TE makes me sad

[Vhalen]

It seems like the first few rounds, things were wild and free. But now? Now everything's gotten so methodical and planned that it's taking all the fun out of TE. People can't just fight in the last quarter of the round. Everyone has to go after their target lists and ensure they can't collect. Forget winning battles (that's for chumps!), so long as you're nuking on the prepared schedule. Attack up, against unreasonable odds, knowing you'll get stomped (that makes sense, right?), just so long as you're dragging someone else down with you. It's about as tactical as Tic Tac Toe.

I have an idea to liven things up a little, to make rounds play...you know...DIFFERENT than each other. Many will hate it, and hopefully some will even curse my name, but I will persevere and click "Post New Topic," despite your oppression, interwebs! Anyway, here it is:

Make the end of round random. 60 +1-10 days. DON'T reveal the end date, just the range. ("This round will end between X and Y.") It messes with people's carefully calculated endgames, livens things up, probably increases activity in the late going, and certainly increases interest and attention.

[New Carnoly]

I like the idea, it will make people use more stategy!

[dealmaster13]

That is incredibly interesting, haha!

Typically the TE Suggestions forum doesn't have as great ideas as this one.

[Jesusfreak]

I agree. This would make things much more interesting

[Instr]

I disagree; random round length is not necessary. If Vhalen feels gameplay lacks depth, it's because he neither functions in a warring alliance or a flag run effort. He just sits there, hides in his solo AA, and hopes he gets through. And no, from my impression, while a flag run is highly taxing and yields a low chance of reward, I don't see what Vhalen thinks is wrong with the end of the round. He's complaining because as a solo flag runner, he does not possess the skill or organization to actually have a real chance at the round. Hence, I don't see how his experience is authoritative.

As to whether the game is "tactical as Tic-Tac-Toe", the game's war system is highly simplified and knowing only a basic roster of techniques will make you a powerful fighter. There are also more advanced techniques (coordination, fireteams, etc) I haven't seen in TE, but LE, OP, or PS may already use them. There is also a highly complex game for making sure you hit targets and hit them correctly. I have the right to know, I've played it this round, and rather well, I believe.

If you do opt to implement random round length, please make it so that round length will still be announced at the upper right corner in the beginning of the round. Players will complain if it turns out that people win at random times in the round due to a hidden round timer. You will also get complaints from donators as they won't be getting the same bang for their buck every round and they will have to face the prospect of losing their nation immediately after a donation.

======

What war alliances fundamentally want is that when someone wins the flag in CN:TE, they can say that "this was the best fighter-builder this round". That's hokum. It's not that there is a "best" fighter this round, but the character of the CN:TE war system is such that it doesn't matter if you're the best fighter-builder this round (apologies to Dealmaster, of course, who can just fight off "conventional" rogues with minimal damage, of course, if he were engaged by "heavy" rogues such as the ones TFD used on him in round 11, he would be destroyed). If you are outnumbered, you are probably going to be destroyed. If you are being engaged by people with far larger warchests than you have, you are also probably going to be destroyed. If you are fighting nuclear nations without nukes, you are going to get hammered. It doesn't matter how well you fight; if you are fighting at a logistical disadvantage against skilled and organized opponents, you are not going to come out ahead.

The actual winner of the round will be, as before, the side that is most apt at staying out of warfare. Rodentia Dominatus was one such side this round, and they were in line to win until L0c0 was deleted for slot filling. Once such a side builds up to reincarnation warchests, they cannot be bashed down permanently to low infra, so unless you're planning on perma-warring such an alliance, these guys will just boost up a few days after their nuclear anarchy expires with a collection that restores their pre-war warchest. What is the point of this?

Edited October 19, 2010 by Instr

[Vhalen]

I never claimed it was "necessary," only that it would be a distinct improvement. I enjoy your personal attacks as an argument against my suggestion, however. That's quite a productive approach.

