Jump to content
Frawley

Lower Resistance Damage

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Sketchy said:

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. 

Your premise was flawed. We adopted a strategy that wasn't the one you want because it is the best one based on how the game works. You said we could build up to attack. Sure, but we didn't want to.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 5
  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey we should all build into ranges of folks +8-10 cities higher than us, or else we're playing this game wrong. 

 

Got it. 

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Sir Scarfalot said:

You say that you're sitting on nations 5 days straight, and the reason you're continuing to do that is you're "not doing the damage you want to do"? Then tell me what damage do you want to do?

We've been pretty clear about that. Qualitatively, we want to check the runaway upper tier growth of TKR-sphere and, hopefully, reduce their dominance in the upper tiers while we're at it.

Quote

And more importantly why should that level of damage be possible or allowed? You want to weaken your political adversaries, fine. Everyone does, that's the literal name of the game. You have done this. You will continue to be able to do this, with my suggestion or without, due to IQ's tier cohesion. You have done this in other games as well. That's also fine, since it's how those games work too. Still, tell me what the final endgame you're aiming for is? To weaken all of your political adversaries, but to what degree and to what end? I posit that it is the same as it has been in your community's past: To weaken all of your political adversaries to the point of them being unable to challenge you.

Quote

I specifically call out NPO because you've actually done this before, multiple times. Don't even start on your "but this game is a different game, we shouldn't be held accountable for things that happened in other games, it wasn't our fault, circumstances were different" arguments with me again, because the result there (whatever the means or factors causing it may have been) was the same as you've just now stated your objective is here: The weakening of your political opponents.

Name one specific instance in which NPO clearly attempted to do this, succeeded at doing this, in which NPO's actions in service of this goal directly contributed to the death of another nation sim game, and in which said NPO actions were the primary cause of that nation sim's death.

Quote

Feel free to prove me wrong, though. I'd love nothing better.

You're the one making unsubstantiated claims. The burden of proof is on you - if you insist on attacking NPO in every substantive post you make about it, please at least furnish some evidence in support of your accusations.

  • Upvote 4
  • Downvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Commander Thrawn said:

Your premise was flawed. We adopted a strategy that wasn't the one you want because it is the best one based on how the game works. You said we could build up to attack. Sure, but we didn't want to.

Who doesn’t want your strat again?  I thought it was a good adaptation to the current mechanics, honestly.

Sketchy was only providing brief alternatives to the OPs original concern.

Share this post


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

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.

Well, suspicious timing or whatever it was, it set us back a long way.

1 hour ago, Sir Scarfalot said:

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?

How many times can I say this.

Scenario 1:
Alliance X wishes to do 100 Damage
Each individual war takes 5 days and does 5 damage
The total conflict will take 20 days

Scenario 2:
Alliance X wishes to do 100 Damage
Each individual war takes 5 days and does 10 damage
The total conflict will take 10 days

I have repeatably stated that alliances adjust war savings and war lengths to account for game mechanics in achieving their objectives.  War Length is a alliance objectives within the existing game mechanics.

1 hour ago, Micchan said:

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 have had money bombed while under blockade in plenty of losing wars, perhaps you are a saint, but most are not.

1 hour 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.

Yeah sure, lets fully militarize, only to be in range of nations who can buy more tanks daily than we can buy total, and get our asses permanantly handed to us.  Instead of wiping the middle tier, keeping them off our allies, and now that many nations have been dragged down, assisting in the Upper Tier fight.  You might notice I'm presently in a war with a 32 city nation, while I have 16 cities.

25 minutes 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.

As above, our strategy is is pragmatic for the coalition, if we were still dealing with TKR/TCW on the ground, we couldn't assist our upper tier coalition partners, and they would have more TKR/TCW hitting them.

I have never said I don't enjoy war, or think that it is not competitive.  I think war makes no sense in the way it is used by all alliances.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Buorhann said:

Who doesn’t want your strat again?  I thought it was a good adaptation to the current mechanics, honestly.

Sketchy was only providing brief alternatives to the OPs original concern.

