Komplex Posted April 27 Report Share Posted April 27 @admin is it coming back soon or years again? get rid of aid please. any new idea everyone? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Apocalypse Posted April 27 Report Share Posted April 27 more lasers Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sixgun Posted April 27 Report Share Posted April 27 +1 for new round. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vaslov Posted April 28 Report Share Posted April 28 How about getting rid of alliances completely? (except for privately negotiated agreements for mutual military actions and trade).... Every man for himself and his "secret" allies!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cobwebbyarc6 Posted April 28 Report Share Posted April 28 One random nation on each AA is temporarily removed from game play at intervals known only by admin. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
firingline Posted April 29 Report Share Posted April 29 The most important thing is to close the turtling loophole. It is the single biggest problem with TE, and the fact that one particular alliance has so vehemently opposed that suggestion should be all the proof you need. DAs should be significantly strengthened on how much cash they destroy. Essentially, if you turtle for a round of war, you should expect to have no more than $30m in the bank. Literally nothing else comes even close to this in its importance. But yes, foreign aid certainly needs adjustments. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Overlord Wes Posted April 29 Report Share Posted April 29 40 minutes ago, firingline said: It is the single biggest problem with TE, and the fact that one particular alliance has so vehemently opposed that suggestion should be all the proof you need. DAs should be significantly strengthened on how much cash they destroy. Essentially, if you turtle for a round of war, you should expect to have no more than $30m in the bank. Actually it was 2 members of BC and 1 member of OP that disliked specifically your suggestion on how to solve turtling lol. 2+2 now because I also agree :v Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AL Bundy Posted April 29 Report Share Posted April 29 Defeat and defeat alerts need to take away more money and cause more damage ratio. When you winning 100k and the guys sitting on 200mill its pretty pointless. The award for most infra lost is backwards I believe (at least if I understand the definition). What did you do to deserve an award, just because you bought more infra and someone else blew it up you get a award, no you should for destroying the most. With casualty award shouldn't be with the most alliance killed, should be nation within an alliance. Just because your the biggest alliance you should just get the awards. If aid is there it needs revisited. No nuke round??? or no sdi? More to come I'm sure. AL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
admin Posted May 2 Report Share Posted May 2 Is there a consensus on how aid needs to be revised if it remains in place for round 66? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tehol Posted May 2 Report Share Posted May 2 10 hours ago, admin said: Is there a consensus on how aid needs to be revised if it remains in place for round 66? I will provide analysis and info from survey i sent in the next couple days. my intuition is that cash aid was actually OK but tech aid (at least as implemented with the “low” cap of 2500) doesnt work. Will explain when i have time (tonight? Saturday?) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StevieG Posted May 2 Report Share Posted May 2 10 hours ago, admin said: Is there a consensus on how aid needs to be revised if it remains in place for round 66? The round was terrible for most players because of aid. Interest and activity fell away drastically from half way. 120 days was way too long as well. Aid is simply not fair and/or balanced. Its way way too overpowered. We dont want or need another boring/silly round to reach that same conclusion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
admin Posted May 2 Report Share Posted May 2 11 minutes ago, tehol said: I will provide analysis and info from survey i sent in the next couple days. my intuition is that cash aid was actually OK but tech aid (at least as implemented with the “low” cap of 2500) doesnt work. Will explain when i have time (tonight? Saturday?) Thanks tehol. What I've gathered thus far: Aid needs to be nerfed but not necessarily removed. I'm interested in what amounts others think aid should be limited to. Defeat alerts need to be substantially more costly for the defender. I'm interested in what amounts DA's should be. The round needs to be shorter. 90 days most likely. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
firingline Posted May 3 Report Share Posted May 3 2 hours ago, admin said: Thanks tehol. What I've gathered thus far: Aid needs to be nerfed but not necessarily removed. I'm interested in what amounts others think aid should be limited to. Defeat alerts need to be substantially more costly for the defender. I'm interested in what amounts DA's should be. The round needs to be shorter. 90 days most likely. I think that's a reasonable assessment. -I'll defer on point 1 to tehol's survey. -As for point 2, 30m is often referenced as an emergency fund to rebuild at the end of a war. I'd suggest something like 10% of cash above $30m? My ONLY concern is the mechanism of nuking just before update then sending a DA shortly after. Basically - I want punishment for turtling, not simply for not being online at midnight or losing a war. If you can think of a better mechanic I'm all for it. -What about 75 days? Even 90 seems a bit long. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StevieG Posted May 3 Report Share Posted May 3 (edited) 7 hours ago, admin said: Thanks tehol. What I've gathered thus far: Aid needs to be nerfed but not necessarily removed. I'm interested in what amounts others think aid should be limited to. Defeat alerts need to be substantially more costly for the defender. I'm interested in what amounts DA's should be. The round needs to be shorter. 90 days most likely. If you are going to only listen to one person/ side of the board and not the side that smashed everyone what's the point? Aid needs to be removed for a fair game. That is the overall consensus from most of the players. DAs do not need to be increased. They are already 600k. You boost that up more and you will drive newbies from the game if they even come. Al Bundy is talking about ground wins giving 100k. These are 2 different things. Why don't you put up a vote to actually see the consensus? Most destructive war should be changed. Most popular nation and most government bills should probably also be changed. As Bundy said, most infra lost is a little silly, but it shouldn't be infra destroyed either imo. We've needed those above things tweeked for a little while, we haven't needed aid. Aid takes away from nation building skills and it truely becomes who has more nations. We had to stop and do nothing from half way through last round cause there was nothing to do, and the membership got so bored. Edited May 3 by StevieG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AgentMK Posted May 3 Report Share Posted May 3 Aid is stupid, It rewards bad gameplay You can afford to play bad and blow all your money. Cause you can just get your friends to farm cash and tech for you. There's no skill left in the game And it made the round dull and boring Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tevron Posted May 3 Report Share Posted May 3 I played in a supportive role this game for my alliance, and I think that aid made it even easier than in a normal situation to do very little and have an impact on your alliance. Unfortunately, aid ended up being an incentive for that kind of behavior, probably because there is less skin in the game than in e.g., SE, where people are far less likely to send off massive amount of tech and/or money. I think aid in TE was overall a net negative. Bundy is right about the infra lost award, it would make more sense to incentivize something else. Stevie is right about the popular nation award, as that only really does incentivize the biggest alliance to win. I think making DAs have a larger penalty would make sense if it was % based, so that it would not be a round-ender if one alliance decides to blitz out on day 5. Increasing it by a flat amount would be pretty much punishing to whoever does not rush out guns blazing. There is also the problem that FL pointed out which basically is a big FU to people that live in e.g., east coast or Europe, who are punished for living in a time zone and will get auto-DA'd because of it. I think the reason why turtling is a normal strategy when your opponent's down declare on you, often with superior numbers, in TE is the same as SE. It mitigates damage to fight back in a limited way. There is little to be gained as the defender, so maybe there should be a structure to incentivize defensive wars or war damage. e.g., wonders that have defending casualties requirements or bonus XP for ground attacks in defensive wars. Another option might be rewarding bonus XP or even bonus looted money at the conclusion of a war based on who did more nation strength damage, since that would also incentivize people to fight it out. That said, turtling also punishes overextension and poor economics of nations that attack them, particularly in the beginning of rounds, so it's not like it is pointless. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Komplex Posted May 3 Author Report Share Posted May 3 (edited) Aid takes away any skill from building a nation up. I say we go back to how it was Round 64 without aid. •keep the wonders though. •change the awards up. •60 day round, quick and exciting! the 250 tech bonus was good idea, there was small increase of nations playing. Perhaps increase tech level by casualty. example: above 1M casualty reward is 250T , 2.5M casualty 500T , 5M would be 1000T this would increase players from SE to play. Edited May 3 by Komplex Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
firingline Posted May 3 Report Share Posted May 3 6 hours ago, StevieG said: If you are going to only listen to one person/ side of the board and not the side that smashed everyone what's the point? ...what? Why would he only listen to your point of view? It's his responsibility to listen to everyone, and it appears he is. Quote Aid needs to be removed for a fair game. That is the overall consensus from most of the players. IS that the consensus? I'd like to see tehol's data. I think most agree aid needs reduced. Quote DAs do not need to be increased. They are already 600k. You boost that up more and you will drive newbies from the game if they even come. Even your own leader agrees DAs need to be increased. 