You don't think that a random end time would improve gameplay? It would take away the "last second surge," forcing those people to play for lasting strength instead of building a house of cards at the final moment (if their schedules permit them being on at update of the reset.) It would force warring alliances to think on a loose timescale instead of a rigidly defined one, thus increasing variance in play and requiring MORE strategy. (Note that I didn't even suggest it being a random time of day, though I think that'd be a fine idea as well.)

As to your "complaints" comment, Instr, if the major worry is people complaining, probably making a game on the internet was a bad idea to begin with.

And as to your final point, that war alliances want the winner to be the "best fighter-builder," I'll take your word for it. I will, however, point out that they're certainly not getting what they want, according to you. "The actual winner of the round will be, as before, the side that is most apt at staying out of warfare." Well, perhaps a semi-random end time would make it less clear how long you have to avoid warfare. I believe it would actually increase the end-of-round war's importance and give these war alliances more of what they want, forcing the eventual winner to defend himself instead of gaining a ton of NS at the very last moment, then sitting back and watching the clock roll over, as happens far too often. It certainly can't make things MORE predictable.

As an aside, I appreciate how you think personal insults aid your argument, but you're flat out wrong in that regard. As a solo player, I've come in quite high in the rankings more often than not, and I've very nearly won a few rounds, even while fighting two-week 3v1's (complete with nukes) and being unable to collect because of nuclear anarchy.

So, yeah, I'm coming from a position of experience, and I'm telling you that the end of the round is ridiculous. After 60 days of build/buy/war, suddenly you cash out millions upon millions to buy 50 CMs and a bunch of planes you'd never have wasted the cash on before, knowing they'd be nuked away. Suddenly your warchest is pointless, so you spew it forth wildly on land, infra, and tech you considered too costly until now.

Alternatives? Change the NS calculation from the ground up. Make fighting matter (and not just by counting casualties, which is a silly measurement that's far too easy to artificially inflate). Maybe count victories or something. The problem is that this sort of thing is far less simple to implement than my first suggestion, and it utterly changes the game itself.

[Instr]

As far as personal attacks go, yes, they're quite relevant to your argument. You're making claims based on your TE experience; you've been here since what, round 3? However, you've never actually won a flag.

There are flag runners I respect for their ability, no matter how much I may dislike their methods or their personalities. TFD is one of them; they are one of the flag running alliances I respect the most for being able to combine stealth, roguing, and terminal nation roguing tactics. Dealmaster is another one of them; he is the hardest flag runner to rogue in the game and should be renowned for how well he performs when attacked. Caelum / De Caelo Missus was a great innovator when he was playing; he managed to achieve a victory based purely on getting out of target lists and boosting up at the last minute. He actually won without significant alliance support, something you have not managed. Pork Shrimp, for the round they played as a flag running alliance, was essentially the best flag running alliance I've ever seen.

I, on the other hand, managed to pull off a victory in Round 8 through a manipulative gambit that left many other flag running factions with a bitter taste in their mouth. But that was a victory without significant alliance support, something you have not yet managed. And that round? Mind you, I had 3 guys on me for the last 10 days of the round, some from Pork Shrimp, some from TFD, some from Rodentia.

Regarding the terminal boost, what alternatives are you proposing? You're introducing a massive element of luck here; for the last 50-70 days of the round, people who have been rogued will end up trying to boost planes constantly for the NS boost. You should know as well as I what the costs of those are, that's 2mn or so a day after getting nuked. If they don't do so, they'll have between a 1/20-1/1 chance of being defeated on any given day as the random round tick goes off. Infra is also expensive; infra may not be the best way to boost up, but it's certainly on the top list. At 2000, each reboost will cost 2mn or so from the 150 infra destroyed. Warchests around the end-game vary, but you're forcing people to decide whether they want to boost every day, every two days, or every 3 days and take their chances on not being #1 when the random round timer blows them out of the water.

