Best fix ever for low level raiders

[LordRahl2]

Such a mechanic has always existed allilee. In fact up to 3 members of the defending alliance can attack the raider.

 

Frankly, there was always a way to beat of the high city low infra tactic. That method is both hard and expensive but very possible. !@#$ing at Sheepy about things being "unfair" is cheap and easy though.

[Yosodog]

This is Sheepy's game. Let him do what he wants. It's clear this is the direction he wants to move and continuing to !@#$ about it won't get you anywhere.

[Fasolt]

You try came up with something else that prevent low level newbies from being gang-banged by three 140000 soldiers, 8000 tanks, 600 aircrafts, 500 score Arrgh guys repeatedly for the entire month then : P

What drugs are you on? Pass the pipe to someone else.

 

Those figures are TOTAL bullcrap.

 

Only shows you have NO IDEA what you are talking about and are exaggerating ridiculously.

 

 

And any realistic figures, which the above again are not... You or anyone else could have done.

[Fox Fire]

This is Sheepy's game. Let him do what he wants. It's clear this is the direction he wants to move and continuing to !@#$ about it won't get you anywhere.

This is a fair point. It is indeed his game and he has every right to do whatever he wants. However, I recall memories of Pixel Nations, where the admin really did simply do whatever he wanted. It was a very great game until he stopped listening to the players. Then everyone left. As they left, he tried making it $2W and continued !@#$ing the game up until what was left of the player base absolutely hated him. Eventually he decided that everyone hated him and he sold it. Then smack in the middle of ownership transfer, the game was suspiciously "hacked" and wiped out. Could have been the old admin or maybe someone else. Nobody really knows. But either way, he ruined it for everyone. 

So sure, he can totally do whatever he wants, but I imagine that people are allowed to make suggestions because Sheepy wants to hear them. Thus, here they are...

[Yosodog]

This is a fair point. It is indeed his game and he has every right to do whatever he wants. However, I recall memories of Pixel Nations, where the admin really did simply do whatever he wanted. It was a very great game until he stopped listening to the players. Then everyone left. As they left, he tried making it $2W and continued !@#$ the game up until what was left of the player base absolutely hated him. Eventually he decided that everyone hated him and he sold it. Then smack in the middle of ownership transfer, the game was suspiciously "hacked" and wiped out. Could have been the old admin or maybe someone else. Nobody really knows. But either way, he ruined it for everyone. 

So sure, he can totally do whatever he wants, but I imagine that people are allowed to make suggestions because Sheepy wants to hear them. Thus, here they are...

 

Oh for sure, I understand that. And to the people who have been suggesting alternatives they're doing the correct things. The problem is, people are keeping their score low to be able to easily defeat new players and it seems Sheepy doesn't want that. He implemented a solution he feels is adequate and personally I agree with. To the people suggesting alternatives, keep doing it, but the people who just demand the changes be reverted aren't helping.

 

BK takes in a lot of noobs and it is a problem. For a majority of players I've spoken to about this issue they think the change is fine. Is Sheepy's solution the best? I don't know. But the people who are just !@#$ing about it aren't helping. The only way to solve it before the change would be to keep quite a few members at a lower level and a lot of players do not want to do that. In a nation's early days they should be growing as fast as possible. It's a problem that needs to be solved and if Sheepy's solution isn't the best, it should be replaced.

 

I probably should've clarified it better in my original post, but it was about the people who were !@#$ing about the changes without offering solutions to the problem.

[Fasolt]

Actually MMO's are more so based on that players 1st day, even in P&W only 1/10th of the players make it past that point.

If you read all of what I said you will see I later spoke of the high turnaround rate that all MMOs have when it comes to new players.

 

If you re-read the part you quoted you'll see I was speaking specifically of one of the primary things that "keeps people involved over the long term" - obviously meaning those who make it beyond the short term new player period.

 

 

As for the rest...

 

I dont think you followed what I was really getting at... But anyway...

 

If you choose to go with full production and have no military... You are going to be a victim no matter what tweeks (like the recent changes) are done. Unless the system is totally overhauled into something else.

