Jump to content
Placentica

Remove Nukes from the Game & Increase Downdeclare Range

Recommended Posts

Why have troops, tanks, ships, aircraft, missiles, nukes or spies when you can have community hugs and friendly barter on the global market. Relenquish your armament and live in a peacefull land of everlasting HUGS.

Edited by Milord
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you guys stop using this part of the forum for your butthurt and move to orbis central? This is actually for serious suggestions

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, rapmanej said:

Joke suggestion is joke suggestion. 

Might I add to remove the ability for the defender to attack back at all. I think that would be a fair compromise. 

I'm not joking.  I'm 100% serious.  Obviously, refunding the nukes and NFP is part of this.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Kaladin Stormblessed said:

If your wars are won/lost before they even start, you're doing something wrong.

Maybe Alex could add a flashing banner reminding nuclear nations that there are other military units to be utilized.

Or if there is a nation, God forbid an entire bloc, whose entire defensive strategy is flinging nukes, we could have a new in-game notification that reminds them they're being one dimensional, thus limiting their own ability to effectively wage war and have a fighting chance to accomplish anything meaningful in a conflict.

Certified OOC Post™

The people in my alliance/myself lost the political pre-battle, obviously.  This topic is about in-war game mechanics. 

You ignore every single post I've made on the issue of nuclear warfare.  Go read them if before replying.  Then see the history of our first war and Silent.

The people in my alliance's first defensive strategy is always conventional until that isn't viable due to overwhelming forces against us.  For that we have insurance and that insurance grows as we see threats we can't beat because we don't have the membership size or all kinds of bots/scripts that do our trading/recruiting like what some people in TKR use.

When you have 3 defensive wars that are all with people that have way more cities and max military, the only in-war game mechanic for fighting back is nukes.  I'd like to see nukes removed so that we don't have all the !@#$ing about why this is so unfair. And might as well increase the downdeclare range so that for people like you, who don't seem to get it, can understand the war system isn't about proficiency, it's filling slots which are arranged before a war starts.  Politics  and war.  I would prefer that this is made abundantly clear, would make the game experience much more pleasant for everyone I think.

Maybe you should go suggest a game mechanic that would give a losing nation more options to combing back if it's so important to you.  I won't support that, but you should go suggest something and if the community likes it, maybe Alex will implement it.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Placentica said:

The people in my alliance/myself lost the political pre-battle, obviously.  This topic is about in-war game mechanics. 

You ignore every single post I've made on the issue of nuclear warfare.  Go read them if before replying.  Then see the history of our first war and Silent.

The people in my alliance's first defensive strategy is always conventional until that isn't viable due to overwhelming forces against us.  For that we have insurance and that insurance grows as we see threats we can't beat because we don't have the membership size or all kinds of bots/scripts that do our trading/recruiting like what some people in TKR use.

When you have 3 defensive wars that are all with people that have way more cities and max military, the only in-war game mechanic for fighting back is nukes.  I'd like to see nukes removed so that we don't have all the !@#$ing about why this is so unfair. And might as well increase the downdeclare range so that for people like you, who don't seem to get it, can understand the war system isn't about proficiency, it's filling slots which are arranged before a war starts.  Politics  and war.  I would prefer that this is made abundantly clear, would make the game experience much more pleasant for everyone I think.

Maybe you should go suggest a game mechanic that would give a losing nation more options to combing back if it's so important to you.  I won't support that, but you should go suggest something and if the community likes it, maybe Alex will implement it.

No.

Edited by rapmanej
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also we should take the cap on number of offensive slots away. Who wouldn't want to have 35 wars?

