Jump to content

Best fix ever for low level raiders


Kastor
 Share

Recommended Posts

At the end of the day don't whine about your problem keegoz. Figure out a solution and implement it.

Actually, this get at a larger point. Rather than dealing with game mechanics as they are the auto solution to the "problem" of the day is to whine to the admin. How about we grow up and just play the game. If you don't want to fix the current raider problem then deal with the results of that decision. If you decide to fix it then go do that.

Play the darn game man.

And before anyone tries to give LordRahl2 / New Galactic Empire crap over saying that...

 

In our war with Mensa...

This guy got pulled down... Held down for well over a week... And had his infra bombed to zero... All cities zero.

And yet he still tried to fight his way out of it and almost made it.

 

Didnt see him cry... Didnt see him quit... Didnt see him yell "unfair" anywhere.

And he's still here playing.

 

A worthy opponent.

 

---------------------------

 

 

And with that Im done posting in this thread for now... There is a game to play and its not on this forum.

Edited by Fasolt
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only way to show Sheepy how wank his new mechanics are is to start up another mass war. Then he can watch the winning team hold the defeated team down for months on end at very little cost in time, money and resources.

  • Upvote 2

☾☆

Warrior of Dio

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the war, I was down declared on by someone with 3 cities and 30% military over me. In the raid, i was declared on at parity by some one with 4 cites and 100% more military than me.

This is bad. I think a rollback should be on the table.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the war, I was down declared on by someone with 3 cities and 30% military over me. In the raid, i was declared on at parity by some one with 4 cites and 100% more military than me.

 

This is bad. I think a rollback should be on the table.

No, no man, it's great. Like perfect. Nothing screams perfection more than spontaneous randomness. Tune in next week for another update.

Fox_Fire_Txt2.png

_________________________________________________________________

<Jroc> I heard \ is an anagram of cocaine
<\> I can't be rearranged into a line, I already am a line.

--Foxburo Wiki--

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At the end of the day don't whine about your problem keegoz. Figure out a solution and implement it.

 

Actually, this get at a larger point. Rather than dealing with game mechanics as they are the auto solution to the "problem" of the day is to whine to the admin. How about we grow up and just play the game. If you don't want to fix the current raider problem then deal with the results of that decision. If you decide to fix it then go do that.

 

Play the darn game man.

 

Anything he says you will automatically turn down. Many of these threads are the 20% effected by a recent change, saying sheepy sucks and not at all suggesting a compromise either. Pretty much telling every other player, there is only one way to play the game, play it our way or else we will attack you until you decide to. 

 

The game mechanic is the issue, If nation A attacks nation B.. Nation A wins, It doesn`t matter what nation B has (cause nation A is going to pick a weaker nation anyway). Nation B can not fight back for most of the war unless very early on nation C and D declare on A with more military (we all know you never declare up, Cause you`d lose if you did declare up.) 

 

He is playing the game too, Its not the same way as yours by any means but he is still playing it.. Currently he has no peaceful option available only war, Ya know like politics. The game is called POLITICS & WAR. You are treating the game simply put as RAIDING & WAR. We don't want to pixel hug all day, but that doesn't mean we want war EVERY SINGLE DAY of the game. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anything he says you will automatically turn down. Many of these threads are the 20% effected by a recent change, saying sheepy sucks and not at all suggesting a compromise either. Pretty much telling every other player, there is only one way to play the game, play it our way or else we will attack you until you decide to. 

 

The game mechanic is the issue, If nation A attacks nation B.. Nation A wins, It doesn`t matter what nation B has (cause nation A is going to pick a weaker nation anyway). Nation B can not fight back for most of the war unless very early on nation C and D declare on A with more military (we all know you never declare up, Cause you`d lose if you did declare up.) 

 

He is playing the game too, Its not the same way as yours by any means but he is still playing it.. Currently he has no peaceful option available only war, Ya know like politics. The game is called POLITICS & WAR. You are treating the game simply put as RAIDING & WAR. We don't want to pixel hug all day, but that doesn't mean we want war EVERY SINGLE DAY of the game. 

So then crush the raiders yourself? You can't stop war unless we remove the mechanic so suck it up, buttercup. 