 

There is no excuse for an alliance that leaves itself unprotected except to blame their leadership for oganizing poorly.

You are a team... Mix up styles within the team to compliment one another... Protecting, building, funding.

 

 

You've been playing a for a month, and there is nothing you can do to defend yourself, you better hope your allies are full military or else they can't protect you... But these nations gave you money which means they don`t have military. so they have 30 farms, cause if they had 15 and 15, they would't have be able to introduce new players to the game with money

Bullcrap

 

First of all... its ridiculous to say someone who splits between production and military is incapable of helping others monetarily. We do all the time.

 

As for myself... Ive been playing about 3 and a half months.

 

I admit I had a lot of experience coming into this game, and Im used to a much more aggressive play style than most here have...

But I had no problem building myself up or defending myself when I started.

I didnt want any money or handouts and turned down most, because to me that just takes away from me earning my victories in the game (though after I joined Arrgh I ended up taking some city grants after Jacob and Niemand guilted me into it LoL).

Ive handed out plenty of money and resources to others while having a full military... even when I had only 5 or 6 cities. Including heavily funding a friend of mine from another game.

I went into our war with Mensa... with 6 cities and a war chest worth well over 100 million at then market prices (and i gave away plenty to help others keep fighting). Actually, I think I started that war with 5 cities.

 

Now yes... Im a full raider build (and no... not a high city count / high building count / low infra build). No commerce or production at all.

 

No excuse to !@#$ about me - I didnt "exploit" whatever the cry is over. I just added my 8th city today.

 

And Ive been at war near constantly since coming out of beginners protection, so Im used to negative wartime revenue.

 

But plenty of others I know mix production and military just fine... and we are all successful because we constantly communicate and work together as a team. (We arent the only alliance who does)

 

Rethink your choices and play better... There is a lot more you could be doing than you think.

 

If these are the problems people are having... The recent changes to the formulas are going to do next to nothing to help them.

Edited February 27, 2016 by Fasolt

[Keegoz]

So far had about 3 nations leave because of arrgh, Sheepy. More than we lost during our entire war and because they are using game mechanics we can't compete with.

 

Admit it, you !@#$ed up.

[LordRahl2]

So far had about 3 nations leave because of arrgh, Sheepy. More than we lost during our entire war and because they are using game mechanics we can't compete with.

 

Admit it, you !@#$ed up.

Why can't you compete?

[Fox Fire]

Oh for sure, I understand that. And to the people who have been suggesting alternatives they're doing the correct things. The problem is, people are keeping their score low to be able to easily defeat new players and it seems Sheepy doesn't want that. He implemented a solution he feels is adequate and personally I agree with. To the people suggesting alternatives, keep doing it, but the people who just demand the changes be reverted aren't helping.

 

BK takes in a lot of noobs and it is a problem. For a majority of players I've spoken to about this issue they think the change is fine. Is Sheepy's solution the best? I don't know. But the people who are just !@#$ about it aren't helping. The only way to solve it before the change would be to keep quite a few members at a lower level and a lot of players do not want to do that. In a nation's early days they should be growing as fast as possible. It's a problem that needs to be solved and if Sheepy's solution isn't the best, it should be replaced.

 

I probably should've clarified it better in my original post, but it was about the people who were !@#$ about the changes without offering solutions to the problem.

I disagree. I don't think these changes are an improvement by any means. Which brings me back to consistency. There is a reason you don't see monthly changes to Cybernations. And I quite honestly don't think it's lazyiness on the part of the admin. Very few suggestions make into (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) and usually only after an extremely long conversation on any specific change. The biggest problem I see in this game is inconsistency. Something like what you're saying right now:

"Oh it's not the best change, but it's a change, so it must be an improvement. Even though it may not be the right solution, it should be implemented and kept because eventually someone along the lines will find the right solution". 

When I was a kid my parents told me that if I do something, I should do it right the first time. Not the second time. If there is an issue with the game mechanics then please, suggest improvements. However, accepting the first idea someone comes up with and keeping it only to change it several times over leaves the game in a state of never being able to play out. The game simply cannot play out when you don't allow it to. 

