And very useless to kill nowadays.... AB > GS :( Hope admins revert it back. And you can't suicide/kill netting people near the end set. Oh!! In the near future, this game will be only a Netting game :(

It has been a netters only game for a while now.

that was always the intention, and for many it remains the hope, but unfortunately it has never been the case

no atm war is broken beyond repair. Maybe a few netters will be happy there is no more war but, 50% of alliance server is war vic and with war broken why should they play. I understand your a netter with 0 interest in warring period.

AB's are way over powered in the scheme of things now because you can completely cripple a country in about 120 AB's while you need 250 BR or GS about to get same result. Also, if you GS them the country gets back enough of its country especially with countries keeping almost no troops that it would be better to more expensively AB a target with more damage. Also, with people no longer needing to keep huge troops on them, they can go pure turrets which makes breaking insane.


This change unlike all the rest changed the entire balance of war country building and the dynamics of war. Just remember there is no CD for tanks or turrets. With only losing 30% of stuff ok I have 10 mil turrets 1 mil tanks. Ok I die I have 7 mil turrets 700k tanks. How many times do you have to fully take a country down. The entire mathematics of warring has changed. Before though the country really took a significant loss if you killed the country. While Ab's only stopped growth period. Now of days hell you BR a country down he comes back with what 200 to 300 CS's so, along with 2/3rds his acres and 70% tech. He i sback in the game as a real country that day.

Also, with the changes war will last all set rather then being over in a couple weeks. I understand qz wants wars to take longer but, the problem is wars are time consuming and people don't want a 4 week long grudge fest because they lose the fun.

... ?

It is pretty suckish now, I am glad I retired when I did.

Everybody was fluffing about long endless 8 week wars, so what did qz do?

Yep, ensured that wars are now unwinnable and never ending.

Nice fix.

I think the intent is to make war more strategic.

Look at LCN, they pulled off a good PDM move. AB FS ftw! Once/if rival is fully crippled. Id imagine, the countries sell off military. To try to rebuild or keep themselves in the fight. Which bring that number of crap they get back lower an lower over time because they have to waste military defending, attacking and selling it off to provide income to rebuild,if they try. So that 70% is a misrepresented Number it seems if you dont plan a strategy of crippling the countries before hand.

I could be wrong, and i am sure someon will come along confirm this :)

I see the point in the change. Makes a whole new ball game for warring.

But whether its good for the game is yet to be seen.

if you br them, kc, i do believe they return with the base of 5 bpt and none of their [now destroyed] cs's

Lcn caught rival w pants down full turns and low sdi that war should not be used as example

the issue with this server has never really been the mechanics by themselves, it's mainly been the community and the goal of trying to ruin your opponent moreso than win a meaningful victory for your members. if you want to blame someone, don't blame qz, blame all the alliance leaders in this server -- in every major alliance across the duration of this server's existence (going back to EC) -- who subscribe to fluffty politics, grudge wars and the concept of trying to demoralize your opponent "to stop future wars". it's all bullfluff and made a lot of good players leave. and THAT drove any changes that were made. the only alliances that tried to step up and take the high road were railroaded for it.

the other issue is that 120/120 or whatever it is now is WAY too many turns. I'm not even interested in developing for this server until we're back to 80/80 because with 120/120 there is no way war will ever be fixed. 120/120 is too unbalancing and has been for years -- including whatever it was on EC (which was 120/100 or 120/80 i think). no one I approach, other than a handful of LaF'ers, ever listens to that argument though and everyone says "more turns = better!". that's a fallacy, 120/120 is way worse for war and the netters will adjust appropriately to any number of turns they are given. This server isn't an entry-level server. This is where the most hard core players come to feed their addiction.

$0.02 from an inactive admin :p

atryn made guess which is likely correct:

Atryn

Dec 29th 2013, 0:28:09

If you mean what I think Duna, yes. If you get AB'd down to 0 CS and then killed, you would restart with the CS from the old restart formula. Think of the old formula as the minimums you restart with. If this formula is higher, you'll start with this (75% or more of what you had). But if the values from this new formula are lower, you'll start with the old restart formula's amounts.

So you cannot force someone to restart with 0 CS or cash... But you can AB them again at turn 15.

if you br a country to death, leaving them with little to no buildings, they get css created from thin air on their restart?

As KC said, Rival was completely unprepared and it's not a good example to judge the changes.

The changes are moving in a good direction though. Who likes to spend large amounts of time on a country and have it completely wasted in less than 2 minutes to a kill run because they couldn't get online to wall? I don't imagine netters or warmongers enjoy that kind of warfare.

Pang, the restart with 70-95% change is still silly. A suicider with some stock can just keep coming back again and again. Try killing a suicider with 10m jets. He comes back with 7m. Then 4.9m, etc. And the protection period is only 15 turns too. It's better to just demoralize the country to 45% readiness to simulate the 15 turns lost to a restarting country, and bomb jets.

I see your point, but I'll argue that you currently have 5 alliances under 20 members who would require that large amount of turns to do any sort of damage to Anyone else. ICN(5) Monsters (6) DANGER (7) could each make one kill AND do some damage with their members @ 120 turns. 2 Kills if they do it right! Power to small alliances is helpful to the survival of the game.






