Dynamic Defensive Slots

[James II]

3 minutes ago, Aether said:

My first response in this thread was reversing your irrelevant point unto you. Trying to discriminate and dismiss people's criticisms is not at all cordial.

Alright, I'm sorry I generalized raiders as being folks who raid inactives and take advantage of a shit tiering system.

Now can you tell the guy good job for posting a suggestion? Or are you going to join the "You're dumb" train?

[Guest Zephyr]

Thank you everyone for the responses, some good counter arguments have been made and offered great insight into different views.

For the naysayers, would any of you think it an improvement or worth discussing the suggestion further if it were instead, your defensive slots = 2 + your number of active offensive wars?

This would still permit coordinated strikes even on peaceful nations and still make defence more tenable (at least individually). Thoughts?

[Sketchy]

7 minutes ago, Zephyr said:

Thank you everyone for the responses, some good counter arguments have been made and offered great insight into different views.

For the naysayers, would any of you think it an improvement or worth discussing the suggestion further if it were instead, your defensive slots = 2 + your number of active offensive wars?

This would still permit coordinated strikes even on peaceful nations and still make defence more tenable (at least individually). Thoughts?

That would still inherently punish offensive action which is the exact opposite of what the war system needs.

People who overextend without preparation are already punished for doing so simply by having to fight more opponents. As it currently stands, a person who declares 5 offensive wars can be put in a position where they have to fight up to 8 other people.

In every single global war you can find hundreds of examples of people pushing their luck and overextending themselves and being dragged into the pit as a result.

You also haven't done a great job of justifying why I change like this is even necessary.

Reason 1 and 2 aren't endorsements of your suggestion being good, just easy to implement, and as such aren't worth noting on.

I already explained why reasons 3 & 4 are negatives not positives and you've not done much to counter that argument.

Reason 5 is highly debatable but ultimately not a strong case for a change that  would upend the balance of the warfare system. Frankly I'd argue a change like this would make wars less interesting as the common meta for a lot of players will become, sit back and fight the people on me, don't attack anyone, since that is now the advantage position.

[Dusty]

5 hours ago, James II said:

There's a degree of cordiality that can take place, that isn't. You auto shit on the suggestion and offered not alternative. You were hostile about it because it hurts raiding.
 

Why do we need to offer a alternative, sh**ing on a idea while not offering one is simple as saying the current system is better then the one your proposing... Which it is...

[Pascal]

12 hours ago, James II said:

I expect raiders to be upset because it counters their ability to be as effective, especially towards balancing down declares. I've noticed that's the only group protesting here.

Yes, kill raiding and make whales pixelhuggers invincible. What a good idea for a farmer. For example, Wampus would be unkillable, but yeah, good suggestion.

[Swedge]

Just no on so many levels.

Incentivizes war dodging, punishes activity, nerfs blitzes/updeclares, screws over pirates and further entrenches the dominance of whales. No thanks.

[Wendell]

This suggestion is incredibly one sided and benefits one play style over another. And it's so extensive as well, this comes off as ranty.

So:

 

 

 

Edited March 10, 2020 by Deulos