The people complaining that we don't build up.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Frawley said:

Scenario 1:

 

Alliance X wishes to do 100 Damage
Each individual war takes 5 days and does 5 damage
The total conflict will take 20 days

Scenario 2:
Alliance X wishes to do 100 Damage
Each individual war takes 5 days and does 10 damage
The total conflict will take 10 days

Sure, if "Alliance X" set a defined limit on the damage they want to do and then end the war at that point, then sure. But alliances don't have "damage goals", and certainly can't end the war on their own timetables. This isn't some single-player RTS where once you complete your objectives the match fades to black, plays a pre-rendered cutscene and you move on to the next mission; this is a multiplayer sandbox and you don't dictate the damage you do nor how long it takes, however much you might want that power.

Edited by Sir Scarfalot
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


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

Sure, if "Alliance X" set a defined limit on the damage they want to do and then end the war at that point, then sure. But alliances don't have "damage goals", and certainly can't end the war on their own timetables. This isn't some single-player RTS where once you complete your objectives the match fades to black, plays a pre-rendered cutscene and you move on to the next mission; this is a multiplayer sandbox and you don't dictate the damage you do nor how long it takes, however much you might want that power.

Of course they do, those goals are obviously tempered by political realities, motivation (in long wars), stockpiles and ally temperament, and your enemies temperament, but all wars to date (bar perhaps the IQ-KT War), have ended when the winning coalition is ready (aka achieved their goals)

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


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

Sure, if "Alliance X" set a defined limit on the damage they want to do and then end the war at that point, then sure. But alliances don't have "damage goals", and certainly can't end the war on their own timetables. This isn't some single-player RTS where once you complete your objectives the match fades to black, plays a pre-rendered cutscene and you move on to the next mission; this is a multiplayer sandbox and you don't dictate the damage you do nor how long it takes, however much you might want that power.

This is why you fail. :lol:

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Frawley said:

Of course they do, those goals are obviously tempered by political realities, motivation (in long wars), stockpiles and ally temperament, and your enemies temperament, but all wars to date (bar perhaps the IQ-KT War), have ended when the winning coalition is ready (aka achieved their goals)

 

8 minutes ago, Commander Thrawn said:

This is why you fail. :lol:

You guys really haven't been paying attention apparently. You seriously think the war will end when you want it to? Well, good luck convincing your enemies to stop when you're ready for them to stop ;)

Edited by Sir Scarfalot
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Shadowthrone said:

Hey we should all build into ranges of folks +8-10 cities higher than us, or else we're playing this game wrong. 

 

Got it. 

Uh... are you SERIOUSLY !@#$ing about that?

Look at my wars you mouthy fool. What, you think a 13 city updeclare isn't just as bad for a 19 city as it is for one of your 14 or 16s? Well, it is. If you don't notice, even despite my targets being at low military, i lost one war, because i had to hold the guy without ships, because the other two blasted them to kingdom come. You're complaining about 8-10 city updecs, i just recently was fighting updecs of 12, 13, 10, 12, and 13, at the same time of course. 

Yet, here i am, doing it anyway. Following orders to harpoon the whales, even if i am fighting 10+ city updeclares. Oh, and the best part? THE BEST PART.

I don't have like 150 other people right around my city range backing me up either. Actually between TEst/CoS, i'm pretty sure there's less than 10 of us below 20 cities. 

See, this ^ is what Sketchy was talking about when he said you're just letting your upper tier allies take all the damage. Woe is NPO if they have to updeclare 8-10 cities, but who gives a damn if Rose, Syndicate, CoS and TEst updeclare 8, 10, 13, 15, hell i might be in a 17 city updeclare in the future. My only complaint is that i'm very low on money to buy things, yours is that anybody would insinuate you do the same.

God for-frickin-bid NPO has to build up and do the same as us huh? Thankfully for you we're much less selfish about our pixels while not being trash, so we'll just forcibly kick their heads down low enough for you to swat at them without ever having to build a tank. We know you couldn't Roq's disapproving glare for building such heresy anyway. 

