Vemek

-snip- Nevermind, my mistake lmao >.>

3 ground attacks (what you've used in your example) is enough to dip the tank count below daily rebuild, as the amount of tanks killed in a ground battle is generally 40% of rebuy which accumulates to casualties greater than can be recouped in a single day. Furthermore, after the nerf to air on air casualties from 59->29% it's much harder for your opponent to actually pin down your air considering it'd take 4(3 if you're lucky) airstrikes to actually dogfight more than can be rebuilt, and even that at an incredibly small level, which itself is another issue as you can only airstrike 3 times a day. This altogether leaves room for fighting back even when your opponent has air superiority, unless they have a drastically higher city count than you which would mean you'd practically always lose regardless. Also, you can't really use a single instance as the norm due to the RNG nature of war mechanics. I ran 5 simulations of the exact same ground troops you listed (though I set infra to 1.5k as an average level to account for the civilian army) and got 4 IT's and 1 moderate success - which means your results were more than likely just a bad roll of the dice. (I'm not certain if Alex has updated the battle simulator, so I may be entirely wrong with the last example)

I don't think killing 42% of average daily buy is an "infinitesimal" plane destruction, furthermore the same argument can be made the other way around. In a secnario where you start off with a ground disadvantage, your opponent will start with 6 MAPs (7 if you don't have fortress) allowing them to get off two ground attacks on you, which kills a significant portion of your planes. There's absolutely no need for ground control to be made any more powerful. Even previously, a plane disadvantage generally always meant defeat unless you could get ground control off and had enough planes to compete with them.

It would be if Alex actually listened to most of the forum feedback and reworked his updates based on what works and what doesn't. It's better than the alternative to say the least.

Just because new players could buy them doesn't mean they're viable. All the manu projects aren't viable for a 10 city nation, neither is uranium or mass irrigation (lol wtf). PB and IA are standard projects that are always bought, so sure. Missile and Iron Dome generally aren't the top priority for a smaller 10 city nation either. Recycling Initiative is absolutely worthless unless you're building commerce, which you aren't as a new player. That's about 4 projects maximum. I really don't see why new players need any additional project slots at the city range you seem to be focusing on (1-10). In regards to the suggested projects: 1st Project - This is a lot more of a whale project in disguise than a low tier focused one since you say the bonuses would stay in the first 10 cities and not having it that way would make the project worthless altogether. 2nd Project - Commerce is generally ignored even up to c10 so new players would be getting a negligible bonus with all the pollution/disease deaths going on making the project pretty worthless. 3rd Project - If you keep the requirement to be at peace, this is literally just not worthwhile. Remove the requirement and it's pretty solid, especially with the added benefit of promoting activity.

Genuinely though, it's great to see you trying to change the planes op meta and make the game more interesting, but 42% planes killed by tanks vs 14% of tanks in an airstrike is an extremely weighted match. Nerfed the planes a tad too much.

I am sorry to inform you that your request has been denied. This is an action made fully of my own volition with no outside coercion.

Greetings, e$ is willing to consider blessing you all with our strong upper tier presence. We would be the most suited as not only are we a paperless alliance unaffiliated with any of the top 10 scum, and are looking forward to rolling the vile t$ come next war, but also because we will have no trouble in being the equivalent of the previous holders of the letter 'E' in Ketog Hedge Money, Empyrea as the redheaded stepchild of this new bloc. Furthermore, our first motion as leaders of this new bloc will be to ignore your request to send Keegoz a private message because frick you. We run this shit.

You have a very strong sense of self-importance.

"Cap spy kills to 10?" - To answer your question, no I didn't really think about this before typing as I didn't type it at all. Also "being able to buy more spies again do not help unless you can buy more than someone can kill in a day" - That's not how it should work, you shouldn't be able to buy more than someone can kill in a day, if you can, what's the fricking point of killing them? It's quite clear your suggestions pay no heed to the actual effects of this on the game instead shortsightedly looking at your own predicament.

1) One of the main premises of 'spies' is that they work secretly, without being detected, being able to see who did the op is completely against the point and frankly makes no sense, your spies already have a chance of detecting who did the op. 1b) See above 2) This would provide more incentives to get beiged, which, imo shouldn't be done while the beige system itself needs tweaking. 3) This (somewhat), if one side can wipe the enemies spies, keeping them pinned at sub 20 spies is all that needs to be done to dominate the spy game henceforth. This aside, spy system does need to be reworked, absolutely not in the ways you suggest it. ----- A few possible reworks: Cap spy kills at a more reasonable amount, one op shouldn't take out 1/2 or more of spy count. Incremental spy buy rates as you have less spies, makes it harder to be absolutely pinned while preventing people from quickly recouping minor spy losses.

Sorry I'm not smart enough to spoof anything more than a single line.

You can always stop protecting them friend. ?

?

