Johnny Apocalypse

Stopping people from buying up beyond their initial declaring range after a declaration for a gratuitous advantage would also prevent turtling by people who don't just use it as their entire gameplan. When faced with a downdeclare it is the only strategy that can be used to mitigate losses that wouldn't be possible if they hadn't bought up, so your suggestion punishes people unfairly in this instance. As turtling and downdeclares are causing problems that disrupt the chance for balanced and remotely enjoyable gameplay; why not address ways to deal with both of these things? From an individual perspective that isn't influenced by a bias toward either AW or OP (who knows what I'll choose to do next round, I don't yet) and is more interested in being able to play without encountering both of these hindrances to it being worthwhile to engage with this format of CN? I'm less concerned with the turtlers than I am with the people using a loophole to ignore the declaration ranges in place to prevent getting hit by someone who just needs to buy infra after they've declared on me to cirumvent the parameters of this limitation to gain an advantage that can't be compensated for reasonably 🤷‍♂️ Meanwhile; your suggestion is to penalise the one possible approach a player can take to deal with that, which it seems is due to a personal vendetta you have against a specific group adopting it as part of an entire gameplan rather than a reasonable defensive measure in the right context,

Nice! I'll test it myself now as the time has come

Hypothetically speaking if someone downdeclares on someone (buying infra/tech after declaring) from an alliance with twice as many people as theirs and this change is implemented then their options are to burn money fighting back and losing with no significant consequence for their enemy, or turtle and be lose all of their money from defeat alerts. Which of these two things should the person getting stomped on do? Or should something be done about the person who was using a loophole to downdeclare instead of letting the underdog be punished when it should be the other way around? Because if we don't address the ability for players to use the loophole where they can declare war then buy over 9000 infrastructure for troop advantage that cannot be trumped? Then adjusting the defeat alerts isn't even-handed in addressing flaws in the mechanics of the game and it'll be punishing players already on the receiving end of a losing fight instead of incentivising them to keep fighting no matter what. Perhaps closing the loophole allowing a genuine unfair advantage which is done to literally circumvent declaration strength ranges that are there to stop unfair advantages(last round it got to ridiculous levels with the addition of being able to send aid, with 1 nation getting 10,000 tech to drop WRC powered nukes on people who had no chance even without the WRC in play). It could be better at reducing turtling on the whole, if people cannot downdeclare then there is less need to turtle against an opponent and increasing the defeat alert penalty is a bit more of a reasonable pitch to make. If a player can brazenly exploit a loophole like that to get juiced up if they simply wait until they've clicked to declare the war before doing so? Why should we support a change that would more often than not penalise the people on the receiving end of a beatdown from a nation exploiting this exact loophole. It rewards and punishes the wrong people if we adjust the defeat alert to be greater before we fix the ability for attacking nations to buy up after a declaration because it would push them out of range and they would not be able to declare the war if they bought it all first. It's a loophole that is being exploited and has been for too long. When I get downdeclared on to a ridiculous extent? I will turtle, that is a reasonable approach to an unreasonable assault. We shouldn't punish players who sincerely have no other recourse if the loophole remains open for people to do these attacks.

