Lower Resistance Damage

[Guest Frawley]

56 minutes ago, Sir Scarfalot said:

-snip-

You clearly missed the point of my post.

Winning and losing wars, isn't about the war system, it is about preparation, both in material and in allies.  No matter what the rules are around wars, the length of time to save for and conduct those wars will scale to meet the political objectives of the winners.

This is not an NPO issue alone.  All alliances, including your own, have objectives, and they will use game mechanics however they are presently constructed to achieve them.

When the NPO was still young, TGH's predecessor rolled the top 30 NPO nations for a single round, immediately after we borrowed money and built infra.  Do you think that was for funnies, no it was to set us back a long way, and they were successful in that, we struggled with debt repayments and lower income for a long time.

Our present pet strategy of run planes, only works because we adopted a second pet strategy of tier cohesion due to the fact we were easily rolled into the ground multiple times.  Our tier cohesion strategy was a response to our political enemies strategy of cutting our heads off everytime we popped our heads up and grew a bit bigger.  Our strategy is counter-able as well, we built a mid tier to submarine attack, if someone wants to counter that they just need to build a lower tier to do the exact same thing to us.  In fact there are people in TKR quite successfully doing this to us, right now.

How are shorter, more damaging wars, inflicting permanent damage to anybody.  I expect to lose 100% of my infra that is worth anything every single war. Yet day two of peace, I will probably have 1,200 infra per city, and a week later 1,600, and a week later 1,800.  Damage in this game is cheap and nearly instant to repair.  TKR will probably grow 150,000 Score within a week of peace being declared, we both know this, the savings that all major alliances have banked, are there to ensure this.

We didn't kill the other game, a game breaking upper tier, as well as a lack of a bad guy (after NPO was killed off), killed that game.  The player count in that game had been dropping for years, and the game was on its last gasps well before Oculus came to be.

My theoretical speculation is just that, as is your speculation that slightly longer wars will permanently lose the game for some.  However I know what I would do if I was running an upper tier alliance under your model, and I'm not alone in thinking like that.  No-one plays these games to lose.

Perhaps this change is too on the nose, but if we want shorter wars, that don't cost so much that we spend 10 out of 12 months saving up for them, then some change is required, and it's not throwing in weeks of rebuilding time mid war.

Edited November 12, 2018 by Frawley

[Micchan]

I surrender to your WoT, after reading all this I don't remember what I wanted to say

15 minutes ago, Frawley said:

When the NPO was still young, TGH's predecessor rolled the top 30 NPO nations for a single round, immediately after we borrowed money and built infra.  Do you think that was for funnies, no it was to set us back a long way, and they were successful in that, we struggled with debt repayments and lower income for a long time.

That was an hit after the longest peace ever, how you can say that was to stop your growth? Is not an hit just a post war rebuild lol

20 minutes ago, Frawley said:

All alliances, including your own, have objectives, and they will use game mechanics however they are presently constructed to achieve them.

@Nizam Adrienne help me, do we have objectives other than being around and having fun? Support Smith-NG love story? It seem other alliances have serious objectives and now I want one too

26 minutes ago, Frawley said:

No-one plays these games to lose.

Ok now the only objective I was sure of is gone, what's UPN's objective then?

[Sketchy]

Then don't hold them down for 5 days in a blockade and hit them when they rebuy once a day?

The whole point of attrition straight from the mouth of IQ leadership back during Git Gud Friday was that attrition warfare was done with express goal of boring people out of their minds to make it unpleasant for anyone to fight IQ.

If you want to have fun, try beiging your opponent and waiting for them to come back after you so you can fight them properly again. If you don't want to challenge yourself or take any risks, don't be surprised when its not as enjoyable.

Also don't change resistance per war type sheepy that is stupid.

[Sir Scarfalot]

6 minutes ago, Sketchy said:

Then don't hold them down for 5 days in a blockade and hit them when they rebuy once a day?

The whole point of attrition straight from the mouth of IQ leadership back during Git Gud Friday was that attrition warfare was done with express goal of boring people out of their minds to make it unpleasant for anyone to fight IQ.

If you want to have fun, try beiging your opponent and waiting for them to come back after you so you can fight them properly again. If you don't want to challenge yourself or take any risks, don't be surprised when its not as enjoyable.

