Master-Debater Posted November 16, 2007 Report Share Posted November 16, 2007 When i first posted i didnt even really think of spies and lower level nations. Ok lets look at what this will do to nations. 1. If you get attacked by a rogue or another alliance your done. No more wars lasting for a few days to weeks. Wars will last 1 night. As soon as a nation gets declared on in 1 night, alliance wars, they will be anarchied, which already hurt your income, and then take 5 days of a pounding before you can fight halfway decently. So a good blitz by a decet alliance will kill an alliance in one night. Along with that if you get attacked by a rogue you get to be pounded for 5 days without being able to do anything about it. Even alliance members will basically tell you your SoL because they are also at a low defcon. THey can pump cash into you but that wont help much. 2. Spies are so powerful its insane. Now that it will tke 5 days to go defcon 1 someone can just spy on you and BAM your back to defcon 5 and done for. 3. Economy. The lower level nations already have a hard time with bills and growth as it is but the second theygo defcon 4 they might as well forget about growth for quite a while. 4. Blitzes. They are gone. As soon as an alliance starts to go defcon 4 and then 3 everyone realizes whats up and they can prepare. In short....Worst....Idea....Ever Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
memoryproblems Posted November 16, 2007 Report Share Posted November 16, 2007 how is this correlating in any way to real life? In rl nations can alert people on the drop of a dime and its ok. this change is just unnessacary. I vehemently oppose this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sephiroth Posted November 16, 2007 Report Share Posted November 16, 2007 Horrible Idea Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan Shore Posted November 16, 2007 Report Share Posted November 16, 2007 When i first posted i didnt even really think of spies and lower level nations. Ok lets look at what this will do to nations. 1. If you get attacked by a rogue or another alliance your done. No more wars lasting for a few days to weeks. Wars will last 1 night. As soon as a nation gets declared on in 1 night, alliance wars, they will be anarchied, which already hurt your income, and then take 5 days of a pounding before you can fight halfway decently. So a good blitz by a decet alliance will kill an alliance in one night. Along with that if you get attacked by a rogue you get to be pounded for 5 days without being able to do anything about it. Even alliance members will basically tell you your SoL because they are also at a low defcon. THey can pump cash into you but that wont help much. 2. Spies are so powerful its insane. Now that it will tke 5 days to go defcon 1 someone can just spy on you and BAM your back to defcon 5 and done for. 3. Economy. The lower level nations already have a hard time with bills and growth as it is but the second theygo defcon 4 they might as well forget about growth for quite a while. 4. Blitzes. They are gone. As soon as an alliance starts to go defcon 4 and then 3 everyone realizes whats up and they can prepare. In short....Worst....Idea....Ever Correct, this is a terrible idea. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emperor Mccole Posted November 16, 2007 Report Share Posted November 16, 2007 This is the equivalent of saying that all the functions of the game should be used and players should be forced to use them. I think that since you're nuclear capable, you should be forced to buy nukes, one per day, until you have the maximum. It doesn't make DEFCONs 2-4 any more useful than they are now, it simply makes them necessary. it does make them more useful. an alliance that stays on defcon 3 will have a huge advantage in war over one that stays in Def 5. likewise a dfe 5 alliance will have a big growth advantage. It adds more strategy and depth to the game. I really dont see what wrong with this idea. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azaghul Posted November 16, 2007 Report Share Posted November 16, 2007 Perhaps the spy feature should be changed to two options, "raise defcon 1 level" or "decrease defcon 1 level" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
varses Posted November 16, 2007 Report Share Posted November 16, 2007 (edited) it does make them more useful. an alliance that stays on defcon 3 will have a huge advantage in war over one that stays in Def 5. likewise a dfe 5 alliance will have a big growth advantage. It adds more strategy and depth to the game. I really dont see what wrong with this idea. It makes a slow game even slower. For nations such as myself that spend the majority of time in DEFCON 5 this is a pain in the event of a war. Especially with spies. Should spies become balanced with respect to this update (only able to change DEFCON up or down one level at random) then this might be interesting. However, I still see it as a pain, realistic how it may be. Edited November 16, 2007 by Varses Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uhohspaghettios Posted November 16, 2007 Report Share Posted November 16, 2007 Terrible, terrible, TERRIBLE idea. I hope they rethink this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azaghul Posted November 16, 2007 Report Share Posted November 16, 2007 it does make them more useful. an alliance that stays on defcon 3 will have a huge advantage in war over one that stays in Def 5. likewise a dfe 5 alliance will have a big growth advantage. It adds more strategy and depth to the game. I really dont see what wrong with this idea. What people don't understand is THE PENALTY IS NOT THAT BIG. Your soldiers fight in defcon 5 with 76% effectiveness. THAT ISN'T THAT BAD. Nor is the 4 point happiness difference between the different defcons. Also, in alliance wars, if it is a surprise attack both alliance's nations will be in defcon 5, so they'll be on equal footing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moridin Posted November 16, 2007 Report Share Posted November 16, 2007 A much more realistic addition, to be sure. However, spies just became even more powerful; something that I'm not sure needed to be changed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thierra Posted November 16, 2007 Report Share Posted November 16, 2007 If a nation takes 4/5 days to get to Defcon 1 from 5, that's more than halfway through the war itself... we might have to increase the amount of war time to compensate, which would in turn overload the servers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