Consistency needs to be had here. We can change the mechanics but I promise you that immediately someone will start &#33;@#&#036;ing about how the mechanics need changed yet again because of raiders or some shit. Take this thread for example:

 

In the war, I was down declared on by someone with 3 cities and 30% military over me. In the raid, i was declared on at parity by some one with 4 cites and 100% more military than me.

 

This is bad. I think a rollback should be on the table.

  • Upvote 2

Fox_Fire_Txt2.png

_________________________________________________________________

<Jroc> I heard \ is an anagram of cocaine
<\> I can't be rearranged into a line, I already am a line.

--Foxburo Wiki--

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The game mechanic is the issue, If nation A attacks nation B.. Nation A wins, It doesn`t matter what nation B has (cause nation A is going to pick a weaker nation anyway). Nation B can not fight back for most of the war unless very early on nation C and D declare on A with more military (we all know you never declare up, Cause you`d lose if you did declare up.) 

 

Also, this has been the case throughout numerous updates. Seriously old !@#$ news. Oh I know!!! Let's change the mechanics for the ten billionth time to realize we are still left with the same problems, just like old times! :v

Edited by Fox Fire

Fox_Fire_Txt2.png

_________________________________________________________________

<Jroc> I heard \ is an anagram of cocaine
<\> I can't be rearranged into a line, I already am a line.

--Foxburo Wiki--

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most of the people moaning are from arrgh or similar alliances who raid nations that cant defend themselves from the attacks

 

We should change something - get on and do it - and at the end of the day if it doesn't work, it doesn't work and we change it back to what it was before (if we never try to do new things then the game won't advance and for all anyone knows it could make the game much better than it already is)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most of the people moaning are from arrgh or similar alliances who raid nations that cant defend themselves from the attacks

 

We should change something - get on and do it - and at the end of the day if it doesn't work, it doesn't work and we change it back to what it was before (if we never try to do new things then the game won't advance and for all anyone knows it could make the game much better than it already is)

Actually, I see a lot of moaning from well you and others frankly. People can actually defend themselves. There is nothing stopping them other than personal and alliance choices. Choices have consequences. It is not the game admin's job to make your choice supperior than the choice you and your alliance did not make. So no. We should not keep changing the game to "fix" it.

  • Upvote 3

-signature removed for rules violation-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^^^^^^^^

 

Keegoz pls.

 

Link us to these poor souls who are unable to build more than 200 planes.

 

Or is it because of the destroyed infra after war which stops them? Thank Sheepy for that completely removing any advantage the defeated could have. He put this system to enable perm defeat. :P

I'm one of those right here. I can barely pull together 236 planes with a double buy but i'm facing someone who started with over 900. The reason "Coordination" isn't the answer is that the only recourse the options currently give alliances are to have 3 members declare, double buy and then suicide their units at a loss. The mechanics are just flat out broken and no amount of teamwork can over come them.

 

And I wasn't just suggesting a rollback of the changes, I was suggesting a rollback of the game state. You screw up something this bad you it's best to just turn back time Prince of Persia style and pretend it never happened.

Edited by durmij
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anything he says you will automatically turn down. Many of these threads are the 20% effected by a recent change, saying sheepy sucks and not at all suggesting a compromise either. Pretty much telling every other player, there is only one way to play the game, play it our way or else we will attack you until you decide to.

 

The game mechanic is the issue, If nation A attacks nation B.. Nation A wins, It doesn`t matter what nation B has (cause nation A is going to pick a weaker nation anyway). Nation B can not fight back for most of the war unless very early on nation C and D declare on A with more military (we all know you never declare up, Cause you`d lose if you did declare up.)

 

He is playing the game too, Its not the same way as yours by any means but he is still playing it.. Currently he has no peaceful option available only war, Ya know like politics. The game is called POLITICS & WAR. You are treating the game simply put as RAIDING & WAR. We don't want to pixel hug all day, but that doesn't mean we want war EVERY SINGLE DAY of the game.

The politics is having nation C, D, and E availible and politically aligned to support B. That is the basic rule of politics. So yeah, there is an option (many actually) that are valid and playable.

 

Again, there are numerous ways to play the game. Those game play styles each have benefits and drawbacks. That is a healthy basis of game mechanics.

 

So no he is not playing the game really. He is here complaining to Sheepy and hoping to have what he perceives as an injustice fixed by magic. He can actually and realistically expend some effort and resources if it bugs him and fix it himself. Doing so would probably require him to use both politics and war which, as you so adroitly point out, is the name of the game.

