[Come at me bro]

protip: when you are being mocked by both sides of the treaty web you are doing something wrong

[Major Upcoming Alliances!]

I have to go with TFD as well; they've done a pretty damn good job of building them up and while I think they lack mass, as well as average size, they have a fairly adequate top tier.

For the purposes of this thread, can we agree that "Up-and-coming" refers to second or third-tier alliances that have experienced unusual levels of growth recently?

[Initial cash increases as the round progresses]

I am in strong support of this idea under the basis that this will encourage alliances to go to war more often, as if they're beaten down, they can simply reroll. It also encourages alliances to attempt to stagger in TE simply to deny nations the ability to reroll and thus rejoin the fray.

However, I must make my criticisms:

Nations that reroll should not be immediately put back up to the level of non-rerolled nations. It excessively encourages multis, and penalizes nations for good growth and alliances for good performance. The targeted additional funds should aim for 75% of the nation growth of nations that were involved in war, and no more than 50% of the nation growth of cowardly noncombatant nations.

Second, having it grow at a linear rate penalizes nations that actually grow properly, instead of just rerolling for advantage. For example, at 2 days, the nation receives $1.5m, which is equivalent to 2 days income + starting capital without donation use. I suggest that instead, nations receive additional income in accordance with a logistic curve, ending at maybe 10mn, which would put a nation that is rolled on the last day of the round to 1500 infra. If that's too much, perhaps 5mn, which would yield 1k, would be a better number.

[The New Kingdom Standard]

You know, after talking to my alliance comrades I don't want to make this post any more.

[A Statement from the Mushroom Kingdom]

[quote name='Denial' timestamp='1289293248' post='2507796']
With all this criticism, we're going to be swimming in reparations shortly!
[/quote]


om nom nom nom tech. Denial for King 2011!

[A Statement from the Mushroom Kingdom]

[quote]15M/250 tech would seem reasonable, no?[/quote]

MK's initial offer, likely. But their skilled counterparts at NSO will negotiate the reps down to $3m/0 and get themselves a medal for it.

[TE makes me sad]

As far as personal attacks go, yes, they're quite relevant to your argument. You're making claims based on your TE experience; you've been here since what, round 3? However, you've never actually won a flag.

There are flag runners I respect for their ability, no matter how much I may dislike their methods or their personalities. TFD is one of them; they are one of the flag running alliances I respect the most for being able to combine stealth, roguing, and terminal nation roguing tactics. Dealmaster is another one of them; he is the hardest flag runner to rogue in the game and should be renowned for how well he performs when attacked. Caelum / De Caelo Missus was a great innovator when he was playing; he managed to achieve a victory based purely on getting out of target lists and boosting up at the last minute. He actually won without significant alliance support, something you have not managed. Pork Shrimp, for the round they played as a flag running alliance, was essentially the best flag running alliance I've ever seen.

I, on the other hand, managed to pull off a victory in Round 8 through a manipulative gambit that left many other flag running factions with a bitter taste in their mouth. But that was a victory without significant alliance support, something you have not yet managed. And that round? Mind you, I had 3 guys on me for the last 10 days of the round, some from Pork Shrimp, some from TFD, some from Rodentia.

Regarding the terminal boost, what alternatives are you proposing? You're introducing a massive element of luck here; for the last 50-70 days of the round, people who have been rogued will end up trying to boost planes constantly for the NS boost. You should know as well as I what the costs of those are, that's 2mn or so a day after getting nuked. If they don't do so, they'll have between a 1/20-1/1 chance of being defeated on any given day as the random round tick goes off. Infra is also expensive; infra may not be the best way to boost up, but it's certainly on the top list. At 2000, each reboost will cost 2mn or so from the 150 infra destroyed. Warchests around the end-game vary, but you're forcing people to decide whether they want to boost every day, every two days, or every 3 days and take their chances on not being #1 when the random round timer blows them out of the water.

As far as "discouraging alliances from warring" goes, the end result is that all the flag running alliances will go passive and wait to ride out an attack starting R-40. Under the present culture of the game, if they have the right size, they'll simply NOT get attacked by any other faction and they'll win through simply sneaking through the cracks.

