Grave Posted May 15, 2020 Share Posted May 15, 2020 (edited) People who are saying tanks are OP now obviously didn't come to the test server. Edited May 15, 2020 by Grave Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wendell Posted May 15, 2020 Share Posted May 15, 2020 2 hours ago, The Boofinator said: when ytou look at the complete picture planes are def NOT the moist expensive (when you factor in not just the cost of the planes but the materials as well) as compared to tanks and ships, those two far outpace planes and tanks by a longshot when you add in the cost of buying tens of thousands of units of steel at 4k+ ppu You aren't getting it. People aren't buying tanks like that. You have to be looking at builds and 90% of the ones I've seen have planes only. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Micchan Posted May 15, 2020 Share Posted May 15, 2020 Guys guys guys an girls stop for a moment No more ground control able to stop 1/3 of your air, air control still can limit tanks to 50% Just take air control and keep some tanks, the enemy will never be able to kill your air Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
namukara Posted May 15, 2020 Share Posted May 15, 2020 22 hours ago, Akuryo said: Good to see having more than 20 cities has now been reaffirmed as pointless and laughably stupid by the admin himself. @Alex of that 4000 before the spike, less than half were actually a relevant participatory party of the game. Even including garbage micros that had no chance of going anywhere, it topped out at around 1500. The rest were, generally, quickly added to the pool of inactives or are those occasional, rare random city 2s or 1s that stay allianceless and just do whatever it is they're doing. So yeah, it was doing pretty badly actually. Also, you nerfed planes way too hard for the score buff they got, and made tanks practically worthless in score while being able to club as many planes as an IT with a bad kill roll, and all with 1 less MAP required. Oh, and thanks to the plane reduction, harpooning upper tier whales is even easier. "Ah but proportionally you have the same amount more as before!" War mechanics don't know proportions unfortunately, they know raw numbers. I went from having 450 planes on a c20 to 375. It was already very possible for c20s to take me down anyway, you just went and made it easier. Infact, city 15/16 could probably do it now, whereas before most MA departments wouldn't even try with anything less than 18s. Oh, and because my score minus my overnax planes actually went down, it's actually not anymore difficult nor even close to impossible for those theoretical c15/16s to get to me. And steel prices are going to skyrocket because a massive stockpile will be necessary. Particularly for people like me who are now easier than ever no matter what I do to take down. If I want to be relevant after that I should definitely consider 100k+ steel as my warchest. If CotL would oblige with a lack of counters, I'm sure we could throw nations at you and see what city count it takes to defeat you 1v1, if that's something you'd be interested in. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zei-Sakura Alsainn Posted May 15, 2020 Share Posted May 15, 2020 1 hour ago, namukara said: If CotL would oblige with a lack of counters, I'm sure we could throw nations at you and see what city count it takes to defeat you 1v1, if that's something you'd be interested in. I honestly considered this myself but hadn't brought it up yet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justin076 Posted May 15, 2020 Share Posted May 15, 2020 2 hours ago, Micchan said: Guys guys guys an girls stop for a moment No more ground control able to stop 1/3 of your air, air control still can limit tanks to 50% Just take air control and keep some tanks, the enemy will never be able to kill your air Except that as of right now, air superiority does not limit tanks effectiveness against aircraft, only against other ground. I'm hoping this wasn't the intended set up. @Alex 2 2 Quote Chief Financial Officer of The Syndicate Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Shiho Nishizumi Posted May 15, 2020 Popular Post Share Posted May 15, 2020 (edited) 1 hour ago, Justin076 said: Except that as of right now, air superiority does not limit tanks effectiveness against aircraft, only against other ground. I'm hoping this wasn't the intended set up. @Alex Aircraft casualties from these GA's are also not listed on the war timeline, or statistics. Also... On 5/14/2020 at 4:12 PM, Alex said: Ground Control has been changed. It no longer blocks your opponent from using 1/3 of their air force. Instead, once Ground Control has been established, all subsequent Ground Battles will destroy some of your opponent's Aircraft (based on the number of Tanks you send in battle.) This makes Ground Units somewhat of a counter to a superior air force https://politicsandwar.com/nation/war/timeline/war=656061 Nice update @Alex. Totes not half baked. Edited May 15, 2020 by Shiho Nishizumi 1 8 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magister Posted May 16, 2020 Share Posted May 16, 2020 Yes Ive got the same issue please fix . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
