Jump to content

7/24/2017 - Fortify & Infrastructure


Alex
 Share

Recommended Posts

45 minutes ago, DragonK said:

Oh wow, yet another update to kill Arrgh's gameplay just because incompetent people can't handle us so they cry to "fix" what is not broken. Time to adapt our strategy again. But seriously why not make an update so that other people get nerfed and we get boosted? I mena we sacrificed our growth to play that way, and it was all fair for both sides, and now they get yet another edge over us, just like they did almost every update thus far. I mean, except for econ update which made our loot worth more on market, every other update was either outright bad for Arrgh or bad/neutral for everyone in equal measure (for isntance the update that introduced resistance). Why is it that every time you change shit in this game it is with clear intention to make others have easier time beating us and our playstyle down while we struggle ever so more just to keep our methaphorical and literal ship afloat? Why not reward us isntead, who play the game dilligently and do what we can just to get by? How about you add it so that nation getting deleted surrenedrs in all active wars first? How about reducing the impact army and increasing impact of infra on score? How about nerfing spy assasinations? How about removing pop cap from recruitment? Or any other thing that might benefit us sligtly more than others?

 

Drink a little too much rum did ya?

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Alex said:

The temporary war expiration bug should be long fixed, and I went through and fixed any affected wars earlier.

As for how this particular impacts Arrgh - what makes you think I care or even considered how this affects Arrgh? This change makes it slightly easier for everyone to buy infrastructure. I don't see how that's a big deal.

If anything, the soon-to-be change that will increase the MAP cost of Fortify should help you raid folks as they'll have a tougher time Fortifying to prevent you from looting them.

Couple thoughts. "What made you think I care or even considered how this affects Arrgh" is basically the gist I get from you about how you feel about your player base.

Secondly, your last paragraph just shows you really are out of touch you are with your game and how it is actually played.

But yeah. Just some thoughts. Have a good day and all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators
5 minutes ago, Kasikil said:

Couple thoughts. "What made you think I care or even considered how this affects Arrgh" is basically the gist I get from you about how you feel about your player base.

Secondly, your last paragraph just shows you really are out of touch you are with your game and how it is actually played.

But yeah. Just some thoughts. Have a good day and all.

This update is not related to Arrgh specifically whatsoever. I am continuously accused each update of "attacking Arrgh" or "singling out Arrgh" as if I have some sort of disdain for that group of players. The point I made was that not only do I not hold any sort of disdain for Arrgh, I really have no opinion whatsoever.

When I'm making updates, the first question I ask myself is certainly not "How will this help/hurt Arrgh?"

  • Upvote 1

Is there a bug? Report It | Not understanding game mechanics? Ask About It | Got a good idea? Suggest It

Forums Rules | Game Link

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, DragonK said:

Oh wow, yet another update to kill Arrgh's gameplay just because incompetent people can't handle us so they cry to "fix" what is not broken.

The entire point of war is to have winners and losers, and fortify in its current state makes it impossible to win wars against people who are active and don't mind losing infra. With the planned infrastructure cost reductions, fortify would have become even more OP than it already is if Alex didn't change it to make it less effective. No offense to you and your wonderful alliance, but we're not gonna hold off changes that are beneficial to the game as a whole just to satisfy a bunch of pirates.

  • Upvote 2

Ceterum censeo Arrghinem esse delendam

(Furthermore, I consider that Arrgh must be destroyed)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Alex said:

This update is not related to Arrgh specifically whatsoever. I am continuously accused each update of "attacking Arrgh" or "singling out Arrgh" as if I have some sort of disdain for that group of players. The point I made was that not only do I not hold any sort of disdain for Arrgh, I really have no opinion whatsoever.

When I'm making updates, the first question I ask myself is certainly not "How will this help/hurt Arrgh?"

Ah, not addressing actual points being made. Neat. Keep up the good work.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, DragonK said:

[RAGE]

 

Actually, having done some quick math, it's still perfectly possible to avoid beige with 100% certainty. This update is perfect for my strategy (thanks bestmin :wub:) so I really can't see how it's any less for yours tbh.

