Verified:

DerrickICN Game profile

Member
EE Patron
6339

Dec 15th 2020, 17:01:01

A lot of recent changesets work at addressing the problem of overpowered suiciders but none really work to address the problem with war mechanics. The fact is, if you do 50 ABs on someone, there is no question you are at war, whether you declare war or not.

Suggested changes are as follows:
One should be able to expect to see 8 million troops or a million tanks rumbling onto their lands from seemingly a very long distance. While some of the "griefer ops" could stand to be changed, spies would likely need to be left alone, as they are covert. Although maybe it could lock them out from further espionage after a failed attempt.

PvP hits: A player may engage the bots to their hearts content, but are limited to 1 PvP hit per 24 hour period which could be retalled up to 2 times. For solo servers like primary that depend more on PvP interaction, maybe this rule does not apply. And the timeline obviously changed for a server like express. This works within the last changeset to allow all proper retals up to 200%.

Declaring war: A player may declare war on another player if they wish to do greater than 1 hit. If the person is tagged, the country must declare war on the entire clan. If both countries are tagged, clan admin must declare clan v clan war. When war is declared, a notification will be sent to clan admin of the defending tag as usual. After a 24 to 72 hour cooldown in which all parties are notified of open hostilities, they may engage each other as much as they want in a war type setting. You see the tanks coming, you prepare your armies, and you engage in simultaneous combat when they arrive. Welcome to reality.

Things this would eliminate: Surprise FS. Maybe the largest drawback is players would no longer be able to storm the beaches of Normandy with millions of soldiers in a surprise attack. It removes a non-realistic part of the game
Suiciders/griefers. They would only be able to do 1 attack, or call their shots in advance, which would result of course in a bigger stronger enemy shielding themselves from attacks by much weaker nations. And could respond to attacks like a normal nation would when being attacked by a much smaller nation.

Edited By: DerrickICN on Dec 15th 2020, 17:42:03
See Original Post

DerrickICN Game profile

Member
EE Patron
6339

Dec 15th 2020, 17:08:25

Recently on FFA we had a new acct begin playing a rep indy, hit an established alliance a few too many times, die and quit the game all within a week.

With this mechanic in place, rather than being dead and gone we would have an opportunity to recruit new players who dont know what they're doing before opening hostilities. It would not only help the gameplay for a vast majority of folks who just want to net, but it would also prevent griefers from targeting the largest nations with countries that should in theory be too small to do real damage, while simultaneously ending the scenario where a new player doesnt understand the culture and gets killed off before they become fully aware how the game works. And the only way it changes current wargames is to eliminate blindsides which frankly have always been a negative experience for netters and wardogs alike.

Some servers, like 1a or FFA would benefit from this change. Other servers, like team, frankly need it.

Edited By: DerrickICN on Dec 15th 2020, 17:33:07
See Original Post

Requiem Game profile

Member
EE Patron
9056

Dec 15th 2020, 18:13:58

I like it. It's a fresh idea on something that needs to be addressed for 1a, much like how primary had changes to address the issue there.

It will need the buy-in from devs, but it has potential.

KoHeartsGPA Game profile

Member
EE Patron
29,486

Dec 15th 2020, 18:29:11

I'm all for changes that will improve the gameplay and bring new players to the community, I like it.
Mess with me you better kill me, or I'll just take your pride & joy and jack it up
(•_•)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W6VRMGTwU4I
-=TSO~DKnights~ICD~XI~LaF=-

S.F. Giants 2010, 2012, 2014 World Series Champions, fluff YEAH!

Gerdler Game profile

Forum Moderator
5077

Dec 15th 2020, 19:38:29

There has been several suggestions floating around over the years and some discussed at the highest level for this problem that persists. Everyone with any sense agrees that something needs to be done about it. And something like this could likely solve it.

When Clan GDI was discussed it seemed to fizzle out because a bunch of people who never netgained in the present era started suggesting a "fair price" for such a protection. The comprehensive suggestion for that "fair price" that QZ ended up posting amounted to that the netters in 1a would have to keep MMRs of 50 spal, 100m+ troops, 100m+ turrets and 30m+ tanks in order to be allowed the Clan GDI protection.
The Clan GDI which was supposed to enable netters to netgain, became bastardized to the point that the game would not only be unwinnable with it, but it would actually be impossible to acheive a top 10 with.

Now Derrick suggests something that is free, which gives comparable protection. As long as its not bastardized again it may work well.

Bug Game profile

Member
EE Patron
1506

Dec 15th 2020, 21:35:36

Yeah I have spoken to a few players about something similar to this recently, and most are accepting of it.

