Jump to content

Azaghul

Members
  • Content Count

    516
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Azaghul last won the day on September 8 2018

Azaghul had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

391 Excellent

About Azaghul

  • Rank
    Veteran Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location:
    Austin, Texas
  • Alliance Pip
    The Knights Radiant
  • Leader Name
    Azaghul
  • Nation Name
    Middle Earth
  • Nation ID
    11529
  • Alliance Name
    The Knights Radiant

Recent Profile Visitors

1146 profile views
  1. Azaghul

    peace talks

    This is a false comparison: 1) Numerous leaks and rumors about a plan to attack in the immediate or very near future. 2) Conjecture based on past attitudes about what might happen in many months. Of all people someone in GOONS should be able to detect sarcasm.
  2. Azaghul

    peace talks

    It's a process so ridiculous only BK or NPO could come up with and insist on it. BK was stubborn about wanting ridiculous terms when we were allied with them too.
  3. I like the change. Resources were hard to read before.
  4. We all know this was really just about increasing Alex's ad revenue. The timing changes make us look at the ads longer rather than just click past them. Well done Alex. Well done.
  5. This is true, but it could also serve to stimulate revenue sharing and new tactics that make it a little less cookie cutter.
  6. There doesn't have to be only one person playing away games...
  7. 5 seconds is a little much, I'd much rather see a cap on total games (5000?), but overall this isn't bad.
  8. Or maybe some kind of random variability in the way buttons appear on the page with the occasional fake button that would trip up a bot but not a human.
  9. I try really hard to be supportive and say more positive things than negative things about game changes. I know Alex's job is very hard and he's never going to make everyone happy and he catches a lot of undeserved flak. We all owe him just for having this game to play in the first place. So with the point that I really, really don't want to be a whiner: This is bone headed. If there is suspected cheating, suspend the suspected cheaters rather than suspending baseball for everyone. ESPECIALLY in the middle of a big war, when the precedent is to postpone changes until after the war so you don't undermine anyone's strategy or be potentially biased towards one side.
  10. Among the top ten earners they've made enough to get around 2 players from 30 cities to 40 cities. The last 2 major wars have generated over 1 trillion in damages. This really isn't a problem.
  11. I said "helped kill CN", obviously there were other factors. But NPO's tendancies towards creating hegemonic super-blocs, maintaining said blocs for years, and drawing out wars and posturing over terms win or lose, all had a major role to play in killing CN and it's doing the same here.
  12. I agree. As I said I'm glad y'all are here. I was criticizing NPO, not GOONS.
  13. That was hardly his main point. It's about a pattern. The biggest issue is that NPO brought over the same shitty playstyle and culture that they had in CN and that helped kill CN. I'm glad y'all are here and hope I get some good wars out of it this round.
  14. I agree that people will get around it with individual nations. There should also be a cap on individual stockpiles. 1) Even if an alliance's stockpile gets zeroed, they still have all their cities. And they often can get loans after a war. Even starting with nothing, infra is relatively cheap. 2) If the caps are set at a decent level, they could balance things out in favor of losers by limiting how much of a stockpile the winner of the war has after the war, and thus the disparity between the alliances. Right now many alliances have banks that have several months of stockpiled resources. If we have caps, alliances at peace will hit the stockpile and then have to invest elsewhere. Starting a war, buying more cities, and in their newer players. A rough illustration: Currently: Alliance A is twice the size of Alliance B and defeats Alliance B in a war. Both alliances go into the war with 6 months worth of stockpiled cash/resources. They fight for 3 months. Alliance A uses 1 months worth of stockpile to fight and 1 months worth to rebuild. Alliance B uses 3 months worth of stockpile to fight and 2 months worth to rebuild. Alliance A ends with 4 months worth of stockpiling left, Alliance B with 1 month. Alliance A now has a 3 month stockpile advantage. Alliance A takes 2 months to rebuild their stockpile and Alliance B takes 5 months. With Caps: Alliance A is twice the size of Alliance B and defeats Alliance B in a war. Both alliances go into the war capped at 2 months worth of stockpiled cash/resources. They fight for 1.5 months. Alliance A uses .5 months of stockpile to fight and .5 months of stockpile to rebuild. Alliance B uses 1.5 months worth to fight and .5 to rebuild (1 month less than they need). Alliance A has 1 months stockpile left and Alliance B has 0. Because they couldn't do a full rebuild, Alliance B takes an extra month to rebuild without stockpiling again. Alliance A has a 2 month stockpile advantage on Alliance B. Alliance A takes 1 month to rebuild their stockpile and Alliance B takes 3 months. This is of course an oversimplification in a lot of ways. But the point is, if warchests are capped, it limits how much of a warchest advantage one alliance can accumulate over another by setting a maximum for the winner. It sets a maximum amount of time that an alliance effectively needs to be "war-ready" again.
  15. Infinite Citadel has sadly left this world. OOC: For RL reasons, he has some great RL opportunities and can't afford P&W as a distraction any more.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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