Jump to content

Curufinwe

VIP
  • Content Count

    475
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    4

Curufinwe last won the day on October 26

Curufinwe had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

1086 Upvote King

7 Followers

About Curufinwe

  • Rank
    Senior Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location:
    Canada
  • Alliance Pip
    Black Knights
  • Leader Name
    Curufinwe
  • Nation Name
    Eregion
  • Nation ID
    22102
  • Alliance Name
    Black Knights

Contact Methods

  • Discord Name
    Curufinwe

Recent Profile Visitors

2823 profile views
  1. Actually it's Covenant Former IQ AAs never required our members to vote a certain way (and given the nature of past votes it wouldn't be enforceable if we did). We did develop a common slate to cut down on vote splitting, but that was (and is) an option available to any AA. Other groups were (and are) free to do the same which, if people feel strongly on the matter, might be more productive than a third year of complaining about who chooses to vote for what.
  2. Seeker will always be the Guardian of my heart
  3. 1) We were aware Gorge was leaving BK (though not that he had embezzled money from BK) several weeks before he robbed Panth. 2) When we became aware of Gorge's scheme he was specifically told not to proceed. He was subsequently expelled when he went ahead and did it anyway (he was originally going to be leaving post-war). 3) He has already offered us Panth's remaining bank to offset his embezzlement and was refused, so if we wanted to pocket the stolen bank we had that option already. We opted not to take it. 4) Had he tried to store the bank with us it would have been returned, as we did with the BC bank during KF. He decided not to do so, however, so that didn't happen. Gorge was not informed of this when the original offer was made to store the bank with us, but that was always our intent. 5) You are correct that Panth getting robbed jokes were made by various BK members, but we are only human after all. There are logs to back up all these points, by the way, so it appears that 'some' are somewhat misinformed on the matter.
  4. Actually, every new BK member is required to register on the OWF as part of our orientation program and that requirement has been in place since late 2016. Many people don't post (or read it regularly) but we certainly don't hide its existence from them 😛
  5. Yeah cheaper tanks do make some sense, all things considered. The first option is more problematic than the second, since doubling the military effectiveness of each tank would impact mil score numbers (and therefore has serious implications for up- and downdeccing). Just halving the cost per tank is probably the least disruptive way to balance them.
  6. Perhaps the guy who is obviously incapable of dealing with feedback that he doesn't agree with shouldn't be tasked with proposing comprehensive changes to the game. Maybe go back into retirement if you find it so distressing that pretty much everyone who commented on them finds your ideas problematic, since we'll just be having this conversation again whenever you resurface from your impending sulk 😛
  7. Well the conceit (and fundamental flaw) of your approach is presuming that 1) your 'solutions' to the problem you claim to have identified are workable (they're not, for all the reasons subsequently pointed out) and 2) they're the only legitimate ones (since you structured your poll to preclude any sort of alternative and are trying to force people to vote for one of three deeply problematic options). As was pointed out earlier, if you want to have an actual conversation about the war mechanics that's fine, but coming up with three flawed options and trying to pass them off as the only acceptable means to address the issue because 'it's too much work' to go about this process in a less disingenuous way just speaks to the flawed nature of your approach. Your polling is designed to determined which of these options are 'wanted' when it's fairly apparent that none of them are and you're wasting your and everyone else's time trying to shove your three self serving options down everyone's throat by skipping the sort of consultation phase that might uncover what people actually do want.
  8. That's a poll that is structured to affirm a certain outcome. Your poll is structured to affirm a certain outcome. Both polls have the same issue, except I probably wouldn't craft a poll that way since I realise that the results would be skewed due to its poor structure.
  9. If your poll is structured to affirm a predetermined outcome, then it's a poorly structured poll on your part. To provide an an analogous example, if I put together a poll asking people to rank Leo as 1) a good leader, 2) a great leader or 3) the greatest leader and then ignore all other responses, I can then report to him that every single respondent believes that he's at least a good leader, which may not be representative of actual opinion on the matter. Your poll is set up to skew its results in a similar way, which means that your 'data' won't be worth much in the end. If you want to have a discussion about pros and cons of a war mechanic change then that's your prerogative (and we can have that if you like), but trying to frame the results of such a flawed sampling as community support for a particular change would be pretty disingenuous on your part and hopefully something Alex would be wise enough to disregard. Well I find you owning your self interest refreshing (usually the authors of these sorts of threads make more of an effort to cloak their argument in terms of universal, rather than personal, interest), I was actually referring to the ability of a whale to fight off updecs under the current mechanics, rather than their ability to downdec people smaller than themselves. However, downselling (and subsequent rebuying) does allow for some fairly significant downdecs even when infra levels are comparable - unless the whale in question has truly ridiculous levels of infra (or all the nukes, like Fraggle) relative military levels are actually a bigger factor in punching down than infra per se, which is why mid and lower tier AAs often rely on score compression to offset it. Your proposal to nerf planes would likely force mid tier players to maintain higher mil levels overall, which in turn would leave them more vulnerable to downdecs from whales (like you). Again, I can see where a whale would see this as a great idea, but it disproportionately penalises smaller nations who (as you've pointed out) make up the overwhelming majority of the player base. Wanting strong players to be strong is one thing, but trying to push through a mechanical change that primarily benefits those players via a rigged poll is something else entirely.
  10. I mean at least you're honest about the fact that your suggestions are focused on making whales OP, which is the de facto consequence of the ideas you're throwing out there (and a big reason why they're so problematic). But you're underselling the extent to which whales are already consolidated - about 1/3 of the 30 city plus players were concentrated in GOB at the beginning of the current conflict, which is allied to Guardian (which represents another significant chunk of fairly large players), which is tied to KT/TGH, which has another handful of whale tier folks and so on. I mean, sure, many AAs have 1 or 2 larger people, but the population is still overrepresented in a handful of places, rather than being evenly distributed across Orbis. So changing the mechanics to advantage them and telling non whale AAs to just deal with it isn't a particularly balanced position to take on the issue. In terms of your 20 city versus 30 city example, under the current mechanics it is still quite possible for the 30 city nation to defeat its attackers, assuming they use sound tactics to do so (such as using its higher troop capacity to get ground and aggressively going after the air of their opponents to grind them down). 10 city updecs against active, fully militarized opponents are already quite challenging, so altering the mechanics to make it even more difficult further privileges a group that already enjoys significant military advantages over smaller nations. Whales already have a disproportionate military and economic footprint - removing the only effective method for smaller folks to deal with them only cements those advantages, which probably shouldn't be the goal of a mechanics fix that ostensibly aims to make warfare more balanced. Well it is rather difficult to gauge the impact of an overhaul if you're only focusing on one aspect of it, since there is no indication what other changes are being considered or how they would relate to one another. For the record, it's also problematic to preface your proposed change to one aspect of the war mechanics with 'these are your only options, so pick one' when you're simultaneously saying that a minority of larger players deserve a disproportionate advantage over everyone else. It effectively forces people to opt for the 'least bad' alternative (rather than a better one than what you're proposing) and shuts down legitimate criticism of problematic ideas, which really isn't how a good faith discussion about mechanical changes should be structured. Finally, as a 20ish city nation, I'd much rather deal with a counter from a 10 city nation than updec a 30 city nation (assuming everyone involved is fully milled), so we'll just have to agree to disagree on that one 😛
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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