WARNING, MATHEMATICS AHEAD

Let's look at the military actions available to us and how efficient they are at eliminating resistance, first.
Assuming immense triumph at all times,
 

Ground battles: 10 resistance 3 actions  = 3.3 resistance/action
Air battles:    12 resistance 4 actions  = 3 resistance/action
Naval battles:  14 resistance 4 actions  = 3.5 resistance/action
Rocket attacks: 18 resistance 8 actions  = 2.25 resistance/action
Nuke attacks:   25 resistance 12 actions = 2.08 resistance/action

Obviously, therefore, naval battles are the most efficient at removing resistance and pushing enemies to beige. Ground battles are the runner up in terms of action efficiency.

Now, let's consider a theoretical beige attempt. Total action resources are 67 MAP for aggressor, 66 for defender (Assuming aggressor is blitzing and defender is pirate)
16 immense triumph naval battles + 1 immense triumph ground battle = 234 resistance lost
16 fortifications = 160 resistance gained
234-160=74 total resistance lost
Defender therefore has 26 resistance and 3 MAP at the end of this theoretical beige attempt.

Now, since we have all that resistance and actions to play with, let's look at some counterattacks perhaps?
16 immense triumph naval battles + 1 immense triumph ground battle = 234 resistance lost
14 fortifications = 140 resistance gained
234-160=94 total resistance lost
Defender therefore has 6 resistance and 11 MAP at the end of this theoretical beige attempt.

Therefore, there's enough actions leftover to do a single conventional rocket counterattack.

The only player truly screwed over by this update is a certain excessively nuclear-armed state that hasn't got any other military. No matter how you slice it, this update precludes doing a nuclear counterattack and still avoiding beige, as long as your opponent is playing perfectly.

Also, and I think this deserves mention:

1 hour ago, DragonK said:

methaphorical

 

Freudian slip, amirite? :D

Edited by Sir Scarfalot
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like the change to fortify. Perhaps it should take resources to fortify as well. If you're building fortifications to keep the enemy out, you are going to have to use something to construct those fortifications.

Change to infra costs: It doesn't seem to be too drastic so it shouldn't hurt but only help the smaller nations. Once they reach a higher level they will encounter the same obstacles as before. Works for me.

Just don't change baseball.

 Registered slot thief

Buy the ticket, take the ride.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Alpha Dog said:

The entire point of war is to have winners and losers, and fortify in its current state makes it impossible to win wars against people who are active and don't mind losing infra. With the planned infrastructure cost reductions, fortify would have become even more OP than it already is if Alex didn't change it to make it less effective. No offense to you and your wonderful alliance, but we're not gonna hold off changes that are beneficial to the game as a whole just to satisfy a bunch of pirates.

Wars DO have winners and losers with or without this update. Being able to avoid beige is a choice that players should absolutely be able to make. What really matters is that the choice is balanced with the alternatives, which in this case is preserving infrastructure and enabling counterattacks. Previously, the choice to avoid beige was a no-brainer to low-infra nations, since they could still launch possibly two nukes or four rockets while still having the benefits of fortification spam. Now, they can't do a nuke at all, and can only launch a single rocket... which is rather devalued on account of the cheaper infrastructure. They can fortify to prevent loss of their resource warchest, but at the cost of infrastructure, improvements, and now counterattack options.
 

9 minutes ago, Mikalus II said:

I like the change to fortify. Perhaps it should take resources to fortify as well. If you're building fortifications to keep the enemy out, you are going to have to use something to construct those fortifications.

Digging trenches and setting up sandbags doesn't cost much beyond sweat and dirt, and both of those are well represented in the concept of "military action points" :P

Edited by Sir Scarfalot
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think hastily constructed steel fortifications laced with munitions and gasoline are more effective when trying to stop 85 ton tanks.

I just use the power cosmic anyway.

