firingline Posted February 21 Report Share Posted February 21 (edited) We had some interesting conversations on Discord today that I think deserve to be discussed on the forums. I think it's essential that the game tweak mechanics to address turtling. It's become the single largest factor in making this game boring. Because of the way game mechanics are designed, you can turtle, back-collect, and end up stronger than before. My assertion is simple: we cannot have a game where 'turtling' (or refusing to fight in good faith) is profitable. I understand the desire to allow for easy rebuilds, too. So, I propose the following: 1) DAs destroy 12% of cash up to $9 million (instead of $600k), with a threshold of $32m, after which it destroys only $250k. ->This preserves the ability to 'survive to fight another day', while discouraging turtling with large sums of cash. Recognizing that this makes DAs quite powerful, and that DAs do not only occur when turtling, we can mitigate some of that with the following tweaks (I'm open to other suggestions): 2) Only two defensive war-slots per nation (this also helps significantly with game balance.) 3) DAs cannot happen before noon game time (to prevent nuke + DA at update). 4) Keep some level of foreign aid (to allow folks to collaborate on rebuilds.) The level of aid should probably be lowered to 1,000-1,500 tech; $20-25 million. 5) Prevent selling infra to below 1,000 I also think an additional important rule change would be to outlaw "mules" (in the same way that we have rules against slot filling, declaring wars on teammates, etc.) Whether that's a nation creating, sitting for 14 days, sending cash and rerolling, or it's nations building up, collecting, selling off and sending aid - it's against the spirit of fair gameplay. Taken in total, I believe these tweaks would resolve many aspects that make CN:TE Warfare boring today: -Reduce turtling -Eliminate massively disparate wars (3v1's) -Eliminate banks -Allow for a broader range of gameplay ("dirty ops" become acceptable because there's less turtling and foreign aid helps prevent nations from becoming bill-locked.) Edited February 22 by firingline Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Apocalypse Posted February 22 Report Share Posted February 22 "Non-playing banks" will not be a thing if the aid mechanic ceases to be part of TE after this round, nor would they be a thing if a reasonable cap was in place when the round started. The current cap is what it is because it is the average amount of cash/tech AW started flinging back and forth early on in the round. The incentive to turtle is a result of heavy-handed downdeclares (You know like when someone gets sent 10,000 tech to beat down on someone much smaller than them). If people punched at their weight instead of attacking and buying up to a ridiculous advantage, people would not need to turtle. So preventing people from buying up after they have declared war would prevent turtling. A better idea in my opinion would be to restrict infra purchases from the moment you declare. From that point onward you can only rebuy infra to the peak level you were at when you declared the war and you can only exceed that peak when the initial offensive war expires. Massively disparate wars are again something that AW perpetuate. AW initiated an attack on 3 alliances and act as though the consequences of making enemies with every other alliance in the game isn't a problem they have made themselves with their actions and attitude (save for a handful of members who are quite content to just fight, have fun and not complain about everything) Dirty ops are used at the discretion of the alliance in question. OP claim to not dirty op but when dirty ops are done on some of their nations, it is understandable they might reciprocate despite being given orders to tell them otherwise. Afterall, why fight with one hand behind your back if the opponent clearly will do you dirty anyway? I know that BC members dropped dirty ops as soon as they caught them, at that point the horse had bolted so while I urged people to avoid it unless it was done to them first? It was understood that AW would likely not have any scruples about dropping dirty ops on people first. I think OP would be wise to drop the stance of not dirty op'ing other alliances unless it is done to them first- at the very least acknowledge it is pointless to try and maintain that policy when fighting AW because the chances are you guys will do them whether you are hit by them first or not. Keeping foreign aid to some extent would be nice but with the very large amount that has been permitted for this round it would only really be viable to retain for the purpose of rebuilds with a much larger cap on the amount sent compared to what we have now (which again is only as high as it is because it's the average amount of tech and money AW were sending back at forth at the beginning of the round- another self-made problem biting you in the ass) You can prevent selling infra below 1000 but if your infra is blown up beyond 1000 that doesn't stop someone from turtling. Preventing people selling infra past 1000 only addresses