As far as "discouraging alliances from warring" goes, the end result is that all the flag running alliances will go passive and wait to ride out an attack starting R-40. Under the present culture of the game, if they have the right size, they'll simply NOT get attacked by any other faction and they'll win through simply sneaking through the cracks.

And as to my final statement, and this will be my final statement, feel free to have the last word, Vhalen, take it from me. I have more experience than you. I've played at a higher level than you and garnered more success than you have. You are chasing a Chimaera. The flag run is not something REMOTELY predictable. If it were, the final round NS for every round would be about the same, but we have variation from 25k, 21k, 28k, 32k (that is anomalous because someone bribed someone not to keep the target in nuke lock), 29k and 22k. The final round top 40 NS structure varies a LOT based on how the round has turned out, and the actual timetables in the game vary a lot based on how the round develops. I can go into more details about the complex maneuvers which lead to a final round structure, but I am not going to reveal my intellectual property to you.

And as far as casualty-wiring goes, it will require a change in the war-slot filling rules as the obvious counter-tactic will be to war-slot fill, then fire nukes or even just cruise missiles to deny your opponent the ability to replenish casualties. The composite of casualties and war NS is interesting, however, but overall I am opposed to destroying the conventional flag running tactics as they are complex, highly-sophisticated, and reducing everyone to using Dealmaster's monostrategy, although I highly respect him for the skill with which he handles his situation, resources, and strategy, is just lame. Dealmaster is fine when there is only one Dealmaster, or even two, or three, but if all the flag runners turn into Dealmasters then CN:TE will suffer for that.

I'm not going to say any more, I have no desire whatsoever to give you, especially you, or anyone else reading this thread, a full education in the process of managing and leading a flag running group. Perhaps I can give you this advice; if you ever seriously opt to flag run, if you smoke, buy a $100 multi-pack before you start, if you don't, then don't start and stock up as much liquor and coffee (espresso, but please attempt to control your abnormal consciousness state while you're wired on caffeine) as you can manage.

Edited October 20, 2010 by Instr

[Vhalen]

I think you're under the mistaken impression that this is some sort of cunning plot to orchestrate an environment where I would win every round. I'm not sure how you've come to that conclusion, but I regret to inform you that's not the case. You seem to think that walking away without a flag is utter failure, and because I haven't, I'm worthless.

Fact is, I barely make an effort, and certainly not a concerted one. I don't particularly expect to win. Heck, I don't know what I'd do with the flag if I got it. What I expect is to make a good showing, either by ending up with a respectable NS/rank, or by tearing a hole in everyone who fights me. My goals are fluid, and thus far, I can look at every round as it ends and come away satisfied with my showing. Assuming your goals as you present them, you've failed almost every time. Congrats.

Look, you seem to think the flag is the end all, be all of this. It isn't. My suggestion was intended to improve gameplay...you know, while people are still playing. But by all means, let's shoot everything down with bitterness and fury. I'm sure when you're the only one left, your odds at a flag will be pretty good.

As for your "education," don't worry about it. I have no desire to attend your academy. I don't want to end up bitter and miserable. I mean, it's the sort of place where you complain an alternative would be random, then turn around and say things are unpredictable currently. Make up your mind.

Now then...on your comments about alternatives:

The element of luck can be trimmed a great deal. There's no way planes should be worth as much NS as they are. It's silly. It's "fake NS" that you get at the end of the round, and as you yourself essentially said, it's an unwarranted, unaffordable expense except when you know the round will end in 5 minutes. Make planes cheaper and worth less NS, and they'll be used more AS PLANES. Right now, they're just a silly statue. (By the way, this is a GOOD IDEA regardless of the random-end-of-round thing.)

Also, I believe I stated quite clearly (though evidently not clearly enough for you) that there's no way I would directly use casualties as a measuring stick. It's foolish, and at least as artificial as buying those last-second planes. Maybe incorporate a metric that looks at war victories per casualty count, and reward people for offense. I don't know. I just think the way it is now, there are too many glaring flaws.

Edited October 20, 2010 by Vhalen