 

22 minutes ago, Frawley said:

-snip-

A nation you shouldn't be fighting anyway. GoB targets are supposed to be speared down by your generous, non-selfish upper tier allies. You actually took that slot away from somebody supposed to be fighting them, who'd *only* be in a 14 city updeclare. He was rather upset about it too. Because you see we've been told to just drag them into 2000s range where you folk are cause yah dont like building tanks and ships too much, Ripper infact turned over all the GoB we slapped down there for that reason. 

I don't mind doing it for you, i'd just prefer nobody, particularly Shadow here, complains that anybody would suggest they do the same to speed it up. Not their fault they're tellin the truth.

 

  • Upvote 6
  • Downvote 3

Share this post


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

--Snip--

Akuryo, I have not seen you post thus far in this thread, so I'm not sure why you are getting so worked up about a mechanical argument with Sketchy.  I think there are a few things you should consider here.

1. NPO & BK are mass member alliances, that have very different growth styles because of that
2. Even if we wanted to, at the moment we don't have the cash to move 50, 100, 150 nations up to the mid 20 city range, a lot of that is because we have lost every war we have been in since we started (NPO), and because relatively speaking our nations are younger than most of the games established upper tier alliances.
3. We don't run tanks because in the entire time NPO has existed I still don't think we have generated enough steel to compete with the 4m steel that TKR has already spent in this war.

At some point NPO will have nations in the tiers where you are and can help, the few nations that we do have down that end of the game are helping where they can.

Regarding the nation I'm fighting, yes you are dead right, I missed the memo unfortunately, and apologized for it.  But it doesn't discount the fact that where possible we were trying to pick up higher city nations in order to assist allies and have been doing so, ever since we locked down TKR.

Certainly no-one is trying to diminish your contribution to the war effort, but if I gave that impression, accept my apologies.  What I am arguing about is that the game mechanics don't support the way alliances play the game in reality.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

We've been pretty clear about that. Qualitatively, we want to check the runaway upper tier growth of TKR-sphere and, hopefully, reduce their dominance in the upper tiers while we're at it.

Name one specific instance in which NPO clearly attempted to do this, succeeded at doing this, in which NPO's actions in service of this goal directly contributed to the death of another nation sim game, and in which said NPO actions were the primary cause of that nation sim's death.

You're the one making unsubstantiated claims. The burden of proof is on you - if you insist on attacking NPO in every substantive post you make about it, please at least furnish some evidence in support of your accusations.

Evidence, specifics? Alright, how's this: NPO can, right now, completely and wholly resurrect Cybernations from the pit of inactivity it has become. It is within your community's power to turn that game dynamic and fun once more. Every day that you do not is another day in which a game remains dead, on account of NPO. Whether NPO was responsible for Cybernations dying in the first place is irrelevant to my point; the fact remains that you are choosing to leave it dead when you have the choice to not. In that sense, you are the primary cause of that nation sim's continued death. All you need to do to make CN not dead is splinter, and encourage competition again.

Will you do that? Is it fair to even ask it of you? Of course not, on both counts; you want to 'win'. And you can't 'win' without utterly dominating the whole kit and kaboodle, never allowing anyone to challenge you lest they 'win' and therefore you 'lose'. Frawley, Shadowthrone, Thrawn especially and for that matter you yourself have all said as much; you say you want to check their power and make sure it does not overwhelm your own. The only way to do that in a sustainable and lasting way, as Thrawn has stated is the intention, is to annihilate all competition.

What I'm saying is that if you are successful in annihilating your competition, you will in fact annihilate your competition, creating a situation wherein there can be no competition and therefore no gameplay. I've seen that happen. I've made that happen. I've fought against that happening. I've ignored that happening. I've encouraged that happening. I've discouraged that happening. I've temporarily suppressed that happening. The one thing I have never done in all my years of nation sims is prevent that happening, and regrettably I have come to the conclusion that it is ultimately inevitable.

Unless you can somehow deny the statement that "without gameplay there is no game", then I don't see any rebuttal in your post.

Edited by Sir Scarfalot
I are bad at grammar
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

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.

