Jump to content

Manhattan Project Change


Recommended Posts

[quote name='Fair Weather' timestamp='1328182767' post='2913105']
Some have said "No" to my suggestion, but have not given a reason. Since this is a thread to suggest things, and to discuss reasons for and against, may I ask your reasons?

As to the person that said that if it took more than 3-4 days, than you just need to build your nation more efficiently: That only works if you develop you nation and build the MP before the first war breaks out. Otherwise it is nukes against non-nukes, and in that case nukes always rule. But don't take my word for that, just read the posts in this forum. There are many people complaining about the current setup making it that there are too many nukes, and only people with nukes have a chance. Well as long as the game makes it so that only people with nukes have a chance, and nukes are cheap (if you get them at the start), then there will be a lot of nukes, and only nukes will rules.

My suggestion was aimed at making everyone capable of getting nukes instead of only the 5% that start on the first day and happen to get to the top quickly by reducing the cost to the others nearer to being equal with the top 5%. And it was aimed at reducing the total nukes, and increasing the cost of using the nukes, to reduce their use throughout the game. These were the two problems people were trying to address, and I believe my suggestion addressed both of the problems.
[/quote]

I think you will find that the change to 10 mil has resulted in less of a nuke buildup. Any nation should be able to get the MP by mid round however.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 66
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

[quote name='StevieG' timestamp='1328184119' post='2913117']
I think you will find that the change to 10 mil has resulted in less of a nuke buildup. Any nation should be able to get the MP by mid round however.
[/quote]

If "any nation can get it", then it wouldn't have an impact on the number that get it. But you say that it does impact the number. Therefore, according to your own testimony, everyone can't get it, and all that making the MP expensive does is bolster the advantages of those that are already strong (the top 5%), and weaken those that are not as strong, even if they are good players (the 95%), making it easier for the strong to kill the weak, and harder for the weak to defend themselves. Why would we want to strengthen the 5% against the 95%? Do we want to discourage or encourage the 95% to stay in the game?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Fair Weather' timestamp='1328182767' post='2913105']
Some have said "No" to my suggestion, but have not given a reason. Since this is a thread to suggest things, and to discuss reasons for and against, may I ask your reasons?

As to the person that said that if it took more than 3-4 days, than you just need to build your nation more efficiently: That only works if you develop you nation and build the MP before the first war breaks out. Otherwise it is nukes against non-nukes, and in that case nukes always rule. But don't take my word for that, just read the posts in this forum. There are many people complaining about the current setup making it that there are too many nukes, and only people with nukes have a chance. Well as long as the game makes it so that only people with nukes have a chance, and nukes are cheap (if you get them at the start), then there will be a lot of nukes, and only nukes will rules.

My suggestion was aimed at making everyone capable of getting nukes instead of only the 5% that start on the first day and happen to get to the top quickly by reducing the cost to the others nearer to being equal with the top 5%. And it was aimed at reducing the total nukes, and increasing the cost of using the nukes, to reduce their use throughout the game. These were the two problems people were trying to address, and I believe my suggestion addressed both of the problems.
[/quote]

Well, even if the war breaks out before you buy the MP, you could still easily build up and collect enough to get an MP for the next wonder cycle. That is, of course, you build your nation correctly in the first seven days.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Fair Weather' timestamp='1328188706' post='2913134']
If "any nation can get it", then it wouldn't have an impact on the number that get it. But you say that it does impact the number. Therefore, according to your own testimony, everyone can't get it, and all that making the MP expensive does is bolster the advantages of those that are already strong (the top 5%), and weaken those that are not as strong, even if they are good players (the 95%), making it easier for the strong to kill the weak, and harder for the weak to defend themselves. Why would we want to strengthen the 5% against the 95%? Do we want to discourage or encourage the 95% to stay in the game?
[/quote]

The cost of 10 mil means it is a lot harder to get than it was before. That doesnt mean any nation cannot get it, you just have to work a little harder. We are coming into the end of the round now, and no AAs(besides Citadel) have over 100 nukes. Last round, a few AAs had 200 300 odd. This shows that it [b]does[/b] work to limit the nukes.