  • Upvote 1

-signature removed for rules violation-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The politics is having nation C, D, and E availible and politically aligned to support B. That is the basic rule of politics. So yeah, there is an option (many actually) that are valid and playable.

 

Again, there are numerous ways to play the game. Those game play styles each have benefits and drawbacks. That is a healthy basis of game mechanics.

 

So no he is not playing the game really. He is here complaining to Sheepy and hoping to have what he perceives as an injustice fixed by magic. He can actually and realistically expend some effort and resources if it bugs him and fix it himself. Doing so would probably require him to use both politics and war which, as you so adroitly point out, is the name of the game.

The problem is, politics is meaningless when the mechanics are this bad. C, D and E have no mechanical ability to effectively protect B.

 

This isn't a playstyle, this is a naked exploit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem is, politics is meaningless when the mechanics are this bad. C, D and E have no mechanical ability to effectively protect B.

 

This isn't a playstyle, this is a naked exploit.

They do in fact. I told you how upthread.

-signature removed for rules violation-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can have 3 dd with double builds. Your attackers may very well get wrecked so rebuild your dudes...but if they are over cap then they have truly lost what they had.

 

Or you can widdle away with spies.

 

Or both.

 

So...

Was it this? Because my previous post explained why this is stupid. Even down declaring, you would still be attacking superior forces and would be doing so inefficiently. So you would have to take extra loses just to remove units your opponent shouldn't have. War range is more out of sync with military power then before.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm one of those right here. I can barely pull together 236 planes with a double buy but i'm facing someone who started with over 900. The reason "Coordination" isn't the answer is that the only recourse the options currently give alliances are to have 3 members declare, double buy and then suicide their units at a loss. The mechanics are just flat out broken and no amount of teamwork can over come them.

And I wasn't just suggesting a rollback of the changes, I was suggesting a rollback of the game state. You screw up something this bad you it's best to just turn back time Prince of Persia style and pretend it never happened.

Two of us attacked you at the same time... I was one of them

(and we had people watching as possible thirds if somehow needed)

 

We did it in a pre-planned order to minimize losses and maximize the chance of immense victories.

 

Dan77 opened up the attack since he had the best chance of getting an immense triumph against your planes. When he didnt get that immense on his airstrike (vs Tanks)... I followed up with an airstrike (Dogfight) to cut your planes down more and insure an immense triumph... so I could then followup with a ground assault (taking advantage of air control) and cut your tanks (and infantry) down even more... making it so Dan77 could then followup with his GA at less losses to him and leave you unable to counter.

 

 

The real problems...

 

1- most of your alliance didnt have armies... Many nothing at all... So you left yourself with no options for countering a surprise raid. In a sense, we outnumbered you. "Coordination" wasnt the answer in the short term because you had little / nothing to coordinate. And as days of attacks passed, hardly any of your people recruited any troops. Leaving the starting situation to continue.

 

2- youre not going to be able to build a strong army up from little or nothing in a day or two. (there is something else you should have done, actually more than one thing your alliance could have, but Im not saying it here as that will just help future opponents)

 

3- the few who did have half way decent militaries, yourself included, we targeted as teams and took out... Thus crippling your alliances chance at anchoring any attempt at counterattack off them. We assume the worst and single out potential problems. Yes, we watch all of your military stats and shifts in growth.

 

 

We hit you last night... We should have hit you the night before when you were even weaker but we didnt get the chance (something I &#33;@#&#036;ed a little about lol)

 

You had an army to begin with, a decently strong one. Strong enough to be singled out for attack, and strong enough that those of us on early the night before - all with less cities or a smaller army than you - couldnt take you out without risk of exposing ourselves. When others who were stronger showed up we got distracted by someone in another alliance who attacked one of our guys.

 

You built up more in the extra day we took to attack you, adding a city and planes. I myself added a city and planes too, in order to deal with you and two others (one we got to, the other would have been done later last night, but your people negotiated and agreed to terms before that happened).

 

My build... Exploits nothing. Its a normal full military build.

No high city count / high building count / bombed low infra count. One city less than you.

 

If Dan77 had not been in the attack last night... Another or two others would have been with me, with the same outcome.

