Jump to content
Micchan

Solution to remove the ability to pid down players forever

Recommended Posts

I would upvote it if i still had reactions. Even thought it need to be an option for new players, way earlier then 25 days. Way to many is currently leaving the game in the first week. Because they get jumped by 3 people. Maybe lower the number of days according to city count?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The other solution could be that your government actually surrenders and ends the war. There's nothing mechanically wrong here, it's just that your side is losing.

  • Like 2
  • Downvote 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is overkill and doesn't address the core problem with a player getting neutralized so quickly even from 100% military.

The only thing that will solve this is a rework of the war mechanics. These patchwork ideas will keep introducing more problems.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, John Q Listener said:

The other solution could be that your government actually surrenders and ends the war. There's nothing mechanically wrong here, it's just that your side is losing.

Would your side let our side surrender? Because the constant leaks from your coalition, seem to say otherwise.  
That new players get discouraged from playing the game, is a problem that should be addressed if you actually interested in the continuous long livity of the game, or are you saying that you prefer to see the game die? 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, John Q Listener said:

The other solution could be that your government actually surrenders and ends the war. There's nothing mechanically wrong here, it's just that your side is losing.

Have you bothered reading any of the threads that have clear proof that we're trying to?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, John Q Listener said:

The other solution could be that your government actually surrenders and ends the war. There's nothing mechanically wrong here, it's just that your side is losing.

KERCHTOG and T$ have already surrendered. It's your side that won't let the peace talks move forward. I'd link you the surrender posts, but you're not worth it.

Share this post


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

Would your side let our side surrender? Because the constant leaks from your coalition, seem to say otherwise.  
That new players get discouraged from playing the game, is a problem that should be addressed if you actually interested in the continuous long livity of the game, or are you saying that you prefer to see the game die? 

lol. Get off the pity party. There is no better time to be a new player than now. The current situation only harms people who have had entrenched advantages for years. There is functionally no difference between a longer war and losing two wars in a 6 month span. It will have the same result in terms of attrition. For the new players it makes little difference and they can have a blast at the lower levels raiding.

It's like turn of the century robber barons complaining about some temporary hardship.

Edited by Roquentin
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds like a hybrid between Vacation Mode and Peace Mode from CN. We already have vacation mode and Alex's decision not to include Peace Mode in his CN clone seems pretty deliberate to me.

Besides, you can't really pin anyone down without great cost and coordination. Anybody with the will to play can have a blast raiding people 1/3rd of their size with a single soldier buy. War is pretty much always on the table thanks to how cheap and fast soldier buys are. And if you don't feel like playing war anymore you can play Politics and join an alliance that isn't getting permarolled. And if you don't want to play Politics or War then find another game.

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

Besides, you can't really pin anyone down without great cost and coordination. 

Both sides, including your alliance, have scripts to automate warfare while being minimally "legal" within @Alex's ruleset. I would even suspect many people are utilizing multis.

So no, it doesn't really take much effort or coordination anymore.

 

I agree with @durmij though. The war mechanics themselves need to be reworked so that people can't be blitzed so hard. A persistent browser game needs to be able to allow people to log in within 24 hours and defend themselves. If 3 aussie nations/late-nighters get the jump on me overnight, my airforce is gone the next day when I wake up.

Casualties per attack, daily buying limits, unit cost, score calculation, resistance, and war declaration range all need to be revisited and reworked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Bartholomew Roberts said:

Both sides, including your alliance, have scripts to automate warfare while being minimally "legal" within @Alex's ruleset. I would even suspect many people are utilizing multis.

So no, it doesn't really take much effort or coordination anymore.

 

I agree with @durmij though. The war mechanics themselves need to be reworked so that people can't be blitzed so hard. A persistent browser game needs to be able to allow people to log in within 24 hours and defend themselves. If 3 aussie nations/late-nighters get the jump on me overnight, my airforce is gone the next day when I wake up.

Casualties per attack, daily buying limits, unit cost, score calculation, resistance, and war declaration range all need to be revisited and reworked.

Also yeah warfare never has been auttomated. wtf.

This was never an issue until now. It took five years for these people to complain this much about the time stuff.

I remember a lot of people who lived inconvenient time zones  for update would complain and they would just get told too bad. 

You can't suddenly ask for these changes after everyone chased away the casual players much earlier on and laughed with "git gud".

Edited by Roquentin
  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 2

Share this post


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

Both sides, including your alliance, have scripts to automate warfare while being minimally "legal" within @Alex's ruleset. I would even suspect many people are utilizing multis.

 

False. None that I know exists that automates warfare. Though the multi ring has a nice ring to it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Roquentin said:

Also yeah warfare never has been auttomated. wtf.

This was never an issue until now. It took five years for these people to complain this much about the time stuff.

I remember a lot of people who lived inconvenient time zones  for update would complain and they would just get told too bad. 

You can't suddenly ask for these changes after everyone chased away the casual players much earlier on and laughed with "git gud".

Warfare has been simplified into CN-style log in once a day to click one button then forget about it. This isn't a debate for saving public face this is an established fact that BOTH sides are running these pseudo-bots.

 

And you are mis-remembering. I've personally raised issues with the war system multiple times over multiple years and I know others have as well.

