Jump to content

firingline

Members
  • Posts

    1,004
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by firingline

  1. If it's so irrelevant, why are you so adamant that we don't even attempt to curb turtling as a tactic? Seems like it actually is pretty important after all.
  2. Turtle mechanics don't exist in SE. SE came before TE. If the issues were created for TE, they can easily be fixed for TE.
  3. Just what the world needs - yet another CLAWS treaty!
  4. Things have slowed down a lot. It'll take a few more years to have enough opportunities for PGSG to make an ass of themselves enough to require a rebrand.
  5. pOwErEd bY wAr. Still making me chuckle a day later. Thanks for that, sadcat.
  6. One thing's for sure - you are most certainly not a serious person. That's !@#$@#$ gold.
  7. 1) You can turtle and hit 1 million casualties quite easily. These are not mutually exclusive concepts. 2) The money from defeat alerts has not risen. It's the same. 3) I'm sure others have turtled - I don't see what that has to do with whether the current mechanics make sense or not. Can you please try to channel every ounce of energy and discipline you have into addressing the actual issue at hand? Which exists within the context of a broader set of game mechanics that must be considered as a whole.
  8. I've been complaining about the broken mechanics behind turtle-nuking for well over a year. Has nothing to do with this round or the fact that we defeated our competition so thoroughly that they had to abandon any hope of competing with one another, merge into one large functional alliance, and petition admin to kill off our banks while protecting theirs. It's pretty telling that you resort to ad-hominems rather than discuss the actual issue. Seems like you're basically admitting I'm right here. I will continue to mention how broken the mechanics are until they aren't broken - win, lose or draw. It's just that simple.
  9. I mean there's no point to any of it right now. It's among the most boring games on earth. The current game mechanics have fatal flaws. The only reason to play at present is the tech bonus. Aid at least allows there to be some level of excitement. I'd rather have uncapped aid than another round of turtle-nuking. Capping aid a bit lower makes more sense, granted, and I agree with that. But not without first taking a look at several major problems: dealing with the use of fake "mule" nations, and profitable turtling. Those loopholes are even more dire threats to an enjoyable, fair round than unlimited aid. It's critical that if we limit foreign aid further, we address the other two major issues preventing a competitive round. Until admin takes a hard look at game mechanics and how they are abused, TE will continue to languish. Maybe we'll have another round where OP just fights itself because nobody else even bothers to play.
  10. Yeah, darn, I keep bumping it above the last thread that was posted on checks notes Feb. 22nd. You've got it all figured out, SW! No wonder life is so good!
  11. "Absolutely NO standards, absolutely NO expectations, and we definitely don't have great players like firingline here." Keeps getting worse and worse. You may say you'd consider PGSG, but the reality is you fled from that !@#$show of an alliance, so...
  12. I'd probably avoid this alliance tbh. Their biggest selling point here seems to be that they have absolutely NO standards and NO expectations. Is that really what you're looking for?
  13. What? Uno reverse, I guess? My positions are objectively reasonable and based in a fair discussion around game mechanics and whether they match the desired competitive outcomes. You're the one emotionally lashing out at them to the point that a hill you chose to die on is that admin couldn't possibly edit values within the game because he's incompetent. OK, I can see that argument. On the other hand, I worry about closing off aid to those on a losing side of a war while keeping it going for those on the winning side. Thoughts? It does not solve that issue. You have to think things through, Johnny. The banks can still build to 4k infra or whatever, collect, get their aid offers out the door, and sell off their infra. They are sending military aid to Russia literally as we speak. You did. Stop gaslighting. I mean it's CN, I'm not losing sleep over it anyways, but I'm not going to stop asking for reasonable mechanics changes to make the game more enjoyable for all. Why? Because that's how game mechanics work - you choose a cut-off point. It's currently 25 and I think 1,000 would be better because it prevents certain techniques of hiding. Infra cost is like $50-75k per day for 100 infra. It's not a meaningful amount in the context of bill lock / rebuilding. Especially not if we keep foreign aid around like I advocate for. War slot filling breaks the game's rules. Such nations would be banned by the moderators. And yet you're fighting it tooth and nail. Why? Again - please stop gaslighting in a thread about game mechanics. This isn't a political / IC thing. It is objectively profitable in that it's profitable. If you jump to 3,999 infra, collect $80m turtle for a week, lose $3m through defeat alerts (oh boy!), you can then buy to 4,999 or 5,999 infra and collect and end up PROFITING from your decision to simply turtle. Under my proposal, you'd lose $35m + from turtling and you might just be able to get back to 3,999 infra and not profit. Maybe a little lower. But you certainly won't get to 4,999. As it should be. Why do you have a problem with this proposal? No, it's been profitable in the past too. I promise. It would at least be an interesting experiment. I could see it going either way. But keep in mind - TE is temporary. If setting the sell limit from 25 to 1,000 causes major issues for anybody, we can petition admin to change it back. I doubt it's actually profitable. You've shown here you're willing to be rather incorrect on the actual outcome of mechanics for the sake of making a point. Again - turtling is fine. Surviving to fight another day is fine. Turtling being profitable? That's not fine. There should absolutely be a penalty for turtling. That's been a thing in CN for a long time. If you are in peace mode, penalties progressively increase. Defeat alerts do more damage than ground attacks. Only in TE are the penalties insufficient. Only in TE is it actually still profitable.
