Jump to content

Suggestion regarding nuke damage


kosmokenny
 Share

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, kosmokenny said:

No, the rules everyone plays by arent the same.  You play on easy mode and only go to war when you outnumber someone 5 to 1, and then you all sit there thinking that makes you good.  Fark doesnt get the option to play by those rules, nor would we be interested in playing that cowardly of a role.  I dont know how you have any fun with that.  I accidentally got Fark in that situation a couple months ago with Roz Wei when they hit SGM and everyone and their mother lined up to hit RW too, and it was lame as hell.  Roz and I sure as hell have polar ideas about everything in the world, but I damn sure didnt sit there and gloat over him with "git gud" bullshit like you guys do.  Of course any game like this is going to favor your easy mode ways, but it shouldnt do that by ripping the rug out from people who found a viable alternate path.

If you are outnumbered maybe next time instead of spending your revenue in buying and maintain nukes you should have higher taxes to generate money for the alliance and create a grant system, then work on recruitment and grow a bit, you know, that thing good and active alliances do in pacetime

And before saying numbers always win wars check the other conflict

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

2 hours ago, Felkey said:

Also Roz doesn't usually go across multiple threads whining how unfair life is.

It's because he only needs one thread to complain. Kosmo is just new at this sort of complaining, hang on and he might figure out how to do it well.

  • Downvote 1

LTcxGHN.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The core of Durmij's argument, that changes that retroactively invalidate what used to be a viable strategy are awful and unfair, makes sense to me.

However I really don't think it was that significant of a nerf to nukes. I just did some very quick numbers and because nukes the highest infra, a nuke that does 1000 damage doesn't cause half the damage one that does 2000 does in terms of dollars.... it does something more like 70-75% of that damage.

Once you account for the fact that pretty much every form of causing damage and gaining loot was similarly reduced, I don't think it was unfair.

  • Upvote 3

Slaughter the shits of the world. They poison the air you breathe.

 

~ William S. Burroughs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, Spaceman Thrax said:

The core of Durmij's argument, that changes that retroactively invalidate what used to be a viable strategy are awful and unfair, makes sense to me.

However I really don't think it was that significant of a nerf to nukes. I just did some very quick numbers and because nukes the highest infra, a nuke that does 1000 damage doesn't cause half the damage one that does 2000 does in terms of dollars.... it does something more like 70-75% of that damage.

Once you account for the fact that pretty much every form of causing damage and gaining loot was similarly reduced, I don't think it was unfair.

I don't think that changes that retroactively impact strats are awful for that reason tbh. They are awful if they dumb down the game, or make the gameplay universally less enjoyable imo.

Like, changes will often invalidate the old strats and give birth to new ones, or at least require the old one to be updated to better fit the meta. That's how things work in many, many games. 

Don't get me wrong, it definitely sucks for the affected party, but this is definitely being blown out of proportion in this particular instance.

As for it ''invalidating'' NB's strat, I don't think that it invalidated NB's strategy. It weakened a strategy which was of dubious value to begin with. Basically, for it to work, they needed for people to just buy into the threat factor and stay away, rather than ignore it and go in anyway. I think that there are mainly two things that need to happen for that strategy to work:

1) The attacker deems that the cash lost from their infra getting blown up isn't worth the trouble.

2) The attacker is hesistant/dissuaded from attacking because someone else could get the drop on them due to the opportunity being there.

1) Is mostly driven by the intentions that the attackers have. For TKR, it could be either knock out a wildcard bloc, boredom, or simply a (late) retaliation for NK giving refuge to Hog after Partisan got caught scheming. Whichever reason in particular it is, doesn't matter for this case. What matters is that they deemed that losing infra to nukes was an acceptable price to pay for carrying out their goal.

2) Is pretty obvious. IQ and Coalition are too busy killing each other to even think about hitting TKR, so TKR doesn't have to worry about being potentially blindsided.

Edited by Shiho Nishizumi
  • Upvote 2
 
G3.gif.d8066d8dc749ad2d0835fe69095fa73b.gif
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Conner Temple said:

This thread is basically Kosmo running off of his leash and doing childish name-calling against people for the sole reason that they are losing because NB are filled with score-inflated nuke hoarders with 5 cities less than their enemies, who also happen to have a proper military, and are losing due to this. There's a difference between being beaten up because you're not being strategic and how many times NB will continue to whine because they're beginning to realise they cant keep winning wars by just lobbing nukes at people who can easily beat them because they have a proper military. If Kosmo, Fark, and the rest of NB bothered to learn to play this game rather than relying on pressing two buttons every 12 turns until they get defeated, they might realise this game is fun to ACTUALLY play.

