Jump to content
Frawley

Lower Resistance Damage

Recommended Posts

Either wars need to be shorter or Res damage needs to change, ever since fortify was nerfed 5 day war lengths have become incredibly braindead and boring. 

Holding someone under a 5 day blockade and hitting their rebuys once a day is enjoyable for precisely nobody in that interaction.

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can we just remove the resistance mechanic entirely ? and then rework what is considered winning or losing a war ? I want to see wars fought to the bitter end, please.

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Flanderlion said:

Or increase resistance to win - 100 for raid, 150 for ordinary, 200 for attrition.

This seems like a more elegant solution.

I'm not opposed to this by any means, but I would really like to see a lot of feedback before making such a significant change.

  • Like 5
  • Upvote 5
  • Downvote 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pretty much the entire aim of this is for longer wars before it reaches beige. In an alliance war where you're fighting to destroy your opponent, not for loot/to protect your infra etc. having the war stop and both sides have to sit and wait for the war to expire.

The loot/infra loss doesn't really matter - beige gives your opponent a time of safety where they can build up.

If it would unbalance unconventional weapons, isn't that an argument for them to be buffed like Ava was pushing for in another thread I noticed?

Raids would be unchanged. Same resistance, same everything.

Ordinary wars are usually when people forget to change to a different sort. Might be different for other alliances but I have very little experience with declaring ordinary wars except from before the choice was added. So I'm not sure why anyone would declare an ordinary as either you're there to loot them as they're less active (raid) or grind them and keep them down (attrition). 

Attrition ones are for alliance wars, where the entire point is to grind the opponent. Seems dumb to sit for a few days when you get a competent opponent when both you guys want to keep fighting one another but are forced to sit watching each other by a game mechanic that punishes your side for 'winning' a war.

Given you go into an alliance war expecting 0 infra, once you're at the 0 mil state, it really doesn't make that much difference the couple more hits to your infra you'll get.

I'm from an alliance which according to the wiki we haven't won a single war. I prefer fighting with a target rich environment unlike this war, and no, I'm not someone who runs to tech to get changes to buff themself. I think most of my suggestions (generally projects or stuff not posted here) don't even help me (I'm not a whale so new projects aren't that important to me specifically).

With tech changes you've got to think of what's better for the OOC game longterm, not in the IC viewpoint of this war or the next one, but in the next few years etc. Just because you're in a losing war at present, doesn't mean you will be if this is implemented.

  • Upvote 4
  • Downvote 3

Share this post


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

Believe me, there will be no winners ever under such a stupid system. Yes, the point is to grind your opponent down. You really don't need any more mechanics beyond the 3 defense slots to make that any easier, and you damn well shouldn't GET anything that makes that more painful for the losing party than it already is! And I'm speaking from experience on both sides of dogpiles.

Now, sure, it's "punishing" to "win" a war. Well, I'm sorry that loot and extra damage in your favor is such a burden to you, but this isn't the kind of game that should EVER be "won" in the way that every damn dogpiler has been trying to since war was implemented. Not ever. You should not have a lasting, complete, game-ending victory, because this isn't a tournament or a match or even a game in the strictest sense; rather it's a multiplayer political sandbox and must remain balanced so that even after "losing", everyone still has the chance to win again at a later time. Otherwise, we might as well have our cities destroyed, our infrastructure captured or our accounts fricking banned as soon as we lose a war, since there's no possible gameplay to be done after getting rolled even once. I've seen multiplayer sandbox games like this one bow to suggestions like yours wherein the dominant faction could permanently and forever annihilate their rivals beyond all possibility of competition, and it's never fun for anyone. Not even the supposed "victors", since guess what: They succeeded in removing all possibility of actual gameplay! They had no opponents! It ends up just as a stupid circlejerk where there's no possibility of anything happening! Once a temporary game like TF2 or chess is won, the game is over and can begin again from square one, but here the game persists, whether anyone is playing it or not. Whether anyone CAN play it or not. There's no fun to be had in a TF2 match wherein one side spawncamps the other forever without actually completing the match.

