Jump to content

tojoky

Members
  • Posts

    11
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Profile Information

  • Leader Name
    Tojoky
  • Nation Name
    Hypelandia
  • Nation ID
    131388
  • Alliance Name
    Rose

Contact Methods

  • Discord Name: Tojoky

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

tojoky's Achievements

Casual Member

Casual Member (2/8)

10

Reputation

  1. Carved this today. This is my pixel burning face.
  2. A truly impressive tenure. Always enjoyed watching you and Grumpy navigate FA on the forums. Happy retirement SRD!
  3. Upping mil score probably wouldn't fix everything because double buys are a thing. Going from 3000 score to 6000 score once you double buy doesn't change who you can hit from zero. It would actually let you hit lower city counts from 0 mil if they have units. It would solve fully milled down decs, but amplifies the problem where winning whales boost their score out of range. IMO, this disconnect has something to do with infra not being representative of fighting capacity yet still boosting score. Improvements however, are much more correlated with damage dealing ability. Perhaps reworking score from infra to score from improvements could help. It still correlates with infrastructure, but better represents the war readiness of a nation. Weighting military ones higher than civilian would also be an interesting option. p.s. See my above post for my thoughts on redoing improvement destruction
  4. The issue seems to be the ability of a fully milled c40 down declaring on a c20 or other comparable differences in city count. However, c40s have put a boatload of time and effort (or donations) into the game, so it only seems fair that they get to be powerhouses. Also, I think this is more an improvement capacity issue than a city count issue. At the end of the day whales have more improvements per city and more cities so they just dominate the improvement game while losing them at about the same rate as everyone else. If c40s can't stay fully milled AND be producing raws/manus while down declaring, I think that would be a win. The improvement destruction of wars has always seemed off to me. The maximum improvements destroyed per war I can think of would be 11 total (9 ground attacks followed by a nuke for 2) and that would be hitting ALL your rolls. So if I'm slotted, the absolute max improvements I can lose is 33, which for a c30 who starts at 2500 infra is just over 2% of my total improvement slots. These numbers are even worse in reality, with the max you can reliably take out being 8, if you do 4 nukes because without tactician ground attacks only destroy an improvement for 10% immense triumphs, and ships are only slightly better at 15%. Even being sat on during NPO's last time for 7 freaking months, I was continuously overfilled with improvements relative to my infra. This advantage is better for whales because 33 improvements over 40 cities with 60 improvements each isn't even a drop in the bucket. However that same damage is massive to a c15 who start at 30 slots and are using 19 of them on 5/5/5/3 and a power plant plus whatever is needed to have the pop to train soldiers. My suggestion would be instead of troop damage ties to city count, would be to tie improvement destruction to the infra improvement capacity. I think this would be a more balanced way to avoid massive down declares or at least make them more costly to the whales (sacrifice econ improvements in order to stay at full mil/have limited mil due to improvement losses). This could be implemented as a 100% guarantee of improvement destruction plus the normal 10/15% from the type of attack if you have a certain percent more improvements than slots (50%, 100%, idk what numbers would actually have the desired effect) OR a certain number above your infra capacity (i.e. normal odds if you have 30/20 or 20/10 or 40/30 but 100% chance if you have 31/20 or 60/20). There a lot of levers that could be pulled, including the number of improvements destroyed per attack. You could have a sharp cutoff for the increased odds at a percent or flat number in excess of infra, you could change the 100% guarantee to a 75% chance, heck you could chain collapses so that every time the attack rolls and successfully destroys an improvement it gets to roll again. I would recommend that any improvement destruction increase only occur above say 20 improvements, so that builds can still exist. I think this would also be a good way to encourage different strategies, such as tying the improved odds to the "Tactician" policy, and give wars more goals than just "kill planes."