300 is unreasonable, even if a new player in a non raiding alliance is an extremely avid raider, it would take months of raiding to reach that mark, and even then most players stop raiding long before the 300 mark, building up cities at which point unless you're in a raiding alliance there won't be targets to attack to bump that up, forcing people to wait until another alliance war pops up to build the project.

Ok.

What he did was just as wrong whether or not he collected an irl cut, and the irl cut doesn't make it better or worse, because breaking an internet game's rules isn't an irl financial crime, in case you were curious. - Lmfao, please, at this point even you should realise how absolutely biased that point of view is. That is basically taking away from profit Alex might've made through credits in the future. An irl cut means he's profited off this, despite your own claims he simply connected people, and isn't the 'innocent' middle man you claim him to be. Claiming that an irl cut does not make things better or worse is beyond single-minded, of course making actual fricking money off this, and hence indirectly taking money from what might've been used to buy credits. The rules do not say that the buyer and seller are punished differently, both are punished the same way and so, anyone else making irl money off it should be punished the same way But, you know, I'm here posting in a thread that actually asked Alex to have access to a player's irl finances so I am not sure you understand the difference between the game and reality. - Take a look in the mirror, I responded to a post of yours after you started rambling on about how one of the people that profited irl are not as bad as those who made a profit ingame. As an interesting side note, I am in favor of Alex "garnishing" in-game income of cheaters in cases where illicit money (allegedly) cannot be otherwise recovered. Half Nokia's login bonus and revenues until the 10b is paid down. How about that? - Indifferent to this, honestly don't care but then wipe Elijah's nation too, or do you still intend on trying to protect someone who profited irl off this? Regardless, considering how pointlessly obtuse you're being there's no point in me arguing beyond this, have fun o/ I am agreeing with you, i'm guessing wrong quote lol.

"Nokia, the only one who actually cheated, gave 5bil to his friends and paid 5bil in debts" - Firstly, Nokia may have paid off debts using the money, but it can't be deleted because removing that ingame money would not be punishing Nokia but those who had absolutely no involvement in the cheating. That money can't be used to punish any of the cheaters involved at this point, and so is irrelevant. "The money, or any gains therein, was not in his possession when he decided, for unrelated reasons, to re-roll some five months ago." - Therefore, the only logical punishment that could be given to Nokia (as doing this does not warrant an actual ban afaik), is a nation wipe, as his monetary gains were used to send funds to other people, and in the end, he himself wiped his nation. All the possible punishments that would be given for the rule infraction have been occurred. Dressing this up as some sort of atonement is laughable. - Who, in this entire thread has ever suggested Nokia rerolling his nation was 'atonement', nobody is dressing him up as a martyr and many people (including myself) have repeatedly stated that the motives simply do not matter. It does not matter whether it was 'atonement' or not, and nobody is trying to paint it as such. Noone is claiming Nokia is either worthy of immunity or did this as atonement. He has undergone what would be the proper punishment for breaking the rules and therefore, there's no other action to be taken against him. Also, EM never cheated, he did not buy money nor did he sell money, all he did was connect a buyer and a seller, as was mentioned by Alex himself. - I think your own friend can respond to this far better than I ever could. I get a little irl money as most was sent to gorge - He did not simply connect a buyer and a seller, as he himself admits, either you're defending him knowing this or your buddy's lying to you. Make your conclusions as you will.

Standard punishment for this is a nation wipe: Nokia rerolled AFTER they bought their money, hence they gained no ingame advantage - Nation wiped. Gorge wiped his nation himself despite not even getting that much attention. - Nation wiped. Noticing a pattern here? EM is the singular person from the trio that has been proven to be linked to this entire fiasco that has NOT gone through what would be the rightful punishment for trading irl money for ingame currency. Therefore, it's quite logical to ignore people that have essentially already wiped their nations themselves and faced the punishment they should've received (motives literally do not matter, point is there was a punishment and regardless of why they did it, they have wiped their nations, negating any benefit they would have received) in favour of someone who was uncooperative from the start, only really helping once he saw he would be banned and since then has been allowed off the hook scot-free. And I have literally never interacted with EM in anyway whatsoever to have prejudices against him.

Shut the frick up, slot filler. Just killed the game.

nice job ignoring literally everything that was written there, explaining how it wasn't just 'someone in a micro' and someone more directly tied to you guys. though i stand corrected by Epi's explanation of what actually happened w/ them.

"To Coalition B Leaders: You threatened us one too many times. Attack any one of my members and I will leak classified OPSEC to your enemies."" >they're literally in your coalition but keep dancing around the point. Don't need to be directly treatied to BK to be part of your coalition and clearly imply you guys as the reason they disbanded, so yes, there's a big difference between an alliance on your side who is treatied to an ally of yours disbanding and blaming you guys and some random alliance disbanding and blaming you guys. sO, oKAy