The fact that the war system has been a constant debate and has constantly been changed from literally day one of the very first war system in this game, tells me this path is not working. Perhaps the PaW is fundamentally flawed on a gamewide level?

But if changing the games mechanics every month is really what the players want, then who am I to argue?

[Keegoz]

Why can't you compete?

You build more infra to get more troops than arrgh, you go straight out of range. You stay where you are and you get screwed over by the population cap on buying military. Arrgh doesn't have that problem due to having these militaries pre-changes.

 

For example, arrgh has like no infra in their nations thus putting them in range of nations who have less cities. They then max out on the old mechanics. Sheepy introduces the new mechanics linked to buying military units based on population meaning they have maxxed out nations with more cities when we can't even buy a third of what they have due to the population cap and having less cities.

Edited February 27, 2016 by Keegoz

[LordRahl2]

You build more infra to get more troops than arrgh, you go straight out of range. You stay where you are and you get screwed over by the population cap on buying military. Arrgh doesn't have that problem due to having these militaries pre-changes.

Ahhh. Then you should kill them.

[Yosodog]

I disagree. I don't think these changes are an improvement by any means. Which brings me back to consistency. There is a reason you don't see monthly changes to Cybernations. And I quite honestly don't think it's lazyiness on the part of the admin. Very few suggestions make into (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) and usually only after an extremely long conversation on any specific change. The biggest problem I see in this game is inconsistency. Something like what you're saying right now:

"Oh it's not the best change, but it's a change, so it must be an improvement. Even though it may not be the right solution, it should be implemented and kept because eventually someone along the lines will find the right solution". 

When I was a kid my parents told me that if I do something, I should do it right the first time. Not the second time. If there is an issue with the game mechanics then please, suggest improvements. However, accepting the first idea someone comes up with and keeping it only to change it several times over leaves the game in a state of never being able to play out. The game simply cannot play out when you don't allow it to. 

The fact that the war system has been a constant debate and has constantly been changed from literally day one of the very first war system in this game, tells me this path is not working. Perhaps the PaW is fundamentally flawed on a gamewide level?

But if changing the games mechanics every month is really what the players want, then who am I to argue?

 

You're reading my post as if I didn't agree with the change. Myself and many others I have spoke to like this change. I'm not saying that just because it's a change it's good, I'm saying that it's a step in the right direction to solving a problem. You probably don't see it as a problem, but I do, and we obviously disagree, which is fine

 

I do think that it should've been discussed prior to the changes being implemented.

[Keegoz]

Ahhh. Then you should kill them.

They have 900 planes, due to the cap our guys would be lucky to get 200 planes at max.

[Fox Fire]

You build more infra to get more troops than arrgh, you go straight out of range. You stay where you are and you get screwed over by the population cap on buying military. Arrgh doesn't have that problem due to having these militaries pre-changes.

 

For example, arrgh has like no infra in their nations thus putting them in range of nations who have less cities. They then max out on the old mechanics. Sheepy introduces the new mechanics linked to buying military units based on population meaning they have maxxed out nations with more cities when we can't even buy a third of what they have due to the population cap and having less cities.

Dude, IDK what you're smoking, but I can only buy about half the soldiers of a nation with 1 less city than mine solely because he has more infra:

https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=25693&display=war

 

I'm pretty screwed so I just sold my military. Even with several days to build military, I simply cannot produce that amount of military.

 

Conclusion: This update was completely useless. A nation that's able to build a military twice what I can, was able to declare war on me. My improvements are useless so I'm not even going to bother trying. It's a waste of money.

 

 

You're reading my post as if I didn't agree with the change. Myself and many others I have spoke to like this change. I'm not saying that just because it's a change it's good, I'm saying that it's a step in the right direction to solving a problem. You probably don't see it as a problem, but I do, and we obviously disagree, which is fine

 

I do think that it should've been discussed prior to the changes being implemented.

