Jump to content

Suggestion regarding nuke damage


kosmokenny
 Share

Recommended Posts

Gotta love it when your naval attacks do more than a nuke. 

You ordered a naval attack upon the nation of Glangevlin led by High King Malichy. The attack was an immense triumph. Your forces lost 0 ships, while High King Malichy's defenders lost 0 ships. You used 1,125 tons of munitions and 750 tons of gasoline executing the attack. The attack destroyed 954.84 infrastructure in the city of Eshveagh and destroyed 0 improvements.

Edited by Vosunda
  • Upvote 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, kosmokenny said:

You dont need a playing style based on nukes because theres a billion of you and 25 of us.  Sheep fricker made the independent survival of our group infeasible because whether its EMC, Coalition, or IQ, all of them outnumber us by massive amounts and conventional fighting cant stop that large of a disparity.  We tiered ourselves out of reach of IQ, but short of sitting out of the larger metagame for multiple years to get all 80 of us GOB sized, couldnt do the same for either of the other groups.

Im not sure if you noticed, but our bloc was built this way prior to sheep fricker making it irrelevant.  Additionally, my "flexing" was done because stupid !@#$ decided naziism was ok within their ranks, and it was dealt with several times by fark in a conventional manner.  The nuke stockpile was always meant as a deterrent for this kind of war where an EMC could hit us, because they would have to pay dearly for smashing us.  Now they pay half as much. 

You just discovered that in this type of games having more players makes you stronger (if they are active and not dumb), congrats

Now please notice that ordinary halved infra damage for both sides, I did the stats for TKR in the first day and both sides did a similar infra damage so stop complaining, your nukes did half of the damage compared to before the update and our attacks did the same, so just nuke for more rounds

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Alex said:

Reducing warfare damage in the game is beneficial, imo, because it means that the stakes for going to war are less and it's quicker & easier to rebuild.

While I considered giving the defender in a war 100% damage while the aggressor could only do 50%, I did not think that would really be fair, and also it would really discourage aggression, and war in the game is a good thing from a fun & activity perspective.

And a uh.... financial perspective 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, kosmokenny said:

You dont need a playing style based on nukes because theres a billion of you and 25 of us.  Sheep fricker made the independent survival of our group infeasible because whether its EMC, Coalition, or IQ, all of them outnumber us by massive amounts and conventional fighting cant stop that large of a disparity.  We tiered ourselves out of reach of IQ, but short of sitting out of the larger metagame for multiple years to get all 80 of us GOB sized, couldnt do the same for either of the other groups.

Im not sure if you noticed, but our bloc was built this way prior to sheep fricker making it irrelevant.  Additionally, my "flexing" was done because stupid !@#$ decided naziism was ok within their ranks, and it was dealt with several times by fark in a conventional manner.  The nuke stockpile was always meant as a deterrent for this kind of war where an EMC could hit us, because they would have to pay dearly for smashing us.  Now they pay half as much. 

You know, I get where you're coming from. Your strat has been nerfed and theres nothing you can do about it. I get it. However you can't blame Alex for your lack of allies or ability to effectively war. Also you said before that TKR/TCW/Guardian only hit you guys now because of the update, I highly doubt the update has anything at all to due with the timing. Most likely they're just rolling you because of how unlikable you are as a bloc, on top of there being no real threat to them since the other major powers are fighting each other.

  • Upvote 1

Officer Nasty reporting for duty. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seriously, youve taken away the only means a smaller group had to defend itself from the much larger spheres in the game.  So kill of our sphere, turn the game back into a two sphere system where nobody does anything besides occasionally pick on IQ, who are too far beneath the other groups to do anything to them.  Great work.

  • Downvote 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Micchan said:

You just discovered that in this type of games having more players makes you stronger (if they are active and not dumb), congrats

Now please notice that ordinary halved infra damage for both sides, I did the stats for TKR in the first day and both sides did a similar infra damage so stop complaining, your nukes did half of the damage compared to before the update and our attacks did the same, so just nuke for more rounds

Duh.  But our nukes werent meant to make us stronger in our ability to go after EMC or whoever else, they were made so we could defend ourselves from EMC or whoever, so we could be independent of the two sphere bullshit, #dynamic.  Now we cant be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, kosmokenny said:

Duh.  But our nukes werent meant to make us stronger in our ability to go after EMC or whoever else, they were made so we could defend ourselves from EMC or whoever, so we could be independent of the two sphere bullshit, #dynamic.  Now we cant be.