3

I mean... this isn't some grand strategy game à la EU4 in which you conquer provinces /Cities. So things going boom is the main entertaining end goal of econs here IMO. Anyway having been on both receiving (was fresh meat during the Ayyislamic and got a bit pounded) and the distributing end, I had fun when I got either trying to coordinate a fighting back on current foes, getting loot or simply having a challenging attack war.

But this is just my lizard brain that likes shiny loot and fighting :v 

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Kurnugia said:

I mean... this isn't some grand strategy game à la EU4 in which you conquer provinces /Cities. So things going boom is the main entertaining end goal of econs here IMO. Anyway having been on both receiving (was fresh meat during the Ayyislamic and got a bit pounded) and the distributing end, I had fun when I got either trying to coordinate a fighting back on current foes, getting loot or simply having a challenging attack war.

But this is just my lizard brain that likes shiny loot and fighting :v 

...I like this guy. He gets it.

Please don't punish him for this @Roquentin

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Sir Scarfalot said:

...I like this guy. He gets it.

Please don't punish him for this @Roquentin

Eh. I have already supported your proposal if beigeing becomes more attractive. Having good loot is rare right now. 

*looks at Tesla*

Hmmmm 7 mio in cash :v

Share this post


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

Uh... are you SERIOUSLY !@#$ing about that?

Look at my wars you mouthy fool. What, you think a 13 city updeclare isn't just as bad for a 19 city as it is for one of your 14 or 16s? Well, it is. If you don't notice, even despite my targets being at low military, i lost one war, because i had to hold the guy without ships, because the other two blasted them to kingdom come. You're complaining about 8-10 city updecs, i just recently was fighting updecs of 12, 13, 10, 12, and 13, at the same time of course. 

Yet, here i am, doing it anyway. Following orders to harpoon the whales, even if i am fighting 10+ city updeclares. Oh, and the best part? THE BEST PART.

I don't have like 150 other people right around my city range backing me up either. Actually between TEst/CoS, i'm pretty sure there's less than 10 of us below 20 cities. 

See, this ^ is what Sketchy was talking about when he said you're just letting your upper tier allies take all the damage. Woe is NPO if they have to updeclare 8-10 cities, but who gives a damn if Rose, Syndicate, CoS and TEst updeclare 8, 10, 13, 15, hell i might be in a 17 city updeclare in the future. My only complaint is that i'm very low on money to buy things, yours is that anybody would insinuate you do the same.

God for-frickin-bid NPO has to build up and do the same as us huh? Thankfully for you we're much less selfish about our pixels while not being trash, so we'll just forcibly kick their heads down low enough for you to swat at them without ever having to build a tank. We know you couldn't Roq's disapproving glare for building such heresy anyway. 

 

Haha, okay let me break this down for you shall I? Going in Round 1, we're dealing with TKR at 6-8 city up declares in a lot of cases, and multiple other ranges of fighting. We aren't going to go suicide crazy and waste resources knowing fully well that we in the NPO would be doing more harm than good, especially in terms of the maximum output of damage we'd be doing. Us up declaring 8-10 cities at 16, literally does nothing of value in comparison to having 23-24 city nations up declaring the same range of cities. It's pure mechanics. I'm running 10k tanks and have been at max mil for most of this war, when it made sense to shift. I've fought 11 city up declares, and fought folks across all ranges. So yeah sit back down. We've stepped into ranges where we can across the board to help you folks up concentrate in ranges we cannot hope to compete and will continue doing so. If the goal is to have us build up to 15k tanks in Round 1 and get into ranges where we do cannot financially compete, just for the sake of it, we'd be tapping out in round 1. So yeah I can be a mouthy fool because I actually know our capabilities and limitations as an alliance and have been helping move this war along internally in the NPO. So I actually know what we can and cannot do. We haven't let ya'll take upper tier damage because we're scared of pixels. We've expanded the war and took slots across the board to help out where we could and stepped aside and moved on with our job. 

1 hour ago, Akuryo said:

A nation you shouldn't be fighting anyway. GoB targets are supposed to be speared down by your generous, non-selfish upper tier allies. You actually took that slot away from somebody supposed to be fighting them, who'd *only* be in a 14 city updeclare. He was rather upset about it too. Because you see we've been told to just drag them into 2000s range where you folk are cause yah dont like building tanks and ships too much, Ripper infact turned over all the GoB we slapped down there for that reason. 