This is ignorance.  All of NB had a proper military and to suggest otherwise is you ignoring facts.  When it gets obliterated in 24 hours and is then no longer there, doesn't mean it wasn't there at the start.

Stop being foolish, you're embarrassing yourself.

  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Maverick0984 said:

This is ignorance.  All of NB had a proper military and to suggest otherwise is you ignoring facts.  When it gets obliterated in 24 hours and is then no longer there, doesn't mean it wasn't there at the start.

Stop being foolish, you're embarrassing yourself.

 

Nuke bloc peeps are so pleasant to deal with.  

  • Upvote 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Micchan said:

If you are outnumbered maybe next time instead of spending your revenue in buying and maintain nukes you should have higher taxes to generate money for the alliance and create a grant system, then work on recruitment and grow a bit, you know, that thing good and active alliances do in pacetime

And before saying numbers always win wars check the other conflict

How do you think Fark got to a high average number of cities?  All just magic?   It happened because we had a tax system in place and dished out grants to smaller nations to tier everyone together.  We were so generous to our nations that we even gave this same help to close allies.

All of our revenue doesn't just blindly go to nuke hoarding.  Think before you speak.

4 minutes ago, AkAk said:

 

Nuke bloc peeps are so pleasant to deal with.  

It's frustrating when people ignore facts that don't help their narrative.  It's a fallacy that prevents a person from acting rationally.

Edited by Maverick0984
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Spaceman Thrax said:

The core of Durmij's argument, that changes that retroactively invalidate what used to be a viable strategy are awful and unfair, makes sense to me.

However I really don't think it was that significant of a nerf to nukes. I just did some very quick numbers and because nukes the highest infra, a nuke that does 1000 damage doesn't cause half the damage one that does 2000 does in terms of dollars.... it does something more like 70-75% of that damage.

Once you account for the fact that pretty much every form of causing damage and gaining loot was similarly reduced, I don't think it was unfair.

1

I tend to agree with this actually.  I think all this does to the NB strat is to force us to be aggressive instead of defensive so we can control the war types.

The end game is still the same and nukes still do proportionally, the same amount of damage as everything else.  They are still different as we can't raid after our conventional armies are destroyed, but that's about it.

Edited by Maverick0984
Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Maverick0984 said:

It's frustrating when people ignore facts that don't help their narrative.  It's a fallacy that prevents a person from acting rationally.

 

I agree wholeheartedly with this statement.

It's extremely annoying, isn't it?

B^)

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

1 hour ago, Sweeeeet Ronny D said:

I think its pretty unfair that my naval strikes on ordinary would only do 700 infra damage instead of 1400 infra damage... you know how expensive naval strikes are?!?!  Its not fair that I spend so much time building up a solid warchest just to have to spend it all on half damage!

Sheepy you are a giant jerk face!

(Am I doing this right?)

More salt required....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, Maverick0984 said:

It's frustrating when people ignore facts that don't help their narrative.  It's a fallacy that prevents a person from acting rationally.

.....have you met kosmo?

  • Upvote 1

Frank Castle Was Here

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Maverick0984 said:

How do you think Fark got to a high average number of cities?  All just magic?   It happened because we had a tax system in place and dished out grants to smaller nations to tier everyone together.  We were so generous to our nations that we even gave this same help to close allies.

All of our revenue doesn't just blindly go to nuke hoarding.  Think before you speak.

It's frustrating when people ignore facts that don't help their narrative.  It's a fallacy that prevents a person from acting rationally.

It doesn't prevent you acting rationally at all. You just use it as an excuse to act irrationally, and expect everyone to nod in agreement with it.
There is no excuse for the behavior. You are frustrated, fine. Handle it by doing something other than radiating toxins from your posts. It would make everybody feel much better.

It's only difficult if you make it so.

  • Downvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Partisan said:

A little bit ago there was a thread about Fark reaching a thousand nukes. This costs:

1,750,000,000 dollars

750,000 aluminum

500,000 gasoline

250,000 uranium

This doesn’t even include the cost of building NRFs, or upkeep costs. 

With just the cash from that you could build a new nation up to 20 cities (without the policy), and still have over 250 mil left over. Here is a short list of some other things you could do:

- power the 20 city nation for 5200 real life days without ever buying uranium (assuming it is at 2k infra) 

- build 1,000 subways

- purchase max planes for that 20 city nation, almost 139 times.

- airstrike with max planes 1,111 times before ever needing more gas.

ADDED BONUS: Daily upkeep of this many nukes (during peacetime) is 35,000,000 per day. 

