Jump to content

Marika

Members
  • Posts

    1081
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    34

Marika last won the day on July 1

Marika had the most liked content!

8 Followers

Retained

  • Member Title
    Formerly Roberts

Profile Information

  • Leader Name
    roberts
  • Nation Name
    Wish
  • Nation ID
    60967
  • Alliance Name
    The Knights Radiant

Contact Methods

  • Discord Name: roberts

Recent Profile Visitors

3398 profile views

Marika's Achievements

Exalted Member

Exalted Member (7/8)

2.8k

Reputation

  1. Coming in late to maybe try and save you future heart-ache: The test server is basically a playground for new mechanics. People have multis, people are regularly given resources/credits/cities/etc to test mechanics. It regularly gets reset and wiped. It's not a place to try and found/run an alliance and especially not a place to do politics.
  2. I think adjusting score properly would have the desired outcome here, rather than a debuff or buff based on city count. I don't want to change the core war mechanics to better favor smaller nations, I just want a balanced system where there are fair war ranges and beige actually gives reprieve. Growth, economics, tiering, and effort should be rewarded not "balanced out" imo.
  3. May or may not make it due to the late start time but very excited to see some radio shows coming back into fashion!
  4. Sad to see two more alliances become Ockey multis Good luck!
  5. Good luck Immortals! It was lovely working with you while it lasted.
  6. Prefontaine is horrible with polls. No explanation smh. Spy scraping/data mining is crashing the server pretty regularly, a LARGE portion of "why is the server so slow on a blitz when only 500 people are online?!" is from these scrapes. Spies very specifically. There's also the fact that established AA's know spy counts within a handful of queries - might as well let everyone see them imo.
  7. This is just me spitballing maybe a trash idea. We scrap beige, scrap war slots, scrap the whole war system. War no longer functions as a fast-paced race to the bottom with resistance, but is instead something the player engages with more directly both offensively and defensively. Overview: The idea would be that rather than having X amount of slots, your country would simply be at war or not be at war. The war itself would be a slower-paced almost minigame where you slowly tick towards either a win or loss - each turn would tick it in either direction. Wars continue until peace is agreed upon or until victory is achieved. Certain things provide modifiers which can increase or decrease your ticking speed. Ticking: The ticking itself would be a simple formula each turn or each update. By default, all parties involved in the war would contribute +1% (of 100) per turn ticking war score. So you could have multiple defenders, multiple attackers, etc. Entire alliances could fight wars together in this system. The formula would looking something like: 1 (the default tick) * number of soldiers + tanks ratio. So the side with more forces would receiver a multiplier based on the ratio of ground forces. So if you have twice as many ground forces, your tick would be 2 per turn while your opponent would only tick 1. So you would net-shift by 1% per turn towards victory. Modifiers: Air support - realistically you're not going to wipe a nation's airforce out in a blitz. Both sides will likely have air support throughout the war. This can be calculated and added as a ratio too, or maybe done differently. Naval support - similar to air support. # of nations involved - each nation would count as a new "front" and give a negative modifier to the ticks. Rock-paper-scissors: One of the biggest elements of the proposal would be the active role players could take within a war. Having three options or more that counter the other options would be essential. So example: 1. Order an Assault - If your opponent chooses to retreat, gives a positive modifier to your ticks. If they dig in, it cancels out your modifier. 2. Dig in - Default option chosen if the player selects nothing 3. Tactical Retreat - If the player digs in, gives a positive modifier to your ticks. And then if both players select the same option, no multiplier or bonus is given. Casualties: Players will suffer casualties to their military just as they do now, but it will happen indirectly while at war. Casualties will increase as the player takes more actions such as ordering assaults or retreats, and they will decrease as the enemy's military is thinned out. A bit of RNG will also be added in at update each night: A chance for a "big battle" occurs where you can suffer or inflict heavy losses based on your current winning percentage. If you are close to losing your war and have chosen to dig in, you will have a higher chance for a "Big battle" where you inflict heavy losses. If you order an assault at the opening blitz of a war, you will have a higher chance to inflict heavy losses, etc. Victory or Loss: Since this war system is no longer dependent on running attacks to decrease resistance, beige is no longer a required mechanic. The victors still get loot and inflict their infra damage, but the losers don't need to immediately go hide for a week though their military may be weakened. All very conceptual and obviously a huge change to gameplay. Just a thought though.
