Jump to content

Dryad

Members
  • Content Count

    190
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Dryad last won the day on July 26

Dryad had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

444 Excellent

6 Followers

About Dryad

  • Rank
    Discord: syLph#4613

Profile Information

  • Alliance Pip
    Knights Templar
  • Leader Name
    Dryad
  • Nation Name
    Dryad
  • Nation ID
    146719
  • Alliance Name
    Knights Templar

Contact Methods

  • Discord Name
    syLph#4613

Recent Profile Visitors

1186 profile views
  1. @KiWilliam i understand all of them except for ampersand
  2. That tierlist triggers me. I'm also triggered by the absence of an E-tier in the last 3 tierlists.
  3. Then i think compensating being difficult is a problem by itself. What if lets say you were to code a checkbox that if you tick it enables a mode ingame where people can sell their cities, and if you untick it the game returns to normal. You could be reusing that for any future game update that involves selling cities as a means of compensation and every time it would only take you a second to tick the checkbox. I honestly think developing means to easily compensate would absolutely be worth developing by themselfes and I do think ideally losers of a change should always be compensated. Ultimately you are doing development on the game to improve it, but if the ongoing development on the game by itself makes the game worse then that's extremely counterproductive imo.
  4. i agree that this kind of stuff shouldn't stop you from making changes that you find will improve the game. However, there is clearly ways of going through with those changes without punishing people for what was previously correct play. Giving a 1 week period for people to sell their cities for the full purchase price as Vein has proposed would be a pretty easy way to save people from feeling like they spent 10b in a stupid way. Then a week later the game mechanics would return to normal, cities would only be destroyable not sellable, the changes would be through as you wanted and nobody would have to feel like a victim and complain about it.
  5. very cool. comparison between the spheres as a whole would also be interesting.
  6. The apparently popular idea that an expired war should give an attacker beige while the loss at 0 resistance doesn't makes little sense to me. Any defender would just zero your resistance instead of letting a war expire and if they wanna sit on you they will do so until the turn before the war expires. On the other hand if the defender can't defeat the aggressor then imo the aggressor also shouldn't get beige. I absolutely agree that there is an issue with beige time being hard to get but the problematic issue imo is that lost defensive wars don't give enough beige time. One thing about beige on expiry that imo is extremely exploitable though in the proposed state, is that you will know exactly when you get beiged and can declare offensive wars right before that moment. Any defender will never want to do any attack that brings the aggressors resistance below their own, instead you would have an aggressors military zeroed purely by means of counters and acquire beige time even if your military is completely unharmed.
  7. The way I understood it this will actually be the case and only the infra damage and loot doesnt apply at expired defeat. @Prefontaine clarify? On a related note though, not sure if its great that beige time for one defeat is being decreased from 25 turns to 20 turns when all beige time acquired through offensive wars will also be missing going forward.
  8. What Shiho said. Imo this should, if at all, only work for a defender force-peacing an aggressor that gets beiged. Aggressors forcing peace on a beiged defender is just ridiculous.
  9. I agree that Alex would likely not balance it properly.
  10. thats not true though. i mean assume that there was no debuff at all. Now having no slots would be absolutely insane offensive wise because you could just get as many people on a target as you need to zero them immediately. Now with a buff it totally depends on the number. Some amount would be so low that it's irrelevant and some numbers would be so high that it disincentivizes aggression. Obviously there will also be a sort of golden middle.
  11. whether it's a disincentive depends on the actual numbers. without slots you could also blitz a person with 20 instead of 3 people.
  12. Since beige is gone now, I'm posting my idea for a replacement. Remove warslots as well and replace both beige and slots with a buff/nerf mechanic. The idea is if you declare an offensive war you get a nerf and if you get declared on you get a buff. You could declare a lot of wars but doing so will stack debuffs on you and at the same time hundreds of people could hit you but they would also stack hella buffs on you. As for the beige replacement, I'd say once a war expires it would just maintain any buff from a defensive war for another couple days or whatever after expiry. Important is the balance that the attacker gets a debuff similar to the buff the defender gets. This way an ally could attack an ally and their buffs would just cancel each other out sort of. Ideally this would just make moderating it unnecessary. It would address other stuff too e.g. balance out the attacker advantage somewhat by giving defenders the buff vs debuff advantage. That's the basic concept, obviously there is a ton of math that would have to be done to get balance right and there would be a lot of other stuff to adjust but I know people don't like reading so I'll leave it at this for now and not go super indepth. Idea should be clear.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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