 Registered slot thief

Buy the ticket, take the ride.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Mikalus II said:

I think hastily constructed steel fortifications laced with munitions and gasoline are more effective when trying to stop 85 ton tanks.

I just use the power cosmic anyway.

Not really man, a few feet of sand will stop any munitions short of extremely powerful or specialized stuff, and once a tank drops 12 feet into a hole without any ramps, it is seriously stuck until rescued by crane/helicopter/shovels.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Alex said:

-snip-

I hadn't considered the impact this would have

This.

This is it.

This is the reason we rag on you.

 

  • Upvote 5

22:26 +Kadin: too far man

22:26 +Kadin: too far

22:26 Lordofpuns[boC]: that's the point of incest Kadin

22:26 Lordofpuns[boC]: to go farther

22:27 Bet: or father

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, ForgotPants said:

Not trying to provoke you but what point were you making really?

Very simply that Sheepy doesn't care about his player base. He says he does things that are "best for the game" (usually not true). My general impression, over the ~7 months I've played, is that he is concerned about keeping new people flowing into the game and keeping revenue up. It may be a coincidence (I don't believe in coincidence) but he only has put forth updates in response to a competing game launching. I like this community. I don't like people who exploit it due to there being no better alternative for a nation sim.

Edit: Also, tbf, this isn't a bad update like some of the others were. It's just only happening because Sheepy realized he'll lose his player base if he keeps ignoring changing this game.

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

5 hours ago, Kasikil said:

Very simply that Sheepy doesn't care about his player base. He says he does things that are "best for the game" (usually not true). My general impression, over the ~7 months I've played, is that he is concerned about keeping new people flowing into the game and keeping revenue up. It may be a coincidence (I don't believe in coincidence) but he only has put forth updates in response to a competing game launching. I like this community. I don't like people who exploit it due to there being no better alternative for a nation sim.

Edit: Also, tbf, this isn't a bad update like some of the others were. It's just only happening because Sheepy realized he'll lose his player base if he keeps ignoring changing this game.

Sheepy probably needs to put out a development roadmap with what changes he is planning well ahead of time. Having a roadmap will also avoid 'surprise updates' from happening and screwing over the economy overnight.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, ForgotPants said:

Sheepy probably needs to put out a development roadmap with what changes he is planning well ahead of time. Having a roadmap will also avoid 'surprise updates' from happening and screwing over the economy overnight.

He's been using this on the test server for months, and other updates like tax brackets and even the commerce changes showed up on the test server first. The best way to get some idea of what Alex is planning to do is to see what he's doing on test. It's saved me a couple of surprises.

  • Upvote 1

Ceterum censeo Arrghinem esse delendam

(Furthermore, I consider that Arrgh must be destroyed)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 24. 07. 2017. at 6:57 PM, Alex said:

The temporary war expiration bug should be long fixed, and I went through and fixed any affected wars earlier.

As for how this particular impacts Arrgh - what makes you think I care or even considered how this affects Arrgh? This change makes it slightly easier for everyone to buy infrastructure. I don't see how that's a big deal.

If anything, the soon-to-be change that will increase the MAP cost of Fortify should help you raid folks as they'll have a tougher time Fortifying to prevent you from looting them.

And yet again you know not what you speak off. No, we weren't having problem with people fortifying, other people had problems with us doing it.

But that is not the point of my rant. It is that every time you change game, it impacts us in Arrgh the most. And every time we find a way to do most out of a feature you implemented you nerf it or "fix" it so that all the people who were to weak/dumb/inactive/undedicated/<insert a word for a player who's not Arrgh here> to utilize game mehcanics to their benefit profit from it while a lot of our people outright quit the game cause you took the one thing they could and wanted to do. There are few of Arrgh people even of my generation or older remaining cause your updates kill our playstyle, and each time we have to adapt to new mehanics, which again can be utilized to raid, but return of our effort is always less and less.

 

Let me be blunt and honest here.

