So I've been out for awhile, and its long since I've been suicided.. is it normal for 14 AB's to wipe out almost 40 bpt? Thats alot of zones

Well, at this point in the reset the % of CS to land is a lot higher than later in the reset, so naturally you lose more of them now. Sorry for you loss.

time of reset doesnt matter. last set with 10 days left to go. sol ab'ed me 38 times. 70 bpt (maybe more) was gone.. 260(maybe more) cs ab'ed down to 0 in 38 ab's. its the new attack formula's

'working as intended'

lol

You need to keep a certain amount of every type of defense on hand, otherwise the gains max out.

Last set they fluffed up a few parts of the game and apparently havn't had time to fix it... I assume they are going to because things like this are ridiculous.

Well I'm sure karma had it coming to me, still sucks. Hope they can fix that soon.

Thats like 290 turns lost off my start :(

This is how the game works now; it's not a bug, it's a feature. Better get used to it by keeping more military on hand.

"it's not a bug, it's a feature"

I love that line, use it with my clients all of the time, haha

Sounds sexual.

Yeah I just lost about 40-50bpt and only like 100-150 Ent/Res in fewer than 20 attacks...That's pretty messed up...

That's awesome!


Mainly because it's not happening to me.

Step 1: Weaken suiciders in various ways
Step 2: Make AB's ridiculously powerful
Step 3: ??

Step 3: del locket

You forgot Profit...

There must always be profit.

Not sure who is profiting other than the construction companies :P

brs destroy less cs's (i think since many wanted it changed) so maybbe ab's got powed up.

ABs are definitely very powerful now.

AB FS FTW!

Considering that you cannot kill a country with AB's, why not amp them up and make the tactics of war a little more interesting?

I like this "feature."

Because it might be used by suiciders rather than only by people at war.

I'm convinced that Qzjul and the admins are actively working to mess the game up. I find it hard to believe them to be as incompetent as they appear.

victory is mine!!!

why cause they don't mold the game in your vision? it is their game, we are just lucky to be able to play

Because they don't address major problems, and they create major problems themselves.

Stonewalling too strong? Let's make it stronger.
Landtrading too strong compared to bottomfeeding? Let's make it stronger.
MBR too weak? Let's make Commie Indy stronger to make MBR even weaker.
FSs too strong? Let's make them stronger.
Cheating too rampant on Express and Primary? Let's delete players who try to fight back against the cheaters.
Numerous people suggest an easy change to weaken cheating in Express and Primary? Let's ignore it, and devote our time to ruining the game instead.

Rockman, you seriously have a warped view on things...

Stonewalling was not too strong; 90% of all complaints I heard said it was too weak, and nearly impossible with KR speeds.

MBR has never been a mainline strategy, other than the last couple weeks of the set.

FS's are too strong; we have other plans in mind for FS's, but increasing the ability to stonewall was part of the idea for weakening FS's.

WRT Express and Primary; we have, thus far, had s fairly hands-off approach with moderator policy; that one particular issue has been smoothed over I believe, so stop harping on it.

Which easy change to weaken cheating in express and primary? I don't recall there being any viable change to do that.

Also, we don't share your agenda to make a bottomfeeding MBR the penultimate strategy in the game.

penultimate - nice word

Bottomfeeding has ALWAYS been bad for the game. Those with bottom networths are weak players... and then they get farmed which makes them quit the game and do something else. By making bottomfeeding less viable, it helps the game survive.

I believe Rockman must be new to this game... at least people are paying attention to it and making changes and actually thinking about how to make it a better playing experience. That is... instead of Mehul Patel. Tell me which one you would prefer.

Stonewalling was too strong. Getting online in time to stonewall was hard, but if you could get on, it was too easy to stonewall. The new changes didn't make it any easier to get online in time to stonewall, they just made it even harder to kill someone who did get online.

To properly address the problem of stonewalling, you need to make killruns take longer, or make it less important whether or not someone gets online. You did the opposite.

MBR has never been a mainline strategy, and you've chosen to weaken it rather than strengthen it. Doesn't make sense to me.

FSs are too strong, but you've not increased the ability to stonewall. You've just increased the importance of getting online to stonewall. Which is much easier to do when you're the alliance with the FS and the other alliance is CSing. By making stonewalling more powerful, but not making it easier to get online to stonewall, you've increased the power of FSs even further.

Express and Primary have had serious issues for over a year, with DR abuse, and offensive ally leeching problems, which you've done very little about. Simple suggestions such as decreasing the DR timer in Express from 24 hours to 6 hours, or getting rid of offensive allies in primary have been ignored.



Shows how little you understand about my comments and suggestions.

I've made suggestions to make midfeeding possible, and I refuse to engage in bottomfeeding. I don't want MBR to be the most powerful strategy, I just want it to be viable. Furthermore, a MBR bottomfeeder cannot work in alliance because of the high networth a MBR must keep with its military.

Getting retalled is more profitable than not getting retalled. And that's a problem. But rather than make it possible to bounce retals (and thus make midfeeding an option), you choose to keep the offensive modifiers out of whack, when the ability to stockpile up cash and then buy jets makes it already difficult enough to bounce retals and grabs, without the extra offensive ally and the planned strike bonus.

A simple way to make midfeeding a bit easier would be to prevent offensive allies from helping on planned strikes. And I've made that suggestion.

Dissident - you're the one who is new to the game, if you think that the untaggeds on an alliance server are new to the game, and that making sure they get hit for big gains rather than small gains will actually make them leave. If they're farmed to the ground by midfeeders, that's far worse than if they are bottomfed. I don't think you understand how the alliance server works.

What I would prefer is for Qzjul and Pang to listen to some people who understand the basic game mechanics. That's assuming that their intentions are good. If their intentions are not good, then I just wish they would have good intentions.

How many people are involved in a change right now?

Like for instance when it was decided to make the change to C:C DR how many people were involved?

QZ why did you ignore the entire topic of this thread and only reply to Rockman? Are you planning to weaken AB's or not?

Also, weakening bottomfeeding was just wrong. The people will still be hit pretty much the same amount of times, it will just be a bit more spread out on who is hitting them. Alliance is a server with PLENTY of warnings about playing untagged(Server name, suggestion to find a tag etc). If you want to protect them then add a couple of more. Making landtrading(Exploring by pushing an extra button) better does not make the game more interesting.

And on the whole stonewalling topic... the idea to make it slower rather than impossible to kill if they get on is a much better tactic.

I think you'll find there are many that disagreed with that.



"problem of stonewalling"? how is it a problem?

Killruns taking longer is something that's in the works; we've repeated this many times.



We haven't chosen to make it weaker; we've simply not really considered it as a strategy; we've never focused on full-set MBR in any way.



Slowing KR's, as I've stated dozens of times, is something that we have in the works; it's just back-logged along with all the other post-Dec2011 changes.




This has *not* been ignored; but DR time is currently hardcoded, so it's not something I can change quickly without coding; and, as I think I've stated 100 times or so, we've currently put on hold any changes while I redo the back-end of EE for forum-game integration purposes. It's been on the list of things to-do for longer than you've been talking about it, but it's not been a huge portion.



Sure, but you make suggestions almost the the exclusion of any other strategy; MBR is not something we've ever really considered, and we're not going to make a track-change on it any time soon, there's a lot of other things worth worrying about; if we *happen* to make it better or worse, that's just a product of whatever other things we had in mind.



This is not something we've had time to address; once again, we've stated a number of times that we'll address offensive allies in solo servers, but not until after our other back-end & front-end changes are done.



That's a possibility; there's a number of other possibilities too; but PS balance has been less of a concern than integrating the game+forum, which is what I've been working on for the last like 8 months -- keep in mind this is a hobby for all of us, and we don't have infinite time.



We do; however, many of the people I talk to who understand the basic game mechanics disagree with you on a number of points. Some of your suggestions are good.