  14. To be clear - this is blatantly untrue. My aid cap suggestions were only marginally higher than this. I don't think requiring maintaining 2k infra is a good idea. It doesn't seem to solve much but might make rebuilding harder. I've already said this isn't a terrible idea, but my god, if you think Admin can't figure out how to edit a simple value for DAs, I'm not sure how you expect him to pull this off. Yeah, that was my suggestion. The bills are literally like $75k per day. We don't need a massive addition to the code here to 'ensure they can afford the bills'. Just block selling below 1,000. The mechanic is currently in place with a value of 25, so this is another quick value edit. I understand you're somewhat hesitant about this but TE rounds are short. I suggest we implement it and see how it goes. It could always be changed back if it doesn't play out in a positive way. This is one of the arguments you keep retreating to and the fact is I've yet to see a compelling reason that turtling should be profitable. Your only arguments to date are: -This is too difficult for admin he forgets how all this works -Get better at the game These are not compelling reasons to not address a glaring issue that makes no sense. I challenged you earlier to name other games where you can just give up playing for a bit when you've been outplayed, and then end up in an immediately stronger position two minutes after the pummeling is over. It makes no sense. We both support turtling as a valid mechanic to 'survive to fight another day' if you're getting "pounded on". Nobody thinks that should go away. Though, I will add, I think my suggestion of cutting defensive war slots to two would go a very long way to reducing that sort of thing. The key that you keep dancing around is the mechanic currently goes beyond that. It goes to a level where turtling is profitable. And THAT makes no sense.
  15. Yes. You basically did. You don't edit code by having it memorized. Admin is 100% capable of changing DA cash loss values. I won't hold any further conversation on this particular topic with you. My advice is to stop being so emotional that you cling so strongly to such insane arguments. False. There's literally two functional alliances in this game. You saying "the one that turtles has no problem with it" isn't an especially strong argument. What do you have against discouraging turtling? Why is turtling so important to you? Sure, I'd be fine with trying this change. So long as banks are banned. Because going low to hit banks requires building infra to do damage to them. You are right that it is not a great game mechanic to be able to hit someone then jump massively in infra. It is MUCH less of a problem than the issues I'm discussing, but I do believe it should be addressed. To be clear - it wouldn't. Down declares are still incredibly easy even with the mechanical change you are suggesting. It also wouldn't do that. I don't think you have a very solid grasp of the game mechanics. Turtling involves building infra and collecting. The only thing it would prevent is declaring on the way up, which isn't frequently a problem. Yeah, we all get it. You don't like me, so you disagree with my suggestions. Because you're an incredibly emotional person. You haven't made a counter-argument beyond "don't make the changes." I'm happy to engage fully in any good-faith discussion, but I will call out when you make objectively false statements.
  16. The most fundamental change (of amount of cash destroyed) is a simple value edit. I'm sure Kevin can figure that much out. He's not an idiot. There are already anti-turtling mechanics in SE. The cost of infra combined with higher DA levels makes it impossible to pull off what you can in TE. This is a TE-only problem. Admin made some tweaks with the intent of making rebuild easier, not with the intent of turtle-nuking. A few tweaks can continue to accomplish Admin's likely original intent while solving a loophole that makes the game incredibly boring. Please resist the urge to use this weak-ass bait in what is supposed to be a good-faith conversation about game mechanics. I know we pointed out how irrelevant you and your alliance are - you're going to need to get over it and find a way to move on. It's hard to understand your point here. TE has very real mechanics issues that have been exploited by one alliance in particular for several rounds, to the point that players openly say the game is no fun. Closing a few loopholes would make an improvement here. Besides disliking the person making the suggestions, and saying "nothing can change admin is too dumb to pull that off", what other arguments do you have?
