Spooner
-
Posts
770 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
2
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Posts posted by Spooner
-
-
Lel. Let's not forget this also brings in Mensa on Rose's behalf. Gg Valyria.
Bold move though gents, and I must say I respect the move, no matter how suicidal!
Valyria is too low for us to hit really, so the MDP with Mensa/Rose isn't super relevant.
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
yea. I'd done the same.
Then kick Gandalf.
-
7
-
Gandalf, yes you are an autonomous alliance. However, don't be surprised when your allies drop you after a member of your high-government backstabs them.
Yea, Tenages big ass mouth getting coupled with Shell being an idiot getting Mensa dragged into a war we were under built for certainly makes us bad treaty partners.
Who the !@#$ are you again?
Wasn't Ren part of that alliance we rolled when we first joined?
-
Good parenting, imo.
Nah, it's in the genes, tbh
-
1
-
-
-
I feel like at this point you're just advocating for a game in which a group of raiders can essentially destroy the rest of the server piecemeal without any real counter. Which is understandable and it'd be funny for a couple months, but it'd be dead afterwards.
Apparently "I think that you should be able to beige an opponent, regardless of how he feels about it when you win" is the same as "You should be able to destroy the entire game with no counter"
The counter to raiding is being countered, you boob.
-
1
-
-
I don't mind the fortify-not-being-able-to-lose. You could just hit them on the ground over-and-over-and-over again with soldiers for cheap. Destroying infra, stealing money, and killing improvements on the cheap. Fortifying over and over is a stupid strategy -- and one that I expect our enemies will use. If anything it keeps them from lobbing missiles at me.
It's +2, and it stacks. It's not capped.
Not super happy about it beige being able to last from 10-16 days, but since beige "hurts" more than before I'll deal with it.
I'm scratching the hidden missiles/nukes change on the test server, and replacing it with a restriction on spying away missiles and nukes. The restriction is that you won't be able to spy a missile/nuke the same day that it was built - so in the case of a double buy, you'd be able to get 1/2 but not both. And this will prevent missiles/nukes from being spied away as soon as they're built.
This is a better compromise overall, pleased with it. Nice work.
-
3
-
-
Has the "add 2/3 days to beige" thing been clarified yet? I'm curious if it's capped, or if it's stacking up to 8 times total.
-
That's not true. You can still spy away nukes, and build a VDS to mitigate nuke damage. That said, in the real world, there really isn't a "counter" for nuclear weapons.You can't really spy away nukes if you need to do an info check first. That's a *huge* waste of resources if prices stay at they are for spy ops. Spying away nukes that we already know are there is barely worth it right now.
I don't consider building a project that blocks 20% of nukes to be an effective counter. It requires no skill or teamwork, and 20% is a pretty marginal difference for such a steep opportunity cost of a project slot.
In the real world there is a counter for nuclear weapons. Blockades, defense systems, destroying infrastructure, spy/hacking operations. At the very least, nations generally know when other nations have nuclear weapons, if we're going down the "real-world" route.
-
Let's say I created a nation and was trying to build nukes - and every time I built one, someone spied it away within seconds, before I could even use it.
Do you think that would make me more or less sympathetic to your cause?
I don't care if you're sympathetic to my cause. This is completely separate from how your changes effect MENSA.
However, I *do* want your decisions to be informed. Hiding nukes from the public knowledge is an obviously poor solution to any player who has used the espionage system. Regardless of how it balances one side vs. the other.
I'm always open to debating the merits of different changes, how it affects various gameplay and strategies, but I quite frankly don't care to spend the time building a nation and spending time engaging in alliance affairs, as well as developmental affairs.
Also, not to say one way or another, but you would have no idea whether I have a second account that I use to play the game or not. I get called out regularly for "not playing the game" but you really have no proof that's true. I understand that's not how the burden of proof is, but your claims are not as steadfast as you may think they are.
I believe you've stated earlier that you did not have a separate account that you played the game on (outside the test server). This may be my shitty memory. However, literally above that sentence you describe how you don't play the game.
Your interactions with the private dev team also seem to hint that you at least don't really participate in alliance war.
-
It's just a silly change. It makes nukes into a weapon that cannot be countered, whatsoever.