Anyway, yes, beige is indeed a mechanic set up to allow the losing party to recover and potentially compete despite being outmatched in resources and available nations/cities. That still doesn't mean that either the dogpiler or the dogpiled are "forced" to sit around and do nothing. You're just doing that because you're exploiting (in the sense of utilizing, not necessarily in the sense of cheating) the fact that wars that end without either side technically reducing the opponent to 0 end in a forced peace, which allows an immediate replacement attacker to continue blockading and pinning the defeated and depleted nation. Your opponents aren't doing that at all, since they have nothing whatsoever to lose by hitting you back until you cough up loot and infra damage for their team. Sure, another nation from your side will just jump right back into their defense slot, but that was going to happen anyway since you weren't going to beige them in the first place regardless.

This is absolutely true. You really do have to think what's better for the actual fundamental game balance long-term, not about what'll help you out right now... which is exactly why you really need to THINK about these things before you suggest them! Your suggestion would enable dogpilers to declare wars wherein they get even more airstrikes than they already do, allowing them to do more damage to potential rebuys and to infrastructure, and even more easily prolong the stupid 5 day blockades that you're already complaining about. Despite your team abusing the crap out of them. There's absolutely NOTHING about what you're saying that would do ANYTHING but double down on the problems you're complaining about.

No, if you want something that will actually solve the problems you're having, and will really help the "OOC game longterm"... then ask Alex to change war expiration to result in war victory/defeat/loot/beige based on who has the highest resistance at the end of the war rather than a simple forced peace. If you truly want something that's better, on an OOC level, even when it objectively prevents your team from abusing the mechanics that your team is right now abusing to your benefit, then that change is something you will not disagree with. Yes, it will harm NPO's war effort in this war, which you are winning and will win even if the change goes through as I've described. It will also help NPO's war effort when you guys aren't winning, which is a thing that has happened to your alliance before and will happen again in the future. And this is how it should be; both victory and defeat must each be mitigated and forced to be temporary in nature in order to to keep the game playable at all!

As for buffing unconventional weapons, that particular thread had absolute nonsense in it about cutting the damage of unconventional weapons but increasing how often they could be produced and fired, which I really didn't like and certainly wasn't a buff. They don't really need a buff (as much as I would like a buff to muh missiles, that'd be admittedly a self-serving suggestion), they just need to remain as powerful and as useful as they already are. By which I mean able to win a war, on their own, even in a dogpile/zero military situation. Because that is how we can prevent the game from being forever won and lost, never to be played by anyone again.

Why is utilising a different war strategy abusing the game mechanics? I mean a high city Nation could sell off infra/military units etc to engage smaller sized Nations, is that abusing the game mechanics, because ultimately you are utilising the game mechanics to give yourself an advantage? I wouldn't class our opponents as abusing the game mechanics for not beiging us either when they could, just to spite our strategy. Different war strategies/mechanics does not ruin these types of games, however not capping Nation growth will. If no 1 Nation is within the grasp of everyone, the game will keep thriving.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

war expires if no attacks are done within 1 amount of beige per war lost

and/or whichever comes first

war expires after 2x amount of beige per war lost

Edited by Moetaz

Share this post


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

No, if you want something that will actually solve the problems you're having, and will really help the "OOC game longterm"... then ask Alex to change war expiration to result in war victory/defeat/loot/beige based on who has the highest resistance at the end of the war rather than a simple forced peace. If you truly want something that's better, on an OOC level, even when it objectively prevents your team from abusing the mechanics that your team is right now abusing to your benefit, then that change is something you will not disagree with.

Lol no. Also no thanks. Compulsory beiges is stupid and counterproductive for any side and lessens tactics to the point where any side with the bigger military units is just going to end up begging opponents and a constant cyclical nonsense of cookie cutter tactics. Also I've seen this thrown out a lot, but no one's abusing the game or exploiting mechanics. I didn't know valid military strategies are considered "abusing" the game now. Lmao. 

  • Upvote 5
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What Scarfy said

Fortify adds some res + lowest res get beiged if war expires are already a good change

Also units killed in every attack should be reduced and ground/air control should be harder to get imho, every war has 1 day of unit killing and 4 days of sitting and watching the clouds pass by

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


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

Lol no. Also no thanks. Compulsory beiges is stupid and counterproductive for any side and lessens tactics to the point where any side with the bigger military units is just going to end up begging opponents and a constant cyclical nonsense of cookie cutter tactics. Also I've seen this thrown out a lot, but no one's abusing the game or exploiting mechanics. I didn't know valid military strategies are considered "abusing" the game now. Lmao. 

