The GMs Court

[Voodoo Nova]

I agree with Sargun and have explained why in previous arguments about this topic.

In reality, there is no way to verify the amount of subs someone has, or any ship someone has (barring Aircraft Carriers when someone has max planes) for their nations. Therefore, even a simple multiplier for one ship is in no way able to be used without abuse of the system. Right now, the best solution to fix this would to either make a general navy multiplier of x2 or have no multipliers for it at all.

Edited February 3, 2010 by Voodoo Nova

[king of cochin]

My exhaustive argument for the submarine multiplier has been made several times in the original discussion threads, and I do not have any more new arguments to make in its support. A new discussion is out of place. If you want to know my views I would suggest you to read the original threads. There is no need for the issue to be raked in such a manner now.

As regards the abuses i have admitted i had done, it should also be noted that I am the person who revealed it myself and corrected it myself without a second person coming into the picture. I am sure that facet of information would cause even greater malignation against me. Since you have resorted to attacking the messenger instead of the message may I remind you that this multiplier was not sneaked in, it was not brought in through any surreptitious manner, it was brought about as a result of exhaustive community discussion. Do you deny knowledge of such a discussion having had taken place?

I admit I have abused the system, but it should also be noted that I brought forth this issue in a straight forward manner. I dare anyone to state one incident where I have not been straight forward as to my actions. I have never sought to cover up or butter up any of my actions, it was always made in full open ness and I have never tried hide myself from criticism, in most cases as in the abuses you so bring about to malign me, i raised the issue against myself in an act of self chastisement.

CNRP is not a place for your self aggrandisement, do not be sore when anything do not go your way all the time. Live with it, like the rest of us do.

[Subtleknifewielder]

OK, if you have a problem with it...

If someone has less than the max ships they can have, just take the number off the top-tier ships for CNRP.

For example, a person can have 15 IG ships, and say the top two can be carriers--and they have three less than their maximum. The rule would then say that they don't have carriers, and are missing one IG submarine.

That would prevent abuse nicely, I would think.

[Voodoo Nova]

[quote name='Subtleknifewielder' date='02 February 2010 - 11:12 PM' timestamp='1265170329' post='2154466']
OK, if you have a problem with it...

If someone has less than the max ships they can have, just take the number off the top-tier ships for CNRP.

For example, a person can have 15 IG ships, and say the top two can be carriers--and they have three less than their maximum. The rule would then say that they don't have carriers, and are missing one IG submarine.

That would prevent abuse nicely, I would think.


[/quote]

I'm sorry, but I just think that makes it way to complicated to figure out what someone has for a navy in game.

[Subtleknifewielder]

Not really. Just look at their naval improvements, tech, and infra, and some simple math will tell you how many ships they can have, and the tech will tell you what kind they can have.

[Sargun II]

It tells you what they [i]can[/i] have, not what they do have. I don't have all the ships I can buy in-game. How do you know which ones I have and have not bought? You don't. We operate on an honors system.

Edited February 3, 2010 by Sargun

[Subtleknifewielder]

[quote name='Sargun' date='02 February 2010 - 08:57 PM' timestamp='1265173030' post='2154718']
It tells you what they [i]can[/i] have, not what they do have. I don't have all the ships I can buy in-game. How do you know which ones I have and have not bought? You don't. We operate on an honors system.
[/quote]
You didn't even read what I said, did you? Please read it again, more thoroughly.

[Sargun II]

[quote name='Subtleknifewielder' date='03 February 2010 - 02:18 PM' timestamp='1265228290' post='2156995']
You didn't even read what I said, did you? Please read it again, more thoroughly.
[/quote]

[quote] Not really. Just look at their naval improvements, tech, and infra, and some simple math will tell you how many ships they [b]can have[/b], and the tech will tell you what kind they [b]can have[/b].[/quote]
I see can have twice in there, not what they [i]actually[/i] have.

[Subtleknifewielder]

Sargun, THIS is the post that explains it. Not that one.

[quote name='Subtleknifewielder' date='02 February 2010 - 08:12 PM' timestamp='1265170329' post='2154466']
OK, if you have a problem with it...

If someone has less than the max ships they can have, just take the number off the top-tier ships for CNRP.

For example, a person can have 15 IG ships, and say the top two can be carriers--and they have three less than their maximum. The rule would then say that they don't have carriers, and are missing one IG submarine.

That would prevent abuse nicely, I would think.
[/quote]

[Sargun II]

That post makes no sense whatsoever. Can you re-write it in an understandable fashion?

[Subtleknifewielder]

Please see the example.

You can calculate someone's maximum ships by looking at the amount of infra, tech, and naval improvements.

[Sargun II]

[quote name='Subtleknifewielder' date='03 February 2010 - 04:48 PM' timestamp='1265237322' post='2157312']
Please see the example.

You can calculate someone's maximum ships by looking at the amount of infra, tech, and naval improvements.
[/quote]

That example makes no sense. What does "say the top two can be carriers--and they have three less than their maximum" mean? For that matter, what are you even talking about with "The rule would then say that they don't have carriers, and are missing one IG submarine."?

Yes, you can calculate their [b]maximum[/b] ships. That doesn't actually tell what ships they DO have.

Edited February 3, 2010 by Sargun

[Voodoo Nova]

[quote name='Subtleknifewielder' date='03 February 2010 - 05:48 PM' timestamp='1265237322' post='2157312']
Please see the example.

You can calculate someone's maximum ships by looking at the amount of infra, tech, and naval improvements.
[/quote]

We know this. What we are saying is that you cannot tell what [i]specific [/i]ship someone has, barring aircraft carriers when the person has max planes. You cannot tell the number of submarines, the number of destroyers, the number of landing ships, etc, unless you are the owner of the ships. This is why a full navy multiplier or no navy multipliers work with less abuse than stating a specific ship has a multiplier.