No, I'm reading and responding to your post as I know your stance on this already. I've seen it. It's not a step in the right direction. It's a spontaneous idea. We don't need any more of those.

[LordRahl2]

They have 900 planes, due to the cap our guys would be lucky to get 200 planes at max.

You are unable to find 3 active people to down declare on them?

[Keegoz]

You are unable to find 3 active people to down declare on them?

Down declares don't work when they still have more military by quite a margin? You try and increase that margin and you go out of range.

 

Sheepy should've just deleted all military units over the cap and fully refunded them, he had no issue doing it to spies.

Edited February 27, 2016 by Keegoz

[Fox Fire]

Down declares don't work when they still have more military by quite a margin? You try and increase that margin and you go out of range.

So wait, you're basically complaining that this was implemented in the middle of a conflict?

This begs the question, do you think this update would be fair if implemented pre-conflict? Or if your enemies were now facing the same situation?

It also begs the question of how the !@#$ are your own members, Rose, #5 in the game, not benefiting in the same fashion? Stroke of bad luck, or just bias complaining about an insignificant situation?

[Samdoo]

  It's not a step in the right direction. It's a spontaneous idea. We don't need any more of those.

 

Its a temporary fix, Even sheepy said it.(I asked sheepy in the change log thread about it) Its to try and create a temporary solution until something more permanent things like perks are released. 

 

We all agree the aggressor wins all battles. The act of "defense" is having someone declare down. 

[LordRahl2]

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...

[Keegoz]

So wait, you're basically complaining that this was implemented in the middle of a conflict?

This begs the question, do you think this update would be fair if implemented pre-conflict? Or if your enemies were now facing the same situation?

It also begs the question of how the !@#$ are your own members, Rose, #5 in the game, not benefiting in the same fashion? Stroke of bad luck, or just bias complaining about an insignificant situation?

Because we just came out of a war and didn't have nations sitting on max militaries?

 

I've been mostly ignoring you because you literally have no idea what you are talking about.

[Fox Fire]

Its a temporary fix, Even sheepy said it.(I asked sheepy in the change log thread about it) Its to try and create a temporary solution until something more permanent things like perks are released. 

 

We all agree the aggressor wins all battles. The act of "defense" is having someone declare down. 

Why is this temporary solution needed? 

As my parents would say, "do it right the first time". 

I call bullshit. I don't think this is a temp solution. I think it's a spontaneous solution that backfired. 

Because we just came out of a war and didn't have nations sitting on max militaries?

 

I've been mostly ignoring you because you literally have no idea what you are talking about.

No shit? I just came out of war. No actually, my whole alliance just came out of war. What makes your penis unique?

[Fasolt]

They have 900 planes, due to the cap our guys would be lucky to get 200 planes at max.

ROFL

 

Okay, I rewrote my original post (though its already been quoted a couple times lol)

 

Honestly... The level of humor and BS in this comment is to such a degree that I dont know where to start.

 

First thing I could say is that Ive been attacking your alliance the last couple days and have seen and fought more than a few with well over 200 planes.

 

Next thing I could say is... Do you really think anyone is going to believe that you have no one between 1300 and 700 points capable of building 200 planes.

 

Come on man... stick with reality.

Edited February 27, 2016 by Fasolt

[Fox Fire]

ROFL

 

People facing opponenents with 900 planes "lucky" to get 200 planes at max.

 

Max what... Bull$hit?

 

No, seriously... Are you joking or just exaggerating badly?

 

How can people over 700 points be unable to build more than 200 planes.

 

Rethink your strategic approach.

I bet I could build 200 planes. Though I haven't tried since the update.

[Tywin Lannister]

ROFL

 

People facing opponenents with 900 planes "lucky" to get 200 planes at max.

 

Max what... Bull$hit?

 

No, seriously... Are you joking or just exaggerating badly?

 

How can people over 700 points be unable to build more than 200 planes.

 

Rethink your strategic approach.

^^^^^^^^

 

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.

Edited February 27, 2016 by Tywin Lannister

[LordRahl2]

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.