The current meta and you.

[Prefontaine]

Before I start, I want to make one thing clear: I'm not saying the current meta is good or bad.
That's for you all to decide. 

 

    The barometer for who wins and loses in a war is often measured by the cost weighed upon the various sides. Side A caused more damaged than they suffered by a significant amount to side B, thus most people view side A as the winner. These costs come from a few places for us. Infra lost and units lost are the largest factors, with the first being the biggest. Lost income/upkeep cost and gas/ammo usage can also weigh in (and matter more to some than others). The seemingly current meta we're in focuses largely on the infra lost and it effectively originates from Alpha. When Alpha stared down both Syndicate and TEst several years back they were beaten rather quickly in the conventional sense, they had virtually no standing military and were losing Infra rapidly. Alpha decided to make this a battle of attrition towards Syndicate however. Alpha was eventually reduced to virtually no infra and no military, but members would build a nuke a day and drop it on a Syndicate nation. With Syndicate having already destroyed basically all they could, that just left them bleeding infra over the next month or so. Alpha stopped taking infra losses because they had no more meaningful infra to blow up, and no units to lose, but Syndicate did. This strategy lead to the nuke bloc, a group that had large nuke stockpiles and operated under the mindset of "Sure you'll kick our ass in the opening wave and blow up our stuff, but we'll bleed you slow".

 

    Fast forward to recent wars, they seem to drag out for long periods of time. Side A beats down side B, after a week or two of fighting Has a +100B damage ratio. Side B keeps going because at this point damage numbers for them will be much more favorable. What they lose costs very little but each bomb dropped, or each planes only low infra declare causes damage well worth the price in terms of that total score calculation. This causes wars to extend longer than they have in the past in hopes that the slider becomes closer and that 100B advantage side A had gets closer and closer to the 0 mark. 

 

    Having the "underdog" side or losing side of a war having the option to fight back is usually considered a good thing. Is it if the way it happens is to keep extending the war? Would wars be better off so that when a side wins in the first few week(s) it becomes increasingly harder for the losing side to dig their way out of that say -100B hole they're in and try to level the field? I'm not saying the nuke bloc style is good or bad, or the IQ planes only strat is good or bad. I think it's good to have varying styles of play. However is the "extend a war for longer and longer periods of time in hopes of chipping away at that total losses number" a good way to be going forward?

[Avakael]

That Alpha war was fun. As an 8 city nation, I took 13 nukes.

[True King]

I think we’d see the type of terms many would quit before accepting if doing so the underdog can’t keep putting up some fight.

[Sri Lanka 001]

?maybe after every global war Alex should give each nation that participated in the war and fought through the whole way while still remaining active everyday to fight a 5 or 10M bonus because after every global war the people left are usually the people that will play this game for a long time 

Edited July 21, 2019 by Sri Lanka 001

[True King]

Or maybe just not make Arrgh’s style of play impossible suddenly & not break anything.

[Sri Lanka 001]

Just now, Noctis Anarch Caelum said:

Or maybe just not make Arrgh’s style of play impossible suddenly & not break anything.

Arrgh is doing nothing matey, they got their own fighting style and it's not breaking the game or anything

[True King]

Just now, Sri Lanka 001 said:

Arrgh is doing nothing matey, they got their own fighting style and it's not breaking the game or anything

I mean doing so the underdog has no chance would make no surrender regardless of odds alliances like them infeasible. So not saying they are, just it’s a valid gameplay style.

[Artifex]

I don't like how the current war mechanics are completely broken, and more specifically, how beiging deincentivizes winning wars mechanically.

 

One can either drag wars on at the detriment to everyone's patience, or they can end them quickly and hand the mechanically defeated a free rebuild. 

 

The system perhaps has the right idea, but the design in the end of the day fails and is bypassed as much as possible. Additionally, cheese strats like one shipping are very silly, yet viable with the current system.

 

War needs a make over.

[The Mad Titan]

The change in meta was only borne out of Paracov’s stupidity. They were both bad enough to lose and then double down on that by accepting their losses rather than equalizing damage. This led to super high damage differentials and weak alliances and their eventual fall. 

Alliances of all sides have learned that short high damage wars only encourage repeats of that. Any self-respecting leader has no desire to make wars “fun” for the other side at the expense of their own members, nor any obligation too. 

[Sri Lanka 001]

1 minute ago, Aragorn, son of Arathorn said:

The change in meta was only borne out of Paracov’s stupidity. They were both bad enough to lose and then double down on that by accepting their losses rather than equalizing damage. This led to super high damage differentials and weak alliances and their eventual fall. 

Alliances of all sides have learned that short high damage wars only encourage repeats of that. Any self-respecting leader has no desire to make wars “fun” for the other side at the expense of their own members, nor any obligation too. 

But we both having fun right now aren't we?