  8. Basically within the constraints of the system people need respite time in order to recover and not permanently be rolled. Permanently being rolled is not fun gameplay. Extended periods of being sat on is also not fun gameplay, and also has negative impacts in other areas of gameplay. Unfortunately said respite time is fundamentally flawed, in that most people never receive it as a result of a meta built around denying that time. This change fixes that loophole and introduces a more back-and-forth style of warfare that will be more engaging for both sides of a war.
  9. So... Will wars be infinitely long only determined by warchests running out or shorter than one round with these changes? lol But I'd like to be serious and point out in both of your arguments: "Wars will be determined by economics" - I personally feel that running your econ successfully should play a part in your ability to conduct war. If you have more resources, you should be able to leverage them to your advantage. Our current system results in very little warchest usage because there is very little competition in warfare, even global wars. You either win and can mostly sit (and lose tanks to daily spy ops) or you lose in which case you are very disincentivized to rebuild your military lest you spend 40k steel for no benefit. There is potential for unending warfare just like there is currently potential for it right now - with the exception that spending your resources could potentially benefit you rather than simply cost you steel/aluminum for no gain. Any argument regarding the death cycling is kind of spot on, as the point of the update is to mitigate cycling and allow the losing party to rebuild themselves - Cycling, staggering wars, etc can all definitely still happen though. Lastly, comments on moderation aren't really relevant. The coders and the dev team both have nothing to do with game moderation. So even if we halted all future updates, that would provide no benefit or boost to moderation changes you are seeking. re: Decagon War already results in billions in damages and the reduction of most participants' infra into the sub-1000 range per city. The extra infra cost seems pretty trivial at that stage, even for small nations. Even raiding AA's can afford to maintain 500-1000 infra while never being at peace. Suffice to say I support this change whole-heartedly. I recognize it will alter the meta but imo I think it's a positive change that we've needed for quite awhile. I know downvoting Prefontaine's post is generally the first reaction for most people these days but this is a very simple "all wars end in beige" update that people have generally very much supported in the past - just with some tweaks to close some loopholes from previous iterations. I genuinely hope everyone reads the suggested changes with those ideas in mind. The purpose here is to shift the meta in a positive way and make strides towards fixing warfare from a mechanical perspective. I'd be fine adding this in.
  10. It's been years since Azaghul first pitched a simple fix to allow for all wars to end in beige. It was debated, discussed, tweaked... and died on the table. It's been years since the game dev/design team was announced, almost on the heels of beige fix discussions to allow all wars to end in beige. I can vouch and say we've been discussing it on/off ever since. Now, in the midst of a global war, we see that relying on a single person to manually review every single report and interpret the rules is a flawed system. It's been years. Let all wars end in beige, let the meta shift, let the players figure out new strategies - but let's pull the damn trigger and start moving forward with such a simple fix. Here's where we stand, there are two different solutions proposed: 1. Beige gives 3 days instead of 2, losing an offensive gives you nothing and moves you to grey, beige cap of 5 days max, expired defensives give defenders beige. 2. All wars end in beige, beige going to whoever has less resistance. In a tie, the defender gets beige time. Beige timer doesn't start ticking until all active wars end.
  11. Given the events over the last 24 hours, this is absolutely [email protected]#$ed. I will take this time to say if all wars ended in beige, we wouldn't need to enforce beige-fishing moderation rules though.
  12. I agree with the OP of this post, but I want to address this specific sentence because it's, in my opinion, a dangerous hyperbole. The CN admin was absent for 7+ years, including silence on mod abuse/cheating scandals that broke the game/multis were widespread, etc. Alex makes mistakes but he's never just said "[email protected]#$ it" and walked away for years. Hopefully this thread and others, and some discord chats being had right now, will see things get the attention they need though. In fact, I can say various discord chats are already in motion right now trying to figure things out.
  13. I know disbanding sucks but sometimes it’s the right call. I hope the waffle crew finds whatever they’re seeking and I hope your active guys land somewhere that’ll utilize your talent. Good luck!
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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