the "non-playing bank" issue, one which will cease to be a problem if aid is no longer a mechanic in TE/nerfed to the point where maintaining such things is too inefficient and not worth the time or effort. Also selling below 1000 infra may be necessary for a nation in dire straits financially who is looking to cut their daily bills right down in order to recover with a back-collection to get back in the ring again. As for "mules"? Again, only an issue because of the amount of aid that is permitted. This is why it was a problem to allow to be uncapped and why it remains problematic because admin did not want to nerf the maximum aid limit early on in the game to a level where no other alliance could catch up to the amounts AW were sending each other. You wanted it uncapped and you got it, then you demonstrated why leaving in uncapped was going to be bad for the game and admin wound up setting the bar as high as it currently is because it actually would have been unfair to everyone else if he were to nerf it well below the amounts you were sending each other. If you want the aid mechanic to remain? Instead of outlining the numerous ways people are besting you with the mechanic with the parameters as they currently stand for the use of it? Instead you might be better off presenting a well thought out proposal for how the aid mechanic might be better implemented in TE for future rounds and how much of a cap should be in place for "non-playing banks" to be inefficent to utilise and ultimately too time-consuming to bother using, but for the aid mechanic to still be a helpful enough for rebuilds or for smaller alliances with 10 or less member (like mine) to be able to stand their ground long enough against larger alliances of 20-30 people by either receiving some support from a member of their own alliance or externally from a non-hostile alliance. All I'm seeing here are a list of things your strategy fails to address and the ways in which you have been bested. It isn't always a faulty mechanic that is utilised unfairly against you, sometimes it actually is a skill issue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
firingline Posted February 22 Author Report Share Posted February 22 (edited) 11 hours ago, Johnny Apocalypse said: "Non-playing banks" will not be a thing Yes, they will be. Even if you're sure they won't, banning them is a common-sense reform. And it'll have no impact according to you - so name a reason not to. The incentive to turtle is a result of heavy-handed downdeclares. No, it's not. It's used commonly, even during even fights (i.e. same number of nations at war). My solution of two defensive war slots and limited aid helps alleviate any of your concerns. A better idea in my opinion would be to restrict infra purchases from the moment you declare. I don't see how this helps at all. It doesn't address turtling, and I have not seen a big issue with people buying infra during wars. Massively disparate wars are again something that AW perpetuate. OK - then you should be happy to see my proposals to curb these issues! Dirty ops are used at the discretion of the alliance in question. Can you please focus the conversation on game mechanics rather than politics? Thanks! Keeping foreign aid to some extent would be nice but with the very large amount that has been permitted for this round it would only really be viable to retain for the purpose of rebuilds with a much larger cap on the amount sent This doesn't make much sense - why would "much" more than $50m be need from a single aid packet for rebuilding? You can prevent selling infra below 1000 but if your infra is blown up beyond 1000 that doesn't stop someone from turtling. Preventing people selling infra past 1000 only addresses the "non-playing bank" issue Yep. It's meant to avoid the non-playing bank hiding from war. My position is aid SHOULD stay - it's been a massive benefit to the round and made things far dynamic. Infra bill is approx. $100k at 1,500 infra. Obviously, 1k infra is even less. Cutting $75k isn't going to get anybody "back in the game." As for "mules"? Again, only an issue because of the amount of aid that is permitted. OK. What's your point? If you want the aid mechanic to remain? Yes. Instead of outlining the numerous ways people are besting you with the mechanic with the parameters as they currently stand for the use of it? Nobody's "besting us" using the mechanic. They're taking advantage of the game administrator being willing to intervene once and only once to ban one alliance from farming aid and allow it for another. People are naturally going to point that out. That won't be an issue next round as we'll all understand the rules going in. Instead you might be better off presenting a well thought out proposal for how the aid mechanic might be better implemented in TE for future rounds Like I just did? To which you responded with a bunch of political rants? and how much of a cap should be in place for "non-playing banks" to be inefficent to utilise and ultimately too time-consuming to bother using Not possible - any amount of aid makes non-playing banks worth it in TE. Like many other things, this