varses Posted November 16, 2007 Report Share Posted November 16, 2007 (edited) If a nation takes 4/5 days to get to Defcon 1 from 5, that's more than halfway through the war itself... we might have to increase the amount of war time to compensate, which would in turn overload the servers. Neutral Menace talking about war times using the word 'we' This is true. I also feel that the increasing complexity of the game is meant to maintain the loyalty of established members at the expense of becoming much more daunting for new members i.e. a much steeper learning curve. Edited November 16, 2007 by Varses Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gen Beagle Posted November 16, 2007 Report Share Posted November 16, 2007 No, no, no. This is a bad idea. And the 2nd one implemented with a majority of votes being against it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OPArsenal Posted November 16, 2007 Report Share Posted November 16, 2007 Ive decided to stop fighting these ridiculous nonsensical debates and offer some constructive criticism. A) the defcon level should be +- 1 a day. this will help equalize the current battle platform that gives more towards larger more infra/tech savvy nations by making it possible for weaker nations to actually do something. (granted it would suck for the weaker nation if reversed) Weaker nations can still wreck stronger ones in battle. Underdog bonus and all that. And while we're speaking of combat... Let me check your AA... Yep. That's what I thought. B) It is possible to attack and defend succesfully at decon5. With the widespread use of nukes anyway... does it really matter if you get nuked at defcon 5 and defcon 1? What? This change should be implemented because nukes hurt regardless of your DEFCON. Is that what you're trying to say? If so, how does it support your argument? c) if this does anything to gameplay. It requires alliances to be more coordinated with their war preparations.Those are my reasons for supporting this The most coordinated alliances are already superior in war. Do you really want to make it easier for the Orders to crush Mario and company? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Sanders Posted November 16, 2007 Report Share Posted November 16, 2007 No, no, no.This is a bad idea. And the 2nd one implemented with a majority of votes being against it. The tech multiplier change had little effect on gameplay. Most of the complaining was people being worried about an artificial number. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OPArsenal Posted November 16, 2007 Report Share Posted November 16, 2007 The tech multiplier change had little effect on gameplay. Most of the complaining was people being worried about an artificial number. I agree with this post, and thus, I have quoted it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thrash56 Posted November 16, 2007 Report Share Posted November 16, 2007 (edited) Well, it looks like the update was removed from the log. Has it been officially reversed? Edited November 16, 2007 by thrash56 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guido Posted November 16, 2007 Report Share Posted November 16, 2007 terrible Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OPArsenal Posted November 16, 2007 Report Share Posted November 16, 2007 (edited) Well, it looks like the update was removed from the log. Has it been officially reversed? According to the other thread, admin is re-thinking things. EDIT: Link is relevant to your interests Edited November 16, 2007 by OPArsenal Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ejayrazz Posted November 16, 2007 Report Share Posted November 16, 2007 I do not understand why updates are added when most of CN does not like them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UnitedCorea Posted November 16, 2007 Report Share Posted November 16, 2007 What people don't understand is THE PENALTY IS NOT THAT BIG.Your soldiers fight in defcon 5 with 76% effectiveness. THAT ISN'T THAT BAD. Nor is the 4 point happiness difference between the different defcons. Also, in alliance wars, if it is a surprise attack both alliance's nations will be in defcon 5, so they'll be on equal footing. So says the neutral. There is a big difference fighting at maximum strength and 76% strength. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apfdaman Posted November 16, 2007 Report Share Posted November 16, 2007 Basically, no. just no. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azaghul Posted November 16, 2007 Report Share Posted November 16, 2007 So says the neutral. There is a big difference fighting at maximum strength and 76% strength. Not that big. Considering that a guerrilla camp adds 35% effectiveness. A one guirilla camp difference makes a bigger difference than one guy being at defcon 5 and the other at defcon 1. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azaghul Posted November 16, 2007 Report Share Posted November 16, 2007 I do not understand why updates are added when most of CN does not like them. Because most people are so used to always being at defcon1 in war that they don't understand that defcon5 really isn't that terrible? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UnitedCorea Posted November 16, 2007 Report Share Posted November 16, 2007 (edited) Not that big.Considering that a guerrilla camp adds 35% effectiveness. A one guirilla camp difference makes a bigger difference than one guy being at defcon 5 and the other at defcon 1. Go into an alliance war in Defcon 5 and then come talk. A guerrilla camp adds 35% before Defcon reductions. Edited November 16, 2007 by UnitedCorea Quote 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.