Having a "pre-warning" eliminates the need for something like huge expences because you are given fair warning of stuff coming your way, in game which is a first..

So I appreciate a decent conversation about this on here so long as you all dont start slagging each other off again..

KoHeartsGPA Game profile

Member
EE Patron
29,486

Dec 15th 2020, 21:59:25

When the slagging begins, so should the deletions ;-)
Mess with me you better kill me, or I'll just take your pride & joy and jack it up
(•_•)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W6VRMGTwU4I
-=TSO~DKnights~ICD~XI~LaF=-

S.F. Giants 2010, 2012, 2014 World Series Champions, fluff YEAH!

cyref Game profile

Member
EE Patron
850

Dec 15th 2020, 22:50:01

This suggestion has great merit and I would very much like to see it implemented especially on 1A.
I think it would not only help to keep new players around, but help to keep returning players engaged for more than a set or two.

And I agree about Team, should this be enacted there I might even play more than one server again.
👽

beerdrinker75 Game profile

Member
EE Patron
2274

Dec 15th 2020, 23:58:29

I like this suggestion. Let's make it happen.
Just shut up and have another beer

Tmac Game profile

Member
890

Dec 16th 2020, 2:20:49

I like it for 1a, ffa, and team. Don't like it for primary since there aren't bots, and gdi protects you alot(I like the current primary setup). I've only played express a little, and tourney none, so no comment there.

Bug Game profile

Member
EE Patron
1506

Dec 16th 2020, 2:28:53

Tmac: just to confirm i believe this is for CLAN servers only..

BROmanceNZ

Member
420

Dec 16th 2020, 3:53:09

I like this idea for clan servers. Lets netters net whilst still leaving them open to one sneaky SS or PS if someone wants to be cheeky. Still lets warring clans war, with most of them being prearranged anyway.

Feels like it deals with those playing outside of those two pretty well.

galleri Game profile

Game Moderator
Primary, Express, Tourney, & FFA
13,960

Dec 16th 2020, 19:51:38

Good, fresh idea for clan servers. I like it.



https://gyazo.com/...b3bb28dddf908cdbcfd162513

Kahuna: Ya you just wrote the fkn equation, not helping me at all. Lol n I hated algebra.

Prime

Member
138

Dec 17th 2020, 1:26:10

Originally posted by Gerdler:

The Clan GDI which was supposed to enable netters to netgain, became bastardized to the point that the game would not only be unwinnable with it, but it would actually be impossible to acheive a top 10 with.


Can you elaborate a little more on what you mean by the game being unwinnable with the suggested changes that you feel were "bastardized". Also the impossibility for achieving a top 10 under that structure. No novel needed here, I just legitimately want clarification.

Now Derrick suggests something that is free, which gives comparable protection. As long as its not bastardized again it may work well.


Do you think such protection at this level should be free?

Gerdler Game profile

Forum Moderator
5077

Dec 17th 2020, 2:02:50

Someone able to quote messages should also be able to read the rest of the post. I already answered that before the quote you pulled out:
Originally posted by Gerdler:
The comprehensive suggestion for that "fair price" that QZ ended up posting amounted to that the netters in 1a would have to keep MMRs of 50 spal, 100m+ troops, 100m+ turrets and 30m+ tanks in order to be allowed the Clan GDI protection.

Prime

Member
138

Dec 17th 2020, 2:37:47

Originally posted by Gerdler:
Someone able to quote messages should also be able to read the rest of the post. I already answered that before the quote you pulled out:
Originally posted by Gerdler:
The comprehensive suggestion for that "fair price" that QZ ended up posting amounted to that the netters in 1a would have to keep MMRs of 50 spal, 100m+ troops, 100m+ turrets and 30m+ tanks in order to be allowed the Clan GDI protection.


I read that. I still wasn't completely following what you were saying. And what point of the game would the mentioned MMRs cause you to not win or top 10, and under what circumstances? Any time before destock? I'm thinking about FFA and Alliance mostly here.

Gerdler Game profile

Forum Moderator
5077

Dec 17th 2020, 2:58:56

MMRs inflate your NW beyond humanitarians range of the bots thus naturally ending grabbing earlier than non-clanGDI countries.
The MMRs also cost too much in expenses. Math it with the NW dependent expenses formula if you dont believe me.

The_Hawk

Member
2832

Dec 17th 2020, 3:34:16

I think taking the risk should always come with the reward. You risk being non clan gdi and you should reap the benefits. I do not see the problem.


https://ibb.co/BTF4KkJ
Dev encouraging it

Gerdler Game profile

Forum Moderator
5077

Dec 17th 2020, 3:59:39

I dont mind that at all. Auto-lose shouldn't be the price tho. It should be sensible.