And as to my final statement, and this will be my final statement, feel free to have the last word, Vhalen, take it from me. I have more experience than you. I've played at a higher level than you and garnered more success than you have. You are chasing a Chimaera. The flag run is not something REMOTELY predictable. If it were, the final round NS for every round would be about the same, but we have variation from 25k, 21k, 28k, 32k (that is anomalous because someone bribed someone not to keep the target in nuke lock), 29k and 22k. The final round top 40 NS structure varies a LOT based on how the round has turned out, and the actual timetables in the game vary a lot based on how the round develops. I can go into more details about the complex maneuvers which lead to a final round structure, but I am not going to reveal my intellectual property to you.

And as far as casualty-wiring goes, it will require a change in the war-slot filling rules as the obvious counter-tactic will be to war-slot fill, then fire nukes or even just cruise missiles to deny your opponent the ability to replenish casualties. The composite of casualties and war NS is interesting, however, but overall I am opposed to destroying the conventional flag running tactics as they are complex, highly-sophisticated, and reducing everyone to using Dealmaster's monostrategy, although I highly respect him for the skill with which he handles his situation, resources, and strategy, is just lame. Dealmaster is fine when there is only one Dealmaster, or even two, or three, but if all the flag runners turn into Dealmasters then CN:TE will suffer for that.

I'm not going to say any more, I have no desire whatsoever to give you, especially you, or anyone else reading this thread, a full education in the process of managing and leading a flag running group. Perhaps I can give you this advice; if you ever seriously opt to flag run, if you smoke, buy a $100 multi-pack before you start, if you don't, then don't start and stock up as much liquor and coffee (espresso, but please attempt to control your abnormal consciousness state while you're wired on caffeine) as you can manage.

[What happened?]

I am going to be furious if the server reset eats our flag.

End round:

Colossi of Protoss
Double 0 Seven of Top Secret HQ
Bourne of Treadstone
Hetrijkeland of Adelburn
GLADIATOR of GLADIATOR

rest I don't remember, I was rank 8 before update, might have gotten up to rank 7 or even rank 6 based on extra 75 l6 planes

[Allow rapid rerolls in the first few days]

One present problem is that it's currently very difficult to build a strong nation because the odds of getting good trades are low (29% for 3br), thus, many serious players without access to trade mules from friends must reroll multiple times. This currently takes 2 days per reroll, so the chances of getting a good nation within 3 days of the round are only 50%. If players fail longer than that, they'll have to put up with both suboptimal resources and a late start.

My suggestion is such: for the first 7-9 days of the round, there should be an option that can be checked in the profile, called "delete nation at update". This means that the nation is automatically deleted at update, allowing the nation ruler to reroll quickly when it matters most.

[allow conquest if no defense]

There's a reason wars aren't so profitable in CN. There was a game I played once where wars were immensely profitable, so much that the optimal strategy was just to roll over as many small nations as you could. Every nation you rolled, your economy became stronger and it became much harder for other nations to attack you due to economic strength. So eventually you ended up with a super nation no one else could fight for fear of being utterly rolled and eaten by this monster.

Sort of like IDIOT in previous TE rounds, except with fighting ability.

[Who won?]

I think we managed to get Collosi of Protoss up to #1 when the bell hit 12, but I'm wondering how much longer we'll have to wait for confirmation on victory.

[TE makes me sad]

I disagree; random round length is not necessary. If Vhalen feels gameplay lacks depth, it's because he neither functions in a warring alliance or a flag run effort. He just sits there, hides in his solo AA, and hopes he gets through. And no, from my impression, while a flag run is highly taxing and yields a low chance of reward, I don't see what Vhalen thinks is wrong with the end of the round. He's complaining because as a solo flag runner, he does not possess the skill or organization to actually have a real chance at the round. Hence, I don't see how his experience is authoritative.

As to whether the game is "tactical as Tic-Tac-Toe", the game's war system is highly simplified and knowing only a basic roster of techniques will make you a powerful fighter. There are also more advanced techniques (coordination, fireteams, etc) I haven't seen in TE, but LE, OP, or PS may already use them. There is also a highly complex game for making sure you hit targets and hit them correctly. I have the right to know, I've played it this round, and rather well, I believe.