600k is literally nothing to people sitting on $100m warchests. Again, your true intentions are quite transparent. You are demanding a rigged game - one where you can win outright if you have the numbers, and win via turtling even if you don't. What drives people from the game is knowing that it's literally impossible to defeat their opponents, because their opponents can simply let DAs stack up and rebuild even stronger. What's the point of even having war if you can turtle and be stronger for it? Nobody's advocating DAs drive nations to the poorhouse. We're saying that just sitting there and taking DAs and then immediately rebuilding stronger after the war ends makes no sense. There is literally no argument to be made for this. Quote Why don't you put up a vote to actually see the consensus? So you can find a bunch of mules to blindly vote the way you want? If you have an opinion, share it here. Admin can consider all the ideas, get a sense of how the community feels, and make a decision. Quote We had to stop and do nothing from half way through last round cause there was nothing to do, and the membership got so bored. Sounds like literally every round OP plays in under rules you insist must not change. Because they either are able to win outright, or if they lose they start to turtle and the other side gets bored and disengaged while OP min/maxes and builds back stronger. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Apocalypse Posted May 3 Report Share Posted May 3 (edited) 22 hours ago, admin said: Thanks tehol. What I've gathered thus far: Aid needs to be nerfed but not necessarily removed. I'm interested in what amounts others think aid should be limited to. Defeat alerts need to be substantially more costly for the defender. I'm interested in what amounts DA's should be. The round needs to be shorter. 90 days most likely. Yeah I would agree with this in a broad sense but the approach to the issues raised is not something I would fix with a broad stroke at all. 1) I know that the aid cap which was implemented in the last round seemed to reflect the highest amount of aid that was being sent at the time, chiefly so that the people who got a headstart didn't have a permanent advantage so early on in the round. The amounts we could send were ridiculous so it should definitely be brought down considerably for it to function well in the game without breaking it. It might be worth considering shortening the amount of time in between aid offers expiring if the round itself is also to be shortened. If we go by the SE standard of 10 days until you can use an aid slot again, that means a maximum of 9 rounds of 6 aid deals may be sent in the round (this is assuming we could send aid from day 1 of course) If ithe amount of aid we can send is to be nerfed then perhaps a small boon the mechanic can be given is being able to send more individual packages of aid instead of enormous piles of money and technology in one aid deal like last round- because that was just plain daft at the end. We'd all become so bored and saw little point in trying (especially as we'd exceeded the 1m mark for casualties to earn the reward for SE at least a month or two before the round ended) because why bother? No one was going to beat Wes having 40,000 tech at the top of the leaderboard and that was just a clear sign that Ordo Paradoxia had found the most effective way to minmax the aid system alongside their usual strategy. If aid is to be kept in TE it should be nerfed enough to prevent it being used as a wealth creation mechanic and instead used as foreign aid mechanic to help a nation in need of it. 2) As for the 2nd point? Buckle up friends it's time for Wall of TEDTalks with Johnny: If you make changes to the Defeat Alert penalty which hurts the defending nation more? Do keep in mind there are those of us that don't really enjoy joining one of the two main alliances that have been barking at one another over this issue and any change to this will have ramifications for those of us who aren't part of the only two games in town in TE. While I do to an extent understand firingline's position that it is probably deeply boring to fight an opponent that is refusing to fight back, despite being perfectly able to do so? Some of us quite like playing in a smaller team of our own and don't want anything to do with the squabbling rivalry at the top of the foodchain. So if you do increase the impact of a defeat alert? Keep in mind that the tactic which firingline is pointing out as problematic is not to be fixed in a way that is presented as being so simple as to increase the impact of defeat alerts to coax the turtling Paradoxians out of their shells and fight! While it may be the case that it's become a problem as a result of those in bigger groups doing the same thing each round with very few options to meaningfully approach that tactic? It is a strategy that was originally considered to be reasonable to utilise for a smaller alliance or for people who are on the receiving end of a heavy-handed beatdown where their opponents waited until after declaring their war before buying all of their infrastructure/technology/land/military that is giving them a greater advantage than the mechanics should permit. If people on the defensive are being overrun/receiving a heavy-handed downdeclare beatdown from alliances that may have 3x the amount of members than the defending alliance who has no chance of winning against if they tried to fight back because they not only outnumber them but some of them also used a loophole to gain more strength than is permitted when declaring a war. How does the defender respond to this if they cannot turtle strategically against overwhelming odds if it means being punsihed with a larger defeat alert. Something which is penalising the underdog rather than the people buying large amounts of infra/tech to fight with a gratuitous statistical advantage as well as having greater strength in number. If the defeat alert is increased to the point it'd might rapidly bankrupt the defending party unfairly then the alternative would be to slowly burn their money buying back repeatedly to keep fighting in a losing war where they are out-numbered and their opponent is using a loophole to gain an unfair advantage themselves. Any attempts to punch back would be futile and would simply bankrupt them slower. How fun, the agony of choice between these two fates would be far too much to handle 🙄 If I might make another suggestion that is revelant in this case? Instead of focussing on changing the defeat alerts to a deterrent that will be penalising people who utilise turtling as part of their well-hearsed strategy, despite the fact they are perfectly capable of defending themselves and thinking that this proposed change will only affect a single group of people (It is vital to keep this in mind when giving consideration to the suggestion for defeat alerts; as it is a global change to a mechanic being proposed by someone that wishes to see their rival penalised without a thought of the ramifications on the rest of us in the game beyond the two squabbling houses. It is proposed with a view to gain an advantage over their rival and the well-rehearsed script which they apparently follow) So if we're lookin to address something that is done to gain an unfair advantage and is very boring for people to deal with- especially if they aren't in one of the two main alliances. Here is a potential change that wouldn't be something that will end up punishing an underdog: Implement a cap that restricts the maximum level of infrastructure/technology which be purchased by a nation once it has declared war that is relative to how much infrastructure/technology the nation has at the time of declaring a war on another nation. This cap would reset when the war is peaced out/expires naturally or something along those lines. For all the talk of using mechanics unfairly to one's advantage? It's absurd to me that this hasn't been addressed sooner because it's been a loophole for people to use that allows them to fight nations whose Strength at the time of declaration was about 78% of the attacker's but this percentage rapidly starts to decrease well below the threshold you've coded to be in place for the sake of keeping things as fair as you can, as the attacking nation then starts buying twice the level of infrastructure they had with some extra technology on tiop of it. It was pushed to new extremes last round because not only could other people declare downwards from a great height with a large amount of wealth shared out across their alliance relative to how many members aid slots they could use, but they could also get infusions of tech that vastly increased their strength to an absurd degree- then they bought the WRC wonder and the planet Vegeta was destroyed. If we're talking about game-breaking unfairness? Please do give this point some thought as well because it is an indisputable example of a flagrant loophole that has been utilised for years by people to punch down on others well beyond the limitations that the strength range percentage is there to prevent. If nations need only buy all of their nation's statistics after declaring the war to win? Is it any wonder that the approach to turtling has adapted to the point it's no longer simply a defensive measure against overwhelming odds which the loophole I just mentioned is likely to have facilitated, to the point where it's become an integral part of a nation's build and their approach to the gameplay. If something is changed to prevent people using the turtle strategy gratuitously? Then in turn something needs to be done that prevent people being capable of avoiding the limitations to heavy-handedly downdeclare on other nations. Be even-handed when scrutinising this issue because neither of the two dominant alliances should be thought of as talking with impartiality. They both want the Dragonballs for themselves to make their wish, it is in your power to permit this but remember that there's a vested interest in one side to change something and the other who would rather not see it changed, somewhere in the middle there's probably a solution between the two. However it shouldn't be one that results in penalising players that choose not to be part of this boring rivalry over who is using the loopholes unfairly the mostest. How absurd. Some of us only wish to visit this planet and train our power levels with King Kai, not have to put up with the consequences of that silly racket being made. I don't dispute that addressing a tactic which has been used to the point where it's like fighting someone who has the same secret power they use over and over that is difficult to beat within a fighting Tournament. However simply changing something about the mechanics to prevent that tactic alone from being used ad nauseum is a bad idea but if you also changing something about the game to prevent the use of obvious loopholes would be better. Maybe the tactic that's become a problem won't be so heavily used as a result? Either way if a mechanic is changed it should be because it keeps things challenging, not to be punitive against everyone who signs up to fight- it's not a great incentive for people to fight in this tournament is it? It's a tournament so it's pointless if the battlefield makes everything equally fair for everyone, it should be challenging in different ways to test each fighter participating and everyone does what they must to survive until the end and be crowned the strongest at something. FL isn't wrong expressing frustration at it being the same boring dance happening each time so what's the point in participating but it doesn't stop here. A 25-person alliance can run over a gang of 10 nation and nothing changes to even the scores for them but now a suggestion is made in the name of 'fairness' which would mean those 10 are penalised serverely for turtling defensively. All as a result of another group of people that have been using the strategy in a more creative but a dull and robotic fashion to avoid fighting entirely, not solely for defensive purposes when it's warranted? It's still a bad fix because it punishes the wrong people and doesn't solve anything meaningfully, it