Shiho Nishizumi

If you hit someone whose single buy is enough to offset it, chances are either you hit an AA with a ground MMR on the higher end (admittedly, more common now due to ground's greater importance), couldn't declare that much lower for xyz reasons, or airstrikes were used to bring the soldier count low enough to where it'd make a substantial difference. If you're going with a double buy to offset it, the defending party would be exposed to as much as six GA's until that went in (assuming you either dec'd right before or after a reset, assuming standard), which can then be potentially translated into 60 res damage, which in turn makes gunning for a beige much easier. It'd obviously depend on the other means by which you could shave off the remaining 40, but it's still a consideration. Ground of your own is less effective at removing soldiers than air, and arguably less efficient if no cash is looted. It's a very good deterrent/shut-down to keep you from being GA'd further, but the soldier casualties, which is what you were concerned with and is what I was addressing, aren't actually that high. Wars should be a resource sink. (Counter) raiding, however, isn't war (at least, not conventional one). Raiding and war are fundamentally different practices, with fundamentally different priorities and goals Cue soldiers being much better for raiding than war, and beiging someone being a priority in raiding but something to be avoided in war. Resource efficiency is one of those parameters which are more relevant for countering than for full-blown wars. The game has far more resource sinks now than it's had, due to the ultra expensive projects which are both desirable relatively early on (A/UP) and for whales (Telecom) and in between (SP/SS). The market has only now crashed after a period of very high costs, and that can be attributed to people liquidating stocks as war is not expected for a while. Resource cost shouldn't be a secondary thought. For example, it's a main contributing factor for which ships are garbage at actually killing ships, and their lack of use other than as a last resort or for blockading (or racing beige, but for that resources used doesn't usually matter since it's often done with one ship). The other reason being that they're also, in terms of total units killed, worse at it than planes, provided a sizeable enough plane advantage exists. Those sorts of costs should be adjusted at least to some degree relative to the reduction in casualties so to at least make it easier to make these attacks cost effective, and making it an incentivizer for carrying these out in the first place. Soldiers are more relevant than ships, so far conventional controls go. Ships become an argument once you factor in blockade (which mainly matter for securing loot; a proper alliance won't have someone run out of resources R1 due to a blockade), beige and loot. The issue being that beiging the other guy is not something that you want to be doing in proper war in the first place. At least, not indiscriminately so. So it becomes far murkier and complicated a conversation than presented it as being. I don't know if raiders are being targeted directly by it (though yes, a party which makes a higher/more predominant use of soldiers is going to be affected more by it); however, the argument that people suggesting it because they are upset that plane-only isn't enough to deal with it (and it'd never be, because if they sat with 0 ground then the raider could just get a fraction of a single buy in and GA to burn resistance) is contradicted by part of the suggestion being to increase casualties taken from other ground units as well. In fact, the suggestion is for tanks to have it increased by 15%, in contrast to planes' 10%. If I had to guess, people took a look at soldiers' casualty rates compared to their recruitment rate and expense, and thought that they were a bit too tanky relative to that. They're certainly much tankier now than they used to be, both due to the direct reduction in casualties taken, and due to the max hangar capacity being reduced to 15 instead of 18, which was an indirect (and frankly, unintended because Alex certainly didn't think that far ahead) nerf to their gross killing potential simply because the current max is only 83% of what it used to be.

