Jump to content

Forward

Members
  • Posts

    77
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Forward

  1. Oh man. Was I informed of this? Wait... Go us. :war:
  2. You've got to uncheck "Retain User Name at Reset" under "Edit My Profile" during the previous round.
  3. bcortell: Seeing as how my economic generals came perfectly on schedule at the start of the round, I should think that mine came before yours. In the admittedly possible-but-unlikely scenario that they didn't, then congratulations to you, but mine nevertheless were flawless. This attack on me is also still entirely irrelevant to the suggestion. Trying to argue to argue? Sounds like something that applies more to you, although it's hard to tell whether or not what you're doing even qualifies as arguing. Finally, I suppose it could be that nearly no one agrees with me, but it's yet to be determined, and I think that anybody can see that the mass economic benefits destroyed new member retention last round. Either way, we'll see what happens. Also, just as is the case in my other suggestion topic where you take issue, I've said enough; what will be will be, and it's time to move on.
  4. It's called an addendum for a reason, and as I've said, I don't really care whether or not it is changed (after all, I might not even be here much longer, remember?) - I've presented a case. Your case against it... could use some more development and actual reasoning, it seems. You obviously lost with Muscle Hamsters in R24, with some even worse losses as well, and you've been far from a dominant force lately. Props to you for forgetting your failures so quickly, but are you "stuck in the past"? You may wish you wish that you won every time you tried, but you'd have to do some dreaming to actually reach that conclusion. I'd certainly agree that you've dismissed my latter suggestion, but reasons? Logic? I'm afraid you've got a while to go. Repeating yourself and making irrelevant, false, and red herring claims does not constitute reasoning. As a note, you were the first to refer to anything as "the crown" (or, actually, "not the crown") as some sort of all-important grand prize, as well. I've said just about what I need to say on this issue, the main point is going mainly unopposed, and I'm sure everyone has better things to do, so I'll rest my side at that.
  5. I also mentioned the argument on what should be the biggest prize, and I'm still pretty sure that "it doesn't really matter and we haven't that much influence anyway" (part of the reason that it was originally an addendum that ended up having more words than intended). Last few rounds you wanted another from NS didn't work out though, did they? Looks like you still wanted another last round after those misses, and clinched it successfully off MDW. OP would have a solid shot at NS prize, too, but they still don't bother going for it. "Again, you can argue what you want, but that still doesn't make you right" is meaningless and can be reversed. I'm also not entirely sure as to what you mean by "the crown," but it doesn't matter either, as per the first sentence of this post.
  6. First off, recall that the main point of this thread is to advocate a value destroyed prize, which we seem to mildly agree on. Then, when it comes to the amounts for each award, it doesn't really matter and we haven't that much influence anyway, eh? Now - nobody cared about "flagrunners" at the end because the round was a wipeout (after the TPCers got into permanent nuke anarchy). Similarly, you weren't "flagrunning" (in the NS sense) because you probably didn't stand a chance that way, but you were actually looking for a flag and got it through the MDW system because no one from the people who were "flagrunning" cared to stop you there. And by MORE players having a chance, I guess you mean people like you - but again, that's fine; this is, after all, advocating a war prize. Finally, some tidbits: -Regarding your mention of OP: from what I observe, OPers don't tend to go for prizes at all, and play for the alliance, which is all fine and good - and they are indeed a top alliance. -NS is still the crown, considering that you had to post a suggestion even for destruction/casualty stats to be saved :P -Also, I type quickly rather than being passionate, but then again that doesn't really matter either, does it?
  7. It seems like the dissenters in this topic are attacking me personally, with a major flaw: I attained max economic generals before any of you last round. Oops? Bombuator - while it's my official view that casualties have little to do with war, I happened to have both more than 1 million casualties and, well, more casualties than you last round. Furthermore, bigger numbers does not mean better; if generals gave +5% population each, or if everyone started with $10 million, there would be more casualties, too. So? And, refer to the above when it comes to your "argument" about my not being able to obtain generals... Also, bcortell - You miss that easier wars will grant [i]more[/i] XP next round, which will benefit raiders over fighters, because you'll have to win battles to get XP (and that XP can be disabled in war). And again, your [i]ad hominem[/i] is irrelevant both because it is irrelevant in itself, and because it is wrong.
  8. Saving a bigger warchest would accomplish the rebuilding effect, too. Again, there's no particular reason for generals to offer such economic bonuses, and offering them harms ever-important player retention with other issues as well; I think most players would agree that huge waves of raids are a negative.
