Limiting Selling and Rebuying on the same day

[Ryleh]

Military nation score serves a fundamental purpose in this game to protect weaker nations from the stronger and more militarized nations from declaring on them. There is a fundamental flaw or way people circumvent this, which some people call drop declaring, where they sell military, declare on nations and then rebuy the military. Many times this can occur at a level where the declaring individual can immediately get back to the level they were before, and they can do it at any time, not exclusively update ( And it'd be insanely ridiculous to expect people to always be on). But i'm rambling. Going back to the purpose of military NS, this tactic basically allows for larger nations to declare on smaller nations without such restrictions such as low military or similar city counts. With the massive differential in military that generally happens, using up the rebuy just to get back to their normal military count isn't really that much of a hindrance. 

I feel that a good way to fix this would be to make the rules about buying and selling uniform, with both selling and buying military causing people to have to wait till update to do the opposite thing. Another aspect that I think that could be added for both would be to have buying and selling set basically a 12 or 24 hour timer, instead of update, on which you can not doing the other option (such as buying military). An example would be I buy military at 4 am, and so i would have to wait till 4 pm, or 4 am the next day to sell military again, instead of doing it all at update.

This basically in function is trying to move wars to be between people with around the same amount of military, with some modifications made for cities (which are a boon to your buy capacity, so that's pretty fair). This overall would effect higher city count nations with more military downdeclaring on smaller people (and i mean a large difference, like twice the city count and/or military count).

The other suggestion I could offer to help fix the game, or at least how war occurs, is to cut down the range in which people can downdeclare on from 25% of their NS to 10% of their NS.  Because come on, 25% more powerful is kinda ridiculous as a base .

[Dalinar]

lol

[Sketchy]

No. Stop trying to fix things that aren't problems.

[Vladamir Putin]

Although it sucks ass to have someone with an airforce twice your size to down declare on you, trying to balance this will get rid of the few strategies that exist in the game. 

 

 

People need to accept that those who have played longer will have an advantage on you.

 

 

And those who have started sooner need to realize that good coordination is necessary to defend against someone down-declaring.

[Insert Name Here]

Like it isn't already tough enough to keep fighting alliances after you've kicked the living shit out of them.

Just ask Sheepy to make our side not so freakin' beastly at war, it'd be easier. 

[Justin076]

I support this, I mean, look at this poor guy, has been suffering devastating down declares for almost a month.....

 

https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=35830&display=war 

[Yang]

It's​ not actually that easy to sell down and rebuy. And it doesn't​ always benefit the ones doing it to sell off their military.

[Felkey]

While we're at it why don't we limit the updeclare declare range and say !@#$ it, who needs strategy and planning?

[Buorhann]

How much more do you want Sheepy to help you with your ignorant game play?  He already nerfed down declaring before (By putting in the 25% limit), and now you're wanting to change it even more because you can't handle attacking and getting countered?

 

It takes much more effort to down declare than it does to up declare.  If you're going to nerf down declare again, then certainly cripple the capability to up declare too - that way you don't make terrible mistakes to whine over again.

[Roquentin]

It really doesn't take a ton of effort in some contexts particularly when your opponents aren't as update active. Every night people had to watch for downsells and maybe if they had enough to take someone out, they could go for it. If not it essentially meant the nation was lost depending on how bad the downdeclare was post-double buy. If someone puts their downsell close enough to update, it requires an instant counter to really beat it. I know with one alliance they had a lot of people in a time zone where update wasn't possible every time and it harmed their defense efforts significantly. At the end of the day, Alex will need to make a decision on what type of playerbase he wants to appeal to: a niche more active established group or a bigger tent with casuals included. So far in the game's trajectory, it's seemed to lean to the former. 

 

Either way, consistency in buying/selling would be a good thing.

 

edit; fixed spelling

Edited June 1, 2017 by Roquentin

[Buorhann]

Look, Syndisphere has shown how to coordinate both updeclares and downdeclares.  Not surprising that people are having issues with downdeclares, just like how people have complained about updeclares in the past.