-
Admins should be impartial and if he was in one sphere or the other that might result in bias :/.
Better to have a slight bias than to be shooting in the dark.
-
Also, please don't take this post as condescension. I get that you're trying to make changes that you feel are best for your game, and I'm not saying that you don't understand how your game is played.
All that I'm getting at here is that being an active player in the game you are designing would help set your initial gut-feeling on a more informed path, which i think everyone could agree is in the best interests of us all.
-
1
-
-
This is a fairly simple request. I would like Sheepy to play his game. I don't care if he only logs in once a week or whatever, mostly I want him to get experience with the war module within an alliance.
Just create a 1500-infra 15-city count nation and actually play the game. I'd recommend you roll with our sphere or TEST since we understand the mechanics better than the other side, but if you want to join the other sphere that's cool too.
With all due respect, your intuition on a few mechanics (nukes, specifically) seems to be a bit removed from the experience many of the experienced players have. If you truly believe that hiding nukes from public sight/needing a spy op to even see if they are there/not beiging a player upon using it is in the best interest of the game, that's fine.
I'm speaking as someone with a nuclear plant, but I think that's a bit obscene. It essentially makes nukes uncounterable by players. Also, from a real-life/mechanical standpoint -- nations are aware when other nations have nuclear weapons.
The one avenue we have to pursue diplomacy/roleplay in this game was the Anti-Nuke League, however this update will remove this aspect to the game. So yeah, I have no problems with you nerfing our "side", but imo, this nerf is poor game design.
Also, the test server doesn't count. That's nice and all to sandbox out changes, but the dynamics of a "dead server" are totally different from active interaction.
-
5
-
-
Not being able to know if someone has any nukes without doing an info-check is ridiculous.
If you're concerned about nukes getting spied away too fast (scripting) a decent compromise would be:
-A nuke cannot be spied during the turn it is built in
(or)
-Nukes are only publicly visible if the player with the nuke has less than 25 spies.
Also, Sheepy, you should consider the one-free-spy-op-per-day idea from earlier :3
-
Psweet is correct. The current system is a headache & is easy to get around anyways.
-
You wouldn't have to for this to be exploited.
Worrying about it being exploited is stupid. The flat-rate is more exploitable, anyways.
Also, if you're multi-accounting, you can get ~80% of their income. Making it 85% won't be gamebreaking.
Besides, I don't think people care enough about this game to multi-account at this point that much anyways.
-
Scaling this and making it more lucrative combined with being able to have multiple people on the same network sounds like a recipe for hilarity.
I didn't think you were allowed to "refer" people on the same network as you.
-
So, the current reward structure is:
"When players create their account, they have the option to list a referral by entering in a leader name. For each player you refer to Politics & War, you'll receive $1,500,000 and 50 steel, aluminum, gasoline, and munitions once they've played for two weeks and have reached at least 30 score."
For a player my size, that's literally nothing. An interesting solution might be to give the referrer 5% of net profit produced by the referred player. Not "taxed" from the player, but simply generated and sent to their account. It would scale properly, and in addition, encourages you to get them to stick around rather than just leave.
-
Just to offer a counterbalance against the vocal minority -- the damage to infrastructure and resource looting seem like fair changes. Being able to "stash" resources in non-lootable form was always a silly mechanic, imo.
With the new system, does the "Pirate" perk increase the amount looted, or no?
-
Raw Materials are based on your continent of choice. If your continent doesn't offer it, buy it from the market:
-
The main thing that needs changing, imo, is that consecutive victories shouldn't keep adding 3 days onto the beige timer. If you get hit three times, that's 9 days on beige. If you lose all 8 wars (worst case scenario), that's 24 days of beige.
Each consecutive victory, while in beige, should only add an additional 1 day of beige instead of three.
Just a small change that I think would benefit the new system.
Edit: Nukes not giving *any* beige is a bit silly though, imo. If you don't give any beige, nuclear weapons should have their infra damage nerfed.
-
These nominations seem completely random, tbh.
-
1
-
-
U-S-A U-S-A U-S-A U-S-A
-
6
-
Za Warudo Christmas in Seven Kingdoms
in Alliance Affairs
Posted
I'm a MENSA jerk bully who smells bad, but my hair's really pretty.