Sure, sitting on your opponent and doing things indistinguishable from slot-filling is valid... but it's also boring, unfun for them and you, and is absolutely "constant cyclical nonsense of cookie cutter tactics". You know that. The pattern is dogpile, airstrike, gain control, blockade, and cycle airstrikes to always maintain the blockade forever.

If that's not boring bullshit cookie cutter tactics then seriously, what is? You're being really disingenuous right here.

3 hours ago, Tiberius said:

Why is utilising a different war strategy abusing the game mechanics? I mean a high city Nation could sell off infra/military units etc to engage smaller sized Nations, is that abusing the game mechanics, because ultimately you are utilising the game mechanics to give yourself an advantage? I wouldn't class our opponents as abusing the game mechanics for not beiging us either when they could, just to spite our strategy. Different war strategies/mechanics does not ruin these types of games, however not capping Nation growth will. If no 1 Nation is within the grasp of everyone, the game will keep thriving.

Downdeclaring is fair, fun, and only a bit unbalanced due to being able to instantly rebuild their military units. Updeclaring is fair, fun, and balanced. Doublebuying is fair, fun, and balanced. Missile/nuke spam is fair, fun, and balanced. Dogpiling is less so on all counts, but not entirely outside the bounds of fair/fun/balanced; and since it's mostly a product of the meta and politics, that strategy shouldn't be denied. Hiding your bank in a spare alliance and/or a beige nation is kind of unfair,  but provides a critical balancing mechanic and is certainly not unfun. None of these are game-breaking cheese.

However, letting wars expire without actually fighting them in order to maintain the war permanently with no recovery nor even victory? Just sitting on your bored ass for a week and then making another set of guys sit on their bored ass for another week after that, and so on and so on without actually fighting nor claiming any victory at all? That's game-breaking cheese since you're not freakin playing at all! So yes, THAT is abusing game mechanics, since it is unfair, unfun, and unbalanced. Just because the administration doesn't issue nation strikes for it doesn't mean that it's in any way fun or fair for anyone, yourself included. This is called a "maladaptive behavior" because you're choosing to do things against your own best interest.

For Dio's sake you have 4 times their number; just beige them and counter them as they pop out. That's what we're doing against TRF and because of it both sides are having tons of fun (or at least we are), and we're not doing any worse for our beiging tactics. It's more fun this way. For reference we outnumber them by about the same proportion as you outnumber TKRsphere, so seriously, just give up on the cheese and fight properly.

Edited by Sir Scarfalot
  • Upvote 6

Share this post


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

*based Sarfy saying based things*

I take one month of "normal" dogpile where I waste money in useless attacks than a round where I just watch MAPs reach the max and I have no ways to use them

Give both sides something to do for the entire round, even if doesen't make the difference, should be a priority

Remove any way to "kill" the war it's fundamental

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Firstly, lets get a few minor issues out of the way, I have consistently made suggestions since I was in Vanguard years ago about making wars less dumb, from making Resistance a single number representing the balance of power, to lowering/adjusting loot mechanics for close wars for adjusting how beige works, and when you get it etc.  This is the first war the NPO is winning, and the first war where I have been on the winning side.  Every other suggestion I have made (which has sought to address this and other problems) have been made while I have been on the receiving end of dogpiles.  The suggestion that I simply want these changes to hit TKR harder is ridiculous.  I just want wars that make sense.

The war system is broken, everyone agrees with that, a 5 minute chat with any PW player on discord will tell you that much.  People hate beige mechanics, people hate the loot mechanics, people hate planes, people hate how locked down a blockade makes you, people hate that dogpiles are hard to recover from people hate the 75% updeclare range, people hate the 25% downdeclare range. etc etc.

Yet for some reason, no-one wants any change to the war system every time something is proposed.

As Azaghul has already said, during alliance wars, many alliances already sit on nations for the full five day period, saving enough resistance and MAPs to keep them locked down.  They don't do the damage they want to do, so the war continues.  The status quo is the mechanics force alliances to engage in longer, more expensive wars, in order for alliances to achieve their political objectives, being the weakening on their political adversaries. Those objectives are not likely to change.  