  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Placentica said:

The people in my alliance/myself lost the political pre-battle, obviously.  This topic is about in-war game mechanics. (1)

You ignore every single post I've made on the issue of nuclear warfare.  Go read them if before replying.  Then see the history of our first war and Silent. (2)

The people in my alliance's first defensive strategy is always conventional until that isn't viable due to overwhelming forces against us. (3) For that we have insurance and that insurance grows as we see threats we can't beat because we don't have the membership size or all kinds of bots/scripts that do our trading/recruiting like what some people in TKR use. (4)

When you have 3 defensive wars that are all with people that have way more cities and max military, the only in-war game mechanic for fighting back is nukes.  (5)I'd like to see nukes removed so that we don't have all the !@#$ing about why this is so unfair. (6)And might as well increase the downdeclare range so that for people like you, who don't seem to get it, can understand the war system isn't about proficiency, it's filling slots which are arranged before a war starts. (7) Politics  and war.  I would prefer that this is made abundantly clear, would make the game experience much more pleasant for everyone I think. (8)

Maybe you should go suggest a game mechanic that would give a losing nation more options to combing back if it's so important to you.  I won't support that, but you should go suggest something and if the community likes it, maybe Alex will implement it. (9)

God DAMN you salty

Anyway, to respond to your actual post... no. Also HELL no. And furthermore: HELL NO. Wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong. Wrong and bad.

(1). fair enough. I'll keep my response to the mechanics.
(2). Can't be bothered to, but if it's anything like this post then my response still applies.
(3). Look, it's perfectly reasonable to fight that way, I certainly have been, but there's two problems with how you've been implementing that strategy. For a start, your nuclear weapon stockpiles inflate your score without increasing your conventional warfare potential, putting your nations deep within range of nations with vastly more cities and vastly more conventional forces, both actual and potential. In fact, they inflate your score so much that you've managed to tier yourselves out of all conventional warfare options that you could ever have had to begin with; you can't even downdeclare to a conventional victory. Can you name a single active nation that Nuke Bloc can defeat conventionally, at all? The second problem is that you've been politically aggressive and unwilling to ally outside of your bloc (as far as I can immediately tell, I could be wrong about that. But I doubt it). Now, yes, I said I'd keep my response to the mechanics, but in this case your political strategy is very much tied to the effectiveness, or lack thereof, of your mechanical strategy.
(4). See previous point. How is inflating your score and putting yourselves further and further out from your conventional warfare weight class 'insurance'? And why not make your own scripts, or steal them, or whatever? It's effort, but it's very doable.
(5). There were six game mechanics for fighting back against infinitely more powerful opponents, now there are five. Two have been severely nerfed due to the new war types giving the attackers options to counter them. They are:
1. nukes (nerfed)
2. missiles (nerfed)
3. bank hiding
4. counters
5. not having anything in the first place
6. fortification (now not an option).

If counters aren't an option, and nukes and missiles aren't worth using when attacked, then you're left with bank hiding, going aggressive with attrition wars to launch nukes and missiles, and not having anything in your nation in the first place. Tl;dr: go full Arrgh. They've got a strategy that's backed up by actual math and practical refinement. If your 'nukes launched' stats were as high as your 'nukes stockpiled' stats, you might have been more prepared. This is why I'm so cheesed off that fortification was removed; it would have allowed you to do all your damage without taking quite such devastating hits in return. But no, people had to !@#$ about it so it was removed.

(6). The salt is strong with this statement. Nukes should NOT be removed from the game, as they are such a critical and valuable rebalancing factor. They should however be used responsibly. They don't do anything for you until you launch them; once your inflated stockpiles are all launched, you should start to see your conventional warfare options open up considerably, and you can still nuke as a backup, or for attrition, or to shave off that last 25 resistance. Much as you already said was your whole plan to begin with.

(7). He does understand that wars are won by planning, logistics, and filling slots in a blitz that are coordinated before the war starts. Why do you think that's exactly how everyone else has been fighting since day one of the whole game? I'll tell you: Because it works! Skill means doing the best you can, and understanding the best options. The best fencer in the world still isn't a skilled fighter in my book if he brings a rapier to fight a battleship. Proficiency beyond that is still a factor, usually involving mental math, probability and statistical analysis, activity, organizational skills, etc., but the vast majority of battle is indeed won and lost before the first declare. And that's a problem, it really is, but it's not one that would be solved by spitefully fricking up the mechanics that keep the game from being completely imbalanced and dead.