Yeah I would agree with this in a broad sense but the approach to the issues raised is not something I would fix with a broad stroke at all. 1) I know that the aid cap which was implemented in the last round seemed to reflect the highest amount of aid that was being sent at the time, chiefly so that the people who got a headstart didn't have a permanent advantage so early on in the round. The amounts we could send were ridiculous so it should definitely be brought down considerably for it to function well in the game without breaking it. It might be worth considering shortening the amount of time in between aid offers expiring if the round itself is also to be shortened. If we go by the SE standard of 10 days until you can use an aid slot again, that means a maximum of 9 rounds of 6 aid deals may be sent in the round (this is assuming we could send aid from day 1 of course) If ithe amount of aid we can send is to be nerfed then perhaps a small boon the mechanic can be given is being able to send more individual packages of aid instead of enormous piles of money and technology in one aid deal like last round- because that was just plain daft at the end. We'd all become so bored and saw little point in trying (especially as we'd exceeded the 1m mark for casualties to earn the reward for SE at least a month or two before the round ended) because why bother? No one was going to beat Wes having 40,000 tech at the top of the leaderboard and that was just a clear sign that Ordo Paradoxia had found the most effective way to minmax the aid system alongside their usual strategy. If aid is to be kept in TE it should be nerfed enough to prevent it being used as a wealth creation mechanic and instead used as foreign aid mechanic to help a nation in need of it. 2) As for the 2nd point? Buckle up friends it's time for Wall of TEDTalks with Johnny: If you make changes to the Defeat Alert penalty which hurts the defending nation more? Do keep in mind there are those of us that don't really enjoy joining one of the two main alliances that have been barking at one another over this issue and any change to this will have ramifications for those of us who aren't part of the only two games in town in TE. While I do to an extent understand firingline's position that it is probably deeply boring to fight an opponent that is refusing to fight back, despite being perfectly able to do so? Some of us quite like playing in a smaller team of our own and don't want anything to do with the squabbling rivalry at the top of the foodchain. So if you do increase the impact of a defeat alert? Keep in mind that the tactic which firingline is pointing out as problematic is not to be fixed in a way that is presented as being so simple as to increase the impact of defeat alerts to coax the turtling Paradoxians out of their shells and fight! While it may be the case that it's become a problem as a result of those in bigger groups doing the same thing each round with very few options to meaningfully approach that tactic? It is a strategy that was originally considered to be reasonable to utilise for a smaller alliance or for people who are on the receiving end of a heavy-handed beatdown where their opponents waited until after declaring their war before buying all of their infrastructure/technology/land/military that is giving them a greater advantage than the mechanics should permit. If people on the defensive are being overrun/receiving a heavy-handed downdeclare beatdown from alliances that may have 3x the amount of members than the defending alliance who has no chance of winning against if they tried to fight back because they not only outnumber them but some of them also used a loophole to gain more strength than is permitted when declaring a war. How does the defender respond to this if they cannot turtle strategically against overwhelming odds if it means being punsihed with a larger defeat alert. Something which is penalising the underdog rather than the people buying large amounts of infra/tech to fight with a gratuitous statistical advantage as well as having greater strength in number. If the defeat alert is increased to the point it'd might rapidly bankrupt the defending party unfairly then the alternative would be to slowly burn their money buying back repeatedly to keep fighting in a losing war where they are out-numbered and their opponent is using a loophole to gain an unfair advantage themselves. Any attempts to punch back would be futile and would simply bankrupt them slower. How fun, the agony of choice between these two fates would be far too much to handle 🙄 If I might make another suggestion that is revelant in this case? Instead of focussing on changing the defeat alerts to a deterrent that will be penalising people who utilise turtling as part of their well-hearsed strategy, despite the fact they are perfectly capable of defending themselves and thinking that this proposed change will only affect a single group of people (It is vital to keep this in mind when giving consideration to the suggestion for defeat alerts; as it is a global change to a mechanic being proposed by someone that wishes to see their rival penalised without a thought of the ramifications on the rest of us in the game beyond the two squabbling houses. It is proposed with a view to gain an advantage over their rival and the well-rehearsed script which they apparently follow) So if we're lookin to address something that is done to gain an unfair advantage and is very boring for people to deal with- especially if they aren't in one of the two main alliances. Here is a potential change that wouldn't be something that will end up punishing an underdog: Implement a cap that restricts the maximum level of infrastructure/technology which be purchased by a nation once it has declared war that is relative to how much infrastructure/technology the nation has at the time of declaring a war on another nation. This cap would reset when the war is peaced out/expires naturally or something along those lines. For all the talk of using mechanics unfairly to one's advantage? It's absurd to me that this hasn't been addressed sooner because it's been a loophole for people to use that allows them to fight nations whose Strength at the time of declaration was about 78% of the attacker's but this percentage rapidly starts to decrease well below the threshold you've coded to be in place for the sake of keeping things as fair as you can, as the attacking nation then starts buying twice the level of infrastructure they had with some extra technology on tiop of it. It was pushed to new extremes last round because not only could other people declare downwards from a great height with a large amount of wealth shared out across their alliance relative to how many members aid slots they could use, but they could also get infusions of tech that vastly increased