Jump to content

Dryad

Members
  • Posts

    270
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    4

Everything posted by Dryad

  1. I think it's much less of a problem than faster MAP generation. I mean, attacks would still be made at the same pace, both attacker and defender would just rebuy more military inbetween attacks and sure you would have to be online more often to buy and attack at perfect timing, but tbh I would think this does the exact opposite and make it much harder to get zeroed so easily since the casualties arent increased while recruitment rate is higher.
  2. I'm actually enjoying something that's put in place on the test server that has nothing to do with the changes being tested: A daychange happening every 4 turns. This actually makes it extremely difficult if not impossible to hold people down long-term because it still takes 60 turns for a war to expire and a beige still gives 25 turns of beige time. You get 6 rebuys in 24 turns which would be enough to rebuild fully during the duration of a single beiges beige time even with the 1/6 daily rebuy. Letting a war expire will also let the target rebuild, because they have so many rebuys that you are basically forced to do enough attacks to beige them to hold them down. I think that would actually get rid of the issue that people would not wanna win wars. Double buys while doable more frequently wouldn't be directly buffed which people have an issue with. The main downside would be that it requires higher activity if you want to rebuy as often as possible, you would have to be online at least every 16 hours to double buy, if you cant be online every 8 to single-buy, but tbh I think that's not too activity requiring. Anyway, it's a bit offtopic since it isn't whats being tested, but I thought it would be worth throwing it in.
  3. When I said warchest I was referring to what people keep on their nation. Obviously you will want a lot more than 12.5k for each nation in your alliance bank.
  4. I'm not surprised no, I have gotten some good loot thanks to it. Doesn't make it good that it's standard though, it's very lolzie. 62.5k alu was enough to buy 20k planes when the cost was 3 alu per plane, i'm very curious on the logic behind that being needed but its certainly not a problem for me that people do it. Its especially funny with people trying to get beiged though like it's always a good thing. You could like practice frequent withdrawing instead or something.
  5. Your warchest is 62.5k of each resource? Wow I'll remember that one for future targetting. 8.75k of each refined is a pretty decent loot.
  6. 500 per city would be enough to keep an entire warchest safe. Imo that is way too much, but I can see upsides to it too. For raws i think it isn't needed at all to have them protected from looting. As for looting down to that threshold, I'm not a fan of it for mainly 2 reasons: 1. It's a bit punishing for someone that happens to have billions on them, and I'm not generally against punishing such behavior but again maybe a bit too much, losing 10% of a billion is already fairly bad. 2. If multiple raiders (lets say 3) are on a target the first one to beige would get everything while the other 2 would leave empty handed and I don't like that idea. About the economic penalty I think that it's an interesting concept, but you'd find people making their econ build as bad as possible instead of gifting 80% of income, so it would cause some weird behaviour. At the same time it may not impact the losing nation too much as their unraidable warchest is now really high and they aren't very reliant on income to fight. There is probably a lot of other things that could be said about it.
  7. woah there buddy. 1k per resource for each city is a lot, may as well get rid of looting altogether.
  8. Beige removal hasn't been mentioned in this recent set of threads, but it has been in the past and I'd be very surprised if it isn't on his radar anymore. I actually do think a war ending in bankruptcy of at least one side would be positive. I mean it's one of 2 things, alliances either hide their bank and do nothing as they are being sat on, or they will be able to fight back but in the process of doing so drain their bank until its broke. I personally prefer the later, not sure if that's just me. I think that winning conditions are stupidly defined in the current meta. My personal golden rule of warfare is that higher infra always loses. The way a smaller coalition would beat a significantly larger wouldn't need to be that they wipe out their military and drain them of all stockpiles rendering them unable to get back up. A larger coalition would have a lot of infra to blow up and waste a lot of time just not being able to rebuild. Just wasting the larger groups time is all the damage you really need to do to wanna make them not continue the war forever. So personally I'm not worried about small groups getting trashed by larger ones, I'm certainly not in a dominant aa myself that has stockpiled for years and I'm not afraid of these changes. So basically, sure a smaller group will run out of stockpiles first but even then it's not a defeat. And this kind of warfare composed of just blowing infra up etc is completely unaffected by these changes in the first place. I guess in contrast to me most people don't enjoy getting rolled to bankruptcy though, so perhaps I am in fact biased here in what I don't mind the game to become.
  9. I definitely feel why people would find it kinda ridiculous if a zeroed player could double buy to have more than their opponent. But whats the alternative? Right now you are a zeroed whale and you got 3 c20s on you and you have absolutely no chance of fighting back. Now Alex wants to get rid of beige and you are never gonna get back up at all, assuming there is no other change along with it (which of course there will be, which is what this here could be). I would actually make it out to be a good thing if the c30 double buy lets them have a chance on fighting back, they will be up against multiple c20s anyway, so its not like beating one c20 is gonna save them. Even if the c20s do get beaten down its not like their score will be high enough for whales that have their military standing to immediately redeclare and bully them forever. On the other hand the c20 are certainly always in range to declare on the c30 and if the c30 and friends cant fight back then he is just forever dead. I also think there is no inherent need to even drag every last whale down, if they are too high in score to take part in combat anyway, which if they don't sell down a lot (which may make them vulnerable) is gonna be the case with the coupled city score change.