In addition, some people choose to shoot for the 5% for nuke purchase, because of the price tag, and also to allow for other wonders to be built. Removing the 5% for nukes will remove a bonus for those that can build their nation efficiently. However, if you cannot build into the 5%, or start late, it is not that hard to save 10 mil for the MP if you really want it.

Your suggestion of a 3mil MP will only take us backwards by causing many, many more MPs to pop up a lot quicker.

I can understand how it seems hard to get 10 mil as a new player. And I will identify an easy way for you.

Day 0 - Make nation
Day 1 to 10 - Get trade circle sorted. Pay bills. Dont do any building.
Day 10 - Build your nation. You can get to 1000 infra if done right. Then Collect.

At 1000 infra you should collect about 1 mil per day. By saving up 10 days worth of collections you will collect 10 mil.

This way, you wont be attacked on day 3 or 4 before you can save 10 mil.

There are faster ways to do this, and you can collect almost 2 mil per day at 1500 infra because at 1000 infra you cant get all the economy improvements that will maximise collections.

If you find that you get attacked and your nation destroyed then you have the option of deleting and starting again with 5 mil. If you cannot get back to near 1000 infra after a "war" then it is usually recommended to delete and recreate. (case by case, due to what wonders you have etc)

Hopefully that helps.

Advice can also be sought from a number of alliances which you can apply to join for protection and guidance. Some Alliances have a strict recruitment policy though, and others are invite only. Others will make you join a "beginners training" AA, before "graduating" to the main AA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='StevieG' timestamp='1328184119' post='2913117']
I think you will find that the change to 10 mil has resulted in less of a nuke buildup. Any nation should be able to get the MP by mid round however.
[/quote]

Completely agree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='StevieG' timestamp='1328206366' post='2913219']
The cost of 10 mil means it is a lot harder to get than it was before. That doesnt mean any nation cannot get it, you just have to work a little harder. We are coming into the end of the round now, and no AAs(besides Citadel) have over 100 nukes. Last round, a few AAs had 200 300 odd. This shows that it [b]does[/b] work to limit the nukes.
[/quote]
I agree that the number of nukes has been reduced. But the question is from whom were they reduced? Obviously the increased cost of the MP had absolutely no effect on the top 5%, since they didn't need it anyway. You could raise the cost of the MP to $900 mil, and it would not affect the top 5%. That means that the 2/3 reduction in nukes came solely from the 95%. That means that the 95% is much less protected against the nukes of the 5%.

What I proposed was a way to reduce the nukes from everyone, instead of just from the weakest 95%. Obviously those in the top 5% would still have an advantage since they would be best able to afford the cost of the nukes. But the total number would be reduced, and people would think a lot more before using them enmasse. But the 95% would not be as greatly handicapped as they are right now against the top 5%. The $10mil can buy 50 nukes at $200k a piece. That means that by the time the player at 6% can buy his first nuke, the next player up could have bought his fiftieth. (Granted not all at the same time due to increasing costs, but I think you can see the point.)

Do people doubt that the increased cost of the nukes would reduce the total nuke counts? Probably a lot more than the $10mil cost of the MP?

Or do people doubt that keeping the MP priced more affordably, but raising the cost of the nukes, would do it more fairly for everyone?

And if neither of the above two points is wrong, then what advantage does making the MP extremely high in cost have over the proposal to keep the MP affordable to all players, and making the nukes themselves cost more?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And Occupy comes to Cyber Nations...

[quote name='Fair Weather' timestamp='1328287393' post='2913821']
Do people doubt that the increased cost of the nukes would reduce the total nuke counts? Probably a lot more than the $10mil cost of the MP?
[/quote]
Yes, I do doubt that. All you're doing is decreasing the cost of the first nuke to $4 million instead of $10.2 million.

[quote name='Fair Weather' timestamp='1328287393' post='2913821']
Or do people doubt that keeping the MP priced more affordably, but raising the cost of the nukes, would do it more fairly for everyone?
[/quote]
I'm assuming "do it," refers to reducing total nuke counts. And no, it won't do it "more fairly." The top 5% will still have higher nuke counts than everyone else, only now there is an easy path for a day-old nation to get nukes and begin to rogue.