YEAHHH 90 DOWNVOTES WOOHOO

Edited July 21, 2019 by Sri Lanka 001

[丂ħ̧i̧₣ɫ̵γ͘ ̶™]

I like the slow bleed because of the salt it generates and bad feelings

Overall, pretty crappy that the mechanics are so fricked that you can't get an easy clear decisive Operation Desert Storm-esque victory.

I'd like to see a game where you can do both instead of these super drawn out wars.

[The Mad Titan]

10 minutes ago, 丂ħ̧i̧₣ɫ̵γ͘ ̶™ said:

I like the slow bleed because of the salt it generates and bad feelings

Overall, pretty crappy that the mechanics are so fricked that you can't get an easy clear decisive Operation Desert Storm-esque victory.

I'd like to see a game where you can do both instead of these super drawn out wars.

It already is possible depending on who you fight. If any major alliance blitzes a micro it’s going desert storm. No one should expect a world war to be done in a month. 

[Lu Xun]

20 minutes ago, Aragorn, son of Arathorn said:

It already is possible depending on who you fight. If any major alliance blitzes a micro it’s going desert storm. No one should expect a world war to be done in a month. 

The problem with Prefontaine's poll is that it's offering a false dichotomy. The choice he's proposing is one between "short decisive wars" wherein KERCHTOG would win, or "long globals" that aren't much fun for everyone and ends up having alliance member loss cooked in as an objective.

We can actually analyze this at a deeper level.

 

Problems with short, decisive wars:

 

-It's boring, there's little time for milcom to adapt to the opponent's strategy and develop countermeasures.

-The war is decided by the DoW, not by tactics. The war ends up being a quick curbstomp that ends with the declared-upon being ruined.

 

Problems with long wars of attrition:

 

-It's exhausting. It requires that players spend much time fighting wars and putting in turns. The difference between a player who can devote a full schedule to PnW attacks at a specific time and the guy who logs in every 24 hours is much greater than you'd imagine.

-It ruins the game for everyone else, since radiation levels end up spiking beyond tolerability and growth of non-combatants is heavily crippled.

 

====

 

If you want short, decisive wars that are quickly decided, the obvious solution would simply be to accelerate the pace of battle. Make it so that you can get 48 MAP per war in 24 hours and beiges expire quickly. That means that players need to be highly active, but only for a very short span of time.

 

If you want long wars of attrition that are playable, you need to make the game favor more casual playstyles with less "tricks" like plane-centric warfare so that the game is more playable for people who aren't on all the time. Moreover, you need to reduce the effects of radiation so new players and others can play at reasonable efficiencies.

Edited July 21, 2019 by Inst

[Zei-Sakura Alsainn]

'short wars' Are considered what, a month now? A round of wars lasts at most 5 days. That's 6 rounds. If you can't adapt and turn the tables in 6 rounds, 4 weeks, or 30 days, then your milcom is utter dogshit and you deserve to lose. 

The only point in dragging wars of attrition is a desperate attempt to either equalize damage numbers, or to just bleed out your enemies members with a pointlessly long conflict. 

[Nokia Rokia]

5 minutes ago, Inst said:

The problem with Prefontaine's poll is that it's offering a false dichotomy. The choice he's proposing is one between "short decisive wars" wherein KERCHTOG would win, or "long globals" that aren't much fun for everyone and ends up having alliance member loss cooked in as an objective.

We can actually analyze this at a deeper level.

 

Problems with short, decisive wars:

 

-It's boring, there's little time for milcom to adapt to the opponent's strategy and develop countermeasures.

-The war is decided by the DoW, not by tactics. The war ends up being a quick curbstomp that ends with the declared-upon being ruined.

 

Problems with long wars of attrition:

 

-It's exhausting. It requires that players spend much time fighting wars and putting in turns. The difference between a player who can devote a full schedule to PnW attacks at a specific time and the guy who logs in every 24 hours is much greater than you'd imagine.

-It ruins the game for everyone else, since radiation levels end up spiking beyond tolerability and growth of non-combatants is heavily crippled.

 

====

 

If you want short, decisive wars that are quickly decided, the obvious solution would simply be to accelerate the pace of battle. Make it so that you can get 48 MAP per war in 24 hours and beiges expire quickly. That means that players need to be highly active, but only for a very short span of time.

 

If you want long wars of attrition that are playable, you need to make the game favor more casual playstyles with less "tricks" like plane-centric warfare so that the game is more playable for people who aren't on all the time. Moreover, you need to reduce the effects of radiation so new players and others can play at reasonable efficiencies.

I can agree with what you are saying to a large extent

[Nokia Rokia]

1 minute ago, Akuryo said:

'short wars' Are considered what, a month now? A round of wars lasts at most 5 days. That's 6 rounds. If you can't adapt and turn the tables in 6 rounds, 4 weeks, or 30 days, then your milcom is utter dogshit and you deserve to lose. 