Also don't change resistance per war type sheepy that is stupid.

Thank you; I was typing up a frick-off wall of text that spanned more words than I even want to believe but you made the point well enough here so I don't gotta.

Upvote

[Guest Frawley]

43 minutes ago, Micchan said:

That was an hit after the longest peace ever, how you can say that was to stop your growth? Is not an hit just a post war rebuild lol

The NPO had been existence for a month. (Mensa Christmas Raids)

41 minutes ago, Sketchy said:

Then don't hold them down for 5 days in a blockade and hit them when they rebuy once a day?

The whole point of attrition straight from the mouth of IQ leadership back during Git Gud Friday was that attrition warfare was done with express goal of boring people out of their minds to make it unpleasant for anyone to fight IQ.

If you want to have fun, try beiging your opponent and waiting for them to come back after you so you can fight them properly again. If you don't want to challenge yourself or take any risks, don't be surprised when its not as enjoyable.

Also don't change resistance per war type sheepy that is stupid.

No, the express reason we focus on a plane tier strategy, is to make hitting us painful.  Previously alliances could come in, do 3 rounds and set us back to square one, the point was to make sure that even if we still lost, the cost of conducting that action against us was sufficient to make it hurt.

We are not volunteering ourselves as the eternal punching bags of PW, so no thanks, keep your beiges.

Edited November 12, 2018 by Frawley

[Sketchy]

11 minutes ago, Frawley said:

No, the express reason we focus on a plane tier strategy, is to make hitting us painful.  Previously alliances could come in, do 3 rounds and set us back to square one, the point was to make sure that even if we still lost, the cost of conducting that action against us was sufficient to make it hurt.

We are not volunteering ourselves as the eternal punching bags of PW, so no thanks, keep your beiges.

Exactly, so we agree, it is a result of your actions. 

Case closed...?

 

[Guest Frawley]

1 minute ago, Sketchy said:

Exactly, so we agree, it is a result of your actions. 

Which are a result of others actions.

All alliances act in their own self interest, that is the point of alliances.  Our submarine strategy is the only good mass member alliance strategy that we can do to combat the city gap, its that simple.

[Buorhann]

1 hour ago, Frawley said:

When the NPO was still young, TGH's predecessor rolled the top 30 NPO nations for a single round, immediately after we borrowed money and built infra.  Do you think that was for funnies, no it was to set us back a long way, and they were successful in that, we struggled with debt repayments and lower income for a long time.

Uh what?

If you're referring to Mensa HQ or myself, all of our conflicts were for "funzies".  We just didn't give a damn about pixels or anything else.  There was never a plan to "set people back", ever.  Even in Syndisphere there wasn't.

 

Or are you talking about TJest?  Because that definitely was for fun.

Edited November 12, 2018 by Buorhann

[Sir Scarfalot]

1 hour ago, Frawley said:

-stuff-

After reading this, I have to ask... in all sincerity, how the frick does longer and more damaging wars equate to shorter and less damaging wars?

What are you smoking and where can I get a hit of it?

Edited November 12, 2018 by Sir Scarfalot

[Micchan]

21 minutes ago, Sketchy said:

Then don't hold them down for 5 days in a blockade and hit them when they rebuy once a day?

The whole point of attrition straight from the mouth of IQ leadership back during Git Gud Friday was that attrition warfare was done with express goal of boring people out of their minds to make it unpleasant for anyone to fight IQ.

If you want to have fun, try beiging your opponent and waiting for them to come back after you so you can fight them properly again. If you don't want to challenge yourself or take any risks, don't be surprised when its not as enjoyable.

Also don't change resistance per war type sheepy that is stupid.

This is basically what I'm discussing with Shadowthrone on our forum because he was surprised I never did airstrikes to target money in a blockade to prevent my enemy to do any actions (I see it coming, yes Scarfy, except missiles that cost only 150k) and I consider it a "dirty" move I would never do because I think that if it doesn't affects the outcome of the war it's my duty to keep a small window for my enemy to buy some units, launch a nuke, do something other than watching MAPs stay at 12, first because is what I would like if I was in his place, second because more activity from him is more activity for me, and third because if it's fun for both (ok maybe more for me) and better for the game, and I used our last war as example

I think the only no mercy part of the war is the meme war

He replied that his/their playing style is basically do everything possible to win, even if it's not fun for everyone, and also a WoT I still have to read

But I think we should move this in another place

5 minutes ago, Buorhann said:

Or are you talking about TJest?  Because that definitely was for fun.