(8). It is abundantly clear to anyone and everyone that's got any practical war experience, be it raiding or alliance war. And it really should be immediately obvious to anyone that joins the game that there are nations with more stuff than they've got, and therefore they could easily get rekt. If they still don't notice that they're a small fish in an 1800 player pond, well, I don't know if we could get the message across even if Sheepy put in big red flashing words telling them so.

(9). I would indeed suggest that the fortification nerf be reverted. It was perfect, it remains perfect, and you'd be thrilled to tears to have it since you'd be able to launch all your nukes with impunity forever and it'd be awesome, nobody would be able to eat for months :D
That, or we could also consider implementing what I'd suggested months ago here

2 hours ago, Apeman said:

Also we should take the cap on number of offensive slots away. Who wouldn't want to have 35 wars?


We really should, honestly. If someape wants to overextend themselves, why should they be arbitrarily stopped? 100k global rads when!

Edited by Sir Scarfalot
  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Could we keep this discussion to the OOC topic of game mechanics?  I'd like to know anyone, outside of a person in a NB alliance, who actually like having nukes in the game?

I figured I could lead the charge to remove nukes because if anyone has benefited from their defensive use when dogpiled onto, it would be my IC alliance.

If we took a poll to remove nukes, I feel like 90% of people would agree.  Thoughts?

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Removing nukes is one of the worst ideas I have ever heard. By the way, why not remove uranium power plants? They're too expensive for the small nations and makes the big nations too overpowered.

Edited by AwesomeNova
subpar grammar
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Placentica said:

Could we keep this discussion to the OOC topic of game mechanics?  I'd like to know anyone, outside of a person in a NB alliance, who actually like having nukes in the game?

I figured I could lead the charge to remove nukes because if anyone has benefited from their defensive use when dogpiled onto, it would be my IC alliance.

If we took a poll to remove nukes, I feel like 90% of people would agree.  Thoughts?

I'm pretty sure that 90% of people would disagree with the notion. Mechanically, they're a very powerful and useful weapon when used strategically. The fact that they have drawbacks doesn't in any way diminish from their value. I like that they exist, apparently so does AwesomeNova, looks like Fraggle does (TGITG isn't nuke bloc :P), Arrgh seems to appreciate them, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel like Nuke Bloc are getting just a tad bit salty because they're so-called "strategy" doesn't work anymore.

8 hours ago, Placentica said:

The people in my alliance/myself lost the political pre-battle, obviously. 

Nuke Bloc had a political strategy too? I didn't know you had any more skills in FA other than "NUKEZ" and letting people know how bad they would become if NB entered a war against them.... remember those days? Doesn't work like that now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Placentica said:

Could we keep this discussion to the OOC topic of game mechanics?  I'd like to know anyone, outside of a person in a NB alliance, who actually like having nukes in the game?

I figured I could lead the charge to remove nukes because if anyone has benefited from their defensive use when dogpiled onto, it would be my IC alliance.

If we took a poll to remove nukes, I feel like 90% of people would agree.  Thoughts?

No.

How about rather than complaining for the really small minority, most of whom are in a bloc called "NUKE" bloc, you change YOUR plans rather than trying to make us bend to them. Most of us enjoy nukes, even if we get hit by them often. They're still a VIABLE option in warfare, whether you think so or not, but YOU CANNOT cry because for once in your career, nukes aren't winning the war for you. It would be as if Fraggle hit someone in her range then complained that she was losing because she has no conventional military and is at 6k score, while her opponent is max military and STILL HAS NUKES. You see there is a little thing called balance. Nukes are kept by most people as a deterrent, NOT A STRATEGY - "you hit me and I might fling a nuke at you, be warned" - that sort of deterrent. Not what NB has become, which is "Hey we got a thousand nukes and no military, hit us and you'll be nuked, that's it, no conventional military to be seen."

USE NUKES AS THEY ARE MEANT TO BE USED.