If you do opt to implement random round length, please make it so that round length will still be announced at the upper right corner in the beginning of the round. Players will complain if it turns out that people win at random times in the round due to a hidden round timer. You will also get complaints from donators as they won't be getting the same bang for their buck every round and they will have to face the prospect of losing their nation immediately after a donation.

======

What war alliances fundamentally want is that when someone wins the flag in CN:TE, they can say that "this was the best fighter-builder this round". That's hokum. It's not that there is a "best" fighter this round, but the character of the CN:TE war system is such that it doesn't matter if you're the best fighter-builder this round (apologies to Dealmaster, of course, who can just fight off "conventional" rogues with minimal damage, of course, if he were engaged by "heavy" rogues such as the ones TFD used on him in round 11, he would be destroyed). If you are outnumbered, you are probably going to be destroyed. If you are being engaged by people with far larger warchests than you have, you are also probably going to be destroyed. If you are fighting nuclear nations without nukes, you are going to get hammered. It doesn't matter how well you fight; if you are fighting at a logistical disadvantage against skilled and organized opponents, you are not going to come out ahead.

The actual winner of the round will be, as before, the side that is most apt at staying out of warfare. Rodentia Dominatus was one such side this round, and they were in line to win until L0c0 was deleted for slot filling. Once such a side builds up to reincarnation warchests, they cannot be bashed down permanently to low infra, so unless you're planning on perma-warring such an alliance, these guys will just boost up a few days after their nuclear anarchy expires with a collection that restores their pre-war warchest. What is the point of this?

[Why is the server still down?]

I'm curious about this, as this is both a novel maintenance and an unusually long one.

Can we get an ETA on this?

[FnKa Disbandment Notice]

The terms are extremely lenient. Given the cost of infra destroyed on high-end nations, 30m per nuke would not be excessive. Around 8k, it starts to cost 300mn to bulk 1k, so only 150 infra would cost 45m to replace.

Asid efrom that, regarding the availability of aid slots, the war criminals can pay off their debt in only 20 days, 30 days at most if GOONS bungles the reps receipt.

[Return of the lulz]

The use of the term lulz is frowned on because it's an artificial neologism coined by nerdy losers at Encyclopedia Dramatica. It says something about their character when they have to put a label on an ethos that by nature detests abstraction and thus labels.

But generally speaking, your rivals at Super Aggrieved Box tend to be anarchic and libertarian. They have lives, and they enjoy their lives, and have no need of setting up a pseudo-intellectual cult in a browser game to fill a certain emptiness. One benefit of this is that the new world system is fundamentally different from the old; no one here has need to generate artificial wars in order to entertain their members and keep them virile. If our positions were reversed, you surely would have started an incident somewhere to snipe off SAB alliances and force the others into your hierarchical world system with Pacifica at the top.

[The Opening of Pandora's Box]

Congrats on your new bloc, and best of luck to the participants on making it work.

[Pandora's Box]

Dear thread:

I was expecting this thread to be highly entertaining, but after 20 pages of interesting comments this thread has become boring mudslinging between pro-PB and anti-PB partisans. At the end of the day, I hope you both get rolled, or even better, one of you rolls the other, then NPO picks up the pieces and forces you back into Hegemony TM.

[Forcing alliances to disband is back]

So, what are your estimates for the total cost of damage once major combat operations cease?

It costs 1 billion to reach 10k, and another 1 billion to reach 15k.

Average damage on a WRC-ed 10k tech nuke damage is ~450 infra / 150 tech, but it will take an average of 2.5 nukes to score one hit against SDI.

[Positive brainstorming]

[quote]Wars are not, never will be, and never should be profitable. This new concept is destroying the game. Wars should be fought to gain a political advantage; You got beat up, but the other guy is more beat up, so you're ahead. You are fighting for political capital and political strength. Not to make your numbered stats bigger than they used to be.

[/quote]

This is a recipe for further stagnancy. Bashing the other guy's face in to gain relative superiority is foolishness in a multi-polar world, where alliances no longer even have geographical spheres of influence.

All this means is that if any party attempts to attack a second party, the third party will bandwagon-kill the victor.