So guess what? You have to re-strategize? The exact reason this update was launched.... lmao

Chief Financial Officer of The Syndicate

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Alex said:

Do I think what is fair? If your attacker nukes you for 50% damage, I think it's reasonable that the defender's nukes do 50% damage as well.

I didn't implement this change overnight, we had months of discussion and testing before these changes went live, including more than one test server tournament where the war mechanics were put to the test in a gameplay situation.

I could leave the game the same and stop updating it, and no one would then ever complain about having to re-strategize, but I think that would lead to the inevitable death of the game. I think that things like this, sometimes 2 steps forward and one step back, overall make the game better and contribute to its longevity.

Spent two years building Fark from the shambles it was in.  Then I retired from gov at end of december, and you killed what I built.  frick you.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators
1 minute ago, kosmokenny said:

Duh.  But our nukes werent meant to make us stronger in our ability to go after EMC or whoever else, they were made so we could defend ourselves from EMC or whoever, so we could be independent of the two sphere bullshit, #dynamic.  Now we cant be.

I mean, it's not my job to strategize for you, and I don't know the complete situation you're in as intimately as you do, but you do have 5 offensive war slots and 3 defensive. Maybe look at taking losses on the defensive side or using conventional warfare to fight back in defensive wars and use your offensive slots to go crazy with nukes and bring your opponents to the negotiating table?

  • Upvote 6

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

1 minute ago, Justin076 said:

So guess what? You have to re-strategize? The exact reason this update was launched.... lmao

Ok, under the current system, how can a small group strategize to beat a much bigger group and maintain their independence?  Do let me know if you figure that out, because right now it stands that he killed the only feasible asymmetric warfare option.

  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, kosmokenny said:

Ok, under the current system, how can a small group strategize to beat a much bigger group and maintain their independence?  Do let me know if you figure that out, because right now it stands that he killed the only feasible asymmetric warfare option.

You can get another 5 cities and maybe apply to Grumpy, you might have to leave some of that salt outside though.

eastwood.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Alex said:

I mean, it's not my job to strategize for you, and I don't know the complete situation you're in as intimately as you do, but you do have 5 offensive war slots and 3 defensive. Maybe look at taking losses on the defensive side or using conventional warfare to fight back in defensive wars and use your offensive slots to go crazy with nukes and bring your opponents to the negotiating table?

I was 8 deep as soon as TKR hit because I was fully aware thats all there was to do, but you made 3/8ths of my nukes worthless.

  • Downvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, kosmokenny said:

Ok, under the current system, how can a small group strategize to beat a much bigger group and maintain their independence?  Do let me know if you figure that out, because right now it stands that he killed the only feasible asymmetric warfare option.

Why do you assume people are out to get you? There's plenty of independent alliances and spheres out there lmao. Learn how to fight, engage in the politics and foreign affairs of the game, stop flexing when you can't fight and don't put such a massive target on your back by doing jack for 1.5 years. 

  • Upvote 3

Chief Financial Officer of The Syndicate

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, kosmokenny said:

Seriously, youve taken away the only means a smaller group had to defend itself from the much larger spheres in the game.  So kill of our sphere, turn the game back into a two sphere system where nobody does anything besides occasionally pick on IQ, who are too far beneath the other groups to do anything to them.  Great work.

Sheepy doesn't care about your politics

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, kosmokenny said:

Spent two years building Fark from the shambles it was in.  Then I retired from gov at end of december, and you killed what I built.  frick you.

>blaming the update and Alex for your alliances incompetence to adapt and overcome

1 minute ago, kosmokenny said:

Ok, under the current system, how can a small group strategize to beat a much bigger group and maintain their independence?  Do let me know if you figure that out, because right now it stands that he killed the only feasible asymmetric warfare option.

okay, under the old system how did small groups survive and maintain their independence? No, it wasn't by stockpiling nukes. Its called not being toxic asshats and making everyone hate you. Look at Roz Wei. Look at t$. Look at Guardian. Look at CoS. Look at tC.

  • Upvote 5

Officer Nasty reporting for duty. 

 

 

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.