namukara Posted May 16, 2020 Share Posted May 16, 2020 15 hours ago, Akuryo said: I honestly considered this myself but hadn't brought it up yet. Yeah, obviously no nukes because that wouldn't test anything and would just be idiotic on either side, but a few test wars between willing participants could be useful, not on the artificial environment of the test server. Everyone participating could put some money in a pot so we're playing for to win something. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Justin076 Posted May 16, 2020 Popular Post Share Posted May 16, 2020 It's becoming quite clear to me that absolutely none of these changes were tested and simulated as to how they would take affect. The carelessness with just going in and manipulating a few values in the coding and slapping the branding of an "game fixing update" is absurd. Had these changes actually been tested, I pray that they would never have been considered. Just to bring attention to some of the issues uncovered thus far: > Air Superiority doesn't affect tanks effectiveness against aircraft (tanks against aircraft, sounds crazy even saying that in a sentence). > The kill rates have been nerfed but casualties haven't. The kill ratios in an immense triumph ground attack are literally 1:1. > It's virtually impossible to zero a nation with three fully maxed nations slotting them. > With no changes to resource use in attacks by units and no change to inflicted casualties but yet a massive nerf to kills, you often will net negative in any IT dogfight? It's literally costing more in resources than you can possibly kill because of how much kills have been nerfed. These are just a few, more to come..... 7 Quote Chief Financial Officer of The Syndicate Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zei-Sakura Alsainn Posted May 16, 2020 Share Posted May 16, 2020 2 hours ago, Justin076 said: It's becoming quite clear to me that absolutely none of these changes were tested and simulated as to how they would take affect. The carelessness with just going in and manipulating a few values in the coding and slapping the branding of an "game fixing update" is absurd. Had these changes actually been tested, I pray that they would never have been considered. Just to bring attention to some of the issues uncovered thus far: > Air Superiority doesn't affect tanks effectiveness against aircraft (tanks against aircraft, sounds crazy even saying that in a sentence). > The kill rates have been nerfed but casualties haven't. The kill ratios in an immense triumph ground attack are literally 1:1. > It's virtually impossible to zero a nation with three fully maxed nations slotting them. > With no changes to resource use in attacks by units and no change to inflicted casualties but yet a massive nerf to kills, you often will net negative in any IT dogfight? It's literally costing more in resources than you can possibly kill because of how much kills have been nerfed. These are just a few, more to come..... Actually, to build off of that, it basically deletes the first strike advantage entirely. Zeroing is nigh impossible without downdeclares which have been made far more difficult, the cost to even attack is more than the damage you do no matter what, and because you MUST 3 slot people to have any chance at all, you can't offset numerical inferiority with superior coordination and first strike. What's the reason to go to war now? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
namukara Posted May 16, 2020 Share Posted May 16, 2020 2 hours ago, Akuryo said: Actually, to build off of that, it basically deletes the first strike advantage entirely. Zeroing is nigh impossible without downdeclares which have been made far more difficult, the cost to even attack is more than the damage you do no matter what, and because you MUST 3 slot people to have any chance at all, you can't offset numerical inferiority with superior coordination and first strike. What's the reason to go to war now? It could be said though that the first strike advantage was harmful in globals, as it essentially led to one side being unable to bring themselves back no matter what strategy they had. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zei-Sakura Alsainn Posted May 16, 2020 Share Posted May 16, 2020 36 minutes ago, namukara said: It could be said though that the first strike advantage was harmful in globals, as it essentially led to one side being unable to bring themselves back no matter what strategy they had. And part of the proposed changes that weren't included in this package of hogshit was changing rebuy times or even beige function to offset that in later rounds. But the first strike advantage was crucial to the vitality of the game. It made taking risk and being the aggressor worth doing. But if it conveys no advantage and indeed, hurts you more than then, why the hell bother with it 😛 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