Edited by Fasolt
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As Fasolt points out durmij your alliance has made a choice. That choice comes with benefits (higher growth) and downsides (less security).  Your alliance did not modify its policy after you were attacked did it?  Again, choices.  Surely the alliance high growth option will allow you to return to your previous level faster after the conflict.  Again, a valid game-play style and one you choose to participate in.  However, it comes with a downside for you now.  If you whine to admin to magic away your problem then you have removed a set of game-play options (choices) from the game thereby reducing the dynamism of the game which is unhealthy.

  • Upvote 2

-signature removed for rules violation-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Was it this? Because my previous post explained why this is stupid. Even down declaring, you would still be attacking superior forces and would be doing so inefficiently. So you would have to take extra loses just to remove units your opponent shouldn't have. War range is more out of sync with military power then before.

 

Hang on you're complaining because you would have to try to win wars? and use more resources? Hang on, so you're telling me war is costly? 

 

Your complaints completely go back to the fact that Rose had no prepared nations to defend itself. Which is a MAJOR fall through on your leadership. The only people who complain and have a hard time dealing with raiders are people who would rather sit around and talk about it, some of us are trying to use all the mechanics. You just used this "broken system" to buy a treasure off a nation so I would stop whining. 

 

Fight first, Diplo later. 

 

Are you serious? Do you hear yourself?

 

 

As Fasolt points out durmij your alliance has made a choice. That choice comes with benefits (higher growth) and downsides (less security).  Your alliance did not modify its policy after you were attacked did it?  Again, choices.  Surely the alliance high growth option will allow you to return to your previous level faster after the conflict.  Again, a valid game-play style and one you choose to participate in.  However, it comes with a downside for you now.  If you whine to admin to magic away your problem then you have removed a set of game-play options (choices) from the game thereby reducing the dynamism of the game which is unhealthy.

 
This is what I said in a far nicer tone. 
Edited by Jacob Hanson
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The game mechanic is the issue, If nation A attacks nation B.. Nation A wins, It doesn`t matter what nation B has (cause nation A is going to pick a weaker nation anyway). Nation B can not fight back for most of the war unless very early on nation C and D declare on A with more military (we all know you never declare up, Cause you`d lose if you did declare up.) 

I declare up all the time. Two of the three attacks I did last night, I declared up.

 

In some cases its because I have a stronger military, while he is fat and weak.

In other cases its a matter of how I approach the battle - what sequence I attack in and when.

And in others... Its simply teamwork.

 

 

He is playing the game too, Its not the same way as yours by any means but he is still playing it.. Currently he has no peaceful option available only war, Ya know like politics. The game is called POLITICS & WAR. You are treating the game simply put as RAIDING & WAR. We don't want to pixel hug all day, but that doesn't mean we want war EVERY SINGLE DAY of the game.

Power is the necessary leverage behind Politics.

 

If you have little or no Power (be it always or just at that moment), your Politicking isnt going to have the necessary weight behind it to reach your goal... at least not in the way you desire.

 

If you have little or no Power... those with it are going to push you around, if they so choose to do so... and especially if doing so is of benefit to them.

 

And no, Im not saying Power equates only to Military capability (or more correctly, especially in the real world - Military and the will to use it). But within games like this it is the easiest to recreate and wield to effect.

 

 

Economics is another obvious factor in Power... but it is more difficult to recreate in a setting like this. Usually some of its primary values, in terms of in game Power, are - ones ability to sustain and quickly build/rebuild a strong alliance wide military... The ability to rebuild infrastructure damage quickly (which may well be a telling factor in future wars due to the increased effect of Population on military caps)... The ability to buy the aid of those already possesssing a large / effective military... Or the ability to buy ones desired outcome in Politicking. And there are other possibilities than just these.

 

Another great Power of Economics - Economic Sanctions - is limited in a game setting such as this.

 

 

And for the hell of it Im going to quote von Clausewitz LoL...

"War is merely the continuation of policy by other means - We therefore see that war is not merely an act of policy but a true political instrument, a continuation of political intercourse carried on with other means. What remains peculiar to war is simply the peculiar nature of its means."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At the end of the day don't whine about your problem keegoz. Figure out a solution and implement it.

 

Actually, this get at a larger point. Rather than dealing with game mechanics as they are the auto solution to the "problem" of the day is to whine to the admin. How about we grow up and just play the game. If you don't want to fix the current raider problem then deal with the results of that decision. If you decide to fix it then go do that.

 

Play the darn game man.