I don't mind doing it for you, i'd just prefer nobody, particularly Shadow here, complains that anybody would suggest they do the same to speed it up. Not their fault they're tellin the truth.

I'm not complaining. I've picked up up declares where I can. I just laugh at the idea that we have to go full throttle in round 1 when it'd be massively counterproductive to our coalition and our allies, when rather we'd expand as we can. We're not averse to buying tanks or ships. We've run ships/tanks/missiles and different methods. We're just not going to be stupid about it. If Sketchy thinks we're meant to be running head first for the sake of it, I'm going to be mouthy about it. I have no idea why you're even getting worked up over it lmao. 

 

41 minutes ago, Sir Scarfalot said:

Evidence, specifics? Alright, how's this: NPO can, right now, completely and wholly resurrect Cybernations from the pit of inactivity it has become. It is within your community's power to turn that game dynamic and fun once more. Every day that you do not is another day in which a game remains dead, on account of NPO. Whether NPO was responsible for Cybernations dying in the first place is irrelevant to my point; the fact remains that you are choosing to leave it dead when you have the choice to not. In that sense, you are the primary cause of that nation sim's continued death. All you need to do to make CN not dead is splinter, and encourage competition again.

If you think 250 folk splintering will suddenly revive the game into activity, then you have no idea what went down in the game or why it's where it is. It really has not much to do with the NPO, rather than most of us who opposed it for years moving onto different worlds. It ran its course, theres no point in the game. That has nothing to do with the NPO as much as the lack of updates, the lack of anything exciting and the overall lack of withdrawal from those developing the game, since well forever. CN will remain dead, thankfully and to a large part because of self-inflicted shit and theres nothing the NPO can do about it. 

41 minutes ago, Sir Scarfalot said:

Will you do that? Is it fair to even ask it of you? Of course not, on both counts; you want to 'win'. And you can't 'win' without utterly dominating the whole kit and kaboodle, never allowing anyone to challenge you lest they 'win' and therefore you 'lose'. Frawley, Shadowthrone, Thrawn especially and for that matter you yourself have all said as much; you say you want to check their power and make sure it does not overwhelm your own. The only way to do that in a sustainable and lasting way, as Thrawn has stated is the intention, is to annihilate all competition.

I think you're extrapolating arguments that haven't really been made at all. I'm not particularly bothered by winning or losing as much as being efficient at what we do. There are mechanics, whats the most effective way of me going about it is what matters. I'll win a few wars, I'll lose some, its how political simulators go. I'm not particularly interested in being #1 and killing everyone else off. What I am interested in is seeing changes that can make a difference with regards politics and the war mechanics in game. I believe the resistance system could do with a rework and change things around. If Alex doesn't want to do it, fine with me, I'll go back to working within this system and hope for some update from the game, or you know since things are figured out, watch the game die a natural death. Either option is fine. To claim I'm here to "win" and ensure everyone else "loses" is dragging words I haven't typed out and probably never will. So yeah, good luck trying to portray some nefarious arguments from either Frawley or myself. You're just being inherently obtuse because of the AA I'm in, rather than dealing with the suggestions at al.. 

39 minutes ago, Kurnugia said:

I mean... this isn't some grand strategy game à la EU4 in which you conquer provinces /Cities. So things going boom is the main entertaining end goal of econs here IMO. Anyway having been on both receiving (was fresh meat during the Ayyislamic and got a bit pounded) and the distributing end, I had fun when I got either trying to coordinate a fighting back on current foes, getting loot or simply having a challenging attack war.

But this is just my lizard brain that likes shiny loot and fighting :v 

 

Going to deny all your beige requests from now ;) 

Edited by Shadowthrone
  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Current meta-game:

Declare with 3 members swiftly, do the best combination of attacks in order to grind their air down as quickly and efficiently as possible, then work to destroy the rest of their military while establishing immenses to further reduce the chance of the opponent recovering. All while making sure to alternate beiges (if need be) in order to both maximize damage on the enemy, minimize damage on yourself, and limit any chance of the opponent recovering.

