Beowulf the Second

Are you !@#$ing kidding? You guys encoded a treaty upgrade between yourselves and Rose in a 13 minute youtube video of morse code?

corn approves

i vote that everyone non-Syndisphere treaties into Syndisphere, thus making the game boring, thus when the next war happens in two months Syndisphere rips itself apart its pretty easy to treaty into syndisphere since its so big. you might have to drop other treaties in order to do so, and you might have to eat your humble cake because face it we're winnin right now non-Syndisphere gets to choose balance of power in upcoming war by treatying accordingly: ex. if they all tie to Mensa (also could tie to Rose and other exclusive mensa allies), Mensa becomes central and prob rips on someone else this started out jokingly but fk its actually not a bad plan.

@Rozalia I think the point is that he's encouraging beiging in order to give losing sides chances to regroup, instead of the 'never beige, continually stomp' method

Ah screw it I still don't entirely understand you. I get the sentences, I just don't get the logical flow xD I'll just say that I maintain that Alex should really only be there for long-term game design, and stop making abrupt changes because it causes quite a few problems Meet you on the battlefield Phiney! We'll compare e-peens there

Apologies, I'm not entirely sure what you're getting at. No, I believe the spies in the new system have this role because of the direct (and therefore intentional) buff to conventional damage by spies. From one military improvement's worth of units to something like 5% of units. I'm also rather sure that Alex meant to make spies have a more prominent role conventionally, because it is a direct buff lol EDIT: What do you mean by best of both systems? We don't want both the old and new systems, we just want one DOUBLE EDIT: Oh you mean that we were utilizing the fact that spy casualties are still up now, and will be taken down a notch later. Well that's not the primary concern in any of this, although it did help our side a little bit you guys would still have been zero spied even with 30% less casualties

I think this is true only at face value. Sure, the side who blitzed and received a 'spy advantage' will retain a 'spy advantage'. However, spies have completely different roles in the new and old systems, and so the spy advantage will be completely different. Spies in the new system are extremely valuable in regular warfare. They provide significant supplementary damage alongside a regular core of forces. Ops still deal little enough damage that high levels of coordination is required in order to edge out an opponent and snowball an advantage. With teamwork and planning, spies become an x-factor that can edge out city (recruitment) advantages. Spies in the old system are nuke killers. They deal insignificant damage to conventional troops for their cost, and cannot be utilized in high enough numbers (3 ops per day) to even gain an advantage by sinking impractical amounts of money into it. It counters point-and-click nuke turreting by slightly more coordinated pointing-and-clicking. As you can see, SyndiHQ would not have put work into a clandestine offensive to gain the old system's spy advantage. We may have surprised a lot of people if not for the decision to spy blitz instead besides Prefontaine-the-All-Knowing. Alex, please do not equate some avoided nuke damage to a conventional warfare edge.

Smashing someone's conventional military during beige using spies seems pretty unfair: I think you should go for the change. However, I'm also agreed with Spooner, leave spies/intelligence/nuke/missile spying alone as they aren't affected by the 6-30% buff anyways.

Haha I love how this started out so nicely intentioned, holiday spirit and everything and then quickly devolved into baiting and trolling. Stop messing with the poor dude, guy just wanted to be nice to his fellow micros during Christmas

I have no dog in this race but this seems to have really escalated out of nowhere. What made a diplomatic solution impossible?

Pretty substantial direct/indrect nuke buffs. No more recovery time for nuked nations through the old beige mechanic Cannot snipe nukes anymore after initial nuke stocks are depleted Spies are killed slower, ensuring more nukes are launched from initial nuke stock Did the damage nerf to nukes go through? I'm kind of worried that the (now guaranteed) two nukes a turret can launch late in a war will outdamage even complete conventional military dominance.

I very much enjoy that wars mean something now: significant money looting, resource looting, and infrastructure damage. I will note that 7 beiges will halve one's infrastructure, which along with nukes will discourage greedy, high infra play. The fortify mechanic giving you beige invulnerability is weird to me not because its a viable tactic to use conventionally against another player, but because it allows an alliance to store its entire resource pool in one nation and protect it through 'legitimate' means. Store up the alliance money by buying resources and putting it in a nation and that stuff becomes unraidable as well. Unraidable stuff sucks

>upvotes Keegoz >visibly shudders

Thanks, that's way more than I was hoping for. I'll buy back up to where I was and then spend the rest on land or something

I agree; I like testing the stuff that comes out, that's why I'm on the server. Keep in mind that these bugs are preventing me from testing any of the new mechanics, which is why I'm frustrated I had just obtained the advantage and now I really will get perma-rolled by this NPO guy and his single missile/nuke I dunno if you mind restoring resources, but it'll take me quite a while to get back on my two feet after having 75% of my manufactureds raided by one missile. I'll go into VM for a bit until this clears up