durmij Posted May 16, 2020 Share Posted May 16, 2020 1 hour ago, namukara said: It could be said though that the first strike advantage was harmful in globals, as it essentially led to one side being unable to bring themselves back no matter what strategy they had. First strike advantage used to come at a significant political cost, before everything was cordoned off into two distinct spheres. There is also the fact that getting counter blitzes could leave the original target practically invincible as their slots would be full of non functional nations. The defending side has come out on top in multiple wars. Alliances have come back on top 1v1 after getting blitzed. It wasn't the be all end all of warfare. Quote https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mjI4ROuPyuY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JUUEHv8GHcE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shiho Nishizumi Posted May 16, 2020 Share Posted May 16, 2020 The past two globals are case example of it not being such. NPOLT I needn't elaborate. Surf's Up largely came down to how NR et all hit. If they had hit the overextended people rather than easy pads, that war would've not gone the way it did. But yes, this is Alex coming up with 50000 different changes that addressed XYZ complaints (many of which were very specific/situational) that he couldn't be fricked to test (as is becoming increasingly apparent to me), either individually or as a bundle, and pushed to go live haphazardly for no good reason other than to claim he's doing something. I suppose that having a huge changelog looks more impressive than having just one or two lines. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sisyphus Posted May 16, 2020 Share Posted May 16, 2020 And just when I was starting to believe 2020 couldn't possibly get any worse. 1 2 1 Quote One must imagine Sisyphus happy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Epi Posted May 17, 2020 Share Posted May 17, 2020 (edited) 1 Edited February 18, 2021 by Epi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zei-Sakura Alsainn Posted May 17, 2020 Share Posted May 17, 2020 37 minutes ago, Epi said: Inb4 a space expansion where we discover all of NPO was beta testing the Dark side of the moon. But no these changes aren't from left field. The vast majority of non-IQ wanted anti-aircraft on ships or soldiers for a very very long time. The score changes were equally as demanded. Idk about the specific casualty formula but we did need to slow things down. From memory Alex and Prefontaine were discussing adding in smaller battles that cost little to no Maps to make up for the reduction. But over greater length of time to make it more engaging. If you're just going to post an idiotic nothingburger of a statement, don't bother. A vast majority of them very clearly also didn't want this to the extent Alex has taken it, your "point" if you could even call it that is worthless and applies to no one. The score changes were demanded in a vacuum of themselves not considering the other changes that occurred here because nobody had even brought them up yet. Yet another irrelevant point that doesn't actually address any problems and thinks it can be clever by pretending this is exactly what everyone asked for instead of adding numerous individual things together into a ball of trash. What they're discussing is also irrelevant. It's not here now, it's not even publicly listed or described anywhere to my knowledge, and nobody here has any faith in not being implemented poorly. If your changes only make sense and don't break everything with a couple extra additives months down the line, then wait until those additives are ready, instead of this retarded attention whoring behavior shooting out half baked trash heaps. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kastor Posted May 17, 2020 Share Posted May 17, 2020 Why are people worried about the meta changing, its good for the game. If the game was the same from launch to now we wouldn't have seen a lot of Strats that have came out for a long period of time. NPO's turtle Strat, to Arrgh's submarine Strat, to tS's Aircraft only, each Strat changes the game and bring in a new competitor and a new storyline along with it. So I like the changes, some things will of course have to be tweaked but for the most part, lets go into the abyss together! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justin076 Posted May 17, 2020 Share Posted May 17, 2020 7 hours ago, Kastor said: Why are people worried about the meta changing, its good for the game. If the game was the same from launch to now we wouldn't have seen a lot of Strats that have came out for a long period of time. NPO's turtle Strat, to Arrgh's submarine Strat, to tS's Aircraft only, each Strat changes the game and bring in a new competitor and a new storyline along with it. So I like the changes, some things will of course have to be tweaked but for the most part, lets go into the abyss together! There’s a difference between not wanting change and not wanting to see a terrible update implemented into the game. This update ruins the war system, which will obviously ripple through other areas of the game. 1 Quote Chief Financial Officer of The Syndicate Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prefontaine Posted May 17, 2020 Share Posted May 17, 2020 When looking at balance issues, there is virtually no way to make a 1v1 balanced while making a 3v1 reasonable without making it so the more people you have in your defensive slots the less damages happen. And nerfing damage because you're fighting more people is flawed in of itself. This is also a game where 1v1's don't really happen. It's about handling your 3 defensive slots being filled. At any moment someone could be fighting a 3v1, and under the previous system, effectively be out of the war within 60 seconds. That's why the damage metrics have switched to being focused on damage relative to daily rebuy amounts. Soldiers: Avg 25% killed per attack. 3 players opening blitz, 150% daily buy of soldiers killed. 1 full day of attacks 300% of soldiers killed (that's all of them) Tanks: Avg 40% killed per attack. 3 players opening blitz, 240% of daily buy tanks killed (500% is what they can field max). 1 Full day of attacks, 480% Planes: Avg 52% killed per dogfight. 3 players opening blitz, 156% of daily buy for planes. 1 full day of dogfights, 468% (again max is 500% units you could have) Ships: Avg 52% killed per attack. 3 players opening blitz, 156% if daily buy for ships. 1 full day of naval attacks, 468%. Looking at things in a 2v1: Soldiers: Avg 25% killed per attack. 2 players opening blitz, 100% daily buy of soldiers killed. 1 full day of attacks 200% of soldiers killed (out of 300%) Tanks: Avg 40% killed per attack. 2 players opening blitz, 160% of daily buy tanks killed. 1 Full day of attacks, 320% Planes: Avg 52% killed per dogfight. 2 players opening blitz, 104% of daily buy for planes. 1 full day of dogfights, 312% Ships: Avg 52% killed per attack. 2 players opening blitz, 104% if daily buy for ships. 1 full day of naval attacks, 312%. Max rebuys you can have for soldiers on hand is 300%, for tanks/planes/ships is 500%. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Shiho Nishizumi Posted May 17, 2020 Popular Post Share Posted May 17, 2020 Your armchair theory doesn't hold water, when compared with the results at hand (as hinted by Justin). And they certainly will not in an actual war context, when you have the target itself counter attacking and rebuying, counters coming in, etc etc. You focused on a singular problem, and chose to smack it with a hammer irrespective of how the cracks affected the entire structure. Just as an example, wars being way grindier and resource intensive (in part because costs such as gas/muns usage weren't altered), means that upstarts/new players will have a much harder time competing with old alliances, due to the simple fact that the latter have had more time to stockpile. And these fights will be fights of attrition for the simple reason that you can't really zero someone, let alone pin them, if they have the resources to spend. Wars being these resource intensive also dissuade alliances from warring in the first place, as there's much more at stake. All of this contributes towards stagnancy. And if you do get 0'd because you went broke on, example, steel; you can't even fight back anywhere near as well as you could under the old system, due to cities being the main NS contributor. You'll be in range of people with similar city counts as you, who are nonetheless maxed (provided similar infra counts). So congratulations on stripping those people from any tools for fighting back, other than nuke turreting. Were these factors considered at all? No. Again, that GC still limits the amount of aircraft deployed, that Air Superiority has no effect, tank K:D being 1:1 on IT's; all of these are indications that barely if any testing at all was done (because otherwise, people would've spotted it and told Alex about it), and most likely you lot just did some maths, went like "Yep, this checks out", and went with that; and failed to implement it properly while at that. Again, this sort of stuff doesn't work because you completely ignored a ton of circumstantial factors that simply can't be mathed (or simulated properly on test server, for that matter). Oh and as a little aside; on top of what Durmij said, it also takes effort to properly plan and pull off a good blitz. It's only natural for a substantial advantage to be the trade off for both the cost and effort involved in it. 8 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prefontaine Posted May 17, 2020 Share Posted May 17, 2020 48 minutes ago, Shiho Nishizumi said: And these fights will be fights of attrition for the simple reason that you can't really zero someone, let alone pin them, if they have the resources to spend. Sweet, you can't pin someone down forever if they have the means of fighting back? That sounds pretty fantastic considering you could lose the war while you were asleep. Thanks! 