Jump to content

Solution to remove the ability to pid down players forever


Micchan
 Share

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?

tenor (1).gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest John Q Listener

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.

Link to comment
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 4
Link to comment
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

tenor (1).gif

Link to comment
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?

thalmorcommie.png

Link to comment
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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest John Q Listener

I mean we are talking about the mechanics here, and none of the above posts address the fact that the mechanics are working as intended. 

Link to comment
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
  • Downvote 5
Link to comment
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
Link to comment
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.

Link to comment
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
  • Downvote 3
Link to comment
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. 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
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
Link to comment
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? ?

Link to comment
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

tenor (1).gif

Link to comment
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.

GnWq7CW.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest John Q Listener

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.

Link to comment
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.

Link to comment
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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
On 12/2/2019 at 6:44 PM, 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? 

 

On 12/3/2019 at 10:00 AM, 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.

By legal, you mean...legal, I guess

 

On 12/3/2019 at 10:29 AM, Bartholomew Roberts said:

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.

Your side is running this via bots?

On 12/3/2019 at 10:29 AM, Bartholomew Roberts said:

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.

The war mechanics are working fine. Very well, in fact, if you work with the mechanics rather than as you think it should be in your idyllic vision of the game.

GICjEwp.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/3/2019 at 10:08 AM, 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".

Just want to point out, I heard plenty of complaints about the way NPO automates warfare and economics, even before Knightfall.  I don't frankly care much on the topic, but it has been a persisted complaint.

Quote

Former leader of Chocolate Castle 4/1/2021

"It's pretty easy to get abused by Rosey without being a weirdo about it" - Betilius

"Rosey is everything I look for in a fighter" - partisan

"I’m very much not surprised that Lossi has you blocked tbh" - @MCMaster-095

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Rosey Song said:

Just want to point out, I heard plenty of complaints about the way NPO automates warfare and economics, even before Knightfall.  I don't frankly care much on the topic, but it has been a persisted complaint.

I wasn't talking about automation and warfare isn't automated. The accusation has been around yeah, but it's never been the case.

The thing I was talking about was specifically was the pace of casualties and rebuy capacity. For many more casual alliances, they would get wrecked because their members couldn't be on to respond or go on the offensive right away at the specific times they needed to, so they would be zeroed and stay zeroed as most didn't have the cities advantage to be able to do max soldiers down declare thing or it wasn't as useful, they were often without recourse. Most of the mass recruiting alliances  and others would bleed people constantly since back then it was a lot harder to keep fighting after getting zeroed and countless players quit during or after each war. The system at the time facilitated a mass blitz being able to immobilize a larger group and it still was happening earlier in the war. Now it's turned around and the complaints come in about getting blitzed while not online or whatever. The majority of the reaction before this war was that they could either just get good or keep losing by getting outblitzed and zeroed. There was very little sympathy for people who had that issue of not being able to do much after getting zeroed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Roquentin said:

I wasn't talking about automation and warfare isn't automated. The accusation has been around yeah, but it's never been the case.

The thing I was talking about was specifically was the pace of casualties and rebuy capacity. For many more casual alliances, they would get wrecked because their members couldn't be on to respond or go on the offensive right away at the specific times they needed to, so they would be zeroed and stay zeroed as most didn't have the cities advantage to be able to do max soldiers down declare thing or it wasn't as useful, they were often without recourse. Most of the mass recruiting alliances  and others would bleed people constantly since back then it was a lot harder to keep fighting after getting zeroed and countless players quit during or after each war. The system at the time facilitated a mass blitz being able to immobilize a larger group and it still was happening earlier in the war. Now it's turned around and the complaints come in about getting blitzed while not online or whatever. The majority of the reaction before this war was that they could either just get good or keep losing by getting outblitzed and zeroed. There was very little sympathy for people who had that issue of not being able to do much after getting zeroed.

Oh, I must have misread what you were trying to say then.  On that aspect, I find it hard to take a stance.  If you can't be there at a blitz, git gud, that refers to myself too.  But at the same time, from a receiving perspective it's an awful mechanic, that I've tried to suggest getting away from with deaf ears meeting my pleas.  I generally air on the side of "Protect the community", but blitz's honestly seem vital to protect smaller coordinated alliances from just...  Well, GPWCing the game, for lack of a term.

Quote

Former leader of Chocolate Castle 4/1/2021

"It's pretty easy to get abused by Rosey without being a weirdo about it" - Betilius

"Rosey is everything I look for in a fighter" - partisan

"I’m very much not surprised that Lossi has you blocked tbh" - @MCMaster-095

Link to comment
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...
 Share

  • 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.