Knights of the Grail Posted February 14 Report Share Posted February 14 In view of the complaints of the schemes, exploits, and abuse of Foreign Aid made here... https://forums.cybernations.net/topic/135456-the-church-of-admin-lives/ ...disable Foreign Aid altogether in CN-TE Round 66. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
admin Posted February 18 Report Share Posted February 18 What does everyone else think for future rounds? Keep the aid slots but nerf them substantially or remove aid altogether? If aid is to remain in place, what do you think the aid limits should be? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul711 Posted February 21 Report Share Posted February 21 I'd nerf them, there definately is an added strategic element to aid slots but the levels of tech available for transfer are rediculous. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
firingline Posted February 21 Report Share Posted February 21 (edited) I think we deserve at least one round with foreign aid enabled where everybody knows the ground rules to start and no changes are made in-round. We haven't even seen a fair experiment yet. I could see lowering the tech caps to, say, 1,500 tech and perhaps reducing the number of aid slots to 4 or 3. Besides that, I think we ought to at least let a fair round play out before we make any decisions on the long-term feasibility of aid in TE or significantly "nerf" them. The game has become significantly more dynamic. We have more players, less fear of using the full range of warfare tools ('dirty ops') because full bill lock is much less of a concern. It adds another element to TE, which had become stale and had fewer and fewer players each round. Edited February 21 by firingline Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StevieG Posted February 23 Report Share Posted February 23 On 2/19/2024 at 12:14 PM, admin said: What does everyone else think for future rounds? Keep the aid slots but nerf them substantially or remove aid altogether? If aid is to remain in place, what do you think the aid limits should be? Get rid. You said it was for 1 round didn't you? The idea should not be to allow boosting of select nations in a Tournament environment. This creates an exponentially greater, and unfair advantage to those have more "friends and connections" And there is no way smaller alliances can even compete nation for nation against the bigger Alliances. The only way aid can be of use or benefit to this game is to help broken nations recover. And as such the limits should not be greater than the SE limits. That would severely limit tech boosting (which shouldn't be a thing) However 9mil 6 slots is still 45m, and the ability will remain to cash boost certain nations, again creating the unfair advantage. My suggestion besides removing it entirely, would be only to allow 1 slot of aid only(10 day window), just cash up to 20 25m max. This is purely aimed at helping broken nations. And since it would be a waste of a wonder. Make the wonder free to purchase but still requires a wonder slot. Only the receiver of aid requires the wonder, not the sender. Requiring a wonder for it instead of an improvment means only those who need it will get aid. Not just free money up the line, but more of a parachute package if and when required that doesn't distort the playing field. I don't know if that can be programed and if not, just get rid of it altogether. We can always reroll nations and get them to learn if they screw up and end up broke. Aid didn't bring new people to TE, the tech offer was enough. Maybe up the tech offer for 1m casualties and keep that going forward. Aid isn't needed for us to hit 1 mil either. All this tech boosting reduces casualties in fact. Rounds don't need to be more than 100 days either. Everyone is going to be sick to death of this round by day 100. Additionally change up the awards please. Most popular nation and most land don't really need to exist. (If you keep land get rid of most bills) Another alliance category would be good to replace them. Most destructive war as we have been calling for a while is also just about saving up everything for 1 big war, and then doing damage but also letting yourself take as much damage as possible. Alternatively you can track damage over a round for 1-3 top nations. This still leaves Peak NS Most nuke launches Most bills (that can also be got rid of if you keep the land award. Most destructive nations would replace MDW. Less individual awards and more alliance awards, as well as more fighting awards will promote game play and fighting mid rounds. Rather than the current awards which reward making as much bank as you possibly can. I have been playing this game and leading Alliances a lot longer than anyone else still remaining here. Small alliances and big alliances. I don't need to list them all. A small alliance has 0 chance with any amount of aid allowed. (Besides a parachute 1 slot thingy) That is fundamentally wrong IMO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kerschbs Posted February 23 Report Share Posted February 23 On 2/18/2024 at 6:14 PM, admin said: What does everyone else think for future rounds? Keep the aid slots but nerf them substantially or remove aid altogether? If aid is to remain in place, what do you think the aid limits should be? I think aid slots bring a more dynamic environment to TE. Even with the chaos this round is far more entertaining than last round. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
firingline Posted February 24 Report Share Posted February 24 On 2/22/2024 at 8:19 PM, StevieG said: Snip Your idea of TE is incredibly boring and it's why the game was on life support until foreign aid. The fact that you fight so hard to strengthen turtling as a primary strategy in tournament edition - intended to be a short, action-packed round - is proof of that. Nobody wants a fight where your opponent only engages if conditions are perfect for them, and otherwise simply sells off their soldiers and waits out the war, only to rebuild to a higher NS literally 3 days later. There's no point in fighting OP because they either win or they take their ball and go home. Foreign aid (and anti-turtling mechanics) present the only real threats to that status quo and it's why you're so adamantly opposed to them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kerschbs Posted February 24 Report Share Posted February 24 10 hours ago, firingline said: Your idea of TE is incredibly boring and it's why the game was on life support until foreign aid. The fact that you fight so hard to strengthen turtling as a primary strategy in tournament edition - intended to be a short, action-packed round - is proof of that. Nobody wants a fight where your opponent only engages if conditions are perfect for them, and otherwise simply sells off their soldiers and waits out the war, only to rebuild to a higher NS literally 3 days later. There's no point in fighting OP because they either win or they take their ball and go home. Foreign aid (and anti-turtling mechanics) present the only real threats to that status quo and it's why you're so adamantly opposed to them. Agree. Last round was bad enough I quit 3/4 of the way through. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Apocalypse Posted February 25 Report Share Posted February 25 (edited) On 2/23/2024 at 11:11 PM, kerschbs said: I think aid slots bring a more dynamic environment to TE. Even with the chaos this round is far more entertaining than last round. The chaos is primarily you lot losing your god damn minds. Which yes, it is entertaining to watch but it's still the same old TE but with bigger numbers involved. Wow very excite. 16 hours ago, firingline said: Foreign aid (and anti-turtling mechanics) present the only real threats to that status quo and it's why you're so adamantly opposed to them. If this were true, they wouldn't still be wiping the floor with you using foreign aid. An introduction of "Anti-turtling mechanics" isn't going to happen because; a) it'd require admin to overhaul a lot of the code and math he's on record saying he's forgotten a lot of how it works nearly 20 years later b) if someone were to ask for the same "anti-turtling mechanics" in SE? Something tells me you wouldn't be as adamantly in favour of them. But you're right; overhauling the game code to your liking is indeed the only real threat to them at this time, because evidently you aren't one. Don't worry though, I'm sure someone competent enough will come along to challenge them. 6 hours ago, kerschbs said: Agree. Last round was bad enough I quit 3/4 of the way through. It's still the same game, you just have more tech and farm nations you recruited from your SE allies to make the bigger numbers. The charm of this will wear off soon enough. In summary; git gud or stfu Edited February 25 by Johnny Apocalypse Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
firingline Posted February 25 Report Share Posted February 25 (edited) 1 hour ago, Johnny Apocalypse said: <blah blah blah I am JA I am very emotional and can't have a basic conversation about game mechanics.> a) it'd require admin to overhaul a lot of the code and math he's on record saying he's forgotten a lot of how it works nearly 20 years later The most fundamental change (of amount of cash destroyed) is a simple value edit. I'm sure Kevin can figure that much out. He's not an idiot. Quote b) if someone were to ask for the same "anti-turtling mechanics" in SE? Something tells me you wouldn't be as adamantly in favour of them. There are already anti-turtling mechanics in SE. The cost of infra combined with higher DA levels makes it impossible to pull off what you can in TE. This is a TE-only problem. Admin made some tweaks with the intent of making rebuild easier, not with the intent of turtle-nuking. A few tweaks can continue to accomplish Admin's likely original intent while solving a loophole that makes the game incredibly boring. Quote But you're right; overhauling the game code to your liking is indeed the only real threat to them at this time, because evidently you aren't one. Don't worry though, I'm sure someone competent enough will come along to challenge them. Please resist the urge to use this weak-ass bait in what is supposed to be a good-faith conversation about game mechanics. I know we pointed out how irrelevant you and your alliance are - you're going to need to get over it and find a way to move on. Quote It's still the same game, It's hard to understand your point here. TE has very real mechanics issues that have been exploited by one alliance in particular for several rounds, to the point that players openly say the game is no fun. Closing a few loopholes would make an improvement here. Besides disliking the person making the suggestions, and saying "nothing can change admin is too dumb to pull that off", what other arguments do you have? Edited February 25 by firingline Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Apocalypse Posted February 25 Report Share Posted February 25 (edited) 14 hours ago, firingline said: The most fundamental change (of amount of cash destroyed) is a simple value edit. I'm sure Kevin can figure that much out. He's not an idiot. There are already anti-turtling mechanics in SE. The cost of infra combined with higher DA levels makes it impossible to pull off what you can in TE. This is a TE-only problem. Admin made some tweaks with the intent of making rebuild easier, not with the intent of turtle-nuking. A few tweaks can continue to accomplish Admin's likely original intent while solving a loophole that makes the game incredibly boring. Please resist the urge to use this weak-ass bait in what is supposed to be a good-faith conversation about game mechanics. I know we pointed out how irrelevant you and your alliance are - you're going to need to get over it and find a way to move on. It's hard to understand your point here. TE has very real mechanics issues that have been exploited by one alliance in particular for several rounds, to the point that players openly say the game is no fun. Closing a few loopholes would make an improvement here. Besides disliking the person making the suggestions, and saying "nothing can change admin is too dumb to pull that off", what other arguments do you have? Oh so you do understand code now or is someone handing you notes under the table? I didn't say admin was an idiot; I said a lot of the math behind the code is decades old and by his own admission isn't something he recalls with 100% accuracy. So yeah it'd take likely require some value changes, perhaps you could outline what those changes would look like and to which variable(s) with a draft of code demonstrating this. Who knows, maybe showing the community and admin what you mean might yield better results than your incessant whining about it. The bolded parts are some examples of why "a good-faith conversation" isn't something you're capable of having. You either put words in people's mouths or you outright lie loudly enough to drown other people out. The only people who have openly said the game is no fun have been from AW and more specifically you at considerable length. I gave one suggestion which you have (as usual) overlooked that I think would be a means of working towards a fix for an issue; preventing people from declaring on someone with 100 infra from buying more infra than they had at the time of declaring their war. It would stop gratuitous down-declares (regardless of which alliance does them) and would be a step in the right direction to prevent turtling. It would also help you prove your case that OP aggressively turtle against opponents regardless of the odds because I haven't played TE for about two years and OP only existed as an alliance no larger than BC were at that time, so you'll have to forgive my skepticism towards your position. If you want me and other players outside of AW to see beyond the bias' at play with where you are coming from? Maybe try winning over the people who have been otherwise unfamiliar with how this side of CN has been instead of knee-jerk responding with a "JA BADMAN" mindset. Because I don't see any reason to believe what you're saying as being credible otherwise, nor any potential for a "good-faith conversation" with you. You won't engage with StevieG's counter-argument without dismissing it entirely, you won't engage with mine. Why should anyone bother with yours? Edited February 25 by Johnny Apocalypse Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
firingline Posted February 25 Report Share Posted February 25 (edited) 4 hours ago, Johnny Apocalypse said: Oh so you do understand code now Yes. Quote I didn't say admin was an idiot; You basically did. Quote I said a lot of the math behind the code is decades old and by his own admission isn't something he recalls with 100% accuracy. You don't edit code by having it memorized. Admin is 100% capable of changing DA cash loss values. I won't hold any further conversation on this particular topic with you. My advice is to stop being so emotional that you cling so strongly to such insane arguments. Quote You either put words in people's mouths or you outright lie loudly enough to drown other people out. False. Quote The only people who have openly said the game is no fun have been from AW and more specifically you at considerable length. There's literally two functional alliances in this game. You saying "the one that turtles has no problem with it" isn't an especially strong argument. What do you have against discouraging turtling? Why is turtling so important to you? Quote I gave one suggestion which you have (as usual) overlooked that I think would be a means of working towards a fix for an issue; preventing people from declaring on someone with 100 infra from buying more infra than they had at the time of declaring their war. Sure, I'd be fine with trying this change. So long as banks are banned. Because going low to hit banks requires building infra to do damage to them. You are right that it is not a great game mechanic to be able to hit someone then jump massively in infra. It is MUCH less of a problem than the issues I'm discussing, but I do believe it should be addressed. Quote It would stop gratuitous down-declares (regardless of which alliance does them) To be clear - it wouldn't. Down declares are still incredibly easy even with the mechanical change you are suggesting. Quote and would be a step in the right direction to prevent turtling. It also wouldn't do that. I don't think you have a very solid grasp of the game mechanics. Turtling involves building infra and collecting. The only thing it would prevent is declaring on the way up, which isn't frequently a problem. Quote Because I don't see any reason to believe what you're saying as being credible otherwise Yeah, we all get it. You don't like me, so you disagree with my suggestions. Because you're an incredibly emotional person. Quote You won't engage with StevieG's counter-argument without dismissing it entirely, you won't engage with mine. Why should anyone bother with yours? You haven't made a counter-argument beyond "don't make the changes." I'm happy to engage fully in any good-faith discussion, but I will call out when you make objectively false statements. Edited February 25 by firingline Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Apocalypse Posted February 26 Report Share Posted February 26 (edited) @firingline No I'm disagreeing with them because they're bad suggestions, my opinion of you has no bearing on it. A bad idea is a bad idea, you haven't presented any good ideas to set the precedent that you are capable of having good ideas that don't come across as being obviously working to your favour/the detriment of someone else. Admin isn't an idiot and can spot this a mile off. Some different takes; Keep aid but nerf the maximum amount to x1.5-x2 the amount possible to send in SE. Keep the 14 day age requirement for sending/receiving aid. Owning a FAC unlocks sending/receiving aid, requires 2k infra and a Foreign Ministry to be maintained so it can utilised for sending and receiving aid- can only receive aid if destroyed below 2k infra after purchasing the FAC. If infra is sold below 2k after purchase then the player cannot send or receive aid until they buy back to the 2k minimum. Buying a DRA increases the amount you are able to send/receive provided the other nation also has one (pick a multiplier), requires a Foreign Ministry, FAC and 3k infra to purchase. Stop people buying more infra after they declare a war to mitigate some element of down-declares. You have to at least agree with the fact it's kinda absurd that someone can hit you at zero NS and just buy all the infra they'll need to instantly anarchy you? There is a minimum and maxiumum perccentage of your NS bracket that allows for wars to be declared for a reason. The fact that this can be ignored by declaring first and buying up afterwards kinda negates the purpose of it. Removing one of the factors that necessitates turtling as a legitimate strategy (because it is a perfectly valid strategy in scenarios where you are outgunned and are being punched down on) It is a step in the right direction. Perhaps smaller steps in the right rdirection are worth considering instead of removing limitations and making drastic leaps. If there's a lesson to take away from this round, this seems like a solid one to keep in mind. Conversely; prevent people selling less than 1k infra after exceeding this amount, provided they have the money on hand to pay for the upkeep for x amount of days total infra bills at 1k. This will not stop people turtling outright if their infra is destroyed below 1k in a war. Making the distinction between the selling infra and having infra destroyed is important here for reasons that should be obvious. It would also encourage opponents to take a more controlled approach to demolition to prevent their opponent from turtling instead of going for the overkill curbstomp route without thinking first and getting frustrated that their opponent isn't getting back up. Add Spy Operation that involves Sabotaging Foreign Ministries that destroys a portion of aid sent; the victim is not made aware of this operation until the next time they send aid with the exception of secret aid (this is more of a suggestion for something to compliment the aid mechanic within TE so it's not just a copy of how it functions in SE) You can argue the case for an "anti-turtle mechanic" but it also does fall to the players to see what we can do about a strategic hurdle ourselves too. Getting angry at the sky hasn't changed much about CN for the near 20 years it's been up, call me cynical but I don't expect that to change. Edited February 26 by Johnny Apocalypse Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
firingline Posted February 26 Report Share Posted February 26 (edited) 13 minutes ago, Johnny Apocalypse said: @firingline No I'm disagreeing with them because they're bad suggestions, my opinion of you has no bearing on it. To be clear - this is blatantly untrue. Quote Keep aid but nerf the maximum amount to x1.5-x2 the amount possible to send in SE. Keep the 14 day age requirement for sending/receiving aid. My aid cap suggestions were only marginally higher than this. Quote Owning a FAC unlocks sending/receiving aid, requires 2k infra and a Foreign Ministry to be maintained so it can utilised for sending and receiving aid- can only receive aid if below 2k infra after purchasing the FAC. I don't think requiring maintaining 2k infra is a good idea. It doesn't seem to solve much but might make rebuilding harder. Quote Stop people buying more infra after they declare a war I've already said this isn't a terrible idea, but my god, if you think Admin can't figure out how to edit a simple value for DAs, I'm not sure how you expect him to pull this off. Quote Conversely; prevent people selling less than 1k infra after exceeding this amount Yeah, that was my suggestion. The bills are literally like $75k per day. We don't need a massive addition to the code here to 'ensure they can afford the bills'. Just block selling below 1,000. The mechanic is currently in place with a value of 25, so this is another quick value edit. I understand you're somewhat hesitant about this but TE rounds are short. I suggest we implement it and see how it goes. It could always be changed back if it doesn't play out in a positive way. Quote You can argue the case for an "anti-turtle mechanic" but it also does fall to the players to see what we can do about a strategic hurdle ourselves too. This is one of the arguments you keep retreating to and the fact is I've yet to see a compelling reason that turtling should be profitable. Your only arguments to date are: -This is too difficult for admin he forgets how all this works -Get better at the game These are not compelling reasons to not address a glaring issue that makes no sense. I challenged you earlier to name other games where you can just give up playing for a bit when you've been outplayed, and then end up in an immediately stronger position two minutes after the pummeling is over. It makes no sense. We both support turtling as a valid mechanic to 'survive to fight another day' if you're getting "pounded on". Nobody thinks that should go away. Though, I will add, I think my suggestion of cutting defensive war slots to two would go a very long way to reducing that sort of thing. The key that you keep dancing around is the mechanic currently goes beyond that. It goes to a level where turtling is profitable. And THAT makes no sense. Edited February 26 by firingline Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Apocalypse Posted February 26 Report Share Posted February 26 (edited) You were frothing at the mouth about aid caps being re-instated for starters. Your suggestions have been bad because they are so clearly laden with your own bias and you aren't being impartial. I think if you are a nation in position to be able to send foreign aid then 2k shouldn't be an issue to maintain. It makes no sense that a nation with very limited infrastructure would be in a position to send foreign aid to another. It solves the issue you consider widespread with "non-participating banks" by forcing them to participate to defend their nations and not turtle if they want to send aid out. For a real world example; North Korea doesn't send out foreign aid because they barely have the infrastructure to support their own nation. If this is a nation simulator then it stands to reason that to send foreign aid your nation must be in a fit position to do so, no? Again; didn't say admin couldn't figure it out, I question whether or not admin can be bothered with idoing it. If he can then great; if he can't then I'm not going to lose any sleep over it. "Just blocking" selling below 1k is too extreme. Why stop there, why not block selling infra altogether? Making it so a nation's economy cannot sustain 1k infra before selling it off is what could logically be done to prevent bill-lock, rather than turtle. By blocking the sale of infra from 1k you might see turtling come about in the form of getting another alliance to smash their infra right down so they can turtle without selling it. This would still be a possibility even with my suggestion linking the sale of infra to the total upkeep cost, which hopefully should demonstrate why the idea isn't a means of preventing turtling as there will always be a workaround for those tenacious enough to pursue it as a strategy. Turtling shouldn't be profitable, I'm not disputing that. Turtling is something you do when you are trying to mitigate damage done and financial losses from a war where you are outgunned. It is profitable only in the sense that it stops you losing too much, which is the proper use of the strategy in my experience. Turtling has only become literally profitable this round because of the extreme amount of cash and tech that can be sent as aid. That's why I suggested making it so you need to meet certain requirements to get full use of the aid mechanic. My point is that whatever suggestion is made and potentially implemented to stop turtling will inevitably mean someone finds a work around to compensate it. By imposing a rule where you cannot ever sell below 1k infra actually limits the ability of anyone to shrink down and whack some turtles. It's cutting your nose off to spite your face. Oh and as to your question about naming a game where turtling? It happens routinely over in Torn City where it is beneficial to hiding the trenches for a while if severely outnumbered until the opponent blinks long enough to take the opening and return fire on more beneficial terms to you. However the dynamic for strategy in that game is much more real-time whereas here it's more turn-based. Evading pursuit from your opponents takes on many forms in other games beyond CN, trying to remove this strategy entirely is a fools-errand. The best you can hope for is mitigating the extent of it being carried out without penalising those who might need to adopt the strategy for a legitimate reason. Edited February 26 by Johnny Apocalypse Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anobubby Posted February 26 Report Share Posted February 26 (edited) . Edited February 26 by anobubby .. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
firingline Posted February 26 Report Share Posted February 26 17 hours ago, Johnny Apocalypse said: You were frothing at the mouth about aid caps being re-instated for starters. What? Quote Your suggestions have been bad because they are so clearly laden with your own bias and you aren't being impartial. Uno reverse, I guess? My positions are objectively reasonable and based in a fair discussion around game mechanics and whether they match the desired competitive outcomes. You're the one emotionally lashing out at them to the point that a hill you chose to die on is that admin couldn't possibly edit values within the game because he's incompetent. Quote I think if you are a nation in position to be able to send foreign aid then 2k shouldn't be an issue to maintain. OK, I can see that argument. On the other hand, I worry about closing off aid to those on a losing side of a war while keeping it going for those on the winning side. Thoughts? Quote It solves the issue you consider widespread with "non-participating banks" by forcing them to participate to defend their nations and not turtle if they want to send aid out. It does not solve that issue. You have to think things through, Johnny. The banks can still build to 4k infra or whatever, collect, get their aid offers out the door, and sell off their infra. Quote For a real world example; North Korea doesn't send out foreign aid because they barely have the infrastructure to support their own nation. They are sending military aid to Russia literally as we speak. Quote Again; didn't say admin couldn't figure it out, You did. Stop gaslighting. Quote If he can then great; if he can't then I'm not going to lose any sleep over it. I mean it's CN, I'm not losing sleep over it anyways, but I'm not going to stop asking for reasonable mechanics changes to make the game more enjoyable for all. Quote "Just blocking" selling below 1k is too extreme. Why? Quote Why stop there, why not block selling infra altogether? Because that's how game mechanics work - you choose a cut-off point. It's currently 25 and I think 1,000 would be better because it prevents certain techniques of hiding. Quote Making it so a nation's economy cannot sustain 1k infra before selling it off is what could logically be done to prevent bill-lock, rather than turtle. Infra cost is like $50-75k per day for 100 infra. It's not a meaningful amount in the context of bill lock / rebuilding. Especially not if we keep foreign aid around like I advocate for. Quote By blocking the sale of infra from 1k you might see turtling come about in the form of getting another alliance to smash their infra right down so they can turtle without selling it. War slot filling breaks the game's rules. Such nations would be banned by the moderators. Quote Turtling shouldn't be profitable, I'm not disputing that. And yet you're fighting it tooth and nail. Why? Quote It is profitable only in the sense that it stops you losing too much Again - please stop gaslighting in a thread about game mechanics. This isn't a political / IC thing. It is objectively profitable in that it's profitable. If you jump to 3,999 infra, collect $80m turtle for a week, lose $3m through defeat alerts (oh boy!), you can then buy to 4,999 or 5,999 infra and collect and end up PROFITING from your decision to simply turtle. Under my proposal, you'd lose $35m + from turtling and you might just be able to get back to 3,999 infra and not profit. Maybe a little lower. But you certainly won't get to 4,999. As it should be. Why do you have a problem with this proposal? Quote Turtling has only become literally profitable this round because of the extreme amount of cash and tech that can be sent as aid. No, it's been profitable in the past too. I promise. Quote My point is that whatever suggestion is made and potentially implemented to stop turtling will inevitably mean someone finds a work around to compensate it. By imposing a rule where you cannot ever sell below 1k infra actually limits the ability of anyone to shrink down and whack some turtles. It's cutting your nose off to spite your face. It would at least be an interesting experiment. I could see it going either way. But keep in mind - TE is temporary. If setting the sell limit from 25 to 1,000 causes major issues for anybody, we can petition admin to change it back. Quote Oh and as to your question about naming a game where turtling? It happens routinely over in Torn City where it is beneficial to hiding the trenches for a while if severely outnumbered until the opponent blinks long enough to take the opening and return fire on more beneficial terms to you. I doubt it's actually profitable. You've shown here you're willing to be rather incorrect on the actual outcome of mechanics for the sake of making a point. Quote Evading pursuit from your opponents takes on many forms in other games beyond CN trying to remove this strategy entirely is a fools-errand. Again - turtling is fine. Surviving to fight another day is fine. Turtling being profitable? That's not fine. Quote The best you can hope for is mitigating the extent of it being carried out without penalising those who might need to adopt the strategy for a legitimate reason. There should absolutely be a penalty for turtling. That's been a thing in CN for a long time. If you are in peace mode, penalties progressively increase. Defeat alerts do more damage than ground attacks. Only in TE are the penalties insufficient. Only in TE is it actually still profitable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Apocalypse Posted February 27 Report Share Posted February 27 dam i had no idea i was being so emotional thanks for the thorough and non-emotional debunk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StevieG Posted March 3 Report Share Posted March 3 I've softened on my stance on aid I guess. Hear me out. Mass tech is crazy this is crazy. Let's not even get into the double standards argument. This is still crazy regardless. The FAC and aid is clearly overpowered. Limiting the max to say 100-200 tech and 10-20m cash would limit the mass tech and maybe even limit everyone just getting FAC because it's clearly OP. You would still easily get people boosting up to 1k 2k tech and there would be ability to send money all around and have that engagement if you so wish. But you are also making it whoever has more resources and nations has the best chance to "win'. The small guy has no chance. 20m is good for helping rebuild people sure, but it can always go up to the top too. What is the point of aid anyways though? Is more engagement really worth more than the downside of pooling of resources? Without any aid, the nation in a 6 man AA still has a fair enough chance, nation to nation against anyone in a massive 20 30 man Alliance. Any amount of Aid, but especially an overpowered system (clearly as everyone has the FAC) and they have no chance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
firingline Posted March 4 Report Share Posted March 4 (edited) I mean there's no point to any of it right now. It's among the most boring games on earth. The current game mechanics have fatal flaws. The only reason to play at present is the tech bonus. Aid at least allows there to be some level of excitement. I'd rather have uncapped aid than another round of turtle-nuking. Capping aid a bit lower makes more sense, granted, and I agree with that. But not without first taking a look at several major problems: dealing with the use of fake "mule" nations, and profitable turtling. Those loopholes are even more dire threats to an enjoyable, fair round than unlimited aid. It's critical that if we limit foreign aid further, we address the other two major issues preventing a competitive round. Until admin takes a hard look at game mechanics and how they are abused, TE will continue to languish. Maybe we'll have another round where OP just fights itself because nobody else even bothers to play. Edited March 4 by firingline Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Cyan Posted March 7 Report Share Posted March 7 I'd recommend that if Admin is back in the grey about allowing foreign aid or not to also consider... tinkering with *other* mechanics for each round as well. Example: Every other round or every third round can be THE round with foreign aid enabled (uncapped or not); every second or fourth round can be the round with first day nukes / MPs available, every 6th round can include a taunt button for the enemy (with ridiculous imagery) and so on. Or a round where TWO nuclear launches per day are allowed / infinite spy ops are allowed (credit to Boognish for some of these ideas). Or