Prime

Member
138

Dec 17th 2020, 4:25:50

Originally posted by Gerdler:
MMRs inflate your NW beyond humanitarians range of the bots thus naturally ending grabbing earlier than non-clanGDI countries.
The MMRs also cost too much in expenses. Math it with the NW dependent expenses formula if you dont believe me.


I wasnt even to the point of arguing with you yet. I really just didn't know what you meant. I dont have the patience to even bother with Derrick's posts specifically in most cases since he absolutely makes fluff up. I know you typically dont and I wanted to understand from someone that actually uses math and factual data. I'm not trolling you, I legit just wanted to know what you meant. Put the claws away

Originally posted by Gerdler:
I dont mind that at all. Auto-lose shouldn't be the price tho. It should be sensible.


So not free is your opinion, correct?

Edited By: Prime on Dec 17th 2020, 4:28:22

Gerdler Game profile

Forum Moderator
5077

Dec 17th 2020, 5:40:03

What derrick suggests is equal protection for everyone in the game no matter what. That shouldn't cost anything ofc since its as mandatory as humanitarians.

Clan GDI was always going to cost something since its a protection you opt to enter into. The cost could be $, or MMRs or that you just can't attack/war as well if you have it.

table4two Game profile

Member
635

Dec 17th 2020, 7:34:32

This is a fantastic idea Derrick. Kudos to you my friend.

The declare war function is great as it will eliminate suiciders. As already mentioned, this will give new players more time to learn the nuances of Alliance, and also retain current players who quit from having their countries ruined every set.

I also really like the 1 PvP hit per 24hr idea. This will help ensure the bots aren't grabbed into oblivion.

As Derrick mentions, the one downside of this is the elimination of a surprise FS, but the fact this suggestion is coming from an alliance that traditionally wars, shows this idea has merit and would be accepted by the EE community. I also like that it gives a warring alliance advance notice to prep for an incoming FS instead of being blind sided, and this would help in making the outcome of a war more dependent on consistent levels of activity.

enshula Game profile

Member
EE Patron
2510

Dec 17th 2020, 8:47:05

even without the mmr requirments to activate clangdi

(if you were in clan gdi without them you ust got the penalties and none of the benefits)

the major problem was the grabbing restrictions, where you had to declare war to actually hit the bots, maybe you could still hit ones over 50% but that obviously dries up really quickly

so the cost was completely not worth it for netting, your better off having a good country and getting suicided than just plain having a bad country

it depends a bit of course how heavily you get suicided, like last set i got suicided twice and still finished 7th, but i was on par with en4cer/tmac/cordy for a 1b+ finish before so obviously my country was still crap in comparison

but gerdler who also got suicided was straight killed which is also easy to do but takes more turns (to not be killable at all by just a few countries you need SDI which as a netter is practically impossible to do and still win)

in the same tone as sdi vs no sdi in any situation where protection vs no protection costs too much that it just takes one person who can afford to take the risk because they are in a safer position or just takes it and gets lucky, (possibly due to excess targets or just having a not as good country) can reliably beat someone who pays for protection then choosing protection is accepting mediocrity

Gerdler Game profile

Forum Moderator
5077

Dec 17th 2020, 8:57:38

Yeah the idea seemed to be "lets make clan GDI such a costly venture that no one can join it". To be honest it would be a step in the right direction, because then the devs will see that no one is joining it and 2 years later they will revisit it and drop the prices.

enshula Game profile

Member
EE Patron
2510

Dec 17th 2020, 10:27:18

as to derricks suggestion

i consider it to be three suggestions

1) the harsh limititions similar to expressgdi

2) a method to bypass the restrictions - basically the formal war thing weve been talking about for years

3) a time delay to prevent blindsides
(btw the original point of the huge restart bonuses was a way to reduce blindside advantage so if this works that could be tuned down towards the level of the anti inconvenience restart bonus where you didnt have humanitarian issues from the first changes)
flat time delay is fine
but the one i think of as the EVE online method - where you pop an initial protection then a time delay happens which could be user controlled or not - is what id like to see us work towards

because it can also be used during war

say before war you got 24/48/72 hours

and perhaps its even bigger if resources are unbalanced
say if your much bigger in members/production/stock/turns they get more time

perhaps time of the set also effects time

then during war maybe it still works but for a much smaller period of time such as 1 minute or 1 hour

and there could be a cost to it so youd have to refill a resource with something
oil/food/money/tech/combo/new

which would allow for a much smaller protection if it wasnt filled

maybe before war you could set time you want to come out of protection and let the war start, so if euros declared war on americas the americas might set the production to expire when most of europe was 3-6 am

the initial protection during war doesnt have to be absolute either, it can be something like letting you AB still, or letting you knock someone down to 50% current/max pop

obviously in a non declared war situation allowing full nuke/ab means it wouldnt achieve much

another benefit of formal wars is you could change spyop effectiveness/success once its declared, so people could only steal half as much tech outside formal war for example


and on the general subject of pvp hits, it would be nice as a tag leader/admin to have the option to block your members from doing things you dont want them to allies, with options like no suiciding our allies for 72 non vacation hours until after you have left the tag type thing, because that would equal tag responsability

this is relevant to last set where rokkie in elders/mercs i forget which suicided chevs in the bomb then chevs and others suicided laf

thats still a bit of an edge case because chevs considered laf responsible even though rokkie wasnt tagged laf, but still two tags could both agree to not let their members suicide the bomb

The_Hawk

Member
2832

Dec 17th 2020, 10:38:52

Originally posted by Gerdler:
Yeah the idea seemed to be "lets make clan GDI such a costly venture that no one can join it". To be honest it would be a step in the right direction, because then the devs will see that no one is joining it and 2 years later they will revisit it and drop the prices.


Could they slowly scale it based on average non bot networth instead of 100m trps turrets tanks?


https://ibb.co/BTF4KkJ
Dev encouraging it

Bug Game profile

Member
EE Patron
1506

Dec 17th 2020, 10:58:20

i still think the idea has more merits if its "any legitimate" clan of tag..

So the different servers would have different amounts, say 2 for Team and 3 for alliance and 20 for ffa (that's only two players)

Prime

Member
138

Dec 17th 2020, 12:30:20

I feel like it would be a much simpler coding endeavor to just not allow players to attack other countries unless they are bots.

The_Hawk

Member
2832

Dec 17th 2020, 12:43:55

Originally posted by Bug:
i still think the idea has more merits if its "any legitimate" clan of tag..

So the different servers would have different amounts, say 2 for Team and 3 for alliance and 20 for ffa (that's only two players)


32 for ffa


https://ibb.co/BTF4KkJ
Dev encouraging it

The_Hawk

Member
2832

Dec 17th 2020, 12:48:17

Originally posted by table4two:
This is a fantastic idea Derrick. Kudos to you my friend.

The declare war function is great as it will eliminate suiciders. As already mentioned, this will give new players more time to learn the nuances of Alliance, and also retain current players who quit from having their countries ruined every set.

I also really like the 1 PvP hit per 24hr idea. This will help ensure the bots aren't grabbed into oblivion.

As Derrick mentions, the one downside of this is the elimination of a surprise FS, but the fact this suggestion is coming from an alliance that traditionally wars, shows this idea has merit and would be accepted by the EE community. I also like that it gives a warring alliance advance notice to prep for an incoming FS instead of being blind sided, and this would help in making the outcome of a war more dependent on consistent levels of activity.


His suggestion was 1 hit pvp but unlimited hits on bots. So bots would still dry up.

He is suggesting this because he is getting wrecked in ffa. Not because of 1a.

Why not make a pvm server where players could not be grabbed but still could grab bots? I think that would solve a lot of problems.


https://ibb.co/BTF4KkJ
Dev encouraging it

Tmac Game profile

Member
890

Dec 17th 2020, 14:58:18

Why shouldn't it be free? It would help allow netters to net, and warrers can still war. Everyone gets the same deal so no need to charge us for it. That would make it to where a top netter might just miss a win because he paid and another didn't. Just my 2 cents as a netter, the war guys may have another opinion.

enshula Game profile

Member
EE Patron
2510

Dec 17th 2020, 15:08:51

Originally posted by The_Hawk:
Originally posted by table4two:
This is a fantastic idea Derrick. Kudos to you my friend.

The declare war function is great as it will eliminate suiciders. As already mentioned, this will give new players more time to learn the nuances of Alliance, and also retain current players who quit from having their countries ruined every set.

I also really like the 1 PvP hit per 24hr idea. This will help ensure the bots aren't grabbed into oblivion.

As Derrick mentions, the one downside of this is the elimination of a surprise FS, but the fact this suggestion is coming from an alliance that traditionally wars, shows this idea has merit and would be accepted by the EE community. I also like that it gives a warring alliance advance notice to prep for an incoming FS instead of being blind sided, and this would help in making the outcome of a war more dependent on consistent levels of activity.


His suggestion was 1 hit pvp but unlimited hits on bots. So bots would still dry up.

He is suggesting this because he is getting wrecked in ffa. Not because of 1a.