I don't see why I should have to suffer a game disadvantage because of game mechanics, the whole reasoning I am getting from Sheepy for not enforcing the new mechanic is because it would be unfair to arrgh. Well it is unfair on more of us than it is arrgh and there is precedent where he has enforced cap changes before.

 

It's easy to wave your pom poms from the side lines having every arrgh member back you up as the benefit from this &#33;@#&#036; up.

[11:52 PM] Prefontaine: But Keegoz is actually bad. [11:52 PM] Prefontaine: He's my favorite bad leader though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see why I should have to suffer a game disadvantage because of game mechanics, the whole reasoning I am getting from Sheepy for not enforcing the new mechanic is because it would be unfair to arrgh. Well it is unfair on more of us than it is arrgh and there is precedent where he has enforced cap changes before.

 

It's easy to wave your pom poms from the side lines having every arrgh member back you up as the benefit from this !@#$ up.

 

Most of us are literally in the same position you guys are, We're just doing it better >.> These caps hurt you guys more then they hurt us tbh. You should really add some military on.. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see why I should have to suffer a game disadvantage because of game mechanics, the whole reasoning I am getting from Sheepy for not enforcing the new mechanic is because it would be unfair to arrgh. Well it is unfair on more of us than it is arrgh and there is precedent where he has enforced cap changes before.

 

It's easy to wave your pom poms from the side lines having every arrgh member back you up as the benefit from this !@#$ up.

 

You do not see how selecting one method for playing the game should have downsides?  Well, it should.  It also has benefits.  Its a game.  It has trade-offs.  Some alliances select a method of game-play and others select another.  Is the Admin stopping you from playing the game to defeat the threat you face?  No.  You have to decide to either accept the consequences of the method of play you selected or to change your play-style to deal with your problem.  It is not the fault of the game that there are consequences to your decision either way.  What I find distasteful is that you are actively complaining about game mechanics that were known and/or knowable. 

 

I am making a general argument and not bringing alliance X, my alliance, your alliance, or my personal nation's experience into the debate.  If you would like me to do so I certainly can I suppose.  However, it is far more intellectually honest on this sub-forum to be more professional.

 

iirc, it was complaints to Admin that brought about the current rule change.  Nobody seems to like that change. I would love to just say "I told you so" and leave it at that but I fear that you would not get the real lesson.  Frankly, people rarely even consider second and third order impacts when requesting a game mechanics change.  Unforeseen consequences are a fact (in life and in games).

I argue from a "no change", or a "very very rare change" standpoint.  The community will adapt to the game mechanics as they exist.

 

Whining to admin in search of magic fixes to your problems is a way of addressing your problem.  It is a method that I find obnoxious and actually counter productive (as we can see from this example).  There are other solutions in game.  Pursue them if you want to or deal with the decision not to pursue them.  I don't care as long as you leave both the Admin himself and the game in general alone. tia

Edited by LordRahl2
  • Upvote 1

-signature removed for rules violation-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most of the people moaning are from arrgh or similar alliances who raid nations that cant defend themselves from the attacks

Maybe thats because Arrgh and the other war like alliances have the best grasp of the mechanics. We are 'moaning' for your benefit. This update actually benefits alliances such as Mensa and those that know how to blitz properly. We can put you out of the fight for good in the first few minutes of warfare. Unless you are sitting on a &#33;@#&#036;ing mountain of cash, you will be at our mercy... This update is bad for everyone!

  • Upvote 3

☾☆

Warrior of Dio

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This update only effects the mechanics of the game. You guys will still be the same old defenseless uncoordinated pixel huggers as before. Now tho when we raid you or blitz you, you wont be able to build back. Then you will just be raid num nums.  

  • Upvote 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, looking at my current war, my nation can have about a max of 30 something thousand troops with this new change, under my already crushed condition. The nation that attacked me houses about 70 thousand and it doesn't look like he built up after declaring. 

 

Real helpful for small nations, I must say. Can I safely say this update did nothing to help anyone anywhere? It did go $2W though. 

It seems he can have 65k while you can have 47k. 

He has 1 less city than you and almost twice as much infrastructure in each city, because you have more cities and lower infra you naturally have a disadvantage. 

If this update was aimed to hurt nations it was nations like yours that would have had advantage over a nation with less cities but higher infra. 

Edited by Clarke

IpHGyGc.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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