Instr
-
Posts
730 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Blog Comments posted by Instr
-
-
(what happened to Gairyuki's post?)
-
You know you've been playing CN too much when you no longer have an instinctive aversion to the Myspace aesthetic.
-
Let me make a suggestion. Max destruction should be changed to a donation prize, while the flag / secondary flag should be moved onto Most Total Casualties.
The reason for that is because Max Destruction, by its very nature, is a performance, not a real fight.
If you want Max Destruction, you don't fight in a normal way; you fight in a way that destroys the maximum amount of NS, whereas normal fighting is aimed at destroying the opponent's fighting ability / end-of-round NS.
Here's a couple of differences:#1, you want both combatants' defensive slots to be filled by weak nations. That's because you don't want the players to get their war fighting interrupted or diminished by having other wars decrease the destructive potential of the main war. For example, all nukes should be fired as part of the main war, whereas in other cases some people would like others to fire the nuke, depending on WRC / nuke arsenal size.
#2, the defender aims to lose the GAs. The reason for that is because if the defender loses the GAs, land is swapped, instead of being destroyed, and the land damage counts as destruction.
#3, nukes need coordination from both sides. Since all damage in the war is shared, both sides will endeavor to maximize the damage dealt by the nukes to planes, cruise missiles, navy, and defending troops / tanks.
#4, air attacks aim to maximize aircraft losses instead of actually dealing damage. The fastest way to rack up destruction points will be through sending unescorted bombing attacks, perhaps with naval support, into the jaws of the enemy fighter defense, aiming to get as many aircraft killed as possible.
#5, neither side will buy missile defenses, even decomming SDIs on both sides. This is because MDs reduce damage.
#6, destroy tanks spy ops anyone? I'm not actually sure if that's included in the destruction rating, however. If it is, are nukes included in the destruction rating? Then both sides should include 25 nukes and keep on wrecking each other's nukes at max levels, one or two per day, aiming to maximize nuke NS losses.
===
Max destruction will be pretty interesting as a type of performance, but it's definitely not reflective of a real war, because both sides need to collude to maximize the destruction.
On the other hand, trying to harvest MTC will bring players conditions closer to a real war. Unlike maximum destruction prizes, where you only need to fight one war with super-nations close to the end of round, harvesting an MTC victory involves multiple fights throughout the round. It may in fact be possible to cheat with an MTC victory, but the long-term nature of an MTC victory makes it much harder to cheat with, and the primary form of cheating over MTC is denial, where slots are filled and attackers / defenders refuse to fight to order to deny casualties.Between MTC and MD, MD is far more likely to be the result of collusion / cheating / fakery, so it's better off to put the flag to MTC instead of MD.
MD, however, even despite cheating / fakery, will STILL result in an extremely entertaining war to watch. It's like professional wrestling, everyone knows it's fake, but we still watch it for the storylines and pay money for tickets and subscriptions. It is not suitable to award a flag, which is necessarily an extremely competitive contest, but it would be worthwhile to put 3-5 donations into the pocket of each actor, however. -
TBH, once again, this is a disproportionate reaction. Deaths by spree shooter account for less than .5 deaths per 100,000 people. Being in a car is more dangerous than spree shooters; something like 4 deaths per 100,000 people in that case.
-
Despite having a secret service, people have still managed to kill JFK; Reagan IIRC was shot,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reagan_assassination_attempt
;
One thing you've got to remember is that the attacker always has an advantage. The defender doesn't know where the attacker is, and doesn't know when the attacker will strike; while the attacker has all the time in the world to plan an attack. You're expecting him to be stupid, and in many cases he will be, but in other cases he'll have considered the set-up properly and cased the environment.
-
Is this cliche and boring?
My impression of this essay is that it is poetic, eloquent, and sincere. The situation Shurikian is writing about, is of course, cliche, because many people do fall into these types of relationships and do make similar decisions about such relationships. But what makes it notable is its quality. It is generally well-written and generally sincere, the metaphors are well-employed and contribute to the effectiveness of the essay; structurally, the piece sticks together, communicating the underlying sentiment effectively.