I don't give a single swimming &#33;@#&#036; about economy, politics, paper, infra, growth and so on. What I and all of Arrgh want to do is war and raid and loot. And every update you put forth makes it progressivly harder to do that. When I started playing this shit I could raid with max army at 500 infra, and I couldn't be touched. And yet it wasn't op, best, mainstream way to play this game, casue it required a lot of sacrifice. You couldn't have many improvments, whenever your improvment got destoryed you couldn't rebuild it, and your daily revenure was around negative 3mil. And few of us were fine with it casue we could be strongest at 800 score tier. You took that from us.

Then we were destroyed almost daily, couldn't raid freely, couldn't raid at all at times, casue you took people who had almost double our city, and rebuy capacity, and put them in our range. They always outnumbered us and they always downdeclared on us. But we managed somehow. Then you put population cap on recruitment, destroying us even further casue if you get attacked by fresh people constantly it messes your rebuy capacity, while enemy just shuffles their fresh attackers around.

Then you introduced resistance, and we adapted yet again. Ships were in and it took Orbis months to realize you needed to have ships now. And thanks to fortify we had to strategize our wars. You had to bait people into attacking you over fortifying so you could win a war. You had to be diverese and hit enemy with units they dind't had. And the econ update made people divide even furter into military or econ nations. But now that foritfy is not as usefull you can't do that. You have to either fortify the entirety of war, and even then I think you still get beiged. And noone uses ground that much (casue air is op, and naval is annoying) for it to be effective, esspecially thanks to our low recruitment caps, the bonus def you get is pointless. And so yet again you destroyed a playstlye that Arrgh has adopted trough experimenting and simple try and error methods, by simply persistantly raiding.

So I'm asking when are you gonna give us what we want for a change, and stick by it and keep it. We want to raid people. and we care not for consiquences in terms of infra, econ growth, politics, and so forth, as long as it's a profitable model where we actually can win wars that bring us profit, and then keep that profit from being stolen away by hypocrtis who say they hate raiders and raiding yet all they do is raid other raiders, blind to fact that they are doing exactly what they blame us for.

So yeah, give me a model of raiding, that nets me more profit than damages I take, and a way to keep it from others if I choose so. Thus far outfortifying gave us a way to keep our profit in exchange for extra damage they do to us. Before that we'd buy absurd amoutns of raws and keep them on us. What now? How do I keep pesky hypocrits from taking my hard earned loot?

  • Upvote 1

tvPWtuA.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 24. 07. 2017. at 7:27 PM, Alpha Dog said:

The entire point of war is to have winners and losers, and fortify in its current state makes it impossible to win wars against people who are active and don't mind losing infra. With the planned infrastructure cost reductions, fortify would have become even more OP than it already is if Alex didn't change it to make it less effective. No offense to you and your wonderful alliance, but we're not gonna hold off changes that are beneficial to the game as a whole just to satisfy a bunch of pirates.

Wars can have draws too. And it's most beneficial to enemys of Arrgh while rest of game is not really that much affected since over 50% wars at any given time are fought by Arrgh members. I don't care how it's beneficial for you or anyone, I'm worried how it yet again destoyes a whole type of gameplay. Updates are supposed to fix buggs that are ruind gameplay experience and widen types of possible gameplays. Take EVE Online for instance. You can do whatever you want there, you can be merchant and trade goods across universe, or you can be a miner/producer and create goods while mining the vast universe. You can be bounty hunter / law enforcer and hunt players and NPCs for living, keeping the order of game. Or you can be an explorer and explore ancient ruins and such. Or lastly, you can be a pirate, raid other people's bases and areas of operations, you can gank rich merchants, be constantly hutned by both other players and npcs, get destoryed by concord withing a minbute every time you attack a player, and yet they still get what they want and get profit from it. In comparison what this game does is always destory and alt way of playing the game and enforces whaling up, since the alliance with most people with more citys can always win more easily than those without it. Just look at last major, one side won the upper tier since they coudl always downdeclare, and even tough they lsot lower tier, they rebuild their lower tier within a day.

tvPWtuA.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 24. 07. 2017. at 7:55 PM, Sir Scarfalot said:

Actually, having done some quick math, it's still perfectly possible to avoid beige with 100% certainty. This update is perfect for my strategy (thanks bestmin :wub:) so I really can't see how it's any less for yours tbh.