Alliance wars are almost never competitive either, this is by design, people are not deliberately stupid and typically do not make the decision to go to war, if they think there is a chance they will lose, particularly as losing aggressors often have to pay reparations.  One sided wars are not likely to change.

However, as is very obvious, despite the fact that the above two conditions don't change, alliances break, new alliances are forged, new strategies are formed, and new leaders emerge.  What the present system does however is extend two things:

1. The length of the war required in order to achieve your political objectives
2. Following on from that, the length of time required to save, in order to conduct war over such a period

This change doesn't forever end a nations ability to play, it just makes overall wars shorter.

Now, onto your beige suggestion, lets play it out.

Scenario One: Two or more sides plot against each other, the side with the temporary political upper hand (today IQ/tS, Yesterday Radiant-sphere, Tomorrow who knows), knows that in order to achieve their fixed political objectives they will need to engage in a war where between each round there will be a rebuild of every single player they have brought down.  In order to afford to do this they will need to stockpile, so the war is held off for six months while everyone saves sufficient resources to do so.

Result the war will take longer to start and will take longer to finish.

Scenario Two: Exactly the same as above except the side with less numbers are all much more highly tiered, established players.

Result, between each mandatory beige the entire sum total of three co-ordinated lower tier attacks is reversed instantly by massive rebuys available to higher city members.  Upper tier dominance, no point in competing.

As a lower tier alliance, your change would frick us, and entrench those with cities and pre-existing wealth permanently. So please THINK BEFORE YOU POST SUGGESTIONS.

Beige's don't help the lower tier, dropping out of the upper tiers range helps them.  Beige only helps those fighting down.

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 6
  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What about some option that allow the losing side of the war to reach some sort of autobeige?

For example an anti-fortify where you can use your MAPs to cause some similar condition to beige

Like 10 beige points and with 3 MAPs you can remove 1 beige point, but if you do any attack you lose all your beige points

You can autobeige yourself in 2.5 days, you are happy with your beige time and the enemy is happy with the damage done

  • Upvote 3
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn't the core of the problem that it is utterly uninteresting from a strategic to beige the opponent? I mean when I did a circle beige on a TKR, I received at max 250k in cash and some change in resources. I personally think what Scarfalot suggested makes sense, but the outcome for the winner needs to be from a strategic standpoint be more lucrative. I think there should be more loot from the alliance if you are going to implement Scarfalot's resistance system change.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Kurnugia said:

Isn't the core of the problem that it is utterly uninteresting from a strategic to beige the opponent? I mean when I did a circle beige on a TKR, I received at max 250k in cash and some change in resources. I personally think what Scarfalot suggested makes sense, but the outcome for the winner needs to be from a strategic standpoint be more lucrative. I think there should be more loot from the alliance if you are going to implement Scarfalot's resistance system change.

Doesn't change anything, in alliance wars you don't risk to lose your advantage for some loot

And if there's anything to loot the problem remains

Share this post


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

Sure, sitting on your opponent and doing things indistinguishable from slot-filling is valid... but it's also boring, unfun for them and you, and is absolutely "constant cyclical nonsense of cookie cutter tactics". You know that. The pattern is dogpile, airstrike, gain control, blockade, and cycle airstrikes to always maintain the blockade forever.

If that's not boring bullshit cookie cutter tactics then seriously, what is? You're being really disingenuous right here.

Not really, seeing how I've used all the available military equipment except missiles/nukes, used a variety of tactics on a situational basis and done different things, including beiging my opponents if the situation so arises. There is much more I've done than basic cookie cutter tactics across my wars, so you're being intentionally obtuse here. Moreover, if autobeigd is the point of war, then the cycle is "big nation gets autobeigd, rebuys and wars are at square one, and nothing of value of was lost. So folks do it again and again and again for months on hand till any discernible damage is done." 