They can kill roughly as many planes as planes do on a dogfight, given full complements. The issue is that they can do four attacks per the three that airstrikes can do (with 12 MAP's), kill tons of tanks in the process (which dogfights don't), and also can loot cash, which has the potential to negate part of the losses. And also have the occasional imp kill for the little extra on top. This is assuming you IT GA right away, which may or may not happen. But th same argument can be made the other way. Airstrike tank kills were so bad that people unironically preferred to just GA them instead during the last global, given the option, because those killed more tanks, could also kill planes, and didn't have to deal with trying to grind the other guy's air down to have more than twice the planes than they did, because trying to airstrike any sooner incurs the same amount of planes losses to you as it does the other guy (if not more). Not to mention that the amount of tanks killed if attempted that early was also poor. 'Nerfing tanks = planes OP again' is an overreaction. It depends by how much it is tweaked. And since I'm already posting... If a spy nerf is taking place (which I think is a bad idea, but I quite frankly can't be fricked to waste time delving into it when it's already been elaborated to death), it'll also be necessary to readjust the cost of running ops. As is, it's already often the case that you're spending more on EC 60 spies than the value of spies killed, which is okay since the difference isn't that high, and the benefits you get in turn. However, the ratio will be much worse if more of your ops are failing and if you're killing less than half that you usually were. It'd also be necessary to revisit the defensive bonus to missiles and nukes sabotages in particular, given that it's taking longer to get to that stage in the first place. And regarding soldiers, @Roberts they die quickly(ish) to airstrikes, which costs the guy airstriking millions to kill values which will seldom go above the 1m mark (or even the 500k one). It's a very cost inefficient exchange. They don't die that quickly (if it can be described as such) to tanks, and that's still a cost inefficient exchange if the other person doesn't have cash at hand (which is often the case with good raiders). Killing soldiers with soldiers is a pipedream and you'll never go anywhere with that, unless if you have a ridiculous ratio of like 10:1 or something. While you're right in that it'd be largely inconsequential during a war, I think that you were exaggerating how quickly a quickly recruited meatshield unit dies, and had made no mention on the cost behind killing it in the first place, which is also a factor. I think that just reducing the amount of tanks they kill is good enough a nerf.

Mega resource sink.

Nation Link: https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=189815 Nature of offence: Flag contains Nazi symbology, in the form of the Nazi eagle on top of a swastika.

So, you're indeed not open to criticism, and this entire thread's just for show. I'm sure that'll make for a stellar bullet point in your CV.

Truly an individual that's open to criticism and is wholly fit to be at the helm of a dev team.

Gorge posted high gov IQ logs, all with context. Those painted a worse light about them due to those people having their intentions laid bare to be seen. In spite of what you're claiming here, I can't say that seems like you felt too strongly about Under's behavior during the war and afterwards. Six months and an MIA leader coming back to get things going, and at the tail end of a NAP? Nobody, and I mean *nobody* seemingly trying to be acting leader in the interim so to do all the things an AA leader does, and not just handle the Under thing? Sorry, but your alibis isn't convincing.

Immortal? No. Undead? Yes.

Thank you.

You mean the ones you invariably go radio silent on because you can't back up your stance? Given my grasp on the whole situation (I've been inquired a fair bit over the past week for stuff pertaining to this), it honestly sounds like you're just bypassing the disagreements by the dev team and coming here to try to gain some traction for stuff that only you and Pre think that is good.

Why do you pretend to care about feedback, when you just ignore that which you don't like, public or otherwise?

The point is that Under is a disliked and distrusted figure which automatically reduces the legitimacy/value of whatever he touches or is involved in. This isn't just because he was a jackass last war. This is also because he's inept and prone to trolling for the sake of it (this is simply overshadowed by the former). It's not for naught that his rep as a mod is far from stellar, and why the alliance he de-facto leads is a worthless husk. He has nothing worthwhile to contribute that only he could say, which is why people are even more baffled by you thinking that he'd make a good addition, especially in the face of criticism levied by people from virtually all the spheres which aren't tied to him. Once you have the time to do so, I'd suggest you sit down for a second, and reevaluate how much you think that you actually know about the game and the community which plays it. Because decisions like these, which are taken in spite of overwhelming opposition/disagreement from the community, come across as "I'm better informed than you lot, which is why I think that this is a good idea", which, to be blunt, you are not. And it's quite the arrogant position to think that you know better than the people who actually play the game and interact with the individuals you seemingly hold in high regard.

I have to genuinely wonder if this is him being his usual self, or is he actually taking the royal piss out of everyone.

The lack of proper direction and knowledge renders any seemingly noble intentions meaningless. This thread encapsulates the current SNAFU, if nothing else. Unpopular idea pushed by someone incapable of defending it from counterpoints seemingly gains the admin's attention/favor. With no clarification of what is to be about the previous suggestion, on top of that (and as Valk mentioned earlier). Then it's wondered why people can't be bothered to contribute.