I was talking about Jest but then he said 1 month old NPO so I leave it to older players

[Sketchy]

Just now, Frawley said:

Which are a result of others actions.

All alliances act in their own self interest, that is the point of alliances.  Our submarine strategy is the only good mass member alliance strategy that we can do to combat the city gap, its that simple.

You are saying that to someone who co-founded an alliance built on the idea of doing things against our economic self interest in the pursuit of our personal enjoyment of the game.

Alliances have different priorities, and those priorities come with different sacrifices. You are asking the game developer to offset the downsides of your particular strategy, to cater to your own subjective version of what constitutes fun.

Pragmatism has a cost. If your foremost priority was fun, this wouldn't be a problem, because you'd adapt your strategy to maximize that at the expense of other priorities. You can't be ultra pragmatic, plan wars to the extent at which losing is not a possibility as many alliances do, and then blame the game for not being suitably "competitive".

If people want competitive wars, take risks, don't be ultra pragmatic. 

Perhaps you might be in the wrong alliance?

[Sketchy]

18 minutes ago, Frawley said:

Our submarine strategy is the only good mass member alliance strategy that we can do to combat the city gap, its that simple.

Also, just one other point. This isn't even true. You could have fully militarised and hit their upper tier this time around since you have a legion of other alliances supporting you. You'd likely have had more fun and you'd have done better as a coalition too. Oh and the war would be shorter.

You instead chose the option that best protected your bloc from damages, and let your upper tier support take all the damage instead.

Pragmatic and in your self interests? Yes.

Fun, fast and effective? Not so much.

[Commander Thrawn]

29 minutes ago, Sketchy said:

If people want competitive wars, take risks, don't be ultra pragmatic. 

 

The best way to compete is to be good (smart, logical, strategic) however else you want to say it.

 

The fact that some alliances follow a strategy you don't like doesn't change that.

18 minutes ago, Sketchy said:

Also, just one other point. This isn't even true. You could have fully militarised and hit their upper tier this time around since you have a legion of other alliances supporting you. You'd likely have had more fun and you'd have done better as a coalition too. Oh and the war would be shorter.

You instead chose the option that best protected your bloc from damages, and let your upper tier support take all the damage instead.

Pragmatic and in your self interests? Yes.

Fun, fast and effective? Not so much.

So you are saying it was a bad strategy to protect the bloc from damages?

 

With military strategies like these who needs enemies.

 

The point of the war clearly wasn't to be in your best interests (wasting resources and accumulated wealth to do temporary damage). 

[Sir Scarfalot]

8 minutes ago, Commander Thrawn said:

The best way to compete is to be good (smart, logical, strategic) however else you want to say it.

 

The fact that some alliances follow a strategy you don't like doesn't change that.

The best way to have fun playing a game is to have fun playing a game, there's no other way to say that.

The fact that your alliance follows a strategy that isn't fun doesn't change that.

8 minutes ago, Commander Thrawn said:

So you are saying it was a bad strategy to protect the bloc from damages?

 

With military strategies like these who needs enemies.

 

The point of the war clearly wasn't to be in your best interests (wasting resources and accumulated wealth to do temporary damage). 

It is absolutely bad strategy to fold on the upper tier, where there was (and yet remains) the possibility of victory, in order to instead double down on hugging pixels in the lower tier where there wasn't any possibility of defeat anyway.

With military strategy like that, you really don't need enemies.

As for the last line... what else is war but expenditure of resources to frick someone's shit up temporarily?

[Sketchy]

2 minutes ago, Commander Thrawn said:

The best way to compete is to be good (smart, logical, strategic) however else you want to say it.

The fact that some alliances follow a strategy you don't like doesn't change that.

Its impressive how many things wrong you were able to pack into such a small post.

> Complains strategy his alliance is using is boring and the game should be changed to make it more fun

> I suggest perhaps instead of trying to change the entire game, you should pick a more enjoyable strategy

> "The fact some alliances follow a strategy you don't like doesn't change that its a good strategy"

You truly redefine the limits of ones ability to completely lack self awareness. Bravo

Also, just because you call your strategy good, doesn't mean it is. It obviously isn't in fact, given your coalition has such a narrow lead in the largest dogpile in the games history. 

