Daenerys Targaryen Posted June 11, 2014 Report Share Posted June 11, 2014 If an alliance get 100 plus members than thats growing TE and i support it. Nothing wrong to have a good large alliance. Not necessarily, it might just mean 2 or more alliances combine their nations into a single alliance so they can increase their overall casualties. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bombuator Posted June 11, 2014 Report Share Posted June 11, 2014 Not necessarily, it might just mean 2 or more alliances combine their nations into a single alliance so they can increase their overall casualties. I just think you don't really know some of the relationships between AAs. Only one super AA is capable of forming that wouldn't have a bunch of shit members. It won't happen either, TEPD can win awards without the help of other AAs. (Except help us get more casualties of course, we hate turtles) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Imperator Honorius Posted June 11, 2014 Report Share Posted June 11, 2014 PRIZES - This is probably the only area I'd love to see something new tested. Highest Peak Infra is a terrible award, but I do get having a prize that will motivate people to continue to donate. I'd still like to see more prizes awarded for people who war, especially for damaging wars and not gamed casualties. Ultimately, if you want a larger TE player base, I think you have to cater to the SE players by providing an incentive for them to play. You get that through creating a prize that carries over to the SE alliance or SE team color. I would think a TE Award that can provide a +3 Happiness bonus for 60 days in SE would motivate more people to play. I also like prizes that can be won at certain points in the round such as most damaging war by day 30 or 45. A great award would be most damage caused or greatest damage ratio; maybe damage caused/damage received or greatest damage per war with a minimum of 10 wars required. If there was a way to track war damage that would be great. I imagine you'd have to make it so no TE wars can be deleted from the war screens.I think these prizes and awards would be a good idea, TE is about war and destruction, so there should be prizes for damaging wars at points in TE, say for a 60 day round for 15, 30, 45 days and at the end of the round. And I really like the damage caused/received ratio award idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John More Dread Posted June 11, 2014 Report Share Posted June 11, 2014 (edited) It seems like if you were going to see "super alliances" you would have already, as large alliances CURRENTLY have an advantage in alliance scores. Since I and most people who aren't Daenerys don't see this as a realistic expectation, it seems like the thing to do would be to have a casualty race counting the top 10 nations in each alliance with no member cap, and on the off chance that 100+ member alliances actually form next round, Daenerys can go "haha told you so" and we can alter the rules again for the round after, but it seems highly unlikely. Personally I think damage inflicted or casualties inflicted would be a better thing to award than casualties. Damage would be my preference. Winning should be awarded, not losing A LOT. Incidentally, if I commanded a 20 member AA, and AAs were capped at ten and rewarded based on casualties, I would split it in half and take turns max buying troops, nuking each other, then rebuying and launching suicidal attacks. Or just launch low-odds GAs all the time at the other half of my alliance. This would essentially turn war into a cooperative building exercise. I don't see how not counting casualties below the top ten would cut less successful players out of the game, as they could still help their alliance. Taking an average statistic from ALL nations in an AA WOULD cut them out, as AAs would be motivated to drop members that brought down their stats. A damaged caused/recieved ratio award has a major flaw. A nation can fight one raid and do a couple hundred NS in damage against an ineffective opponent, and then not fight again all round, and win against nations that have done over 100,000 NS damage and received 200. That seems silly to me. But I like the idea abstractly. Perhaps it would work better with damage inflicted MINUS damage recieved, a sort of net damage statistic. That way, the nation that won will have had to avoid damage from their enemies AND inflict it. Rewards for risk-averse behaviour may be great for SE but not for TE. Edited June 11, 2014 by John More Dread Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daenerys Targaryen Posted June 11, 2014 Report Share Posted June 11, 2014 (edited) It seems like if you were going to see "super alliances" you would have already, as large alliances CURRENTLY have an advantage in alliance scores. Since I and most people who aren't Daenerys don't see this as a realistic expectation, it seems like the thing to do would be to have a casualty race counting the top 10 nations in each alliance with no member cap, and on the off chance that 100+ member alliances actually form next round, Daenerys can go "haha told you so" and we can alter the rules again for the round after, but it seems highly unlikely. Personally I think damage inflicted or casualties inflicted would be a better thing to award than casualties. Damage would be my preference. Winning should be awarded, not losing A LOT. Incidentally, if I commanded a 20 member AA, and AAs were capped at ten and rewarded based on casualties, I would split it in half and take turns