how about a round where nations get random unique perks (probably like later Pokemon generations, not related to current ingame CN trades) with the non-rerolling rule still in place (example: no perks for rerolls)? On 3/4/2024 at 6:27 AM, firingline said: I'd rather have uncapped aid than another round of turtle-nuking. If you and others want to bring back uncapped aid then why stop there? You know you can shake the game up a whole lot more! It would also beat having to hear your constant howling around these parts when things don't exactly go your way ingame and your alliance gets its teeth kicked in pun totally intended, good day sir. On 3/4/2024 at 6:27 AM, firingline said: I mean there's no point to any of it right now. It's among the most boring games on earth. Yet here we are fiwinwine. Here... YOU... are... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
firingline Posted March 8 Report Share Posted March 8 (edited) 21 hours ago, King Cyan said: You know you can shake the game up a whole lot more! It would also beat having to hear your constant howling around these parts I've been complaining about the broken mechanics behind turtle-nuking for well over a year. Has nothing to do with this round or the fact that we defeated our competition so thoroughly that they had to abandon any hope of competing with one another, merge into one large functional alliance, and petition admin to kill off our banks while protecting theirs. It's pretty telling that you resort to ad-hominems rather than discuss the actual issue. Seems like you're basically admitting I'm right here. I will continue to mention how broken the mechanics are until they aren't broken - win, lose or draw. It's just that simple. Edited March 8 by firingline Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Cyan Posted March 8 Report Share Posted March 8 3 hours ago, firingline said: [fixed] I've been BAWWWWing that I've been getting wrecked for well over a year.[/fixed] Has nothing to do with this round or the fact that we defeated our competition so thoroughly that they had to abandon any hope of competing with one another, merge into one large functional alliance, Pardon, are you talking about from when you were in AW or during your RE times those rounds ago? I don't exactly remember Boognish Cult or Knights existing at the time well over a year ago where we merged with Ordo Paradoxia to crush you and the new Roman Empire. Are we to really believe you yourself always bought at least 1 soldier even when at ZI? How is it still broken and "profitable" as you say especially now when there's incentive to do the opposite (with the 1 mil casualties + SE tech reward now), the money lost from defeat alerts has risen, and you yourself with your other compatriots have probably done so a few times in the past the very thing you "complain" about now? 3 hours ago, firingline said: and petition admin to kill off our banks while protecting theirs. Further elaboration needed, all we were talking about (and the only relevant action taken by admin) was uncapped vs. capped aid. 3 hours ago, firingline said: It's pretty telling that you resort to ad-hominems rather than discuss the actual issue. Seems like you're basically admitting I'm right here. So sayeth the line that ad-hominem'ed another poster as "emotional" ITT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
firingline Posted March 8 Report Share Posted March 8 10 hours ago, King Cyan said: How is it still broken and "profitable" as you say especially now when there's incentive to do the opposite (with the 1 mil casualties + SE tech reward now), the money lost from defeat alerts has risen, and you yourself with your other compatriots have probably done so a few times in the past the very thing you "complain" about now? 1) You can turtle and hit 1 million casualties quite easily. These are not mutually exclusive concepts. 2) The money from defeat alerts has not risen. It's the same. 3) I'm sure others have turtled - I don't see what that has to do with whether the current mechanics make sense or not. Can you please try to channel every ounce of energy and discipline you have into addressing the actual issue at hand? Quote Further elaboration needed, all we were talking about (and the only relevant action taken by admin) was uncapped vs. capped aid. Which exists within the context of a broader set of game mechanics that must be considered as a whole. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Cyan Posted March 9 Report Share Posted March 9 11 hours ago, firingline said: 1) You can turtle and hit 1 million casualties quite easily. These are not mutually exclusive concepts. 2) The money from defeat alerts has not risen. It's the same. 3) I'm sure others have turtled - I don't see what that has to do with whether the current mechanics make sense or not. Can you please try to channel every ounce of energy and discipline you have into addressing the actual issue at hand? Which exists within the context of a broader set of game mechanics that must be considered as a whole. Still not answerin the question there fiwinwine! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.