Jamacus Posted November 16, 2007 Report Share Posted November 16, 2007 I agree it's bad. I appreciate that he's trying to give DefCon 2-3 an actual purpose but this isn't the answer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sovereign Dixie Posted November 16, 2007 Report Share Posted November 16, 2007 I can't fathom why this would be seen as a good idea. Hate it hate it hate it. I wasn't all that thrilled about the tech thing, but this poses much more significant long term ramifications for the game as a whole. Bad things man... bad things. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evangeline Posted November 16, 2007 Report Share Posted November 16, 2007 Oh, good heavens, no! I don't believe I need to say why, as most of my exact thoughts are already mentioned in this thread. I don't like the idea at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrilobyteMan Posted November 16, 2007 Report Share Posted November 16, 2007 Up until this day I would laugh if anyone attacked me in DEFCON 4... now it's probably a possibility. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Degenerate108 Posted November 16, 2007 Report Share Posted November 16, 2007 dumbest idea and i quote ever :jihad: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boyle Posted November 16, 2007 Report Share Posted November 16, 2007 Oh Lordy. Not exactly lovin' this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deth2munkies Posted November 16, 2007 Report Share Posted November 16, 2007 I wouldn't see why you would EVER want to make this change...all it does is harm the game. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kingdom of fate Posted November 16, 2007 Report Share Posted November 16, 2007 This is #$@$@#..... First off.. With the spy missions able to change defcons... WHAT SENSE DOSE THIS MAKE? Secondly, IT's a horrible add to the war system, that's been changed to much already.. give the war system updates a break.... then start adding new things Thirdly. wars last 7 days... and realistically that's crap.... perhaps instead of chaning defcons... CHANGE how long wars lasT? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starcraftmazter Posted November 16, 2007 Report Share Posted November 16, 2007 This is a game - not real life, so the admin should not implement every real life thing, because most of them quite simply do not apply to the game, and in addition, one of the reasons games like CN are fun, is because they indeed are not 100% realistic. I think the goal should be to keep the game playable, and this change will fight against this goal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marechal Posted November 16, 2007 Report Share Posted November 16, 2007 (edited) Very much no. But lately I've noticed a lot of nations buying a lot of infra per day, like 30 or 40. Why don't we double infra costs after 1k barrier too? It would be excellent for the gameplay. Edit: This is a joke. Many people didn't seemed to get it. Edited November 16, 2007 by Marechal Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Compound Posted November 16, 2007 Report Share Posted November 16, 2007 no, no, no. no, no, no, no.....etc... This is a bad idea, 1) for spies can F*** you up, 2) rogues can kill unsuspecting people before they reach defcon 1, 3) No more surprise alliance attacks.. that was fun stuff... but now theres no more... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingzog Posted November 16, 2007 Report Share Posted November 16, 2007 BOOOOOOORNS! Quite apart from the effect on how the game works, a lot of people who have been saving are going to be mightily ticked when they go to change Defcon levels and collect. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starcraftmazter Posted November 16, 2007 Report Share Posted November 16, 2007 (edited) But lately I've noticed a lot of nations buying a lot of infra per day, like 30 or 40. Why don't we double infra costs after 1k barrier too? It would be excellent for the gameplay. Infra already costs a lot, this would only serve to benefit large alliances which can afford to send large amounts of aid to their nations, and ruin the game for smaller and mid-sized alliances. Edited November 16, 2007 by Starcraftmazter Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orville Reginbacher Posted November 16, 2007 Report Share Posted November 16, 2007 Worst addition ever, my T-Bill idea is better :-P Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