Why not make a pvm server where players could not be grabbed but still could grab bots? I think that would solve a lot of problems.


last set?

i see only 4 pvp hits in ffa last 24 hours on day 9

2020-12-17 04:32:47 SS Wild Honey (#684) xICDx Out Of Your Mommy (#1525) LoC 77A (101A)
2020-12-17 04:32:37 SS Wild Honey (#684) xICDx Out Of Your Mommy (#1525) LoC 90A (122A)
2020-12-17 04:32:26 SS Wild Honey (#684) xICDx Out Of Your Mommy (#1525) LoC 93A (126A)
2020-12-17 04:32:11 SS Wild Honey (#684) xICDx Out Of Your Mommy (#1525) LoC 97A (130A)

and they are probably mifluffs that were supposed to be on bots

it looks like about 33 players tagged in ffa and about 6 more playing untagged

i doubt theres very many grabs at all that count as pvp during a whole ffa reset,

is it 1 hit per country per target? that would be 256 hits per 24 hours if you focused on one player which is way more than what would lead to war

1 hit per your own country would still be 16 which is plenty to provoke a war in ffa

i guess if it was only 1 hit per account per day then it could lead to retals happening and war provoking taking a lot longer

DerrickICN Game profile

Member
EE Patron
6339

Dec 17th 2020, 15:55:41

PvP hits would include special attacks, not just grabs. I dont think actual wars shouldn't be able to be provoked, but you dont honestly see a lot of provocation resulting in a war. People suicide rather than engaging in actual war. And suiciding is just for grief. It's a problem.

I dont think this is a place where unhelpful comments from prime about me talking too much or me getting suicided constantly on FFA are factors. It's outside of this discussion, unnecessary and rude. A little disappointed to see the mod boss taking time to troll and insult on a serious suggestion thread.

I did say this is needed most on team server, although it would fix problems with war and net on FFA and 1a as well, sure. But I'd also be remiss if I didnt mention that FFA netters actually had over 4000 defends last set, one whole tag was run off the server, and it was all done by way of suicide. The server was virtually unplayable to an actual netter, and whole tags quit, meanwhile no actual wars occurred. It was all done by hiding untagged, griefing netters and dying without any effort to win. The whole goal was just to ruin others experience. Suiciding is most popular on the server you can do the most damage, that's not surprising at all to me. But it exists on all servers, has been mitigated with GDI on express and primary, and arguably has the largest effect on team, but I'm also not blind to the fact that the fattest 1a countries have gotten ruined by significantly inferior countries in almost every consecutive 1a set for a year now.

Not to mention, the new player I mentioned up top who clearly didnt understand the way the game is played and got killed for it and run out of the game rather than recruited will continue to slim the numbers of the game.

I think people should be able to war in pretty much the exact way they are able to now minus the surprise FS which was never good. I think netters should be able to net in almost the exact way they are too minus perpetual suiciding. If you dont fall into one of those categories, I think the damage you can do should be mitigated. And yes, that's the product of my experience in the game, the wars I've participated in and the few times I have netted. Would have improved my experience across the board in all instances. We've seen suiciders have the effect of ruining a war extremely recently in 1a that also remains fresh. My warring and netting is messed up everywhere by something this could easily solve.

It shouldn't cost anything for players to stop a practice that hurts player retention rates and the gameplay experience of the majority. It's just the right thing to do.

Edited By: DerrickICN on Dec 17th 2020, 18:29:35
See Original Post

Requiem Game profile

Member
EE Patron
9056

Dec 17th 2020, 16:11:14

A conversation about implementation is always good; I didn't read any of it but let's do something that lets players choose how they wish to play: war or net.

Whatever accomplishes that without ruining either war or netting, I will sign off on.

Prime

Member
138

Dec 18th 2020, 1:17:30

Originally posted by DerrickICN:

I dont think this is a place where unhelpful comments from prime about me talking too much or me getting suicided constantly on FFA are factors. It's outside of this discussion, unnecessary and rude. A little disappointed to see the mod boss taking time to troll and insult on a serious suggestion thread.


I had a question so I made a post. ..And since you enjoy the attention so much I gave it to you this time. But I'm not sure I said the things you're claiming, which really only reinforces what I said. Nobody is insulting you.