48 minutes ago, Shiho Nishizumi said: And if you do get 0'd because you went broke on, example, steel; you can't even fight back anywhere near as well as you could under the old system, due to cities being the main NS contributor. You'll be in range of people with similar city counts as you, who are nonetheless maxed (provided similar infra counts). So congratulations on stripping those people from any tools for fighting back, other than nuke turreting. If you get 0'd in the old system you could only fight back by missile/nuke turreting regardless of score ranges and if you had the resources to rebuild or not. Unless you mean coming out of beige without military and a 10-25 city advantage on people and double buying to hit them. Again sounds fantastic that massive down declares have been nerfed. Thanks for the congrats! 48 minutes ago, Shiho Nishizumi said: Were these factors considered at all? No. Oh cool, you were in the meetings and privy to the things considered and discussed. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Shiho Nishizumi Posted May 17, 2020 Popular Post Share Posted May 17, 2020 Just now, Prefontaine said: Sweet, you can't pin someone down forever if they have the means of fighting back? That sounds pretty fantastic considering you could lose the war while you were asleep. Thanks! You couldn't pin down someone forever on the old system either, due to the resistance mechanic. If it was possible to forever pin someone,, the last war wouldn't have gone for eight months for the simple reason that there wouldn't have been a way to present any resistance. It's not anyone's problem that you were simply ignorant to this fact. 5 minutes ago, Prefontaine said: If you get 0'd in the old system you could only fight back by missile/nuke turreting regardless of score ranges and if you had the resources to rebuild or not. Unless you mean coming out of beige without military and a 10-25 city advantage on people and double buying to hit them. Again sounds fantastic that massive down declares have been nerfed. Thanks for the congrats! No, it wasn't. And yes, hitting people with less cities when 0'd yourself was a valid strategy; note that you yourself were 0'd, and the other person had military; often maxed to even be in range in the first place (the alternative being ridiculously padded with infra, in which case that's their fault). And as soon as you bought military yourself, you put yourself in range of larger people that they themselves had military to put you down. It's nowhere near as a foolproof and unbalanced matter as you're making it sound, and wasn't too difficult to respond/address if the defender's milcom was reasonably competent, and the counters did their due diligence. That your response's substance is "well let's gut this entirely (and frick up other things as well) because it was a circumstantial issue at best" exemplifies the approach taken, and the disastrous result thereof. 12 minutes ago, Prefontaine said: Oh cool, you were in the meetings and privy to the things considered and discussed. Clearly you yourself were not, given that you failed to notice all the other issues Justin and myself highlighted. And if you were, it shows your ignorance in regards to the war system; which is unsurprising, as you haven't seriously fought since 2018, when you sent your AA to die in a futile banzai spearhead. 7 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sisyphus Posted May 17, 2020 Share Posted May 17, 2020 37 minutes ago, Prefontaine said: Sweet, you can't pin someone down forever if they have the means of fighting back? That sounds pretty fantastic considering you could lose the war while you were asleep. Thanks! If you get 0'd in the old system you could only fight back by missile/nuke turreting regardless of score ranges and if you had the resources to rebuild or not. Unless you mean coming out of beige without military and a 10-25 city advantage on people and double buying to hit them. Again sounds fantastic that massive down declares have been nerfed. Thanks for the congrats! Oh cool, you were in the meetings and privy to the things considered and discussed. You don't sound emotionally invested in this trainwreck of an update at all. Losing in your sleep doesn't justify making it practically impossible to lose a defensive war. This is a very complicated and obtuse attempt to fix a minor problem by not accomplishing anything remotely effective. 1 Quote One must imagine Sisyphus happy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.