[quote name='Fair Weather' timestamp='1328287393' post='2913821']
And if neither of the above two points is wrong, then what advantage does making the MP extremely high in cost have over the proposal to keep the MP affordable to all players, and making the nukes themselves cost more?
[/quote]
I would start talking about opportunity costs, but I'm afraid your eyes will just glaze over.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='jraenar' timestamp='1328291391' post='2913878']
I would start talking about opportunity costs, but I'm afraid your eyes will just glaze over.
[/quote]

I agree with his points [though not necessarily his suggestions] so I would be interested to read what you have to say.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Fair Weather' timestamp='1328287393' post='2913821']
I agree that the number of nukes has been reduced. But the question is from whom were they reduced? Obviously the increased cost of the MP had absolutely no effect on the top 5%, since they didn't need it anyway. You could raise the cost of the MP to $900 mil, and it would not affect the top 5%. That means that the 2/3 reduction in nukes came solely from the 95%. That means that the 95% is much less protected against the nukes of the 5%.

What I proposed was a way to reduce the nukes from everyone, instead of just from the weakest 95%. Obviously those in the top 5% would still have an advantage since they would be best able to afford the cost of the nukes. But the total number would be reduced, and people would think a lot more before using them enmasse. But the 95% would not be as greatly handicapped as they are right now against the top 5%. The $10mil can buy 50 nukes at $200k a piece. That means that by the time the player at 6% can buy his first nuke, the next player up could have bought his fiftieth. (Granted not all at the same time due to increasing costs, but I think you can see the point.)

Do people doubt that the increased cost of the nukes would reduce the total nuke counts? Probably a lot more than the $10mil cost of the MP?

Or do people doubt that keeping the MP priced more affordably, but raising the cost of the nukes, would do it more fairly for everyone?

And if neither of the above two points is wrong, then what advantage does making the MP extremely high in cost have over the proposal to keep the MP affordable to all players, and making the nukes themselves cost more?
[/quote]

I will keep this simple.

Lowering the MP cost and increasing the cost of individual nukes will NOT decrease nuke build up. Nukes will still continue to be bought daily by those with the MP(and nobody will be getting 50 nukes because you can only hold 20/25 and you can only buy 1/2 per day).

Nukes are the most powerful weapon, and as such increasing the cost will not result in less being purchased. What you will get instead is nations having to spend a bigger amount on nukes during war and peace. During war it will make that war much more expensive, which will act as a deterrent for regular war, while during peace time it will take longer for nations to build up a sizeable warchest that they are happy to go to war with. What all that means is that people will be less inclined to war regularly, which is a bad thing for TE.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Going off the details Fair Weather is suggesting, the first nuke cost for everyone is $4 million + a wonder slot. You will probably see most of the top 7% or so hold off until third or later wonder to buy it, since it will be a huge economic drag giving up an econ wonder that early AND the cost of the nuke itself (wonder + purchase cost). Most of those from 8% to 50% who try buying it in the first month will have to reroll after their first war or stay sub-1k infra the rest of the round. And we'll be left with pretty much the same situation we have now. Mostly only the top 6-7% will have nukes, no one else will.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='StevieG' timestamp='1328334208' post='2914311']
Nukes are the most powerful weapon, and as such increasing the cost will not result in less being purchased.
[/quote]

This quote seems strange to me, seeing that it is claimed that increasing the cost of the MP to $10mil decreased the number of nukes to 1/3 what they were before. So which is it? Will increasing the cost reduce the number of nukes, or not? It seems that history, namely this round, proves that increasing the cost does in deed reduce the number of them. The problem is the cost was only increased for the 95%, not the 5%, so now the 95% are much more susceptible to the 5% that wish to beat them into the ground with the nukes that only they can currently afford to have.

[quote name='StevieG' timestamp='1328334208' post='2914311']
What all that means is that people will be less inclined to war regularly, which is a bad thing for TE.
[/quote]

If this is so, then please state the facts to back this. The cost of nukes was increased via increasing the cost of the MP this round. So if your statement is true, then you should be able to show a big reduction in wars this round. So where is the reduction in wars this round? I see no reduction in wars, only a one sidedness to them, where those with nukes (usually those that either are, or were at one time, in the top 5%) pummel those that can't afford the MP in order to defend themselves against the nukes. So if what you say is true, please show us where the number of wars has been greatly reduced in this round due to the increased cost of the nukes via the increased MP cost.

On the other hand, if what I say is true, time will show that more and more of the 95% will figure that there is no point in playing a game where they are not allowed to defend themselves, and the number of nations playing TE will continually get smaller and smaller, eventually getting to the point where the current 5% get tired of having no one left to beat up, and so even they quit. So tell me, are the number of players in TE greatly increasing (as they should be), or decreasing (as one sided wars would produce)? And before you tell me that the age of the game, or the economy, or some other outside force is causing the decrease, other similar games are increasing, not decreasing, so those theories fall before they are even stated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='jraenar' timestamp='1328335151' post='2914323']
Going off the details Fair Weather is suggesting, the first nuke cost for everyone is $4 million + a wonder slot. You will probably see most of the top 7% or so hold off until third or later wonder to buy it, since it will be a huge economic drag giving up an econ wonder that early AND the cost of the nuke itself (wonder + purchase cost). Most of those from 8% to 50% who try buying it in the first month will have to reroll after their first war or stay sub-1k infra the rest of the round. And we'll be left with pretty much the same situation we have now. Mostly only the top 6-7% will have nukes, no one else will.
[/quote]

If what you say is true, then increasing the cost of the MP to $10mil should not have had an impact since at $4mil (MP used to only be $3mil at one time), only the top 6-7% would have had nukes anyway. So your statement does not agree with the facts shown by this and previous rounds, and stated earlier in this thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Fair Weather' timestamp='1328359793' post='2914408']
This quote seems strange to me, seeing that it is claimed that increasing the cost of the MP to $10mil decreased the number of nukes to 1/3 what they were before. So which is it? Will increasing the cost reduce the number of nukes, or not? It seems that history, namely this round, proves that increasing the cost does in deed reduce the number of them. The problem is the cost was only increased for the 95%, not the 5%, so now the 95% are much more susceptible to the 5% that wish to beat them into the ground with the nukes that only they can currently afford to have.



If this is so, then please state the facts to back this. The cost of nukes was increased via increasing the cost of the MP this round. So if your statement is true, then you should be able to show a big reduction in wars this round. So where is the reduction in wars this round? I see no reduction in wars, only a one sidedness to them, where those with nukes (usually those that either are, or were at one time, in the top 5%) pummel those that can't afford the MP in order to defend themselves against the nukes. So if what you say is true, please show us where the number of wars has been greatly reduced in this round due to the increased cost of the nukes via the increased MP cost.

On the other hand, if what I say is true, time will show that more and more of the 95% will figure that there is no point in playing a game where they are not allowed to defend themselves, and the number of nations playing TE will continually get smaller and smaller, eventually getting to the point where the current 5% get tired of having no one left to beat up, and so even they quit. So tell me, are the number of players in TE greatly increasing (as they should be), or decreasing (as one sided wars would produce)? And before you tell me that the age of the game, or the economy, or some other outside force is causing the decrease, other similar games are increasing, not decreasing, so those theories fall before they are even stated.
[/quote]

I'm part of the 95% :P I was able to buy the MP and defend myself. If you can't afford the MP to defend yourself, try your luck with the SDI?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Fair Weather' timestamp='1328359793' post='2914408']
This quote seems strange to me, seeing that it is claimed that increasing the cost of the MP to $10mil decreased the number of nukes to 1/3 what they were before. So which is it? Will increasing the cost reduce the number of nukes, or not? It seems that history, namely this round, proves that increasing the cost does in deed reduce the number of them. The problem is the cost was only increased for the 95%, not the 5%, so now the 95% are much more susceptible to the 5% that wish to beat them into the ground with the nukes that only they can currently afford to have.