 

edit: you are correct about the laughing and "git gud" part though. I encountered a lot of that response lol.

21 minutes ago, Shadowthrone said:

False. None that I know exists that automates warfare. Though the multi ring has a nice ring to it. 

I said I suspect some players. I didn't accuse anyone of large-scale usage. There's been a couple of bans recently of people that have re-raised my suspicions that multi use might be more common than we expect. This shouldn't be a partisan issue that offends NPO, this should be something that raises concern among your people as well as everyone else. It certainly wasn't directed at you specifically.

Edited by Bartholomew Roberts

Share this post


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

Sounds like a hybrid between Vacation Mode and Peace Mode from CN. We already have vacation mode and Alex's decision not to include Peace Mode in his CN clone seems pretty deliberate to me.

Besides, you can't really pin anyone down without great cost and coordination. Anybody with the will to play can have a blast raiding people 1/3rd of their size with a single soldier buy. War is pretty much always on the table thanks to how cheap and fast soldier buys are. And if you don't feel like playing war anymore you can play Politics and join an alliance that isn't getting permarolled. And if you don't want to play Politics or War then find another game.

Who would join Fark over getting permarolled? 😂

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Roquentin said:

lol. Get off the pity party. There is no better time to be a new player than now. The current situation only harms people who have had entrenched advantages for years. There is functionally no difference between a longer war and losing two wars in a 6 month span. It will have the same result in terms of attrition. For the new players it makes little difference and they can have a blast at the lower levels raiding.

It's like turn of the century robber barons complaining about some temporary hardship.

I don't think you should comment on the health of the playerbase, so long your alliance advocate for people leaving the game.  
"Entrenched advantages for years." 
Who are you talking about here, specifically? and what are these advantages you mentioned? I like to know. 

And do i really have to explain the effect of attrition, on a war that last 6 month, compared to 2 wars in 6 months, on a more responsible lenght? 
Plus there been other wars, after the global started, that have already ended.
The 6 month war is far worse for the member count. It kinda saying something that not even the Guinea Pig farm, is hiding the fact that the playerbase is shrinking.
And new players aren't sticking around long enough for them to change that. I don't believe we far from the number where Cybernations started counting down.
We need to do something for new players, to keep them here for longer, to make up for the older nations that have been disappearing.

Even you most agree with that, because i don't believe you would like to see this game actually die.  

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

lol. Get off the pity party. There is no better time to be a new player than now. The current situation only harms people who have had entrenched advantages for years. There is functionally no difference between a longer war and losing two wars in a 6 month span. It will have the same result in terms of attrition. For the new players it makes little difference and they can have a blast at the lower levels raiding.

It's like turn of the century robber barons complaining about some temporary hardship.

There's a lot of difference between a long war and 2 wars in a 6 month span.

1) The chance to experience a few months of peace to rebuild.
2) The initial rounds of a war are the most interesting and dynamic in terms of blitzing, tier dynamics, and people fighting all out to get control.
3) The chance for new politics, new treaties, new coalitions.  Long wars ground most of the politics of the game to a halt.

7 hours ago, Bartholomew Roberts said:

Both sides, including your alliance, have scripts to automate warfare while being minimally "legal" within @Alex's ruleset. I would even suspect many people are utilizing multis.

So no, it doesn't really take much effort or coordination anymore.

 

I agree with @durmij though. The war mechanics themselves need to be reworked so that people can't be blitzed so hard. A persistent browser game needs to be able to allow people to log in within 24 hours and defend themselves. If 3 aussie nations/late-nighters get the jump on me overnight, my airforce is gone the next day when I wake up.

Casualties per attack, daily buying limits, unit cost, score calculation, resistance, and war declaration range all need to be revisited and reworked.

Blitzes are good.  What's needed is more opportunities for counter blitzes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm still not convinced that this isn't just a partisan attempt to claw out any advantage after losing a major war. The fact is that certain alliance could have been orientated towards a long-term war, but weren't. This is just the outcome of having a sub-optimal war orientation, and dragging it out doesn't mean that there's something fundamentally broken with the war system.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, John Q Listener said:

I'm still not convinced that this isn't just a partisan attempt to claw out any advantage after losing a major war. The fact is that certain alliance could have been orientated towards a long-term war, but weren't. This is just the outcome of having a sub-optimal war orientation, and dragging it out doesn't mean that there's something fundamentally broken with the war system.

I mean there is something fundamentally broken with it and has been for years, something expressed repeatedly in these parts of the forums. 

For one, the oximoron that the best way to win wars is not to win them. That's definitely NOT how the system was intended to function, as Alex has said himself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, John Q Listener said:

I'm still not convinced that this isn't just a partisan attempt to claw out any advantage after losing a major war. The fact is that certain alliance could have been orientated towards a long-term war, but weren't. This is just the outcome of having a sub-optimal war orientation, and dragging it out doesn't mean that there's something fundamentally broken with the war system.

This has basically been the response to most suggestions to changes in the war system over the years.

”You’re mad that you’re losing”

or as Roquentin pointed out earlier - “git gud”.

 

Changes need to be made, balancing needs to happen regardless of whether or not one side or another gains marginal benefit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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