max buying troops, nuking each other, then rebuying and launching suicidal attacks. Or just launch low-odds GAs all the time at the other half of my alliance. This would essentially turn war into a cooperative building exercise. I don't see how not counting casualties below the top ten would cut less successful players out of the game, as they could still help their alliance. Taking an average statistic from ALL nations in an AA WOULD cut them out, as AAs would be motivated to drop members that brought down their stats. A damaged caused/recieved ratio award has a major flaw. A nation can fight one raid and do a couple hundred NS in damage against an ineffective opponent, and then not fight again all round, and win against nations that have done over 100,000 NS damage and received 200. That seems silly to me. But I like the idea abstractly. Perhaps it would work better with damage inflicted MINUS damage recieved, a sort of net damage statistic. That way, the nation that won will have had to avoid damage from their enemies AND inflict it. Rewards for risk-averse behaviour may be great for SE but not for TE. Alliance scores don't mean much if anything. Sure, with the most nations you'll likely be ranked the number 1 alliance in the game but you weren't going to win anything for it. I'm not saying 100+ alliances will happen, but rather they could. I've just used a number to identify a more extreme case of it occurring. We can all agree its highly unlikely, but its still possible. I must admit, you can't be that confident if you're advocating to count the top 10 nations with the most casualties. I'm perfectly fine with going live with no caps, and then we can go from there. I'm not one to boast so i might disappoint you when you don't see me going "haha told you so" if a 100+ super alliance is formed. If you were to split your alliance in half and attack each other over and over, you'd most likely be reported for war slot filling. Also, some of the community might just take the law into their own hands and deal with it. It might not be as easy as you think it will be. Edited June 11, 2014 by Daenerys Targaryen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deepu boy Posted June 11, 2014 Report Share Posted June 11, 2014 Removing the 5% nuke limit will create new unforseen problems such as tremendous rise in global radiation hurting the whole game. What I want to say that u may have 100 radiation on fifth day and maybe 50 for the rest of the round. it will greatly hurt population count and happiness I mean u definitely don't want 5000 popuation at 1500 infra. It will also make it very difficult for inexperienced players with smaller nations to grow in strenghth. I suggest raising the cap to a strenght limit such as 10,000 with maybe 1500 infra and 200 tech or maybe 2000 infra. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deepu boy Posted June 11, 2014 Report Share Posted June 11, 2014 Also i would like to say that i have been paying TE for the past 2 rounds but i dont play the standard edition so my nation is in inactivity in standard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TBRaiders Posted June 11, 2014 Report Share Posted June 11, 2014 deepu boy, admin is making it harder for people to get nukes and not easier. Currently any nation ranked in the top 5% can purchases nukes without having to own the MP wonder but any nation who owns the MP can also purchase nukes, regardless of nation ranking. For this upcoming round, admin is taking the top 5% ability to purchase nukes away so that everyone who wants to purchase nukes has to own the MP wonder. The MP is expensive. I like this change a lot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Komplex Posted June 11, 2014 Report Share Posted June 11, 2014 deepu boy, admin is making it harder for people to get nukes and not easier. Currently any nation ranked in the top 5% can purchases nukes without having to own the MP wonder but any nation who owns the MP can also purchase nukes, regardless of nation ranking. For this upcoming round, admin is taking the top 5% ability to purchase nukes away so that everyone who wants to purchase nukes has to own the MP wonder. The MP is expensive. I like this change a lot. Agreed. I would like to see this in TE as well. A lot of bad players that use all/most their money to get in 5% early in game will have to change their game plan. Lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King James XVIII Posted June 12, 2014 Report Share Posted June 12, 2014 No idea why you guys are so bent on having some official prizes granted to the alliances. Any experienced government member who's been around for a while knows what each AA is worth. A very good AA can be really screwed due to the politics of the opposing forces and would look bad in statistics whereas a relatively mediocre AA might get those prizes. Vanity rules I guess :smug: Elite players play to win. Everyone has their own opinions, sure, but an objective statement for all time means something. I wholeheartedly believe that focusing on the best alliances brings the game closer to the average member. They have more of a stake. Gov has more of a stake in developing elite members. Yes, there will be politics and crown runs, but finally people will be rewarded for playing what is at its very core...an alliance based game. Agreed. I would like to see this in TE as well. A lot of bad players that use all/most their money to get in 5% early in game will have to change their game plan. Lol It would certainly be interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deepu boy Posted June 12, 2014 Report Share Posted June 12, 2014 Talking about the foreign aid being allowed within alliance. Maybe one nation will serve as tech farm or infra farm while the rest of the nations get it for really less. it will cause tech or infra dealers to crop up in alliances. u certainly dont vant dat. i think its an abuse of foreign aid. also some players like ramesh who have multiple accounts will 20 or 30 million as startup funds for their nation giving unfair advantage to such cheats which will rampant with FA. Whole wipeout alliance belongs to him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deepu boy Posted June 12, 2014 Report Share Posted June 12, 2014 plzz make the alliance cap a multiple of 6 so that trade circles are possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deepu boy Posted June 12, 2014 Report Share Posted June 12, 2014 yo yo honey singh rocks. most damous person in india. the first sinfer to be more popular than film actors in india Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisvillalpando5 Posted June 12, 2014 Report Share Posted June 12, 2014 I like the foreign aid idea and than I don't. I mean we have been doing really well without it for the longest time! I think foreign aid will just make things far more complex. This is a tournament edition which means there is no peace and all war! With that being said, i think its best to keep Foreign aid to standard edition and leave tournament the way it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TBRaiders Posted June 12, 2014 Report Share Posted June 12, 2014 I am not sure if you guys are still just talking about this for possible future rounds, but admin already posted the final changes for this upcoming round and he scratched the aid idea for this round. I do agree with you and think it has no place in TE so hopefully we never see it added, but it is for sure not going to be a part of round 31. He also discarded any changes to alliance caps or trade restrictions. You can read the initial post in this topic and see the final changes, which are: 1) Increased cost of nukes, lowered max total number of nukes allowed, and requiring the MP wonder for any nation that wants to purchase nukes. 2) Change to the Pentagon wonder allowing for 1 additional offensive war slot. 3) Adding additional nuke options; standard nuke or choosing a nuke when fired that destroys more infra OR more tech OR more land while destroying less of the other two categories. 4) Adding all of the new war related improvements from SE to TE along with the airport improvement. 5) Changed up the prize structure; Most Casualties, Highest Peak Infrastructure, and then four individual nations prizes based on the nation strength of the nations from the alliances with the highest total soldiers killed and infrastructure destroyed (have to read down further in this thread to see the change from infra lost to infra destroyed: http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?/topic/122308-round-31-starts-this-saturday/ ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisvillalpando5 Posted June 13, 2014 Report Share Posted June 13, 2014 Well this is going to be an interesting round.... Usually there are a limited number of nations who skyrocket to the top 5% and in the first alliance wars of any round use those nukes. Now nations will have to rethink their strategy probably giving our first round of wars without nukes! Lets give a warm welcome to a cleaner planet...at least for 1 war! haha :P Bottom line, nukes are pointless, its just a way to bring a nation down. I believe that fighting a nation head on whether it be ground, air or navy is a way to go! Spy on the darned nation, but nuking...ehh! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul711 Posted June 13, 2014 Report Share Posted June 13, 2014 Well this is going to be an interesting round.... Usually there are a limited number of nations who skyrocket to the top 5% and in the first alliance wars of any round use those nukes. Now nations will have to rethink their strategy probably giving our first round of wars without nukes! Lets give a warm welcome to a cleaner planet...at least for 1 war! haha :P Bottom line, nukes are pointless, its just a way to bring a nation down. I believe that fighting a nation head on whether it be ground, air or navy is a way to go! Spy on the darned nation, but nuking...ehh! I am with Dr. Strangelove, I love the bomb. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
World Coalition Posted June 14, 2014 Report Share Posted June 14, 2014 Well this is going to be an interesting round.... Usually there are a limited number of nations who skyrocket to the top 5% and in the first alliance wars of any round use those nukes. Now nations will have to rethink their strategy probably giving our first round of wars without nukes! Lets give a warm welcome to a cleaner planet...at least for 1 war! haha :P Bottom line, nukes are pointless, its just a way to bring a nation down. I believe that fighting a nation head on whether it be ground, air or navy is a way to go! Spy on the darned nation, but nuking...ehh! I disagree, though only because high tier fighting kind of requires nukes :P If we didn't have them, there'd be no way to destroy a nation's stuff without taking an extremely long time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
admin Posted June 14, 2014 Author Report Share Posted June 14, 2014 Thanks for all the feedback everyone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts