Verified:

DerrickICN Game profile

Member
EE Patron
6339

Aug 20th 2019, 20:58:17

Yep, you're still going to need 80-100 spal to hang with even the worst wardogs which you'd need thousands of indies for on high acreage. Just never gonna happen.

DerrickICN Game profile

Member
EE Patron
6339

Aug 20th 2019, 20:06:05

Yeah. He was just one spot ahead of sinistril who spent all his turns warring and sent max FA several times, and just one spot behind a laffer with 1400 warhits and 100 defends.

He did beat the bots this set tho so its a step in the right direction. Buch almost doubled him.

DerrickICN Game profile

Member
EE Patron
6339

Aug 20th 2019, 20:05:27

DerrickICN Game profile

Member
EE Patron
6339

Aug 20th 2019, 19:37:46

Originally posted by Mr Gainsboro:
Originally posted by Servant:
Winning has always required extremes, and luck, to go with a base amount of skill to get into the conversation.

Winning should require extremes, tha require sacrficies, that create vulnerabilities, that's part of going all out for the win.

bottom line I don't think a winning country quality should be a great war country without a few days to convert to one.


gl hf getting 250+ spal in a few days as a netter with 100+k acres.

Originally posted by Boltar:
How does it not benefit netters? It benefits both. Lower expenses means u can carry more to = same amount of penalty how much more fluff do netters need? U have land bots that don't retal. U have same bots buying tech mid to late set for atleast 5k. U can buy private military with oil. Like seriously? How much more do they need?


Please can you explain your thinking here?
How will it benefit netters that run with close to 0 spies? You think i care about the cost when i have 100-500k spies on 200k acres? For this change to be better for netters i suggest we make the upkeep of spies 100 times higher, that would reduce the SPAL requirements and my 200k acres country can keep up with the war builds better.
Some examples, drinks had 500k spies last set. My previous 2 top 10 endings i had below 400k spies.

Then CD 32 or 38% or whatever. Its the same anyway my 100k troops country will die in 10 seconds anyway. Do you think i give a fluff what % CD does when its not even worth it to spend the turns to CD me until the last day of the set?

These changes may benefit netters on other servers but hardly anything on the alliance server.

Yeah it's not supposed to benefit you unfortunately. Or else I'd be opposed to it :p

DerrickICN Game profile

Member
EE Patron
6339

Aug 20th 2019, 18:55:36

Originally posted by Getafix:
Originally posted by galleri:
Originally posted by KoHeartsGPA:
Originally posted by Marshal:
this is normal at (before wars).

koh: and so?


Originally posted by martian:
fluff u

DerrickICN Game profile

Member
EE Patron
6339

Aug 20th 2019, 18:36:19

It's actually a french restaurant I manage. I just bartend while I'm on the floor. But yeah. We eat ducks here. Haha

DerrickICN Game profile

Member
EE Patron
6339

Aug 20th 2019, 17:52:33

Nahhhh I just manage it. Haven't seen the owner in months come to think of it haha.

DerrickICN Game profile

Member
EE Patron
6339

Aug 20th 2019, 17:34:12

Sitting on a cooler behind an empty bar atm.

DerrickICN Game profile

Member
EE Patron
6339

Aug 20th 2019, 17:19:56

It won't be. Like i said no netter is going to have 100 spal all of a sudden easily. That wont be the case. First because a 100k acre country would need like 20k indies to achieve that, distracting from their main strat and costing piles of nw. Secondly because the reduction does not lower the expense of spies that much, a 100k acre country carrying 10m spies will absolutely have no shot of winning the server with that level of expenses.

DerrickICN Game profile

Member
EE Patron
6339

Aug 20th 2019, 16:50:58

Originally posted by Boltar:
How does it not benefit netters? It benefits both. Lower expenses means u can carry more to = same amount of penalty how much more fluff do netters need? U have land bots that don't retal. U have same bots buying tech mid to late set for atleast 5k. U can buy private military with oil. Like seriously? How much more do they need?

The reason why it wont affect them is because with the proposed formula, the price only drops about 1/3 on the top end. Meaning spies will still be expensive for your first million or so.

In short, spies will still be too expensive for the best netters to carry and win, thus they will be unaffected.