IMO, the main limitation on this game isn't war, but growth.

Regarding war, TE is based all around war, but it has been a relative failure. It has collapsed from four-thousand players at its peak, in an SE game of around 32000 players, to around 1600 players, in an SE game of 22000. The reason for this is simply that war in Cyber Nations really isn't that interesting. While there is significant depth in the coordination and maintenance of fighting organizations, you can master the art of TE war in a matter of hours. For the average non-aligned nation, war is simply boring.

The real problem with CN is that we have reached the end of the growth game. The population of tech sellers is declining, the capability of new alliances to reach mass is gone, and there is nothing left for large alliances to do but sit, twiddle their thumbs, and nurse at the depleted breasts of the tech sellers. There is simply nothing left to do in this game. You tell us, we should pick fights with people we dislike, but here in MK, all of our enemies are now either depleted or on our side. And what's the point of random war? What's the point of putting months of infra, and more importantly, tech bytes at risk just for the sake of fighting through a war system that simply isn't interesting?

What I think CN needs is additional fields of competition, and not simply an intensification of existing combat (what? Meaningless pixel destruction day in and day out for another 3 months? Bah, humbug). There should be additional realms for existing CN alliances to grow and to compete in, alongside with those of new alliances. These new realms should only have a weak interaction with the existing CN world; having hegemony over one or two of new realms will benefit your CN:SE alliance, but not in a way that would give you an overwhelming advantage in CN:SE. They should also be interesting persistent worlds in themselves. It's similar to the TVTropes GoKarting with Bowser. You get a bunch of adjacent semi-related games to play with your CN:SE rivals for CN:SE advantage, but eventually the semi-related games reach stagnancy by themselves and a different game is added.

[edit reason: preemptively toned down the explicitness of a metaphor]

[Response to certain accusations made against me]

Wait, since you no longer recognize Mushroom Kingdom as a valid alliance, does MK now constitute a valid raid target for UBD?

[General Raam, well, it's done]

Enjoy your victory; Mellow is at the top and it's unlikely we'll see any movement for the final 2 minutes. Now start your obnoxious gloating.

[The Easter Sunday Accords]

[quote]Threats, trolling, and hostile sentiments expressed by regular members don't actually mean anything. That is one of the thing that this war has set in stone. Shardoon is a regular member. His posts don't mean anything, and you should not construe them as being indicative of TOP-policy.[/quote]

Threats, trolling, and hostile sentiments expressed by rank-and-file members are not a valid CB nor do they represent the attitude of the alliance as a whole. That said, they do represent the attitude of the individual member, and as board posters we are allowed to take issue with individual members and alliance government is allowed to complain to their counter-party, as I'm informed that in the past, the Order of the Paradox has done so with the Mushroom Kingdom. That said, trolling, threats, and hostile sentiments do not constitute an act of war and as I've said in the first sentence, are not valid CBs. For example, IRON and its friends have been trolling us since the limited war between Athens and TPF. While some people may be annoyed by the quality of their actions, on-board harassment does not constitute a valid casus belli.

So yes, I'm taking your advice: Shardoon is not indicative of TOP-policy. But between myself and Shardoon, while I'm sure my leadership has no intention of attacking TOP again in the near future, I have the feeling he is tempting fate, and fate has no peer when it comes to impulse-control.

[Impressive alliances]

ODN performed much better than I had expected and are a solid and reliable military alliance.

TOP is still one of the loss-leaders of this war; with something around 60% NS loss from peak. At the present point, they are taking very little infra-damage as they are rebuying infra as fast as we can smash it. They'll take warchest damage for this tactic, but they have decent enough warchests to last a while.

That said, some TOP members coordinated pretty well, and I'm ashamed to say I never managed to interrupt even one attack from Crymson, Telchar, and Stukov. That round, I lost 7k infra, but I bought back to 5k afterwards.

[An Announcement from CnG and our brahs]

DEATH TO MUSHROOM KINGDOM! VOTE INST FOR OMBUDSMAN 2010 MAR, ON THE CAMPAIGN PLATFORM OF DRIVING MK INTO THE GROUDN

[Stop NATO!]

you can't aid in Cn:TE, you know.