Your latest test server update has bugs everywhere, and really it's screwed me completely over. Never mind all the text issues, look at what your new combat system has in store. 1) A single missile dropped my resistance to 0 and won my opponent the war. 2) The loot he received included 100% of my gas, 100% of my steel, 100% of my money, ~50% of my munitions, and ~33% of my alum. 3) Because he received 100% of my money, all my cities were depowered, including my commerce. This turned my income negative and compounded the problem. 4) I now have to reformat all my cities, and/or demilitarize everything and bring it back again, but I can't afford to do that all before my beige time is up because I have no resources or money. Thus, I will continue to get rolled in the same manner. 5) What the fk man seriously, please roll this back

Great, more 'alliance affairs'. Get this garbage out of here lmao

Water is cheaper and cleaner, so water. There's a cultural barrier of course, but I've always thought that those things are dumb and hold back progress

The salt from "some people" (specifically, just you) is more hilarious. Sheepy determined that they had broken the Game Rules, so they were immediately given a monetary fine. We didn't have anything to do with that. /me mutters something about lame FA smearing attempts EDIT: And in fact, in addition to not having anything to do with that, several of us advocated for annulling the punishment. Manthrax did (as he mentioned above), Jessica did, and so you don't even have a reason for your salt xD

The 10-day timeframe makes this update a penalty: we've invested money into this last spawn and won't get it back. The treasures are now simply worth less. I ask you to extend the delay on the update: creative gameplay can be nerfed but it shouldn't be penalized.

We've been nerfed! Nooooooo It would have been really nice manners to delay this until the corresponding treasure spawn, instead of killing us with this ten-day thing, can you at least do that please

Mfw when this happens in every thread:

Gotcha gotcha. Personal defense is a use I can respect, but I find that 'good guy with a gun' incurs risks to those around us and so I'm much more iffy about it. We've found common-ish ground here I've never thought of #4! Interesting, I suppose a pre-armed populace would be very nice in the case of foreign invasion, as improbable as that case might be as you've noted. I will try to factor that into my future thoughts. #5 I'm not sure will happen? As far as I know, the Second Amendment is in a class all its own when being challenged, and I don't see which amendment would be next to go. I will also note that I am not above removing an amendment if I find it to cause harm Then your point about the collection of guns. I agree, it'd be really hard to accomplish in totality. I would still try if I thought the end goal was worth it, but perhaps the public response would alone make it not worth it. I think it'd be super hard to even enforce an assault-weapons ban. ANYWAYS so given our list of things that guns do that are useful (with footnotes here and there), what impact do you guys believe increased background checks will have? I am in support of them, because I don't think they infringe upon the practical uses of guns too much (#3 maybe, if you believe that the government may turn on you?), and they seem to provide a decent benefit. I will also note that I recognize assault weapons have been vilified a lot, but since they are not practical for self-defense they can only be used for #3 and #4, which is meh to me

Friend, I have no doubt that one of the uses of guns is to help prevent an emergency. Actually, quoted: No one's telling you that there's zero point to having a gun and that they don't do anything in emergency cases; they're weighing the cost/benefits of having guns. In fact, you're not only misinterpreting the entire point, but you're misinterpreting that little sidenote (I was criticizing the logic Wisd0m used, but offered an alternative explanation of his point that worked). Anyways, no reply on the actual substance of the discussion? Gotta give me something to work with if we're going to Socratic discussion this lol

This line of reasoning fails because I can say that about anything that isn't often used, or is used preventively. For example, fire extinguishers quite literally have the sole purpose of extinguishing fires, no? But (thankfully) most of them will never have to complete this task--yet they are not 'failures'. They are only failures if they fail to extinguish fires when they need to; it follows that guns are only failures if they fail to kill when they need to. I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you are nitpicking his point to say 'guns have a purpose separate from killing and they achieve that purpose through killing/wounding/rapid kinetic energy deliverance', but your argument is not really saying that at all. But now that you've got me thinking about this purpose stuff, I remembered a conversation I had a while back. What do pro-gun people think are the legitimate purpose of guns? There are a few I can think of off the top of my head: Personal defense Recreation (I'll include hunting here too) 'Second Amendment-ish' guarantee against tyranny? #2 is trivial when compared to the bigger issues at hand, I hope we can agree. If recreation is the only thing standing in the way, then the added death toll is not worth having. Aaaaand I gtg right now, but please add anything more to the list so I can understand your side better