Jump to content

Inst

Members
  • Content Count

    1377
  • Joined

Community Reputation

320 Excellent

About Inst

  • Rank
    That is totally NPKJI in my avatar

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Leader Name
    Nila Taylor
  • Nation Name
    Pathos
  • Nation ID
    165874

Recent Profile Visitors

2225 profile views
  1. Look, I'm sort of busy and I have some strategic objectives to obtain. Can you guys, like, not peace out until January? kthxbai.
  2. Part of the design is that attack types are so that resistance efficient attacks are often not damage efficient. Unfortunately, it's backfired to an extent with planes being rather efficient because they destroy resistance so inefficiently. Zephyr put out the point quite well that the shift from "doing nothing" activity to wartime multiple log-ins is bad for player activity and retention. The original idea I was thinking was 50% damage speed, 4x unit cost, which would have made combat more kinetic. But limiting the game to activity hounds and no-lifers isn't healthy.
  3. Starting wars without MAPs doesn't need to be an if-or, it could simply be starting wars with 2-4 or 3-5 MAPs depending on Blitzkrieg/Fortress position (old Blitzkrieg may not be so broken if it were 3-4 or 4-5). One thing that has to be pointed out is that no one is still capable of the classic Mensa "I 3-countered you and blew up your planes before you could even attack" trick. These days, I mainly see 3 decs from NPO (battle groups) and counter times tend to be higher than they should be. Of course slowing the pace of war favors alliances with high activity that can put in hits within 1 turn of attack, but these barely exist anymore.
  4. I think one thing I've pointed out is how war in this game is so antagonistic to casual players. The activity requirements are simply too high, which results in high player attrition during wartime. One way to deal with it is to reduce the speed of war, that is to say, to increase the amount of time available for players to counter, as well as to punish players less for being semi-inactive. The two ways of doing this would be as follows: 1. Reduce MAP generation from one every 2 hours to one every 4 hours, or some other factor. This would also decrease server load, but it'd also make the game a lot less energetic for active players. The averse effects would be that this would effectively punish raiders, as well as decrease the rate in-game in which infra is destroyed. 2. Reduce the rate at which units are destroyed by non-spy ops / improvement destruction. As before, this would make it so that players have more time to counter. The primary adverse effect would be making it harder to stop raiders, as raiders can deal more damage before their military is zeroed out. In both scenarios, this would require the cost of units to be increased to compensate for lower war destructiveness (the point is not to start 12 month wars), and have the adverse effect of making it harder to updeclare and making downdeclares more dangerous, as unit rebuys are more powerful. One way to deal with that is to simply halve the rebuy time, making it so that planes now take 12 days to max out, soldiers take 6 days, and so on. Alternatively, for a third option, soldier, tank, aircraft, and ship maxes could be further increased, but this would make the problems of downdeclares even more irritating, as cities and infra now comprise smaller score components of the game. Still, slowing down the pace of war would have many benefits in that the power of the blitz would be much reduced and that players and alliances would have more time to react to a preemptive strike. It would help reduce the tyranny of the offensive and create more tactical combat that's focused more on counters and deployments instead of simply who gets the better overwhelming blitz.
  5. Inb4 pooball is back and the money markets collapse again.
  6. Inst

    Such a whore

    Ugh, I overslept and missed update. FFFF.
  7. Inst

    Such a whore

    Find me the most humiliating avatar possible (outside of possibly my own), and I'll put in a reasonable sum to end this.
  8. Inst

    Such a whore

    when's the bidding termination?
  9. There's limits to subjugation. And FYI, DB was (and is again) an NPO MDoAP partner. It should have entered the war much earlier.
  10. Clarke was DEIC gov that apparently tried to hide his alliance bank in his "sister"'s brand new account. Currently in Rose right now.
  11. Recycling a term for a specific coalition, how about "Ghost Dancers"?
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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