I've lost every war in this game, and been dogpiled enough to know most sides of war, from before the resistance change, to that system and the present system. To argue I'm being disingenuous is an outright lie, since I've faced multiple opponents and done different things to survive at different city ranges. During all of this the biggest problem has always been the mechanic where all my efforts go down the drain because of the large beige cycle, leaving wars needing to be dragged out for 50-60 days, just because you think its more fun? Lol. Auto beiging is a terrible idea, and hands down will kill any war unless its for months for any valid damage and only push wars to long cycles, because well, theres no other way. Your proposal does nothing other than leave tiered/ bigger city nations at advantages vs multiple opponents and leaves the tactics, of whaling up and nothing can be done to you. I'm sorry if you're annoyed when someone calls that whole scenario bullshit, but thats literally what you're suggesting. Its even more cyclical cookie cutter nonsense and makes wars absolutely pointless in this game. 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Frawley said:

-blah blah blah-

-spoilered for scarfposting-

Of course everyone has their pet gripe with the war system, including me; that's because EVERY tactic and strategy is supposed to and absolutely needs to be balanced against every OTHER tactic and strategy. Everyone wants their pet strategy to be the almighty strategy that cannot be countered and has no downsides. Therefore, until balance is thrown out the window and gameplay is completely relegated to an absolute hegemony of one bloc with one strategy being the one viable competitor, everyone is going to have a problem with the war system, that problem being that they aren't overpowered. The reason that people argue against suggested changes to the war system is because we understand how dangerous it really is to

actually implement these changes and how quickly the balance could be lost. Some people are actually willing to put long-term balance ahead of their own interests, "stupid" as it may be to do so.

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? 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.

Now, sure, the current political landscape is vibrant and changing, and could end up in any configuration depending on the current wars and the major players' responses to the wars. That IS healthy, and that IS good. You are entirely correct in that alliances fall, new allegiances rise, new strategies are innovated and all that. What I'm saying is, just because the situation is healthy now in no way proves that it will be so healthy in the future, especially if we change things. Obviously. Either one of our suggestions could easily destroy the fragile health that we both acknowledge exists! I'm not even denying that my change could do the same, since hey, maybe I am wrong here. I don't know. But I really don't think so.

As for trying to argue that your suggestion isn't purely in order to hit TKR harder... think about what your suggestion even is. It is LITERALLY nothing more than allowing you to double up on your airstrikes. Fricks sake, that obviously will do almost NOTHING but allow you to hit TKR that much harder. Twice as hard, in fact.

And yes, one-sided wars are absolutely not going to change. That's fine, that's how these things work. What matters is that one-sided wars shouldn't be tantamount to players banning other players from the game entirely. Winning should NEVER be permanent, not on an economic nor political nor military level, since that is how games die. I've seen that happen a dozen times across a dozen games and it has always been due to the same thing: Political blocs weakening their political adversaries to the point that none exist save their own monolithic and undefeatable bloc. Once that's done, the objective is complete, the game is over, and everyone moves on; another dead game added to the pile. Whether it is NPO that accomplishes this or T$ or TKRsphere or one guy with ten thousand VPNs, the result is still identical and still stupid.

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.

Feel free to prove me wrong, though. I'd love nothing better. Beige TKR and give both them and you a chance to play the game. Then it won't need to be forced, and if it doesn't work out for you somehow then you'll at least have some grounds on which to object beyond intensely biased and unfounded speculation on the result of theoretical mechanics. Mechanics which won't be implemented anyway, since sheepy has some kind of clinical allergy to making well-balanced changes.

I sincerely hope that @Alex at least realizes that when there's this level of disagreement along partisan lines that the suggested changes probably just shouldn't happen at all. And yeah, that includes my suggestion. Better to err conservatively when things aren't too broken, which despite popular opinion, the war system really isn't.

But seriously, please, prove me wrong. I would love nothing better than for this whole wall of text to be unfounded bullshit, and everything I fear to be naught but a figment of my paranoid imagination.

8 hours ago, Shadowthrone said:

-snip-

If you haven't used missiles or nukes, then you haven't used all of the available military options in the game. Yes, sometimes you need to build up some tanks to counteract a particularly overwhelming soldier blob, either to gain GC or to deny cash to the enemy. Sometimes you need to ignore tanks and run purely soldiers in order to break enemy AS. Sometimes you need to run more naval battles because you don't have any better ways to reduce enemy resistance, etc. etc. etc. But in the end, sometimes you're overwhelmed, you're pinned and blockaded... and in that case, you still have your missiles and your nukes. With those, you can win once or twice, if the enemy doesn't win first. And that's a good thing, for everyone.

