Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Zoot last won the day on June 19 2016

Zoot had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

431 Excellent

1 Follower

About Zoot

  • Rank
    Senior Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Leader Name
  • Nation Name
    The Locos
  • Nation ID

Recent Profile Visitors

1735 profile views
  1. Alright, so while I agree with Alex's reasons for these changes, i am afraid that they will end up having the opposite outcome. First let us take the city score change increase. This change is likely to force alliances to tier their nations even heavier than is already the case since it will make it harder to support people if you do not have the same or almost the same number of cities. This will cause certain alliances or groups of alliances to end up largely in control of certain tiers when it comes to war, similar to what we have seen in previous wars, but to an even larger degree. The issue with this is that, unlike in previous wars, the increased score from cities, makes it harder to hit outside your tier, meaning the side in a war that controls the upper tier will have a harder time downdeclaring and the side that holds the lower tier will have a harder time updeclaring. This will cause the stalemate effect we have seen in previous wars to become even worse as neither side will have the ability to get a decisive advantage over the other. Secondly, let us look at the plane rebuy time (because honestly none of the rest matters at all). Planes are already over powered and making them quicker to buy will do nothing to help that situation. But let us look at the specific reason many are citing, the ability to "make a comeback". In theory that is all fine and good, but in reality what this basically does is make it impossible to hold down large nations, thus giving an advantage to nations with higher city counts. It is already made harder by the city score change since it means you'll have less people able to help hold down large nations and added to that the large nations ability to instantly buy to 2/3 max planes makes it nearly impossible. It means that in order to hold down a large nation you will need nations with similar city counts in order to do it and if you don't have those you are simply out of luck. It will make it near impossible to decisively beat alliances with a higher tiering than your own. So my opinion is that while I totally agree with the intentions of these proposed changes, I don't think they will have the desired outcome, but rather an outcome that is detrimental to the game.
  2. That wouldn't be different than how it has always been. Whichever group can muster the most people to vote controls the result.
  3. Zoot approves. Good people all around.
  4. Perhaps rather than a hard cap a soft cap could be used. Basically if an alliance exceeds its cap the amount above the cap decays. Would allow people to exceed the cap if they wanted to, but not without it costing them. Also while I agree the solution you proposed in the op needs tweeking, I must say I am glad that you are taking this issue seriously and is looking into how to fix it.
  5. It isn't irony if it is true
  6. What is critical thinking? Is it like when you repeat whatever god-emperor Roq says?
  7. True, but that only applies to people who genuinely don't understand, not people who are being intentionally dense in order troll which I truly hope is the case. I simply refuse to believe that anyone is as dense as Arathorn is pretending to be. That would just be too sad. No, in your scenario you are still plotting to have KETOG attacked and are thus a threat to them. Whether NPO would possibly also be a threat is irrelevant to whether you were a threat or not. You were plotting to have someone attacked, thus you were a threat to them.
  8. Alright, let me try one last time to put this in very simple terms, which will hopefully make it easier to understand. Consider the following situation: I say that I am going to gather a coalition to attack alliance A. Who is the threat to alliance A? Me. Now let us expand that to the following: I say that I am going to gather a coalition to attack alliance A and B. As part of that coalition I would like to have alliance C join. I don't have any confirmation on whether alliance C is on board or not, but I am planning on asking them. Who is the threat to alliance A and B in this scenario? Still me. Now let us transfer it to the current situation: You say, in the leaks, that you were going to gather a coalition to attack KETOG and CHAOS. As part of that coalition you would have liked to have NPO join. You didn't have any confirmation on whether NPO was on board or not, but you were planning on asking them. Who is the threat to KETOG and Chaos in this scenario? YOU. You can keep trying to twist it any way you want, the facts remain. That is just nonsense. If you are going to try and argue at least do it in a coherent way that makes at least some sense.
  9. You are not making any sense. You saying you are going to have someone else do your dirty work by hitting KETOG does not change the fact that you were the ones planing to have them hit. You saying "We are going to get a coalition together and have KETOG and Chaos attacked", is and always will be you planing a war, you presenting a thread. Doesn't matter who you say you are going to invite to be part of your coalition, it is still you making a coalition. As for Rose's involvement, I have nothing to add to the comment already made here:
  10. HEY! You're not supposed to be doing that!
  11. No, you are not. KETOG and Chaos are connected by the fact that the leak showed TCW and co planing a war against both of them. They are temporarily united by a clear, immediate common threat No, because while the leak mentioned trying to ask t$/NPO to hit KETOG, it was still TCW and by extension you guys, planing to have both KETOG and Chaos attacked. The threat was not in how you intended to split the targets in your planned attack, the threat was in that you planned to have them attacked in the first place. Attacking NPO because you planned to have KETOG attacked makes no sense. The planning, the plotting, the threat, was yours and thus you were attacked.
  12. People refusing to believe something doesn't keep you from proving them wrong. Also if you had anything even remotely like the evidence you are suggesting then you should have presented it in the OP. Claiming evidence without providing it just makes you look bad.
  13. You have played these games long enough to know not to pay too much attention to what people say on the forums. Also much of the flack you have been receiving has been based on people assuming you would pull a move like this. Had you just not done that it would made fools of many of your detractors and helped convince many others that you had changed. Instead you did this...
  14. Mate, if you guys had just kept your noses clear of this entire war no one would have had any more of an issue with you than people always have with spheres that aren't their own. Any animosity you are facing is of your own making due to your, frankly, appalling handling of this entire thing. You have, basically, done everything to ensure that people would be the most upset with you. Had you stayed out, most people would have been chill. Had you kept to the limited engagement, most people would have been mildly annoyed, but at least you would have kept your word and not fully entered. Had you entered completely straight away people would have been pissed about it, true, but at least you would have made the move honestly. Instead you chose this weird ass way of going about things that, as I said, I don't think could make you look worse, even if you tried...
  • Create New...

Important Information

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