 

You had to be highly active to watch for updeclares as well.  This isn't new.

 

Regardless of what Sheepy does, in every game - more activity trumps casual play.

[Roquentin]

Look, Syndisphere has shown how to coordinate both updeclares and downdeclares.  Not surprising that people are having issues with downdeclares, just like how people have complained about updeclares in the past.

 

You had to be highly active to watch for updeclares as well.  This isn't new.

 

Regardless of what Sheepy does, in every game - more activity trumps casual play.

 

In this instance, it revolves specifically around being able to be on at a specific time: right before update. The window is really tight for a lot of these.

 

edit: For India, where a lot of players come from, update is pretty bad. China would have similar issues. Central Europe has it pretty bad as well.

Edited June 1, 2017 by Roquentin

[matt2004]

Look, Syndisphere has shown how to coordinate both updeclares and downdeclares.  Not surprising that people are having issues with downdeclares, just like how people have complained about updeclares in the past.

 

You had to be highly active to watch for updeclares as well.  This isn't new.

 

Regardless of what Sheepy does, in every game - more activity trumps casual play.

Activity is not always possible, specifically depending on playerbase.

 

Take Europeans for instance. If a down-declare is immediately before the update with a double buy, most Brits and other Europeans will be asleep because the update is at the not-so-convenient time of 1AM in the UK.

 

The update time itself is stupid, but the disadvantage presented by either a downdeclare or an updeclare being used with a double buy on certain targets will be more harmful than others. Out of the two, a downdeclare is much much worse.

Edited June 1, 2017 by Matt2004

[Ogaden]

Like it isn't already tough enough to keep fighting alliances after you've kicked the living shit out of them.

Just ask Sheepy to make our side not so freakin' beastly at war, it'd be easier. 

tbh that's a political issue, not a game rules issue.  The political situation remains !@#$ed

[Dubayoo]

It really doesn't take a ton of effort in some contexts particularly when your opponents aren't as update active. Every night people had to watch for downsells and maybe if they had enough to take someone out, they could go for it, if not it essentially meant the nation was lost depending on how bad the downdeclare was post-double buy. If someone puts there downsell close enough to update, it requires an instant counter to really beat it. I know with one alliance they had a lot of people in a time zone where update wasn't possible every time and it harmed their defense efforts significantly. At the end of the day, Alex will need to make a decision on what type of playerbase he wants to appeal to: a niche more active established group or a bigger tent with casuals included. So far in the game's trajectory, it's seemed to lean to the former. 

 

Either way, consistency in buying/selling would be a good thing.

 

To be fair, a lot of games have to make this decision on what type of playerbase to appeal to.

 

The problem is developers learn from experience based on the success they've already had.  They don't consider the value of unproven potential.

 

Unfortunately, when this decision is made, it's usually a sign that a game has reached maturity.  The community's existence will be on the decline from that point onward.

 

The easy way to counterbalance this, however, is to have the game played in rounds instead of perpetuity.  That way, the established playerbase gets recycled even if you can have a permanent hall of fame so the winners are forever remembered.

 

(On the side, I'm not really surprised that the "easy mode" alliance is against this.)

[Buorhann]

Just FYI, for our updeclares, we usually timed them around reset too.  Nothing will change that.

 

Your issue isn't down declares or up declares, it's the fact that we use the game mechanics to our advantage with the double buy.

[Senatorius]

Down declares do seem absurd but I dont like the timer idea( get rid of the buy and sell one too). We would have to restrict up declares to if we were to nerf down declares as the current proposal makes me think that we are just going to make up declares the problem

 

How many cities can a opponent have before we consider it too much though? (just wondering what peoples thoughts are)

Edited June 1, 2017 by Senatorius

[George Clooney]

No. Stop trying to fix things that we are exploiting.

 

FTFY