The only point in dragging wars of attrition is a desperate attempt to either equalize damage numbers, or to just bleed out your enemies members with a pointlessly long conflict. 

this rings truth however a long war is also pride driven say you have members mostly in east coast then someone attacks 0800 UK time it is 0500 in the east coast and if you beat them down in the 3 hour time frame they are least likely to be on they will struggle keeping up i have more to say but i lack words as i live on the east coast and its 0403 so im tired and getting ready for sleep

[Lu Xun]

10 minutes ago, Akuryo said:

'short wars' Are considered what, a month now? A round of wars lasts at most 5 days. That's 6 rounds. If you can't adapt and turn the tables in 6 rounds, 4 weeks, or 30 days, then your milcom is utter dogshit and you deserve to lose. 

The only point in dragging wars of attrition is a desperate attempt to either equalize damage numbers, or to just bleed out your enemies members with a pointlessly long conflict. 

If you can adapt and turn the tables in 6 rounds, 4 weeks, or 30 days, your opponent's milcom and FA is garbage and they deserve to lose as well, because they should never have declared.

As for wars of attrition, a "pointlessly long conflict" designed to bleed members isn't pointless, is it?

Edited July 21, 2019 by Inst

[Sir Scarfalot]

The problem is exclusively one of mindset. IQ in particular has this deep-seated idea that "victory" is an applicable concept; it is not. It would be in a non-perpetual game, but this is a perpetual game. If or when it was won, it would be over, and then we'd all have to move onto somewhere else... to perpetuate the same fallacy, the same mindset, the same vicious denial of "fun" in the service of "victory", and the same game over.

In a perpetual game, our in-game strategies and actions should of course be to struggle oweards what temporary victories we can attain, but our metagame strategies and actions must always be to turn away from hegemony of any sort, lest we finish the game and destroy everything we've built and done in the process.

Lest we forget, it's not been Chaos/KETO that's proven unwilling to do that.

[The Mad Titan]

41 minutes ago, Sir Scarfalot said:

The problem is exclusively one of mindset. IQ in particular has this deep-seated idea that "victory" is an applicable concept; it is not. It would be in a non-perpetual game, but this is a perpetual game. If or when it was won, it would be over, and then we'd all have to move onto somewhere else... to perpetuate the same fallacy, the same mindset, the same vicious denial of "fun" in the service of "victory", and the same game over.

In a perpetual game, our in-game strategies and actions should of course be to struggle oweards what temporary victories we can attain, but our metagame strategies and actions must always be to turn away from hegemony of any sort, lest we finish the game and destroy everything we've built and done in the process.

Lest we forget, it's not been Chaos/KETO that's proven unwilling to do that.

Our members do have fun, and it literally matters 0 if you do to us. The meta you seek is a short beat down in which you can perpetuate the current hierarchy, and we’re under no responsibility to play ball. 

[Sir Scarfalot]

11 minutes ago, Aragorn, son of Arathorn said:

Our members do have fun, and it literally matters 0 if you do to us. The meta you seek is a short beat down in which you can perpetuate the current hierarchy, and we’re under no responsibility to play ball. 

That's demonstrably false on all counts. This post alone shows that you are apparently clinically unable to think in terms other than 'hierarchy', and your victim complex is so deep-seated that you manage the mental gymnastics to assume that two of the smallest spheres, literally at war with each other, are somehow attempting to perpetuate themselves as being mutual overlords against the little innocent microsphere of 1000 nations plus paperless NPO ties. Members of which, I point out, have been singing a very different tune when they approach me.

And yes, you had every responsibility to "play ball" with the microspheres philosophy, since without it the game will inevitably fall further and further into toxicity as the hegemons' attempts to solidify their position permanently get more and more desperate, more morally bankrupt, more unfun for themselves and their enemies alike until they finally succeed in ending the game, thus rendering all the effort pointless as they've finally managed to remove purpose from gameplay. The meta you have actively been working towards is nothing less than what you decry, and that we have every responsibility to prevent.

[Auctor]

This is ironically a "problem" with the mechanics of the game allowing for too much balance. It's possibly the case that this isn't necessarily a one sided problem either; if  the initially disadvantaged side of the conflict perceives that the conflict they are in will merely be replayed later at a time they've rebuilt it makes little sense to end the conflict before exhaustion.

[True King]

Maybe if infra was cheaper to repair to previous levels compared to the initial cost; people wouldn’t war as long before they think it’s worth rebuilding.

[Guest Epi]

6 minutes ago, Noctis Anarch Caelum said:

Maybe if infra was cheaper to repair to previous levels compared to the initial cost; people wouldn’t war as long before they think it’s worth rebuilding.

Rewards older players and whales too much. Cost efficiency etc.

[True King]

3 minutes ago, Epi said:

Rewards older players and whales too much. Cost efficiency etc.

Probably true, although cheaper rebuild is only realistic change to make them shorter. Could be a project which does so it’s cheaper to rebuild; although not being default would reward older players more vs new ones from it.

Edited July 21, 2019 by Noctis Anarch Caelum

[Auctor]

Making infra cost less to rebuild would blunt the damage effect of a blitz but not shorten wars. Infra damage is is a side effect of warring in the current meta based around air superiority and tier control, not a driving motivator.