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Connor you are the dumbest person playin to date. You have no idea about jack shit and just want to throw opinions into the wind. We all had max military. Have 8 war slots filled and show me how to win. I asked Justin this earlier as well and all you guys can say is get good. The nukes are a good strategy and round 2 will prove with stats that you don't know shit about jack bud. The only reason we aren't winning yet is because its 300 on 60 and our expensive infra needed to leave. So yeah whateves enjoy your false victories and talk shit because that's all you have. It's about realizing the bottom line. Ive been to mine a few times and still sat first for months while being the first over 10k. Do one thing well then your opinion will be validated. Until then you have nothing to say. See you soon

 

I put it to the public. Teach me something.

Edited by Apeman
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Apeman said:

Connor you are the dumbest person playin to date. You have no idea about jack shit and just want to throw opinions into the wind. We all had max military. Have 8 war slots filled and show me how to win. I asked Justin this earlier as well and all you guys can say is get good. The nukes are a good strategy and round 2 will prove with stats that you don't know shit about jack bud. The only reason we aren't winning yet is because its 300 on 60 and our expensive infra needed to leave. So yeah whateves enjoy your false victories and talk shit because that's all you have. It's about realizing the bottom line. Ive been to mine a few times and still sat first for months while being the first over 10k. Do one thing well then your opinion will be validated. Until then you have nothing to say. See you soon

 

I put it to the public. Teach me something.

Make sure your boys hit Attrition next time. May be less salt on both sides tbh. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting. It appears one group of humans doesn't like the other group of humans. It may be that Orbis needs an alien invasion of some sort to make us pull together for the common good and also we will all need to pool our resources to explore the reaches of this parallel universe.

Apeman will be the ambassador for all of Orbis, spreading good cheer and good will throughout this new galaxy.

 

Edited by Mikalus II
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Apeman said:

Connor you are the dumbest person playin to date. You have no idea about jack shit and just want to throw opinions into the wind.

Why thank you, dear sir!

44 minutes ago, Apeman said:

The nukes are a good strategy and round 2 will prove with stats that you don't know shit about jack bud. The only reason we aren't winning yet is because its 300 on 60 and our expensive infra needed to leave.

You see, this here is the issue. You complain at how bad nukes seem to be in this "not a joke" joke thread, then you go on to say that we haven't seen round 2 yet. Maybe don't go off on a rant about how bad they are if you've still got that threat in the bag. Secondly, is it our fault that NB only has 60 people fighting against the 300 from TKR/TCW/GOB? They recruit new people, they grow daily - this isn't the same for nuke bloc. SA are filled with whales. Fark don't accept new people. Alpha has had one new person this month. WTF are a bit more "active", but even then that's two new people in the last month. The last person to join NK was 25 days ago. And don't blame the infra, maybe cut back on those score-inflating nukes you have stockpiled and have taunted people with for the last 9 months.

Now I have to cut it short and say no hard feelings to you Apeman, or the rest of NK and the Nuke bloc (otherwise my alliance will literally kill me) but the people who are responding to NB are more-or-less correct.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I never complained about nukes or their damage. Please cross check your facts

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Conner Temple said:

GOB

GRUMPY!

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Placentica said:

The people in my alliance/myself lost the political pre-battle, obviously.  This topic is about in-war game mechanics. 

 

I have a counter suggestion, tell your alliance members and allies to stop trying to make new enemies every time they post. This was is as much about certain people being obnoxious on a regular basis as it is anything else. If there weren't certain people in your Bloc posting shit constantly and trying to act like tough guys do you think it would have been so easy to find so many people to roll you so quickly? 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The nice part about this game is it's a game.  I don't have to bite my tongue like IRL.  I get to piss off every mouth breathing dumbass that can't spell a word longer than salt, every nazi or nazi collaborator, whoever I want to piss off. Then they come for my pixels and I get to nuke them.  If I've annoyed you and made you not like me, just know I meant it. Especially if you're the moran that borked 3 of my war slots. 

Share this post


Link to post
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...

  • 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.