got paranoid but I can't control that, that war was definitely the least satisfying one I've been in. Dogpiling is a whole other monster that we can get into but it's not related to chaining. For chain wars the most strain is put on to the alliances chaining, the blitz is the most expensive part of the war and you gotta pay for that twice. We also don't have years of member deposits to tap into like TKR, T$, and Rose, so I don't get why people want to throw flak at this idea.
I can agree to some extent with what you are saying but I still believe situations like these are interesting and good for the game at large. Last time this happened MysterOasis got rolled hard for it, this time you can't as easily roll HW or Celestial but it doesn't mean the other spheres are without methods of dealing with it. Who said punishment had to be dished out now? You could easily wait for a future moment (after the treaty expires) and use this situation as a CB to jump one of them. Alternatively it would be quite the interesting situation to have a third party jump on HW and Celestial if they ever go to war (creating an effective 1v1v1 but with the newcomer being higher milled).
This is why I think this shit is good, it creates short term benefits but long term problems for the parties involved, people need to stop doing politics like it's a bipolar world. Conflicts can have more that two sides with our current system and the shit storm it could create would be amazing.
(also I can appreciate the fact you don't dogpile as much as other spheres/alliances considering you stayed out this current war)On a side note would a chained blitz not be quite cheap since your target has typically demilled, I would expect it to cost the opponent far more to try counter it.
-
1
-
-
8 minutes ago, Ducc Zucc said:
Anyone going to point out that chaining wars isn't bad at all? It's actually a good play that creates content unlike this zero chromosome play you guys just made. TKR choosing this hill to die on is especially stupid seeing as they've done the same thing twice before.
If i'm being honest I think that's half the reason this treaty exists. It's becoming increasingly common for spheres to chain wars, TKR and Cata are both guilty of it and nobody can blame them for it. It's an easy opportunity to take advantage of other players decisions and to push an agenda.
What we are effectively seeing now is the result of these chain wars, both a bi-product of the multi-sphere state the game is in. At the end of the day stuff like this is more interesting to me than seeing a month long war end with each party shaking hands and pretending it didn't happen. At least we get some interesting dialogue, events, memes and other bull shit.Also be real mate, repeating the same tactic over and over isn't entertaining, especially when said tactic involves rolling (or as some would say "dogpiling") a smaller sphere cause having a fair fight (like you all yap on about) is to hard to do apparently.
-
4
-
-
7 minutes ago, His Holy Decagon said:
I also wonder why either party to this treaty actually even cares if the other is hit, really weird to think about that
Pretty simple mate it's called a division of risk. Rather than risk a coin flip over who would be hit, they can effectively split the cost between themselves and deter any potential attacker.
Lets say this treaty came out without Article 3, I would not be surprised to see one of the two spheres get hit, it is a big target that a well co-ordinated blitz could take down and earn some decent reputation off of.
1 hour ago, KittenGosCrazy said:Here is a pitstop for anyone reading through the thread
I'll take a syndisprite, immortal gum and [Redacted] please!
-
1
-
-
8 minutes ago, Alexander the Great said:
All of you people thinking that everyone who disagrees with your decision wants to randomly attack your precious pixels are delusional and paranoid in the highest, most extreme degree.
You realise a lot of people were using that as one such example for justifying Article 3 because at the end of the day its basically the same as adding warranty to something. 9 times out of 10 you will never make your money back, but that hypothetical 1 in 10 makes you do it anyway.
This is basically the current scenario, the odds of either of them being jumped is quite low, but neither of them want to bear the full costs of a blitz especially after just demilitarizing. So the treaty that literally affects nobody and will vanish after the current war.
28 minutes ago, Alexander the Great said:The issue that I (and most of Aurora & friends) have seen, is game stagnation.
This is a game. That exists. For war too. Not just politics
It's amazing how you can condemn game stagnation in one sentence and in the next say we should stop doing politics (which adds more flavour) and just do war.
Doesn't that sound like a lovely idea? We just all set an alarm, when it goes off we punch each other in the face and then go back to sleep. That sounds like a totally diverse and entertaining game!
The thing is, a lot of players find enjoyment from the buildup to a war and the conflict that goes on. Shit will be boring if the reason for going to war is just "we haven't had one in a while".-
2
-
-
1 minute ago, Leftbehind said:
People tend to forget that an FA's job is to create situations that will either benefit them now or later. Sometimes, it involves leaps of faith not safety nets.
I love how this one sentence is best applied to you of all people....
What could possibly be the short or long term benefit of creating a situation where a sphere can demilitarize and raise their income? -
16 minutes ago, Leftbehind said:
Maybe you don't get it or maybe you are trying to get that glorious moment where you can flex your vastly superior intelligence upon us wayward fools. Hell, maybe you are a troll sacrificing his intelligence in order to get a what you view as a rise out of me. I simply do not know but the one thing I do know, is that if HW put more effort into FA than we wouldn't get this FA killing treaty.
Imagine being so scared of Clock that you need to sign skytrash. I expected this from them but not HW.
Damn, I guess I don't understand FA at all than. I was under the assumption that creating dialogue between two major spheres (ones that are rivals at that) and creating a rather unique treaty that fully takes advantage of the multi-sphere based politics is horrible FA.
I guess next time everyone should just sit 100% milled and twiddle their thumbs waiting for backrooms and clock to finish their war and de-mil. That is clearly so much better FA and much more engaging for the community.-
5
-
-
We have had a lot recent discussion about solving higher tier down declares where people can at times hit 10+ cities lower than them. But I feel like something that is being pushed under the rug is lower tiers and the affects these changes are having.
To be specific, I the recent 75 nation score range had a rather interesting affect. I know some people at c4 who despite having only max soldiers and tanks can't hit another c4 with identical infra but zero military. This is really dumb, not only do they lose potential raiding targets but in the scenario of a war a player on a similar level zeroed out could rebuild a significant portion of their troops before even being back in war range.
Now this would actually be quite simple to fix and I already have two potential solutions off the top of my head.
1. Every nation can attack people within 1-2 cities of them.
or
2. If you are trying to hit a nation on the grey activity bloc you get an extra 25% down declare range. (For a total of 50%)
TL:DR Nerfing down declares is fine, but a 25% down declare for a whale is significantly different than a 25% down declare for smaller nations. Whales might be able to hit 10 cities lower, but some smaller nations can't even hit one city lower. Try account for shit like this before tinkering with crap, the bulk of the player base exists in the low tier, not the high.-
5
-
PSA: Military Salvage Sucks
in Orbis Central
Posted
Out of curiosity for the project, does it only salvage units you lost in battles or all units that died? (If it's the former then refer to the below suggestion, if not ignore me)
If it only salvages your own units than an easy way to buff this would be to make it so the winner salvages 5% of ALL troops destroyed in the battle.
So if you attack and get any sort of failure, the enemy would scrap all units you lost and they lost.
If you attack and got a victory of any sort you scrap everything that died in that battle.