their strength to an absurd degree- then they bought the WRC wonder and the planet Vegeta was destroyed. If we're talking about game-breaking unfairness? Please do give this point some thought as well because it is an indisputable example of a flagrant loophole that has been utilised for years by people to punch down on others well beyond the limitations that the strength range percentage is there to prevent. If nations need only buy all of their nation's statistics after declaring the war to win? Is it any wonder that the approach to turtling has adapted to the point it's no longer simply a defensive measure against overwhelming odds which the loophole I just mentioned is likely to have facilitated, to the point where it's become an integral part of a nation's build and their approach to the gameplay. If something is changed to prevent people using the turtle strategy gratuitously? Then in turn something needs to be done that prevent people being capable of avoiding the limitations to heavy-handedly downdeclare on other nations. Be even-handed when scrutinising this issue because neither of the two dominant alliances should be thought of as talking with impartiality. They both want the Dragonballs for themselves to make their wish, it is in your power to permit this but remember that there's a vested interest in one side to change something and the other who would rather not see it changed, somewhere in the middle there's probably a solution between the two. However it shouldn't be one that results in penalising players that choose not to be part of this boring rivalry over who is using the loopholes unfairly the mostest. How absurd. Some of us only wish to visit this planet and train our power levels with King Kai, not have to put up with the consequences of that silly racket being made. I don't dispute that addressing a tactic which has been used to the point where it's like fighting someone who has the same secret power they use over and over that is difficult to beat within a fighting Tournament. However simply changing something about the mechanics to prevent that tactic alone from being used ad nauseum is a bad idea but if you also changing something about the game to prevent the use of obvious loopholes would be better. Maybe the tactic that's become a problem won't be so heavily used as a result? Either way if a mechanic is changed it should be because it keeps things challenging, not to be punitive against everyone who signs up to fight- it's not a great incentive for people to fight in this tournament is it? It's a tournament so it's pointless if the battlefield makes everything equally fair for everyone, it should be challenging in different ways to test each fighter participating and everyone does what they must to survive until the end and be crowned the strongest at something. FL isn't wrong expressing frustration at it being the same boring dance happening each time so what's the point in participating but it doesn't stop here. A 25-person alliance can run over a gang of 10 nation and nothing changes to even the scores for them but now a suggestion is made in the name of 'fairness' which would mean those 10 are penalised serverely for turtling defensively. All as a result of another group of people that have been using the strategy in a more creative but a dull and robotic fashion to avoid fighting entirely, not solely for defensive purposes when it's warranted? It's still a bad fix because it punishes the wrong people and doesn't solve anything meaningfully, it just means there will be less and less people fighting at the tournament. Which remains true if a separate 30 man alliance is able to have each member buy up infrastructure to collect taxes and sell right back down immediately afterwards to avoid fighting and hoard their wealth; does that behaviour have any place in a tournament of this nature? There's an underdog bonus for fighting with the odds against you in a ground attack but that's the only boon an underdog has in a fight where they might get to break stuff on the way back from a defeat, it's not much but it's something to enjoy about losing the battle. Meanwhile the only two games in town are running rampant; with accusations made about the other being fired back and forth while they continue to be unchallenged at times when they jump on the underdog from heights they can only manage using a loophole to suppress their power level before starting the fight. Then come the complaints about an unfair strategy being used by their rivals who are following a script that is a meticulously crafted minmax strategy preventing the use of certain loopholes against them because they've found different loopholes that are better. Now it's argued there needs to be a global mechanic change to address this, a new change being passionately suggested by someone who has been demanding something must be done about the use of Scouters in battle, without a hint of irony about the use of the Blotswayth rays from the Moon transforming the Saiyans in his alliance to punch down after they entered the arena as a human and have been permitted to transform into a monsterous ape far larger than their opponent. Someone said at the beginning of the last round that introducing uncapped aid was necessary because people are using the mechanics to gain an 'unfair advantage' - we all saw how disastrous that was, now that same someone is arguing the same thing but with a different approach; if accumulating lots of wealth with an uncapped aid system to defeat their rival isn't possible? (curse you for that KAkarot!) We must instead punish them for using a specific defensive strategy as part of their wider gameplay strategy and increasing how much money will burn if they or anyone else tries hahaha and I don't care what that blasted man writing the walls of text is saying, it is irrelevant and they are insignificant so ignore him you fools. All that matters is this: It must be permitted where a change of my design will be made to the physics of this world that will allow us to finally be victorious over the enemy. Then finally, we will have posession of all 7 of the Dragonballs and immortality will be ours. That all being said; If there's one thing to remember should you make a change to defeat alerts or the aid system or anything about the mechanics at all and you stumble upon a potential game-breaking consequence, even if it's after the round has started? As with the suggested change to defeat alerts; be careful you don't throw the baby out with the bathwater because you just noticed there's a bug in it. Test the bath first to make sure it's been debugged 😉 Thanks for coming to my TED Talk. If you reply to my post you surrender all rights to protest against being bombarded with yet another wall of text, neither you nor Freiza can stop me and it is pointless to resist ahahahahaha.

