Here is my idea: 120(120) is too many turns. A natural improvement to allow players to miss a day or two of turns without losing turns, while greatly weakening the power of an FS would be to allow each alliance to have only 5-10% of their players have such a high number of turns at any given point in time(on a first come first serve basis in game).

The rest would only be able to amass 120(40) turns or even less? Perhaps 100 (60) might be better as well.

to be clear the players in the alliance with the "extra turns" in my envisioned system can change throughout the set...

Wouldn't it be easier to implement some sort of only 40-50 attacks a day limit like with spies? I'm sure people wouldn't be too happy about it, but it seems a lot less contrived.

Or just make it 1 turn/30 mins and make the max stored 70/70 again.

you guys are proposing WAY too aggressive of changes.

if you do anything with the number of turns on hand, you will anally rape the netter's stone set strats.

Here's what I was thinking...

Make a Defence Bonus like readiness, that is accumulated over time; 0% default & minimum, maximum 60%; 5% gained per day on login; you attacking 1x would reduce your bonus by 1%.


So if you made no attacks for 12 days you'd get your full 60% bonus... if you attacked 60x you'd be back to zero bonus.

If you attacked 1x a day, you'd take 15 days to get there; 2x a day would take 20; 3x a day 30; 4x a day 60; and 5x a day you'd never get there; more than that and you'd lose bonus.


This would mean typically that an alliance doing an FS would be hitting people with a bonus, while the CS would be against people without a bonus... after that neither would have bonuses....


It would also tend to help defenceless n00bs who don't attack; and all-x people... and hurt people farming the bejeesus out of people


Oh and I'd make AB's reduce this bonus at ~5% per attack, making AB's a worthwhile starting thing?

Hrm, war weariness of sorts. I like it. I would say that the defense bonus would go up to 20% maybe and the penalty could go down to -30%. No matter now much you sit on your ass you will eventually not get anymore well well rested. Then we can bring back conditioning tech to decrease readiness loss and propaganda tech to decrease the loss of this bonus!

mr. ford, I hate to be a douche but I think I know a thing or two more about netting than you. And I don't think changing maximum number of turns on hand greatly affects any strat.

Qz, I really really really don't like your idea. We shouldn't be doing anything that makes all-x stronger than an attacking strategy. I think many people don't have a problem with lazy vets running all-x strategies, but they do have a problem with "active" players who want to put lots of time into their countries barely being able to beat out a simple all-x strat. This is largely due ot server dynamics that may not be an admin level problem, but I don't think your solution is at all appropriate because it only exacerbates this problem (which I would say is a larger one than the power of the FS problem).

I think a variation on your idea qz, that I would prefer much more, would be to somehow have a formal war declaration in game that would be required before say, killing more than 1 country in a tag in a 24 hour window (or 500 attacks on a tag in 24 hours or whatever trigger ya like...). We could then set up the system so that declaring war on another tag somehow weakened the declarer(FSer) for some time. We could tie this into the "realism" of the game in that some "citizens" of the country protest going to war and thus X, Y, Z bad things happen to countries in the declaring tag.

It would be easy enough btw to still allow for planned wars in this system. We could add another feature allowing one alliance to "propose" war against the other and the other accept and then neither alliance is assessed any penalty for going to war...

We've discussed formal declarations of war before, but the problem as always is how to make it worth doing it without making an FS *more* powerful

in this case you HAVE to do it? Did you actually read what I wrote?

well yes but what would the criterion be? your clan can no longer make attacks after you've made 50 special attacks in 24 hours on a single tag?

like many of my suggestions I laid a framework and suggested possible specifics given that framework, but was trying to be purposefully vague about specifics in order to open to a discussion where many people could participate.

I will highlight again I said one criterion could be only one kill per 24 hours. (Thus, to spell it out for you which seems to be necessary, no special attacks after 1 kill) A second criterion was 500 hits.

You may notice I also didn't discuss what the specifics of the penalty for declaring war would be. Perhaps riots that are the equivalent of switching governments occurring randomly in one in every four of the declaring countries throughout the first 24 hours of war? Perhaps you think this is too harsh, or not harsh enough, or a bad idea for some other reason. Then lets discuss...

So all you have to do is retag for each kill

++briliiant!

oooo you are so clever, an easily fixed abuse is definitely a reason to scrap an idea in the early development stage... and be a douchebag too. Keep running PDM into the ground dumbass...

The title of this thread alone should tell people it's a bad idea. Everything suggested so far far too significantly diminishes folks who DO want to fight's ability to wage effective and entertaining wars. I think qz might be onto something, but I still think it becomes limiting to warring and grabbing by giving far too much defense to all-x strats.

Why on god's green earth would you want to limit players' turns, or put a cap on clan's total turns? You'd eliminate batch exploring by large clans, effective kill runs on suiciders by kill teams, warring abilities for clans that DO enjoy warring, and their abilities to effectively take advantage of having the FS.