If this is so, then please state the facts to back this. The cost of nukes was increased via increasing the cost of the MP this round. So if your statement is true, then you should be able to show a big reduction in wars this round. So where is the reduction in wars this round? I see no reduction in wars, only a one sidedness to them, where those with nukes (usually those that either are, or were at one time, in the top 5%) pummel those that can't afford the MP in order to defend themselves against the nukes. So if what you say is true, please show us where the number of wars has been greatly reduced in this round due to the increased cost of the nukes via the increased MP cost.

On the other hand, if what I say is true, time will show that more and more of the 95% will figure that there is no point in playing a game where they are not allowed to defend themselves, and the number of nations playing TE will continually get smaller and smaller, eventually getting to the point where the current 5% get tired of having no one left to beat up, and so even they quit. So tell me, are the number of players in TE greatly increasing (as they should be), or decreasing (as one sided wars would produce)? And before you tell me that the age of the game, or the economy, or some other outside force is causing the decrease, other similar games are increasing, not decreasing, so those theories fall before they are even stated.
[/quote]

Cost of MP is entirely different to cost of nukes. Please understand that point, and get out of your tunnel vision. I spelled it out pretty clearly.

Having MP, everyone will still buy nukes regardless of the cost of each nuke. That is a fact. I have predicted what would happen in that scenario, and you are not able to bring up a counter argument. You are stuck on your idea of making nukes EASIER to get for EVERYONE so the 5% doesnt have an advantage. Maybe your suggestion should be removing the ability for 5% to get nukes without MP. Then your argument would actually mesh. Or maybe increasing the cost of nukes while holding the 10 mil for cost of MP, not decreasing it. I would still argue against both, however.

Your recollection of this rounds wars is also off. Wars have been regular, and for the most part they have been the most even we have seen in a while. The wars have in fact increased(for most), which means we are heading in the right direction in regard to the nuke/MP issue IMO.

If we were to implement your suggestion you would see a far greater buildup, and more of a domination of nukes in war.

On to what is killing the game. We simply do not know. But its NOT because young nations cant afford going MP and nuclear. As I have stated before, ANY nation should be able to get MP by mid round without sacrificing to much by the way of economy. Unless of course you get too badly beaten in a war. But then you can reroll, and start again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Eumirbago' timestamp='1328363255' post='2914419']
I'm part of the 95% :P I was able to buy the MP and defend myself. If you can't afford the MP to defend yourself, try your luck with the SDI?
[/quote]

Who said that "I" was not able to defend myself? This is not about "me", it is about a suggestion. Please do not try to make this personal. Please instead keep this to the ideas that are being proposed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='StevieG' timestamp='1328369867' post='2914442']
Cost of MP is entirely different to cost of nukes. Please understand that point, and get out of your tunnel vision. I spelled it out pretty clearly.
[/quote]
I answer this by quoting another poster:
[quote name='jraenar' timestamp='1328291391' post='2913878']
All you're doing is decreasing the cost of the first nuke to $4 million instead of $10.2 million.
[/quote]
So as you can see, the MP is part of the cost of nukes, and others can see that too.

[quote name='StevieG' timestamp='1328369867' post='2914442']
Having MP, everyone will still buy nukes regardless of the cost of each nuke. That is a fact. I have predicted what would happen in that scenario, and you are not able to bring up a counter argument.
[/quote]
You "spelling it out pretty clearly", or stating "that is a fact", does not make it fact. A fact requires facts, evidence, proof. So unless this has been tried before, and you can produce the facts regarding that trial, then you are not presenting facts, only opinion. So please do not take offense, if I ask you to show your facts when you state things to be facts, and not just you spelling out your opinion. And since you have not shown facts to prove what you say, what you say is a valid opinion, just as what I say is a valid suggestion. And regarding my making a counter argument, I though that is what I have been doing.
[quote name='StevieG' timestamp='1328369867' post='2914442']
You are stuck on your idea of making nukes EASIER to get for EVERYONE so the 5% doesnt have an advantage.
[/quote]
I thought that the advantage of the top 5% was their better skills? Why would people with better skills be against a more level playing field? Are you trying to tell us that you feel that the top 5% are not capable of winning a fair fight with the less skilled 95%? I think that statement of yours says more than all of mine so far, and is probably the single biggest justification of my suggestion to date. Thank you for making it.