  17. Your idea of TE is incredibly boring and it's why the game was on life support until foreign aid. The fact that you fight so hard to strengthen turtling as a primary strategy in tournament edition - intended to be a short, action-packed round - is proof of that. Nobody wants a fight where your opponent only engages if conditions are perfect for them, and otherwise simply sells off their soldiers and waits out the war, only to rebuild to a higher NS literally 3 days later. There's no point in fighting OP because they either win or they take their ball and go home. Foreign aid (and anti-turtling mechanics) present the only real threats to that status quo and it's why you're so adamantly opposed to them.
  18. If you're turtling you're only getting 1 defeat alert per day. Losing $600k or even $1m is absolutely nothing. It's how, as I've explained, you can sit and take DAs endlessly and immediately build back stronger. You can't go completely broke because at $32m, the DAs start only killing $250k in cash. It comes down to the goals here - is the goal to ensure nations have a fair chance to rebuild, or is the goal to have a mechanic that allows anyone on the losing side of the war to effectively ignore war completely and simply rebuild the day after the war ends as if it never even happened? My proposed mechanics help nations 'survive to fight another day' but punish people trying to undermine the war mechanic completely. Please explain what you mean. You can't 'avoid war'. You still have two war slots? What I am trying to do is utilize DAs as a tool to fight turtling, without making a DA a tool that can be completely taken advantage of by update-active nations. We don't want someone to be able to nuke 5 minutes before update, then send a quick DA that kills $9m cash. DAs should indicate complete defeat. Why? It's a thing in SE. It's added a huge dynamic to TE. No. However, I am actively turtling, yes. And I'll grow back stronger than I was before this war. Because the mechanics are fundamentally broken. I should not be able to do this.
  19. We had some interesting conversations on Discord today that I think deserve to be discussed on the forums. I think it's essential that the game tweak mechanics to address turtling. It's become the single largest factor in making this game boring. Because of the way game mechanics are designed, you can turtle, back-collect, and end up stronger than before. My assertion is simple: we cannot have a game where 'turtling' (or refusing to fight in good faith) is profitable. I understand the desire to allow for easy rebuilds, too. So, I propose the following: 1) DAs destroy 12% of cash up to $9 million (instead of $600k), with a threshold of $32m, after which it destroys only $250k. ->This preserves the ability to 'survive to fight another day', while discouraging turtling with large sums of cash. Recognizing that this makes DAs quite powerful, and that DAs do not only occur when turtling, we can mitigate some of that with the following tweaks (I'm open to other suggestions): 2) Only two defensive war-slots per nation (this also helps significantly with game balance.) 3) DAs cannot happen before noon game time (to prevent nuke + DA at update). 4) Keep some level of foreign aid (to allow folks to collaborate on rebuilds.) The level of aid should probably be lowered to 1,000-1,500 tech; $20-25 million. 5) Prevent selling infra to below 1,000 I also think an additional important rule change would be to outlaw "mules" (in the same way that we have rules against slot filling, declaring wars on teammates, etc.) Whether that's a nation creating, sitting for 14 days, sending cash and rerolling, or it's nations building up, collecting, selling off and sending aid - it's against the spirit of fair gameplay. Taken in total, I believe these tweaks would resolve many aspects that make CN:TE Warfare boring today: -Reduce turtling -Eliminate massively disparate wars (3v1's) -Eliminate banks -Allow for a broader range of gameplay ("dirty ops" become acceptable because there's less turtling and foreign aid helps prevent nations from becoming bill-locked.)
  20. I think we deserve at least one round with foreign aid enabled where everybody knows the ground rules to start and no changes are made in-round. We haven't even seen a fair experiment yet. I could see lowering the tech caps to, say, 1,500 tech and perhaps reducing the number of aid slots to 4 or 3. Besides that, I think we ought to at least let a fair round play out before we make any decisions on the long-term feasibility of aid in TE or significantly "nerf" them. The game has become significantly more dynamic. We have more players, less fear of using the full range of warfare tools ('dirty ops') because full bill lock is much less of a concern. It adds another element to TE, which had become stale and had fewer and fewer players each round.
  21. OP as an AA alone is 33 people. They were 37 a few days ago. Perhaps some of those nations moved to the other AAs that, combined, comprise the approx. 60-person alliance that is OP. Our alliance certainly did not 'create' the decision by admin to delete one set of banks and allow another set to exist. We also did not "create" the truce you operated on for the month preceding our attacks on you, wherein you collaborated to attack us whilst not attacking one another, operating as one monolithic alliance. It is also not Alex's fault that Boog decided to not abide by their terms. Again, and I cannot emphasize this enough, you are not the victim. It is indeed your fault that the war with Cham occurred. It is not our fault, as we did not violate the terms of the agreement. You did. Boognish Cult is not a sovereign entity btw. That part's not even up for dispute.
×
×
  • Create New...