[Subtleknifewielder]

[quote name='Voodoo Nova' date='03 February 2010 - 02:52 PM' timestamp='1265237574' post='2157323']
We know this. What we are saying is that you cannot tell what [i]specific [/i]ship someone has, barring aircraft carriers when the person has max planes. You cannot tell the number of submarines, the number of destroyers, the number of landing ships, etc, unless you are the owner of the ships. This is why a full navy multiplier or no navy multipliers work with less abuse than stating a specific ship has a multiplier.
[/quote]
you're not even reading my suggestion.

My suggestion, if implimented, will make it so we don't [i]have [/i]to worry about that. If they don't have their max ships, then they would automatically lose (in RP) first the AC's, then the subs, etc, on down the line from most powerful to least.

[Sargun II]

[quote name='Subtleknifewielder' date='03 February 2010 - 04:58 PM' timestamp='1265237904' post='2157332']
you're not even reading my suggestion.

My suggestion, if implimented, will make it so we don't [i]have [/i]to worry about that. If they don't have their max ships, then they would automatically lose (in RP) first the AC's, then the subs, etc, on down the line from most powerful to least.
[/quote]

So your suggestion is to punish people that don't own the max amount of ships in the first place?

[Subtleknifewielder]

[quote name='Sargun' date='03 February 2010 - 02:59 PM' timestamp='1265237993' post='2157335']
So your suggestion is to punish people that don't own the max amount of ships in the first place?
[/quote]
You wanted a system that doesn't allow for abuse. No matter how you stand on this issue, we all agree the current system/fix proposal leaves room for abuse. My proposal does not.

And why would a person own a top-tier ship but nothing else (except for the aircraft carrier, possibly, for the planes)? The upkeep is atrocious compared to the lower ones. it makes more SENSE to buy the low-tier stuff first anyway.

[Sargun II]

[quote name='Subtleknifewielder' date='03 February 2010 - 05:03 PM' timestamp='1265238231' post='2157341']
You wanted a system that doesn't allow for abuse. No matter how you stand on this issue, we all agree the current system/fix proposal leaves room for abuse. My proposal does not.

And why would a person own a top-tier ship but nothing else (except for the aircraft carrier, possibly, for the planes)? The upkeep is atrocious compared to the lower ones. it makes more SENSE to buy the low-tier stuff first anyway.
[/quote]
That's [i]exactly[/i] what I'm saying. I wouldn't buy battleships, but I can just substitute my landing ships for battleships in RP. You can't prove otherwise. Your proposal hasn't even been mapped out in the first place. I'm not even sure what your proposal [b]is[/b], for that matter.

[Bacharth]

I go by max ships because I don't want to $%&@ over my nation's economy. If you want a screenshot to how many ships I can have, I'll gladly provide one in my factbook once I get a nation

[Subtleknifewielder]

[quote name='Sargun' date='03 February 2010 - 03:05 PM' timestamp='1265238339' post='2157344']
That's [i]exactly[/i] what I'm saying. I wouldn't buy battleships, but I can just substitute my landing ships for battleships in RP. You can't prove otherwise. Your proposal hasn't even been mapped out in the first place. I'm not even sure what your proposal [b]is[/b], for that matter.
[/quote]
Yes it has too been mapped out--not every map has to be a complicated maze.

Your first statement shows that you have at least a partial understanding of what I'm proposing.

let's put it another way--you have one IG ship, that means all you have in RP is a corvette. Does that make it any simpler?

[Sargun II]

[quote name='Subtleknifewielder' date='03 February 2010 - 06:31 PM' timestamp='1265243464' post='2157473']
Yes it has too been mapped out--not every map has to be a complicated maze.

Your first statement shows that you have at least a partial understanding of what I'm proposing.

let's put it another way--you have one IG ship, that means all you have in RP is a corvette. Does that make it any simpler?
[/quote]
That's a good suggestion.

[i]Except what does it have to do with the unbalanced multipliers[/i]? Once the person reaches submarines, the multiplier blows it out of proportion so that even your proposal has no effect on it.

[Subtleknifewielder]

The point is, it KEEPS THE MULTIPLIER FROM BEING ABUSED! There, I can't say it any more simply.

[Sargun II]

No, it doesn't. That means somebody only has to buy one submarine to have five, while still having to buy five battleships to have five battleships. It means that if they want aircraft carriers, they'll [b]still[/b] get 30 submarines.

It doesn't change a single thing except that now you punish everyone who doesn't want to pay upkeep on different ships.

[Subtleknifewielder]

Sargun...the top ship is the Aircraft Carrier.

The second from the top is the sub.

Battleships are near the bottom of the scale.

And we already force people to pay upkeep for planes, ships, and thermobaric/biological/chemical weapons (IG Cruse Missiles) to have them in RP

Edited February 4, 2010 by Subtleknifewielder

[Voodoo Nova]

[quote name='Subtleknifewielder' date='03 February 2010 - 10:12 PM' timestamp='1265253168' post='2157802']
Sargun...the top ship is the Aircraft Carrier.

The second from the top is the sub.

Battleships are near the bottom of the scale.

And we already force people to pay upkeep for planes, ships, and thermobaric/biological/chemical weapons (IG Cruse Missiles) to have them in RP
[/quote]

Alright. So why not just have a "you have x many ships because you have x many IG".

[Subtleknifewielder]

Because someone was trying to make the ratio of Subs to Carriers more realistic, is why.