  10. What I don't agree with is people saying that a zeroed whale will be invincible, just double buy from nothing and defeat everyone. Thats just not realistic imo, but this argument has been brought up: "it's not possible to hold whales down". What I can definitely relate to a lot more is that it would be fairly difficult to bring down a whale that already had max military when they decommed parts and then double bought. And I think that's the kind of situation the Boyce example refers to. This is also what the city score change by my understanding is supposed to compensate though, let those whales that do possess quite a bit of military not downdeclare too far. And I think it's up to debate if an increase to 100 score per city is enough.
  11. There is a pretty big difference though between NPO not wanting to use c20s to drag down an untouched whale versus countering a whale that has just used up his double buy and has thus made himself vulnerable. What people seem to really push as the downside of the change in the thread here is that double buying would become too strong, but if you really think about it, it should be easy to see why it isnt too hard to take a guy down that doesnt have another buy for 24h while the counters do.
  12. Sure Firstly you are wrong about last wars problem being a stalemate situation. A stalemate with no side dominating the other would have been great compared to what actually happened, namely one sided being sat on with no way of turning the tides for months. Another thing you are mistaken about is that updeclaring would become more difficult. This score change would be a buff to updeclaring, because getting into range of someone with less than 1.75 times your city-count will become easier. I do not think that this is positive, because it will make dragging down whales easier who were already helpless last war. I also think that the effect this has on downdeclaring comes with a bunch of issues most importantly that it will become easier to pin people down. As a standalone change I think increasing city score would be very negative, BUT it synergizes well with the second change and in fact is kinda needed to balance it. Increasing the daily rebuy will be a huge buff to owning cities and that buff should be reflected in the score that a city gives. So it sucks atm but with the second change this has to come along. You are wrong about the city score change making it harder to hold down whales. In fact it is the very opposite and will make it way easier because in their zeroed state their high city count will inflate their score and keep them in range of people to keep them down. But you are of course correct saying that this 1/3 rebuy change is a significant buff to whales. I would however not say that this is a bad thing. It's in fact very unhealthy for the game when people can be effectively sat on for months with no way to get out of their situation. I would say that enabling them to fight back is not a bad thing, rather its very needed. What needs to be ensured however is that whales can't completely dominate everyone else now. The change to score given by cities comes into play here, because it makes it harder for whales to downdeclare too far and then completely crush the lower tiered opponent they declared on. I think it is up to debate if the 100 score increase is enough though to balance it. Generally though I think this problem is overstated by most people antagonizing the rebuy idea here, because for one I'm fairly sure whales won't decom 70% of their military all the time to downdeclare and then double-buy, because this kind of decomming will actually be very expensive and crushing midgets is usually not that high priority. Then the other thing is that in this game there exists more low-tier than mid-tier and more mid-tier than high-tier and that generally the high tier nations will find themselfes outnumbered and beaten by good coordination from their lower tiered opponents. Personally as a c35 nation I do not see myself being invulnerable to counters after the change at all, if I get slotted by 3 nations then all of those will have the rebuy change applied to them as well. What the change definitely does accomplish, is that if you find yourself zeroed it will become more easy to get back up as you do not need 6 days of beige anymore to max out. This is very good because you wont find one side of a war being dead for months anymore.
  13. excellent, let the war end with one side going bankrupt.
  14. I think this may be a bit low? Not sure. With 20k tanks that would be 72 aircrafts destroyed in an IT, which would become 288 planes daily with 4 ground battles. I think that may be a bit low for an entire days worth of damage especially if the 1/3 daily rebuy change goes through. But I guess it's also additional damage to whats already being dealt so maybe it's fine lol.
  15. I think this could be good if only tanks could destroy the aircraft. If soldiers could do it then it would be too strong, because soldiers are dirt cheap and it would be kinda crazy if they could destroy aircraft. I would rather not see more reasons to increase soldier cost further
  16. I think something like $100k per city would be good. Or a set amount of like $2.5m for everyone. For resources its not really needed as they cant be looted by ground battles, but I wouldn't mind something like 1k per resource either.
  17. This change really does 4 things: a) Getting into range to downdeclare on players with less than 0.75 times your cities gets harder b) Getting into range to downdeclare on players with more than 0.75 times your cities gets easier c) Getting into range to updeclare on players with less than 1.75 times your cities gets easier d) Getting into range to updeclare on players with more than 1.75 times your cities gets harder To address all 4 of these: a) Getting into range to downdeclare on players with less than 0.75 times your cities gets harder. This is the desired effect and its not unreasonable to want this, but I think its fair to say that it isnt the norm that you have people half your city count in your range. When it is the case that usually means at least 1 of 2 things: 1. The target has inflated their score with unreasonable play, by having too many tanks/ships/infra/nukes/missiles. 