And as you just said the current price of the MP at $10mil gives the top 5% a significant "advantage". So to all those that keep trying to claim that the current MP price is no disadvantage, please listen to StevieG. He is neither a newbie, nor a new comer, and he states that the current high price of the MP gives the top 5% an advantage, and makes it harder for the 95%.

Edited by Fair Weather
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Fair Weather' timestamp='1328452631' post='2914955']
verbal vomit
[/quote]
You still do not understand. You seem to think Stevie and I are saying different things. We are both saying that this idea is terrible as a whole, and does not accomplish your stated purpose. We are both attacking from different directions, and you have not brought up a valid counter-argument yet. You only insist that your original suggestion is perfect and it cannot be any other way, we are the 99% rah rah rah.

Fact: lower MP costs will result in [i]more[/i] nations buying an MP [i]earlier[/i] in the round. Result: higher nuke counts, counter to your claimed goal of reducing total nukes, as there are now 500 nuclear-capable nations instead of 50. Too bad that a good 300 of those nations won't have the economy to support going nuclear that early, and will need to re-roll after first war.

Fact: nations with MP [i]will[/i] buy nukes, regardless of the individual cost. There is no point in getting the MP otherwise. So, more nuclear-capable nations, with very little reduction in per-capita nukes. Result: higher nuke counts.

Making a MP required to buy nukes [i]by itself[/i] is a suggestion that could have a good pro/con discussion. Throwing in changes in wonder cost and nuke cost without realizing the implications is foolish.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Fair Weather' timestamp='1328452631' post='2914955']
I answer this by quoting another poster:

So as you can see, the MP is part of the cost of nukes, and others can see that too.


You "spelling it out pretty clearly", or stating "that is a fact", does not make it fact. A fact requires facts, evidence, proof. So unless this has been tried before, and you can produce the facts regarding that trial, then you are not presenting facts, only opinion. So please do not take offense, if I ask you to show your facts when you state things to be facts, and not just you spelling out your opinion. And since you have not shown facts to prove what you say, what you say is a valid opinion, just as what I say is a valid suggestion. And regarding my making a counter argument, I though that is what I have been doing.

I thought that the advantage of the top 5% was their better skills? Why would people with better skills be against a more level playing field? Are you trying to tell us that you feel that the top 5% are not capable of winning a fair fight with the less skilled 95%? I think that statement of yours says more than all of mine so far, and is probably the single biggest justification of my suggestion to date. Thank you for making it.

And as you just said the current price of the MP at $10mil gives the top 5% a significant "advantage". So to all those that keep trying to claim that the current MP price is no disadvantage, please listen to StevieG. He is neither a newbie, nor a new comer, and he states that the current high price of the MP gives the top 5% an advantage, and makes it harder for the 95%.
[/quote]
1. MP is not part of the nuke cost.
2. I can predict the future.
3. "The advantage of the 5% is their better skills" MP cost is not going to affect the 5% one way or another. The 5% is very fluid anyways, so if its the 5% advantage you want to remove, try another suggestion. this one wont do it.
4. I am not a newbie nor a new comer. Trust me when I say that your suggestion is crap, and will only result in a greater buildup of nukes. something that we have been trying to reduce.
5. By reading #4, you should realise why we have been arguing against it, even thought you appear to be new, and dont know any different.
6. End of discussion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Fair Weather' timestamp='1328452631' post='2914955']
And as you just said the current price of the MP at $10mil gives the top 5% a significant "advantage". So to all those that keep trying to claim that the current MP price is no disadvantage, please listen to StevieG. He is neither a newbie, nor a new comer, and he states that the current high price of the MP gives the top 5% an advantage, and makes it harder for the 95%.
[/quote]

Where are you getting this idea that it's hard to get into the top 5%? I've basically been following a guide this entire round, basically haven't put any thought into my nation, and I'm currently ranked #6 in the game. So when I say "your argument is invalid" I believe I know what I'm talking about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='sir pwnage' timestamp='1328970416' post='2918330']
Where are you getting this idea that it's hard to get into the top 5%? I've basically been following a guide this entire round, basically haven't put any thought into my nation, and I'm currently ranked #6 in the game. So when I say "your argument is invalid" I believe I know what I'm talking about.
[/quote]
Not everyone has a good guide.


