hi

.

I'd wager that it was some poor-finish clan, likely finishing a war set, clearing out the market for some allies.

I suggest reducing the "blind" auto-sale market price on tech (which is somewhere near $500? I can't remember) to about $200.

The change doesn't do much, if anything, negative to the game.

What it would do, is be closer in $/NW to military units at the end of a set, when it's damn near useless. One could argue that it's NW with no upkeep, but when there's still many turns to run, tech prices just won't be cheap enough to be the "free" alternative.

Simple change, and I don't think it'd stir things up too much. What do people think?

Sid Meier's Civilization VI?

happy birthday d00d, enjoi!

Just to spur discussion...

What about a "mega" unit? In particular, one that takes many, many turns to produce, and maybe gives a bonus to your country, rather than another unit to attack or defend with.

Let's say for the sake of the discussion, it takes 50 turns to produce, utilizing 5000 IC's, at 100% production. The unit cannot be purchased, nor sold, on the private market.

Like missiles, the amount of these units you're able to have is directly related to your acreage. Call it one per 5,000 acres. Perhaps the Communist government bonus would include a higher capacity for these units.

It's unlikely that non-Commie Indy countries will be able to produce this unit, since it would take so much damn time, and/or eat away at the few IC's one would have for spy production. This would assist C/I players by both giving them an exclusive commodity, as well as thinning out the military market by an unknown amount, which would increase revenues, and allow the average player a better chance at doing as well as another average player following a "better" strategy.

You may have to adjust MBR's in some way, however, as the increase in their profits may be too imbalanced, but I really don't know how competitive they are already. Perhaps they also need a small boost, and this would cover them as well?

As for what the unit does, maybe just a percentage-based boost on military strength? Say, 5% to attack and defense, or maybe just defense? I didn't think that part out as much as the rest of this suggestion.

nah she was too busy lettin' me watch on the webcam...

I must be bored.

Yeah, I've been waiting for some damn warstats myself for a couple of weeks now... but you've probably been as aware of that as i have :P

I think the obvious difference, de1i, is that we're certainly holding them to this one.

It beats the fluff out of our other options. We could have given up entirely on iMag, and blindsiding some other under- or undeserving tag. We could have FSed iMag with the numbers advantage. We could have just stagnated. None of these are great for plenty of reasons.

We're not ones to be douchebags, and I hope people see that.

My name is xaos and I approve this message.

I did say that I've no footing on what's going on in FFA, and to take my suggestion lightly. Additionally, I only claimed that this would be the easiest method to address the OP's original issue, which was self-farming.

Yes, people would cross-farm more, but it's marginally more difficult and time consuming to do that, as two people would need to work together. Self-farming requires a single person, as they have all the "ops" they need, and can do whatever suits them the best any time they're online.

This is just stupid. That's all I will say on the matter.

TL;DR. Maybe made it through ten posts... My bad if this has already been stated in this thread or other similar ones.

In an effort only to solve the OP's issues, I suggest that it be coded that you can not attack your own countries, regardless of tag status or attack type. Stops self-farming, obviously, but doesn't change other grabs in any way. It also has the benefit of fluffers DR'ing the fluff out of their countries. People who do that are fluffs ;p

In reality, I don't play FFA, so I don't really get a say- Take this all with a grain of salt.

The war against you being a homo :P

Sorry, couldn't resist :)

Deeply rooted, like what Nole's campaign is trying to do for you?

KJ, stop fluffing spamming every thread. You're not even entertaining.

LCN 53
SoF 36
Omega 34
Sanct 34
Evo 38
Monsters 23
MD 21
fluff 15
WoF 14
ICN 12
m0m0 12
KSF 1
RAGE 3
Rival 0
TIE 4
CIA 0
HAN 0
NA -3
PDM -9
RD -23
LaF -21
iMag -45
SoL -74

I think the best comment here is rockman's "planned defense." You may sacrifice your offensive capabilities for a defensive boost. Once you've made an attack, whether it be a retal or a grab, this boost no longer exists.

Or something like that.

Yeah, I've always thought a reasonable way to have medical tech get bumped up is to have it affect civilian losses. For quite some time, I just assumed it did that :P

Yeah, that.

Also,


EyeMag.

http://www.gullsweep.com/

Try something like that. You could probably fashion one up yourself for pretty damn cheap.

Should HAVE. Questions end with question marks. Run-on sentences. Commas separate parts of sentences.

Good god, people. Ten years ago I wouldn't have cared so much about the fluffty grammar, but seriously, haven't most of you aged ten years in the meantime?

*cries*

Depends on who's attempting to do the justification.

100-member clan A FS's 50-member clan B. Clan B calls in C and D to CS, bringing it to 100 vs 200.

Clan B could easily justify it with a numbers disadvantage. Clan A, however, could have unquestionable proof that in the previous set, half of Clan B suicided on A, keeping them out of the leaderboards.

In this case, you could say that the gangbang is unjustified, as Clan B was getting what was coming to them.