  9. It's important to examine the meaning of "go for" before proceeding here. We agree that most people don't "go for" NS. But do most people "go for" war? The answer is no. Why? Because just as they can't win in NS, they can't win in war. I'm sure there are many people who would love to win an NS crown. Many people who would love to win a casualty/destruction crown, too. But they don't really try, because they know they don't stand a chance - and they don't. Yes, people fight wars, to be sure. People build nations, too. But most people don't go for NS prizes, and most people don't go for war prizes, either. The average player can't win any of these material prizes, because everything boils down to nation building in the end. You can't win a casualty crown without money. You can't win a destruction title without money. And, of course you can't win an NS crown without money. Fact is, most people don't play TE to win a "prize." Did last round's system give more people a chance at a prize? I suppose so. Instead of ultra-elite nation builders sweeping the field for 1/2/3 NS, some semi-elite TPCers and then semi-elite people from your AA/Inst's AA (those whom I referred to as "losing flagrunenrs") picked up some prizes (and, er, some very elite TPCers got wiped off the map... ah ha). But even then, you're still elite. And there still would've been no way for "average" players to get near these awards, because everything is still about money in the end. As a side note regarding myself, I only shot for top NS for specific reasons, and am decidedly not doing so for R27, so that's not my motivation for advocating NS as the top prize. Rather, all awards are the same in that they are based on money - and the NS crown is for the best of the best (and the people who donate most, which is obviously important too) - so despite the relative monotony, it should at least offer the same prize amount as other awards. Then again, I don't really care either, and am just putting a thought out there. The awards will be what they will be, and I'm not even sure as to whether/how much I'll play next round. We'll see.
  10. I'd agree that most don't play for an NS crown. Then again, as I noted, all awards are highly exclusive to top players (especially depending on the value of the prize and the incentive to aim for it), and given the ease of reallocating resources from NS to something else, the NS award (which has always gone to the most superior prize-winner in the past) may as well offer at least a top prize if it is to remain. (For example, it would be highly strange if the approximate 20th-"best" nation builder got a mediocre prize for ending the round with the top NS, which is the easiest and most understandable measure of so-called "success" in a round.) Not that an NS award necessarily has to remain, but then again, as I said, suggestions welcome :) (and not in a sarcastic way, either).
  11. Bombuator, your concern does not appear to be very well thought-out. Contrary to the suggestion in your post, generals remain an advantage for those who war under this model, and in fact become even more of an advantage compared to for those who raid (specifically non-warring flagrunners). There is no particular reason to retain the excess economic benefits that I am suggesting be removed, and you failed to address any of the 5 points above as to why they should be removed (or provide any real reason as to why they should stay). Also, regarding your [i]ad hominem[/i] attack, I obtained all the top economic generals with ease last round, and the top military/economic generals shortly thereafter when I so chose - this suggestion has nothing to do with giving myself a personal advantage. I'll stop it there.
  12. Last round, Most Destructive War awards were huge - 2 flags and 10 donations. And when I say that, I really do mean 2 flags and 10 donations - because any pair of people hoping to win the award was cooperating with each other to maximize recorded damages through purchasing pointless amounts of land post-ZL, opening up to aircraft attacks, avoiding SDIs, etc. This then provided a huge incentive to "game the game" to unproductive levels. One suggestion has been to record damage dealt - this would be an improvement, but raids and tactics similar to those I mentioned earlier would still distort any measurement. A better fix, however, would be to record value destroyed - an index reflecting the cost of all infrastructure, land, and technology destroyed in war - i.e. destroying 500 infra from 5000 to 4500 would be worth more than destroying 500 infra from 2000 to 1500. This could be calculated off of the base purchase costs of the infra/land/tech (disregarding cost reduction multipliers) destroyed assuming purchases of 1 unit at a time, or some other means. While certainly imperfect, this would be an improvement to last round's system. Suggestions welcome. ADDENDUM: It is noteworthy that all of R26's non-NS awards were "losing flagrunners' awards:" that is, only nation builders with relatively large warchests could win single-war destruction awards or casualty crowns, but the conventional flagrunners who ended up with NS titles would generally have had a walk in the park picking up one or more such awards if they opted to spend their money towards achieving that goal. A "value destroyed" award (or even a "damage dealt" one) rectifies this to some extent, giving a slight edge to people who fight often, although it is both impossible and unfeasible to change this completely (e.g. a "most mediocre" or "worst nation" award would be comic, but pointless). It is definitely reasonable to offer large awards for "losing flagrunners' awards" to encourage some form of activity rather than saving and building, although 2 flags and 10 donations seems excessive (a "value destroyed" award would admittedly cut this to 1 flag and 5 donations, which is fine). Non-NS awards could equal but probably should not exceed conventional NS awards, which remain a crucial part of the game both revenue- and play-wise. Finally, on a personal note, I hadn't even noticed until today that the 1st place NS award was cut to 4 donations (was it for last round, even?), but anyhow it should at least match the highest non-NS prize in the future.
