EE PatronJun 5th 2021, 14:37:24
I disagree for a couple reasons, and that's ok.
Thats because success rate will still be determined primarily by SPAL still, and this only affects the returns in the same circumstances, not dramatically shifting how ops will be done. You're correct tho. Obviously CDs have needed narfed for a long time, and this would succeed in that for all the reasons you've listed, but only in cases you have a higher spy total. I suggested moving the 0.04 based on troops to 0.03 for this reason, actually offering a suggestion which further narfs CD in those situations. Do you think that's a bad suggestion? Do you think that's me saying bad things about narfing CDs? It's not, again, I've been one of the most vocal proponents of this for years. And this does not succeed in narfing CD for a well defended netter for example. He asked if we thought the numbers were good, my answer is no I dont. I think it should be lower still for the troop based factor. Should I not say that and just shut up and fall in line because any change is good change, or were we having a conversation about the numbers?
I agree that this change would help with your current FFA war with hawk, but so too would just reducing the troop factor to even 0.03, or even 0.02. Are those things not worth considering? Especially for people who arent war prepped and suffer a blindside, this change isnt even remotely beneficial. It wont change a thing. And if I'm larger acres and higher spies than my opponent, but lower spal, people will still be dropping acres for those ops.
Something as simple as changing the expenses formula slightly would make this change a million times better. I'm not saying everything about it is bad, considering I've been probably the largest megaphone in the game calling for CD narf for over a decade. I wouldnt have suggested it a thousand times if I wasnt for CDs getting narfed. The basis of the change is obviously a very very good thing. I'm for it, Im just for amending it in a way that also encourages building. Again, I think that's why we have the discussion.
Thats because success rate will still be determined primarily by SPAL still, and this only affects the returns in the same circumstances, not dramatically shifting how ops will be done. You're correct tho. Obviously CDs have needed narfed for a long time, and this would succeed in that for all the reasons you've listed, but only in cases you have a higher spy total. I suggested moving the 0.04 based on troops to 0.03 for this reason, actually offering a suggestion which further narfs CD in those situations. Do you think that's a bad suggestion? Do you think that's me saying bad things about narfing CDs? It's not, again, I've been one of the most vocal proponents of this for years. And this does not succeed in narfing CD for a well defended netter for example. He asked if we thought the numbers were good, my answer is no I dont. I think it should be lower still for the troop based factor. Should I not say that and just shut up and fall in line because any change is good change, or were we having a conversation about the numbers?
I agree that this change would help with your current FFA war with hawk, but so too would just reducing the troop factor to even 0.03, or even 0.02. Are those things not worth considering? Especially for people who arent war prepped and suffer a blindside, this change isnt even remotely beneficial. It wont change a thing. And if I'm larger acres and higher spies than my opponent, but lower spal, people will still be dropping acres for those ops.
Something as simple as changing the expenses formula slightly would make this change a million times better. I'm not saying everything about it is bad, considering I've been probably the largest megaphone in the game calling for CD narf for over a decade. I wouldnt have suggested it a thousand times if I wasnt for CDs getting narfed. The basis of the change is obviously a very very good thing. I'm for it, Im just for amending it in a way that also encourages building. Again, I think that's why we have the discussion.