Edited By: Prime on Dec 18th 2020, 1:19:43

Gerdler Game profile

Forum Moderator
5077

Dec 18th 2020, 6:22:23

Two things that have come up that needs addressing:
1) "why not make a pve server instead"
Warmongers need netters and vice versa to stabilize the market. Because warmongers and netters play with different time tables they tech, grab, stock and destock at different times thus allowing goods and tech markets to function better.
You could argue then that we should have a shared market between a pve and a war server which starts and ends at the same time, which would maintain this(and with a rule that you can only play one of them, as they share markets) but then there will be issues with the bots on the war server as they are not kept down by by constant grabbing once the wars start. etc etc

The issues that arise here are all possible to solve, but its far from easy.
Clan GDI in its original form, with reasonable cost, would be far less complicated.

Originally posted by The_Hawk:
Originally posted by Gerdler:
Yeah the idea seemed to be "lets make clan GDI such a costly venture that no one can join it". To be honest it would be a step in the right direction, because then the devs will see that no one is joining it and 2 years later they will revisit it and drop the prices.


Could they slowly scale it based on average non bot networth instead of 100m trps turrets tanks?

Yes they could. But they decided to scale it with turns and land in a way that made it unaffordable and would force inflated NWs to stay protected instead. This was promoted by those who thought there were no issues with suiciders deciding the winner of 1a and team whenever they wanted to.

Edited By: Gerdler on Dec 18th 2020, 6:24:53

DerrickICN Game profile

Member
EE Patron
6339

Dec 18th 2020, 6:37:22

It seems more complicated for the player to me to be forced to follow certain MMRs if they wanna be fat and have protection. I think the conversation gets "bastardized" because it just makes it more complicated for the player having to follow certain guidelines to be protected. The idea of that is silly to me. Does that get auto tacked on or do you randomly fall in and out of protection?

I think that just takes away from a gameplay experience that is already fine. People would still keep some defense not to be hit that one time, that's risk reward enough. Especially for a new player that doesnt know what they are doing.

Gerdler Game profile

Forum Moderator
5077

Dec 18th 2020, 6:54:08

"WARNING: your generals advise you that the requirements of the Global Defence Initiative treaty organization are not met by our country, therefore we are on our own if attacked. Below are the required military needs presently:*

Troops
Turrets
Tanks"

This would certainly complicate things coding wise, but ideally they just implement the protection and try it one set with no cost before coding those fair and balanced costs.

The market is already starved of turret/troop/tank demand in peacetime so if it becomes permanently free it would make it worse(well not on team as its already WORST lol). There is no reason to include spies or put a $ cost for it tho as it would give no market benefits.

DerrickICN Game profile

Member
EE Patron
6339

Dec 18th 2020, 7:12:55

I dont feel like solving the problem with griefing should necessarily be tied to the markets. I think most netters pretty much protect themselves against 1 SS, which they still would. I've run 1m tanks to not be flattened before but no amount of defense has ever stopped someone from griefing if they want to. I think most sensible netters would run with roughly the same defense, especially considering the war dec is a mutual waiting period, where someone who wants to AB you still can as you kill them after X hours, and most would buy up to escape it. In fact, a wardec from random suiciders on a clan like LaF could actually improve the market if people decide to take the warning and buy up.

But idk. I dont think a supply problem with the bots should necessarily be tied to solving another problem. I understand you want everything nice and balanced, but maybe the idea should be to balance the market in an actual growing game. I dont feel like clan GDI does anything to help a new player survive the culture at all. And having more players will more quickly solve the market issue than tying a players ability to grief to it. I think you solve one issue and then solve the other.

Edited By: DerrickICN on Dec 18th 2020, 8:35:27
See Original Post

DerrickICN Game profile

Member
EE Patron
6339

Dec 18th 2020, 8:37:22

I'd rather see these rules and just raised minimum sale price levels than clan GDI. Is there some reason it would mess it up to just raise the auto sell price? That seems like a completely independent and wholly different issue than the one we are aiming at solving with this rule change. I kind of dont understand why they need to be tied together at all....weird...

ironxxx Game profile

Member
EE Patron
1108

Dec 18th 2020, 9:46:00

You better change the description of this game from:

Multi-player to single player

if you are seriously considering a game killing change such as this.

It reads like. Im upset about getting killed oop even though I made a bunch of ridiculous posts and clearly did not do anything to de-escalate the situation. So now instead of fighting back within the game mechanics and rules which have been the same for 20+ years, you cry to get coding changes done to effectively change how the game is played. That is an extreme point of view. Unless you have an agenda to destroy what remains of this once awesome game.

I'm sure derrick and gerdler would be thrilled to be the only 2 players left abusing the bots and ignoring each other. Sounds so fun. Not. Hashtag barf

Maybe you guys should try mahjong or hearts or checkers if you can't handle a couple ss at the beginning of the set.