just means there will be less and less people fighting at the tournament. Which remains true if a separate 30 man alliance is able to have each member buy up infrastructure to collect taxes and sell right back down immediately afterwards to avoid fighting and hoard their wealth; does that behaviour have any place in a tournament of this nature? There's an underdog bonus for fighting with the odds against you in a ground attack but that's the only boon an underdog has in a fight where they might get to break stuff on the way back from a defeat, it's not much but it's something to enjoy about losing the battle. Meanwhile the only two games in town are running rampant; with accusations made about the other being fired back and forth while they continue to be unchallenged at times when they jump on the underdog from heights they can only manage using a loophole to suppress their power level before starting the fight. Then come the complaints about an unfair strategy being used by their rivals who are following a script that is a meticulously crafted minmax strategy preventing the use of certain loopholes against them because they've found different loopholes that are better. Now it's argued there needs to be a global mechanic change to address this, a new change being passionately suggested by someone who has been demanding something must be done about the use of Scouters in battle, without a hint of irony about the use of the Blotswayth rays from the Moon transforming the Saiyans in his alliance to punch down after they entered the arena as a human and have been permitted to transform into a monsterous ape far larger than their opponent. Someone said at the beginning of the last round that introducing uncapped aid was necessary because people are using the mechanics to gain an 'unfair advantage' - we all saw how disastrous that was, now that same someone is arguing the same thing but with a different approach; if accumulating lots of wealth with an uncapped aid system to defeat their rival isn't possible? (curse you for that KAkarot!) We must instead punish them for using a specific defensive strategy as part of their wider gameplay strategy and increasing how much money will burn if they or anyone else tries hahaha and I don't care what that blasted man writing the walls of text is saying, it is irrelevant and they are insignificant so ignore him you fools. All that matters is this: It must be permitted where a change of my design will be made to the physics of this world that will allow us to finally be victorious over the enemy. Then finally, we will have posession of all 7 of the Dragonballs and immortality will be ours. That all being said; If there's one thing to remember should you make a change to defeat alerts or the aid system or anything about the mechanics at all and you stumble upon a potential game-breaking consequence, even if it's after the round has started? As with the suggested change to defeat alerts; be careful you don't throw the baby out with the bathwater because you just noticed there's a bug in it. Test the bath first to make sure it's been debugged 😉 Thanks for coming to my TED Talk. If you reply to my post you surrender all rights to protest against being bombarded with yet another wall of text, neither you nor Freiza can stop me and it is pointless to resist ahahahahaha. Edited May 3 by Johnny Apocalypse Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UnitedBishop Posted May 3 Report Share Posted May 3 I think aid could be like SE, 6M cash, 100T, and or 4000 soldiers. I think it keeps people “alive” at points when they’ve overspent, and creates an interesting dynamic of trades when people are building. I think defeat alerts could be Base + Percentage cash , in addition to infra and tech damage. My thought would be that a large enough percentage, say, 5% would force people to stay armed / fighting. Losing 5M with a 100M war chest is substantial. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Apocalypse Posted May 3 Report Share Posted May 3 (edited) 38 minutes ago, UnitedBishop said: I think aid could be like SE, 6M cash, 100T, and or 4000 soldiers. I think it keeps people “alive” at points when they’ve overspent, and creates an interesting dynamic of trades when people are building. I think defeat alerts could be Base + Percentage cash , in addition to infra and tech damage. My thought would be that a large enough percentage, say, 5% would force people to stay armed / fighting. Losing 5M with a 100M war chest is substantial. Hypothetically speaking if someone downdeclares on someone (buying infra/tech after declaring) from an alliance with twice as many people as theirs and this change is implemented then their options are to burn money fighting back and losing with no significant consequence for their enemy, or turtle and be lose all of their money from defeat alerts. Which of these two things should the person getting stomped on do? Or should something be done about the person who was using a loophole to downdeclare instead of letting the underdog be punished when it should be the other way around? Because if we don't address the ability for players to use the loophole where they can declare war then buy over 9000 infrastructure for troop advantage that cannot be trumped? Then adjusting the defeat alerts isn't even-handed in addressing flaws in the mechanics of the game and it'll be punishing players already on the receiving end of a losing fight instead of incentivising them to keep fighting no matter what. Perhaps closing the loophole allowing a genuine unfair advantage which is done to literally circumvent declaration strength ranges that are there to stop unfair advantages(last round it got to ridiculous levels with the addition of being able to send aid, with 1 nation getting 