circlewood Posted November 16, 2007 Report Share Posted November 16, 2007 I don't like it at all. But I can see how it would be far easier to see an alliance gear up for war. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prime minister Johns Posted November 16, 2007 Report Share Posted November 16, 2007 I dislike it because it will make alliance wars difficult because they will be able to see if a alliance they are opposed to is gearing up for war. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mintner Posted November 16, 2007 Report Share Posted November 16, 2007 Im sorry this really does not make sense to me. It is not realistic at all. Defcon in the real world can change in a minute. Troops are always deployed and ready to go in the real world. Home based troops can be deployed and mobilized in 24 hours. And the fact that the defcon affects how much money a nation can make is ridiculous. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marechal Posted November 16, 2007 Report Share Posted November 16, 2007 Infra already costs a lot, this would only serve to benefit large alliances which can afford to send large amounts of aid to their nations, and ruin the game for smaller and mid-sized alliances. Of course I was not being serious. It just represents another idea about the same level of this one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boston Posted November 16, 2007 Report Share Posted November 16, 2007 ugh, this change is no good. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Higlac Posted November 16, 2007 Report Share Posted November 16, 2007 (edited) I usually have my defcon level at 3, which is really the worst possible now that I think about it. So this gives reason for me to continue my horrible strategy. Edited November 16, 2007 by Higlac Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elendil old Posted November 16, 2007 Report Share Posted November 16, 2007 No, no, no, no.So let's say that I spend four days building up to DEFCON 1. First thing my enemy does is send spies in to change my DEFCON back to 5. By the time I'm back at maximum readiness, the war is almost over. This change makes spies inordinately powerful. Also, this is a MAJOR change to game mechanics. Such a mjor change should not be, in my opinion, implemented after barely twelve hours of consideration. This is one of the most far-reaching changes proposed yet and there is no reason that it should be implemented on such short notice. What he said. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kingdom of fate Posted November 16, 2007 Report Share Posted November 16, 2007 Very much no.But lately I've noticed a lot of nations buying a lot of infra per day, like 30 or 40. Why don't we double infra costs after 1k barrier too? It would be excellent for the gameplay. How about me Times them by 6 for over 6000 infracture? Oh wait you wouldn't like that.... Your already over 1k infra. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emperor Mccole Posted November 16, 2007 Report Share Posted November 16, 2007 i think this is a very good idea. makes the defcons between 1 and 5 useful. voted yes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azaghul Posted November 16, 2007 Report Share Posted November 16, 2007 (edited) To quote my post in the suggestion thread: I like this idea. A few points to counter those bashing it: - You can still initiate a surprise attack. It just is slightly less effective. Also, if it it really is a surprise attack, your enemy will also be at defcon 5 and so you will be on equal footing. You will actually likely be on slightly better footing as you will be a step ahead on getting to defcon 1. - Alliances can have people switching in and out of higher levels to have a standing force. Should be a natural part of improvement swap cycles anyway to not collect for long periods. - You can still fight at levels 2-5. The penalty isn't that huge. Just like you can still collect at levels 1-4, the penalty isn't that huge. I don't know how people get the idea that you can't fight at defcon 5. You just don't now because it would be stupid not to switch to 1 to attack, as it isn't a big deal to switch to 1. And its stupid to collect not in 5 now because its easy to switch into it before update and switch out afterwards. But just because its stupid not to be in 1 to attack and 5 to collect now due to the ease of it doesn't mean it won't kill people to not do it once the change happens. - It is realistic. You can still fight a war on the fly. It just takes time to be ready to your maximum advantage. - Changing to +/- 2 will just make levels 2 and 4 worthless. +1 is realistic. Taking 4 days isn't entirely unreasonable. Though I think 3 would be the better. That could be changed by only having 4 defcon levels instead of 5. Edited November 16, 2007 by Azaghul Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
varses Posted November 16, 2007 Report Share Posted November 16, 2007 i think this is a very good idea. makes the defcons between 1 and 5 useful. voted yes. This is the equivalent of saying that all the functions of the game should be used and players should be forced to use them. I think that since you're nuclear capable, you should be forced to buy nukes, one per day, until you have the maximum. It doesn't make DEFCONs 2-4 any more useful than they are now, it simply makes them necessary. 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.