If you can't tell I'm against this crap specifically, some of the changes have been cool but to fundamentally alter the mechanics of the game should not even be considered

Edited By: ironxxx on Dec 18th 2020, 9:50:22

enshula Game profile

Member
EE Patron
2510

Dec 18th 2020, 10:27:59

i played one set with suiciders when i tried to be unsuicidable and its completely unfun, you always feel like your trying for about 3rd instead of first, depending on the set

you have to rely on suiciders not actually trying because anyone who stocks can always mess up anyone who grabs even with a much worse country

its the same reason topfeeding is easy


auto sell price:

the main reason any auto sell price is set is because of market manipulation, which became a lot less of a problem with orders

it still happens a bit in ffa with people selling oil for way sub market prices since the risk of a lot of say 50 buy order isnt that high if oils at 200 but there might be a lot of 150 orders

if auto sell is too high then it reduces stocking risk on oil/tech
since food can always be sold for 29-36 and mil doesnt make sense to sell low when your jumping
express has 600 auto sell on tech? but thats close to its value anyway
anyway oil is the only one that really matters and even then

last 11 sets
1 set crashed to 90
1 set at 150
all other sets oil much higher at the end

of course during the set you can have food at 31 for a long time like last set
oil can sometimes drop to about 70
jet/turret havnt crashed early set for a long time, 9 sets ago looks worst getting down to 110

but team is of course completely messed up

id consider maybe using a more aggresive auto sell that gives the money but also leaves the goods available on the market until their time expires?

the issue with auto sell is things disapear from the game

so early set if everyones making food and selling it on private then theirs huge food production but low food supply and demand, so once price does rise above auto/private sell the supply can rise much faster, and price only really rises once people start stocking instead of sellinng

tech is the only thing that doesnt really disapear from the game except countries dying, and you can still steal some of it even then

dont forget turrets already have a private sale of 52 which can be about 64 with mil tech
tech has a networth of 2 so around a 650 value end of set
oil has a end of set value related to oil jumping of over 100, it used to go down to 20ish end of set
food has a mid set floor of 35ish

enshula Game profile

Member
EE Patron
2510

Dec 18th 2020, 10:40:03

Originally posted by Gerdler:
"WARNING: your generals advise you that the requirements of the Global Defence Initiative treaty organization are not met by our country, therefore we are on our own if attacked. Below are the required military needs presently:*

Troops
Turrets
Tanks"

This would certainly complicate things coding wise, but ideally they just implement the protection and try it one set with no cost before coding those fair and balanced costs.

The market is already starved of turret/troop/tank demand in peacetime so if it becomes permanently free it would make it worse(well not on team as its already WORST lol). There is no reason to include spies or put a $ cost for it tho as it would give no market benefits.


something people dont talk about enough is costs can increase market use and reduce market volatility

right now we have a few things with a dollar cost

gdi 3
land 10
dec war 10
allies nw%

why cant dec war eat oil instead of just be cash loss?
say im 100k i pay 1m a turn for being war dec'd
if it was oil at 200 that could be 5000 oil a turn demand

if you put it at 10 land/oil/turn then it would be a floor of 100 on oil while war dec'd for example
and if you didnt have oil it could still just cost cash, so someone might just choose not to buy oil if it went to 500

of course any mechanism like that is a nerf to oilers because they would be producing oil

but the general concept could apply to gdi costs as well, and it could even be more advanced/simple

like exact same costs as now but then the game auto buys from the market with that cash

either on a fixed good or based on whatever it considers cheapest

theres still the problem of cash income which is eaten up by these things, but i think its worth a shot

DerrickICN Game profile

Member
EE Patron
6339

Dec 18th 2020, 15:30:05

Yeah hmmm. I dont think the more stable markets like tech oil food and jets would really need to go up. Really just meant the three that linger at the bottom in troops turrets and tanks. I feel like those markets could be given stability and the griefer aspect removed if they were tackled as two separate issues just as easily or easier than making it one giant issue solver. I dont see this change having that significant of a market impact. So I think addressing problems with the market to make positive changes elsewhere in the game seems unneccessary.

Something like raising the minimum on just troops turrets and tanks and having a few extra units leave the game early for a better condition works just as well.

Chevs

Member
2061

Dec 18th 2020, 17:16:49

I didn’t read anything except the first post.

It has merit but the problem is small clans never have a way to fight back, and will drive more players from the game.