Except the beige he's testing out is neutered in accordance to his priorities/considerations, which haven't changed. Expecting him not only to return to old beige (which he clearly doesn't intend to do), but implement one which, for his purposes/considerations, is even worse, is unrealistic. Before beige got removed, they could escape if they put the effort into it anyways. As for flaws, just to cite a few: People intentionally UF'ing (mind you, this was already happening to some degree last war), so to still kill units whilst not grinding resistance (so to deny beige to their foe). Thing is, there'd be a much higher incentive to do this now, since being just one res below the other guy would deny him the beige. Given that the infra/loot damage would also be fractioned, rather than the full value, taking this beige wouldn't be as punitive either. And no, the trade ratios wouldn't be that much of an issue with air, due to how dogfights work. It wouldn't just be a matter of people not wanting to win their wars (which seemingly bothers Alex); people wouldn't even want to win those individual battles. This is also a further nerf to aggression. Being the aggressor has it's own set of costs, which include political ones, if not properly justified (it doesn't matter that you're tired about that "old song and dance"; other people aren't, and it's a relevant matter for politics, and it'll continue to be a relevant matter for politics). It also takes genuine effort to put together a good offensive. These costs and efforts should come with a set of tangible benefits of their own. One of them being conventional control. This benefit has already been nerfed with the casualties reduction. Given that it's already harder to bring these nations down, they shouldn't just be able to rebound effortlessly. Else, there would be no incentive to be the aggressor, which would lead to no one wanting to be such, and with it, a staler (read:boring) game. And no, there isn't much disruption that'll happen, given that you'd be able to hold beige for 16 days. This is guaranteed two war cycles if all wars expires; else, it'd be more. It's simply too long for such to be possible, as you'd be all but guaranteed to get more than enough beige time for a comeback. I'd also suggest you actually try to address the point raised by them, rather than just smugly reduce them to one or two talking points and discard out of hand. You're the one trying to argue for this mechanic; make a proper defence for it.

If anything, it'd be worse in that regard. But yes, I fail to see the point in making a suggestion which so heavily runs counter to Alex's stance on the matter. Unless if Alex changed his mind (unlikely), it's just going to be rejected. That's nothing to say of the flaws already listed, and that others may list as well.

And again, if the concern is moderation, just rewrite the rule so that it only concerns itself with allies slot filling. What's defined as an ally? Direct ties and whoever is in their temporary coalition. It'd be easier to change (especially given the bugs that invariably follow an update), it'd net the same end result, and it'd avoid having another rather poor update be pushed out. It simply makes more sense as a whole.

It's evident they do not.

Again, I don't see what is preventing Alex from simply rewriting the rules to acknowledge the reality at hand. It'd be preferable as it's easier to modify that than it is to rewrite the code and have it not be bugged for weeks on end (on top of the initial time invested which is much more substantial).

Just have slot filling be limited to keeping allies from filling each other's slots, and call it a day. Maybe make an exception for some really obvious cases (example, guy in an AA at war declares on some people not at war, who would have the incentive to beige him ASAP to get rid of him) if you'd like. It definitely doesn't warrant making it nigh-impossible for someone downed to rebound.

He mentioned in Thalmor's Radio Show that all he gets from this, is being able to list it on his CV.

Meh. It's a largely superfluous (if not detrimental, mainly for raiders) mechanic, as implemented in that set of test changes (assuming that glaring flaw does get patched).

Whilst I appreciate the intent, this is worthless. For the simple reason that people can have one of the D slots rush a beige, and the other two peace out before that beige time ends (while pinning in between), thus resulting in no meaningful beige time for the defender. This doesn't even include the other problems present (no beige for off wars, 5 days of beige not actually being enough to rebuild to max [due to staggering], among other things).

Oh, he's using the community alright. Albeit just the unpaid labor and a middleman to take the heat for him. Understatement of the month. I mean; as was said above, it's getting implemented regardless. The reason being that Alex has an explicit, vested interest in *not* having a beige-like mechanic (because he cbf to properly moderate or hire someone to do it for him), so he's going to pick the more flawed, untested alternative to it simply due to that. And yes, it's unsurprising that people likewise cbf to provide more feedback when the heaps of pre-existing ones were rejected out of hand (due to the aforementioned interest, among over things). Especially in the manner in which it happened.

The latter, for the simple reason that he's also getting paid whilst behaving in this manner.