What you want:

HURRR DURRR ATTACK FOR 4 DAYS DOESN'T MATTER WHAT WE DO WRONG THEY SCREWED NO MATTER WHAT








The only reason you should argue against a mechanic that highly benefits those who coordinate is if you think coordination shouldn't play a large factor in a war, or if you can't coordinate. 



2nd Frawley update idea: Increase upkeep of tanks and ships

3rd Frawley update idea:  Remove ground and naval attacks, give everyone at 16 cities a 50% casualty bonus

4th Frawley update idea: Give 100b to NPO

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/10/2018 at 10:15 PM, Sweeeeet Ronny D said:

Atleast when i make suggestions that are blatantly biased to helping me, I admit it.

Honestly, this is the only statement that matters.

  • Upvote 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wouldn't a more equal game be more fun? 

So wouldn't it be better to give the defender some kind of advantage rather than give the attacker yet another advantage? 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Sir Scarfalot said:

Evidence, specifics? Alright, how's this: NPO can, right now, completely and wholly resurrect Cybernations from the pit of inactivity it has become. It is within your community's power to turn that game dynamic and fun once more. Every day that you do not is another day in which a game remains dead, on account of NPO. Whether NPO was responsible for Cybernations dying in the first place is irrelevant to my point; the fact remains that you are choosing to leave it dead when you have the choice to not. In that sense, you are the primary cause of that nation sim's continued death. All you need to do to make CN not dead is splinter, and encourage competition again.

Serious question: when was the last time you played CN?  I'm asking because this is a gross misrepresentation of the current state of the game.

CN slowed down dramatically long before NPO's current stint at the top and, to Shadowthrone's point, that slowdown is likely irreversible.  The primary reason for it was the introduction of a mechanic that allowed for a the linear transfer of exponentially decaying resources between players (I seem to remember you having a problem with this in another thread).

The secondary reason it happened was, as Shadowthrone said, that people simply quit.  Most of the players and alliances still inhabiting CN are inactive and reside there out of nostalgia and habit.  If they wanted to be active again, they would disband or merge; instead, they've chosen to log in occasionally while taking no part in CN politics.  This is a very long trend that manifested gradually and independently of changes in the CN political landscape, NPO-driven or not.  In fact, it's arguable that CN politics would have experienced a heat death 1-2 years earlier than it actually did if it weren't for NPO's role in organizing coalitions that instigated or were the target of three global wars.

9 hours ago, Sir Scarfalot said:

Will you do that? Is it fair to even ask it of you? Of course not, on both counts; you want to 'win'. And you can't 'win' without utterly dominating the whole kit and kaboodle, never allowing anyone to challenge you lest they 'win' and therefore you 'lose'. Frawley, Shadowthrone, Thrawn especially and for that matter you yourself have all said as much; you say you want to check their power and make sure it does not overwhelm your own. The only way to do that in a sustainable and lasting way, as Thrawn has stated is the intention, is to annihilate all competition.

If you think it's "not fair" to ask NPO to change anything about its playstyle, why do you keep attacking NPO for its playstyle?  I get that you believe the proposed change would unbalance the game, but you can make that point without the ad hominem attacks.

Furthermore, to echo Shadowthrone, you're reaching with that last bit.  Permanently crippling an opposing party is not the only way to check its power.  And, to echo my sentiments above, why the attacks on NPO?  If power is so dangerous, why are you not at least ambivalent about TKR-sphere's supposed impending loss of it?  Or is NPO the only actor in whose hands power is dangerous?

9 hours ago, Sir Scarfalot said:

What I'm saying is that if you are successful in annihilating your competition, you will in fact annihilate your competition, creating a situation wherein there can be no competition and therefore no gameplay. I've seen that happen. I've made that happen. I've fought against that happening. I've ignored that happening. I've encouraged that happening. I've discouraged that happening. I've temporarily suppressed that happening. The one thing I have never done in all my years of nation sims is prevent that happening, and regrettably I have come to the conclusion that it is ultimately inevitable.

Unless you can somehow deny the statement that "without gameplay there is no game", then I don't see any rebuttal in your post.