  5. There will always be a "what if" @Alex. If all it takes is is a ground attack with the minimum number of soldiers to drain your MAPs, then you still could construct a "what-if" scenario where alliances a,b,c can do some back room slot filling scheme. The actual difference between your benefit of the doubt worst case scenario and your "$&!# hits the fan" scenario is so insignificant it doesn't make it worth making the distinction. If you want to decide minimum solider attacks isn't enough then what about half force? If that's still not good enough why aren't you fighting your wars to completion? Enforcing war to the death would be bad, and there doesn't seem to be a good line to draw that isn't arbitrary and open to abuse. Beige cycling evolved as the best strat to pin a losing side of a war. They "take up a slot" as evidenced by the fact that right when a war ends a new person jumps on the attack. It is how the game is played and good beige discipline is a good indicator of the fighting know-how of an alliance. Testing that discipline is 100% in the same spirit. If you really want to "enforce the rules as written" then look at beige cycling and read the rules with the the same stick up your.... same stick in your eye as you are reading it for these warnings. Beige is broken, has been for ages, people don't agree how to fix it. So: don't moderate the work arounds players have been using for years to deal with the broken system.
  6. Finally, a CB that doesn't require you to be terminally online and going through logs to understand! Just some good ol' fashioned pixel burning for the heck of it. Good luck, have fun all
  7. Good luck, have fun. Mostly to Swampy bois, but also to tCW and friends. Let's burn some pixels together and then laugh into the flames. *Insert TFP pixelhugging joke here*
  8. Skol TFP! But actually here are some of my thoughts 1. Mechanics could be added to approval rating. Something like defection rate from the military, or uprisings like in CIV when revolutions happen if happiness is not held to a given rate. The approval system would obviously need to be re-balanced such that it isn't a massive impact on the game but it would add a bit of depth and flavor to city management. 2. Make policy decisions important. Right now just war policy and domestic policy have in game implications, but the whole "government type" as well as economic decisions are just kinda sitting there with no reason to tweak them. I understand that some folks like the self expression that being able to be a communist theocracy gives, and that adding implications to such political choices may be divisive based on how people view politics OOC, but again this could add depth and ways to develop more complex strategies or national identities. This could be intertwined with a new war system or tech tree developments, but in order to avoid total changes I would say time limits on changing policies would be good. 3. I'd like to second some of the blockade ideas. I think that they should block taxes, probably block credits (less important honestly), but I really like the idea of blockade runners, but instead of a pay to use system, it could be like bounties where it is player based. I.e. a nation hires another nation off of some board and based on the size/tech of the hired players navy some amount of res get in. The players could set their own price for running the blockade, but if the nation who is running the blockade blocks some or all of the shipment then they receive those resources instead. This can provide some importance to alliances as well as it risks alliance resources but can get needed resources in. I think this doesn't interfere with the way the blockade is normally used right now which is to keep res inside a nation so the goods get taken. 4. This also provides a golden opportunity to mess with navy mechanics, i.e. specialized boats. You can still have the same number of ships, but you must choose between subs, aircraft carriers, speedboats for blockade busting, destroyers. Heck, throw in a pirate ship. It also could balance the use of planes vs ships depending on the type (subs can't get hit, aircraft carriers dogfight, destroyers have AA, ect) 5. Ground control could also be fun to mess with. Targeting improvements seems like a no brainer, but I also like the idea of occupying a city. A play can send X amount of soldiers/tanks to essentially take control of a city and siphons those res/taxes to the occupying nation, but defending nation get a big bonus when trying to retake the city. Guerilla warfare and whatnot. If not city occupation, then some sort of ground control = land control where farms are seized.
  9. Dang my tighty whiteys are definitely going to need some cleaning after this one. Sushi round two I guess
  10. "Grumpy" Gang, "Grumpy" Gang, "Grumpy" Gang Spent six months on this game Figured it's time for some fame (ooh!) Coalition A fricked up my alliance name But we rebuild quick so it's all the same But now ima go buy Balmains "Grumpy" Gang, "Grumpy" Gang, "Grumpy" Gang #Hypebeast #Yeet #Gucci #Clout ESKETIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIT
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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