While I do agree that no one wants to have their country "wasted".....thats a political issue. If EVO (as netters) dont want to get jumped, their alliance leader / politics can make that happen.

Its a risk in a war game that you are going to war. As for the war alliances, they are usually a bit more dedicated to the idea of being ready to stonewall at a moments notice.

You have to play with an Ideal or structure you believe in. A top 10 netter probably doesnt want to tag SOF every set knowing full well they will probably be involved in a conflict.....

What are you talking about bstrong Rival was fully in netting mode also it was the 2nd day of X-mas, i was at a party getting drunk this war is not a good example.

Also i bet LCN won't be able to make us all use our stocks since they to have to break and we are slowly comming back in the fight... there are all kinds of strategys to get cash especially when you are ab'd to crap and have stock... all you have to do is drop your land to 500-1k acres find a country with lots of cash on hand and do 1-2 PS's it'll get you around 100-200 mil cash on hand.

Not to mention tah LCN has literarly no stock... i just wonder how much they can keep up breaking 1 mil tanks??? with maximised weapons tech to boot

revert back to the way it was, all countries should come back at

Turns: 0 Money: $25,000 Food: 100 Bushels Networth: $4717

if you're a sissy and afraid your little country get wasted in less than 2 minutes, join a lazy netting clan

that happened after 1st change to restarts, for example country had 180 cs's before attacks and after restart they had more than that.

Omg people have different opinions!!!!

I wouldn't call FA packages "stock," but you raise a good point on lowering land.

At the end of the day, I think what Pang was trying to explain here was that the server has moved to a point of political absurdity. Remember when topfeeds were fairly common? People actually carried some defense. The pacts were rarely land-based. Dying didn't happen in 10 seconds. There was as much value in strategically playing countries as there was in the geopolitical side.

I don't consider this a pro-netting change. I actually think it will shake that side of the equation a lot more than people think. But either way, I don't see change hurting things except for those at the top of the roost. And even for them, given the game's history, they would be foolish to think they're up there for too long.

I have already reached out in search of the next game to play once Pang pulls the plug on warring

This game is warlight. Join us in the fun. Contact randy, colo_outlaw, tav, or myself to join our sqad of global domination.

Also, this game is like RISK but better

is it text based?

for real text based fun http://thcnet.net/zork/

Scode. It is not text based but it still kicks ass.

the turns isnt even the whole problem

readiness went from 2 to 3 percent regain per turn

so we went from 75 or 78ish with bonus = 156%

to 120 or 132ish with bonus = 396%

thats 253% the attacks we used to be able to make in a FS

if people really wanted to fix that sort of problem even if you want to keep turns the same all you need to do is something like cap readiness regained per 24 hours to 156% or any other number you chose

you know what else does that? Mass deleting an alliance because a few members messed up.

random post

Pang- I would argue the server is moving in a positive direction.


We have 2 new allainces with 20+ members.

Rage is adding a new member here and there
TIE is 30
PDM is growing and nearly 30.
LCN is growing and nearly 30.
Omega is 40+!
Evo maintained 20 despsite losing people to new alliances that fromed.

There isnt a lunatic of a major alliance going around trying to "burn the server down."

I think the server is moving in positive directions at the moment.


And I agree, RIval/LCN is not a good example.


That was simply a statement, that had to be made, You can't jump on LCN, without getting jumped back. Sometimes rebuilding allainces have to make a statement.

What pang says is untrue.

I told you 2 years ago 120/120 is ludacris pang lol and I am not a laffer. Readiness gains have been 3% for a LONG LONG LONG time now I don't see what's wrong with that .

If war goes, so will I.

I see no reason to net in this game.

It's still slowly sliding into an all explore netting server.

DIRTY TREE HUGGERS.

I just came back this set....been gone 8 years. And now you tell me killing isn't killing anymore? What is this flufffied horsefluff?

How I imagine FA will go next set for any given clan: "What are you going to do? Kill us?! BAHAHAHAHAHA"

And better yet, can we just all break out into war regardless? We'll just call Alliance "The World of Parking Lots...craft"

fix it

I don't know where he/she plays...

But I like RatM

as she said ^^^

lol. too many opinions. Happy New Year! Hope you revert it back to the old style :P Starting at 4717 :P

OMG what are you on crack??? what FA... no one in Rival received FA from outside of Rival

I like killing the way it was, on the other hand i like change and it is to early to judge what this will do to the game. So what i think they should do is keep it a set or two then open a vote to see if people would like to keep the change or take it back.

I for one still love this game and if you dont want to see it go then give the mods a chance to make some changes.

And to the mods keep up the good work and just keep in mind there are still people who love this game and love you guys for keeping it alive. :-)

PERHAPS KILLING MAY HAVE GONE OUT OF STYLE BUT
CRUSHING YOUR ENEMIES,
SEEING THEM DRIVEN BEFORE YOU,
HEARING THE LAMENTATION OF THEIR WOMEN -
THAT NEVER GETS OLD


JIM_DANGER
AKA 'CROM'

If you are landkilled do you start with 70% of 0 acres?

then you get minimums.

because more turns and more readiness per turn both equate to more hits

if your going to tune hit amount per day or hit amount per first strike you can easily reduce either or both

whichever people want more or works better

I am starting to like this idea. It gives suicider a bonus!