firingline

I don't think it's intentionally playing favorites. But clearly he came down quite harshly on AW over perceived 'gaming the system'. OP's actions in the last week are an even more aggressive form of gaming the system, so I'm guessing AA's argument is that by not treating this situation the same way he's effectively playing favorites.

I'm not convinced it should completely disappear. Aid is genuinely helpful in TE and my gut feeling is that it's an overall net positive to the game is dialed in properly. I think we still need to address fundamental flaws in gameplay. Some of this may be through rules, some through mechanics. -OP's use of essentially fake nations to serve as tech or trade farms (this should simply be a rule.) -The use of turtling to avoid any possibility of functionally losing a war (this should be addressed through mechanics - though it might not be super easy.) Aid is definitely exploitable and powerful in TE. Perhaps a lower cap on aid, and a limit to 2 aid slots instead of 5?

@admin I think it's worth looking at some stats. I understand your concerns about 'breaking gameplay'. It was such a huge problem in your mind, obviously, that you changed rules on the fly, deleted aid transactions, etc. To put some context around this, though, that was regarding approx. 2,300 in tech being sent by 'farms' that you considered to fundamentally break the game. Here's some data on what's happening now with just one alliance in just the past 10 days: -900 tech -2,318 tech, $35m -3,090 tech, $56m -$15m -3,380 tech -5,100 tech -2,119 tech -3,020 tech Total: 19,927 tech, $106m across 8 nations. Note that this is extremely conservative data only looking at 100% farm nations (nations that don't participate at all beyond sending aid.) It also considers only the tech they directly purchased and sent - in many cases, these farms were used to combine cheaper tech from other farms or actual players and send large sums of tech where it was needed during a war. In that case, though the farm might have only sent +500 of their own tech, they may have combined that with 2,000 tech from others to generate a 2,500 tech packet to send to a player in the middle of a war, ensuring that player an easy win. Their 40 aid slots are being used to build those high tech levels without requiring the use of real players' aid slots. Also note that many of these nations are following guidelines to build, collect, then delete their infra and assets immediately so they can't be attacked - a mechanic that makes little sense (nations obviously should not be allowed to profit by building and immediately destroying themselves.) To me, this is clearly a much larger subversion of intended gameplay than the actions you deleted and blocked early this round. And while there's been a little bit of this happening in every alliance, I think this particular case should be brought to your attention.

What is your take on OP's use of 'trade mules' to generate permanent cash and tech for its players, buying up to collect and then selling down to stay out of range of attack, and doing nothing but sending cash and tech on-demand throughout the round? Should this be permitted or not?

That's because it's not an addition for this round. This is the... third round for it?

I think your alliance should just declare 'mission accomplished'. And disband.

When CLAWS cuts their treaty count to the same number as TW have, they can start complaining about clogged treaty webs.

Guess we see what Doom thinks of Pacifica...

Sometimes a picture says roughly 8 words.

"I did this for Al" is weird phrasing. Usually treaty partners are partners (unless it's a protectorate, which this isn't.)

Nobody's reading all that. I skimmed a few lines of it, though. The reality of it is this: OP has long existed by taking advantage of game mechanics. They're mad that somebody is playing their game better than they are, so they complained to get the rules changed, even as they continue to take advantage of game mechanics in functionally similar ways. It's OK. We all know OP lost this round and had to kick and scream to get admin to make it easier for them.

This is a lot of text that is irrelevant. The aid amounts in question do not break the back end of CN. Full stop. The limits were implemented because the existing alliances in TE wanted to continue manipulating game mechanics in the way they knew best and did not like that others could compete with them.

The first reason given was that it would break the fairness of the game. Only later did admin claim it would somehow break the game. Which is weird, because transactions totaling billions of dollars regularly hit the database.

Who knows. Admin seems to be retroactively changing rules on the fly here with no explanation. Apparently you can't have a non-serious player join to send a lump sum of tech. You can, however, have a nonserious player park on resources to give your players access to trade combos without dealing with any of the negative consequences of actually holding those resources. Even if the trade bonuses are financially more rewarding to your alliance than the lump sum of tech. ALSO, it's totally not OK to send unlimited aid even if the mechanics allow it. It IS, however, OK to take advantage of the infra rebuild mechanics to "turtle-nuke", swap with those 'fake players' holding certain resources, and immediately buy back to a higher NS, physically blocking your opponent from effectively fighting your nation. Basically - it's OK to take advantage of mechanics in a way that is difficult to compete with if you're OP. But if you're AW, the rules need to be retroactively changed. You know, to ensure things are competitive!

What are you going on about? We sent 2,500 tech to one nation using a bunch of other nations. Roughly the equivalent of 4-5 people sending 500 tech each to a specific nation. How was that not the intent of unlimited aid? How is it a bug or breaking the game in any way?

You know what breaks the game even more? When you can just turtle during wars, do a quick trade swap, and rebuild completely. As if letting your nation get ravaged and then jumping to your largest-ever size the next day makes any sense. That's what OP's been doing for quite some time now, and it's functionally impossible to counter. We sent two nations 2k tech. Something OP could replicate in 5 minutes. And that breaks the game?

January 11, 2024. The first aid package of over $9m in the history of cyber nations. One for the history books.

Their AA has listed - and still lists - an ODOAP, not a protectorate. 'Sick ailing terminal AA with 1-2 stalwart members' almost perfectly describes MU, especially since a couple of their more active members have fled back to PGSG.

What was the size difference between TW and Red Alert when Bundy attacked last time? I'll wait.

You're really bad at this. And running CN alliances. But mostly this.

I guess this comes down to - do you want to play the game, or do you want to turtle-nuke? If you want to play, AW is the place. If you want to turtle-nuke, OP is probably more your speed.

And you apparently define "making a move" as doing absolutely nothing. I don't think most people would agree with that definition, but whatever floats your boat. Better not make a move - you might lose! I get it. All you know how to do after losing a war is disband your alliance, so that makes the stakes pretty damn high for you.

1. To be clear - you did break your treaty with TW. Multiple times, in multiple ways. That's why TW dumped you immediately after the war. 2. You can disagree, but you're wrong. GATO's ally was defeated in the war, and splintered shortly thereafter. You lost a valuable ally in TW. If those were RFI's objectives and something you consider a win, "lmao!" JA's made quite clear what GATO considers to be making a move, and none of what RFI has done in the last three years counts. The most aggressive thing you've done is to move to black sphere to try to piss off Sparta. That's it. In three years. Because at the end of the day, RFI is full of weak, spineless leaders who rely on everybody else to make things happen because they're too scared that if they make any real moves, they'll lose.

Does UCR hand out a medal for every time you turtle or something?

I don't know which part of this is funnier: 1) Openly admitting to plotting against and breaking a treaty with your ally TW 2) Claiming that coming "very, very close to war" is making the most recent move lmao. I'm also not quite sure what being in government has to do with knowing what happens in CN. Certainly you've been around long enough to know that's not how any of this works?