I was about to troll regarding the ambiguity of the title of this thread... then you went and fluffed that all up.

Thanks!

Just as selectable units? That's fine. As long as you cannot actually acquire or produce ships, this should be an easy change.

Just out of furthering discussion, what if they were marketable only after you've purchased a type of bonus? It seems being able to buy turns is probably the biggest negative argument against a change like this.

You'd spend your points as you do now. The non-boom bonuses would, as they are now, automatically be added to a country's stats. For boom bonuses, though, you'd have to activate them before they're consumed.

You'd then be able to send different types of bonuses to market. Say, for example, I'm going to sell 4.5% defense, 15 turns of cashing booms, and 3.5% market replenishment. This way, you can just omit bonus turns from being marketable. At this point, it's like a micro-tech market that everyone's able to contribute to.

If you're worried about someone running around with 100%+ stats, you could always introduce a hard cap on the particularly abusable bonuses, mainly military costs. Say, you cannot reduce your costs by more than 70%.

Thoughts?

Or, for argument's sake, how about this?

Inflate acres across the board by 10x or so. People start with, grab for, and explore for 10x as many acres.

Admins would be able to fine tune buildings' cost-vs-benefit a little more- Think "how many acres would a residential zone require?" It's definitely arguable that the admins get all the fine tuning necessary by adjusting the formulae etc behind the scenes, and any further tools to tune would just muddy the process.

It certainly would make it more realistic. Residential zones, farms, and military bases take up large swaths of acreage. A research lab or an enterprise zone wouldn't take as much.

Oh, also, you can't get anything more than a literal one-room shack for about a quarter million around here. Goddamn tourists.

Martian, it's also worth arguing that at "standard" rates on a 30-year mortgage, if you're financially able to make double payments on the property, you'll have it paid off in approximately 6 years.

Buttman, just wait till you tell them about Cerberus_MI. That guy's even worse!

I know you're already distancing yourself from using Excel for such tasks, but regardless of that I must warn you.

At work, I suggested we port some of our record-keeping, as well as some other tasks over to Excel spreadsheets. I didn't think much of it at the time, but now that they've become indispensable, I'd have to conservatively guess that I've spent about 1,000 working hours creating and maintaining them.

If you don't plan on going to epic scales with the spreadsheets, you're probably fine, but if you end up getting rather technical with them, expect to do a lot of work, in addition to the actual work you wanted to make easier.

Oh, as a positive, though, it's allowed me to throw together numerous EE spreadsheets for miscellaneous data with relative ease :P

yeh, kudos folks :D

I'm just waiting for the moment when you're gonna be like "So what if it was a landgrab on a family member in my same household?" or something else to that degree.

rofl Marshal, and I was going to comment on how useful the Maginot line was to the french :P

demofail

If you wanted a better democracy, give 'em a counterstrike booster... Say, loss of a higher military percentage, but higher turn count during a CS.

+1

Yeah, I had the "luck" to be at work whilst this was going on too... We've got some sophisticated weather software, and it looked god-damned frightening.

Either way, it's good to hear that you're still with us, Riddler!

This is all correct. Turns don't update whilst you're logged out, they only update when someone logs in.

It's rather useful to tell if someone's just popped online :P

Requiem, also it *IS* most certainly hard to enforce. Yeah sure, right now people are using xTaGx, xTaG2x, xTaG3x etc etc...

If they thought they'd be "caught" for doing so, what's to stop them from just naming them other fluff? Say they tag up as, xTaGx, Clanzor, and LoLnub. Say they just pacted themselves out, such as cross-clan retals, or cross-clan protection, or some other rediculous pact agreed upon outside the game?

Are we then going so far as to say A- You cannot have any foreign relations (ally slots and the like) with a different tag? B- You cannot LG a target that recently LGed a tag other than yours? C- You cannot pact any other clans?

Where would it stop? fluff, for that matter, where would it even begin? I, for one, would 100% refuse to try and enforce anything of the sort. It's just impossible.

Solution: Eliminate the Team server.

If everyone was to be in permanent protection, then I'd suggest disabling the scores page. You'd be enabling market usage for those under protection, though, right?

I like this idea, tbh.

I guess my counterpoint to that is that everyone has just as much chance at attaining the bonus points as anyone else, whether it be on their own, or via market purchase.

Jade, that may be possible, but if (most)everyone's trying the same, the price increases, eventually to a balanced point, and it's no longer feasible to gain that much.

Aponic, what kind of abuses? I can't particularly see anything exploitable. Multies, buyouts and cheap market floods are all well-handled already.

I wouldn't be surprised if this one's already been suggested, but what about being able to sell bonus points over the market?

Obvious issues would be point expiration, and therefore point hoarding for turns used during an FS. Can't say off the top of my head what the solutions to those would be.

By not doing so, you were theoretically able to boost hits with near-zero losses for both military AND oil reserves. Blindsiding would also have the effect of causing you to have to fight back at some point. By ABing some untagged schmuck, all you did was inflate stats.