WARNING, MATHEMATICS AHEAD

Let's look at the military actions available to us and how efficient they are at eliminating resistance, first.
Assuming immense triumph at all times,
 


Ground battles: 10 resistance 3 actions  = 3.3 resistance/action
Air battles:    12 resistance 4 actions  = 3 resistance/action
Naval battles:  14 resistance 4 actions  = 3.5 resistance/action
Rocket attacks: 18 resistance 8 actions  = 2.25 resistance/action
Nuke attacks:   25 resistance 12 actions = 2.08 resistance/action

Obviously, therefore, naval battles are the most efficient at removing resistance and pushing enemies to beige. Ground battles are the runner up in terms of action efficiency.

Now, let's consider a theoretical beige attempt. Total action resources are 67 MAP for aggressor, 66 for defender (Assuming aggressor is blitzing and defender is pirate)
16 immense triumph naval battles + 1 immense triumph ground battle = 234 resistance lost
16 fortifications = 160 resistance gained
234-160=74 total resistance lost
Defender therefore has 26 resistance and 3 MAP at the end of this theoretical beige attempt.

Now, since we have all that resistance and actions to play with, let's look at some counterattacks perhaps?
16 immense triumph naval battles + 1 immense triumph ground battle = 234 resistance lost
14 fortifications = 140 resistance gained
234-160=94 total resistance lost
Defender therefore has 6 resistance and 11 MAP at the end of this theoretical beige attempt.

Therefore, there's enough actions leftover to do a single conventional rocket counterattack.

The only player truly screwed over by this update is a certain excessively nuclear-armed state that hasn't got any other military. No matter how you slice it, this update precludes doing a nuclear counterattack and still avoiding beige, as long as your opponent is playing perfectly.

Also, and I think this deserves mention:

Freudian slip, amirite? :D

So all my oppsotion has to do is make me think I can win and make me waste 12 MAPs, and ofc, I have to be online more offten than I can due to work and such, for what good are 8MAPs if I use them for fortifying AFTER he beiged me. And besideds 11 maps for fighing are shit. I want to make my opponent pay for every slip he's made. I beiged my counters more than once, mostly due to higer activity on my part and carefull plaing and predicting. Now all that goes to drain since all I can do to hit way stroner opponent back are either 2 1 ship naval attacks or 3 ground attacks asuming he has no ground or no naval (seems common these days at least).

 

Meh, was to lazy to do math, but yeah, it gives me an opportunity to lay down and let my opponent beat the shit out of me so I can possibly win my other wars ( winning wars with 0 army total is hard on it's own, let alone when others interfere) And to top it off I only get one shot to break trouhg ALL blockades on me to get my monthly loot echange. Sigh, like I said, it's not impossible, but it's significantly more harder, and less satisfying. The easiest way to defeat the enemy is not by crushing them phisically, but mentaly, take their morale away and they surrender. And this is exactly what updates have been to me and lot of people who aren't here anymore, attack on our morale. Hell only reason I', still here is that I'm both stubborn and pridefull, and my spite for all ye lanlubber fuels my existance on Orbis.

tvPWtuA.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, Ripper said:

You cannot imagine. :v

I can but luckily I don't have to. My bottle of rum, and my bottles of beer are right next to me. And this tankard of divinely mixed grog in my hand is in agreement.

tvPWtuA.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Argh was definitely exploiting Fortify so they could attack people who were 2 days inactive without worrying about retaliation costing them anything. 

I still don't have any problem with updates affecting them more than others. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a good update. The infinite fortify to avoid beige for sure was more of an exploit than a strategy, and made no sense. I wouldn't mind it being further weakened since, as demonstrated above, if you always fortify on time, you still can avoid beige.

  • Upvote 1
77oKn5K.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Jax locked this topic
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 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.