This is a bad idea all around and should be shelved until something MUCH less limiting to those of us who enjoy warring can be sorted out.

Don't complain about people being rude to you, though - what goes around comes around.....

"mr. ford, I hate to be a douche"

yes, you ARE being a douche.

I think war is more entertaining in a system where, if two closely matched clans war, it is not always the clan who takes the FS who wins. Apparently trying to modify the rules so that a FS doesn't equal automatic victory "significantly diminshes (clans)... ability to wage effective wars." When I'm dealing with arguments of this "calibre" I can't help but be a jerk to everyone...

if your clan grows the balls to take the FS, surely you deserve some element of suprise, catching them with their pants down, etc.

limiting things to the effect that you want to seems that what you really want is for the FS'n alliance to always lose...

I have no problem with methods of mitigating the FS... however, I agree with Zarcon that the alliance who gets the FS should still have some advantage. The proposal QZ has made here seems, at least to me, to almost reverse the FS advantage.

Though, perhaps a scale could be found for it where this is not the case...

-Fooglmog
Guy with no clue.

that scale you've mentioned will be an ongoing issue that will be hard to merit...

I have always pushed for a formal declaration of war, as BobbyATA says. with something like it, the possibilities of giving bonuses or weaknesses to either side would be limitless. i mean, you could even toy with the idea of giving Side B a 48 hour Military Strat max so that they kill more civs per turn. or weapons tech bonus, or even more turns like 140/100 instead of 120/120

true, either of these methods could be said to either be too limiting or not enough, but with a formal declaration of war, you could easilly get enough data to test what will be the best options.

would also be cool for a clan, during an offical war, to pool $$ or goods together to buy super weapons that wreak havoc or pillage goods from the other side for X hours(ok, ok, i hate utopia as well, maybe a bad idea)

just trying to say that with formal declaration of war, possibilities are limitless.

lol soon as u said to pool $$$ or goods together, utopia's dragon was the first think that jumped into my head

meh.. it's not that bad of an idea. more interesting warfare can't be that bad.


but extreme limiting of warfare is a bad thing. warfare in and of itself has been extremely watered down since the move to EE in relation to spyops/nw difference/etc to limit it much further is stupid. an overhaul of warfare and its implications sounds more fun/interesting to me.

Wow! Bitter much? Did we do something to you? PDM has actually doubled in membership since I took over and is growing faster over a two set average than anyone aside from SoF.

I never said it needed to be scrapped. I pointed out that an idea is flawed (obviously other game alterations have to be made, ie limiting tag switches or something which has its own effects) and you get all upset. I am not sure why you had to resort to flames but that is against the forum rules of being respectful so I am going to have to ask you to apologize.

heh ATA I only skimmed your post as I am prone to do these days;

regardless... implementation of that might be a bit tricky


but i was thinking something more along the lines of positive reinforcements to encourage formal declaration of war, rather than some sort of manditory thing... though i guess... i dunno something like that would work...

the claim you are a dumbass is irrefutable given almost any random sampling of your posts Detmer.

The claim you were a douchebag in this thread is irrefutable given your post in this thread that sarcastically claimed my idea was "brilliant" because it had as I said an easily fixed abuse.

Finally the claim you are running PDM into the ground is pretty evident to any observer of the alliance server. Furthermore, it is a corollary to you being a dumbass.

So I have nothing to apologize for...

That is a completely baseless argument. I was tied for best poster on AT (clearly you would not have voted for me) which indicates that some amount of people think that my posts are *THE BEST*. Of course those people might like posts that make me look like a dumbass. I feel that would more likely win me the worst poster award though. I would like you to somehow draw upon a random sample of my posts to help demonstrate this point.



I was calling myself brilliant. As you should know anything following a + (or ++) at the end of a post on these boards indicates that it is sarcasm and/or humor so even if I was referring to your idea it still wouldn't have been intended as a mockery.



Another baseless argument! I have brought up that I am successfully growing the alliance whereas you couldn't even come up with one negative statistic to falsely indicate that I am running PDM into the ground.

Honestly, I thought you were more well reasoned than this. Right now you are just making yourself look foolish with these lies.




The rule is "Be respectful at all times." You don't have to respect me in your head, but by the rules of these forums you have to be respectful on these boards. If you don't sincerely feel apologetic for flaming me you don't have to, however as such I am going to pursue a temporary ban from the forums for you as a result of your rule breaking.

War hasn't been watered down since the move here, can we put that talking point to rest now?

lol can we get back on topic Detmer. My first post directed towards you was laced with understandable frustration and my second with humor (which apparently you did not appreciate)...

I appreciate all humor (I think)... I just don't always recognize it =P

Anyways, sure, back on topic.