DerrickICN Game profile

Member
EE Patron
6339

Aug 20th 2019, 16:48:39

Originally posted by tfm0m0:
Originally posted by DerrickICN:
Something like lowering the expenses of spies as you get more of them definitely benefits wardogs and does nothing for netters at all lol.


3 posts back to back, a new record? Let's table all these changes, I propose a "Derrick Talk" forum be created immediately for you to have a safe space to talk to yourself.
3 is not my record. Just trying to get my post count up bro. I value the stats lol

DerrickICN Game profile

Member
EE Patron
6339

Aug 20th 2019, 16:43:44

Something like lowering the expenses of spies as you get more of them definitely benefits wardogs and does nothing for netters at all lol.

DerrickICN Game profile

Member
EE Patron
6339

Aug 20th 2019, 16:38:28

I pretty much guarantee he doesn't umderstand that the proposed "nuking" of CDs would only raise the break from 32% of original to 38%. No way in hell he'd be freaking like this if he spent any time with the math.

Thinking the spal thing must also have something to do with complete ignorance of what is being proposed as well. I'm seriously doubting he put any of these formulas in a calculator because he's clearly not understanding how subtle they are.

DerrickICN Game profile

Member
EE Patron
6339

Aug 20th 2019, 16:15:45

Yep. Pang, a laffer at the time, programmed spal differently than e2025 and seemingly caused an issue that could be resolved by returning to something closer to Mehul's game.

Jabroni, an SOL player, will likely at least have a hand in programming the change that is closer to the old game.

While laf is seemingly split 50/50 on the issue, a solid majority of people who understand the formulas and have been playing the last few years are not.

Neil's understanding of these facts is clearly about in line with his understanding of the formulas themselves.

Edited By: DerrickICN on Aug 20th 2019, 16:25:31
See Original Post

DerrickICN Game profile

Member
EE Patron
6339

Aug 20th 2019, 15:43:34

Thats the odd thing. On the UI forum there's basically only two laf people talking. Hawk being opposed to changes and Gerdler being for changes.

Virtually everyone else is monsters or elder family. Ugo suggested some changes that me and sin and gerdy all agree with but expenses for high spal high land change....

But thats basically monsters and elders talking about changes and someome in laf agreeing while someone else in laf is disagreeing. Elders and monsters seem to have the most succinct and congruent message, not laf.

I think it's just a product of them wanting to not have to get good to pound on better players after years away. They want to troll the game, not become good at it. Taking away griefer abilities sorta flies in the face of their current methods the last 2 sets so naturally they are opposed.

Tho I'm curious to know if they are aware that these formulas, esp CD, were already changed from their earth 2025 state...we're improving on an already changed thing, not changing from how it originally was...

I think neil just thinks everyone who is not in sof must be in laf or something.

I messaged Dragon yesterday on it. I'm extremely curious of his opinion. Or maki or other players who have actually been warring with us the last few years. Im also fairly certain the discussion the the UI forum was started by an SOL player, and would likely be programmed in by said SOL player. I don't need to ask Jabroni (SOL) his opinion tho, as he made a post about 2 sets ago that he thought it was dumb you could build a country 5x better than any of your opponents and still die in 8 seconds due to problems with the current CD formula and SPAL.

Edited By: DerrickICN on Aug 20th 2019, 16:07:06
See Original Post

DerrickICN Game profile

Member
EE Patron
6339

Aug 20th 2019, 14:52:56

Out of plain curiosity, were CDs this powerful in mehuls game? I don't remember one way or another, but i don't feel like i remember them being as damaging as they are now...

DerrickICN Game profile

Member
EE Patron
6339

Aug 20th 2019, 14:27:58

Lol at Neil. One of the only people on this entire thread who doesn't want at least small changes is The Hawk and he is in LaF. You're out of line. Go sit down.

Originally posted by The_Hawk:
Originally posted by DerrickICN:
Originally posted by Gerdler:
The problem with adding as many crutches for weaker countries that we have today is that it no longer(in war) feels necessary to build a stronger country and therefore players are not encouraged to learn that.
That's exactly right. Having a good country should not be discouraged at the very least. I tend to stock at high acreage before a stocks war with something like 20 spal on 50k acres, and then drop to 200 spal on 5k acres. It is both easier and more sustainable to have a trash country than building 10m spies on my 50k acres. And I think all we are asking for is for that ease of having 200 spal be equal to the alternative. I shouldn't want to drop to win a war. I should want to outgrow my enemy.


But what you did us considered a strategy. Seen it many times in ffa. Run 30k techers and drop to 20k before war.

Since people are so worried about bigger countries not being able to compete spy wise maybe we should cap the number of grabs you can make a day to 10 or 15. Also make it where people cannot grow 5,000 acres over the server's average land from landgrabs.

Should keep everyone close together in spal unless someone decided to buil all their land into indies.


I think your sarcasm here doesn't make any sense to me. Attempting to balance something that is extremely unbalanced is not at all like capping growth on things that everyone has an equal chance at. "Instead of making it less efficient to run a 5k acre rainbow, why don't we force everyone to run 5k acre rainbows" is essentially what you're saying sarcastically. I think it's ironic you don't see your own point. And not only that, but larger countries do get smaller returns from a smaller bot. That's actually already similarly balanced.

It seems to me that the people who don't want to see it changed just want to call other people's ideas bad, but don't really want to offer up a reason why they think that. The closest thing ive seen to a reason not to change it is because some people want bad countries to still be able to war good countries. That's fine to think that, but i personally think that's a problem and not a cool feature.

Perhaps offering reasons why it shouldn't change instead of insulting others opinions would make some valid points.

Edited By: DerrickICN on Aug 20th 2019, 14:37:15
See Original Post

DerrickICN Game profile

Member
EE Patron
6339

Aug 20th 2019, 3:03:16

Lol.

Is cuban a color?

DerrickICN Game profile

Member
EE Patron
6339

Aug 19th 2019, 20:39:25

Horaay for scapegoat v. 2.0

DerrickICN Game profile

Member
EE Patron
6339

Aug 19th 2019, 19:04:11

Originally posted by Gerdler:
The problem with adding as many crutches for weaker countries that we have today is that it no longer(in war) feels necessary to build a stronger country and therefore players are not encouraged to learn that.
That's exactly right. Having a good country should not be discouraged at the very least. I tend to stock at high acreage before a stocks war with something like 20 spal on 50k acres, and then drop to 200 spal on 5k acres. It is both easier and more sustainable to have a trash country than building 10m spies on my 50k acres. And I think all we are asking for is for that ease of having 200 spal be equal to the alternative. I shouldn't want to drop to win a war. I should want to outgrow my enemy.

Edited By: DerrickICN on Aug 19th 2019, 19:10:32
See Original Post

DerrickICN Game profile

Member
EE Patron
6339

Aug 19th 2019, 17:53:30

That's because it is currently sooooo much easier to run a high spal on low acres than on high acres that it is unfairly advantaged toward lesser built countries. Large spy countries should be encouraged more, as building up is the name of the game.

The suggestions are in an effort to make that fair, as it currently is not.

Edited By: DerrickICN on Aug 19th 2019, 17:56:10
See Original Post

DerrickICN Game profile

Member
EE Patron
6339

Aug 19th 2019, 17:40:28

Originally posted by Boltar:
Never said hey this is a war game I said hey if they are in a war for whatever reason they should try and make themselves unbreakable as best they can until those high spal countries are dead
High spal countries dont go away. They actually just get more powerful when they restart because they're running the same spal with diminished expenses. All you lose is some stock, but spal is roughly the same and the expense of your SPAL decreases. I know this very well. I've only lived thru 3 1a sets and running a spy just gets easier and easier the fewer acres i have from dying assuming i get my stuffs on the market and wall enough to get a good restart bonus but not enough to burn a lot of stock. Just a couple buyups and maybe 100 turns of walling and then restart as epic spy.

Edited By: DerrickICN on Aug 19th 2019, 17:50:04
See Original Post

DerrickICN Game profile

Member
EE Patron
6339

Aug 19th 2019, 17:37:43

I still look good in a nurses outfit.....

DerrickICN Game profile

Member
EE Patron
6339

Aug 19th 2019, 17:36:59

Originally posted by sinistril:
The advantage of being king is when you make a boo boo you get to use royal terminology ("we").

haha
+1

DerrickICN Game profile

Member
EE Patron
6339

Aug 19th 2019, 17:35:35

Heyyyyyy Makirena