Jump to content

Kemal Ergenekon

VIP
  • Posts

    1326
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Posts posted by Kemal Ergenekon

  1.  

    7 hours ago, James II said:

    Spying a nuke away and killing someones spies should not be *basically* guaranteed. Sure you might miss one, but that's about it. That does not aid in creating dynamic game play, nor is it remotely realistic.

    If you remove the ability to use spies to sabotage nukes, then spies become *completely* useless. That makes the game less dynamic. It would be equivalent to removing spies altogether, because they aren't remotely useful for anything else.

    • Upvote 1
    • Downvote 1
  2. Lol. So 2 days of 100% protection for your nukes, and reducing 1 more nuke kill every 2-3 days is insufficient protection? Give me a break.

    Spies have 3 main uses:

    1) Kill people's nukes

    2) Kill people's spies

    3) Protect your own nukes from others' spies by reducing their chance of success as long as your spies live.

    If the spy rebuild rate is going to be increased, it needs to come coupled with a higher chance of sabotaging nukes when the opponent has more than 2-3 spies. Else, nukes will be invincible until they are used.

    • Upvote 1
    • Downvote 1
  3. 3 hours ago, Sir Scarfalot said:

    No, it's not an exploit, it's a rational decision that still costs those that do it dramatically. Actually fortifying on time like I described is actually extremely difficult and requires literally perfect play for days. This is the best possible solution, going any further opens the door for permafarming, which is a considerable problem that needs to be avoided.

    You are entitled to your own false opinion, of course. The fortify option before the update allowed nations with zero military prevent getting looted whenever they wanted. You want to loot someone's resources? You cannot, no matter how strong you are militarily. Beiges only happened if one side was inactive, or wanted to get beiged on purpose, which usually happened after they hid their resources somewhere else. Now they still have access to the same strategy, but at least they won't be able to switch after fighting a little or lobbing a nuke, and they will have to be active enough to use all of their MAPs in time.

  4. The only thing that can be said for certain is that now the wars will be costlier:

    1) More slots needed to achieve same production -> More infra per city needed -> Infra rebuilding costs go up -> Infra rebuilding takes longer

    2) Less production of resources overall -> Smaller warchest development given the same amount of time -> Warchest rebuilding takes longer

    So this update will encourage either snoozefests or shorter wars.

    • Upvote 5
  5. To be fair, this is right by coincidence.  The physics of car racing are symbolic of team management...

     

    ...especially when you consider how F1 is only contested by one or two teams every season.  Some teams start ahead and they stay ahead.  Other teams can't even compete because year after year, not only do the teams with the initial points lead stay in the lead, but the companies with the best performance also maintain their revenue streams and sponsors.  This is why Williams and McLaren have fallen out of the running and why Lotus has disappeared.  It's also why Mercedes has jumped back on top after being absent for so long by recruiting Nico Rossberg and Lewis Hamilton, and why Vettel still succeeds after leaving Red Bull for Ferrari that hired Michael Schumacher back in the day.  

     

    On the other hand, it also explains why this game direly needs a server reset.  Compare F1 to other sports that have salary caps while the season resets every team's record year after year like American football, baseball, basketball, and hockey.  The sports remain competitive and expand their fan bases.

     

    You cannot reset gudness.

    • Upvote 2
  6. I mean, BK didn't do too terrible this past war (Neither did NPO) even though they took a lot of damage.  So I'm just trying to figure out what the expectations were that they failed on achieving and how that was any worse than other alliances involved.

     

    I don't think they did terrible either. But I think their past reputation was stellar (I remember lots of people claiming BK fought better than Mensa in some past wars), hence the high expectations.

  7. How is BK winning "Failed to Meet Expectations"?

     

    People regarded BK very highly when they were on the Syndisphere side, but they failed to deliver as much as people have expected when they switched to IQ. In fact, IQ must have thought that BK's switch was sufficient for a victory over Syndisphere given that they attacked.

  8. Somehow this isn't quite as salt filled as I would have hoped... :(

     

    Then you must have hoped for something saltier than the Elemental Plane of Salt. Just imagining what you might have hoped for made my blood pressure shoot up. Dio protect us.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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