I think we can more or less all agree that FS are overpowered. And right now there are three ways to weaken it - incorporate FS as a game mechanism which can then be controlled, add a new mechanism which has the effect of weakening an FS or alter existing gameplay such that it naturally weakens an FS. I think that adding a formal FS feature is the least desirable personally as it decreases the flexibility of gameplay.

And you wonder why no one takes you seriously....

how overpowered is an FS?

it is only really overpowered when coming against a clan in full netting mode. And the arguement could be made, that netting without proper defences.. is poor management, or asking to be hit no?

Yes an FS is powerful, but against an alliance with full SDI and war prepped.. not as much.

Getting an FS was a big deal when you could have 80+6 (80) turns. Now that you can have 120+6+6 (120) you are 150% more powerful. Hitting first clearly has to provide some advantage, but being able to kill a country with like 5 countries instead of 7-8 is a big deal. Basically in an FS of equal sized alliances there is the potential to kill 20% of your enemy before they start. 13% seems much more reasonable of an advantage.

what Detmer said. Also you get to be more productive with readiness turns than normal during an FS by for example disarming the opponents missiles...

Okay, so that's the potential... but what are the actual numbers? A theoretically perfect FS is certainly debilitating... but if the real in game numbers are closer to your 13% figure, there's no problem. Right?

-Fooglmog
Guy with no clue.

I suppose I should have stated it explicitly, but through target selection and missiles as Bobby said, you can effectively kill 20% even if by numbers you only killed 10-15%. Killing all the top rankers is more effective than killing a random sampling.

meh.

Okay, that's a fair way to put it (I appreciate the clarification) but I still wonder if the numbers actually bear it out. In a couple days, when I have more time, I may delve into the numbers and see.

Unless someone's already done that? I see a lot of hyperbole about FSes being too strong... but no numbers which back it up in anything but a theoretical sense. It would be nice to know what those numbers are before we how drastic of a change to introduce.

-Fooglmog
Guy with no clue.

I certainly have no stats to back it up, but it certainly feels like pretty much any alliance that gets FSed now a days loses. I remember during the turn change that people thought FSes were already very powerful and this would unbalance wars. I feel like that has been right, but again I only have what I feel is the case.

actually, in hindsigt, i fully support weakening of FS power.

So that the WoG/Rage FS on sanct/evo in earth2025 stays the biggest ever forever:p

I don't disagree... getting the numbers to be sure just seems logical. It also gives us a means by which to measure the impact of the changes we make and determine if they're insufficient or overkill.

Like I said, give me a couple days and I'll try to get them if no one else has.

-Fooglmog
Guy with no clue.

Qz's strategy simply increases the usefulness of an AB at the begining of each kill run in a war, while making an FS less easy to kill your enemy.

Well since this is the topic if stupidity im just going to add some more ideas to this game cause the game sure feels filled with fluffty ideas and more seems to spawn everyday amd some of them even made it in

Since we now have buying order I think we should have auto stonewalling I mean as long as you have cash on hand your country should try to defend it self

i think it should also have auto attack for wars so that the war chat leader can just run everyones turns as he wishes instead of waiting for people

what else, I think that all morons who post bad ideas should be gangbanged by the people who doesnt like the idea this will make people think before they actually post something that isnt really worth reading

And now im going to pos some netting changes id love to see hmm

limit NW so no one can have more then 50m net that way everyone can win! thats so much more fun then having a challenge like FSing a tag bigger then you

Oh yeah lets remove SS/PS/explore features out of the game and everyone can war all the time!

hm typoed of up there, topic of stupidity etc

Those turns stored by those FSing are also turns gained by the opposition to strengthen their countries, for a well run techer this could be as much as $1bn, which can boost the defences of a country by 5m turrets, of course netters don't like running with 5m turrets as that's expensive and hampers growth.

With communication becoming even stronger, free SMS's, newsbots with contact details and mobile internet it's now easier than ever to be "online" to wall, or to get people online in a FS to defend.

Or if you're relly that worried about being FS'ed... FS first!

Jeez guys, whenever someone suggests a change its really stupid to just assume that they are trying to benefit themselves or their alliance and screw you over.

It seemed to me that the overwhelming consensus was that FS was too powerful right now b/c of the huge amount of turns that can be stored. I was taking that as assumed, I guess you can disagree with that but there is no need to make this netters trying to make warring worse b/c they are netters.

Ivan you continue to have issue with the standing order, yet you want things to be fair; given people like myself essentially had standing orders using browser features, isn't it fair that everybody should?

Plus it saves on bandwidth, and prevents abuse like what I was referring to above...

I would have just busted you for cheating since you were running a standing order bot, I think that active countries should be rewarded if they are willing to really market camp

I'm assuming he had irc ping him whenever goods hit market at a certain price and then he logs on and plays. No cheating there

He ran a firefox script that automatically refreshed the fluff out of the server and bought things for him actually afaik

Which is why we now have standing order, to reduce the bandwith on the server