How do you prevent this:
40 players big tag (let’s say laf)
3 players small tag (let’s say Russia)
1. All players in Big clan farms small clan 1x = 40x3 = 120 SSs
2. Small clan can only retal 1x and doesn’t have the turns to do all the retals or ability to do special attacks
3. Big clan keeps farming
4. Small clan declares war
5. Big clan kills them once timer runs out.
6. Small clan quits
SOF Head Of Poop
2019-04-03 21:40:26 PS the stinky deyicks (#599) Beryl Houston (#360) LaF 30638A (43783A)
En4cer: Chevs... u would have beaten me by more than 100m

Requiem Game profile

Member
EE Patron
9056

Dec 18th 2020, 18:21:18

Before I can properly respond, please answer this:

Am I in the big or small clan? If I'm giving, I am ok with it, but I cannot receive it.

DerrickICN Game profile

Member
EE Patron
6339

Dec 18th 2020, 18:38:08

Yeah. I think the best way to accomplish protecting a small tag would maybe be limiting clan to clan hitting to once per day without a dec as well. Which by the idea of basic rules of engagement if someone bombs you 40 times in a day you are at war whether you say you are or not.

I dont think you'd see a lot of behavior like that from large tags, but if this does help member retention, it's probably best for it to be something we get ahead of. You certainly dont want it to become very easy to bully a small tag.

But to point number 2 in your bullet points, I did say the defending country of a hit should be allowed space for a 2:1 retal. By your example, russia would be allowed to take 80 retals without a war dec. It would still wind up with the small tag getting bullied, but they'd be able to do some amount of damage without the dec countdown starting. In theory, the defending tag would almost always be ahead if they wanted to be on all pre-war hits. Coupled with the changeset that addressed topfeeds, tags would have the space to take 200% land retals while outside of a wardec. So those initial 40 hits would be a pretty devastating loss for the big bully tag should they decide to bully in that manner.

Edited By: DerrickICN on Dec 18th 2020, 18:50:24
See Original Post

enshula Game profile

Member
EE Patron
2510

Dec 18th 2020, 19:24:23

chevs

under dericks proposal small clan could do 240 retals
(edit he thinks 80, but i still think 240 as written)

because each hit allows 2 return pvp hits, not sure if they could be br/ab/nm/cm in express gdi they cant but theres no reason the system couldnt be set up to allow them in small amounts

obviously these numbers are extreme because land would be tiny after say 7 hits on each country, and small clan would have readiness for about 35 hits a day only

and about people grabbing in general most tags tell people not to grab real players and its only screwups that happen, partly because of mifluffs, which i also have done, and partly people grabbing untagged

2020-12-18 17:03:44 SS stoner canuck (#316) xSOLx Happy Halloween (#377) NTbotFFS 223A (355A)
2020-12-18 03:13:52 PS Happy Halloween (#377) stoner canuck (#316) xSOLx 448A (561A)
2020-12-18 03:13:49 PS Happy Halloween (#377) stoner canuck (#316) xSOLx 437A (545A)
2020-12-17 17:58:14 SS stoner canuck (#316) xSOLx Happy Halloween (#377) 181A (305A)
2020-12-17 17:58:11 SS stoner canuck (#316) xSOLx Happy Halloween (#377) 204A (335A)

heres an example from this set of someone who might have been mistaken for a bot, might have been pretending to be a bot, might have been planning on suiciding anyway, who knows

obviously if you check bot names halloween probably isnt on the list, but its 2 words capitalised untagged, no attacks made, pretty fat compared to bots, untagged

i know laf has a policy against untagged retal farming if you tag after farming, but i dont know about sol, ao perhaps they only allowed 1 retal and the RoR is even valid for them

its a bit weird to apply it to someone who tags up in a 1man but its technically the rule

but i know id rather be able to put countries on dnh or wr (which in this case would probably only allow 1 hit, but under derricks proposal only 1 hit would have been possible anyway) ingame to stop accidents

Chevs

Member
2061

Dec 19th 2020, 1:14:11

Enshula you are making my point for me,

SOL RoRd that guy and that guy if he retals again is likely dead.

If you give him a 24-72 hour cooldown to declare war he can’t do any damage before going down, even tho he didn’t start the conflict

Unless I’m not understanding something or seeing the news wrong.
SOF Head Of Poop
2019-04-03 21:40:26 PS the stinky deyicks (#599) Beryl Houston (#360) LaF 30638A (43783A)
En4cer: Chevs... u would have beaten me by more than 100m

Chevs

Member
2061

Dec 19th 2020, 1:15:59

My only point was, the idea has merit, but will benefit large clans way more than small ones. Do we really want to cater to the biggest clans on every server?

Edit: also I admittedly haven’t read any of the discussion. Posts too long.
SOF Head Of Poop
2019-04-03 21:40:26 PS the stinky deyicks (#599) Beryl Houston (#360) LaF 30638A (43783A)
En4cer: Chevs... u would have beaten me by more than 100m