issue is best handled with a rule, not with mechanics. This is not at all unusual for CN. We didn't get rid of the 'declare war' mechanic to eliminate slot filling, we just banned slot filling., but for the aid mechanic to still be a helpful enough for rebuilds or for smaller alliances with 10 or less member (like mine) to be able to stand their ground long enough against larger alliances of 20-30 people by either receiving some support from a member of their own alliance or externally from a non-hostile alliance. All I'm seeing here are a list of things your strategy fails to address and the ways in which you have been bested. Would you be saying the same if I complained that our enemies endlessly slot filled? Of course you would, because you're JA. Turtling profitability and non-playing nations joining to farm aid out of reach of reprisal are issues that any reasonable person can acknowledge. It isn't "besting" someone to park a bunch of nations at 25 NS to have them send unlimited aid. It isn't "besting" someone to just roll over and rebuild stronger. It isn't always a faulty mechanic that is utilised unfairly against you, sometimes it actually is a skill issue. Sometimes it actually is bad game mechanics. If you could get over your seething anger against AW, we could probably have a rational argument on the issues. Edited February 22 by firingline Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kerschbs Posted February 22 Report Share Posted February 22 I like the increase in defeat alert suggestion. Turtling has been an issue in multiple rounds, and made wars boring enough last round that I wouldn’t have played again this time if the SE tech bonus wasn’t offered. Make it a percentage of cash on hand until you hit a minimum like suggested, and that removes a lot of incentive to just sell off infra and not do anything. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StevieG Posted February 23 Report Share Posted February 23 1. Terrible and way way out of proportion. DAs have already been increased to 600k. You can lose multiple grounds and be DAd in a single day. Already losing over a million and that's buying and fighting not turteling. Just getting smacked. So imagine actually fighting and then also getting smacked with 12 million 😂 Way to completely go broke! 2. Also bad. Makes it even easier to avoid war and just defend. 3. Is completely dumb. You are creating a bigger fundamental break by trying to make a fix for something that doesn't need it. No DAs till noon. So you can sleep in? Lol that is really crazy and changes the fundamental aspects too much. 4. No. Tech boosting should never be a thing. 5. Perhaps your only reasonable suggestion. But 1000 infra is only 3k ns. 6. Didn't you sell off NS, and then make a long back collect too? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
firingline Posted February 23 Author Report Share Posted February 23 (edited) On 2/22/2024 at 8:47 PM, StevieG said: 1. Terrible and way way out of proportion. DAs have already been increased to 600k. You can lose multiple grounds and be DAd in a single day. Already losing over a million and that's buying and fighting not turteling. Just getting smacked. So imagine actually fighting and then also getting smacked with 12 million 😂 Way to completely go broke! If you're turtling you're only getting 1 defeat alert per day. Losing $600k or even $1m is absolutely nothing. It's how, as I've explained, you can sit and take DAs endlessly and immediately build back stronger. You can't go completely broke because at $32m, the DAs start only killing $250k in cash. It comes down to the goals here - is the goal to ensure nations have a fair chance to rebuild, or is the goal to have a mechanic that allows anyone on the losing side of the war to effectively ignore war completely and simply rebuild the day after the war ends as if it never even happened? My proposed mechanics help nations 'survive to fight another day' but punish people trying to undermine the war mechanic completely. Quote 2. Also bad. Makes it even easier to avoid war and just defend. Please explain what you mean. You can't 'avoid war'. You still have two war slots? Quote 3. Is completely dumb. You are creating a bigger fundamental break by trying to make a fix for something that doesn't need it. No DAs till noon. So you can sleep in? Lol that is really crazy and changes the fundamental aspects too much. What I am trying to do is utilize DAs as a tool to fight turtling, without making a DA a tool that can be completely taken advantage of by update-active nations. We don't want someone to be able to nuke 5 minutes before update, then send a quick DA that kills $9m cash. DAs should indicate complete defeat. Quote 4. No. Tech boosting should never be a thing. Why? It's a thing in SE. It's added a huge dynamic to TE. Quote 6. Didn't you sell off NS, and then make a long back collect too? No. However, I am actively turtling, yes. And I'll grow back stronger than I was before this war. Because the mechanics are fundamentally broken. I should not be able to do this. Edited February 24 by firingline 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.