I'd suggest you let the grown ups talk buddy.

[Commander Thrawn]

1 minute ago, Sir Scarfalot said:

The best way to have fun playing a game is to have fun playing a game, there's no other way to say that.

The fact that your alliance follows a strategy that isn't fun doesn't change that.

People have different opinions of what is fun. I enjoy our methods just fine, I mostly hang around for the community.

Our strategy is fun, because it involves long term thinking and the goal of actually changing macro political structures instead of simply banging away on a keyboard like a 2 year old and saying ooh look he went boom.

1 minute ago, Sir Scarfalot said:

It is absolutely bad strategy to fold on the upper tier, where there was (and yet remains) the possibility of victory, in order to instead double down on hugging pixels in the lower tier where there wasn't any possibility of defeat anyway.

With military strategy like that, you really don't need enemies.

As for the last line... what else is war but expenditure of resources to frick someone's shit up temporarily?

You should really discuss this with someone who understands game mechanics if you don't understand the thought process.

War is an expenditure of resources to gain an advantage over another party that is lasting. 

 

4 minutes ago, Sketchy said:

Its impressive how many things wrong you were able to pack into such a small post.

> Complains strategy his alliance is using is boring and the game should be changed to make it more fun

> I suggest perhaps instead of trying to change the entire game, you should pick a more enjoyable strategy

> "The fact some alliances follow a strategy you don't like doesn't change that its a good strategy"

You truly redefine the limits of ones ability to completely lack self awareness. Bravo

Also, just because you call your strategy good, doesn't mean it is. It obviously isn't in fact, given your coalition has such a narrow lead in the largest dogpile in the games history. 

I'd suggest you let the grown ups talk buddy.

I know you probably cant differentiate between different posters, but I didn't complain about anything being boring.

Narrow lead by what metrics? It is really important to look at the overall strategic context rather than just some pixels. But hey, from the group calling arguing for "if you want to have more fun, just run suicide missions." Its hard to expect deep strategic insights.

 

[Sketchy]

6 minutes ago, Commander Thrawn said:

-snip-

My post was a response to the OP, someone from your alliance, who has a different opinion. Perhaps you should argue with them then?

You still haven't achieved self awareness yet. I hope Roq releases that in the next update.

[Sir Scarfalot]

2 hours ago, Commander Thrawn said:

You should really discuss this with someone who understands game mechanics if you don't understand the thought process.

I don't understand game mechanics? Haven't been accused of that in a while ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Edited November 12, 2018 by Sir Scarfalot

[Sketchy]

8 minutes ago, Commander Thrawn said:

Narrow lead by what metrics? It is really important to look at the overall strategic context rather than just some pixels. But hey, from the group calling arguing for "if you want to have more fun, just run suicide missions." Its hard to expect deep strategic insights.

Damages. I didn't advocate for suicide missions, I advocated that if people want to be ultra pragmatic  and remove all risk from conflict, which is their prerogative \, they shouldn't complain about things not being competitive enough for their enjoyment.

Ironically you are basically making the same argument I'm making, against your own alliance member, you just haven't realised it yet apparently.

 

[Commander Thrawn]

2 minutes ago, Sketchy said:

My post was a response to the OP, someone from your alliance, who has a different opinion. Perhaps you should argue with them then?

You still haven't achieved self awareness yet. I hope Roq releases that in the next update.

Yeah, and your response was illogical and wrong, I attempted to help you understand why.

Self-awareness? Of other people? 

2 minutes ago, Sir Scarfalot said:

meaningless picture

The intellectual fortitude of you guys is truly astounding. 

Just now, Sketchy said:

Damages. I didn't advocate for suicide missions, I advocated that if people want to be ultra pragmatic  and remove all risk from conflict, which is their prerogative \, they shouldn't complain about things not being competitive enough for their enjoyment.

Ironically you are basically making the same argument I'm making, against your own alliance member, you just haven't realised it yet apparently.

There are more than one kind of damages. There's the short term, boom and there's long term structural ones.