First, your posting is getting a little hysterical.  NPO can't prevent "gameplay"; to do that, we'd need to interfere with everyone's ability to log in and click stuff.

Second, there you go again with the weird, unsubstantiated claims.  You don't have a monopoly on gameplay knowledge, legitimate opinions, or foresight.  And, even if you did, your posts would stand alone on their substance and not on the seen-it-all past you claim to possess and bring up at every opportunity.

What we're denying is the veracity of your suppositions, not the pedantic self-evidence of the hyperbolic conclusion you draw from them.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NPO doesn't think its fair that they have to up declare in wars?  In the 1000 days+ history of NPO they have increased their average city count from around 10 to slightly above 15.  which means they have spent approximately 52 billion (this seems like alot... its not) to get 150 nations from 10-15 over the course of 1000+ days.  This is the first war you have fought in over 6 months!  What the hell have you been doing? 

For comparison, Grumpy started 780 days ago at a 20 city average, and now is at 30 cities, which means our 25 nations would have spent 169 billion to get from 20 to 30.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/12/2018 at 5:01 PM, Roquentin said:

The other hilarious thing:

"hey guys we're beiging TRF an alliance that has never fought a real war how sporting"

The whole beiging and glorifying of loot theme in terms of making it the goal I"m seeing in the topic is also problematic because loot is essentially a wealth transfer from a loser to a winner. This increases inequality in the game when the loser isn't well off in comparison and makes it fundamentally less competitive.

No, the express purpose of beiging them was truly to give them a chance to do something. We knew full well that regardless of what they did, they'd get smashed, but at least giving them the opportunity to do stuff was more interesting (and personally, I was curious to see if they had picked up anything from the 69DW) than to just cycle/deny beiges and sit on them, which is not particularly fun for the one doing it (and even less so for those who're on the receiving end of it).

Loot is indeed wealth transfer... if there's any wealth to transfer, that is. If WC's and wartime taxes are adjusted to account for it, then the loot bleeding can (and in fact, is) substantially mitigated to the point where it isn't substantial. Considering that loot is one of the few incentives for beiging at all (the other few being infra destruction, getting rid of someone nuking/missile'ing you, or doing so to avoid being beiged yourself, amongst others I may be forgetting), I don't see the 'wealth transfer = inequality gap widened' as being a substantial issue, especially when you consider that it's often forfeited anyways for the sake of keeping an opponent down, and particularly when it's only a potential circumstantial issue (given that inequality is only increased if the loser happens to be impoverished while the winner is well off, and you could very well be in the opposing case wherein the loser is quite rich while the winner is the one that doesn't have a penny to his name), as opposed to the one being put forth in the thread (idle time while sitting on someone due to low resistance), which is bound to always happen when you go with the lowest risk, pragmatic approach.

And for the record (might as well address the issue originally presented), the only thing that a change as proposed would achieve is simply make wars like this more fun for the winning side (due to slots being more frequently freed up being able to attack more times in the same war), at the expense of the losing side's amusement (due to being bombed more constantly while there's often little they can do in such a situation). If we were in the business of making things more interesting/fun across the board, rather than to pick a self-serving suggestion presented by either side of a conflict (or rather, individuals belonging to either side of a conflict), I'd just go with the suggestion Sketchy made back in March/April, of making beige happen automatically by the time a war expires (if it didn't happen already). It'd actually generate a scenario where there's conventional action (the kind people tend to seek) every round, as opposed to the current setup where it's usually it's the first few (if not the very first) rounds where you fight conventionally , while the following ones are, for the most part, a matter of keeping someone's head down, while the one being pinned tries to find ways to fight back, usually by unconventional means. If loot has to be tweaked/nerfed (alongside infra destroyed in all your cities) to make up for it, then so be it. It'd be a small price to pay for the benefit it'd bring in terms of making alliance wars actual constant back and forths, rather than round one knock outs followed up by constantly stomping on the guy who got downed.

Edited by Shiho Nishizumi
Grammar. Also changed a point that was addressing another similar proposal.
  • Upvote 7
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and the Guidelines of the game and community.