I just want to make a note for anyone using this that if you copy your URL to generate a new resource or relocate population from your Mine or Colony this tool will not account for that and only generates the link for moving the wonder to the co-ordinates provided. If you want to relocate population/generate a random resource you will need to add "&Upgrade=1" as a modifer for the generated URL in between when "nation_id" ends and "Location" begins. This is how the part of the URL I'm talking about should look if I wanted to and generate a new resource or relocate the population for my Moon wonders: It'll be the same modifier in the link for both the Colony or the Mine and whether it's on Mars or the Moon. I However if you simply want to move your wonder to the hotspot co-ordinates then this link generator will do that just fine for you! Thanks for making this quick tool that does this for me, now I don't have to faff too much by editing the co-ordinates into the URL myself and realising too late that it's a negative numbered latitude and I've totally messed it up 😅

Oh man that'll just make it worse for themselves if you know how he feels about turtles.... They should have taken the same approach as we did a few weeks ago when he was still a member of NATO and raided Shangri-la. You didn't hear about that on the news for a reason

I think it looks like that queue is forming again y'know? I should sell tickets for a Thunderdome event where you fight everyone who wants to put up their dukes and have at it with your countrymen. I'll cut you in on some of the commission from sales and any bets placed, fair is fair. Yeah the usual 'happy ending rogues spa day treatment' paid for with one installment covering 365 days to be paid in advance per annum I'm familiar with it, I guess I figured plenty of people would agree with the sentiment it was a job worth doing and there were so many suitors and really I didn't see any need for putting in additional work myself, I'd done more than enough at that point and risked Wes giving me a scarlet X to wear around my neck whenever I addressed the GA lf I tried to push it any further. Now I've come up with this Thunderdome event within the time I took to assemble these words to post this here because of all the hype being generated about him changing his social media page details from 'In a Relationship' to 'Single' - You can buy a ticket for the Thunderdome event that I'm sure will happen whether or not I sell these tickets printed on the back of the one copy of Metro I found on the bus earlier if you want a souvenir for it? For an extra 69 technology I'll ask FL to sign it for you personally. Then I may even throw in some free bread for attendees, so that I can get on with some real work in peace!

If I had to take a guess it'd be that denying FL the casualties is the parameter for a win, for starters it's a very easy one to achieve and mainly because it's known it is the only stat he's interested in seeing his number go up. They could pointlessly try to pound him into the ground ad nauseum, then he can spring back up again with ease because he's likely got more than enough cash on hand from his collections back when he had 20k infra meaning he can keep at this for a while and that's just a hassle to deal with. So they're making it boring for him; textbook blue-balls. It's either that or they all genuinely don't have a clue what they're doing/aren't active enough to counter-attack him effectively. Can't speak to the rest of CCC but I know bwyon knows exacwy wot he is pwaying at!

more lasers

This is just the beginning of Gifplomacy. o/

Sure, I odn'tcare. it's inconsequential at this stage, my point was as soon as he was unaligned the line started forming for sloppy seconds.

congrats bwyon!

fixed My recollection is you were put on Pending whilst they were voting on whether or not to kick you out. You weren't aware of a vote but being put on Pending is a clear sign something was afoot so you opted to leave as a result. Anyway it's inconsequential now, what I find funny is the queue of people desperate for sloppy seconds with your nation still exists. You'd think people would be bored of it by now but apparently not and people still love to punch down!

The collective experience will appear dead when viewing from within the Neutral Zone.

Wondered if the two of you guys would link up again, glad to see that has been the case. Ice cold iridium-infused beers and well wishes from GATO to you both.