  13. Presently each general can offer as much as +2% population, +2% income, and +2 happiness in economic benefits. This is an issue for multiple reasons: 1. Intent: Generals become more of an economic advantage than a military one - especially since military strength is directly related to money (but not vice versa), causing generals' economic impacts to subsume any and all military cost reductions and even most battle strength increases; 2. Extent: A pair of max-econ generals is worth more than a top economic wonder, and, as Inst pointed out in [url=http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?/topic/117246-complaints-about-generals-system/]his thread,[/url] a quartet can provide approximately 25% in additional income - which seems far too high; 3. Expendable XP: With the expected introduction of this feature, any available low-XP economic generals will become even more lucrative than they already are, pushing players to purchase them even more (this would also discourage use of the assassinate generals system); 4. Player Retention: Massive economic benefits encourage massive waves of raids early in the round for XP, as the benefit all but certainly outweighs the risk; this cuts down the TE population significantly, as has been noted elsewhere; 5. Real World: It doesn't seem realistic for a prestigious (or in many cases not-so-prestigious) general to offer substantial population and income benefits - a slight boost in population happiness would be their function at most. Thus the suggestion: The only economic benefit that generals should provide is a +0, +1, or +2 to population happiness. This would rectify all of the above problems without presenting any new ones, and would certainly be a positive for the TE community.
  14. How often are the existing rules enforced, though? I'm not aware of many instances despite some blatant violations, such as in-alliance spying.
  15. We could have a pretty little banner for alliance winner under the [b]current[/b] scoring system, but it remains my view that only leaders and prominent members (the people who generally can flagrun, in any worthy alliance) are useful in alliance winning anyway (other than for total member count). Imperfect, but modifiable ;)
  16. And for MD, it'll be really fun to see people who could've top 3'd go all-out WRC at each other (really, only people with huge WRCs will be able to win) instead to shoot for this award and end up losing in both :P Also, for this you only have one shot... once you've made a possible winning attempt, your nation is done. MTC cheating can actually get really ridiculous - farming off 6 people could produce over 180,000 casualties in a single day (assuming ~10k lost per defending ground attack, 40k to a nuke, 30k through offensive GAs) while a blocked nation would get 0 - a huge difference.
  17. Sure will be interesting to see all the farming on casualties and damage in conjunction with flagrunners. Will someone grab multiple titles? I'll predict a double casualty crown sharing a most destructive war spot from mass farming (and closeish to but not part of top 3 NS as well), with everyone else separate. Great updates :D Lots of flags once again, though...
  18. This would serve as an automatic gather intel operation as well, unfortunately, unless there was an overly random range. Perhaps we could just raise the cap (and possibly percentage as well) to a more damaging level to remedy this. On a separate note, many flagrunners do not turtle, and ones like Tenochtitlan and Gingerbread did not place so well last round doing so either. (Well, I guess it depends on your perspective, but from here on out non-top 3 counts as "not so well" again.)
  19. The number of defensive slots/the possibility for different people to hit them should be expanded, anyhow, to make filling more difficult.
  20. Actually, as I posted elsewhere, I think that an adequate zero-day rogue should be able to force any number of assailants to reroll. However, this would increase the potency of normally inadequate zero-day rogues and basically make any rogue force a reroll on however many other nations it can hit by DAing away valuable infrastructure immediately.
  21. Sorry; I meant that it would be unrealistic as something that would never happen in the real world, and such a banner as the one I mentioned above would seem extremely strange to players unfamiliar with the reason that this rule was implemented. Otherwise, when it comes to cheating - I agree, which was why I posted my suggesting to delimit defense slots (or, as it has now become, expanding them); but, this makes no sense whatsoever outside of being a gameplay tactic.
  22. Unfortunately, the spin that you present here would actually simply be what you tell the smaller members in propaganda, not what would actually be the case. Just as they do now, alliances would still rely almost entirely on the top tier for generating both statistics for this new (and current) alliance score as well as power during war. Smaller members would continue to be mostly insignificant, and would indeed lower the ANS (depending on how important ANS is in any new formula, this could even result in them getting the boot for being too small). This would also make [i]fewer[/i] people capable of winning a round, as only very few existing alliances (specifically, their leaders and top members) would have a shot at winning. Otherwise, this would cause the present handful of undeclared blocs to just merge at the start of the round (or later, if the scoring system includes a hole that allows for this), creating chaos with only ~3 large groups and some random micros left to fight each other.
  23. Great idea I think most would support, although 50-75 spies and 50 tech seems a bit extreme. Also, instead of destroy land increasing the target's land (which makes little sense), I think a naval modification to allow blockades against any nation no matter how much land it has would be better. And, with that, the option could be removed entirely just like the one to destroy infra. I don't really like the steal options, though, and the 'steel' options are even worse :P
  24. Despite the potential (?) improvement to the flagrunning system this would create, it seems far too unrealistic to implement - would there just be a banner reading "This nation cannot be nuked on the last day of the round"? And, I'm not even sure that this will improve flagrunning conditions anyway.
  25. In any case, again, it would be more logical to have more defensive than offensive slots - the number of nations that can be attacking one nation before the defender is "occupied" and cannot have any more assailants is clearly going to be more than the number of nations that a single attacker can spread out its forces to attack. Something like 2 offensive war slots and 4 (or more) defensive war slots and similar adjustments to spy and/or nuke slots would be better.
×
×
  • Create New...