10,000 tech to drop WRC powered nukes on people who had no chance even without the WRC in play). It could be better at reducing turtling on the whole, if people cannot downdeclare then there is less need to turtle against an opponent and increasing the defeat alert penalty is a bit more of a reasonable pitch to make. If a player can brazenly exploit a loophole like that to get juiced up if they simply wait until they've clicked to declare the war before doing so? Why should we support a change that would more often than not penalise the people on the receiving end of a beatdown from a nation exploiting this exact loophole. It rewards and punishes the wrong people if we adjust the defeat alert to be greater before we fix the ability for attacking nations to buy up after a declaration because it would push them out of range and they would not be able to declare the war if they bought it all first. It's a loophole that is being exploited and has been for too long. When I get downdeclared on to a ridiculous extent? I will turtle, that is a reasonable approach to an unreasonable assault. We shouldn't punish players who sincerely have no other recourse if the loophole remains open for people to do these attacks. Edited May 3 by Johnny Apocalypse Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wobblies Posted May 4 Report Share Posted May 4 FA is bad. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lonabis Posted May 4 Report Share Posted May 4 Defeat alerts should be more costly and the attacking player should gains from them Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tehol Posted Monday at 04:18 AM Report Share Posted Monday at 04:18 AM (edited) (oops double posted) Edited Monday at 04:19 AM by tehol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tehol Posted Monday at 04:18 AM Report Share Posted Monday at 04:18 AM On 5/2/2024 at 7:07 PM, admin said: Thanks tehol. What I've gathered thus far: Aid needs to be nerfed but not necessarily removed. I'm interested in what amounts others think aid should be limited to. Defeat alerts need to be substantially more costly for the defender. I'm interested in what amounts DA's should be. The round needs to be shorter. 90 days most likely. Hi - I think this is basically correct except "nerfed" I think means "keep cash aid, remove tech aid". Hello - sorry for the wait, been busy. /drumroll EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: CNTE SPECIAL ROUND The following executive summary, with the exception of the parts in italics, is strictly a summary of the survey I circulated - dont shoot the messenger. (1) Folks like aid, but with likely with modifications (tehol's interpretation of results: keep cash aid, get rid of tech aid, increase FAC infra minimum to 3500 from 2000) (2) Folks like the 250 tech bonus in CNSE. (3) Folks like the 5-day resource turnover. (4) Folks like supplemental resources (tehol: personally I think they're dumb). It's not clear to me if folks liked the 120-day round. Personally I think it felt way too long, especially near the end. However, based on the survey results, a number of players claimed to like the long round (at least, at the time they responded circa mid March). AID: INTERPRETATION & RESULTS It seems people like aid, but with modifications. Specifically, it seems tech aid bad, cash aid good (?) Tech Aid = Pancake effect: Within AW (and consistent with survey results), there were multiple complaints (and a general feeling of malaise) once folks started getting flattened like pancakes by day 2 of a war (following tech-enhanced super nukes). In other words, tech deterred aggressive gameplay (increased turtling). Cash Aid = Reduced Risk, Higher Aggression: However, there were also numerous instances where players might have quit, but instead kept playing without rerolling due to cash infusion. In other words, cash increased aggressive gameplay (players could recover after overextending, or after a hard war - so more likely to play, and more likely to play aggressively). Ignorable side comments: I remain of the view that maybe tech aid would be good if it was truly unlimited... because we could have caught up with Wes maybe? But (a) it simply wasnt possible when building tech at fixed rate of merely 2500/slot, and (b) even if it was possible, the "pancake-effect" would have only gotten worse. I am also of the view that cash aid is extra good (beyond what I say above) for its ability to fuel interesting and unique builds that are subject to the in-game price increases. Relevant survey results below. Overall folks want to keep aid in CNTE, with a moderate to strong preference toward modifications. Interestingly, folks thought aid rules made the game more dynamic (which I agree with, ignoring certain tech-based outliers - namely Wes). Within the "dislikes", I see a theme of folks not liking getting ZI'd quickly (ie, high tech, super nukes, pancake effect): SPECIFIC COMMENTS Some people sent helpful comments: Even the following were good for a laugh: OTHER RESULTS (non-aid): - Tech in CNSE is a hit, as is 5-day resource window: - Round was likely too long (although note 10 people said they liked it above, and only three disliked it below) Apparently people like supplemental resources. Personally I think they're dumb: CONCLUSION See executive summary above. Folks liked the round more than prior rounds (at least, circa poll date). Thank you admin for implementing the aid suggestion, and thank you everyone for playing and completing the survey! FLAWS IN POLL? - I'm not a pollster and I probably made polling booboos, although I tried to phrase questions neutrally. - 19 responses is *not* everyone. - I sent the poll about 75% into the round, so people's views might have changed. 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.