The aspect I admire most about the essay is the understated quality of emotion. It is a selenic grief; there are no histrionics, it is marked by an apparent calm and a slightly-tensed composure. This is where its sincerity lies; unlike the majority of dreck that youths and teenagers post onto the Internet, it does not say what it does not have to and it is not narcissistic through expanding the trivial into the profound. It gives the experience its proper due and no more.
Thus, as far as being cliche and boring goes, it liberates itself from banality through its quality.
===
That said, $%&@ you Shurikian, I can write what I want where I want and where I want about your personal essays.
-
Tech survivor: what is the alliance that gets the most tech per nation per 10 days that's not Umbrella?
Seriously, Ella is just incredible.
I also recently did a count;
unless you can find some other candidates; MK seems to be the alliance below Umbrella. Arnes has been doing an incredible job for our alliance, and he's improved much and much of the problems we've had traditionally.
Rankings:
MK-> Observed ~50 per nation, 77 predicted based on slots usage
GOD -> 55 predicted based on slots usage
BN-> Observed 44 per nation, 55 predicted based on slots usage
-
Jammar:
TE's missing something in SE.
I'm pissed off that the discussion is occurring here, not in this thread, but you have the respondents and I'll post here. If people want to move off to the gameplay discussion forum, I'd be delighted and obliged.
http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=105108
===
Let me elaborate on what I've said to Jammar. Most people think that war is good in itself because it's "fun", but war isn't really anything interesting in this game. It's the build-up to the war that matters, you spend a lot of time building diplomatic ties, building up an alliance's organization, and building up an alliance's strengths, and that's what makes things worth it. When the war comes, you get to see whether your alliance is better than theirs when it comes to all of these strengths, and that's why war matters, not because there's anything joyful in bashing other people's nations to the ground. This is what's missing in Tournament Edition. You don't have a logistics trail in the TE aspect, most alliances don't have strong communities, although recently I've been impressed by what's coming out of TPC, you don't have politics because war doesn't matter as all the nations are disposable. So TE is just pure war and meaningless war at that.
With regard to Magicman's posting on player recruitment, I'd actually reverse his order of priority. It's more important to retain new players than to obtain them. Most CN players only give one shot at the game, and if they get bored of the game that's it. They're not coming back. If you tap new forums or communities to join the game, it's quite possible they'll just turn out just like The Flood Empire (Bungie). As others have said, the number of possible communities for the game is depleted. 4chan made their shot, SA's here, Fark is here, FOK is here. What other forum invasion is possible?
The two main issues for me, as I've said in my post, is the lack of new nation relevance and the extreme difficulty in setting up a new alliance. For new nation relevance, we've already discussed the matter, but let me make my comments.
I think Magicman is making a mistake here when he discusses Wonders, because the Wonder system does not deserve such a drastic change, and not only that, the Wonder system is not the main reason new nations are irrelevant. It's the tech system which is so brutal at the moment, not only because it takes a long time, but because the tech market takes a lot more effort, and the variability of different alliances when it comes to tech matters. Some alliances have very high tech incomes due to well-developed and/or exploitative systems, others have a lot more difficulty since they're effectively only buying on the open market.
===
I'll post on things for new alliances, later.
-
I agree: the terms you've given are very reasonable but the timing is subpar. If given in another 3 months, we would certainly accept such terms as the reps provided would represent 50% of your remaining tech.
-
Nuts is a bad meme because it indicates we're outnumbered and overwhelmed. In this situation, we're the ones doing the outunmbering and overwhelming, and we are prepared to ambush any incoming reinforcements.
It's also pretty military-history geekish.
-
So, so far, it'll take another 2 months to destroy another 80% of TOP's tech.
Assuming 15m daily average warchest damage and 1.5bn average warchests (I should know, I compile spy reports), it'll take another 3 months to destroy most of TOP's warchests.
For the hyperoutliers like Stukov, it'll take a full year to smash his warchest, but only 5 months to reduce his tech to zilch.
And no, after another 2 or 3 months your guys will be contained and most of CnG will be engaged in mid-war rebuilding. Count on it.
I miss Moo-Cows.
in Margrave's Musings.
A blog by Margrave in General
Posted
Ah, so you know, then.