I think where you are going wrong is that you think this thread is about boredom. Its not. Its about fixing a game mechanic that has led to behavior that people almost universally think doesn't fit the intention of the game design. We are quite happy to continue to min-max and play the game as designed. But we have the opportunity to improve the game and make it function more in line with its design along the way.

[Micchan]

6 minutes ago, Sketchy said:

I hope Roq releases that in the next update.

[Shadowthrone]

*scratches head* 

So the strat of holding off beiges comes in with the idea of beiges being stackable and thus leaving a huge window of opportunity where smaller nations can't effectively damage upper tier nations. We do it to maximise damage and ensure screwing with us for "fun" is going to put everyone else back a bit. The point here is, is there a way to shorten wars or change them around. There were three different proposals in here, and yet all of the talk has delved into evil NPO ruining the game for everyone else. Lmfao. Never change PnW, never change. 

Edited November 12, 2018 by Shadowthrone

[Sketchy]

1 minute ago, Commander Thrawn said:

Yeah, and your response was illogical and wrong, I attempted to help you understand why.

You didn't respond to my response, you responded to a strawman argument I never made, with an argument that supports my overall point. 

7 minutes ago, Commander Thrawn said:

There are more than one kind of damages. There's the short term, boom and there's long term structural ones.

I already made the point that the strategy is pragmatic for NPO and core allies, Its not pragmatic for the wider coalition though, that is hardly debatable.

If you are openly admitting that you are intentionally sabotaging your own coalition members in order to preserve your pixels,... well then lol gg I guess?

As far as long term structural ones, well thats not generally the metric people use when they decide who wins a war, and you can't predict those at this juncture. Somehow I doubt this hurts TKR all that much long term structurally, they are built on fairly sturdy foundations. Your coalition allies though, and some of theirs, sure.

5 minutes ago, Commander Thrawn said:

I think where you are going wrong is that you think this thread is about boredom. Its not. Its about fixing a game mechanic that has led to behavior that people almost universally think doesn't fit the intention of the game design.

I mean, the purpose was not clarified in the OP, and the follow up responses suggested it was about things not being enjoyable or competitive.

11 minutes ago, Commander Thrawn said:

We are quite happy to continue to min-max and play the game as designed. But we have the opportunity to improve the game and make it function more in line with its design along the way.

Improve the game is debatable. Obviously your view that there is a universal consensus is slightly off at the very least. More like you want to improve the game for NPO. Which would be consistent with how NPO generally approaches any changes to the mechanics. After all, this change is designed to address a specific flaw in the mechanics surrounding your strategy.

[Commander Thrawn]

1 minute ago, Sketchy said:

You didn't respond to my response, you responded to a strawman argument I never made, with an argument that supports my overall point. 

I already made the point that the strategy is pragmatic for NPO and core allies, Its not pragmatic for the wider coalition though, that is hardly debatable.

If you are openly admitting that you are intentionally sabotaging your own coalition members in order to preserve your pixels,... well then lol gg I guess?

As far as long term structural ones, well thats not generally the metric people use when they decide who wins a war, and you can't predict those at this juncture. Somehow I doubt this hurts TKR all that much long term structurally, they are built on fairly sturdy foundations. Your coalition allies though, and some of theirs, sure.

I mean, the purpose was not clarified in the OP, and the follow up responses suggested it was about things not being enjoyable or competitive.

Improve the game is debatable. Obviously your view that there is a universal consensus is slightly off at the very least. More like you want to improve the game for NPO. Which would be consistent with how NPO generally approaches any changes to the mechanics. After all, this change is designed to address a specific flaw in the mechanics surrounding your strategy.

You keep making these claims, but failing to understand.

With the mechanics as they are we have created a strategy that works towards a greater end goal. People don't like it and get salty when we do it. Instead of discussing the merits of the suggestion to change things everyone proved Keshav was right that this simply devolved into screeching about how NPO is ruining the game.

[Sketchy]

3 minutes ago, Commander Thrawn said:

You keep making these claims, but failing to understand.

With the mechanics as they are we have created a strategy that works towards a greater end goal. People don't like it and get salty when we do it. Instead of discussing the merits of the suggestion to change things everyone proved Keshav was right that this simply devolved into screeching about how NPO is ruining the game.

And I didn't make that argument, so yet again, respond to my actual points rather than strawman versions, or don't respond at all.