That's great that you did math, but did you actually read my entire post?

Stating what nukes cost ignores my premise about what we do with the rest of the money.  It also doesn't prove anything I said wrong.  I JUST said it's annoying when people ignore facts and your next post ignored facts, sigh.

I never said there wasn't an investment. I simply said we invest in many things and nukes is only a % of that.

All you did was waste your time. ?

12 minutes ago, Lairah said:

It doesn't prevent you acting rationally at all. You just use it as an excuse to act irrationally, and expect everyone to nod in agreement with it.
There is no excuse for the behavior. You are frustrated, fine. Handle it by doing something other than radiating toxins from your posts. It would make everybody feel much better.

It's only difficult if you make it so.

I'm not frustrated at all about the war, we are doing fine. You have me confused with someone else.

Edited by Maverick0984
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Maverick0984 said:

That's great that you did math, but did you actually read my entire post?

Stating what nukes cost ignores my premise about what we do with the rest of the money.  It also doesn't prove anything I said wrong.  I JUST said it's annoying when people ignore facts and your next post ignored facts, sigh.

I never said there wasn't an investment. I simply said we invest in many things and nukes is only a % of that.

All you did was waste your time. ?

What is the payoff at 35m a day upkeep? Maybe if you guys used them as something more than an intimidation method you could have seen a more effective benefit. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Partisan said:

What is the payoff at 35m a day upkeep? Maybe if you guys used them as something more than an intimidation method you could have seen a more effective benefit. 

It's a little over a mil per nation per day. It's hardly a sizable chunk. 

Cost of doing business at this point. 

I'd also say that launching them all at targets means using them for more than intimidation.  What's your definition if it isn't the traditionally accepted one?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Maverick0984 said:

It's a little over a mil per nation per day. It's hardly a sizable chunk. 

Cost of doing business at this point. 

I'd also say that launching them all at targets means using them for more than intimidation.  What's your definition if it isn't the traditionally accepted one?

Scroll up to where it was said they are an insurance method. You guys were content with your thumbs up your ass and talking shit to everyone else because you thought your nukes would keep them away. You’ve been sitting on them for so long now that there is basically no way for you to ever get your moneys worth out of them, especially under this new war system. 

 

So so yes you are launching them, after over a year of doing nothing. High value. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Maverick0984 said:

How do you think Fark got to a high average number of cities?  All just magic?   It happened because we had a tax system in place and dished out grants to smaller nations to tier everyone together.  We were so generous to our nations that we even gave this same help to close allies.

How did Fark get to a high average number of cities? 

It's called avoiding war for a year and a half. War is the main thing that stunts growth, if you're sitting around since 2016 of course you're going to grow. 

It happened because we had a tax system in place and dished out grants to smaller nations to tier everyone together.

Wow really? This is revolutionary econ ya'll are running..... 

 

  • Upvote 4

Chief Financial Officer of The Syndicate

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Partisan said:

Scroll up to where it was said they are an insurance method. You guys were content with your thumbs up your ass and talking shit to everyone else because you thought your nukes would keep them away. You’ve been sitting on them for so long now that there is basically no way for you to ever get your moneys worth out of them, especially under this new war system. 

 

So so yes you are launching them, after over a year of doing nothing. High value. 

1

You're still confused.  I've already done well over a years worth of damage in upkeep cost in 36h of war.  In a war we have no business doing any damage in because we're outnumbered 4:1.  That's a ridiculous amount of value. 

Also, the definition of insurance literally means, a plan to help when things go bad.  It doesn't mean, prevent things from going bad.

 

31 minutes ago, Justin076 said:

How did Fark get to a high average number of cities? 

It's called avoiding war for a year and a half. War is the main thing that stunts growth, if you're sitting around since 2016 of course you're going to grow. 

It happened because we had a tax system in place and dished out grants to smaller nations to tier everyone together.

Wow really? This is revolutionary econ ya'll are running..... 

 

3

You aren't reading the other posts in the thread.  The comment was in response to being told we waste ALL of our money on nukes, which is nowhere close to true.  Please read all posts before posting a silly retort. Or at least the posts since your last post. Thanks.

Edited by Maverick0984
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Maverick0984 said:

You're still confused.  I've already done well over a years worth of damage in upkeep cost in 36h of war.  In a war we have no business doing any damage in because we're outnumbered 4:1.  That's a ridiculous amount of value.  

 

You aren't reading the other posts in the thread.  The comment was in response to being told we waste ALL of our money on nukes, which is nowhere close to true.  Please read all posts.  Thanks.

f3dea057f62e97a52929950408a35623--search

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.