But the biggest thing you seem to forget is that your personal priorities for the game sometimes are different than other players and ours as admins; most of these things you suggest aren't *hugely* critical; the FS overpowered bit is one probably the most concerning, but again, we have ideas in the works for that -- on hold primarily because of my back-end changes & pangs front-end changes.

I don't think AB's are too strong if you actually have like 1 TPA...

But we may weaken them for the 0 tanks case for those of you that insist on running 0 tanks...

It is pretty hard to maintain a high tank count at this point in the set and net effectively with some strats. It is not hard to get tanks and suicide with them though.

Do you have your 3-8k tanks right now Qz?

Also, I am not sure where to find the formula for this right now but is it entirely based on the tanks per acre? If so, then how fast in comparison to before do CS get killed when you have one tank per an acre as you suggested?

yes



I'd have to simulate that, but it shouldn't be a whole lot higher....

but even at 8k acres if i only have 8k tanks. 38 ab's destoyed 260 cs and lots of other buildings.. seems a little over powered

that was vs 0 tanks i think, not 1 TPA yes?

qz ive already talked to you about this, but the damage done VS a 0 tank country is way too overpowered. youre basically saying if my strat ivolves me spending the first 150 turns or so building CS, someone should be allowed to destroy my 150 turns worth building in 50 turns worth of attacks because i didnt buy tanks right OOP?

i think the new formula for how many buildings are destroyed against 0 tanks, but you need to lower the amount of CS destroyed to run crelative with the amount of buildings being destroyed. i should still have half my buildings standing but every single CS is destroyed in the process.

remember guys, pang himself called this game a POS

what'd you expect hehehe

fair enough; but i would have said run 99, hold turns, then run 126; surely you can afford 100 tanks by 225 turns?

Qz instead of asking if people can buy 100 tanks by 225 turns... Fix the problem. It is obviously out of balance here.

Or just blame the user for your mistakes.

And you also never answered my questions:

How many people are involved in a change right now? Is it just you, yourself, and qz?

C:C DR change was decided by 3-4 people, and the concerns of the server it hurt the most were ignored :)

Oh Rockman... you're telling me that I'm new to this game? Did I not just reference Mehul? By definition, that means I am not new to this game. I started in 2000... so you were 1 year old when I started playing this game.

13 is the min age right? 13 also happens to be the age of the average troll.

Game mods... you're doing a bang up job. If you change the game, it's up to the player to adapt to those changes and come out on top. If all they want to do is whine about changes instead of rolling with it, I think they should go play mars2025.

I think I figured it out. Pang is in pdm. Pdm likes ab fs's. Makes sense now.

i thought of that yesterday, but didn't say it :p

The issue with ABs is that the change sucks for early game. If you're running a strat that is tight on cash at the start(ie any sort of casher), it's hard to get some extra tanks at that point. Then again, 1 tank per acre is a ridiculously low amount to be concerned about...When I got ABed, I had like 1k acres. That's really not a lot of cash to spend on tanks....

WHY IS EVERYONE WORRIED ABOUT GETTING AB'D EARLY IN THE GAME? ARE YOU ALL SUCH JERKS THAT PEOPLE WANT TO RUN SPECIAL ATTACK RUNS AGAINST YOU THE FIRST DAY OUT OF PROTECTION?

BILL
MINISTER OF LOGIC
THE MIGHTY CLAN [DANGER]!

this

just buy 100 tanks ffs

There's a real easy solution for all those complaining.. buy some tanks DUH!

"oh no this will make my netting set worse off than before" Everyone is in the same boat, get over yourself.

"but I'll be ruined if someone AB's me early"
Buy some tanks early then, and don't farm untagged so many times w/o tanks stupids (since those are rly the only ppl who will AB u in alliance server, and if you can't outsmart an untagged maybe you shouldn't be playing this game).

Ppl who net in alliance server have no balls. They hide behind their tag protection their ridiculous retal policies and cry and complain to the admins when something doesn't go their way. I'm sorry the game admins change things once in awhile and force you to have to think and change your ways. I'm sorry a free game doesn't do exactly what you want it to do all the time. That's life, once you move out of your parents basements maybe you'll learn this lesson the hard way.