Spooner

Can resistance go above 100? I.e. I use my initial MAP's to fortify, does my resistance go from 100 -> 110?

30% less efficiency doesn't really matter when it comes to spy ops, tbh. Whether or not that change was added, the result would have been the same.

Re-posting this since it was ignored/not addressed. Alex, what you're doing right now is way way worse for our sphere than what Pre himself even wanted. You seem to think it's a compromise for both side, but this hurts us even more than what Prefontaine was trying to advocate for in the first place. Honestly, giving TEST/Arrgh/Roz the ability to buy back all their spies for free in one day, and having us waste all that cash, would be preferable to keeping spies useless during the blitz. But I'm willing to play this war on hardmode for a change I suppose.

Just to clarify -- in the patch going live soon, will spies do the damage announced with the patch, or will they continue to do !@#$-all to tanks/planes? The wording on your post was a little confusing, some of our members are confused by what you meant.

Just to chime in, MENSA stood with Arrgh when y'all were doing the low-infra strategy (despite us being raided/hit by you). We thought it was clever, and didn't approve of the admin changes targeting it. Gameplay mechanics should always be fought with gameplay mechanics, not outside intervention -- we were planning on creating a "submarine group" of ~10-15 players with max military/low infrastructure to counter the raiders. However, the changes were put in place (after pixel-hugger whining) before we could adopt the strategy.

Thanks Sheepster, I thrive on validation.

Kek, well if you're interested, hit up my PM's with credit sales figures. I'm actually serious btw. Like I said, no we wouldn't. We would have coordinated with allies to hit spies -- you wouldn't have been able to take us *all* out at once, and our allies are coordinated enough to counter spy ops. TEST doesn't have organized allies, though, like I said. Even if MENSA was paperless, though, I don't think we'd complain to Sheepy. We want next war to be harder as it is (why we beiged out SK to let them build up) to go out with a bang.

Honestly, no we wouldn't. We'd get our allies to do counter-espionage operations against the aggressor. TEST is in the unique position of having no coordinated allies, so this was the only real avenue to take. We wouldn't have had to resort to it though.

*fistbump*

Glad to see that your threats in discord haven't amounted to anything. Best of luck with your backup plan on rallying the rest of the game against us. That's your suggestion that I liked more anyways.

Oh also, Merry Christmas you filthy animals.

To elaborate, none of us were upset by the upcoming public change of the new update. Everyone already knew about that and we were fine with it. You had previously said: "Here are the changes coming ~3 days from now". We planned a war with the TEST sphere with those changes and (rough) timetable in mind. Our initial blitz was to trade a surprise attack for a spy advantage during these three days leading up to the war; so we are now at war with TEST. The obvious disadvantage is that now TEST has three days to gather their members to login on daychange/rally allies to attack us. What us MENSA-posters were disappointed in was not the change coming, but what we perceived to be an update mid-war intended to nerf our initial spy attack after complaints from Prefontaine. If Prefontaine's suggestion was implemented (uncap spy buybacks), the spy blitz would have been a horrible decision, but we would have no way to predict that mechanics would change specifically to counteract our blitz. Anyways, your decision is a sound one (even if we would have settled for less, tbh) -- but that's an explanation of our reasoning.

Correctamundo. You could still be (paid) Head Developer or something though for your resume post-college if that's important to you. A cash buyout basically, either 100% equity, or 51% equity -- whichever you'd prefer. If you're serious, do you have records of monthly credit sales?

Also, while this is not the purpose of the OP, I thought I'd address all the test-posting,"I didn't realize that MENSA were such whiners, lol." Honestly, I don't think anyone here is whining. Personally, I always expect the pixel-huggers to run to Sheepy to change mechanics when they've been beat in some way. However, I didn't think that Pre/TEST would sink to that level.

We sacrificed your spies. Blood for the blood god~ No, but in all seriousness -- pushing out updates in the middle of a war seems to be the new norm. We're at war with TEST right now essentially. Yes, they are complaining that we are using a mechanic they are not (using spies during the beige period -- which they were free to do as well). Tywin's suggestion of delaying the spy implementation a week or so after the update is a decent one, and really the only one that makes any sense. I'm still mildly disappointed that an update is being pushed out changing game mechanics during war to disadvantage our side for the umpteenth time (even if this wasn't the intent), but at least it's a sensible "compromise". I'm still of the design philosophy that you should not need to balance wars artificially in your game. We used a mechanic, that everyone knew about, in an organized way, and we beat the other side at the espionage war as our first "blitz" against them. If they want to respond by rallying the rest of the game to counter us with a massive spy operation they are free to do so. Also, Sheepy, would you be partial to a P&W buyout? :3

Imo: -Gathering intelligence/killing spies/killing nukes/missiles should be allowed during beige -Killing soldiers/airplanes/tanks should be disabled during beige

#mensahasbettergenesthanyou

Rose's membership leaks blitzes pretty regularly. However, SK's leadership is the one to leak blitzes, which tends to annoy allies more -- and generally gives more time for enemies to prepare relative to membership leaks.

So the answer to my question "why drop us if you had nobody else to back you up" is: "We had someone else, but they clearly didn't care about us at all" Brilliant political maneuvering. Your house would be killed off in Season 1 of GoT.

If you improve the API, a 1-credit/mo subscription isn't the worst thing in the world. However, capping it based on number of API calls is laughable. We'll just scrape the base pages themselves, tbh -- leading to more server load. I've already coded my scrapers to use the webpages themselves for this very same concern; I was worried you'd try to paywall it like this someday and am too lazy to recode everything.

Then you're even more incompetent than I thought, tbh. Why would you drop the only thing keeping your alliance from being perma-rolled? Edit: I mean, you should have at least had something else lined up before you dropped out.

We dropped you about 5 wars later than we should have too :3

You're not my supervisor.

NPO got rolled by an alliance half it's size and despite it's central planning remains a shitty low-tier laughing stock.

By far my favorite memory of the old war system was Clarke's forum meltdown.