(Also I've lost more wars than you have)

Edited by Sir Scarfalot
I wrote a novel :v
  • Upvote 3
  • Downvote 5

Share this post


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

If you haven't used missiles or nukes, then you haven't used all of the available military options in the game. Yes, sometimes you need to build up some tanks to counteract a particularly overwhelming soldier blob, either to gain GC or to deny cash to the enemy. Sometimes you need to ignore tanks and run purely soldiers in order to break enemy AS. Sometimes you need to run more naval battles because you don't have any better ways to reduce enemy resistance, etc. etc. etc. But in the end, sometimes you're overwhelmed, you're pinned and blockaded... and in that case, you still have your missiles and your nukes. With those, you can win once or twice, if the enemy doesn't win first. And that's a good thing, for everyone.

(Also I've lost more wars than you have)

 

None of that answers anything in my post apart from pointing out when I could use missiles/nukes lol. So I guess I take it you don't have anything to discuss with regards to your auto beige mechanics prolonging wars and solidifying the notion of bigger nations will always win and there's no chance for coordinated strikes to bring them down? Noted. 

 

11 minutes ago, Sir Scarfalot said:

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.

Multiple times? Go ahead, name them. Its easy to claim things, without the situation/context and thats just outright stupid when coming to argue on this game's mechanics. No where did Frawley's post discuss weakening political opponents as much as explaining the present scenario with regards to how wars are planned and why the cycles are long. Your partisan views are dripping into a post, solely because Frawley's from the NPO, rather than any objective problems with his points of view. Ignoring that, lets go through the other areas of your post where you're entire point is just NPO BAD shall we? 

 

15 minutes ago, Sir Scarfalot said:

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.

For example. Community's past? You do realise almost everyone running the NPO at this point, have been on the side of getting rolled by them numerous times as well as coalition building against them for years yes? Our community here is a mixture of different folk, many of whom were never members of NPO from other games and joined this one since well, we knew the folks yeah? So to claim this NPO operates the same as other NPO's is absolutely ignorant of who makes up our player base. Its a post dripping with the anti-NPO kool-aid for the sake of it. I get it, you don't like us. You don't have to keep calling us out as game killers every time you're in a debate vs some of our members. We get it, you absolutely hate us, and I imagine would prefer to see us not here. Thats fine with me. But best to say it out loud rather than weave into some sort of greater argument of why Alex should absolutely ignore suggestions, just because its the NPO suggesting it, rather than discussing the problems with the mechanism as a whole. You don't see me going into TGH or wherever you're located as a reason to not look at game suggestions every five minutes, I'd like the same courtesy be extended to us. 

 

19 minutes ago, Sir Scarfalot said:

Beige TKR and give both them and you a chance to play the game.

Hey a few days ago, 80% of TKR was beiged. I don't know, but I'm quite certain folks have been using the beige mechanics as intended and you clearly haven't been keep track with the war. So yes, I'll go on forward with, 

20 minutes ago, Sir Scarfalot said:

But seriously, please, prove me wrong. I would love nothing better than for this whole wall of text to be unfounded bullshit, and everything I fear to be naught but a figment of my paranoid imagination.

The only noticeable truth in your entire post. This whole wall of text is paranoid crap, attacking Frawley for solely being a NPO member, rather than combating his suggestions at an objective level. Your entire post is a call out based on some paranoia which is fun and everything, but you know, get over it. Any other games that died in a large part had different reasons other than the existence of the NPO, and the NPO won by the sheer fact that the community survived for whatever reason in those games. So yeah, its a whole range of bullshit.

That being said, I disagree with this suggestion, solely because halving res doesn't deal with the problem I see here, and that lies with the beige mechanics as a whole. Simply extending the war, for the sake of it, will have the same outcomes and well we'll just be sitting on folks longer, for no reason other than there's more res damage to be done. What I'd prefer is the different war types have different res levels for examples, so it becomes tactical, combined with war policies or such if you want to make the system more complicated. Running 200 res in attrition wars, on up declares make things certainly harder, but at least adds something of value imho. In general, any changes to the present war system would lead to newer issues, but this is one I think that has the least problems. At least doesn't delve into some auto-beiging mechanic lol. 

  • Upvote 3
  • Downvote 3

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.