Upper Tier Tracking Thread

[Aeternos Astramora]

10 nations have tried to drag me down. They haven't succeeded yet. It will be expensive for them to try again.

Congratulations, I guess?  You're not exactly on the TOP front, so I'm not referring to you. 

[Xavii]

Congratulations, I guess?  You're not exactly on the TOP front, so I'm not referring to you. 

The same holds true for several cases, point is valid. Very expensive to buy so much infra to simply declare up and loose it again. 

[hartfw]

The same holds true for several cases, point is valid. Very expensive to buy so much infra to simply declare up and loose it again. 

 

I think if you read his comment again, you will see he was discussing that a few TOP nations have been buying up much much more infra then the people attacking them.

But I doubt anyone will disagree that infra in the middle of a war like that is expensive, be it for the defender or attacker.

[Aeternos Astramora]

The same holds true for several cases, point is valid. Very expensive to buy so much infra to simply declare up and loose it again. 

As hart said, several of our opponents have bought up to 13K (the most being up to 17K) infra.  That's pricey.  We only buy up the minimum required to hit them, often something like 3K.

[Yevgeni Luchenkov]

Four of the top five on the TOP AA in war mode have bought back significant amounts of infra, including all three of theirs above 100K NS.  I'm not sure if Bauhaus has.  Meanwhile, we buy back just enough to hit them and drag them back down. 

You're running out of nations able to do that, though.

[Aeternos Astramora]

You're running out of nations able to do that, though.

 

I'd wager more that you're running out of nations that can hope to try to buy out of range.  We have a fair number of nations in the upper midtier who can buy back and knock anyone down from TOP who presumes to buy above 100K NS.

[Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz]

I'd wager more that you're running out of nations that can hope to try to buy out of range.  We have a fair number of nations in the upper midtier who can buy back and knock anyone down from TOP who presumes to buy above 100K NS.

 

You're forgetting that we're here too ;)

[Aeternos Astramora]

You're forgetting that we're here too ;)

Of which there is one from TOP. 

[Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz]

Of which there is one from TOP. 

 

My point is that whenever you buy up far enough to hit these nations (much like your colleague did), we'll do to you what we're doing to him.

[Aeternos Astramora]

My point is that whenever you buy up far enough to hit these nations (much like your colleague did), we'll do to you what we're doing to him.

DBDC has hit us a few times, but we still knocked down our targets.

[OverlordShinnra]

Sometimes in the night you hear whispers. 

 

 

Totals for the Original Front

 

 

DR and co.

  120k+ - 9 (0) --> 9 (0)

  100k -  10 (1) --> 11 (1)

  80k -   73 (42) --> 72 (40)

 

DH and co.

  120k+ -  24 (19) --> 22 (18)

  100k -   8 (4) --> 12 (6)

  80k -    12 (7) --> 8 (3)

 

 

 

Commentary

I don't have heaps of time today so I'm going to keep it short and simple. There was a massive build up from the equilibrium front of nations getting up into the 80k tier which prevented Competence from gaining any traction there. Furthermore, there was a decent amount of losses on the Competence side of the coalition. While four days ago we were talking about some fronts maybe being closed, today we might be talking about the inability of competence to close anything else down at all. These buyups are certainly a hindrance we will continue to watch in this thread.

 

 

 

Totals for Front 1

 

 

Aztec and co.

  120k+ -  7 (0) --> 7 (0)

  100k -   6 (0) --> 5 (0)

  80k -    23 (11) --> 24 (12)

 

TOP and co.

  120k+ -  3 (2) --> 4 (3)

  100k -   2 (2) --> 1 (1)

  80k -    7 (3) --> 8 (4)

 

 

 

 

Totals for Front 2

 

 

SF/XX/Aftermath and co.

  120k+ -  10 (0) --> 10 (0)

  100k -   19 (3) --> 18 (3)

  80k -    70 (35) --> 69 (35)

 

CnG and Co.

  120k+ -  34 (22) --> 33 (21)

  100k+ -  26 (15) --> 26 (15)

  80k -    44 (14) --> 42 (11)

 

 

 

 

Totals for the Entire Front

 

 

Equilibrium

  120k+ -  26 (0) --> 26 (0)

  100k -   35 (4) --> 34 (4)

  80k -    166 (88) --> 165 (87)

 

Competence

  120k+ - 61 (43) --> 59 (42)

  100k -  36 (21) --> 39 (22)

  80k -   63 (24) --> 58 (18)

 

 

Sorry I couldn't be around as much today to comment. Got school. Take care folks!

[CubaQuerida]

It would appear that once the 80k+ tier disappears, like the 100k and the 120k before it, this thread will either be done or have to evolve into a whole new definition of upper tier.  Looks to me like it has become a lot of 80k-90k nations from EQ versus an almost even number of Competence nations who range from 80k-120k+(and significantly higher).  

 

Almost a week has passed now, and the numbers seem to be indicating a stalemate, where neither side has dominance over the other.  The only mitigating factor may be how long warchests can facilitate these buy-ups as OS suggested.  Barring war declarations from non-involved AA's, it doesn't appear there are many cards that haven't been played.

 

One thing I in particular am looking forward to is the financial breaking point where those high-NS PM nations can no longer afford to remain in PM without becoming bill locked and the impact such a spectacle could have.  It's gruesome to think about, but it's already happened at least once.

 

Doesn't really look like there's gonna be much fun to be had from now on though, as it's feeling more and more like the future holds a slew of compelled declarations that won't really be doing all that much damage to either side.

[King Louis the II]

 

I

 

One thing I in particular am looking forward to is the financial breaking point where those high-NS PM nations can no longer afford to remain in PM without becoming bill locked and the impact such a spectacle could have.  It's gruesome to think about, but it's already happened at least once..

 

If you say it happened I believe it, but it seems highly unlikely. Seems to me that PM needs a reasonable ammount of time to make such an impact (bill lock). The WC would need to be really subpar. For 1 or 2 nations yes. For a reasonable ammount of nations to make a difference...?  don't think so.

[Xavii]

If you say it happened I believe it, but it seems highly unlikely. Seems to me that PM needs a reasonable ammount of time to make such an impact (bill lock). The WC would need to be really subpar. For 1 or 2 nations yes. For a reasonable ammount of nations to make a difference...?  don't think so.

Why do you think those big nations never came out of PM in the first place?

[ace072199]

Im not familiar with peace mode, but would a large nations collection actually end up being less than their BIlls if they they were in peace mode long term?  I know they would lose income but I didn't think it would effect them to the point where their bills were higher than their collections. 

[CubaQuerida]

Im not familiar with peace mode, but would a large nations collection actually end up being less than their BIlls if they they were in peace mode long term?  I know they would lose income but I didn't think it would effect them to the point where their bills were higher than their collections. 

 

Yes, once you get to a certain amount of infra, combined with economic collection penalties from sitting in Peace Mode for a long period (not the happiness ones), you can lose millions per day.  You should ask one of them personally, though, to confirm exactly how much of a loss.

 

To the point, I never said it would be many nations, but there's a concrete number of nations at risk of this, and most of them are in my war range :)

[renegade4box]

Im not familiar with peace mode, but would a large nations collection actually end up being less than their BIlls if they they were in peace mode long term?  I know they would lose income but I didn't think it would effect them to the point where their bills were higher than their collections. 

Yes, doing the math on an example I just picked. It looks like AI's largest nation loses between 9 and 11 million per day. Even more when you figured he has accidentally collected past 20 days at least once. GOD has at least one large nation that will bill-lock himself in peace by the end of the month. 

Edited March 6, 2013 by renegade4box

[Aeternos Astramora]

It would appear that once the 80k+ tier disappears, like the 100k and the 120k before it, this thread will either be done or have to evolve into a whole new definition of upper tier.  Looks to me like it has become a lot of 80k-90k nations from EQ versus an almost even number of Competence nations who range from 80k-120k+(and significantly higher). 

 

The issue is that EQ has many more nations in the 60-80K region that can hit the 80-100K region.  I would be hesitant to try to make anything out of "there are an equal number of EQ and Com above 80K NS".

[magicninja]

The issue is that EQ has many more nations in the 60-80K region that can hit the 80-100K region.  I would be hesitant to try to make anything out of "there are an equal number of EQ and Com above 80K NS".

 

Yeah Fark+Legion+RnR have us outnumbered 38-29 60k-80k though we have 21 above 80k to their 4.So say half our guys above 80k can hit down into 60k-80k...we're back even...with GATO having more tech. It's pretty interesting to be sure and overall you guys certainly have the edge in number of nations but some of these individual conflicts and separate fronts are a little closer than it may appear at first glance. 

[CubaQuerida]

It looks as though my point is being proactively proven, as within 24 hours of themselves, the Dark Templar top nation (Akrani) and the IRON top nation (Island of Darkness) both deleted themselves, before being subjected to the bill-locked abyss that awaited them.

[Colin40]

It looks as though my point is being proactively proven, as within 24 hours of themselves, the Dark Templar top nation (Akrani) and the IRON top nation (Island of Darkness) both deleted themselves, before being subjected to the bill-locked abyss that awaited them.

 

If this is the case then that is sad. I don't want to lose people from the game.

It's a political simulator, maybe we need some smart politics to end the stalemate?

 

If we were nearly as good at smart politics as we are at smart comments then some bright spark could negotiate a solution.

 

I've probably opened my self to the haters now...

[lamuella]

Two things I would say (and I agree that it's a shame to see a nation simply vanish):

Firstly, the player is still there. They may be demoralized, but they can recreate a nation and start again.

Secondly, theoretically we do have a method of stopping us losing nations like this, namely individual surrender.

Again, I stress that I can feel the pain of anyone losing a nation in that manner. However given the mechanics of both the game and alliance politics this sort of thing is a little inevitable.

Edited March 7, 2013 by Lamuella

[RevolutionaryRebel]

I cannot fathom the logic of destroying years of work, rather than swallowing one's pride and either fighting their way down to 80k, or surrendering. If an Alliance insists upon its members to undergo such agony, then surely it should rethink its wartime policies.

[Pingu]

 
If this is the case then that is sad. I don't want to lose people from the game.
It's a political simulator, maybe we need some smart politics to end the stalemate?
 
If we were nearly as good at smart politics as we are at smart comments then some bright spark could negotiate a solution.
 
I've probably opened my self to the haters now...

It's a classic structure/agency issue. The politics can only be as smart as the terrain on which they take place. The structure here is game mechanics, just as the structure of RL international relations is global anarchy or a global society of sovereign states, depending on your theoretical perspective. There is room for political creativity, but the structure of the world imposes constraints. Add to that the evolution over several years of gameplay some very strong norms about alliance behaviour etc., and the space for creative diplomacy is further limited.

This is not to say that creative political solutions are impossible. Nothing here is absolutely determined by structure or history. But it does mean we have to recognize quite how difficult such solutions might be.

[Prodigal Moon]

I agree that it's a shame to see nations deleted and people quit the game. And at the same time...am I the only one who thinks it's kind of exciting that some of us might not make it out of this one alive (IC)? I have mixed feelings about it - like any game with permadeath. It definitely ratchets up the stakes quite a bit. Considering our long-term population decline, I wonder if losing damaged nations to deletion is going to become more common, since it no longer feels like there's an infinite time in which to recover to one's previous stature.

 

And as Lamuella astutely pointed out: there are ways to avoid deletion, and always the option to reroll if you just want to participate in the game at a smaller size. Both of these options require swallowing some pride. I'm okay with there being serious consequences to this war when both sides seem to want it to continue.