2. The aggressor a damaged military in which case their city count isn't representative of their strength. While a) is probably a positive effect of the change, the issue addressed is overall way more balanced than it's made out to be and actually not much of an issue, as its rooted in wrong nation building and aggressors being weakened. ------ b) Getting into range to downdeclare on players with more than 0.75 times your cities gets easier. Contrary to what people think this change wouldn't be a nerf to downdeclaring in general. In the case that your target has more than 0.75 times your city count it will actually become more easy to drop low enough to downdeclare on them. This has mainly 2 effects: 1. Attackers will be allowed more military to remain in range of players that have more than 0.75 times their city count which overall is a further buff for the attacker side. 2. This would be the main issue of the change by far: It will become more easy to declare on players that are already zeroed which of course means entire sides of a war getting pinned down is going to become even easier than it has been last war and thats really the last thing the game needs. Zeroed players will be facing people with more ships than is currently the case etc and its just gonna make it even more frustrating to be on the losing end. Overall b) is a highly undesired effect that will further buff aggression in most cases where people hit those at similar city count and is a buff to long-term down-pinning ----- c) Getting into range to updeclare on players with less than 1.75 times your cities gets easier. This will make it even more easy to drag down whales which combined with pinning down becoming easier will be hugely negative on long duration wars. One neat effect for me here is that it will be easier to nuke people with a lot of infra which I'm sure a lot of people will complain about later. ----- d) Getting into range to updeclare on players with more than 1.75 times your cities gets harder This one is basically irrelevant as it isn't very common that people hit those with >1.75 times their city count that they struggle to get in range of. ----- TL;DR Overall this change would encourage bad nation building at the cost of some vastly negative effects on warfare. But that's probably to be expected if you decrease the percentage of score that is determined by military.
  18. I think this may be worth considering if you go through with the change that planes and all units will take 3 days to max, because then having higher daily rebuys will be an actual advantage in a fight due to just the pure fact of having cities. But I think atm you are misinterpreting the core of the issue. The c20 can easily beat a c40 under the right conditions, most extremely with the c40 being zeroed and the c20 being max military. The point is: it isnt the having cities thats too strong, it would be the standing max military of a c40 that would be too strong. So what really needs balancing is the relative score of 2 nations in that max military state. By max military I mean whatever build the nation is running, so max military could be planes only or it could be max of everything. The unfair situation arises when the c20 has a lot of tanks/ships while the c40 runs only planes and soldiers, because only under these conditions is the c40 actually able to downdeclare due to the c20s inflated score caused by tank/ship-ownership. This is the state that really needs the addressing. You look at the c40 and c20 at their max military state and think about what it is about the c20s military that puts them in range and maybe change something there. I think the logical thing to consider here is to lower the amount of score given by tanks and ships as they contribute little to the defense and maybe shouldn't push the c20 into range of the c40. However, changing the amount of score given by cities is the false thing to address as you are also changing the score of nations with for example zeroed military, worsening an already bad state to be in. Actually increasing the score of cities would imo only be correct if the pure ownership of cities is too strong. I don't think the cities are too strong if its the quantity of military they can have that's strong because this is useless without having that military. So decreasing score given by tanks/ships/missiles/nukes imo would be the way to go instead.
  19. lol, sorry about this. I got a lot of DMs asking me if I'm alright. I'm okay. PnW and other hobbies have been taking up a majority of my time, causing me to neglect some other important areas of my life. I set my VM to a month now, time that I'll use to tend to the things needed. I think this break will be good for me, sorry for doing it so suddenly though. Anyway, raiding y'all later.
  20. Happy to have another alliance trying themselfes at raiding. Good luck!
  21. Just for clarity, since I have been asked what the MAP is about: There exists no treaty or any type of secret friendship agreement between Mythic and The Blitzers. Nevertheless, enjoy hitting Pantheon with us ?
  22. There is no treaty between Mythic and Arrgh and there is certainly no treaty between Mythic and KT. What Arrgh has given Mythic is a recognition. For clarity, both of them are not expected to help out in this. This is more a shitpost by Aether (who is not gov) than an official announcement, but yes we have a conflict with Pantheon ongoing.
  23. Very cool. When your members start posting RoHs and establish treaties with KT, you know there is a healthy amount of chromosomes in your alliance.
  24. I disagree with this in the current state of the game. At 34 cities I can easily be held down by 2 nations at like 15 cities who have less score than me after i'm already zeroed. Cities themselfes don't fight, a zeroed whale will be up against max milled mid tiers, can actually not do much and is reliant on receiving beige to rebuild. If the whale is built up on the other hand they will have a hard time reaching low enough to hit a lot of people, which was a major part of NPOs dominance, hiding below the reach of their foes. Increasing the score given by cities will increase this phenomenon. However I do believe that this will hold more true once a change such as the increased unit buy is implemented.
  25. People having an entire bank on them is a rare case that I don't think should be focus, and it's also not necessarily a bad thing to give players a chance to deposit their bank. But that aside: in most of wars blockading is about preventing warchest resupply (blockading people who run out of gas etc.) and in this case the 24h change would address some issues such as perma blockading. Instead of immediately being re-declared on and blockaded again once a war ends, you would have 24h to do transactions; it's a good way to balance perma-blockading strats imo which could be very devastating in theory if pulled off correctly leaving players blockaded for weeks on end.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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