We should have a public growth guide here on the OWF for everyone to use :>

Edited by Overlord Wes
Link to comment
Share on other sites

How is this?

1. Don't do anything without a good trade circle.
1a. No, an 8BR is not a good trade circle. Try better.
1b. No, a 7BR is not a good trade circle, either.
2. There is no aid -- stop spending money like somebody can bail you out when you have none left.
2a. If you think looting cash will cover your bills, boy do I have a great deal for you on a bridge in Brooklyn.
3. Assume you can be attacked at any time, prepare accordingly.

That should cover about 95% of what you need to know. The rest is just details, which don't matter if you don't get the basics down.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='jraenar' timestamp='1329017975' post='2918809']
How is this?

1. Don't do anything without a good trade circle.
1a. No, an 8BR is not a good trade circle. Try better.
1b. No, a 7BR is not a good trade circle, either.
2. There is no aid -- stop spending money like somebody can bail you out when you have none left.
2a. If you think looting cash will cover your bills, boy do I have a great deal for you on a bridge in Brooklyn.
3. Assume you can be attacked at any time, prepare accordingly.

That should cover about 95% of what you need to know. The rest is just details, which don't matter if you don't get the basics down.
[/quote]
I agree in general, that MP has to be hard to get, not the other way around. To get into 5% is not easy, but possible by a constant learning and analysing.
We all have a different aptitude to this particular game and set of rules and some are getting there quick and some need to be mentored.
I don't think your simple set of rules would help everybody lol.
From my teaching experience (that's what I've been doing during the last year), anybody willing to learn can get into 5% and buy nukes, if they are willing to learn and think.
I've had students who'd be getting there just by following a good guide in one round and those, who have been playing for many rounds before getting there, but nearly all of them did it if they worked hard enough.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Overlord Wes' timestamp='1328989695' post='2918511']
Not everyone has a good guide.


We should have a public growth guide here on the OWF for everyone to use :>
[/quote]

By this point, every alliance worth a darn has a decent building guide. There's really no excuse not to. The game hasn't changed THAT much in the last couple rounds. And if you aren't in a decent alliance, you were never going to go long enough without getting stomped to get nukes anyway. So the moral of the story is:

1. Join an alliance that isn't terrible. Which is basically any of them at this point, terrible alliances don't survive long in TE.
2. Do what the more senior members tell you.
3. ????
4. Nukes. One way or another.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='sir pwnage' timestamp='1328970416' post='2918330']
Where are you getting this idea that it's hard to get into the top 5%? I've basically been following a guide this entire round, basically haven't put any thought into my nation, and I'm currently ranked #6 in the game. So when I say "your argument is invalid" I believe I know what I'm talking about.
[/quote]
I really don't think you get it yet. It is not about this or that person "getting into the top 5%". It is about having a fair game for all players by leveling a currently very unlevel playing field, and yet still reducing the "everybody uses, and has to use, nukes, or be stomped" syndrome. Any real solution to the problem being discussed in this thread has to meet those 2 goals or it is not a valid solution.

And while at it, let's list some solutions that are not valid suggestions for ANY problem:

- Get in a better alliance. (This is equivalent to saying that any player that thinks this game isn't absolutely perfect the way it is, that player is the problem, or that player's alliance is the problem, as opposed to making meaningful suggestions for "THE GAME". This is a suggestion thread for THE GAME, which implies trying to improve THE GAME, not blame people for all problems.)

- Anybody can make it into the top 5%. (This assumes that the other 95% of the players are dingbats that are not worthy of being able to play the game. And guess what, they will leave, and leave only the 5% to play the game. And when 95% of the current 5% are then the 95%, and are considered the unworthy dingbats, I wonder how long they will continue playing the game.)

- Advantages don't matter. (This just plain makes absolutely no sense at all.)

So if we are going to have any chance of improving this game, let's try to make suggestions that will do just that, improve the game. And if we want to keep people from leaving faster than they are coming, then let's try to improve the game for all players, including the new players, and the 95% of the players; and not just the 5% which are all older, already existing, players.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...