nhoj Posted November 16, 2007 Report Share Posted November 16, 2007 seems like a very poor update is admin trying to discourage war or something? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Scouser Posted November 16, 2007 Report Share Posted November 16, 2007 (edited) Terrible idea. I can easily be attacked in Defcon 5 by some randon junkie at Defcon 1. Edited November 16, 2007 by King Scouser Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drai Posted November 16, 2007 Report Share Posted November 16, 2007 Dreadful in my opinion, the planning for wars will go way down. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OPArsenal Posted November 16, 2007 Report Share Posted November 16, 2007 This ruins the fun of alliance wars and pretty much screws anyone over who is being attacked. I mean, if you are hit by a rogue, you and your alliance buddies can't scramble to fight a full defense for five days. Thats enough time for said rogue to do massive damage. I agree with this post and thus, I have quoted it. This is one thing that I have failed to consider. If I am hit by a rogue, why am I penalized by only being able to fight back at maximum readiness for 3 days? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joeliscob Posted November 16, 2007 Report Share Posted November 16, 2007 this idea is the worst one i have ever seen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slayer99 Posted November 16, 2007 Author Report Share Posted November 16, 2007 Let's face it....this is totally unfair to the casual players and puts them at a distinct disadvantage. People we could count on to send out aid when asked, to attack someone when asked, but were otherwise not active on a daily basis....will now be totally screwed over. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Virillus Posted November 16, 2007 Report Share Posted November 16, 2007 (edited) Or not:/ Edited for idiocy. Edited November 16, 2007 by Virillus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Xander the Only Posted November 16, 2007 Report Share Posted November 16, 2007 Not a fan of this one Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snowbeast Posted November 16, 2007 Report Share Posted November 16, 2007 bad, bad, baaaad idea. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mack Truck Posted November 16, 2007 Report Share Posted November 16, 2007 Horrible addition. I don't see what positive benefits it brings to the game as a whole. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aleksandrov Posted November 16, 2007 Report Share Posted November 16, 2007 This is up there with adding Lead to Construction and the first introduction of Global Radiation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan2680 Posted November 16, 2007 Report Share Posted November 16, 2007 Its not a bit realistic. To me a CN day is like a RL year. Nothing like 5 years to gear up for war. This will serve to make an already slow game even slower. :angry: my thoughts exactly =D like... you arent going to magically build a few highways and bridges and w/e in a day (10 infrastructure). Just like you wont magically recruit another 40000 soldiers to help with the war front in a day. If the game was more real-time oriented then I would say its more realistic but... CN is kind of a slow game as it plays. I voted against it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
varses Posted November 16, 2007 Report Share Posted November 16, 2007 Mass public outrage will surely get admin to remove the change, right? I lol'd Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sithis Posted November 16, 2007 Report Share Posted November 16, 2007 Let's face it....this is totally unfair to the casual players and puts them at a distinct disadvantage. People we could count on to send out aid when asked, to attack someone when asked, but were otherwise not active on a daily basis....will now be totally screwed over. Agreed. People sometimes forget about those nations who are not as active as the others, yet still collect only a few times a week to send out aid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Penguin Posted November 16, 2007 Report Share Posted November 16, 2007 (edited) I'd much prefer the original Defcon levels. If we had to make then change, then at least drop the number of Defcon levels to 3 or allow a +/- 2 change each day as was already suggested. Or we could just leave it the way it is. Edited November 16, 2007 by Penguin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
princessro07 Posted November 16, 2007 Report Share Posted November 16, 2007 Some people actually voted yes?! Can we here from them please?! @Virilius: If alliances were to stay in Defcon 1 indefinitely, their economies would suffer, esp for the smaller nations. It just isn't practical. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
varses Posted November 16, 2007 Report Share Posted November 16, 2007 See, this is how Admin works. He makes an update, sees what kind of outrage it causes, then slowly changes it until people are only slightly pissed off rather than being outraged. Now I don't consider myself opposed to all change in the game but it seems that admin is increasingly listening to the desires and suggestions of the few nations at the top rather than the population of Planet Bob in general. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hildegard 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. I agree; this makes spies ridiculously powerful. I remember using spies on war opponents in the last major war--it must have been a pain in the butt to login and find that you've been attacked at DEFCON 5 in spite of your best efforts; to make it so that it takes so long to get back up to full military strength just doesn't seem fair. I don't like this "update" at all. Not that I am against improving gameplay, but I don't think this does much good for CN. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Epik High Posted November 16, 2007 Report Share Posted November 16, 2007 (edited) Uhh the post I quoted was edited by the author. The statements below apply generally. I would respectfully disagree that alliances retain the element of surprise with this upcoming change. A casual monitoring of an alliance's DEFCON levels can easily alert outside observers to an upcoming war by alliance "X". A proposed solution may be to make DEFCON levels private, but that only makes the organizers of war oblivious to how prepared their own alliance is, in terms of DEFCON levels. Going one step further, if one proposed that only fellow alliance members can see one's DEFCON level, this precaution is easily circumvented by ghosting an AA for a few seconds and gathering information. The ultimate solution, thus, is to create a sort of system with which alliance membership can be authorized in-game, preventing ghosting. Edited November 16, 2007 by Epik High Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FredDerf Posted November 16, 2007 Report Share Posted November 16, 2007 Oh what a bad idea from not only a game play and RL perspective. Honestly who thinks this is a good idea and why? If there is *anything* good that comes out of this then it will be that DEFCONs 2, 3 and 4 might actually get used. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
varses Posted November 16, 2007 Report Share Posted November 16, 2007 If there is *anything* good that comes out of this then it will be that DEFCONs 2, 3 and 4 might actually get used. And the problem with not using that feature of the game is........? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Sanders Posted November 16, 2007 Report Share Posted November 16, 2007 See, this is how Admin works. He makes an update, sees what kind of outrage it causes, then slowly changes it until people are only slightly pissed off rather than being outraged. Now I don't consider myself opposed to all change in the game but it seems that admin is increasingly listening to the desires and suggestions of the few nations at the top rather than the population of Planet Bob in general. Maybe because the outrage over the tech thing was stupid and that update didn't really change anything. This fundamentally slows the entire war system down to a point of total boredom and makes the game even more boring. The only reason I play the game now is because of the people, the game is already boring. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
varses Posted November 16, 2007 Report Share Posted November 16, 2007 (edited) Maybe because the outrage over the tech thing was stupid and that update didn't really change anything. This fundamentally slows the entire war system down to a point of total boredom and makes the game even more boring. The only reason I play the game now is because of the people, the game is already boring. I was referring more to the tech requirements he put on aircraft which he then lowered by a factor of two from 1000 tech to buy level 9's to only 500 tech. Edited November 16, 2007 by Varses Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
America Posted November 16, 2007 Report Share Posted November 16, 2007 The U.S. military can land forces anywhere within 2 days in the real world, so why would it take five for it to call up troops in the situation of going to Defcon 1? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan2680 Posted November 16, 2007 Report Share Posted November 16, 2007 Though I already voted no... I didnt consider spies into this. It would be completely ridiculous to go from defcon 5 to 1 in 5 days, then on that 5th day your enemy just changes your defcon to 5 (or w/e it may be). In essence, that would totally dissolve the purpose of defcon levels, being that you would just run spy missions all of the time, making both parties stuck in defcon 5 (low readiness). 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.